The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Jonathan Chait Denounces Political Correctness (Except His Own)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_76817425
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

After the 2012 election we heard a lot about how the Obama Coalition was a demographic juggernaut. To take a random example, from New York magazine on May 10, 2013:

How Jason Richwine Passed Immigration Reform
By Jonathan Chait

The fallout from the Heritage Foundation’s immigration reform study has developed into a watershed moment for the prospects of passing a bill. The release of the study prompted a fierce backlash from proponents of reform, which compounded when Dylan Matthews reported that Jason Richwine, a co-author of the study, wrote a dissertation arguing, “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

Heritage has found itself in a public relations crisis, and announced Richwine was leaving the conservative think-tank. …

If the Gang of Eight bill fails, Richwine’s comments will continue to linger and recirculate in the Latino-American media until immigration reform finally passes. Republicans will never be able to convince Latinos they killed the bill for any reason other than racial animus. The need to put this behind them is growing desperate.

Of course, Richwine should be fired for having done his Harvard doctoral dissertation on a technical subject of massive importance to the long term future of the country. Nobody should be allowed to express or even have an informed opinion on the topic. Knowledge is bad.

But, as I’ve been pointing out for a long time, the Obama Coalition is mostly held together by its hatred for cisgendered straight white males like, oh, to pick another random example, Jonathan Chait.

Ever since the 2014 election, the progressive crack-up has been proceeding. Winning covers up a lot of fractures, but losing pulls the masking tape off.

So, in New York magazine this week, Jonathan Chait is firing back at all the Social Media Justice Warriors who denounce him and his friends, such as Hanna Rosin (basically, the Stephen Glass Support Network at The New Republic in the 1990s), for occasionally expressing a thought besides “CSWMs Are Evil:”

Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma — an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma — or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy — merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness — “Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?’ ”

A behind-the-scenes angle to this involves a split among the Former Friends of Stephen Glass between Sabrina Rubin Erdely versus Chait and Rosin versus over the UVA Hoax.

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images of Fordham students displaying signs recounting “an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.” The stories ranged from uncomfortable (“No, where are you really from?”) to relatively innocuous (“ ‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone”). BuzzFeed published part of her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views. This is not an anomaly.

It’s a free country, and if BuzzFeed can hustle a buck off putting dumb stuff out there, so what?

I care a lot more about when the SMJWs use their power and money to silence dissenters by getting scientists like Jason Richwine and James D. Watson fired.

Yet, I can’t find much evidence of Chait, who has had plenty of platforms in the press since he co-authored a story with Stephen Glass a couple of decades ago at The New Republic, protesting either Richwine or Watson losing their jobs.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw. …

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves. …

In a Coalition of the Fringes, there’s a lot of effort put in to be Fringier than Thou.

I am white and male, a fact that is certainly worth bearing in mind. … If you consider this background and demographic information the very essence of my point of view, then there’s not much point in reading any further. But this pointlessness is exactly the point: Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing.

I’m going to jump in here and point out that I don’t think that’s necessarily unreasonable. For example, consider the legal concept of Admission Against Interest. When somebody once said:

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

It’s more interesting because it was Jesse Jackson who said it.

I’m going to go in the opposite direction from Chait. He seems to be implying that it should be considered in bad taste to point out how demographics bias viewpoints. Thus, it shouldn’t be respectable to scoff at what Chait says because he’s a man or at what Rosin says because she’s white.

I’m sympathetic, but my view is that we should go 180 degrees the opposite from Chait’s notion. Instead of everybody being sheltered from criticism over who they are, as Chait implies, we’d be better off if everybody was free game over everything. Anybody would be okay to criticize anybody, no matter how sacralized the designated victim group the offended party belongs to.

My vision of what American public discourse ought to be would basically be 300,000,000 Bill Burrs going at each other.

Obviously, I’m biased. I don’t have a lot of Victimization Pokemon Points that I would be sacrificing.

I’m also professionally biased in that I’m a critic, and I think criticism is, on the whole, good for people.

White guys get criticized a lot. And, guess what? We behave pretty well. Having your group criticized for your stereotypical bad behavior tends to make you want to avoid that kind of behavior.

In contrast, members of lots of other groups are largely off-limits for being criticized for behaving in stereotypical fashions. For example, everybody knows that poor young black men are more likely on average to, say, loot convenience stores and attack policemen. But you aren’t supposed to admit you know that. That’s a stereotype!

So when Michael Brown looted a convenience store and attacked a policeman, and the policeman didn’t get indicted, lots of poor young black men in Ferguson responded by … you guessed it: looting convenience stores. And then a poor young black man in Brooklyn attacked a couple of policemen and shot them dead.

Funny how that works.

Likewise, everybody knows that women tend to take things personally, get worked up, and then throw principled logic out the window. So, you aren’t supposed to mention it these days because it’s a stereotype (because it’s true).

Not surprisingly, therefore, lots of women these days go online, take things personally, get worked up, and throw principled logic out the window. What, is somebody going to dare laugh at them and point out they are behaving in a stereotypically female fashion? So, public discourse gets clogged up with women throwing hissy fits.

And Muslims are stereotypically chip-on-the-shoulder hot-heads. Fifty years ago in France, they used to feel a little embarrassed about behaving like Anthony Quinn’s character in Lawrence of Arabia because that so obviously confirmed the stereotype. But now their grandsons have been told endlessly that anybody who notices stereotypes is evil, so some of them get offended and go murder caricature cartoonists.

None of this is some weird accident. It’s the basic logic of human behavior: the more a group is above criticism, the worse they behave.

 
• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Political Correctness, Racism 
    []
  1. VPPs — Victimization Pokemon Points — love it!

    And yes, the problem with VPPs, like with airmiles, is that if you’re just an ordinary schlub, you have to work so hard to earn them — and then you just try to cash them in!

    Read More
    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    They'll roll them over for the cash value which is nothing.

    Delta is unique in that it allows its Medallion elites to rollover any miles ...Maximizing MQMs from Credit Cards



    If you didn’t get as many rollover miles as you need/want you can always accrue more by applying for Delta’s premium American Express credit cards. The Reserve card ($450 annual fee) gives 10,000 MQMs with the first purchase and an additional 15,000 MQMs at $30,000 in spend and another 15,000 at $60,000 in spend. The Delta Platinum card ($150 annual fee) gives 5,000 MQMs with first purchase and then 10,000 MQMs at $25,000 in spend and an additional 10,000 at $50,000 in spend. You have all calendar year to achieve those spend thresholds, so it is better to plan and start now if that is an angle you want to take to maintain/achieve Medallion status.

    Read more: http://thepointsguy.com/2014/01/my-rollover-delta-medallion-qualifying-miles-posted-for-2014/#ixzz3QHnlwemi
    Follow us: @thepointsguy on Twitter | thepointsguy on Facebook

    Of course it's another attack surface for hackers. You have all calender year too.

    Hackers Steal Miles from American, United Airlines
    eSecurity Planet-Jan 14, 2015
    In both cases, the airlines themselves weren't hacked -- affected ... post that air miles and loyalty programs are often easy targets for hackers.
    "According to United Airlines spokesman Luke Punzenberger, the criminals booked trips or made mileage transactions on as many as three dozen United accounts, though Punzenberger said any stolen miles will be restored to those affected.

    In American Airlines' case, airline spokeswoman Martha Thomas told the AP that about 10,000 acounts were impacted, and in at least two cases, a free flight or upgrade was booked without the account holder's knowledge." http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/hackers-steal-miles-from-american-united-airlines.html

    Customers went from VIP to VPP.
    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
    /isteve/jonathan-chait-denounces-political-correctness/#comment-861978
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    PC was good when it was attacking ‘racists’ and cons. But now it is bad because it’s devouring Libs and Zionists.

    Read More
  3. A college-aged friend of a friend, who was from a well-off family in Cameroon, once asked me in all curious earnestness, “So, what’s it like to be a rich white guy?”

    I said, first, that it didn’t suck. And, second, that the best thing about it was that if I failed I had no-one to blame but myself — working without a net makes you get a lot better a lot faster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Uh, the definition of rich white guy is working with a big old bouncy net.
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “Fifty years ago in France, they used to feel a little embarrassed about behaving like Anthony Quinn’s character in Lawrence of Arabia because that so obviously confirmed the stereotype.”

    No way. The dude was magnificent. He was not a religious hothead but a savvy opportunist who understood the art of the deal. He was a pragmatist. He was also insightful about the nature of Sharif’s character’s feelings for Lawrence.

    And… he was a river to his people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    That scene never gets old.
    , @Paco
    The great Anthony Quinn !
  5. @The Last Real Calvinist
    VPPs -- Victimization Pokemon Points -- love it!

    And yes, the problem with VPPs, like with airmiles, is that if you're just an ordinary schlub, you have to work so hard to earn them -- and then you just try to cash them in!

    They’ll roll them over for the cash value which is nothing.

    Delta is unique in that it allows its Medallion elites to rollover any miles …Maximizing MQMs from Credit Cards

    [MORE]

    If you didn’t get as many rollover miles as you need/want you can always accrue more by applying for Delta’s premium American Express credit cards. The Reserve card ($450 annual fee) gives 10,000 MQMs with the first purchase and an additional 15,000 MQMs at $30,000 in spend and another 15,000 at $60,000 in spend. The Delta Platinum card ($150 annual fee) gives 5,000 MQMs with first purchase and then 10,000 MQMs at $25,000 in spend and an additional 10,000 at $50,000 in spend. You have all calendar year to achieve those spend thresholds, so it is better to plan and start now if that is an angle you want to take to maintain/achieve Medallion status.

    Read more: http://thepointsguy.com/2014/01/my-rollover-delta-medallion-qualifying-miles-posted-for-2014/#ixzz3QHnlwemi
    Follow us: @thepointsguy on Twitter | thepointsguy on Facebook

    Of course it’s another attack surface for hackers. You have all calender year too.

    Hackers Steal Miles from American, United Airlines
    eSecurity Planet-Jan 14, 2015
    In both cases, the airlines themselves weren’t hacked — affected … post that air miles and loyalty programs are often easy targets for hackers.
    “According to United Airlines spokesman Luke Punzenberger, the criminals booked trips or made mileage transactions on as many as three dozen United accounts, though Punzenberger said any stolen miles will be restored to those affected.

    In American Airlines’ case, airline spokeswoman Martha Thomas told the AP that about 10,000 acounts were impacted, and in at least two cases, a free flight or upgrade was booked without the account holder’s knowledge.” http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/hackers-steal-miles-from-american-united-airlines.html

    Customers went from VIP to VPP.

    Read More
  6. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    It’s always nice to warm your hands around a hot mug of schadenfreude on a winter’s night. But if you check out Chait on Twitter tonight ( https://twitter.com/jonathanchait ), you’ll see he remains unchastened, trolling Chuck Johnson, talking smack about Charles Murray, etc. PC for thee but not for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    He's defending Johnson's description of his wife as Asian, not trolling him.

    "Come on, @MikeDrucker -- easier to delineate your wives from each other by race than by number or something."
  7. @Johanus de Morgateroyde
    A college-aged friend of a friend, who was from a well-off family in Cameroon, once asked me in all curious earnestness, "So, what's it like to be a rich white guy?"

    I said, first, that it didn't suck. And, second, that the best thing about it was that if I failed I had no-one to blame but myself -- working without a net makes you get a lot better a lot faster.

    Uh, the definition of rich white guy is working with a big old bouncy net.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Having family with any money at all (especially parents) is a huge safety net. I remember going out with a girl in college whose family was poor, while mine is middle class. She correctly pointed out that if I screwed off and cut class and flunked out, my family would bail me out--they'd help me go back to a different school, or let me live in their basement while I went to community college, or whatever. And if she did the same, she'd be waiting tables for a living, because all her family were worse off than she'd be waiting tables.
  8. robot says:

    …which leads straight to the unspeakable motivating engine behind the whole hullaballoo: the Jews will never approve of free criticism of the Jews, and they’ll never let the topic of free criticism of everyone be raised or considered, because they have a vulnerability there.

    Read More
  9. I read Chait’s article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 – in his world it was a phenomenon of the late ’80s that ‘went into remission’ then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn’t regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    My favorite bit of Chiat's obliviousness is this:

    Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.
     
    There was a big clue right in the phrase itself, that the rest of us who remember the early '90s noticed then: "correctness". If one set of views is ordained to be correct, obviously, there's nothing to debate.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Feminist PC went through a spasm following the Clarence Thomas sexual harassment thingie in the fall of 1991, then slowly faded and hit a relative low point when feminists were defending Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment thingie in 1998.
    , @Snippet
    >>> He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012

    <<< It's impossible to quantify these things, but I remember thinking that the PC train did appear to be running out of steam a while ago. It was a hopeful thought. The way it has come roaring back is astonishing, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that when it become completely clear that Messiah 2.0 wasn't going to deliver us to the promised land, the PC excuse machine got pulled out of storage and fired up with a vengeance.
    , @ben tillman

    I read Chait’s article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 – in his world it was a phenomenon of the late ’80s that ‘went into remission’ then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn’t regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.
     
    Yes, I think you nailed it.
  10. Jacobite says: • Website

    Stop this use of the word “cisgendered” immediately!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Stop this use of the word “cisgendered” immediately!!!"

    Thank god, I thought I was the only one.
    , @travell-lyte
    Thank you, J.

    BBJ and SS, please?
  11. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Simon in London
    I read Chait's article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 - in his world it was a phenomenon of the late '80s that 'went into remission' then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn't regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    My favorite bit of Chiat’s obliviousness is this:

    Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

    There was a big clue right in the phrase itself, that the rest of us who remember the early ’90s noticed then: “correctness”. If one set of views is ordained to be correct, obviously, there’s nothing to debate.

    Read More
  12. @Simon in London
    I read Chait's article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 - in his world it was a phenomenon of the late '80s that 'went into remission' then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn't regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    Feminist PC went through a spasm following the Clarence Thomas sexual harassment thingie in the fall of 1991, then slowly faded and hit a relative low point when feminists were defending Bill Clinton during his sexual harassment thingie in 1998.

    Read More
  13. no name says:

    There’s a funny line in the Edgar Wright movie “The World’s End” where someone makes a comment to Simon Pegg’s character that something he said wasn’t very PC. He responds “Get out of the nineties!”. The joke is that throughout the movie he is shown to be stuck in the past so he isn’t aware that PC has made a comeback. Steve, that movie could use one of your reviews.

    Read More
  14. Lot says:

    As I’ve been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat’s article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, “I don’t disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn’t effective politically.” And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don’t want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O’Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio’s upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg’s unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio’s extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    What does it mean if there is a big yellow taxi, errr, border around a reply?

    Does that mean the reply is the thread winner?
    , @Wade
    Can someone please explain the new brown-box thingy around certain poster's posts?
    , @Sam Haysom
    Completely dishonest. Those elections weren't lost because the candidates were excessively social conservative, but because Murdock and Akin both inadvertently made comments suggesting they were not sensitive to rape. No where can you find social conservatives arguing that what's needed is for the Republican Party to run on a platform of flippancy about rape. Akin and Murdock lost for the same reason that Romney lost, in Romney's case the forty 48 percent line. All three made unfortunate comments that no one in their right mind would advocate as the basis of an electoral strategy.

    How Lot compares this phenomenon to what occured with the Democrats racial misfire in 2014 is entirely a function of his hatred for social conservatives and his feankly absurd view that a national party can be built from his goldilocks just right mix of social leftism and aggressive anti-black racialism. Is there any particular of the RNCs hand-picked candidates that Lot wants to stand behind. It will be interesting to see if the sell out to amnesty before or after 2015. It's all for naught anyways because when Lot's RNC boys go 0 for seven in senate seat pickups in 2016 and Jeb Bush loses by ten points no one is going to much care what the anti-socon faction has to say.

    You'd be hard press to find a more loyal and easily placated ally than the relgious right. They also have a lot more sophisticated understanding of politics than lot. McCaskill can be beat in four years so in the scheme of things it's not a big deal if you occasionally lose as long as deep Red states like Missouri ultimately get right-wing Senators. McCains and Lindsey Grahams are forever.
    , @countenance
    Yeah, and I'm getting tired of all these RINOs blaming all their problems on Christine O'Donnell. They must not know that Delaware is a blue state, and if O'Donnell would never have run, Mike Castle would have won the Republican nomination but then lost to Chris Coons in November (polling evidence proves it). And even if Castle would have won on some freak, so what? It's a RINO Mike Castle who would have voted for Gang Bangers of Eight. As it was, Delaware has three counties and Christine O'Donnell won two of them on both primary and general election day. It's just that one she didn't win, the one with Wilmington, has the bulk of the state's people.

    We have to get rid of these yay red team rah rah red team histrionics.
    , @Forbes
    Christine Quinn is an unpleasant woman, which makes De Blasio reasonable by comparison. That she was the candidate of the NYTimes probably made Daily News readers uncomfortable. How many minorities will vote for the white lesbian over the better bona fides of a white man married to a black woman? And De Blasio didn't make extreme attacks on the police--unwarranted and unwise, certainly--but he took the minority community's loudmouth megaphone position on "stop, ask, and frisk" that much of the NYC political left endorsed. In hindsight, it's easy to say that Quinn wouldn't have been the disaster that De Blasio has been, but that's a low bar.
    , @WhatEvvs

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio’s upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg’s unofficial pick as his successor.
     
    It is true that Bloomberg endorsed Quinn but in NYC these endorsements are meaningless. Quinn had no base, which is why she lost. She was never a favorite, except in the media.

    The person that DeB really upset was Bill Thompson, a moderate, sensible black guy who will go down in NYC politics graveyard, along with Ruth Messinger and others.

    In 2009, Thompson did very well against Bloomberg, losing by about 4.5%. Bloomberg won this election by, ahem, "spreading the wealth." (He bought everyone in town off.)

    In 2013, he and DeB were neck and neck, but Thompson graciously electing not to challenge DeB in a runoff. Why? Because that's what Episcopalian gentlemen do.

    I kid. It was a fix. They squeezed him and he threw in the towel. A shame.

    the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.
     
    Cop-bashing doesn't work in NYC, where did you get that idea?

    DeB's win was a fluke and he didn't win because he was a "cop basher" he won because he got handed the Dem. nomination, see above. Any Dem would have won this election. Most NYers are pretty law and order. Anti-gun, maybe, but law and order. It is an idiosyncratic juxtaposition, like Vermonters are pro-gun and very liberal.
  15. Lot says:

    Kevin Drum also recently wrote about how stupid the “mansplaining” meme is and makes the left look bad. He’s so nice though, he avoided the bile tossed at Chiat.

    He also, using “middle class” v “poor” coding, said the Democrats keep failing to offer an economic agenda for whites:

    I don’t really want to pick on McElwee here, but I guess I’m feeling a little peevish this morning. Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let’s compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

    Republicans: We will lower your taxes.
    Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and….and….working man….party of FDR….um….

    There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it’s too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it’s not true anyway. Democrats simply don’t consistently support concrete policies that help the broad working and middle classes. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They’ve done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don’t do anything for labor. They’re soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can’t even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one.

    Sure, Democrats do plenty for the poor. They support increases in the EITC and the minimum wage. They support Medicaid expansion. They passed Obamacare. They support pre-K for vulnerable populations. They expanded CHIP. But virtually none of this really benefits the working or middle classes except at the margins.

    Now McElwee wants to use environmentalism to appeal to the working class. I’m all for that. But you don’t have to play 11-dimensional chess to figure out how Republicans will respond. They’ll say that Democrats want to raise your taxes. They’ll say Democrats want to take away your plastic bags. They’ll say Democrats want to make us all drive tiny cars or take the train everywhere. In coal country they’ll say Democrats want to take away your jobs.

    And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans. It’s a stumper all right.

    Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They’re nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there’s some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

    Read More
  16. With 230 rapes a day you’d think the war on rape would be a no-boner err brainer.
    “In the United States, as in any other large country, lots of things happen every day, exhibiting innumerable patterns of varying obscurity. For instance, on an average day, there are roughly 3,400 violent crimes, including 40 murders, 230 rapes, 1,000 robberies, and 2,100 aggravated assaults, alongside 25,000 non-violent property crimes (burglaries and thefts). Very few of these will be widely publicized, or seized upon as educational, exemplary, and representative. Even were the media not inclined towards a narrative-based selection of ‘good stories’, the sheer volume of incidents would compel something of the kind. Given this situation, it is all but inevitable that people will ask: Why are they telling us this?” http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

    Read More
  17. Harold says:

    Chait complains about symptoms while promoting the disease.

    The more time goes on and the more advantages blacks are given and the more any overt racism recedes into the past the more subtle must be those things that hold them back. Therefore we must be ever more vigilant in rooting out any behaviours which might entrench white privilege. The same is true for women and male privilege. Moreover we must not allow anyone to even begin to entertain the thought that such subtleties could not possibly hold anyone back. Noone can be allowed to mock microaggressions. We must be vigilant in the policing of our own thoughts. None of this is appealing to the ordinary sane and temperate man or woman so the commissars are drawn from the twisted sadists with no other talents to give their lives meaning. Watch a video of Jane Elliott and her blue-eyed children experiment, in past times she would have been a catholic nun taking pleasure in telling children they were born sinners.

    All this will only stop when people admit disparities are due to innate differences.

    (there is more to it, and less to it, and I could have expressed it better, and I probably should rewrite it, but I can’t be bothered)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Two Dow Component companies announced crappy results this week: McDonald's and IBM. The CEO of McDonald's, a black man, was fired. The CEO of IBM, a white woman, got a $3.6 million bonus, after the company's worst drop off in sales in 40 years.
  18. Bert says:

    The defeat of Eric Cantor really took the wind out of the GOP elite’s sails.

    Chait is a boring man. Another dime-store columnist saying how much Republicans suck. There’s so many of them out there it’s hard to keep track.

    Read More
  19. Hunsdon says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Fifty years ago in France, they used to feel a little embarrassed about behaving like Anthony Quinn’s character in Lawrence of Arabia because that so obviously confirmed the stereotype."

    No way. The dude was magnificent. He was not a religious hothead but a savvy opportunist who understood the art of the deal. He was a pragmatist. He was also insightful about the nature of Sharif's character's feelings for Lawrence.

    And... he was a river to his people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noyFiYKlFJU

    That scene never gets old.

    Read More
  20. How did we get back to 1991?

    Well, gee… That would be The Internet for $100, Alex. CompuServe/Prodigy begat AOL message boards, who begat Movable Type, who begat Tumblr…

    They finally tapped the ultimate well of consumer devotion: amour propre. Thus the hard-wired neurotypical “global villager” mentality gets beamed to the corners of the earth incessantly 24/7, and best of all, now you don’t even have to understand a computer operating system to participate — you do it from a $#!&% phone. It was the spread of DBS dish channels that kicked off the recent Kosovo unpleasantness, right?

    Read More
  21. iffen says:

    The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.
     
    The problem with what you said is that by many definitions, including any that encompass Watson's comments (which, according to you, would be all of them), there's nothing wrong with being "racist".
  22. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    It's always nice to warm your hands around a hot mug of schadenfreude on a winter's night. But if you check out Chait on Twitter tonight ( https://twitter.com/jonathanchait ), you'll see he remains unchastened, trolling Chuck Johnson, talking smack about Charles Murray, etc. PC for thee but not for me.

    He’s defending Johnson’s description of his wife as Asian, not trolling him.

    “Come on, @MikeDrucker — easier to delineate your wives from each other by race than by number or something.”

    Read More
  23. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    From what I see on Twitter, Chait seems to have struck a nerve. A lot of others are agreeing with him. Unfortunately, they do so from a position of perpetual self-abasement. One of them is blaming the obsessive language policing not on blacks, but on “progressive whites.” This may be true, but who are they trying to please?

