Featured Post

PZ Myers dissects evolutionary psychology: brief, sharp and fabulous

I admit I LOL'd at the part about lighting up "like a Christmas tree." WATCH AND LEARN all IDWs!

The Brian Ferguson Interview

Saturday, January 28, 2023

Pingback for Jerry Coyne ~ I wonder why right-wingers love me so much

I'm sure Jerry Coyne has heard of Occam's Razor.

So let's consider the issue of Jerry Coyne claiming to be on the left:

Each time I see a pingback from one of these conservative sites, then, I am ambivalent. Am I helping or hurting my own cause? Like all people who take my point of view, I have of course been called “alt-right,” “racist”, and even a white supremacist. I brush off those names because they’re just slurs that progressives who lack arguments use to tar their opponents.

It's always fun when Coyne or Pinker claim their critics "lack arguments," when both Coyne and Pinker live in air-tight echo chambers and refuse to talk to their critics. Pinker infamously went on a blocking tear on Twitter (he blocked me long before that) and Coyne will not post or respond to any critics on his blog.

What disgusting lying self-congratulatory weasels they are.

So let's look at the facts.

Jerry Coyne constantly promotes and supports right-wingers and racists

He apparently thinks that those who believe Amy Wax or Steve Bannon engage in hate speech are ridiculous:

What is accomplished by convicting this guy and sending him to jail? Will it deter others from making ‘hate videos’? Perhaps, but the concept of “hate speech” is so slippery that such deterrence is unwise. Meechan, after all, was not calling for the Jews to be gassed, expecting to incite Jewish deaths. Remember that many saw, and still see, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad as “hate speech”, as they see the views of Steve Bannon, Christina Hoff Sommers, or Amy Wax as “hate speech”.

Like all the other ghouls he constantly aligns with, he hates the 1619 project. Probably because it teaches actual Black history, which he and the other race pseudoscience ghouls would like to erase so they can claim that Black failure to thrive in the US is due to inferior Black genes.

Jerry Coyne participated in racist anti-democratic Peter Thiel's CPAC for racists, where he demonstrated his alignment with notorious racist Amy Wax. While deliberately misrepresenting left-leaning biologist PZ Myers as just a blogger.

Jerry Coyne believes in racist race pseudoscience. But like his hero Steven Pinker, he's enough of a weasel that he won't come right out and admit it, or explain exactly what he believes about things like race and intelligence, but you'd have to be a moron to miss his sympathy with Noah Carl, one of the most far-right racists in the race pseudoscience business:

In the article above on his website, Noah Carl found one item I missed in the ASHG report. (Yes, I know of Carl’s infamy: he was fired from a position at Cambridge University for working on the connection between human race and intelligence: an ideologically taboo topic that was, in his case, also characterized as “poor scholarship”)

He grumbles about the kids these days and their newfangled words

But I think Coyne's position on the political spectrum can best be illustrated by the fact that he attacks critics of Amy Wax and Noah Carl, but he has nothing negative to say about famously racist and famously anti-democratic and famously pro-Trump Peter Thiel. Although he will go so far as to quote his fave right-wing bloggers' commentary about Thiel's support for Trump.

Now from this should we conclude that:

Jerry Coyne is a leftist who just happens to love racists and right-wingers and race pseudoscience and hates other leftists and has nothing bad to say about a lunatic right-wing anti-democratic Trump supporter?


Jerry Coyne is a cranky old right-wing racist who is so delusional that he thinks he's still on the left?

Thursday, January 26, 2023


A little over three years ago, after The 1619 Project was first published, The New York Times began the process of turning it into a television documentary. It was clear, from the initial response to the project, that it introduced readers to an eye-opening perspective on American history, one that pushed them to examine how the contradictions of our founding led to persistent inequalities in contemporary society. In its initial form — a special issue of the magazine, a special broadsheet section and a multi-episode podcast series — it reached millions of people. We knew that putting a version of it on television would help it reach millions more.

Today the result of that effort finally arrives. “The 1619 Project” docuseries is a six-episode program that will air on Hulu over the next three weeks. The first two episodes premiere tonight, Thursday, Jan. 26; the next two arrive a week from today, on Feb. 2, and the series wraps up the week after that, on Feb. 9, with the final two. The show is hosted, of course, by the project’s creator and main voice, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and it features some of the journalists and historians who contributed to the original 1619 Project. But it is also something new, a collaboration among Nikole, the executive producer Oprah Winfrey and a talented team of producers and writers led by the Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Roger Ross Williams. Together with the New York Times film and television producers Caitlin Roper, who was an editor on the original project, and Kathleen Lingo, they reimagined The 1619 Project for a new format, creating new story lines, adding new reporting and bringing in a host of new voices, from the civil rights activist MacArthur Cotton to the pop-music pioneer Nile Rodgers.

Saturday, January 21, 2023

Steven Pinker and Amy Wax and Persuasion

So Pinker hasn't been promoting Razib Khan, directly, that I could find, since 2021. So what has Pinker been up to?

Publishing his usual bullshit, specifically in the "Persuasion" Substack.

Persuasion, which was founded in June 2020, a few weeks before the Harper's Letter was published, appears to be part of the Harper's Letter scheme, associated with the Intellectual Dark Web and the Quillette gang.

Thirteen signers of the Harper's Letter are associated with Persuasion, including founder and editor in chief Yascha Mounk. The named instigator of the letter, Thomas Chatterton Williams, currently taking money from the Koch-funded AEI, is on the Board of Advisors.

Persuasion also has an About page which lists "People," which includes Mounk and some members of the Board of Advisors, like Pinker, Haidt, Yoffe, McWhorter; various others (including "David"); plus two more Harper's Letter-signers, Jonathan Rauch and → Ian Buruma.

You can see how much Persuasion is aligned politically with the Intellectual Dark Web and Quillette by a glance at the "Most popular" articles on its home page:
  • Keira Bell: My Story - about regretting being transgender - anti-trans is a pillar of the Intellectual Dark Web/Quillette, and, because those are funded by the same people who fund conservative politicians, a new pillar of the Republican Party. Quillette talks about Bell a lot. Of course.
Many people ask why any of this should matter in the age of Donald Trump—a president who attacks free speech, stokes bigotry and division, and believes he is above the law. It matters because we have seen what happened when his enablers on the right failed to stand up to the worst impulses of their leader. These enablers are now morally responsible for the tragic consequences of their inaction.
But if Peter Thiel has funded Quillette - and I think the claim is true - then the very people Yoffe admires take money from the same guy who funds Trump. It makes the "left is just as bad" defense incredibly hollow.
  • The Warped Vision of "Anti-Racism" by Trump-loving right-wing extremist Batya Ungar-Sargon, who, like Pinker, Haidt, McWhorter and Thomas Chatterton Williams is on the Board of Advisors of the (I believe) Christopher Rufo-founded, right-wing anti-CRT-scam FAIR for all. Ungar-Sargon's is the second "anti-racism is bad" piece in Persuasion's "Most Popular" list which should tell you exactly who is reading Persuasion. Her article spews the usual bullshit about the 1619 Project ("it's postmodern!") you can expect from the Quillette/IDW gang of goons and ghouls. Even if she takes money from Newsweek instead of Quillette.
Pinker has published two articles in Persuasion. The most recent is from this month and continues his current project of presenting himself as the arbiter of Rationality while promoting race pseudoscience as calm, cool reason.

I've long noted that Pinker is a weasel, so it is no surprise that he compares those who disagree with race pseudoscience to members of QAnon:

QAnon might be likened to a live action role-playing game, with fans avidly trading clues and following leads. Its progenitor, Pizzagate (according to which Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of the basement of a DC pizzeria), also had a make-believe quality...

...Many of us are nonplussed by this way of thinking. It’s one thing to believe that Hillary Clinton is a morally compromised person—everyone is entitled to an opinion—but it’s quite another thing, and completely unacceptable, to express that opinion as a fabricated factual assertion.

But it’s our mindset that is exotic and unnatural. For many of us, it’s the dividend of a higher education which has imparted the sense that there is a fact of the matter about states of the world; that even if we don’t know it, there are ways of finding out; and that, as Bertrand Russell put it, “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.” Indeed, one could argue that this mindset is the most important dividend of higher education.

Or at least, it used to be. Here's another candidate for a mythology zone: the sacred creeds of academic and intellectual elites. These include the belief that we are born blank slates, that sex is a social construction, that every difference in the social statistics of ethnic groups is caused by racism, that the source of all problems in the developing world is European and American imperialism, and that repressed abuse and trauma are ubiquitous.

In spite of my best efforts, Pinker is not known primarily as a promoter of race pseudoscience, but his belief about race and racism is the same as that of Amy Wax, who is well-known as a racist.

Let's review:

Steve Pinker: 
...another candidate for a mythology zone: the sacred creeds of academic and intellectual elites... that every difference in the social statistics of ethnic groups is caused by racism...

The centerpiece of wokeness is that all disparities, all group disparities, are due to racism, racism, racism, racism.

How is what Pinker said any different from what Wax said? I see no difference in content, only a difference in style.

Although Pinker gives an extra little weasel twist by portraying his racism as pure rationality, opposed to those crazy myth-loving "elites."

And note that Pinker's term "sacred creed" is very close to the term "sacred values" used by  Quillette Associate Editor Bo Winegard, a long-time promoter of race pseudoscience and even an advocate of national ethnicity quotas (you know, like the Nazis were.) Pinker is on the record as admiring Bo Winegard and his twin brother Ben.

Steven Pinker is the genteel mask of the hardcore racism that Amy Wax shouts from the rooftops.

And that's why Steven Pinker is more pernicious than Amy Wax and that's why this blog focuses on media-darling/sacred cow celebrity intellectual Steven Pinker and not on the more obviously racist Amy Wax.

Friday, January 20, 2023

Jerry Coyne promoting racist Razib Khan

Steven Pinker stopped publicly promoting the career of professional racist Steven Sailer by 2012, but he was still promoting the career of Razib Khan, whose racist beliefs are virtually identical to Sailer's, in 2021

Khan's unhinged racism is clear in his review of racist Charles Murray's latest work of pseudoscience, written for racist rag Quillette. Khan agrees with Charles Murray that Black people are an existential threat to the United States. But then, as I've noted, sociobiologists are often drama queens, certain that those who are not true believers in sociobiology are dooming the world.

I was wondering if Pinker was still promoting Khan, so I was Googling around a little. I didn't find anything about Pinker, but I did find that racist goon Jerry Coyne had jumped in to do his part by promoting Khan in a blog post last month.

Khan's article is titled: 

You can’t take it with you: straight talk about epigenetics and intergenerational trauma
The true story of a powerful molecular process and how pseudoscience co-opted it

I find it incredibly funny that a right-wing political operative like Khan, whose entire racist-plutocrat-funded career is devoted to racist pseudoscience is writing about "pseudoscience."

Khan is a terrible writer, incapable of efficiently organizing and conveying information, which is why his career exists purely thanks to people like racist crackpot Ron Unz and the funders of racist Taki's Mag and racist Quillette and racist VDARE, as well as whoever is funding him, probably secretly, via his Substack

Khan's article, according to Coyne, is an "excellent piece... written for the intelligent and scientifically inquisitive layperson.

But Coyne doesn't care about writing ability any more than the racist plutocrats who fund Khan, I suspect. 

Khan's literary ability is beside the point. I seriously doubt he wrote this article out of a pure love of sharing information. I think he wrote it, like everything else he writes, because racists are paying him to promote racist bullshit. In this piece he only lightly touches on his inevitable motivation, in his reference to a "blank slate" in a sub-heading, but it's there.

I don't think epigenetics is needed to explain Black failure to thrive, the historical record is sufficient, but Khan and his ilk are opposed to any explanation for Black failure to thrive other than the pseudoscientific belief that Blackness makes them stupid and violent.

We know that Khan is also opposed to the historical explanation, when he suggested we "remove all the history."

I don't have strong feelings about epigenetics and its possible implications, and I don't know enough about it to critique Khan's article on scientific terms. But I do know bad writing when I see it. 

In his article, Khan starts out with an excessively complicated IKEA furniture instruction manual analogy. 

He then goes on to make an unsupported claim:
In the last decade, sweeping mainstream-media claims about epigenetics’ expansive role in shaping our world have become hard to escape.
What "mainstream media" is Khan reading? If you did a survey of a random collection of college-educated people, I guarantee you that a tiny percent of them could define the term "epigenetics." 

Towards the end of the article, he lightly sprinkles five links to sources that discuss possible epigenetic implications and family trauma, and none of them is more recent than 2018. Not exactly "hard to escape."

And since he doesn't have much in the way of support for his claim, he tries to stretch a statement by Justin Trudeau into support for epigenetics because Trudeau used the term "intergenerational trauma." 

In 2021, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released a statement about the controversy around Catholic schools for Aboriginal Canadian children where he stated:

…we must continue to learn about residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have caused. It is only by facing these truths and righting these wrongs that we, in partnership with Indigenous peoples, can move toward a better future.

What jumped out at me was the casual deployment of the concept of “intergenerational trauma,” which seems out of nowhere to have become ubiquitous. Google Books’ Ngram search feature tells us that the term did not exist before 1985, with its use increasing gradually until 2012 when it hit an inflection point and began to shoot up. 

Khan then includes a definition of "intergenerational trauma" from Wikipedia which says:

The mechanism for transmission of trauma may be socially transmitted (e.g., through learned behaviors), through the effects of stress before birth, or perhaps through stress-induced epigenetic modifications

So "socially transmitted" or stress before birth or PERHAPS epigenetic

But Khan is going to keep the Trudeau statement in there anyway, giving the impression that Trudeau meant epigenetics. Because it "jumped out at me." Jesus, Khan is so sleazy it sets my teeth on edge.

Once Khan moves past his bad analogy and unsupported claim about the inescapability of epigenetics, he immediately gets into the weeds with a terrible, endless sentence, with a call-back to his terrible IKEA analogy.
Epigenetics encompasses the molecular mechanisms that determine how relevant sections of DNA’s single universal instruction manual are interpreted and applied uniquely in each specialized cell, as specific pages of the manual are consulted (or not) according to each cell’s role in your body.
It makes you tired just reading it.

The only good thing you can say about Khan's literary output is that it's so bad, it's unlikely to give him a larger audience. 

And thanks to the Substack platform, you can see who liked the piece, along with links to their own social media. It gives you a good sense of how generally far-right and racist Khan's audience is. People like "human biodiversity" promoter Jonny Anomaly and anti-woke hater of the 1619 project Reality Always Wins and anti-vax crackpot "Rotten in Denmark."

Intelligent and scientifically inquisitive people would do much better to read about epigenetics from people who know how to organize information, who can write well, and who are not career-long right-wing racist political operatives. 

Thursday, January 12, 2023

That sleazy Harper's Letter, almost three years later, let's review

Basically, anywhere there is an obscenely wealthy plutocrat funding right-wing/Libertarian political causes, there you will likely find Bari Weiss

How bad was the infamous Harper's Letter?

Consider first, that it was created by Thomas Chatterton Williams who, I don't believe coincidentally, was put on wingnut welfare via the Koch-funded AEI a few months later.

I once admired Williams, but by the time of his embarrassing chateau incident (he declared on Twitter that he kicked a friend out of his home in France for criticizing Bari Weiss) I had realized he was in deep with the right-wing Libertarian ghouls in and around the Intellectual Dark Web. 

That was bad enough, and then the New Yorker's Ian Chotiner interviewed Williams and revealed what an extreme intellectual lightweight he is. 

Williams' friendship with Bari Weiss is key. She is a central figure in the Intellectual Dark Web, a member of the far-right leaning FAIR, an organization based on the cynical, sleazy right-wing campaign against "critical race theory" and more recently a supporter and defender of far-right homophobic treasonousstochastic terrorist Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok, funded by Babylon Bee's Seth Dillon, while aiding and abetting far-right goon Elon Musk.

Here is Weiss in June 2020, promoting her people: Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill); another Koch employee Kmele Foster (@kmele) a devotee of Ayn Randstochastic terrorist James Lindsay (@ConceptualJames), a Trump supporter and partner of far-right religious extremist Michael O'Fallon, Lindsay was banned from the old Twitter for being a neo-Nazi; and IDW founder and crackpot Eric Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein), employee of scary weirdo Peter Thiel

Basically, anywhere there is an obscenely wealthy plutocrat funding right-wing/Libertarian political causes, there you will likely find Bari Weiss.

