The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Unz ArchiveBlogview
My Stasi File Published in the Harvard Crimson
shutterstock_336914636
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

I was very unhappy with the unfair and inflammatory article that the Harvard Crimson ran regarding my political associations, and they suggested I submit an op-ed in response. I provided the piece below, which they requested be trimmed for length prior to publication, which I did.

They then notified me that after further consideration, they had decided that most of my points were irrelevant or unfair and should not be published: I could only make the arguments that they themselves approved. Perhaps they felt that the effectiveness of my response might risk “confusing” some of their readers.

Several individuals have emphasized to me that outrageous character assassination based on guilt-by-association must be answered quickly, so here’s the rebuttal that the Crimson refused to publish, and you can decide for yourself if their decision was appropriate.

I appreciate that the Crimson has afforded denied me an opportunity to reply to their highly misleading article of the 14th, featuring the particularly lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group,” and supposedly documenting my links to various rightwing extremists. Coming at the peak of alumni voting, such unfair accusations have the potential to torpedo our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate of Overseer candidates.

Over the last dozen years I’ve certainly provided donations to a very wide range of political groups and individuals, including leftwingers, rightwingers, and libertarians. Many of these groups are on the political fringe and espouse controversial views on all sorts of different issues. I might agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others, but frequently find their ideas a useful counterpoint to the conventional wisdom presented in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which I spend hours closely reading every morning.

Much of the Crimson article focused on my financial support to VDare, a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine, with the dollars representing less than 1% of my total donations over the last decade. Since immigration issues have always been one of my main interests, I read VDare quite regularly and am on friendly terms with their staff. But as everyone knows from the hundreds of thousands of words I have published on immigration-related topics, I’ve always been one of America’s leading pro-immigrant voices, hence almost invariably on the exact opposite side from VDare. I find it odd that the Crimson article left out that significant detail, which surely would have made their account of my donation seem even more shocking and newsworthy.

Sometimes headlines may be factually correct but highly misleading. For example, back in 1994 I was a top featured speaker at the gigantic 70,000 person march in Los Angeles against Prop. 187, the largest pro-immigrant political protest in American history but boycotted by virtually every other prominent non-Latino political figure in California. As it happens, many small Communist groups participated in that rally, waving their Communist flags. So the Crimson could have run the lurid headline “Overseer Candidate Marched with the Communists in Los Angeles.” Accurate, but perhaps a bit skewed and misleading.

Similarly, the Crimson alludes to individuals supporting the assassination of police officers. The reference was to a piece I ran a couple of months ago by Bob Trivers, a brilliant evolutionary biologist but also a completely unrepentant radical militant, who had once served as the only white member of the Black Panther Party. It’s absolutely correct that he has advocated the assassination of “racist” white police officers, a view I personally do not share and one which is probably more extreme than anything VDare or any of my rightwing columnists has ever proposed. But the column was drawn from his recent book, which was widely praised by some of the world’s most prominent public intellectuals, including Richard Dawkins and Harvard’s own Steven Pinker. So perhaps the Crimson should run a headline “Richard Dawkins Praises Book Advocating the Assassination of White Police Officers.”

I reject “guilt by association” and just because I am personally friendly with various people, publish their writings, or even provide them some financial assistance, that does not necessarily mean that I endorse everything they say. For example, I very strongly disagree with Sen. Bernie Sanders on a whole host of important topics, but since on balance I like his positions much better than those of his competitors, he is my favored presidential candidate, and the only one to whom I have donated. Similarly, during the last couple of presidential elections I wrote in Ron Paul’s name at the top of the ticket, not because I agreed with him about everything, but because the other choices seemed so unsatisfactory.

I have a long record of closely associating with people of sharply different views. I am often identified as the former publisher (2006-2013) of The American Conservative (TAC), an opinion magazine that absorbed over 60% of my donations over the last decade. TAC was co-founded by Pat Buchanan and always had a strongly Buchananite stance on immigration, trade, and social issues, positions I did not share. However, I strongly supported their lonely opposition to the disastrous foreign wars of the Bush Administration, afterward continued by the Obama Administration.

Anyone who wishes to know my own views may easily examine my writings over the past twenty-five years, given that all 500,000 words are online and fully searchable. Furthermore, my most important articles are collected in a 700pp book together with a very comprehensive index. Just look in the index, read the text, and you’ll discover my opinions.

Over half my writing has dealt with matters of race, ethnicity, and social policy, including immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Although often controversial, my articles have won praise from some eminent scholars and journalists, situated all across the ideological spectrum. If Crimson journalists wish to denounce me, they are free to do so, but they should focus on my own views rather than those of other people I happen to know.

 

ORDER IT NOW

Although the Crimson never revealed the source of their accusations, these almost exactly match the contents of a “dossier” someone forwarded to me around the same time, a file apparently prepared by some activist group and intended to cast me in an extremely unfavorable light, especially on racial issues.

I was stunned by the contents, since the Stasi-type researchers who compiled it were not only extremely malicious but also ignorant and incompetent, even getting wrong such simple factual details as the name of my webzine.

For example, they characterized my $600,000 grant to Gregory Cochran as secret, even though his University of Utah announced it at the time in a public press release, boasting that it was larger than a MacArthur Fellowship. Dr. Cochran is an extreme rightwinger, who has stubbornly disputed my own immigration writings and even banned me from his website when I demonstrated the logical flaws in his “Gay Germ” theory. However, he is also a brilliant evolutionary biologist whose Accelerationist theory is hugely important, very possibly worth a future Nobel Prize. His press release emphasized that theory, but the ignorant Stasi investigators have apparently never heard of it.

The dossier sought to tar me as a nasty “racist,” opening with mention of my supposedly sinister phrase “the End of White America.” Indeed, two of my longest and most important articles on America’s ongoing racial transformation have been “California and the End of White America” in 1999 and “Immigration, Republicans, and the End of White America” in 2011, and I would urge everyone interested in the topic to read them. The former caught the attention of CBS News, which invited me to discuss my ideas on their morning show, available on YouTube for anyone for anyone who wants a taste of my views without reading 20,000 words of text.

In another particularly egregious case, the Stasi researchers claimed that I had endorsed a particular “white nationalist” political strategy although one of my aforementioned articles had actually totally debunked that theory. Since my article was 12,000 words long and the Stasi agents so lazy, I can understand why they never bothered reading what I actually wrote.

Finally, here’s a last, telling point. As I’ve said, the entire corpus of my writings of the last 25 years is conveniently available on the web in fully searchable form. Yet although the Stasi researchers exhaustively worked to portray my racial views in an extremely negative light, they did not include a single sentence of my own in their malicious dossier. So if they failed to find a single “incriminating” sentence anywhere among my 500,000 words of articles and columns, what does that indicate about the accuracy of their conclusions?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Harvard, Political Correctness 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Give ‘em hell, Ron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/runz/my-stasi-file-published-in-the-harvard-crimson/#comment-1390354
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Mr. Unz, who were the editors at the Crimson who kept changing what they would allow? I do not think they deserve to remain unnamed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eileen Kuch
    To be honest, the unnamed editors at the Crimson who kept changing what they would allow do NOT deserve to remain unnamed .. They must be exposed for the hypocrites that they are. They've overreached their bounds by character assassination of Ron Unz, and revealed their cowardice by remaining anonymous, and they also denied him his 1st Amendment rights by cutting out the relevant points in his response.
    These cowardly editors knew exactly what they were doing when they killed his response to their libel. It's one thing to cut back on an article if it's too lengthy; it's quite another when the key points are erased. Mr. Unz deserves at least an apology for this character assassination, but I doubt very much that the editors have the integrity and courage to do so.
  3. Much of the Crimson article focused on my financial support to VDare, a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine…….But as everyone knows from the hundreds of thousands of words I have published on immigration-related topics, I’ve always been one of America’s leading pro-immigrant voices, hence almost invariably on the exact opposite side from VDare

    In other words, had you generally agreed with VDare on immigration, you’re kinda-sorta conceding that you’d be beyond the pale of acceptable/allowable public discourse and unworthy of a voice in your own government; thus, any measures taken to prevent you from ever attaining that voice would not only be legal but just, and represent the highest standards of a modern democracy.

    Mr Unz, I’m grateful for your website and your catholic breadth of tolerance, but I’m not sure if you grasp what a godawful thing the utter and unquestioned supremacy of the cultural Marxists in public life truly is; how they now stride in unison with the provocative swagger of the bully who knows any confrontation he might face will be pre-fixed to his insurmountable advantage.

    You’re about to find out, though: they’re going to hammer hammer hammer away at this one ideological gravy stain on the bib of your life and turn this election – your role in it, at least – into a one-issue referendum. If you have any testimonials to your character from rappers, or Mexicans – or Mexican rappers! – have them ready at hand, and utilize them often.

    And good luck!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Final Why
    That paragraph is weak because Unz does not give any reason why he gave them so much money - their stance on bilingual education perhaps?
    , @lavoisier
    This is very well-expressed. Mr. Unz has shown a remarkable propensity to support causes and ideas that he does not share. This, in and of itself, is quite remarkable and perhaps admirable. But as you address in your comment, he should not have to apologize for that support and he should be more bold in defending his actions.

    Nothing is served by caving in to the totalitarian instincts of the cultural Marxists by pandering to them and saying things like: " I essentially agree with everything you say about those crazy right-wingers, I just gave them some money!"

    The cultural Marxists control virtually everything in our society today, and they need to be challenged. And that challenge requires men of courage who are not afraid to defend what they believe (or have supported), even if it means that they will be called extremists or racists. The cultural Marxists are not just control freaks with bad ideas, they are an ever present threat to individual freedom and our Republic. And if history is any guide, and it should be, their controlling impulses can lead to mass murder against those who disagree with them.

    Don't cave to the monsters Mr. Unz! We either fight them now with words and ideas, or we will certainly be forced to fight them in the future with arms.
  4. They then notified me that after further consideration, they had decided that most of my points were irrelevant or unfair and should not be published

    LOL! The establishment gatekeepers really are despicable hypocrites, aren’t they?

    Read More
  5. Yes, it is clearly unfair of you to expect a university to allow free expression of ideas to promote an open discussion of competing points of view that might actually lead some readers to align their wn views more closely to yours. How dare you, sir!

    in case any of them are reading and could not infer that without the Crimson editorial staff to guide their understanding of what I intended to communicate.

    Read More
  6. Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I'm just amazed at how many seemingly intelligent people like to wrap themselves around our First Amendment right to free speech when it comes to their own words but are so ready to deny it to others whose views they disagree with. That tells me that they have no idea how free speech is supposed to work. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Unz, you can post whatever you want on unz.com, and I wouldn't raise a complaint.
    , @Stan d Mute

    ... political maverick Ron Unz ...

     

    Ouch!!! So now you're a hybrid of John McCain and Rafael Eduardo Cruz. Sidelined. Even by a guy at the furthest right wing of contemporary public intellectual opinion.

    As some other commenters including Frost have noted, you would have been better served to attack. Trump has given ample proof of this concept. Never explain or apologize. Nobody is interested in intellectual arguments. The contest is over who can craft the most devastating sound bite and get it widely published. "The Crimsonistas are anti-Asian racist bigots who want Asian students to toil in rice paddies ..." "The Crimsonistas are white privileged elitists who are terrified that poorer Asian students could earn their admission spot by hard work rather than by rich alumni parents ..." Or just make something up from whole cloth. But no matter what, never, ever, give them an apology or an explanation they will characterize as an apology.
  7. Stop apologizing for your activities and donations, it will only harm you with these pathetic but vicious SJWs/Marxists…..I’m a big supporter of yours, and voted for you for Overseer, even though I regard 3d world mass immigration to be no less than national suicide. Are you going to apologize for my support?! The question answers itself….hope your whole slate wins, but I’m not optimistic. I think that the Harvard we knew and loved is gone, and is being rapidly replaced by an Orwellian nightmare.

    Read More
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    PC is okay with a range of controversial ideas as long as they lean to the ‘left’.

    If the ideas begin to lean right of Conservatism Inc, it’s no longer controversial. It’s just plain evil.

    This isn’t in defense of the Crimson, but the article didn’t seem like much of a smear since much worse has been written about other individuals in other outlets.

    It wasn’t Salon or Gawker-style smear that is so prevalent in today’s media.

    Read More
  9. Mr. Unz, thank you for being so tireless in bringing truth and justice to Harvard. The ferociousness of their attacks on you is a sign of how well you are doing! Do you have any measure of your chances?

    Bringing up your old comments on the “Gay Germ”, you say:

    Since prostitutes might have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year as married women, the gains to the transmission-vector of such a sterility-inducing STD would be absolutely enormous, providing exactly the sort of powerful selective pressure able to balance that operating on the host population. Thus, such a “Divorce Germ” makes perfect evolutionary sense in the way a Gay Germ seemingly does not.

    Don’t you see that if “Chlamydia victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year” is a good selective pressure for chlamydia to cause sterility, then “[Unidentified gay germ] victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year” is a good selective pressure for the gay germ to cause homosexuality?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''“[Unidentified gay germ] victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year” is a good selective pressure for the gay germ to cause homosexuality?''


    No honey,
    sorry!!!

    no there a ''gay germ''.


    creativity (oooh, jeeeniezz!!!)

    hdd folks say

    ''Crearivity is djenerics''


    mental ill neeeesssss

    hdd folks say


    ''mental illneeeess is not djenerics, is pathodjgenics''


    but but but

    creativity is just like the heterozigosis of the panacea of the mental issues

    what do you mean****

    if mental illneeess is patho-genics, so creativity is half-1/2-patho-genics...

    the so-called blurred/gray area between ''genes'' and ''patho-genes'' or ''out-of-body candidate-genes''.

    all humans are female-like in their very first-life period, after-conception.

    Some men don't develop ''fully'' to be become a classical hetero-sexual and some women develop ''excessively'' and become more masculinized''...

    JUST a one very monogamic couples with '''''gay''''''' sons or daughters seems refute your claim.

    People with clamydia don't take it by accident, is not**

    Seems like ''people who play video games frequently score higher in iq tests''

    correct pre-conclusion: ''people who score higher in iq tests tend to be video games addicted''

    And yes, probably, increased mutational load can increase impulsivity too IF impulsivity and higher mutational load are not organically connected.

  10. @Ron Unz
    https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/721762626473037824

    I’m just amazed at how many seemingly intelligent people like to wrap themselves around our First Amendment right to free speech when it comes to their own words but are so ready to deny it to others whose views they disagree with. That tells me that they have no idea how free speech is supposed to work. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Unz, you can post whatever you want on unz.com, and I wouldn’t raise a complaint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The point of concern here is surely not to do with free speech or the First Amendment, but rather the hypocrisy of claiming to offer a "right of reply" (which is generally regarded as basic fair play these days) and then hypocritically withdrawing that offer when they don't like the content of said reply (because it makes them look like the dirty smear-mongers they undoubtedly are).

    If they'd just said "we don't care what Unz thinks, we are entitled to write what we want and we aren't going to let him reply in our newspaper", that would at least have been honest. And they'd have been rightly condemned for adopting that stance. That, of course, is why they try to pretend they offer a right of reply.
  11. @tbraton
    I'm just amazed at how many seemingly intelligent people like to wrap themselves around our First Amendment right to free speech when it comes to their own words but are so ready to deny it to others whose views they disagree with. That tells me that they have no idea how free speech is supposed to work. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Unz, you can post whatever you want on unz.com, and I wouldn't raise a complaint.

    The point of concern here is surely not to do with free speech or the First Amendment, but rather the hypocrisy of claiming to offer a “right of reply” (which is generally regarded as basic fair play these days) and then hypocritically withdrawing that offer when they don’t like the content of said reply (because it makes them look like the dirty smear-mongers they undoubtedly are).

    If they’d just said “we don’t care what Unz thinks, we are entitled to write what we want and we aren’t going to let him reply in our newspaper”, that would at least have been honest. And they’d have been rightly condemned for adopting that stance. That, of course, is why they try to pretend they offer a right of reply.

    Read More
  12. The purpose of the press in the US (as in every other country) from the first anonymous pamphleteers onward has always been to influence rather than inform.

    Read More
  13. Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    I'm actually very proud of the fact that I was able to endure 29 minutes of this "debate" considering the grossly obese kid with the slack jawed mouth breathing. I am fairly open-minded, but there are limits. This kid is so completely programmed he's unable to comprehend that the wealthy simply don't care about the tuition rate other than as a barrier to entry for their competitors (as Ron patiently explained several times). The sense of arrogant entitlement from this grotesque blob is just too offensive for me to endure.
  14. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Suppose there had been no more immigration to the US after the first arrivals of Anglos, Germans, and Irish.

    Imagine if US was only of original stock up to first half of 19th century and blacks.

    No immigration from eastern/southern Europe, none from Mexico, and none from Asia.

    Would blacks outnumber whites today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    1)The Germans and Irish were not "original stock" in the founding of the United States. They did not come in large numbers until the 1840's. We would have been better off without either group.

    2)No, blacks would not outnumber whites today.
  15. If 1/10th of the people granted tenure in academics had your guts, the Academy would be a wondrous place. These sorts of fights are what tenure was created for.

    Read More
  16. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I watched about half an hour of the video Ron embedded in the thread. Maybe he’s mentioned this elsewhere, but I’m curious as to what he believes the consequences will be to higher education elsewhere. Obviously, all Ivy League schools would be able to handle a transition to a free tuition system. Public institutions could also follow along and subsidize education completely.

    I’m wondering however, would this just mean all private institutions that do primarily run on tuition would die out? This would mean, except for some very prestigious institutions, a greater percentage of colleges would be public. A question I would ask, considering the worries of Jonathan Haidt over the significant and damaging affects of progressive conformity at colleges nationwide, would increasing the proportion of public to private colleges help or hurt intellectual diversity? I believe it make a bad situation significantly worse. You would likely lose smaller private colleges which provide some alternatives for parents who would like their children to have an education not dominated by progressives. Being the political maverick that Ron is, I’m curious about his views on conformity in education and how and if smaller private institutions would survive a transition to free or mostly free higher education (if he’s posted on this topic elsewhere, let me know).

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Stop calling these fascists "progressives"! They are not progressive, they are regressive. Freedom of speech and individual freedom, the right to own property, are all rather new ideas. These dirtbags want to take us backwards not forward.

    Political correctness is all about using positive words to cover up the negative truth. Stop helping them hide behind lies and call them what they are - fascists, communists, totalitarians, racists, and leftists! They are not "liberals" or "liberal". Nor are they "progressive" or "democratic". call them what they are!
  17. Well, the Crimson has now published a drastically reduced version of my piece as a letter to the editor. I guess they’re willing to allow me to (somewhat) defend myself, just so long as they exclude my strongest points and all the arguments that make them look ridiculous:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/18/unz-letter-contributions/

    To the editor:

    A Crimson article published April 14 sought to establish my links with various right-wing extremists under the lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group.” I feel that the information in the article lacked sufficient context and was thus misleading. Coming at the peak of alumni voting, this reporting risks torpedoing our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate of Overseer candidates.

    Over the years I’ve certainly provided donations to a wide assortment of political groups and individuals, including left-wingers, right-wingers, and libertarians. These recipients are often on the political fringe and espouse controversial views on all sorts of issues. I might agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others, but their writing usefully supplements the conventional wisdom presented in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which I spend hours closely reading every morning.

    I reject guilt by association. Just because I am personally friendly with various people, publish their writings, or even provide them some financial assistance does not necessarily mean that I endorse everything they say. For example, I strongly disagree with Sen. Bernie Sanders on numerous important issues, but since I prefer his overall positions to those of his competitors, he is my favored presidential candidate, and the only one to whom I have donated. During the last couple of presidential elections I wrote in Ron Paul’s name at the top of the ticket, not because I agreed with him about everything, but because the other choices seemed so unsatisfactory.

    I have a long record of closely associating with people of sharply different views, having spent seven years as the publisher of The American Conservative, an opinion magazine that absorbed roughly 75[over 60] percent of my donations over the last decade. TAC was founded by Pat Buchanan and took a strongly Buchananite stance on immigration, trade, and social issues—positions I did not share. However, I strongly supported its lonely opposition to the disastrous foreign wars of the Bush Administration, afterward continued by the Obama Administration.

    Over half my writing has dealt with matters of race, ethnicity, and social policy, including immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Although often controversial, my articles have won praise from some eminent scholars and journalists, situated all across the ideological spectrum. If The Crimson’s writers wish to denounce me, they may do so, but they should focus on my own views rather than those of other people whose work I have funded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Ron - from a worldly BBC producer with Ivy League background whom I respect: your cause may be undone by alumni who are not concerned about the dropping of fees but are concerned that your push for transparency in admissions will endanger the prospects of their progeny gaining admission.
    , @Aaron Gross
    That seems like a fair response on their part. No offense, but your writing does tend to be a bit long. They're under no obligation to publish it unedited.
    , @robt
    How did the 'over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]' become '75 percent'? Over 10 years, that's a significant amount of loot for a big donator like Unz. Was it a later formal revision by Unz? Did someone else just change it?
    I mean, technically, over 60 percent can be 75 percent, but that's usually not how the language is used in the context of reference to factual information.
  18. It’s really quite out of character for them to refuse . When I was a crimed and published a piece that put a nasty saber-rattling piece of legislation in bad light, it attracted some media attention, so they gave an establishment conservative a full Op-Ed article to rebut it, and subjected me to an internal inquisition. But there were no errors of fact or emphasis in my piece: simply a case for the law, and a case against it. By those standards, they should retract their smears against you and publish your full refutation.

    In retrospect, I suppose the problem with what I wrote was that the law was supported by the Israel Lobby, and a fortiori by a solid majority of the newsroom. I was fairly naive about such things at the time.

    Read More
  19. Harvard has an axe to grind. I don’t see anything wrong with entertaining different points of view. The Harvard Crimson could use some openness to experience. A ivy league institution shouldn’t wallow in ignorance. Thy didn’t publish the response because it didn’t conform to their rigid beliefs and agenda. I think they have a ready made role for you and they didn’t know what to do when you didn’t conform to it besides deny you a platform to respond to their libel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zach
    And a well publicized libel suit against these brats would be a public service.
  20. Dear Mr. Unz,

    honestly I think that the “Crimson” did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the “Crimson” thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don’t do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive.

    Sincerely yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    honestly I think that the “Crimson” did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the “Crimson” thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don’t do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive
     

    Agreed. Trump has much nastier, calumnious stuff (times a 100) said and written about him every couple of hours and the dude just keeps his chin high and says "whatever". Meanwhile, Ron has a meltdown from just one unfair hit piece.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    I think it appears that way because they butchered his original.

    ron really should published his original rebuttal in full on this. and we will try to spread it.
    , @guest
    If Mr. Unz hasn't already he should read Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie. Rule number 3 when they come after you is: do not apologize! All it is in their eyes is an admission of guilt.
  21. the open-borders crowd devours one of its own. Unz has a foot in each and every camp – or would, had he enough feet – and I fear the tension will eventually shred him into small pieces

    Read More
  22. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Stogumber
    Dear Mr. Unz,

    honestly I think that the "Crimson" did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the "Crimson" thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don't do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive.

    Sincerely yours.

    honestly I think that the “Crimson” did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the “Crimson” thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don’t do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive

    Agreed. Trump has much nastier, calumnious stuff (times a 100) said and written about him every couple of hours and the dude just keeps his chin high and says “whatever”. Meanwhile, Ron has a meltdown from just one unfair hit piece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    To be fair, Mr. Unz is trying to improve or elevate the state of discourse at an institution supposedly devoted to such.
  23. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Although the Crimson never revealed the source of their accusations, these almost exactly match the contents of a “dossier” someone forwarded to me around the same time, a file apparently prepared by some activist group and intended to cast me in an extremely unfavorable light, especially on racial issues.

    So not only did these lazy Harvard “students” fail to do their homework, they copied someone elses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    No surprises there! All journalists tend to be lazy anyway....
  24. Mr Unz, never apologize. Attack. Your piece was pretty good at discrediting the Harvard Crimson hit job, but much too defensive.
    Politically, I can’t quite place you on the accepted spectrum and neither can I understand your position on immigration. All I can say is that your love for all things Mexican seems unrequited.
    Finally, I could never have guessed that Greg Cochran was an extreme right-winger just from reading his blog and articles. Maybe you know something we don’t. How many closeted Nazis lurk in the Unz Review? Who knows? Please, let us know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    "I could never have guessed that Greg Cochran was an extreme right-winger just from reading his blog and articles."

    Of course you couldn't because you mistakenly think Nazis (fascists) are right wing, probably because that is what you have been told all your life. They are not, and what you learned was lies. Fascism is just another branch of socialism. The far right are anarchists. Why is this true? because true conservatives, like our founders, believed in limited government, individual freedom and responsibility. Take this to its extreme and you have people who want no government, aka anarchists.
  25. Hi Ron. I liked your TV interview. I’m also glad you gently ‘outed’ Ms. Sanchez for having an Anglo husband but keeping her Hispanic maiden name (not that there’s anything terribly wrong with that choice). But it does seem that it might be a bit political on her part.

    I believe that race and ethnicity will play a big and not-necessarily-pleasant role in American life for many decades (centuries?) to come. This is why the push for more ‘diversity’ in America is, for this white American, undesirable.

    I think that you’re being somewhat naive about that process called ‘assimilation’. The term was originally used to describe the coming together in America of various white ethnic groups. This idea was never really applied to black Africans. All we whites could say with any certainty (up until the modern era) was that blacks deserve the same freedom and opportunities as whites do. Nothing more. Modern racial integration was a top-down revolution, invented by legal activists and sympathetic judges.

    The challenges going forward in America are far greater now than ever before since our ‘diversity’ is arriving faster than ever. It is also broader. Let’s agree that we all need to speak the same language.

    Unfortunately, even this primary goal has not been achieved. America as a cohesive nation with one language and one national identity is virtually gone. Y Pluribus Unum? I don’t think so, Ron.

    As for assimilation, some groups are nearly impossible to ‘assimilate’. They will forever be a nuisance and a burden. Those in the racial/genetic underclass will also endure unhappy lives in America. I see no way around this predicament in a free society. Appearance, intelligence, personality and behavior matter. Always have. Always will. This inescapable fact does not present a very pretty picture for some groups going forward.

    Why we European-derived Americans should choose (or not resist) a future of increasing racial diversity (and tension) within our borders seems culturally and genetically self-destructive. That is why I, along with most Californians, supported Prop 187. Were we wrong to do so?

    Smart, homogeneous societies like China and Japan would never allow their cohesion and character to be sacrificed on the alter of diversity. Their domestic trust, tranquility and unity would be lost forever. For them, this is not hard to understand.

    Another shortcoming of the assimilation argument stems from the obvious fact that some races (and ethnicities) will always be favored over others. Why shouldn’t America want to keep this fact in mind as we manage (or is it too late for that?) our demographic future? No one says.

    Anyway, Ron, thank you for providing us (and the world) this outstanding forum. Free Speech is priceless. And you have attracted to your site an outstanding array of intellectual talent.

    Read More
  26. @Stogumber
    Dear Mr. Unz,

    honestly I think that the "Crimson" did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the "Crimson" thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don't do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive.

    Sincerely yours.

    I think it appears that way because they butchered his original.

    ron really should published his original rebuttal in full on this. and we will try to spread it.

    Read More
  27. @Ron Unz
    Well, the Crimson has now published a drastically reduced version of my piece as a letter to the editor. I guess they're willing to allow me to (somewhat) defend myself, just so long as they exclude my strongest points and all the arguments that make them look ridiculous:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/18/unz-letter-contributions/

    To the editor:

    A Crimson article published April 14 sought to establish my links with various right-wing extremists under the lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group.” I feel that the information in the article lacked sufficient context and was thus misleading. Coming at the peak of alumni voting, this reporting risks torpedoing our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate of Overseer candidates.

    Over the years I’ve certainly provided donations to a wide assortment of political groups and individuals, including left-wingers, right-wingers, and libertarians. These recipients are often on the political fringe and espouse controversial views on all sorts of issues. I might agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others, but their writing usefully supplements the conventional wisdom presented in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which I spend hours closely reading every morning.

    I reject guilt by association. Just because I am personally friendly with various people, publish their writings, or even provide them some financial assistance does not necessarily mean that I endorse everything they say. For example, I strongly disagree with Sen. Bernie Sanders on numerous important issues, but since I prefer his overall positions to those of his competitors, he is my favored presidential candidate, and the only one to whom I have donated. During the last couple of presidential elections I wrote in Ron Paul’s name at the top of the ticket, not because I agreed with him about everything, but because the other choices seemed so unsatisfactory.

    I have a long record of closely associating with people of sharply different views, having spent seven years as the publisher of The American Conservative, an opinion magazine that absorbed roughly 75[over 60] percent of my donations over the last decade. TAC was founded by Pat Buchanan and took a strongly Buchananite stance on immigration, trade, and social issues—positions I did not share. However, I strongly supported its lonely opposition to the disastrous foreign wars of the Bush Administration, afterward continued by the Obama Administration.

    Over half my writing has dealt with matters of race, ethnicity, and social policy, including immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Although often controversial, my articles have won praise from some eminent scholars and journalists, situated all across the ideological spectrum. If The Crimson’s writers wish to denounce me, they may do so, but they should focus on my own views rather than those of other people whose work I have funded.
     

    Ron – from a worldly BBC producer with Ivy League background whom I respect: your cause may be undone by alumni who are not concerned about the dropping of fees but are concerned that your push for transparency in admissions will endanger the prospects of their progeny gaining admission.

    Read More
  28. @Ron Unz
    Well, the Crimson has now published a drastically reduced version of my piece as a letter to the editor. I guess they're willing to allow me to (somewhat) defend myself, just so long as they exclude my strongest points and all the arguments that make them look ridiculous:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/18/unz-letter-contributions/

    To the editor:

    A Crimson article published April 14 sought to establish my links with various right-wing extremists under the lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group.” I feel that the information in the article lacked sufficient context and was thus misleading. Coming at the peak of alumni voting, this reporting risks torpedoing our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate of Overseer candidates.

    Over the years I’ve certainly provided donations to a wide assortment of political groups and individuals, including left-wingers, right-wingers, and libertarians. These recipients are often on the political fringe and espouse controversial views on all sorts of issues. I might agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others, but their writing usefully supplements the conventional wisdom presented in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which I spend hours closely reading every morning.

    I reject guilt by association. Just because I am personally friendly with various people, publish their writings, or even provide them some financial assistance does not necessarily mean that I endorse everything they say. For example, I strongly disagree with Sen. Bernie Sanders on numerous important issues, but since I prefer his overall positions to those of his competitors, he is my favored presidential candidate, and the only one to whom I have donated. During the last couple of presidential elections I wrote in Ron Paul’s name at the top of the ticket, not because I agreed with him about everything, but because the other choices seemed so unsatisfactory.

    I have a long record of closely associating with people of sharply different views, having spent seven years as the publisher of The American Conservative, an opinion magazine that absorbed roughly 75[over 60] percent of my donations over the last decade. TAC was founded by Pat Buchanan and took a strongly Buchananite stance on immigration, trade, and social issues—positions I did not share. However, I strongly supported its lonely opposition to the disastrous foreign wars of the Bush Administration, afterward continued by the Obama Administration.

    Over half my writing has dealt with matters of race, ethnicity, and social policy, including immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Although often controversial, my articles have won praise from some eminent scholars and journalists, situated all across the ideological spectrum. If The Crimson’s writers wish to denounce me, they may do so, but they should focus on my own views rather than those of other people whose work I have funded.
     

    That seems like a fair response on their part. No offense, but your writing does tend to be a bit long. They’re under no obligation to publish it unedited.

    Read More
  29. Heh heh, I followed the link to the post about Greg Cochran banning you for showing he was wrong. He did the same to me, soon after Henry Harpending made a comment that began thus:

    Greg, Aaron Gross is exactly right. Quit bullying.

    Banned now.

    Read More
  30. Harvard have their hackles up because you are threatening a source of their funding, no matter how minute it is currently. The tenuous association with WNs is just the most effective thing they could find on you at short notice.

    Read More
  31. @Stogumber
    Dear Mr. Unz,

    honestly I think that the "Crimson" did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the "Crimson" thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don't do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive.

    Sincerely yours.

    If Mr. Unz hasn’t already he should read Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie. Rule number 3 when they come after you is: do not apologize! All it is in their eyes is an admission of guilt.

    Read More
  32. Dr. Cochran is an extreme rightwinger

    Gregory Cochran is not an extreme right-winger.

    Read More
  33. Ron,

    Anonymous accusers? Refusal to allow a fair rebuttal? You are advocating a radical change in higher education that will restore Harvard’s place in academia with a plan for consuming the billions stashed in Harvard’s hedge fund … a hedge fund so wealthy that it now over shadows the university and its academic mission. This is an easy one. As they say, who … whom?

    We had a phrase in the military for Harvard’s current organizational malaise. We called them “self-licking ice cream cones”, defined as organizations whose sole missions are to perpetuate themselves in the interests of those currently attached to them, nothing more. In short, organizations that have lost their mission and purpose. We had a solution for this kind of organizational malaise … clean them up or shut them down.

    Harvard has become a “self-licking ice cream cone.”

    Read More
  34. Progtards are going to progtard. Expecting anything different is simply unrealistic.

    Read More
  35. @Priss Factor
    Suppose there had been no more immigration to the US after the first arrivals of Anglos, Germans, and Irish.

    Imagine if US was only of original stock up to first half of 19th century and blacks.

    No immigration from eastern/southern Europe, none from Mexico, and none from Asia.

    Would blacks outnumber whites today?

    1)The Germans and Irish were not “original stock” in the founding of the United States. They did not come in large numbers until the 1840′s. We would have been better off without either group.

    2)No, blacks would not outnumber whites today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "We would have been better off without either group [Germans and Irish]."

    What's your reasoning on that?
  36. Ron,

    Don’t apologize. That can be fatal. And don’t distance yourself from your friends and concede things you don’t have to concede.

    For instance, you weaken yourself—and harm someone you’ve supported—by saying “Dr. Cochran is an extreme rightwinger.” First, that statement is false. Second, you didn’t have to say it. Third, most people process the concept of “extremist” as meaning a potential terrorist. I’m sure you can protest “That’s not what I meant!” but that’s what a lot of people just heard you say. And you didn’t have to say it.

    Same thing with VDARE. You didn’t have to describe it as “a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine.” First, that statement is false. VDARE may be opposed to large-scale immigration, but it’s not “anti-immigrant.” How can it be when the editor himself is an immigrant, as are many of its contributors. One of its regular contributors is married to a Mexican immigrant. Second, aside from the immigration issue, its contributors tend to be middle of the road politically.

    You should have gone on the attack. You should have ridiculed an immigration policy that will make the American population surge to almost half a billion by mid-century. Make your opponents look like extremists. Not your friends.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute, Bill, MEH 0910
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Just want to wholeheartedly second Peter's point here:

    Don’t apologize. That can be fatal. And don’t distance yourself from your friends and concede things you don’t have to concede ... Make your opponents look like extremists. Not your friends.
  37. @Anonymous

    honestly I think that the “Crimson” did you a favour by not printing this. And why?

    You are much too defensive. You should copy the WTF attitude of Donald Trump.

    Of course, if you really are much more centrist than the “Crimson” thinks, you can give some slight ironic hints to that fact. But please don’t do it in this plump way. If a dog feels that you fear him, he will become more aggressive
     

    Agreed. Trump has much nastier, calumnious stuff (times a 100) said and written about him every couple of hours and the dude just keeps his chin high and says "whatever". Meanwhile, Ron has a meltdown from just one unfair hit piece.

    To be fair, Mr. Unz is trying to improve or elevate the state of discourse at an institution supposedly devoted to such.

    Read More
  38. @Chris Mallory
    1)The Germans and Irish were not "original stock" in the founding of the United States. They did not come in large numbers until the 1840's. We would have been better off without either group.

    2)No, blacks would not outnumber whites today.

    “We would have been better off without either group [Germans and Irish].”

    What’s your reasoning on that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    What’s your reasoning on that?
     
    He's probably advocating for a purely English/Puritan stocked country.

    The Germans and Irish are plenty close to the English, so chalk this up to Narcissism of Small Differences.
  39. As much as I respect and admire Ron’s dedication and devotion to free speech and unfettered debate, I can’t help but think the times have passed him by and made him an unwelcome anachronism in contemporary politics. Nobody cares about opposing viewpoints today other than as a strawman they can ridicule and propagandize for the day’s two minutes of hate. The elite (I’m not fond of that label, but currently lack a better one) political stance is that “diversity” (meaning anti-white and anti-Western Civ) is the most important public good. Objectivity and empirical truth, inasmuch as they most often refute “diversity” as a positive benefit, must therefore be unequivocally evil artifacts of white male patriarchy. Ron appears to favor meritocracy based on objective measurements. This is wholly unacceptable in today’s environment where a short white man can decide he is actually a very tall Asian woman and everyone must pretend that this is in fact true.

    And, perhaps most importantly, objectivity strongly disfavors the African. It matters nothing if Asians outscore whites in cognitive testing and income. And Jews are “white enough” when comparing SAT scores or crime rates. The *only* consideration is whether Africans compare favorably and if they do not, then objectivity is deemed “racist.” By this standard alone, Ron is obviously a white hooded Klansman with single-minded determination to harm Africans based solely on the color of their skin. Even if, by some electoral white privilege juju, Ron did somehow win either the Harvard or California election, he would be immediately sidelined and spend his entire short tenure futilely trying to defend himself against charges of being a white supremacist. Really the only thing one needs to know in 2016 is that truth is racist and reality is racist, sexist, and homophobic. I understand only too well that Ron needs to fight the good fight as he sees it, but from a pragmatic perspective, he is simply throwing away his wealth.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Nico
    You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Ron Unz's political efforts are at least in part an attempt to apply a kind of 1940s civic gentlemanliness to the pornographic chaos of the contemporary public sphere. Unz's ability to bring a positive contribution is hampered by his refusal to acknowledge that this is no longer a sport. It is a war.
  40. I’m a little confused about what you find so unfair about the Crimson’s take. Yes, I agree they should have stated clearly that nothing in your writings suggests that you are racist. Then again, they don’t exact allege that you are a racist either.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites? Why should you be immune to examination of the many conspiratorial article you publish here? These seem like worthy concerns to me.

    “I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum,” is not a very convincing defense.

    Certainly you have the freedom to publish controversial views or to support academics and writers who you feel are important despite some other odious beliefs. But those decisions can be scrutinized. Particularly, people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions. Those reservations strike me as completely valid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?"

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with 'white nationalism' in a nation that is all about identity politics?
    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
    You don't see the great achievement of the United States. You only see the blood that was shed in its creation. I see many places around the world that spilled more blood over longer period with nothing to show for it.
    I'm not the one to contest the fact that whites did spill a lot of blood, and a tragic price was paid in the creation of the New World. But what an achievement!

    Black Africans, yellow Asians, Arab Muslims, and etc have been conquering, enslaving, and killing on a large scale, but they never produced anything like Western Civ. They committed violence without positive consequence. Even in the 2oth century, Mao killed tens of millions and only ruined the economy. America killed fewer and achieved so much more. And whites had to rule America in its founding and development since they and only they held the formula of modern civilization. Imagine if America had been settled by tribal black Africans, feudal Japanese, Islamic hordes, and etc. They wouldn't have founded and built the great American nation. And Anglos especially held the key to success. After all, compare Anglo-US and Latin-America settled by Spanish and Portuguese. If slavery is key to economic success, then Brazil should be much richer since it had more slave and for much longer.
    And even though the West did trade in slaves and etc, they eventually ended that stuff and spread a lot of good stuff too.

    So, what is wrong with white nationalism, especially when universalism has been rejected by the 'left' and people of color and Jews and homos and feminists who are all into IDENTITY politics. And it's not just about victim interests. Jews are very powerful, but they still play identity politics, and indeed they demand that EVERYONE support Jewish/Zionist identity politics via AIPAC. And blacks routinely beat up and terrorize whites but they only bitch about their own victimhood.
    Epidemic of black-on-white violence owes to racial factors that cannot be overlooked.
    Women do better in school and much of the economy now. But they bitch and bitch about how they are oppressed by men. Homos are among the most privileged people but they push their agenda on everyone as if they are only spreading tolerance. They are into spreading tolerance. They are into forcing us to celebrate their deviant sexuality.
    All those identity politics are not only protected but encouraged.
    And whites, esp white males of conservative bent, are blamed for everything.
    And Conservatism Inc has totally cucked itself out to the likes of Sheldon Adelson, homo-libertarians, and even Al Sharpton.

    Also, PC has shut down so many voices. So, there is no longer any culture of controversy and contention. There is just the culture of consensus and coercion.

    When Wasps ruled America and when Jews/homos were on the rise to power, there was a culture of controversy and contention. Jews and homos needed a culture of controversy to challenge dominant narratives and values.

    Once Jews became the new ruling elites, the culture of controversy should have continued with all Americans speaking truth to the newly dominant Jewish power.
    But once Jews and homos got the power, they wanted no more of that.
    They had used the culture of contention and controversy to rise to power, but once they got the power, they no longer wanted anyone or any group to challenge them.
    We now live in a nation where people are afraid to oppose men using women's washroom now.

    Given that the Democrats are into PC consensus, GOP is into PC consensus, the 'left' is into PC enforcement, homos are into homosexist tyranny, shrill feminists are into hysteria mode and hallucinating rape all over, neocons were given green light(by media and government) to mess up the world, and Jewish Wall Street was bailed out by Obama, and 'gay marriage' was passed without any national discussion in the MSM, is there any culture of controversy and contention left in America?

    It is only in the 'fringes'. If mainstream American discourse was free of PC, the 'fringe' opinion wouldn't matter. Real debate would happen at the core of American culture. But because PC and culture of coercive consensus so dominate the mainstream and media institutions, the ONLY place you are gonna find a real challenge to the status quo is from the fringes made up of people who are willing to pay the price of ruined careers to say their say.
    And more from the fringe right than from the fringe 'left' because the far left is still allowed to thrive in some corners of the academia(even if unwelcome in the media dominated by globalist oligarchs). So, the fringe 'left' --- neo-Marxist, Che Guevara admirers, anarchists, 60 radical leftovers, etc --- are still well-represented in academic discourse. You don't get in trouble by praising Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, and Hollywood Ten in college.

    So, the fringe right and alt right are the last true bastions of speaking-truth-to-power and carrying on with the culture of controversy, contention, and courage.
    Of course, Alt Right and 'fringe right' have its share of cranks, nuts, extremists, paranoids, and etc. Paul Craig Roberts often go TOO FAR. As for the 14/88 Neo-Nazi at the far fringe of the right, they are utterly useless except for a laugh now and then.
    And if they gained great power, they too could turn censorious.

    But the only spirit of free speech, contention, and controversy is now found in the 'fringe right' because they are deemed most taboo by the coercive MSM that is into the culture of consensus and the academia that is for culture of consensus and some fringe leftist views but closed off to any views that is right of Conservatism Inc. Indeed, for many academics, even mainstream conservatism is more offensive than far left ideology. They love playing armchair revolutionaries.

    So, even as I find Crimson's hostility to 'white nationalism' to be understandable, it is disingenuous of them to ignore Unz's main reason for supporting fringe voices on the Right. It's because it is ONLY THERE(and in some corners of fringe left) that any kind of challenge to the Consensus is evident. It's only there that you find the spirit of Edward Snowden(though he's a libertarian and not an identitarian).

    There was a time when people like Pat Buchanan were syndicated in newspapers all over the nation. Like him or not, he had a voice along with Libs and leftists.

    And there was a time when a popular columnist like Mike Royko could write something like this:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-11/news/1993162236_1_dark-alley-white-guys-sports-fans

    People had thicker skins and bigger balls back then.

    But the PC-lords took over colleges and media and enforced the culture of 'sensitivity' which meant certain groups --- Jews, blacks, and homos especially --- were never to be offended while one could be as insensitive to white folks, especially males, as one pleased.

    There was a time when personalities as colorful as Norman Mailer could have their say. And Mailer was prescient when he spoke of the dangers of 'left totalitarianism'.
    Today, people are afraid even to crack a joke about Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZxp-wFF7o

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.

    Just like a woman has a right to love a guy, hate a guy, accept a guy, or reject a guy, we should all be free to feel what we feel and speak honestly about what we feel and explain why. PC doesn't allow it.
    We have to love Big Brotha.

    , @Ragno

    “I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum,” is not a very convincing defense.
     
    A defense of what? - the constitutional right to publish them?

    Leftist nuance: the ability to parse meaningful subtleties not visible to the naked eye. But only from one vantage point.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?
     
    Because his motives are good! Ron Unz stands with Nicolas Sarkozy. His message to the founding peoples of America, the descendants of African slaves and the European settlers, is this:

    "Métissage, it's an obligation"

    Which is to say, let your daughters breed with the invading horde of Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, and Africans and assimilate their culture, or die without posterity.

    As for funding VDare, it's obvious why: they're controlled opposition.

    This provides an explanation for the daft obsession with white/black IQ differences, it's a sure means to create dissension between the founding groups and the Western culture to be destroyed.

  41. @Ron Unz
    https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/721762626473037824

    … political maverick Ron Unz …

    Ouch!!! So now you’re a hybrid of John McCain and Rafael Eduardo Cruz. Sidelined. Even by a guy at the furthest right wing of contemporary public intellectual opinion.

    As some other commenters including Frost have noted, you would have been better served to attack. Trump has given ample proof of this concept. Never explain or apologize. Nobody is interested in intellectual arguments. The contest is over who can craft the most devastating sound bite and get it widely published. “The Crimsonistas are anti-Asian racist bigots who want Asian students to toil in rice paddies …” “The Crimsonistas are white privileged elitists who are terrified that poorer Asian students could earn their admission spot by hard work rather than by rich alumni parents …” Or just make something up from whole cloth. But no matter what, never, ever, give them an apology or an explanation they will characterize as an apology.

    Read More
  42. What? You sent a carefully-considered, well-written rebuttal/response to the Harvard Conspiracy? I would have shit in an air-tight box and FedExed it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ragno
    Couldn't merely 'agree' with this; it needed to be hailed, with a stiff-arm salute.
  43. @Ron Unz
    Well, the Crimson has now published a drastically reduced version of my piece as a letter to the editor. I guess they're willing to allow me to (somewhat) defend myself, just so long as they exclude my strongest points and all the arguments that make them look ridiculous:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/18/unz-letter-contributions/

    To the editor:

    A Crimson article published April 14 sought to establish my links with various right-wing extremists under the lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group.” I feel that the information in the article lacked sufficient context and was thus misleading. Coming at the peak of alumni voting, this reporting risks torpedoing our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate of Overseer candidates.

    Over the years I’ve certainly provided donations to a wide assortment of political groups and individuals, including left-wingers, right-wingers, and libertarians. These recipients are often on the political fringe and espouse controversial views on all sorts of issues. I might agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others, but their writing usefully supplements the conventional wisdom presented in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, which I spend hours closely reading every morning.

    I reject guilt by association. Just because I am personally friendly with various people, publish their writings, or even provide them some financial assistance does not necessarily mean that I endorse everything they say. For example, I strongly disagree with Sen. Bernie Sanders on numerous important issues, but since I prefer his overall positions to those of his competitors, he is my favored presidential candidate, and the only one to whom I have donated. During the last couple of presidential elections I wrote in Ron Paul’s name at the top of the ticket, not because I agreed with him about everything, but because the other choices seemed so unsatisfactory.

    I have a long record of closely associating with people of sharply different views, having spent seven years as the publisher of The American Conservative, an opinion magazine that absorbed roughly 75[over 60] percent of my donations over the last decade. TAC was founded by Pat Buchanan and took a strongly Buchananite stance on immigration, trade, and social issues—positions I did not share. However, I strongly supported its lonely opposition to the disastrous foreign wars of the Bush Administration, afterward continued by the Obama Administration.

    Over half my writing has dealt with matters of race, ethnicity, and social policy, including immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Although often controversial, my articles have won praise from some eminent scholars and journalists, situated all across the ideological spectrum. If The Crimson’s writers wish to denounce me, they may do so, but they should focus on my own views rather than those of other people whose work I have funded.
     

    How did the ‘over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]‘ become ’75 percent’? Over 10 years, that’s a significant amount of loot for a big donator like Unz. Was it a later formal revision by Unz? Did someone else just change it?
    I mean, technically, over 60 percent can be 75 percent, but that’s usually not how the language is used in the context of reference to factual information.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I too remembered the "60" when I read the "75". But I didn't remember the exact expression you quote, namely "over 60 percent" so I thank you for reassuring me. I now take Ron to have merely been cautious first time round when he didn't want to slow down and calculate beyond a rough sufficiently reliable estimate for his immediate purpose.
    , @Ron Unz

    How did the ‘over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]‘ become ’75 percent’?
     
    What happened was that in the quick draft of my response I sent them I cited 75% from memory, then when I went back and looked at the numbers, it was probably a bit under 65%, so I sent them a correction, but they must have missed it.

    Regarding one of the frequent sentiments expressed in this comment-thread, I *really* don't think my response came across as "defensive." Instead, I think it made the Crimson people look totally ridiculous, which is why they refused to publish it.

    And Steve Pinker's Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a "maverick," a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a "smear," a very negative term. All sorts of pretty prominent leftists, liberals, and rightwingers have been sending me outraged notes about the silly Crimson article, so maybe the Stasi people will end up getting a few of their teeth broken for trying to bite the wrong fellow...
  44. @Ron Unz
    https://youtu.be/dLmvcXd0cp0

    I’m actually very proud of the fact that I was able to endure 29 minutes of this “debate” considering the grossly obese kid with the slack jawed mouth breathing. I am fairly open-minded, but there are limits. This kid is so completely programmed he’s unable to comprehend that the wealthy simply don’t care about the tuition rate other than as a barrier to entry for their competitors (as Ron patiently explained several times). The sense of arrogant entitlement from this grotesque blob is just too offensive for me to endure.

    Read More
  45. @Ragno

    Much of the Crimson article focused on my financial support to VDare, a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine.......But as everyone knows from the hundreds of thousands of words I have published on immigration-related topics, I’ve always been one of America’s leading pro-immigrant voices, hence almost invariably on the exact opposite side from VDare
     
    In other words, had you generally agreed with VDare on immigration, you're kinda-sorta conceding that you'd be beyond the pale of acceptable/allowable public discourse and unworthy of a voice in your own government; thus, any measures taken to prevent you from ever attaining that voice would not only be legal but just, and represent the highest standards of a modern democracy.

    Mr Unz, I'm grateful for your website and your catholic breadth of tolerance, but I'm not sure if you grasp what a godawful thing the utter and unquestioned supremacy of the cultural Marxists in public life truly is; how they now stride in unison with the provocative swagger of the bully who knows any confrontation he might face will be pre-fixed to his insurmountable advantage.

    You're about to find out, though: they're going to hammer hammer hammer away at this one ideological gravy stain on the bib of your life and turn this election - your role in it, at least - into a one-issue referendum. If you have any testimonials to your character from rappers, or Mexicans - or Mexican rappers! - have them ready at hand, and utilize them often.

    And good luck!

    That paragraph is weak because Unz does not give any reason why he gave them so much money – their stance on bilingual education perhaps?

    Read More
  46. What a whiner! Unz had no problem trashing Trump without a lick of research to actually learn what Trump is about, and now he whines when the harvard rag does it to him. Hey Unz, turnabout’s fair play and all that.

    Read More
  47. Apr 15, 2013 Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch!

    Obama supporters were asked to sign a petition to repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT in order to help Obama, and many of them did. Seriously. They Did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
  48. @Agent76
    Apr 15, 2013 Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch!

    Obama supporters were asked to sign a petition to repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT in order to help Obama, and many of them did. Seriously. They Did.

    https://youtu.be/SpHOaW99ST4

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

    Read More
  49. @Boris
    I'm a little confused about what you find so unfair about the Crimson's take. Yes, I agree they should have stated clearly that nothing in your writings suggests that you are racist. Then again, they don't exact allege that you are a racist either.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites? Why should you be immune to examination of the many conspiratorial article you publish here? These seem like worthy concerns to me.

    "I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum," is not a very convincing defense.

    Certainly you have the freedom to publish controversial views or to support academics and writers who you feel are important despite some other odious beliefs. But those decisions can be scrutinized. Particularly, people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions. Those reservations strike me as completely valid.

    people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.
     
    It should be more than obvious if you read the Crimson article.

    Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.
  50. @robt
    How did the 'over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]' become '75 percent'? Over 10 years, that's a significant amount of loot for a big donator like Unz. Was it a later formal revision by Unz? Did someone else just change it?
    I mean, technically, over 60 percent can be 75 percent, but that's usually not how the language is used in the context of reference to factual information.

    I too remembered the “60″ when I read the “75″. But I didn’t remember the exact expression you quote, namely “over 60 percent” so I thank you for reassuring me. I now take Ron to have merely been cautious first time round when he didn’t want to slow down and calculate beyond a rough sufficiently reliable estimate for his immediate purpose.

    Read More
  51. Ron Unz, defender of free speech about immigration, racial IQ differences, etc., etc., gets tarred as a racist by a publication of that bastion of Political Correctness, his beloved alma mater, Harvard University, to which he wants the most intelligent youth of the nation to attend free of charge.

    LOL

    Allowing the best and the brightest to attend Harvard at no charge will only hasten the collapse of America’s already deeply decayed and decadent civilization. Millionaires with vision need to think about what must be done to hasten the demise of the university as we know it.

    In the age of the internet, in an age where half your neighbors in a well-to-do suburb likely are engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers or holders of advanced degrees, is it really necessary to travel all the way to Boston or Princeton to get a good grounding in the elements of quantum mechanics or American history?

    Of course not. What’s needed is the academic network aps (whatever the Hell an ap may be), lists of those available in every geographic area as tutors, plus some rented tutorial rooms, a few independent accreditation agents (Google, perhaps, or the American Physical Society, the ACS, etc., etc., could provide the expertise and the machinery) and higher education becomes cheap (no damn deans, vice-presidents, presidents, and football coaches on ridiculous salaries to maintain, or sports complexes, theaters and multi-story car parks to construct), local, and for those of limited means, compatible with part- or full-time employment.

    But just leave the Harvard Crimson to wallow in its own politically correct stupidity and ignorance.

    Read More
  52. jeffrey sacks, larry summers, dershowitz, cass sunstein, kissinger, so many other criminals. maybe harvard should be given the gaza treatment. a cleaner, more peaceful, more intelligent world would follow.same for yale, stanford, other institutions of fakery, pretense.

    curious. who are these crimson censors?

    pretty sure blacks were among the original immigrants to new world. maybe majority of them muslim.

    dont think they were fighting, clawing over anglos to get here.

    Read More
  53. @robt
    How did the 'over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]' become '75 percent'? Over 10 years, that's a significant amount of loot for a big donator like Unz. Was it a later formal revision by Unz? Did someone else just change it?
    I mean, technically, over 60 percent can be 75 percent, but that's usually not how the language is used in the context of reference to factual information.

    How did the ‘over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]‘ become ’75 percent’?

    What happened was that in the quick draft of my response I sent them I cited 75% from memory, then when I went back and looked at the numbers, it was probably a bit under 65%, so I sent them a correction, but they must have missed it.

    Regarding one of the frequent sentiments expressed in this comment-thread, I *really* don’t think my response came across as “defensive.” Instead, I think it made the Crimson people look totally ridiculous, which is why they refused to publish it.

    And Steve Pinker’s Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a “maverick,” a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a “smear,” a very negative term. All sorts of pretty prominent leftists, liberals, and rightwingers have been sending me outraged notes about the silly Crimson article, so maybe the Stasi people will end up getting a few of their teeth broken for trying to bite the wrong fellow…

    Read More
    • Replies: @quamuri
    I agree that the rebuttal has a defensive tone ( the thoroughness of your follow-ups often make you look defensive), but now that they have published half of it, comparing what they published to what they left out makes them look extremely foolish and deceptive.
    , @Demeter

    And Steve Pinker’s Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a “maverick,” a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a “smear,” a very negative term.
     
    Twitter has moved to a Facebook-like algorithm, so Pinker's Tweet will only reach a fraction of his 236K followers. You will never know the exact fraction, but it will certainly be less than 236K.

    (Not that it matters, but I don't read the fucking Crimson, and I would have died happily without reading the Crimson's output. But while the subject is on the table, Unz is scrupulously complete. This is what honesty looks like, fucking Crimson.)
  54. When they switch from the Free Harvard portion of the debate to the Fair Harvard portion Tubby McQuotas cracks his sausage fingers like he’s getting ready for his third dessert.

    Read More
  55. “Free” college is the worst public policy idea in a long time and it will destroy (what’s left of) higher education in this country. We will all subsidize the four (or five or six) years of partying for people with no skin in the game while they pursue worthless majors in underwater basket weaving or Lesbian Muslim studies. At the end of the process everyone will have a college degree, so a college degree will be as worthless as a high school degree is now, except well be spending hundreds of billions more and delaying responsible adulthood for millions. So I hope you lose.

    But I hope you lose on the merits of your shitty proposal and not on some character assassination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    “Free” college is the worst public policy idea in a long time
     
    Or as the late British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge remarked, when everyone has a college degree, no one will know anything at all.

    But the great advantage of higher education as it is currently provided that Muggeridge failed to see is that, when everyone has a college degree, everyone will be politically correct.

  56. @biz
    "Free" college is the worst public policy idea in a long time and it will destroy (what's left of) higher education in this country. We will all subsidize the four (or five or six) years of partying for people with no skin in the game while they pursue worthless majors in underwater basket weaving or Lesbian Muslim studies. At the end of the process everyone will have a college degree, so a college degree will be as worthless as a high school degree is now, except well be spending hundreds of billions more and delaying responsible adulthood for millions. So I hope you lose.

    But I hope you lose on the merits of your shitty proposal and not on some character assassination.

    “Free” college is the worst public policy idea in a long time

    Or as the late British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge remarked, when everyone has a college degree, no one will know anything at all.

    But the great advantage of higher education as it is currently provided that Muggeridge failed to see is that, when everyone has a college degree, everyone will be politically correct.

    Read More
  57. @Johnny F. Ive
    Harvard has an axe to grind. I don't see anything wrong with entertaining different points of view. The Harvard Crimson could use some openness to experience. A ivy league institution shouldn't wallow in ignorance. Thy didn't publish the response because it didn't conform to their rigid beliefs and agenda. I think they have a ready made role for you and they didn't know what to do when you didn't conform to it besides deny you a platform to respond to their libel.

    And a well publicized libel suit against these brats would be a public service.

    Read More
  58. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    We have to keep in mind that college kids are now treated like kindergarteners.

    Pride is like teeth. You have lose your baby teeth to have a stronger set of adult teeth.

    Similarly, you have to lose your baby pride to gain adult pride.

    To lose baby pride, young people have to swallow their immature pride and learn to take orders and criticism and realize there’s more to truth, humanity, and the world than their childish rants and righteous posturing.

    When kids act lazy and stupid, they must be criticized and made to realize the insipidity of their childish ways. They must let go of baby pride and develop real virtues and abilities that will imbue them with adult responsibilities that will serve as the basis for adult pride.
    But our culture encourages young people to stick with their baby pride. So, we have all this babytalk as political discourse: ‘micro-aggressions’ gaga-goo-goo, ‘triggering’ waaaaaah we cwy, ‘safe spaces’ me and my sandbox goo goo, ‘slut pride’ me dwess and talk anyway I want but want respect goo, bogeyman of ‘KKK’ and ‘white supremacist everywhere mommy mommy there is monster under my bed me cwy goo goo gaga.

    Black Lives Matter is pure baby pride and babytalk based on unreality.
    Blacks now complain that grades and checking for grammar is ‘racist-wacist, goo goo gaga’ because blacks aint so keen on punctuation, spelling, and shi*. (Maturity be ‘racist’ since so many blacks be childlike and shi*.)
    Homo and tranny agenda has turned American Culture into child’s play of make-believe lalaland.
    We live in a world where ‘pride’ is synonymous with celebration that George Takei likes a man’s penis in his fecal hole and where ‘courage’ is synonymous with Bruce Jenner putting on a dress and demanding to go wee-wee in the women’s restroom.

    US is turning into Infantania or Infantasia.

    Real pride is about growing up and growing a new set of teeth. It’ s not about holding onto baby teeth and demanding that food be soft and tender so that baby teeth can chew pablum forever. Goo goo ga.

    Read More
  59. free college doesnt mean every idiot goes to college. it means those accepted will be tuition/debt free.

    how to be a lesbian or pc re jews not only fields available in univs. some do study engi neering, real sciences, medicine.

    not knowing much certainly includes muggeridge.

    need to add at #55 majority if not all slave ships were jew owned.

    Read More
  60. @Ron Unz

    How did the ‘over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]‘ become ’75 percent’?
     
    What happened was that in the quick draft of my response I sent them I cited 75% from memory, then when I went back and looked at the numbers, it was probably a bit under 65%, so I sent them a correction, but they must have missed it.

    Regarding one of the frequent sentiments expressed in this comment-thread, I *really* don't think my response came across as "defensive." Instead, I think it made the Crimson people look totally ridiculous, which is why they refused to publish it.

    And Steve Pinker's Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a "maverick," a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a "smear," a very negative term. All sorts of pretty prominent leftists, liberals, and rightwingers have been sending me outraged notes about the silly Crimson article, so maybe the Stasi people will end up getting a few of their teeth broken for trying to bite the wrong fellow...

    I agree that the rebuttal has a defensive tone ( the thoroughness of your follow-ups often make you look defensive), but now that they have published half of it, comparing what they published to what they left out makes them look extremely foolish and deceptive.

    Read More
  61. This refusal to publish should come as no surprise.

    Quoting from the article, In Praise of James Petras by Edmund Connelly, Ph.D.:
    “Also, Petras is courageous enough to describe the massive plunder of Russia, orchestrated in part by none other than the president of Harvard University, Laurence Summers and some of his Jewish professors. Petras also concludes that this plunder consisted of “over a trillion dollars worth of factories, transport, oil, gas, iron, coal, and other formerly state-owned resources.” That is not a typo; Petras wrote trillion. This figure is consistent with that of Jeff Gates, as I noted in my recent review of his book.”

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/04/in-praise-of-james-petras/

    Read More
  62. I watched the video of Ron at the overseer debate. What a kind and gracious man he is. A lesser man would have laughed or raged in the face of such childish behavior. Instead he just kept on calmly making his case and treated them like rational people even when their own behavior had shown them to be half informed petulant children. Sir you are a better man than I am.

    Read More
  63. @quamuri
    Mr. Unz, thank you for being so tireless in bringing truth and justice to Harvard. The ferociousness of their attacks on you is a sign of how well you are doing! Do you have any measure of your chances?

    Bringing up your old comments on the "Gay Germ", you say:

    Since prostitutes might have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year as married women, the gains to the transmission-vector of such a sterility-inducing STD would be absolutely enormous, providing exactly the sort of powerful selective pressure able to balance that operating on the host population. Thus, such a “Divorce Germ” makes perfect evolutionary sense in the way a Gay Germ seemingly does not.

     

    Don't you see that if "Chlamydia victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year" is a good selective pressure for chlamydia to cause sterility, then "[Unidentified gay germ] victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year" is a good selective pressure for the gay germ to cause homosexuality?

    ”“[Unidentified gay germ] victims have hundreds of times as many sexual partners each year” is a good selective pressure for the gay germ to cause homosexuality?”

    No honey,
    sorry!!!

    no there a ”gay germ”.

    creativity (oooh, jeeeniezz!!!)

    hdd folks say

    ”Crearivity is djenerics”

    mental ill neeeesssss

    hdd folks say

    ”mental illneeeess is not djenerics, is pathodjgenics”

    but but but

    creativity is just like the heterozigosis of the panacea of the mental issues

    what do you mean****

    if mental illneeess is patho-genics, so creativity is half-1/2-patho-genics…

    the so-called blurred/gray area between ”genes” and ”patho-genes” or ”out-of-body candidate-genes”.

    all humans are female-like in their very first-life period, after-conception.

    Some men don’t develop ”fully” to be become a classical hetero-sexual and some women develop ”excessively” and become more masculinized”…

    JUST a one very monogamic couples with ””’gay”””’ sons or daughters seems refute your claim.

    People with clamydia don’t take it by accident, is not**

    Seems like ”people who play video games frequently score higher in iq tests”

    correct pre-conclusion: ”people who score higher in iq tests tend to be video games addicted”

    And yes, probably, increased mutational load can increase impulsivity too IF impulsivity and higher mutational load are not organically connected.

    Read More
  64. @iffen
    people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.

    It should be more than obvious if you read the Crimson article.

    Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.

    Complete agreement by me.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however."

    I agree that you deserve to be mocked out of your ass.
  65. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It is enraging and profoundly confusing to me that so many good, honest people have to waste time and energy creating a goddamn legal defense just to protect themselves against the malicious and unfounded attacks of EVIL people. I have noticed this trend in daily life, and it is on the rise.

    I cannot fathom why and how so many human beings seem to have given in to this selfish mentality devoid of all emotion and common sense. Right and wrong are absolutes, and the law of cause and effect has not diminished over time.

    You have my spiritual support.

    Read More
  66. @Boris

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.
     
    It should be more than obvious if you read the Crimson article.

    Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.

    Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.

    Complete agreement by me.

    Read More
  67. BTW, another hole in the Gay Germ theory is that almost all of the gay people I know, men and women, have kids. There may have been environmental pressure against being gay in evolutionary history, but there was even stronger social pressure for gay people to conform. This is in all societies. Most marriages were arraigned up until quite recently and even where they were not arraigned, the pressure to fit in and have a family was very strong. If there is a gay gene it could have been passed from generation to generation by the strength of peer pressure alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    It's exactly one of my theory about the lower heritability of homossexuality. But schizophrenic people also tend to have lower fertility and the ''heritability'' of this phenotypes tend to be higher.

    Maybe as happen with dizygotic twins with higher co-occurence of different gender among them (girl and boy) similar situation can happen with homossexuality and twins.

    We are not just talking about quantitative value but also about the nature of every human phenotype. The current nature of homossexuality is to have lower heritability as well happen with light eyes in the pre-historic european past.
  68. @SEATAF
    Mr. Unz, who were the editors at the Crimson who kept changing what they would allow? I do not think they deserve to remain unnamed.

    To be honest, the unnamed editors at the Crimson who kept changing what they would allow do NOT deserve to remain unnamed .. They must be exposed for the hypocrites that they are. They’ve overreached their bounds by character assassination of Ron Unz, and revealed their cowardice by remaining anonymous, and they also denied him his 1st Amendment rights by cutting out the relevant points in his response.
    These cowardly editors knew exactly what they were doing when they killed his response to their libel. It’s one thing to cut back on an article if it’s too lengthy; it’s quite another when the key points are erased. Mr. Unz deserves at least an apology for this character assassination, but I doubt very much that the editors have the integrity and courage to do so.

    Read More
  69. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    I guess we can leave it unstated that you are not referring to diversity of opinions.
     
    It should be more than obvious if you read the Crimson article.

    Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.

    “Diversity of opinion is fine. Some opinions deserve to be mocked, however.”

    I agree that you deserve to be mocked out of your ass.

    Read More
  70. The single dumbest thing about the chubby kid’s case is how he goes on and on to defend the idea that Harvard should charge tuition, even bringing up his own case.

    While he plainly imagines he’s attacking Ron from the left, nothing could be further from the truth — as Ron makes perfectly clear. The kid obviously thinks that, because Ron is Horribly Right Wing Evil, everything Ron argues for must also be Horribly Right Wing Evil. He genuinely seems incapable of saying something like, Well, the idea of making tuition free at Harvard is a good one, but getting rid of Affirmative Action is a terrible one. It’s as if he’s been trained to think that the only way to assess a proposal is to consider the person proposing it. If the person is Evil, then everything he proposes is Evil; If the person is Good, everything he proposes is Good. And no doubt he believes — probably rightly — that his Socially Just audience will view it in the same way.

    The Asian kid at least has the good sense to agree with the Free Harvard part.

    Read More
  71. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris
    I'm a little confused about what you find so unfair about the Crimson's take. Yes, I agree they should have stated clearly that nothing in your writings suggests that you are racist. Then again, they don't exact allege that you are a racist either.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites? Why should you be immune to examination of the many conspiratorial article you publish here? These seem like worthy concerns to me.

    "I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum," is not a very convincing defense.

    Certainly you have the freedom to publish controversial views or to support academics and writers who you feel are important despite some other odious beliefs. But those decisions can be scrutinized. Particularly, people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions. Those reservations strike me as completely valid.

    “Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?”

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?
    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
    You don’t see the great achievement of the United States. You only see the blood that was shed in its creation. I see many places around the world that spilled more blood over longer period with nothing to show for it.
    I’m not the one to contest the fact that whites did spill a lot of blood, and a tragic price was paid in the creation of the New World. But what an achievement!

    Black Africans, yellow Asians, Arab Muslims, and etc have been conquering, enslaving, and killing on a large scale, but they never produced anything like Western Civ. They committed violence without positive consequence. Even in the 2oth century, Mao killed tens of millions and only ruined the economy. America killed fewer and achieved so much more. And whites had to rule America in its founding and development since they and only they held the formula of modern civilization. Imagine if America had been settled by tribal black Africans, feudal Japanese, Islamic hordes, and etc. They wouldn’t have founded and built the great American nation. And Anglos especially held the key to success. After all, compare Anglo-US and Latin-America settled by Spanish and Portuguese. If slavery is key to economic success, then Brazil should be much richer since it had more slave and for much longer.
    And even though the West did trade in slaves and etc, they eventually ended that stuff and spread a lot of good stuff too.

    So, what is wrong with white nationalism, especially when universalism has been rejected by the ‘left’ and people of color and Jews and homos and feminists who are all into IDENTITY politics. And it’s not just about victim interests. Jews are very powerful, but they still play identity politics, and indeed they demand that EVERYONE support Jewish/Zionist identity politics via AIPAC. And blacks routinely beat up and terrorize whites but they only bitch about their own victimhood.
    Epidemic of black-on-white violence owes to racial factors that cannot be overlooked.
    Women do better in school and much of the economy now. But they bitch and bitch about how they are oppressed by men. Homos are among the most privileged people but they push their agenda on everyone as if they are only spreading tolerance. They are into spreading tolerance. They are into forcing us to celebrate their deviant sexuality.
    All those identity politics are not only protected but encouraged.
    And whites, esp white males of conservative bent, are blamed for everything.
    And Conservatism Inc has totally cucked itself out to the likes of Sheldon Adelson, homo-libertarians, and even Al Sharpton.

    Also, PC has shut down so many voices. So, there is no longer any culture of controversy and contention. There is just the culture of consensus and coercion.

    When Wasps ruled America and when Jews/homos were on the rise to power, there was a culture of controversy and contention. Jews and homos needed a culture of controversy to challenge dominant narratives and values.

    Once Jews became the new ruling elites, the culture of controversy should have continued with all Americans speaking truth to the newly dominant Jewish power.
    But once Jews and homos got the power, they wanted no more of that.
    They had used the culture of contention and controversy to rise to power, but once they got the power, they no longer wanted anyone or any group to challenge them.
    We now live in a nation where people are afraid to oppose men using women’s washroom now.

    Given that the Democrats are into PC consensus, GOP is into PC consensus, the ‘left’ is into PC enforcement, homos are into homosexist tyranny, shrill feminists are into hysteria mode and hallucinating rape all over, neocons were given green light(by media and government) to mess up the world, and Jewish Wall Street was bailed out by Obama, and ‘gay marriage’ was passed without any national discussion in the MSM, is there any culture of controversy and contention left in America?

    It is only in the ‘fringes’. If mainstream American discourse was free of PC, the ‘fringe’ opinion wouldn’t matter. Real debate would happen at the core of American culture. But because PC and culture of coercive consensus so dominate the mainstream and media institutions, the ONLY place you are gonna find a real challenge to the status quo is from the fringes made up of people who are willing to pay the price of ruined careers to say their say.
    And more from the fringe right than from the fringe ‘left’ because the far left is still allowed to thrive in some corners of the academia(even if unwelcome in the media dominated by globalist oligarchs). So, the fringe ‘left’ — neo-Marxist, Che Guevara admirers, anarchists, 60 radical leftovers, etc — are still well-represented in academic discourse. You don’t get in trouble by praising Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, and Hollywood Ten in college.

    So, the fringe right and alt right are the last true bastions of speaking-truth-to-power and carrying on with the culture of controversy, contention, and courage.
    Of course, Alt Right and ‘fringe right’ have its share of cranks, nuts, extremists, paranoids, and etc. Paul Craig Roberts often go TOO FAR. As for the 14/88 Neo-Nazi at the far fringe of the right, they are utterly useless except for a laugh now and then.
    And if they gained great power, they too could turn censorious.

    But the only spirit of free speech, contention, and controversy is now found in the ‘fringe right’ because they are deemed most taboo by the coercive MSM that is into the culture of consensus and the academia that is for culture of consensus and some fringe leftist views but closed off to any views that is right of Conservatism Inc. Indeed, for many academics, even mainstream conservatism is more offensive than far left ideology. They love playing armchair revolutionaries.

    So, even as I find Crimson’s hostility to ‘white nationalism’ to be understandable, it is disingenuous of them to ignore Unz’s main reason for supporting fringe voices on the Right. It’s because it is ONLY THERE(and in some corners of fringe left) that any kind of challenge to the Consensus is evident. It’s only there that you find the spirit of Edward Snowden(though he’s a libertarian and not an identitarian).

    There was a time when people like Pat Buchanan were syndicated in newspapers all over the nation. Like him or not, he had a voice along with Libs and leftists.

    And there was a time when a popular columnist like Mike Royko could write something like this:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-11/news/1993162236_1_dark-alley-white-guys-sports-fans

    People had thicker skins and bigger balls back then.

    But the PC-lords took over colleges and media and enforced the culture of ‘sensitivity’ which meant certain groups — Jews, blacks, and homos especially — were never to be offended while one could be as insensitive to white folks, especially males, as one pleased.

    There was a time when personalities as colorful as Norman Mailer could have their say. And Mailer was prescient when he spoke of the dangers of ‘left totalitarianism’.
    Today, people are afraid even to crack a joke about Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.

    Just like a woman has a right to love a guy, hate a guy, accept a guy, or reject a guy, we should all be free to feel what we feel and speak honestly about what we feel and explain why. PC doesn’t allow it.
    We have to love Big Brotha.

    Read More
    • Agree: woodNfish
    • Replies: @Boris

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?
     
    The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.


    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
     
    It's not the white race, it's the idea of white supremacy.


    Epidemic of black-on-white violence
     
    There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I've crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year. You are almost three times more likely to die scuba diving one time.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.
     
    Wow, you really are the victim here, aren't you? You don't have to love anyone. No one is coming to arrest you. We're just pointing and laughing.
    , @Ragno
    I can't see why you're not one of the featured pundits here, as there's more nutritional content in one of your replies than in a great many of the big-name big-doming items found on these sites.

    Keep it up; you're developing a readership, and quickly!

  72. One of worst things a university can do is take political stances on controversial political issues. My alma matterCSU did when it refused to recognize Columbus Day. I thinks it’s a ridiculous, pretend holiday, but a University shouldn’t take a side. They should just stick to doing what they do best – making money.

    Read More
  73. I have never heard of that “Gay Germ” theory and dr. Cochran. So I looked him up and read several of his essays. He has a very arrogant style of writing. Must be his personality and narrow-mindedness (he is blinded, under the total spell of the evolutionary biology). But he might be right though still he is irritating like hell.

    Read More
  74. @Priss Factor
    "Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?"

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with 'white nationalism' in a nation that is all about identity politics?
    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
    You don't see the great achievement of the United States. You only see the blood that was shed in its creation. I see many places around the world that spilled more blood over longer period with nothing to show for it.
    I'm not the one to contest the fact that whites did spill a lot of blood, and a tragic price was paid in the creation of the New World. But what an achievement!

    Black Africans, yellow Asians, Arab Muslims, and etc have been conquering, enslaving, and killing on a large scale, but they never produced anything like Western Civ. They committed violence without positive consequence. Even in the 2oth century, Mao killed tens of millions and only ruined the economy. America killed fewer and achieved so much more. And whites had to rule America in its founding and development since they and only they held the formula of modern civilization. Imagine if America had been settled by tribal black Africans, feudal Japanese, Islamic hordes, and etc. They wouldn't have founded and built the great American nation. And Anglos especially held the key to success. After all, compare Anglo-US and Latin-America settled by Spanish and Portuguese. If slavery is key to economic success, then Brazil should be much richer since it had more slave and for much longer.
    And even though the West did trade in slaves and etc, they eventually ended that stuff and spread a lot of good stuff too.

    So, what is wrong with white nationalism, especially when universalism has been rejected by the 'left' and people of color and Jews and homos and feminists who are all into IDENTITY politics. And it's not just about victim interests. Jews are very powerful, but they still play identity politics, and indeed they demand that EVERYONE support Jewish/Zionist identity politics via AIPAC. And blacks routinely beat up and terrorize whites but they only bitch about their own victimhood.
    Epidemic of black-on-white violence owes to racial factors that cannot be overlooked.
    Women do better in school and much of the economy now. But they bitch and bitch about how they are oppressed by men. Homos are among the most privileged people but they push their agenda on everyone as if they are only spreading tolerance. They are into spreading tolerance. They are into forcing us to celebrate their deviant sexuality.
    All those identity politics are not only protected but encouraged.
    And whites, esp white males of conservative bent, are blamed for everything.
    And Conservatism Inc has totally cucked itself out to the likes of Sheldon Adelson, homo-libertarians, and even Al Sharpton.

    Also, PC has shut down so many voices. So, there is no longer any culture of controversy and contention. There is just the culture of consensus and coercion.

    When Wasps ruled America and when Jews/homos were on the rise to power, there was a culture of controversy and contention. Jews and homos needed a culture of controversy to challenge dominant narratives and values.

    Once Jews became the new ruling elites, the culture of controversy should have continued with all Americans speaking truth to the newly dominant Jewish power.
    But once Jews and homos got the power, they wanted no more of that.
    They had used the culture of contention and controversy to rise to power, but once they got the power, they no longer wanted anyone or any group to challenge them.
    We now live in a nation where people are afraid to oppose men using women's washroom now.

    Given that the Democrats are into PC consensus, GOP is into PC consensus, the 'left' is into PC enforcement, homos are into homosexist tyranny, shrill feminists are into hysteria mode and hallucinating rape all over, neocons were given green light(by media and government) to mess up the world, and Jewish Wall Street was bailed out by Obama, and 'gay marriage' was passed without any national discussion in the MSM, is there any culture of controversy and contention left in America?

    It is only in the 'fringes'. If mainstream American discourse was free of PC, the 'fringe' opinion wouldn't matter. Real debate would happen at the core of American culture. But because PC and culture of coercive consensus so dominate the mainstream and media institutions, the ONLY place you are gonna find a real challenge to the status quo is from the fringes made up of people who are willing to pay the price of ruined careers to say their say.
    And more from the fringe right than from the fringe 'left' because the far left is still allowed to thrive in some corners of the academia(even if unwelcome in the media dominated by globalist oligarchs). So, the fringe 'left' --- neo-Marxist, Che Guevara admirers, anarchists, 60 radical leftovers, etc --- are still well-represented in academic discourse. You don't get in trouble by praising Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, and Hollywood Ten in college.

    So, the fringe right and alt right are the last true bastions of speaking-truth-to-power and carrying on with the culture of controversy, contention, and courage.
    Of course, Alt Right and 'fringe right' have its share of cranks, nuts, extremists, paranoids, and etc. Paul Craig Roberts often go TOO FAR. As for the 14/88 Neo-Nazi at the far fringe of the right, they are utterly useless except for a laugh now and then.
    And if they gained great power, they too could turn censorious.

    But the only spirit of free speech, contention, and controversy is now found in the 'fringe right' because they are deemed most taboo by the coercive MSM that is into the culture of consensus and the academia that is for culture of consensus and some fringe leftist views but closed off to any views that is right of Conservatism Inc. Indeed, for many academics, even mainstream conservatism is more offensive than far left ideology. They love playing armchair revolutionaries.

    So, even as I find Crimson's hostility to 'white nationalism' to be understandable, it is disingenuous of them to ignore Unz's main reason for supporting fringe voices on the Right. It's because it is ONLY THERE(and in some corners of fringe left) that any kind of challenge to the Consensus is evident. It's only there that you find the spirit of Edward Snowden(though he's a libertarian and not an identitarian).

    There was a time when people like Pat Buchanan were syndicated in newspapers all over the nation. Like him or not, he had a voice along with Libs and leftists.

    And there was a time when a popular columnist like Mike Royko could write something like this:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-11/news/1993162236_1_dark-alley-white-guys-sports-fans

    People had thicker skins and bigger balls back then.

    But the PC-lords took over colleges and media and enforced the culture of 'sensitivity' which meant certain groups --- Jews, blacks, and homos especially --- were never to be offended while one could be as insensitive to white folks, especially males, as one pleased.

    There was a time when personalities as colorful as Norman Mailer could have their say. And Mailer was prescient when he spoke of the dangers of 'left totalitarianism'.
    Today, people are afraid even to crack a joke about Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZxp-wFF7o

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.

    Just like a woman has a right to love a guy, hate a guy, accept a guy, or reject a guy, we should all be free to feel what we feel and speak honestly about what we feel and explain why. PC doesn't allow it.
    We have to love Big Brotha.

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?

    The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.

    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.

    It’s not the white race, it’s the idea of white supremacy.

    Epidemic of black-on-white violence

    There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I’ve crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year. You are almost three times more likely to die scuba diving one time.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.

    Wow, you really are the victim here, aren’t you? You don’t have to love anyone. No one is coming to arrest you. We’re just pointing and laughing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law."

    Boris the Spider.

    Whites were favored historically, but every nation favors its own. Japan favors Japanese. China favors Chinese. Saudis favor Saudis. Black Africa favors Black Africans.

    So, there was nothing strange about white Americans favoring their own kind. They just seemed a bit hypocritical cuz they had this pompous Constitution with highfalutin talk.

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
    Suppose American Indians were given equal power and rights. Indians would have said, "white man no settle here. get lost. leave red men alone to hunt beaver and buffalo."
    Of course, the red man had reason to feel such sentiment, but such attitudes would have made America impossible.

    And then take the Negroes. They were a primitive lot in Africa. They came with tribal cultures that were illiterate and backward. And as they were stronger and more muscled than white folks, policy of racial equality would have led to blacks dominating whites in the South. And then, whites wouldn't have been able to build up an economy. Sure, slavery was wrong and blacks suffered. Sure, whites could have tried to civilize blacks more and faster. Sure, too many whites were too greedy to improve the lot of blacks. But the South would have turned into one big Haiti in the 19th century if blacks had been allowed to run free.

    If black African culture and attitude were given equal representation, US would have fallen apart. US had to be built as a western nation, and only white folks could do that. And they could do it ONLY if they had the power.

    Look at South Africa. I admit Apartheid was 'unfair'. But only whites could have built a first world economy in South Africa. So, the reason why SA became the richest black African nation prior to end of apartheid was because whites had the 'supremacy' to run things. Since blacks took over the nation, it's becoming more and more like Zimbabwe.
    Anyway, the ONLY reason why black South Africans inherited a much bigger economy is because whites had the power to run things their way. In contrast, black-ruled African nations had black supremacy of corruption and lack of talent that led to poverty and far greater violence than anything in South Africa.

    And look at Hong Kong. Sure, whites had privilege there and exclusive clubs where they prolly told chinaman jokes. Sure, one could call such privilege 'white supremacy'. But it was because Brits had dominant control of HK that it developed into something modern and new and was spared the Chinese supremacism of fat Mao. And Hong Kong served as a model for rest of China once Deng started the reforms. So, white supremacy in Hong Kong came to help the Chinese in the long run.

    White supremacism had its dark side but it gave whites, the most advanced and talented people in the world, the opportunity and advantage to do what no other people could do. So, US owes a great deal to white supremacism. Without it, America would have been poorer and less developed. Or it might never have existed.

    Look at Southwest areas of America. It was once Mexican-supremacist cuz Mexers owned it. But Anglo-Americans took it over and practiced Anglo-supremacism and did great wonders to the region. And even Mexer-Americans in SW lived much better under Anglo-American supremacism than Mexers lived under Mexer supremacism in Mexico. Indeed, why do Mexers cross into the US? Cuz they know Anglos run things better than Mexers back home. Even prior to the Civil Rights era, Mexicans were illegally coming to the US to live under Anglo-Texan-Californian supremacism since Anglos did things better, cleaner, and saner than Mexican supremacists in Mexico who were into corruption and tacos.

    And the Rule of Law was best practiced by northern European whites. So, nations that were northern-european-supremacist were much better at establishing rule of law.
    In contrast, a Latin American nations like Brazil and Argentina had Latin/Spanish supremacism, and they ran pretty corrupt systems.

    Paradoxically, it was white supremacism that allowed greater eventual freedom and justice for non-whites as well. Cuz whites were most talented and had the supremacist power to realize their vision of modernity, there was eventually enough wealth and opportunities to go around and could be shared with non-whites as well.

    After all, that is why even black Americans never wanted to go back to Africa. They prefer a nation created by white supremacy than black supremacist nations of Africa where blacks mess up things with all the power they got.

    "There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I’ve crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year."

    You speak as a privileged whitey. A lot of white Americans live in areas with very few blacks or no blacks. They are safe. You surely live in a privileged gated community of safety.

    But if you look at the data for whites who live in proximity with lots of blacks, the stats are much grimmer.
    Also, you only take murder into account. You don't taken into account the bullying, the taunting, the rapes, the robberies, the knockout games, and all the crazy behavior that is all too common among blacks.
    , @Thea
    Compare black on white crime to white on black crime to see the real difference. Rapes and burglaries in particular.

    One group attacks the other groups in much bigger numbers. Guess which one?
    , @dc.sunsets
    No one is coming for me because I don't have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.
    No one is coming for me...well, they are coming for my money (to fund all sorts of attempts to make blacks as a group as successful as the Magic Negroes on TV.)

    I'd be almost as unhappy to see my grandkids marry (or hook up with) stupid whites as any black or US Latino (since most of the latter are of mostly Mayan ancestry.) Does this make me a racist or an elitist? I'll take Elitist any day, week, month or year. I prefer my extended family be smart, not stupid.

    Here's a wild notion: Since NAM's dislike us so much for our feeling superior, let's just agree to part company, okay? You be you. We'll be us. Separately. No more cross-race subsidies. No more white cops policing black ghettos. No more taxing the upper middle class to fund meaningless Head Start or after-school basketball programs.

    On the inside, I'm pointing and laughing too. I know what this would produce. You do, too.

    PS: There are numerically more whites than blacks in the USA below the IQ cutoff for the Army. Proportionally, however, almost half of all blacks are that low. Does that make whites superior, the same or inferior? It depends on which whites and which blacks, doesn't it?
  75. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?
     
    The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.


    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
     
    It's not the white race, it's the idea of white supremacy.


    Epidemic of black-on-white violence
     
    There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I've crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year. You are almost three times more likely to die scuba diving one time.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.
     
    Wow, you really are the victim here, aren't you? You don't have to love anyone. No one is coming to arrest you. We're just pointing and laughing.

    “The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.”

    Boris the Spider.

    Whites were favored historically, but every nation favors its own. Japan favors Japanese. China favors Chinese. Saudis favor Saudis. Black Africa favors Black Africans.

    So, there was nothing strange about white Americans favoring their own kind. They just seemed a bit hypocritical cuz they had this pompous Constitution with highfalutin talk.

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
    Suppose American Indians were given equal power and rights. Indians would have said, “white man no settle here. get lost. leave red men alone to hunt beaver and buffalo.”
    Of course, the red man had reason to feel such sentiment, but such attitudes would have made America impossible.

    And then take the Negroes. They were a primitive lot in Africa. They came with tribal cultures that were illiterate and backward. And as they were stronger and more muscled than white folks, policy of racial equality would have led to blacks dominating whites in the South. And then, whites wouldn’t have been able to build up an economy. Sure, slavery was wrong and blacks suffered. Sure, whites could have tried to civilize blacks more and faster. Sure, too many whites were too greedy to improve the lot of blacks. But the South would have turned into one big Haiti in the 19th century if blacks had been allowed to run free.

    If black African culture and attitude were given equal representation, US would have fallen apart. US had to be built as a western nation, and only white folks could do that. And they could do it ONLY if they had the power.

    Look at South Africa. I admit Apartheid was ‘unfair’. But only whites could have built a first world economy in South Africa. So, the reason why SA became the richest black African nation prior to end of apartheid was because whites had the ‘supremacy’ to run things. Since blacks took over the nation, it’s becoming more and more like Zimbabwe.
    Anyway, the ONLY reason why black South Africans inherited a much bigger economy is because whites had the power to run things their way. In contrast, black-ruled African nations had black supremacy of corruption and lack of talent that led to poverty and far greater violence than anything in South Africa.

    And look at Hong Kong. Sure, whites had privilege there and exclusive clubs where they prolly told chinaman jokes. Sure, one could call such privilege ‘white supremacy’. But it was because Brits had dominant control of HK that it developed into something modern and new and was spared the Chinese supremacism of fat Mao. And Hong Kong served as a model for rest of China once Deng started the reforms. So, white supremacy in Hong Kong came to help the Chinese in the long run.

    White supremacism had its dark side but it gave whites, the most advanced and talented people in the world, the opportunity and advantage to do what no other people could do. So, US owes a great deal to white supremacism. Without it, America would have been poorer and less developed. Or it might never have existed.

    Look at Southwest areas of America. It was once Mexican-supremacist cuz Mexers owned it. But Anglo-Americans took it over and practiced Anglo-supremacism and did great wonders to the region. And even Mexer-Americans in SW lived much better under Anglo-American supremacism than Mexers lived under Mexer supremacism in Mexico. Indeed, why do Mexers cross into the US? Cuz they know Anglos run things better than Mexers back home. Even prior to the Civil Rights era, Mexicans were illegally coming to the US to live under Anglo-Texan-Californian supremacism since Anglos did things better, cleaner, and saner than Mexican supremacists in Mexico who were into corruption and tacos.

    And the Rule of Law was best practiced by northern European whites. So, nations that were northern-european-supremacist were much better at establishing rule of law.
    In contrast, a Latin American nations like Brazil and Argentina had Latin/Spanish supremacism, and they ran pretty corrupt systems.

    Paradoxically, it was white supremacism that allowed greater eventual freedom and justice for non-whites as well. Cuz whites were most talented and had the supremacist power to realize their vision of modernity, there was eventually enough wealth and opportunities to go around and could be shared with non-whites as well.

    After all, that is why even black Americans never wanted to go back to Africa. They prefer a nation created by white supremacy than black supremacist nations of Africa where blacks mess up things with all the power they got.

    “There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I’ve crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year.”

    You speak as a privileged whitey. A lot of white Americans live in areas with very few blacks or no blacks. They are safe. You surely live in a privileged gated community of safety.

    But if you look at the data for whites who live in proximity with lots of blacks, the stats are much grimmer.
    Also, you only take murder into account. You don’t taken into account the bullying, the taunting, the rapes, the robberies, the knockout games, and all the crazy behavior that is all too common among blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Always interesting. Always entertaining.
    , @Boris

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
     
    Yes, of course. You seem to think that one race must be favored, but obviously the success of the US could have been possible based on equal laws. In fact, it would have succeeded more quickly and smoothly. Civil wars tend to slow down progress.

    Note that this is true EVEN IF white people are superior.
  76. @Boris

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?
     
    The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.


    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
     
    It's not the white race, it's the idea of white supremacy.


    Epidemic of black-on-white violence
     
    There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I've crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year. You are almost three times more likely to die scuba diving one time.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.
     
    Wow, you really are the victim here, aren't you? You don't have to love anyone. No one is coming to arrest you. We're just pointing and laughing.

    Compare black on white crime to white on black crime to see the real difference. Rapes and burglaries in particular.

    One group attacks the other groups in much bigger numbers. Guess which one?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    Poor people do tend to commit more crime. Victims of crimes by blacks tend to be disproportionately black, so it's bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.
  77. I read this article, and learned that Mr. Unz never had a “Stasi File” something he brags about in the title! So he is a liar!

    Yes, this is humor, but I’m really disappointed. I wanted to know what the East Germans thought of him. Meanwhile, I’m sure the young writers at the Crimson had to google Stasi.

    Read More
  78. @Priss Factor
    "The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law."

    Boris the Spider.

    Whites were favored historically, but every nation favors its own. Japan favors Japanese. China favors Chinese. Saudis favor Saudis. Black Africa favors Black Africans.

    So, there was nothing strange about white Americans favoring their own kind. They just seemed a bit hypocritical cuz they had this pompous Constitution with highfalutin talk.

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
    Suppose American Indians were given equal power and rights. Indians would have said, "white man no settle here. get lost. leave red men alone to hunt beaver and buffalo."
    Of course, the red man had reason to feel such sentiment, but such attitudes would have made America impossible.

    And then take the Negroes. They were a primitive lot in Africa. They came with tribal cultures that were illiterate and backward. And as they were stronger and more muscled than white folks, policy of racial equality would have led to blacks dominating whites in the South. And then, whites wouldn't have been able to build up an economy. Sure, slavery was wrong and blacks suffered. Sure, whites could have tried to civilize blacks more and faster. Sure, too many whites were too greedy to improve the lot of blacks. But the South would have turned into one big Haiti in the 19th century if blacks had been allowed to run free.

    If black African culture and attitude were given equal representation, US would have fallen apart. US had to be built as a western nation, and only white folks could do that. And they could do it ONLY if they had the power.

    Look at South Africa. I admit Apartheid was 'unfair'. But only whites could have built a first world economy in South Africa. So, the reason why SA became the richest black African nation prior to end of apartheid was because whites had the 'supremacy' to run things. Since blacks took over the nation, it's becoming more and more like Zimbabwe.
    Anyway, the ONLY reason why black South Africans inherited a much bigger economy is because whites had the power to run things their way. In contrast, black-ruled African nations had black supremacy of corruption and lack of talent that led to poverty and far greater violence than anything in South Africa.

    And look at Hong Kong. Sure, whites had privilege there and exclusive clubs where they prolly told chinaman jokes. Sure, one could call such privilege 'white supremacy'. But it was because Brits had dominant control of HK that it developed into something modern and new and was spared the Chinese supremacism of fat Mao. And Hong Kong served as a model for rest of China once Deng started the reforms. So, white supremacy in Hong Kong came to help the Chinese in the long run.

    White supremacism had its dark side but it gave whites, the most advanced and talented people in the world, the opportunity and advantage to do what no other people could do. So, US owes a great deal to white supremacism. Without it, America would have been poorer and less developed. Or it might never have existed.

    Look at Southwest areas of America. It was once Mexican-supremacist cuz Mexers owned it. But Anglo-Americans took it over and practiced Anglo-supremacism and did great wonders to the region. And even Mexer-Americans in SW lived much better under Anglo-American supremacism than Mexers lived under Mexer supremacism in Mexico. Indeed, why do Mexers cross into the US? Cuz they know Anglos run things better than Mexers back home. Even prior to the Civil Rights era, Mexicans were illegally coming to the US to live under Anglo-Texan-Californian supremacism since Anglos did things better, cleaner, and saner than Mexican supremacists in Mexico who were into corruption and tacos.

    And the Rule of Law was best practiced by northern European whites. So, nations that were northern-european-supremacist were much better at establishing rule of law.
    In contrast, a Latin American nations like Brazil and Argentina had Latin/Spanish supremacism, and they ran pretty corrupt systems.

    Paradoxically, it was white supremacism that allowed greater eventual freedom and justice for non-whites as well. Cuz whites were most talented and had the supremacist power to realize their vision of modernity, there was eventually enough wealth and opportunities to go around and could be shared with non-whites as well.

    After all, that is why even black Americans never wanted to go back to Africa. They prefer a nation created by white supremacy than black supremacist nations of Africa where blacks mess up things with all the power they got.

    "There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I’ve crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year."

    You speak as a privileged whitey. A lot of white Americans live in areas with very few blacks or no blacks. They are safe. You surely live in a privileged gated community of safety.

    But if you look at the data for whites who live in proximity with lots of blacks, the stats are much grimmer.
    Also, you only take murder into account. You don't taken into account the bullying, the taunting, the rapes, the robberies, the knockout games, and all the crazy behavior that is all too common among blacks.

    Always interesting. Always entertaining.

    Read More
  79. @Ron Unz

    How did the ‘over 60 percent of my donations [... to TAC]‘ become ’75 percent’?
     
    What happened was that in the quick draft of my response I sent them I cited 75% from memory, then when I went back and looked at the numbers, it was probably a bit under 65%, so I sent them a correction, but they must have missed it.

    Regarding one of the frequent sentiments expressed in this comment-thread, I *really* don't think my response came across as "defensive." Instead, I think it made the Crimson people look totally ridiculous, which is why they refused to publish it.

    And Steve Pinker's Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a "maverick," a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a "smear," a very negative term. All sorts of pretty prominent leftists, liberals, and rightwingers have been sending me outraged notes about the silly Crimson article, so maybe the Stasi people will end up getting a few of their teeth broken for trying to bite the wrong fellow...

    And Steve Pinker’s Tweet to his 236K Followers was hardly hostile: he described me as a “maverick,” a very positive term in political circles, and the Crimson article as a “smear,” a very negative term.

    Twitter has moved to a Facebook-like algorithm, so Pinker’s Tweet will only reach a fraction of his 236K followers. You will never know the exact fraction, but it will certainly be less than 236K.

    (Not that it matters, but I don’t read the fucking Crimson, and I would have died happily without reading the Crimson‘s output. But while the subject is on the table, Unz is scrupulously complete. This is what honesty looks like, fucking Crimson.)

    Read More
  80. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    Ron,

    Don't apologize. That can be fatal. And don't distance yourself from your friends and concede things you don't have to concede.

    For instance, you weaken yourself—and harm someone you've supported—by saying "Dr. Cochran is an extreme rightwinger." First, that statement is false. Second, you didn't have to say it. Third, most people process the concept of "extremist" as meaning a potential terrorist. I'm sure you can protest "That's not what I meant!" but that's what a lot of people just heard you say. And you didn't have to say it.

    Same thing with VDARE. You didn't have to describe it as "a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine." First, that statement is false. VDARE may be opposed to large-scale immigration, but it's not "anti-immigrant." How can it be when the editor himself is an immigrant, as are many of its contributors. One of its regular contributors is married to a Mexican immigrant. Second, aside from the immigration issue, its contributors tend to be middle of the road politically.

    You should have gone on the attack. You should have ridiculed an immigration policy that will make the American population surge to almost half a billion by mid-century. Make your opponents look like extremists. Not your friends.

    Just want to wholeheartedly second Peter’s point here:

    Don’t apologize. That can be fatal. And don’t distance yourself from your friends and concede things you don’t have to concede … Make your opponents look like extremists. Not your friends.

    Read More
  81. @Ragno

    Much of the Crimson article focused on my financial support to VDare, a rightwing and very hard-core anti-immigrant webzine.......But as everyone knows from the hundreds of thousands of words I have published on immigration-related topics, I’ve always been one of America’s leading pro-immigrant voices, hence almost invariably on the exact opposite side from VDare
     
    In other words, had you generally agreed with VDare on immigration, you're kinda-sorta conceding that you'd be beyond the pale of acceptable/allowable public discourse and unworthy of a voice in your own government; thus, any measures taken to prevent you from ever attaining that voice would not only be legal but just, and represent the highest standards of a modern democracy.

    Mr Unz, I'm grateful for your website and your catholic breadth of tolerance, but I'm not sure if you grasp what a godawful thing the utter and unquestioned supremacy of the cultural Marxists in public life truly is; how they now stride in unison with the provocative swagger of the bully who knows any confrontation he might face will be pre-fixed to his insurmountable advantage.

    You're about to find out, though: they're going to hammer hammer hammer away at this one ideological gravy stain on the bib of your life and turn this election - your role in it, at least - into a one-issue referendum. If you have any testimonials to your character from rappers, or Mexicans - or Mexican rappers! - have them ready at hand, and utilize them often.

    And good luck!

    This is very well-expressed. Mr. Unz has shown a remarkable propensity to support causes and ideas that he does not share. This, in and of itself, is quite remarkable and perhaps admirable. But as you address in your comment, he should not have to apologize for that support and he should be more bold in defending his actions.

    Nothing is served by caving in to the totalitarian instincts of the cultural Marxists by pandering to them and saying things like: ” I essentially agree with everything you say about those crazy right-wingers, I just gave them some money!”

    The cultural Marxists control virtually everything in our society today, and they need to be challenged. And that challenge requires men of courage who are not afraid to defend what they believe (or have supported), even if it means that they will be called extremists or racists. The cultural Marxists are not just control freaks with bad ideas, they are an ever present threat to individual freedom and our Republic. And if history is any guide, and it should be, their controlling impulses can lead to mass murder against those who disagree with them.

    Don’t cave to the monsters Mr. Unz! We either fight them now with words and ideas, or we will certainly be forced to fight them in the future with arms.

    Read More
  82. @Mike Zwick
    BTW, another hole in the Gay Germ theory is that almost all of the gay people I know, men and women, have kids. There may have been environmental pressure against being gay in evolutionary history, but there was even stronger social pressure for gay people to conform. This is in all societies. Most marriages were arraigned up until quite recently and even where they were not arraigned, the pressure to fit in and have a family was very strong. If there is a gay gene it could have been passed from generation to generation by the strength of peer pressure alone.

    It’s exactly one of my theory about the lower heritability of homossexuality. But schizophrenic people also tend to have lower fertility and the ”heritability” of this phenotypes tend to be higher.

    Maybe as happen with dizygotic twins with higher co-occurence of different gender among them (girl and boy) similar situation can happen with homossexuality and twins.

    We are not just talking about quantitative value but also about the nature of every human phenotype. The current nature of homossexuality is to have lower heritability as well happen with light eyes in the pre-historic european past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    FYI, "homosexuality" is spelled with one 's'.

    This from Karl Radl:

    "I think the most sensible point was made by Glen Wilson in his 1992 'The Great Sex Divide' when he argued that the increase in modern homosexual behaviour results from social normalization and the promotion of it as a desirable alternative (i.e. 'it is cool', 'I don't have kids to feed', 'I get lots of sex' etc.

    He adheres to the idea (as I do) that there is an underlying level of homosexuality deriving from genetics (studying the animal kingdom itself suggests as much) but that most modern homosexuals are nothing of the kind.

    They are rather a mix of those who view it as a better lifestyle than that of a heterosexual (hence the huge rise in 'bisexuality'), use it to attract heterosexual mates (faux lipstick lesbian style), have had issues/trauma with the opposite gender (battered wives/husbands losing everything in a divorce), have a hard time attracting mates of the other sex (i.e. manlets and land-whales) etc.
    Not from there being a biological cause in most cases, but rather because it is seem as a more desirable option for any of the above reasons.

    Exhibit A on how this works was classical Greece, Assyria and Babylon. All of which promulgated social norms [e.g. the common interpretation of the Spartan agoge]/institutions [e.g. the Theban Sacred Band] or laws (Assyrian/Babylonian law codes which rigorously prosecuted adultery in heterosexual relationships but positively encouraged homosexuality by not legislating against it or shagging most animals for that matter).

    The latter has also been making quite the come back recently.

    As an aside John Baker in his 1974 'Race' made the observation that homosexuality increases significantly in domesticated animals when compared to their wild counterparts. He then reminds us that humans are extremely domesticated animals."
  83. @Priss Factor
    "The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law."

    Boris the Spider.

    Whites were favored historically, but every nation favors its own. Japan favors Japanese. China favors Chinese. Saudis favor Saudis. Black Africa favors Black Africans.

    So, there was nothing strange about white Americans favoring their own kind. They just seemed a bit hypocritical cuz they had this pompous Constitution with highfalutin talk.

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
    Suppose American Indians were given equal power and rights. Indians would have said, "white man no settle here. get lost. leave red men alone to hunt beaver and buffalo."
    Of course, the red man had reason to feel such sentiment, but such attitudes would have made America impossible.

    And then take the Negroes. They were a primitive lot in Africa. They came with tribal cultures that were illiterate and backward. And as they were stronger and more muscled than white folks, policy of racial equality would have led to blacks dominating whites in the South. And then, whites wouldn't have been able to build up an economy. Sure, slavery was wrong and blacks suffered. Sure, whites could have tried to civilize blacks more and faster. Sure, too many whites were too greedy to improve the lot of blacks. But the South would have turned into one big Haiti in the 19th century if blacks had been allowed to run free.

    If black African culture and attitude were given equal representation, US would have fallen apart. US had to be built as a western nation, and only white folks could do that. And they could do it ONLY if they had the power.

    Look at South Africa. I admit Apartheid was 'unfair'. But only whites could have built a first world economy in South Africa. So, the reason why SA became the richest black African nation prior to end of apartheid was because whites had the 'supremacy' to run things. Since blacks took over the nation, it's becoming more and more like Zimbabwe.
    Anyway, the ONLY reason why black South Africans inherited a much bigger economy is because whites had the power to run things their way. In contrast, black-ruled African nations had black supremacy of corruption and lack of talent that led to poverty and far greater violence than anything in South Africa.

    And look at Hong Kong. Sure, whites had privilege there and exclusive clubs where they prolly told chinaman jokes. Sure, one could call such privilege 'white supremacy'. But it was because Brits had dominant control of HK that it developed into something modern and new and was spared the Chinese supremacism of fat Mao. And Hong Kong served as a model for rest of China once Deng started the reforms. So, white supremacy in Hong Kong came to help the Chinese in the long run.

    White supremacism had its dark side but it gave whites, the most advanced and talented people in the world, the opportunity and advantage to do what no other people could do. So, US owes a great deal to white supremacism. Without it, America would have been poorer and less developed. Or it might never have existed.

    Look at Southwest areas of America. It was once Mexican-supremacist cuz Mexers owned it. But Anglo-Americans took it over and practiced Anglo-supremacism and did great wonders to the region. And even Mexer-Americans in SW lived much better under Anglo-American supremacism than Mexers lived under Mexer supremacism in Mexico. Indeed, why do Mexers cross into the US? Cuz they know Anglos run things better than Mexers back home. Even prior to the Civil Rights era, Mexicans were illegally coming to the US to live under Anglo-Texan-Californian supremacism since Anglos did things better, cleaner, and saner than Mexican supremacists in Mexico who were into corruption and tacos.

    And the Rule of Law was best practiced by northern European whites. So, nations that were northern-european-supremacist were much better at establishing rule of law.
    In contrast, a Latin American nations like Brazil and Argentina had Latin/Spanish supremacism, and they ran pretty corrupt systems.

    Paradoxically, it was white supremacism that allowed greater eventual freedom and justice for non-whites as well. Cuz whites were most talented and had the supremacist power to realize their vision of modernity, there was eventually enough wealth and opportunities to go around and could be shared with non-whites as well.

    After all, that is why even black Americans never wanted to go back to Africa. They prefer a nation created by white supremacy than black supremacist nations of Africa where blacks mess up things with all the power they got.

    "There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I’ve crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year."

    You speak as a privileged whitey. A lot of white Americans live in areas with very few blacks or no blacks. They are safe. You surely live in a privileged gated community of safety.

    But if you look at the data for whites who live in proximity with lots of blacks, the stats are much grimmer.
    Also, you only take murder into account. You don't taken into account the bullying, the taunting, the rapes, the robberies, the knockout games, and all the crazy behavior that is all too common among blacks.

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?

    Yes, of course. You seem to think that one race must be favored, but obviously the success of the US could have been possible based on equal laws. In fact, it would have succeeded more quickly and smoothly. Civil wars tend to slow down progress.

    Note that this is true EVEN IF white people are superior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "US could have been possible based on equal laws."

    But the supremacy of western laws had to be secured and established first. And that required white dominance since other cultures had different values and laws.

    Why is it so difficult to create western-style democracies abroad?

    Cuz if you allow equal freedom and democracy among the locals, the folks there favor their own values, like electing Muslim Brotherhood to government.

    Could Hong Kong have been possible if Brits gave Hong Kongese equal freedom and power at the outset? No, the Chinese would have insisted on doing things in their own 'feudal' ways.

    So,Brits had to use white supremacism to first establish the western anglo way in Hong Kong before the chinese there could take part in it once it became the new norm of doing things.

    Indeed, even equality had to brought about and enforced through violent means.
    It had to forced on the south by war and reconstruction.

    And Germany and Japan were forced to be democratic by war and invasion.

    So, even democracy was spread through military supremacism.

    And how was slavery ended around the world? Sheer power of western supremacism that forced other civilizations to end the practice... or else.

    And how was communism, the radical ideology of equality, brought about?
    Through the ideological and political supremacism of the soviets. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    Could communism have been possible if everyone had been given freedom to choose it or not?
    So, you see, even equality had to be forced on people by taking choice way from them.

    Equal freedom of individuality leads to huge economic disparities, and communism couldn't tolerate such 'injustice'.

    Racial 'equality' also leads to huge disparities since some races are better than others in either brain or brawn.

  84. @Thea
    Compare black on white crime to white on black crime to see the real difference. Rapes and burglaries in particular.

    One group attacks the other groups in much bigger numbers. Guess which one?

    Poor people do tend to commit more crime. Victims of crimes by blacks tend to be disproportionately black, so it’s bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    so it’s bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.

    Definitely not bizarre.

    If one keeps score by race then whites are disproportionately victimized by black criminals.

    If blacks are 12% of the population then only 12% of black perpetrated crime should be against whites.

    It's not that complicated.
    , @Priss Factor
    Wrong.

    Poor blacks commit far more crime than poor non-blacks.

    Middle class blacks are more trouble than poor whites.

    Blacks as main victims of black crime is a thing of the past.
    Majority of victims are now non-black.
  85. Hey, how ’bout a hand for that Harvard audio-visual department? They really outdid themselves on this overseer debate! They really are a bunch of geniuses.

    A very interesting discussion, but I stopped listening ’cause I could hardly hear a fucking thing. Like a junior high school level production. Or maybe they were feigning poverty so the school wouldn’t go to free tuition. :)

    Read More
  86. @Boris
    Poor people do tend to commit more crime. Victims of crimes by blacks tend to be disproportionately black, so it's bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.

    so it’s bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.

    Definitely not bizarre.

    If one keeps score by race then whites are disproportionately victimized by black criminals.

    If blacks are 12% of the population then only 12% of black perpetrated crime should be against whites.

    It’s not that complicated.

    Read More
  87. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris
    Poor people do tend to commit more crime. Victims of crimes by blacks tend to be disproportionately black, so it's bizarre to argue that whites are being targeted.

    Wrong.

    Poor blacks commit far more crime than poor non-blacks.

    Middle class blacks are more trouble than poor whites.

    Blacks as main victims of black crime is a thing of the past.
    Majority of victims are now non-black.

    Read More
  88. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    At any rate, could Great Modern America have been possible if whites were not favored?
     
    Yes, of course. You seem to think that one race must be favored, but obviously the success of the US could have been possible based on equal laws. In fact, it would have succeeded more quickly and smoothly. Civil wars tend to slow down progress.

    Note that this is true EVEN IF white people are superior.

    “US could have been possible based on equal laws.”

    But the supremacy of western laws had to be secured and established first. And that required white dominance since other cultures had different values and laws.

    Why is it so difficult to create western-style democracies abroad?

    Cuz if you allow equal freedom and democracy among the locals, the folks there favor their own values, like electing Muslim Brotherhood to government.

    Could Hong Kong have been possible if Brits gave Hong Kongese equal freedom and power at the outset? No, the Chinese would have insisted on doing things in their own ‘feudal’ ways.

    So,Brits had to use white supremacism to first establish the western anglo way in Hong Kong before the chinese there could take part in it once it became the new norm of doing things.

    Indeed, even equality had to brought about and enforced through violent means.
    It had to forced on the south by war and reconstruction.

    And Germany and Japan were forced to be democratic by war and invasion.

    So, even democracy was spread through military supremacism.

    And how was slavery ended around the world? Sheer power of western supremacism that forced other civilizations to end the practice… or else.

    And how was communism, the radical ideology of equality, brought about?
    Through the ideological and political supremacism of the soviets. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    Could communism have been possible if everyone had been given freedom to choose it or not?
    So, you see, even equality had to be forced on people by taking choice way from them.

    Equal freedom of individuality leads to huge economic disparities, and communism couldn’t tolerate such ‘injustice’.

    Racial ‘equality’ also leads to huge disparities since some races are better than others in either brain or brawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Slavery has not been ended in the world. It is still alive and well in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. It just isn't PC to point that out because none of those populations is white - so the lame-stream, lapdog media ignores it.
  89. @Stan d Mute
    As much as I respect and admire Ron's dedication and devotion to free speech and unfettered debate, I can't help but think the times have passed him by and made him an unwelcome anachronism in contemporary politics. Nobody cares about opposing viewpoints today other than as a strawman they can ridicule and propagandize for the day's two minutes of hate. The elite (I'm not fond of that label, but currently lack a better one) political stance is that "diversity" (meaning anti-white and anti-Western Civ) is the most important public good. Objectivity and empirical truth, inasmuch as they most often refute "diversity" as a positive benefit, must therefore be unequivocally evil artifacts of white male patriarchy. Ron appears to favor meritocracy based on objective measurements. This is wholly unacceptable in today's environment where a short white man can decide he is actually a very tall Asian woman and everyone must pretend that this is in fact true.

    https://youtu.be/xfO1veFs6Ho

    And, perhaps most importantly, objectivity strongly disfavors the African. It matters nothing if Asians outscore whites in cognitive testing and income. And Jews are "white enough" when comparing SAT scores or crime rates. The *only* consideration is whether Africans compare favorably and if they do not, then objectivity is deemed "racist." By this standard alone, Ron is obviously a white hooded Klansman with single-minded determination to harm Africans based solely on the color of their skin. Even if, by some electoral white privilege juju, Ron did somehow win either the Harvard or California election, he would be immediately sidelined and spend his entire short tenure futilely trying to defend himself against charges of being a white supremacist. Really the only thing one needs to know in 2016 is that truth is racist and reality is racist, sexist, and homophobic. I understand only too well that Ron needs to fight the good fight as he sees it, but from a pragmatic perspective, he is simply throwing away his wealth.

    You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Ron Unz’s political efforts are at least in part an attempt to apply a kind of 1940s civic gentlemanliness to the pornographic chaos of the contemporary public sphere. Unz’s ability to bring a positive contribution is hampered by his refusal to acknowledge that this is no longer a sport. It is a war.

    Read More
  90. I express general trust in the wisdom of a good person,
    of our beloved Mr. Unz, who is arguing for “free-tuition HU undergrad. program”.

    However, had somebody collected statistics,
    how much more (in median of distribution)
    the person who successfully went through HU undergraduate program
    earns during the lifetime ?
    I mean earns more, in comparison with person having non-Ivy-league diploma.

    I almost sure that it will more than compensate the spending on HU tuition.
    Therefore a loan for the purpose of getting HU undergraduate diploma
    does not seem to me so unjust.
    So, I do not think that many potential applicants will reject HU admission offer
    based on even full tuition requirement.
    It is a matter of life choices, “delayed gratification”.

    Sorry if I have offended some participants of the discussion.

    On a personal note, only one my relative dealt with Harvard University,
    and it was post-doc work, where HU paid him, and not in the opposite direction.
    Therefore I do not have personal experience
    to talk about HU undergraduate tuition.
    But post-doc’s remuneration (yes, I have recently learned this word)
    was almost below living wage in Boston area.
    The logic of HU is this:
    a person who wants “HU post-doc experience” in resume,
    will be ready to tolerate low remuneration.

    “Life is not fair. But consider the alternative.”
    A late colleague from LLNL, California.

    Read More
  91. @Boris

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with ‘white nationalism’ in a nation that is all about identity politics?
     
    The identity politics in the US are mostly a reaction to explicit white supremacy codified into law.


    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
     
    It's not the white race, it's the idea of white supremacy.


    Epidemic of black-on-white violence
     
    There is no epidemic of black on white violence. I've crunched the numbers before: the chances of a white person being murdered by a black person are 2 in 1,000,000 per year. You are almost three times more likely to die scuba diving one time.

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.
     
    Wow, you really are the victim here, aren't you? You don't have to love anyone. No one is coming to arrest you. We're just pointing and laughing.

    No one is coming for me because I don’t have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.
    No one is coming for me…well, they are coming for my money (to fund all sorts of attempts to make blacks as a group as successful as the Magic Negroes on TV.)

    I’d be almost as unhappy to see my grandkids marry (or hook up with) stupid whites as any black or US Latino (since most of the latter are of mostly Mayan ancestry.) Does this make me a racist or an elitist? I’ll take Elitist any day, week, month or year. I prefer my extended family be smart, not stupid.

    Here’s a wild notion: Since NAM’s dislike us so much for our feeling superior, let’s just agree to part company, okay? You be you. We’ll be us. Separately. No more cross-race subsidies. No more white cops policing black ghettos. No more taxing the upper middle class to fund meaningless Head Start or after-school basketball programs.

    On the inside, I’m pointing and laughing too. I know what this would produce. You do, too.

    PS: There are numerically more whites than blacks in the USA below the IQ cutoff for the Army. Proportionally, however, almost half of all blacks are that low. Does that make whites superior, the same or inferior? It depends on which whites and which blacks, doesn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    No one is coming for me because I don’t have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.
     
    If you have views that are so unpopular you can't get a job, then that's too bad. You are more racist than elitist, by the way.
  92. @Boris
    I'm a little confused about what you find so unfair about the Crimson's take. Yes, I agree they should have stated clearly that nothing in your writings suggests that you are racist. Then again, they don't exact allege that you are a racist either.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites? Why should you be immune to examination of the many conspiratorial article you publish here? These seem like worthy concerns to me.

    "I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum," is not a very convincing defense.

    Certainly you have the freedom to publish controversial views or to support academics and writers who you feel are important despite some other odious beliefs. But those decisions can be scrutinized. Particularly, people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions. Those reservations strike me as completely valid.

    “I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum,” is not a very convincing defense.

    A defense of what? – the constitutional right to publish them?

    Leftist nuance: the ability to parse meaningful subtleties not visible to the naked eye. But only from one vantage point.

    Read More
  93. @John Jeremiah Smith
    What? You sent a carefully-considered, well-written rebuttal/response to the Harvard Conspiracy? I would have shit in an air-tight box and FedExed it.

    Couldn’t merely ‘agree’ with this; it needed to be hailed, with a stiff-arm salute.

    Read More
  94. @Priss Factor
    "Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?"

    I think that is fair game too, but what is wrong with 'white nationalism' in a nation that is all about identity politics?
    I know you think that white race is the cancer of society/history and deserves special blame for everything.
    You don't see the great achievement of the United States. You only see the blood that was shed in its creation. I see many places around the world that spilled more blood over longer period with nothing to show for it.
    I'm not the one to contest the fact that whites did spill a lot of blood, and a tragic price was paid in the creation of the New World. But what an achievement!

    Black Africans, yellow Asians, Arab Muslims, and etc have been conquering, enslaving, and killing on a large scale, but they never produced anything like Western Civ. They committed violence without positive consequence. Even in the 2oth century, Mao killed tens of millions and only ruined the economy. America killed fewer and achieved so much more. And whites had to rule America in its founding and development since they and only they held the formula of modern civilization. Imagine if America had been settled by tribal black Africans, feudal Japanese, Islamic hordes, and etc. They wouldn't have founded and built the great American nation. And Anglos especially held the key to success. After all, compare Anglo-US and Latin-America settled by Spanish and Portuguese. If slavery is key to economic success, then Brazil should be much richer since it had more slave and for much longer.
    And even though the West did trade in slaves and etc, they eventually ended that stuff and spread a lot of good stuff too.

    So, what is wrong with white nationalism, especially when universalism has been rejected by the 'left' and people of color and Jews and homos and feminists who are all into IDENTITY politics. And it's not just about victim interests. Jews are very powerful, but they still play identity politics, and indeed they demand that EVERYONE support Jewish/Zionist identity politics via AIPAC. And blacks routinely beat up and terrorize whites but they only bitch about their own victimhood.
    Epidemic of black-on-white violence owes to racial factors that cannot be overlooked.
    Women do better in school and much of the economy now. But they bitch and bitch about how they are oppressed by men. Homos are among the most privileged people but they push their agenda on everyone as if they are only spreading tolerance. They are into spreading tolerance. They are into forcing us to celebrate their deviant sexuality.
    All those identity politics are not only protected but encouraged.
    And whites, esp white males of conservative bent, are blamed for everything.
    And Conservatism Inc has totally cucked itself out to the likes of Sheldon Adelson, homo-libertarians, and even Al Sharpton.

    Also, PC has shut down so many voices. So, there is no longer any culture of controversy and contention. There is just the culture of consensus and coercion.

    When Wasps ruled America and when Jews/homos were on the rise to power, there was a culture of controversy and contention. Jews and homos needed a culture of controversy to challenge dominant narratives and values.

    Once Jews became the new ruling elites, the culture of controversy should have continued with all Americans speaking truth to the newly dominant Jewish power.
    But once Jews and homos got the power, they wanted no more of that.
    They had used the culture of contention and controversy to rise to power, but once they got the power, they no longer wanted anyone or any group to challenge them.
    We now live in a nation where people are afraid to oppose men using women's washroom now.

    Given that the Democrats are into PC consensus, GOP is into PC consensus, the 'left' is into PC enforcement, homos are into homosexist tyranny, shrill feminists are into hysteria mode and hallucinating rape all over, neocons were given green light(by media and government) to mess up the world, and Jewish Wall Street was bailed out by Obama, and 'gay marriage' was passed without any national discussion in the MSM, is there any culture of controversy and contention left in America?

    It is only in the 'fringes'. If mainstream American discourse was free of PC, the 'fringe' opinion wouldn't matter. Real debate would happen at the core of American culture. But because PC and culture of coercive consensus so dominate the mainstream and media institutions, the ONLY place you are gonna find a real challenge to the status quo is from the fringes made up of people who are willing to pay the price of ruined careers to say their say.
    And more from the fringe right than from the fringe 'left' because the far left is still allowed to thrive in some corners of the academia(even if unwelcome in the media dominated by globalist oligarchs). So, the fringe 'left' --- neo-Marxist, Che Guevara admirers, anarchists, 60 radical leftovers, etc --- are still well-represented in academic discourse. You don't get in trouble by praising Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, and Hollywood Ten in college.

    So, the fringe right and alt right are the last true bastions of speaking-truth-to-power and carrying on with the culture of controversy, contention, and courage.
    Of course, Alt Right and 'fringe right' have its share of cranks, nuts, extremists, paranoids, and etc. Paul Craig Roberts often go TOO FAR. As for the 14/88 Neo-Nazi at the far fringe of the right, they are utterly useless except for a laugh now and then.
    And if they gained great power, they too could turn censorious.

    But the only spirit of free speech, contention, and controversy is now found in the 'fringe right' because they are deemed most taboo by the coercive MSM that is into the culture of consensus and the academia that is for culture of consensus and some fringe leftist views but closed off to any views that is right of Conservatism Inc. Indeed, for many academics, even mainstream conservatism is more offensive than far left ideology. They love playing armchair revolutionaries.

    So, even as I find Crimson's hostility to 'white nationalism' to be understandable, it is disingenuous of them to ignore Unz's main reason for supporting fringe voices on the Right. It's because it is ONLY THERE(and in some corners of fringe left) that any kind of challenge to the Consensus is evident. It's only there that you find the spirit of Edward Snowden(though he's a libertarian and not an identitarian).

    There was a time when people like Pat Buchanan were syndicated in newspapers all over the nation. Like him or not, he had a voice along with Libs and leftists.

    And there was a time when a popular columnist like Mike Royko could write something like this:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-11/news/1993162236_1_dark-alley-white-guys-sports-fans

    People had thicker skins and bigger balls back then.

    But the PC-lords took over colleges and media and enforced the culture of 'sensitivity' which meant certain groups --- Jews, blacks, and homos especially --- were never to be offended while one could be as insensitive to white folks, especially males, as one pleased.

    There was a time when personalities as colorful as Norman Mailer could have their say. And Mailer was prescient when he spoke of the dangers of 'left totalitarianism'.
    Today, people are afraid even to crack a joke about Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZxp-wFF7o

    Politics of hate can be ugly, but politics of forced love is ideological rape.

    Just like a woman has a right to love a guy, hate a guy, accept a guy, or reject a guy, we should all be free to feel what we feel and speak honestly about what we feel and explain why. PC doesn't allow it.
    We have to love Big Brotha.

    I can’t see why you’re not one of the featured pundits here, as there’s more nutritional content in one of your replies than in a great many of the big-name big-doming items found on these sites.

    Keep it up; you’re developing a readership, and quickly!

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Excuse me, you must be new here. He's been posting here since forever under different pseudonyms. Always entertaining to read and mostly well-informed, though not always civil enough in tone for Komment Kontrol. Distinctive characteristic of his posts: always a reference to 70's movies, no matter the subject matter of the post.
    It's good to see he has now his own movie review blog.
  95. @Santoculto
    It's exactly one of my theory about the lower heritability of homossexuality. But schizophrenic people also tend to have lower fertility and the ''heritability'' of this phenotypes tend to be higher.

    Maybe as happen with dizygotic twins with higher co-occurence of different gender among them (girl and boy) similar situation can happen with homossexuality and twins.

    We are not just talking about quantitative value but also about the nature of every human phenotype. The current nature of homossexuality is to have lower heritability as well happen with light eyes in the pre-historic european past.

    FYI, “homosexuality” is spelled with one ‘s’.

    This from Karl Radl:

    “I think the most sensible point was made by Glen Wilson in his 1992 ‘The Great Sex Divide’ when he argued that the increase in modern homosexual behaviour results from social normalization and the promotion of it as a desirable alternative (i.e. ‘it is cool’, ‘I don’t have kids to feed’, ‘I get lots of sex’ etc.

    He adheres to the idea (as I do) that there is an underlying level of homosexuality deriving from genetics (studying the animal kingdom itself suggests as much) but that most modern homosexuals are nothing of the kind.

    They are rather a mix of those who view it as a better lifestyle than that of a heterosexual (hence the huge rise in ‘bisexuality’), use it to attract heterosexual mates (faux lipstick lesbian style), have had issues/trauma with the opposite gender (battered wives/husbands losing everything in a divorce), have a hard time attracting mates of the other sex (i.e. manlets and land-whales) etc.
    Not from there being a biological cause in most cases, but rather because it is seem as a more desirable option for any of the above reasons.

    Exhibit A on how this works was classical Greece, Assyria and Babylon. All of which promulgated social norms [e.g. the common interpretation of the Spartan agoge]/institutions [e.g. the Theban Sacred Band] or laws (Assyrian/Babylonian law codes which rigorously prosecuted adultery in heterosexual relationships but positively encouraged homosexuality by not legislating against it or shagging most animals for that matter).

    The latter has also been making quite the come back recently.

    As an aside John Baker in his 1974 ‘Race’ made the observation that homosexuality increases significantly in domesticated animals when compared to their wild counterparts. He then reminds us that humans are extremely domesticated animals.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two 's'.

    Yes, but is important to note that we have men who are very ugly, poor, maybe, a 'loser', and they still have sexual attraction for the opposite sex. So, yes, in some cases this factors can have a rule but even in this cases the pre-disposition must need exist. We can have some drops of disposition for sexual fluidity to a tsunami.

    Interestingly, many of this poor and ugly men and specially those who came from NAM varieties tend to be very self confident and with a lot of opposite sexual partners.

    I think that the identical twins who have the same sexual orientation maybe can be genetically/biologically different than those with non concordance.

    Domestication is a estrogenization process where the more manly types in a classic sexual dimorphism are eliminated by the pet'tier' types. Domestication have greater implications specially in the stronger side, in the human case, the men, than in the balanced side, women.
  96. @Anonymous
    I watched about half an hour of the video Ron embedded in the thread. Maybe he's mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm curious as to what he believes the consequences will be to higher education elsewhere. Obviously, all Ivy League schools would be able to handle a transition to a free tuition system. Public institutions could also follow along and subsidize education completely.

    I'm wondering however, would this just mean all private institutions that do primarily run on tuition would die out? This would mean, except for some very prestigious institutions, a greater percentage of colleges would be public. A question I would ask, considering the worries of Jonathan Haidt over the significant and damaging affects of progressive conformity at colleges nationwide, would increasing the proportion of public to private colleges help or hurt intellectual diversity? I believe it make a bad situation significantly worse. You would likely lose smaller private colleges which provide some alternatives for parents who would like their children to have an education not dominated by progressives. Being the political maverick that Ron is, I'm curious about his views on conformity in education and how and if smaller private institutions would survive a transition to free or mostly free higher education (if he's posted on this topic elsewhere, let me know).

    Stop calling these fascists “progressives”! They are not progressive, they are regressive. Freedom of speech and individual freedom, the right to own property, are all rather new ideas. These dirtbags want to take us backwards not forward.

    Political correctness is all about using positive words to cover up the negative truth. Stop helping them hide behind lies and call them what they are – fascists, communists, totalitarians, racists, and leftists! They are not “liberals” or “liberal”. Nor are they “progressive” or “democratic”. call them what they are!

    Read More
  97. @Boris
    I'm a little confused about what you find so unfair about the Crimson's take. Yes, I agree they should have stated clearly that nothing in your writings suggests that you are racist. Then again, they don't exact allege that you are a racist either.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites? Why should you be immune to examination of the many conspiratorial article you publish here? These seem like worthy concerns to me.

    "I publish questionable material from both sides of the ideological spectrum," is not a very convincing defense.

    Certainly you have the freedom to publish controversial views or to support academics and writers who you feel are important despite some other odious beliefs. But those decisions can be scrutinized. Particularly, people with concerns about attempts to limit diversity will have reservations about your publishing decisions. Those reservations strike me as completely valid.

    Why should you not be criticized for financial support of white nationalist websites?

    Because his motives are good! Ron Unz stands with Nicolas Sarkozy. His message to the founding peoples of America, the descendants of African slaves and the European settlers, is this:

    Métissage, it’s an obligation

    Which is to say, let your daughters breed with the invading horde of Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, and Africans and assimilate their culture, or die without posterity.

    As for funding VDare, it’s obvious why: they’re controlled opposition.

    This provides an explanation for the daft obsession with white/black IQ differences, it’s a sure means to create dissension between the founding groups and the Western culture to be destroyed.

    Read More
  98. @BB753
    Mr Unz, never apologize. Attack. Your piece was pretty good at discrediting the Harvard Crimson hit job, but much too defensive.
    Politically, I can't quite place you on the accepted spectrum and neither can I understand your position on immigration. All I can say is that your love for all things Mexican seems unrequited.
    Finally, I could never have guessed that Greg Cochran was an extreme right-winger just from reading his blog and articles. Maybe you know something we don't. How many closeted Nazis lurk in the Unz Review? Who knows? Please, let us know.

    “I could never have guessed that Greg Cochran was an extreme right-winger just from reading his blog and articles.”

    Of course you couldn’t because you mistakenly think Nazis (fascists) are right wing, probably because that is what you have been told all your life. They are not, and what you learned was lies. Fascism is just another branch of socialism. The far right are anarchists. Why is this true? because true conservatives, like our founders, believed in limited government, individual freedom and responsibility. Take this to its extreme and you have people who want no government, aka anarchists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    I don't believe at all that Cochran is either a Nazi or an anarchist ( or the Antichrist, lol, to quote the Sex Pistol lyrics from Anarchy in the UK).
    Cochran is just being himself, something which is hard to describe. Perhaps a mixture of contrarianness and crankiness.
  99. @Priss Factor
    "US could have been possible based on equal laws."

    But the supremacy of western laws had to be secured and established first. And that required white dominance since other cultures had different values and laws.

    Why is it so difficult to create western-style democracies abroad?

    Cuz if you allow equal freedom and democracy among the locals, the folks there favor their own values, like electing Muslim Brotherhood to government.

    Could Hong Kong have been possible if Brits gave Hong Kongese equal freedom and power at the outset? No, the Chinese would have insisted on doing things in their own 'feudal' ways.

    So,Brits had to use white supremacism to first establish the western anglo way in Hong Kong before the chinese there could take part in it once it became the new norm of doing things.

    Indeed, even equality had to brought about and enforced through violent means.
    It had to forced on the south by war and reconstruction.

    And Germany and Japan were forced to be democratic by war and invasion.

    So, even democracy was spread through military supremacism.

    And how was slavery ended around the world? Sheer power of western supremacism that forced other civilizations to end the practice... or else.

    And how was communism, the radical ideology of equality, brought about?
    Through the ideological and political supremacism of the soviets. Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    Could communism have been possible if everyone had been given freedom to choose it or not?
    So, you see, even equality had to be forced on people by taking choice way from them.

    Equal freedom of individuality leads to huge economic disparities, and communism couldn't tolerate such 'injustice'.

    Racial 'equality' also leads to huge disparities since some races are better than others in either brain or brawn.

    Slavery has not been ended in the world. It is still alive and well in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. It just isn’t PC to point that out because none of those populations is white – so the lame-stream, lapdog media ignores it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Slavery has not been ended in the world. It is still alive and well in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia."

    Yes, it's still around. One could also say communism in places like North Korea and some slave camps in China count as slavery too.

    But Western Imperialism did at some point use its military muscle to abolish slavery in many parts of Middle East, Asia, and Africa. But the West also did it by changing the minds of the native elites who were imbued with Western ideas on justice and liberty.
    Indeed, it was 'white supremacism' in non-white lands that spread western ideas that were used by native elites to eventually challenge white rule.
    Even in the US, blacks used white values and ideas of justice to fight for end of slavery.
    No such arguments existed in black Africa where slavery was just part of the norm.
    So, even blacks who came to oppose slavery as evil got that idea from whites, and whites were able to spread such ideas cuz they had supreme power over societies.

    All new orders and societies require some degree of supremacism, be it racial, cultural, spiritual, ideological, or whatever.

    For communist nations to be established, the communist had to have ideological and political supremacism over the populace and ban all competing ideologies.
    Once most people came to accept communism, then the communist system could be more tolerant and lenient.
    Same for Islam. For there to be Islamic civilization, the Muslims had to use ruthless violence and ban all pagan practices. Muslims tolerated Jews and Christians but barely. They had to know who was boss. In Muslim civilizations, Islam was supreme.
    Only when that was established could Muslims be somewhat more lenient.

    This is true even within a single ideology. When it was Stalin vs Trotsky, both tried to purge the other side. It was winner takes all. Stalin won, and he had to wipe out all competing factions. It was partisan-politics supremacism.

    No order was ever established by equality and niceness. All new orders was established by the supremacy of the new dynasty, new clan, new ideology, new military, new something.

    The nature of power is competitive. Various groups contend for power. Eventually, for one side to take power and impose its system/vision over the land, there has to supremacism.
    This was true even among the Nazis. Hitler vs Rohm. The Night of the Long Knives. Hitlerian supremacism over contending factions and groups.

    This is why the Jewish-Homo elites are hard at work. It's why they are in supremacist mode. They took elite power, and they are now trying to consolidate their power for the future.
    Since there aren't enough Jews to secure permanent Jewish dominance, Jews seek more diversity via massive immigration so that no single gentile group will have gain critical mass to challenge Jewish power.

    In a way, the breakup of the USSR was bad for Jewish power. If USSR had remained intact when communism collapsed, Jewish oligarchs may have been able to play off the various nationalities of former-USSR against one another. But since Russia became mostly Russian, Russians could use Russian nationalism to take back some power from Jewish oligarchs.

    All this yammering about 'white supremacism' is really smoke-and-mirrors to maks the agenda to secure Jewish-Homo dominance forever. And to do this, Jews tolerate no competing narratives or views. Since Jews see white gentiles as the most capable potential challenger to Jewish power, they invoke the bogeyman of 'white supremacism' to shame and paralyze white identity and interests, which are legit.
    Vilify white supremacism to push Jewish-Homo supremacism.

    Anyway, look at Israel. It was only possible cuz Zionism had supremacism over the Arabs. Imagine if Zionists had sought equality with Arabs from day one.
    Arab vision of Palestine was utterly different from Zionist vision of Israel. If both sides had equal power and say in everything from the outset, Israel and its western/modern system would never have succeeded. For Israel to be possible, there had to be Zionist supremacism that expelled Arabs from much of the land. There had to be Zionist power to create a new nation along European models of modernity, business, science, and development. Only after Israel was created and Jewish power was secure in Israel could Jews be more tolerant toward remaining Arabs in Israel(who live better than most Muslims in Muslim lands though with lingering humiliation of being second-class citizens).

    And only a fool would say modern South Africa would have been possible if white conquerors/settlers had opted for total equality in everything with the blacks in that region from day one. The cultures, values, and ideas of two civilizations were utterly different. They were not compatible. One side had to gain supreme power to enforce its vision and system over the other. And it was because whites did that that modern South Africa was possible.

    But PC forbids any such moral ambiguity since it reduces the world into cops and robbers of good and evil. And of course, there's nothing worse than 'white supremacism'.
  100. @Ragno
    I can't see why you're not one of the featured pundits here, as there's more nutritional content in one of your replies than in a great many of the big-name big-doming items found on these sites.

    Keep it up; you're developing a readership, and quickly!

    Excuse me, you must be new here. He’s been posting here since forever under different pseudonyms. Always entertaining to read and mostly well-informed, though not always civil enough in tone for Komment Kontrol. Distinctive characteristic of his posts: always a reference to 70′s movies, no matter the subject matter of the post.
    It’s good to see he has now his own movie review blog.

    Read More
  101. @woodNfish
    "I could never have guessed that Greg Cochran was an extreme right-winger just from reading his blog and articles."

    Of course you couldn't because you mistakenly think Nazis (fascists) are right wing, probably because that is what you have been told all your life. They are not, and what you learned was lies. Fascism is just another branch of socialism. The far right are anarchists. Why is this true? because true conservatives, like our founders, believed in limited government, individual freedom and responsibility. Take this to its extreme and you have people who want no government, aka anarchists.

    I don’t believe at all that Cochran is either a Nazi or an anarchist ( or the Antichrist, lol, to quote the Sex Pistol lyrics from Anarchy in the UK).
    Cochran is just being himself, something which is hard to describe. Perhaps a mixture of contrarianness and crankiness.

    Read More
  102. As for Unz and Sailer, they’re not even conservatives, in the modern sense.
    They’re both classical liberals, IMHO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    It depends on whether classical liberals were for or against the attitude of 'let the good times roll'.
  103. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @BB753
    As for Unz and Sailer, they're not even conservatives, in the modern sense.
    They're both classical liberals, IMHO.

    It depends on whether classical liberals were for or against the attitude of ‘let the good times roll’.

    Read More
  104. @John Jeremiah Smith
    FYI, "homosexuality" is spelled with one 's'.

    This from Karl Radl:

    "I think the most sensible point was made by Glen Wilson in his 1992 'The Great Sex Divide' when he argued that the increase in modern homosexual behaviour results from social normalization and the promotion of it as a desirable alternative (i.e. 'it is cool', 'I don't have kids to feed', 'I get lots of sex' etc.

    He adheres to the idea (as I do) that there is an underlying level of homosexuality deriving from genetics (studying the animal kingdom itself suggests as much) but that most modern homosexuals are nothing of the kind.

    They are rather a mix of those who view it as a better lifestyle than that of a heterosexual (hence the huge rise in 'bisexuality'), use it to attract heterosexual mates (faux lipstick lesbian style), have had issues/trauma with the opposite gender (battered wives/husbands losing everything in a divorce), have a hard time attracting mates of the other sex (i.e. manlets and land-whales) etc.
    Not from there being a biological cause in most cases, but rather because it is seem as a more desirable option for any of the above reasons.

    Exhibit A on how this works was classical Greece, Assyria and Babylon. All of which promulgated social norms [e.g. the common interpretation of the Spartan agoge]/institutions [e.g. the Theban Sacred Band] or laws (Assyrian/Babylonian law codes which rigorously prosecuted adultery in heterosexual relationships but positively encouraged homosexuality by not legislating against it or shagging most animals for that matter).

    The latter has also been making quite the come back recently.

    As an aside John Baker in his 1974 'Race' made the observation that homosexuality increases significantly in domesticated animals when compared to their wild counterparts. He then reminds us that humans are extremely domesticated animals."

    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two ‘s’.

    Yes, but is important to note that we have men who are very ugly, poor, maybe, a ‘loser’, and they still have sexual attraction for the opposite sex. So, yes, in some cases this factors can have a rule but even in this cases the pre-disposition must need exist. We can have some drops of disposition for sexual fluidity to a tsunami.

    Interestingly, many of this poor and ugly men and specially those who came from NAM varieties tend to be very self confident and with a lot of opposite sexual partners.

    I think that the identical twins who have the same sexual orientation maybe can be genetically/biologically different than those with non concordance.

    Domestication is a estrogenization process where the more manly types in a classic sexual dimorphism are eliminated by the pet’tier’ types. Domestication have greater implications specially in the stronger side, in the human case, the men, than in the balanced side, women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two ‘s’.
     
    O que??? "Viadeza" se escreva com dois 's'?
  105. @Santoculto
    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two 's'.

    Yes, but is important to note that we have men who are very ugly, poor, maybe, a 'loser', and they still have sexual attraction for the opposite sex. So, yes, in some cases this factors can have a rule but even in this cases the pre-disposition must need exist. We can have some drops of disposition for sexual fluidity to a tsunami.

    Interestingly, many of this poor and ugly men and specially those who came from NAM varieties tend to be very self confident and with a lot of opposite sexual partners.

    I think that the identical twins who have the same sexual orientation maybe can be genetically/biologically different than those with non concordance.

    Domestication is a estrogenization process where the more manly types in a classic sexual dimorphism are eliminated by the pet'tier' types. Domestication have greater implications specially in the stronger side, in the human case, the men, than in the balanced side, women.

    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two ‘s’.

    O que??? “Viadeza” se escreva com dois ‘s’?

    Read More
  106. @Priss Factor
    It depends on whether classical liberals were for or against the attitude of 'let the good times roll'.

    Not for the masses, they weren’t.

    Read More
  107. @Anonymous
    Although the Crimson never revealed the source of their accusations, these almost exactly match the contents of a “dossier” someone forwarded to me around the same time, a file apparently prepared by some activist group and intended to cast me in an extremely unfavorable light, especially on racial issues.

    So not only did these lazy Harvard "students" fail to do their homework, they copied someone elses.

    No surprises there! All journalists tend to be lazy anyway….

    Read More
  108. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @woodNfish
    Slavery has not been ended in the world. It is still alive and well in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. It just isn't PC to point that out because none of those populations is white - so the lame-stream, lapdog media ignores it.

    “Slavery has not been ended in the world. It is still alive and well in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.”

    Yes, it’s still around. One could also say communism in places like North Korea and some slave camps in China count as slavery too.

    But Western Imperialism did at some point use its military muscle to abolish slavery in many parts of Middle East, Asia, and Africa. But the West also did it by changing the minds of the native elites who were imbued with Western ideas on justice and liberty.
    Indeed, it was ‘white supremacism’ in non-white lands that spread western ideas that were used by native elites to eventually challenge white rule.
    Even in the US, blacks used white values and ideas of justice to fight for end of slavery.
    No such arguments existed in black Africa where slavery was just part of the norm.
    So, even blacks who came to oppose slavery as evil got that idea from whites, and whites were able to spread such ideas cuz they had supreme power over societies.

    All new orders and societies require some degree of supremacism, be it racial, cultural, spiritual, ideological, or whatever.

    For communist nations to be established, the communist had to have ideological and political supremacism over the populace and ban all competing ideologies.
    Once most people came to accept communism, then the communist system could be more tolerant and lenient.
    Same for Islam. For there to be Islamic civilization, the Muslims had to use ruthless violence and ban all pagan practices. Muslims tolerated Jews and Christians but barely. They had to know who was boss. In Muslim civilizations, Islam was supreme.
    Only when that was established could Muslims be somewhat more lenient.

    This is true even within a single ideology. When it was Stalin vs Trotsky, both tried to purge the other side. It was winner takes all. Stalin won, and he had to wipe out all competing factions. It was partisan-politics supremacism.

    No order was ever established by equality and niceness. All new orders was established by the supremacy of the new dynasty, new clan, new ideology, new military, new something.

    The nature of power is competitive. Various groups contend for power. Eventually, for one side to take power and impose its system/vision over the land, there has to supremacism.
    This was true even among the Nazis. Hitler vs Rohm. The Night of the Long Knives. Hitlerian supremacism over contending factions and groups.

    This is why the Jewish-Homo elites are hard at work. It’s why they are in supremacist mode. They took elite power, and they are now trying to consolidate their power for the future.
    Since there aren’t enough Jews to secure permanent Jewish dominance, Jews seek more diversity via massive immigration so that no single gentile group will have gain critical mass to challenge Jewish power.

    In a way, the breakup of the USSR was bad for Jewish power. If USSR had remained intact when communism collapsed, Jewish oligarchs may have been able to play off the various nationalities of former-USSR against one another. But since Russia became mostly Russian, Russians could use Russian nationalism to take back some power from Jewish oligarchs.

    All this yammering about ‘white supremacism’ is really smoke-and-mirrors to maks the agenda to secure Jewish-Homo dominance forever. And to do this, Jews tolerate no competing narratives or views. Since Jews see white gentiles as the most capable potential challenger to Jewish power, they invoke the bogeyman of ‘white supremacism’ to shame and paralyze white identity and interests, which are legit.
    Vilify white supremacism to push Jewish-Homo supremacism.

    Anyway, look at Israel. It was only possible cuz Zionism had supremacism over the Arabs. Imagine if Zionists had sought equality with Arabs from day one.
    Arab vision of Palestine was utterly different from Zionist vision of Israel. If both sides had equal power and say in everything from the outset, Israel and its western/modern system would never have succeeded. For Israel to be possible, there had to be Zionist supremacism that expelled Arabs from much of the land. There had to be Zionist power to create a new nation along European models of modernity, business, science, and development. Only after Israel was created and Jewish power was secure in Israel could Jews be more tolerant toward remaining Arabs in Israel(who live better than most Muslims in Muslim lands though with lingering humiliation of being second-class citizens).

    And only a fool would say modern South Africa would have been possible if white conquerors/settlers had opted for total equality in everything with the blacks in that region from day one. The cultures, values, and ideas of two civilizations were utterly different. They were not compatible. One side had to gain supreme power to enforce its vision and system over the other. And it was because whites did that that modern South Africa was possible.

    But PC forbids any such moral ambiguity since it reduces the world into cops and robbers of good and evil. And of course, there’s nothing worse than ‘white supremacism’.

    Read More
  109. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I write homosexuality the way i want ok*

    In portuguese, this word have two ‘s’.
     
    O que??? "Viadeza" se escreva com dois 's'?

    Unz think i’m blind…

    Read More
  110. @dc.sunsets
    No one is coming for me because I don't have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.
    No one is coming for me...well, they are coming for my money (to fund all sorts of attempts to make blacks as a group as successful as the Magic Negroes on TV.)

    I'd be almost as unhappy to see my grandkids marry (or hook up with) stupid whites as any black or US Latino (since most of the latter are of mostly Mayan ancestry.) Does this make me a racist or an elitist? I'll take Elitist any day, week, month or year. I prefer my extended family be smart, not stupid.

    Here's a wild notion: Since NAM's dislike us so much for our feeling superior, let's just agree to part company, okay? You be you. We'll be us. Separately. No more cross-race subsidies. No more white cops policing black ghettos. No more taxing the upper middle class to fund meaningless Head Start or after-school basketball programs.

    On the inside, I'm pointing and laughing too. I know what this would produce. You do, too.

    PS: There are numerically more whites than blacks in the USA below the IQ cutoff for the Army. Proportionally, however, almost half of all blacks are that low. Does that make whites superior, the same or inferior? It depends on which whites and which blacks, doesn't it?

    No one is coming for me because I don’t have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.

    If you have views that are so unpopular you can’t get a job, then that’s too bad. You are more racist than elitist, by the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "If you have views that are so unpopular you can’t get a job, then that’s too bad. You are more racist than elitist, by the way."

    Do you agree with the anti-commie blacklist of the early 50s?

    Them fellas held unpopular views.

    We've been told by Libs that even Stalinists and pinkos had right to their speech and careers despite their radical ideology.

    Now, Libs like you say people with 'unpopular' views should be fired and denied jobs.

    I guess you don't believe in 'no discrimination based on race, creed, or color'.

    Creed means conviction or belief. It can be from far left to far right.

    You must think only far left should be left alone for their creed.
    But far right must be fired and blacklisted for their creed.

    You are bogus, Boris the Spider.

    And I'll bet you are pretty 'racist' by what you DO as opposed to what you SAY.

    You speak all the correct pieties, but I'll bet you do everything to live well and safe in a whitopia. So, in what you DO, you are 'racist' like the rest of your elitist kind.

  111. Funny, the Crimson was quite fond of terrorist groups much more dangerous than the BPP in the 1960-70s.

    Read More
  112. @JackOH
    "We would have been better off without either group [Germans and Irish]."

    What's your reasoning on that?

    What’s your reasoning on that?

    He’s probably advocating for a purely English/Puritan stocked country.

    The Germans and Irish are plenty close to the English, so chalk this up to Narcissism of Small Differences.

    Read More
  113. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    No one is coming for me because I don’t have a job they can try to get me fired from for the crime of seeing reality.
     
    If you have views that are so unpopular you can't get a job, then that's too bad. You are more racist than elitist, by the way.

    “If you have views that are so unpopular you can’t get a job, then that’s too bad. You are more racist than elitist, by the way.”

    Do you agree with the anti-commie blacklist of the early 50s?

    Them fellas held unpopular views.

    We’ve been told by Libs that even Stalinists and pinkos had right to their speech and careers despite their radical ideology.

    Now, Libs like you say people with ‘unpopular’ views should be fired and denied jobs.

    I guess you don’t believe in ‘no discrimination based on race, creed, or color’.

    Creed means conviction or belief. It can be from far left to far right.

    You must think only far left should be left alone for their creed.
    But far right must be fired and blacklisted for their creed.

    You are bogus, Boris the Spider.

    And I’ll bet you are pretty ‘racist’ by what you DO as opposed to what you SAY.

    You speak all the correct pieties, but I’ll bet you do everything to live well and safe in a whitopia. So, in what you DO, you are ‘racist’ like the rest of your elitist kind.

    Read More
  114. […] Unz – My Stasi File Published In The Harvard Crimson Saudi Arabia Kills Doha Deal, Talks Fall Apart […]

    Read More
  115. FWIW-only Ron Unz, the mostly self-funded activist and nominally partisan candidate, can judge how best to respond to criticism. That can be a really tough call. You may have strong, but honest critics who can be won over, or may be persuaded to mute or reconsider their criticism. Plus, there’s occasionally the possibility of dirty tricks directed against you–blackmail, offers of favors and money and sex, etc. Activism can be a wrenching experience. I trust that Ron is savvy enough to work his way through the minefield ahead of him.

    Read More
  116. Harvard, to me, is the personification of American imperialism leader-cloning. It teaches its students how to be part of the empire. Therefore, learning how to make stuff up is very important. This is the heart of empire. Fabrication of lies that make innocent people look evil, so that they can be killed and the natural resources of various countries can be stolen. Sounds like they’re doing a good job.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.