The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
Columnists
shutterstock_603373685

In Washington, where the rice paddies of self-importance are nourished with the night soil of mendacity, columnists are viewed with the seriousness properly reserved for lung cancer. This is ridiculous. Columnists, the rodent class of journalism, have the dignity of carney barkers and merit the social standing of bellhops. It’s a living. For most of us, barely.

A columnist’s job is to tell readers things that they already believe. His function is purely confirmatory. What he confirms may be nonsense, and often is, but this is irrelevant. There is after all everywhere a boom market in nonsense.

Liberals read liberal columnists to be told liberal things, conservatives, conservative, feminists, feminist. All want to be assured that their vacuous and pernicious delusions are the bedrock of cosmic truth. Readers of columns do not want to learn anything. Most want to be protected from it.

Consistency is a columnist’s indispensable stock in trade. He must never tell his readers anything that they do not hold to be sacred lore. Thus an aspiring columnist is wise to choose an ideological position–it doesn’t matter which–and never, ever stray from it. Whether he believes it is not important.

I once read of a columnist, perhaps in the Thirties, a savage conservative who eventually drew the ire of a leftish columnist on another paper, who began a campaign to have the conservative fired. The dispute became ugly with unpleasant accusations being traded. Lawsuits were threatened. Public interest became intense. Then it transpired that the two were the same man. Charged with lack of journalistic integrity, he resoponded that readers wanted to see their prejudices ventilated in lively prose. He was, he said, doing it for both sides. Stores sold more than one product. Why shouldn’t he?

In columnists, editors of newspapers value predictability, not thought. They want the writer to say the sorts of things he is expected to say. They do not want waves. They do not want to be surprised, to learn in alarm that “Smith said what? About who? Oh Jesus. Oh Jesus….” and have to put out fires and explain that Smith really meant something different from what he did say and obviously meant. They want columnists they won’t have to think about to fill accepted slots: George Will, for example, conservatism’s milkmaid, to say mild and vaguely right-leaning things to give the paper the claim of even-handedness without having a trace of it. Pat Buchanan, a hard-nosed paleoconservative but understands the rules and limits. Ellen Goodman, the female liberal. Walter Williams, the black conservative who can say things that the editors think but dare not say.

Consistency is vital because readers are easily confused. For example, a conservative columnist is expected to say that we must spend obscene amounts on thermonuclear weapons to fend off nonexistent threatening nations seeking to destroy our freedoms and children and pollute our precious bodily fluids. His readers will say, “Ah! Just so. Smith understands reality, unlike those sissy liberals.” If Smith then says that we must save the redwoods, the readers go into column-shock, fall prey to an unpleasant uncertainty, a sensation that something is fundamentally wrong with the world. “Huh? Red…No, this is all wrong. He is supposed to say….”

This reader will then stop reading Smith. Here is another rule of the column racket: One lapse from the expected can undo years of slavish conformity. An arch liberal of the most impeccable unoriginality can for years write unobjectionable boilerplate, but let her lapse once into opposition to abortion and she is done. To err is human, to forgive isn’t.

Columnists are often said to be opinion leaders, but in secret moments of honesty we know we aren’t. No. We are shameless panders. Like manufacturers of dog food we produce an expected product, of only sufficient quality that the dog does not actually die. Almost never do we change anyone’s mind.

We get letters attesting our unrivaled brilliance, felicity of language, razor-like logic, and superb grasp of the material, but the writers mean only that we agree with them. We get letters saying that we have no grasp, miss the essence of the matter, and should stop spreading our childish and malign error, by which they mean that they do not agree with us. What we almost never get is a letter, “I hadn’t thought of that. I see that you are right. Thank you for….”

A column is a charlatan’s game involving bait-and-switch, sleight-of-hand, and shoddy goods covered in shiny lacquer. The columnist works with only a few used ideas because mankind has only a few. He arouses always the same emotions for the same reason: greed, hostility, schadenfreude, self-righteousness, derision. He must package these gewgaws, often in complete dereliction of reason, under voracious deadlines, and make them seem sufficiently new and cogent that the editors won’t notice their tired antiquity.

While we have no effect on the public, the public has an effect on us. To write a column is to become an ashen-souled cynic despairing of the human species, and indeed despising it. The columnist may take to drink, and brood on the corrective virtues of thermonuclear war. (“Are there deadlines after a thermonuclear war?” he wonders.) The cause of this melancholy is his mail or, today, comments on the internet. Contemplation of these might lead to suicide, except that hell might be filled with internet commenters. He clings to life.

Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it. “Oh god, oh god,” he thinks. “Illiterates who can read, sort of. I need a drink.”

ORDER IT NOW

Next come the gas-station louts who, to judge by commenters, make up most of humanity. They are hostile, angry, churlish, don’t like anything, and usually have the intelligence one associates with microcephalic lemurs. It is nothing that could not be cured with a baseball bat, but there is usually a dearth of opportunity.

There is a reason why journalists worthy of the name–before the arrival of pantied Princetonians worried about confusingly denominated bathrooms–were ashen-souled, chain-smoking drunken cynics with the optimism of a man on death row. Exposure to the human race will do that. And does. And has.

* * *

I have been informed by delighted readers that in last week’s post I wrote William of Orange when I meant the Conqueror. This is because I am reading books on William and Mary and simultaneously on Marlborough which has fixed such mind as I have on them. I once wrote that Potemkin was an associate of Catherine of Aragon, which must have been news to her. Anyway, I apologize for disrupting the flow of time.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
112 Comments to "Columnists"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. This reader will then stop reading Smith. Here is another rule of the column racket: One lapse from the expected can undo years of slavish conformity. An arch liberal of the most impeccable unoriginality can for years write unobjectionable boilerplate, but let her lapse once into opposition to abortion and she is done. To err is human, to forgive isn’t.

    This paragraph seems completely wrong. That reader will not stop reading Smith, nor is she done; rather Smith (and she) will likely become heroes, celebrated heroes on the other side, like the Lost Son in the parable. I’d say, a columnist, to survive, must switch sides every 10 years or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/freed/columnists/#comment-1811026
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Fred is a race traitor and a self hating White man. You can also add cuckold to the list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Real John Jeremiah Smith
    Summer's Eve is a douche. Or, it used to be. Who tracks these things?
    , @Santoculto
    He is a self hating white man, i agree, but not a race traitor, he marries whoever he wants.

    He can be a ''race traitor'' but not because he married a ''non-''white'' woman, period.
    , @JustJeff
    You know he had 2 white daughters with a white woman before he ever lived in Mexico, right?
    , @Irving Schlockstein
    You're probably one of those White kooks who also think that Jews control media and finance and government.
  3. “Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect.”

    Here’s the weird thing about com boxes. We actually get published on the World Wide Web.

    Read More
  4. Is this article some sort of mea culpa?

    Fred’s unflattering description of hack columnists seems to refer pretty well to himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Damned good one there Fred! You stated the truth and yet it reads like pretty good Satire!



    Cmmt #5. is sort of catty... What? No acronymics JR, whynot?
    , @MEexpert
    Fred is a "self-hating" columnist.
    , @Otto Zeit
    "Seems to"? He pretty much said that it DID apply to him, and his critique was self-referential throughout. Did you actually read the column, or just skim it?
  5. Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it.

    Naturally, this is often the case; however, more times than perhaps Fred and other columnists would like to admit, commentators point out logical inconsistencies, skewed data and outright lies.

    Commenters have pulled back the curtain to expose columnist after columnist as uninformed, lazy shills. (The same holds true for reporters.) Why do you think so many media outlets want to get rid of the comments sections.

    This has been done to Fred, and I suspect that he doesn’t like it much. In particular, Fred seems to have a blind spot for his adopted people and seems ready to go down swinging on their behalf. (You can take the boy out of Virginia . . .)

    I can understand your anger toward many of the ugly personal comments, but the fact remains that you are partially responsible for repeatedly writing laughably false statements. We get it, Fred, a mix of 10% Europeans, 40% Mestizos and 50% natives can maintain a reasonable 2nd world country with 1st world and 3rd world pockets. Please no mas with the Mexican airports and dentists. This doesn’t change the fact that your typical Hispanic in the United States has a low 90s IQ and commits crime at a higher rate than whites. (Does this mean I hate Hispanics? Of course not but please Fred, don’t make me take to you like a liberal.)

    Fred, it’s alright to love a people and still acknowledge their shortcomings. Hell, often those shortcomings are part of their charm. I’m from the Upper Midwest and love that part of the country, but those people – myself included – are unnecessarily cold and ridgid in their dealings with one another. We really do need to loosen up.

    That all being said, I generally find Fred to be disturbingly bright and honest to his own worldview. A good read and a good man. However, he is also human and subject to the frailties that limit all of us.

    Regardless, since it seems to be your wish, I’ll refrain from commenting – except to list facts that are incorrect. Perhaps sticking to the facts will raise me above the status of gas-station louts in your eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Ol Fred is blinded by love. The cherry trees blossom year round for him and his Mexicana wife. One can do a lot worse.
  6. I hadn’t thought of that. I see that you are right. Thank you.

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I agree with you. I hadn't thought of that. I see what he means. Thank you.
  7. A while back I was living in rural Georgia and an old guy died. My native soil girlfriend told me that the natives tore apart his house due to rumor that he had stashed cash.

    So….my word to Fred is get you affairs in order so that your estimado Mexicans don’t loot and make a mess of what you leave them. Gossip travels at light speed among the primativos. I have been there.

    Read More
  8. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it.

    Naturally, this is often the case; however, more times than perhaps Fred and other columnists would like to admit, commentators point out logical inconsistencies, skewed data and outright lies.

    Commenters have pulled back the curtain to expose columnist after columnist as uninformed, lazy shills. (The same holds true for reporters.) Why do you think so many media outlets want to get rid of the comments sections.

    This has been done to Fred, and I suspect that he doesn't like it much. In particular, Fred seems to have a blind spot for his adopted people and seems ready to go down swinging on their behalf. (You can take the boy out of Virginia . . .)

    I can understand your anger toward many of the ugly personal comments, but the fact remains that you are partially responsible for repeatedly writing laughably false statements. We get it, Fred, a mix of 10% Europeans, 40% Mestizos and 50% natives can maintain a reasonable 2nd world country with 1st world and 3rd world pockets. Please no mas with the Mexican airports and dentists. This doesn't change the fact that your typical Hispanic in the United States has a low 90s IQ and commits crime at a higher rate than whites. (Does this mean I hate Hispanics? Of course not but please Fred, don't make me take to you like a liberal.)

    Fred, it's alright to love a people and still acknowledge their shortcomings. Hell, often those shortcomings are part of their charm. I'm from the Upper Midwest and love that part of the country, but those people - myself included - are unnecessarily cold and ridgid in their dealings with one another. We really do need to loosen up.

    That all being said, I generally find Fred to be disturbingly bright and honest to his own worldview. A good read and a good man. However, he is also human and subject to the frailties that limit all of us.

    Regardless, since it seems to be your wish, I'll refrain from commenting - except to list facts that are incorrect. Perhaps sticking to the facts will raise me above the status of gas-station louts in your eyes.

    Ol Fred is blinded by love. The cherry trees blossom year round for him and his Mexicana wife. One can do a lot worse.

    Read More
  9. @Summer's eve
    Fred is a race traitor and a self hating White man. You can also add cuckold to the list.

    Summer’s Eve is a douche. Or, it used to be. Who tracks these things?

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Max Payne
    What happened to the fake John Jeremiah Smith?
  10. Silly Country, you said it better then I could have, the whole response.
    As a fellow upper midwesterner everything rings true.

    And I still like Fred to boot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm a huge fan of Fred going back more than a decade. He's the bastard who red pilled me. But if he taught me anything, it's that people should point out when someone's pissing on your head and telling you that it's raining.

    Fred has a soft spot for Mexico and Latin America. He also seems to have a truly great family down there. That's fine. Write all the columns that you wish about how Mexico isn't at all like the vast majority of Americans believe. That's a service because Americans really do have a skewed view of Mexico. But when he starts writing factually incorrect statements or gross exaggerations of the beliefs various groups, he's crossed a line and should be called out on it.

    Frankly, it's what Fred would do himself, albeit in a far more enjoyable style.
  11. I wuz gonna write this ezack same column, Reed. Now, I can’t, damn you.

    Anyhoo, sounds like you’re getting ready to retire, for real. Who’s gonna read Old Man Unz’s website if you don’t write a column? Frankly, considering the ungodly number of pure dumbass commenters, I’m surprised you’ve kept it up for this long. I do hope it’s not pathological. ;-)

    Read More
  12. “A columnist’s job is to tell readers things that they already believe. His function is purely confirmatory. ”
    It is precisely Fred’s consistent refusal to do that that so peeves many of the commentariat here and it is precisely that which makes him so valuable to this site.
    He writes with grace, wit, erudition, courage and unwavering fairness. Can’t be pigeon holed or bullied- doesn’t give a tinkers damn what you think of him. Couldn’t pander if he tried.
    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling ‘em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees ‘em.
    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling ‘em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees ‘em.
     
    I find it interesting how intelligent, perceptive writers attract a contingent of dumbass haters (to wit: the first six comments). The Unz flock rapidly approaches the Stupidity Quotient of places like Takimag and Politico. I suppose that follows ... honest, analytical integrity attracts the hatred of the Stupid.

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.
     
    Not quite. The North American bison herd is well-managed and increasing, as is the North American Stupid herd.
    , @Truth

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.
     
    More like the Dodo, because they're too dumb to avoid a guy with a club, hahaha.
    Just messin with you federico, I couldn't resist.
    , @Hubbub

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.
     
    Some, like Fred, head for Mexico.
  13. @Oldeguy
    "A columnist's job is to tell readers things that they already believe. His function is purely confirmatory. "
    It is precisely Fred's consistent refusal to do that that so peeves many of the commentariat here and it is precisely that which makes him so valuable to this site.
    He writes with grace, wit, erudition, courage and unwavering fairness. Can't be pigeon holed or bullied- doesn't give a tinkers damn what you think of him. Couldn't pander if he tried.
    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling 'em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees 'em.
    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they're going the way of the buffalo.

    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling ‘em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees ‘em.

    I find it interesting how intelligent, perceptive writers attract a contingent of dumbass haters (to wit: the first six comments). The Unz flock rapidly approaches the Stupidity Quotient of places like Takimag and Politico. I suppose that follows … honest, analytical integrity attracts the hatred of the Stupid.

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.

    Not quite. The North American bison herd is well-managed and increasing, as is the North American Stupid herd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    John,

    While I promised Fred to refrain from commenting about his columns, I didn't promise to stop responding to fellow commentators, especially one who calls me stupid and proclaims me full of hate.

    Like you, I respect and enjoy Fred's willingness to follow his own lead and to challenge not only the conventional wisdom of society in general but of his own readers. In addition, Fred is a charming, astute writer and thinker.

    And, yes, Fred has to deal with far too many personal and asinine attacks on him and his Mexican family - and, to a degree - on the Mexican people, whom he appears to have adopted as his own.

    However, Fred is not Moses carrying tablets from God. He's a man who has opinions. But to quote Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

    When writing about Mexicans and, more recently, those of us who would like to preserve our people and culture, Fred consistently uses straw man arguments and anecdotes as proof of larger truths. In addition, Fred is turning quite personal in his attacks, something beneath him. Take his last column, What to Do with Latinos?

    The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like VDare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms.

    Must we be "embittered" to want to stop illegal immigration and dramatically slow legal immigration. Are the Israelis, Japanese and his fellow Mexicans "embittered,"; after all, they all have very strict immigration policies.

    His next sentence is ridiculous. Yes, some readers of those sites probably do feel that way, but there's also an Asian playing in the NBA, so you get my point.

    Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge.

    What the hell is this sentence? Colorful writing is one thing, vicious attacks against the manhood of someone who disagrees with you is quite another.

    The racialist sites post endless stories, not infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime, shiftlessness, and vile behavior.

    Who's being dishonest, Fred? Hispanics consistently score lower on every test involving intelligence than whites. Hispanics commit crime at a significantly higher rate than whites. Much like politicians and intelligentsia that he looks to mock, Fred eskews facts when it's his ox that is getting gored. What's more, he uses their tactics - shaming - to beat down opposition. I mean, who wants to be associated with people writes such mean things and use words such as "vile" and "stupidity."

    Yet those who have traveled in the world will have seen that economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular, as people move into the middle class, crime and fertility decline sharply and interest in education rises.

    That first sentence is pompous. (Fred, I've lived and travelled in many countries. I speak another language and have read some damn fine books in that language. And, yet, amazingly, I disagree with you. But, but, but, how can that be.) The second is simply wrong. The third puts the cart before the horse. You become middle class because you have the intelligence and work ethic needed; that's what reduces crime. Fred sounds eerily like so many blank statists when defending his own. Just artificially shoving people into the middle class won't change them.

    The Mexican middle class is no more violent than anyone else’s.

    Who claimed that they were? Straw man. White Americans are not worried about the Mexican middle class. Why do I have to write that.

    Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious bodily essences.

    What's with Fred and bodily fluids? And why the ad hominem attacks?

    Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances.

    Correct. Just as the Israelis don't want immigrants who aren't Jewish, just the Japanese don't want immigrants who aren't Japanese, etc. Fred finds white Americans who wish to preserve their people and culture so very abhorrent, yet finds such views perfectly acceptable in others. Logical inconsistency.

