[From the Washington Post piece that is the basis for Mr. Sailer’s post] Malthakos was even a technical term in late antique medicine to pathologize same-gender desire, particularly for men acting as the passive partner in such acts.

Particularly? More like only. “Men who slept with men” in our sense of that phrase was not a category. “Men who got nailed” was a category.

But who were such men “getting nailed” by? Other men, right? Were they ever considered “basically normal men who happen to be attracted to [and bugger] other men”? Can any man whose erotic interest is even predominately in other males (whether men or boys), let alone exclusively, properly be considered normal?

You know, eunuchs weren’t just randomly “assigned male at birth” or they would have to castrate them.

Didn’t you mean to write, “or they would not have to castrate them”?

Asians contributed nothing.

This is not what I would claim, but I know what “Asian activists” would bring up first:

But building death factories is mind blowing because it is the epitome of civilization AND the epitome of barbarism both at the same time.

The Romans were the epitome of civilization in their time. They had fairly systematic ways of killing their problematic slaves in the mines while squeezing the maximum amount of work out of them. The idea that civilization involves being squeamish about killing your perceived enemies is a recent affectation.

Welcome to the post-Onion singularity world ; )

Nothing in Khan’s analysis is woke. His point wasn’t so much to criticize Tolkien as to point out how silly it is to attack him today for holding a view that was common in his day.

This is just word salad. Stalin killed millions but he built no death factories. You really don’t need death factories – in Rwanda they did it with machetes. Building death factories was a uniquely German thing.

And the “race of Tolstoy” was alway violent – to this day Russia is a much more violent place than Germany. The murder rate in Russia is 17x the rate in Germany.

You don’t need any imagination to imagine barbarity – man has been barbaric from the beginning and before that apes were. But building death factories is mind blowing because it is the epitome of civilization AND the epitome of barbarism both at the same time. The contradiction is what makes it unimaginable.

iSteve Does The Tolkien Society

Not bad.

Via Pinterest:

“A young Tolkien explores the village. ‘Sarehole is a great place for adventures,’ Chris Upton, a Tolkien historian said.”~ Beyond The Movies (I don’t know which boy is Tolkien)

[MORE]

Who are you to question a person-of-color’s personal, lived truth? Don’t you know that concepts such as that of objective facts are implicitly racist and white supremacist? Haven’t you read any Robin Di Angelo or Ibrahim X Kendi?

I neither read Russian nor know anything about this image. Only that it ties-in, tangentially, to at least three themes here:

Who can really know where the virus came from? Only a scientist trained in the field, with all the available and necessary data at his disposal, given enough time to do his research, and free from personal political biases and external political pressures.

In the real world there is no such thing as a scientist who is free from personal political biases and external political pressures.

The average American (or Australian) leftist is not planning mass murder,

the policies they have been conned into lead to the engineered extinction of white people.

If you’re referring to immigration then you’re conveniently ignoring the reality that mass immigration has happened because it’s in the interests of the corporate sector and the Chamber of Commerce types, and small business owners and farmers. Both the left and the right have supported mass immigration.

And immigration has not and will not lead to the engineered extinction of white people. That’s pure paranoia.

If you’re referring to low white fertility then you’re completely wrong. Due to a whole raft of social, cultural and political factors birth rates are plummeting among all races and it’s happening globally. The people most in danger of extinction are actually the Koreans.

Why is fertility collapsing? The most obvious explanations are technological (improvements in contraception), capitalism, consumerism, the decline of religion and urbanisation. None of which are leftist plots.

Who could take exception to a sentiment such as that? We would all love to be able to support ourselves by doing something we enjoy. The reality, however, is that often (and likely more often than not) is simply not practical or realistic.

Yes, I agree that people will always have to work jobs that are intrinsically unappealing. What I’m objecting to is an economic climate that allows bosses to make jobs unnecessarily shitty, by paying low wages and being abusive and tyrannical on the assumption that workers have no option but to put up with it.

The economic climate changing to give more power to workers is a positive development.

Of course, it could go too far in the opposite direction and workers with too much power can hold employers hostage and cause economic stagnation.

But right now, the problem in America is that capitalism is too ruthless.

Beyond that relatively moderate position, anthropologist David Grabber has convincingly shown – to me, at any rate, and perhaps a few others 🙂 – that the majority of jobs in a modern economy are “bullshit”, and create solely out of our elites fear that providing people with a sense of economic security that will make them less easy to exploit.

Graeber argues that in fact, we have already lived through a “silent” automation revolution that has rendered much work for many people obsolete, but our elites have for various philosophical and self serving pragmatic reasons chosen to hide this fact.

In this context, the increasing celebration of the ruthless Chinese model – on the part of both right and left, even though for ostensibly different reasons – becomes particularly insidious.

I wanted to make sure you were aware that Audacious Epigone had finally responded to the questions and concerns concerning moderation that we had recently voiced at his blog.

Thank you, I did not see this! I had a strong suspicion that Ron Unz was behind it (lol :)), but I thought I had asked AE to clarify in the past and he ignored my question, which made me think perhaps not. Perhaps I misremembered.

Anyways, thanks for your efforts in this regard!

Anyone who understands traditional Christianity knows how inimical the celebration of Pride is to anything remotely Godly.

I) Not only Christianity but traditional Judaism, certainly; Islam, I believe; and perhaps any number of other faiths too.

II) Must one be at all religious or have any belief in the supernatural to see, to sense, intuitively, a distinct, rather abject unwholesomeness to these sordid, lurid spectacles? A dark, unsavory, sinister, downright frightful character to them?

III) Clearly, there are ample compelling arguments that are universal and entirely rational, logical, empirical and evidence-based against the normalization and certainly celebration and promotion of what are objectively insalubrious behaviors and lifestyles.

What the Nazis did was literally beyond anyone’s imagination. If you had been a science fiction writer and you imagined a world where the race of Goethe would build death factories people would have called you a sick f*CK.

How different is such a sentiment from that which justifies intervention into foreign lands with the rationale of civilizing, enlightening or liberating them?

I imagine most Europeans who traveled to the Americas did so simply to seek a better life for themselves, not to civilize or liberate strangers.

I was referring, in that sentence above, to what our host has famously coined Invade the World foreign policy; military invasions for which humanitarian rationales (in addition to ones of security and national interest) are typically, if not invariably, offered.

My remark was supposed to be a joke, poking fun at the political left that dominates the culture and normally paint Indians as saintly victims and whites as the villains practicing slavery.

The often abject savagery of at least many of the Indians should indeed neither be elided nor whitewashed. But neither, however, should the fact that it was the European settlers who were the ones who invaded said indigenous peoples, while they were living on their land, to begin with. And did the violence that was perpetrated against such populations amount to anything less than genocide?

To cite their savagery as a justification (whether explicitly or implicitly) for said invasion and violence? Just how fundamentally different is that from the pretexts for Invade the World foreign policy that I cited above? That was my primary point.

Thank you for the civil and sincere reply. My apologies if I was not clear.

the chap who is always rattling on about ‘minoritarianism’. (Is it AnotherDad? AndrewR? I get them confused).

AnotherDad, who, presumably, should absolutely not be lumped together with AndrewR:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/and-news-coverage-of-world-war-hair-has-never-been-better/#comment-4651085
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-israel-and-palestine-by-demographic/#comment-4668507

https://www.unz.com/article/roseanne-barr-uncle-remus-and-the-multicultural-politically-correct-briar-patch/#comment-2360587 (2018, June)

Mr. Sailer,

Kindly discard this comment I just submitted. I started with the idea of pointing-out two prominent Mayors that J.Ross’s proposal would not cover, but then got lost in a labyrinth of thought to the point that what I finally wrote makes no sense.

Thank you and sorry for the bother.

Minneapolis, Portland, Austin, in the recent past Chicago — is it time to ban non-haredi Jews from being mayors?

You mean to tell us that Bill DeBlasio and Lori Lightfoot are not just Jews, not just mere Orthodox Jews, but Haredi* (i.e., ultra-Orthodox [sic]* Jews? Now that would be some feat of crypsis…

*The Hebrew term Haredi is a less problematic one than its English functional equivalent, ultra-Orthodox. Although rarely expressly objected-to, the latter is in truth quite tendentious and even pejorative. My rejection of it is rather similar to the rejection of the term moderate Muslim that I had seen articulated by longtime Unz commenter Talha some time back.

I find that I usually get better results, and come nearer the truth, and usually turn out to be right, if I assume honest motives.

ROTFLMAO!

If that’s* your idea of assuming honest motives, I suppose I should be grateful for not having encountered you back in your dark days of assuming dishonest motives…

(*The incredibly rich examples in the linked comment.)

You just keep outdoing yourself. Thanks for the continued comic relief.

Few Americans want someone like the east Asian in question to leave and even if they did he’s not leaving, anyway; but he is only one individual on a spectrum and history is a slaughterbench.

I am not an island. I have a family, an extended clan (my wife’s people), friends, organic communities in which I am a member of long standing, and all those other people in my intersecting networks of affiliations and affinities have theirs in turn.

And that’s just all for one man. Now imagine a million or ten million people like me. Their extended social networks contain a huge fraction of the country’s population. I don’t think a majority of whites would ever support an ethno-state, because there are millions and millions of whites with nonwhite or part-white spouses, children, in-laws, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc.

The quest for a white ethno-state is not an aspiration – it is an exceedingly impractical (and likely bloodthirsty) idea that is rejected by a large majority of whites themselves. The only thing it will do is turn off the vast majority of Americans, whatever their race, to the much more sensible ideas and proposals that the nationalist right offers.

And Richard Spencer is a self-serving clown. I’ll take him seriously as an advocate for whites and their rights when and if he ever lifts a finger to help ordinary whites in actuality instead of trolling for media attention (and don’t get me started on how he apparently treated his ex-wife*).

*As Anatoly Karlin once wrote sarcastically, “Only the best people.”

Are there any Jews who say “I’m not Israeli, I’m American.”?

Yes, most.

Moreover,
1.) Jews, throughout the world, have always differed, often radically, from each other in their view of Zionism and the Zionist State that has usurped the name Israel.

2.) Many Orthodox Jews consider Zionism antithetical to Judaism. In fact, Zionism, from its inception and in all of its various forms, was unequivocally condemned by an overwhelming consensus of the foremost rabbis. Of a number of different problems (theological as well as practical) with Zionism that they warned against, was the danger that it would cause the loyalty of Jews throughout the world to their host countries to be questioned. (Our religion instructs us that we must be loyal, law-abiding citizens of the lands in which we reside.)

Thanks for asking. Links to related content below.

Your comment would be better if we knew what GIBS means.

It’s short for “GIBSMEDAT.” If that’s not clear to you, you’re at the wrong blog.

Do you not welcome the new and not-yet-initiated? Is it your wish to repel or discourage such individuals from reading and participating in the discussions here?

@RalphL: The term refers-to government handouts, particularly welfare to individuals who are widely perceived as unworthy of such taxpayer largess.

Perhaps the one mitigating factor is the lack of Jewish universalism and extremism in Chinese communist thought.

LOL! The only thing Jewish about Bolshevism were the disproportionately high number of Bolsheviks who were apostate Jews; ones who had violently renounced and betrayed the religion as well as the community of their upbringing, including their very own parents and siblings. Apostate, rebel Jews who were absolutely ruthless to their former brethren. At no point were a majority of Jews Bolsheviks or Communists, and at all points of the USSR’s history, its leaders and most ardent supporters included vast numbers of non-Jews.

I was just coping with the apparent changes in what is available and what isn’t (and I have a lot of sympathies with the agrarian folks)

Thanks.

Incidentally, I wondered whether anyone would recognize the photo.

These railway lines are intended for children aged 10 to 18 who want to learn more about how railways work.
[…]
Every year, 15,000 children receive practical training on children’s railways. More than half of them later go on to complete related university degrees in order to pursue a professional railway career.

Quite tangentially,

Your first link:
More and more Chinese 20-somethings are rejecting the rat race and ‘lying flat’ after watching their friends work themselves to death

Neijuan goes hand in hand with China’s “9-9-6” culture. The term refers to China’s “hustle” culture, where people work 12 hours a day from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. The 9-9-6 lifestyle was strongly championed by Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba, who once in 2019 called the 72-hour workweek a “blessing.” Long workdays are not only common but “expected” of staff, despite China’s labor policy mandating that employees not work more than eight hours a day.

Poor enforcement of labor laws has led to rampant cases of overwork. Stories of people dying at their desks or suffering from depression and exhaustion are not uncommon.

I wish them well.

Right. SIlicon Valley Woke-ism just sprang from the ether, like spontaneously generating monkeys.

A fertile ground of non-American non-Whites who have an interest in opening borders and bringing over extended families and grabbing plum jobs by disqualifying bad Whites is a total coincidence.

Subcons are some of the loudest voices who have have gone full-retard woke aka anti-White. Do you disavow?

The H1-B immigration stuff long predates wokeism and has relatively little to do with it.

Woke-ism is primarily about: Blacks, women (metoo), gays / trans rights. East Asians and South Asians are “conservative” on all of those topics and so are, in general, engineers, though some younger ones ARE pretty “woke”.

Also, IN the tech companies the wokeism has been driven _primarily_ by the non-engineering staff. People like “community managers” and other peripheral types not by engineers, though some DO participate.

Some Asians and South Asians, like the nutty people the NYTimes seems to showcase, are trying to piggy-back “API racial grievance” onto the woke movement, but who (other than NYTs) takes them seriously when they’re the richest ethnic group and over-represented in practically all professional fields, including management?

As some posted above and in other threads:

Tech – Google Diversity Annual Report 2020
48.1% white
47.6% asian
4.8% latinx
2.4% black
0.7% native american

get the link so that it is directly to the image file, not just to an html page that has the image in it

With some sites, such as Flickr, and last I had tried, imgur, posting the URL to the HTML page will cause the image to display in the comment.
Topical examples follow. Note how each image is automatically hyper-linked to its source URL, in this case the Flickr page where one can see all the provided info about.

Caption: Gavrilo Princeps captured, 28 June 1914, Heeresgeschichtliches Museum

[MORE]

Tourist replica of the “GRAF & STIFT” touring car that Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were travelling on Sunday 28th June 1914 when they were assassinated by Gavrilo.Princep. This is also almost the exact spot where the assassination took pl[ace]

A few more at

(Couldn’t find any that would work-in my signature motif of defiant celebration.)

Ah, there you go with the anti-Semitism. You see, David French wants to be your friend,[…]

David French is an evangelical Christian. (Or, at least, that he is how self-identifies, affiliates, and is at least nearly universally identified as by others.) Has anyone* even claimed that he is or was Jewish?

*Anyone, that is, other than the raving loons who claim that pretty much anyone and everyone whom they view as villains, including Dwight Eisenhower and Joseph Stalin, were/are Jews.

They don’t need to go to friend’s houses to socialise with them. They can have ‘sleepovers’ (i.e. gossip with friends all night) without leaving their own bedrooms.

Just gossip? Would that were to be all…

At least such remote contact cannot spread pathogens (at least not of the biological variety) or result in pregnancy or direct physical harm.

Incidentally, it is in this very vein that I would challenge the reflexive, categorical, unqualified objection to robotic sex dolls.

Would you, by any chance, be in any way related to Stan d Mute?

No.

Thanks. I thought I might have seen a relatively recent comment from one of the two Stans-in-question, to the effect that they were alter-egos of each other. I lack the requisite familiarity with either to judge how likely or plausible such a possibility would appear.

Let me take this opportunity to offer my condolences for your recent loss of your grandmother.

Indigenous Peoples Day is the perfect way to honor the slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism practiced by the Indigenous American Indians of America.

How different is such a sentiment from that which justifies intervention into foreign lands with the rationale of civilizing, enlightening or liberating them? As savage as many of the American Indians may have been, were they any less justified in resisting and fighting off foreign invaders than US citizens are today in doing so?

Our destructive elites (among whom Jews are both numerous and prominent) are neither evil cartoon villains seeking world domination nor unrealistic idealists with “their hearts in the right place.” They are simply self-serving and corrupt.

I think they vary a lot. Many are indeed self-serving and corrupt. Some have ideals. Some started out with ideals but gradually compromised them. Some are ideologues. Some are crazy. Many are stupid. Most are cowardly.

If you’re talking about politicians rather than elites in general I’d say that almost all are cowardly and stupid. The level of stupidity among politicians is frightening.

But some members of the elites do hold genuine beliefs. Some really do believe they’re making the world a better place. Of course some of those who believe they’re making the world a better place are also crazy or stupid.

This is one of the reasons why I am impatient with people who push things like “white genocide,” because that kind of simplistic conspiracy-mongering distracts from the real conflict at hand.

I agree.

But it’s clear that [Jews] are extremely well-represented in all the institutions of power in this country and have a prevailing ideology/political-orientation that is often inimical to the interests of the society at large.

But they don’t necessarily see their ideology/political-orientation as inimical to the interests of the society at large. You see it that way, but they don’t necessarily see it that way.

We should be able to discuss such tendencies without painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke, but also without being tarred as evil bigots.

And every time the issue comes up on UR you get numerous commenters who immediately start painting all Jews in a broad brushstroke. You don’t do that, but many commenters here do. The reason there’s a widespread assumption that the far right is full of anti-semites is that the far right really does include a lot of anti-semites. The far right can’t blame the media for all of its image problem.

Would you, by any chance, be in any way related to Stan d Mute?

Off-Topic, From Mass Resistance:

“Woke” Massachusetts GOP legislators demand resignation of Catholic party official for traditional belief on “gays” adopting children (June 9th)

Mass. Republicans pander to LGBT demands and viciously embrace toxic “cancel culture.”.

After getting huge $$ from transgender lobby: Texas Republican leaders derail bills to ban gruesome “sex-change” procedures on children (June 4th)

Interesting to see that from Glenn Greenwald. Is it the closest he has come, to-date, to actually dissenting from any of the fundamental tenets of the Gay Catechism?

In a recent post, I replied to another poster’s reference to “masculine and/or oppositional homosexuals” by disambiguating that term into three primary sub-categories that while often overlapping are nonetheless distinct. I offered Glenn Greenwald as an apparent example of what I enumerated as the first of these categories,

Those whose dissent is not so much, if at all, from the specifically Gay* Narrative of the broader prevailing orthodoxy, but rather in one or more other areas*.

Large new IPSOS survey of LGBT attitudes internationally. Summary.

Nearly 1 in 5 young adults say they’re not straight, global survey finds [NBC News, June 9th, 2021]

The survey, conducted in 27 countries, also found that 4 percent of those in Generation Z identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming or gender-fluid.

Related:
Audacious Epigone, April 27th:
Interest in Open Relationships by Sexual Orientation

Steve Sailer:
LGBT Recruitment Drive Succeeding Wildly (February)

My Review of “Irreversible Damage: the Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” (March)

Interestingly, if not entirely surprisingly, India has the highest percentage of people who identify as non-heterosexual.

Why do you say “not entirely surprisingly”? Some reason particular to India?

This is also bullshit about the Columbus Day being so important to the Italian American community. Maybe Italian restaurants run a special on that day, but that is about it.

Haven’t Italian-Americans mobilized in many cases to prevent desecration and removal of Columbus monuments?

It was also my impression that spring break was another name for Easter, but avoiding the use of religious terminology.

Given the abject debauchery and wanton fornication fest that spring break has become practically synonymous with, could any serious Christian not take great offense at the association?

an abnormal transplant of your physical self into places you don’t belong

1.) Couldn’t the same be said about the automobile? Or even any technological advance in travel, going back at least as far as the wheel? By your apparent logic, couldn’t you argue that traveling farther than is possible by riding an animal is “abnormal”?

2.) If one were to remove the qualifier “physical” from your statement, couldn’t it be applied to any form of telecommunication? Including the one that all of us reading and participating in this thread are using: the Internet.

Related motif pic:

If Stalin’s only victims were various Bolsheviks in the purges he wouldn’t have been such a bad guy.

You claim you are Australian, right? Living in Australia? And you appear to be a boomer. So where do you meet and interact with all these American millennials?

Where did I claim to be talking about American Millennials? I was of course talking about Australian Millennials. I thought that was too obvious to need stating.

My circle is largely made up of people of my age cohort, interests and affinities, work life, nationality, religion and ethnicity. That seems to be pretty much true for most people.

So you don’t have any family? You don’t ever leave the house? You live in some kind of bubble?

Oh, and I spell civilization with a “z.”

That’s not your fault. Since you clearly live in a bubble you’re probably not aware that non-Americans exist.

A lot of being a progressive is deluding yourself that you care deeply about people you don’t know and are possibly afraid of, judge or despise.

It is also important to try and recruit others to support your delusion; which is why virtue signaling is so popular.

Having children distracts from this, as does getting older. They greatly reduce the need to feel important by inflating oneself through pretending to “heal the world”.

“A black person I have never heard of before got shot by the police, I feel so terrible, it is like my heart died. Whatever can we do about all these black people dying? Let’s get rid of the police! I am saving the world.”

I’m just going to address Soros and Wokery for now. Your paragraphs ask a lot of questions.

Soros probably does not believe in Wokery. I have never read or heard him push those beliefs.

Many of the organisations which he funds do believe in it, but Soros need only believe in those organisations, not share their specific beliefs.

It is ordinary to defer your opinion to people who are recommended to you, or you consider expert.

Soros likely sincerely believes, while recognising that they are fallible, in the processes of the various NGOs he supports.

He may also enjoy the chit chat of the Woke and trendy NGO workers.

I’ve given up because i don’t believe you understand what the “social contract” is/means.

Your view that you can do whatever you want because you didn’t explicitly sign a document with “society” or “the government” is actually something that’s been part of the conversation on the topic over the past few hundred years.

For example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Contracts_must_be_consensual

A reasonably quick overview of the broader theory is further up the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Philosophers

I brought up the Christian stuff because the western world, and thus our basic social contract, is based on a Christian foundation to a large degree, and more specifically the conversation that you jumped in on was that in enforcing this forgiveness the government was taking over the proper role of the church.

In any case, your argument as i understand it has nothing to do specifically with whether you have to forgive criminals once they’re released; it could be applied to every law at every level or any social norm.

Have you ever explicitly agreed not to take other people’s stuff? not to kill them? Unless you’ve taken an oath of office of some sort about supporting the Constitution then i’m guessing you probably haven’t.

Thanks. I actually do consider the matter somewhat more complex than I had allowed for in my previous comments. Must run, perhaps will elaborate another time. Take care, peace and blessings.

NOTE Concerning my previous comment, in which I satirized V.K. Ovelund’s initial reply to me in this thread:
I hope it is clear to everyone that I was engaging in a form of satire/irony in order to make a point. I absolutely do not believe what I altered Mr. Ovelund’s text to read. I have no objection to any of the other comments concerning Christianity and related matters that I had quoted. I was merely creating a sort of inverse of what VKO had done to me; demonstrating that the two were like two sides of the same coin; that for someone to seriously make a comment such as the one I was ironically making, would be little, if any, different, fundamentally, than what VKO’s had done.
~ ~ ~

Keep in mind American Jews are liberals first and Jews second.

That’s too broad and unqualified of a statement. While it may more-or-less accurately describe many American Jews, it most certainly does not describe all or even necessarily nearly American Jews.

1.) It completely excludes nearly all Orthodox Jews who, while definitely still a minority, are a rapidly-growing and far from insignificant one.

2.) Even among the non-Orthodox, and even the completely secular, the matter is not so simple. For, if nothing else, one must consider that many such Jews equate what I shall broadly refer to as liberal, Leftist, and “social justice” values with Jewish and even Judaic ones. More than that, for many, and perhaps even most non-Orthodox forms of (so-called) Judaism and/or Jewish identity the aforementioned values, ideology and activism have actually supplanted any traditional form of Judaism.

American Jews love Muslims but hate Christians.

That’s a wildly, recklessly sweeping, blanket, unqualified statement. The assertion that American Jews hate Christians, certainly, is very much at odds with my experience– both as a secular Jew, as I was raised, as well as an Orthodox one, as I have lived since at least the age of fifteen or so.

I must run now. This comment of mine from November 2019 may be of interest to some. In it, I elaborate a little on my views on both Christian-Jewish as well as Muslim-Jewish relations.

Mormons are not Protestants.

They’re not even Christians.

(And a number of other comments from several other individuals, some excerpted below[1] the long, modified one immediately below.)

Jews Christians are what they are. It is not up to me to define them. Jews Christians are eminently able to define themselves without my help. However, for Jews Christians to divert attention from Jewish Christian misdeeds by tying gentiles non-Christians up in fruitless debates over who is and who is not a Jew Christian is a tired old trick. Jews Christians know who is Jewish Christian: they only want us gentiles non-Christians to be confused about the question.

A considerable amount of discussion in the comments about memory and recollection, and specifically, visual memory. Did not notice any mention, however, of confabulation, and how often, much of what we recall is actually a composites of what are actually two or more separate incidents, events, experiences or images, synthesized into what we recall or visualize as one. In recent years, I’ve become increasingly conscious of this phenomenon. Among the many areas it occurs with is Internet comments just like these. Both with my own, as well as with those posted by others, when I actually go and check specific past comments, I frequently find them to differ, even rather considerably, from how I had recalled them.

(Incidentally, thank you, as well, for your endorsement of a recent comment of mine in a different iSteve thread. And for remaining civil, reasonable and responsible throughout this reply that I am presently responding to.)

I enjoy reading your comments for the most part. I didn’t think your comment “I’m flattered” was egregious (after all, I certainly haven’t denounced anybody over there either), only that it could be interpreted that way; I was trying to show that such an interpretation could be wrong or at least uncharitable.

It is easy for a smart and ambitious woman to combine her career with kids.

Easy? Managable, perhaps. But easy? To paraphrase our esteemed President, Come on, woman!

(Pardon the blatant gendering, but I believe you have identified yourself as female.)

A woman expecting to be able to raise a family while at the same time pursuing a full-time career, without at least one of the two being any the worse for it?

have my cake and eat it

Exactly.
~ ~ ~
From, The Telegraph, July 2015:
We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology

Feminist organisations, backed by government policy, are teaching young boys at school to feel guilty and ashamed of their gender, writes Dan Bell

Would we see a piece like that in the Telegraph today? The article highlighted by the recent post Columnist Canceled for Suggesting Princess Markle Name Her New Baby “Georgina Floydina”, along with a number of comments in the thread, suggest not.

(Note how the URL for the above image does not end in a photo format file extension. Flickr is formatted so that it works here that way.)

The thing that strikes me about pieces like this is how the “problem” they identify is something that 95% or more of American households cannot relate to at all. The number of relationships in which both members are working towards elite occupations like partner at law firms, medicine, business or whatever is tiny. Obviously these are situations that to the extent they exist at all are more prevalent in New York where the Times and a slew of magazines are headquartered, but the bigger problem for most families is that both parents have to work just to afford a decent lifestyle these days in the first place.

One I recall was: white girls are for marrying, black girls are for employing and mulattas are for fu-

Would that have been more descriptive or prescriptive? Dare one even wonder, let alone ask…

Went over big at the time with the cruder among Mr. Sailer’s race-obsessed fanboys, though.

{grimace}

A big proportion of aphants have aspergerish traits apparently.

I have a relative who recently received an unofficial diagnosis as having Asperger’s. We also learned a few years ago that he does not visualize or create images in his mind when reading (and does not like reading fiction).

Interesting. I’m at least Asperger-like in many traits, but much closer to hyperphantasia than aphantasia.

I’ve always had a highly active imagination. Also, spending many hours listening, first to talk radio, then to old time radio, audio books, and various lectures and podcasts, results in a great deal of elaborate graphic mental visualization. Would like to see some discussion or data on the effects that the transition from radio to television and film had upon mental functions related to imagination and visualization.

@Red Pill Angel:

I tend to remember things people say, though, forever.

That’s me. Can recall conversations from as much as decades ago in uncanny detail.

I would certainly agree that doing this is part of what makes a society civilized. I can even see an argument for some level of quotas in service toward an ideal of more proportionate representation across sectors for different segments of the population– but never at the expense of standards, at least not when they are at all critical.

I’d agree with that, but let’s be honest – in most areas standards don’t matter very much. Standards do matter very much when it comes to cardiac surgeons and structural engineers and nuclear physicists. They really don’t matter at all when it comes to sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists or economists – they’re all pseudosciences anyway. And when it comes to the humanities there’s no such thing as objective standards anyway.

Standards don’t matter when it comes to lawyers. We don’t need smart lawyers, we need honest lawyers, and affirmative action is not going to make any difference. Standards don’t matter when it comes to low-level bureaucrats. Or even high-level bureaucrats. Or accountants. Or cops. Or bankers. Again honesty is more important than competence. It could even be argued that smart bankers and lawyers are more of a menace than dumb ones.

What we do need to do is to improve the levels of honesty but I have no idea how that could be achieved.

There are lots of fields in which no great harm is going to be done by favouring some groups that require some help.

Because they ask Kabbalic questions like this one.

If there is anything “Kabbalic” here, it would be entirely within your fevered imagination.

Observator had posted a comment in which he presented quotes averring that Jews are a race. It was in direct response to that, that I posted the comment that I did, in which I challenged and presented arguments against the assertion that Jews are a race. Perhaps one or more parts of that salient and germane chronology had slipped your notice or memory when you wrote your comment.

Jews are what they are. It is not up to me to define them.

You can’t have it both ways, now, can you? If one is going to hold an entire demographic or entity collectively accountable; if one is going to ascribe blame and malicious intent to it; to condemn, criticize, and castigate it,

However, I do recall that your only response to the purpose at issue here on a thread of Mr. Sailer’s in which a number of comments involved extremely silly and sometimes bizarre vilification of South Asians, as well as of Jews, was to tacitly agree (“I’m flattered”) with a comment that suggested that, though Jews as a class are undesirable, South Asians are at least twice as bad.

I was being entirely facetious there. My mock flattery was at being considered, as a Jew, in the view of Mr. Blank, only half as “bad” as South Asians. No endorsement was intended on my part of any of Mr. Blank’s blanket statements concerning South Asians. I appreciate your providing me with the opportunity to clarify. I wonder how many other readers may have misconstrued my intent in that comment, as you appear to have done.

Re: Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Perhaps Feminist, SJW, bitter, resentful, homely, etc. female journalists. But just female journalists, unqualified? Isn’t such a sweeping[1] statement too broad[2]?

*Not to suggest an automatic association between females and household chores such as sweeping.
**No pun intended.

Meta note: Looks like asterisks are now creating bold text.

I have been made aware that my above, entirely facetious comment, has been misconstrued by at least one reader. My mock flattery was at being considered, as a Jew, in the view of Mr. Blank, only half as “bad” as South Asians. No endorsement was intended on my part of any of Mr. Blank’s blanket statements concerning South Asians.

Communism was mainstream among Jews at the time

About 29,000,000 people cast a ballot in the 1924 presidential election. If 2.5% of those voting are Jews, that amounts to 700,000 odd Jewish voters. The Communist candidate won 39,000 votes in 1924. If they were all Jews, that would mean the Communist candidate won just north of 5% of the Jewish vote. Since only 20% of Foster’s vote haul was from New York, I would tend to doubt his supporters were entirely Jewish.

“No True Muslim” is not a game of any particular interest.

Would you respond the same way to someone who had asserted that Christian churches and organizations that proudly champion such causes as Black Lives Matter[TM]; Pride [TM]; or mass immigration into the West from the non-white third-world, were “mostly irrelevant to Christianity, no matter what they and their fellow deviants might claim”?

Seems like you have committed the all-too-common Misapplication of the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy.

Thank you for clarifying your view. Your points are well-taken, and I don’t think I would disagree with or dispute any of what you have written here.

Do you really want a doctor or a lawyer or Senator who is mentally ill, or would you prefer one who is not? Would you rather have nurses who are mentally ill taking care of your parents, and teachers who are mentally ill teaching your children? Would you rather have a mechanic who is mentally ill fixing the brakes on your car?

Concerning the presence of mental illness, for all of the cases (at least, as a rule) you enumerated:

Thank you for replying. Your points are well-taken.

Just from listening to Peterson’s and his daughter’s accounts of his ordeals alone, it becomes rather clear that something is quite wrong with the whole situation.

So, yes, Gates, Soros, Buffet, the Rockefellers, Bezos, Musk, and the whole lot, they’re Bond villains.

Thinking that the world’s population is too high does not make a person a Bond villain. Whether a person qualifies for Bond Villain status depends on the nature of the solution that the person is proposing. If someone is saying that the world’s population is too high and that we therefore need to kill a few billion people then that person is most definitely a Bond Villain.

But if a person is saying that it would be a good thing for the world’s population to decline simply through the natural process of falling birth rates then that person is not a Bond Villain. You can make fairly convincing arguments that in the long term we’d be better off with a smaller global population. Whether you agree or disagree with such arguments is up to you. But if a person wants to see global population decline without killing anybody and without resorting to coercion then there is nothing evil, inhumane, immoral or villainous about such a position.

It’s going to happen anyway. Global population is going to decline. And it’s happening without mass murder and without coercion.

The only thing worse for a non-White than living in a racist America among bigoted Whites is not being allowed to immigrate to a racist America and live among bigoted Whites.

My all-time fave.

It is not objectively reasonable or logically parsimonious to say that all of these different peoples just consistently came to hate this one particular group of people irrationally and without any cause.

True. But nor is it objectively reasonable or logically parsimonious to say that all or even most of the hostility and persecution that Jews have faced over the centuries was solely and entirely reasonable and rational, let alone entirely deserved or justified. The reasonable and responsible ground is found, as it almost always is, in the vast expanse that lies between the equally tendentious narratives at each of the polar extremes. One of these you and quite possibly most Unzians (at least beyond iSteve), including the site’s proprietor, fall at or very near. Perhaps not all the way at the opposite pole but too near to it are individuals such as Jack D and Art Deco.

Human conflict tends, more often than not, to be more complex and complicated than simple and one-sided. As the old saw goes, There are at least three sides to every story: His side, her side, and the truth, which nearly always falls somewhere in-between.

us Jews

I’m still not sure whether your repeated self-identification as a Jew is intended to be serious or not.

Might it be a satirical inverse of the “fellow white people” shtick that is part of the sanctimonious, officious scolding engaged in by some particularly obnoxious Jews?

// intended by evolution//

Do you not see the irony in this statement?

I think the reverse is true.

The purpose of using a metaphor is to create a vivid image in the mind of the reader or listener that brings home the reality of the idea that is being explained.

If the metaphor does not have that effect the most likely explanation is that this is a tired or worn out metaphor that has become a cliche.

Saying that skating on thin ice will get you into hot water is a perfect example of a metaphor used very poorly, and the person who thinks in visual images will immediately recognize that, or recognize that the joke is that the metaphors are mixed and nonsensical, whereas the person who doesn’t form an image of the metaphor may miss the incongruity.

Even children will pick up on the contradiction.