Oy! You Just Try to See What the Facts Indicate, and Here Is What Happens

So, I am reviewing Gregory Clark's The Son Also Rises. While doing so, I occasionally report what I find in the book on this blog.

Many of Clark's findings are surprising to me. For instance, I had no idea that French-Canadians have constituted a persistent underclass in the US for a couple of centuries. So, I report this, expressing my surprise. (Aren't you surprised by this finding as well?)

Well, I occasionally look to see who is linking to my posts, and look what I found as a link to that one:

“A group of racists and xenophobes discovers that French Canadians have been discriminated against for 200 years and feels shocked.”

1) OK, first of all, what is the "group" referred to here? I was assigned a review of this economist's book. I have never met him, never spoken to him, never corresponded with him... but now, apparently, we (just the two of us?) constitute a "group"... and a "group of racists and xenophobes," to boot!

2) Clarissa apparently already knew French Canadians were discriminated against. Evidence, please?

3) There is no evidence that French surnames in general were “discriminated” against: it is not French surnames, but only French Canadian surnames, that show this persistent underclass pattern. Does anyone really think that the average American knows which is which, so that they can continually discriminate just against the French Canadians, but not against the French? Can you differentiate a typical French-Canadian surname from a typical French surname? I know I had no idea which was which, until I learned how Clark sorted them out.

4) The same data shows that, say, Egyptian Copts, Indian Hindus, and Black Africans have readily entered the elite in the US, and in much higher numbers (proportionately) than the average American: is Clarissa arguing that Americans discriminate in favor of Egyptians Copts, Indian Hindus, and Black Africans, but against French Canadians?! Really?

The idiocy of identity politics is its own refutation.


  1. Check spelling: Siri thought you were talking about Hemingway.

  2. BTW, do you really not understand what happened? I tried reading your original post, pretending that I had no idea about your personality etc. Yeah, if that's the only thing one ever read from this blog, the post could have been written by a hardcore racist and xenophobe. "The group" was you and your commenters, speculating on which group formed an "underclass" (a word I don't think I have ever used in my life, FYI). It looks like maybe you are afraid of all those Coptic Egyptians etc.

    Please don't say, "No Bob, what I was saying was..." because yeah, I know. And that lady jumped to conclusions, obviously. But you're acting like you don't even know what happened, when in retrospect it should be obvious.

    1. No, I never imagined the post could be taken that way.

    2. Oh, and she has been a follower of this blog for like three years. I mean a signed up Google follower who gets notified about every single post. So she knows my posts very well.

    3. OK then that's messed up. She must hate the Irish.

  3. So what's the deal with you and this Clarissa person? There seems to be a back and forth between your blog and hers for the past few years.

    1. I think she has a crush on me. See the comment above.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fiat Currency