At the time of the Harper's Letter, Tom Scocca in Slate discussed how sleazy the stunt was:

What were the Harper’s signatories trying to accomplish? For a document announcing an emergency, their letter (addressed, as the writer Luppe Luppen pointed out, to no one) was studiously vague about exactly what it meant to warn the reader against. It presented a nonspecific and mostly pluralized litany of complaints:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

At least one item—”a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed study”—did seem to have an identifiable antecedent: David Shor, a researcher at the consulting company Civis Analytics, tweeted out a study concluding that voter backlash against violent protest in 1968 had tipped the presidential election to Richard Nixon and was fired after people denounced the tweet. There seems to be fairly broad agreement, among people who would even know about this incident, that Civis was wrong to fire him, and the incident does look like a classic example of a company sacrificing an innocent for “panicked damage control.” But this pattern of targeted pressure and overreaction is not a new crisis. It has been established for years by now, in right-wing and left-wing outrage campaigns alike, and the fault lies with the institutions that still haven’t figured out how it works, not with the generalized, newly ascendant cultural revolution that the Harper’s letter or Trump wishes to raise the alarm about.   

Yet, rather than defending Shor and criticizing Civis by name, the letter anonymized his case and stuck it next to a complaint about powerful people losing their jobs “for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”—a rickety construction that leaves the reader wondering if it’s supposed to cover the times that aren’t just clumsy mistakes, or how one is to decide which mistakes are more than just clumsy. Also, which “journalists are barred from writing on certain topics”? In June, two Black journalists were prohibited from covering the Black Lives Matter protests by the owner of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but the letter admonishes the reader that “resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion,” while the Post-Gazette is in the hands of a passionate Trumpist.

But it wasn't only sleazy in its hypocrisy, but also in the sense of using phony bipartisanship, a favorite Koch tactic, by recruiting well-known people on the left who should have known better: Katha Pollitt, Dahlia Lithwick, Jeet Heer and Gloria Steinem.

Here is a list of all the signers of the Harper's letter: the Quillette contributors, the transphobes, right-wingers, Koch employees and the feckless dummies of the center and left.
  1. Elliot Ackerman |  journalist
  2. Saladin Ambar |  academic
  3. Martin Amis | Islamophobe novelist
  4. Anne Applebaum | journalist and defender of Roman Polanski
  5. Marie Arana | author
  6. Margaret Atwood | sort-of-feminist novelist
  7. John Banville | author
  8. Mia Bay | historian
  9. Louis Begley | novelist
  10. Roger Berkowitz | Bard College and author at right-wing racist Quillette
  11. Paul Berman, writer | author at Quillette
  12. Sheri Berman | Barnard College
  13. Reginald Dwayne Betts | poet
  14. Neil Blair | agent of transphobic J.K. Rowling
  15. David W. Blight | Yale University historian - should have known better
  16. Jennifer Finney Boylan | transgender author - rescinded signature (although it's still listed at Harpers) when she realized what this stunt was really about, when she saw that J.K. Rowling had signed it. More recently she wrote a piece about Rowling.
  17. David Bromwich | Yale University
  18. David Brooks | annoying center-right columnist
  19. Ian Buruma  | Bard College
  20. Lea Carpenter | writer
  21. Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus) - should have known better
  22. Nicholas A. Christakis | Yale University, right-wing, defender of Razib Khan
  23. Roger Cohen | center-right journalist
  24. Ambassador Frances D. Cook | career politician
  25. Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project | should have known better
  26. Kamel Daoud | journalist
  27. Meghan Daum, writer | former liberal, current member of the IDW/Quillette gang
  28. Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis | should have known better
  29. Jeffrey Eugenides | writer
  30. Dexter Filkins | journalist
  31. Federico Finchelstein | The New School
  32. Caitlin Flanagan | anti-feminist
  33. Richard T. Ford | Stanford Law School
  34. Kmele Foster - Koch employee, Ayn Rand fan, promoted by Bari Weiss
  35. David Frum | former Bush speechwriter
  36. Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University | Quillette authorReason Magazine contributor
  37. Atul Gawande | Harvard University, Biden administration
  38. Todd Gitlin | Columbia University
  39. Kim Ghattas | journalist
  40. Malcolm Gladwell | Koch funded-Reason Magazine contributor
  41. Michelle Goldberg, columnist - should have known better
  42. Rebecca Goldstein | married to Steven Pinker
  43. Anthony Grafton | Princeton University
  44. David Greenberg | Rutgers University
  45. Linda Greenhouse - should have known better
  46. Rinne B. Groff | playwright
  47. Sarah Haider | Quillette cause
  48. Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern - long-time promoter of race pseudoscience
  49. Roya Hakakian | writer
  50. Shadi Hamid | Brookings Institution
  51. Jeet Heer, The Nation - should have known better
  52. Katie Herzog, podcast host |  defender of Andy Ngo, fan of QuilletteReason Magazine
  53. Susannah Heschel | Dartmouth College
  54. Adam Hochschild | author
  55. Arlie Russell Hochschild | author
  56. Eva Hoffman | writer
  57. Coleman Hughes | writer for (Koch-funded) Manhattan Institute, author at Quillette
  58. Hussein Ibish | Arab Gulf States Institute
  59. Michael Ignatieff | politician
  60. Zaid Jilani, journalist | member of the IDW/Quillette gang including FAIRforall, Quillette author
  61. Bill T. Jones | New York Live Arts
  62. Wendy Kaminer | advisory council member of Koch-funded FIREReason Magazine contributor
  63. Matthew Karp, Princeton University | far-left
  64. Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative | the chess guy
  65. Daniel Kehlmann  | writer
  66. Randall Kennedy | law professor
  67. Khaled Khalifa | writer
  68. Parag Khanna | author
  69. Laura Kipnis | Northwestern UniversityReason Magazine contributor
  70. Frances Kissling | Catholics for a Free Choice
  71. Enrique Krauze | historian
  72. Anthony Kronman | Yale University
  73. Joy Ladin | Yeshiva University
  74. Nicholas Lemann | Columbia University
  75. Mark Lilla | Columbia University
  76. Susie Linfield | New York University
  77. Damon Linker | works for Libertarian Niskanen center, dictator appeaser
  78. Dahlia Lithwick, Slate - should have known better
  79. Steven Lukes | New York University
  80. John R. MacArthur | Harper's publisher
  81. Susan Madrak | writer - should have known better
  82. Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer for right-wing Unheard, friend of Quillette
  83. Greil Marcus | music journalist
  84. Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center - should have known better
  85. Kati Marton | author
  86. Debra Mashek worked for DonorsTrust -funded Heterodox Academy
  87. Deirdre McCloskey | LibertarianReason Magazine contributor
  88. John McWhorter | Reason Magazine contributor
  89. Uday Mehta | City University of New York
  90. Andrew Moravcsik | Princeton University
  91. Yascha Mounk |  Persuasion - appears to be another media outlet for the IDW, with several Harper's Letter signers including McWhorter, Yoffe, Haidt and Pinker.
  92. Samuel Moyn | Yale University
  93. Meera Nanda | writer and teacher
  94. Cary Nelson | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  95. Olivia Nuzzi | New York Magazine
  96. Mark Oppenheimer | Yale University
  97. Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer - should have known better
  98. George Packer | writer
  99. Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita) - should have known better
  100. Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – should have known better
  101. Orlando Patterson | Harvard University
  102. Steven Pinker - ugh
  103. Letty Cottin Pogrebin - should have known better
  104. Katha Pollitt, writer - should have known better
  105. Claire Bond Potter, The New School - should have known better
  106. Taufiq Rahim | New America
  107. Zia Haider Rahman | writer
  108. Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen | University of Wisconsin
  109. Jonathan Rauch | Brookings Institution/The AtlanticReason Magazine contributorQuillette contributor
  110. Neil Roberts | political theorist
  111. Melvin Rogers | Brown University
  112. Kat Rosenfield | Reason Magazine contributor
  113. Loretta J. Ross | Smith College
  114. J.K. Rowling | children's book author, infamous transphobe
  115. Salman Rushdie, New York University
  116. Karim Sadjadpour | Carnegie Endowment
  117. Daryl Michael Scott | Howard University
  118. Diana Senechal | teacher and writer
  119. Jennifer Senior | columnist
  120. Judith Shulevitz | writer
  121. Jesse Singal, journalist | infamous transphobeReason Magazine contributor
  122. Anne-Marie Slaughter | lawyer
  123. Andrew Solomon | writer
  124. Deborah Solomon | critic and biographer
  125. Allison Stanger, Middlebury College | became a political cause of the race pseudoscience right for her support for infamous race pseudoscience racist Charles Murray
  126. Paul Starr | American Prospect/Princeton University
  127. Wendell Steavenson | writer
  128. Gloria Steinem - should have known better
  129. Nadine Strossen | defender of race pseudoscienceReason Magazine contributor
  130. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., | Harvard Law School
  131. Kian Tajbakhsh | Columbia University
  132. Zephyr Teachout | Fordham University
  133. Cynthia Tucker | University of South Alabama
  134. Adaner Usmani | Harvard University
  135. Chloe Valdary - part of the Quillette/IDW world
  136. Helen Vendler | Harvard University
  137. Judy B. Walzer | academic
  138. Michael Walzer | academic
  139. Eric K. Washington | historian
  140. Caroline Weber | historian
  141. Randi Weingarten | American Federation of Teachers
  142. Bari Weiss - I would bet she was one of the instigators of this stunt
  143. Cornel West | public intellectual
  144. Sean Wilentz | Princeton University
  145. Garry Wills | historian
  146. Thomas Chatterton Williams | Koch employee, creator of the Harper's Letter stunt
  147. Robert F. Worth | journalist and author
  148. Molly Worthen | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  149. Matthew Yglesias | political operative at Libertarian think tank, friend of Razib Khan
  150. Emily Yoffe, journalist | right-leaning "cancel culture" hystericReason Magazine contributor
  151. Cathy Young, journalist | Koch-funded career, pioneer of stochastic terrorism IMO
  152. Fareed Zakaria | political commentator

Thursday, January 5, 2023

White Supremacist Castle is in the news

I've mentioned several times that the right-wing racist funding vehicle DonorsTrust gave millions to disgusting white supremacist filth Peter Brimelow, founder of racist VDARE, the sometime employer of Steve Sailer

Steven Pinker supported the career of Steve Sailer for at least a decade, even including a badly written and researched piece by Sailer in "The Best American Science And Nature Writing" of 2004.

I didn't mention Brimelow used some of the money to buy a castle.

The Washington Post fails - why is our media so hapless and stupid? - to focus on the real story, which is the funding, by respectable plutocrats, of racist fanatic lunatics, and merely mentions briefly:

The VDare Foundation spent $1.4 million to buy 54 acres that included the castle and three houses. On the November podcast, Lydia Brimelow credited two unidentified donors to the VDare Foundation with funding the purchase.

Public tax records show the foundation raised more than $4.25 million in fiscal year 2019, its best in a decade. A chunk of that money — $1.5 million — came from Donors Trust, a charity associated with billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch that gives to conservative and libertarian causes.

That year, Peter Brimelow’s salary increased by more than $160,000 to $345,364, according to tax filings.

With the acquisition of the castle and nearby properties, VDare moved its headquarters from Litchfield, Conn. It also sold the castle in December 2020 to a new nonprofit, formed by Lydia, called the Berkeley Castle Foundation.

Then moves on to ask random town morons - you know Certified Real Americans© - what they think of an organization that none of them were aware of, and whose evil they know almost nothing about.

It's almost as bad as the recent Insider article about stochastic terrorist monster Chaya Raichik, not even mentioning where she gets her funding from - Seth Dillon who owns the Babylon Bee.

But of course it's so easy to write this Washington Post article about White Supremacist Castle - I could have done it myself in my spare time. The kind of reporting we need reporters to do is to investigate the funders of hate and terrorism! News organizations have the resources to track that kind of information down. They SHOULD DO THAT!

Blog Archive