What's that anti-woke fanatic Anna Krylov up to now?

"Western civilization" propaganda from Dorian Abbot and
the rightwing-funded "Minding the Campus"
which, of course, hates the 1619 Project
------------------------------------------------------------------

I've written a few times about Anna Krylov and her boyfriend Jay Tanzman (Jerry Coyne referred to
them as partners and Tanzman as a "freelance statistician") especially Krylov who wrote a screed against renaming science terms, hyperbolically comparing that to being burnt at the stake. Krylov and Tanzman have also written for racist Quillette - of course.

Recently they were seen publicly aligning with a whole bunch of racists like neo-Nazi Bo Winegard, co-authoring a paper which is yet another attempt by the racist right to "move the Overton window" and make race pseudoscience mainstream. I wrote about that here.

I guess that's why they put me on their mailing list. I recently found something in my inbox with the headline "A New Online Collection Documents Censorship in Science."

It says:

Following up on their perspective on scientific censorship published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last month, co-author Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman have published an online collection of scientific papers, viewpoints, and op-eds documenting the modern rise of censorship in science. The collection, titled Spotlight on Scientific Censorship, can be viewed here.

They mean following up on the aforementioned paper they produced with neo-Nazi Bo Winegard and the other race pseudoscience ghouls.

The collection is the usual right-wing garbage written by the usual racists and associates of the Intellectual Dark Web and its very own Austin University. 

This latest effort by the racist right to move the Overton window in favor of racism is being promoted on the Substack (of course) of Dorian Abbot, associated with Austin University.

Abbot was recently mentioned here on Pinkerite as part of the gang giving evolutionary psychologist Carole Hoover (fan of the hateful, Kiwi Farms-praising Gender Wars playing cards) an award for her support of hereditarianism.

A glance at Abbot's Twitter timeline shows that although he is a professor of geophysical sciences, he is far more interested in promoting right-wing political schemes. I suspect it's because being a right-wing political operative pays better than a geophysical sciences professorship. 

Abbot's Substack, "Heterodox STEM" also publishes... 

• Eric Rasmusen, a rightwing bigot, infamous for his misogyny
• Bo Winegard supporter Luana Maroja
• Ben Slivka, right-wing tech bro obsessed with wokism
• Peter Bonilla, Koch goon
• Randy O. Wayne, opponent of diversity, equity and inclusion
• Alex Small, member of the Heterodox Academy gang
• Julia Shaletzky, member of the Heterodox gang
• Michael Bailey, anti-trans extremist and creep, seen on Bo Winegard's extremist racist Substack Aporia, wants to "open the Overton window"
• William McNally, right-winger, likes all the other right-wingers
• Frank and Louie - "anti-woke" goons
• Mitt Castor, fan of right-wing extremist ghoul Christopher Rufo
• Judy Parrish, climate change denier
• Daniel Nuccio, contributor at the far right, Koch-funded College Fix
• Lee Jussim, contemptible "stereotypes are real!" ghoul - another participant in  Peter Thiel's CPAC for racists

And on and on, the usual collection of right-wing ghouls, goons and grifters.

And of course this latest Krylov/Tanzman effort is being promoted by a fellow participant in Peter Thiel's CPAC for racists (Dorian Abbot was there too) their travel buddy Jerry Coyne.

Is anybody surprised that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Christian now?

I haven't written much about Ayaan Hirsi Ali on this blog, although she is a named member of the Intellectual Dark Web, but I have to say something about her converting to Christianity and it's this: I'm not surprised.

I think Ali has always been a right-wing opportunist - she's had a gig with the Koch-funded AEI -  and there are more opportunities in right-wing funding circles for Christian nationalists than for atheists. 

Jerry Coyne notes the change:

I always thought that Ayaan Hirsi Ali belonged as the “fifth horseperson” alongside Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. After all, her arguments against religion were as strong and well expressed as those of the “four horsemen”. Perhaps it was because she concentrated most of her attacks on Islam instead of religion in general, but she was still an atheist, and had no faith.

Like the "four horsemen" Ali used atheism as a cover for anti-Muslim hatred - just like Jerry Coyne has done.

I have to take a moment to note Coyne's usual hypocrisy - Peter Thiel spewed insanity as the keynote speaker at a conference full of right-wingers - Coyne was an invited speaker - that ended with Thiel quoting the Bible. 

