Some Days, It's Great to Be a Brutish Beast!

By -
WASPs, we brutish beasts have bested you:
The descendants of the Catholic Irish immigrants, described by 19th century nativists as “low-browed and savage, groveling and bestial, lazy and wild, simian and sensual”... as Unz observes, “within less than a century had become wealthier and better educated than the average white American, including those of ‘Old Stock’ ancestry.” Old Stock means earlier British, German, and Dutch immigrants.
Face it, racists, Unz has shown you are wrong given your own dude's data!

Comments

  1. Lorenzo3:19 AM

    SCOTUS is 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. What more does one need to say about the passing of WASP dominance?

    Of course, if you want to be POTUS or on SCOTUS, you have to have gone to Harvard or Yale. The changing face of social advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:19 AM

    What understanding amongst their social order had they found that would make such an impact? That's what we should be looking at.

    But then the question is of what standard or measure do we use, or what measure and standard was used to come to such a conclusion in the first place?

    This, you do not provide.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more