Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
They asked for an honest conversation on race, right? Enter this week’s guest Charles Murray, author most recently of Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America. He and guys jostle on this most sensitive of subjects, but do so with the kind of generosity you can only find on Ricochet (We let things be too chummy around here!) Rob, Peter and James also get into the G7 and a rudderless Biden on the world stage, along with Jon Stewart on Stephen Colbert’s stage. They even do their best to find some optimism, but we may need our friends at Ricochet to cheer them up in the comments!
Music from this week’s podcast: Ball of Confusion by The Temptations
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I grant that having a UBI replace the bureacracy is preferable. But it is still replacing one form of dependency with another. For a true healthy society, you need jobs.
And yet the left is all about birth control and abortion. So they need imported tax slaves. Except so many of those end up sucking from the Ponzi, not feeding it…
It’s not going to happen until we have a more libertarian economy and let prices fall. No CPI or asset inflation anymore. Automation, capital, and globalized trade are going to replace local labor.
It’s so dumb. The pill, Medicare, abortion, inflation, and feminism were all created at the same time. Real genius.
But they were all created by EXPERTS. And they know more than people who actually have loving families.
Nothing has the possibility of changing until we get govt out of public education and universities. All education becomes local.
It’s one thing to complain about your civilization dying because people aren’t having enough babies. It’s another thing to set up multiple Ponzi schemes that make a family size a critical issue in whether or not we are going to fall into an economic depression and all starve. That’s part of why they are printing so much money.
Sorry but if that were true, every black congressman, congresswoman, and mayor in every big city in America would be campaigning on a platform of “More law and order!“
But they’re not.
And why aren’t they? The answer is simple: The people whom they rely on to remain in power — that is, their constituents — obviously do not want to hear such a message.
Again — if they did, a majority of black politicians would be delivering it to them.
They may also know that even if they don’t give their constituents what the constituents say they want, the constituents will still vote for them anyway, because they’re Democrats and/or because they’re black, etc. The constituents apparently believe it’s better to have a “representative” who “looks like them” than to have one who might actually do what they say they want but who doesn’t “look like them.”
“[C]ampaigning on a platform of ‘More law and order!’”
The black ex-cop who is likely to be the next Mayor of New York actually is doing that.
In general, black elected officials know their job is to tell their constituents what the Democratic Party wants them to think!
Hope so, but I won’t hold my breath. And even if he does win, he’ll likely find as Trump did, that much of the structure around him is actively opposed.
Our current mini experiment in UBI (unemployment exceeding minimum wages) is a disaster. We have millions of able bodied people sitting on their butts and not contributing. The same happened in 2009, when Obama gave us 99 weeks of unemployment and no-ask disability also put millions of people on the dole. Two experiments and both showed that paying people not to work ends up with people not working. It wastes a lot of human capital and creates a gigantic moral hazard and magnet for illegal immigration. That is a death spiral.
Fair enough.
My preferred way is to switch to deflation, anyway. The problem is, this would collapse the government and the financial system. It would completely weaken the military to keep the trade routes open.
If you keep going in the direction we are going, it’s simply about managing socialism and populism until the bond market collapses. Everything moves left, no matter what.
The whole system is based on inflation and it is breaking down.
https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune21/inflation-transitory6-21.html
Thank you Ricochet for your courage in booking Charles Murray. I ordered his book.
What is the way out? Every person is an individual, made in the image of God, deserving of dignity and respect regardless of race or IQ. You have a soul, and God loves you. He loves all people regardless of talent or intelligence or skin color. God values all souls equally, and He commands us to do likewise. This is central to Christian belief. The left rejects this because they are anti-Christian. They insist upon biological equality which is absurd. Leftists cannot accept the reality of group genetic differences while still treating individual people with love and kindness because leftists are moral cripples.
I like Christian ethics but I view the Christian conception of G-d as naive. Why did G-d so unfairly bestow gifts on some and so little on others?
Indeed, George Soros (in Vienna) and the tech billionaires (on their fortified mountaintops in California) see little to complain of in New York’s crime statistics.
Forcing somebody else to pay the cost of your ethical notions is a central principle of progressivism.
The first shall be last, and the last will be first…The meek shall inherit the earth…blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Why did God so unfairly bestow gifts on some and so little on others? For reasons far beyond your ken or mine.
And of course, it’s not THIS life that’s really supposed to matter anyway.
I would be so presumptuous as to claim the $1000 award that Peter Robinson offered for anyone who could find a way out of the future as predicted by Charles Murray. That way out, I believe, in our time, is a synthesis of Religion and Science. That synthesis exists, indeed is the central nature of both, specifically of Judeo Christian religion and modern Science. If Judeo-Christian religion is the Thesis and Science the Antithesis, (in, unfortunately a Marxist dialectic), the Synthesis is outlined in the book, available here on Ricochet, Noesis, the book
Other posts here, particularly by DrLorentz and Ernst Rabbit von Hasenpfeffer, are on point. The additional contribution linked above shows how Science is fully consistent with, actually necessitates, Judeo/Christian religion; why Science affirms that every person is an individual with a transcendent nature (indeed proven mathematically by Kurt Godel).
Scientists miss the point. Steven Weinberg famously observed that the more the Universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless. He suffers from “…single vision and Newton’s sleep.”
Charles Murray has written mostly as a Progressive who disagrees with other Progressives on policy prescriptions (and so is considered a Conservative, but that is hardly the case–his work is only a variance on a Progressive theme). He has had more or less a LeComptean, scientific positivism approach. He had believed that we are essentially slaves to our genetics, and has eschewed human transcendence. His morality has been based on sand. Of course, his field, whether “Political Science” or “Social Science” is oxymoronic. Neither field can remotely be called Scientific. Rather, these are pseudo-science or “Scientism” in the Hayekian sense. Claiming the validity of IQ measurement (see Stephen Jay Gould’s book, “The Mismeasure of Man”) is to be a Eugenicist and validate the work of Francis Galton, the father of eugenics (The Bell Curve is a paean to Francis Galton’s execreble book, “Hereditary Genius”). There is a post on Ricochet by Jerry Giordano, who notes that Murray states that it would be fair to call him a Christian now.
At any rate, Christianity in my view is the answer. A possible wasyto effect a return to Christianity is to show how our most advanced Science concords with Christianity. From the information Giordano supplies, perhaps Murray himself has realized this, although it doesn’t come out in the Ricochet interview.
Unfortunately, Peter will not likely read my book (Noesis, the book). If he does, he will not likely understand it, nor agree with me on its import. So I doubt he will grant me the prize. Still, in my view, a society that treats human science as a god, might be fundamentally redirected by the recognition that human science confirms both the existence of a Judeo-Christian God and the transcendence of Man.
Our Judeo-Christian heritage is the primary instiller of a moral conscience in our Western culture. Today children are raised without a moral conscience, only a moralistic one that has no moorings.
Aye, there’s the rub.
I am confident that Jerry Giordano is probably quite skeptical of your belief in the meaningless of I.Q. I am entirely doubtful of any claim that genes don’t make up at least fifty percent of your potential.
I followed this post by him pretty thoroughly.
Additionally, if you do not believe in human evolution and capitalism you can’t be seriously considered from a scientific worldview.
The discussion sent me back to an old (1954, and probably controversial) text by Harvard anthropologist Carlton Coon which we read in an ‘Ancient Civ’ class.
“Racial discrimination is a holdover from a time when it served a purpose, when a racial division of labor carried with it a certain material and social efficiency. This purpose no longer exists, and now race is a nuisance. It can cease to be one only if we can make people understand it.”
…
”Because race was once necessary, it fulfilled its role in the development of man. It made possible the opening up of all areas of the earth not covered by ice, the domestication of many kinds of plants and animals, the invention of many categories of devices of transport and communication. Our modern civilization would have been impossible without the pooled contribution of many races.”
…
”Modern technical advance has created a situation in which people of all races will achieve some measure of cultural unity, just as Homo sapiens became a single species in Late Pleistocene time. The question of racial equality will soon be taken out of academic hands.” (Bold added)
Of course “soon” to an academic writing about The History of Man could be a very long time, especially now that grievance studies and critical race theory are replacing true science in academia.
Sounds to me like he was “assuming facts not in evidence” and that still aren’t and may never be.
@NanoceltTheContrarian — Like nearly all attacks on the concept of IQ, Stephen J. Gould‘s The Mismeasure of Man is left-wing propaganda posing as science. It is devastatingly critiqued even by liberal Wikipedia.
Two points that struck me in particular were that 70% of his references were from before 1950, so he was attacking obsolete not current science, and that when Gould was sent corrections, he chose to let the errors remain, in his second edition. Like I said, propaganda not science.
That Charles Murray “believed that we are essentially slaves to our genetics” is, to put it tactfully, wildly at variance with what he has written on the subject. If you score high on IQ tests, you are more likely to do well in school, and more likely to do well in almost any occupation where you use your brain, but there’s no sure thing.
By now, there are probably tens of thousands of studies that corroborate this conclusion. The counterarguments are emotional and irrational in nature. Which is why libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard titled one of his most influential essays, “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature”.
P.S.: The Bell Curve is a massive account of social science research, not “a paean to Francis Galton’s execreble book, ‘Hereditary Genius’”, whatever that means.
Regarding Mr. Robinson’s plea that Murray writes to young people: I’ve always thought it’d be a great idea if conservatives in academia wrote more advice on how to navigate these troubled waters. There’s so much on how awful that environment is, but considering the fact that college isn’t going to suffer the fate it deserves, we might as well help the kids get through it and make the most of the opportunities still there.
Just a thought. I guess Murray doesn’t have to write it, but someone should.
Too late by then. By the time today’s children get to college, they can’t read, write, or think with any degree of effectiveness. They have no inner foundation for becoming adults. They cannot even properly decode texts more complex than social media texts
So it’s really this simple:
There aren’t many public thinkers I hold in as high regard as I do Charles Murray. I thought he expressed himself with his usual measured thoughtfulness and intelligence, and, while I hope he’s mistaken in his more pessimistic predictions, I am inclined to accept his analysis of the current situation.
I have less generous praise for the flagship crew this time around: though I know they’re all good men of generally stout heart, they weren’t a model of courage in this one. This thought is prompted by one specific comment of Rob’s, when he said (at 40:27):
Rob described this thought as “incredibly incendiary,” and asked how much trouble he’d be in for saying it (channeling Biden for a moment, I guess). He asked irate listeners to blame Charles; Peter, feigning fear of outrage, reminded us all that it was Rob who made the damning comment.
Yes, they were being humorous. But Charles was more correct in his sense of it when he replied:
There’s nothing daring or “incendiary” about suggesting that “racist America” is a canard, and that the flames of neo-racism are being stoked in academia by men and women who, having fed the western canon to the bonfire, have taken it upon themselves to immolate civil society next.
Murray’s entire point is that blaming “systemic racism” is a dodge that distracts us from an unpalatable reality and makes it impossible to direct energy toward solving the real underlying causes of socioeconomic dysfunction. No one has to apologize for “daring” to make that point, least of all the founders of Ricochet.
And, again, yes, I know they were being funny. But you’re talking to the author of The Bell Curve, for goodness sake. Be bold.
Finally, it wouldn’t be a Ricochet Podcast comment if I didn’t single out Rob for some kind of opprobrium, however minor. Before I do, I’ll tip my hat to him for exercising the self-control, in two podcasts in a row now, of not venting his spleen regarding the President he loves to hate. I appreciate the forbearance, truly.
It’s a little ironic, then, that I’m going to bring up that subject as a point of contrast. On the topic of press censorship and dishonesty, something that I thought was a profound, alarming, and consequential injustice throughout 2020 and 2021, and about which James is understandably and sensibly incensed, Rob is oddly sanguine. His advice was, essentially, “take the win and don’t complain about the press thing.”
I think that’s deeply wrong-minded, and that James’ concern that the future will inevitably repeat the recent past if we make no effort to bring the guilty to account is exactly right. However, what struck me during Rob’s comment was the contrast between his let-the-past-lie and his recent burn-him-to-the-ground response to James’ suggestion that a similar strategy be taken regarding he who must not be named.
There is a species of politician who seems more forgiving of the treachery of our adversaries than of the foibles of our allies. This smacked of that.
Thanks for having Charles Murray on. Excellent choice.
Part of the problem may be that “our side” doesn’t seem to punish apostasy as much as the other side punishes heresy.