This is the end of his speech, from my transcript:

...we need to never underestimate the danger of, you know, one world, totalitarian state. Once you get that, hard hard to see what it ends. But, you know, there's always. You know, I there's always sort of the, the frame where. First Thessalonians five, chapter 3. The the political slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety. And and I think you know what I what I want to suggest is that and and you get it when you have sort of a homogenized one world totalitarian state and and what I want to suggest in closing is perhaps we would uh do well to be a little bit more scared of the Antichrist and a little bit less scared of Armageddon, thank you very much.

And from a New Yorker article:

Thiel’s faith, which is under-examined in “The Contrarian,” also seems central to his world view and appeal. In 2015, at a talk hosted by the Newbigin House of Studies, Thiel told the audience that Christianity was “the prism with which I look at the whole world.”

Coyne has never said word one against Thiel.

And why not? My guess is because Coyne is getting money, directly or indirectly, from Thiel. We know his travel and Thiel conference buddy Anna Krylov gets money from Thiel - at the very least because she's published in Quillette.

UPDATE: P. Z. Myers was also not surprised, writing "...(Ali's) been working at the Hoover Institute with a lot of wealthy conservative Republicans, it was just going to take time to realize who was buttering her bread."

Oh no the wokes got muh BIRDS!

Visit the home of Effin' Birds here

 So I'm reading this article in the New York Times about no longer naming bird species after slavers and other monsters of history...

That means the Audubon’s shearwater, a bird found off the coast of the southeastern United States, will no longer have a name acknowledging John James Audubon, a famous bird illustrator and a slave owner who adamantly opposed abolition. The Scott’s oriole, a black-and-yellow bird inhabiting the Southwest and Mexico, will also receive a new moniker, which will sever ties to the U.S. Civil War general Winfield Scott, who oversaw the forced relocation of Indigenous peoples in 1838 that eventually became the Trail of Tears.

And of course I'm thinking "I bet those culture war hereditarians of the "Intellectual Dark Web" are going to start whining about this. "

So I scroll down the article. And sure enough, there's Jerry Coyne:

But to Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago who is an avid birder, the need for more descriptive names did not seem pressing. Performative acts like this “are really deeply injurious to science,” he said. “We cannot go back through the history of science and wipe out everybody who was not a perfect human being.” Dr. Coyne added that the effort to update so many names would be better invested in something more impactful to society, such as teaching underprivileged children about birds.

Does Jerry Coyne EVER get tired of being a right-wing reactionary?

Of course you know Coyne is whining on his blog too - the best part is his right-wing amen corner, sharing the outrage in the comments section.

Quick! Call his travel buddy Anna Krylov! A few years ago she wrote a panicked article about the horrors of changing science terms, making her argument by comparing name-changes to burning people at the stake. 

Read all about it in Anna Krylov and the Peril of Bullshit. I'm sure she'll reach new heights of right-wing panic over this bird situation - maybe this time she'll compare renaming to the Holocaust.

Krylov writes for Thiel-funded right-wing racist garbage rag Quillette because of course she does.

Razib Khan still promoting racist neo-Nazi ghoul Richard Hanania

Because of course he is. 

If Khan's biggest booster, Steven Pinker, isn't ashamed to be associated with the neo-Nazi racist ghoul; and Khan's buddy Matthew Yglesias isn't bothered by Hanania's racism and extremism; you know Razib Khan's not bothered by Hanania's racism and extremism and neo-Nazism.

I think what all this means is that right-wing racist billionaires have increased their funding of ghouls like Hanania so much that courtiers like Pinker, Yglesias and Khan no longer worry about being "cancelled" because not only do they have the option of wingnut welfare - see Carole Hooven and Thomas Chatterton Williams - but their plutocrat patrons have decided to go full steam ahead in the project of mainstreaming race pseudoscience and racism.

And to nobody's surprise, Charles Murray is also promoting the neo-Nazi racist ghoul - but Murray has been promoting exactly that kind of ghoul - Steve Sailer, Emil Kirkegaard, etc. for years. 

Murray doesn't just promote Hanania, he grovels before him. Holy crap is that revolting.

Jerry Coyne was lately seen promoting Hanania too. Of course.

Jerry Coyne and whoever JayMan is

JayMan and Jerry agree on so much -
like, apparently, that Italy has four distinct races
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just observing earlier this month:

(Anna) Krylov and her IDW pals are not even pretending anymore - they are just blatant about being far-right and racist ghouls.

 

I was certainly thinking of Jerry Coyne as one of Krylov's pals, since he teamed up with her to produce another right-wing sob story, but even so, I was still astounded that Jerry Coyne has sunk so low, he is using anonymous "human biodiversity" loser "JayMan" on his blog now.

Wow. Just when you think these freaks can't sink any lower.

JayMan's identity is unknown but he claims to be Black. I don't think there's any reason to believe the claims of whoever is behind their accounts until their identity is verified.

I assume Ron Unz knows JayMan's true identity since JayMan has worked for Ron Unz. Well, Unz's payments to Razib Khan, Steve Sailer and Gregory Cochrane showed up online one day, so maybe records showing his payment to JayMan will show up one day, with real name available.

Speaking of Gregory Cochran, here we can see him hanging with JayMan and the grubby pack of extreme racists and right-wingers like Razib Khan, Emil Kirkegaarrd and HBD Chick - another anonymous coward like JayMan. 

My theory is that HBD Chick and JayMan are both sock puppets of the same white nationalist man-baby.

But of course it is possible JayMan is Black. After all, Ron Unz himself, a Jewish holocaust denier, is a perfect example of an irrational self-hating weirdo. 

And then there are Claire Lehmann, Camille Paglia, Cathy Young and Christina Hoff Sommers, who have built careers on hating women.

There will always be some, of any ethnicity or gender, who will be happy to throw others under the bus for the right price.

By the way, if you ever doubt how much racist weirdos love Pinker, feast your eyes on JayMan's HBD Fundamentals - Pinker AND Judith Rich Harris, the patron saint of biosocial criminology - right Kevin Beaver?

So, while an extreme racist is posting on his blog, what is Jerry Coyne doing? 

He's touring Europe, stuffing his face and, I assume, spending all those Thielbucks.

And then... crickets

As we see in the exchange above with J. Farmer, JayMan, like Jonathan Haidt, mistakenly - or maybe deliberately - uses the term heritable when they mean inherited traits.

The second link goes to Scientific American which says:

The important thing to keep in mind is that inherited traits are directly passed down from parents to children, whereas heritable traits are not necessarily genetic.

Oh fun fact - JayMan confesses that Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate set them on the road to race pseudoscience!

Steven Pinker, a great academic, and whose 2002 book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature introduced me to hereditarian explanations for human behavior (and which is required reading for anyone with no familiarity with the role that genes play in human behavior) has recently sent a note to Ron Unz attacking his mischaracterization of Richard Lynn’s position in Lynn’s response to Unz.

Even better, on the same page, JayMan offers an explanation for why Pinker is such a gigantic weasel about race pseudoscience:

Pinker has been one of the great voices speaking for the importance of heredity when explaining individual and gender differences, but he skirts around the truth when it comes to differences between groups. I think that Pinker’s response to Unz and Pinker’s discussion of Ashkenazi intelligence shows that Pinker knows full well about genetic contributions to group differences. But, he doesn’t endorse any of these. Why? Why be obtuse about facts? I think that this is because he fears Watsoning. He is the “Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University,” after all. One would imagine that this title at least provides him with an office with one of the really nice views. He doesn’t want to give that up, as his former university president Larry Summers was forced to do. Pinker’s own words about Richard Lynn to Unz tells us why:

You write as if Lynn were a well-respected psychologist whose findings have been widely accepted. This is very far from the case. Outside the circle of a handful of bloggers and behavioral geneticists he is somewhere between obscure and radioactive. (I believe several of his books are either self-published or put out by fringe publishers.)

Pinker doesn’t want this to happen to him.

This is a sad statement on the current state of intellectual discourse, and a great waste for a brilliant man like Steven Pinker. 

For clarity on heritability, I recommend The Heritability Fallacy  which includes:

Heritability statistics do remain useful in some limited circumstances, including selective breeding programs in which developmental environments can be strictly controlled. But in environments that are not controlled, these statistics do not tell us much. In light of this, numerous theorists have concluded that ‘the term “heritability,” which carries a strong conviction or connotation of something “[in]heritable” in the everyday sense, is no longer suitable for use in human genetics, and its use should be discontinued.’ Reviewing the evidence, we come to the same conclusion. Continued use of the term with respect to human traits spreads the demonstrably false notion that genes have some direct and isolated influence on traits. Instead, scientists need to help the public understand that all complex traits are a consequence of developmental processes. Without such an understanding, we are at risk of underestimating the extent to which environmental manipulations can have profoundly positive effects on development. Thus, the way ‘heritability’ is used in most discussions of human phenotypes not only perpetuates false ideas; it also blinds us to steps we might otherwise take to improve the human condition.

Although to be fair, I don't think JayMan and the people who fund him are especially interested in improving the human condition, but rather, in improving the prospects for white nationalism. Or in the case of Ron Unz, to get to the "real" truth about 9/11.

Oh cool - even better - on the right-hand sidebar of Jayman's blog, is a section called

HBD-AWARE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL COMMENTATORS

And the first two commentators are perfect. First there is Randall Parker:

ParaPundit Randall Parker’s blog making social commentary and discussing some of the implications of HBD

This tells you everything you need to know about how scientific "human biodiversity" is - Randall Parker, as I discovered when reviewing Sailer's "The Cousin Marriage Conundrum" is just some guy with a blog.

But Sailer cited him as if he was an important authority for his theory on cousin marriage and democracy.

The next commentator listed is Sailer:

Steve Sailer's iSteve Blog The man who (largely) started it all

Now the man who started it all has a background in marketing research. According to Pinker he's good with data, but as I noted in my review of the Cousin Marriage Conundrum (the CMC appears in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" thanks to Pinker) Sailer didn't look at available data on consanguinity around the world and compare it to available data on democracies around the world. I assume because it would have demonstrated that Sailer's theory was wrong - cousin marriage does not prevent democracy, as Sailer argued it would in Iraq.

So some right-wing racist marketing guy, who ignores inconvenient data, started the collection of crackpot speculations called "human biodiversity."

Because I guess actual scientists have always been too "woke" for people like JayMan.

Never forget that Pinker promoted Sailer's career for years, and according to Sailer, he's been a big influence on Pinker, as he testified on Twitter.

I assume I never saw JayMan's tweets on Twitter before because he blocked me, like the pathetic coward he is. But now that I no longer logon to Twitter, I am no longer blocked. And wow, JayMan sure likes the far-right paedophilia apologist called Emil. Who also blocked me, like the pathetic coward he is.

I will be very surprised if JayMan turns out to be anything other than a white nationalist man-baby. 

Jerry Coyne misrepresents evolutionary psychology and declares his support for race pseudoscience

At the Stanford Academic Freedom Conference, Jerry Coyne referred to biologist PZ Myers as "a blogger" and misrepresented evolutionary psychology again. 

Myers has some thoughts about that on his blog, and on the Conference in general under the title Cranks congregate to demonstrate that they're cranks.

Here is the transcript of Coyne's remarks about Myers and evolutionary psychology from the audio recording I made.

 

(I want to) give you 4 examples of misstatements that are promulgated in biology by advocates of particular ideologies...

#3:  Evolutionary psychology is worthless as a discipline, and this is been made most vociferously by the blogger PZ Myers who made this statement: "The fundamental premises of evolutionary psychology are false." 

Well, the fundamental premises of evolutionary psychology are simply that our brains, as well as our body show traces of our ancestry over the past 6 million years. And that's not false, that's true, and I could give you a lot of data to show that in terms of behavior, for example. Let's just say that the denigration of evolutionary psychology is widespread. 

Now, why is it widespread? It's again, comes out of the ideology that we're blank slates. I think that comes from Marxism, where people are seen as infinitely malleable by the social environment. Whereas evolutionary psychology tells us that we're not blank slates that we're born with a little bit of writing on those blank slates, that can be changed a bit, but can only be changed within certain limits. And evolutionary psychology, I should add, for those of you who practice this discipline, does have a somewhat spotted history, but in the long run it's produced many valuable insights, such as differences in sexual behavior between men and women, differential (couldn't understand him here) and so on.

His claim about the fundamental premises of evolutionary psychology is pure bullshit, and P. Z. Myers already addressed that bullshit eight years ago and nine years ago:

There is also a tactic I really dislike; I call it the Dignified Retreat. When criticized, evolutionary psychologists love to run away from their discipline and hide in the safer confines of more solidly founded ideas. Here’s a perfect example [Myers then quotes Coyne saying essentially the same thing he said at the SAF Conference]

…the notion that “the fundamental premises of evo psych are false” seems deeply misguided. After all, those premises boil down to this statement: some behaviors of modern humans reflect their evolutionary history. That is palpably uncontroversial, since many of our behaviors are clearly a product of evolution, including eating, avoiding dangers, and the pursuit of sex. And since our bodies reflect their evolutionary history, often in nonadaptive ways (e.g., wisdom teeth, bad backs, the coat of hair we produce as a transitory feature in fetuses), why not our brains, which are, after all, just bits of morphology whose structure affects our behaviors?

You know what? I agree entirely with that. The brain is a material product of evolution, and behavior is a product of the brain. There are natural causes for everything all the way down. And further, I have great respect for psychology, evolutionary biology, ethology, physiology, anthropology, anatomy, comparative biology — and I consider all of those disciplines to have strong integrative ties to evolutionary biology. Does Coyne really believe that I am critiquing the evolved nature of the human brain? Because otherwise, this is a completely irrelevant statement.

Evolutionary psychology has its own special methodology and logic, and that’s what I criticize — not anthropology or evolutionary biology or whatever. Somehow these unique properties get conveniently jettisoned whenever a critic wanders by, only to be re-adopted without reservation within the exercise of the discipline. And that’s really annoying.

What I object to in evolutionary psychology is that their stock in trade is to make observations of behavior in a single species, often in a single population, and then to infer an evolutionary history from that data point. You don’t get to do that. It’s not that the observations are invalid (they’re often interesting in their own right), or that it’s not possible that human behaviors carry a strong genetic component — it’s that you simply can’t draw an evolutionary conclusion from the simple existence of a trait in a population. Yet evolutionary psychologists do, all the time.

Myers made a superb, accessible video about the problems of evolutionary psychology, which I posted.

So why does Jerry Coyne completely ignore what biologist P. Z. Myers has said? Is he motivated by particular ideologies?

In a later post on his blog, Coyne signaled his support for race pseudoscience:

The denial or rejection biological truth affects two areas of evolutionary biology most of all: the idea that there are differences between groups, and the fact that differences between individuals, and averages between groups, might have a genetic basis. Ideologues reject both because difference implies ranking, and this supposedly implies superiority/inferiority, which in turn implies bigotry. And the notion that individual or group differences might be partly based on genes somehow makes them easier to reject than if they were cultural.

Just as Coyne lied about evolutionary psychology, he lied about critics of "biological truth." The actual truth is that hereditarians like Coyne have yet to prove the "biological truth" they would like to believe about differences among "groups." 

But not having data doesn't stop this crowd. As the piece at Inside Higher Ed notes:

While many other speakers described higher education’s commitment to the pursuit of truth as fading, the conference was heavy on anecdotes and speculative diagnostics relative to clear data. 

Now Coyne seems like a bumbling cranky old man to me - but is he really so stupid as to believe that race has not been used to rank people as inferior/superior?

And does he really not understand that this ranking system - which race pseudoscience goons do all the time - is what motivates all race pseudoscience promoters? It's not an accident that a favorite paper of race pseudoscience promoters was written by two racists who were brought together by a third racist.

So far Coyne has completely avoided mentioning Amy Wax's sulphuric racist rant. No doubt because Coyne's racism is the same as Wax's and he approves of what she said.

Before the racist panel, the last one of the Conference, I was feeling some sympathy for the complaints of the victims of "cancellation" who trotted out their grievances one by one over the course of the two days. Certainly it is possible that some university administrators have done their jobs badly or have been unfair. And of course people can disagree on what is going too far to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

But when Amy Wax began to projectile vomit racist bullshit, I got my wakeup call: the underlying belief-system of this conference is indeed race pseudoscience. 

The fact that Coyne agrees with Wax, although he constantly declares himself to be a liberal, demonstrates that the issue that truly binds these people together is their anger that they get pushback when they promote racist pseudoscience in public.

Here is Coyne in the foreground, just below his racist ally Amy Wax.

It's curious that when Isaac Chotiner interviewed Amy Wax in 2019, she claimed she did not believe in race pseudoscience:

WAX

And I guess, to be really crude about it, you would use Trump’s succinct phrase: Why are there so many shithole countries? Of course the moment you say that, people just get outraged: Oh, my God, you are a racist for saying that. And that, of course, lets them off the hook; they don’t have to answer the question, which is convenient.

CHOTINER

People do get outraged about that. You are correct.

WAX

I have asked many sophisticated, knowledgeable people that question, and I have never gotten anything close to a plausible answer, because of course any answer has to be subject to the strictures of political correctness. I have had a couple of really smart people, people on the left, say, to me, Hey, you have a point: we don’t have an answer, and we are not allowed to think about it rigorously and realistically because there is a code of things you do say and things you don’t say.

CHOTINER

What is your answer?

WAX

I don’t have one. I mean, my answer is this term “culture,” which consists of so many different things, from top to bottom, so many different aspects of the society. It is this very complex amalgam that holds people back on all sorts of levels. And I am not an anthropologist, I am not a political scientist. I just think that is where the answer lies. And then the question is: Do the people make the culture? Is it something that drops from the sky, or is it something about how people think, what they do, the habits that they have, the values that they have, the practices that they engage in?

CHOTINER

When you are casting doubt on the idea that it “drops from the sky,” are you trying to say that it is something innate, or that it is the result of history and experience?

WAX

I think the word “innate” is terribly mischievous.

CHOTINER

Mischievous?

WAX 

I would not use the word “innate.” To me, “innate” is a term that looks to heritable, or genetic factors. Now you can broaden it and say innate to a culture, but I would probably not say that, because it is so misleading. So, I’m really not saying anything about biology. Nothing at all. I mean, this is not a race-realist question or point of view. It’s totally agnostic on that question. It pushes that question aside and says, What is it about cultures that hold people back?

She certainly has a "race-realist" point of view now. I wonder what changed? Was it all those invitations to dude ranches from her new racist friends?

The Inside Higher Ed article also mentions that the conference skewed older male and white. It sure did.

You can see Pinker on the left, next to Anna Krylov.

Here's Eric Kaufmann, the Koch man, questioning whether we should end taboos against racism.

During the Conference, Coyne posted another fetish-pic of Steven Pinker's boots. I have joked around, saying he's obsessed with Pinker's boots, but now I'm starting to wonder if this is a serious paraphilia for Coyne.

Peter Thiel's CPAC for racists - the tight-knit circle of Koch employees, Thiel flunkies and race pseudoscience promoters

Last week I did a quick survey of some of the speakers who will be in the upcoming Peter Thiel-led CPAC for racists, otherwise known as the Stanford Academic Freedom conference. 

The conference so dedicated to Academic Freedom that the keynote speaker will be Peter Thiel, who is not involved in academia except, I assume, to donate to it in order to garner influence for his right-wing democracy-hating political agenda.

So for the first round I looked at mostly people I recognized as promoters of race pseudoscience, and/or are on the plutocrat payroll, and I had written about many of them on this blog.

This survey of the remaining speakers, like the first survey, demonstrates what a shameless lie the "College Fix" promoted in its claim that the conference is a bipartisan endeavor. It is overwhelmingly slanted to the right.

Well let's have a look at the others:

Luana Maroja is a sociobiologist and a Koch-funded promoter of Koch's favorite claim, that there's not enough free speech for right-wingers on American campuses. Which probably explains why Breitbart loved her enough to spread what Reza Aslan said was a lie about a panel he did with Jamelle Bouie. Naturally Jerry Coyne and professional racist Steve Sailer are fans of hers.

Mimi St. Johns has a very close tie to Peter Thiel - she is currently the editor-in-chief of the far-right newspaper the Stanford Review, which Thiel founded in 1987. Thiel is still very involved with the Review: "While Thiel also makes financial contributions, he has hosted staff reunions at his home, and meets with the editors quarterly as a way to stay current with campus activities in general."

Dorian Abbot is an author for racist Quillette, funded by Thiel and also wrote an op-ed in Newsweek comparing affirmative action to Nazi Germany. His co-author was Iván Marinovic, one of the three Stanford Graduate School of Business Faculty Organizers. 

Fun fact - two of the speakers, Anna Krylov and Richard Lowery are also members of the conference Organizing Committee. The CPAC for racists is an extremely tight-knit group.

John Hasnas is a far-right winger on the Koch payroll via CATO and a contributor at the far-right Federalist Society.

I haven't found direct connections between  Peter Arcidiacono and race pseudoscience and/or right-wing plutocrats, although he seems to be popular with those types of people, probably because they feel his work can be used to oppose affirmative action. 

Solveig Gold is Joshua Katz's wife and predictably a right-winger. The New York Times ran a Better Homes and Gardens style profile about her last summer. 

Joseph H. Manson is a fan of some of the biggest crackpots and racists from the Intellectual Dark Web and Quillette including Jordan Peterson, Peter Boghossian, Jonathan Katz (another speaker at the conference) and racist extremist neo-Nazi Bo Winegard.

John Schendal Rose is an instructor at Duke University with a Master of Theological Studies. He was scheduled to teach a gender-segregated seminar in June 2020, The Moral Life and the Classical Tradition Seminar, "a week-long program for rising high school juniors and seniors as well as rising college freshmen interested in the ancient philosophical tradition and its influence in the Christian moral life." I hope he gets a chance to witness for Christ to Jerry Coyne, a militant atheist.

Speaker John H. Cochrane one of the three Faculty Organizers of the conference, is a Hoover man, like speaker Niall Ferguson and a member of the Koch network via CATO. He's written for National Review about his loathing of government funded healthcare, like a good right-wing libertarian would.

John M. Ellis works for right-wing plutocrats via the Sarah Scaife Foundation-funded National Association of Scholars, whining about political correctness ruining higher education. Rand-roids love him.

Erik Kaufmann is a Koch man via the Manhattan Institute.

Steven Koonin can be seen giving an interview to Ayn Rand fanatics in order to promote climate change denial.

Bjorn Lomborg is another climate change denier.

Jay Bhattacharya is identified as "a scholar connected to right-wing dark money" at Exposed by CMD and the article also mentions Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration which "recommended governments allow younger, healthier people to become infected with Covid-19 while reserving “focused protection” for the vulnerable, in order to reach herd immunity. Suggestions included having nursing homes limit staff rotations and businesses rely on workers with “acquired immunity.”

John Ioannidis is another Covid genius who "tried to convince President Donald Trump that locking down the country would be the real danger."

Richard Shweder is a right-winger who likes to whine about "identity politics" for the Koch-connected DonorsTrust-funded Heterodox Academy.

Hollis Robbins can be seen on Linked In promoting Koch man Tyler Cowen (also a speaker at the CPAC for racists) and she gave him an interview in 2019 here. She says something interesting in that interview:

"I don’t understand why founders don’t have more operas about them, why we don’t see operas and movies about Steve Jobs, about Peter Thiel, about Jeff Bezos. There’s the David Fincher film of the founding of Facebook, but that’s pretty much it. The founders, entrepreneurs today are titans."

So you can see why Thiel would like her. And she sounds pretty clueless since there have been several movies and documentaries about Steve Jobs. As far as Thiel, well, she may be interested to know that I have written a play which features a Thiel-like character (called Toby Peel) and it will receive its first public reading in a couple of weeks. But I don't think Thiel would like it. 

So what this looks like to me is that the Koch people have been cultivating Robbins, best known for working with Henry Louis Gates, for a few years, and her appearance at this conference is part of sealing the deal. But that's just my best guess.

Scott W. Atlas is a long-time Republican and Trump advisor best-known for spreading Covid-19 misinformation.

Michael W. McConnell is a Bush nominee, a Hoover Institute man and a contributor to the Federalist Society online site.

Eugene Volokh is a conservative/libertarian Koch man via Reason Magazine.

Frances Widdowson is an author at racist Quillette, who also happens to hate Black Lives Matter.

So there you have it. The whole political spectrum from libertarian to Republican to conservative to right-wing to Trump supporter to race pseudoscience supporter to full-on racist. 

And the keynote speaker is a democracy-hating, Trump-funding, racism-funding sociopath.