While I like and respect John
Derbyshire, and bow to his demonstrated expertise in mathematics, he should
probably resist the temptation to express any strong opinions on economics and
political economy, as evidenced by his recent speech on the Alt-Right. In any
event, here is my response to it.
Point
1: I don’t know what a Marxian is. Typo for “Martian”?
Ha very ha. Anyhow,
"Marxian" distinguishes those who accept elements of, and are heavily
influenced by, various aspects of Karl Marx's theories of history and political
economy from those who accept and advocate Karl Marx's political ideologies and
policies. The former is a Marxian, the latter is a Marxist. I studied under a
reasonably well-known Marxian, Robert Chernomas, which is why I am very well
schooled in the substantive material differences between the two.
But you need not take my word for it.
Marxian economics refers to several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought which are sometimes opposed to each other, and in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement or supplement other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.
- Marxian Economics, Infogalactic
Sadly, Prof. Chernomas did not make Wikipedia's list of Marxian Economists. The point is, this is not one of my neologisms nor is it an even remotely esoteric concept.
But you need not take my word for it.
Marxian economics refers to several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought which are sometimes opposed to each other, and in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement or supplement other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.
- Marxian Economics, Infogalactic
Sadly, Prof. Chernomas did not make Wikipedia's list of Marxian Economists. The point is, this is not one of my neologisms nor is it an even remotely esoteric concept.
Point
3: Let’s not get ideas above our station here. Aristotle had a philosophy.
Descartes had a philosophy. Kant had a philosophy. What the Alt Right has is an
attitude.
Fair enough, although it is
rather more than that. At least in the form described by the 16 points, the
Alt-Right has a political philosophy that is more specific and coherent
than anything currently on offer from conservatives, liberals, progressives,
globalists, or the Fake Right. If we are merely an "attitude", then
how does one describe those things to which we are an alternative?
Point
4: I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the
Christian Bible is about them.
Absolutely not. The Jews are
not part of Western civilization. They pre-date it, they are of the East, and a
significant portion of their cultural tradition is pre-civilized. The fact that
the primary architects of the present effort to destroy Western civilization,
particularly its pillars of Christianity and the European nations, are Jewish
suffice to make it very clear that, while some Jews may be in the West,
they are not of the West. Judaism is a conscious rejection of
Christianity, and therefore, of the West.
Point
6: When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a
supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.
No, we won't. Reality is not
Star Trek. The entire written history of Man indicates that should slave
traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, the various human elites will hasten to
make deals with them to set up satrapies over which they will rule to provide
them with the slaves they seek. See: the history of the slave trade in Africa.
Point
8: It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in
my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.
I tried digging for etymologies, but got lost in a thicket of possibilities. Greek hodos, a path or way; so “the way of science”? Or perhaps eidos, a shape or form, giving us the “-oid” suffix (spheroid, rheumatoid); so “science-like”? Then there’s aoide, a song, giving … what? “Harmonizes like science”? Or maybe it’s the Latin root odor, a smell; “smells like science.”
In any case, all three of the “understandings” here are gibberish.
a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.
Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.
I promise Vox Day there will be no future revisions of these facts, at any rate not on any time span he or I need worry about. (I add that qualification because there are conceivable astronomical events that could alter the sequence of planetary orbits—a very close encounter with a rogue star, for example. Those are once-in-a-billion-year occurrences, though.)
b) “Scientistry”? Wha?
c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.
I tried digging for etymologies, but got lost in a thicket of possibilities. Greek hodos, a path or way; so “the way of science”? Or perhaps eidos, a shape or form, giving us the “-oid” suffix (spheroid, rheumatoid); so “science-like”? Then there’s aoide, a song, giving … what? “Harmonizes like science”? Or maybe it’s the Latin root odor, a smell; “smells like science.”
In any case, all three of the “understandings” here are gibberish.
a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.
Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.
I promise Vox Day there will be no future revisions of these facts, at any rate not on any time span he or I need worry about. (I add that qualification because there are conceivable astronomical events that could alter the sequence of planetary orbits—a very close encounter with a rogue star, for example. Those are once-in-a-billion-year occurrences, though.)
b) “Scientistry”? Wha?
c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.
To simply call everything
"science" is to be misleading, often intentionally. Science has no
intrinsic authority, it is less reliable than engineering, and increasingly,
references to it are a deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous
are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is
asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence
gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful
replication.
In most - not many, but most - cases, that is simply not true. Even if you don't use these three neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:
Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession
The scientific consensus is is "so-called" because while it may be a consensus, it is intrinsically unscientific. This is obvious, observable, and undeniable. Taking a vote of the current opinions of scientists is no more scientody than is collecting their cumulative bodily evacuations for hygienic disposal. The expressed opinions that make up the consensus may be based on anything from a personal use of the scientific process to a) desire to obtain grant money, b) political ideology, c) identity, d) mental illness, e) sexual desire, f) personal ambition, or g) anything else capable of influencing one's opinion.
In most - not many, but most - cases, that is simply not true. Even if you don't use these three neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:
Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession
The scientific consensus is is "so-called" because while it may be a consensus, it is intrinsically unscientific. This is obvious, observable, and undeniable. Taking a vote of the current opinions of scientists is no more scientody than is collecting their cumulative bodily evacuations for hygienic disposal. The expressed opinions that make up the consensus may be based on anything from a personal use of the scientific process to a) desire to obtain grant money, b) political ideology, c) identity, d) mental illness, e) sexual desire, f) personal ambition, or g) anything else capable of influencing one's opinion.
Point
13: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of
the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am
sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.
Free trade, by definition,
concerns unrestricted exchanges between two private parties. These exchanges
may involve goods, capital, services, and labor. In order to freely provide
services or labor, the providing party must be able to travel to the location
of the receiving party in order to fulfill his end of the exchange. Therefore,
free trade requires the free movement of peoples.
As a bonus proof, I will point out that in order to achieve the maximum efficiencies theoretically provided by the free market, both labor and capital must be able to travel to the most efficient production sites. Any failure to restrict this travel will necessarily create inefficiencies and therefore prevent the economy from reaching its maximum growth potential.
As a bonus proof, I will point out that in order to achieve the maximum efficiencies theoretically provided by the free market, both labor and capital must be able to travel to the most efficient production sites. Any failure to restrict this travel will necessarily create inefficiencies and therefore prevent the economy from reaching its maximum growth potential.
Point
14. I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.
Derb has more than enough math
to work out the amount of cross-breeding required to render the entire
population of the Earth insufficiently white to reproduce itself. The threat is
not yet dire, but if the present trends proceed in a linear fashion,
they will become dire within our children's lifetimes.
Point
15: That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are
much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. As Greg
Cochran points out, though: “innate superiority at obsolete tasks (a born
buggy-whip maker?) doesn’t necessarily translate to modern superiority, or even
adequacy.”
Superiority at an obsolete task, or at a task presently
disvalued by modern liberal society, does not mean that it does not exist.
Given the rate at which the Western world is descending into plumbing-free
barbarism, hunting with spears may well prove to be a more important skill in
the near future than the ability to solve advanced mathematical problems.
As for the other points, I do not object to the various nits being picked, as in most cases I tend to agree with them. I do not claim to have always planted my flag in the optimal place in the gradient between precision and brevity. As to the original question being posed, I consider Derb to be an honored elder who well merits a place of respect in the Alternative Right on the basis of his fearless iconoclasm and the personal sacrifices he has made in the interest of telling the truth.
As for the other points, I do not object to the various nits being picked, as in most cases I tend to agree with them. I do not claim to have always planted my flag in the optimal place in the gradient between precision and brevity. As to the original question being posed, I consider Derb to be an honored elder who well merits a place of respect in the Alternative Right on the basis of his fearless iconoclasm and the personal sacrifices he has made in the interest of telling the truth.