    There’s nothing new about this. An awful long time ago, longer than I care to admit, at least one prog on WBAI grew sick of groveling in front of black militants and expressed disgust: Steve Post (d. 2014). Yes, I heard it with my own ears. Steve continued to broadcast, but from a miserably cynical position of self-nullification. He could never actually become conservative, but when he indicated that he ws sick of being a racial masochist, he was kicked off the prog island and tolerated as the eccentric village idiot.

    Chait just committed a major heresy. He can’t take back what he wrote. I look forward to his public flagellation and seeing him try to find his footing among his erstwhile friends. This is as much fun as watching the transgenders cannibalize the feminist movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Chait just committed a major heresy. He can’t take back what he wrote."

    Eh, lots of tactics available, like Chait picking somebody else out and denouncing him for racism.

  24. “Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing.”

    I don’t have a problem with this either. If a black person goes on a rambling diatribe about white racism, I will temper my criticism somewhat, because maybe there is a chance that the person was shaped by their experiences, which not being black myself I know I can’t relate to in the same way. If a white person writes an identical diatribe, however, then usually nothing will change my mind about them being a PC-brainwashed, hipster douchebag.

    Read More
  25. Art Deco says: • Website

    My vision of what American public discourse ought to be would basically be 300,000,000 Bill Burrs going at each other.

    Yes, but you have a much thicker hide than the ordinary run of journalist and are much less other directed. The observation of Larry Sabato a generation ago: “journalists aren’t thin-skinned; they’re no skinned” is demonstrable. That can ruin public discussion.

    Read More
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There’s always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It’s just that what’s being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be ‘soft on communism’ got a person branded as being unpatriotic. Being patriotic now is considered bad so things have flipped. The cold war warrior routine started cracking in the 60′s when the Vietnam war went sour and people started to doubt what they’ve been told. Back in WWI people who publicly opposed the war were sent to prison, there were the Palmer raids, people refusing induction into the armed forces were sent to prison right up into the Vietnam war era, people were publicly denounced and so on.

    The government has always herded the masses of peons into what they’re supposed to think. It’s been transmitted downward through the opinion molders of society: the school system, churches, print and television media, movies, organizations such as boy scouts, prominent public personalities, making children recite the pledge of allegiance each morning, putting “under God” on our coins, etc. There’s always been a system of informal, ‘soft commissar-ism’ at work although being less heavy-handed and overt than in the communist countries it’s not noticed as being such. The PC of today is what the government and it’s partner the large corporations have decided is best for business so it all gets wrapped up in the robes of morality. The volunteer commissars further down the food chain are enthusiastic believers in PC and are like the communist ‘block-watch committees’ who defended the revolution by keeping an eye on their neighbors. The party line changes but the methods of keeping the rabble in line stay the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank
    Good comment there, Anonymous. If you view things from a 115-year perspective, I buy everything you say. There have been violations of liberty perpetrated by all sorts of people, including a lot on "the Right".

    But still, compare things to, say, 1970. Haven't things soured somewhat compared to then?

    There was a rampant New Left, but they had little control over institutions. I think what's most soured now is the fact that pretty hardc0re leftists have comfortable control over the field of journalism--there's absolutely nothing the right can do that begins to make up for that powerful headwind--and academia. Everyone laughs at academia, but they are in a perfect position to propagandize the brightest youth, and over the years, that opportunity yields dividends for them.
    , @Simon in London
    I think enforced loyalty to the State is different from enforced loyalty to Political Correctness. Enforced loyalty to the State doesn't stop people feeling good about themselves or their ancestors. It is authoritarian but far less Totalitarian than PC. PC is Totalitarian like Nazism or Communism, you have to subscribe to a whole bunch of ideology beyond just supporting the State.
    , @abj_slant
    I agree with you that the 'commissar-ism' you describe has always been around.

    The difference now--as I see it--is the insidiousness of the ease with which the court of public opinion can be pounced on by the PC lemmings, thanks to that magical internet thingy.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    There’s always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It’s just that what’s being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be ‘soft on communism’ got a person branded as being unpatriotic.

    During the Cold War there were still successful and influential people who were soft on communism--artists, show biz people, intellectuals, academics, and journalists. In contrast, very few of those types would be non-pc today.

    By the mid-1960s, when the Cold War still had 25 years to go, all those types were openly soft on communism, as were many politicians, and being staunchly anti-communist made you a joke among the elite. Network anchormen like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were soft of communism. Presidential candidates Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter were soft on communism.

    The PC of today is more more powerful and repressive, and produces many times more victims than McCarthyism ever did.
  27. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    What does it mean if there is a big yellow taxi, errr, border around a reply?

    Does that mean the reply is the thread winner?

    Read More
  28. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Likewise, everybody knows that women tend to take things personally, get worked up, and then throw principled logic out the window. So, you aren’t supposed to mention it these days because it’s a stereotype (because it’s true).

    Not surprisingly, therefore, lots of women these days go online, take things personally, get worked up, and throw principled logic out the window. What, is somebody going to dare laugh at them and point out they are behaving in a stereotypically female fashion? So, public discourse gets clogged up with women throwing hissy fits.

    Steve, while you have given us a useful model for thinking about male vs female behavior, black vs white etc, you have committed the cardinal sin of noticing things, and everyone know that we are all the same!

    Read More
  29. Wade says:
    @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Can someone please explain the new brown-box thingy around certain poster’s posts?

    Read More
  30. @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Completely dishonest. Those elections weren’t lost because the candidates were excessively social conservative, but because Murdock and Akin both inadvertently made comments suggesting they were not sensitive to rape. No where can you find social conservatives arguing that what’s needed is for the Republican Party to run on a platform of flippancy about rape. Akin and Murdock lost for the same reason that Romney lost, in Romney’s case the forty 48 percent line. All three made unfortunate comments that no one in their right mind would advocate as the basis of an electoral strategy.

    How Lot compares this phenomenon to what occured with the Democrats racial misfire in 2014 is entirely a function of his hatred for social conservatives and his feankly absurd view that a national party can be built from his goldilocks just right mix of social leftism and aggressive anti-black racialism. Is there any particular of the RNCs hand-picked candidates that Lot wants to stand behind. It will be interesting to see if the sell out to amnesty before or after 2015. It’s all for naught anyways because when Lot’s RNC boys go 0 for seven in senate seat pickups in 2016 and Jeb Bush loses by ten points no one is going to much care what the anti-socon faction has to say.

    You’d be hard press to find a more loyal and easily placated ally than the relgious right. They also have a lot more sophisticated understanding of politics than lot. McCaskill can be beat in four years so in the scheme of things it’s not a big deal if you occasionally lose as long as deep Red states like Missouri ultimately get right-wing Senators. McCains and Lindsey Grahams are forever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @keypusher
    Akin's comment wasn't "inadvertent." It was the product of his view that abortion should be unavailable even in cases of rape. Asked if he would make the woman who became pregnant carry the baby to term, he made his famous and idiotic comment about the body "shutting that thing down."

    It's stupid to believe that you can hold views like Akin's and not pay the price at the voting booth.
  31. agree with your thesis–but you never ask why this situation came to pass

    Read More
  32. In a Coalition of the Fringes, there’s a lot of effort put in to be Fringier than Thou.

    That’s a keeper.

    Read More
  33. “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

    Hahaha! I thought it was the evil Catholics who were supposed to make you feel guilty about stuff. But it turns out the commies are even worse.

    I remember reading a story in the “White girl bleed a lot” book. Some (white) girl liked to walk around vibrant neighborhoods. Then she got punched. Now vibrancy triggers her, much to her chagrin :(.

    Oh the hypocrisy.

    Read More
  34. countenance says: • Website

    “Jason Richwine passed immigration reform”

    That’s news to me. The only reason something like it happened is because of Obama’s pen and phone, and the RINO refusal to impeach him or play real budget hardball. Then again, amnesty via non-enforcement started long before Obama.

    As for the rest of this, I’m thinking that there’s a chance that both major party political conventions summer after next could be really interesting, maybe even violent. It’s because in both parties, there are things coming to a head. The Republican Party’s issues are simple and two-pronged: Establishment vs Tea. That fight will break out if what we think is going to happen winds up happening, that is, Jeb Bush being gifted the nomination.

    The Democrats are going to be more of a demolition derby because of all their disparate groups and constituencies held together by KKKrazy Glue. Obama’s blackness and Obama’s successes have kept that mess under wraps, but by the summer of 2016, when the Democrats are nominating HRC officially, Obama’s personality won’t be able to hold them all together. We may see things like fist fights on the convention floor over: Muslims vs leftist Jews on Israel, NEA-AFT vs Waiting for Supermaners over education, blacks vs Hispanics on immigration, World War L versus World War T on Vagina plays, blacks vs gentry liberals over urban gentrification, the possibilities are endless.

    Lord, let it be so!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That fight will break out if what we think is going to happen winds up happening, that is, Jeb Bush being gifted the nomination.
    --
    At this point, surveys tend to measure name recognition. Bush is a brand, and Republican voters tend to be brand-oriented. The thing is, the survey results commissioned by Fox do not show Bush doing any better than Gov. Huckabee or Sen. Paul.
    , @anonymous

    Then again, amnesty via non-enforcement started long before Obama.
     
    What ever happened to Bush's "virtual fence" that they were supposedly constructing? It was probably just another ploy to delay doing anything. Having laws that aren't enforced makes the entire system of laws seem arbitrary and therefore unjust. It erodes respect for the law at the grassroots.
  35. countenance says: • Website
    @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Yeah, and I’m getting tired of all these RINOs blaming all their problems on Christine O’Donnell. They must not know that Delaware is a blue state, and if O’Donnell would never have run, Mike Castle would have won the Republican nomination but then lost to Chris Coons in November (polling evidence proves it). And even if Castle would have won on some freak, so what? It’s a RINO Mike Castle who would have voted for Gang Bangers of Eight. As it was, Delaware has three counties and Christine O’Donnell won two of them on both primary and general election day. It’s just that one she didn’t win, the one with Wilmington, has the bulk of the state’s people.

    We have to get rid of these yay red team rah rah red team histrionics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Gov. Castle had been an elected official in Delaware (with some interruptions) since 1966 and had never lost a statewide race. Do not imagine he'd have been a pushover for Coons.
    --
    The whole mess was suggestive, though, of one or two propositions: that the careers of many of our elected officials derive not from any rapport with the public, but because they showed up initially and built relationships with donors and benefit from an otiose stenographic press. From her employment history, her amatory history, her financial problems, and her behavioral peculiarities, there is reason to believe that it would not be doing Christine O'Donnell any favors to put her in public office, or, indeed, any sort of work which would require a great deal of personal interaction. That Michael Castle was shellacked by a low-grade head case suggests his career was something of a mirage. The same is true in Indiana re Richard Lugar. He owned that Senate seat until an accomplished businessman who'd had a turn in state government challenged him. Then it was revealed that he had been using as his voting address a house he'd sold in 1977, i.e. no reporter ever tried to get hold of him at home or they were all in cahoots with his deception.
  36. Rifleman says:

    In a Coalition of the Fringes

    It doesn’t get much fringier than right wing White guys in 2015.

    And they are going farther and farther beyond the fringe.

    How much longer are we supposed to pretend that right wing White men and their wives are not “on the fringe” in America and the world?

    A small number do have some power but they are heading to the graveyard and being replaced by OTHER people….EVERYWHERE.

    Read More
  37. […] Sailer points out that Jonathan Chait is now being attacked for saying something other than “Cis-Gendered […]

    Read More
  38. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    PC is often over-privileged white/Jewish folks attacking less-privileged white folks for not being conscious of their own privilege. Over-privileged whites/Jews project their own privilege onto less privileged whites and, in doing so, pretend that they are doing something about ‘white privilege’ when that very conceit serves to defend and expand their own privilege (in the name of fighting ‘white privilege’). Ever notice that the Jews, the people who bitch most about ‘white privilege’, seem to be getting richer and more powerful than everyone else?

    PC also says whites must be overly sensitive to the insensitivity of non-whites. So, if black rappers and looters act insensitive, whites must be sensitive as to why ‘people of color’ act that way.

    According to PC, whites are generally more sensitive because being sensitive is a privilege. It takes good neighborhoods, good schooling, and good parents for a person to be raised properly and become sensitive (like dweeby faced Kenny Boy Burns). Since whites are richer, they live in better communities and have been raised to be more sensitive. In contrast, blacks and browns are less sensitive because they live in brutal communities where the priority is ‘survival’.

    But this causes a socio-moral contradiction. If indeed being rich/richer makes for a more sensitive populace, then doesn’t it argue for white privilege since white privilege is most effective at promoting white sensitivity. After all, white peckerwoods who grew up poor aren’t very sensitive. But rich whites and Jews who attended Harvard are said to be ‘sensitive’, especially toward homosexuals.

    So, it seems the best way to expand white sensitivity is to expand white privilege. But PC has a problem with white privilege. So, where do we go from here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "white peckerwoods who grew up poor aren’t very sensitive"

    This is the main reason that we can't get certified victim group status. We just can't be counted on to give love and hugs to the other victim groups.
  39. Lurker says:

    In a Coalition of the Fringes, there’s a lot of effort put in to be Fringier than Thou.

    The recent Benedict Cumberwhatever incident. In prostrating himself before the alter of The Other he let slip the word ‘coloured’. Verily it is a new holocaust! Resulting in him prostrating himself further – if that’s possible.

    Read More
  40. Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

    That’s a tautology, since making debate irrelevant or impossible is the whole point and central essence of political correctness. “Political correctness’ is a rather benign term for what is, at the end of the day, a system of speech and thought control.

    Read More
  41. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “Anybody would be okay to criticize anybody, no matter how sacralized the designated victim group the offended party belongs to.”

    Two things.

    While I defend freedom of speech, I think we shouldn’t be outrageous just to be anti-PC. This is why I’m not too crazy about the kind of garbage peddled by Charlie Hobo. I’m for its freedom of speech, but what a waste of speech by wallowing in ugliness. I suppose it could be defended as satire, but what dumb satire.

    So, even as we should defend free speech, we should champion only the kinds of speech that makes good sense. If someone wants to go Charles Manson on free speech just to be a jerk, we need to acknowledge his right to do so, but we should wash our hands clean of such freaks.

    ‘no matter how sacralized…’

    That’s the problem. PC isn’t just about mindlessly attacking certain voices and expressions but about mindlessly elevating certain figures, images, and ideas. PC begins with ‘sacralization’ itself.

    So, anti-PC folks must expose and counter the very process of ‘sacralization’, especially since the secular realm of free thought and free inquiry has no room for ‘sacralization’. No man, however great he may be, is a god. No idea, however useful it is, is foolproof. No event, however important or crucial, was some holy event.

    Sacralization belongs in the realm of religion. But when it comes to issues of free thought and free debate, there is no room for sacralization because it makes certain figures/ideas/images untouchable. Thus made holy, it becomes taboo to speak ill or against that thing.

    This doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t admire or respect(and even revere) certain figures and ideas.

    But there’s a limit to this. One can acknowledge MLK’s role in the Civil Rights Movement, but he was no saint. In personal life, he was very much a punk. And his tactic was the Trojan Horse trick. Same goes for Winston Churchill and many others. Gandhi was no saint either.

    Conservatives who wail against PC fail to see that PC begins with sacralization. So, if cons are with the sacralization of the likes of MLK and Mandela, why should they be surprised with the logic of PC? If certain things are made ‘holy’, then it becomes totally taboo to cast any negative aspersions on them or ideas/agendas associated with them.

    We see this with homosexuals. There was a time when homosexuals were just homosexuals. We could speak freely about homosexual issues, pro or con.

    But movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTIN’, TV shows, advertising, public education, and etc. have turned homosexuals into the most wonderful, lovable, saintly, and darling people on earth associated with ‘rainbows’. As homosexuals have become sacralized, people are afraid to speak ill of the ‘gay’ agenda since critics are seen not only as wrong but heretical and wicked.

    We can’t even laugh at Lavergne Cox the black guy who thinks he’s a blonde woman because transvestites have also been sacralized as the new face of ‘civil rights’. This isn’t liberal democracy at work. It is neo-religionism.

    So, the bigger issue isn’t we should speak freely about sacralized groups. We should counter and subvert the entire enterprise of sacralization.

    Sacralization of real people and real-world ideas is anti-freedom, anti-reason, anti-sense, and anti-truth. It tells us that we must shut down on critical/skeptical faculties and just worship certain figures and ideas. With such state of mind, of course you’re gonna go ‘witch hunt’ against all heretics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    "We should counter and subvert the entire enterprise of sacralization."

    You might study something called The Enlightenment.

  42. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma.”

    I’m opposed to trigger warning idiocy in colleges. I mean this isn’t kindergarten. Young adults should be able to deal with tough issues and learn about rough realities.

    That said, I do believe in the power of certain things, ideas, and images to set off powerfully negative emotions that can upset people.

    One reason why news consumption is so polarized is that Libs cannot stand to read Con news, and Cons cannot stand to read Lib news. Libs grind their teeth watching Fox, and Cons feel sick watching MSNBC.

    I have the same kind of feelings about certain things and images. Through most of my life, I forced myself to read all kinds of news from National Review to the Nation.

    But there are certain things I have to really brace myself to watch or read.

    [MORE]

    I still haven’t seen DJANGO, 12 YRs a SLAVE, THE BUTLER, LINCOLN, AMISTAD, BELOVED, and etc even though I should because they are culturally significant. I even took out the dvds but found all sorts of excuses not to see them. Ghastly Negroes just trigger the worst kind of reaction in me. And I took out SPECTACULAR NOW thinking it was just some teen comedy. But when the Negro appeared, I felt sick in the stomach. I would actually appreciate a trigger warning that says ‘NEGRO ALERT’ on Dvds. Well, no. But still, if a movie is gonna have a Negro, put his mug on the cover so I’ll know what to expect in the damn thing.

    It’s like a Polish mother of a friend couldn’t watch any WWII films or even Hogan’s Heroes because of her experience as a slave worker at a Nazi labor camp. Different people have different reactions. If I had to sit through a Black Studies program, I know my head would explode.

    If I had to see some homo propaganda, I know I’m gonna pop a blood vessel. But then, the solution is to avoid certain classes.

    But no matter how we feel, colleges should expect students to be tough and ready to tackle anything. Coddling is what is done for kids in pre-school. It’s not for college students who should tackle knowledge like soldiers tackle war.

    College should be intellectual bootcamp, not a foot massage.

    But this trigger warning craze is the logical product of (1) PC whining (2) white middle class spoiled-brat-ism.

    Yes, spoiled-brat-ism has a lot to do with it because millennials are the most coddled generation in history. Earlier generations lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Vietnam War, social upheavals, drunken fathers, and bigotry. But they still had the guts to read tough books, attend classes on all sorts of subjects, and etc. As they had more negative experiences in life, they had more reasons to suffer from trigger-emotions. But they took the classes and read the books.

    Today, young college kids have no memory of starvation, hardships, wars, discrimination, and etc. There’s hardly any real rape in colleges(as long as girls stay away from Negro athletes). So, why all this hysteria? This trigger-warning thing is not about something-of-real-life-experience-being-triggered. Rather, students have been INSTILLED with fears and traumas of which they have no real-life experience. It’s like 1/5 out of college girls have been made to feel that they are rape victims. It’s like college students are made to feel like KKK just took over Oberlin.

    If a Negro student really suffered under the KKK that hanged his father from a tree, I would understand if he felt angry in a class about American history of racial discrimination.

    But most students who bleat about that stuff are white middle class students who had it so good all their lives.

    In some paradoxical way, trigger warning is undermining PC. After all, PC perpetuates itself by highlighting the horrors of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘sexism’. Consider how the Holocaust cult gained prominence by showing endless images of dead bodies and emaciated survivors. But if trigger warning craze takes hold, some may argue that such images should be banned because they might ‘trigger’ negative reactions in Holocaust survivors and their children. But in fact, it served the Jewish cause to make such images so prominent in the psyche of people around the world.

    Trigger Warning amounts to white middle class ‘progressives’ whining, “we don’t want to be shown anything that undermines our sense of well-being.” Of course, the argument is made in favor of non-whites, but it’s whites who lead the charge in defining what is ‘trigger’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Most people want trigger warnings before really disturbing stuff. There are places and times when a graphic depiction of torture or a surveillance video showing someone being beaten to death are appropriate, but I sure don't want that stuff on my screen very often, and I don't ever want it on the screen my kids are watching. TV news gets around this by saying something like "some viewers may find this footage disturbing."

    The only question is what needs a trigger warning. And that is partly about being sensitive to what upsets people, and partly a political battle over whose offense or hardship trumps all other considerations.
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    PC demands monophone when ideas grow through duophone or multi-phone. If one side thinks it knows everything and calls for ‘end of debate’ — like NY Times with ‘gay marriage’ — , then there’s no exchange of ideas. It’s just one side deciding what is truth. Maybe it comes naturally to NY Times since Jews monopolize the media. They’ve gotten used to just telling others what to think.

    Of course, when most Americans thought ‘gay marriage’ was crazy, NY Times called for endless debates. It didn’t say, “Well, most Americans are against it, so why bother? End of debate.” Instead, it called for more argument.
    But now that the billionaire oligarchs of Wall Street, Hollywood, S Valley, and etc. have used their vast sums to buy up judges, politicians, and the silly minds of sheeple, NY Times is saying, NO MORE DEBATE.

    It’s like communists passing out guns to everyone to overthrow the system, but the minute they are in power, they say, “Okay, no more need for guns. Hand them in and just trust us.”

    PS: THE MOST SACRALIZED AND LEAST CRITICIZED/CHALLENGED PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE THE JEWS.

    Read More
  44. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “Jason Richwine passed immigration reform”

    Here’s something I don’t get.

    Liberal Jews (and Neocon Jews too) say that the GOP will never win over the Hispanic vote UNLESS it pushes policies that favor brown folks, such as amnesty.

    But if that is true, how come so many white Cons are pro-Jewish even though most Jews are anti-Con and support policies that white folks, especially cons, don’t like?

    Maybe Jews can teach the GOP a lesson or two. If Jews can act anti-white-con but still win the praise and support of most white Cons, maybe the GOP can use the same formula to win over the browns: do things Browns don’t like but win over the slavish loyalty and support of most Browns.

    How do Jews do it? Teach the GOP how.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Mental difference in the conservative mind. "Pro-Israel" is what is thought, not "Pro-Jewish", the average bicoastal American liberal Jew may not care about Israel in the sense of owning property. They mostly only think of it as a vacation and occasionally relatives.

    So to the average white-non-Jew, Jews are just as deracinated as they are. To the average Jew, Christianity is deracination, thus the animus.

    I recall McCain saying once that amnesty would not actually win over Latin voters, it would just "open the door". The actual reason promoted, is that it would remove the "racist" image from the GOP, so that upper-middle-class bicoastal whites that haven't voted GOP since 1988 would revert. Additionally, white millenials may hold the same view that the GOP is "racist".

    Especially considering that Latins favor higher taxes and .gov spending. This is the Bush "compassionate conservatism" at work, but this isn't what the establishment favors, as it doesn't involve lowering capital gains taxes.

    At best, the Paul Singer strategy is "the Sailer strategy in reverse". Gain more white voters, by attacking white racists.

    The better question is how the GOP establishment retains its power, despite selling out the base. (The answer is that they have nowhere else to go, but civil war)
    , @robot
    "How do Jews do it?" Holocaust guilt (terror of being labelled antisemitic) and campaign donations
  45. marty says:

    Could someone explain to me the quotation in Chait’s piece, “how did we get back to 1991?” I’m on board with that year as the PC takeoff point, but don’t understand her viewpoint that things had lightened up.

    And Steve, here’s a sports angle I’ve never seen anyone mention: in ’91 the Dodgers released Fernando after a spring training E.R.A of about 26. Shortly thereafter, I picked up a copy of the L.A. Times and there was a front-page story about MECHA calling the decision racist. That’s when I knew newspapers were gonna die.

    Read More
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”

    Read More
  47. charlie says:

    , interesting theory. Not saying it is correct, but it trends that way.

    Also, it would be a validation of the obama-consenus but without the cult of personality.

    Read More
  48. peterike says:

    Ugh, Jonathan Chait. He’s one of those writers that makes a nice living off never having an original idea in his life but being a near-perfect barometer for the Progressive zeitgeist. Michael Tomasky is another such. Frank Rich another. Everyone blogging at The New Yorker. Ok, ok, the entire fat middle of the Cathedral edifice consists of these types.

    Seriously, I should just play-act at being a Progressive, spit out tedious factually incorrect tropes all day, and bask in the ensuing limelight.

    Read More
  49. I found Chait’s article to be well worth reading, if only for the section on the “Binders Full of Women” on-line forum and the UCSB anti-abortion incident. However, the areas of his seeming cluelessness are vast, starting with the assertion that there was some 20-year gap in the enforcement of political correctness.

    Here were some others that stood to me:
    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn’t it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don’t know many liberals then.

    Strengthening the free speech of the Klan strengthens the free speech of Blacks.” [MacKinnon] deemed this nonsensical: “It equates substantive powerlessness with substantive power and calls treating these the same, ‘equality.’ 
    She’s suggesting that it is the Klan that is powerful and blacks powerless? You could have fooled me.

    While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening.
    I search in vain for evidence of the power of the “far right.” (Unless that means neocons.)

    Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper replied in Salon: “The demand to be reasonable is a disingenuous demand. Black folks have been reasoning with white people forever.”
    Again, I seemed to have missed all this “reasoning.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn’t it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don’t know many liberals then.
     
    Steven Pinker has said numerous times that the word Liberal has lost its original meaning and has become a euphemism for Marxist used by both the Right and Left.

    The Right uses the world Liberal when they are afraid that using the word Marxist might result in them being labelled anti-Semitic. So they said "Liberal" while grinding their teeth to let you what they really mean.

    On the other hand, proudly out of the closet Marxists like Howard Zinn and Steven Jay Gould used the word Liberal , often with a sneer, because they knew few Conservatives/Goyim had the balls to call them a Marxist, less they risked the "MSM" start calling them Anti-Semites and the left call them Nazis.

    Chait is a classic dogmatic "Blank Slate" Denial of Nature, ethnocentic Jewish Marxist who likes to think of himself as a Liberal(in the classical sense) because it makes him more acceptable to the Goyim foolish enough to take the kosher bilge put out by TNR seriously.
  50. Art Deco says: • Website
    @countenance
    "Jason Richwine passed immigration reform"

    That's news to me. The only reason something like it happened is because of Obama's pen and phone, and the RINO refusal to impeach him or play real budget hardball. Then again, amnesty via non-enforcement started long before Obama.

    As for the rest of this, I'm thinking that there's a chance that both major party political conventions summer after next could be really interesting, maybe even violent. It's because in both parties, there are things coming to a head. The Republican Party's issues are simple and two-pronged: Establishment vs Tea. That fight will break out if what we think is going to happen winds up happening, that is, Jeb Bush being gifted the nomination.

    The Democrats are going to be more of a demolition derby because of all their disparate groups and constituencies held together by KKKrazy Glue. Obama's blackness and Obama's successes have kept that mess under wraps, but by the summer of 2016, when the Democrats are nominating HRC officially, Obama's personality won't be able to hold them all together. We may see things like fist fights on the convention floor over: Muslims vs leftist Jews on Israel, NEA-AFT vs Waiting for Supermaners over education, blacks vs Hispanics on immigration, World War L versus World War T on Vagina plays, blacks vs gentry liberals over urban gentrification, the possibilities are endless.

    Lord, let it be so!

    That fight will break out if what we think is going to happen winds up happening, that is, Jeb Bush being gifted the nomination.

    At this point, surveys tend to measure name recognition. Bush is a brand, and Republican voters tend to be brand-oriented. The thing is, the survey results commissioned by Fox do not show Bush doing any better than Gov. Huckabee or Sen. Paul.

    Read More
  51. Art Deco says: • Website
    @countenance
    Yeah, and I'm getting tired of all these RINOs blaming all their problems on Christine O'Donnell. They must not know that Delaware is a blue state, and if O'Donnell would never have run, Mike Castle would have won the Republican nomination but then lost to Chris Coons in November (polling evidence proves it). And even if Castle would have won on some freak, so what? It's a RINO Mike Castle who would have voted for Gang Bangers of Eight. As it was, Delaware has three counties and Christine O'Donnell won two of them on both primary and general election day. It's just that one she didn't win, the one with Wilmington, has the bulk of the state's people.

    We have to get rid of these yay red team rah rah red team histrionics.

    Gov. Castle had been an elected official in Delaware (with some interruptions) since 1966 and had never lost a statewide race. Do not imagine he’d have been a pushover for Coons.

    The whole mess was suggestive, though, of one or two propositions: that the careers of many of our elected officials derive not from any rapport with the public, but because they showed up initially and built relationships with donors and benefit from an otiose stenographic press. From her employment history, her amatory history, her financial problems, and her behavioral peculiarities, there is reason to believe that it would not be doing Christine O’Donnell any favors to put her in public office, or, indeed, any sort of work which would require a great deal of personal interaction. That Michael Castle was shellacked by a low-grade head case suggests his career was something of a mirage. The same is true in Indiana re Richard Lugar. He owned that Senate seat until an accomplished businessman who’d had a turn in state government challenged him. Then it was revealed that he had been using as his voting address a house he’d sold in 1977, i.e. no reporter ever tried to get hold of him at home or they were all in cahoots with his deception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Hoosiers admired and respected Lugar for many reasons. Lugar's legacy was post Soviet Union arms control, the Megatons to Megawatts program.

    However, Lugar was also a shameless and unrelenting Davos man and Loyal Bushie. No Republican was more pro Free Trade, Pro Open Borders or fan of Big Government programs like Ethanol Subsidies or NCLB. Lugar was for years more pro Open Borders than many Democratic Senators. Lugar's voting record on immigration was almost identical to Ted Kennedy's.

    And yes through out his 36 years in the Senate, Lugar was famous for spending less than eighty days a year in Indiana.

    Lugar lost the primary to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock who was no "Tea Party" loon and ripped Lugar on his immigration record and out front support for the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations. Mourdock's attacks were overwhelmingly popular with the Republican base and most independents.

    Had the State and National Republican Establishment been able to accept the will of the Indiana Republican base and allowed Mourdock to campaign based on opposition to Open Borders, he would have won in a landslide.

    Instead Karl Rove's folks flew into the state and said mention immigration and no campaign funds. Mourdock fell back to using old Republican standby 1980's boilerplate, tax cuts and abortion opposition and lost. Still nothing Mourdock said on abortion in 2012 would have raised an eyebrow in 1986-88 when he first broke into politics, but the public's stance has changed. Had Mourdock avoided the abortion issue he would have won given that Romney did very well in Indiana.

  52. Ed says:
    @Lot
    Kevin Drum also recently wrote about how stupid the "mansplaining" meme is and makes the left look bad. He's so nice though, he avoided the bile tossed at Chiat.

    He also, using "middle class" v "poor" coding, said the Democrats keep failing to offer an economic agenda for whites:

    I don't really want to pick on McElwee here, but I guess I'm feeling a little peevish this morning. Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

    Republicans: We will lower your taxes.
    Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....

    There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the broad working and middle classes. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one.

    Sure, Democrats do plenty for the poor. They support increases in the EITC and the minimum wage. They support Medicaid expansion. They passed Obamacare. They support pre-K for vulnerable populations. They expanded CHIP. But virtually none of this really benefits the working or middle classes except at the margins.

    Now McElwee wants to use environmentalism to appeal to the working class. I'm all for that. But you don't have to play 11-dimensional chess to figure out how Republicans will respond. They'll say that Democrats want to raise your taxes. They'll say Democrats want to take away your plastic bags. They'll say Democrats want to make us all drive tiny cars or take the train everywhere. In coal country they'll say Democrats want to take away your jobs.

    And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans. It's a stumper all right.

    Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They're nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there's some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

     

    Kevin gets it, loons like Sean never will.

    Read More
  53. Cloudbuster says: • Website

    Instead of everybody being sheltered from criticism over who they are, as Chait implies, we’d be better off if everybody was free game over everything.

    Case in point, I was recently roundly denounced on an article discussing a couple of the high profile transgender people pontificating as “women” in the GamerGate incident for suggesting that, maybe, someone who has A) lived nearly all their life as the opposite sex, and B) has such a profoundly disturbed sexuality that they can’t stand to live in their own body as originally designed, isn’t really a voice to be listened to or respected when discussing a “woman’s” point of view.

    Read More
  54. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2015/01/salaita-sues-university-of-illinois.html

    Zio-PC-power blacklists an Arab-PC-artist.

    But what goes around comes around… eventually.

    It’s really PC vs PC.

    PS. Bigots are so passe. Now, we gotta watch out for Trigots.

    Read More
  55. The last quarter of this post starting with…

    I think criticism is, on the whole, good for people.

    … needs to be soundbite-ized and widely distributed. That’s gold, Steve-O.

    Read More
  56. MLK says:

    Political Correctness is rooted in Lenin’s Democratic-Centralism. Speaking your mind was a function of where you were located on the pyramid.

    It’s hard to construct and police this apparatus in a non-totalitarian system. If you think about it, really what we have at the end of the day is that which you wish for. This doesn’t stop some from attempting to formalize, and thus consolidate their power. The closest they’ve come in the U.S. is on college campuses. This is the key distinction, and the reason I am on the same page as you on this, and why I disfavor the term Political Correctness, and find most complaints of it whining and chasing one’s own tail. Belly-aching that raw power-politics is unprincipled is a waste of time.

    Laissez-Faire is the best descriptive of what I, and I think you, prefer. Each saying whatever he likes and, in retributive fashion, owning the consequences in the free market of ideas. Implicitly this means that the full range of abilities and ethics will be on offer. Whenever someone cravenly retreats from reasoned argument, I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from Animal House (despite the fact that it is mouthed by one of the bad guys): “Don’t you have any respect for yourself?”

    Read More
  57. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    LOL @ CALLING JASON RICHWINE A SCIENTIST LOL THAT BRUH LITERALLY WROTE THAT MEXICANS ARE GENETICALLY SIMILAR LOL U PRETTY IGNINT

    Read More
  58. Forbes says:

    All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the *silliest* of identity-politics missteps–there, fixed.

    Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics… One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis.

    If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    I wrote this little riff the other day, that takes Steve’s take on stereotypes–the crime of noticing–as the launch pad for an observation about criticism…

    As I’ve previously observed, “pattern recognition”–a powerful cognitive attribute of evolutionary development–is to be ignored, denied even, say the PC police. It’s known as the crime of noticing. It’s a two-part indictment: the act of noticing, and the object of the notice. Logic (white male privilege) and/or factual accuracy (facts are different versions of the truth, truth is just an alternative explanation of reality) are not a defense. And the crime of noticing carries the burden of a double standard: victim classes cannot be “noticed,” except for the purpose of acknowledging their status or awarding compensations–granted on the basis of being without privilege. Privileged classes must be obsequious to this rule, pay penance for their status, and forego any advantage that has not been equally bestowed on the victim class.

    Know your place people!

    This is the world that folks like Chait and Rosen have created, but now they’ve discovered they don’t have many Pokémon Points–”it’s not fair!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

    Right, I agree. But easy for us to say since we are OUT of the kitchen and never allowed in. So, we are used to being on the outside.

    But the likes of Rosin are used to being on the inside. And prior to the internet when the major media controlled the megaphone, they could do and say as they pleased.

    But thanks to cyber media, pesty PC nuts of all stripes can buzz all over them like flies. The likes of Rosin are not used to be being treated that way. They are used to be admired and adulated as experts and 'thinkers'.

    They promoted stuff like PC to attack the 'right'. They don't want free thinking on the right, but they want free thinking for themselves. But when PC nutjobs go crazy on twitter, they find all kinds of thoughts, complexities, and ambiguities to be 'reactionary'. So, even Lib thinkers get attacked.. .just for thinking.

    It's like the Cultural Revolution. Mao meant for the mad hordes of Red Guards to attack his enemies. But the lunatics began to attack everyone, even Mao's loyal subordinates. Mao meant for them to attack 'bad culture'. The Red Guards took the sledgehammer to EVERYTHING, even stuff Mao appreciated. Things got out of hand. Mob mentality has no use for nuance or thought. It's 'if you're not with us, you're against us.' So, eventually, Mao had to rein it in.

    Most people on Twitter are twits. Their worldview comes from slogans and headlines of Huff Puff post and Jezebel. Any complexity or ambiguity that doesn't agree 100% with PC is suspect and denounced. And once the ball gets rolling, every side competes with one another in the hysteria sweepstakes, especially since twitter is so crowded that the ONLY way to get any attention is to be outrageous and rabid.
    It's like a whole bunch of different Red Guard factions ended up fighting one another over which side was more fervently pro-Mao.
    So, now PC-nuts are competing with one another over who is more 'anti-racist', more pro-homo, more crazy-feminist, and etc.
  59. Forbes says:
    @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Christine Quinn is an unpleasant woman, which makes De Blasio reasonable by comparison. That she was the candidate of the NYTimes probably made Daily News readers uncomfortable. How many minorities will vote for the white lesbian over the better bona fides of a white man married to a black woman? And De Blasio didn’t make extreme attacks on the police–unwarranted and unwise, certainly–but he took the minority community’s loudmouth megaphone position on “stop, ask, and frisk” that much of the NYC political left endorsed. In hindsight, it’s easy to say that Quinn wouldn’t have been the disaster that De Blasio has been, but that’s a low bar.

    Read More
  60. Ironically (since this is anti-PC), it is for their “whiteness” that I attack or dismiss the arguments of Jonathan Chait and Hanna Rosin.

    Meanwhile, Bill Burr can’t even adhere to the Derb’s rigid policy of racial eugenics.

    Read More
  61. […] “Victimization Pokemon Points” is definitely a phrase I’ll be stealing. […]

    Read More
  62. Svigor says:

    So when Michael Brown looted a convenience store and attacked a policeman, and the policeman didn’t get indicted

    Haha, love it.

    the more a group is above criticism, the worse they behave.

    ANTI-SEMITISM!!!

    Read More
  63. @WhatEvvs
    From what I see on Twitter, Chait seems to have struck a nerve. A lot of others are agreeing with him. Unfortunately, they do so from a position of perpetual self-abasement. One of them is blaming the obsessive language policing not on blacks, but on "progressive whites." This may be true, but who are they trying to please?

    There's nothing new about this. An awful long time ago, longer than I care to admit, at least one prog on WBAI grew sick of groveling in front of black militants and expressed disgust: Steve Post (d. 2014). Yes, I heard it with my own ears. Steve continued to broadcast, but from a miserably cynical position of self-nullification. He could never actually become conservative, but when he indicated that he ws sick of being a racial masochist, he was kicked off the prog island and tolerated as the eccentric village idiot.

    Chait just committed a major heresy. He can't take back what he wrote. I look forward to his public flagellation and seeing him try to find his footing among his erstwhile friends. This is as much fun as watching the transgenders cannibalize the feminist movement.

    “Chait just committed a major heresy. He can’t take back what he wrote.”

    Eh, lots of tactics available, like Chait picking somebody else out and denouncing him for racism.

    Read More
  64. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @Forbes
    All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the *silliest* of identity-politics missteps--there, fixed.

    Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics... One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis.
     
    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    I wrote this little riff the other day, that takes Steve's take on stereotypes--the crime of noticing--as the launch pad for an observation about criticism...

    As I’ve previously observed, “pattern recognition”--a powerful cognitive attribute of evolutionary development--is to be ignored, denied even, say the PC police. It’s known as the crime of noticing. It’s a two-part indictment: the act of noticing, and the object of the notice. Logic (white male privilege) and/or factual accuracy (facts are different versions of the truth, truth is just an alternative explanation of reality) are not a defense. And the crime of noticing carries the burden of a double standard: victim classes cannot be “noticed,” except for the purpose of acknowledging their status or awarding compensations--granted on the basis of being without privilege. Privileged classes must be obsequious to this rule, pay penance for their status, and forego any advantage that has not been equally bestowed on the victim class.

    Know your place people!
     
    This is the world that folks like Chait and Rosen have created, but now they've discovered they don't have many Pokémon Points--"it's not fair!"

    “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

    Right, I agree. But easy for us to say since we are OUT of the kitchen and never allowed in. So, we are used to being on the outside.

    But the likes of Rosin are used to being on the inside. And prior to the internet when the major media controlled the megaphone, they could do and say as they pleased.

    But thanks to cyber media, pesty PC nuts of all stripes can buzz all over them like flies. The likes of Rosin are not used to be being treated that way. They are used to be admired and adulated as experts and ‘thinkers’.

    They promoted stuff like PC to attack the ‘right’. They don’t want free thinking on the right, but they want free thinking for themselves. But when PC nutjobs go crazy on twitter, they find all kinds of thoughts, complexities, and ambiguities to be ‘reactionary’. So, even Lib thinkers get attacked.. .just for thinking.

    It’s like the Cultural Revolution. Mao meant for the mad hordes of Red Guards to attack his enemies. But the lunatics began to attack everyone, even Mao’s loyal subordinates. Mao meant for them to attack ‘bad culture’. The Red Guards took the sledgehammer to EVERYTHING, even stuff Mao appreciated. Things got out of hand. Mob mentality has no use for nuance or thought. It’s ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us.’ So, eventually, Mao had to rein it in.

    Most people on Twitter are twits. Their worldview comes from slogans and headlines of Huff Puff post and Jezebel. Any complexity or ambiguity that doesn’t agree 100% with PC is suspect and denounced. And once the ball gets rolling, every side competes with one another in the hysteria sweepstakes, especially since twitter is so crowded that the ONLY way to get any attention is to be outrageous and rabid.
    It’s like a whole bunch of different Red Guard factions ended up fighting one another over which side was more fervently pro-Mao.
    So, now PC-nuts are competing with one another over who is more ‘anti-racist’, more pro-homo, more crazy-feminist, and etc.

    Read More
  65. Bert says:

    Someone mentioned Akin and Mourdock. It’s worth noting that Todd Akin was NOT the Tea Party’s candidate. They supported Sarah Steelman, who would have won the election. For that matter, John Brunner would have won also. Akin was a Club For Growth man and widely regarded as the weakest candidate in the race.

    As for Mourdock, he was sabotaged by the state party and by Lugar, who were profoundly offended that he had the gall to run against a beloved incumbent and win overwhelmingly.

    Read More
  66. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @countenance
    "Jason Richwine passed immigration reform"

    That's news to me. The only reason something like it happened is because of Obama's pen and phone, and the RINO refusal to impeach him or play real budget hardball. Then again, amnesty via non-enforcement started long before Obama.

    As for the rest of this, I'm thinking that there's a chance that both major party political conventions summer after next could be really interesting, maybe even violent. It's because in both parties, there are things coming to a head. The Republican Party's issues are simple and two-pronged: Establishment vs Tea. That fight will break out if what we think is going to happen winds up happening, that is, Jeb Bush being gifted the nomination.

    The Democrats are going to be more of a demolition derby because of all their disparate groups and constituencies held together by KKKrazy Glue. Obama's blackness and Obama's successes have kept that mess under wraps, but by the summer of 2016, when the Democrats are nominating HRC officially, Obama's personality won't be able to hold them all together. We may see things like fist fights on the convention floor over: Muslims vs leftist Jews on Israel, NEA-AFT vs Waiting for Supermaners over education, blacks vs Hispanics on immigration, World War L versus World War T on Vagina plays, blacks vs gentry liberals over urban gentrification, the possibilities are endless.

    Lord, let it be so!

    Then again, amnesty via non-enforcement started long before Obama.

    What ever happened to Bush’s “virtual fence” that they were supposedly constructing? It was probably just another ploy to delay doing anything. Having laws that aren’t enforced makes the entire system of laws seem arbitrary and therefore unjust. It erodes respect for the law at the grassroots.

    Read More
  67. @Art Deco
    Gov. Castle had been an elected official in Delaware (with some interruptions) since 1966 and had never lost a statewide race. Do not imagine he'd have been a pushover for Coons.
    --
    The whole mess was suggestive, though, of one or two propositions: that the careers of many of our elected officials derive not from any rapport with the public, but because they showed up initially and built relationships with donors and benefit from an otiose stenographic press. From her employment history, her amatory history, her financial problems, and her behavioral peculiarities, there is reason to believe that it would not be doing Christine O'Donnell any favors to put her in public office, or, indeed, any sort of work which would require a great deal of personal interaction. That Michael Castle was shellacked by a low-grade head case suggests his career was something of a mirage. The same is true in Indiana re Richard Lugar. He owned that Senate seat until an accomplished businessman who'd had a turn in state government challenged him. Then it was revealed that he had been using as his voting address a house he'd sold in 1977, i.e. no reporter ever tried to get hold of him at home or they were all in cahoots with his deception.

    Hoosiers admired and respected Lugar for many reasons. Lugar’s legacy was post Soviet Union arms control, the Megatons to Megawatts program.

    However, Lugar was also a shameless and unrelenting Davos man and Loyal Bushie. No Republican was more pro Free Trade, Pro Open Borders or fan of Big Government programs like Ethanol Subsidies or NCLB. Lugar was for years more pro Open Borders than many Democratic Senators. Lugar’s voting record on immigration was almost identical to Ted Kennedy’s.

    And yes through out his 36 years in the Senate, Lugar was famous for spending less than eighty days a year in Indiana.

    Lugar lost the primary to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock who was no “Tea Party” loon and ripped Lugar on his immigration record and out front support for the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations. Mourdock’s attacks were overwhelmingly popular with the Republican base and most independents.

    Had the State and National Republican Establishment been able to accept the will of the Indiana Republican base and allowed Mourdock to campaign based on opposition to Open Borders, he would have won in a landslide.

    Instead Karl Rove’s folks flew into the state and said mention immigration and no campaign funds. Mourdock fell back to using old Republican standby 1980′s boilerplate, tax cuts and abortion opposition and lost. Still nothing Mourdock said on abortion in 2012 would have raised an eyebrow in 1986-88 when he first broke into politics, but the public’s stance has changed. Had Mourdock avoided the abortion issue he would have won given that Romney did very well in Indiana.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. Not to mention the fact that Murdock didn't make abortion a centerpiece of his campaign and slipped up responding to a question in a debate not by making some ill-advised campaign mistake to run against abortion. Neither Akin nor Murdock focused on abortion the media, beginning with Stephanaplous's strange question about birth control in a Republican debate, made a concerted effort to make the election about "war on women."
  68. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Robespierre: guillotine used to be so good! Now guillotine is bad!?!? Wha!?!?

    Read More
  69. NOTA says:
    @The Practical Conservative
    Uh, the definition of rich white guy is working with a big old bouncy net.

    Having family with any money at all (especially parents) is a huge safety net. I remember going out with a girl in college whose family was poor, while mine is middle class. She correctly pointed out that if I screwed off and cut class and flunked out, my family would bail me out–they’d help me go back to a different school, or let me live in their basement while I went to community college, or whatever. And if she did the same, she’d be waiting tables for a living, because all her family were worse off than she’d be waiting tables.

    Read More
  70. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Harold
    Chait complains about symptoms while promoting the disease.

    The more time goes on and the more advantages blacks are given and the more any overt racism recedes into the past the more subtle must be those things that hold them back. Therefore we must be ever more vigilant in rooting out any behaviours which might entrench white privilege. The same is true for women and male privilege. Moreover we must not allow anyone to even begin to entertain the thought that such subtleties could not possibly hold anyone back. Noone can be allowed to mock microaggressions. We must be vigilant in the policing of our own thoughts. None of this is appealing to the ordinary sane and temperate man or woman so the commissars are drawn from the twisted sadists with no other talents to give their lives meaning. Watch a video of Jane Elliott and her blue-eyed children experiment, in past times she would have been a catholic nun taking pleasure in telling children they were born sinners.

    All this will only stop when people admit disparities are due to innate differences.

    (there is more to it, and less to it, and I could have expressed it better, and I probably should rewrite it, but I can’t be bothered)

    Two Dow Component companies announced crappy results this week: McDonald’s and IBM. The CEO of McDonald’s, a black man, was fired. The CEO of IBM, a white woman, got a $3.6 million bonus, after the company’s worst drop off in sales in 40 years.

    Read More
  71. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Hoosiers admired and respected Lugar for many reasons. Lugar's legacy was post Soviet Union arms control, the Megatons to Megawatts program.

    However, Lugar was also a shameless and unrelenting Davos man and Loyal Bushie. No Republican was more pro Free Trade, Pro Open Borders or fan of Big Government programs like Ethanol Subsidies or NCLB. Lugar was for years more pro Open Borders than many Democratic Senators. Lugar's voting record on immigration was almost identical to Ted Kennedy's.

    And yes through out his 36 years in the Senate, Lugar was famous for spending less than eighty days a year in Indiana.

    Lugar lost the primary to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock who was no "Tea Party" loon and ripped Lugar on his immigration record and out front support for the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations. Mourdock's attacks were overwhelmingly popular with the Republican base and most independents.

    Had the State and National Republican Establishment been able to accept the will of the Indiana Republican base and allowed Mourdock to campaign based on opposition to Open Borders, he would have won in a landslide.

    Instead Karl Rove's folks flew into the state and said mention immigration and no campaign funds. Mourdock fell back to using old Republican standby 1980's boilerplate, tax cuts and abortion opposition and lost. Still nothing Mourdock said on abortion in 2012 would have raised an eyebrow in 1986-88 when he first broke into politics, but the public's stance has changed. Had Mourdock avoided the abortion issue he would have won given that Romney did very well in Indiana.

    The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. Not to mention the fact that Murdock didn’t make abortion a centerpiece of his campaign and slipped up responding to a question in a debate not by making some ill-advised campaign mistake to run against abortion. Neither Akin nor Murdock focused on abortion the media, beginning with Stephanaplous’s strange question about birth control in a Republican debate, made a concerted effort to make the election about “war on women.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Mourdock in the fall election had essentially etch-a-sketched his primary campaign that focused heavily on opposition to Open Borders and Lugars support for putting far lefties on the SCOTUS. Mourdock instead, on the drop dead otherwise insistence of the Republican establishment, campaigned on the tired boilerplate of Tax Cuts, Balanced Budgets and Abortion opposition.

    The Republican Establishment alerted the press they were glad to not have talk about immigration, so the pro Open Borders media were glad to oblige them

    Mourdock brought up abortion in the fall campaign at various stops and town halls, so the local media knew it was fair game. Besides if you intentionally remove the 10-15 minutes to stake out your key winning immigration position in the hour long televised debate what else are you going to talk about? Immigration never game up during the hour long PBS hosted debate.

    In Mourdock's defense, he reiterated a principled if absolutist personal stance he had repeated over decades on his opposition to the aborting of a pregnancy resulting from rape.

    You could get a way a position like that in 1986-88. But not now.

    Once again you are delusional if you think that opposition to abortion has not significantly waned over the last couple of decades.
    , @Anon
    "The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. "

    Cuz too many black babies are killed?

    Actually, that's why I support abortion. Let libs and blacks kill their own kids.

  72. NOTA says:
    @Anon
    "Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma."

    I'm opposed to trigger warning idiocy in colleges. I mean this isn't kindergarten. Young adults should be able to deal with tough issues and learn about rough realities.

    That said, I do believe in the power of certain things, ideas, and images to set off powerfully negative emotions that can upset people.

    One reason why news consumption is so polarized is that Libs cannot stand to read Con news, and Cons cannot stand to read Lib news. Libs grind their teeth watching Fox, and Cons feel sick watching MSNBC.

    I have the same kind of feelings about certain things and images. Through most of my life, I forced myself to read all kinds of news from National Review to the Nation.

    But there are certain things I have to really brace myself to watch or read.



    I still haven't seen DJANGO, 12 YRs a SLAVE, THE BUTLER, LINCOLN, AMISTAD, BELOVED, and etc even though I should because they are culturally significant. I even took out the dvds but found all sorts of excuses not to see them. Ghastly Negroes just trigger the worst kind of reaction in me. And I took out SPECTACULAR NOW thinking it was just some teen comedy. But when the Negro appeared, I felt sick in the stomach. I would actually appreciate a trigger warning that says 'NEGRO ALERT' on Dvds. Well, no. But still, if a movie is gonna have a Negro, put his mug on the cover so I'll know what to expect in the damn thing.

    It's like a Polish mother of a friend couldn't watch any WWII films or even Hogan's Heroes because of her experience as a slave worker at a Nazi labor camp. Different people have different reactions. If I had to sit through a Black Studies program, I know my head would explode.

    If I had to see some homo propaganda, I know I'm gonna pop a blood vessel. But then, the solution is to avoid certain classes.

    But no matter how we feel, colleges should expect students to be tough and ready to tackle anything. Coddling is what is done for kids in pre-school. It's not for college students who should tackle knowledge like soldiers tackle war.

    College should be intellectual bootcamp, not a foot massage.

    But this trigger warning craze is the logical product of (1) PC whining (2) white middle class spoiled-brat-ism.

    Yes, spoiled-brat-ism has a lot to do with it because millennials are the most coddled generation in history. Earlier generations lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Vietnam War, social upheavals, drunken fathers, and bigotry. But they still had the guts to read tough books, attend classes on all sorts of subjects, and etc. As they had more negative experiences in life, they had more reasons to suffer from trigger-emotions. But they took the classes and read the books.

    Today, young college kids have no memory of starvation, hardships, wars, discrimination, and etc. There's hardly any real rape in colleges(as long as girls stay away from Negro athletes). So, why all this hysteria? This trigger-warning thing is not about something-of-real-life-experience-being-triggered. Rather, students have been INSTILLED with fears and traumas of which they have no real-life experience. It's like 1/5 out of college girls have been made to feel that they are rape victims. It's like college students are made to feel like KKK just took over Oberlin.

    If a Negro student really suffered under the KKK that hanged his father from a tree, I would understand if he felt angry in a class about American history of racial discrimination.

    But most students who bleat about that stuff are white middle class students who had it so good all their lives.

    In some paradoxical way, trigger warning is undermining PC. After all, PC perpetuates itself by highlighting the horrors of 'racism', 'homophobia', and 'sexism'. Consider how the Holocaust cult gained prominence by showing endless images of dead bodies and emaciated survivors. But if trigger warning craze takes hold, some may argue that such images should be banned because they might 'trigger' negative reactions in Holocaust survivors and their children. But in fact, it served the Jewish cause to make such images so prominent in the psyche of people around the world.

    Trigger Warning amounts to white middle class 'progressives' whining, "we don't want to be shown anything that undermines our sense of well-being." Of course, the argument is made in favor of non-whites, but it's whites who lead the charge in defining what is 'trigger'.

    Most people want trigger warnings before really disturbing stuff. There are places and times when a graphic depiction of torture or a surveillance video showing someone being beaten to death are appropriate, but I sure don’t want that stuff on my screen very often, and I don’t ever want it on the screen my kids are watching. TV news gets around this by saying something like “some viewers may find this footage disturbing.”

    The only question is what needs a trigger warning. And that is partly about being sensitive to what upsets people, and partly a political battle over whose offense or hardship trumps all other considerations.

    Read More
  73. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Douthat had a good post on this, noting that Chiat wasn’t being entirely honest in rationale for opposing PC: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/does-political-correctness-work/

    In that post, Ross links to an essay by his buddy Michael Dougherty which is also quite good.

    Read More
  74. Maj. Kong says:
    @Priss Factor
    “Jason Richwine passed immigration reform”

    Here's something I don't get.

    Liberal Jews (and Neocon Jews too) say that the GOP will never win over the Hispanic vote UNLESS it pushes policies that favor brown folks, such as amnesty.

    But if that is true, how come so many white Cons are pro-Jewish even though most Jews are anti-Con and support policies that white folks, especially cons, don't like?

    Maybe Jews can teach the GOP a lesson or two. If Jews can act anti-white-con but still win the praise and support of most white Cons, maybe the GOP can use the same formula to win over the browns: do things Browns don't like but win over the slavish loyalty and support of most Browns.

    How do Jews do it? Teach the GOP how.

    Mental difference in the conservative mind. “Pro-Israel” is what is thought, not “Pro-Jewish”, the average bicoastal American liberal Jew may not care about Israel in the sense of owning property. They mostly only think of it as a vacation and occasionally relatives.

    So to the average white-non-Jew, Jews are just as deracinated as they are. To the average Jew, Christianity is deracination, thus the animus.

    I recall McCain saying once that amnesty would not actually win over Latin voters, it would just “open the door”. The actual reason promoted, is that it would remove the “racist” image from the GOP, so that upper-middle-class bicoastal whites that haven’t voted GOP since 1988 would revert. Additionally, white millenials may hold the same view that the GOP is “racist”.

    Especially considering that Latins favor higher taxes and .gov spending. This is the Bush “compassionate conservatism” at work, but this isn’t what the establishment favors, as it doesn’t involve lowering capital gains taxes.

    At best, the Paul Singer strategy is “the Sailer strategy in reverse”. Gain more white voters, by attacking white racists.

    The better question is how the GOP establishment retains its power, despite selling out the base. (The answer is that they have nowhere else to go, but civil war)

    Read More
  75. @Harry Baldwin
    I found Chait's article to be well worth reading, if only for the section on the "Binders Full of Women" on-line forum and the UCSB anti-abortion incident. However, the areas of his seeming cluelessness are vast, starting with the assertion that there was some 20-year gap in the enforcement of political correctness.

    Here were some others that stood to me:
    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn't it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don't know many liberals then.

    Strengthening the free speech of the Klan strengthens the free speech of Blacks.” [MacKinnon] deemed this nonsensical: “It equates substantive powerlessness with substantive power and calls treating these the same, ‘equality.’ 
    She's suggesting that it is the Klan that is powerful and blacks powerless? You could have fooled me.

    While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening.
    I search in vain for evidence of the power of the "far right." (Unless that means neocons.)

    Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper replied in Salon: “The demand to be reasonable is a disingenuous demand. Black folks have been reasoning with white people forever.”
    Again, I seemed to have missed all this "reasoning."

    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn’t it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don’t know many liberals then.

    Steven Pinker has said numerous times that the word Liberal has lost its original meaning and has become a euphemism for Marxist used by both the Right and Left.

    The Right uses the world Liberal when they are afraid that using the word Marxist might result in them being labelled anti-Semitic. So they said “Liberal” while grinding their teeth to let you what they really mean.

    On the other hand, proudly out of the closet Marxists like Howard Zinn and Steven Jay Gould used the word Liberal , often with a sneer, because they knew few Conservatives/Goyim had the balls to call them a Marxist, less they risked the “MSM” start calling them Anti-Semites and the left call them Nazis.

    Chait is a classic dogmatic “Blank Slate” Denial of Nature, ethnocentic Jewish Marxist who likes to think of himself as a Liberal(in the classical sense) because it makes him more acceptable to the Goyim foolish enough to take the kosher bilge put out by TNR seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    More a matter of PR, I should think."Communist" and "Marxist" don't work very well with the mass electorate.Hence, the need for euphemisms like "Liberal" and "Progressive."As for conservatives not using it....I think that that's simply a case of the Left having framed the narrative. If you call somebody a Marxist or communist, you get labelled a nutjob, a rightwing wacko.

    Mind you, in hardcore Leftist circles (say, among my University colleagues), "Liberal" is the ultimate insult....
    , @syonredux
    Does Marxism have any real traction in America these days? As a philosophy? Libertarian-style Capitalism seems to be the driving force of the day (open-borders, same sex marriage, etc).
  76. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Lot
    As I've been posting, the whole series of #blacklivesmatters media circuses were a foreseeable disaster for the left, pushed by selfish and undisciplined lefties at the expense of their own collective good.

    I read Chiat's article as a very gentle rebuke of this disaster and anti-white rhetoric in general. He took pains to say, "I don't disagree with you that whites are awful, but repeating this endlessly isn't effective politically." And for this he was viciously attacked for his article by the usual leftie subjects who don't want to take responsibility for their self-inflicted election disaster.

    Republicans on 2010 and 2012 had the some problem with social conservatives causing them to lose winnable elections as Democrats did this cycle with blacks. But this round the GOP establishment planned carefully to stop any Christine O'Donnel types from getting nominated, and was successful in the primaries and then the general.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio's upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg's unofficial pick as his successor. As a traditional big city Irish-American pol, she was unwilling to engage in DeBlasio's extreme attacks on the police, who are well organized public employees, and for this reason lost because of URMs block voting for DeBlasio.

    Just like Republican primary voters thinking they can sell social conservatism anywhere in the USA just like they do so well in Texas, the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio’s upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg’s unofficial pick as his successor.

    It is true that Bloomberg endorsed Quinn but in NYC these endorsements are meaningless. Quinn had no base, which is why she lost. She was never a favorite, except in the media.

    The person that DeB really upset was Bill Thompson, a moderate, sensible black guy who will go down in NYC politics graveyard, along with Ruth Messinger and others.

    In 2009, Thompson did very well against Bloomberg, losing by about 4.5%. Bloomberg won this election by, ahem, “spreading the wealth.” (He bought everyone in town off.)

    In 2013, he and DeB were neck and neck, but Thompson graciously electing not to challenge DeB in a runoff. Why? Because that’s what Episcopalian gentlemen do.

    I kid. It was a fix. They squeezed him and he threw in the towel. A shame.

    the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.

    Cop-bashing doesn’t work in NYC, where did you get that idea?

    DeB’s win was a fluke and he didn’t win because he was a “cop basher” he won because he got handed the Dem. nomination, see above. Any Dem would have won this election. Most NYers are pretty law and order. Anti-gun, maybe, but law and order. It is an idiosyncratic juxtaposition, like Vermonters are pro-gun and very liberal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "The person that DeB really upset was Bill Thompson, a moderate, sensible black guy who will go down in NYC politics graveyard,"

    Yeah, I thought Bill Thompson, the moderate black Democrat who put up an impressive showing against the Bloomberg elite juggernaut in 2009, was a deserving candidate in 2013.

  77. @Sam Haysom
    The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. Not to mention the fact that Murdock didn't make abortion a centerpiece of his campaign and slipped up responding to a question in a debate not by making some ill-advised campaign mistake to run against abortion. Neither Akin nor Murdock focused on abortion the media, beginning with Stephanaplous's strange question about birth control in a Republican debate, made a concerted effort to make the election about "war on women."

    Mourdock in the fall election had essentially etch-a-sketched his primary campaign that focused heavily on opposition to Open Borders and Lugars support for putting far lefties on the SCOTUS. Mourdock instead, on the drop dead otherwise insistence of the Republican establishment, campaigned on the tired boilerplate of Tax Cuts, Balanced Budgets and Abortion opposition.

    The Republican Establishment alerted the press they were glad to not have talk about immigration, so the pro Open Borders media were glad to oblige them

    Mourdock brought up abortion in the fall campaign at various stops and town halls, so the local media knew it was fair game. Besides if you intentionally remove the 10-15 minutes to stake out your key winning immigration position in the hour long televised debate what else are you going to talk about? Immigration never game up during the hour long PBS hosted debate.

    In Mourdock’s defense, he reiterated a principled if absolutist personal stance he had repeated over decades on his opposition to the aborting of a pregnancy resulting from rape.

    You could get a way a position like that in 1986-88. But not now.

    Once again you are delusional if you think that opposition to abortion has not significantly waned over the last couple of decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

    The absolutist position, which was presumably what Mourdock believes, is higher than it was in the 1990s.

    A majority has never existed that claims abortion is "morally acceptable", recall that Clinton made much hay with "safe, legal and rare"

    At the same time, most people don't want Roe v. Wade overturned (even though parts of it were by Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992).

    The Democrats do have a losing hand in terms of later-term abortions.

    Marital consent is still remarkably popular, despite being overturned in the 1992 decision.

    The split is near 50-50 regarding disability, but 2-1 against fiscal concerns.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

    Compared to Canada, abortion absolutists are nearly 4 times as large, and highly concentrated in GOP primaries, while up north they are split.

    ----

    The best option for the GOP is too harp on late-term bans, and not attempt official purges either way.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/most-canadians-say-trudeau-wrong-to-exclude-anti-abortion-candidates-poll-1.1864651

    Regrettably, there are far too many who want the RNC to adopt Le Dauphin's position.
  78. Chuck says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Cui bono ? Only makes sense if someone else is someone other than perceived beneficiary is gaining an advantage. Are you really saying someone other than Jewish Europeans would gain from passing laws against Holocaust denial. Or are you promoting some more convoluted Paris conspiracy theory along the philip giraldi-naomi wolfe line ?
  79. @WhatEvvs

    I think what emboldened the anti-white left the most was Bill DeBlasio’s upset of Christine Quinn in the NYC mayor primary. She was a giant favorite for most of the race and Bloomberg’s unofficial pick as his successor.
     
    It is true that Bloomberg endorsed Quinn but in NYC these endorsements are meaningless. Quinn had no base, which is why she lost. She was never a favorite, except in the media.

    The person that DeB really upset was Bill Thompson, a moderate, sensible black guy who will go down in NYC politics graveyard, along with Ruth Messinger and others.

    In 2009, Thompson did very well against Bloomberg, losing by about 4.5%. Bloomberg won this election by, ahem, "spreading the wealth." (He bought everyone in town off.)

    In 2013, he and DeB were neck and neck, but Thompson graciously electing not to challenge DeB in a runoff. Why? Because that's what Episcopalian gentlemen do.

    I kid. It was a fix. They squeezed him and he threw in the towel. A shame.

    the left thought they could run on cop-bashing elsewhere in the USA like they did in NYC.
     
    Cop-bashing doesn't work in NYC, where did you get that idea?

    DeB's win was a fluke and he didn't win because he was a "cop basher" he won because he got handed the Dem. nomination, see above. Any Dem would have won this election. Most NYers are pretty law and order. Anti-gun, maybe, but law and order. It is an idiosyncratic juxtaposition, like Vermonters are pro-gun and very liberal.

    “The person that DeB really upset was Bill Thompson, a moderate, sensible black guy who will go down in NYC politics graveyard,”

    Yeah, I thought Bill Thompson, the moderate black Democrat who put up an impressive showing against the Bloomberg elite juggernaut in 2009, was a deserving candidate in 2013.

    Read More
  80. Maj. Kong says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist
    Mourdock in the fall election had essentially etch-a-sketched his primary campaign that focused heavily on opposition to Open Borders and Lugars support for putting far lefties on the SCOTUS. Mourdock instead, on the drop dead otherwise insistence of the Republican establishment, campaigned on the tired boilerplate of Tax Cuts, Balanced Budgets and Abortion opposition.

    The Republican Establishment alerted the press they were glad to not have talk about immigration, so the pro Open Borders media were glad to oblige them

    Mourdock brought up abortion in the fall campaign at various stops and town halls, so the local media knew it was fair game. Besides if you intentionally remove the 10-15 minutes to stake out your key winning immigration position in the hour long televised debate what else are you going to talk about? Immigration never game up during the hour long PBS hosted debate.

    In Mourdock's defense, he reiterated a principled if absolutist personal stance he had repeated over decades on his opposition to the aborting of a pregnancy resulting from rape.

    You could get a way a position like that in 1986-88. But not now.

    Once again you are delusional if you think that opposition to abortion has not significantly waned over the last couple of decades.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

    The absolutist position, which was presumably what Mourdock believes, is higher than it was in the 1990s.

    A majority has never existed that claims abortion is “morally acceptable”, recall that Clinton made much hay with “safe, legal and rare”

    At the same time, most people don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned (even though parts of it were by Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992).

    The Democrats do have a losing hand in terms of later-term abortions.

    Marital consent is still remarkably popular, despite being overturned in the 1992 decision.

    The split is near 50-50 regarding disability, but 2-1 against fiscal concerns.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

    Compared to Canada, abortion absolutists are nearly 4 times as large, and highly concentrated in GOP primaries, while up north they are split.

    —-

    The best option for the GOP is too harp on late-term bans, and not attempt official purges either way.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/most-canadians-say-trudeau-wrong-to-exclude-anti-abortion-candidates-poll-1.1864651

    Regrettably, there are far too many who want the RNC to adopt Le Dauphin’s position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Look just go to any shopping mall or grocery store parking lot.

    Seriously try and tell me that the number of anti-abortion bumpers stickers are anything but a small fraction of what they were in the mid 1980s the last time the the Republicans had a real chance to over turn Roe vs Wade.

    See the state of the union, Justice Kennedy is in good health and may be on the court another 3-4 years. However, Obama is almost sure to nominate to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016. The Democrats will love nothing more than to bait the Religious Right into goading the Republicans to make abortion opposition a pointless major campaign issue in 2016.

    The Right to Life single issue folks will never be happy with piecemeal consequentialist anti-abortion stances. They demand candidates who take absolutist positions that prove fatal in general elections. Besides consequentialist opinions dovetail with the individualist right to choose what is best in a particular instance stance.

    American opinions on abortion are complicated but increasingly over the decades consequentialist and not religious absolutist. The is precisely the post RoeVs Wade world we are living in. The Wood has been made into a Boat.
  81. NOTA says:

    I like this article from the Pew Center on abortion politics in the US. The differences between Democratic and Republican voters on abortion are *way* less stark than the differences between the parties. (Broadly, Republicans oppose legal abortion 60/40, and Democrats support it 65/30.). The way I understand it, though, there is an important bloc of voters in each party for whom abortion is their main issue, which makes it hard for pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats to prosper.

    The other thing that’s interesting and that contradicts a lot of commonly-used rhetoric: women and men have almost identical positions on abortion.

    Read More
  82. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Haysom
    The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. Not to mention the fact that Murdock didn't make abortion a centerpiece of his campaign and slipped up responding to a question in a debate not by making some ill-advised campaign mistake to run against abortion. Neither Akin nor Murdock focused on abortion the media, beginning with Stephanaplous's strange question about birth control in a Republican debate, made a concerted effort to make the election about "war on women."

    “The nation has gotten more not less pro-life so your comment makes no sense. ”

    Cuz too many black babies are killed?

    Actually, that’s why I support abortion. Let libs and blacks kill their own kids.

    Read More
  83. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Chuck

    Cui bono ? Only makes sense if someone else is someone other than perceived beneficiary is gaining an advantage. Are you really saying someone other than Jewish Europeans would gain from passing laws against Holocaust denial. Or are you promoting some more convoluted Paris conspiracy theory along the philip giraldi-naomi wolfe line ?

    Read More
  84. @Maj. Kong
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

    The absolutist position, which was presumably what Mourdock believes, is higher than it was in the 1990s.

    A majority has never existed that claims abortion is "morally acceptable", recall that Clinton made much hay with "safe, legal and rare"

    At the same time, most people don't want Roe v. Wade overturned (even though parts of it were by Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992).

    The Democrats do have a losing hand in terms of later-term abortions.

    Marital consent is still remarkably popular, despite being overturned in the 1992 decision.

    The split is near 50-50 regarding disability, but 2-1 against fiscal concerns.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

    Compared to Canada, abortion absolutists are nearly 4 times as large, and highly concentrated in GOP primaries, while up north they are split.

    ----

    The best option for the GOP is too harp on late-term bans, and not attempt official purges either way.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/most-canadians-say-trudeau-wrong-to-exclude-anti-abortion-candidates-poll-1.1864651

    Regrettably, there are far too many who want the RNC to adopt Le Dauphin's position.

    Look just go to any shopping mall or grocery store parking lot.

    Seriously try and tell me that the number of anti-abortion bumpers stickers are anything but a small fraction of what they were in the mid 1980s the last time the the Republicans had a real chance to over turn Roe vs Wade.

    See the state of the union, Justice Kennedy is in good health and may be on the court another 3-4 years. However, Obama is almost sure to nominate to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016. The Democrats will love nothing more than to bait the Religious Right into goading the Republicans to make abortion opposition a pointless major campaign issue in 2016.

    The Right to Life single issue folks will never be happy with piecemeal consequentialist anti-abortion stances. They demand candidates who take absolutist positions that prove fatal in general elections. Besides consequentialist opinions dovetail with the individualist right to choose what is best in a particular instance stance.

    American opinions on abortion are complicated but increasingly over the decades consequentialist and not religious absolutist. The is precisely the post RoeVs Wade world we are living in. The Wood has been made into a Boat.

    Read More
  85. Hank says:
    @anonymous
    There's always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It's just that what's being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be 'soft on communism' got a person branded as being unpatriotic. Being patriotic now is considered bad so things have flipped. The cold war warrior routine started cracking in the 60's when the Vietnam war went sour and people started to doubt what they've been told. Back in WWI people who publicly opposed the war were sent to prison, there were the Palmer raids, people refusing induction into the armed forces were sent to prison right up into the Vietnam war era, people were publicly denounced and so on.

    The government has always herded the masses of peons into what they're supposed to think. It's been transmitted downward through the opinion molders of society: the school system, churches, print and television media, movies, organizations such as boy scouts, prominent public personalities, making children recite the pledge of allegiance each morning, putting "under God" on our coins, etc. There's always been a system of informal, 'soft commissar-ism' at work although being less heavy-handed and overt than in the communist countries it's not noticed as being such. The PC of today is what the government and it's partner the large corporations have decided is best for business so it all gets wrapped up in the robes of morality. The volunteer commissars further down the food chain are enthusiastic believers in PC and are like the communist 'block-watch committees' who defended the revolution by keeping an eye on their neighbors. The party line changes but the methods of keeping the rabble in line stay the same.

    Good comment there, Anonymous. If you view things from a 115-year perspective, I buy everything you say. There have been violations of liberty perpetrated by all sorts of people, including a lot on “the Right”.

    But still, compare things to, say, 1970. Haven’t things soured somewhat compared to then?

    There was a rampant New Left, but they had little control over institutions. I think what’s most soured now is the fact that pretty hardc0re leftists have comfortable control over the field of journalism–there’s absolutely nothing the right can do that begins to make up for that powerful headwind–and academia. Everyone laughs at academia, but they are in a perfect position to propagandize the brightest youth, and over the years, that opportunity yields dividends for them.

    Read More
  86. Jonathan Chait is not a white male. He is a Jew. His friend Hanna Rosin is not white. She is a Jew. Each of them knows this to be the case. It’s essential that readers struggling to come to an understanding of the contemporary world separate from the Narrative also come to understand this fact of identity as always central to the issue at hand, whatever it might be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Jonathan Chait is not a white male. He is a Jew. His friend Hanna Rosin is not white. She is a Jew. Each of them knows this to be the case. It’s essential that readers struggling to come to an understanding of the contemporary world separate from the Narrative also come to understand this fact of identity as always central to the issue at hand, whatever it might be.
     
    I tend to think that they both feel very White indeed while driving through a Black neighborhood.....
  87. @anonymous
    There's always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It's just that what's being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be 'soft on communism' got a person branded as being unpatriotic. Being patriotic now is considered bad so things have flipped. The cold war warrior routine started cracking in the 60's when the Vietnam war went sour and people started to doubt what they've been told. Back in WWI people who publicly opposed the war were sent to prison, there were the Palmer raids, people refusing induction into the armed forces were sent to prison right up into the Vietnam war era, people were publicly denounced and so on.

    The government has always herded the masses of peons into what they're supposed to think. It's been transmitted downward through the opinion molders of society: the school system, churches, print and television media, movies, organizations such as boy scouts, prominent public personalities, making children recite the pledge of allegiance each morning, putting "under God" on our coins, etc. There's always been a system of informal, 'soft commissar-ism' at work although being less heavy-handed and overt than in the communist countries it's not noticed as being such. The PC of today is what the government and it's partner the large corporations have decided is best for business so it all gets wrapped up in the robes of morality. The volunteer commissars further down the food chain are enthusiastic believers in PC and are like the communist 'block-watch committees' who defended the revolution by keeping an eye on their neighbors. The party line changes but the methods of keeping the rabble in line stay the same.

    I think enforced loyalty to the State is different from enforced loyalty to Political Correctness. Enforced loyalty to the State doesn’t stop people feeling good about themselves or their ancestors. It is authoritarian but far less Totalitarian than PC. PC is Totalitarian like Nazism or Communism, you have to subscribe to a whole bunch of ideology beyond just supporting the State.

    Read More
  88. robot says:
    @Priss Factor
    “Jason Richwine passed immigration reform”

    Here's something I don't get.

    Liberal Jews (and Neocon Jews too) say that the GOP will never win over the Hispanic vote UNLESS it pushes policies that favor brown folks, such as amnesty.

    But if that is true, how come so many white Cons are pro-Jewish even though most Jews are anti-Con and support policies that white folks, especially cons, don't like?

    Maybe Jews can teach the GOP a lesson or two. If Jews can act anti-white-con but still win the praise and support of most white Cons, maybe the GOP can use the same formula to win over the browns: do things Browns don't like but win over the slavish loyalty and support of most Browns.

    How do Jews do it? Teach the GOP how.

    “How do Jews do it?” Holocaust guilt (terror of being labelled antisemitic) and campaign donations

    Read More
  89. abj_slant says:
    @Scotty G. Vito

    How did we get back to 1991?
     
    Well, gee... That would be The Internet for $100, Alex. CompuServe/Prodigy begat AOL message boards, who begat Movable Type, who begat Tumblr...

    They finally tapped the ultimate well of consumer devotion: amour propre. Thus the hard-wired neurotypical "global villager" mentality gets beamed to the corners of the earth incessantly 24/7, and best of all, now you don't even have to understand a computer operating system to participate -- you do it from a $#!&% phone. It was the spread of DBS dish channels that kicked off the recent Kosovo unpleasantness, right?

    Ha! Nailed it!

    Read More
  90. abj_slant says:
    @anonymous
    There's always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It's just that what's being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be 'soft on communism' got a person branded as being unpatriotic. Being patriotic now is considered bad so things have flipped. The cold war warrior routine started cracking in the 60's when the Vietnam war went sour and people started to doubt what they've been told. Back in WWI people who publicly opposed the war were sent to prison, there were the Palmer raids, people refusing induction into the armed forces were sent to prison right up into the Vietnam war era, people were publicly denounced and so on.

    The government has always herded the masses of peons into what they're supposed to think. It's been transmitted downward through the opinion molders of society: the school system, churches, print and television media, movies, organizations such as boy scouts, prominent public personalities, making children recite the pledge of allegiance each morning, putting "under God" on our coins, etc. There's always been a system of informal, 'soft commissar-ism' at work although being less heavy-handed and overt than in the communist countries it's not noticed as being such. The PC of today is what the government and it's partner the large corporations have decided is best for business so it all gets wrapped up in the robes of morality. The volunteer commissars further down the food chain are enthusiastic believers in PC and are like the communist 'block-watch committees' who defended the revolution by keeping an eye on their neighbors. The party line changes but the methods of keeping the rabble in line stay the same.

    I agree with you that the ‘commissar-ism’ you describe has always been around.

    The difference now–as I see it–is the insidiousness of the ease with which the court of public opinion can be pounced on by the PC lemmings, thanks to that magical internet thingy.

    Read More
  91. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Jacobite
    Stop this use of the word "cisgendered" immediately!!!

    “Stop this use of the word “cisgendered” immediately!!!”

    Thank god, I thought I was the only one.

    Read More
  92. IA says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Anybody would be okay to criticize anybody, no matter how sacralized the designated victim group the offended party belongs to."

    Two things.

    While I defend freedom of speech, I think we shouldn't be outrageous just to be anti-PC. This is why I'm not too crazy about the kind of garbage peddled by Charlie Hobo. I'm for its freedom of speech, but what a waste of speech by wallowing in ugliness. I suppose it could be defended as satire, but what dumb satire.

    So, even as we should defend free speech, we should champion only the kinds of speech that makes good sense. If someone wants to go Charles Manson on free speech just to be a jerk, we need to acknowledge his right to do so, but we should wash our hands clean of such freaks.

    'no matter how sacralized...'

    That's the problem. PC isn't just about mindlessly attacking certain voices and expressions but about mindlessly elevating certain figures, images, and ideas. PC begins with 'sacralization' itself.

    So, anti-PC folks must expose and counter the very process of 'sacralization', especially since the secular realm of free thought and free inquiry has no room for 'sacralization'. No man, however great he may be, is a god. No idea, however useful it is, is foolproof. No event, however important or crucial, was some holy event.

    Sacralization belongs in the realm of religion. But when it comes to issues of free thought and free debate, there is no room for sacralization because it makes certain figures/ideas/images untouchable. Thus made holy, it becomes taboo to speak ill or against that thing.

    This doesn't mean that people shouldn't admire or respect(and even revere) certain figures and ideas.

    But there's a limit to this. One can acknowledge MLK's role in the Civil Rights Movement, but he was no saint. In personal life, he was very much a punk. And his tactic was the Trojan Horse trick. Same goes for Winston Churchill and many others. Gandhi was no saint either.

    Conservatives who wail against PC fail to see that PC begins with sacralization. So, if cons are with the sacralization of the likes of MLK and Mandela, why should they be surprised with the logic of PC? If certain things are made 'holy', then it becomes totally taboo to cast any negative aspersions on them or ideas/agendas associated with them.

    We see this with homosexuals. There was a time when homosexuals were just homosexuals. We could speak freely about homosexual issues, pro or con.

    But movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTIN', TV shows, advertising, public education, and etc. have turned homosexuals into the most wonderful, lovable, saintly, and darling people on earth associated with 'rainbows'. As homosexuals have become sacralized, people are afraid to speak ill of the 'gay' agenda since critics are seen not only as wrong but heretical and wicked.

    We can't even laugh at Lavergne Cox the black guy who thinks he's a blonde woman because transvestites have also been sacralized as the new face of 'civil rights'. This isn't liberal democracy at work. It is neo-religionism.

    So, the bigger issue isn't we should speak freely about sacralized groups. We should counter and subvert the entire enterprise of sacralization.

    Sacralization of real people and real-world ideas is anti-freedom, anti-reason, anti-sense, and anti-truth. It tells us that we must shut down on critical/skeptical faculties and just worship certain figures and ideas. With such state of mind, of course you're gonna go 'witch hunt' against all heretics.

    “We should counter and subvert the entire enterprise of sacralization.”

    You might study something called The Enlightenment.

    Read More
  93. @ Maj. Kong

    “The Democrats do have a losing hand in terms of later-term abortions.”

    I think the winning hand is to expand a woman’s right to abortion – to include a man’s right to avoid financial obligations to children he doesn’t want. My proposal would require a woman to obtain a man’s written consent to accept an obligation to raise a child. If the woman cannot find a man to sign for her expected child, then she alone would bear the burden.

    The point would be to shift responsibility for pregnancy from men onto women to reduce the incidence of single parent households.

    Read More
  94. Snippet says:
    @Simon in London
    I read Chait's article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 - in his world it was a phenomenon of the late '80s that 'went into remission' then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn't regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    >>> He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012

    <<< It's impossible to quantify these things, but I remember thinking that the PC train did appear to be running out of steam a while ago. It was a hopeful thought. The way it has come roaring back is astonishing, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that when it become completely clear that Messiah 2.0 wasn't going to deliver us to the promised land, the PC excuse machine got pulled out of storage and fired up with a vengeance.

    Read More
  95. @anonymous
    There's always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It's just that what's being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be 'soft on communism' got a person branded as being unpatriotic. Being patriotic now is considered bad so things have flipped. The cold war warrior routine started cracking in the 60's when the Vietnam war went sour and people started to doubt what they've been told. Back in WWI people who publicly opposed the war were sent to prison, there were the Palmer raids, people refusing induction into the armed forces were sent to prison right up into the Vietnam war era, people were publicly denounced and so on.

    The government has always herded the masses of peons into what they're supposed to think. It's been transmitted downward through the opinion molders of society: the school system, churches, print and television media, movies, organizations such as boy scouts, prominent public personalities, making children recite the pledge of allegiance each morning, putting "under God" on our coins, etc. There's always been a system of informal, 'soft commissar-ism' at work although being less heavy-handed and overt than in the communist countries it's not noticed as being such. The PC of today is what the government and it's partner the large corporations have decided is best for business so it all gets wrapped up in the robes of morality. The volunteer commissars further down the food chain are enthusiastic believers in PC and are like the communist 'block-watch committees' who defended the revolution by keeping an eye on their neighbors. The party line changes but the methods of keeping the rabble in line stay the same.

    There’s always been one form of PC or another being imposed. It’s just that what’s being imposed is different. During the cold war being considered to be ‘soft on communism’ got a person branded as being unpatriotic.

    During the Cold War there were still successful and influential people who were soft on communism–artists, show biz people, intellectuals, academics, and journalists. In contrast, very few of those types would be non-pc today.

    By the mid-1960s, when the Cold War still had 25 years to go, all those types were openly soft on communism, as were many politicians, and being staunchly anti-communist made you a joke among the elite. Network anchormen like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were soft of communism. Presidential candidates Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter were soft on communism.

    The PC of today is more more powerful and repressive, and produces many times more victims than McCarthyism ever did.

    Read More
  96. IA says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Two Dow Component companies announced crappy results this week: McDonald's and IBM. The CEO of McDonald's, a black man, was fired. The CEO of IBM, a white woman, got a $3.6 million bonus, after the company's worst drop off in sales in 40 years.

    A black CEO sunk Maytag in about one year.

    Read More
  97. “In a Coalition of the Fringes, there’s a lot of effort put in to be Fringier than Thou.”

    “the more a group is above criticism, the worse they behave.”

    Steve Sailer: A thinking mans’ John Rambo.

    Read More
  98. keypusher says:
    @Sam Haysom
    Completely dishonest. Those elections weren't lost because the candidates were excessively social conservative, but because Murdock and Akin both inadvertently made comments suggesting they were not sensitive to rape. No where can you find social conservatives arguing that what's needed is for the Republican Party to run on a platform of flippancy about rape. Akin and Murdock lost for the same reason that Romney lost, in Romney's case the forty 48 percent line. All three made unfortunate comments that no one in their right mind would advocate as the basis of an electoral strategy.

    How Lot compares this phenomenon to what occured with the Democrats racial misfire in 2014 is entirely a function of his hatred for social conservatives and his feankly absurd view that a national party can be built from his goldilocks just right mix of social leftism and aggressive anti-black racialism. Is there any particular of the RNCs hand-picked candidates that Lot wants to stand behind. It will be interesting to see if the sell out to amnesty before or after 2015. It's all for naught anyways because when Lot's RNC boys go 0 for seven in senate seat pickups in 2016 and Jeb Bush loses by ten points no one is going to much care what the anti-socon faction has to say.

    You'd be hard press to find a more loyal and easily placated ally than the relgious right. They also have a lot more sophisticated understanding of politics than lot. McCaskill can be beat in four years so in the scheme of things it's not a big deal if you occasionally lose as long as deep Red states like Missouri ultimately get right-wing Senators. McCains and Lindsey Grahams are forever.

    Akin’s comment wasn’t “inadvertent.” It was the product of his view that abortion should be unavailable even in cases of rape. Asked if he would make the woman who became pregnant carry the baby to term, he made his famous and idiotic comment about the body “shutting that thing down.”

    It’s stupid to believe that you can hold views like Akin’s and not pay the price at the voting booth.

    Read More
  99. syonredux says:
    @TheLatestInDecay
    Jonathan Chait is not a white male. He is a Jew. His friend Hanna Rosin is not white. She is a Jew. Each of them knows this to be the case. It's essential that readers struggling to come to an understanding of the contemporary world separate from the Narrative also come to understand this fact of identity as always central to the issue at hand, whatever it might be.

    Jonathan Chait is not a white male. He is a Jew. His friend Hanna Rosin is not white. She is a Jew. Each of them knows this to be the case. It’s essential that readers struggling to come to an understanding of the contemporary world separate from the Narrative also come to understand this fact of identity as always central to the issue at hand, whatever it might be.

    I tend to think that they both feel very White indeed while driving through a Black neighborhood…..

    Read More
  100. syonredux says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn’t it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don’t know many liberals then.
     
    Steven Pinker has said numerous times that the word Liberal has lost its original meaning and has become a euphemism for Marxist used by both the Right and Left.

    The Right uses the world Liberal when they are afraid that using the word Marxist might result in them being labelled anti-Semitic. So they said "Liberal" while grinding their teeth to let you what they really mean.

    On the other hand, proudly out of the closet Marxists like Howard Zinn and Steven Jay Gould used the word Liberal , often with a sneer, because they knew few Conservatives/Goyim had the balls to call them a Marxist, less they risked the "MSM" start calling them Anti-Semites and the left call them Nazis.

    Chait is a classic dogmatic "Blank Slate" Denial of Nature, ethnocentic Jewish Marxist who likes to think of himself as a Liberal(in the classical sense) because it makes him more acceptable to the Goyim foolish enough to take the kosher bilge put out by TNR seriously.

    More a matter of PR, I should think.”Communist” and “Marxist” don’t work very well with the mass electorate.Hence, the need for euphemisms like “Liberal” and “Progressive.”As for conservatives not using it….I think that that’s simply a case of the Left having framed the narrative. If you call somebody a Marxist or communist, you get labelled a nutjob, a rightwing wacko.

    Mind you, in hardcore Leftist circles (say, among my University colleagues), “Liberal” is the ultimate insult….

    Read More
  101. syonredux says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations.
    Wasn’t it liberals themselves that discredited liberalism, largely without help from the right?

    This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things. . . . But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.
    I guess I don’t know many liberals then.
     
    Steven Pinker has said numerous times that the word Liberal has lost its original meaning and has become a euphemism for Marxist used by both the Right and Left.

    The Right uses the world Liberal when they are afraid that using the word Marxist might result in them being labelled anti-Semitic. So they said "Liberal" while grinding their teeth to let you what they really mean.

    On the other hand, proudly out of the closet Marxists like Howard Zinn and Steven Jay Gould used the word Liberal , often with a sneer, because they knew few Conservatives/Goyim had the balls to call them a Marxist, less they risked the "MSM" start calling them Anti-Semites and the left call them Nazis.

    Chait is a classic dogmatic "Blank Slate" Denial of Nature, ethnocentic Jewish Marxist who likes to think of himself as a Liberal(in the classical sense) because it makes him more acceptable to the Goyim foolish enough to take the kosher bilge put out by TNR seriously.

    Does Marxism have any real traction in America these days? As a philosophy? Libertarian-style Capitalism seems to be the driving force of the day (open-borders, same sex marriage, etc).

    Read More
  102. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.”

    Can you be more specific? In the interest of truth and knowledge? What statements, by whom, and why were they racist? One of the bad things about PC is how much communication becomes meaningless vague slogans that are the equivalent of thoughtless muttered incantations.

    Read More
  103. Does Marxism have any real traction in America these days? As a philosophy? Libertarian-style Capitalism seems to be the driving force of the day (open-borders, same sex marriage, etc).

    The practical difference between old-style-communism and new-style-libertarianism seems to be approaching zero. Which may help explain why so many libertarians are former Marxists: they’re able to make the switch while keeping a great many of their basic assumptions about the world intact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The practical difference between old-style-communism and new-style-libertarianism seems to be approaching zero.

    Put the bong down.
  104. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Greenstalk
    Does Marxism have any real traction in America these days? As a philosophy? Libertarian-style Capitalism seems to be the driving force of the day (open-borders, same sex marriage, etc).

    The practical difference between old-style-communism and new-style-libertarianism seems to be approaching zero. Which may help explain why so many libertarians are former Marxists: they're able to make the switch while keeping a great many of their basic assumptions about the world intact.

    The practical difference between old-style-communism and new-style-libertarianism seems to be approaching zero.

    Put the bong down.

    Read More
  105. @Steve Sailer
    "Chait just committed a major heresy. He can’t take back what he wrote."

    Eh, lots of tactics available, like Chait picking somebody else out and denouncing him for racism.

    Riding the tiger, eh?

    Read More
  106. @Simon in London
    I read Chait's article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 - in his world it was a phenomenon of the late '80s that 'went into remission' then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn't regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    I read Chait’s article a couple days ago. He lives in a bizarro world where there was no Political Correctness between 1992 and 2012 – in his world it was a phenomenon of the late ’80s that ‘went into remission’ then came back just recently!

    Trying to make sense of that, all I can think of is that he is perhaps describing periods of *feminist* PC hegemony, especially anti-sex feminist PC hegemony, whereas for 20 years *race* PC was hegemonic, and he obviously doesn’t regard *race* PC as bad/as PC since he was an enforcer himself.

    Yes, I think you nailed it.

    Read More
  107. @iffen
    The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.

    The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.

    The problem with what you said is that by many definitions, including any that encompass Watson’s comments (which, according to you, would be all of them), there’s nothing wrong with being “racist”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    [He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".]

    This is the statement that I had in mind. I did not say that everything that he has said was racist.

    The meaning of racist is very much a weapon in the political arena today. Even racists won’t take the label.

    If we agree that the IQ mid-point is different for different racial groups, and if we accept the research that shows better life outcomes for higher IQ individuals, then we could say that the higher IQ group is in a better or superior position. The racist part comes from applying the group description to each member of the group. This is what Watson does when he refers to black employees.

    As far as I know not being a racist is not the 11th commandment. However, in a multi-racial society it is detrimental to pound away at the fact that the bell curves for different groups are positioned differently. It is even worse to apply a group statistic to an individual.

    As I said, the meaning of the word has changed, now it usually means any white person who thinks that there are racial groups. And no, people of color can’t be racist, they can only be guilty of colorism. Only people of little or no color can be racists (by today’s definitions).

  108. iffen says:
    @ben tillman

    The Richwine and Watson situations are not equal.

    Doing research on IQ is not the same as making statements that by any definition are racist in nature.
     
    The problem with what you said is that by many definitions, including any that encompass Watson's comments (which, according to you, would be all of them), there's nothing wrong with being "racist".

    [He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".]

    This is the statement that I had in mind. I did not say that everything that he has said was racist.

    The meaning of racist is very much a weapon in the political arena today. Even racists won’t take the label.

    If we agree that the IQ mid-point is different for different racial groups, and if we accept the research that shows better life outcomes for higher IQ individuals, then we could say that the higher IQ group is in a better or superior position. The racist part comes from applying the group description to each member of the group. This is what Watson does when he refers to black employees.

    As far as I know not being a racist is not the 11th commandment. However, in a multi-racial society it is detrimental to pound away at the fact that the bell curves for different groups are positioned differently. It is even worse to apply a group statistic to an individual.

    As I said, the meaning of the word has changed, now it usually means any white person who thinks that there are racial groups. And no, people of color can’t be racist, they can only be guilty of colorism. Only people of little or no color can be racists (by today’s definitions).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Watson was speaking from his experience as a good liberal -- back in the late 1960s/early 1970s he had his laboratory establish a facility for some of the simpler tasks that needed doing in a black neighborhood to provide jobs to poor blacks. It didn't work out well.

    I'm sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in "tend to" and "on average" and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

  109. David says:

    Total OT, Steve, here in VT we started to give drivers’ licenses to just about anyone. In the first year almost 41,000 were issued. No legal resident of Vermont has a reason to get one of these, and there are only 630,000 of us.

    http://watchdog.org/196699/dmv-backpedals-on-illegals/

    Another topic I thought might interest you is Steve Israel’s new book The Global War on Morris. Mr Israel is a member of congress representing New York. His book is a parody of the War on Terror, but the angle is, it’s all based on fact. For example, in the book, Dick Chaney has the terror alert level raised just before an election, and Mr Israel is quick to point out that this really happened. I can’t understand how a congressman can make jokes about our government breaking the law and lying to us, while not trying to change it. He had time to write the book because he was flying from campaign stop to campaign stop in the run up to the last midterms. In a radio interview, he described upholding the bill of rights as akin to fashion — sometimes we do it more, sometimes less.

    Read More
  110. @iffen
    [He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".]

    This is the statement that I had in mind. I did not say that everything that he has said was racist.

    The meaning of racist is very much a weapon in the political arena today. Even racists won’t take the label.

    If we agree that the IQ mid-point is different for different racial groups, and if we accept the research that shows better life outcomes for higher IQ individuals, then we could say that the higher IQ group is in a better or superior position. The racist part comes from applying the group description to each member of the group. This is what Watson does when he refers to black employees.

    As far as I know not being a racist is not the 11th commandment. However, in a multi-racial society it is detrimental to pound away at the fact that the bell curves for different groups are positioned differently. It is even worse to apply a group statistic to an individual.

    As I said, the meaning of the word has changed, now it usually means any white person who thinks that there are racial groups. And no, people of color can’t be racist, they can only be guilty of colorism. Only people of little or no color can be racists (by today’s definitions).

    Watson was speaking from his experience as a good liberal — back in the late 1960s/early 1970s he had his laboratory establish a facility for some of the simpler tasks that needed doing in a black neighborhood to provide jobs to poor blacks. It didn’t work out well.

    I’m sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in “tend to” and “on average” and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I didn’t get back to the original interview. Everything I read was in quotes. I read some of his explanations and it seems to me that he was sincere in his intent to not be racist.

    Maybe he is not good at establishing laboratories, only running them. Maybe he really is a racist and sabotaged the whole effort. I don’t know.

    I stand by my statement that research on IQ and writing about such research is not the same as making statements about the capabilities of black employees.
    , @iffen
    My opinion is that people who have won a Nobel Prize have earned some points and should be given consideration that ordinary people should not expect (perhaps excepting the Peace Prize). Again, I just reiterate my point that the situations are not the same.
    , @Twinkie

    I’m sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in “tend to” and “on average” and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.
     
    I am not an esteemed scientist, but I speak very bluntly about race issues even in public (I know, makes me really popular). Even so, I am careful to note about group averages and group behavioral tendencies as well as individual variations, and emphasize that individuals ought to be judged as individuals. When I speak to friends and family, I am less careful about the caveats (because caveats are time-consuming in quick, informal conversations). But they all understand that I am not a "racist" in that I do not pre-judge individuals based on anything other than their individual qualities. On the other hand, I do not cut an individual any slack for belonging to this group or that either (for example, you don't get brownie points with me just because you stayed married and raised yours kids and you happen to be a black male - that's what *all* men should do).

    I would think that all intellectually honest people would believe and speak thusly.

  111. iffen says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Watson was speaking from his experience as a good liberal -- back in the late 1960s/early 1970s he had his laboratory establish a facility for some of the simpler tasks that needed doing in a black neighborhood to provide jobs to poor blacks. It didn't work out well.

    I'm sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in "tend to" and "on average" and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

    I didn’t get back to the original interview. Everything I read was in quotes. I read some of his explanations and it seems to me that he was sincere in his intent to not be racist.

    Maybe he is not good at establishing laboratories, only running them. Maybe he really is a racist and sabotaged the whole effort. I don’t know.

    I stand by my statement that research on IQ and writing about such research is not the same as making statements about the capabilities of black employees.

    Read More
  112. iffen says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Watson was speaking from his experience as a good liberal -- back in the late 1960s/early 1970s he had his laboratory establish a facility for some of the simpler tasks that needed doing in a black neighborhood to provide jobs to poor blacks. It didn't work out well.

    I'm sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in "tend to" and "on average" and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

    My opinion is that people who have won a Nobel Prize have earned some points and should be given consideration that ordinary people should not expect (perhaps excepting the Peace Prize). Again, I just reiterate my point that the situations are not the same.

    Read More
  113. Joe Webb says:

    IQ Iq IQ…How about considering temperments, an equally important factor with regard to civilized behavior…

    Temperment I suppose is harder to study, but not impossible because personality tests can measure a lot of personal tendencies with regard to sociability, responsibility, ethical behavior, and so on.

    It is a measure of our own Times with its emphasis on, excuse me, Money, that social factors are given little attention except in extreme cases with regard to violent crime, and the like.

    When Black males achieve a rate of lack of holy wedlock
    with regard to their own children approaching 75%, you might think that a cause for alarm amongst all folks, regardless of IQ scores. This is also true of Mexicans and Whites, which I understand approach 50% and 25 % respectively.

    It would be of note to ascertain which racial group at least has fathers that stick around their kids and assume financial responsibility. You know how the racial score wold be in this case.

    Arguably Whites too are being Africanized. Let the women take care of the kids… was Africa, and now it is let the liberal State do it for some Whites. Then, the slow sinking into the African swamp in other regards amongst White lower classes is clear. Murray addressed this in his recent book, Coming Apart.

    His view is that only about the top 25% of Whites are keeping body and soul and children together.

    We are adrift on the Liberal sea, swept by crazes, Pee -Cee follies..anything goes, freaks galore, identity idiocies, sex, sex, sex, porn, wars without end, and racial mongrelization preached by the Liberal State, television/media, and the Jews who run most of it. Meanwhile the Jews , you know, Keep to Their Own.

    EO Wilson said that the genes keep culture on a leash. How short or long that leash is, I dunno, but the other aspect of “Democracy” is that the lowest common denominator Rules these days, sex, money, gratuitous violence non-stop in the media, and Sensation, not Thought or emotional subtlety.

    So we live in a Mass Age. Animal Rights fools are demanding that personhood be extended to apes, in a legal sense. Of course, we already did that and look what has happened with the Negro Revolt Against All Reason. Reason is White and therefore politically incorrect.

    Welcome to Hell. Then it gets even weirder when the zombie Chinese, total Money Mad, take over. One Dimensionality is their middle name. They understand nothing but numbers, Believe in Luck, and betray us at every point…spying for China, just as jews spy for Israel always.

    Coming Apart is what is happening to the US and Europe, but there is some hope as we see in Europe as the Brussels bunglers and True Believers look on as their Grand One World Plan blows up in their faces. Ditto the Race War in the US. Let the Bad Times Roll.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  114. […] STEVE SAILER: “The more a group is above criticism, the worse they behave.” […]

    Read More
  115. Twinkie says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Watson was speaking from his experience as a good liberal -- back in the late 1960s/early 1970s he had his laboratory establish a facility for some of the simpler tasks that needed doing in a black neighborhood to provide jobs to poor blacks. It didn't work out well.

    I'm sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in "tend to" and "on average" and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

    I’m sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in “tend to” and “on average” and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.

    I am not an esteemed scientist, but I speak very bluntly about race issues even in public (I know, makes me really popular). Even so, I am careful to note about group averages and group behavioral tendencies as well as individual variations, and emphasize that individuals ought to be judged as individuals. When I speak to friends and family, I am less careful about the caveats (because caveats are time-consuming in quick, informal conversations). But they all understand that I am not a “racist” in that I do not pre-judge individuals based on anything other than their individual qualities. On the other hand, I do not cut an individual any slack for belonging to this group or that either (for example, you don’t get brownie points with me just because you stayed married and raised yours kids and you happen to be a black male – that’s what *all* men should do).

    I would think that all intellectually honest people would believe and speak thusly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Are you agreeing with Sailer that because it was a private conversation the meaning is different?

    Do you give all men points for fulfulling their obligations, and no additional points to black men?

    A case can be made that it might be more difficult for the average black man to achieve the same rate of family formation and fidelity as the average white man.

    If Charles Murray's observations are correct and trends continue, then white family disfunction should approach black family disfunction rates in the future. Will this show that it was culture and not "race" after all?

  116. iffen says:
    @Priss Factor
    PC is often over-privileged white/Jewish folks attacking less-privileged white folks for not being conscious of their own privilege. Over-privileged whites/Jews project their own privilege onto less privileged whites and, in doing so, pretend that they are doing something about 'white privilege' when that very conceit serves to defend and expand their own privilege (in the name of fighting 'white privilege'). Ever notice that the Jews, the people who bitch most about 'white privilege', seem to be getting richer and more powerful than everyone else?

    PC also says whites must be overly sensitive to the insensitivity of non-whites. So, if black rappers and looters act insensitive, whites must be sensitive as to why 'people of color' act that way.

    According to PC, whites are generally more sensitive because being sensitive is a privilege. It takes good neighborhoods, good schooling, and good parents for a person to be raised properly and become sensitive (like dweeby faced Kenny Boy Burns). Since whites are richer, they live in better communities and have been raised to be more sensitive. In contrast, blacks and browns are less sensitive because they live in brutal communities where the priority is 'survival'.

    But this causes a socio-moral contradiction. If indeed being rich/richer makes for a more sensitive populace, then doesn't it argue for white privilege since white privilege is most effective at promoting white sensitivity. After all, white peckerwoods who grew up poor aren't very sensitive. But rich whites and Jews who attended Harvard are said to be 'sensitive', especially toward homosexuals.

    So, it seems the best way to expand white sensitivity is to expand white privilege. But PC has a problem with white privilege. So, where do we go from here?

    “white peckerwoods who grew up poor aren’t very sensitive”

    This is the main reason that we can’t get certified victim group status. We just can’t be counted on to give love and hugs to the other victim groups.

    Read More
  117. eradican says:

    I wrote a lengthy and provocative blog post for anyone interested in the history of Marxism and Russia (two topics that generate much discussion). Marxism will return as a revolutionary force in the 21st century. The most economically powerful nation on Earth is Red China the communist superpower successor to the USSR.

    https://eradica.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/old-and-new-gods/

    Read More
  118. Joe Webb says:

    Inasmuch as I posted earlier, with the first sentence reading “I am a racist,” and went on in pretty plain words about my racism but was moderated for my immoderation, let me try again.

    Here is something I wrote a couple days ago for my email list:

    love your neighbor as yourself

    I remember finding that New Testament commandment a bit strange, or more than a bit strange.

    Think about it. Self-love is an acceptance and respect for yourself.

    I guess that is ok, especially in our Times when the psychobabble abounds. Blacks, despite their manifest failures in virtually all departments, have much higher scores than Whites on Self Esteem. Think about that.

    East Asians have lower scores than Whites, despite their high intelligence.

    This requires analysis along the lines of Temperment differences between the races. But another story…

    However think about this:
    You cannot love yourself if you hate your race. With regard to the old Jewish problem of “self-hating Jews” with which Jewish chauvinists regularly charge Jews who are anti-zionists, look at White Self-Hatred.

    Mental health demands proper, in the New Testament sense, self-love. Again, if you hate your own race, you cannot value yourself.

    The self-help books are everywhere selling Big. Who buys these books? Almost always Whites, especially White women and especially White women without children. We don’t know what and who we are…many of us, especially liberals who think Culture is Wide Open. E O Wilson said that the genes keep culture on a leash. The question is how long or short is the leash.

    Women have, biologically speaking, a larger portion of their brain devoted to emotional experience, mostly of what we call affiliative love. (This is the Natural trait of women for keeping the family and community together while men are out getting beat up in the hunt, or injured in war…which, lest we forget, is for Tribe Preservation, not for Bringing Civilization to the Benighted).

    Men have less, and sometimes substantially less brain power devoted to kindly emotion, which is why men are usually the psychopaths, not women. Women get into the crazy-lady syndrome when they don’t have children, unless they are smart enough to have projects that occupy their minds.

    However most women of average intelligence and better than average, without children, go in for nutty projects in the Third World, or Helping the Homeless, or luving the Darkies in general, and Hating White Men who are Guilty of Everything, despite the fact that it is White Men who have invented everything, especially the Liberalism that our ladies now ladle out to every sub-human they can find, except Whites in need, like White children.

    ———–

    Personal note: my mental health has substantially improved since I got realistic about race and genes. Recall the Alcoholics Anonymous slogan that goes something like this ” Lord (or Evolution) help me to understand what I can change and what I cannot change and especially the wisdom to know the difference.” And. I had to travel a long way from leftish orientation to the racialism that I embrace now. That is hard on the intellectual/enotional system.

    I have discovered thru race science the capacity to know the difference. I cannot change myself, my kids, or Blacks, etc. With this conservative wisdom, I am more relaxed and feel good about myself and those around me personally. For example, knowing that people don’t Change! per the Black amateur Dictator, Obongo, those folks who are too much to deal with, I get rid of. No co-dependency here. I will stop there.

    Back to White Mental Health: speaking of co-dependency, White Liberals are co-dependent with Blacks and anybody else they can feel sorry for, and give themselves a medal for doing so. Of course, what co-dependency fundamentally is, is a Denial of one’s own personal problems with Helping Others the Method of escaping from one’s own miseries. Thus, Women Without Children avoid their childlessness by Helping Blacks, Third Worlders and so on.

    With regard to White men, who are O so less afflicted by Self Hatred, they nevertheless are also traumatized by the endless propaganda about White Males as Bad or just wusses, per TV commercials having White men Instructed by wise and holy Negroes, and the sex-wars started by Jewish femi-commies wherein they cower before the harpies who accuse them of every crime in the book, the funniest thereof that Men want Sex not Love. Well there is some truth to that one, but whatever truth there is to it, it is multiplied by how hard it is to love , excuse me, a bitch complaining about everything and maybe even calling you a racist! cuz you don’t worship MLK, the whore monger.

    Back to Mental Health, plainly stated…you cannot love yourself (and your White neighbor) if you do not love your race. Every race is racist. except Whites. We are sick and dying of that sickness, while every other race thrives and does not give a hoot for anti-racism, the White Infantile Altruistic Disorder.

    Jews love their own race, Blacks love their own race, Chinese, etc. (I think, if they can love…) love their own race.

    But Whites are Forbidden to love their own race. So let us see….if you indeed love your own race, and love yourself per the New Testament, then your concern, humanitarian…for other races will be less, and probably substantially less than your feelings for your own race.

    A similar dynamic plays out with your children. Say, you are in the street with your child and a neighbor’s child and a car is about to strike the kids, and you only have time to save one, not both.
    I have actually heard die-hard lefties claim that they would not privilege their own child over the neighbor child.

    This is as insane and suicidal as claiming that you do not privilege your own race. Why is it insane with regard to your own child? Because if you do not privilege them they will feel unloved. Likewise, if you do not privilege your own race, your race will….ahem, disappear. Racial suicide is what Liberals promote. They are insane.

    Finally, all this chatter about racism and nobody here has the balls to flat out claim their own racism by fidgeting and jumping around with racialist chatter, but never face up to Reality. Now I do not blame people with jobs to lose, for their circumspection. But for those financially secure who straddle the fence….shame on you.

    It is High Noon folks. Take your stand or be more or less nothing.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality

    by John Hartung

    http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13
  119. @Joe Webb
    Inasmuch as I posted earlier, with the first sentence reading "I am a racist," and went on in pretty plain words about my racism but was moderated for my immoderation, let me try again.

    Here is something I wrote a couple days ago for my email list:


    love your neighbor as yourself

    I remember finding that New Testament commandment a bit strange, or more than a bit strange.

    Think about it. Self-love is an acceptance and respect for yourself.

    I guess that is ok, especially in our Times when the psychobabble abounds. Blacks, despite their manifest failures in virtually all departments, have much higher scores than Whites on Self Esteem. Think about that.

    East Asians have lower scores than Whites, despite their high intelligence.

    This requires analysis along the lines of Temperment differences between the races. But another story...

    However think about this:
    You cannot love yourself if you hate your race. With regard to the old Jewish problem of "self-hating Jews" with which Jewish chauvinists regularly charge Jews who are anti-zionists, look at White Self-Hatred.

    Mental health demands proper, in the New Testament sense, self-love. Again, if you hate your own race, you cannot value yourself.

    The self-help books are everywhere selling Big. Who buys these books? Almost always Whites, especially White women and especially White women without children. We don't know what and who we are...many of us, especially liberals who think Culture is Wide Open. E O Wilson said that the genes keep culture on a leash. The question is how long or short is the leash.

    Women have, biologically speaking, a larger portion of their brain devoted to emotional experience, mostly of what we call affiliative love. (This is the Natural trait of women for keeping the family and community together while men are out getting beat up in the hunt, or injured in war...which, lest we forget, is for Tribe Preservation, not for Bringing Civilization to the Benighted).

    Men have less, and sometimes substantially less brain power devoted to kindly emotion, which is why men are usually the psychopaths, not women. Women get into the crazy-lady syndrome when they don't have children, unless they are smart enough to have projects that occupy their minds.

    However most women of average intelligence and better than average, without children, go in for nutty projects in the Third World, or Helping the Homeless, or luving the Darkies in general, and Hating White Men who are Guilty of Everything, despite the fact that it is White Men who have invented everything, especially the Liberalism that our ladies now ladle out to every sub-human they can find, except Whites in need, like White children.

    -----------

    Personal note: my mental health has substantially improved since I got realistic about race and genes. Recall the Alcoholics Anonymous slogan that goes something like this " Lord (or Evolution) help me to understand what I can change and what I cannot change and especially the wisdom to know the difference." And. I had to travel a long way from leftish orientation to the racialism that I embrace now. That is hard on the intellectual/enotional system.

    I have discovered thru race science the capacity to know the difference. I cannot change myself, my kids, or Blacks, etc. With this conservative wisdom, I am more relaxed and feel good about myself and those around me personally. For example, knowing that people don't Change! per the Black amateur Dictator, Obongo, those folks who are too much to deal with, I get rid of. No co-dependency here. I will stop there.

    Back to White Mental Health: speaking of co-dependency, White Liberals are co-dependent with Blacks and anybody else they can feel sorry for, and give themselves a medal for doing so. Of course, what co-dependency fundamentally is, is a Denial of one's own personal problems with Helping Others the Method of escaping from one's own miseries. Thus, Women Without Children avoid their childlessness by Helping Blacks, Third Worlders and so on.

    With regard to White men, who are O so less afflicted by Self Hatred, they nevertheless are also traumatized by the endless propaganda about White Males as Bad or just wusses, per TV commercials having White men Instructed by wise and holy Negroes, and the sex-wars started by Jewish femi-commies wherein they cower before the harpies who accuse them of every crime in the book, the funniest thereof that Men want Sex not Love. Well there is some truth to that one, but whatever truth there is to it, it is multiplied by how hard it is to love , excuse me, a bitch complaining about everything and maybe even calling you a racist! cuz you don't worship MLK, the whore monger.

    Back to Mental Health, plainly stated...you cannot love yourself (and your White neighbor) if you do not love your race. Every race is racist. except Whites. We are sick and dying of that sickness, while every other race thrives and does not give a hoot for anti-racism, the White Infantile Altruistic Disorder.

    Jews love their own race, Blacks love their own race, Chinese, etc. (I think, if they can love...) love their own race.

    But Whites are Forbidden to love their own race. So let us see....if you indeed love your own race, and love yourself per the New Testament, then your concern, humanitarian...for other races will be less, and probably substantially less than your feelings for your own race.

    A similar dynamic plays out with your children. Say, you are in the street with your child and a neighbor's child and a car is about to strike the kids, and you only have time to save one, not both.
    I have actually heard die-hard lefties claim that they would not privilege their own child over the neighbor child.

    This is as insane and suicidal as claiming that you do not privilege your own race. Why is it insane with regard to your own child? Because if you do not privilege them they will feel unloved. Likewise, if you do not privilege your own race, your race will....ahem, disappear. Racial suicide is what Liberals promote. They are insane.

    Finally, all this chatter about racism and nobody here has the balls to flat out claim their own racism by fidgeting and jumping around with racialist chatter, but never face up to Reality. Now I do not blame people with jobs to lose, for their circumspection. But for those financially secure who straddle the fence....shame on you.

    It is High Noon folks. Take your stand or be more or less nothing.


    Joe Webb

    LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality

    by John Hartung

    http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13

    Read More
  120. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    I’m sure if he was speaking formally for a public audience he would have put in “tend to” and “on average” and all that but he was speaking to an old colleague informally.
     
    I am not an esteemed scientist, but I speak very bluntly about race issues even in public (I know, makes me really popular). Even so, I am careful to note about group averages and group behavioral tendencies as well as individual variations, and emphasize that individuals ought to be judged as individuals. When I speak to friends and family, I am less careful about the caveats (because caveats are time-consuming in quick, informal conversations). But they all understand that I am not a "racist" in that I do not pre-judge individuals based on anything other than their individual qualities. On the other hand, I do not cut an individual any slack for belonging to this group or that either (for example, you don't get brownie points with me just because you stayed married and raised yours kids and you happen to be a black male - that's what *all* men should do).

    I would think that all intellectually honest people would believe and speak thusly.

    Are you agreeing with Sailer that because it was a private conversation the meaning is different?

    Do you give all men points for fulfulling their obligations, and no additional points to black men?

    A case can be made that it might be more difficult for the average black man to achieve the same rate of family formation and fidelity as the average white man.

    If Charles Murray’s observations are correct and trends continue, then white family disfunction should approach black family disfunction rates in the future. Will this show that it was culture and not “race” after all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Do you give all men points for fulfulling their obligations, and no additional points to black men?
     
    You get no points for fulfilling the obligations (and the joys!) of being a father. You do lose them for failing to do so. Be a man. Take care of your woman and children.

    A case can be made that it might be more difficult for the average black man to achieve the same rate of family formation and fidelity as the average white man.
     
    Perhaps. But even if we subscribed to the idea of human bio-diversity (and I do), we should not forget that we are all human beings, and as such, are given to similar desires and impulses and are governed by the same moral compass, even if we all differed by degrees.

    Black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was 24%. Now it's over 70%. Obviously black men 40 years ago could form families at a vastly higher rate. That rate of 24%, by the way, is lower than white illegitimacy rate today. That's not a fair comparison, of course, given the very different social conditions. But the point is that race is not everything. Given different sets of socio-economic and cultural circumstances, it is possible for black men to be more family-forming than white men. So, black men are not destined to fail and should behave as other real men do - take care of their women and children, period.

    If Charles Murray’s observations are correct and trends continue, then white family disfunction should approach black family disfunction rates in the future. Will this show that it was culture and not “race” after all?
     
    A resounding no.

    While different cultural circumstances could provide for varying rates for blacks and whites, the same cultural environment still produces dramatically different outcomes for black and whites.

    For example, the black illegitimacy rate went from 24% in 1965 to over 70% today while white illegitimacy rates went from 18% in 1965 to about 30% today. While both groups declined as the moral culture eroded, blacks declined at a far higher rate than did whites.

    So, to put simply, both genes and cultures matter.
  121. Caprizchka says: • Website

    “Anybody would be okay to criticize anybody, no matter how sacralized the designated victim group the offended party belongs to.”

    I’m in! Let the games begin.

    Read More
  122. Joe Webb says:

    The reason that Black men cannot do family is that in Africa the family was the matriarchal unit of a number of women and their children. That fit the African environment of general stupidity , 67 today, and probably not much different earlier, although we are not sure. Stupidity leads to minimal economic development, so subsistence agriculture and herding prevailed, with the men herding the cattle and the women doing agricultural work ( I am guessing here). Plus hunting is largely men’s work, etc.

    Then stupidity leads to emphasis on sex, since nothing else stimulates the scanty neurons, such as they are.
    Sex leads to babies who are turned over to the women while the men drink, brag, shun real work.

    Low investment parenting works in a warm climate which requires little provisioning, and any shade cover will do for shelter. Compare to the Icy North which demanded much, starting with food and firewood. You cannot do low investment parenting in the North. Every child lost counts much more heavily in the North, than in the South, starting with expensive calories expended for naught.

    It has been noted that the illegitimacy rate for Blacks began to soar after 1960. Permission was given to go bush, including for Whites.

    Phenotypic behavior of Blacks and to a lesser degree, Whites, changed after 1960. Re the earlier argument about phenotypic intelligence vs. genotypic intelligence, arguably both Black and White genotypic behavior was flushed out into the open with the 60s.

    Whites often became hippies, about which I have a nuanced view: no other race developed hippies. Arguably hippies brought out some of the best in Whites, sociability, trust, altruism. Never mind the worst for now.

    In Blacks, there was little Good that came out of the genotypic release….just the jungle reappeared.
    So the above remark about family formation for Blacks gets us back to Black behavior unchained.

    At American Renaissance, I have a book review of a book written on Brazil about a dozen years ago. The author is a flaming liberal, but there is a lot of useful info in his book, like that the White lowest quintile associates and marries some with the mulattos. This is not surprising inasmuch as the lowest quintile of Whites in Brazil are about of equal intelligence to the mulattos.

    So no Cracker1, Whites will never get close to the ‘dysfunction’ of Blacks because it is genes, not Culture.

    The Minnesota Twin study and its identicals separated at a birth and raised separately proves that it is genes, not culture.

    That does not mean however, that the White working and middle classes cannot be dragged into the swamp to some degree. I live next to a rich man’s town and the reading material in the grocery store is the same junk as in worker type grocery stores, especially the women’s magazines…pretty depressing, and, again, it is genes. What do women want? Cosmo magazine. This is because women are fundamentally about family, sex, feelings, children, etc. Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus, write real stuff, not fluff, etc.

    In our mass democracy, there is no aristocracy of talent and at least some nobility with “higher” things concerned. What we got is plenty of scribblers and loony tunes liberals and conservatives that are little better. It is pretty much a discussion about money, and that is it.

    Race, People, Tradition, Learning, History, Literature, etc… about shot. The high culture is All Jews Considered on National Public Radio, bookstores filled with liberal trash, Television.

    The Mass Age, even if largely dominated by the Jewish Power here….it would be little different if old line Whites ran the show….Money, commerce, our Gilded Age in ascent. American history began to go downhill after the War between the States.

    A counter-revolution needs to happen, and that may come given the unraveling of public trust in just about all the institutions, and the racial polarization that is proceeding nicely.

    Speaking of television, the HBO production, Deadwood, back in about 2000 thru 2003, is superb, it is the creation of Milch, a Jew. There are a couple pee-cee bits there, with regard to Jews and Blacks, but otherwise it is amazing. Milch is a genius, and all the actors are way above average….

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus"

    Yeah, that's pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    , @Art Deco
    The reason that Black men cannot do family is that in Africa the family was the matriarchal unit of a number of women and their children. That fit the African environment of general stupidity

    --

    You're confusing matriarchy and matriliny. Per an anthropologist of my acquaintance, the reasons for the origins of matriliny are obscure, but it is associated with hoe agriculture. (Malay society is matrilineal).

    In any case, this is not characteristic of black American society, which is not matrilineal and had fairly ordinary occidental patterns of nuclear family formation (with some variation around the edges) as recently as 1955.
  123. @Joe Webb
    The reason that Black men cannot do family is that in Africa the family was the matriarchal unit of a number of women and their children. That fit the African environment of general stupidity , 67 today, and probably not much different earlier, although we are not sure. Stupidity leads to minimal economic development, so subsistence agriculture and herding prevailed, with the men herding the cattle and the women doing agricultural work ( I am guessing here). Plus hunting is largely men's work, etc.

    Then stupidity leads to emphasis on sex, since nothing else stimulates the scanty neurons, such as they are.
    Sex leads to babies who are turned over to the women while the men drink, brag, shun real work.

    Low investment parenting works in a warm climate which requires little provisioning, and any shade cover will do for shelter. Compare to the Icy North which demanded much, starting with food and firewood. You cannot do low investment parenting in the North. Every child lost counts much more heavily in the North, than in the South, starting with expensive calories expended for naught.

    It has been noted that the illegitimacy rate for Blacks began to soar after 1960. Permission was given to go bush, including for Whites.

    Phenotypic behavior of Blacks and to a lesser degree, Whites, changed after 1960. Re the earlier argument about phenotypic intelligence vs. genotypic intelligence, arguably both Black and White genotypic behavior was flushed out into the open with the 60s.

    Whites often became hippies, about which I have a nuanced view: no other race developed hippies. Arguably hippies brought out some of the best in Whites, sociability, trust, altruism. Never mind the worst for now.

    In Blacks, there was little Good that came out of the genotypic release....just the jungle reappeared.
    So the above remark about family formation for Blacks gets us back to Black behavior unchained.

    At American Renaissance, I have a book review of a book written on Brazil about a dozen years ago. The author is a flaming liberal, but there is a lot of useful info in his book, like that the White lowest quintile associates and marries some with the mulattos. This is not surprising inasmuch as the lowest quintile of Whites in Brazil are about of equal intelligence to the mulattos.

    So no Cracker1, Whites will never get close to the 'dysfunction' of Blacks because it is genes, not Culture.

    The Minnesota Twin study and its identicals separated at a birth and raised separately proves that it is genes, not culture.

    That does not mean however, that the White working and middle classes cannot be dragged into the swamp to some degree. I live next to a rich man's town and the reading material in the grocery store is the same junk as in worker type grocery stores, especially the women's magazines...pretty depressing, and, again, it is genes. What do women want? Cosmo magazine. This is because women are fundamentally about family, sex, feelings, children, etc. Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus, write real stuff, not fluff, etc.

    In our mass democracy, there is no aristocracy of talent and at least some nobility with "higher" things concerned. What we got is plenty of scribblers and loony tunes liberals and conservatives that are little better. It is pretty much a discussion about money, and that is it.

    Race, People, Tradition, Learning, History, Literature, etc... about shot. The high culture is All Jews Considered on National Public Radio, bookstores filled with liberal trash, Television.

    The Mass Age, even if largely dominated by the Jewish Power here....it would be little different if old line Whites ran the show....Money, commerce, our Gilded Age in ascent. American history began to go downhill after the War between the States.

    A counter-revolution needs to happen, and that may come given the unraveling of public trust in just about all the institutions, and the racial polarization that is proceeding nicely.

    Speaking of television, the HBO production, Deadwood, back in about 2000 thru 2003, is superb, it is the creation of Milch, a Jew. There are a couple pee-cee bits there, with regard to Jews and Blacks, but otherwise it is amazing. Milch is a genius, and all the actors are way above average....

    Joe Webb

    “Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus”

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah, that’s pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    Steve,

    By "that," are you referring both to money and to jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus or just the latter? And what do you understand the commenter to mean by "jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus"?
  124. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Joe Webb
    The reason that Black men cannot do family is that in Africa the family was the matriarchal unit of a number of women and their children. That fit the African environment of general stupidity , 67 today, and probably not much different earlier, although we are not sure. Stupidity leads to minimal economic development, so subsistence agriculture and herding prevailed, with the men herding the cattle and the women doing agricultural work ( I am guessing here). Plus hunting is largely men's work, etc.

    Then stupidity leads to emphasis on sex, since nothing else stimulates the scanty neurons, such as they are.
    Sex leads to babies who are turned over to the women while the men drink, brag, shun real work.

    Low investment parenting works in a warm climate which requires little provisioning, and any shade cover will do for shelter. Compare to the Icy North which demanded much, starting with food and firewood. You cannot do low investment parenting in the North. Every child lost counts much more heavily in the North, than in the South, starting with expensive calories expended for naught.

    It has been noted that the illegitimacy rate for Blacks began to soar after 1960. Permission was given to go bush, including for Whites.

    Phenotypic behavior of Blacks and to a lesser degree, Whites, changed after 1960. Re the earlier argument about phenotypic intelligence vs. genotypic intelligence, arguably both Black and White genotypic behavior was flushed out into the open with the 60s.

    Whites often became hippies, about which I have a nuanced view: no other race developed hippies. Arguably hippies brought out some of the best in Whites, sociability, trust, altruism. Never mind the worst for now.

    In Blacks, there was little Good that came out of the genotypic release....just the jungle reappeared.
    So the above remark about family formation for Blacks gets us back to Black behavior unchained.

    At American Renaissance, I have a book review of a book written on Brazil about a dozen years ago. The author is a flaming liberal, but there is a lot of useful info in his book, like that the White lowest quintile associates and marries some with the mulattos. This is not surprising inasmuch as the lowest quintile of Whites in Brazil are about of equal intelligence to the mulattos.

    So no Cracker1, Whites will never get close to the 'dysfunction' of Blacks because it is genes, not Culture.

    The Minnesota Twin study and its identicals separated at a birth and raised separately proves that it is genes, not culture.

    That does not mean however, that the White working and middle classes cannot be dragged into the swamp to some degree. I live next to a rich man's town and the reading material in the grocery store is the same junk as in worker type grocery stores, especially the women's magazines...pretty depressing, and, again, it is genes. What do women want? Cosmo magazine. This is because women are fundamentally about family, sex, feelings, children, etc. Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus, write real stuff, not fluff, etc.

    In our mass democracy, there is no aristocracy of talent and at least some nobility with "higher" things concerned. What we got is plenty of scribblers and loony tunes liberals and conservatives that are little better. It is pretty much a discussion about money, and that is it.

    Race, People, Tradition, Learning, History, Literature, etc... about shot. The high culture is All Jews Considered on National Public Radio, bookstores filled with liberal trash, Television.

    The Mass Age, even if largely dominated by the Jewish Power here....it would be little different if old line Whites ran the show....Money, commerce, our Gilded Age in ascent. American history began to go downhill after the War between the States.

    A counter-revolution needs to happen, and that may come given the unraveling of public trust in just about all the institutions, and the racial polarization that is proceeding nicely.

    Speaking of television, the HBO production, Deadwood, back in about 2000 thru 2003, is superb, it is the creation of Milch, a Jew. There are a couple pee-cee bits there, with regard to Jews and Blacks, but otherwise it is amazing. Milch is a genius, and all the actors are way above average....

    Joe Webb

    The reason that Black men cannot do family is that in Africa the family was the matriarchal unit of a number of women and their children. That fit the African environment of general stupidity

    You’re confusing matriarchy and matriliny. Per an anthropologist of my acquaintance, the reasons for the origins of matriliny are obscure, but it is associated with hoe agriculture. (Malay society is matrilineal).

    In any case, this is not characteristic of black American society, which is not matrilineal and had fairly ordinary occidental patterns of nuclear family formation (with some variation around the edges) as recently as 1955.

    Read More
  125. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    "Men have other things to do, like make money , jump off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus"

    Yeah, that's pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    Steve,

    By “that,” are you referring both to money and to jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus or just the latter? And what do you understand the commenter to mean by “jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In 1930s the whitest thing was trying to climb the Eiger (like Brad Pitt's character in 7 years in Tibet finally did in 1938). Now it's making like Rocky the Flying Squirrel coming down the Eiger.
  126. @Anonymous
    Yeah, that’s pretty much the most white European male thing imaginable.

    Steve,

    By "that," are you referring both to money and to jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus or just the latter? And what do you understand the commenter to mean by "jumping off cliffs with flying squirrel apparatus"?

    In 1930s the whitest thing was trying to climb the Eiger (like Brad Pitt’s character in 7 years in Tibet finally did in 1938). Now it’s making like Rocky the Flying Squirrel coming down the Eiger.

    Read More
  127. Joe Webb says:

    well Steve, I guess I was too cryptic. Beside inventing everything, including liberalism and The Humanities, etc. White males are adventurous and courageous. They not only dominate extreme sports, we are almost the only guys who race motorcycles and cars, and so on. We also make the best soldiers.

    In other words , we are Real Men, whether mapping the socio-biological realities, flying to the moon , inventing Darwinism (something shared by quite a few White men at the time, besides Darwin), or engaging in risky adventure. That is why we sailed the ocean blue, discovered the rest of the world, and so on. That, and intelligence adequate to the task.

    We are the only race that has Personality, not some cookie cutter national or racial personality due to collectivism…Asians for example. Whites are interested in a huge number of things, as can be seen in societies of this and that, hobbies, clubs, and so on. What do Asians do ? They make money and gamble (a form of narcissism and magical thinking).

    All of which is to say that we are a lot of fun, including the White Liberal fools going on about Philosophy and post this and that, and so on. All garbage but intellectually engaging like a cross-word puzzle I guess, but full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but White foolishness. There are two examples in the New York Times today of this. I will send it along.

    The flying squirrel suits ( don’t know the technical term ) is the apparatus that allows crazy white guys to jump off cliffs and glide quite aways past boulders and other thrilling obstacles on their way down to the point where they deploy a parachute. The latest thing by the way. Jumping our of airplanes never appealed to me, but this does. Thank god I have other things to do, but I do get a kick out of my motorcycle, a lot more fun than sports cars.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    They not only dominate extreme sports, we are almost the only guys who race motorcycles and cars, and so on. We also make the best soldiers.
     
    You've obviously never seen the Gurkha Regiment or the ROK 707th Special Mission Battalion in action. For that matter, the ROK Marines who were deployed to Vietnam as American allies had some of the highest kill ratios of any force during the Vietnam War. Ask any Vietnam Vet who had up close experience with them and they will tell you that the ROK AORs were the safest in all of South Vietnam. These "Irishmen of Asia" were so good at soldiering that they would routinely ambush the VC in the latter's home turf, and led the North Vietnamese command directing the VCs to avoid contact with them unless absolutely necessary.

    And these were the same South Koreans whose forebears only 20 years ago (the Korean War) had a notorious reputation of crumbling and cutting and running at the drop of a hat.

    People can change and do.


    Whites are interested in a huge number of things, as can be seen in societies of this and that, hobbies, clubs, and so on. What do Asians do ? They make money and gamble (a form of narcissism and magical thinking).
     
    Recently I saw a fascinating documentary about a (white) guy who went to Russia to film the elusive Siberian tigers (majestic creatures that are in dire straits of being truly endangered). Very "white" thing to do, right?

    Well, when this adventurous white guy arrived in Russia, he took over from someone else, a true pioneer in observing Siberian tigers in nature, who showed him the ropes. And that guy doing a very "white" adventurous and idiosyncratic thing was... Sooyoong Park: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/siberian-tiger-quest-sooyong-park-biography/7798/

    I hate to break it to you, but countries like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have lots of clubs for all manners of hobbies and such. And extreme sports are very popular (one of which was even featured cinematically in this country - "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift"). You clearly haven't been to Asia at all if you think only white guys like to race motorcycles and cars.

    This isn't the 1950's when Asian societies were desperately hungry and poor and were barely arising from the ashes of World War II.

  128. Joe Webb says:

    Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 10:14 AM
    Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: Philosophy’s Lost Body and Soul ( woe unto those crazy ladies)

    “During the Sotomayor kerfuffle, Jon Stewart helpfully played back clips….” and this femi-commie calls herself a philosopher, …

    Edify yourself and read this excrement. A testament to human folly, the Intellectual being the most vulnerable. And the wymyn being more vulnerable , way more vulnerable than men, especially White women. Affirmative Action for the Ladies. You may remember Wind in the Willows, the Children’s story. Toad, of Toad Hall….prancing down the railroad tracks with the locomotive bearing down on him….that is our Liberal Today. The Liberal couple who Think, are strolling down the railroad track. The man says “isn’t that a train whistle I hear ?” The woman says, “no no John, that is just your White Male Privilege, a social construct of Imperialism and Colonialism trying to subordinate The Mother of us all, and right now, me…goddam you.”

    Man Thinks, God Laughs. God laughs in gales about our gals.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  129. Joe Webb says:

    here is another on Puberty’s younger and younger descent into “our” kids. New York Times today.

    The stuff I talk about here is in Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior, 2000. As I understand it, Rushton’s book is the best book on race science. I extrapolate from the evidence on race and developmental timetables, to individuals that I query on this stuff, ,myself included as remarked. Of course, nothing is 100% except White tendencies to lunacy, as opposed to other races with regard to False Hope.

    ——-

    Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 8:57 AM
    Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: What Causes Girls to Enter Puberty Early? (philosophy not science)

    In another story …, which I cannot get to show up computer-wise, an on-going series on Philosophy and Race, a screwball femi zero goes on and on about Philosophy without one word about socio-biology, genetics, and so on, thus on the one hand proving the uselessness of Philosophy, but more importantly, documenting the Biblical sin of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. The point there is that God knows and any merely human fool with a high IQ trying to Think, will be consigned to the lower regions of hell …

    This story about girls and puberty is more idle philosophy in the service of avoidance of science. We know that Blacks enter puberty one year before Whites, on average. This fact has stimulated me to inquire of folks when they entered puberty, especially brighter people. Also, my own experience is that I entered puberty at 15.

    The smarter the race, the later the individual member enters various stages of physical maturation, like the ability to hold up one’s head as an infant, the age of dental eruption, the age of walking as a toddler, and the age of puberty.

    The later one enters these stages of physical maturation, the smarter the person is.

    So, the descending age of our kids entering puberty “proves” the larger and larger percentage of stupid people. These stupid people are of course, the people of color: Blacks at 85 IQ, Mexicans at 90, and assorted other third worlders at 90 and below. Even Whites at 100 IQ as a race appear to be losing IQ apparently because the dummies breed while the smarties prefer BMWs and electronic gadgets to babies…however this may be changing as the top 25 % of Whites are more conservative these days, and family becomes more important thereby, not revolution and Sexual Liberation.

    This article goes on and on about Causes, when in fact the stuff it mentions are epiphenomenal: sugary drinks, etc. are the markers of dummies, etc. Damned fools: liberal intellectuals who indulge their ability to Think Good Thoughts rather than obey God, or in this case, Science which explains puberty and race in general.

    Woody Woodpecker Laughter here.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  130. Joe Webb says:

    sorry, but my computer and whatever else does not send the url to the stories in the Times. This is from the digital edition, which is not always the same as the print. I have noticed that sometimes the print edition carries the more liberal spin, while the digital edition, having to compete with other more objective print sources, contains fewer lies.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  131. Twinkie says:
    @iffen
    Are you agreeing with Sailer that because it was a private conversation the meaning is different?

    Do you give all men points for fulfulling their obligations, and no additional points to black men?

    A case can be made that it might be more difficult for the average black man to achieve the same rate of family formation and fidelity as the average white man.

    If Charles Murray's observations are correct and trends continue, then white family disfunction should approach black family disfunction rates in the future. Will this show that it was culture and not "race" after all?

    Do you give all men points for fulfulling their obligations, and no additional points to black men?

    You get no points for fulfilling the obligations (and the joys!) of being a father. You do lose them for failing to do so. Be a man. Take care of your woman and children.

    A case can be made that it might be more difficult for the average black man to achieve the same rate of family formation and fidelity as the average white man.

    Perhaps. But even if we subscribed to the idea of human bio-diversity (and I do), we should not forget that we are all human beings, and as such, are given to similar desires and impulses and are governed by the same moral compass, even if we all differed by degrees.

    Black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was 24%. Now it’s over 70%. Obviously black men 40 years ago could form families at a vastly higher rate. That rate of 24%, by the way, is lower than white illegitimacy rate today. That’s not a fair comparison, of course, given the very different social conditions. But the point is that race is not everything. Given different sets of socio-economic and cultural circumstances, it is possible for black men to be more family-forming than white men. So, black men are not destined to fail and should behave as other real men do – take care of their women and children, period.

    If Charles Murray’s observations are correct and trends continue, then white family disfunction should approach black family disfunction rates in the future. Will this show that it was culture and not “race” after all?

    A resounding no.

    While different cultural circumstances could provide for varying rates for blacks and whites, the same cultural environment still produces dramatically different outcomes for black and whites.

    For example, the black illegitimacy rate went from 24% in 1965 to over 70% today while white illegitimacy rates went from 18% in 1965 to about 30% today. While both groups declined as the moral culture eroded, blacks declined at a far higher rate than did whites.

    So, to put simply, both genes and cultures matter.

    Read More
  132. Twinkie says:
    @Joe Webb
    well Steve, I guess I was too cryptic. Beside inventing everything, including liberalism and The Humanities, etc. White males are adventurous and courageous. They not only dominate extreme sports, we are almost the only guys who race motorcycles and cars, and so on. We also make the best soldiers.

    In other words , we are Real Men, whether mapping the socio-biological realities, flying to the moon , inventing Darwinism (something shared by quite a few White men at the time, besides Darwin), or engaging in risky adventure. That is why we sailed the ocean blue, discovered the rest of the world, and so on. That, and intelligence adequate to the task.

    We are the only race that has Personality, not some cookie cutter national or racial personality due to collectivism...Asians for example. Whites are interested in a huge number of things, as can be seen in societies of this and that, hobbies, clubs, and so on. What do Asians do ? They make money and gamble (a form of narcissism and magical thinking).

    All of which is to say that we are a lot of fun, including the White Liberal fools going on about Philosophy and post this and that, and so on. All garbage but intellectually engaging like a cross-word puzzle I guess, but full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but White foolishness. There are two examples in the New York Times today of this. I will send it along.

    The flying squirrel suits ( don't know the technical term ) is the apparatus that allows crazy white guys to jump off cliffs and glide quite aways past boulders and other thrilling obstacles on their way down to the point where they deploy a parachute. The latest thing by the way. Jumping our of airplanes never appealed to me, but this does. Thank god I have other things to do, but I do get a kick out of my motorcycle, a lot more fun than sports cars.

    Joe Webb

    They not only dominate extreme sports, we are almost the only guys who race motorcycles and cars, and so on. We also make the best soldiers.

    You’ve obviously never seen the Gurkha Regiment or the ROK 707th Special Mission Battalion in action. For that matter, the ROK Marines who were deployed to Vietnam as American allies had some of the highest kill ratios of any force during the Vietnam War. Ask any Vietnam Vet who had up close experience with them and they will tell you that the ROK AORs were the safest in all of South Vietnam. These “Irishmen of Asia” were so good at soldiering that they would routinely ambush the VC in the latter’s home turf, and led the North Vietnamese command directing the VCs to avoid contact with them unless absolutely necessary.

    And these were the same South Koreans whose forebears only 20 years ago (the Korean War) had a notorious reputation of crumbling and cutting and running at the drop of a hat.

    People can change and do.

    Whites are interested in a huge number of things, as can be seen in societies of this and that, hobbies, clubs, and so on. What do Asians do ? They make money and gamble (a form of narcissism and magical thinking).

    Recently I saw a fascinating documentary about a (white) guy who went to Russia to film the elusive Siberian tigers (majestic creatures that are in dire straits of being truly endangered). Very “white” thing to do, right?

    Well, when this adventurous white guy arrived in Russia, he took over from someone else, a true pioneer in observing Siberian tigers in nature, who showed him the ropes. And that guy doing a very “white” adventurous and idiosyncratic thing was… Sooyoong Park: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/siberian-tiger-quest-sooyong-park-biography/7798/

    I hate to break it to you, but countries like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have lots of clubs for all manners of hobbies and such. And extreme sports are very popular (one of which was even featured cinematically in this country – “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”). You clearly haven’t been to Asia at all if you think only white guys like to race motorcycles and cars.

    This isn’t the 1950′s when Asian societies were desperately hungry and poor and were barely arising from the ashes of World War II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Webb
    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.

    Then, the dysfunctional types can vary a fair amount. Like Tolstoy said, happy families are all alike, but unhappy families are infinitely varied. Something like that. (but be clear, happy families have productive members who have many varied interests...positive of course.)

    We are not interested in low behavior, in this thread. We are interested in high behavior. Who wrote the great books of the West? It was not women, except for a handful. Women are claimed to be spiritual. That is nonsense. Men are far more spiritual , if one means by that that, amongst other things, that High Art is "spiritual ", like Dostoyevski . I prefer the word emotional, as in high emotional functioning. I assume that high emotional functioning is informed by rationality, knowledge, and personal restraint.

    Then look at the literature of the non-white world. It is just not there for the most part, just like Women's literature pales when compared to dead white males. Please. Alice
    Walker, etc. Allende... Pee-Cee promotion of folks like Angelou or various Women femi writers. Without world historical significance, but interesting as cultural artifacts documenting the Decline of the West.

    Joe Webb

  133. Joe Webb says:
    @Twinkie

    They not only dominate extreme sports, we are almost the only guys who race motorcycles and cars, and so on. We also make the best soldiers.
     
    You've obviously never seen the Gurkha Regiment or the ROK 707th Special Mission Battalion in action. For that matter, the ROK Marines who were deployed to Vietnam as American allies had some of the highest kill ratios of any force during the Vietnam War. Ask any Vietnam Vet who had up close experience with them and they will tell you that the ROK AORs were the safest in all of South Vietnam. These "Irishmen of Asia" were so good at soldiering that they would routinely ambush the VC in the latter's home turf, and led the North Vietnamese command directing the VCs to avoid contact with them unless absolutely necessary.

    And these were the same South Koreans whose forebears only 20 years ago (the Korean War) had a notorious reputation of crumbling and cutting and running at the drop of a hat.

    People can change and do.


    Whites are interested in a huge number of things, as can be seen in societies of this and that, hobbies, clubs, and so on. What do Asians do ? They make money and gamble (a form of narcissism and magical thinking).
     
    Recently I saw a fascinating documentary about a (white) guy who went to Russia to film the elusive Siberian tigers (majestic creatures that are in dire straits of being truly endangered). Very "white" thing to do, right?

    Well, when this adventurous white guy arrived in Russia, he took over from someone else, a true pioneer in observing Siberian tigers in nature, who showed him the ropes. And that guy doing a very "white" adventurous and idiosyncratic thing was... Sooyoong Park: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/siberian-tiger-quest-sooyong-park-biography/7798/

    I hate to break it to you, but countries like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have lots of clubs for all manners of hobbies and such. And extreme sports are very popular (one of which was even featured cinematically in this country - "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift"). You clearly haven't been to Asia at all if you think only white guys like to race motorcycles and cars.

    This isn't the 1950's when Asian societies were desperately hungry and poor and were barely arising from the ashes of World War II.

    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.

    Then, the dysfunctional types can vary a fair amount. Like Tolstoy said, happy families are all alike, but unhappy families are infinitely varied. Something like that. (but be clear, happy families have productive members who have many varied interests…positive of course.)

    We are not interested in low behavior, in this thread. We are interested in high behavior. Who wrote the great books of the West? It was not women, except for a handful. Women are claimed to be spiritual. That is nonsense. Men are far more spiritual , if one means by that that, amongst other things, that High Art is “spiritual “, like Dostoyevski . I prefer the word emotional, as in high emotional functioning. I assume that high emotional functioning is informed by rationality, knowledge, and personal restraint.

    Then look at the literature of the non-white world. It is just not there for the most part, just like Women’s literature pales when compared to dead white males. Please. Alice
    Walker, etc. Allende… Pee-Cee promotion of folks like Angelou or various Women femi writers. Without world historical significance, but interesting as cultural artifacts documenting the Decline of the West.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

     

    What you have is not so much a thesis as a wild, uninformed speculation, likely based on poor to nonexistent understanding of the science behind genes and cultures or for that matter any notion of history, sociology or psychology. Furthermore, by rejecting any possibility of falsification, it becomes clear that you are putting forth not so much theses or theories or even educated arguments but a series of dogmatic declarations based on circular logic and self-reference ("I know my own...").

    I am probably wasting keystrokes and it's likely beyond your understanding, but I suggest you try reading one of the great Western philosophers of science in the modern era, Karl Popper.


    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.
     
    Yup, one of my neighbors is a co-ethnic of mine, and he and I have exactly the same personality and traits. He is a quiet, introverted lawyer who likes to play golf and belongs to a fantasy football league and who reliably votes for the Democrats. Meanwhile I am a gun-toting, animal-killing extrovert who likes to train in MMA and belongs to a local archery club, who finds the Republicans and the NRA to be "compromise"-prone sellouts and too leftist for my taste.

    Yup. Exactly the same.

    By the way, you brought up AmRen. You do, of course, know what that race traitor Jared Taylor said about these "second worlders," right?

    No? Here you go: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Jared Taylor, c. 2003.

    Of course, I vociferously disagree with this self-hating white man's view on this.

  134. Twinkie says:
    @Joe Webb
    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.

    Then, the dysfunctional types can vary a fair amount. Like Tolstoy said, happy families are all alike, but unhappy families are infinitely varied. Something like that. (but be clear, happy families have productive members who have many varied interests...positive of course.)

    We are not interested in low behavior, in this thread. We are interested in high behavior. Who wrote the great books of the West? It was not women, except for a handful. Women are claimed to be spiritual. That is nonsense. Men are far more spiritual , if one means by that that, amongst other things, that High Art is "spiritual ", like Dostoyevski . I prefer the word emotional, as in high emotional functioning. I assume that high emotional functioning is informed by rationality, knowledge, and personal restraint.

    Then look at the literature of the non-white world. It is just not there for the most part, just like Women's literature pales when compared to dead white males. Please. Alice
    Walker, etc. Allende... Pee-Cee promotion of folks like Angelou or various Women femi writers. Without world historical significance, but interesting as cultural artifacts documenting the Decline of the West.

    Joe Webb

    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

    What you have is not so much a thesis as a wild, uninformed speculation, likely based on poor to nonexistent understanding of the science behind genes and cultures or for that matter any notion of history, sociology or psychology. Furthermore, by rejecting any possibility of falsification, it becomes clear that you are putting forth not so much theses or theories or even educated arguments but a series of dogmatic declarations based on circular logic and self-reference (“I know my own…”).

    I am probably wasting keystrokes and it’s likely beyond your understanding, but I suggest you try reading one of the great Western philosophers of science in the modern era, Karl Popper.

    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.

    Yup, one of my neighbors is a co-ethnic of mine, and he and I have exactly the same personality and traits. He is a quiet, introverted lawyer who likes to play golf and belongs to a fantasy football league and who reliably votes for the Democrats. Meanwhile I am a gun-toting, animal-killing extrovert who likes to train in MMA and belongs to a local archery club, who finds the Republicans and the NRA to be “compromise”-prone sellouts and too leftist for my taste.

    Yup. Exactly the same.

    By the way, you brought up AmRen. You do, of course, know what that race traitor Jared Taylor said about these “second worlders,” right?

    No? Here you go: “I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society.” Jared Taylor, c. 2003.

    Of course, I vociferously disagree with this self-hating white man’s view on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Webb
    twinkies have been part of your diet I guess as you go ad hominem, etc.

    As for Jared Taylor, he is a friend and whatever he said back then was then. Now, he acknowledged to me that the Japanese and the Chinese have basically one personality, their national ethnic character. That is not in conflict with having a "successful society." It is just a society that I don't care for, given that I have a big mouth, am an Individualist in spades, and enjoy controversy as long as people refrain from ad hominem spleen spilling.

    You may recall that Jared grew up in Japan, and speaks Japanese, etc.

    Karl Popper? egads!

    But since it has been decades since I read him, in fairness, please summarize what he offers for my edification. (My general position is that any position can be summarized in one paragraph, with proofs to follow.)

    Joe Webb
  135. Joe Webb says:
    @Twinkie

    nitpicking. The general thesis withstands nit pickers. I know my own country and the third worlders who live here, and the second worlders, like the Chinese, etc.

     

    What you have is not so much a thesis as a wild, uninformed speculation, likely based on poor to nonexistent understanding of the science behind genes and cultures or for that matter any notion of history, sociology or psychology. Furthermore, by rejecting any possibility of falsification, it becomes clear that you are putting forth not so much theses or theories or even educated arguments but a series of dogmatic declarations based on circular logic and self-reference ("I know my own...").

    I am probably wasting keystrokes and it's likely beyond your understanding, but I suggest you try reading one of the great Western philosophers of science in the modern era, Karl Popper.


    The only race with real personality differences is Whites. The rest of them are cookie-cutter types.
     
    Yup, one of my neighbors is a co-ethnic of mine, and he and I have exactly the same personality and traits. He is a quiet, introverted lawyer who likes to play golf and belongs to a fantasy football league and who reliably votes for the Democrats. Meanwhile I am a gun-toting, animal-killing extrovert who likes to train in MMA and belongs to a local archery club, who finds the Republicans and the NRA to be "compromise"-prone sellouts and too leftist for my taste.

    Yup. Exactly the same.

    By the way, you brought up AmRen. You do, of course, know what that race traitor Jared Taylor said about these "second worlders," right?

    No? Here you go: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society." Jared Taylor, c. 2003.

    Of course, I vociferously disagree with this self-hating white man's view on this.

    twinkies have been part of your diet I guess as you go ad hominem, etc.

    As for Jared Taylor, he is a friend and whatever he said back then was then. Now, he acknowledged to me that the Japanese and the Chinese have basically one personality, their national ethnic character. That is not in conflict with having a “successful society.” It is just a society that I don’t care for, given that I have a big mouth, am an Individualist in spades, and enjoy controversy as long as people refrain from ad hominem spleen spilling.

    You may recall that Jared grew up in Japan, and speaks Japanese, etc.

    Karl Popper? egads!

    But since it has been decades since I read him, in fairness, please summarize what he offers for my edification. (My general position is that any position can be summarized in one paragraph, with proofs to follow.)

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    As for Jared Taylor, he is a friend and whatever he said back then was then.
     
    While Jared Taylor has a disturbing habit of speaking differently to different audiences, he has been rather clear and consistent on the topic of East Asians. He doesn't want more of them in the United States, but he acknowledges that their averages slightly excel white averages on a variety of positive traits. He certainly does not hold scientifically ignorant view that all Japanese are uniform in personality. This is what he said in 2007 about Japan, for example:

    Japan is at the same time a sound refutation of the view that homogeneity means dull uniformity. (This is the implication, of course, of the common assertion that immigrants have livened up the United States, saving it, presumably, from the suffocating sameness of whiteness).

    Japan has as much variety—cultural, esthetic, culinary—as anyone could want. Whether it is clothing styles, amateur orchestras, motorcycle clubs, art exhibits, restaurants or museums, visitors are struck by the rich variety of Japanese life. There are endless ways to be Japanese. Thus, traditional Japanese instruments like the koto and shamisen have never been more popular, but Japan also produces internationally-known classical musicians. In addition to its own sports like sumo or judo, Japan has mastered baseball to the point that it sends Japanese stars to the major leagues.
     
    By the way, you say that you are a friend of Jared Taylor. Have you been to his house then?

    I have a big mouth, am an Individualist in spades, and enjoy controversy
     
    What a rebel! You sound like every SWPL I ever met.

    On the other hand, people who have actually done rugged things in the wilderness (literal or figurative) know that teamwork and group cohesion are what keep you alive. Individuals in tough circumstances mostly die... alone.

    Although we Americans have a national myth about rugged individuals doing their own thing, in reality our real cultural success trait (until relatively recently, that is) has been what Catholics call subsidiarity, not individualism.

    But since it has been decades since I read him, in fairness, please summarize what he offers for my edification
     
    If you don't know about Karl Popper and falsification, you've never read him. It's not something you forget. It's an essential component of the modern scientific methodology.
  136. Joe Webb says:

    let us return to extreme sports department. I reported that I do not have knowledge of Japan, etc. I realize that they ride motorcycles, etc.

    But in the US, motorcycle racing is totally White. There are enough third and second worlders here to show up in some kind of proportionate number. They do not. If Asians are too small to do the standard ball sports, etc. fine, but they are not excluded from extreme sports on that account.

    Then, Blacks as well. They are just not there. On the street I very rarely see Blacks on sport bikes, they are on Harleys. There is a significant correlation between intelligence and reaction speed on those tests where a light goes on and one responds as quickly as one can by pushing a button. There are several type tests, of varying complexity..

    Motorcycle high performance in racing or just in sports bikes (not cruisers) require some speed in reaction times. I don’t think Blacks can accommodate to the high standard of reaction times.

    Asians of course can, but they don’t show up …here in the US. They are notoriously not “risk takers.”
    And Whites are often accused of ‘risk taking’ behaviors, like fighting, and so on. That is part of our nature, and I do not regret it. That is what will save us , in part, from the Third World and Liberal race traitors.

    Also to get back to the Humanites when Humanties were actually so, before the lumpen elements Affirmative Actioned themselves into literature departments where they joined leftie White self haters, and Jews to churn out their doggerel and De Colonialization racketeering….I recall one genius who demanded that Jane Austin novels were based on slavery in the Caribbean, and that that was that, end of story,. where was I….? When the Humanities were actually humane and not agitation/propaganda in its current guise as wymyn’s lit, and People of Color lit, literature was soberly conservative in its political content. The Best People are the more interesting people, simple as that. And we know which race that is, for the most part, the more interesting and varied in personality.

    Speaking of world historical literature of our own time., Coetzee’s novel “Disgrace ” pretty much sums up the disaster of Liberalism of our Time and he has some some kind of anti-semitism in it for those with eyes wide open. He got a Nobel prize…and got some of this cryptic stuff past the Jewish and liberal critics. They are all fools of course.

    Coetzee of course is a still alive male Africaner from S. Africa. He knows of what he speaks. No woman could write a novel like this. Think about Vivian Gornick, the S. African Jewess communist who was a sidekick to Mandella. All of her novels…reminds me of Mary McCarthy’s remark about Lillian Hellman, another Jewess novelist. McCarthy said that “everything she writes is a lie..”

    So the rich story about Gornick the communist terrorist in S. Africa. She was the recipient of Black Brothers invading her home in S. Africa a few years ago. She denied being raped. Of course, she was considerably past her prime, if ever she had one.

    But I do go on ..

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If Asians are too small to do the standard ball sports, etc. fine, but they are not excluded from extreme sports on that account.
     
    Argh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American#Sports

    And that list is not even close to being exhaustive. And it only covers the United States. There is this whole other continent called Asia where I hear they play sports sometimes. Some of those folks are even Olympic champions.

    Here is something manly for you. In the last Olympics, the United States, a country with hundreds of millions of privately owned guns, placed second in shooting sports.

    The number one shooting team in the world? South Korea.
    , @Truth


    let us return to extreme sports department.
     

     
    The extreme adrenaline related activities of which you speak are last century. Let me introduce you to the Gen-X version

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnJd6fY4Or0


    Then, Blacks as well. They are just not there. On the street I very rarely see Blacks on sport bikes, they are on Harleys.
     
    A little true knowledge goes much further than mindless typing, my friend.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0dIbmYSjhs
  137. Twinkie says:
    @Joe Webb
    twinkies have been part of your diet I guess as you go ad hominem, etc.

    As for Jared Taylor, he is a friend and whatever he said back then was then. Now, he acknowledged to me that the Japanese and the Chinese have basically one personality, their national ethnic character. That is not in conflict with having a "successful society." It is just a society that I don't care for, given that I have a big mouth, am an Individualist in spades, and enjoy controversy as long as people refrain from ad hominem spleen spilling.

    You may recall that Jared grew up in Japan, and speaks Japanese, etc.

    Karl Popper? egads!

    But since it has been decades since I read him, in fairness, please summarize what he offers for my edification. (My general position is that any position can be summarized in one paragraph, with proofs to follow.)

    Joe Webb

    As for Jared Taylor, he is a friend and whatever he said back then was then.

    While Jared Taylor has a disturbing habit of speaking differently to different audiences, he has been rather clear and consistent on the topic of East Asians. He doesn’t want more of them in the United States, but he acknowledges that their averages slightly excel white averages on a variety of positive traits. He certainly does not hold scientifically ignorant view that all Japanese are uniform in personality. This is what he said in 2007 about Japan, for example:

    Japan is at the same time a sound refutation of the view that homogeneity means dull uniformity. (This is the implication, of course, of the common assertion that immigrants have livened up the United States, saving it, presumably, from the suffocating sameness of whiteness).

    Japan has as much variety—cultural, esthetic, culinary—as anyone could want. Whether it is clothing styles, amateur orchestras, motorcycle clubs, art exhibits, restaurants or museums, visitors are struck by the rich variety of Japanese life. There are endless ways to be Japanese. Thus, traditional Japanese instruments like the koto and shamisen have never been more popular, but Japan also produces internationally-known classical musicians. In addition to its own sports like sumo or judo, Japan has mastered baseball to the point that it sends Japanese stars to the major leagues.

    By the way, you say that you are a friend of Jared Taylor. Have you been to his house then?

    I have a big mouth, am an Individualist in spades, and enjoy controversy

    What a rebel! You sound like every SWPL I ever met.

    On the other hand, people who have actually done rugged things in the wilderness (literal or figurative) know that teamwork and group cohesion are what keep you alive. Individuals in tough circumstances mostly die… alone.

    Although we Americans have a national myth about rugged individuals doing their own thing, in reality our real cultural success trait (until relatively recently, that is) has been what Catholics call subsidiarity, not individualism.

    But since it has been decades since I read him, in fairness, please summarize what he offers for my edification

    If you don’t know about Karl Popper and falsification, you’ve never read him. It’s not something you forget. It’s an essential component of the modern scientific methodology.

    Read More
  138. Twinkie says:
    @Joe Webb
    let us return to extreme sports department. I reported that I do not have knowledge of Japan, etc. I realize that they ride motorcycles, etc.

    But in the US, motorcycle racing is totally White. There are enough third and second worlders here to show up in some kind of proportionate number. They do not. If Asians are too small to do the standard ball sports, etc. fine, but they are not excluded from extreme sports on that account.

    Then, Blacks as well. They are just not there. On the street I very rarely see Blacks on sport bikes, they are on Harleys. There is a significant correlation between intelligence and reaction speed on those tests where a light goes on and one responds as quickly as one can by pushing a button. There are several type tests, of varying complexity..


    Motorcycle high performance in racing or just in sports bikes (not cruisers) require some speed in reaction times. I don't think Blacks can accommodate to the high standard of reaction times.

    Asians of course can, but they don't show up ...here in the US. They are notoriously not "risk takers."
    And Whites are often accused of 'risk taking' behaviors, like fighting, and so on. That is part of our nature, and I do not regret it. That is what will save us , in part, from the Third World and Liberal race traitors.

    Also to get back to the Humanites when Humanties were actually so, before the lumpen elements Affirmative Actioned themselves into literature departments where they joined leftie White self haters, and Jews to churn out their doggerel and De Colonialization racketeering....I recall one genius who demanded that Jane Austin novels were based on slavery in the Caribbean, and that that was that, end of story,. where was I....? When the Humanities were actually humane and not agitation/propaganda in its current guise as wymyn's lit, and People of Color lit, literature was soberly conservative in its political content. The Best People are the more interesting people, simple as that. And we know which race that is, for the most part, the more interesting and varied in personality.

    Speaking of world historical literature of our own time., Coetzee's novel "Disgrace " pretty much sums up the disaster of Liberalism of our Time and he has some some kind of anti-semitism in it for those with eyes wide open. He got a Nobel prize...and got some of this cryptic stuff past the Jewish and liberal critics. They are all fools of course.

    Coetzee of course is a still alive male Africaner from S. Africa. He knows of what he speaks. No woman could write a novel like this. Think about Vivian Gornick, the S. African Jewess communist who was a sidekick to Mandella. All of her novels...reminds me of Mary McCarthy's remark about Lillian Hellman, another Jewess novelist. McCarthy said that "everything she writes is a lie.."

    So the rich story about Gornick the communist terrorist in S. Africa. She was the recipient of Black Brothers invading her home in S. Africa a few years ago. She denied being raped. Of course, she was considerably past her prime, if ever she had one.

    But I do go on ..

    Joe Webb

    If Asians are too small to do the standard ball sports, etc. fine, but they are not excluded from extreme sports on that account.

    Argh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American#Sports

    And that list is not even close to being exhaustive. And it only covers the United States. There is this whole other continent called Asia where I hear they play sports sometimes. Some of those folks are even Olympic champions.

    Here is something manly for you. In the last Olympics, the United States, a country with hundreds of millions of privately owned guns, placed second in shooting sports.

    The number one shooting team in the world? South Korea.

    Read More
  139. Truth says:
    @Joe Webb
    let us return to extreme sports department. I reported that I do not have knowledge of Japan, etc. I realize that they ride motorcycles, etc.

    But in the US, motorcycle racing is totally White. There are enough third and second worlders here to show up in some kind of proportionate number. They do not. If Asians are too small to do the standard ball sports, etc. fine, but they are not excluded from extreme sports on that account.

    Then, Blacks as well. They are just not there. On the street I very rarely see Blacks on sport bikes, they are on Harleys. There is a significant correlation between intelligence and reaction speed on those tests where a light goes on and one responds as quickly as one can by pushing a button. There are several type tests, of varying complexity..


    Motorcycle high performance in racing or just in sports bikes (not cruisers) require some speed in reaction times. I don't think Blacks can accommodate to the high standard of reaction times.

    Asians of course can, but they don't show up ...here in the US. They are notoriously not "risk takers."
    And Whites are often accused of 'risk taking' behaviors, like fighting, and so on. That is part of our nature, and I do not regret it. That is what will save us , in part, from the Third World and Liberal race traitors.

    Also to get back to the Humanites when Humanties were actually so, before the lumpen elements Affirmative Actioned themselves into literature departments where they joined leftie White self haters, and Jews to churn out their doggerel and De Colonialization racketeering....I recall one genius who demanded that Jane Austin novels were based on slavery in the Caribbean, and that that was that, end of story,. where was I....? When the Humanities were actually humane and not agitation/propaganda in its current guise as wymyn's lit, and People of Color lit, literature was soberly conservative in its political content. The Best People are the more interesting people, simple as that. And we know which race that is, for the most part, the more interesting and varied in personality.

    Speaking of world historical literature of our own time., Coetzee's novel "Disgrace " pretty much sums up the disaster of Liberalism of our Time and he has some some kind of anti-semitism in it for those with eyes wide open. He got a Nobel prize...and got some of this cryptic stuff past the Jewish and liberal critics. They are all fools of course.

    Coetzee of course is a still alive male Africaner from S. Africa. He knows of what he speaks. No woman could write a novel like this. Think about Vivian Gornick, the S. African Jewess communist who was a sidekick to Mandella. All of her novels...reminds me of Mary McCarthy's remark about Lillian Hellman, another Jewess novelist. McCarthy said that "everything she writes is a lie.."

    So the rich story about Gornick the communist terrorist in S. Africa. She was the recipient of Black Brothers invading her home in S. Africa a few years ago. She denied being raped. Of course, she was considerably past her prime, if ever she had one.

    But I do go on ..

    Joe Webb

    let us return to extreme sports department.

    The extreme adrenaline related activities of which you speak are last century. Let me introduce you to the Gen-X version

    Then, Blacks as well. They are just not there. On the street I very rarely see Blacks on sport bikes, they are on Harleys.

    A little true knowledge goes much further than mindless typing, my friend.

    Read More
  140. Paco says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Fifty years ago in France, they used to feel a little embarrassed about behaving like Anthony Quinn’s character in Lawrence of Arabia because that so obviously confirmed the stereotype."

    No way. The dude was magnificent. He was not a religious hothead but a savvy opportunist who understood the art of the deal. He was a pragmatist. He was also insightful about the nature of Sharif's character's feelings for Lawrence.

    And... he was a river to his people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noyFiYKlFJU

    The great Anthony Quinn !

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored