THE ALT-RIGHT ONE YEAR AFTER CHARLOTTESVILLE

Jacob Siegel writes for Tablet:

Here’s what I thought might happen. Spencer and his wing of the alt-right, which already had their own think tank and book publisher, would spread their ideas and influence through sympathetic elements in the new Trump administration. I never believed that a large, openly neo-Nazi movement had any chance of success in America but a more insidious and cleverly calibrated creep of fascist and racist ideas seemed to me a very real possibility.

Then, one year ago Thursday came Charlottesville and an unexpected turning point for the alt-right. The so called “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville started with a call for various right wing groups to rally in defense of Confederate monuments. It ended with a chant of “Jews will not replace us!” before descending into violence. A left-wing counterprotester, Heather Heyer, was killed when a man affiliated with the alt-right drove his car into a crowd.

I’d feared a Spencerite faction of the alt-right exercising its power in the shadows through policy papers and D.C. cocktail hours. Instead, Spencer was chasing headlines and leading groups overrun with phonies, two-bit con men and social misfits on Tiki-torch marches through major American cities. After Charlottesville, the tendency it represented veered towards a cheap Nazi burlesque, with people breaking down crying on YouTube videos and outing each other’s real identities while engaging in a series of endless infights. The pièce de résistance came when the well-known leader of a white nationalist group, the Traditionalist Worker Party, was arrested and charged with beating up his wife and her stepfather. The stepfather, as Jerry Springer might have scripted, was also co-founder of the white nationalist group.

Now, some of the same people involved in the Unite the Right disaster are planning to rally this weekend in D.C., after Charlottesville denied their request for a permit. The overwhelming likelihood is the counterprotesters will outnumber far-right attendees by an order of magnitude.

Which brings me to my second conversation with Richard Spencer. I’d been invited to Washington, D.C. this April to give a talk at Georgetown University on the question “Is the Alt-Right Over?” About a minute before the event started an organizer approached me and whispered in my ear, “just so you know, Richard Spencer is in the audience.” I nodded and about 30 seconds later the talk’s moderator asked me the first question and we were off. It was toward the end, during the Q&A, when Spencer, after waiting his turn in line, approached the mic and asked a question.

It was no surprise to hear Spencer publicly acknowledge what a mess the alt-right had become. He’d recently canceled his college tour in the face of significant counterprotests and, in videos on his YouTube channel, had credited antifa’s tactical effectiveness for dissuading him from organizing future alt-right events. But what about white-identity politics he asked me? Even if the militant, organized alt-right seemed to have imploded, the resurgence of white identity politics was perhaps a larger and more durable force. The truth is I agree with that assessment but I didn’t say so at the time. Instead, I took some digs at him, Not by insulting him personally, just pointing out how pathetic his movement had become. Why speculate about the future, I asked, when we had the recent past and could examine all the sordid spectacle it afforded.

After the talk was over Spencer approached me to follow up with a small group in tow. He stuck out his hand. It stayed there. “You’ll talk to me but you won’t shake my hand,” he said, indignant. “Yes,” I said. He pushed on the question he’d already asked. What about white-identity politics as a larger force in American politics?

I don’t have a neat answer to that question, not that I would have given it to him if I did. It was a long day and I wanted to get back to the nice hotel the university people had paid for but the question hung around.

Just this morning a new report was released by the academic George Hawley, one of the country’s most knowledgeable sources on the ideological roots and political morphology of the alt-right. In the intro, Hawley writes, “The Alt-Right as a term seems to be declining in popularity, as the movement has suffered a series of setbacks over the last year. Yet the constituency for explicit white-identity politics remains.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on THE ALT-RIGHT ONE YEAR AFTER CHARLOTTESVILLE

Book Club: Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy (8-10-18)

MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/book-club-hackers-heroes-of-the-computer-revolution-by-steven-levy

From Amazon.com:

This 25th anniversary edition of Steven Levy’s classic book traces the exploits of the computer revolution’s original hackers — those brilliant and eccentric nerds from the late 1950s through the early ’80s who took risks, bent the rules, and pushed the world in a radical new direction. With updated material from noteworthy hackers such as Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg, Richard Stallman, and Steve Wozniak, Hackers is a fascinating story that begins in early computer research labs and leads to the first home computers.

Levy profiles the imaginative brainiacs who found clever and unorthodox solutions to computer engineering problems. They had a shared sense of values, known as “the hacker ethic,” that still thrives today. Hackers captures a seminal period in recent history when underground activities blazed a trail for today’s digital world, from MIT students finagling access to clunky computer-card machines to the DIY culture that spawned the Altair and the Apple II.

Amazon.com Exclusive: The Rant Heard Round the World
By Steven Levy

When I began researching Hackers–so many years ago that it’s scary–I thought I’d largely be chronicling the foibles of a sociologically weird cohort who escaped normal human interaction by retreating to the sterile confines of computers labs. Instead, I discovered a fascinating, funny cohort who wound up transforming human interaction, spreading a culture that affects our views about everything from politics to entertainment to business. The stories of those amazing people and what they did is the backbone of Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution.

But when I revisited the book recently to prepare the 25th Anniversary Edition of my first book, it was clear that I had luckily stumbled on the origin of a computer (and Internet) related controversy that still permeates the digital discussion. Throughout the book I write about something I called The Hacker Ethic, my interpretation of several principles implicitly shared by true hackers, no matter whether they were among the early pioneers from MIT’s Tech Model Railroad Club (the Mesopotamia of hacker culture), the hardware hackers of Silicon Valley’s Homebrew Computer Club (who invented the PC industry), or the slick kid programmers of commercial game software. One of those principles was “Information Should Be Free.” This wasn’t a justification of stealing, but an expression of the yearning to know more so one could hack more. The programs that early MIT hackers wrote for big computers were stored on paper tapes. The hackers would keep the tapes in a drawer by the computer so anyone could run the program, change it, and then cut a new tape for the next person to improve. The idea of ownership was alien.

This idea came under stress with the advent of personal computers. The Homebrew Club was made of fanatic engineers, along with a few social activists who were thrilled at the democratic possibilities of PCs. The first home computer they could get their hands on was 1975’s Altair, which came in a kit that required a fairly hairy assembly process. (Its inventor was Ed Roberts, an underappreciated pioneer who died earlier this year.) No software came with it. So it was a big deal when 19-year-old Harvard undergrad Bill Gates and his partner Paul Allen wrote a BASIC computer language for it. The Homebrew people were delighted with Altair BASIC, but unhappy that Gates and Allen charged real money for it. Some Homebrew people felt that their need for it outweighed their ability to pay. And after one of them got hold of a “borrowed” tape with the program, he showed up at a meeting with a box of copies (because it is so easy to make perfect copies in the digital age), and proceeded to distribute them to anyone who wanted one, gratis.

This didn’t sit well with Bill Gates, who wrote what was to become a famous “Letter to Hobbyists,” basically accusing them of stealing his property. It was the computer-age equivalent to Luther posting the Ninety-Five Theses on the Castle Church. Gate’s complaints would reverberate well into the Internet age, and variations on the controversy persist. Years later, when another undergrad named Shawn Fanning wrote a program called Napster that kicked off massive piracy of song files over the Internet, we saw a bloodier replay of the flap. Today, issues of cost, copying and control still rage–note Viacom’s continuing lawsuit against YouTube and Google. And in my own business—journalism–availability of free news is threatening more traditional, expensive new-gathering. Related issues that also spring from controversies in Hackers are debates over the “walled gardens” of Facebook and Apple’s iPad.

I ended the original Hackers with a portrait of Richard Stallman, an MIT hacker dedicated to the principle of free software. I recently revisited him while gathering new material for the 25th Anniversary Edition of Hackers, he was more hard core than ever. He even eschewed the Open Source movement for being insufficiently noncommercial.

When I spoke to Gates for the update, I asked him about his 1976 letter and the subsequent intellectual property wars. “Don’t call it war,” he said. “Thank God we have an incentive system. Striking the right balance of how this should work, you know, there’s going to be tons of exploration.” Then he applied the controversy to my own situation as a journalism. “Things are in a crazy way for music and movies and books,” he said. “Maybe magazine writers will still get paid 20 years from now. Who knows? Maybe you’ll have to cut hair during the day and just write articles at night.”

So Amazon.com readers, it’s up to you. Those who have not read Hackers,, have fun and be amazed at the tales of those who changed the world and had a hell of time doing it. Those who have previously read and loved Hackers, replace your beat-up copies, or the ones you loaned out and never got back, with this beautiful 25th Anniversary Edition from O’Reilly with new material about my subsequent visits with Gates, Stallman, and younger hacker figures like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. If you don’t I may have to buy a scissors–and the next bad haircut could be yours!

Posted in Computers | Comments Off on Book Club: Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy (8-10-18)

The Jewish Urge To Schmooze

Frame Game Radio tweets: 1. This is a thread about SCHMOOZING. I was at a business lunch today with a fellow Jew and it suddenly hit me – one reason for Jewish success is *The Jewish Urge To Schmooze.*

2. Yes, I know I’ve developed a reputation for being a Jewish guy who relentlessly chronicles the abuses and corruption within the Jewish Affinity Network. But allow me to proudly explore a perfectly innocent and totally powerful aspect of Jewish success dynamics.

3. I’ve noticed a pattern to human communications that differentiates “the median Gentile” and “the median Jew”. It’s not universal. It’s a bell-curve, where Jewish instincts appear, ON AVERAGE, to be 1-2 standard deviations more inclined to “schmooze” than Gentiles.

4. First a definition of terms. The charitable definition is that schmoozing is “intimate, cozy gossip.” The cynical definition is that schmoozing is “manipulative sweet talk to get what you want.”

5. Now, THE MAGIC: SCHMOOZING IS NOT NETWORKING. Networking is professional. Schmoozing is personal. Networking makes formal pair-bonds. Schmoozing makes implied pair-bonds. Networking is a firm handshake. Schmoozing is whispering in your ear.

6. I’ve deduced that schmoozing involves two critical mechanisms. The first is *VULNERABILITY*. The second is *BENIGN VIOLATION*. Let’s explore these two dynamics in turn:

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The Jewish Urge To Schmooze

Why Adopted Children Still Struggle Over Time

Greg Cochran writes: “I noticed an article in the Atlantic, about much higher rates of disability, behavior and learning problems, suspensions. Lower achievement on reading, math, and science assessment tests. They can’t figure it out.”

* Steve Sailer writes: In the postwar era, you’d sometimes see adoptions from higher class biological parents to lower class adoptive parents, as with Steve Jobs, whose genetic parents were grad students (and his biological father was the nephew of the Foreign Minister of Syria). His biological parents then had another child together, the accomplished novelist Mona Simpson.

Jobs’ adoptive parents were high school dropouts. But they had been checked over by the adoption agency and were extremely stable and made fine parents for him.

Jobs’ adoptive parents were so pleased with little Steve that they adopted a sister for him. I’ve felt sorry for her, being a presumably average girl whose conniving older brother is (literally) the World’s Greatest Salesman.

* GC: A Harvard faculty member told me that Chinese girls were the adoptee of choice among his colleagues.

Posted in Adoption | Comments Off on Why Adopted Children Still Struggle Over Time

Japanese Strategists

Greg Cochran writes: “In World War II. It’s not clear that there actually were any. This isn’t always mentioned in histories, but a lot of what Japan did in the Pacific made no sense at all.”

COMMENTS:

* The US Navy’s “island hopping” strategy involved establishing as few bases as possible, whose strategic location allowed the US to make the bypassed, Japanese-occupied islands irrelevant and unsustainable strategic absurdities. On the few occassions when the US dropped the “island hopping” strategy, e.g. McArthur’s ego-driven invasion of the Philipines, the result was a blood-drenched catastrophe. If the Philippines had not been invaded by the US, the Japanese forces there would have surrendered when Japan did in August 1945. Instead, there was a brutal, eleven-month, totally unnecessary battle for the Philippines that did not end until Japan’s total surrender in August 1945, cost untold numbers of American, Philippine, and Japanese lives, and ravaged the Philippine’s, including the total destruction of Manila.

Japan’s biggest mistake was thinking that its far-flung island bases in the Pacific could provide mutual military support to one another and then be resupplied by Japanese maru and submarines. In fact, the island bases were too far apart to support one another and unrestricted US submarine warfare and absolute air superiority ensured that their regular ressuply was a logistic impossibility.

* This seems to be a basic aspect of Japanese culture. An acquaintance was invited to Japan to act as a software consultant to the Japanese tech industries during their big 4GL push in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He was ideal for this position since he was an experienced software engineer and had enough Japanese to get by. (For those who don’t remember, Japanese 4GL was intended to give Japan a permanent edge in computer technology. Despite the hype it turned out to be a total bust.) When my acquaintance returned after three years working in Japan he explained the Japanese failure. Their culture was totally unsuited to the give and take he thought necessary for efficient software engineering. He told us that there was a phrase he learned to dread. It would pop up after a subordinate had been given marching orders by a superior. Its essential meaning was, “Yes. I will attempt with all my power to achieve what you ask. But you and I both know this task is hopeless and doomed to failure.”

* Greg Cochran: “In WWI, the Germans were assholes. Judging from their actions and stated intentions, they would have been far harsher in victory than the Allies were – for example annexing Belgium, and parts of Northern France, along with all of Poland and huge chunks of Russia.

In WWII they were monsters.”

Posted in Japan | Comments Off on Japanese Strategists