    Fred is a wonderful writer, but he has blind spots when it comes to his family and adopted people. That's fine. His wife and adopted Mexican daughter sound like fine people, and I understand Fred's willingness to fight for those he loves. But when that passion clouds his judgement in columns, he should be called out.

    If he can't accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he's preparing to do.
  14. Time to retire, Fred. Settle down with that nice Mexican wife of yours (and Sancho) and have a few drinks.

    Call it a day. Your anti-American narrative is not appreciated. Perhaps you could write for La Raza, they would enjoy your hatred of the gringo and the United States. Although they hate you as well, but you are their dancing clown, so they just have a good hearty laugh at you and mock you behind your back (with Sancho).

    Read More
  15. Just an editorial point, Fred – “padi” or “paddy” means unmilled rice – so “rice paddies” means “rice rice”. Not your fault, it’s a very common Americanism – people think it makes them sound in the know to say “rice paddies”, but it don’t. Better to write “paddy fields” aka “padi fields” = fields in which rice is grown. Get this right and you will be smarter than 99% of American writers, who don’t know sh*t.

    Read More
  16. Apology for serial posting – aside from the above piece of pedantry (born that way; can’t help it), I love this column. I love the idea of a columnist attacking himself. And I definitely want to use “microcephalic lemur” some time. May I?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    In Boulder CO there is a street named Table Mesa.
    , @utu
    In Boulder CO there is a street named Table Mesa.

    Or there is something called chai tea while chai is just another name for the same tea.
  17. Fred is not like most columnists, he has a self-deprecating wit, an idiosyncratic set of opinions, and likes to troll his readers, which I appreciate, so I continue reading him despite his rather confused ideas about psychometrics and a few political issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I like reading Fred 'cause he's smart. Scarcity makes that valuable. Especially in journalism.
  18. In the end Reed acknowledges his readers, more than most do.
    This doesn’t have to be us versus him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    In the end Reed acknowledges his readers, more than most do.
    This doesn’t have to be us versus him.

     

    Meh. In this milieu, the Stupids reign.

    On three occasions, I have contacted Fred Reed directly, and he replied, civilly and sufficiently. No other writer has done that except Israel Shamir.

    Works for me.



    NB: "Reign" used and spelled correctly. Gaw-aw-aw-leee.
  19. @Oldeguy
    "A columnist's job is to tell readers things that they already believe. His function is purely confirmatory. "
    It is precisely Fred's consistent refusal to do that that so peeves many of the commentariat here and it is precisely that which makes him so valuable to this site.
    He writes with grace, wit, erudition, courage and unwavering fairness. Can't be pigeon holed or bullied- doesn't give a tinkers damn what you think of him. Couldn't pander if he tried.
    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling 'em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees 'em.
    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they're going the way of the buffalo.

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.

    More like the Dodo, because they’re too dumb to avoid a guy with a club, hahaha.
    Just messin with you federico, I couldn’t resist.

    Read More
  20. @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling ‘em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees ‘em.
     
    I find it interesting how intelligent, perceptive writers attract a contingent of dumbass haters (to wit: the first six comments). The Unz flock rapidly approaches the Stupidity Quotient of places like Takimag and Politico. I suppose that follows ... honest, analytical integrity attracts the hatred of the Stupid.

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.
     
    Not quite. The North American bison herd is well-managed and increasing, as is the North American Stupid herd.

    John,

    While I promised Fred to refrain from commenting about his columns, I didn’t promise to stop responding to fellow commentators, especially one who calls me stupid and proclaims me full of hate.

    Like you, I respect and enjoy Fred’s willingness to follow his own lead and to challenge not only the conventional wisdom of society in general but of his own readers. In addition, Fred is a charming, astute writer and thinker.

    And, yes, Fred has to deal with far too many personal and asinine attacks on him and his Mexican family – and, to a degree – on the Mexican people, whom he appears to have adopted as his own.

    However, Fred is not Moses carrying tablets from God. He’s a man who has opinions. But to quote Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

    When writing about Mexicans and, more recently, those of us who would like to preserve our people and culture, Fred consistently uses straw man arguments and anecdotes as proof of larger truths. In addition, Fred is turning quite personal in his attacks, something beneath him. Take his last column, What to Do with Latinos?

    The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like VDare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms.

    Must we be “embittered” to want to stop illegal immigration and dramatically slow legal immigration. Are the Israelis, Japanese and his fellow Mexicans “embittered,”; after all, they all have very strict immigration policies.

    His next sentence is ridiculous. Yes, some readers of those sites probably do feel that way, but there’s also an Asian playing in the NBA, so you get my point.

    Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge.

    What the hell is this sentence? Colorful writing is one thing, vicious attacks against the manhood of someone who disagrees with you is quite another.

    The racialist sites post endless stories, not infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime, shiftlessness, and vile behavior.

    Who’s being dishonest, Fred? Hispanics consistently score lower on every test involving intelligence than whites. Hispanics commit crime at a significantly higher rate than whites. Much like politicians and intelligentsia that he looks to mock, Fred eskews facts when it’s his ox that is getting gored. What’s more, he uses their tactics – shaming – to beat down opposition. I mean, who wants to be associated with people writes such mean things and use words such as “vile” and “stupidity.”

    Yet those who have traveled in the world will have seen that economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular, as people move into the middle class, crime and fertility decline sharply and interest in education rises.

    That first sentence is pompous. (Fred, I’ve lived and travelled in many countries. I speak another language and have read some damn fine books in that language. And, yet, amazingly, I disagree with you. But, but, but, how can that be.) The second is simply wrong. The third puts the cart before the horse. You become middle class because you have the intelligence and work ethic needed; that’s what reduces crime. Fred sounds eerily like so many blank statists when defending his own. Just artificially shoving people into the middle class won’t change them.

    The Mexican middle class is no more violent than anyone else’s.

    Who claimed that they were? Straw man. White Americans are not worried about the Mexican middle class. Why do I have to write that.

    Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious bodily essences.

    What’s with Fred and bodily fluids? And why the ad hominem attacks?

    Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances.

    Correct. Just as the Israelis don’t want immigrants who aren’t Jewish, just the Japanese don’t want immigrants who aren’t Japanese, etc. Fred finds white Americans who wish to preserve their people and culture so very abhorrent, yet finds such views perfectly acceptable in others. Logical inconsistency.

    Fred is a wonderful writer, but he has blind spots when it comes to his family and adopted people. That’s fine. His wife and adopted Mexican daughter sound like fine people, and I understand Fred’s willingness to fight for those he loves. But when that passion clouds his judgement in columns, he should be called out.

    If he can’t accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he’s preparing to do.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    If he can’t accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he’s preparing to do.
     
    Yes, that does appear to be the case. Or, he is simply being crankier than usual.

    I'm not a fan of illegal aliens of any kind, but I allow columnists to state their opinions as opinions, and don't get particularly worked-up about it. I believe you are a trifle too seeking of ad hominem, as your cited reference is a general case not really qualifying.

    I am aware that many Mexicans are decent and industrious people. By no means does that grant them carte blanche to invade the USA and displace American workers. If they "do jobs Americans won't do" then it's time for Americans to start doing them, like it or not. No workee, no eatee.

    It's time for those who employ illegal aliens to be arrested, jailed and heavily fined, and for deportation to be applied swiftly and as cost-effectively as possible. Freight rail and cargo ships spring to mind.
  21. @Dwright
    In the end Reed acknowledges his readers, more than most do.
    This doesn't have to be us versus him.

    In the end Reed acknowledges his readers, more than most do.
    This doesn’t have to be us versus him.

    Meh. In this milieu, the Stupids reign.

    On three occasions, I have contacted Fred Reed directly, and he replied, civilly and sufficiently. No other writer has done that except Israel Shamir.

    Works for me.

    NB: “Reign” used and spelled correctly. Gaw-aw-aw-leee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uncle Remus
    Smith, thanks for the proper spelling of "reign" and for calling attention to it. There has been a recent explosion of scribblers using "reign" for "rein", surprising in a people raised on cowboy movies.
  22. Good column Fred. I understand what you are saying. You even pointed out faults to which I sometimes fall prey. I also need a drink.

    Read More
  23. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    John,

    While I promised Fred to refrain from commenting about his columns, I didn't promise to stop responding to fellow commentators, especially one who calls me stupid and proclaims me full of hate.

    Like you, I respect and enjoy Fred's willingness to follow his own lead and to challenge not only the conventional wisdom of society in general but of his own readers. In addition, Fred is a charming, astute writer and thinker.

    And, yes, Fred has to deal with far too many personal and asinine attacks on him and his Mexican family - and, to a degree - on the Mexican people, whom he appears to have adopted as his own.

    However, Fred is not Moses carrying tablets from God. He's a man who has opinions. But to quote Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

    When writing about Mexicans and, more recently, those of us who would like to preserve our people and culture, Fred consistently uses straw man arguments and anecdotes as proof of larger truths. In addition, Fred is turning quite personal in his attacks, something beneath him. Take his last column, What to Do with Latinos?

    The embittered anti-immigration people, readers of sites like VDare, would not care. Screw the vile brown scum, rapists and welfare parasites, murderers, drug peddlers, low-IQ nasty unevolved human flatworms.

    Must we be "embittered" to want to stop illegal immigration and dramatically slow legal immigration. Are the Israelis, Japanese and his fellow Mexicans "embittered,"; after all, they all have very strict immigration policies.

    His next sentence is ridiculous. Yes, some readers of those sites probably do feel that way, but there's also an Asian playing in the NBA, so you get my point.

    Many of the white nationalists exhibit an almost effeminate squeamishness at the thought of their precious bodily essences being polluted by oozing dark sludge.

    What the hell is this sentence? Colorful writing is one thing, vicious attacks against the manhood of someone who disagrees with you is quite another.

    The racialist sites post endless stories, not infrequently dishonest, about Latino stupidity, crime, shiftlessness, and vile behavior.

    Who's being dishonest, Fred? Hispanics consistently score lower on every test involving intelligence than whites. Hispanics commit crime at a significantly higher rate than whites. Much like politicians and intelligentsia that he looks to mock, Fred eskews facts when it's his ox that is getting gored. What's more, he uses their tactics - shaming - to beat down opposition. I mean, who wants to be associated with people writes such mean things and use words such as "vile" and "stupidity."

    Yet those who have traveled in the world will have seen that economics, not genetics, is primary in behavior. In particular, as people move into the middle class, crime and fertility decline sharply and interest in education rises.

    That first sentence is pompous. (Fred, I've lived and travelled in many countries. I speak another language and have read some damn fine books in that language. And, yet, amazingly, I disagree with you. But, but, but, how can that be.) The second is simply wrong. The third puts the cart before the horse. You become middle class because you have the intelligence and work ethic needed; that's what reduces crime. Fred sounds eerily like so many blank statists when defending his own. Just artificially shoving people into the middle class won't change them.

    The Mexican middle class is no more violent than anyone else’s.

    Who claimed that they were? Straw man. White Americans are not worried about the Mexican middle class. Why do I have to write that.

    Unfortunately an assimilated Mexican middle class would intermarry vigorously with whites, thus polluting our precious bodily essences.

    What's with Fred and bodily fluids? And why the ad hominem attacks?

    Many of the anti-immigrants simply do not want anything to do with any Mexican ever under any circumstances.

    Correct. Just as the Israelis don't want immigrants who aren't Jewish, just the Japanese don't want immigrants who aren't Japanese, etc. Fred finds white Americans who wish to preserve their people and culture so very abhorrent, yet finds such views perfectly acceptable in others. Logical inconsistency.

    Fred is a wonderful writer, but he has blind spots when it comes to his family and adopted people. That's fine. His wife and adopted Mexican daughter sound like fine people, and I understand Fred's willingness to fight for those he loves. But when that passion clouds his judgement in columns, he should be called out.

    If he can't accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he's preparing to do.

    If he can’t accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he’s preparing to do.

    Yes, that does appear to be the case. Or, he is simply being crankier than usual.

    I’m not a fan of illegal aliens of any kind, but I allow columnists to state their opinions as opinions, and don’t get particularly worked-up about it. I believe you are a trifle too seeking of ad hominem, as your cited reference is a general case not really qualifying.

    I am aware that many Mexicans are decent and industrious people. By no means does that grant them carte blanche to invade the USA and displace American workers. If they “do jobs Americans won’t do” then it’s time for Americans to start doing them, like it or not. No workee, no eatee.

    It’s time for those who employ illegal aliens to be arrested, jailed and heavily fined, and for deportation to be applied swiftly and as cost-effectively as possible. Freight rail and cargo ships spring to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Fred is a good man, indeed, a better man than myself. But he's just a man, like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. His are just on display.

    To some degree, I push back against Fred because, well, it's what he does. When he's wrong, we shouldn't be shy about saying so.

    Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren't "my" people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don't want more of them. Why? They aren't "my" people.

    It's as simple - and as pure - as that.

    Fred and others expend a lot of mental energy toward a question that has a simple answer: My people.

    If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don't care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn't measure up according to various economic indicators. (Fred should understand this.) I don't hate Asians or Hispanics or anybody else. I simpy want to live amongst my own because they are my own, just as I love my own children without hating other children.

    Fred and others don't seem to understand this. Wanting to exclude others isn't about hating others; it's about loving your own. Yes, most white Americans aren't on board with this, but most white Americans aren't even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand. What they choose after that I can't say.

    I'm tired of arguing. Here's my answer: I want to live amongst my own. If my fellow whites don't agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history. But if some do, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun.

    As to Fred, you've done very well. Your wife and adopted daughter seem like a gift. But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind, or if you do, please direct that vitriol toward all who feel as I do - Jews, Japanese, Koreans, etc. - instead of only white Americans.

    It's disingenous, and, frankly, not very Fred-like.

  24. Very funny and worth reading. I will probably link to it.

    I have been missing some good writing since Florence king passed on. She wrote a column called Misanthrope’s Corner at National Review back when Bill Buckley was running it. I should probably reread one of her books:

    Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye.

    or

    When Sisterhood Was in Flower

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I too read Florence King's column in NR before it was taken over by AIPAC. I've read a couple of her books.
  25. @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    If he can’t accept reasonable disagreements and fact checking, he should gather his marbles and go home, which it sounds like he’s preparing to do.
     
    Yes, that does appear to be the case. Or, he is simply being crankier than usual.

    I'm not a fan of illegal aliens of any kind, but I allow columnists to state their opinions as opinions, and don't get particularly worked-up about it. I believe you are a trifle too seeking of ad hominem, as your cited reference is a general case not really qualifying.

    I am aware that many Mexicans are decent and industrious people. By no means does that grant them carte blanche to invade the USA and displace American workers. If they "do jobs Americans won't do" then it's time for Americans to start doing them, like it or not. No workee, no eatee.

    It's time for those who employ illegal aliens to be arrested, jailed and heavily fined, and for deportation to be applied swiftly and as cost-effectively as possible. Freight rail and cargo ships spring to mind.

    Fred is a good man, indeed, a better man than myself. But he’s just a man, like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. His are just on display.

    To some degree, I push back against Fred because, well, it’s what he does. When he’s wrong, we shouldn’t be shy about saying so.

    Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren’t “my” people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don’t want more of them. Why? They aren’t “my” people.

    It’s as simple – and as pure – as that.

    Fred and others expend a lot of mental energy toward a question that has a simple answer: My people.

    If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don’t care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn’t measure up according to various economic indicators. (Fred should understand this.) I don’t hate Asians or Hispanics or anybody else. I simpy want to live amongst my own because they are my own, just as I love my own children without hating other children.

    Fred and others don’t seem to understand this. Wanting to exclude others isn’t about hating others; it’s about loving your own. Yes, most white Americans aren’t on board with this, but most white Americans aren’t even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand. What they choose after that I can’t say.

    I’m tired of arguing. Here’s my answer: I want to live amongst my own. If my fellow whites don’t agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history. But if some do, it’ll be a hell of a lot of fun.

    As to Fred, you’ve done very well. Your wife and adopted daughter seem like a gift. But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind, or if you do, please direct that vitriol toward all who feel as I do – Jews, Japanese, Koreans, etc. – instead of only white Americans.

    It’s disingenous, and, frankly, not very Fred-like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If you want to live amongst "Your People", "Your People" should leave "Other People" alone.

    Quit trying to take over the world by invading others and indebting them, and "Your People" would be free to live as you please. But instead you want the benefits of empire, without any of the consequences.

    And worse of all, "Your People" whine and complain like victims all the while sticking the knife into the backs of "The Others."

    So don't expect any sympathy from me.
    , @Corvinus
    "Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren’t “my” people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don’t want more of them. Why? They aren’t “my” people."

    They are "your" people as far as them being legal citizens of the United States. But to millions of white Americans who live among or near Latin Americans or blacks or Asians and interact with them on a daily basis, these groups are "one of them". It’s as simple – and as pure – as that.

    "If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don’t care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn’t measure up according to various economic indicators."

    And you are able to live among your "own kind" here in America!

    "Yes, most white Americans aren’t on board with this, but most white Americans aren’t even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand."

    Of course most white Americans are aware of this choice. You see it everywhere in our society.

    "If my fellow whites don’t agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history."

    Then we MAY fall. And why must whites agree 100% with you? How do YOU know they are wrong about the "facts" of race? Regardless, in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race.

