Thread with excerpts from Boris Sax's "Stealing Fire", a book of the author reckoning with his discovery (after his father's death) that his father, Saville Sax, had been a major Soviet atomic spy, stealing important info on the A-bomb and likely the H-bomb and going unpunished.
The author was initially devastated, but eventually relieved at this discovery as partly explaining his father's awful lifetime behavior (living in black slums, beating his wife and kids, torturing dogs, never getting a stable job, dropping out of Harvard twice).
Saville's mother (author's paternal grandmother) was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. According to the author, she, like many Jews, became a Communist as a way to partly recreate an idealized version of her Russian village without the Ukrainian pogromists in America.
Saville's parents and friends recreated the Jewish ghetto in NYC, isolated from American society and seeing it as heartless and corrupt.
Saville's father was able to get rich selling looted Tsarist treasures in America after the Russian Revolution, crucially without having to actually accommodate himself to American society, and so remained a Communist.
The Jews of Saville's upbringing in their communist NYC ghetto despised their Orthodox cousins and saw communism as a way to provide cohesion to an apostate Jewish community. They scorned both Christians and religious Jews, and saw Jewishness and communism as synonyms.
Despite their secularism, this group was isolated enough to still practice arranged marriage. Saville's father nearly abandoned his mother in Soviet Russia to shack up with his mistress, but lost his nerve at the last moment.
Young men in the Russian-Jewish NYC ghetto were both prized and strictly controlled, taught that America was filled with covert Nazis.
Thanks to his parent's means of attaining wealth, Saville was brought up wealthy but completely outside the American mainstream, without such necessary habits as "showing up to work on time," and as such was downwardly mobile.
Apparently, baths were taken infrequently in the NYC Russian-Jewish ghetto to distinguish themselves from the American bourgeoise.
The author believes Saville (his father) was enticed to become a spy by the glamour and camaraderie. He worked with physicist Ted Hall. The two were discovered and surveilled after the fact by the FBI thanks to Venona, but not punished, perhaps to avoid leaking sources.
Saville and Hall were united by their status as spies, Communism, and Russian-Jewishness. But Hall, a brilliant physicist, was far more conventionally successful than Saville and wound up marrying a girl Saville liked, driving them apart.
The author's mother Susan, who eventually married Saville, was an "extreme liberal about racial equality" and was one of four founding members of CORE (Congress on Racial Equality) and an activist in the Civil Rights movement who later became disillusioned.
Saville was quite happy to defend murdering liberals as insufficiently advanced.
Saville was interviewed by the FBI, but never told his kids about the interview or the espionage, which made family life odd and him seem paranoid. The author, Boris, was harassed and attacked by the black kids he went to school with in Chicago for being white.
Saville hated Poles and Ukrainians (due to ethnic conflict in Eastern Europe), and saw blacks as allies and Christian whites as enemies, but the author believed support for Stalin disqualified one from moral authority, and was fascinated by the Polish neighborhood in Chicago.
As a result of growing up in a black ghetto, the author was not especially attracted to the culture and aesthetic as so many Americans were in the 60s.
Author's ethnic analogy: Jews (in Eastern Europe): Ukrainians : Russians :: Jews (in Chicago) : blacks : white Americans.
One of the more striking things about the book is the description of the 60s. Civil Rights protests and getting arrested (and immediately released) were perfectly normal for high schoolers.
Everyone pretty much went insane 1967-72. Cults and con artists and hippies and addicts and Communists and gangsters and prophets on every corner.
This was not really a youth rebellion, most of the leaders were older.
Another feature of the 60s: Saville was a fuckup by any metric (known Soviet spy, wife beater, unable to hold down a job, zero hygiene, double drop-out) who nevertheless marries, has kids, and lands a sinecure as a Program Director at the University of Southern Illinois.
Author's verdict on his father is mostly negative (and he is fairly conservative), but he did see a few positives (growing up outside the American mainstream made it easier to see what is actually was, fish/water etc). He believes generations are getting less serious.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from Richard Pipes' Property and Freedom (1999). Pipes is a historian of Russia, and the thesis of the book is that private property, as something distinct and protected from public power and sovereignty, is indispensable to human freedom.
One of the fundamental differences between Russia and the rest of Europe lay in the weak development of private property; one of the major themes of Western philosophical history is the benefits and drawbacks of private property; Russian philosophers unanimously condemn it.
Freedom, as used by Pipes, includes political freedom, legal freedom, economic freedom, and personal rights. It does not include the right to public support ("freedom from want"); such 'rights' are at best a moral claim and at worst an unearned privilege.
Red state pension funds tend to vote with management if management is providing good returns (ie, doing their job); blue state pension funds tend to vote with management if the company does leftist things (ie, ESG, or not paying CEOs very much).
This reflects a general difference in attitude towards institutions; rightists prefer institutions do what they were created for (eg police should fight crime, the military should fight wars, companies should make money doing their business, schools should teach)...
...while left-wingers want every institution to have pushing the Party Line as its #1 priority (extremely totalitarian in that regard). The formers produces a better society, the latter is more politically powerful but destroys everything in the long run.
Training an LLM to be more politically evenhanded (as opposed to left-wing, as almost all LLMs are - so more right-wing) makes it more egalitarian in how it values the lives of people of different races without training to do so. PCT = Political Consistency Training.
LLMs trained in this way also value members of different religions, political creeds, and public figures coded left vs right more equally.
Almost all notable LLMs except Grok are left-wing on the US political spectrum, but in a very particular way, sort of like a superhumanly-knowledgeable Redditor or Wikipedia editor from the year 2018.
Since 2009, medical schools have had to prove they sufficiently discriminate against white men ("achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes") to get accredited.
White men are now significantly underrepresented among med school students.
Fortunately, competence isn't that important in doctors, so purging white men in favor of "underrepresented minorities" (blacks, LatinX) who can't pass clinical exams shouldn't matter.
European IQ's rising due to natural selection (as measured by PGS) continuing into the modern era whereas it stalled in East Asia could have been predicted from Gregory Clark's genealogical studies in both regions.
Clark found that "survival of the richest" was the rule in England from 1300-1880 or so, with huge differences in surviving offspring by class and this was much weaker in Qing China because higher class women didn't have more kids due to elite polygamy.
(IQ is not the only trait that goes into income or wealth, of course, so selection for wealth is only indirectly selection for IQ and also selects for a package of other traits, some of which are collective goods like IQ and some of which are not.)
The Bancroft Prize (one of the most prestigious history awards, given by a panel of historians for works on diplomacy or the history of the Americas) was given in 2000 to someone claiming guns were really rare in colonial America (he committed fraud by changing quotes).
This should have been obvious nonsense to anyone who knows anything at all about colonial America, of course, and yet a panel of professional historians thought it was work at the pinnacle of the field until some random blogger pointed out all the fraud.