The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Dumb Do We Have to be to Let the Clintons Win the White House Twice in One Lifetime Over ... Sexual Harassment?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Slate:

Screenshot 2016-10-15 20.48.28

This past Tuesday marked the 25th anniversary of Anita Hill’s devastating Senate testimony accusing then–Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of workplace sexual harassment. In light of the most recent accusations against Donald Trump, it’s hard to miss the almost perfect synchronicity between these two October explosions of gender awareness. In a deeply personal and visceral way, America is having another Anita Hill moment.

In one sense it’s depressing: It’s been 25 years, and yet here we are, still talking about whether a man who allegedly treats women like lifelong party favors, should perhaps be disqualified from our highest governmental positions. But to despair that it’s gender Groundhog Day in America is to fundamentally miss the point: A lot has changed since October 1991, and American women are reaping the benefits of having gone through this looking glass once before. The nearly universal and instantaneous outrage at Trump’s comments and behavior—from the press, from GOP leaders, from really everyone outside of the Breitbart bubble? We have Anita Hill to thank for that.

It’s almost impossible for women like me, who came of age during the Thomas Senate battle, to miss the parallels between the two episodes.

Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice …

 
Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Well to be fair, it’s Hillary that’s running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Anonymous


    she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did
     
    Why not? We're not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man's loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don't you? You imagine there's some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @415 reasons, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    , @Glossy
    @Anonymous

    "Two for the price of one" - Bill in 1992. Still applies. And Hillary has already promised to put Bill in charge of the economy. Plus she intimidated some of Bill's accusers.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    …until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.
     
    That's like saying Nixon can't be blamed for what his staff did. That wouldn't fly with the 26-year-old Hillary Rodham.
    , @G Pinfold
    @Anonymous

    You really should preface your comment with 'O/T' if you are going to miss the point by that distance.

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @Anonymous

    Well to be fair, it’s Hillary that’s running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Camille Cosby, I presume?

    , @Eric Novak
    @Anonymous

    Hillary aids and abets everything feminists fight against, for her own benefit.

    , @J1234
    @Anonymous

    I'm just leaving a reply to ask how you like all of the replies you're getting?

  2. If Hillary wins, it’s quite possible both Clintons will have been impeached. That looks pretty stupid too. Or perhaps it’s tolerant.

  3. In one sense it’s depressing: It’s been 25 years, and yet here we are, still allowing men to exist and interact with women. Join me in signing a petition to ban males from public office.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @guest

    Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jefferson

  4. Some of us could probably benefit from some brief background on how the Anita Hill thing got the Clintons into the White House and why it was a fiasco.

    • Replies: @Bill
    @Opinionator

    Be 1991. Thurgood Marshall dies. Bush the Elder appoints Clarence Thomas to the Official Black Seat on the SC. Hearings commence:

    Anita Hill (spurned former Thomas underling and groupie):
    Thomas once said "pubic hair" when I was in his office.

    Thomas: Bullshit.

    Senate votes to confirm Thomas. Feminazis, corporate media, etc have continuous spasm until 1992 election ("Year of the Woman" blah blah blah). Bent Bill elected.

    Personally, I'm a little doubtful that pubic-hair-gate is what got that degenerate elected. Ross Perot probably gets the credit for that.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    , @WJ
    @Opinionator

    Anita Hill didn't get Clinton elected. A media that adored Clinton, a recession in 91 and 92 and a clueless old wimp whose time had come and gone (Bush 1) and Ross Perot got him elected.

    Even the Gennifer Flowers episode, the "I smoked pot but didnt inhale", and dodging the draft and the lengths he went to, to maintain his "political viability" afterward, exposed, couldn't stop the Panderbear (Paul Tsongas nickname for BJC). The Clintons have lived a charmed political ife. I suppose their only defeats, sort of, was the Gore loss in 2000.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  5. I think back on the testimony of Anita Hill, and what a mountain was made about a molehill. Let’s see. . . Thomas is supposed to have asked her out a few times. He mentioned the name of a character in a porno film, “Long Dong Silver.” He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard. And Orrin was a friend of Teddy Kennedy!

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. As someone observed, “How did Anita Hill survive middle school?” She must have been the original fragile snowflake. Or more likely, the original put-up feminist character assassin.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Harry Baldwin

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day.

    You are referring to comments by men toward women?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Harry Baldwin


    He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard.
     
    I don't why, but whenever I try to imagine that situation, I can't help imagining Justice Thomas giggling like Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons:

    "Hey, Anita, did somebody put a pubic hair on my Coke... eh-he-he-he-he-he..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbyEuLX5oyQ

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @SPMoore8
    @Harry Baldwin

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. Yes, the grossest sexual innuendo is constantly thrown in as a way of reducing tension. As for the infamous "c*nt hair on the coke can", I believe Orrin Hatch later on had a staff member locate that meme in the Exorcist or something.

    I didn't see anything wrong with Thomas' conduct. I seriously doubt that Anita Hill is such a prude as to have such language ruin her day. People that I have known like that in the corporate world, who consider such language "fresh" are rare and are never picked on, that's not the purpose of the exercise. It's a kind of venting, that's all.

    Replies: @CJ, @Bill

  6. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice …

    Can’t get fooled again?

    😉

  7. @Harry Baldwin
    I think back on the testimony of Anita Hill, and what a mountain was made about a molehill. Let's see. . . Thomas is supposed to have asked her out a few times. He mentioned the name of a character in a porno film, "Long Dong Silver." He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard. And Orrin was a friend of Teddy Kennedy!

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. As someone observed, "How did Anita Hill survive middle school?" She must have been the original fragile snowflake. Or more likely, the original put-up feminist character assassin.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Chrisnonymous, @SPMoore8

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day.

    You are referring to comments by men toward women?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Opinionator

    I am referring to the level of vulgarity in small talk at the office. I don't recall that Clarence Thomas ever said anything directly to Anita Hill that could have been regarded as harassment.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  8. Conspiracy or degenaracy?

    • Replies: @Olorin
    @Former Darfur

    I'm betting both...with a hefty dollop of these Fragile Victim (TM) broads aching for some sort of return of morality...and thinking they can supply it with their witches' hunts.

    Problem is, they don't seem to realize that they surrendered morality when they decided to put hunger for power ahead of anything else. That's related to the degeneracy part.

    In true Ancient Matriarchal Religion fashion, they think the shifting Saharan sands of their emotions are the One True God and that Truth is a) whatever myths they grunt out of whatever orifice that b) they can get the other ladies to provisionally agree with to be allowed to be part of the cheerleading squad maybe. That's like conspiracy, in that it's intentional and social...though not the same.

    There is no process for this in the reasoned sense, just a bunch of bullying, gossip, etc. They cannot imagine there is any other way to think, and if they encounter examples of it, their instinct is to destroy it as a threat to the nests they've built.

    Most women I've known both personally and professionally don't even really believe in facts except when the "facts" they construct and select invoke and support their emotions, and they can rally other degenerate females around them with promises of power.

    This profoundly cultic/primitive religious behavior and inclinations can only produce degeneracy. We unfortunates capable of something else are having to live in a time where that is the ascendant mode. It may be centuries before degeneracy is driven out, and then only after the sorts of bloodbaths our ancestors had to endure and survive.

    If ever.

    Replies: @TheJester

  9. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did

    Why not? We’re not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man’s loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don’t you? You imagine there’s some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Um, because she didn't do it? Yes, I'm sure she's a rotten person, but that doesn't mean she should be blamed for her husband's actions. Just as Melania shouldn't be blamed for whatever Donald has done.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    , @415 reasons
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    When all this shit about women comes out I want Trump to say, "How can we take you seriously when you spout this concern about how a man treat's a woman. We know your husband treats women like pieces of meat, or prostitutes, or worse. Mere objects for his own sexual gratification. And you couldn't see fit to divorce him. If you can accept a man who obviously has literally no respect for women as your HUSBAND how can we see your sudden concern about what a man says on a tape 11 years ago as anything other than contrived political bullshit?"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Stephen R. Diamond


    You imagine there’s some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?
     
    Whores of a feather stick together.
  10. “The nearly universal and instantaneous outrage at Trump’s comments and behavior”

    What “behavior”? Surely they mean allegations.

    And if you believe the allegations, Trump just starts groping women he’s never met before.

    Here’s a question:
    If there was a female Democrat polititian who was accused, without evidence or eye witnesses, of sexual impropriety and then, because of these accusations, immediately vilified by her political enemies, would the media accept the accusations at face value and destroy the female Democrat polititian, or would they scrutinize the accusers and urge caution about rushing to judgment?

    Is there a third answer?

    • Replies: @SMK
    @Emblematic

    Precisely what kind of "sexual improprieties," hypothetically? And do you know of Bill Clinton's "sexual improprieties," including rape? There's your answer. The double-standard is political and ideological, not sexual. What if the female politician was a Republican who wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport millions of illegal aliens and end Muslim immigration?

    Replies: @415 reasons

  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    “Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice …”

    It’s mind-boggling. The American people are sheep, but the mainstream media are very powerful, very convincing and seemingly everywhere. It can be hard to buck conventional opinion, especially if your life is pretty busy and you’re only half paying attention to the news. You just hear the endless drumbeat that Trump is bad, bad, bad and an orange buffoon.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @Anonymous

    The mainstream media have gone so far, and to such an extreme, that Trump allies should be encouraging everyone to cancel their subscriptions and stop watching regular TV.

    There was a lot of debate about what television was for back in the 1950's - but now we know what TV is best at. It's the greatest sales machine ever created. Right now the rich who control it are using it for politics to sell Hillary, but if we threatened their asset they might pay attention. Cancel your subscriptions and stop watching.

    Replies: @travell-lyte

  12. All you have to do to make people believe something is repeat it to them a lot. If this weren’t true, there’d be no advertising. The closeness of the message to the truth is of little importance.

  13. Slate is so anti-White. It’s disgusting.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  14. We all know Trump is going to lose simply because of Demographics…

    So let’s focus on helping me make money!

    I want to place a bet on the election…which Swing State will go Trump?

  15. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    “Two for the price of one” – Bill in 1992. Still applies. And Hillary has already promised to put Bill in charge of the economy. Plus she intimidated some of Bill’s accusers.

  16. But don’t forget: it’s happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He’s learned (or should have) that he’s too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive – but they could only have played them against a chump.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    He’s learned (or should have) that he’s too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive – but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Nah. He doesn't need to play politics to win. He only needs to embrace and articulate a handful of key issues.

    , @guest
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    But he already has played with Big Boys and won. He is the Republican nominee against the wishes of the people who run the Republican Party.

    Okay, he may not beat the Bigger Boys. But lots of people have failed to be elected president. It wouldn't be evidence of stupidity.

    He has gotten way, way further than most anyone expected, on a national scale and in the face of massive, organized opposition. That doesn't make for a chump.

    , @Boethiuss
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    If oooooonnnnnly there were a way where we could put aside the unsuitable candidates before they run against the other party.

    , @Clyde
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    You post mindlessly for Hillary...all the time. I have yet to see a palatable comment from you. Your rage against Trump is you projecting.

    Replies: @Stan

    , @Tim Howells
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The field is littered with the dead and bleeding bodies of people who thought they were smarter than Donald Trump. One more to go!

  17. We’re going to elect a Clinton again because of *phony* charges of sexual harassment levels by women scorned.

  18. Well, we appear to be pretty dumb. Present company excluded, of course. 🙂

    • Replies: @iffen
    @JerryC

    I assumed that his question was rhetorical, but I agree with you.

  19. Steve, this is why you have to be very careful on WASP cultural worship. I’m mostly descended from them so I can say this, but it’s looking more and more like they’re somewhat of a fluke

    Sure, you can admire them all you want for supposedly being the nicest, most civilized, highest civilization or whatever. But does that mean anything if they collapse after such a short time?

    Should a husband be applauded for being so nice to his wife, always forgiving her for cheating on her all the time? So much so that you suspect he might be enjoying it, watching it, sneakily driving her to it by being “nice”?

    Props on Trump for being a WASP and trying to fix things, that is, unless you’re still REALLY WORRIED MAN about him golfing with Bill Clinton.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @WASPY

    You're not very in touch with American mōrēs in the current year if you think that you have to be descended from WASPs to criticize them. In the "progressive stack", WASPs are the most privileged group and have the longest track record of being oppressors therefore anyone may criticize them.

  20. Wasn’t there a Clarence Thomas tv movie on HBO recently? (Why is so much on HBO about black people? Even the LBJ movie was wall to wall black stuff.) I didn’t watch because I had recently been watching the O.J. miniseries and had Negro Fatigue, though Thomas is “one of the good ones.” I read his autobiography, and whoever wrote it did a good enough job that I finished it in one night.

    I was like 10 when this happened, so I don’t remember it clearly and don’t know how it put the Clintons in the White House, exactly. I do remember thinking at that ripe age that it was much ado about nothing. Seriously, you can’t be on the Supreme Court if you’ve ever hit on a woman? No wonder politics is devoid of Great Men.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @guest

    Yes, there was, but it was mainly about The Heroic Anita hill. The film wasn't too hard on Thomas, he is black after all.

  21. @Stephen R. Diamond
    But don't forget: it's happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He's learned (or should have) that he's too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive - but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @guest, @Boethiuss, @Clyde, @Tim Howells

    He’s learned (or should have) that he’s too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive – but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Nah. He doesn’t need to play politics to win. He only needs to embrace and articulate a handful of key issues.

  22. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    …until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.

    That’s like saying Nixon can’t be blamed for what his staff did. That wouldn’t fly with the 26-year-old Hillary Rodham.

  23. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    You really should preface your comment with ‘O/T’ if you are going to miss the point by that distance.

  24. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Anonymous


    she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did
     
    Why not? We're not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man's loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don't you? You imagine there's some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @415 reasons, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Um, because she didn’t do it? Yes, I’m sure she’s a rotten person, but that doesn’t mean she should be blamed for her husband’s actions. Just as Melania shouldn’t be blamed for whatever Donald has done.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous

    "Obstruction of justice" isn't in your vocabulary, is it?

    , @guest
    @Anonymous

    Wake me when Melania tries to leverage Trump's reputation to run for office.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  25. @Stephen R. Diamond
    But don't forget: it's happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He's learned (or should have) that he's too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive - but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @guest, @Boethiuss, @Clyde, @Tim Howells

    But he already has played with Big Boys and won. He is the Republican nominee against the wishes of the people who run the Republican Party.

    Okay, he may not beat the Bigger Boys. But lots of people have failed to be elected president. It wouldn’t be evidence of stupidity.

    He has gotten way, way further than most anyone expected, on a national scale and in the face of massive, organized opposition. That doesn’t make for a chump.

    • Agree: G Pinfold
  26. “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

    Bush “Fool Me Once…”

    How Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the alt-right — almost 200 years ago

    There is a very clear boundary between prescribed virtue and proscribed vice. Indeed, the health and safety police need that boundary to police, even if they have to prove that it keeps creeping forward with ever smaller steps. Inside the boundary, life is kept rigorously rational, scripted, risk-averse, sanitized, clean, and secure. But there will always be a misfit remnant beyond the gates, impulsive, unscripted, risk-begging, filthy, coarse, and dangerous.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is the alt-right.

    http://theweek.com/articles/654344/how-alexis-de-tocqueville-predicted-altright–almost-200-years-ago

  27. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Anonymous


    she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did
     
    Why not? We're not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man's loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don't you? You imagine there's some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @415 reasons, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    When all this shit about women comes out I want Trump to say, “How can we take you seriously when you spout this concern about how a man treat’s a woman. We know your husband treats women like pieces of meat, or prostitutes, or worse. Mere objects for his own sexual gratification. And you couldn’t see fit to divorce him. If you can accept a man who obviously has literally no respect for women as your HUSBAND how can we see your sudden concern about what a man says on a tape 11 years ago as anything other than contrived political bullshit?”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @415 reasons

    Close, but no cigar tube.

    Suggesting divorce would backfire, and rightfully so. She should instead have withdrawn from public life, and sought help for her man. That would be received better, and make Trump look compassionate to boot.

  28. @Anonymous
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Um, because she didn't do it? Yes, I'm sure she's a rotten person, but that doesn't mean she should be blamed for her husband's actions. Just as Melania shouldn't be blamed for whatever Donald has done.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    “Obstruction of justice” isn’t in your vocabulary, is it?

  29. @Anonymous
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Um, because she didn't do it? Yes, I'm sure she's a rotten person, but that doesn't mean she should be blamed for her husband's actions. Just as Melania shouldn't be blamed for whatever Donald has done.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    Wake me when Melania tries to leverage Trump’s reputation to run for office.

    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @guest

    Melania's English is not really good enough, even if she had the ambition. His kids might though. And their jobs already are based on leveraging their dad's reputation.

    Replies: @dr kill

  30. @guest
    In one sense it's depressing: It's been 25 years, and yet here we are, still allowing men to exist and interact with women. Join me in signing a petition to ban males from public office.

    Replies: @415 reasons

    Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @415 reasons

    If we cut the problem off at the source, we don't actually have to ban males anymore, do we?

    , @Jefferson
    @415 reasons

    "Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?"

    Just White males. It would be extremely racist to ban Black males and males who practice a certain religion of peace.

  31. Who’s fault is that? We’re so stupid we can’t cover Free Space in a bingo game.

  32. Once again this site is filled with neghead pessimism about Trump.

    The polls are cooked with heavy dem sampling. D+15! D+13! It’s ludicrous.

    All of the energy is on the GOP side. Snap out of your election blues…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    There's no arguing over the polls being tampered with.
    However, why would they cook them these days more than they did in the weeks past?

    Polls have shown that the "pussygrab" thing (which has a Zionist hand behind it, are you surprised?) is costing Trump, in a maybe decisive manner.

    It's having a twofold effect: harming Trump per se, helping the State media -- i.e. all of the media -- overlook the latest Wikileaks.
    To get an idea how interesting the leaks are, check out this.

  33. @415 reasons
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    When all this shit about women comes out I want Trump to say, "How can we take you seriously when you spout this concern about how a man treat's a woman. We know your husband treats women like pieces of meat, or prostitutes, or worse. Mere objects for his own sexual gratification. And you couldn't see fit to divorce him. If you can accept a man who obviously has literally no respect for women as your HUSBAND how can we see your sudden concern about what a man says on a tape 11 years ago as anything other than contrived political bullshit?"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Close, but no cigar tube.

    Suggesting divorce would backfire, and rightfully so. She should instead have withdrawn from public life, and sought help for her man. That would be received better, and make Trump look compassionate to boot.

  34. @Stephen R. Diamond
    But don't forget: it's happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He's learned (or should have) that he's too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive - but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @guest, @Boethiuss, @Clyde, @Tim Howells

    If oooooonnnnnly there were a way where we could put aside the unsuitable candidates before they run against the other party.

  35. @Stephen R. Diamond
    But don't forget: it's happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He's learned (or should have) that he's too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive - but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @guest, @Boethiuss, @Clyde, @Tim Howells

    You post mindlessly for Hillary…all the time. I have yet to see a palatable comment from you. Your rage against Trump is you projecting.

    • Replies: @Stan
    @Clyde

    How many shekels does Soros pay you?

  36. @Clyde
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    You post mindlessly for Hillary...all the time. I have yet to see a palatable comment from you. Your rage against Trump is you projecting.

    Replies: @Stan

    How many shekels does Soros pay you?

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Once again this site is filled with neghead pessimism about Trump.

    The polls are cooked with heavy dem sampling. D+15! D+13! It's ludicrous.

    All of the energy is on the GOP side. Snap out of your election blues...

    Replies: @Anonymous

    There’s no arguing over the polls being tampered with.
    However, why would they cook them these days more than they did in the weeks past?

    Polls have shown that the “pussygrab” thing (which has a Zionist hand behind it, are you surprised?) is costing Trump, in a maybe decisive manner.

    It’s having a twofold effect: harming Trump per se, helping the State media — i.e. all of the media — overlook the latest Wikileaks.
    To get an idea how interesting the leaks are, check out this.

  38. @guest
    @Anonymous

    Wake me when Melania tries to leverage Trump's reputation to run for office.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Melania’s English is not really good enough, even if she had the ambition. His kids might though. And their jobs already are based on leveraging their dad’s reputation.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    @Anonymous

    You are describing nepotism. I find nothing wrong with nepotism in theory or practice. Indeed, imagine a world where there is no incentive to better your offspring. It's not entirely a feudal system, but pretty close. Why do we all here give a shit about anything? There are many examples of the heir to the throne not working out for a particular kingdom or company, but that's the job of the Board of Directors.

    Nepotism is not crony capitalism or affirmative action.

    O/T - is AA the original euphemism or what?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice …

    I agree, most of all with the “humiliatingly”. Political confrontation has acquired the connotation of an evolutionary struggle, and if one of the sides will to lose, or are so sleepy-minded they don’t even see their enemies, they deserve loss, injustice, and certainly not to be grieved for by the unsleeping.

  40. @Harry Baldwin
    I think back on the testimony of Anita Hill, and what a mountain was made about a molehill. Let's see. . . Thomas is supposed to have asked her out a few times. He mentioned the name of a character in a porno film, "Long Dong Silver." He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard. And Orrin was a friend of Teddy Kennedy!

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. As someone observed, "How did Anita Hill survive middle school?" She must have been the original fragile snowflake. Or more likely, the original put-up feminist character assassin.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Chrisnonymous, @SPMoore8

    He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard.

    I don’t why, but whenever I try to imagine that situation, I can’t help imagining Justice Thomas giggling like Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons:

    “Hey, Anita, did somebody put a pubic hair on my Coke… eh-he-he-he-he-he…”

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Chrisnonymous

    Would that coke/hair comment be any worse than Obama showing off his erection to a planeload of giggling female reporters? Would the same action by Trump get giggles or would it be evidence of his lack of good sense.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGJIB5cO0cQ

  41. @415 reasons
    @guest

    Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jefferson

    If we cut the problem off at the source, we don’t actually have to ban males anymore, do we?

  42. Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    Steve,
    This is the only good part of the election so far. Up until now, my self-righteous co-workers have been coming into work everyday laughing at Trump or aghast over his behavior. Now they are a bit more quiet.

  43. @WASPY
    Steve, this is why you have to be very careful on WASP cultural worship. I'm mostly descended from them so I can say this, but it's looking more and more like they're somewhat of a fluke

    Sure, you can admire them all you want for supposedly being the nicest, most civilized, highest civilization or whatever. But does that mean anything if they collapse after such a short time?

    Should a husband be applauded for being so nice to his wife, always forgiving her for cheating on her all the time? So much so that you suspect he might be enjoying it, watching it, sneakily driving her to it by being "nice"?

    Props on Trump for being a WASP and trying to fix things, that is, unless you're still REALLY WORRIED MAN about him golfing with Bill Clinton.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    You’re not very in touch with American mōrēs in the current year if you think that you have to be descended from WASPs to criticize them. In the “progressive stack”, WASPs are the most privileged group and have the longest track record of being oppressors therefore anyone may criticize them.

  44. @Stephen R. Diamond
    But don't forget: it's happening because Trump (whatever else one thinks of him) is a stupid fellow. Trump really believed that his (supposed) business acumen would suffice for political success. Just another highly conceited rich guy. He's learned (or should have) that he's too stupid to play politics with the big boys (and girls). The Clinton methods are nauseating, repulsive - but they could only have played them against a chump.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @guest, @Boethiuss, @Clyde, @Tim Howells

    The field is littered with the dead and bleeding bodies of people who thought they were smarter than Donald Trump. One more to go!

  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Is there any record of Hillary Clinton having had any boyfriends or romantic connections to any men at all besides her husband Bill? Not much along those lines seems to have interested her. She does have Huma though.
    We’re lurching towards possible military conflict with Russia and our election brouhaha revolves around these trivialities so yes, we are that stupid and even stupider than that. It’s just bottomless.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    The Arkansas state troopers reported she and Vince Foster might have been an item.

    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill's election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?

    It's almost certainly not true, but it's the most romantic conspiracy theory ever made up about Hillary.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Jefferson

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @anonymous

    A lot of people think Webb Hubbell is Chelsea's real father. There is a resemblance.

    I know someone who vaguely knew Hillary at Yale. She said everyone assumed she was a lesbian.

  46. @Former Darfur
    Conspiracy or degenaracy?

    Replies: @Olorin

    I’m betting both…with a hefty dollop of these Fragile Victim (TM) broads aching for some sort of return of morality…and thinking they can supply it with their witches’ hunts.

    Problem is, they don’t seem to realize that they surrendered morality when they decided to put hunger for power ahead of anything else. That’s related to the degeneracy part.

    In true Ancient Matriarchal Religion fashion, they think the shifting Saharan sands of their emotions are the One True God and that Truth is a) whatever myths they grunt out of whatever orifice that b) they can get the other ladies to provisionally agree with to be allowed to be part of the cheerleading squad maybe. That’s like conspiracy, in that it’s intentional and social…though not the same.

    There is no process for this in the reasoned sense, just a bunch of bullying, gossip, etc. They cannot imagine there is any other way to think, and if they encounter examples of it, their instinct is to destroy it as a threat to the nests they’ve built.

    Most women I’ve known both personally and professionally don’t even really believe in facts except when the “facts” they construct and select invoke and support their emotions, and they can rally other degenerate females around them with promises of power.

    This profoundly cultic/primitive religious behavior and inclinations can only produce degeneracy. We unfortunates capable of something else are having to live in a time where that is the ascendant mode. It may be centuries before degeneracy is driven out, and then only after the sorts of bloodbaths our ancestors had to endure and survive.

    If ever.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    @Olorin

    I agree. Men have been accused of "slut-shaming" women who are sluts; and "fat-shaming" women who are fat. There is another category we need to work on ... and that is "fact-shaming" women when they engage in a generally hopeless command of the physical, social, and political world in which they live.

    There is a reason for this. One of the most common themes of the current phase of feminism plaguing the western world is that whatever a woman (especially a powerful woman) chooses is right ... because it is right for her (or us) or she would not have chosen it, get it -- emotion-based reality, circular reasoning, moral relativism, solipsism (def: extreme preoccupation and self-absorption with and indulgence in one's feelings). What other way is there to evaluate decisions and choices? A woman cannot be wrong. To think so is a form of misogyny, as it were.

    Two examples:

    1. Mutti Merkel inviting 1.1 million Muslim immigrants to Germany over the last two years. She has a grand scheme of caring for the immigrants while developing a uniquely German brand of Islam that will allow them to integrate as good, law-abiding citizens who appreciate and accept German culture. Bets anyone? Lots of "mothering" going on here. Is Merkel governing Germany or raising kids? How would we judge our male ancestors if they had invited Attila and his Huns or Genghis Khan and his hordes to be their compatriots and neighbors? Cognitive dissonance or unabridged stupidity.

    2. Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Samantha Power (UN Ambassador), and Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State) claiming the unilateral Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention to justify wrecking Libya and Syria and militarily intervening elsewhere around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating the hordes of refugees currently haunting Europe.

    Lots of "mothering" going on here. The Romans, British, French, and Germans were not so pretentious as to claim R2P and Humanitarian Intervention when they used military force to build their empires -- embarrassingly absurd and deceitful reasons to justify war when you think about it.

    Replies: @SFG, @SMK, @ATX Hipster

  47. “How Dumb Do We Have to be to Let the Clintons Win the White House Twice in One Lifetime Over … Sexual Harassment?”

    How ever dumb the majority of Americans are.

  48. @anonymous
    Is there any record of Hillary Clinton having had any boyfriends or romantic connections to any men at all besides her husband Bill? Not much along those lines seems to have interested her. She does have Huma though.
    We're lurching towards possible military conflict with Russia and our election brouhaha revolves around these trivialities so yes, we are that stupid and even stupider than that. It's just bottomless.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Harry Baldwin

    The Arkansas state troopers reported she and Vince Foster might have been an item.

    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill’s election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?

    It’s almost certainly not true, but it’s the most romantic conspiracy theory ever made up about Hillary.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Steve Sailer


    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill’s election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?
     
    The mystery of Foster's suicide was solved by the FBI, according to Ronald Kessler, the author of many insider books about the FBI and the Secret Service. Kessler's most recent book, The First Family Detail, reports the details. Kessler summarized this story in a Washington Times newspaper article.

    .... a week before Foster’s death, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides to discuss her proposed health care legislation.

    Hillary violently disagreed with a legal objection Foster raised at the meeting and ridiculed him in front of his peers, former FBI agent Coy Copeland and former FBI supervisory agent Jim Clemente told me. ... During the White House meeting, Hillary continued to humiliate Foster mercilessly, both former FBI agents say.

    “Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,” Mr. Copeland says. “She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.”

    Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons’ problems and accuse him of failing them, according to Mr. Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the [Kenneth] Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster’s suicide.

    “Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,” says Mr. Clemente, who, like Mr. Copeland, spoke about the investigation for the first time.

    “Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly, and said in front of his White House colleagues, ‘You’re not protecting us’ and ‘You have failed us,’ ” Mr. Clemente says. “That was the final blow.”

    After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew him said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped. ....

    Mr. Starr issued a 38,000-word report, along with a separate psychologist’s report on the factors that contributed to Foster’s suicide. Yet Mr. Starr never mentioned the meeting with Hillary, leaving out the fact that his own investigation had found that Hillary’s attack had led to her friend’s suicide.

    Mr. Starr never told Mr. Copeland or Mr. Clemente why he decided to exclude the findings from his report. But Mr. Clemente says, “Starr didn’t want to offend the conscience of the public by going after the first lady. He said the first lady is an institution.”

     

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/ronald-kessler-how-hillary-clinton-triggered-vince/
    , @Jefferson
    @Steve Sailer

    "It’s almost certainly not true"

    Because Crooked Hildabeast is a Lesbian and Bill is just her beard. She is the female Rock Hudson.

    Would most Black church ladies still vote for Crooked Hildabeast if she came out of the closet before the election? Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?

    Or are most Black church ladies identity politics first and devout Christians a distant second? Does Blackness trump God to them?

    Replies: @Barnard

  49. @Chrisnonymous
    @Harry Baldwin


    He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard.
     
    I don't why, but whenever I try to imagine that situation, I can't help imagining Justice Thomas giggling like Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons:

    "Hey, Anita, did somebody put a pubic hair on my Coke... eh-he-he-he-he-he..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbyEuLX5oyQ

    Replies: @anonymous

    Would that coke/hair comment be any worse than Obama showing off his erection to a planeload of giggling female reporters? Would the same action by Trump get giggles or would it be evidence of his lack of good sense.

  50. Only this time, the outrage is swifter and more universal

    “Only this time, America is dumber than last time.”

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    @ATX Hipster

    America is ever more minority and white women.Dumb people,indeed.

  51. When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    • Replies: @eah
    @Beliavsky

    he deserves to lose

    The problem with such, err, thinking is that there is a LOT more at stake than Trump getting a deserved (in your view) comeuppance for his boorish behavior -- what about that concept is not clear to you? -- and btw, do you disagree with the notion that some women are indeed so unattractive that a man -- especially a man like Trump, a billionaire, who could be expected to find his female accompaniment amongst the most attractive women -- would not make a sexual advance?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @G Pinfold
    @Beliavsky

    I don't think so.

    , @Zogby
    @Beliavsky


    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.
     
    That's just another false accusation, as Trump never said that. What he did is to deny the accusations. When asked why the women would make them up, he answered some of them have an ax to grind, the others he doesn't know - doing it because they're being paid to or for publicity. He also argued that if the incidents had actually happened, they'd have become wide-spread gossip shortly after they happened. Trump never said anything about their looks.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @dr kill
    @Beliavsky

    Wrong. every other woman in the world agrees with him. It's what women do.

    , @Yak-15
    @Beliavsky

    I have never voted for anything in my adult life. It's those kinds of things that have caused me to register and vote for him. Refreshing.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Beliavsky

    They're supposedly disproving his claim that this was just talk. The claim was that he couldn't resist beauty. Seems perfectly fair to point out these women aren't beautiful.

    , @Bill
    @Beliavsky

    You're right of course. When someone makes a lying accusation against you, trying to ruin something you've invested massive amounts of time, effort, and money in, you definitely should be very polite to them. Especially if they are women. Make sure to avoid hurting their delicate feelings. Or implying that there is anything wrong with them or their behavior.

  52. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    he deserves to lose

    The problem with such, err, thinking is that there is a LOT more at stake than Trump getting a deserved (in your view) comeuppance for his boorish behavior — what about that concept is not clear to you? — and btw, do you disagree with the notion that some women are indeed so unattractive that a man — especially a man like Trump, a billionaire, who could be expected to find his female accompaniment amongst the most attractive women — would not make a sexual advance?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @eah

    I'm sorry but I don't buy this line of reasoning. Have you seen the Mexican housekeeper that Schwarzenegger impregnated, for example? If Monica didn't have the blue dress, I'm sure Bill's defenders would have said that Bill would NEVER have gone for such a fat girl when there were so many slimmer girls around the White House. These women didn't have to be the most attractive women on earth , just the most attractive women who were available to Trump at that very moment when the impulse presented itself. The head that is between your legs is really not that picky.

    Maybe you might buy this, but saying this to 9 out of 10 women is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

    Replies: @eah

  53. Jack Hanson says:

    Steve, have you thought about putting your articles on your main page behind a jump cut so when you quote a 2k word article and write another 1k words I’m not having to scroll through four entries like that to get to an article you posted yesterday to read the comments on a mobile?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Jack Hanson

    I always use his author archives for that purpose.

    https://www.unz.com/author/steve-sailer/

  54. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    I don’t think so.

  55. Three articles to put polls into perspective:

    Evidence for massive liberal bias in Ipsos polling of the Trump vs. Clinton match-up

    Brexit: Yet another example of biased polling

    Polling That Says Clinton Is Ahead Is Wrong For This Reason (Among Others)

    Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    Great to see this level of passion.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    @Pat Hannagan

    This should be de rigueur for "alt right". Fuck the whole system. No matter what happens in November, remember the 5th of November.

    No way are we we going to slink back into insignificance no matter what.

  56. Another fool pretending to be a feminist who has no problem with the millions that the hag has accepted from the Saudis, the Qataris, etc.

  57. @Jack Hanson
    Steve, have you thought about putting your articles on your main page behind a jump cut so when you quote a 2k word article and write another 1k words I'm not having to scroll through four entries like that to get to an article you posted yesterday to read the comments on a mobile?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I always use his author archives for that purpose.

    https://www.unz.com/author/steve-sailer/

  58. @Pat Hannagan
    Three articles to put polls into perspective:

    Evidence for massive liberal bias in Ipsos polling of the Trump vs. Clinton match-up


    Brexit: Yet another example of biased polling

    Polling That Says Clinton Is Ahead Is Wrong For This Reason (Among Others)

    Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    Great to see this level of passion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eds5X0K7t3Q

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan

    This should be de rigueur for “alt right”. Fuck the whole system. No matter what happens in November, remember the 5th of November.

    No way are we we going to slink back into insignificance no matter what.

  59. Trump at $5.75 HRC at $1.16

    Gotta go in hard, repeatedly restating what a duplicitous snake she is with something wild to take her out like the hydra she is late in the game.

  60. @Olorin
    @Former Darfur

    I'm betting both...with a hefty dollop of these Fragile Victim (TM) broads aching for some sort of return of morality...and thinking they can supply it with their witches' hunts.

    Problem is, they don't seem to realize that they surrendered morality when they decided to put hunger for power ahead of anything else. That's related to the degeneracy part.

    In true Ancient Matriarchal Religion fashion, they think the shifting Saharan sands of their emotions are the One True God and that Truth is a) whatever myths they grunt out of whatever orifice that b) they can get the other ladies to provisionally agree with to be allowed to be part of the cheerleading squad maybe. That's like conspiracy, in that it's intentional and social...though not the same.

    There is no process for this in the reasoned sense, just a bunch of bullying, gossip, etc. They cannot imagine there is any other way to think, and if they encounter examples of it, their instinct is to destroy it as a threat to the nests they've built.

    Most women I've known both personally and professionally don't even really believe in facts except when the "facts" they construct and select invoke and support their emotions, and they can rally other degenerate females around them with promises of power.

    This profoundly cultic/primitive religious behavior and inclinations can only produce degeneracy. We unfortunates capable of something else are having to live in a time where that is the ascendant mode. It may be centuries before degeneracy is driven out, and then only after the sorts of bloodbaths our ancestors had to endure and survive.

    If ever.

    Replies: @TheJester

    I agree. Men have been accused of “slut-shaming” women who are sluts; and “fat-shaming” women who are fat. There is another category we need to work on … and that is “fact-shaming” women when they engage in a generally hopeless command of the physical, social, and political world in which they live.

    There is a reason for this. One of the most common themes of the current phase of feminism plaguing the western world is that whatever a woman (especially a powerful woman) chooses is right … because it is right for her (or us) or she would not have chosen it, get it — emotion-based reality, circular reasoning, moral relativism, solipsism (def: extreme preoccupation and self-absorption with and indulgence in one’s feelings). What other way is there to evaluate decisions and choices? A woman cannot be wrong. To think so is a form of misogyny, as it were.

    Two examples:

    1. Mutti Merkel inviting 1.1 million Muslim immigrants to Germany over the last two years. She has a grand scheme of caring for the immigrants while developing a uniquely German brand of Islam that will allow them to integrate as good, law-abiding citizens who appreciate and accept German culture. Bets anyone? Lots of “mothering” going on here. Is Merkel governing Germany or raising kids? How would we judge our male ancestors if they had invited Attila and his Huns or Genghis Khan and his hordes to be their compatriots and neighbors? Cognitive dissonance or unabridged stupidity.

    2. Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Samantha Power (UN Ambassador), and Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State) claiming the unilateral Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention to justify wrecking Libya and Syria and militarily intervening elsewhere around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating the hordes of refugees currently haunting Europe.

    Lots of “mothering” going on here. The Romans, British, French, and Germans were not so pretentious as to claim R2P and Humanitarian Intervention when they used military force to build their empires — embarrassingly absurd and deceitful reasons to justify war when you think about it.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @TheJester

    Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
    Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
    To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild—
    Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

    (technically, he was addressing us..)

    , @SMK
    @TheJester

    A woman can't be wrong? What if she's a race-realist, "racist," immigration restrictionist, "nativist," "xenophobe," "Islamophobe," "homophobe," anti-feminist, anti-sexual egalitarian, etc.?

    As for your examples: Yes, Angela Merkel is mothering Germany to death by an invasion of Muslims against the opposition of a majority of the ruling-elites and governing-classes, most of whom are men and fathers. The destruction of France and England and Holland and Sweden by Muslim and African immigration is entirely the fault of women and their mothering.

    Apparently, George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women. Neoconservative/Zionist warmongers are all female. Barack Obama and other males had nothing to do with the invasion of Lybia and the ensuing disaster. And how are Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and other women to blame for the Syrian civil war?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    , @ATX Hipster
    @TheJester

    The approved term for "fact-shaming" is "mansplaining."

    Replies: @Olorin

  61. @JerryC
    Well, we appear to be pretty dumb. Present company excluded, of course. :-)

    Replies: @iffen

    I assumed that his question was rhetorical, but I agree with you.

  62. @ATX Hipster

    Only this time, the outrage is swifter and more universal
     
    "Only this time, America is dumber than last time."

    Replies: @Father O'Hara

    America is ever more minority and white women.Dumb people,indeed.

  63. @TheJester
    @Olorin

    I agree. Men have been accused of "slut-shaming" women who are sluts; and "fat-shaming" women who are fat. There is another category we need to work on ... and that is "fact-shaming" women when they engage in a generally hopeless command of the physical, social, and political world in which they live.

    There is a reason for this. One of the most common themes of the current phase of feminism plaguing the western world is that whatever a woman (especially a powerful woman) chooses is right ... because it is right for her (or us) or she would not have chosen it, get it -- emotion-based reality, circular reasoning, moral relativism, solipsism (def: extreme preoccupation and self-absorption with and indulgence in one's feelings). What other way is there to evaluate decisions and choices? A woman cannot be wrong. To think so is a form of misogyny, as it were.

    Two examples:

    1. Mutti Merkel inviting 1.1 million Muslim immigrants to Germany over the last two years. She has a grand scheme of caring for the immigrants while developing a uniquely German brand of Islam that will allow them to integrate as good, law-abiding citizens who appreciate and accept German culture. Bets anyone? Lots of "mothering" going on here. Is Merkel governing Germany or raising kids? How would we judge our male ancestors if they had invited Attila and his Huns or Genghis Khan and his hordes to be their compatriots and neighbors? Cognitive dissonance or unabridged stupidity.

    2. Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Samantha Power (UN Ambassador), and Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State) claiming the unilateral Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention to justify wrecking Libya and Syria and militarily intervening elsewhere around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating the hordes of refugees currently haunting Europe.

    Lots of "mothering" going on here. The Romans, British, French, and Germans were not so pretentious as to claim R2P and Humanitarian Intervention when they used military force to build their empires -- embarrassingly absurd and deceitful reasons to justify war when you think about it.

    Replies: @SFG, @SMK, @ATX Hipster

    Take up the White Man’s burden, Send forth the best ye breed
    Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives’ need;
    To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild—
    Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

    (technically, he was addressing us..)

  64. But there will always be a misfit remnant beyond the gates, impulsive, unscripted, risk-begging, filthy, coarse, and dangerous.

    Yes, M. de Tocqueville, you are certainly correct. I would be proud to have myself described so admiringly.

  65. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    That’s just another false accusation, as Trump never said that. What he did is to deny the accusations. When asked why the women would make them up, he answered some of them have an ax to grind, the others he doesn’t know – doing it because they’re being paid to or for publicity. He also argued that if the incidents had actually happened, they’d have become wide-spread gossip shortly after they happened. Trump never said anything about their looks.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Zogby

    What did Trump mean when he said of Leeds (the woman on the aeroplane): "“Yeah, I’m going to go after her?! Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. That would not be my first choice.”


    I read that as meaning exactly what Beliavsky says it means - did I misunderstand his words?

  66. @Anonymous
    @guest

    Melania's English is not really good enough, even if she had the ambition. His kids might though. And their jobs already are based on leveraging their dad's reputation.

    Replies: @dr kill

    You are describing nepotism. I find nothing wrong with nepotism in theory or practice. Indeed, imagine a world where there is no incentive to better your offspring. It’s not entirely a feudal system, but pretty close. Why do we all here give a shit about anything? There are many examples of the heir to the throne not working out for a particular kingdom or company, but that’s the job of the Board of Directors.

    Nepotism is not crony capitalism or affirmative action.

    O/T – is AA the original euphemism or what?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @dr kill

    I don't know if I'm talking about nepotism. It depends on how you define nepotism. They work for the family business, and the business is based on leveraging their dad's reputation.

  67. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    Wrong. every other woman in the world agrees with him. It’s what women do.

  68. @guest
    Wasn't there a Clarence Thomas tv movie on HBO recently? (Why is so much on HBO about black people? Even the LBJ movie was wall to wall black stuff.) I didn't watch because I had recently been watching the O.J. miniseries and had Negro Fatigue, though Thomas is "one of the good ones." I read his autobiography, and whoever wrote it did a good enough job that I finished it in one night.

    I was like 10 when this happened, so I don't remember it clearly and don't know how it put the Clintons in the White House, exactly. I do remember thinking at that ripe age that it was much ado about nothing. Seriously, you can't be on the Supreme Court if you've ever hit on a woman? No wonder politics is devoid of Great Men.

    Replies: @David In TN

    Yes, there was, but it was mainly about The Heroic Anita hill. The film wasn’t too hard on Thomas, he is black after all.

  69. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    Well to be fair, it’s Hillary that’s running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Camille Cosby, I presume?

  70. @Emblematic
    "The nearly universal and instantaneous outrage at Trump’s comments and behavior"

    What "behavior"? Surely they mean allegations.

    And if you believe the allegations, Trump just starts groping women he's never met before.

    Here's a question:
    If there was a female Democrat polititian who was accused, without evidence or eye witnesses, of sexual impropriety and then, because of these accusations, immediately vilified by her political enemies, would the media accept the accusations at face value and destroy the female Democrat polititian, or would they scrutinize the accusers and urge caution about rushing to judgment?

    Is there a third answer?

    Replies: @SMK

    Precisely what kind of “sexual improprieties,” hypothetically? And do you know of Bill Clinton’s “sexual improprieties,” including rape? There’s your answer. The double-standard is political and ideological, not sexual. What if the female politician was a Republican who wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport millions of illegal aliens and end Muslim immigration?

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @SMK

    Don't you remember the Sarah Palin "parody" pornography? Hilarious!

  71. Last November, I wrote a series of long comments about the Anita Hill case.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    Here was my first comment in that series:

    —–

    The most important book about the dispute between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, published in 1993. Although Brock has disavowed his book, it is a journalistic masterpiece. Anybody who comes across this book should take the opportunity to read it, even though the dispute happened long ago. It’s one of the best books I ever read.

    Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.

    During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.

    Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.

    In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.

    As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.

    As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.

    Thomas was completely innocent, and so he prevailed. The Senate approved his nomination, and he became a Supreme Court justice.

    Brock’s book tells this story in comprehensive, well documented detail. After I began reading it, I could not put it down, because it was written so superbly.

    Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Mike Sylwester

    Marrying Clarence Thomas must have struck Anita Hill at some point as a possible exit strategy from her career, just as marrying Barack Obama allowed Michelle Robinson to exit the law profession.

    , @Opinionator
    @Mike Sylwester

    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn't that undermine its credibility?

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  72. @TheJester
    @Olorin

    I agree. Men have been accused of "slut-shaming" women who are sluts; and "fat-shaming" women who are fat. There is another category we need to work on ... and that is "fact-shaming" women when they engage in a generally hopeless command of the physical, social, and political world in which they live.

    There is a reason for this. One of the most common themes of the current phase of feminism plaguing the western world is that whatever a woman (especially a powerful woman) chooses is right ... because it is right for her (or us) or she would not have chosen it, get it -- emotion-based reality, circular reasoning, moral relativism, solipsism (def: extreme preoccupation and self-absorption with and indulgence in one's feelings). What other way is there to evaluate decisions and choices? A woman cannot be wrong. To think so is a form of misogyny, as it were.

    Two examples:

    1. Mutti Merkel inviting 1.1 million Muslim immigrants to Germany over the last two years. She has a grand scheme of caring for the immigrants while developing a uniquely German brand of Islam that will allow them to integrate as good, law-abiding citizens who appreciate and accept German culture. Bets anyone? Lots of "mothering" going on here. Is Merkel governing Germany or raising kids? How would we judge our male ancestors if they had invited Attila and his Huns or Genghis Khan and his hordes to be their compatriots and neighbors? Cognitive dissonance or unabridged stupidity.

    2. Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Samantha Power (UN Ambassador), and Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State) claiming the unilateral Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention to justify wrecking Libya and Syria and militarily intervening elsewhere around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating the hordes of refugees currently haunting Europe.

    Lots of "mothering" going on here. The Romans, British, French, and Germans were not so pretentious as to claim R2P and Humanitarian Intervention when they used military force to build their empires -- embarrassingly absurd and deceitful reasons to justify war when you think about it.

    Replies: @SFG, @SMK, @ATX Hipster

    A woman can’t be wrong? What if she’s a race-realist, “racist,” immigration restrictionist, “nativist,” “xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “homophobe,” anti-feminist, anti-sexual egalitarian, etc.?

    As for your examples: Yes, Angela Merkel is mothering Germany to death by an invasion of Muslims against the opposition of a majority of the ruling-elites and governing-classes, most of whom are men and fathers. The destruction of France and England and Holland and Sweden by Muslim and African immigration is entirely the fault of women and their mothering.

    Apparently, George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women. Neoconservative/Zionist warmongers are all female. Barack Obama and other males had nothing to do with the invasion of Lybia and the ensuing disaster. And how are Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and other women to blame for the Syrian civil war?

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @SMK


    George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women ... Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice,
     
    They are all liberals, Snidely Whiplash. Which, no doubt, is what you are too.

    Replies: @SMK

  73. @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    The Arkansas state troopers reported she and Vince Foster might have been an item.

    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill's election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?

    It's almost certainly not true, but it's the most romantic conspiracy theory ever made up about Hillary.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Jefferson

    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill’s election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?

    The mystery of Foster’s suicide was solved by the FBI, according to Ronald Kessler, the author of many insider books about the FBI and the Secret Service. Kessler’s most recent book, The First Family Detail, reports the details. Kessler summarized this story in a Washington Times newspaper article.

    …. a week before Foster’s death, Hillary held a meeting at the White House with Foster and other top aides to discuss her proposed health care legislation.

    Hillary violently disagreed with a legal objection Foster raised at the meeting and ridiculed him in front of his peers, former FBI agent Coy Copeland and former FBI supervisory agent Jim Clemente told me. … During the White House meeting, Hillary continued to humiliate Foster mercilessly, both former FBI agents say.

    “Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting,” Mr. Copeland says. “She told him he didn’t get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.”

    Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons’ problems and accuse him of failing them, according to Mr. Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the [Kenneth] Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster’s suicide.

    “Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,” says Mr. Clemente, who, like Mr. Copeland, spoke about the investigation for the first time.

    “Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly, and said in front of his White House colleagues, ‘You’re not protecting us’ and ‘You have failed us,’ ” Mr. Clemente says. “That was the final blow.”

    After the meeting, Foster’s behavior changed dramatically, the FBI agents found. Those who knew him said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped. ….

    Mr. Starr issued a 38,000-word report, along with a separate psychologist’s report on the factors that contributed to Foster’s suicide. Yet Mr. Starr never mentioned the meeting with Hillary, leaving out the fact that his own investigation had found that Hillary’s attack had led to her friend’s suicide.

    Mr. Starr never told Mr. Copeland or Mr. Clemente why he decided to exclude the findings from his report. But Mr. Clemente says, “Starr didn’t want to offend the conscience of the public by going after the first lady. He said the first lady is an institution.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/ronald-kessler-how-hillary-clinton-triggered-vince/

  74. @Opinionator
    @Harry Baldwin

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day.

    You are referring to comments by men toward women?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    I am referring to the level of vulgarity in small talk at the office. I don’t recall that Clarence Thomas ever said anything directly to Anita Hill that could have been regarded as harassment.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Harry Baldwin

    Either asking her out as her superior or commenting to her about public hairs on a coke can could. I'm speaking objectively.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

  75. @Harry Baldwin
    I think back on the testimony of Anita Hill, and what a mountain was made about a molehill. Let's see. . . Thomas is supposed to have asked her out a few times. He mentioned the name of a character in a porno film, "Long Dong Silver." He saw a kinky hair on the lid of a Coke can and said it looked like a pubic hair. I recall Orrin Hatch reacted to that last one as if it were the most appalling thing he had ever heard. And Orrin was a friend of Teddy Kennedy!

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. As someone observed, "How did Anita Hill survive middle school?" She must have been the original fragile snowflake. Or more likely, the original put-up feminist character assassin.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Chrisnonymous, @SPMoore8

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. Yes, the grossest sexual innuendo is constantly thrown in as a way of reducing tension. As for the infamous “c*nt hair on the coke can”, I believe Orrin Hatch later on had a staff member locate that meme in the Exorcist or something.

    I didn’t see anything wrong with Thomas’ conduct. I seriously doubt that Anita Hill is such a prude as to have such language ruin her day. People that I have known like that in the corporate world, who consider such language “fresh” are rare and are never picked on, that’s not the purpose of the exercise. It’s a kind of venting, that’s all.

    • Replies: @CJ
    @SPMoore8

    There aren't any Thomas scandals after he joined the Supreme Court, just as there weren't any before he was nominated. The most likely inference from that is that the accusations against him were bogus.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Bill
    @SPMoore8

    I'm with CJ. Why are you assuming Anita Hill was telling the truth? That seems like a ludicrous inference given the evidence.

  76. @415 reasons
    @guest

    Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Jefferson

    “Why not cut the problem off at the source and just ban males altogether?”

    Just White males. It would be extremely racist to ban Black males and males who practice a certain religion of peace.

  77. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    Hillary aids and abets everything feminists fight against, for her own benefit.

  78. @Steve Sailer
    @anonymous

    The Arkansas state troopers reported she and Vince Foster might have been an item.

    Maybe Vince was in love with Hillary, but Bill's election meant they could never be together and that made him suicidally depressed?

    It's almost certainly not true, but it's the most romantic conspiracy theory ever made up about Hillary.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Jefferson

    “It’s almost certainly not true”

    Because Crooked Hildabeast is a Lesbian and Bill is just her beard. She is the female Rock Hudson.

    Would most Black church ladies still vote for Crooked Hildabeast if she came out of the closet before the election? Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?

    Or are most Black church ladies identity politics first and devout Christians a distant second? Does Blackness trump God to them?

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @Jefferson


    Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?
     
    In the last decade there has been a strong push by the Democrats to get blacks to consider homosexuals a persecuted minority, just like blacks are a persecuted minority. Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don't know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.

    Replies: @Mark F., @Desiderius

  79. I don’t think this “Grope-a-dope” strategy of accusing Trump instead of dealing with the substance of wikileaks or her avowed policies is going to work, at least, I don’t think it’s going to work any better than what she has.

    Put another way, I think expecting Trump to win this thing has always been an extreme long shot and if he loses, people shouldn’t be blaming the sexual allegations for the defeat.

    What this election tells me, if anything, is that whoever is the next president is going to be ineffective, because our political landscape right now is completely polarized. If there is indeed ever going to be some kind of Long Retreat from Progressivism, it will have to manifest more strongly than it has so far.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @SPMoore8

    It may be that in retrospect, short of Hillary having another seizure in public or wikileak of a pact between her and the devil, this election was unwinnable by Trump but the sex thing may have made it a lot less close than it would have been and maybe may tip some of the close down ballot races. It sure didn't help.

    This morning on CBS they had a guy whose family business has been printing bumper stickers since the invention of the bumper sticker and he said that whichever candidate receives more orders for bumper stickers always wins and that his Hillary order have been outrunning Trump 2 to 1. Now if this ever came out widely it would be easy to game but in the absence of any conscious effort at gaming it may be that this is as good a predictor as any.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  80. “Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?”

    Trump provides the most fitting epitaph for the country:

  81. People forget how Thomas shamed the committee and completely won over the public (at least 2/3 anyway) with his testimony. Of course, after 2 years of Diane English sitcoms and journalistic retelling of the story, public opinion flipped to 2/3 against Thomas.

  82. @SPMoore8
    @Harry Baldwin

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. Yes, the grossest sexual innuendo is constantly thrown in as a way of reducing tension. As for the infamous "c*nt hair on the coke can", I believe Orrin Hatch later on had a staff member locate that meme in the Exorcist or something.

    I didn't see anything wrong with Thomas' conduct. I seriously doubt that Anita Hill is such a prude as to have such language ruin her day. People that I have known like that in the corporate world, who consider such language "fresh" are rare and are never picked on, that's not the purpose of the exercise. It's a kind of venting, that's all.

    Replies: @CJ, @Bill

    There aren’t any Thomas scandals after he joined the Supreme Court, just as there weren’t any before he was nominated. The most likely inference from that is that the accusations against him were bogus.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @CJ

    The usual idiots accused him of voting in lockstep with Scalia because he allegedly couldn't think for himself. They made a big deal of his rarely asking questions in oral argument.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  83. The Bimbo eruptions are the way the MSM/Hillary are trying to distract people from looking at Wikileaks release of emails from the Clinton campaign, which are quite damning to the political and media establishments. Nothing more.

    I doubt the bimbo tactic will change any minds among current Trump supporters.

    What Trump is battling more than demographics is a large slice of whites just love things the way they are – mostly professional and managerial class whites. They look at Trump and go ‘WTF?’ because in their little world everything is awesome. They have the new Lexus to keep their 700 series BMW company in the driveway of their Toll Brothers mcMansion in some whitetopia.

  84. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    I have never voted for anything in my adult life. It’s those kinds of things that have caused me to register and vote for him. Refreshing.

  85. Well to be fair, it’s Hillary that’s running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did.

    To be fair:

    1. She’s spent decades enabling what she’s decrying in Trump. She should be condemned for staying married to what she’s criticizing.
    2. She has stayed married to Bill because it was good for her career. She chose profits over ethics. What kind of message does her marriage send to all the poor girls out there, growing up under the oppression of the patriarchy?
    3. By many accounts, she’s the one who took point on assassinating the characters of her husband’s accusers.
    4. Out of one side of her mouth, she rejects her husband’s accusers out of hand, while out of the other, she says all accusations must be believed.
    5. Her main claim to fame is “first woman president.” This would be a lot like making Farrakhan the first black president. You can’t take these things back.

    Why not? We’re not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man’s loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don’t you? You imagine there’s some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Yes, that’s it, in a nutshell. Who you’re married to says a lot about you.

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. As someone observed, “How did Anita Hill survive middle school?” She must have been the original fragile snowflake. Or more likely, the original put-up feminist character assassin.

    The Wheel of Time, or “all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.”

    Um, because she didn’t do it? Yes, I’m sure she’s a rotten person, but that doesn’t mean she should be blamed for her husband’s actions. Just as Melania shouldn’t be blamed for whatever Donald has done.

    If Melania were running for office, her marriage to Trump would obviously be “fair game.” Let’s play the game as it’s played, not how you’d like it to be played, shall we?

    When all this shit about women comes out I want Trump to say, “How can we take you seriously when you spout this concern about how a man treat’s a woman. We know your husband treats women like pieces of meat, or prostitutes, or worse. Mere objects for his own sexual gratification. And you couldn’t see fit to divorce him. If you can accept a man who obviously has literally no respect for women as your HUSBAND how can we see your sudden concern about what a man says on a tape 11 years ago as anything other than contrived political bullshit?”

    This.

    There’s no arguing over the polls being tampered with.
    However, why would they cook them these days more than they did in the weeks past?

    Why would the answer to your question be relevant?

    Another fool pretending to be a feminist who has no problem with the millions that the hag has accepted from the Saudis, the Qataris, etc.

    She’s far too corrupt to be plausibly seen as White Knighting for anyone but herself.

  86. @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, it's Hillary that's running for president, and she, as far as we know so far, has not engaged in sexual harassment. Maybe Wikileaks or some other source will reveal that she has indeed engaged in sexual harassment, but until then, she can't be blamed for what her spouse did.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond, @Glossy, @Reg Cæsar, @G Pinfold, @Inquiring Mind, @Eric Novak, @J1234

    I’m just leaving a reply to ask how you like all of the replies you’re getting?

  87. @eah
    @Beliavsky

    he deserves to lose

    The problem with such, err, thinking is that there is a LOT more at stake than Trump getting a deserved (in your view) comeuppance for his boorish behavior -- what about that concept is not clear to you? -- and btw, do you disagree with the notion that some women are indeed so unattractive that a man -- especially a man like Trump, a billionaire, who could be expected to find his female accompaniment amongst the most attractive women -- would not make a sexual advance?

    Replies: @Jack D

    I’m sorry but I don’t buy this line of reasoning. Have you seen the Mexican housekeeper that Schwarzenegger impregnated, for example? If Monica didn’t have the blue dress, I’m sure Bill’s defenders would have said that Bill would NEVER have gone for such a fat girl when there were so many slimmer girls around the White House. These women didn’t have to be the most attractive women on earth , just the most attractive women who were available to Trump at that very moment when the impulse presented itself. The head that is between your legs is really not that picky.

    Maybe you might buy this, but saying this to 9 out of 10 women is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

    • Replies: @eah
    @Jack D

    You're right -- since every man finds every woman attractive, any man who says a woman is unattractive, so unattractive to him that he cannot imagine making sexual advances to her (forget for a moment the existence of ten foot poles and bags big enough to fit over your head), is clearly not telling the truth -- and your example proves it -- I regret it's too late to delete my comment.

  88. It’s pure sexual politics, with women in the driver’s seat. There’s a whole generation of women who are resentful of everything Bill Clinton is/was (handsome, charismatic, successful, naturally gifted) and angry with him for a lot of what he did (cheated on his wife many times, humiliating her in public, which women despise).

    But they can’t get back at Bill Clinton; he’s old and feeble anyway and he’s the source of Hillary’s power.

    So, Hillary is giving women the chance of a lifetime. Crush by humiliation the surrogate handsome, talented, charismatic Trump and simultaneously give women what they really want – the highest symbol of male authority ever created by man.

    I really think that Trump needs to buy 90 seconds of air time here and there and lay it out for women and men to see. Hillary’s scenario has power because it’s unconscious; bringing it out in the open will neutralize it.

  89. @TheJester
    @Olorin

    I agree. Men have been accused of "slut-shaming" women who are sluts; and "fat-shaming" women who are fat. There is another category we need to work on ... and that is "fact-shaming" women when they engage in a generally hopeless command of the physical, social, and political world in which they live.

    There is a reason for this. One of the most common themes of the current phase of feminism plaguing the western world is that whatever a woman (especially a powerful woman) chooses is right ... because it is right for her (or us) or she would not have chosen it, get it -- emotion-based reality, circular reasoning, moral relativism, solipsism (def: extreme preoccupation and self-absorption with and indulgence in one's feelings). What other way is there to evaluate decisions and choices? A woman cannot be wrong. To think so is a form of misogyny, as it were.

    Two examples:

    1. Mutti Merkel inviting 1.1 million Muslim immigrants to Germany over the last two years. She has a grand scheme of caring for the immigrants while developing a uniquely German brand of Islam that will allow them to integrate as good, law-abiding citizens who appreciate and accept German culture. Bets anyone? Lots of "mothering" going on here. Is Merkel governing Germany or raising kids? How would we judge our male ancestors if they had invited Attila and his Huns or Genghis Khan and his hordes to be their compatriots and neighbors? Cognitive dissonance or unabridged stupidity.

    2. Susan Rice (National Security Advisor), Samantha Power (UN Ambassador), and Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State) claiming the unilateral Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Intervention to justify wrecking Libya and Syria and militarily intervening elsewhere around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating the hordes of refugees currently haunting Europe.

    Lots of "mothering" going on here. The Romans, British, French, and Germans were not so pretentious as to claim R2P and Humanitarian Intervention when they used military force to build their empires -- embarrassingly absurd and deceitful reasons to justify war when you think about it.

    Replies: @SFG, @SMK, @ATX Hipster

    The approved term for “fact-shaming” is “mansplaining.”

    • Replies: @Olorin
    @ATX Hipster

    Wish I had more thumbs to up-point this point.

  90. @Anonymous
    "Except you are missing the biggest parallel of all: both of these fiascos are serving to put The Clintons in the White House. Can you begin to fathom how humiliatingly stupid that makes America look?

    "Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice …"

    It's mind-boggling. The American people are sheep, but the mainstream media are very powerful, very convincing and seemingly everywhere. It can be hard to buck conventional opinion, especially if your life is pretty busy and you're only half paying attention to the news. You just hear the endless drumbeat that Trump is bad, bad, bad and an orange buffoon.

    Replies: @Anon7

    The mainstream media have gone so far, and to such an extreme, that Trump allies should be encouraging everyone to cancel their subscriptions and stop watching regular TV.

    There was a lot of debate about what television was for back in the 1950’s – but now we know what TV is best at. It’s the greatest sales machine ever created. Right now the rich who control it are using it for politics to sell Hillary, but if we threatened their asset they might pay attention. Cancel your subscriptions and stop watching.

    • Replies: @travell-lyte
    @Anon7

    pet peeves:
    1. TV
    2. cellphones
    3. 19th amendment
    I can dream.

    Replies: @Mark F.

  91. @Zogby
    @Beliavsky


    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.
     
    That's just another false accusation, as Trump never said that. What he did is to deny the accusations. When asked why the women would make them up, he answered some of them have an ax to grind, the others he doesn't know - doing it because they're being paid to or for publicity. He also argued that if the incidents had actually happened, they'd have become wide-spread gossip shortly after they happened. Trump never said anything about their looks.

    Replies: @Jack D

    What did Trump mean when he said of Leeds (the woman on the aeroplane): ““Yeah, I’m going to go after her?! Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. That would not be my first choice.”

    I read that as meaning exactly what Beliavsky says it means – did I misunderstand his words?

  92. @SPMoore8
    I don't think this "Grope-a-dope" strategy of accusing Trump instead of dealing with the substance of wikileaks or her avowed policies is going to work, at least, I don't think it's going to work any better than what she has.

    Put another way, I think expecting Trump to win this thing has always been an extreme long shot and if he loses, people shouldn't be blaming the sexual allegations for the defeat.

    What this election tells me, if anything, is that whoever is the next president is going to be ineffective, because our political landscape right now is completely polarized. If there is indeed ever going to be some kind of Long Retreat from Progressivism, it will have to manifest more strongly than it has so far.

    Replies: @Jack D

    It may be that in retrospect, short of Hillary having another seizure in public or wikileak of a pact between her and the devil, this election was unwinnable by Trump but the sex thing may have made it a lot less close than it would have been and maybe may tip some of the close down ballot races. It sure didn’t help.

    This morning on CBS they had a guy whose family business has been printing bumper stickers since the invention of the bumper sticker and he said that whichever candidate receives more orders for bumper stickers always wins and that his Hillary order have been outrunning Trump 2 to 1. Now if this ever came out widely it would be easy to game but in the absence of any conscious effort at gaming it may be that this is as good a predictor as any.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Jack D

    It's difficult to win the elections when your own party doesn't help you at all and, in fact, stabs you in the back.

    But yeah, probably the sex thing didn't help either.

  93. @Jack D
    @SPMoore8

    It may be that in retrospect, short of Hillary having another seizure in public or wikileak of a pact between her and the devil, this election was unwinnable by Trump but the sex thing may have made it a lot less close than it would have been and maybe may tip some of the close down ballot races. It sure didn't help.

    This morning on CBS they had a guy whose family business has been printing bumper stickers since the invention of the bumper sticker and he said that whichever candidate receives more orders for bumper stickers always wins and that his Hillary order have been outrunning Trump 2 to 1. Now if this ever came out widely it would be easy to game but in the absence of any conscious effort at gaming it may be that this is as good a predictor as any.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    It’s difficult to win the elections when your own party doesn’t help you at all and, in fact, stabs you in the back.

    But yeah, probably the sex thing didn’t help either.

  94. @dr kill
    @Anonymous

    You are describing nepotism. I find nothing wrong with nepotism in theory or practice. Indeed, imagine a world where there is no incentive to better your offspring. It's not entirely a feudal system, but pretty close. Why do we all here give a shit about anything? There are many examples of the heir to the throne not working out for a particular kingdom or company, but that's the job of the Board of Directors.

    Nepotism is not crony capitalism or affirmative action.

    O/T - is AA the original euphemism or what?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I don’t know if I’m talking about nepotism. It depends on how you define nepotism. They work for the family business, and the business is based on leveraging their dad’s reputation.

  95. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    They’re supposedly disproving his claim that this was just talk. The claim was that he couldn’t resist beauty. Seems perfectly fair to point out these women aren’t beautiful.

  96. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Anonymous


    she can’t be blamed for what her spouse did
     
    Why not? We're not talking about a criminal trial (at least not for this). I think you can make inferences about the ethics of a man's loyal wife from his conduct as known to her. Don't you? You imagine there's some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @415 reasons, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You imagine there’s some ethical gulf between Hillary and Bill?

    Whores of a feather stick together.

  97. @Mike Sylwester
    Last November, I wrote a series of long comments about the Anita Hill case.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    Here was my first comment in that series:

    -----

    The most important book about the dispute between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, published in 1993. Although Brock has disavowed his book, it is a journalistic masterpiece. Anybody who comes across this book should take the opportunity to read it, even though the dispute happened long ago. It’s one of the best books I ever read.

    Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.

    During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.

    Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.

    In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.

    As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.

    As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.

    Thomas was completely innocent, and so he prevailed. The Senate approved his nomination, and he became a Supreme Court justice.

    Brock’s book tells this story in comprehensive, well documented detail. After I began reading it, I could not put it down, because it was written so superbly.

    Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Opinionator

    Marrying Clarence Thomas must have struck Anita Hill at some point as a possible exit strategy from her career, just as marrying Barack Obama allowed Michelle Robinson to exit the law profession.

  98. @Jack D
    @eah

    I'm sorry but I don't buy this line of reasoning. Have you seen the Mexican housekeeper that Schwarzenegger impregnated, for example? If Monica didn't have the blue dress, I'm sure Bill's defenders would have said that Bill would NEVER have gone for such a fat girl when there were so many slimmer girls around the White House. These women didn't have to be the most attractive women on earth , just the most attractive women who were available to Trump at that very moment when the impulse presented itself. The head that is between your legs is really not that picky.

    Maybe you might buy this, but saying this to 9 out of 10 women is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

    Replies: @eah

    You’re right — since every man finds every woman attractive, any man who says a woman is unattractive, so unattractive to him that he cannot imagine making sexual advances to her (forget for a moment the existence of ten foot poles and bags big enough to fit over your head), is clearly not telling the truth — and your example proves it — I regret it’s too late to delete my comment.

  99. @anonymous
    Is there any record of Hillary Clinton having had any boyfriends or romantic connections to any men at all besides her husband Bill? Not much along those lines seems to have interested her. She does have Huma though.
    We're lurching towards possible military conflict with Russia and our election brouhaha revolves around these trivialities so yes, we are that stupid and even stupider than that. It's just bottomless.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Harry Baldwin

    A lot of people think Webb Hubbell is Chelsea’s real father. There is a resemblance.

    I know someone who vaguely knew Hillary at Yale. She said everyone assumed she was a lesbian.

  100. @CJ
    @SPMoore8

    There aren't any Thomas scandals after he joined the Supreme Court, just as there weren't any before he was nominated. The most likely inference from that is that the accusations against him were bogus.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The usual idiots accused him of voting in lockstep with Scalia because he allegedly couldn’t think for himself. They made a big deal of his rarely asking questions in oral argument.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Hibernian

    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Bill

  101. @Anon7
    @Anonymous

    The mainstream media have gone so far, and to such an extreme, that Trump allies should be encouraging everyone to cancel their subscriptions and stop watching regular TV.

    There was a lot of debate about what television was for back in the 1950's - but now we know what TV is best at. It's the greatest sales machine ever created. Right now the rich who control it are using it for politics to sell Hillary, but if we threatened their asset they might pay attention. Cancel your subscriptions and stop watching.

    Replies: @travell-lyte

    pet peeves:
    1. TV
    2. cellphones
    3. 19th amendment
    I can dream.

    • Replies: @Mark F.
    @travell-lyte

    Women were voting in many states before the 19th Amendment, which just forced all states to allow women to vote.

  102. @SMK
    @Emblematic

    Precisely what kind of "sexual improprieties," hypothetically? And do you know of Bill Clinton's "sexual improprieties," including rape? There's your answer. The double-standard is political and ideological, not sexual. What if the female politician was a Republican who wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport millions of illegal aliens and end Muslim immigration?

    Replies: @415 reasons

    Don’t you remember the Sarah Palin “parody” pornography? Hilarious!

  103. @Hibernian
    @CJ

    The usual idiots accused him of voting in lockstep with Scalia because he allegedly couldn't think for himself. They made a big deal of his rarely asking questions in oral argument.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Reg Cæsar


    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court
     
    Clarence Thomas is a very impressive person. Here he is interviewed for 90 minutes by Julian Bond.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfAZUYCZSLQ
    , @Bill
    @Reg Cæsar

    I'm not sure he is the everyman. He's certainly an heroic figure, though. I think my favorite thing about him is his refusal to participate in the juvenile preening contest that is oral arguments before the court. He just sits there and lets the buffoons be buffoons.

  104. @SMK
    @TheJester

    A woman can't be wrong? What if she's a race-realist, "racist," immigration restrictionist, "nativist," "xenophobe," "Islamophobe," "homophobe," anti-feminist, anti-sexual egalitarian, etc.?

    As for your examples: Yes, Angela Merkel is mothering Germany to death by an invasion of Muslims against the opposition of a majority of the ruling-elites and governing-classes, most of whom are men and fathers. The destruction of France and England and Holland and Sweden by Muslim and African immigration is entirely the fault of women and their mothering.

    Apparently, George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women. Neoconservative/Zionist warmongers are all female. Barack Obama and other males had nothing to do with the invasion of Lybia and the ensuing disaster. And how are Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and other women to blame for the Syrian civil war?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women … Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice,

    They are all liberals, Snidely Whiplash. Which, no doubt, is what you are too.

    • Replies: @SMK
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    My point, you stupid misogynist, is that the problem, from a "politically-incorrect" perspective, is not women per se, but left-liberalism, "cultural Marxism," multiculturalism," the celebration and apotheosis of "diversity," feminist ideology, sexual egalitarianism, the view of all nonwhites as sacred and inviolate and the victims of Europeans and their "racism" and "Islamophobia," globalism, neoconservatism, Zionism, the dogma of America as an "idea" and "proposition nation," as espoused by males and females...But to you, apparently, anyone who doesn't hate women, generally, is a "liberal."

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

  105. @Mike Sylwester
    Last November, I wrote a series of long comments about the Anita Hill case.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    Here was my first comment in that series:

    -----

    The most important book about the dispute between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, published in 1993. Although Brock has disavowed his book, it is a journalistic masterpiece. Anybody who comes across this book should take the opportunity to read it, even though the dispute happened long ago. It’s one of the best books I ever read.

    Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.

    During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.

    Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.

    In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.

    As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.

    As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.

    Thomas was completely innocent, and so he prevailed. The Senate approved his nomination, and he became a Supreme Court justice.

    Brock’s book tells this story in comprehensive, well documented detail. After I began reading it, I could not put it down, because it was written so superbly.

    Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Opinionator

    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn’t that undermine its credibility?

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Opinionator


    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn’t that undermine its credibility?
     
    A couple years after David Brock published The Real Anita Hill, he outed himself as a homosexual. By then, he regretted his own role in vindicating Clarence Thomas, who turned out to be an extremely conservative member of the Supreme Court.

    In the following years, he has made his living by getting financial donations from wealthy liberals for acting as an attack dog against conservative journalists.

    In 2001 — eight years after The Real Anita Hill was published — Brock renounced his own journalistic masterpiece in a new book, titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. I have not read the latter book, but this particular renunciation was summarized in an article by The New York Times, titled “Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

    For anyone who has read The Real Anita Hill, Brock’s self-renunciation is absurd, ludicrous. Brock confessed:

    * The book criticized some people whom Brock had not interviewed.

    * Brock did interview some people who shared information provided by Clarence Thomas.

    * Brock did not include some allegations that Thomas occasionally rented pornographic movies.

    Those trivial self-criticisms sufficed, however, for all liberals who wanted to discourage any more people from reading and referring to The Real Anita Hill, which is by far the best book about the controversy.

    Read my other comments in the November thread.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    Replies: @Opinionator

  106. @Harry Baldwin
    @Opinionator

    I am referring to the level of vulgarity in small talk at the office. I don't recall that Clarence Thomas ever said anything directly to Anita Hill that could have been regarded as harassment.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Either asking her out as her superior or commenting to her about public hairs on a coke can could. I’m speaking objectively.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester
    @Opinionator


    Either asking her out as her superior or commenting to her about public hairs on a coke can could.
     
    Clarence Thomas denied that any of that ever happened.
  107. @Opinionator
    @Mike Sylwester

    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn't that undermine its credibility?

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn’t that undermine its credibility?

    A couple years after David Brock published The Real Anita Hill, he outed himself as a homosexual. By then, he regretted his own role in vindicating Clarence Thomas, who turned out to be an extremely conservative member of the Supreme Court.

    In the following years, he has made his living by getting financial donations from wealthy liberals for acting as an attack dog against conservative journalists.

    In 2001 — eight years after The Real Anita Hill was published — Brock renounced his own journalistic masterpiece in a new book, titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. I have not read the latter book, but this particular renunciation was summarized in an article by The New York Times, titled “Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

    For anyone who has read The Real Anita Hill, Brock’s self-renunciation is absurd, ludicrous. Brock confessed:

    * The book criticized some people whom Brock had not interviewed.

    * Brock did interview some people who shared information provided by Clarence Thomas.

    * Brock did not include some allegations that Thomas occasionally rented pornographic movies.

    Those trivial self-criticisms sufficed, however, for all liberals who wanted to discourage any more people from reading and referring to The Real Anita Hill, which is by far the best book about the controversy.

    Read my other comments in the November thread.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Mike Sylwester

    Thanks for your reply.

  108. @Reg Cæsar
    @Hibernian

    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Bill

    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court

    Clarence Thomas is a very impressive person. Here he is interviewed for 90 minutes by Julian Bond.

  109. Here is a video of Clarence Thomas declaring that the Senate hearings subjecting him to Anita Hill’s sexual-harassment lies are …

    … a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves and to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed and caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than be hung from a tree.

    “. Begin watching at 13:15.

  110. @Opinionator
    @Harry Baldwin

    Either asking her out as her superior or commenting to her about public hairs on a coke can could. I'm speaking objectively.

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Either asking her out as her superior or commenting to her about public hairs on a coke can could.

    Clarence Thomas denied that any of that ever happened.

  111. @Opinionator
    Some of us could probably benefit from some brief background on how the Anita Hill thing got the Clintons into the White House and why it was a fiasco.

    Replies: @Bill, @WJ

    Be 1991. Thurgood Marshall dies. Bush the Elder appoints Clarence Thomas to the Official Black Seat on the SC. Hearings commence:

    Anita Hill (spurned former Thomas underling and groupie):
    Thomas once said “pubic hair” when I was in his office.

    Thomas: Bullshit.

    Senate votes to confirm Thomas. Feminazis, corporate media, etc have continuous spasm until 1992 election (“Year of the Woman” blah blah blah). Bent Bill elected.

    Personally, I’m a little doubtful that pubic-hair-gate is what got that degenerate elected. Ross Perot probably gets the credit for that.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Bill

    Thanks

  112. @SPMoore8
    @Harry Baldwin

    In my corporate years I heard worse nearly every day. Yes, the grossest sexual innuendo is constantly thrown in as a way of reducing tension. As for the infamous "c*nt hair on the coke can", I believe Orrin Hatch later on had a staff member locate that meme in the Exorcist or something.

    I didn't see anything wrong with Thomas' conduct. I seriously doubt that Anita Hill is such a prude as to have such language ruin her day. People that I have known like that in the corporate world, who consider such language "fresh" are rare and are never picked on, that's not the purpose of the exercise. It's a kind of venting, that's all.

    Replies: @CJ, @Bill

    I’m with CJ. Why are you assuming Anita Hill was telling the truth? That seems like a ludicrous inference given the evidence.

  113. @Jefferson
    @Steve Sailer

    "It’s almost certainly not true"

    Because Crooked Hildabeast is a Lesbian and Bill is just her beard. She is the female Rock Hudson.

    Would most Black church ladies still vote for Crooked Hildabeast if she came out of the closet before the election? Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?

    Or are most Black church ladies identity politics first and devout Christians a distant second? Does Blackness trump God to them?

    Replies: @Barnard

    Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?

    In the last decade there has been a strong push by the Democrats to get blacks to consider homosexuals a persecuted minority, just like blacks are a persecuted minority. Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don’t know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.

    • Replies: @Mark F.
    @Barnard

    Gays WERE a persecuted minority at one time. See "laws against homosexuality." Not so much these days.

    , @Desiderius
    @Barnard


    Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don’t know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.
     
    Just because it is unacceptable to God, it does not follow that it must be unacceptable to Caesar. At least that's the rationalization for welcoming gays into the tent. The more votes against Rs, the better after all.
  114. @Beliavsky
    When Trump denies charges of sexual assault by saying the accusers were too unattractive for him to molest, he deserves to lose.

    Replies: @eah, @G Pinfold, @Zogby, @dr kill, @Yak-15, @Stephen R. Diamond, @Bill

    You’re right of course. When someone makes a lying accusation against you, trying to ruin something you’ve invested massive amounts of time, effort, and money in, you definitely should be very polite to them. Especially if they are women. Make sure to avoid hurting their delicate feelings. Or implying that there is anything wrong with them or their behavior.

  115. @Reg Cæsar
    @Hibernian

    Thomas is the apostle of common sense. The Everyman on the Court

    Replies: @Mike Sylwester, @Bill

    I’m not sure he is the everyman. He’s certainly an heroic figure, though. I think my favorite thing about him is his refusal to participate in the juvenile preening contest that is oral arguments before the court. He just sits there and lets the buffoons be buffoons.

  116. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @SMK


    George Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, ad nauseum, are all women ... Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice,
     
    They are all liberals, Snidely Whiplash. Which, no doubt, is what you are too.

    Replies: @SMK

    My point, you stupid misogynist, is that the problem, from a “politically-incorrect” perspective, is not women per se, but left-liberalism, “cultural Marxism,” multiculturalism,” the celebration and apotheosis of “diversity,” feminist ideology, sexual egalitarianism, the view of all nonwhites as sacred and inviolate and the victims of Europeans and their “racism” and “Islamophobia,” globalism, neoconservatism, Zionism, the dogma of America as an “idea” and “proposition nation,” as espoused by males and females…But to you, apparently, anyone who doesn’t hate women, generally, is a “liberal.”

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @SMK

    English isn't your first language, is it?

  117. @Mike Sylwester
    @Opinionator


    Brock disavowed his own book? Doesn’t that undermine its credibility?
     
    A couple years after David Brock published The Real Anita Hill, he outed himself as a homosexual. By then, he regretted his own role in vindicating Clarence Thomas, who turned out to be an extremely conservative member of the Supreme Court.

    In the following years, he has made his living by getting financial donations from wealthy liberals for acting as an attack dog against conservative journalists.

    In 2001 — eight years after The Real Anita Hill was published — Brock renounced his own journalistic masterpiece in a new book, titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. I have not read the latter book, but this particular renunciation was summarized in an article by The New York Times, titled “Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

    For anyone who has read The Real Anita Hill, Brock’s self-renunciation is absurd, ludicrous. Brock confessed:

    * The book criticized some people whom Brock had not interviewed.

    * Brock did interview some people who shared information provided by Clarence Thomas.

    * Brock did not include some allegations that Thomas occasionally rented pornographic movies.

    Those trivial self-criticisms sufficed, however, for all liberals who wanted to discourage any more people from reading and referring to The Real Anita Hill, which is by far the best book about the controversy.

    Read my other comments in the November thread.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/professor-click-and-pomo-punctuation/

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Thanks for your reply.

  118. @Bill
    @Opinionator

    Be 1991. Thurgood Marshall dies. Bush the Elder appoints Clarence Thomas to the Official Black Seat on the SC. Hearings commence:

    Anita Hill (spurned former Thomas underling and groupie):
    Thomas once said "pubic hair" when I was in his office.

    Thomas: Bullshit.

    Senate votes to confirm Thomas. Feminazis, corporate media, etc have continuous spasm until 1992 election ("Year of the Woman" blah blah blah). Bent Bill elected.

    Personally, I'm a little doubtful that pubic-hair-gate is what got that degenerate elected. Ross Perot probably gets the credit for that.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Thanks

  119. @travell-lyte
    @Anon7

    pet peeves:
    1. TV
    2. cellphones
    3. 19th amendment
    I can dream.

    Replies: @Mark F.

    Women were voting in many states before the 19th Amendment, which just forced all states to allow women to vote.

  120. @Barnard
    @Jefferson


    Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?
     
    In the last decade there has been a strong push by the Democrats to get blacks to consider homosexuals a persecuted minority, just like blacks are a persecuted minority. Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don't know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.

    Replies: @Mark F., @Desiderius

    Gays WERE a persecuted minority at one time. See “laws against homosexuality.” Not so much these days.

  121. @ATX Hipster
    @TheJester

    The approved term for "fact-shaming" is "mansplaining."

    Replies: @Olorin

    Wish I had more thumbs to up-point this point.

  122. Hey wait.

    How come nobody has noticed that Anita Hill is giving the HITLER SALUTE!??!

  123. @Barnard
    @Jefferson


    Most Black church ladies see Homosexuality as behavior that is seen as unacceptable by God right?
     
    In the last decade there has been a strong push by the Democrats to get blacks to consider homosexuals a persecuted minority, just like blacks are a persecuted minority. Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don't know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.

    Replies: @Mark F., @Desiderius

    Based on polling, it has been successful overall with blacks, but I don’t know if the older women who are devout church goers are hold outs at all.

    Just because it is unacceptable to God, it does not follow that it must be unacceptable to Caesar. At least that’s the rationalization for welcoming gays into the tent. The more votes against Rs, the better after all.

  124. @Opinionator
    Some of us could probably benefit from some brief background on how the Anita Hill thing got the Clintons into the White House and why it was a fiasco.

    Replies: @Bill, @WJ

    Anita Hill didn’t get Clinton elected. A media that adored Clinton, a recession in 91 and 92 and a clueless old wimp whose time had come and gone (Bush 1) and Ross Perot got him elected.

    Even the Gennifer Flowers episode, the “I smoked pot but didnt inhale”, and dodging the draft and the lengths he went to, to maintain his “political viability” afterward, exposed, couldn’t stop the Panderbear (Paul Tsongas nickname for BJC). The Clintons have lived a charmed political ife. I suppose their only defeats, sort of, was the Gore loss in 2000.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @WJ

    BJC did not care if Gore won, and did little to help him. He has not been real helpful to HRC. The only thing BJC really cares about is BJC.

  125. @SMK
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    My point, you stupid misogynist, is that the problem, from a "politically-incorrect" perspective, is not women per se, but left-liberalism, "cultural Marxism," multiculturalism," the celebration and apotheosis of "diversity," feminist ideology, sexual egalitarianism, the view of all nonwhites as sacred and inviolate and the victims of Europeans and their "racism" and "Islamophobia," globalism, neoconservatism, Zionism, the dogma of America as an "idea" and "proposition nation," as espoused by males and females...But to you, apparently, anyone who doesn't hate women, generally, is a "liberal."

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    English isn’t your first language, is it?

  126. @WJ
    @Opinionator

    Anita Hill didn't get Clinton elected. A media that adored Clinton, a recession in 91 and 92 and a clueless old wimp whose time had come and gone (Bush 1) and Ross Perot got him elected.

    Even the Gennifer Flowers episode, the "I smoked pot but didnt inhale", and dodging the draft and the lengths he went to, to maintain his "political viability" afterward, exposed, couldn't stop the Panderbear (Paul Tsongas nickname for BJC). The Clintons have lived a charmed political ife. I suppose their only defeats, sort of, was the Gore loss in 2000.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    BJC did not care if Gore won, and did little to help him. He has not been real helpful to HRC. The only thing BJC really cares about is BJC.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS