What about the second part of the header, “JPod even more irate than usual”? I don’t see anything about that.

Concerning the vulgar epithet you used at the end, one has to wonder why it has not been declared a “homophobic” “microaggression”.

In the immortal words of the late radio artist Bob Grant,

“I wish there were somewhere to go because I’d go there. But there isn’t.”

What about Sikhs? Where do they fit in here?

Should he [Trump] lose, it would be their [neocons] fault along with the Mormons, and I will be forming “Conservatives for BDS”.

Do you believe BDS is legitimate, just and warranted?

If you do, then shouldn’t you be supporting it now?

If you do not, then how could you support it merely as a means of revenge?

The reality would appear to be, overwhelmingly, that Jews are assumed to be at least Zionist and, if not Zionist, then certainly Cultural Marxist/ SJW. As a Jew is who is emphatically none of those, this is painful.

Thank you, now I get it.

Thank you. I had not read the full Times of Israel article, only the excerpt that Mr. Sailer quoted.

Having now read the full article, I must add that I could not find anywhere within it– including in the excerpt that you quoted for me– any actual evidence of Norman Podhoretz’s son, John (“JPod”), being “irate”– at all, much less more so “than usual”– with his father Norman for the latter’s endorsement of Trump.

(Lest anyone suspect me of being partial to JPod, let me note that is not at all the case. I am far from being any type of neocon.)

Thank you for clarifying.

I do find that the neoconservatives are devoted more to the security of Israel, than to the demographic continuity of conservatism in the West.

Let me note that I, a non-Zionist Jew, find that deplorable.

I would also point-out, adding to what you wrote, that the threats to Jews posed-by leftist policies are by no means limited-to those that are particularly (whether intentionally or otherwise) anti-Jewish, per se. Jews, even when not specifically targeted as such, are no less vulnerable to such threats as Jihadi terrorism or street crime– whether perpetrated by (American) blacks or immigrants– than anyone else.

I did not begin listening to Bob Grant until late ’93. I don’t recall ever hearing him speak of moving to New Zealand as you quoted.

Some of the many vintage quotables I recall from the great BG include,

“We’re slipping and sliding into third-worldism”, and,

“This is why, when I say it’s over, I mean it’s over!”

Surely, you must recall well Bob’s routine– one of his signature ones– wherein upon receiving a call from someone with an obviously foreign accent, Bob would ask, “Where are you from?” (There were any number of variations of this. Sometimes Bob would add “by the way”, sometimes “pal”, etc. I recall one memorable variation which went, “Uh, speaking of foreigners, where are you from, if I may be so bold as to ask?”) A typical exchange that would ensue would be the caller answering something like, “I’m from Brooklyn”, to which Bob would challenge, “No, I mean prior to your arrival in my country. You weren’t born in Brooklyn. Where are you originally from?”

Perhaps the best rejoinder that I recall was when the caller, in a thick accent that sounded Pakistani or Indian, answered, “What is difference where from, Mr. Grant? We are all Americans now.”

Thanks for replying. Nice to hear from someone who remembers Bob Grant. How I miss him.

What would that accomplish? Isn’t the NY Times merely one tentacle of a beast with many tentacles, each of which will grow right back if severed?

Or of any of the other sacred doctrines of the prevailing orthodoxy. For a glimpse of where we are heading, just at look at Britain and Canada.

I’ve never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.

Let me take this opportunity to note a number of points that are relevant to many of the comments posted but do not seem to be widely acknowledged or appreciated.

– One need not be pro-Iran to oppose the Neocon saber-rattling against Iran.

An example that immediately comes to mind is that of Patrick J. Buchanan.

– One can be less-than pro-(State of) Israel or even downright anti-(State of) Israel and/or anti-Zionist without necessarily being pro-Palestinian (and certainly without being pro-Islamist.)

– One need not accept the narrative and premise of Palestinian nationalism in order to believe that the Arabs known as “Palestinians” have legitimate grievances against Zionists and the State of Israel.

What about fully supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against the Zionist State while simultaneously fully recognizing and opposing the threat that Islam and Muslims pose to the West? Can one hold both of those positions simultaneously and be coherent and consistent? I would say yes but I am not certain.

Then, of course, there is the fact that not all Jews are Zionists (and not all Zionists are Jews.) And, moreover, that in the traditional Orthodox Judaic view, Zionism is actually a heresy (as shocking that may be to many). (That Cultural Marxism is completely antithetical to Judaism should be rather obvious to anyone possessing even the most minimal familiarity with each of the respective ideologies). I address the incompatibility with Judaism of both Zionism as well as Cultural Marxism in this past comment of mine.

I agree.

I’d go even further, wishing Trump would be as strong on opposition to invade as he has been on opposition to invite. (But can he? Would the donors and controlling elites allow that?)

And whenever the “Islamophobic” and “racist” cards are thrown at Trump, he should respond by pointing-out that Muslims and Arabs make-up the overwhelming majority of the countless casualties– including children and their mothers– that Hillary Rodham-Clinton bears direct responsibility for.

I appreciate your ideas for ways that Trump could turn the “race and gender [sic]” cards against the Democrats. Additional ways he could do that, and also add the “LGBTQ” card to the mix, would be to point-out and emphasize facts and arguments such as the following:

– The overwhelming majority of the victims of black crime are blacks.

– To attack, malign and undermine the police is not in the self-interest of decent blacks; they are the ones who will suffer most from a weakened or antagonized police force. If the BLM-type agitators keep-up their incitement and attacks, the number of decent, well-adjusted, competent individuals on police forces across the country can be expected to dwindle.

– Affirmative action harms all of society– including blacks, women and all of the others it purports to benefit.

Are blacks, women or “Latinos” somehow less subject than whites or anyone else to the very real risk of being harmed, for example, by an under-qualified/incompetent physician, nurse, policeman or fireman?

– The alarming prevalence of women (and, especially, young women and even girls) facing and succumbing-to pressure to subject themselves to the degrading, humiliating, depraved, dangerous and painful (pseudo-)sex act of buggery— anal penetration. (Graphic content at link) Trump should specifically point-out the influence of both pornography as well as the “LGBTQ” lobby* as being culpable here.

But what ultimately powers the cloud, if not hardware?

OT:
Teen Brutally Beaten After Making Pro-Police Statements

An Alabama mother said her 17-year-old son — who had recently voiced his support for law enforcement amid protests over fatal police shootings — was severely beaten in an empty parking lot in Sylacauga, an attack she called a racially motivated hate crime.

The first time I saw a photo of Eric Holder, I thought, “That guy barely looks black!”. Seems ironic.

Huh? Where did SFG suggest anything about “protecting liars”?

An updated definition of “misogynist”: Anyone who opposes abortion or doesn’t think taxpayers and employers should be forced to pay for contraceptives for women.

But we’re still in early autumn.

Women do not defend civilization, they acquiesce and join the culture of the mates.

Some do, though, like the late Phyliss Schlafley or the great Kim Davis.

Please also use this opportunity to report any mistakes that you think may have been made.

Okay, well…

I’m been pleased

forcing commenters to retain a single continuous [missing word here] may cause them to more carefully weigh the tone and content of their words,

and I took a little time to go through the million-plus comment archives, and merge this different commenter handles.

future work along these lines is still ongoing, bulk I think the bulk of the processing have been made,

I first noticed the above glaring grammatical errors/omissions/ typos (along with numerous superfluous commas) shortly after this announcement was posted. Now, over ten days later, I see that not a single one has been corrected. Nor, incredibly, does there appear to be so much as a single mention of said errors anywhere in the no fewer than eighty-six comments that precede this one of mine.

In his September 22nd announcement titled, Over One Million Comments But Some Badly Behaving Commenters, Mr. Unz warned that,
“Comments lacking proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, spacing, or capitalization may be summarily trashed.”

In that very same announcement, I found the following errors, similar to the ones in this announcement that I pointed-out above.

although the form of the vast majority of comments is reasonably, a certain number of commenters tend to be too lazy or ignorant to write in good English, instead producing comments that lack proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, spacing, or capitalization.

However, I’ve recently noticed a considerable increase in the use of profanity and egregious racial/ethnic slurs, which tend to degrade the tone of the conversation, and perhaps by proximity even injuring the credibility of far more respectable comments.

(As the sentence is written, injure would have been the correct form of the word to use.)

One very fitting punishment for violators would simply be to have their new comment handle replaced replaced with their regular one.

Mr. Unz, do you not see an irony here? Is it unreasonable for the readers of this site to expect that you take a few minutes to carefully proofread your announcements before posting them– especially when not only chastising others for grammatical errors, etc. but going so far as to threaten to “summarily trash” comments containing such errors?

I have found the type of errors that I have pointed-out above to also be rife in comments posted to this site– even in some of the more intelligent and respectable ones.

Off-Topic (though not entirely):

Deceptively misleading Washington Post story:

Trump booted a black man from his rally and called him a ‘thug.’ Turns out he is a supporter.

Headline clearly suggests that the man was booted because he was black. Within the story itself, however, a very different picture emerges:

He made his way to about 20 to 30 feet from the stage and was shouting “Donald!” while waving his note around to try to catch his attention.

“Everyone else is waving Trump signs and I’m waving this white letter,” Cary, 63, said. He said that, coupled with the fact that he was wearing sunglasses during an evening rally to deal with his sensitivity to light, may have been what set people off.

Also note the following egregious grammatical errors/ omissions/ typos in the article, which I have highlighted using bold-text:(Though, in fairness, such sloppiness is sadly typical not only for WaPo but across the Internet.)

“That’s all right, leave him alone,” Trump said, at first seemed dismissive of what he saw.

(Should be “who at first seemed dismissive” or “at first seeming dismissive”)

That’s when Trump’s crowd turned on him, and Cary was removed from.

You don’t seriously think she meant there were too many white prepubescent males,

Or even post-pubescent but nonetheless still adolescent males, for whom the term “boys” could still be considered appropriate.

The point, which could hardly have been any more obvious, is that blacks is a proper, acceptable way to refer-to individuals of Negroid ancestry at any stage of life. In contrast, “boys”, when used to refer-to fully-grown, adult males, is clearly pejorative or at least diminutive.

Don’t you realize that by responding to trolls at all, you are giving them what they want? If trolls see that they are ignored completely, they will likely go away.

Where would you suggest we flee to?

As I’ve quoted the late radio artist Bob Grant before,
“I wish there were there somewhere to go, because I’d go there.”

How many private schools are left that don’t promote Cultural Marxism?

No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.

I have great respect for all three of those choices.

I wonder, though, about the matter of Internet exposure. Have you given any thought as to how you will deal with that? (Sounds as if you’re children are still too young for it to be a concern yet.)

And you’ll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc.

I don’t understand this. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that all sharing is the equivalent of stealing.

Was your capitalization of “Share” deliberate?

You won’t have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.

Does that mean that your children’s opportunities for socializing with peers are limited to those you drive them to or who drive to your home? No playing with neighbors? (And, if home-schooled, then presumably none at school.)

I hope everyone will be on the outlook for any suspicious activity and, should any be noticed, report it.

We must hold President Obama accountable for his having encouraged illegal aliens to vote:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/video-of-obama-encouraging-young-illegal-to-vote-immigration-will-not-investigate

Washington Heights, Manhattan (NYC) by any chance?

If so, are you, by any chance, the guy who used to call (“from Washington Heights”) Bob Grant and promote Jared Taylor? “Kevin”, was the name, If I recall correctly.

Hey, we turned our country into a shithole.
Can we come live in yours?

What about all those among us who are are culpable or complicit in “invade the world” policies? Don’t they at least share a considerable part of the blame in making the places being fled from unlivable?

By making such posts as these, are you not risking discouraging potential Trump voters from voting?

How many abortions resulted from such cavorting? How much disease? Heartache? Various tragedies? I always wonder about such questions.

What about an immediate complete moratorium on ALL immigration? At least until some considerable progress has been made in sorting-out the present mess. Then we can begin to try allowing an extremely limited number of immigrants in, under careful conditions.

What you have described is, sadly, undoubtedly true for many Jews. But not all of us. Please remember that.

Meanwhile the same SJW station was recently trumpeting the Toronto Police Services new Muslim “chaplain,” only to pipe down when his views on women were revealed:

Narrative collision.

Also conspicuously absent is VDARE.com.

Illegal immigration allows for the best of a poor country to leave, and that’s a social crime that liberal democrats are addicted to enabling,

John Derbyshire made that exact point just over a month ago:
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/yes-african-immigrants-do-better-than-american-blacks-but-it-wont-last/

Also from the 60 MINUTES interview:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-i-will-appoint-pro-life-justices-but-gay-marriage-is-settled-law

[…]Stahl noted that some states might completely outlaw abortions and Trump simply responded, “Well, they’ll perhaps have to go to another state.”

Asked about LGBTQ issues, Trump defended himself. “I have been in their corner,” he said. Regarding homosexual “marriage,” Trump flatly stated, “It’s settled law,” and “I’m fine with that.”

Of course, none of this should come as any shock to anyone who’s actually been paying attention…

Had the President-elect consulted me on the matter, I would have advised him to answer all such questions concerning Supreme Court nominees in the following way:

The only criteria I will use for nominating judges will be their qualifications, competence and integrity. I will choose judges whom I believe to be dedicated to ruling according to the Constitution and upholding the rule-of-law— NOT any particular ideology or agenda of any type. Neither my personal views on any particular issue, nor those of any of the judges I will nominate should be relevant to this matter of Supreme Court nominees. Having said that, I will also say that it’s hardly a secret that the judicial philosophy I have just described is one which rejects rulings such as Roe vs. Wade vs. Obergefell vs. Hodges…

You think what we’re talking about is noticing? I’m talking about people who say “Heil Hitler” and “gas the Jews”. That type of BS is a distraction from noticing the stuff you’re talking about.

Now, of course, absurd heights of sensitivity about anti-Semitism also drive people into the tender embrace of the 1488ers, because people get tired of being gaslighted. I’m happy to point it out when I see it, but I don’t have a ton of faith in being able to get through to the left. Our side should at least be able to talk sense.

In fact, he has already single handedly destroyed TPP and averted socialized medicine, and that’s before he even assumed office.

Concerning “socialized medicine”, I would refer you to comments made by John Derbyshire on the October 28th edition of Radio Derb

Excerpt:

In fact, if President Trump were to put me in charge of reforming the nation’s healthcare system, my methodology would be to study all the systems in use in all the civilized nations of the world, assess them by the healthcare outcomes of those nations and citizen satisfaction, and just copy the best one. It wouldn’t resemble the U.S. system: not our system before Obamacare came in, and definitely not since.

Our system is, in any case, largely socialized already, if you factor in Medicare, Medicaid, and the innumerable subsidies and tax boondoggles for group coverage, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and so on.

Derb returned briefly to the topic on the following week’s podcast. Excerpt:

Powell was as conservative as it is possible to be: a strong nationalist, passionate in the defense of free enterprise, and also of strict limits on public expenditure. His attitude to the health service was Derbish, though. Quote from the excellent biography by Simon Heffer, quote: “For all the emphasis Powell had already put on free markets and limiting the role of the state, he regarded the [National Health Service] as an essential social service and not as an economic good.” End quote. I’ll stand with Enoch Powell on this.

You’ve given me an idea for President DTJ’s next election night victory celebration four years from now: The iconic Pink Floyd song accompanied by a psychedelic laser light show exhibiting the newly-erected Great Wall of Trump in all its glory…

It’s untenable to predict that “most” Latino illegal aliens will end up apprehended by police for drunken or drugged driving, or for any other offense for that matter.

Besides, even if we could expect such arrests imminently, until they do occur, how many injuries and deaths as a result of such DUI and other crimes would we be prepared to accept the risk of incurring?

Re: your other points: What about a complete and total moratorium on ALL new immigration until at least a certain level of progress had been made not only in changing our immigration policy but also in recovering from the results of the disastrous policies of the past half-century?

Wait, are you sure you’re allowed to use a word like chutzpah?

I mean, if you’re not Jewish, couldn’t it be considered “cultural appropriation”?

I understand and certainly agree with you.

Let me add that I have thought that it, perhaps, would have been better for Trump had he, instead of proposing restriction or increased scrutiny of Muslims, simply called for a complete moratorium on all immigration. Would that not have allowed him to avoid or at least minimize the hysterical “Islamophobia” attacks on him?

I have also thought that Trump missed many opportunities in not responding, whenever he was attacked as being “anti-Muslim” and “racist”, etc., by pointing to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record (as well as Obama’s)– specifically, to the fact that the countless victims of the carnage and misery for which Clinton, Obama and most of their compatriots bear culpability (to varying degrees) are overwhelmingly Muslim and/or Arab.

Since DJT will no doubt continue to face such attacks now that he is President, this advice of mine would seem to still be relevant.

Okay, scratch my idea. Thanks for the education.

Perhaps.

I’d like to see the President follow John Derbyshire’s suggestion on healthcare:

if President Trump were to put me in charge of reforming the nation’s healthcare system, my methodology would be to study all the systems in use in all the civilized nations of the world, assess them by the healthcare outcomes of those nations and citizen satisfaction, and just copy the best one. It wouldn’t resemble the U.S. system: not our system before Obamacare came in, and definitely not since.

Imagine Trump running in 2020 as the first President to have actually established real universal health care. Where that would leave the Democrats…

Is your posting handle based on that great scene from the 1986 film Crocodile Dundee in which star Paul Hogan responds to a switchblade-yielding street thug by saying (in his thick Australian accent), “That’s not a knife.”, This (revealing a large, imposing machete) is a knife.” ?

NYT calls it a “provocation.”

As opposed to being invaded by illegal aliens. That is no provocation at all and if you think it is…

Ah, the New York Times. Those great moral exemplars and arbiters guiding the way for us. Where would we be without them?

I would think that a Great Wall of Trump certainly could expected to be a tourist attraction, one that would bring much revenue to the border states.

I’m unable to parse your question in a way that would make sense.

Wouldn’t “…avoid having any comments…Komment Kontrolled [sic]” mean that the comments-in-question would appear? Why would someone use bribery to get comments that reflected negatively upon him to appear?

Let’s hope it actually will be better. Then the President could use a slogan like, “TrumpCare trumps ObamaCare”.

[Only tangentially on-topic]

had a lot of white people on Staten Island and Queens to draw from. A lot don’t live in Queens anymore, at least, having gone out east to Long Island.

Veteran listeners of New York talk radio will likely be familiar with the regular callers “John of Staten Island” and “Frank of Queens”. Both of these gentleman are, whatever else one may say about them, clearly outspoken, unapologetic immigration patriots and fierce opponents of the diversity racket and all other forms of Cultural Marxist insanity. The two iconic figures have had their own radio show, The Right Perspective, for some years already. Listening to it, I learned that while John is still living on Staten Island, Frank (who now calls himself “He of the First Blood”), has moved out of New York entirely.

A number of comments speculated (or quoted others who speculated) on various strategies on the part of President Trump that would require his delaying any action on DACA. The theories presented sound plausible to me (for whatever that is worth) and if the President is indeed stalling on the matter, I can only hope that some such strategy is the reason.

There are at least two other areas that are of great concern to me and in which I have been deeply troubled and worried by what we have seen from Trump so far. They are Iran and “‘LGBTQ’ Issues”. Unfortunately, when it comes to these, the odds that the President might, perhaps, be employing some strategy that would be similar to the ones posited with regard to DACA, seem quite low to me. But oh, how I wish he would! And I have little doubt that more than a few of Mr. Sailer’s regular readers and commenters would join me in in this wish as well.

Thank you, I’m glad you appreciated my comment.

Thanks for that blast from the past. Hope you enjoy the weekend.

Isn’t PBUH Peace Be Upon Him and isn’t that used for the deceased?

I still can’t quite believe the reverse McCarthyism we are living under. Just chilling.

Good points.

Also, wasn’t it “racist” on the part of the recruiter quoted to assume that Black male athletes are interested specifically in white women?

To say nothing of the revealed preference of so many black males for white females. (Yeah, I know, that would seem to be one of those things that we are not supposed to notice…)

the current atmosphere of “any accusation by a woman of any rape is 110% all the proof needed.”

Does that rule apply when the male accused is “of color”? (Or Muslim)

Isn’t this a case of narrative collision?

Was it really necessary to be quite that graphic and particular in describing what disgusts you?

Most of the “prison rape” stories are really just two men with a dearth of women around who get caught and then would rather lie about being raped than admit they consented to sex with another man.

Are you actually claiming that the majority of heterosexual men in prison who are anally penetrated by other men (or even who perform fellatio upon other men), play such roles willingly?

Especially nowadays with Viagra, you can always find a guy willing and able to have sex with a girl on camera.

Healthy males in the porn actor demographic needing Viagra? Performance anxiety, perhaps?

While not at the level of what you cite for Nathan McCall, I do recall reading quoted passages from Coates’ celebrated Between the World and Me that clearly came across to me (and the reviewer) as exhibitive of “aggressive pathologies”.

Variation on BLM: BPM…

[meta- no need to post but please read]

Mr. Sailer:

The comment of mine to which this is a reply, #210 in my view, dated January 29, 2017 at 6:18 am GMT, still shows as “awaiting moderation”– even though it appears to me that all of my other comments to this thread, including some that I had submitted /after/ this one, have all now appeared. Might you have overlooked this one? Please note, as well, that I apparently mistakenly generated a near-duplicate, which shows for me as #211 but the earlier one, #210, is the preferred one to post, as it includes the link of the comment that I was replying-to, while #211 does not.

I do acknowledge your disclaimer about comments being moderated “at whim” and I am most grateful for your having approved what may very well be, save this pending one, fully 100% of the comments that I have submitted to your threads to-date. I note that this comment that I am inquiring about now, #210, is sufficiently similar to a number of past comments of mine that were approved so as to make it appear unlikely to me that you would make a deliberate decision to reject it.

Thank you for your time and patience.

– Dissident

I have no doubt that’s been a common feature of all human history. Which means at some level women must enjoy and actually welcome gang rape. Which makes me a little sick to admit, but that may just be my Current Year ignorance at work.

It means no such thing, as should be obvious.

Men have been beating other men over the head for all of human history. It doesn’t mean men welcome being beat over the head, it simply means it’s reproductively successful for some men to beat other men over the head. Likewise here. It’s reproductively successful for some men to gang rape–specifically to gang rape women that belong to some other tribe\clan; women that they are not going to be able to, or do not want to claim as their own, support\marry. It’s a sign of tribal primitivism and lack of civilization.

Similar thoughts were expressed back in May by iSteve commenter “TheJester”:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/is-obamas-world-war-t-losing-even-the-nyt/#comment-1422541

I will quote a sentence from the concluding paragraph but I urge those interested to follow the link and read the entire comment, which is only three paragraphs.

The danger in all of this is that the SJWs, by precasting scripted rationalizations for girls, women, and minorities of both sexes regarding life and sexuality, are retarding their ability to grow up and deal with reality.

Mr. Unz,

Please accept my apologies for not acknowledging this prompt and courteous reply of yours until now. I also apologize if I came across as brusque, unappreciative or less-than properly courteous and polite or simply excessively demanding.

I certainly do appreciate the distinctions you made between the typos of yours that I had pointed-out and the type of egregious errors and lapses that you were cracking-down on.

I want you to know that I appreciate the work you put into this site and, particularly, your commitment to allowing the expression of dissident views (both in articles as well as comments) that fall outside of the prevailing entrenched orthodoxy. (I personally have had much exasperating experience at various “respectable” sites with having comments that were perfectly topical, civil and substantive rejected for no other reason than that they ran afoul of said orthodoxy and its Approved Narrative in one or more areas. My experience thus far with posting comments here at Unz has been a most refreshing change.)

Indeed.

Much like the way that those that scream the loudest about “tolerance” and “love”, particularly the “LGBTQ” “community” (mafia), have become the most intolerant and hateful*.

Also note the incredible hypocrisy, specifically, on the part of most of those condemning President Trump as “hateful”, etc.: These are the same people who, at best, are just fine with individuals like Al Sharpton. The very same people who demanded that President Trump “denounce”, “repudiate”, “reject” and “distance himself” from entities that he has absolutely no ties to (such as David Duke and the KKK), were just fine with such prominent Democrats as Obama and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio affording nothing but the utmost respect and honor to Sharpton and Obama’s having been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan.

*Many examples documented at: http://americansfortruth.com/

“Trans” mania, at least when it comes to children and adolescents, has gone too far even for a number of those who are firmly on-board for the rest of the degeneracy agenda; see:
https://4thwavenow.com/
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html

Thank you for sharing that Frankl quote, which I found most germane. Note, though, that you did not provide a citation for it.

SF would be a great location for such a statue.

Indeed, not the least of the reasons being San Francisco’s distinction as the capital of the Buggery Mafia, which is the very antithesis of responsibility.

(Now if only President Trump would take a stand against at least some aspect of said lobby’s pernicious agenda. Of all these, the excesses of “trans” mania, especially its targeting and victimization of innocent, confused children and adolescents, would seem to be the one that has the least support and the most opposition. Going after it, at least, could prove to be a popular move for President Trump.)

What does it mean when the MSM claims that Americans are opposed to their president’s policies, and fails completely to represent (or even admit to) the majority which actually approves of them?

What does it mean? I’d say it is yet more evidence (as if any more were needed) that the Main Stream media have long abandoned their putative role as reporters and journalists, becoming instead a machine of propaganda and disinformation to promote the Cultural Marxist and open borders, Globalist agenda.

Re: Jerry Seinfeld: Note this (Audio here).

Seinfeld’s no “deplorable” but the man apparently has enough sense not to have swallowed SJW-ism whole.

I voted for Trump very much DESPITE his obsession with Israel and his insistence on continuing our interference in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, not because of it.

I, a Jew, did the same.

This is another reason to support him since the apple never falls far from the tree.

Never?

How much longer, at the rate things appear to be going, before the Roman Catholic Church goes full SJW/Cult Marx? Is it not only a matter of time before, for example, male homosexual buggery is declared a sacrament?

While you raise compelling points (and ones that have long troubled me), I do not see how any of them would refute the basic argument that abortion is murder.

I wonder if any veteran listeners to New York talk radio recall The Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Program, a signature proposal of the late radio personality whose name it bore. It called for the use of long-term but reversible contraception (specifically, the Norplant hormonal implant) being made mandatory for all female recipients of welfare who are of child-bearing age for as long as they remained on the public dole. (Grant would always add that if there were a practical way to track down the “studs” who impregnate these women and force them to undergo vasectomies, he would be all for doing so as well.)

Of course, all the usual suspects raised all the usual objections, hysterically and reflexively decrying the very idea as “racist”, Nazi-like, etc. But when considering the miserable lives and all-too often unspeakably brutal, heinous ends endured by so many of the unwanted, unloved spawn whose births would have been prevented by such a policy, it seems quite humane to me.

Re: Trump’s “Well, they might have to go to another state then” in his interview just after being elected:

Could this wink and nod to fellow libertines and hedonists (that they need not fear suddenly finding themselves without this means, one that they have relied-upon and taken for granted for so long now, of disposing of the inconvenient results of their indulgence) have been any more transparent?

4. Gayria

Pros: Creativity and ambition. Alliance with Jews who promote homomania as new religion.

Only Jews who reject or completely pervert Judaism. (Alas, such individuals now make-up the majority of those ethnically or genetically Jewish.) You may not like (even authentic) Judaism but at least be accurate and honest enough not to confuse or conflate it with Cultural Marxism/SJW-ism. Judaism, as anyone at all actually familiar with it would know, is quite unequivocal and unambiguous in condemning homosexual behavior.

How many comment-posters have been granted auto-approved status?

Also how do fellow Conservative Jews here on The Unz like Syronredux feel about the term Adolf Hitler being thrown around way too loosely at anybody they politically disagree with?

Ideologically conservative Jew here. (As many of my posts would attest, I would likely be numbered among the “irredeemable” sub-set of what the estimable Ms. Rodham-Clinton infamously termed the “basket of deplorables”.) I completely agree about the completely excessive and indiscriminate use of comparisons-to (and even outright branding of entities as) Hitler and Nazis. I find such hysterics not only preposterous but also deeply offensive and morally reprehensible. Such unwarranted, often downright frivolous invocations minimize the enormity of the Nazi genocide and dishonor the memory of its victims.

Insert person is Hitler has become like the boy who cries wolf.

Indeed. It has no doubt caused countless people to reflexively roll their eyes at any charge of anti-Jewish bias or hostility, thereby making it less likely that legitimate instances of such will be taken seriously by anyone. I also have little doubt that such false alarms inevitably exacerbate such bias, hostility and hatred where it already existed and even create it where it did not. And that they have driven more than a few people toward finding credibility in the claims of those who deny or at least minimize the historical fact of the Nazi genocide.

Are you familiar with Godwin’s Law?

“Hitler” and “Nazi” seem to have almost become as meaningless as “fascist” long ago became.

Note that I am unclear as to how to parse your phrasing “fellow Conservative Jews”. Were you identifying yourself as a Jew? Or was the “fellow” limited to being conservative? Your capitalization of “Conservative” adds to the ambiguity; when coupled with “Jew”, “Jews”, or “Jewish”, “Conservative”– capitalized– usually refers to the specific religious denomination that calls itself Conservative Judaism (but which, from a traditionalist, Orthodox Judaic perspective, cannot be considered Judaism at all).

Incidentally, let me note that while I believe there may be at least one or two other Orthodox Jews who at least occasionally comment here, I suspect I may be the only one who is emphatically non-Zionist.

Thank you.

After another quick search, I see now there is even a “Statue of Responsibility Foundation.”
http://www.statuefund.org/site/TR?sid=1051&pg=informational&fr_id=1060>

Very interesting.

I have to wonder, though, do they actually expect this to idea to become reality anytime relatively soon?

From the site:

NEWSFLASH: Due to popular demand, we’ve extended the Statue of Responsibility Fundraiser through April 30, 2017.

Also, based on the rendering of the proposed (planned?) statue, I don’t see the symbolism as being at all clear; how many people would read the two arms meeting each other as “responsibility”?

I’m not sure 9/11 can be related to Statue of Liberty.

If anything, the plotters were anti-Lazaruthan. (Leviathan is a sounder idea.)

They were opposing the ‘invade’, not demanding ‘invite’.

They were angry that the US and Zionism were invading and occupying much of the Muslim world. Osama, if he was indeed the ringleaders, said US must leave Saudi Arabia, must end sanctions killing 100,000s in Iraq, and must end its support of Zionist occupation.

True, the ease of travel into the US made 9/11 possible, but the themes of the plotters was anti-globalist. They weren’t calling for open borders into the West but Muslim world for Muslims.

If anything, they struck NY and DC as centers of globalist imperialism.
They didn’t ask for more Muslim immigration into the West. They were demanding no more Western intrusion into Near East.
The theme of the terrorists is “You do your thing in your land, and we’ll do our thing in our lands. If you invade us, we attack you.” But the globalists spun it as “Muslim radicals won’t let us be free on our own land, so we must invade & force them to be free in their own lands and, furthermore, invite more of them to be free like Ikeans and Walmartians; that will fix them.”

I think another American icon has been misinterpreted over the years.
If Statue of Liberty was remade into Statue of Liberality — going from Apollonian meaning of new order freed from old order TO Mercurian meaning of no fixed order in an ever-shifting world — , Lincolnism took on a Wilsonian mode, later to be expanded into WWII narrative.

Lincoln was about preservation of the union, and in the process he ended slavery and turned southern states free. But he had no intention of using this as template for all the world. But somewhere down the line, certain influential Americans came to believe that it was America’s role to spread freedom all over the world. In a way, it was a handy way to mask US imperialism at a time when the US was looking for turf overseas. Wilsonianism was a kind of paradox. In order for other nations to be free, they had to come under US ‘protection’ and control since the US is the guarantor of all that is good and noble. So, the Lincoln Memorial is now invoked to mean something more than the Civil War, and MLK is attached to this larger meaning. King’s dream was about black equality. Now, it’s used to mean just about anything, applying to illegals and invoked to inspire EU to accept more invasion. And WWII narrative has been broadened too. So, Putin is yet another one of those ‘new hitlers’. Any American patriot or nationalist who thinks ‘America first’ is a ‘Nazi’ and the sort who wouldn’t have ‘saved Jews’. And of course, every Arab or Muslim leader taken out by the US was a ‘new hitler’. (In the 70s, the music industry was looking for New Dylan. Now, the US government is looking for New Hitlers.)
The Iwo Jima memorial is about US victory against Japanese imperialism in the Pacific. But now, even homos use it as sign of Homo Empire for ‘civil rights’. Homo Jima.

Globalism is dangerous because it means all the world gets invaded and meddle d with and messed up. And the globalists who claim to have all of humanity’s interests at heart are not to be trusted. Did the likes of Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer shed a tear when globalists robbed Russia blind in the 90s or when 100,000s of Iraqi kids were killed by sanctions? Did Schumer ever complain when Obama and Hillary’s policies in MENA were creating the refugees in the first place. Hillary has to be one of the most sociopathic monsters ever. And Billy Boy is a chameleon with no fixed conviction in anything.

Globalists aren’t fit to rule a single nation, let alone the world.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is also the left’s most prominent friend of Putin.

Really? That surprises me because from the few times I’ve heard her speak (on NPR’s New York outlet WNYC), vanden Heuvel came across as a complete Obama apologist.

[Going off on a tangent]

When did normal men and even “alphas” start wearing pink and purple?

Both President Trump as well as at least one of his adult sons have appeared wearing ties that were pink and/or purple. (In the case of at least one of the sons, I cannot rule-out the possibility that I even saw him in a pink or purple shirt.)

Ron Paul, in his recent interview with InfoWars quack Alex Jones, was wearing a pink shirt.

Lest anyone assume or suspect otherwise, let me say that I neither embrace nor exemplify any kind of machismo ideal. Far from it. I will also note that I suspect that I am considerably younger than most people would imagine someone expressing such thoughts to be. Perhaps I just wasn’t paying close enough attention until recently, I don’t know. But what can I say? To see normal (i.e, unambiguously “cis-gender” and heterosexual by all indications) men wearing colors that I always associated with femininity and male homosexuality is odd to me.

(Of course it goes without saying that such thoughts are yet further proof — as if any more were needed– of just how deplorably “homophobic”, “transphobic” and “cis-hetero-normative-centric”, etc., etc. I am.)

[Following from the tangent, to a topic completely removed from that of Mr. Sailer’s post:]

Also, speaking of the President and his sons, something I should have asked in one of the inauguration threads but missed my chance:

For anyone who watched the President’s youngest son, Barron, at all during the inauguration: Do you think the boy was trying to emulate his father’s signature facial expressions (those distinct grins and grimaces)?

Why, a rainbow, of course! Is there even any question?

To symbolize the full “glorious mosaic*” of who we are, in all its vibrancy and diversity.

To the colors of rainbow, add black (certainly) and perhaps white as well. Probably want to work-in a star and crescent and/or a hijabed beauty to symbolize solidarity with our oppressed, persecuted Muslim sisters (and, uh, brothers, too, I guess…). Maybe try to get an effigy of Trump in there as well, wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to signal our brave defiance of Hitler Incaranate [TM] himself and resistance to his fascist [sic] tyranny, now would we?

(*Former NYC Mayor David N. Dinkins)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rainbow

(Following six entries for the noun form)

adjective
7. having a diverse membership; including representatives from multiple racial and ethnic groups:
a rainbow coalition of minority groups

I hadn’t realized this definition had actually made it into the dictionary.

Doesn’t the limitation to “racial and ethnic” seem odd and woefully dated?

Surely, the one area of vibrant diversity, more than any other, that “rainbow” has come to symbolize is sexual orientation and “gender identity”.

What about various martial arts? Would be interesting to see the iSteve commentariat weigh-in on the topic.

Really? So, former NYC Mayor David N. Dinkins* and his police commissioner were actually following Anglo-Saxon precedent when, during the Crown Heights pogrom in 1991, they allowed the blood-thirsty mobs to “vent” before restraining them? Who knew.

*Or “the man in lieu of a Mayor”, as the late Bob Grant would say.

And thus, a new post and with it, an entire new comment thread, was born.

Yes, I agree as well; I find the whole emphasis on religion/ethnicity that so many have expressed here with regard to Supreme Court nominations misplaced and odd. Aren’t qualifications, judicial philosophy, record and integrity what matter in a SCOTUS nominee? If, in those areas, a hypothetical nominee were to be solidly in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, would it really matter what his (or, for that matter, her) religion, race, ethnicity were? Sure, one may, all things being equal, have his own personal preferences in this area but aren’t such preferences completely overshadowed and outweighed by the former criteria I listed?

He [President Trump] should frame it purely as “free speech”, not an endorsement of Milo.

That is precisely how Noam Chomsky framed the controversial endorsement he made decades ago of a book by Robert Faurisson, a French denier of the Nazi genocide. Professor Chomsky, who actually wrote a foreword to Faurisson’s work, insisted that in doing so, he (Chomsky) was only taking a principled stand for freedom of speech/ freedom of the press and was in no way endorsing or sanctioning Faurisson’s views. Chomsky is widely quoted as saying that it is precisely for speech that is unpopular and deemed hateful that protections for freedom of speech are necessary; for no one, argues Chomsky, objects to the expression of views that they find agreeable.

I wonder if we will see the seasoned leftist intellectual icon take a principled stand– on the very same grounds– in defense of the rights of Milo Yiannopoulos, to speak, and the right of the students who invited him to speak. And, also, against the serious violence that has been perpetrated by the “protesters”.