    "But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind..."

    American whites? Or white in general? Or "good" whites? Please specify.

    , @Ace
    I enjoy learning different things but the idea that "diversity" per se is a valuable addition to my life is absurd. If I want to see something completely different I want to travel to meet foreigners where they live not have them travel (and stay) here.

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.

    Somehow Americans buy into the notion that we're the dumping ground for every poor, unhappy human on the planet.

    I like the Englishman who wrote to The Times that if you want to speak a foreign language you should go to France and speak English.
  26. brilliant column Fred, even though some writers have integrity (that’s the beauty of syndication)

    Read More
  27. This column confirmed all my thoughts about columnists and the sheeple who read them. Awesome;)

    Read More
  28. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Fred is a good man, indeed, a better man than myself. But he's just a man, like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. His are just on display.

    To some degree, I push back against Fred because, well, it's what he does. When he's wrong, we shouldn't be shy about saying so.

    Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren't "my" people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don't want more of them. Why? They aren't "my" people.

    It's as simple - and as pure - as that.

    Fred and others expend a lot of mental energy toward a question that has a simple answer: My people.

    If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don't care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn't measure up according to various economic indicators. (Fred should understand this.) I don't hate Asians or Hispanics or anybody else. I simpy want to live amongst my own because they are my own, just as I love my own children without hating other children.

    Fred and others don't seem to understand this. Wanting to exclude others isn't about hating others; it's about loving your own. Yes, most white Americans aren't on board with this, but most white Americans aren't even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand. What they choose after that I can't say.

    I'm tired of arguing. Here's my answer: I want to live amongst my own. If my fellow whites don't agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history. But if some do, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun.

    As to Fred, you've done very well. Your wife and adopted daughter seem like a gift. But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind, or if you do, please direct that vitriol toward all who feel as I do - Jews, Japanese, Koreans, etc. - instead of only white Americans.

    It's disingenous, and, frankly, not very Fred-like.

    If you want to live amongst “Your People”, “Your People” should leave “Other People” alone.

    Quit trying to take over the world by invading others and indebting them, and “Your People” would be free to live as you please. But instead you want the benefits of empire, without any of the consequences.

    And worse of all, “Your People” whine and complain like victims all the while sticking the knife into the backs of “The Others.”

    So don’t expect any sympathy from me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Actually, I agree with most of what you say - though I'm not sure what our needless and deadly adventuring in the Middle East has to do with Mexicans and Central Americans invading our country.

    Also, you might remember that many of the TPTB in the United States who push our Invade the World policies aren't "my" people. Sadly, many, perhaps most, are my people, but it's worth acknowledging that policies you hate benefit a certain group. Without their backing, I suspect the United States would be a lot less beligerent, though we'd likely still be poking our nose where it doesn't belong just not as often.
  29. funny and wise. I enjoyed it very much. I was laughin all the time. Ingenious. thank you.

    Read More
  30. Dear Fred,
    Just for you! “I hadn’t thought of that. I see that you are right. Thank you for….”
    Actually I do like most of your articles. Even if you are all over the place sometimes.
    Keep up the good work.

    Dave

    Read More
  31. Nowadays, why read columnists? The news section of most every paper, which used to pride itself on “just the facts” (yes I know that was B.S.) is now indistinguishable from the editorial section. When you meet the reporters, you understand why. Its confirmation bias all the way down…

    Read More
  32. @Anonymous
    If you want to live amongst "Your People", "Your People" should leave "Other People" alone.

    Quit trying to take over the world by invading others and indebting them, and "Your People" would be free to live as you please. But instead you want the benefits of empire, without any of the consequences.

    And worse of all, "Your People" whine and complain like victims all the while sticking the knife into the backs of "The Others."

    So don't expect any sympathy from me.

    Actually, I agree with most of what you say – though I’m not sure what our needless and deadly adventuring in the Middle East has to do with Mexicans and Central Americans invading our country.

    Also, you might remember that many of the TPTB in the United States who push our Invade the World policies aren’t “my” people. Sadly, many, perhaps most, are my people, but it’s worth acknowledging that policies you hate benefit a certain group. Without their backing, I suspect the United States would be a lot less beligerent, though we’d likely still be poking our nose where it doesn’t belong just not as often.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    American daliances are not limited to the Middle East. America has a military presence in most countries in the world and interferes with most countries in the world.

    Any country that wants to exist outside the petrodollar dollar/Walstreet nexus immediately gets invaded or color revolutioned.

    Specifically to Mexico, we have interfered in their society many times. Supplying gangs with weapons, bringing our drug problem to Mexico, and hand picking their presidents.
  33. @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    In the end Reed acknowledges his readers, more than most do.
    This doesn’t have to be us versus him.

     

    Meh. In this milieu, the Stupids reign.

    On three occasions, I have contacted Fred Reed directly, and he replied, civilly and sufficiently. No other writer has done that except Israel Shamir.

    Works for me.



    NB: "Reign" used and spelled correctly. Gaw-aw-aw-leee.

    Smith, thanks for the proper spelling of “reign” and for calling attention to it. There has been a recent explosion of scribblers using “reign” for “rein”, surprising in a people raised on cowboy movies.

    Read More
  34. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Fred is a good man, indeed, a better man than myself. But he's just a man, like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. His are just on display.

    To some degree, I push back against Fred because, well, it's what he does. When he's wrong, we shouldn't be shy about saying so.

    Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren't "my" people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don't want more of them. Why? They aren't "my" people.

    It's as simple - and as pure - as that.

    Fred and others expend a lot of mental energy toward a question that has a simple answer: My people.

    If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don't care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn't measure up according to various economic indicators. (Fred should understand this.) I don't hate Asians or Hispanics or anybody else. I simpy want to live amongst my own because they are my own, just as I love my own children without hating other children.

    Fred and others don't seem to understand this. Wanting to exclude others isn't about hating others; it's about loving your own. Yes, most white Americans aren't on board with this, but most white Americans aren't even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand. What they choose after that I can't say.

    I'm tired of arguing. Here's my answer: I want to live amongst my own. If my fellow whites don't agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history. But if some do, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun.

    As to Fred, you've done very well. Your wife and adopted daughter seem like a gift. But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind, or if you do, please direct that vitriol toward all who feel as I do - Jews, Japanese, Koreans, etc. - instead of only white Americans.

    It's disingenous, and, frankly, not very Fred-like.

    “Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren’t “my” people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don’t want more of them. Why? They aren’t “my” people.”

    They are “your” people as far as them being legal citizens of the United States. But to millions of white Americans who live among or near Latin Americans or blacks or Asians and interact with them on a daily basis, these groups are “one of them”. It’s as simple – and as pure – as that.

    “If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don’t care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn’t measure up according to various economic indicators.”

    And you are able to live among your “own kind” here in America!

    “Yes, most white Americans aren’t on board with this, but most white Americans aren’t even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand.”

    Of course most white Americans are aware of this choice. You see it everywhere in our society.

    “If my fellow whites don’t agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history.”

    Then we MAY fall. And why must whites agree 100% with you? How do YOU know they are wrong about the “facts” of race? Regardless, in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race.

    “But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind…”

    American whites? Or white in general? Or “good” whites? Please specify.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room, why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that's the way human nature is and you won't change it.
    , @Ace
    ** in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race. **

    Alas, whites make no decisions about race other than deciding whom they invite to their homes and moving to put their children in "good schools."

    The really profound decisions about race, open borders, and demographics are being made by non-whites, many of whom are foreigners.
  35. @Summer's eve
    Fred is a race traitor and a self hating White man. You can also add cuckold to the list.

    He is a self hating white man, i agree, but not a race traitor, he marries whoever he wants.

    He can be a ”race traitor” but not because he married a ”non-”white” woman, period.

    Read More
  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Actually, I agree with most of what you say - though I'm not sure what our needless and deadly adventuring in the Middle East has to do with Mexicans and Central Americans invading our country.

    Also, you might remember that many of the TPTB in the United States who push our Invade the World policies aren't "my" people. Sadly, many, perhaps most, are my people, but it's worth acknowledging that policies you hate benefit a certain group. Without their backing, I suspect the United States would be a lot less beligerent, though we'd likely still be poking our nose where it doesn't belong just not as often.

    American daliances are not limited to the Middle East. America has a military presence in most countries in the world and interferes with most countries in the world.

    Any country that wants to exist outside the petrodollar dollar/Walstreet nexus immediately gets invaded or color revolutioned.

    Specifically to Mexico, we have interfered in their society many times. Supplying gangs with weapons, bringing our drug problem to Mexico, and hand picking their presidents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Agreed. I wish we would stop interferring with other countries around the globe. So long as another country is not actively and openly working to invade my country (seriously, when was the last time that happened to the U.S.? Has that ever been the case outside of Pearl Harbor and even that was somewhat provoked) or illegally interfering with our domestic policy (I'm looking at you Israel), leave them alone. I don't care if they're socialist or capitalist, dictatorship or democracy, etc.; it's their country, let them live the way that they please.

    That's the beauty of borders and separate countries.

    The United States isn't so much the World Policeman as the World Bully. I'd prefer to stop.
  37. @Anonymous
    American daliances are not limited to the Middle East. America has a military presence in most countries in the world and interferes with most countries in the world.

    Any country that wants to exist outside the petrodollar dollar/Walstreet nexus immediately gets invaded or color revolutioned.

    Specifically to Mexico, we have interfered in their society many times. Supplying gangs with weapons, bringing our drug problem to Mexico, and hand picking their presidents.

    Agreed. I wish we would stop interferring with other countries around the globe. So long as another country is not actively and openly working to invade my country (seriously, when was the last time that happened to the U.S.? Has that ever been the case outside of Pearl Harbor and even that was somewhat provoked) or illegally interfering with our domestic policy (I’m looking at you Israel), leave them alone. I don’t care if they’re socialist or capitalist, dictatorship or democracy, etc.; it’s their country, let them live the way that they please.

    That’s the beauty of borders and separate countries.

    The United States isn’t so much the World Policeman as the World Bully. I’d prefer to stop.

    Read More
  38. They are hostile, angry, churlish, don’t like anything, and usually have the intelligence one associates with microcephalic lemurs.

    I always suspected Fred of being a lemur-hater who would one day reveal his hateful anti-lemur prejudice and hate. Microcephalic prosimians won’t stand or brachiate or whatever for being likened to internet commenters! Lemuria may have gone underground, or technically underwater, but it will rise again!

    Read More
  39. Columnists who are “all over the place” are more interesting, which is what makes Fred one of my favorites.
    The accusation that he’s an open-borders type is ludicrous. I’m pretty sure he’s said before that allowing mass immigration into the US from Mexico was a bad idea, his own biases notwithstanding.
    BTW I hate it when people get personal and resort to ad hominem attacks. That is the mark of a lesser mind and exactly like the SJW’s, whose penchant for name-calling makes them very easy to hate.

    Read More
  40. @Corvinus
    "Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren’t “my” people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don’t want more of them. Why? They aren’t “my” people."

    They are "your" people as far as them being legal citizens of the United States. But to millions of white Americans who live among or near Latin Americans or blacks or Asians and interact with them on a daily basis, these groups are "one of them". It’s as simple – and as pure – as that.

    "If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don’t care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn’t measure up according to various economic indicators."

    And you are able to live among your "own kind" here in America!

    "Yes, most white Americans aren’t on board with this, but most white Americans aren’t even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand."

    Of course most white Americans are aware of this choice. You see it everywhere in our society.

    "If my fellow whites don’t agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history."

    Then we MAY fall. And why must whites agree 100% with you? How do YOU know they are wrong about the "facts" of race? Regardless, in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race.

    "But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind..."

    American whites? Or white in general? Or "good" whites? Please specify.

    Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room, why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that’s the way human nature is and you won’t change it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room"

    In some cases, absolutely. In other instances, no.

    "why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that’s the way human nature is and you won’t change it."

    Depends on the situation. If it's a sporting event, or a work environment, or at a college, you have blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics interacting...as human beings. That's the nature of our kind.
  41. @bluedog
    Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room, why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that's the way human nature is and you won't change it.

    “Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room”

    In some cases, absolutely. In other instances, no.

    “why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that’s the way human nature is and you won’t change it.”

    Depends on the situation. If it’s a sporting event, or a work environment, or at a college, you have blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics interacting…as human beings. That’s the nature of our kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches.

    Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It's tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let's all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It's child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state.

    The world doesn't work that way. The world is tribal - and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing.

    Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn't dominate the other have never lasted - ever. As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn't usually turn out well.

    Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job.

    How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn't enforce integration? No long, I suspect.

    , @bluedog
    And now your nitpicking for even in the work place they prefer lunch with their own kind..
  42. @Corvinus
    "Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room"

    In some cases, absolutely. In other instances, no.

    "why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that’s the way human nature is and you won’t change it."

    Depends on the situation. If it's a sporting event, or a work environment, or at a college, you have blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics interacting...as human beings. That's the nature of our kind.

    Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches.

    Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It’s tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let’s all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It’s child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state.

    The world doesn’t work that way. The world is tribal – and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing.

    Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn’t dominate the other have never lasted – ever. As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn’t usually turn out well.

    Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job.

    How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn’t enforce integration? No long, I suspect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I have genetics and history on my side.
     
    Obviously you're free to associate with whatever group of people you prefer, just like the rest of us.

    What's not clear is why you believe that your criteria for choosing your group (skin color, facial features, and other physical traits) are somehow the model for the others. How are genetics and history 'on your side', in what sense? I just don't see it. It seems to me you'd do better by realizing that you're a bit weird. Nothing's wrong with that; it's just that you're not like most of the others...
    , @Corvinus
    "Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches."

    Except a white Baptist and a black Baptist who attend separate neighborhood churches are bound by the Lord. They are Brothers.

    "Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It’s tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let’s all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It’s child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state."

    The fact is that our nation is based on diversity. Get use to it.

    "The world is tribal – and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing."

    America is tribal--people from different races, cultures, and economic backgrounds have melded into a unique people.

    "Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn’t dominate the other have never lasted – ever."

    Millions of Americans are not proponents of diversity + proximity = war

    "As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn’t usually turn out well."

    Exactly, our technology and wealth, plus the lack of marauders, combined with relatively stable borders and constitutional governments (warts and all)...I'll wait for the movie to come out.

    "Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job."

    Whites live with whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians not because of skin color, but because of socio-economic standing. Like attracts like in this case. Furthermore, whites do have a choice even if they are called a Nazi or face threats losing employment. They should rise up and be empowered, and not run away like cucks.

    "How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn’t enforce integration? No long, I suspect."

    People enforced integration. Had the South simply honored Jim Crow, and not become greedy by clearly making things separate but unequal, then segregation COULD have stood a fighting chance. Remember, there were southern whites who desired to live, interact, and procreate with blacks, except laws prohibited them from exercising that liberty. As a result of this "southern hospitality", people said ENOUGH and shepherded legislation.
  43. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches.

    Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It's tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let's all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It's child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state.

    The world doesn't work that way. The world is tribal - and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing.

    Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn't dominate the other have never lasted - ever. As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn't usually turn out well.

    Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job.

    How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn't enforce integration? No long, I suspect.

    I have genetics and history on my side.

    Obviously you’re free to associate with whatever group of people you prefer, just like the rest of us.

    What’s not clear is why you believe that your criteria for choosing your group (skin color, facial features, and other physical traits) are somehow the model for the others. How are genetics and history ‘on your side’, in what sense? I just don’t see it. It seems to me you’d do better by realizing that you’re a bit weird. Nothing’s wrong with that; it’s just that you’re not like most of the others…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    If you're having difficulty understanding my philosophy and goals, simply think of me as a Jew. Jews sought (and continue to seek) to preserve their people (and they are a people, not just a religion) and culture within larger societies. They also sought - successfully - to create a homeland for the Jews.

    Jews didn't force other Jews to follow that path, nor do I.

    Regarding choosing your own race/ethnic group over others, that's SOP since we started standing upright so not sure what you're not understanding. Do you think that Japanese don't consider tribe when determining their immigration policy?

    As to genetics and history on my side, my point is that multi-racial societies where one group doesn't dominate the other have never survived long because the tribes eventually infringe on the other in some form and people must choose sides - even people with friends on the other side. (If I had time, I'd tell you an interesting story about a train ride I took through Yugoslavia before their civil war. Trust me, tribe counts.)

    Please tell me about the many examples of equal power multi-racial societies that run smoothly for generations. You can't. They always break up. Hell, countries where the two groups are almost identical still break up, often with brutal violence. (Seriously, are Hutu and Tutsi that different, yet they literally hacked each other up.)

    I suppose that you could up South America as an example of multi-racial societies that sort of function, but having been to some of them, I can tell you that these are not Kumbaya societies. The whites still dominate. Throw in the corruption and lack of trust, and you have a real joyful world.

    It's funny that you call me weird since my views are remarkable average - outside the United State. In the vast majority of the world, my views almost hilariously boring; indeed, they wouldn't even be worthy of discussion because they're so accepted. If I'm weird, so are the Israelis, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians, etc. The U.S., Western Europe and the Commonwealth are on an island in terms of our beliefs about multi-culturalism, but people like you don't see it because it surrounds you. You're in the Truman Show.

    I've traveled a fair amount, and the one thing that I can tell you is that around the world, tribe counts.

    Anyway, if you want to understand people like, I'd say just check Ramzpaul. He does a nice job of summing up my and many others' ideas and usually with some good humor.
  44. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches.

    Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It's tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let's all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It's child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state.

    The world doesn't work that way. The world is tribal - and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing.

    Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn't dominate the other have never lasted - ever. As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn't usually turn out well.

    Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job.

    How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn't enforce integration? No long, I suspect.

    “Look at the one area of American life where people actually enjoy unfettered freedom of association: Church. Check out the demographics of churches.”

    Except a white Baptist and a black Baptist who attend separate neighborhood churches are bound by the Lord. They are Brothers.

    “Regardless, you consistently attempt to use the exception to disprove rule. It’s tiresome. Your argument is a Coke commerical. Let’s all just hold hands and treat each other as individuals, smart blacks can socialize with smart whites, etc. It’s child-like in a world of mass migration and the welfare state.”

    The fact is that our nation is based on diversity. Get use to it.

    “The world is tribal – and for good reason. Family counts. I have genetics and history on my side. You have a 50-year experiment that is showing serious signs of failing.”

    America is tribal–people from different races, cultures, and economic backgrounds have melded into a unique people.

    “Which one of us is right? Who knows. We may not even find out in our lifetimes. However consider this: Multi-racial societies where one side doesn’t dominate the other have never lasted – ever.”

    Millions of Americans are not proponents of diversity + proximity = war

    “As soon as they are nearly equal in power, they fight. Perhaps this time is different due to our technology and wealth. If so, congratulations. But betting against history doesn’t usually turn out well.”

    Exactly, our technology and wealth, plus the lack of marauders, combined with relatively stable borders and constitutional governments (warts and all)…I’ll wait for the movie to come out.

    “Despite decades of 24/7 indoctrination, whites continue to overwhelmingly choose to live with other whites. Now, imagine if they could make that choice without fear of being called a Nazi and with no threat of losing their job.”

    Whites live with whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians not because of skin color, but because of socio-economic standing. Like attracts like in this case. Furthermore, whites do have a choice even if they are called a Nazi or face threats losing employment. They should rise up and be empowered, and not run away like cucks.

    “How long would all of your exceptions last if the government and the elite didn’t enforce integration? No long, I suspect.”

    People enforced integration. Had the South simply honored Jim Crow, and not become greedy by clearly making things separate but unequal, then segregation COULD have stood a fighting chance. Remember, there were southern whites who desired to live, interact, and procreate with blacks, except laws prohibited them from exercising that liberty. As a result of this “southern hospitality”, people said ENOUGH and shepherded legislation.

    Read More
  45. Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Links to the pics don't work.

    Re M.O. drinking underage in a NYC club,

    It is astounding that an underage person would drink in a NYC club, said no person ever.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I just had to post these dignified photos of Malia Obama.
     
    Wally, what does this have to do with anything? Does anybody really care about this?
  46. I am reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge’s rather fascinating autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time, which ranges over many more topics than just the newspaper man’s life per se, but in which he occasionally draws observations about the trade not dissimilar to Fred’s. What is it with columnists and their self-loathing? I ask this rhetorically; in fact I listen quite attentively when such men tell us something about their true selves.

    The more I read of Muggeridge, the more I found that I did not care for the man whatsoever. He was a sparkling wordsmith and an eager—which is not to say keen—observer of things, but he had no character at all. He enjoyed every advantage in life, consorted easily with the very highest levels of society, and saw more of the world than most could ever dream of. But what could he show for himself? His attitude was that of the vaguest and most childlike Leftist which was only partially cured by living in the Soviet Union at the height of the Stalinist terror. He was a lecher and an opportunist whose antics more than once got his friends killed, and he nearly became a middle-aged suicide. Concerning any of this he shows not the slightest trace of real remorse. His self-loathing was really just a sophisticated form of egotism by which he kept aloof from all responsibility and care. In the end, he was beholden only to his pride.

    Columnists may bemoan their profession, but they went into it for a reason. The demands of honor they found too heavy, the temptations of adulation too sweet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Really? The one thing by him I read was The Great Liberal Death Wish which I really liked.

    In any case I have been reading Fred's columns since I became aware of them on fredoneverything and have a fair few saved for posterity, in particular a couple on the Third World and the emptiness of life for the modern day, Lexus-driving cubicle drone.

    Hope to continue reading him for a good, long while yet.
  47. @Oldeguy
    "A columnist's job is to tell readers things that they already believe. His function is purely confirmatory. "
    It is precisely Fred's consistent refusal to do that that so peeves many of the commentariat here and it is precisely that which makes him so valuable to this site.
    He writes with grace, wit, erudition, courage and unwavering fairness. Can't be pigeon holed or bullied- doesn't give a tinkers damn what you think of him. Couldn't pander if he tried.
    Living his own life the way he sees fit and calling 'em ( fairly and honestly ) as he sees 'em.
    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they're going the way of the buffalo.

    America used to abound in such men. Now, apparently , they’re going the way of the buffalo.

    Some, like Fred, head for Mexico.

    Read More
  48. Fred, you are a terrific, reasonable man. I don’t always agree with you. Sometimes you make false claims about HBD, Mexicans, and White Nationalists. I also enjoy Jared Diamond, who makes most of the same mistakes, and I forgive you.

    If silly over-the-top reactions to opponents of mass immigration is the price to pay for an author who masterfully trolls his readers, and occasionally writes brilliant pieces like this one, then that is a small price to pay.

    Perhaps I am just some lemur, wasting my life in the comment section, but you are right.
    Sometimes the commenters point out factual inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies. Usually, they just call the offending party a SJW, a Cuck, or a paid Shill for not reaching the exact same conclusions they made, even if they agree 80% of the time. Sometimes, I am not immune from indulging in such foolishness. Nobody in the comment thread is a saint, a pretentious snob is the closest you might come.

    I read the comments section of every column you have written that I’ve read.

    This is my first comment on anything you have written, and if the rumors are true that you are retiring, I wish you the best of luck. If they are totally false, I still wish you the best of luck. You and Gustavo Arellano, provide a nice counterpoint to many of the anti-immigration published pieces on Unz.com. The site wouldn’t be as interesting without your columns. I love Mexico too, I didn’t take four years of Spanish, as a means to graduate high school, I learned Spanish as a means to open myself to El mundo de los hispanohablantes y la belleza del idioma español.

    Sorry if my Spanish is worse than my English, and I understand if you don’t read this. My comment is long, and I started out acknowledging that I disagree with you. What started as a somewhat critical letter of appreciation, devolved into a semi-coherent string of sentences. If you read this, I’m not sorry for your suffering through my mess of words, but grateful for the attention and impressed you made it this far. I don’t expect a reply from you, Mr. Reed, but I would appreciate one.

    Once again thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts with the world, or at the very least, the Unz Review. The Westphalian Khan wishes you well.

    Read More
  49. In a cold but stuffy bed-sitting room littered with cigarette ends and half-empty cups of tea, a man in a moth-eaten dressing-gown sits at a rickety table, trying to find room for his typewriter among the piles of dusty papers that surround it. He cannot throw the papers away because the wastepaper basket is already overflowing, and besides, somewhere among the unanswered letters and unpaid bills it is possible that there is a cheque for two guineas which he is nearly certain he forgot to pay into the bank. There are also letters with addresses which ought to be entered in his address book. He has lost his address book, and the thought of looking for it, or indeed of looking for anything, afflicts him with acute suicidal impulses.

    He is a man of 35, but looks 50. He is bald, has varicose veins and wears spectacles, or would wear them if his only pair were not chronically lost. If things are normal with him he will be suffering from malnutrition, but if he has recently had a lucky streak he will be suffering from a hangover. At present it is half-past eleven in the morning, and according to his schedule he should have started work two hours ago; but even if he had made any serious effort to start he would have been frustrated by the almost continuous ringing of the telephone bell, the yells of the baby, the rattle of an electric drill out in the street, and the heavy boots of his creditors clumping up and down the stairs. The most recent interruption was the arrival of the second post, which brought him two circulars and an income tax demand printed in red.

    Needless to say this person is a writer.

    — George Orwell, Confessions of a Book Reviewer

    Excellently perceptive post, if I may say so, Mr Reed, and very funny too.

    What many readers don’t understand is that editorial matter (typically in newspapers and magazines, but also now on commercial sites) is primarily filler. What matters are the ads. The nature of the filler is adjusted to attract the sort of consumers the advertisers require. Any other notion of journalism is secondary at best, the dignity and power of the Fourth Estate being little more than an absurd delusion of people who are too terrified or conceited to acknowledge what they really are – lackeys.

    Read More
  50. @Fran Macadam
    I hadn’t thought of that. I see that you are right. Thank you.

    I agree with you. I hadn’t thought of that. I see what he means. Thank you.

    Read More
  51. An occasional dark column about the dark soul of columnists is just another part of the historically expected output of dark-souled columnists.

    Things have changed in one way. Formerly newspapers tried to please their readers with columnists who verified the opinion of the readers. This still happens on TV with Fox “versus” CNN but it no longer works in newspapers. All newspapers verify the opinions of Soros, regardless of the majority views of their readers. Newspapers work hard to reach zero readership.

    Read More
  52. A masterpiece of cynicism, misanthropy and self-loathing! No one does this better than FR.

    Read More
  53. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    I just had to post these dignified photos of Malia Obama.

    March 25, 2017, found 18 yr. old Malia Obama, the 44th President’s oldest daughter, at the Parlor, an exclusive Soho club, for a 21-and-over event.

    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Malia-Obama-twerks-at-a-festival-575x558.jpg

    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-08-03-at-10.51.28-PM-575x326.jpg

    see:
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/party-girl-malia-obama-freaks-accosts-white-house-correspondent-lucian-wintrich-exclusive-ny-club/

    Links to the pics don’t work.

    Re M.O. drinking underage in a NYC club,

    It is astounding that an underage person would drink in a NYC club, said no person ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    True enough, but the procedure is to then revoke their liquor license.

    The pics worked when I initially posted them.
    So then see the entire story with pics here:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/party-girl-malia-obama-freaks-accosts-white-house-correspondent-lucian-wintrich-exclusive-ny-club/

  54. @Mao Cheng Ji

    I have genetics and history on my side.
     
    Obviously you're free to associate with whatever group of people you prefer, just like the rest of us.

    What's not clear is why you believe that your criteria for choosing your group (skin color, facial features, and other physical traits) are somehow the model for the others. How are genetics and history 'on your side', in what sense? I just don't see it. It seems to me you'd do better by realizing that you're a bit weird. Nothing's wrong with that; it's just that you're not like most of the others...

    If you’re having difficulty understanding my philosophy and goals, simply think of me as a Jew. Jews sought (and continue to seek) to preserve their people (and they are a people, not just a religion) and culture within larger societies. They also sought – successfully – to create a homeland for the Jews.

    Jews didn’t force other Jews to follow that path, nor do I.

    Regarding choosing your own race/ethnic group over others, that’s SOP since we started standing upright so not sure what you’re not understanding. Do you think that Japanese don’t consider tribe when determining their immigration policy?

    As to genetics and history on my side, my point is that multi-racial societies where one group doesn’t dominate the other have never survived long because the tribes eventually infringe on the other in some form and people must choose sides – even people with friends on the other side. (If I had time, I’d tell you an interesting story about a train ride I took through Yugoslavia before their civil war. Trust me, tribe counts.)

    Please tell me about the many examples of equal power multi-racial societies that run smoothly for generations. You can’t. They always break up. Hell, countries where the two groups are almost identical still break up, often with brutal violence. (Seriously, are Hutu and Tutsi that different, yet they literally hacked each other up.)

    I suppose that you could up South America as an example of multi-racial societies that sort of function, but having been to some of them, I can tell you that these are not Kumbaya societies. The whites still dominate. Throw in the corruption and lack of trust, and you have a real joyful world.

    It’s funny that you call me weird since my views are remarkable average – outside the United State. In the vast majority of the world, my views almost hilariously boring; indeed, they wouldn’t even be worthy of discussion because they’re so accepted. If I’m weird, so are the Israelis, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians, etc. The U.S., Western Europe and the Commonwealth are on an island in terms of our beliefs about multi-culturalism, but people like you don’t see it because it surrounds you. You’re in the Truman Show.

    I’ve traveled a fair amount, and the one thing that I can tell you is that around the world, tribe counts.

    Anyway, if you want to understand people like, I’d say just check Ramzpaul. He does a nice job of summing up my and many others’ ideas and usually with some good humor.

    Read More
  55. @Corvinus
    "Well lets put it like this put twenty blacks in a room with twenty whites, and its not long before the twenty blacks are on one side of the room and the twenty whites are on the other side of the room"

    In some cases, absolutely. In other instances, no.

    "why because they feel more comfortable with their own kind and that’s the way human nature is and you won’t change it."

    Depends on the situation. If it's a sporting event, or a work environment, or at a college, you have blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics interacting...as human beings. That's the nature of our kind.

    And now your nitpicking for even in the work place they prefer lunch with their own kind..

    Read More
  56. @Si1ver1ock
    Very funny and worth reading. I will probably link to it.

    I have been missing some good writing since Florence king passed on. She wrote a column called Misanthrope's Corner at National Review back when Bill Buckley was running it. I should probably reread one of her books:

    Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye.

    or

    When Sisterhood Was in Flower

    I too read Florence King’s column in NR before it was taken over by AIPAC. I’ve read a couple of her books.

    Read More
  57. Jews sought (and continue to seek) to preserve their people (and they are a people, not just a religion) and culture within larger societies.

    That’s bs. What ‘people’? What culture? Zionists (those you call ‘Jews’, it sounds like) actually have been very successful in destroying their culture. The language their ancestors spoke (Yiddish) is a dead language now; they killed it. They are not preserving anything; their project is a typical fascist project of transformation and ‘rebirth’.

    Please tell me about the many examples of equal power multi-racial societies that run smoothly for generations.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “multi-racial”, but if it’s about people from different continents leaving together, then there are many indeed. Not just South America, but both Americas, to begin with. And most of Europe too, with very significant inflows over the centuries of people from Asia and from North Africa.

    in terms of our beliefs about multi-culturalism

    I’m not a proponent of multiculturalism myself. I believe in integration and assimilation. But are we talking about cultures? I thought it was all about ‘race’.

    What about the Amish, are you okay with them? It’s a very distinct culture.

    around the world, tribe counts

    What’s this ‘tribe’, exactly? Anyway, many things count. Citizenship counts: Anglophone, Francophone, black, white, whatever Canadians all feel like Canadians. Vocational identity counts. Identities by interests (jazz, impressionist paintings). Political identities (communists, libertarians). A lot of things.

    Read More
  58. Probably time for Fred to give up his American citizenship and just become a Mexican. He no longer identifies with the United States or White people in general; he is no friend or ally to either.

    Not sure where it went wrong for old cuckold Fred. The (((wife))) obviously has a negative influence, but it takes two to tango, so Fred always had a streak of traitor in him. When a man has a wife that is unfaithful, the man goes out of his way to impress her in hopes that she will stop having relations with random men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Fred'll do fine until the dollar goes down. It's great being an expatriate on American SS funds or pensions. When Fred has to start living as a real Mexican, it'll be a different story, and I'm looking forward to reading his columns from that future era.

    "... spending those renegade pesos on a bottle of rum and a lime,
    saying "give me some songs we can dance to, and a melody that rhymes""

    Steve Goodman song done by Jimmy Buffet, called "Banana Republics"

    What, no parrotheads out there?

  59. @Summer's eve
    Fred is a race traitor and a self hating White man. You can also add cuckold to the list.

    You know he had 2 white daughters with a white woman before he ever lived in Mexico, right?

    Read More
  60. @Jonathan Revusky
    Is this article some sort of mea culpa?

    Fred's unflattering description of hack columnists seems to refer pretty well to himself.

    Damned good one there Fred! You stated the truth and yet it reads like pretty good Satire!

    Cmmt #5. is sort of catty… What? No acronymics JR, whynot?

    Read More
  61. @The Real John Jeremiah Smith
    Summer's Eve is a douche. Or, it used to be. Who tracks these things?

    What happened to the fake John Jeremiah Smith?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Real John Jeremiah Smith

    What happened to the fake John Jeremiah Smith?
     
    Thet bahstid Unz kilt him.
  62. In the days before ideological news competition, I used to listen to NPR out of sheer hatred! I had a morbid fascination for these smug, self-deluded charlatans, peddling their grossly biased wares as objective coverage. The whole time, I couldn’t believe that they could fool anyone into thinking they were objective. So there may yet exist other categories of ‘fans.’

    Excellent and very funny article, Fred, I really did learn something, though it may only have been my own bias confirmation.

    Read More
  63. Oh for goodness’ sake: Fred is alarmed because the near-entirety of his readership strongly supports Pres Trump, a position that domestic tranquility will not allow him to hold himself.

    So naturally the last few weeks have seen – Fredwise at least – a flurry of pro-Mex boilerplate immediately followed by reader response generally reflecting skepticism, disappointment, outright anger and the now-obligatory sprinkling of trolls imagining themselves clever.

    But make no mistake: this is Fred’s idea of punishing the readers by holding what he imagines is a mirror up to their own venality and lazy stupidity.

    I wouldn’t worry about it too much. It’s just a matter of time – days, usually – before some freshly perpetrated atrocity, callously crafted by a black (or blacks) shockingly stupid if not subhuman, will activate the old DC police-beat ‘columnist’ into re-emerging; Fred’s Cesar Chavez costume will go back into cold storage as he drags out the FBI stats and comparative SAT-score graphs like it was Old Home Week. (Hsst: I don’t think Mamacita cares very much for los negritos, so Fred’s off the leash and the curfew!)

    Read More
  64. @Intelligent Dasein
    I am reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge's rather fascinating autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time, which ranges over many more topics than just the newspaper man's life per se, but in which he occasionally draws observations about the trade not dissimilar to Fred's. What is it with columnists and their self-loathing? I ask this rhetorically; in fact I listen quite attentively when such men tell us something about their true selves.

    The more I read of Muggeridge, the more I found that I did not care for the man whatsoever. He was a sparkling wordsmith and an eager---which is not to say keen---observer of things, but he had no character at all. He enjoyed every advantage in life, consorted easily with the very highest levels of society, and saw more of the world than most could ever dream of. But what could he show for himself? His attitude was that of the vaguest and most childlike Leftist which was only partially cured by living in the Soviet Union at the height of the Stalinist terror. He was a lecher and an opportunist whose antics more than once got his friends killed, and he nearly became a middle-aged suicide. Concerning any of this he shows not the slightest trace of real remorse. His self-loathing was really just a sophisticated form of egotism by which he kept aloof from all responsibility and care. In the end, he was beholden only to his pride.

    Columnists may bemoan their profession, but they went into it for a reason. The demands of honor they found too heavy, the temptations of adulation too sweet.

    Really? The one thing by him I read was The Great Liberal Death Wish which I really liked.

    In any case I have been reading Fred’s columns since I became aware of them on fredoneverything and have a fair few saved for posterity, in particular a couple on the Third World and the emptiness of life for the modern day, Lexus-driving cubicle drone.

    Hope to continue reading him for a good, long while yet.

    Read More
  65. @Dwright
    Silly Country, you said it better then I could have, the whole response.
    As a fellow upper midwesterner everything rings true.

    And I still like Fred to boot.

    I’m a huge fan of Fred going back more than a decade. He’s the bastard who red pilled me. But if he taught me anything, it’s that people should point out when someone’s pissing on your head and telling you that it’s raining.

    Fred has a soft spot for Mexico and Latin America. He also seems to have a truly great family down there. That’s fine. Write all the columns that you wish about how Mexico isn’t at all like the vast majority of Americans believe. That’s a service because Americans really do have a skewed view of Mexico. But when he starts writing factually incorrect statements or gross exaggerations of the beliefs various groups, he’s crossed a line and should be called out on it.

    Frankly, it’s what Fred would do himself, albeit in a far more enjoyable style.

    Read More
  66. @Anon
    Links to the pics don't work.

    Re M.O. drinking underage in a NYC club,

    It is astounding that an underage person would drink in a NYC club, said no person ever.

    True enough, but the procedure is to then revoke their liquor license.

    The pics worked when I initially posted them.
    So then see the entire story with pics here:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/party-girl-malia-obama-freaks-accosts-white-house-correspondent-lucian-wintrich-exclusive-ny-club/

    Read More
  67. @Sandgroper
    Apology for serial posting - aside from the above piece of pedantry (born that way; can't help it), I love this column. I love the idea of a columnist attacking himself. And I definitely want to use "microcephalic lemur" some time. May I?

    In Boulder CO there is a street named Table Mesa.

    Read More
  68. @Sandgroper
    Apology for serial posting - aside from the above piece of pedantry (born that way; can't help it), I love this column. I love the idea of a columnist attacking himself. And I definitely want to use "microcephalic lemur" some time. May I?

    In Boulder CO there is a street named Table Mesa.

    Or there is something called chai tea while chai is just another name for the same tea.

    Read More
  69. @Jonathan Revusky
    Is this article some sort of mea culpa?

    Fred's unflattering description of hack columnists seems to refer pretty well to himself.

    Fred is a “self-hating” columnist.

    Read More
  70. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Fred is a good man, indeed, a better man than myself. But he's just a man, like the rest of us. We all have blind spots. His are just on display.

    To some degree, I push back against Fred because, well, it's what he does. When he's wrong, we shouldn't be shy about saying so.

    Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren't "my" people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don't want more of them. Why? They aren't "my" people.

    It's as simple - and as pure - as that.

    Fred and others expend a lot of mental energy toward a question that has a simple answer: My people.

    If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don't care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn't measure up according to various economic indicators. (Fred should understand this.) I don't hate Asians or Hispanics or anybody else. I simpy want to live amongst my own because they are my own, just as I love my own children without hating other children.

    Fred and others don't seem to understand this. Wanting to exclude others isn't about hating others; it's about loving your own. Yes, most white Americans aren't on board with this, but most white Americans aren't even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand. What they choose after that I can't say.

    I'm tired of arguing. Here's my answer: I want to live amongst my own. If my fellow whites don't agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history. But if some do, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun.

    As to Fred, you've done very well. Your wife and adopted daughter seem like a gift. But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind, or if you do, please direct that vitriol toward all who feel as I do - Jews, Japanese, Koreans, etc. - instead of only white Americans.

    It's disingenous, and, frankly, not very Fred-like.

    I enjoy learning different things but the idea that “diversity” per se is a valuable addition to my life is absurd. If I want to see something completely different I want to travel to meet foreigners where they live not have them travel (and stay) here.

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.

    Somehow Americans buy into the notion that we’re the dumping ground for every poor, unhappy human on the planet.

    I like the Englishman who wrote to The Times that if you want to speak a foreign language you should go to France and speak English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.
     
    Yeah, you try catching a taxi to your hotel from Minneapolis - St. Paul International without them!
  71. @Corvinus
    "Regarding Mexicans and Central Americans, they generally are good people. They just aren’t “my” people. Asian Americans score better than whites on any test involving IQ and have lower crime rates. Yet, I don’t want more of them. Why? They aren’t “my” people."

    They are "your" people as far as them being legal citizens of the United States. But to millions of white Americans who live among or near Latin Americans or blacks or Asians and interact with them on a daily basis, these groups are "one of them". It’s as simple – and as pure – as that.

    "If NE Asians create a more prosperous society, I don’t care. I simply want to live with my own, even if that society doesn’t measure up according to various economic indicators."

    And you are able to live among your "own kind" here in America!

    "Yes, most white Americans aren’t on board with this, but most white Americans aren’t even aware that this is a choice. In time, they will understand."

    Of course most white Americans are aware of this choice. You see it everywhere in our society.

    "If my fellow whites don’t agree with me, then we fall into the dustpin of history."

    Then we MAY fall. And why must whites agree 100% with you? How do YOU know they are wrong about the "facts" of race? Regardless, in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race.

    "But please stop trashing on those that wish to preserve their kind..."

    American whites? Or white in general? Or "good" whites? Please specify.

    ** in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race. **

    Alas, whites make no decisions about race other than deciding whom they invite to their homes and moving to put their children in “good schools.”

    The really profound decisions about race, open borders, and demographics are being made by non-whites, many of whom are foreigners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Alas, whites make no decisions about race other than deciding whom they invite to their homes and moving to put their children in “good schools.”"

    Or befriend. Or marry. Or vote for. Or play or watch sports with.

    "The really profound decisions about race, open borders, and demographics are being made by non-whites, many of whom are foreigners."

    You act as if your own kind is clueless about these matters. Would that not be an anti-white sentiment on your part?
  72. Don’t you retire on us Fred! I love your work sir, you are a true standout in the world of punditry, navel gazing and timely commentary of the zeitgeist. Always timely, always clever & usually relevant. Brighter wittier men are seldom found.

    Read More
  73. @Max Payne
    What happened to the fake John Jeremiah Smith?

    What happened to the fake John Jeremiah Smith?

    Thet bahstid Unz kilt him.

    Read More
  74. @Anatoly Karlin
    Fred is not like most columnists, he has a self-deprecating wit, an idiosyncratic set of opinions, and likes to troll his readers, which I appreciate, so I continue reading him despite his rather confused ideas about psychometrics and a few political issues.

    I like reading Fred ’cause he’s smart. Scarcity makes that valuable. Especially in journalism.

    Read More
  75. @Ace
    I enjoy learning different things but the idea that "diversity" per se is a valuable addition to my life is absurd. If I want to see something completely different I want to travel to meet foreigners where they live not have them travel (and stay) here.

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.

    Somehow Americans buy into the notion that we're the dumping ground for every poor, unhappy human on the planet.

    I like the Englishman who wrote to The Times that if you want to speak a foreign language you should go to France and speak English.

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.

    Yeah, you try catching a taxi to your hotel from Minneapolis – St. Paul International without them!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, because nobody else in the world knows how to drive taxis.
  76. @utu
    In Boulder CO there is a street named Table Mesa.

    Or there is something called chai tea while chai is just another name for the same tea.

    chai tea

    Sahara desert

    Read More
  77. Damn, fred actually tried to send a msg, I wonder how many people got it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Damn, fred actually tried to send a msg, I wonder how many people got it?
     
    Did he apologize for the intellectually fraudulent article he wrote here? http://www.unz.com/freed/legion-of-the-tinfoil-hat/

    I might consider accepting an apology if I thought it was sincere.
  78. @Jonathan Revusky
    Is this article some sort of mea culpa?

    Fred's unflattering description of hack columnists seems to refer pretty well to himself.

    “Seems to”? He pretty much said that it DID apply to him, and his critique was self-referential throughout. Did you actually read the column, or just skim it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Did you actually read the column, or just skim it?
     
    Well, okay, it's true that I didn't read it very closely. Did I miss something important?
  79. @Otto Zeit
    "Seems to"? He pretty much said that it DID apply to him, and his critique was self-referential throughout. Did you actually read the column, or just skim it?

    Did you actually read the column, or just skim it?

    Well, okay, it’s true that I didn’t read it very closely. Did I miss something important?

    Read More
  80. @Astuteobservor II
    Damn, fred actually tried to send a msg, I wonder how many people got it?

    Damn, fred actually tried to send a msg, I wonder how many people got it?

    Did he apologize for the intellectually fraudulent article he wrote here? http://www.unz.com/freed/legion-of-the-tinfoil-hat/

    I might consider accepting an apology if I thought it was sincere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa

    Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it. “Oh god, oh god,” he thinks. “Illiterates who can read, sort of. I need a drink.”
     
    ahhahaaa you got a long wait, till your death.
  81. @Jonathan Revusky

    Damn, fred actually tried to send a msg, I wonder how many people got it?
     
    Did he apologize for the intellectually fraudulent article he wrote here? http://www.unz.com/freed/legion-of-the-tinfoil-hat/

    I might consider accepting an apology if I thought it was sincere.

    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa

    Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it. “Oh god, oh god,” he thinks. “Illiterates who can read, sort of. I need a drink.”

    ahhahaaa you got a long wait, till your death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa
     
    Well, I take the question of intellectual fraud seriously. I don't think it should be considered acceptable. The Tinfoil Hats article was pure intellectual fraud.

    So, yes, I think he ought to apologize for that. That does not mean that I think he will apologize. I wasn't born yesterday! LOL.
  82. Columnists, the rodent class of journalism, have the dignity of carney barkers and merit the social standing of bellhops. It’s a living. For most of us, barely.

    Whiner. No one is making you do this, Reed.

    “Oh god, oh god,” he thinks. “Illiterates who can read, sort of. I need a drink.”

    Admit it, Reed – you’re just another elitist prick who thinks we need your little pearls of toilet paper wisdom.

    Read More
  83. @Astuteobservor II
    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa

    Commenters are the graveworms of the intellect. Many will not have have understood what he wrote. Some seem not to have read it. He thinks that perhaps he did not express himself well, and checks. No, he was clear as gin. He is being taken to task, perhaps vilely, for something he didn’t say perhaps opposite to it. “Oh god, oh god,” he thinks. “Illiterates who can read, sort of. I need a drink.”
     
    ahhahaaa you got a long wait, till your death.

    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa

    Well, I take the question of intellectual fraud seriously. I don’t think it should be considered acceptable. The Tinfoil Hats article was pure intellectual fraud.

    So, yes, I think he ought to apologize for that. That does not mean that I think he will apologize. I wasn’t born yesterday! LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    He doesn't need to apologize for having an opinion. I applaud him for having an opinion. Too many are basically drones to the hivemind. I strongly disagree with some of his opinions, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Fred should continue to write his mind without "apologies."

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?
  84. @Wally
    I just had to post these dignified photos of Malia Obama.

    March 25, 2017, found 18 yr. old Malia Obama, the 44th President’s oldest daughter, at the Parlor, an exclusive Soho club, for a 21-and-over event.

    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Malia-Obama-twerks-at-a-festival-575x558.jpg

    http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-08-03-at-10.51.28-PM-575x326.jpg

    see:
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/party-girl-malia-obama-freaks-accosts-white-house-correspondent-lucian-wintrich-exclusive-ny-club/

    I just had to post these dignified photos of Malia Obama.

    Wally, what does this have to do with anything? Does anybody really care about this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Wally does, it makes him feel better about never having had children.
  85. @Ace
    ** in the end, whites will make their own decisions about race. **

    Alas, whites make no decisions about race other than deciding whom they invite to their homes and moving to put their children in "good schools."

    The really profound decisions about race, open borders, and demographics are being made by non-whites, many of whom are foreigners.

    “Alas, whites make no decisions about race other than deciding whom they invite to their homes and moving to put their children in “good schools.””

    Or befriend. Or marry. Or vote for. Or play or watch sports with.

    “The really profound decisions about race, open borders, and demographics are being made by non-whites, many of whom are foreigners.”

    You act as if your own kind is clueless about these matters. Would that not be an anti-white sentiment on your part?

    Read More
  86. @Jonathan Revusky

    you actually think he needs to apologized ahahahahhaa
     
    Well, I take the question of intellectual fraud seriously. I don't think it should be considered acceptable. The Tinfoil Hats article was pure intellectual fraud.

    So, yes, I think he ought to apologize for that. That does not mean that I think he will apologize. I wasn't born yesterday! LOL.

    He doesn’t need to apologize for having an opinion. I applaud him for having an opinion. Too many are basically drones to the hivemind. I strongly disagree with some of his opinions, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Fred should continue to write his mind without “apologies.”

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    He doesn’t need to apologize for having an opinion.
     
    I never said he should apologize for having an opinion. I said he should apologize for engaging in intellectual fraud.

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?
     
    He wrote an article entitled "Legion of the Tinfoil Hat" that, I am satisfied, constitutes intellectual fraud. I consider that to be a very serious matter and would not say that if any more generous interpretation were possible.

    It is not that Fred is simply mistaken or that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. The article is pure intellectual fraud.
  87. @Jonathan Revusky

    I just had to post these dignified photos of Malia Obama.
     
    Wally, what does this have to do with anything? Does anybody really care about this?

    Wally does, it makes him feel better about never having had children.

    Read More
  88. @Astuteobservor II
    He doesn't need to apologize for having an opinion. I applaud him for having an opinion. Too many are basically drones to the hivemind. I strongly disagree with some of his opinions, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Fred should continue to write his mind without "apologies."

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?

    He doesn’t need to apologize for having an opinion.

    I never said he should apologize for having an opinion. I said he should apologize for engaging in intellectual fraud.

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?

    He wrote an article entitled “Legion of the Tinfoil Hat” that, I am satisfied, constitutes intellectual fraud. I consider that to be a very serious matter and would not say that if any more generous interpretation were possible.

    It is not that Fred is simply mistaken or that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. The article is pure intellectual fraud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    why was that article intellectual fraud? care to elaborate a bit?
  89. @Summer's eve
    Probably time for Fred to give up his American citizenship and just become a Mexican. He no longer identifies with the United States or White people in general; he is no friend or ally to either.

    Not sure where it went wrong for old cuckold Fred. The (((wife))) obviously has a negative influence, but it takes two to tango, so Fred always had a streak of traitor in him. When a man has a wife that is unfaithful, the man goes out of his way to impress her in hopes that she will stop having relations with random men.

    Fred’ll do fine until the dollar goes down. It’s great being an expatriate on American SS funds or pensions. When Fred has to start living as a real Mexican, it’ll be a different story, and I’m looking forward to reading his columns from that future era.

    “… spending those renegade pesos on a bottle of rum and a lime,
    saying “give me some songs we can dance to, and a melody that rhymes””

    Steve Goodman song done by Jimmy Buffet, called “Banana Republics

    What, no parrotheads out there?

    Read More
  90. @Truth

    Somali contribution to USA? Nothing beyond being a local heat source.
     
    Yeah, you try catching a taxi to your hotel from Minneapolis - St. Paul International without them!

    Yes, because nobody else in the world knows how to drive taxis.

    Read More
  91. @Jonathan Revusky

    He doesn’t need to apologize for having an opinion.
     
    I never said he should apologize for having an opinion. I said he should apologize for engaging in intellectual fraud.

    what exactly is this intellectual fraud you brought up?
     
    He wrote an article entitled "Legion of the Tinfoil Hat" that, I am satisfied, constitutes intellectual fraud. I consider that to be a very serious matter and would not say that if any more generous interpretation were possible.

    It is not that Fred is simply mistaken or that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. The article is pure intellectual fraud.

    why was that article intellectual fraud? care to elaborate a bit?

    Read More
  92. why was that article intellectual fraud? care to elaborate a bit?

    I am willing to answer your question, but I have to initially ask you this:

    Are you asking me what is intellectually fraudulent about the article after having read it yourself?

    NB: The article is here: http://www.unz.com/freed/legion-of-the-tinfoil-hat/

    Read More
  93. @Jonathan Revusky

    why was that article intellectual fraud? care to elaborate a bit?
     
    I am willing to answer your question, but I have to initially ask you this:

    Are you asking me what is intellectually fraudulent about the article after having read it yourself?

    NB: The article is here: http://www.unz.com/freed/legion-of-the-tinfoil-hat/

    I have read it. Now explain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I have read it. Now explain.
     
    Well, if necessary, I will, but I do have to ask you: you read the article and you think this is something intellectually honest??

    If so, did you read any of the comments under the piece? People were getting very angry at Fred. Why is that, in your opinion?
  94. @Astuteobservor II
    I have read it. Now explain.

    I have read it. Now explain.

    Well, if necessary, I will, but I do have to ask you: you read the article and you think this is something intellectually honest??

    If so, did you read any of the comments under the piece? People were getting very angry at Fred. Why is that, in your opinion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Oh, for fuck's sake, Revusky, quit beating around the bush. We all know what your shtick is. I have not read either the article or the comments, but I can guess what this is all about. Fred committed the capital crime of insulting 9/11 Douchers like you by accepting certain aspects of the "official narrative" while relegating you and your beliefs to history's dunce corner.

    No one tops a Doucher when it comes to rabid intolerance of intellectual dissent and monomaniacal moral posturing. If this is all you have to add to every thread, please gather up your armload of 5000 architects, engineers, and nanothermite and go jump off the nearest bridge, preferably at "free fall speed."
    , @Astuteobservor II
    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.

    that tells me everything.
  95. @Jonathan Revusky

    I have read it. Now explain.
     
    Well, if necessary, I will, but I do have to ask you: you read the article and you think this is something intellectually honest??

    If so, did you read any of the comments under the piece? People were getting very angry at Fred. Why is that, in your opinion?

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, Revusky, quit beating around the bush. We all know what your shtick is. I have not read either the article or the comments, but I can guess what this is all about. Fred committed the capital crime of insulting 9/11 Douchers like you by accepting certain aspects of the “official narrative” while relegating you and your beliefs to history’s dunce corner.

    No one tops a Doucher when it comes to rabid intolerance of intellectual dissent and monomaniacal moral posturing. If this is all you have to add to every thread, please gather up your armload of 5000 architects, engineers, and nanothermite and go jump off the nearest bridge, preferably at “free fall speed.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I have not read either the article or the comments, but I can guess what this is all about.
     
    Yes, you can guess, you can talk about something that you haven't made a minimal effort to look into. Yes, you can write a book review when you never read the book. And yes, you can write a restaurant review of a restaurant you never ate at. You can do these things but they are all FRAUD.

    I remember your nick. We've interacted before. You wrote a comment under my last article here:
    http://www.unz.com/article/faith-reason-fanaticism-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-donald/#comment-1705277

    You wrote:

    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he’s a genius, a halfwit who thinks he’s a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.
     

    And then here: http://www.unz.com/article/faith-reason-fanaticism-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-donald/#comment-1705506

    It's:


    I didn’t—I only clicked on the comments. I don’t waste my time reading Revusky.
     
    What kind of idiot goes around bragging about the fact that he is commenting on articles that he never read?

    But one thing about this is this: Did Fred Reed appoint you as his advocate?

    I don't think so, but if he did, he's got himself one piss-poor advocate. I mean, here we have a problem. I call out Fred as an intellectual fraud, and he won't even defend himself, because it's just too obvious that the article was intellectual fraud. And then you've got morons who want to appoint themselves to defend Fred when Fred won't even defend Fred.

    If I were Fred, I would at least tell you to shut up because your attempts to defend him will doubtless make the matter even worse. It's pretty ironic, to have somebody who makes a habit of writing comments on articles he never read defending you from the accusation of intellectual fraud.

    You can't make this stuff up!

  96. @Jonathan Revusky

    I have read it. Now explain.
     
    Well, if necessary, I will, but I do have to ask you: you read the article and you think this is something intellectually honest??

    If so, did you read any of the comments under the piece? People were getting very angry at Fred. Why is that, in your opinion?

    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.

    that tells me everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.
     
    No, I was never "avoiding" answering. I said that I would answer. I was simply pushing you to figure it out for yourself. I figured that if you looked through it and figured it out for yourself, I could be saved the bother of writing any sort of lengthy reply. Besides, it's better when people can figure out things for themselves. No such luck here, I guess, so I guess I have to answer now. It is time consuming and I'm not getting paid to educate people like you, but here goes....

    Look, it's not much of a mystery what is intellectually fraudulent about the article. Fred kept talking about so-called "conspiracy theorists" as in: "Conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that", right?

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single "conspiracist" author or book. It was just this hand-waving "conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that".

    Except the 9/11 Truth community, by and large, is not saying what Fred says they are saying. The 9/11 Truth literature is almost entirely devoted to demonstrating in a painstaking, meticulous way, that is really 1000% overkill, that the government account of what happened on 9/11 is simply IMPOSSIBLE. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Therefore, there is a need for a new, honest, impartial investigation of what really did happen. The single most well known book on 9/11 Truth is probably "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin. The entire book is simply devoted to demonstrating that the government account of events is simply impossible. He does not state any certainty as to what happened. He simply states that the government account is IMPOSSIBLE.

    There is no sign in that article that Fred Reed knew what David Ray Griffin or any of the other 9/11 Truth authors were even saying. That, my friend, is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. It's the same as if somebody writes a book review and has not even read the book he is reviewing. That is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    That is why people under the article (including me) were getting infuriated at Fred. Because he was engaging in blatant INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    Here is a final point to consider. I am somebody with some status here, as a result of having written four in-depth articles on the site. I did not write those articles anonymously, nor do I participate on these discussion forums anonymously. I am stating openly right on this page that Fred Reed engaged in intellectual fraud. I am a serious person. I would not make such an accusation lightly.

    Where is Fred? Why does he not defend himself? If the accusation is untrue, would he not defend himself? Not just here, but under the very article. Where was Fred? Ran under a rock or what?

    Now, I wrote 4 articles on this site and they were controversial and came under quite a bit of attack in the comments underneath. A lot of the criticisms were idiotic and vacuous. Nonetheless, certainly, anybody who had the shadow of a shadow of a legitimate critique of what I was saying, I responded to it. Certainly, if people had been saying that I was engaging in intellectual fraud, which is a serious matter, I would have replied. So why doesn't Fred reply? Again, where was Fred when people were calling him out as a fraud? Just ran away, right? Where is he now?

    You may think you are being a noble person by defending Fred when Fred won't even defend Fred, but you're just being a fool. The reason Fred won't defend Fred is because his position is not tenable. What he did was in fact intellectual fraud and he and everybody knows it.
  97. @Astuteobservor II
    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.

    that tells me everything.

    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.

    No, I was never “avoiding” answering. I said that I would answer. I was simply pushing you to figure it out for yourself. I figured that if you looked through it and figured it out for yourself, I could be saved the bother of writing any sort of lengthy reply. Besides, it’s better when people can figure out things for themselves. No such luck here, I guess, so I guess I have to answer now. It is time consuming and I’m not getting paid to educate people like you, but here goes….

    Look, it’s not much of a mystery what is intellectually fraudulent about the article. Fred kept talking about so-called “conspiracy theorists” as in: “Conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that”, right?

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single “conspiracist” author or book. It was just this hand-waving “conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that”.

    Except the 9/11 Truth community, by and large, is not saying what Fred says they are saying. The 9/11 Truth literature is almost entirely devoted to demonstrating in a painstaking, meticulous way, that is really 1000% overkill, that the government account of what happened on 9/11 is simply IMPOSSIBLE. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Therefore, there is a need for a new, honest, impartial investigation of what really did happen. The single most well known book on 9/11 Truth is probably “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin. The entire book is simply devoted to demonstrating that the government account of events is simply impossible. He does not state any certainty as to what happened. He simply states that the government account is IMPOSSIBLE.

    There is no sign in that article that Fred Reed knew what David Ray Griffin or any of the other 9/11 Truth authors were even saying. That, my friend, is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. It’s the same as if somebody writes a book review and has not even read the book he is reviewing. That is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    That is why people under the article (including me) were getting infuriated at Fred. Because he was engaging in blatant INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    Here is a final point to consider. I am somebody with some status here, as a result of having written four in-depth articles on the site. I did not write those articles anonymously, nor do I participate on these discussion forums anonymously. I am stating openly right on this page that Fred Reed engaged in intellectual fraud. I am a serious person. I would not make such an accusation lightly.

    Where is Fred? Why does he not defend himself? If the accusation is untrue, would he not defend himself? Not just here, but under the very article. Where was Fred? Ran under a rock or what?

    Now, I wrote 4 articles on this site and they were controversial and came under quite a bit of attack in the comments underneath. A lot of the criticisms were idiotic and vacuous. Nonetheless, certainly, anybody who had the shadow of a shadow of a legitimate critique of what I was saying, I responded to it. Certainly, if people had been saying that I was engaging in intellectual fraud, which is a serious matter, I would have replied. So why doesn’t Fred reply? Again, where was Fred when people were calling him out as a fraud? Just ran away, right? Where is he now?

    You may think you are being a noble person by defending Fred when Fred won’t even defend Fred, but you’re just being a fool. The reason Fred won’t defend Fred is because his position is not tenable. What he did was in fact intellectual fraud and he and everybody knows it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    Ok, I get what you are saying. But there is really no need for lengthy replies, I value concise information more.

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single “conspiracist” author or book. It was just this hand-waving “conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that”.
     
    Essentially you are calling Fred out because you think he does not address any of the issues/questions brought forth in the 9/11 books of the last 15 years and just resorts to "conspiracy theorists." Name calling and the overall dismissive tone of that article. I think you think he did it deliberately? That is why you charged him with "intellectual fraud."

    Thanks for taking the time.

    About your final point. Does Fred ever reply to comments? I have not seen him do that at all. With any of his articles.

    And I defend everyone :) Fred or you or any author should have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is an opinion piece. That article's entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history. Not about the arguments, theories, evidence? presented in those books. That is his take on 9/11. While I disagree on that, Fred's take isn't that crazy either. If you think about it wholly from that train of thought, it kinda makes some sense. Mr unz even commented how the TWA 800 was a direct counter to his take/pov.

    Your intellectual fraud would make more sense if he brings up the points/arguments/evidence made in the books you mentioned, and casually dismissed them. Agree? He mostly concentrated on the crazier ones(missiles/no planes etc). Did he dismissed any of the points mentioned in Griffin's book? I have not read it.
  98. @Intelligent Dasein
    Oh, for fuck's sake, Revusky, quit beating around the bush. We all know what your shtick is. I have not read either the article or the comments, but I can guess what this is all about. Fred committed the capital crime of insulting 9/11 Douchers like you by accepting certain aspects of the "official narrative" while relegating you and your beliefs to history's dunce corner.

    No one tops a Doucher when it comes to rabid intolerance of intellectual dissent and monomaniacal moral posturing. If this is all you have to add to every thread, please gather up your armload of 5000 architects, engineers, and nanothermite and go jump off the nearest bridge, preferably at "free fall speed."

    I have not read either the article or the comments, but I can guess what this is all about.

    Yes, you can guess, you can talk about something that you haven’t made a minimal effort to look into. Yes, you can write a book review when you never read the book. And yes, you can write a restaurant review of a restaurant you never ate at. You can do these things but they are all FRAUD.

    I remember your nick. We’ve interacted before. You wrote a comment under my last article here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/faith-reason-fanaticism-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-donald/#comment-1705277

    You wrote:

    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he’s a genius, a halfwit who thinks he’s a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.

    And then here: http://www.unz.com/article/faith-reason-fanaticism-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-donald/#comment-1705506

    It’s:

    I didn’t—I only clicked on the comments. I don’t waste my time reading Revusky.

    What kind of idiot goes around bragging about the fact that he is commenting on articles that he never read?

    But one thing about this is this: Did Fred Reed appoint you as his advocate?

    I don’t think so, but if he did, he’s got himself one piss-poor advocate. I mean, here we have a problem. I call out Fred as an intellectual fraud, and he won’t even defend himself, because it’s just too obvious that the article was intellectual fraud. And then you’ve got morons who want to appoint themselves to defend Fred when Fred won’t even defend Fred.

    If I were Fred, I would at least tell you to shut up because your attempts to defend him will doubtless make the matter even worse. It’s pretty ironic, to have somebody who makes a habit of writing comments on articles he never read defending you from the accusation of intellectual fraud.

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    Read More
  99. 9/11 Trutherism is too far outside the Overton Window for any established columnist to entertain. As is pedestry in DC, the new Holocaust Denial.

    I agree with less than 25% of Fred”s opinions but read for his Menckenesque turns of phrase which I then steal and deploy for affect. Although, encephalictic yak rolls better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    9/11 Trutherism is too far outside the Overton Window for any established columnist to entertain.
     
    Well, sure, what somebody like Fred is doing when they write that kind of hit piece is a form of "virtue signaling". By vociferously denouncing the heretics conspiracy theorists he is signalling his ideological reliability to the PTB.

    Some of these people, they preen themselves as intellectual dissidents or rebels by writing anti-PC stuff that isn't much of a threat to the real power structure, but then they make sure to do this sort of virtue signalling to show that, really, on any important matter, they are intellectual conformists and will stick to the official line.

    A very funny recent example was this Anatoly Karlin character. He writes an article about how Twitter is blocking the accounts of the various alt-right ethno-nationalist people. Then, somehow, a discussion about the Holocaust arises and Karlin immediately says that he will delete all such threads and announces that "Holocaust deniers" are all idiots. I pointed out that Karlin almost certainly did not even know who any of the main Holocaust revisionists were or what they were arguing, so that he was engaging in intellectual fraud. He promptly banned me, claiming that I was "incessantly" trolling, when I had written all of 5 comments on his blog in the previous year. All that was here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/#comment-1791821

    What Karlin didn't understand seemingly was that the very same people who want to block an intellectually honest discussion of race and ethnicity also want to block an intellectually honest discussion of WW2. It's all part of a whole. You can't pretend your against censorship on the one thing, but all in favor of censorship on the other.

    The point is that these people represent themselves as mavericks and free thinkers but then when you hit any topic that has been established as a no-go zone by the powers that be, these people are falling over themselves genuflecting and showing their ideological conformity.

    Fred really screwed up with the "Legion of the Tin Foil Hats" article because he must have thought that there was just some fringe minority that disbelieved the official 9/11 story. Then he discovered that most of his readership were "Truthers" and he had just gratuitously insulted most of them. He hadn't realized how much the tide had turned.

    I think the tide has turned quite a bit and we really shouldn't be taking these sorts of behaviors lying down, like this kind of intellectual fraud that people engage in for their "virtue signaling". If they don't want to go there themselves, I guess that's okay, but these kinds of intellectually dishonest, fraudulent hit pieces really have to be denounced. It's not even that I have anything special against Fred. I just honestly feel that when they do this shit, it should be made very very unpleasant for them. I think that's just the way it has to be. I think there really has to be a very clear message that that kind of crap is unacceptable. Of course, I can only speak for myself (which is what I'm doing) but I had various private correspondence with people who really felt strongly about it as well and also just thought we shouldn't take this crap lying down.

  100. @Daves_Not_Here_Man
    9/11 Trutherism is too far outside the Overton Window for any established columnist to entertain. As is pedestry in DC, the new Holocaust Denial.

    I agree with less than 25% of Fred''s opinions but read for his Menckenesque turns of phrase which I then steal and deploy for affect. Although, encephalictic yak rolls better.

    9/11 Trutherism is too far outside the Overton Window for any established columnist to entertain.

    Well, sure, what somebody like Fred is doing when they write that kind of hit piece is a form of “virtue signaling”. By vociferously denouncing the heretics conspiracy theorists he is signalling his ideological reliability to the PTB.

    Some of these people, they preen themselves as intellectual dissidents or rebels by writing anti-PC stuff that isn’t much of a threat to the real power structure, but then they make sure to do this sort of virtue signalling to show that, really, on any important matter, they are intellectual conformists and will stick to the official line.

    A very funny recent example was this Anatoly Karlin character. He writes an article about how Twitter is blocking the accounts of the various alt-right ethno-nationalist people. Then, somehow, a discussion about the Holocaust arises and Karlin immediately says that he will delete all such threads and announces that “Holocaust deniers” are all idiots. I pointed out that Karlin almost certainly did not even know who any of the main Holocaust revisionists were or what they were arguing, so that he was engaging in intellectual fraud. He promptly banned me, claiming that I was “incessantly” trolling, when I had written all of 5 comments on his blog in the previous year. All that was here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/#comment-1791821

    What Karlin didn’t understand seemingly was that the very same people who want to block an intellectually honest discussion of race and ethnicity also want to block an intellectually honest discussion of WW2. It’s all part of a whole. You can’t pretend your against censorship on the one thing, but all in favor of censorship on the other.

    The point is that these people represent themselves as mavericks and free thinkers but then when you hit any topic that has been established as a no-go zone by the powers that be, these people are falling over themselves genuflecting and showing their ideological conformity.

    Fred really screwed up with the “Legion of the Tin Foil Hats” article because he must have thought that there was just some fringe minority that disbelieved the official 9/11 story. Then he discovered that most of his readership were “Truthers” and he had just gratuitously insulted most of them. He hadn’t realized how much the tide had turned.

    I think the tide has turned quite a bit and we really shouldn’t be taking these sorts of behaviors lying down, like this kind of intellectual fraud that people engage in for their “virtue signaling”. If they don’t want to go there themselves, I guess that’s okay, but these kinds of intellectually dishonest, fraudulent hit pieces really have to be denounced. It’s not even that I have anything special against Fred. I just honestly feel that when they do this shit, it should be made very very unpleasant for them. I think that’s just the way it has to be. I think there really has to be a very clear message that that kind of crap is unacceptable. Of course, I can only speak for myself (which is what I’m doing) but I had various private correspondence with people who really felt strongly about it as well and also just thought we shouldn’t take this crap lying down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    A very funny recent example was this Anatoly Karlin character. He writes an article about how Twitter is blocking the accounts of the various alt-right ethno-nationalist people. Then, somehow, a discussion about the Holocaust arises and Karlin immediately says that he will delete all such threads and announces that “Holocaust deniers” are all idiots. I pointed out that Karlin almost certainly did not even know who any of the main Holocaust revisionists were or what they were arguing, so that he was engaging in intellectual fraud. He promptly banned me, claiming that I was “incessantly” trolling, when I had written all of 5 comments on his blog in the previous year. All that was here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/#comment-1791821
     
    AK argued that being on Twitter is necessary for any public personality, and Twitter is public utility that have no right to deny service to anyone. Indeed argument funny in its absurdity.
  101. @Jonathan Revusky

    this is the 3rd time you have avoided answering.
     
    No, I was never "avoiding" answering. I said that I would answer. I was simply pushing you to figure it out for yourself. I figured that if you looked through it and figured it out for yourself, I could be saved the bother of writing any sort of lengthy reply. Besides, it's better when people can figure out things for themselves. No such luck here, I guess, so I guess I have to answer now. It is time consuming and I'm not getting paid to educate people like you, but here goes....

    Look, it's not much of a mystery what is intellectually fraudulent about the article. Fred kept talking about so-called "conspiracy theorists" as in: "Conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that", right?

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single "conspiracist" author or book. It was just this hand-waving "conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that".

    Except the 9/11 Truth community, by and large, is not saying what Fred says they are saying. The 9/11 Truth literature is almost entirely devoted to demonstrating in a painstaking, meticulous way, that is really 1000% overkill, that the government account of what happened on 9/11 is simply IMPOSSIBLE. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Therefore, there is a need for a new, honest, impartial investigation of what really did happen. The single most well known book on 9/11 Truth is probably "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin. The entire book is simply devoted to demonstrating that the government account of events is simply impossible. He does not state any certainty as to what happened. He simply states that the government account is IMPOSSIBLE.

    There is no sign in that article that Fred Reed knew what David Ray Griffin or any of the other 9/11 Truth authors were even saying. That, my friend, is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. It's the same as if somebody writes a book review and has not even read the book he is reviewing. That is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    That is why people under the article (including me) were getting infuriated at Fred. Because he was engaging in blatant INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    Here is a final point to consider. I am somebody with some status here, as a result of having written four in-depth articles on the site. I did not write those articles anonymously, nor do I participate on these discussion forums anonymously. I am stating openly right on this page that Fred Reed engaged in intellectual fraud. I am a serious person. I would not make such an accusation lightly.

    Where is Fred? Why does he not defend himself? If the accusation is untrue, would he not defend himself? Not just here, but under the very article. Where was Fred? Ran under a rock or what?

    Now, I wrote 4 articles on this site and they were controversial and came under quite a bit of attack in the comments underneath. A lot of the criticisms were idiotic and vacuous. Nonetheless, certainly, anybody who had the shadow of a shadow of a legitimate critique of what I was saying, I responded to it. Certainly, if people had been saying that I was engaging in intellectual fraud, which is a serious matter, I would have replied. So why doesn't Fred reply? Again, where was Fred when people were calling him out as a fraud? Just ran away, right? Where is he now?

    You may think you are being a noble person by defending Fred when Fred won't even defend Fred, but you're just being a fool. The reason Fred won't defend Fred is because his position is not tenable. What he did was in fact intellectual fraud and he and everybody knows it.

    Ok, I get what you are saying. But there is really no need for lengthy replies, I value concise information more.

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single “conspiracist” author or book. It was just this hand-waving “conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that”.

    Essentially you are calling Fred out because you think he does not address any of the issues/questions brought forth in the 9/11 books of the last 15 years and just resorts to “conspiracy theorists.” Name calling and the overall dismissive tone of that article. I think you think he did it deliberately? That is why you charged him with “intellectual fraud.”

    Thanks for taking the time.

    About your final point. Does Fred ever reply to comments? I have not seen him do that at all. With any of his articles.

    And I defend everyone :) Fred or you or any author should have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is an opinion piece. That article’s entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history. Not about the arguments, theories, evidence? presented in those books. That is his take on 9/11. While I disagree on that, Fred’s take isn’t that crazy either. If you think about it wholly from that train of thought, it kinda makes some sense. Mr unz even commented how the TWA 800 was a direct counter to his take/pov.

    Your intellectual fraud would make more sense if he brings up the points/arguments/evidence made in the books you mentioned, and casually dismissed them. Agree? He mostly concentrated on the crazier ones(missiles/no planes etc). Did he dismissed any of the points mentioned in Griffin’s book? I have not read it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    That article’s entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history.
     
    In reality it's easy to see the possibility. For example, people in the Soviet government and media went around repeating Marxist dogma for years.

    Some of them believed it, most of them didn't, and it wasn't a "conspiracy" either. Everyone knew the rules of the game: If you wanted to get ahead, repeat the approved scripts, avoid certain subjects and get into the "leadership" scene.

    Question: Was it oversight or intellectual fraud that led Fred to see this "impossibility"? In other words; Is Fred unaware that people can coordinate rather like a shoal of fish to cynically transmit approved propaganda to further their careers (and avoid trouble)?

    Answer: Fred knows what a "Goodthinker" is, so Revusky is probably right that the article was a genuine piece of Intellectual Fraud.
  102. I’m not a ’9/11 truther’ myself, but the ‘tinfoil’ piece does seem bad. It’s all based on the quintessential straw-man fallacy.

    And actually he does casually dismiss all the truthery oeuvre; like this, in the end: “Yet nobody did it. The only explanation is, again, that the entire press corps…” Well, clearly, a lot of people ‘did it’.

    He should’ve analyzed and addressed the actual points made by actual most credible truthers…

    Read More
  103. Ok, I get what you are saying. But there is really no need for lengthy replies, I value concise information more.

    Okay, who the hell do you think you are, you insolent little bastard! You insistently demand that I explain something to you, something that is, in fact obvious anyway, and now you have the cheek to complain that my answer is too detailed!!!????

    Essentially you are calling Fred out because you think he does not address any of the issues/questions brought forth in the 9/11 books of the last 15 years and just resorts to “conspiracy theorists.”

    No, not quite. That is imprecise. I call out Fred on this subject because he was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    For example, if you write a book review and you never even read the book, that is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. Fred has not read any of the literature on 9/11 and does not even know what the contours of the debate are. That is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    That is why you charged him with “intellectual fraud.”

    What rhetorical question do you think you are even formulating here? I said that what Fred Reed did in that article is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD because it is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. You insistently ask me what is intellectually fraudulent about it and I explain in detail, and then you complain that my explanation is too detailed. You want me to edit it down for you? Maybe I should hire illustrators and put out a comic book version for you, eh?

    Anyway, if you do not think that he engaged in intellectual fraud, then get his version of events. Write him a private email and ask him: “Hey, Fred, somebody is saying that your Tinfoil Hats article was intellectual fraud because you wrote an article ridiculing 9/11 Truthers without reading a single thing any of them had written. I can’t believe that is true. Surely you read a bunch of stuff before writing the article. Could you tell me which authors and books you read?”

    See what answer you get…

    Thanks for taking the time.

    Well, if you do appreciate me taking the time, you’re going to have to start being more respectful. I don’t have some paid job educating people like you.

    And I defend everyone :) Fred or you or any author should have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is an opinion piece.

    Well, that’s an extreme free speech position, fine. People have the right to write whatever they want even if it constitutes INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I’m not really clear on that, but okay, fine, let’s suppose that is the case. But then surely I and others also have the right to point out (quite correctly!) that what he wrote constitutes INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    So he is exercising his right and I and others have exercised our right, no? So what’s the issue then? Moreover, you asked me to explain what is intellectually fraudulent about what he did and I explained. I was quite willing (unlike Fred) to back up what I had written.

    Or… hold on: are you suggesting that people not only have the right to engage in intellectual fraud, but they have the right to engage in intellectual fraud without being called on it? If so, that is a very strange position, is it not? Really, it seems like saying that people have the right to fart in public, and furthermore, nobody has the right to say that it stinks!

    That article’s entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history

    Fine, but the whole line of argumentation is spurious and fundamentally stupid. The 9/11 Truth literature is almost entirely focused on demonstrating (really, to outrageous levels of overkill) that the U.S. government’s account of events is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Therefore it didn’t happen. That some alternative explanations (largely straw men) are as farfetched — that is actually beside the point. In any case, if there are multiple alternative narratives, at most one can be fully correct. But again, the central point is that the 9/11 Truth Literature demonstrates in a completely excruciating, painstaking way that the Government is lying about what happened.

    That is the central point.

    If you went to a magic show and see a series of things that are physically impossible, like somebody appears to walk on water, you know that the person didn’t really walk on water, it’s an illusion. You may not know how the illusion was created, fine, and when pressed to explain you may come up with an incorrect explanation. However, you know that nobody walked on water because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The bulk of the 9/11 literature is simply devoted to demonstrating that the official story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That some writer or other wrote some alternative narrative that is far-fetched also is really a peripheral point. The central point is the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of the official story.

    Fred’s pathetic intellectually fraudulent article is an example of somebody using his verbal acuity and wit, not to elucidate the central issue, but to confuse matters, to blow smoke. Fred has some gifts as a writer, but if he uses those gifts to confuse basic questions as a form of virtue signalling to the powers that be, I find that really DEPLORABLE.

    I would call on Fred, in the future, to use his considerable writing skills to clarify issues, not to blow smoke, as he did in that article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    FYI, I am in agreement with your position on 9/11.

    Concise is what I always strives for. It doesn't mean not answering or telling the person you are in conversation with to find out for themselves. This bastard likes it that way :) Explaining why the article was intellectual fraud was all you needed to do. Pretty sure you could do so without that many words? Saves you alot of time. Don't waste too much time on bastards like me in the comments :) I would rather you spend more time writing detailed articles for this website.

    I can't comment on the books or the points made within because I have not read them. I just know what Fred based his opinion on. My guess as to the train of thought and how he arrived at his conclusion. And I did call him out on it in the comments section of that article.

    I always appreciate people who takes their precious time typing out detailed responses when I ask for it. :) again thank you. That means you showed respect. You will get the same in return.

    Fred has a right to his opinion, you also have a right to your opinion. Opinions are just that, opinions. You also have a right to criticize him, any which way you deem fit. Just don't expect an apology. You can 100% ask for one, but don't expect one. I don't see why Fred should apologized for his opinion or train of thought. No matter how wrong it is on the 9/11 topic.

    About books and authors on the 9/11 subject. He didn't mention any of the books(maybe he didn't read any of them), authors, but he also didn't dismissed the points made in those books right? Am I missing something? Maybe his "conspiracies and conspiracy theorists" are talking about people in the comments section, not the authors? :) Even if it didn't include them, so what? That is still just his opinion. Not like his opinion can make it factual right? Just reading the comments of that article shows how many of us disagree with his opinion on that subject.

    My own conclusion on the subject was easily formed by the budget of the 9/11 commission, which was lower than clinton's sex scandal investigation. 2-3000 lives was worth less than who was clinton boning under his desk. The 2nd nail in the coffin was the owner of twin towers, silverstein, buying billions in "terrorism insurance" few months before 9/11. the insurance was worth 3.5B-7B. I don't believe in coincidences that has a minimum 3.5 billion price tag. No other points needed after these two.

    Fred’s pathetic intellectually fraudulent article is an example of somebody using his verbal acuity and wit, not to elucidate the central issue, but to confuse matters, to blow smoke. Fred has some gifts as a writer, but if he uses those gifts to confuse basic questions as a form of virtue signalling to the powers that be, I find that really DEPLORABLE.
     
    I think the aim was to dismiss, not to confuse or blow smoke. I am still of the opinion that opinion pieces can be anything and everything.
  104. @Jonathan Revusky

    9/11 Trutherism is too far outside the Overton Window for any established columnist to entertain.
     
    Well, sure, what somebody like Fred is doing when they write that kind of hit piece is a form of "virtue signaling". By vociferously denouncing the heretics conspiracy theorists he is signalling his ideological reliability to the PTB.

    Some of these people, they preen themselves as intellectual dissidents or rebels by writing anti-PC stuff that isn't much of a threat to the real power structure, but then they make sure to do this sort of virtue signalling to show that, really, on any important matter, they are intellectual conformists and will stick to the official line.

    A very funny recent example was this Anatoly Karlin character. He writes an article about how Twitter is blocking the accounts of the various alt-right ethno-nationalist people. Then, somehow, a discussion about the Holocaust arises and Karlin immediately says that he will delete all such threads and announces that "Holocaust deniers" are all idiots. I pointed out that Karlin almost certainly did not even know who any of the main Holocaust revisionists were or what they were arguing, so that he was engaging in intellectual fraud. He promptly banned me, claiming that I was "incessantly" trolling, when I had written all of 5 comments on his blog in the previous year. All that was here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/#comment-1791821

    What Karlin didn't understand seemingly was that the very same people who want to block an intellectually honest discussion of race and ethnicity also want to block an intellectually honest discussion of WW2. It's all part of a whole. You can't pretend your against censorship on the one thing, but all in favor of censorship on the other.

    The point is that these people represent themselves as mavericks and free thinkers but then when you hit any topic that has been established as a no-go zone by the powers that be, these people are falling over themselves genuflecting and showing their ideological conformity.

    Fred really screwed up with the "Legion of the Tin Foil Hats" article because he must have thought that there was just some fringe minority that disbelieved the official 9/11 story. Then he discovered that most of his readership were "Truthers" and he had just gratuitously insulted most of them. He hadn't realized how much the tide had turned.

    I think the tide has turned quite a bit and we really shouldn't be taking these sorts of behaviors lying down, like this kind of intellectual fraud that people engage in for their "virtue signaling". If they don't want to go there themselves, I guess that's okay, but these kinds of intellectually dishonest, fraudulent hit pieces really have to be denounced. It's not even that I have anything special against Fred. I just honestly feel that when they do this shit, it should be made very very unpleasant for them. I think that's just the way it has to be. I think there really has to be a very clear message that that kind of crap is unacceptable. Of course, I can only speak for myself (which is what I'm doing) but I had various private correspondence with people who really felt strongly about it as well and also just thought we shouldn't take this crap lying down.

    A very funny recent example was this Anatoly Karlin character. He writes an article about how Twitter is blocking the accounts of the various alt-right ethno-nationalist people. Then, somehow, a discussion about the Holocaust arises and Karlin immediately says that he will delete all such threads and announces that “Holocaust deniers” are all idiots. I pointed out that Karlin almost certainly did not even know who any of the main Holocaust revisionists were or what they were arguing, so that he was engaging in intellectual fraud. He promptly banned me, claiming that I was “incessantly” trolling, when I had written all of 5 comments on his blog in the previous year. All that was here: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/great-twitter-purge/#comment-1791821

    AK argued that being on Twitter is necessary for any public personality, and Twitter is public utility that have no right to deny service to anyone. Indeed argument funny in its absurdity.

    Read More
  105. @Jonathan Revusky

    Ok, I get what you are saying. But there is really no need for lengthy replies, I value concise information more.
     
    Okay, who the hell do you think you are, you insolent little bastard! You insistently demand that I explain something to you, something that is, in fact obvious anyway, and now you have the cheek to complain that my answer is too detailed!!!????

    Essentially you are calling Fred out because you think he does not address any of the issues/questions brought forth in the 9/11 books of the last 15 years and just resorts to “conspiracy theorists.”
     

    No, not quite. That is imprecise. I call out Fred on this subject because he was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    For example, if you write a book review and you never even read the book, that is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. Fred has not read any of the literature on 9/11 and does not even know what the contours of the debate are. That is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    That is why you charged him with “intellectual fraud.”
     

    What rhetorical question do you think you are even formulating here? I said that what Fred Reed did in that article is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD because it is INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. You insistently ask me what is intellectually fraudulent about it and I explain in detail, and then you complain that my explanation is too detailed. You want me to edit it down for you? Maybe I should hire illustrators and put out a comic book version for you, eh?

    Anyway, if you do not think that he engaged in intellectual fraud, then get his version of events. Write him a private email and ask him: "Hey, Fred, somebody is saying that your Tinfoil Hats article was intellectual fraud because you wrote an article ridiculing 9/11 Truthers without reading a single thing any of them had written. I can't believe that is true. Surely you read a bunch of stuff before writing the article. Could you tell me which authors and books you read?"

    See what answer you get...


    Thanks for taking the time.
     
    Well, if you do appreciate me taking the time, you're going to have to start being more respectful. I don't have some paid job educating people like you.

    And I defend everyone :) Fred or you or any author should have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is an opinion piece.
     

    Well, that's an extreme free speech position, fine. People have the right to write whatever they want even if it constitutes INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I'm not really clear on that, but okay, fine, let's suppose that is the case. But then surely I and others also have the right to point out (quite correctly!) that what he wrote constitutes INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    So he is exercising his right and I and others have exercised our right, no? So what's the issue then? Moreover, you asked me to explain what is intellectually fraudulent about what he did and I explained. I was quite willing (unlike Fred) to back up what I had written.

    Or... hold on: are you suggesting that people not only have the right to engage in intellectual fraud, but they have the right to engage in intellectual fraud without being called on it? If so, that is a very strange position, is it not? Really, it seems like saying that people have the right to fart in public, and furthermore, nobody has the right to say that it stinks!

    That article’s entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history
     

    Fine, but the whole line of argumentation is spurious and fundamentally stupid. The 9/11 Truth literature is almost entirely focused on demonstrating (really, to outrageous levels of overkill) that the U.S. government's account of events is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Therefore it didn't happen. That some alternative explanations (largely straw men) are as farfetched -- that is actually beside the point. In any case, if there are multiple alternative narratives, at most one can be fully correct. But again, the central point is that the 9/11 Truth Literature demonstrates in a completely excruciating, painstaking way that the Government is lying about what happened.

    That is the central point.

    If you went to a magic show and see a series of things that are physically impossible, like somebody appears to walk on water, you know that the person didn't really walk on water, it's an illusion. You may not know how the illusion was created, fine, and when pressed to explain you may come up with an incorrect explanation. However, you know that nobody walked on water because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The bulk of the 9/11 literature is simply devoted to demonstrating that the official story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That some writer or other wrote some alternative narrative that is far-fetched also is really a peripheral point. The central point is the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of the official story.

    Fred's pathetic intellectually fraudulent article is an example of somebody using his verbal acuity and wit, not to elucidate the central issue, but to confuse matters, to blow smoke. Fred has some gifts as a writer, but if he uses those gifts to confuse basic questions as a form of virtue signalling to the powers that be, I find that really DEPLORABLE.

    I would call on Fred, in the future, to use his considerable writing skills to clarify issues, not to blow smoke, as he did in that article.

    FYI, I am in agreement with your position on 9/11.

    Concise is what I always strives for. It doesn’t mean not answering or telling the person you are in conversation with to find out for themselves. This bastard likes it that way :) Explaining why the article was intellectual fraud was all you needed to do. Pretty sure you could do so without that many words? Saves you alot of time. Don’t waste too much time on bastards like me in the comments :) I would rather you spend more time writing detailed articles for this website.

    I can’t comment on the books or the points made within because I have not read them. I just know what Fred based his opinion on. My guess as to the train of thought and how he arrived at his conclusion. And I did call him out on it in the comments section of that article.

    I always appreciate people who takes their precious time typing out detailed responses when I ask for it. :) again thank you. That means you showed respect. You will get the same in return.

    Fred has a right to his opinion, you also have a right to your opinion. Opinions are just that, opinions. You also have a right to criticize him, any which way you deem fit. Just don’t expect an apology. You can 100% ask for one, but don’t expect one. I don’t see why Fred should apologized for his opinion or train of thought. No matter how wrong it is on the 9/11 topic.

    About books and authors on the 9/11 subject. He didn’t mention any of the books(maybe he didn’t read any of them), authors, but he also didn’t dismissed the points made in those books right? Am I missing something? Maybe his “conspiracies and conspiracy theorists” are talking about people in the comments section, not the authors? :) Even if it didn’t include them, so what? That is still just his opinion. Not like his opinion can make it factual right? Just reading the comments of that article shows how many of us disagree with his opinion on that subject.

    My own conclusion on the subject was easily formed by the budget of the 9/11 commission, which was lower than clinton’s sex scandal investigation. 2-3000 lives was worth less than who was clinton boning under his desk. The 2nd nail in the coffin was the owner of twin towers, silverstein, buying billions in “terrorism insurance” few months before 9/11. the insurance was worth 3.5B-7B. I don’t believe in coincidences that has a minimum 3.5 billion price tag. No other points needed after these two.

    Fred’s pathetic intellectually fraudulent article is an example of somebody using his verbal acuity and wit, not to elucidate the central issue, but to confuse matters, to blow smoke. Fred has some gifts as a writer, but if he uses those gifts to confuse basic questions as a form of virtue signalling to the powers that be, I find that really DEPLORABLE.

    I think the aim was to dismiss, not to confuse or blow smoke. I am still of the opinion that opinion pieces can be anything and everything.

    Read More
  106. Explaining why the article was intellectual fraud was all you needed to do. Pretty sure you could do so without that many words? Saves you alot of time.

    Uhh, no, it would NOT save me time. If you understood better how writing works, you would understand that it would be far more time consuming for me to write a more concise answer than the longish one I wrote.

    Fred has a right to his opinion, you also have a right to your opinion.

    Well, you’re making a fallacious argument via a deceptive framing of the question. If we both go to a movie and you like the movie and I don’t, then the above statement applies. Yes, we both saw the movie and we came to different conclusions and we each have a “right” to our opinion.

    But that is NOT what is going on here. If you went to a movie and I did not go, it is quite dubious that we have an equal “right” to express an opinion. After all, expressing an opinion about a movie I did not see or a book I did not read, that involves fraud. Again, the central issue here is Fred’s engaging in FRAUD, not that his opinion differs from mine or whether he has a “right” to an opinion in a general sense. I have been quite clear about this throughout this discussion: the issue is that Fred was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    I think that should be clear, so I feel compelled to ask: Are you engaging in willful obtuseness when you fail to understand the issue or is it just that you haven’t thought about it enough?

    I don’t see why Fred should apologized for his opinion or train of thought. No matter how wrong it is on the 9/11 topic.

    Well, for the umpteenth time, I am not saying Fred owes us an apology for having an opinion, or even for being wrong (even this horrendously wrong). I am saying he owes us an apology because he was perpetrating an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I think we should expect a certain level of good faith, honesty, from people.

    My own conclusion on the subject was easily formed by the budget of the 9/11 commission, which was lower than clinton’s sex scandal investigation. 2-3000 lives was worth less than who was clinton boning under his desk. The 2nd nail in the coffin was the owner of twin towers, silverstein, buying billions in “terrorism insurance” few months before 9/11.

    Uhh, these things are definitely grist to the mill, but they are not the first order issue. The first order issue is that there is a huge body of independent research that proves (many times over to an outrageous level of overkill) that the government account of what happened is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Now, another very important thing to understand in this case and others is the fact that there were drills running on the day of the event. This is a dead giveaway as it is part of the modus operandi of synthetic, staged events. But, as important as that is, it is the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of the official account that is still THE A-1-A first order issue.

    I think the aim was to dismiss, not to confuse or blow smoke.

    I’m not sure I understand the above distinction. I am fairly sure that I understand WHY people write such hit pieces. It’s a kind of “virtue-signaling” humbug. But that is not such an important issue, since it is still speculative. The point is that intellectual fraud should not be acceptable.

    I am still of the opinion that opinion pieces can be anything and everything.

    Well, this is where we part ways. I do not believe that intellectual fraud should be considered acceptable. If such bad faithed garbage does not bother you, that is your business, but I think we should demand a certain level of good faith and honesty from people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I only have the highest standards for scientific articles, not for Op-ed. Opinions should always be treated as opinions. There is no need to elevate them higher.

    I think we should demand a certain level of good faith and honesty from people.
     
    That is kind of an impossibility in 2017, maybe even forever. Everyone is working an angle. Everyone(maybe minus the people who are overtly altruistic, humanists). I applaud you for still believing in other fellow human beings.

    But that is NOT what is going on here. If you went to a movie and I did not go, it is quite dubious that we have an equal “right” to express an opinion. After all, expressing an opinion about a movie I did not see or a book I did not read, that involves fraud. Again, the central issue here is Fred’s engaging in FRAUD, not that his opinion differs from mine or whether he has a “right” to an opinion in a general sense. I have been quite clear about this throughout this discussion: the issue is that Fred was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.
     
    Well, let list all the points Fred used in his dismissal of the 9/11. They were missiles, flight crews, travel agencies, the entire press corps, no planes but a demolition, everyone in Manhattan being part of the cover up, occupants of the towers, secret societies.

    Did he mention any of the points made in those books you mentioned? He concentrated on the people aspect right? His conclusion was that it is an impossibility for so many people from so many different spectrum of life to be in on the biggest conspiracy in human history? Mr unz countered that conclusion beautifully with the TWA 800 incident.

    Well, for the umpteenth time, I am not saying Fred owes us an apology for having an opinion, or even for being wrong (even this horrendously wrong). I am saying he owes us an apology because he was perpetrating an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I think we should expect a certain level of good faith, honesty, from people.

     

    Lets use your movie watching examples. 2014, 2 Hercules movies came out. you guys watch totally different movies and gave your opinions on the movie you both watched. one of you started accusing the other of dishonesty. But the opinions were for completely different movies. Fred was all about the impossible scale of human involvement. You firmly believe in the structural, physical impossibilities. This 100% hinges on whether or not Fred brought up the points made in the books you mentioned and casually dismissed them. Did you clear this up? Sorry if I missed it.


    I’m not sure I understand the above distinction.
     
    Well, one is ending a topic outright, while the latter merely obfuscates.

    The first order issue is that there is a huge body of independent research that proves (many times over to an outrageous level of overkill) that the government account of what happened is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
     
    With the 2 points I mentioned, I haven't had the need to read any books on the matter because my conclusion is already set.
  107. @Jonathan Revusky

    Explaining why the article was intellectual fraud was all you needed to do. Pretty sure you could do so without that many words? Saves you alot of time.
     
    Uhh, no, it would NOT save me time. If you understood better how writing works, you would understand that it would be far more time consuming for me to write a more concise answer than the longish one I wrote.

    Fred has a right to his opinion, you also have a right to your opinion.
     
    Well, you're making a fallacious argument via a deceptive framing of the question. If we both go to a movie and you like the movie and I don't, then the above statement applies. Yes, we both saw the movie and we came to different conclusions and we each have a "right" to our opinion.

    But that is NOT what is going on here. If you went to a movie and I did not go, it is quite dubious that we have an equal "right" to express an opinion. After all, expressing an opinion about a movie I did not see or a book I did not read, that involves fraud. Again, the central issue here is Fred's engaging in FRAUD, not that his opinion differs from mine or whether he has a "right" to an opinion in a general sense. I have been quite clear about this throughout this discussion: the issue is that Fred was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    I think that should be clear, so I feel compelled to ask: Are you engaging in willful obtuseness when you fail to understand the issue or is it just that you haven't thought about it enough?

    I don’t see why Fred should apologized for his opinion or train of thought. No matter how wrong it is on the 9/11 topic.
     

    Well, for the umpteenth time, I am not saying Fred owes us an apology for having an opinion, or even for being wrong (even this horrendously wrong). I am saying he owes us an apology because he was perpetrating an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I think we should expect a certain level of good faith, honesty, from people.

    My own conclusion on the subject was easily formed by the budget of the 9/11 commission, which was lower than clinton’s sex scandal investigation. 2-3000 lives was worth less than who was clinton boning under his desk. The 2nd nail in the coffin was the owner of twin towers, silverstein, buying billions in “terrorism insurance” few months before 9/11.
     
    Uhh, these things are definitely grist to the mill, but they are not the first order issue. The first order issue is that there is a huge body of independent research that proves (many times over to an outrageous level of overkill) that the government account of what happened is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Now, another very important thing to understand in this case and others is the fact that there were drills running on the day of the event. This is a dead giveaway as it is part of the modus operandi of synthetic, staged events. But, as important as that is, it is the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of the official account that is still THE A-1-A first order issue.


    I think the aim was to dismiss, not to confuse or blow smoke.
     
    I'm not sure I understand the above distinction. I am fairly sure that I understand WHY people write such hit pieces. It's a kind of "virtue-signaling" humbug. But that is not such an important issue, since it is still speculative. The point is that intellectual fraud should not be acceptable.

    I am still of the opinion that opinion pieces can be anything and everything.
     
    Well, this is where we part ways. I do not believe that intellectual fraud should be considered acceptable. If such bad faithed garbage does not bother you, that is your business, but I think we should demand a certain level of good faith and honesty from people.

    I only have the highest standards for scientific articles, not for Op-ed. Opinions should always be treated as opinions. There is no need to elevate them higher.

    I think we should demand a certain level of good faith and honesty from people.

    That is kind of an impossibility in 2017, maybe even forever. Everyone is working an angle. Everyone(maybe minus the people who are overtly altruistic, humanists). I applaud you for still believing in other fellow human beings.

    But that is NOT what is going on here. If you went to a movie and I did not go, it is quite dubious that we have an equal “right” to express an opinion. After all, expressing an opinion about a movie I did not see or a book I did not read, that involves fraud. Again, the central issue here is Fred’s engaging in FRAUD, not that his opinion differs from mine or whether he has a “right” to an opinion in a general sense. I have been quite clear about this throughout this discussion: the issue is that Fred was engaging in INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

    Well, let list all the points Fred used in his dismissal of the 9/11. They were missiles, flight crews, travel agencies, the entire press corps, no planes but a demolition, everyone in Manhattan being part of the cover up, occupants of the towers, secret societies.

    Did he mention any of the points made in those books you mentioned? He concentrated on the people aspect right? His conclusion was that it is an impossibility for so many people from so many different spectrum of life to be in on the biggest conspiracy in human history? Mr unz countered that conclusion beautifully with the TWA 800 incident.

    Well, for the umpteenth time, I am not saying Fred owes us an apology for having an opinion, or even for being wrong (even this horrendously wrong). I am saying he owes us an apology because he was perpetrating an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD. I think we should expect a certain level of good faith, honesty, from people.

    Lets use your movie watching examples. 2014, 2 Hercules movies came out. you guys watch totally different movies and gave your opinions on the movie you both watched. one of you started accusing the other of dishonesty. But the opinions were for completely different movies. Fred was all about the impossible scale of human involvement. You firmly believe in the structural, physical impossibilities. This 100% hinges on whether or not Fred brought up the points made in the books you mentioned and casually dismissed them. Did you clear this up? Sorry if I missed it.

    I’m not sure I understand the above distinction.

    Well, one is ending a topic outright, while the latter merely obfuscates.

    The first order issue is that there is a huge body of independent research that proves (many times over to an outrageous level of overkill) that the government account of what happened is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    With the 2 points I mentioned, I haven’t had the need to read any books on the matter because my conclusion is already set.

    Read More
  108. @Astuteobservor II
    Ok, I get what you are saying. But there is really no need for lengthy replies, I value concise information more.

    Did he ever mention any author or book by name? Think about that. Why is that? He was writing an article 15(!) years after the event and there is a vast literature on the subject and he seemingly could not name a single “conspiracist” author or book. It was just this hand-waving “conspiracy theorists say this, conspiracy theorists say that”.
     
    Essentially you are calling Fred out because you think he does not address any of the issues/questions brought forth in the 9/11 books of the last 15 years and just resorts to "conspiracy theorists." Name calling and the overall dismissive tone of that article. I think you think he did it deliberately? That is why you charged him with "intellectual fraud."

    Thanks for taking the time.

    About your final point. Does Fred ever reply to comments? I have not seen him do that at all. With any of his articles.

    And I defend everyone :) Fred or you or any author should have the right to write whatever they want, as long as it is an opinion piece. That article's entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history. Not about the arguments, theories, evidence? presented in those books. That is his take on 9/11. While I disagree on that, Fred's take isn't that crazy either. If you think about it wholly from that train of thought, it kinda makes some sense. Mr unz even commented how the TWA 800 was a direct counter to his take/pov.

    Your intellectual fraud would make more sense if he brings up the points/arguments/evidence made in the books you mentioned, and casually dismissed them. Agree? He mostly concentrated on the crazier ones(missiles/no planes etc). Did he dismissed any of the points mentioned in Griffin's book? I have not read it.

    That article’s entire point was more about how it is an impossibility that so many people, from so many levels of the govt and media, are all in on the biggest conspiracy in human history.

    In reality it’s easy to see the possibility. For example, people in the Soviet government and media went around repeating Marxist dogma for years.

    Some of them believed it, most of them didn’t, and it wasn’t a “conspiracy” either. Everyone knew the rules of the game: If you wanted to get ahead, repeat the approved scripts, avoid certain subjects and get into the “leadership” scene.

    Question: Was it oversight or intellectual fraud that led Fred to see this “impossibility”? In other words; Is Fred unaware that people can coordinate rather like a shoal of fish to cynically transmit approved propaganda to further their careers (and avoid trouble)?

    Answer: Fred knows what a “Goodthinker” is, so Revusky is probably right that the article was a genuine piece of Intellectual Fraud.

    Read More
  109. @Summer's eve
    Fred is a race traitor and a self hating White man. You can also add cuckold to the list.

    You’re probably one of those White kooks who also think that Jews control media and finance and government.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave