The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The 60s: Who Was Most Influential?
🔊 Listen RSS
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

 
Hide 315 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Polynikes says:

    I went with JFK on the basis that any non president would have a tough time competing with someone that powerful. At least in the global sense. If it were just American culture, I might go with Dylan.

    • Replies: @Ano
    , @SunBakedSuburb
  2. Lincoln, Darwin, Marx?

  3. dearieme says:

    JFK only became a big deal after his assassination: the talk of Camelot wasn’t contemporary it was make-believe hindsight. Since the reckless bugger almost brought the world a nuclear war maybe you should add Khrushchev to your list – he was the guy who decided against war.

    Replace JFK by LBJ – he was the man who ruined the US: ruined it by expanding JFK’s little war in Vietnam, and by instituting an extravagant, ill-designed welfare state.

  4. Wavered between MLK and JFK and in the end would have chosen JFK if I had a twitter account to vote. Current innovations in race relations have canceled MLK’s legacy.

  5. Let me get away with two answers, Steve.

    1. Over the long term, Mao. Looking at China’s influence on world affairs, this is a no brainer, I believe.

    2. As of right now, MLK. When has their ever been a time when more attention was focused on the African diaspora in the Western world. BLM, affirmative action, corporations pledging billions to fight systematic racism, etc?

  6. Who fathered the most children?

  7. anonymous[751] • Disclaimer says:

    if you had included an option for “god i hate boomers talking about boomer shit” it would be the runaway winner.

    • Agree: Je Suis Omar Mateen
  8. It was Mao, as we are seeing on a daily basis.

    Everyone else is basically forgotten.

    Outside of China, Mao’s name is forgotten too, but everywhere his influence only grows.

    Runner up: LBJ condemned America (and perhaps the entire white first world) to death with the [anti-]”Civil Rights” Act. (He also signed the nation-killing Hart-Cellar Act, but that had such overwhelming support in Congress that he can’t be blamed personally.)

    Dylan + Lennon achieved some success in destructing civilization among the Baby Boomers, but their influence, such as it was, will die out with that generation.

    Castro, same as Dylan+Lennon (unless you’re Cuban) but without the music.

    JFK: made getting assassinated great again.

    MLK: made getting assassinated useful again.

    • Agree: Mike Tre, bruce county
    • Thanks: John Regan, bomag
    • LOL: El Dato, The Alarmist
  9. I thought to troll and say “Robert Crumb!”, but then I thought about it for a bit…

    And then it hit me.

    What is the ultimate cause of what our host calls the “World’s Most Important Graph”?

    The Green Revolution.

    So for most influential, I nominate:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

    “In 1961 to 1962, Borlaug’s dwarf spring wheat strains were sent for multilocation testing…”

    “In March 1963, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican government sent Borlaug and Dr Robert Glenn Anderson to India to continue his work.”

    “In 1965, after extensive testing, Borlaug’s team, under Anderson, began its effort by importing about 450 tons of Lerma Rojo and Sonora 64 semi-dwarf seed varieties: 250 tons went to Pakistan and 200 to India.”

    “In Pakistan, wheat yields nearly doubled, from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 7.3 million tons in 1970; Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production by 1968

    It all happened in the 60s.

    Of course our population boom wouldn’t have happened without the The Green Revolution’s handmaid, the Haber-Bosch process, but that was invented 50 years before Borlaug’s innovation.

    All of Steve’s choices here are cultural icons. Yes, politics is downstream from culture, but culture, and everything else, is ultimately downstream from food.

  10. Impossible to answer. Pop- culture & politics may intersect, but they’re ultimately different.

    I would say that John Bardeen has been more influential than anyone mentioned, but ….

    We all know the influence & importance of, say, Euclid. I think Bertrand Russell said that Euclid’s “Elements” is one of 5 most important books ever written. What about all the celebs, emperors & conquerors of his era? Who, after all, even knows about these guys?

  11. AndrewR says:

    Perhaps one could argue that Bob Dylan’s influence on other musicians was profound, but I imagine the vast majority of his fans were born before like 1953, and the winner of this stupid, absurd award would certainly have to be someone who is still talked a lot about today by people who aren’t collecting Social Security

  12. AndrewR says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Mao’s wickedness was rivaled only by his idiocy. If it weren’t for Deng’s reforms, China would be India with much less freedom and much more animal abuse. Mao deserves little if any credit for where China is today.

    • Agree: Mark G., Kratoklastes
  13. @Almost Missouri

    It was Mao, as we are seeing on a daily basis.

    Could be. But- in the “opposite direction”. He retarded China’s rise by decades. If China had been experimenting with a communist, authoritarian “capitalism” from the 1960s, instead from the 1990s- where would they be now?

  14. Anon[177] • Disclaimer says:

    Hal Blaine.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
    • LOL: Coemgen
  15. In America?

    Brian Wilson.

    He created the image of the golden California surfer in the mind’s of the youth, who eventually migrated there in search of the fountain of youth.

    What they found instead was that surfing took muscles and bravery to handle all day in the water, and testosterone as well, because you had to butt your way into crowds of alpha males waiting for their turn on the waves.

    Unable to hack surfing they turned to drugs and this spawned the hippy revolution and their rock music which was a repudiation of the whole surfing ethos. Jimi Hendrix’s “We’ll never have to listen to surf music again” as he deliberately bent and tortured the notes and redefined the music of the next generation who would never look back upon the clean, harmonic vocals of the Beach Boys.

    Because of the Beach Boys, California became an overcrowded nightmare. All the disenchantment and cynicism we wallow in today followed. The golden dream was lost, trampled underfoot in a mad stampede.

    • Thanks: JMcG
    • LOL: The Alarmist
  16. Those guys are all jagoffs.

    I answer Woody Hayes.

    Woody was a strong proponent of the counter-revolution and a good man.

    (I am not an Ohio State fan – in fact I refer to them as Wexner State – but I am a Woody Hayes fan)

    Here he calls out the liberals and teaches the importance of team effort.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  17. @De'Remiah Jixon

    All of Steve’s choices here are cultural icons. Yes, politics is downstream from culture, but culture, and everything else, is ultimately downstream from food.

    Edited:

    All of Steve’s choices here are cultural icons. Yes, politics is downstream from culture, but culture, politics, and everything else, is ultimately downstream from population, and population, from food.

  18. Pentheus says:

    Steve, I must stray from your list. Sorry if this will open the floodgates of OT JFK commentary.

    The most influential person of The Sixties was Lee Harvey Oswald.

    The assassination of JFK by some creepy little nobody was a psychic shock from which this country’s spirit has never recovered. In fact, it seems clear to me that The Sixties began with the JFK assassination. The JFK Admin. period was more like a continuation of The Fifties.

    Think of how important was JFK’s non-presence to all that happened afterwards. That the Vietnam War took place under an ugly old man, LBJ, standing symbolically for The Establishment, rather than handsome young war hero. The protest movement would not have had nearly the same traction. RFK and Teddy would not have been major figures. The Democratic Party, IMO, would not have gone off in such a crazy direction. Etc.

    Oswald also set the pattern of subsequent major political assassinations/attempts of the ’60’s-’80s, and all the nihilist and destructive strains which burst forth in so many ways.

  19. peterike says:

    Susan Sontag, who wrote the following in 1967. Effectively setting off the anti-white hysteria that we find ourselves in today and gave us multi-culturalism and open borders. Honestly, I don’t think anyone even comes close.

    If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far…. The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.

    • Agree: Lace
  20. Tetra says:

    If we’re strictly talking the decade of the 1960s and influence about how we live today it would probably be someone like Joseph Licklider

  21. Wency says:

    RE: JFK

    The interesting counterfactual: how would the world be different if Nixon had been elected in 1960? I wonder if it might have been worse for the Republicans in the following decade or two if Nixon’s second term presided over the same chaos that LBJ’s did — the President can only do so much to curb broader social trends. The 1965 Immigration Act had broad, veto-proof, bipartisan support, and I don’t see a reason to think that Nixon would have opposed it.

    Watergate probably would not have happened; the Nixon that lost in 1960 and 1962 seems to have been a more bitter and paranoid man than Eisenhower’s VP. But it’s kind of funny, in retrospect, how little Watergate hurt the Republicans. They still won 3 out of the next 4 Presidential elections.

    Nixon surely would have conducted Vietnam better than LBJ. But would he have been wise enough to stay out of the quagmire, or might Nixon have been able to bring the North to the table by 1968 via an early invasion of Cambodia and a bombing campaign that was more Linebacker II than Rolling Thunder?

    But it doesn’t seem China was ready to come to the table until more like 1969 (and a more successful US conduct of Vietnam might have discouraged them further). So it seems either way, the normalization of US-China relations would likely have been delayed.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  22. JMcG says:

    That POS LBJ in a walk.

  23. Thoughts says:

    – Not JFK because everything he didn’t want to happen happened, including his death

    – Not Lennon because he was f-ing Yoko and wrote one song that we remember “Imagine” in 1971

    – Dylan…I don’t know who Bob Dylan is, all I know is that he’s Jewish and in the ‘Billy Joel, and the other jewish guys who pretend not to be Jewish” group…for some reason I’m seeing the 90s group where they all wore yellow jumpsuits…he’s in that category

    – So I’m going for MLK

    MLK!

    It could be Dylan though because…BECAUSE….”This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land” is my Definition of the 1960s

    Beatles…nope…Woodstock, Nope….This land is Your Land…YES! And if that was Dylan who did that….then it’s Dylan

  24. Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Speaking of influence, y’all might be interested in knowing who the leading isteve commenters are. Here are the top twenty, ranked by what I’m calling “shallow influence”. Your shallow influence is the number of direct responses plus positive (agree, thanks and lol) reactions divided by the number of comments you’ve posted.
    My other metric is “deep influence”. Your deep influence is the number of responses to your comments, including responses to those responses (etc) but not counting your own responses to your own comments. Again, divided by the number of comments you’ve posted.
    This is over the last fifty isteve blog posts and considers only people who have commented twenty or more times.

  25. Astorian says:

    How about Gregory Pincus?

  26. I’m going with Thomas Szasz, in the long-term consequences category.

  27. Rich says:
    @Almost Missouri

    I’m curious how you figure Mao’s influence grows? Haven’t the Chinese rejected his version of Marxism and moved closer to mercantilism, or even fascism?

    I’d have to give the title to LBJ, the guy ruined everything he touched from immigration to civil rights to the Vietnam War. His decisions planted the seeds for more of the problems the US and the rest of the world face than any other public figure of the 60s. Just imagine how different the world would have been if he’d responded properly to the vicious surprise attack on the USS Liberty.

    • Agree: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Almost Missouri
  28. May I suggest Betty Friedan as being one of the most influential. Feminism is the heart beat of all things progressive. Her thinking was pivotal in the destruction of the family.

    • Replies: @JimB
  29. Thoughts says:
    @International Jew

    Agreed with Lee Harvey Oswald

    Whoever killed Kennedy is the most influential

    Kennedy himself was frightened that LBJ would get into office, and Robert Kennedy and Kennedy were…despite their sexual proclivities, on the side of the white middle class

  30. guest says:

    I hesitate briefly because I don’t know how fully each person was “handled,” if you know what I mean.

    JFK isn’t very politically meaningful beyond the 60s. Though occasionally various factions will use him for their purposes. Sometimes this relates to actual positions he held. Otherwise he’s more of a pure symbol.

    MLK is symbolic too, but his actual concrete achievements, as such, are still causing problems today.

    Race-Hustling is still a Current Issue. That beats out New Frontierism, with daylight second.

    Definitely MLK if you ignore the false distinction between MLK-ism and “burn the muthaf*cker” down.

    Dylan and Lennon influenced pop music, which is less important nowadays than it used to be. Not much beyond. Or at least not so much as it seemed back when.

  31. guest says:
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Certainly Mao wanted China to be a world power, and he was willing to make virtually any sacrifice save his own authority and comfort toward that end. However, I wonder if it might not have happened anyway, and if the hell he put them through didn’t actually weaken more than help them.

    Because seriously, it shouldn’t be necessary to starve that many slaves in order to have national defense. We have a military and we didn’t need no tens of millions perishing.

    • Agree: bomag, Hugo Silva
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  32. Bill H says:

    I would have said MLK, until I was told a few months ago that he actually had no effect on this nation.

    • Thanks: sayless
  33. Kgaard says:

    Doesn’t this question have an implicit error at its heart? It puts the agency at the level of the individuals, when in fact there was a deeper force pushing the whole narrative forward. We see that same force at work today … what is now known as deep state/cabal. It was at work in the 60s and probably for 100s of years previously as well. LBJ obviously was part of a far larger machine, and that machine had ties to China. Dylan and Lennon, too, were tied to that same machine.

    I am reminded here of the old New Yorker cartoon where the industrialist says to his young son, “There are no great men, only great committees.”

    • Agree: Thoughts
  34. Ano says:
    @Polynikes

    Yes, if speaking in terms of the 60’s Zeitgeist in all the West (not just the U.S), I’d plump for Dylan.

    He, as the Great White Wonder, and his lyrics were taken so seriously, even spawning the academic field of ‘Dylanology’- with all those Dylanologists picking through his rubbish in his garbage can.

    Of course, there was a counter-reaction in later decades (when he went Christian, support for Israel, etc), but, as Mr Sailer knows, he was awarded a Nobel Prize.

  35. Not a fan of them but I’d count The Beatles as one individual and call them the most influential figure of the period, leading the mid-decade wave of youth culture and then the wave of trippiness. Of course I could have this upside down and they were merely the most adept followers rather than leaders.

    I didn’t follow them enough to say that Lennon should be peeled away from the others for the purpose of this discussion.

  36. @International Jew

    Congratulations to Johnnywalker123 and thomas!

    [Corvinus wept.]

    Also honorable mention to harry baldwin who appears to have been edged out of the top Deep spot by only 16/1000ths of a comment.

    Since it looks like you did this with a script rather than by hand, why not increase the sample size to back when Ron clamped down on “excessive” comments, or the whole year, or every year, or the last five years?

    Would also be interesting to know who have the standout deep/shallow and shallow/deep ratios…

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Thanks: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @International Jew
  37. Ho Chi Minh handed the US it’s own head. He wins hands down.

  38. ic1000 says:
    @International Jew

    A nudge, as further thanks for your number crunching 😉

  39. Travis says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald had the greatest impact on the sixties. If JFK was left in power, LBJ is never President. The Vietnam War never escalates, which effectively cuts off the counterculture movement. No War protesting, no hippies , no Woodstock. Bobby Dylan remains a cult folk singer , with no influence on Rock music. JFK most likely wins the election of 1964. This would dramatically change the course of US history. Maybe one of his younger brothers becomes President in the 70s.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is never passed. Kennedy wouldn’t have risked losing Southern Democrats by trying to pass a civil rights act in 1964. If he attempted it, he would have lost the election of 1964. He tries to pass his Civil Rights bill in his second term , if he wins re-election.

    Nixon never becomes President, without the rioting of 1968. So we never open up to China in the 70s and we never experience Watergate and Carter is Never President, so Reagan is never President. So amnesty is never passed in 1986. Bush is never President, so no Gulf Wars.

    If Dylan or Lennon never existed, the 60s still happen. We still get Vietnam, the key driver of the sixties counter-cultural movement. Yet if Lee Harvey never existed the 60s never occurs.

  40. Anonymous[824] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, I don’t know about that, but here’s a neat little phrase that sums thing up:

    “Manson. The man who killed the ’60s “.

  41. Art Deco says:

    Depends on the scope and venue. The authors of The Timetables of History offer seven spheres to consider: “history and politics”, “literature and theater”, “religion and philosophy”, “visual arts”, “music”, “science and technology”, and “daily life”. Limiting discussion to the U.S.

    History and politics: LBJ, MLK
    Literature and theater: ?

    Religion and philosophy: Pope Paul VI (the ruin of the Catholic Church owed a great deal to his leadership deficit)

    Visual arts: ? (ruined already)
    Music: Dylan, Ed Sullivan (for bringing certain characters to mainstream audiences)
    Science and technology: ?
    Daily life: ?

    The problem is that important discontinuities and innovations often occurred prior to 1964 or after 1971, so ‘the Sixties’ were not consequential in that sense. Also, some things are just group efforts and it’s hard to find a discrete influential figure (though you can find emblematic figures). The ruin of mainline protestantism has been an incremental project over several generations. Leonard Bernstein was certainly an influential figure, but he peaked earlier and as influential as he was, he was just one tile in a large mosaic.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dan Hayes
  42. Ray P says:

    None of these men. The most influential person is Sen. Edward Kennedy for getting the Immigration Act passed. America is a different country because of it.

  43. Assuming that Lennon’s and Dylan’s countercultural-icon capital is largely irrelevant nowadays, I’d bet Brian Wilson’s feel-good chorus to Good Vibrations would get more easily recognized worldwide (especially outside English speaking world) today than than any of Lennon’s or Dylan’s songs. Although hardly anyone would be able to pinpoint him as the author of the song. Had he not went nuts in ~1967 (and subsequently wasted his thirties and fourties) he had the potential to be the defining American artist of the twentieth century.

  44. Mao is the only Hegelian world-historical figure on the poll.

    What’s ironic about Mao is that much his political philosophy has been rejected now in China but has been taken up in the United States. For example, Mao railed against “Han Chauvinism” and suggested the Han check their privilege and listen to and accept ethnic minorities’ complaints. In other words, have a “conversation.” There was of course an ulterior motive, Mao and subsequent leaders wanted the national minorities to drop their own ethno-nationalism.

    Current President Xi Jinping has rejected the minoritarian woke way and has introduced his based majoritarian Chinese Dream:

    President Xi’s Chinese Dream is a necessary and timely concept, which he made public for the first time in the China National Museum, surrounded by an exhibition documenting foreign invasions since the First Opium War in 1840, in particular. The painful humiliations that the Chinese nation suffered at the hands of the West and Japan are regularly revived by China’s leadership to energize and motivate the Chinese masses to participate in the Chinese Dream. Xi’s Chinese Dream can be seen as the spiritual dimension for which an increasingly wealthy and educated Chinese society is yearning.

    While various Chinese groups (armed forces, farmers, officials, businessmen, etc.) have their own distinct interpretations of what the Chinese Dream means and how it should be achieved, there is little controversy over its ultimate goal: “fulfilling the great renaissance of the Chinese race,” i.e. the Han race. Hence, the Chinese Dream is essentially a nationalistic ambition. And while love and pride for one’s own culture, history, and country are not problematic per se, if not managed adequately, nationalism can nurture an undesirable sentiment: chauvinism, in this case, Han chauvinism.

    The US is obviously going the other direction with white privilege.

    In fact China today is a synthesis of National Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism.

    • Agree: BB753, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @BB753
  45. Thanks. Looks like I need to step up my game. I agree with your largely positive assessment. Alternatively, could be viewed:

    1) By enemies of iSteve as the concentrated echo chamber bubble of the “alt-right”
    2) By Deep State monitors/trackers: “hey thanks! Saved us a lot of work!”
    3) By Hasbara/Putin-bots/3rd PLA/IRGC: “Cool beans! New Target Folders for influence peddling/manipulation, and when necessary, targeted lead-poisoning!” IOW, extrnded job security…

    • LOL: sayless
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  46. @International Jew

    What’s that thing you’re supposed to say when you receive recognition, “I am humbled and grateful”?

    But I’m also bewildered as I honestly consider myself a second-tier commenter. I come to iSteve to be educated and I usually find the responses to my comments more informative and insightful than whatever I wrote. Maybe some of the most valuable commenters leave little to be added?

    And where does Tiny Duck fit in? He gets lots of responses.

  47. @Captain Tripps

    Previous response was to International Jew’s post above re: iSteve’s deep influence commenters. Apologize for any confusion.

  48. TWS says:

    LBJ followed by Mao.

  49. Anonymous[657] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Just pointing out that a number of the posters on the list achieved their high response rates via trolling techniques. I guess you could term that influential, but certainly not contributory.

    • Replies: @Anon
  50. JFK is the only one of those 4 who should be on there. Considering John Lennon or Bob Dylan as having the most influence on the 60s is peak Boomerism

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  51. @International Jew

    Fascinating work. Can you do separate divisions for instant posters vs. those who must undergo the tough and rigorous moderation process?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  52. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Pope John 23 – Vatican 2.

    Oswald-Sirhan – made being patsies popular.

    • Agree: sayless
  53. @NJ Transit Commuter

    “1. Over the long term, Mao. Looking at China’s influence on world affairs, this is a no brainer, I believe.”

    But China’s success is due to Deng Xiaopeng abandoning Mao’s path and taking the capitalistic road.

  54. During the ’60s, Dylan.

    Since the ’60s, Lennon.

    How often do you still listen to Dylan v. The Beatles?

  55. @International Jew

    IJ, can you crunch results for the past calendar year, ending yesterday?

    And do a year’s list for commenter total LOLs and average LOLs per comment? 🙂

    Also, it may be more accurate to change the term “influence” to “reaction”. Influence, when applied to direct (typed) replies implies the replies agree with the OP, when that may not be the case.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  56. Patriot says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Absoutely correct, and for the reasons cited. Mao changed the fate of 1.3 billion people, and LBG may have destroyed White people and Western civilization. Both will effect every single person on earth, forever.

    • Replies: @hhsiii
  57. J.Ross says:

    Of or since? Bill Ayers or Jerry Rubin were pretty influential since. Also, I don’t know that Mao was influential at all. He was politically (really, conventionally) powerful. He did things and everyone talked about them but no white kid buying a Little Red Book actually read it. China derives its present happiness from rejecting Mao and his policies. That’s not really influential, that’s conventionally powerful. Rubin had no conventional governmental power until he received a minor White House position thirty years later, as a result of his influence.
    —–
    OT: I want more marriage-age women dead than ever before, but legally!
    https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/10/08/nigerian-tech-worker-pleads-guilty-to-murdering-mackenzie-lueck/
    Election fraud isn’t happening, pay no attention to the arrests!
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/08/texas-mayoral-candidate-arrested-on-109-counts-of-mail-in-voter-fraud/
    He might not have been caught had he not tried to do it all himself. Is he the only Asian with no family?

  58. Old Prude says:
    @International Jew

    AnotherDad #1. Buzz Mohawk #2. Most all the regular commenters here make my own thoughts and comments read lame and dull. And I think I’m a pretty clever and witty fellow. Reading these comment threads is humbling…

    • Replies: @Glt
  59. @Almost Missouri

    I’d love to crawl way back like that but fifty is already bordering on a denial-of-service attack and as it is I’m not one of Ron’s favorite people.

  60. Hate to say it, but it’s definitely the looter King.
    JFK may have started the space race, but who put an end to it?

    What we see in the streets of every negrified city is his doing.
    Sure he had plenty of help, but we’re focusing on individuals, right?

    What’s JFK’s lasting legacy? I can’t think of anything, good or bad.

  61. OFF TOPIC— Not the Onion:

    Fox, who was described as one of the leaders, was living in the basement of a vacuum shop in Grand Rapids.

    Minneapolis Star-Tribune: 13 charged in plots against Michigan governor, police.

    http://strib.mn/34RR9In

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    , @J.Ross
  62. Trinity says:

    Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones influenced people long after Lennon and Dylan were even relevant any more. Lennon was killed in late 1980 and had a hit song on the charts, but he was fading out before his untimely death. It is safe to say that Lennon like other members of The Beatles would have faded into RELATIVE obscurity had he lived long enough.

    Of those mentioned, if we would expand this category to include the infamous and changed it up a bit and said what 60’s figure remained in the spotlight for the longest, it would have to be Charles Manson. Yep, we live in that kind of world, friend. Even though Crazy Charlie came along at the tail end of that decade and The Trial Of The Century was in the early 1970s, the name Charles Manson is almost as well known as those others and arguably more recognizable than some. Manson would go on to be interviewed countless times, for decades all way up to his death a few years ago. Was Manson influential? Maybe to some crazies but were the others all that influential either. JFK and Lennon? Outside of a few hippies and musicians, who did Lennon really influence? Sure, people gathered and “mourned” his death or pretended to grief stricken, but they do that for all celebs, look at Elvis. The events surrounding the death of Elvis far surpassed those of Lennon and JFK.

  63. @International Jew

    I’m not so crazy ‘bout you neither.
    .

  64. JFK – via the orgy of remorse over his death which led to the legislation that holed our ship of state below the waterline. In trying to prove we were “better than that” we consigned the Republic to an earlier death.

  65. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I was thinking that if you spawn a vast tree of replies, then you’ve been influential in the sense of sorta setting an agenda. I realize though that by the third level of replies down, the subject matter has often changed completely.

  66. @Harry Baldwin

    Tiny Duck seems to have drifted over to another lily pad. But back when he was active, I posted a list of the commenters who replied the most times to Tiny Duck. Yes, it was a wall of shame…
    I posted it maybe two years ago. You could probably find it with a search engine.

  67. Anonymous[504] • Disclaimer says:

    I doubt Lennon, though he waded into it, was textbook-representative of millennarian progressive-leftism. Like McCartney he just really, really anti-English and anti-bourgeoisie hegemony, which birthed some very daft blowback (Timothy Leary for gov, which was alternative-history sci-fi avant la lettre).

    I voted JFK because he was the first celebrity mega-politician of the 60s, and actuarially precluded from being influenced by the decade after he influenced it

  68. syonredux says:

    Did JFK have much real influence? Both LBJ and Nixon accomplished more in office. In retrospect, getting assassinated was good for JFK’s rep. It allowed people to indulge their weepy “Camelot” fantasies….

    Dylan and Lennon were enormously influential in terms of pop music, and they certainly helped shaped the zeitgeist….But what does that really mean? Do they trump Mao and LBJ? Did Byron trump Napoleon? I can go either way on that one….

    MLK….He was certainly a key figure in the early ’60s, that strange period that, in retrospect, looks more like an extension of the ’50s…..But what did he mean in terms of the increasingly anarchic late ’60s…..

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  69. Gregory Pincus. Developed the birth control pill.

  70. Not Raul says:

    Võ Văn Nguyên Giáp

    • Thanks: Thoughts
    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  71. missile tech completely changed the world. got humans off the planet, and ICBMs are the main reason we don’t have big wars between serious opponents anymore. von Braun and company started all that.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  72. Trinity says:

    Oops, how could I forget, especially as a boxing fan, I would say that Ali was the most influential person to come out of the Sixties. Ali was arguably the most famous man alive for a time. Not many people are recognizable by one name, Ali, like Elvis, was one them. Ali’s reach ( no pun intended) extended out far more than even world leaders or musicians and certainly more than some untalented drugged up hack like Bob Dylan who isn’t even in the same league. Love him or hate him, no one can say that they were more famous than Muhammad Ali from 1965-2016.

    Even though Elvis was past it in the 1960s and would end his career in jumpsuits playing casinos, his name still has to be up there on the list as well. Elvis has been dead for a long, long time, 43 years and counting, but still fans of all ages marvel at what a true talent this man had, talent like Elvis and Ali come along once every couple of centuries and we were blessed to have both around at the same time. Both were decent men, in my opinion. RIP to two REAL LEGENDS.

  73. on a related note, if Elon Musk’s Starship works, it will change the world in a similar way. not only will it get humans to Mars, but the military will try to use Starship as an Orbital Bomber – able to launch and hit any target on Earth in 1 hour, from an altitude where no air defense can touch it, and then come all the way back and land at base.

    since Musk says it’s possible to build dozens of these things, and that’s his actual plan, it should be trivial for the Air Force/Space Force to have a fleet of them similar to the B-2 fleet.

    indeed, a fleet of Starships armed with smart weapons, MIRVs, or even hypersonic missiles, could be kept in orbit continuously, the way the US Air Force kept bombers in flight continuously from 1960 to 1968 during Operation Chrome Dome. that way, a Starship is always over your country, and ready to go into action in a few minutes notice.

    this wouldn’t completely make ICBMs obsolete, but it would make them less relevant, and it would start to enable Neocon ideas about a “First Strike” scenario being ‘winnable’. ballistic missile submarines would remain about as relevant as they are today – unless the Starships and spy satellites start to be able to see them in the water too, and Starships are able to hit them from altitude.

    • Replies: @Dacian Julien Soros
  74. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco

    @ Pope Paul VI (the ruin of the Catholic Church owed a great deal to his leadership deficit)

    Meh. Either the Church is once again reformed through her saints, or this is indeed the End Times, in which case it is not ruined: she is undergoing her Passion and her final victory is assured.

    • Replies: @Peter D. Bredon
  75. @International Jew

    I guess i need to dial it back a bit and clean the pool.

  76. Seneca44 says:

    Either Johnson or Nixon–both very influential at a policy and legislative level. Kennedy got a lot of press but really did not do much. MLK’s influence seems to have peaked well after his death. Musicians? Meh.

  77. None of the above. Tbe correct answer is Philip Hart and Emanuel Celler.

    Culture is downstream from biology.

    • Agree: dimples, Old Palo Altan
  78. @International Jew

    I was thinking that if you spawn a vast tree of replies, then you’ve been influential in the sense of sorta setting an agenda.

    It depends on the commenter/comment. Even the ‘purest’ first level of direct typed responses, which can be quite numerous, might only be reaction rather than influence. For example, jonathan_mason on both your lists of influence has racked up tons of negative (typed) reaction, and probably close to zero influence (i.e. persuasion to adopt a new point of view).

    • Agree: BenKenobi, TWS, Charon
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  79. Dan Hayes says:
    @Art Deco

    John XXIII, the nefarious Vatican diplomat who initiated and shepherded Vatican II, was the godfather of Paul VI, his bumbling successor!

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  80. @Almost Missouri

    Runner up: LBJ condemned America (and perhaps the entire white first world) to death with the [anti-]”Civil Rights” Act. (He also signed the nation-killing Hart-Cellar Act, but that had such overwhelming support in Congress that he can’t be blamed personally.)

    Good response Almost. I think it’s flat out LBJ.

    Mao’s life–he’s huge. But i’m not sure his 60s shennanigans matter that much long term–other than lots of dead people always matter. Basically his successors righted the ship and have sailed China on in something that looks more or less like the classic Chinese imperial model, simply running out of the official political forms Mao put in place.

    LBJ on the other hand–without intending or understanding it–was really, really destructive to the American nation and hence to the broader West.

    Directly with Hart-Cellar and the 1964 Civil Rights act, which more or less conceded to field to Jewish minoritarian ideology and destroyed our right to freedom of association. And–important–by doing so in the US, effectively “officializd”/blessed the minoritarian critique as valid and correct for the rest of Western civilization. The Anglo-sphere almost immediately collapsed with similar nonsense.

    It was a missed opportunity to draw the proper line for majorities dealing with minorities–public legal tolarance, but an absolute private right of the nation’s majority to maintain both its private affairs and its public norms.

    Also–kind of a cultural effect–LBJ’s escalation in Vietnam gave the counter-culture a real cause that many people could at least somewhat sympathize with, which gave them much greater “cachet” to push all sorts of other civilizationally destructive ideas.

    LBJ is basically “the man” for the 60s. When the Nixon “counter-reformation” came, it was way too little, too late, the minoritarian cake had been baked and Nixon lacked the farsightedness, the will and the political capability to roll it back. Which is what we’ve seen from all further nominal “conservatives”.

    • Replies: @epebble
  81. @International Jew

    How’d you get the raw data? FWIW, I’d add the following estimables to the list, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some more. The depth of intellect & wit on this forum remains impressive. Island of Sanity.

    Dave Pinsen
    Buffalo Joe
    MBlanc46
    YetAnotherAnon
    Hypnotoad666
    notsaying
    Jim Don Bob
    South Texas Guy
    Gary in Gramercy
    Last Real Calvinist
    The Alarmist
    HammerJack
    Father O’Hara
    Lockean Proviso
    ben tillman
    neutral
    Pincher Martin
    William Badwhite
    Wild Geese Howard
    Stan d Mute
    J.Ross
    Bomag
    Black Sea
    El Dato
    WHISKEY

    And where’s Lot? Funny that Thomas is atop the list and I don’t even know who he is.

  82. @International Jew

    But TD uses a hundred monikers. How would you possibly account for that?

    Why is Art Deco missing? I’ve probably missed some in your list. Eyes glazed over.

  83. @syonredux

    The Fifties lasted until JFK’s death, and the 60s until the end of the Vietnam War.

    When did the 70s end, though? With Reagan’s Inauguration perhaps?

    This is a cultural thing, obviously, which not everyone on the Spectrum can be brought ’round to understanding. A geographic analogy: The American South includes only the northern part of Florida. Along with the usual suspects, of course. It most definitely no longer includes northern Virginia or almost any part of Maryland.

  84. I disagree with the votes for Mao. It seems to me that Mao was arguably one of the great men of the 1930s & 40s, and maybe even the 50s, but by the 1960s he was basically screwing up China with his dumb ideas. China’s subsequent success was in spite of Mao’s 1960s activities, not because of them. Deng Xiaoping in the central figure of modern China, and his influence is primarily felt in the 1970s.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  85. epebble says:
    @AnotherDad

    But did LBJ have the power to resist the popular wave i.e. Congress and what could he do after U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education? Segregation was also proving to be a major headache for the Cold Warriors to keep all the newly independent countries from joining Soviet team. Imagine we continued with Segregation and all of Africa and most of Asia and even Caribbean/Central/ South America on Soviet side. Talk of Liberty with the Big Statue sounds very hypocritical to all those watching Hollywood flicks showing Colored bathrooms and water fountains.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  86. JFK only exists in what’s now left in the minds of that era’s utopian youth.

    The average age of an above-ground Dylan fan must be > 70.

    To most young people today, if you say the name Lennon, they won’t know WTH you are talking about (or else presume that you mean some Tik-Tok influencer).

    Whatever MLK stood for then has little to do with what he represents now (e.g. a federal holiday). But there’s your winner.

  87. @International Jew

    You may very well be right about Lee Oswald.

    Your choice of him goes wisely against the silly hypotheses that he wasn’t just a dumbass Leftist nut job (like those who are burning our cities now) who flat out shot President Kennedy and changed history.

    Thanks for your analysis of recent comments. I am happy to appear in the pack, because I was beginning to feel like I was wasting my time here. (Maybe I am though.) It is hard not to be depressed and just say fuck it all and go outside and stack wood, as I am doing today. Winter is coming, and the rest of the world can go fuck itself. The wood is for fun, because we don’t really need fires. (You never know, though. We are prepared.) We have them because we can. Life doesn’t have to make sense. In fact, it doesn’t.

    BTW, Steve’s list of four is woefully inadequate and painfully obvious from a pop culture point of view. Dylan and Lennon? Seriously? You might as well then include their managers or record company executives. Just vote for “The Zeitgeist” and you will be correct.

  88. dfordoom says: • Website

    The 60s: Who Was Most Influential?

    1. Gregory Pincus and John Rock. The men who invented the contraceptive pill. Yes there were contraceptive methods before that but the contraceptive pill made purely recreational sex easy without the necessity for any forethought. It made the Sexual Revolution possible.

    2. Betty Friedan. Way more influential than either Dylan or Lennon, and way more destructive. The woman who mainstreamed the craziest ideology in history.

    • Agree: Thoughts, Dan Hayes, Lace
    • Replies: @theMann
  89. Art Deco says:
    @Travis

    Lee Harvey Oswald had the greatest impact on the sixties. If JFK was left in power, LBJ is never President. The Vietnam War never escalates,

    In your imagination only.

    • Replies: @ringo
  90. Why have LBJ as an afterthought? He is the guy who created Viet Nam,civil rites and immigration.
    And he may have been involved in JFK.
    All the way with LBJ.

  91. @Harry Baldwin

    Harry, thanks for all the “LOL”s. Most of these bastards just sit on their hands, when creative types, like me and Shug Fisher, need APPLAUZ.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  92. Art Deco says:
    @Dan Hayes

    There was nothing nefarious about either man; they just did a lousy job. John died less than a year into the Council; not one of the 16 documents of the Council had yet been promulgated. Paul was responsible for the mucking about with the liturgy, for ending antique observances, for scattershot interference with with disciplinary measures against rogue clergy (see his dealings with Cdl. O’Boyle), for insufficient resistance to one imprudent initiative after another, and for appointing Abp. Jadot the apostolic delegate to the United States (who used his influence to arrange the appointments of scads of lousy bishops e.g. Raymond Hunthausen and Rembert Weakland).

    • Thanks: Dan Hayes
  93. Robert Winslow Taylor and Robert Moses, you small-brained nitwits.

  94. @International Jew

    Sometimes I wonder about the people who comment on every freakin’ post. I wish I knew so much about everything that I could share my wisdom with others about everything. Even if I were such a polymath, I wouldn’t have time.

    And you’re allowed to let an inconsequential misstatement of fact go by without posting your correction/clarification. The failure to issue a scolding correction does not imply agreement with the error.

    Recent example. A few days ago, I shared an anecdote with the preamble that almost every outer borough neighborhood in NYC had a Korean greengrocer in the 1980s. Oh, no, someone replied! There were Korean greengrocers in Manhattan, too! Yep. Some Manhattan neighborhoods, mostly north of Central Park. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Of course, look who’s talking. On the death of Johnny Nash the other day, someone here commented that he was a one-hit-wonder. No, several other responded – including me. He was a two-hit-wonder! Glad we cleared that up.

  95. Mr. Anon says:
    @epebble

    Imagine we continued with Segregation and all of Africa and most of Asia and even Caribbean/Central/ South America on Soviet side. Talk of Liberty with the Big Statue sounds very hypocritical to all those watching Hollywood flicks showing Colored bathrooms and water fountains.

    Talk of peace and freedom sound hypocritical to all those watching the US employ the World’s most powerful military machine against third-world peasants. Pretty much everything the US does on the World stage appears (and is) hypocritical. Doesn’t stop us.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @epebble
  96. ringo says:

    Actually, 1958 (a little before the 1960s), but…
    Jack Kilby and Bob Noyce: inventors of the integrated circuit.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
  97. Bill B. says:
    @De'Remiah Jixon

    Um ok. But what about then Paul Ehrlich and his f8cking 1968 book “The Popuation Bomb” that convinced many gullible westerners not to have children and contributed mightily to the still pervasive society-shredding notion that having children is wrong?

    • Replies: @black sea
  98. Some interesting stuff here, but…

    What was the single most important event of the 1960s? In fact, one of the most important events in the entire history of the planet?

    The Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Had that gone badly, well, WW III was extremely likely. In fact, papers released from after the fall of the USSR show that the missiles were much further along than Americans realized, and if JFK had listened to the military, the missiles were ready for action, and bye-bye NYC, DC, hello full scale nuclear war.

    Would Nixon have handled the situation as well, or even better? Perhaps. Would he have messed up and ended the world? No way to ever know.

    Because of that one event, JFK was by far the most influential person on that list. One could argue that some of the Soviets, esp. Kruschev, were extremely influential.

    So, the tie-break comes in with the Space Race — first to the Moon.

    The entire micro computer boom, on which our entire modern economy is based, was a byproduct of the Space Race. It would’ve happened eventually anyway, but the Space Race sped things along.

    With the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Space Race, JFK winds up in his short time in office not only the most influential person of the 1960s, but one of the most influential people in American history.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  99. Bill B. says:
    @Pentheus

    Lee Harvey Oswald

    Yes and the lone assassin Oswald accidentally gave a great push to the professional skeptics and conspiracy mongers who created the nothing-is-what-it-seems, unmoored societies of the West we live in now.

  100. ringo says:
    @Art Deco

    In some ways, the Apollo program, which peaked at spending about 1.5% of the GDP in the mid sixties, was a memorial to JFK. Not sure we would have gone as fast and furious to beat the Russians to the moon if JFK had lived and Apollo was just another discretionary budget item competing with Medicare, highway building, medical research, etc….

  101. @dearieme

    True, but his assassination changed US history significantly. Certainly the war in Vietnam would have been different if he remained President. May never have escalated , may have been avoided or may have ended faster with better decision making.

    With a JFK president there would have been less opposition , less protesting , maybe a quicker withdrawal. He would have been able to market the war effort better than LBJ. Less need to double the number of Americans drafted , as LBJ increased the draft from 18,000 men per year to 40,000 per year.

    It is the lack of JFK which profoundly effected history. Nixon would most likely not win in 1968. without the social disruptions and protests caused by his inept war effort of LBJ. Hard to say who would have won the 68 election if JFK served until 1969.

  102. Mr. Anon says:

    OT: Hobson’s Choice:

    Wilson College at Princeton to be renamed after George Lucas’s wife:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8823941/Princeton-college-building-named-Woodrow-Wilson-renamed-black-female-alumna.html

    Also OT: Roald Dahl’s novel The Witches, which was made into a movie in 1990, is being remade – this time set in 1960’s Alabama, because racism of course. Every story now must be about racism. White people don’t get to have a culture of their own anymore.

  103. @Buzz Mohawk

    I was beginning to feel like I was wasting my time here.

    Why would you say that? You’re one of the most popular commenters.

    • Agree: sayless, Charlotte
    • Replies: @HammerJack
  104. theMann says:

    Pope John XXIII, no contest.

    Vatican 2 is the single greatest disaster in a Decade of disaster. Whatever evil Mao, LBJ, Castro etc inflicted on the world, it was inflicted, past tense.

    The evils, I don’t even bother to say errors anymore, that Vatican 2 has inflicted on the world will continue to roll out for decades, if not centuries.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  105. theMann says:
    @dfordoom

    Point number one is substantially incorrect. Birth Control, plus antibiotics. plus mobility made the sexual revolution possible. Without antibiotics promiscuity would eventually melt the genitalia of anyone engaging in it. Without mobility, skanks couldn’t stay ahead of their reputation, which could, and still can, get them killed in a lot of societies.

    Many things had to come together for the sexual revolution, and IUD’s preceded the Pill as Birth Control.

  106. @Servant of Gla'aki

    Screwing up a country with dumb ideas can be equated with tremendous influence.

  107. @Harry Baldwin

    We’re all wasting our time here.

    Forget it Jake. It’s the internet.

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  108. @NJ Transit Commuter

    WRT #2,
    Nietschetze: “The values of the weak prevail as the powerful use them as devices of leadership”.
    (It probably flowed better in German).

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  109. The Beach Boys and Jan &Dean because so many people moved to California.

  110. bomag says:
    @De'Remiah Jixon

    Borlaug’s innovation

    I like this one.

    Technology drives many changes; I’d nominate The Pill for much of what energized the “60s.

  111. BB753 says:

    LBJ and Allen W. Dulles. Dulles set largely the national and international agenda of the CIA (the “deep” deep state) for the whole decade, although his tenure ended in 1961.

  112. Franz says:

    Ayn Rand.

    Lover her or hate her, she peaked then and influenced literally everything political and economic afterwards.

    From the 1940s with The Fountainhead she was creating what are now the various rights that are based on a variety of things she defined, not what she created. Her main thrust was as a proponent and popularizer; as Murray Rothbard and Jerome Tuccille pointed out at the time, she didn’t read much or innovate much.

    When she published Atlas Shrugged in 1957 and entered the wider pubic consciousness at almost the same time Sputnik began the Space Age, her influence over the sixties was assured.

    If you only trust the MSM, the 1960s was a paradise for “the Left”. For people who were up close and there for at least some of it, the left was in fact desperate. Analysis of the student pretend-revolt of 1964 showed the problem: Students were far more conservative than their Red Thirties professors.

    Rand wrote about this “gap” and what it really showed: The left professors and politicians of the 60s saw how badly their ideas were failing in the kids who grew up in the overcrowded fifties. Not the same as the barely-developed thirties. Collectivism, as Rand saw clearly, was a hard sell when population density goes up.

    The structure her acolytes built fell in 1968. Perversely, her influence increased after the formal system her movement provided was gone. People who had no reason to like her (Ronald Reagan, Gore Vidal) noted that no matter where they spoke, she was the only living author in those years people had actually read.

    Ayn Rand was the go-to alternate when people actually met the greasy, slobbering antiwar protestors the MSM was fawning over. And for every lefty there were at least fifty people who turned the other way.

    This is why Trotsky’s followers in America started calling themselves “neoconservatives” before the sixties were even over. Trust the fringe to know which way the public mood was going.

    Rand made the mood possible. Lover or hate her.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  113. @International Jew

    Is there a swimsuit competition?

    • LOL: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @bruce county
  114. BB753 says:
    @International Jew

    Yeah, I’m a nobody. Even as a commenter. Great to hear that on a lonely Friday night! Lol! I must admit that 90 % of my posts are off-topic.

  115. @De'Remiah Jixon

    So for most influential, I nominate:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

    “In 1961 to 1962, Borlaug’s dwarf spring wheat strains were sent for multilocation testing…”

    “In March 1963, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican government sent Borlaug and Dr Robert Glenn Anderson to India to continue his work.”

    “In 1965, after extensive testing, Borlaug’s team, under Anderson, began its effort by importing about 450 tons of Lerma Rojo and Sonora 64 semi-dwarf seed varieties: 250 tons went to Pakistan and 200 to India.”

    “In Pakistan, wheat yields nearly doubled, from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 7.3 million tons in 1970; Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production by 1968”

    Very sharp insight, Mr. Jixon.

    After reading ArtDeco’s 40-something comment, Green Revolution/Borlaug popped into my head.

    One of my best friends is an Indian guy i was in grad school with. He talked about getting the US food-aid wheat when he was a kid. (He thought it was crappy, not their usual stuff.) When the Green Revolution had rolled through India could feed itself and now has 1.4 billion people.

    Africa isn’t starving–barring war/drought–and has exploded past a billion people (1.3) and headed toward the stratosphere.

    The two huge trends reshapping the modern that launched in the 60s:
    1) the huge population explosion in the 3rd world
    2) the West succumbing to minoritarian ideology, the corruption/decline of its culture/social norms and loss of swagger and willingness to defend itself from invasion

    The 3rd trend of note is the rise of China–China’s return to being a leading civilization in the world. But i don’t see any relation of that to the 60s.

    • Replies: @De'Remiah Jixon
  116. @Mr McKenna

    How’d you get the raw data?

    These blog posts are files on Unz’s computer. Your browser is a program that downloads those files and displays them. I wrote a program that downloads those same files but instead of displaying them it counts comments and replies.

    Fifty blog posts takes us only a couple weeks back. Lot might be taking a break.

  117. northeast says:
    @Pentheus

    Yup. You hit the nail on the head…it was Oswald. If JFK lived there would have been no guns-& butter. No Great Society. No democratic landslide in 1964 that ushered in the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act, which has ruined the nation with its avalanche of endless, non-white immigration.

  118. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    For example, jonathan_mason on both your lists of influence has racked up tons of negative (typed) reaction

    I wonder where Corvirus would be in a ratio of positive to negative reactions? I don’t think anyone has ever agreed with him or complimented him in any way.

    He’d definitely be high on the list of “Commenters receiving the most insults”

    I nominate Mr. Anon for “Funniest Insulter of Corvinus” and Fish (hands down) for “Best at Making Fun of Tiny Duck”

  119. @Not Raul

    Wins for most squiggly bits in his name?

  120. J1234 says:

    I agree that Gregory Pincus and Lee Harvey Oswald were the most influential. That Oswald is so influential is, of course, troubling for decent people. Building something is a million times more difficult than destroying something (or someone) so it doesn’t seem just that an assassin turns out to have more of an impact than the leader he killed, but that’s sometimes the way it works. Who’s the most influential person of the 21st century so far? Bin Laden is certainly in the running.

    Another interesting thing to ponder: which assassination was more influential, Lincoln’s or JFK’s?

  121. It’s wrong and terribly unfair to put solely Lennon on that list, it should be Lennon-McCartney. Without Paul, there would have been no world-famous Beatles – the music as we know it, the charm, the drive, the vitality, whatever the ingredients were that made the magic, wouldn’t have been there in sufficient proportion. That would have been the case too if John hadn’t been present – Lennon and McCartney were a unit, musically and historically.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  122. Mike Tre says:

    Hart-Celler isn’t an option?

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  123. @Mr McKenna

    Thank you for including me but in reviewing my own comments I have found way too many consist of me bashing another commenter (though usually deserved) and not enough cogent additions to the discussion.

    My 2021 resolution is to work on that!

  124. syonredux says:
    @International Jew

    I was always amazed by the number of people who couldn’t figure out that Tiny Duck was a parody account.

  125. JimB says:

    I thought Walter Kronkite was the 60’s most influential American. By trashing the US war effort after the Tet offensive, which resulted in the US basically wiping out the Viet Kong, Kronkite guaranteed that 50,000 US lives would go down the shitter with zero meaning and South Vietnam would be destroyed.

  126. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Nice try, but I am at the top of this list.

    And now, for my next act of influence, I’m going to request that Ann Coulter please refrain from sassing President Trump throughout the remainder of this election cycle, because:

    1. I desire that he be re-elected, as you likely do also, given the choices.

    2. There’s so much media noise, I think it’s wise to err on the safe side. Maybe even go so far as to reluctantly cite the positive highlights of his track record. Often.

    3. Your sass sauce will age from tart to delicious once our President doesn’t have to worry about re-election. When that happens, have at him. I’ll hold your hair back for you.

    4. If re-elected, he will be our last chance to economically and legislatively reem Sanctuary Cities. We really need to.

    5. With a Trump economy, my finances will be so improved that I would feel comfortable in asking for your hand in marriage. Don’t screw this up, if eternal happiness means anything to you.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  127. @Art Deco

    Congratulations. I was scrolling through the replies here, expecting to find that no one would mention the abominable, nefarious Paul.

    John XXIII was well-meaning and personally ultra-conservative, and very old fashioned in his forms of piety as well. Paul, on the other hand, was a complete Modernist and, if not enthusiastically pro-Communist, nevertheless a believer in its ultimate triumph. He was not a mere bumbler or hand-wringer, but a cold-blooded revolutionary who began the transformation of the Catholic Church into the wretched simulacrum it is today, worthy of nothing but ruthless extirpation. Of course I mean the heretical and morally corrupt clergy, not the Traditionalist remnant, who are its only hope of revival. But since the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church that revival, we can expect, will be paid for with the coin of their lives.

    Your mention of Cardinal O’Boyle shows that you are well versed in this dark history: he was one of the few cardinals who suspended and otherwise disciplined those theologians who came out strongly against Humanae Vitae in 1968. His reward: immediate retirement when he reached 75, the age imposed by Paul precisely to clear the episcopal ranks of orthodox men so that worldwide, as in the USA, hand-picked Modernist nuncios could replace them with heretics like themselves.

    The wretch (now ludicrously “sainted” by the odious Bergoglio) went even further and assured that no restorer would succeed him by relieving cardinals turned 80 of their right to take part in the eventual conclave which would elect a new pope after his death. It was revealed years later by another modernist, Tarancon of Toledo, that Paul did this precisely to assure that Cardinal Siri of Genoa would not be his successor – in other words, the over-80s would have assured his election.

    The continental freemasons have dreamed of and worked for a pope after their own black hearts for some two hundred years. In Montini they saw a ray of hope, a glimmer of eventual success, a slow process which has indeed now culminated in the invalid election of the man of their dreams: a Leftist ignoramus and fraud, without culture or decency, and wholly and contentedly in the hands of the New World Order, as his latest atrocity of an encyclical (already dubbed “Tutti Frutti” by Vaticanist wags) proves all too decisively.

    Why does this make Paul a significant man of the ’60s? Only this: after the fall of the monarchies in 1918 and the establishment of Communist hegemony over much of the globe after 1945, only one international organisation of any significance was left which was traditional and conservative in the pre-modern sense. It had then to be either neutralised or, better, subverted. This tragically successful enterprise was inaugurated in 1962 with the opening of the Vatican Council, sealed by the decrees of that council and now triumphantly brought to fruition by the election of Bergoglio.

    “Ecrasez l’infame” said Voltaire of the Church. These days I heartily agree with him – but only because it is a different church.

    • Thanks: Dan Hayes, JMcG
  128. The late John Maynard Keynes. He dominated economic thought.

    Elena Blavatsky founder of Theosophy thus the age of Aquarius.

  129. @Jack Armstrong

    Minneapolis Star-Tribune: 13 charged in plots against Michigan governor, police.

    Ever since Bob Miles so successfully trolled the media in the 80’s & 90’s, the HBD Mitten has been a hotbed of fed entrapment efforts against “the militia.” Given this rich history, this latest example is just par for the course.

  130. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Thanks. Did not know Woody Hayes. – First-rate subject for a US-ethnologist.

  131. @International Jew

    Tiny Duck seems to have drifted over to another lily pad.

    Classic Duck could be quite good … and kind of a nice break from the grind.

    At first thought you would think “this summer we needed the Duck more than ever”.

    But i think the problem is when the entire Democrat party establishment says exactly the same things as your parody character … what’s the point?

    • Agree: bomag
  132. @Old Palo Altan

    That you side with Voltaire, Old Man, is a surprising but elegant move. – Reminds me of Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon, btw.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  133. Muhammad Ali or Joe Namath or Bruce Lee

  134. @Travis

    Lee Harvey Oswald had the greatest impact on the sixties. If JFK was left in power, LBJ is never President. The Vietnam War never escalates

    Actually, unlike his successors, as someone who had seen the elephant up close, JFK would likely have escalated big time, turning North Vietnam’s cities and villages into ash via conventional bombing, and bringing the war to an early and successful close. LBJ’s and Nixon’s pulling of punches were the reason the Vietnam War dragged on for so long and ended up with the Communist bloc gaining another piece on the chessboard.

  135. Gooden says:

    Steve, did you just discover this polling feature of this site?

    Anything to keep the readers busy right?

  136. @Old Palo Altan

    The wretch (now ludicrously “sainted” by the odious Bergoglio) went even further and assured that no restorer would succeed him by relieving cardinals turned 80 of their right to take part in the eventual conclave which would elect a new pope after his death. It was revealed years later by another modernist, Tarancon of Toledo, that Paul did this precisely to assure that Cardinal Siri of Genoa would not be his successor – in other words, the over-80s would have assured his election.

    I’m not a practicing Catholic and not knowledgeable enough about Church history/politics to say anything about the particulars. Pope Paul VI always struck me as a personally pius man who was maybe in over his head and bore the burden of the papacy heavily. But that’s just filtered–and at quite a remove–observations of a Catholic school kid.

    What i can say is that any institution would have to rely on 80+s to keep to its mission is already in deep, deep trouble. If an institution is healthy then there should be a solid majority of people in authority of any age who wish to keep it healthy and on track.

    ~~

    This Argentine commie–Bergoglio–don’t even understand what the heck is going on there. And these homosexuals that flitter about in the American hierachy, which denounces people trying to protect their nation, their family’s future. It seems like Catholicism has lost it’s moorings and is drifting in the minoritarian tide.

    The Church is supposed to be the bedrock institution of Western Civilization, but it seems to have quit to join the other side.

  137. Tim says:

    None of the above.

  138. @Polynikes

    “If it were just American culture, I might go with Dylan.”

    Charles Manson. His strange and layered activity closed out the 1960s with ritual killings that dropped the curtain on the counterculture. All the world’s a stage, and Charlie became the dark star in late summer 1969.

  139. @ThreeCranes

    Because of the Beach Boys, California became an overcrowded nightmare. All the disenchantment and cynicism we wallow in today followed. The golden dream was lost, trampled underfoot in a mad stampede.

    FYI–the children of those moving west in the 60s have mostly left for Arizona, Washington, Colorado …

    “Nation of immigrants”, Simpson-Mazzoli, “Dreamers are our future” have orders of magnitude more to do with the overcrowding–and general dystopia–of California than some golden boy–now old druggie–musician.

  140. Acilius says: • Website

    Murray Kempton famously said that history would remember the 1960s as a period dominated by two powers: North Vietnam and Israel. But the US and USSR both involved themselves in Vietnam because they were afraid of Mao. Most Soviet activities outside Eastern Europe in those days were driven by the Politburo’s concern that China would outstrip them as the leaders of international Communism, and most of the testiest moments of that phase of the Cold War followed the USA’s response to those activities.

    That fact alone would make Mao the only possible choice. Considering the power he exercised within China, it’s simply absurd to claim that anyone else was comparable. That he used his power for evil is irrelevant to the question. He may have been the least admirable person of the time, but he was obviously the most influential.

  141. Barry Goldwater. His humiliating defeat in 1964 united conservatives which ultimately paved the way for the Reagan Revolution in 1980.

  142. @International Jew

    Maybe throttle it down and let it run overnight?

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  143. dearieme says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    JFK was the idiot who provoked the Cuban missile crisis by frightening the USSR by basing first strike nuclear missiles in Turkey. Still that was an influential act of idiocy. So was his sending troops to Vietnam.

  144. dfordoom says: • Website

    One 60s figure who hasn’t been mentioned yet is Paul Ehrlich. An immense amount of the craziness that has afflicted our society started with Ehrlich. He’s the guy who made the whole environmentalist doomsday cult thing mainstream. He also made a contribution to the demographic collapse that is probably going to finally destroy our civilisation. It’s difficult to think of anyone who has ever done as much harm as Paul Ehrlich.

  145. @Pentheus

    “The assassination of JFK by some creepy little nobody”

    Allen Dulles was many things, most of them negative, but he was hardly a “creepy little nobody.”

  146. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:

    The most influential figures of the 1960’s were Bugs Bunny and Wiley Coyote.
    Their style and panache are branded into the soul of every child who grew up with them.
    Daffy Duck was a bore by comparison.

  147. @Pentheus

    Good points except that it appears that the list of JFK assassins includes just about everyone except Oswald. He was just a patsy.

  148. vinteuil says:

    Wha-huh? Hugh Hefner doesn’t even get an honorable mention?

    With each passing year, it gets clearer & clearer that the mainstreaming of pornography in the ’60’s was, in the immortal words of Joe Biden, “a big f***ing deal.”

    • Replies: @anon
  149. Anonymous[383] • Disclaimer says:

  150. El Dato says:

    OT: Cuomo’s grasp of grammar is tenuous:

    ‘FOMENTING the Orthodox’: Cuomo blames Trump for Jewish uprising in Brooklyn as religious groups sue over shutdown

    Trump’s “campaign is fomenting the ultra-orthodox in Brooklyn,” Cuomo declared. Insisting the alleged link between Trump and the unrest in Brooklyn was not mere “wild speculation by the governor,” he played what he described as a robocall that went out to hundreds of residents of Borough Park – a heavily Orthodox neighborhood – calling for residents to take to the streets with signs denouncing Cuomo.

    “How ugly. How divisive. How poisonous. How disgusting. How hurtful. How painful,” Cuomo seethed, bemoaning the call as a slap in the face of the “solidarity and unity” New York had shown in the face of the pandemic. The Trump campaign is “putting people’s lives at risk,” he continued, reminding the reporters that “20 percent of the cases [in New York are] coming from these districts,” which represent just 2.8 percent of the population.

    The Rona Litany of Fear and Trump’s Guilt shall continue.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
  151. Cortes says:

    My vote goes to Rachel Carson who articulated concerns about our environment.

  152. Well sir,the death today of Whitey Ford raises the question will there ever be another elite athlete named Whitey?

    • LOL: Mr McKenna
  153. @Almost Missouri

    Is a deep dive into the data like that going to expose the fact that I’m posting in my underwear?

    Speaking of which, I’ve my suspicions that certain people here are cross dressers. Not that there’s anything wrong …

  154. Travis says:

    Vietnam may have escalated under Kennedy, but it is difficult to imagine the war effort being more inept. We will never know if Kennedy would have dramatically increased troops in 1964, as Johnson did ? Maybe JFK would have started bombing North Vietnam sooner and sent less troops. Doubtful he would have done exactly what LBJ did in 1964. So even if JFK went to war in Vietnam , the circumstances and war effort would have been very different.

    JFK was a younger, more photogenic President compared to LBJ, thus there would have been less opposition to the war. If he did choose to wage a war in Vietnam he may have been more aggressive than LBJ and had more American support. Hard to say for sure. But I suspect , either way, the protesting would have been less with a photogenic , young President taking us to war instead of the ugly old geezer. But I doubt JFK would got us involved in a War in Vietnam.

    The Cuban missile crisis offers much insight. During the last day of the crisis, when Khrushchev offered the Cuba-for-Turkey trade, every U.S. official in the room was virulently opposed to the deal and wanted to bomb the Russian missile sites—everyone but JFK and Undersecretary of State George Ball. (Not insignificantly, Ball became the top internal dissident on Vietnam policy during LBJ’s presidency.) McNamara expressed firm opposition to the trade, then recited a series of steps that needed to be taken “before we attack Cuba.” The attack plan, drawn up a few days earlier by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and endorsed by McNamara, called for 500 conventional bombing sorties of the Soviet missile sites and air bases daily for seven days, followed by an invasion of Cuba. Bobby Kennedy and LBJ both opposed the deal. Yet JFK avoided a war by taking the deal. So many suspect he would not have waged war in Vietnam as LBJ did. https://slate.com/culture/2003/05/would-jfk-have-fought-the-vietnam-war.html

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  155. Anon[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Provide examples.

    • Troll: bruce county
  156. Muggles says:
    @International Jew

    And here I thought my Unz iSteve posting was an amazing time-sink!

    I do wonder sometimes how some commentators here have the time to do anything else.

    I have on occasion been bounced off of a new comment for posting too often in an hour.

    Some subjects just don’t inspire me to add anything.

    But it isn’t a competition is it? I mean don’t most of us get invited to the Annual iSteve Xmas Bash and New Year’s Eve Beachfront Party and frolic at the Sailer mansion?

    When will the invites be sent?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  157. Dan Hayes says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Despite being portrayed as a rustic peasant, Pope John XXXIII actually was a canny card-carrying member of the Vatican Diplomatic Corps. He should have foreseen the catastrophe that he was about to unleash with Vatican II.

    • Agree: BB753
  158. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    With each passing year, it gets clearer & clearer that the mainstreaming of pornography in the ’60’s was, in the immortal words of Joe Biden, “a big f***ing deal.”

    President Trump can employ salty vernacular too, you know!

  159. sayless says:
    @Thoughts

    Woody Guthrie wrote This Land Is Your Land.

    Imagine is the ugliest and silliest song ever written–words and music. It even won a contest for that.

    I always appreciated Don McLean’s dig at Dylan:

    And the Jester sang for the King and Queen
    In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
    And a voice
    That came from you and me

    • Thanks: bruce county
  160. anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    So you have compiled a list of individuals who aren’t busy and have nothing to do, have no friends and no one to talk to, people with no obligations or calls on their time, that no one needs…so…homeless guys hogging the computers at the library, convicts in prison, abandoned geriatrics at old folks homes, logorrheical lunatics in loony bins….
    I thought Unz was going to start charging these guys to comment.

  161. Glt says:
    @Old Prude

    Imagine how it is for those of us who aren’t witty to begin with. Can’t comment enough to keep agree/disagree/ posting rights!

  162. Muggles says:

    As to the subject of most influential from the list, just one observation.

    In another 50 years (when most here will be in the Happy Hunting Grounds) the perceived most influential may not even be listed or very well known. The 60s will be 100 years old.

    Cultural icons are quite perishable. Few recall the big Stars of Entertainment just a few decades before they were born. Even fewer will listen to, read or watch what they did on video. Holograms and direct brain interface will be the new “thing.”

    Politicians are also transitory. Stalin and FDR were big deals, but have faded.

    My take: someone from a scientific or technical background will be considered most influential. Someone mentioned the Green Food revolution, so along this line. Also DNA progress, new discovery of something seemingly minor now.

    Might be some obscure astronomer who unknown to us, has discovered some distant object that proves to be full of living aliens. Or some currently ignored physical discovery that becomes the basis for an entirely new cybernetics or AI biology.

    No one will know or care about Bob Dylan. Or even Mao. I nominate the Unknown Scientist.

  163. @Thoughts

    This Land Is Your Land was written by Woody Guthrie. While Dylan admired and early on was influenced by Guthrie he has no particular association with that song.

  164. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:

    Ot: Roger Penrose’s Wikipedia article says that he is Jewish. That surprised me.

    2/3 of this year’s physics Nobel laureates are Jewish.remarkable.

  165. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @vinteuil

    Some say HH with Playboy was an earlier
    Shlomo Epstein: pics, recordings for blackmail.

  166. @Buzz Mohawk

    We are all wasting our time here, but the issues on iSteve are important and addictive and iSteve is the best place for us to discuss them. That’s why you won’t leave. You can’t. Me too. I tried before and failed.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Cortes
  167. Polynikes says:
    @AndrewR

    Agree. If you want to point to leftism in today’s society, Karl Marx and Lenin are way more influential than Mao.

  168. @AnotherDad

    One problem the church has that all institutions have is that it attracts the best talent only so long as it is perceived to be important and influential. It may still contain great laymen like Scalia, Alito, and Barrett, but no really great men are going to dedicate themselves to the task of climbing the ranks of the priesthood when, as an institutional representative, nobody listens to you seriously except some Mestizos and blacks in the third world.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  169. @Dan Hayes

    Thanks for your predictions, Nostradamus.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @BB753
  170. Polynikes says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Not sure I buy your thesis, but I enjoyed your narrative.

  171. @AnotherDad

    Very sharp insight, Mr. Jixon.

    You don’t have to be a communist to be materialist.
    Read moar Smil.

  172. BB753 says:
    @Torn and Frayed

    Why not just say that China is fascist in the sense of: true to Mussolini.

    • Replies: @Torn and Frayed
  173. JimB says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    May I suggest Betty Friedan as being one of the most influential. Feminism is the heart beat of all things progressive. Her thinking was pivotal in the destruction of the family.

    But is that true? Friedan advocated for women to receive workplace accommodations for childcare. The early feminists wanted women to have it all, family and career. Friedan raised three children. I think more destructive of the family has been mass immigration and the destruction of labor unions. It takes two incomes now for most people to afford a mortgage, childcare, and education expenses. Most married couples have one child in an expensive city because education expense alone is $11K-40K per child per year

  174. donut says:

    Hey Steve I want to send you something but I need a real address to send it to . You know I’m who I am and , well use your judgement My email is [email protected] . Do as you feel brother .

  175. J.Ross says:
    @Jack Armstrong

    So to be clear if you actually kill cops as a punishment for supposedly hunting black men for sport, or if you do everything you can to encourage same and to spread the defamatory lie that racist cops are hunting black men for sport, that’s cool, there may even be federal funding in your case. But if you talk about it online you are going to jail. Unless you talk about it at a leftist site, then it’s cool again.

  176. Lace says:
    @peterike

    Susan Sontag was the most ghastly creature. I saw her read twice in 1998 and 2001 at YMHA, and she always did this ‘high-priestess’ number. Her novels are unreadable and her most famous essay on Camp is actually ridiculous–especially when she really get cutesy and calls Mozart ‘Camp’ and her good taste in ‘preferring Garbo to Virginia Mayo’. Also, when any controversy of any kind occurred in NYC, she was sure to be there shoving her opinion up everyone’s ass. I remember when she died and thought how much I wouldn’t miss her.

    But it is your quote that is by far the most incriminating to this grotesque bitch. Furthermore, she was a very astute trendy, and I remember that a couple of decades after she made it, one of the examples of ‘great Western things that don’t compensate’ , ‘Balanchine ballet’, had her writing in the 50th anniversary volume that “Balanchine is the greatest choreographer who ever lived”, which is possible but he’s got competition. Mainly, how the hell would SHE know?

    She lived in the penthouse at 340 Riverside Drive, where I had a teacher I studied with from time to time from 1967- 1980. I would sometimes see her and lovely son David walking in the neighborhood holding hands.

    One of the most graceless and pushy people to dominate American Culture. After she wrote her stinking 9/11 essay in The New Yorker I heard her speak–in the same Commedia dell’Arte clothes she’d worn in 1998 (a group of NYRB writers, I didn’t go to see her)–and talk about how ‘horribly slandered’ she’d been for writing this profoundly stupid essay. What was interesting was that she had been in Berlin, and thought having her eyes glued to the TV was surely better than anyone who actually saw it, and topped it off with “Unfortunately, I wasn’t in New York”. Poor Susan. Left out at last, didn’t get to see the WTC when it needed her most. Talked about “how will I balance out being an intellectual and a beautiful woman?” She was not a beautiful woman.

    One of the best was a story someone told me from the early 90s, she was at a dinner party and sitting across from Gore Vidal. She tried to pimp her godawful novel (I read 50 pages) The Volcano Lover, and he took her hands and said “My dear Susan, you must promise me one thing: That you will never write another novel. It is not one of your many gifts.” That was certainly generous.

  177. J.Ross says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    I don’t know about this, for two reasons:
    1 – when the church was the Church, becoming a priest because you couldn’t hack a real job was a well known and regularly remarked upon thing, and
    2 – it seems to me that a great man would be downright attracted to a hard assignment. There are lots of great priests remembered now who were obscure in their day.
    But it’s a moot point with Commie Della Saboteura in Wytola’s shoes.

  178. Hunsdon says:
    @prime noticer

    I aim for the stars, but I keep hitting London.

  179. fnn says:
    @ThreeCranes

    I think circa 1965 there were those who thought the Beach Boys were far more sophisticated than any other Rock band and those who considered them to be anti-Blues deviationists. This based on reading old issues of Downbeat magazine.

  180. Lot says:
    @International Jew

    IJ had to pick a light posting period for me!

    I am confident I am #1 in the following categories:

    1. pics
    2. trolling unz and phil giraldi’s fans
    3. Ashkenazi-Nordic hybird vigor supremacy posts
    4. Feeding content to whatever South Park writer is an istevefan.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/putins-mosque/#comment-1154807

    • LOL: Captain Tripps
  181. J.Ross says:
    @International Jew

    Looks okay except I don’t see some really good ones like CCZ or LawyerGuy or ic1000, who comment less or have been commenting less (is it practical to cast a wider net or show influence over time?), no way in hell did a textbook troll like Mason get that much positive feedback, and I’ve never seen Jon.

  182. Lace says:

    Joan Didion. She explained the American 60s in elegant prose, primarily essays, but also some very fine novels. She was saturated with the 50s, but it was the jolt that happened and destroyed in the 60s that she caught with sharpest eye and ear. Especially good on the Manson case and deconstructing Los Angeles, what it means, although that’s getting a bit micro-.

    Of the choices, MLK. He started what we’ve ended up with now, at least in the biggest way at the time. And it is surely horrible now, with BLM nightmare and white allies paying to kiss black ass. I don’t see Dylan or Lennon (stand-alone) as being particularly important, although the original Beatles were. Also Elvis and Barbra.

  183. donut says:

    God sets his traps from the time we are born . Fuck him , he will kill us in the bathtub . Every nail we knew where it was being driven .

  184. I went with MLK. You could make a good argument that these pop culture figures had greater immediate impact on popular opinion than did politicos such as MLK. But the opinions of lawyers and businessmen have far more bearing on the world than the opinions of the broad masses.

  185. @De'Remiah Jixon

    Borlaug would be my pick, too. His work probably saved at least a billion people from starvation, but the side effects were not great.

    One downside is that relaxing food constraints probably helped accelerate population growth in developing countries.

    Preventing the starvation of all those people was a good thing: case-by-case, most people would prefer other human beings not to die slowly from absence of food.

    However the massive reduction in famine, meant that hundreds of millions of people stayed alive to squirt out offspring at the high TFR associated with poverty and backwardness. This got a second impetus from improvements in basic hygiene which cratered infant-mortality rates: again, fewer dead babies is a good thing at an individual level, but massively dysgenic on a societal level.

    HYSD wheat is also a key contributor to the modern ‘diabesity’/metabolic-syndrome pandemic in the West. HYSD has a bunch of characteristics that differ from ‘old fashioned’ wheat (higher levels of wheat-germ agglutenin and gliadin, for example), and those characteristics have adverse effects on our digestive tract (and endocrine system) if consumed in large quantities without sufficient fibre to slow gastric emptying: these things make modern wheat a really bad thing to use as a major diurnal carb source.

    Borlaug wasn’t to know that, and couldn’t possibly have forecast that Western people’s metabolisms would be subjected to a quarter-century of government-sanctioned assault in the late 20th century that began with the corrupt pseudoscience generated by Ancel Keys.

    The last data I saw said that wheat flour was a larger carb source than white sugar or potatoes (in the ‘Standard Murkin Diet’ – not as promulgated by health autharitaaahs, but as actually consumed by human beings).

    From elsewhere I know that sugar consumption on average is 40tsp/day (170g) in the US, which is 680kCal; I also know that the most often-consumed “vegetable” is the mighty potato – a staggering ~10% of all calories in the Standard Murkin Diet from that one tuber… mostly eaten as freedom fries. It is the only ‘vegetable’ consumed by about a quarter of all American children (unless you also count the ketchup).

    So if calories from wheat flour is the biggest single-source, it must be greater than both sugar and fries – and if potatoes are only 10% of calories, they must be third.

    [MORE]

    CODA
    Initially I thought that the “>10% of calories from wheat” number implausible, but NHANES says that the average American adult diet contains the equivalent of 7oz of grains per day, mostly in the form of breads, crackers, pizza bases, pasta etc – and 60% of that is refined white versions of those things. 7oz is just shy of half a pound… roughly 200g @ 4kCal/g is 800kCal which is 25% of a 3200kCal diet, and 3200kCal is enough to drive a 180lb human to hyperobesity in a few years.

    So
     • 800kCal for (mostly) refined-wheat products;
     • 680kCal for white table sugar; and
     • ’10%’ (say 320kCal) for potatoes (mostly as fries)…
        and fuck-all unprocessed fruit, vegetables or pulses. (30% of ‘fruit’ consumption is juice; of the rest, about 20% is canned or preserved… peeled, in thick sugar syrup – may as well just eat jam, FFS.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  186. Dan Hayes says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Not my predictions, but John XXIII’s lack of or false predictions!

  187. Dan Hayes says:
    @anonymous

    Which of these neer do wells are you?

  188. salom says:

    Well JFK was a Catholic liberal, willing to give the US away along with his family the other Kennedy’s, like Teddy. So willing to open the country to endless immigration which today I feel we are so enriched. My mother was an old democrat, such a fool, they built a road right through her families farm land, fck’n hicks. I remember when she wanted to vote in the primaries for Reagan. She didn’t understand why she couldn’t vote in the primaries because she was registered democrat. I wasn’t even old to vote but was smart enough to tell her to give it up.
    Catholic liberals have wrecked this country and almost all the young men and women are gay. They give you homosexual propaganda when you go around them. I guess next they’ll give shit for young kids. How sick that church is.

  189. Dylan and Lennon are mentioned repeatedly. But really how about Davey Jones and the Monkeys. A much greater impact on pop music and the titling of popular culture toward youth.

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
  190. Sparkon says:
    @Travis

    Vietnam may have escalated under Kennedy, but it is difficult to imagine the war effort being more inept. We will never know if Kennedy would have dramatically increased troops in 1964, as Johnson did ?

    No, your idle speculation is completely wrong.

    Pres. Kennedy had resisted all efforts and recommendations to send U.S. combat troops to Vietnam, and by October 1963, Pres. Kennedy had decided to pull out of Vietnam based on the reports of Def. Sec. Robert McNamara and CJCS Gen. Maxwell Taylor, who had been on a fact-finding mission to Vietnam earlier that year.

    It’s been firmly established that, in early October 1963, Pres. Kennedy gave the order to begin the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam, to be completed by the end of 1965.

    National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 was approved by President Kennedy on 11 October. NSAM 263 accepted the military recommendations of McNamara and Taylor, as follows: (1) changes to be accomplished by the government of South Vietnam to improve its military performance; (2) a training program for Vietnamese “so that essential functions can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time“; and (3) withdrawal as previously planned of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. NSAM 263 specifies that no formal announcement be made of the withdrawal.

    NSAM 263 was revealed to the public in 1971 in the Pentagon Papers.

    [my bold]

    Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

    JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

  191. unit472 says:

    Culturally it has to be Bob Dylan. The Beatles didn’t hit America until early 1964 but Dylan was already at work and Peter Paul and Mary were popularizing his early songs. My ( older ) sister brought home the Freewheeling Bob Dylan and it so annoyed my father he came charging down the stairs ( Maggies Farm) and tried to destroy the album but the vinyl LP only bent between his knees.

  192. The most important photo taken in the 20th Century is the Abbey Road album cover.

    The priests of the Counterculture walking underneath the remnants of the British Empire and its brilliant architecture in St. John’s Wood. And a beautiful blue sky…

  193. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muggles

    And here I thought my Unz iSteve posting was an amazing time-sink!

    For you, certainly a time sink. “Amazing” remains to be seen.

    I do wonder sometimes how some commentators here have the time to do anything else.

    Smartphones: You can post on line while waiting in line, servicing the wife, or taking a dump behind Denny’s.

    I have on occasion been bounced off of a new comment for posting too often in an hour.

    Once the isteve “Commentot I.Q. AI initiative” is fully funded, you… probably will not be allowed to post here anymore. I’m sorry.

    Some subjects just don’t inspire me to add anything.

    How can I tell when you’re inspired? Is there a secret word I should be on the lookout for?

    But it isn’t a competition is it? I mean don’t most of us get invited to the Annual iSteve Xmas Bash and New Year’s Eve Beachfront Party and frolic at the Sailer mansion?

    Nah. We all meet at outside a restroom in a park across from the Beverly Hills Hotel on Halloween to get drunk on Seagram’s sweet tea, and beat up demonstrative fags.

    When will the invites be sent?

    Consider it sent!

    Drop by this Halloween! Honestly, we’ll be waiting for you.

    • LOL: Lace
    • Replies: @Muggles
  194. @theMann

    A commenter once argued that Vatican II was, more than anything else that happened in the 1960s, a choice rather than an inevitability.

  195. @International Jew

    Truly a great service to the iSteve community. Thank you very much, IJ .I’m pleased to have so much company. I was feeling a bit guilty about posting so often, though it doesn’t take all that much time.

  196. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @curtis dunkel

    Dylan and Lennon are mentioned repeatedly. But really how about Davey Jones and the Monkeys. A much greater impact on pop music and the titling of popular culture toward youth.

    What about the most influential in international intrigue?

    That prize goes to our Vice President from before he changed his name. You think he just sat around on his ass, waiting to be Vice President?

    No. No, he didn’t:

  197. @AndrewR

    Mao deserves little if any credit for where China is today.

    I didn’t select Mao because of China. I selected Mao because the Maoist Long March and Cultural Revolution have become the de facto control vector for all major post-WWII societies. Elections, legislation, executive actions: they’re all irrelevant next to the Long March through the Institutions and the Cultural Revolution. That is what we are seeing on the streets today.

    And that social violence backed by corrupted institutions in the name of demented ideology is widely accepted as right and even righteous, shows how successful the Long March and Cultural Revolution have been.

    • Agree: Lace
  198. Well, JFK may have launched the sixties but MLK defines them. BTW using Lasnerian dating, JFK died and the sixties as a cultural continuum began, and Nixon resigned and the sixties came to and end.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  199. @Bardon Kaldian

    William Shockley and Walter Brattain would like to have a word with you.

  200. Anon[175] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    LBJ would never have been President if the marxist assassin Lee Harvey Oswald failed to take out JFK.

    In addition to taking out JFK he influenced many copycat assassinations and started the craziness of the 60s, including the left obsession with finding conspiracy theories to explain leftist violence and put the blame on the right wingers. So Lee Harvey had the greatest influence on the sixties.

  201. Jack Kirby and Stan Lee?

  202. hhsiii says:
    @Patriot

    Lyndon Bader Ginsburg?

    How about Ali?

  203. @Almost Missouri

    Believe it or not, his son is a bit of a voice of reason on Twitter. Politics aside, John was a talented musician who wrote some great songs. And, yes, that photo is hilarious.

  204. @Mike Tre

    I was going to say Celler and Javitz.

    Biggest and most damaging impact of all.

  205. @the one they call Desanex

    You’re very welcome and I’m glad you noticed. When I read one of your fine efforts, I do in fact laugh out loud, and wonder, “Why is no one else hitting the LOL button?” Come on, you lazy bastards.

  206. @James Speaks

    James Speaks wrote:

    BTW using Lasnerian dating, JFK died and the sixties as a cultural continuum began, and Nixon resigned and the sixties came to and end.

    Living through the period, yeah, that is what actually felt like the bookends.

    The Cuban Missile Crisis in October ’62? Part of the 1950s Cold War.

    The Beatles were on the Sullivan Show in February ’64 , less than three months after the Kennedy Assassination. It is hard to communicate to young people now what Beatlmeania was like: neither I nor my brother were Beatles fans, but no one could ignore them. My mom, who preferred Sinatra to the Beatles, insisted we watch the Sullivan Show that week, because she had heard somehwere that seeing the boys from Liverpool was something we would talk about years later.

    Patty Hearst was kidnapped in February 1974.

    For those of us who lived through it, the ’60s started on November 22, 1963 and ended sometime in 1974 or 1975 (maybe the fall of Saigon would be an alternate ending, though I wiould still go with the Nixon resignation).

  207. Spartan says:

    MLK by a mile. We can’t stop naming streets after him, and there’s a great, imperious statue of him in the imperial capital. Negrophilia is our state religion, and MLK is its patron saint and martyr. The only wonder is that he hasn’t landed on our currency yet.

    JFK: He’s more important to the Silents than the Baby Boomers, so his star is fading faster. The 30th anniversary of his assassination took up much more mindspace than his 50th. A lot of how you’d rate him depends on counterfactuals. The Cuban missile crisis, for instance, or his influence on the space race and what came from that. All I’m saying is that he’s receding from public memory, whereas MLK is not.

    Dylan: Dylan is…inexplicable to non-Boomers.

    Lennon: Whatever he thought at any given time, Lennon is the eternally starry-eyed, long-haired, and bespectaled face of “wouldn’t it be nice if we could have utopia without any unpleasantness.” Given his natural audience’s current enthusiasm for revolutionary unpleasantness, I’d say he’s less influential than ever.

    Interesting set of choices. Johnson was the more the more consequential president, and the Rolling Stones have more legs than Lennon or Dylan.

  208. @curtis dunkel

    Small Faces w/ Steve Marriot.. Tin Soldier with P.P. Arnold.
    Thank you very much.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
  209. @Rich

    I’m curious how you figure Mao’s influence grows? Haven’t the Chinese rejected his version of Marxism and moved closer to mercantilism, or even fascism?

    Sorry I can’t answer everyone who asked this individually, but:

    I didn’t select Mao because of China. I selected Mao because the Maoist Long March and Cultural Revolution have become the de facto control vector for all major post-WWII societies. Elections, legislation, executive actions: they’re all irrelevant next to the Long March through the Institutions and the Cultural Revolution. That is what we are seeing on the streets today.

    And that social violence backed by corrupted institutions in the name of demented ideology is widely accepted as right and even righteous, shows how successful the Long March and Cultural Revolution have been.

    And I agree with the rest of your comment.

  210. @ringo

    Jack Kilby was a fraud.

    His “solid-state circuit” was certainly not scalable to the billion-transistor processor in the computer you use to participate here. But he goes around claiming to have invented the integrated circuit.

    The Fairchild Planar Process that is the foundation of all of our modern electronic gadgets is said to be developed by Jean Hoerni, who was Swiss.

    http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/augarten/p8.htm

    • Replies: @Ringo STAR
  211. @northeast

    the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act, which has ruined the nation with its avalanche of endless, non-white immigration.

    A brief reminder that both major parties have always been in lockstep promoting the flood of third world immigration.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
  212. @Bardon Kaldian

    We all know the influence & importance of, say, Euclid. I think Bertrand Russell said that Euclid’s “Elements” is one of 5 most important books ever written. What about all the celebs, emperors & conquerors of his era? Who, after all, even knows about these guys?

    It’s crazy. I wonder what insight we might have gained, if only their culture had produced noteworthy playwrights, poets, or politicians. Or been concerned with its military or meticulous in keeping a history of itself.

  213. @prime noticer

    An Orbital anything is a practice target. You may hide nukes on trucks in the forest, you may hide them in the depth of the sea, but there is no way you can hide a launch in space, the place where everything is in plain sight. Also, we learned how objects should normally move in the sky millennia ago, and it should be obvious if something changes path. All other things, such as need for countless decoys and possibly countless warheads, or MAD stay unchanged making the Orbital something as last-resort as current nukes are.

  214. @Known Fact

    International Jew can answer for himself, but to save him a reply, I doubt that there is anything in the pages’ code that shows which type of commenter is which.

    In other words, I think the moderation segregation happens before the comment hits the page.

  215. sayless says:
    @Lace

    Thanks Lace for that on Susan Sontag.

    • Agree: Cortes
  216. epebble says:
    @Mr. Anon

    True. I think Cold War terrorized us so much that it bent all values out of shape in our foreign policy. I think our policy became, in general, “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

  217. nebulafox says:
    @Wency

    I think a 1960 Nixon victory would have led to a better international situation but a worse domestic one.

    1) No CMC. The Soviets knew Nixon well and wouldn’t dare play those kinds of games with him.

    2) No CR progress leading to increased racial tensions. Nixon neither had the leverage needed in Congress nor the kind of personal courage to buck it. Social tensions revolve exclusively around that rather than Vietnam.

    3) Vietnam: really depends on how it turns out without Diem’s assassination, which I have a hard time envisioning Nixon green-lighting. He’s got the anti-Communist cred to keep the support to advisors and arms.

    4) China’s going to be in the midst of the Cultural Revolution and will not be open to overtures until Mao and Zhou realize China’s not going to be a world power in their lifetimes.

    5) Continuation of Eisenhower-era domestic policies, maybe some increased spending on this or that program since Nixon was always less strict there, but no Great Society. Ironically, this might lead to a better fiscal situation than OTL, given Nixon’s rather dubious OTL economic policies.

  218. @anonymous

    individuals who aren’t busy and have nothing to do, have no friends and no one to talk to, people with no obligations or calls on their time, that no one needs

    Good God man, you’ve almost described my personal idea of heaven. May I have someone to do the cooking and cleaning too? Swoon…

  219. @International Jew

    I realize though that by the third level of replies down, the subject matter has often changed completely.

    Maybe you could make it a Bayesian fade-out: first level replies at full value, second level replies at half value, third level at quarter, etc.

    Also, there is (or was) a pattern which I think Ron’s comment limit has mostly suppressed now. It used to be common, especially late in comment threads, that there would be interminable tit-for-tat back-and-forth comments between two feuding commenters. The commenters could go on quite a while without really “influencing” anyone. It is because of this that I think the date of Ron’s changing the comment system would be a watershed in your scoring system. OTOH, it now occurs to me that since your system divides by the number of comments and all the winners score well above 1.0, maybe that behavior was actually detrimental to that commenter’s score. Still, it would be interesting to know if Ron’s system change also changed who were the most effective commenters.

  220. @Sam Malone

    What if they never wrote some of the best songs that bear their names?

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
  221. nebulafox says:
    @guest

    I think for China in the 1940s, Mao was (tragically) the least worst option on the table. But I also think he ended up postponing China’s progress. That’s not to say the CPC did nothing right-mass literacy, introduction to “big science”, etc. But things like the Cultural Revolution are very hard to handwave around in terms of sheer counterproductive destructiveness-you had a whole generation who didn’t get higher education because of that, higher education that could have served China well. It’s also worth pointing out that the KMT wasn’t doing a bad job of modernizing and industrializing before the Japanese invasion destroyed everything, the party included, and modern China is more or less the spitting image of what Chiang Kai-Shek wanted: authoritarian, state capitalist, nationalist, centralized. If anything, Xi Jinping is worried that too much prosperity is killing the soul.

    One thing I do think the CPC has done better than the KMT would have is allowing for-ironically enough-a greater degree of local control, though. This tends to fly in the face of China’s image, but local party bosses have a surprising degree of leverage. This hasn’t always been good: some of the worst atrocities of the Cultural Revolution in Guangxi, up to and including cannibalism, were a result of local petty conflicts playing out, but for China’s economic boom, it has been indispensable. I don’t see Chiang ever allowing anything close to that after his Warlord-era experiences.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  222. @Lace

    “My dear Susan, you must promise me one thing: That you will never write another novel. It is not one of your many gifts.”

    Now that’s what mansplaining is all about.

  223. @Inquiring Mind

    I’ve read a lot of histories of the semiconductor industry. There are different opinions…. but generally most agree that Kilby was first to develop the monolithic idea of combining transistors, resistors, and capacitors to form a circuit on a single chip of silicon. He lacked a good way to connect the components, which was provided by Noyce using “printed” metal lines. TI and Fairchild settled by
    sharing the patents for ICs. Hoerni did develop the planar process, actually while at Bell Labs before he moved to Fairchild, to fabricate and passivate single silicon transistors, but apparently did not purse the monolithic idea. It’s hard to say though, since it was a tight-knit, small group at Shockley Semiconductor and Fairchild.
    Kilby was not a fraud. He pioneered many concepts in solar cells, and at Texas Instruments he was considered the inventor or at least main developer of the pocket calculator.

  224. @nebulafox

    2) No CR progress leading to increased racial tensions.

    Does civil rights progress decrease racial tensions? It seems that it is more often the opposite. Revolutions often occur following periods of liberalization, though which is the cause and which the effect may be debatable.

    “Revolution is seeded by abuse and watered by reform.”
    –Aaron Haspel

  225. I think John Lennon was an influential man though not in some top four category. But people here seem to misread why he was influential. Some commenters claim the Stones or Dylan were more influential because they stuck around longer, which misses the point.

    The Beatles (and thus John) were influential because they were the first major guitar-combo pop act to write songs that were not based on blues and RnB. 50s Rock and roll was derived from black good-time music, and was mostly about sex — with the exception of the witty Chuck Berry, who also sang about cars.

    Beatles songs like Eight Days a Week, or Drive My Car, are not based on the blues, folk, or doo wop/close harmony, the three major American trends prior to say Help! or Rubber Soul. Chuck Berry for all his genius could not have written A Day in the Life, and if he’d tried it would have been silly.

    The Beatles invented Rock Music as opposed to Rock and Roll Music. Rock Music is basically white not black, has European musical assumptions, and is about things that Europeans think about, in addition to girls and cars.

    Also, Brian Wilson, the whitest of white guys, actually invented hip hop, but that’s for another day.

    • Replies: @Single malt
  226. @BB753

    That’s a very good point and a much more succinct way to describe them. The PRC is indeed corporatist. I wasn’t aware that Mussolini’s Italy was also officially racist but I see in the late 30’s they he cross that barrier just as China has done.

    On the political side of things, that would arguably make the PRC right wing. It would prove Fascism is a viable system. Is the popular right ready to embrace the political ideas of the PRC or would we prefer to tar the left with them? One thing is undeniable, the PRC has definitely shielded themselves from Jewish manipulation. They celebrate the majoritarian race and culture. Minorities have to adapt to the majority. They are expansionist but in a controlled and sustainable way.

    It’s amazing, given how powerful China has become, that there is so little discussion of their political system.

    • Agree: BB753
  227. black sea says:
    @Bill B.

    The people who remained childless on the basis of Erlich’s predictions, were, I feel sure, happy to embrace a high-minded rationale for not having the kids they didn’t want to raise anyway.

    But yes, his disaster predictions did contribute to a climate that might be termed “antihuman.”

  228. JasonC says:

    I’m surprised nobody has mentioned de Gaulle as at least one of the top 4. Probably he was the only Frenchman who could have prevented civil war over Algeria.

  229. Curle says:

    I didn’t read all the posts but it has to be Emmanuel Cellar, right?

  230. Curle says:
    @curtis dunkel

    How do you figure? But for Beatlemania, the Monkeys would have never been fabricated by the industry types.

    • Replies: @curtis dunkel
  231. black sea says:
    @Lace

    I would sometimes see her and lovely son David walking in the neighborhood holding hands.

    David took an interest in the Bosnian War and began travelling there on what the locals sometimes termed “war safaris.” He once brought his mother along, and then she got involved, and now then they were both shuttling back and forth from New York to Sarajevo.

    At some point they discussed who would write “the book” about the war, and it was decided that this would be David’s privilege, since he had been the first to get involved, and his career needed it more. But then, unable to resist, she decided to write her own book as well, leading to a conflict which would no doubt have interested Freud.

    Writers are of course narcissistic in this way, and probably have to be to get their work done, but it seems both funny and sad to imagine mother and son quarrelling over who gets to write the war book.

  232. None of these people had any influence at all (especially Dylan, are you shitting me?). Meat puppets the lot of them.

    Why talk about the monkey? Talk about the organ grinder(s).

  233. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    FYI, former Trump administration national security official and author of “The Flight 93 Election” is a Beach Boys “scholar” and wrote about Brian Wilson and Smile … in the Claremont Review of Books, of all places.

    Paradise Lost and Regained: The Beach Boys’s Smile is an American masterpiece.
    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/paradise-lost-and-regained/

    The Claremont Review of Books is known for politically conservative non-book-review content like a profile of Viktor Orbán written by Christopher Caldwell. And Derbyshire has published a bunch of book reviews there.

  234. Muggles says:
    @Anonymous

    Well, I’m Social Distancing this Halloween.

    So sorry, I won’t make it. Though your Hollywood park bathroom thing does sound inviting.

    You guys have fun though.

    Thanks for the invite!

  235. @Travis

    Why would JFK “most likely win” in 64? He only “won” in 60 through fraud, and my understanding is that he was in Dallas as part of an attempt to shore up his dwindling support among voters. Why not a Nixon comeback (he came back in 68, after all)?

  236. @Anon

    ” Either the Church is once again reformed through her saints,”

    Again? How’d the first time work out?

  237. @Art Deco

    Paul hijacked Vatican II to pursue his pal Jacques Maritain’s heretical Gnostic agenda (closeted homosexuals are spiritually superior to filthy breeders); as a result, he overruled the majority of his own Cardinal experts to in favor of the minority position on birth control, resulting in White heterosexuals losing faith in the Church’s moral authority, on the one hand, and on the other hand to African and Hispanic Catholics birthing out babies to beat the band.

    https://counter-currents.com/2020/06/trad-queen-story-hour-part-ii-from-vatican-ii-to-john-paul-ii/

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  238. BB753 says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Well, theoretically at least the Pope is illuminated by the Holy Spirit. So, in partaking the Godhead’s wisdom, he should heve known that the masons and the CIA were about to take control of Rome after Vatican II.
    Have you read Francis’ latest encyclical, “Tutti frutti, err fratelli”? He doesn’t mention God the Father even once but does mention Luther, Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, United Nations as inspirations. Albert Pike would have approved.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  239. BB753 says:
    @ThreeCranes

    The Beach Boys weren’t the Choir Boys, if you know what I mean. They were into drugs and underage groupies.

  240. @Curle

    “fabricated by the industry types” is why.

  241. LBJ.

    The vulgarian whitewashed the Kennedy assinations and Israel’s US Liberty attack. Reversed JFK’s Israel and Israel Lobby policies to Israel’s favor. Winked while Israel developed nuclear weapons.

    Wasted America’s blood and treasure in the Vietnam war. Razed America’s cities with his Urban Renewal Program. Lost the War on Poverty.

    Threated MLK and failed to provide his effective security.

    On the plus side, he instituted Medicare.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  242. @Jefferson Temple

    The conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination confirms the influence of Lee Harvey Oswald. In addition to damaging the psych of the American people, ushering in the era of LBJ and changing world history, he started the left obsession of creating vast right wing conspiracy theories to excuse the actions of a loony leftist.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  243. Art Deco says:
    @James O'Meara

    Paul hijacked Vatican II to pursue his pal Jacques Maritain’s heretical Gnostic agenda

    Maritain had no gnostic agenda and was dismayed with the results of the Council, writing critically about it almost as soon as it closed.

    The hijacking was undertaken not by Paul but by a collection of German bishops at the opening session of the Council. This is discussed in Ferrara and Woods’ The Great Façade.

  244. @bruce county

    Not sure how the thread went from Dylan/Lennon to the Beach Boys, then the Monkees, and then to the Small Faces — but thanks for “Tin Soldier,” my favorite SF side, by far. Great video, even if the out-of-sync lip-syncing is distracting.

    • Replies: @bruce county
  245. Ray P says:
    @Lace

    Vidal was certainly a polite and charming queen when he wanted to be.

    • Replies: @Lace
  246. @Gary in Gramercy

    I was thinking the same thing… but the bus was going by so….

  247. @Lace

    I cherish Sontag as a ludicrous creature, a kind of ne plus ultra of pretension and vapidity. There is a marvelous personal essay about her by the smart and sometimes amusing lesbian literary critic (now there’s a rare admixture!) Terry Castle called “Desperately Seeking Susan “ (published in the LRB and available online) in which the following episode appears:

    “She’d been telling me about the siege and how a Yugoslav woman she had taken shelter with had asked her for her autograph, even as bombs fell around them. She relished the woman’s obvious intelligence (‘Of course, Terry, she’d read The Volcano Lover, and like all Europeans, admired it tremendously’) and her own sangfroid. Then she stopped abruptly and asked, grim-faced, if I’d ever had to evade sniper fire. I said, no, unfortunately not. Lickety-split she was off – dashing in a feverish crouch from one boutique doorway to the next, white tennis shoes a blur, all the way down the street to Restoration Hardware and the Baskin-Robbins store. Five or six perplexed Palo Altans stopped to watch as she bobbed zanily in and out, ducking her head, pointing at imaginary gunmen on rooftops and gesticulating wildly at me to follow. No one, clearly, knew who she was, though several of them looked as if they thought they should know who she was.”

    I knew someone who once was her waiter at a horrible popular restaurant on Madison Avenue. She was rude and demanding throughout the meal and ignored numerous indications that the staff were closing for the night. When she finally produced a credit card, my friend took it to the back, threw it in the trash, left by the kitchen door, and never returned to that job.

    • Thanks: black sea
    • Replies: @Lace
  248. @Jefferson Temple

    Then whoever wrote them should have got the credit. Did that happen with some of their best songs?

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  249. wiseguy says:

    The most significant even of the Sixties is the victory of the cultural revolution (not to be confused with the Chinese one) in the West. If there was one man behind that mass psy opping of the population, that person would be the answer. However, and I’m open to correction, there doesn’t appear to be one single man who can be held largely responsible; it was a collaborative effort among many different elements of the ruling class.

    Dylan, Lennon, and MLK can be dismissed as dispensable instruments of that class. LBJ, in contrast, did have some power of his own, and he took important actions that another president might not have made. So, of Angloshpere men, LBJ is the—not completely satisfactory—answer, unless we can pinpoint a single person to blame the revolution on.

    On the other hand, if there was a single man who could have gummed up the plans of that ruling class and decided not to do so, someone who had a counter-revolutionary army at his command but allowed it to stand down, he could also be the answer. And there was such a person. He was neither Nixon, nor Krushchev, but Pope Paul VI.

    Counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to evaluate, but if he rallied the Church and its allies to wholeheartedly oppose the revolution, things would have ended up looking much different. Given the results of the Russian Revolution and WWII, the Church would still have required an extraordinary effort to lead the actual defeat of the Sixties revolution, but if Paul VI led it to give even an ordinary effort, things would have likely changed drastically. For not leading that potential counter-revolution when he had the power to do so, Pope Paul VI is my most influential man of the Sixties.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  250. Lace says:
    @Ray P

    The docu on him and Buckley makes him look bad–oily, nasty, queeny. I don’t think he’s such a great novelist either, but it’s not total vomit like Sontag’s are. And bitch even won the National Book Award for In America after he said that! Still, he was perfect in that statement. Her novels are something you can’t even believe, in that you don’t know why the writing style is so peculiarly ‘all-ugly’.

  251. @James O'Meara

    Nixon famously failed to win the 1962 governor race in CA and retired from politics in 1962. He was crushed by Governor Brown , losing by 5%.

    In 1963 Barry Goldwater was the front runner to win the 1964 GOP nomination. He was looking forward to running against JFK, and almost decided not to run when JFK was assassinated.

    The incumbent usually wins , so JFK would have won against Goldwater in 1964. Rockefeller lost much of his support in 1963 when he divorced his first wife to marry his mistress, dooming his opportunity to win the 1964 GOP primary. Nixon was completely retired from political life after his humiliating defeat of 1962. Nixon had announced that he had no intention of running against Kennedy again , stating it would be a tough race to win. He wisely stayed out of the 1964 presidential race, as he promised he would in 1962.

  252. vinteuil says:
    @Ancient Briton

    Nietschetze: “The values of the weak prevail as the powerful use them as devices of leadership”.

    Nietzsche certainly should have said that, but did he really?

    Can you give me a link?

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  253. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Brian Wilson said his idea was to create “pocket symphonies for teenagers.

  254. @Dieter Kief

    Why thank you, Dieter … I think.

  255. @AnotherDad

    The over-80 thing is quickly explained: cardinals do not self-generate, but are appointed by popes. The over-80s in 1978 were overwhelmingly men of the old guard, appointed by Pius XII and John XXIII – in other words, they were not predictably on the side of the ongoing but just begun and still fragile revolution. The under-80s, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly of Paul VI’s own creation and were very likely to vote for the continuation of their brave adventure by electing a liberal.

    Remove the over-80s from the equation and, presto, your revolution is assured an easy run.

    Such was Paul’s thinking and, although there have been numerous bumps along the way, the election of Bergogio 35 years later sealed a success greater than Paul (or even a Hans Küng) had ever anticipated.

  256. @Dan Hayes

    “Despite being portrayed as a rustic peasant”

    Not by me. John had just successfully concluded a synod of the Diocese of Rome: it’s decisions were frightening in their reactionary rigour. He had also just promulgated a solemn decree that Latin was to be strictly used as the language of instruction in all seminaries. Professors who were unable to teach their courses in latin were to be removed. Etc.

    John expected the same from his council. The preparatory decrees were exemplary and had been prepared by the Roman Curia with the help of outstanding bishops and theologians of known orthodoxy and solid accomplishments, including a certain Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    That first session (which he expected to be the council’s only session) resulted in the overturning of his hopes. By that time he was dying and left the future to his successor, with the results which we are all living with, in the most negative of senses, some sixty years later.

    • Thanks: Dan Hayes
  257. @dearieme

    LBJ – he was the man who ruined the US: ruined it by expanding JFK’s little war in Vietnam, and by instituting an extravagant, ill-designed welfare state.

    By far his biggest contribution to ruination was the signing of Hart-Celler.

    An impact of the 60’s that will strech for acentury.

  258. Art Deco says:
    @Buzz Baldrin

    The vulgarian whitewashed the Kennedy assinations and Israel’s US Liberty attack. Reversed JFK’s Israel and Israel Lobby policies to Israel’s favor. Winked while Israel developed nuclear weapons.

    1. Neither was whitewashed.

    2. Israel developed nuclear weapons after Johnson left office. They never made a public point of having them. It was Barack Obama who insisted on making it public.

    • Replies: @Buzz Baldrin
    , @nebulafox
  259. Lace says:
    @TheLatestInDecay

    smart and sometimes amusing lesbian literary critic (now there’s a rare admixture!)

    Is that ever the truth, and Sontag had unrequited lesbian love after unrequited lesbian love (she was ‘loved’ more by such as the owner of the Standard in West Hollywood for status, and the fake Indian Jamake Highwater aka Jack Marks, the girls she wanted to dive didn’t care if she was a well-known closet dyke. Edmund White hung out with her too till he couldn’t take any more of it, called her ‘a bit piggy’, which was accurate.) I was disgusted at Joan Didion for defending Sontag’s repulsive 9/11 New Yorker essay (I think she knew she was lying, and she’s always been better than that–so I wrote and told her, but I don’t if she ever read it), but apparently there is (or was, when Silvers was still alive) a ‘blood oath’ among NYRB writers. I think Didion hated Sontag anyway, from way back, that’s why it pissed me off so much.

    Am sort of bewildered by your waiter-friend story. That must have meant your friend was ready to quit anyway, because he ended up without the job, and also let Susan get off paying after her typically foul behaviour. Are you saying that not having to re-enter and face her once more was worth all his sacrifice?

    • Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
  260. @El Dato

    Governor Michael Corleone inherited his notoriously thin skin from his late father, who used to call reporters at home in the middle of the night — often waking them and their families — to complain about a story the reporter had written in that day’s paper.

    Andrew should be thankful the Hasidim aren’t marching with signs reading, “Remember the Nursing Home [# dead of Covid-19]: Never Again!”

  261. @nebulafox

    Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. would have been President after Oswald took out Nixon in 1963

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @BB753
  262. @Art Deco

    Evidence of Israeli nukes: In what they called the “Last Secret of the Six-Day War” the New York Times reported that in the days before the 1967 Six-Day War Israel planned to insert a team of paratroopers by helicopter into the Sinai. Their mission was to set up and remotely detonate a nuclear bomb on a mountaintop as a warning to belligerent surrounding states. The greatly outnumbered Jewish state in a surprising turn of events effectively eliminated the Egyptian Air Force and occupied the Sinai winning the war before the test could even be set up. Retired Israeli brigadier general Itzhak Yaakov referred to this operation as the Israeli Samson Option. (Broad, William J.; Sanger, David E. (2017-06-03). “‘Last Secret’ of 1967 War: Israel’s Doomsday Plan for Nuclear Display”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-14. Reused from Wikipedia.)

    As for the JFK assassination and US Liberty whitewashes, I’ve linked to Ron Unz’s in-depth musings. If you have an alternative or explanation, please post a referenced rebuttal. https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

    • Replies: @black sea
  263. @BB753

    No, under no sensible or rational theory is “the” pope illuminated by some vague idiocy called The Holy Spirit (in capital letters to make it serious and impressive somehow).

    • Replies: @BB753
  264. nebulafox says:
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Not necessarily. Oswald would remain the Communist loser he was, but there’s no guarantee that Nixon would be around in Dallas for him to shoot, or would take the same path.

    Alternate history is ultimately masturbatory for this reason: change one thing, you get a butterfly effect.

  265. nebulafox says:
    @Art Deco

    >Neither was whitewashed.

    No, the fact that Israel attacked a US vessel and got away with it was just ignored. Somehow, that’s a bit worse.

    >Israel developed nuclear weapons after Johnson left office.

    Nuclear weapons programs took time to get going, and Israel started development well before 1969. The United States was aware of what was going on, as were the French. By 1969, nukes were a fait accompli.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  266. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    >You may very well be right about Lee Oswald.

    People are just really averse to admitting that a single misanthropic loser with a gun can change world history forever all by his lonesome, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  267. @Lace

    Edmund White’s best novel (by far, I would argue — though none of us have ever read his “A Woman Reading Pascal,” which failed to get published despite being praised and pushed by Nabokov) — is “Caracole,” a roman à clef which has at its center a devastating fictional portrait of Sontag and her son David Rieff, as well as acidic portraits of Richard Howard and other figures of eminence in the New York literary scene of the 1980s. The campaign orchestrated by Sontag to smother and suppress this book is one of the more fascinating untold stories of that period.

    Yes, I didn’t tell the waiter story properly but it’s a funny story. He was sick of working there and Sontag was the last straw. It’s hard to know how she settled the bill after his departure. Dramatically, one will suppose…

    • Thanks: Lace
    • Replies: @Lace
  268. @Sam Malone

    I can’t say with confidence. I did watch a video by a fellow named Mike Williams on his YouTube channel, Sage of Quay, that offered some evidence that the lads from Liverpool were a lot closer to the Monkees than we’d have liked to think, at least during their early successful years. The video is pretty long but worth a look. The “smoking gun” is when we hear an Italian guy singing a 19th century Neapolitan song that sounds exactly like “Yesterday. “

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
  269. @dearieme

    ‘JFK only became a big deal after his assassination: the talk of Camelot wasn’t contemporary it was make-believe hindsight…’

    I dunno. My mother cried when Kennedy was murdered. She was not a particularly sentimental woman, nor can I imagine crying for any of those who succeeded Kennedy had they been assassinated.

  270. I suppose if we’re to pick people without whom the decade would have been different…

    Kennedy; Nixon wins in 1960 and it puts everything in a different light.

    Johnson. Not so much Viet Nam — that was going to happen. But the Texas-sized hubris of ‘the Great Society’ and all the social carnage that flowed from that…please, someone more modest in their aspirations?

    King — methinks not. I think we wanted to find the magic Negro, and we would have found him. If it hadn’t been King, there would have been someone else.

    Mao; possibly. Someone more conservative, and Marxism might have lost its appeal in the West sooner. Hard to see anyone waving Brezhnev’s Little Red Book.

  271. BB753 says:
    @RadicalCenter

    It’s not a theory, it’s faith. Just say you do not share that faith.
    Personally, I think Western Catholics lost Grace somewhere between 1054 AD and the Council of Florence in 1439 AD, and thus very few Popes have been visited by the Holy Spirit ever since. I’m a convert to Eastern Catholicism, that is, Orthodoxy.

  272. black sea says:
    @Buzz Baldrin

    From The U.S. Naval Institute:

    Ultimately, Israeli diplomats succeeded in pressuring the administration. Johnson, whose focus largely was on Vietnam, looked for a compromise that would guarantee that American families were compensated but would not risk a clash with Israel’s domestic supporters. He ordered Nicholas Katzenbach, second-in-command at the State Department, to negotiate the deal: If Israel publicly apologized for the attack and paid reparations, the United States would let it go, no more questions asked.20

    The administration’s decision not to dig into the Liberty incident was evident in the incredibly weak effort the Navy made to investigate the attack. “Shallow,” “cursory,” and “perfunctory” were words Liberty officers used to describe the court of inquiry, which spent only two days interviewing crew members in Malta for an investigation into an attack that had killed 34 men.21 The proceeding’s transcript shows just how shallow it truly was. The Liberty’s chief engineer was asked only 13 questions. A chief petty officer on deck during the assault and a good witness about the air attack was asked only 11 questions. Another officer was asked just 5 questions.

    The entire article is here:

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/june/spy-ship-left-out-cold

  273. BB753 says:
    @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Would Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. have made a better president, assuming presidents make any difference?

  274. Art Deco says:
    @nebulafox

    No, the fact that Israel attacked a US vessel and got away with it was just ignored. Somehow, that’s a bit worse.

    Because it was understood perfectly well that they’d misidentified the vessel. Israel apologized and paid compensation. It’s of interest to people who loathe Jews and fancy they just kill people for the hell of it.

    Nuclear weapons programs took time to get going, and Israel started development well before 1969. The United States was aware of what was going on, as were the French. By 1969, nukes were a fait accompli.

    In your imagination only.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  275. Sparkon says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot or kill Pres. Kennedy.

    In the first place, several of his co-workers saw Oswald on the first floor of the TSBD just before and immediately after the assassination.

    Additionally, the famous photograph Altgens 6 shows Pres. Kennedy clutching at his throat immediately after the first shot, and it also shows a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine, as does the Altgens 7 photograph.

    Ballistics analysis indicates the throat shot was fired from the south grassy knoll area immediately adjacent to the triple underpass, and directly across the street from the more famous north grassy knoll/picket fence area, where a (2nd) sniper team was spotted by an eyewitness at the time of the assassination.

    Both of these locations are in front of the motorcade, in places where Lee Harvey Oswald was never seen or reported by anyone.

    Commission Exhibit 350

    “It was a good clean bullet hole right through the screen from the front, right, this had a clean round hole in the front and the fragmentation coming out of the back”

    – Geo. Whitaker Snr.

    “But it was very clear, it was a through and through bullet hole, through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back”.

    — Evalea Glanges

    Oswald in the TSBD could not have fired the shot that hit Pres. Kennedy in the throat.

    Indeed, that same Altgens 6 photograph with Kennedy clutching his throat and the bullet hole in the limo’s windshield, also shows a guy standing in the doorway of the TSBD wearing a mostly unbuttoned, open-in-the-front, rumpled, muted plaid, long sleeve shirt just like the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  276. @wiseguy

    Exactly (re Paul VI).

    What you may well understand, but have left out here, is that Paul had no intention, no slightest hint of a desire, to lead a counter-revolution. He was, as was his father (at least) before him, a man of the Left. If he did not like Communism, he nevertheless thought it the wave, perhaps even the morally necessary wave, of the future. Thus his notorious Ost-Politik, now being followed even more cravenly with regard to China by his worthy successor Bergoglio.

    What was left of the counter-revolution to Communism after the second war was to be found in Spain and Portugal. Far from supporting these estimable regimes, Paul did everything he could to bring them down. Paul hated Franco, and spent an inordinate amount of time making the poor old dictator’s life difficult in his declining years. Never did Paul let the execution of a miserable Basque terrorist and murderer go by without a querulous denunciation from that window above St Peter’s Square; never either did he miss an opportunity to appoint just one more miserable leftist to a blameless Spanish episcopal see.

    Far from being a moment of possible hope for the counter revolt, the election of Montini to the Papal throne in 1963 was the definitive death-knell for the Christian West and, it increasingly seems plain, for the Catholic Church itself.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @wiseguy
  277. @Jefferson Temple

    Interesting, I’ll take a look. I have to say though that after reading everything I could on them for 30 years now I’ve heard nothing suggesting the same. Two or three of their more obscure songs I do remember reading had lightly borrowed some elements from other obscure songs – for instance “Long, Long, Long” borrowed notes from a Dylan song, and “Golden Slumbers” borrowed some elements from a very old lyric.

    But considering the level of exposure they had at the time, and all the years since in which everyone has had time to pore over their catalogue, and the explosive news-value of any discovery that they’d routinely stolen their music wholesale, and the financial incentive of the people who’d have been ripped off, I think such fraud would’ve come to light well before now and I’d have heard of the scandal.

    It’s funny you mention “Yesterday”, because that’s one song’s origin that Paul talked about in detail at the time – he woke up one morning with the melody and didn’t record it for six months, asking everyone he knew if they’d heard it before because it was so good and perfect he couldn’t believe he’d done it himself so easily. No one had ever heard it, so over time he cobbled the lyrics together, starting with nonsense words like “scrambled eggs”.

    The one thing anyone who’s read about them can say for sure is that they were nothing like the Monkees, a group purposefully created by entertainment executives with songs entirely created for them by a stable of professional songwriters and performed by other musicians. The Beatles’ origins are extensively documented, and there is no question that they were anything other than a wholly organic group of young men who started as amateurs in 1957 and took years to hone their performances and develop their song-writing abilities. These circumstances are exhaustively corroborated with no room for doubt, and with a clear and natural trajectory of slowly increasing quality from their earliest compositions, which were fairly pedestrian.

    I’ll take a look at what you’re talking about, but other than small occaisonal borrowings of musical elements or lyrical themes – a smattering of which is likely inevitable and often inadvertent in the music business – I don’t expect to find anything.

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  278. nebulafox says:
    @Art Deco

    >Because it was understood perfectly well that they’d misidentified the vessel.

    So the Israelis claimed. Mistaking it for an *Egyptian* ship.

    >In your imagination only.

    Um, no? Israel’s leadership at the time were genocide survivors who did not decide this stuff on a whim. Construction on Dimona started in 1958, it went critical sometime in the early 1960s, and they had the nukes ready to go by the Six Day War. And this went back well before the US became Israel’s main patron: Israeli scientists participated in joint atomic research with the French during their own nuclear development.

    Sorry to disappoint you and your AIPAC fantasies, Artie, but Israel’s just another nation that does what is in its interests.

  279. vinteuil says:
    @nebulafox

    I’m puzzled by this comment. On the one hand, you say that Mao was “the least worst option on the table.” On the other hand, you admit that “modern China is more or less the spitting image of what Chiang Kai-Shek wanted.”

    So why not cut out the middle-man, Mao, with his pathetically inept interpretation of Marx, and all the tens of millions of dead yellow bodies that led to, and just cut to the chase: the China that Chiang Kai-Shek wanted?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  280. wiseguy says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I sadly must agree with your assessment that Paul VI was not just an idle bystander, but an active participant, in the Sixties revolution, even if he would have been horrified by its most extreme ramifications. Being aware of only the general aspects of his undermining of the great Spanish and Portuguese states, I must thank you for bringing to attention the fact that he went so far as to denounce the executions of their various enemies. That he is a saint (of course, canonized for ideological reasons), I attribute to the great power that the faithful’s prayers for his soul must have had as his death approached.

    Alas, despite what we have discussed, I am still optimistic about the future of the Church. It seems to me that the satanic post-Sixties world order, which oppressively looms over and has so thickly seeped into the Church, is now in the throes of its dissipation. Russia has cast off the shackles of this world order and is growing more Christian by the day; China appears to have rejected this order in favor of a nationalist state that I expect to one day adopt Christianity for reasons of realpolitik if not of theology (this is not meant to defend Francis’ actions with regards to China in any way); the internet is exposing our rulers and ideology for the whole world to see. Why is America’s establishment convulsing the country it already tyrannizes in order to overthrow a simple center-right president? On the surface, it makes no sense that it’s doing so. But I believe the establishment has divined that its time is nearly up—the 100 years Pope Leo saw Satan speaking about are coming to a close—and now is finally the time for it to empty its magazine into the populace. We are beginning to see sprouts of hope, and when the current fog of the post-Sixties order is lifted, those sprouts will at last have the chance to grow to fruition. On a natural level, my view is entirely too rosy. But on a supernatural level, we have been promised that the Gates of Hell will never prevail and that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  281. nebulafox says:
    @vinteuil

    >So why not cut out the middle-man, Mao, with his pathetically inept interpretation of Marx, and all the tens of millions of dead yellow bodies that led to, and just cut to the chase: the China that Chiang Kai-Shek wanted?

    If WWII did not wreck the KMT beyond repair, that might well have been the case.

    All the modernization and economic progress was burnt to the ground, alongside other damage to demographics, crop supply, the revival of Communist fortunes from near death to de facto control in rural areas, etc. When we talk about the KMT’s “failures”, real as they were, we have to remember that it was the Japanese invasion that did the fatal damage to the regime: the hyperinflation was a direct result of the war, for example. It didn’t help that the KMT did the brunt of the fighting against the Japanese while the CPC (they got crushed in the one major offensive they launched) got a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to grow and consolidate. And one of Chiang’s traits as a leader was a tendency to centralize, an understandable result of his experiences in life up to the point where he took power. This was untenable during the war: and this resulted in many of the problems that the KMT had after the war when the top-down system inevitably broke down under the strain. Corruption and connections to organized crime were a reality before the war, but nothing remotely approximating the post-hyperinflation levels.

    They probably genuinely needed the reboot in Taiwan to get back on track: even in the early days of the ROC, you still see some of the post-WWII tendencies of the KMT’s governance that took a decade or so to clean up.

    As a side note, there’s a mainland blockbuster film right now about the KMT’s defense of a Shanghai warehouse-think an Asian version of Pavlov’s house in Stalingrad. It’s a huge hit in the Chinese speaking world. Irony knows no limits in today’s PRC.

    • Thanks: vinteuil
  282. Lace says:
    @TheLatestInDecay

    Just ordered Caracole from eBay. Thank you. It’s bound to be exactly what you said and what juiciness I imagine. I’ve read a couple of White’s novels, including the first, Forgetting Elena. In the 90s, Kaj Areskoug, on whom ‘Herbert’ is based, was a close friend of mine. I didn’t know till after he died that he was ‘Herbert’. Kaj was very much the stolid Swede, and wouldn’t have told me. Although there were some ways he still was exactly in the 90s as White described him in the early 70s. He died in 1998–I was in touch with White about him around 2007. I am several others of his friends didn’t know he’d died till much later. There’s a room named after him in the Center for Individual Rights in D.C. He was an economist and wrote several books–one was called Libegalitarianism, which I still have, but I don’t think I’d recommend it.

  283. @Sam Malone

    Hopefully you won’t feel that you have wasted your time. As I recall, no one suggests that they didn’t form naturally or that they didn’t put in the work in Liverpool or Hamburg. Just that maybe they did indeed have the aid of some professional songwriters and musicians. At least in the early recording days.

    I’d be interested in your take if you actually check out the YouTube video.

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
  284. Art Deco says:
    @Sparkon

    Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot or kill Pres. Kennedy.

    Well, lessee.

    Eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle in the window of the book depository. And the shots which hit the occupants in the car line up with a location in the book depository.

    A rifle is found in the sniper’s nest on the 6th floor of the school book depository. After the assassination, police officers show up at Ruth Paine’s home and ask his estranged wife about any weapons he owns. Why yes, he has a rifle he keeps in the garage here, I’ll show you. Except it’s not there. There’s a paper trail of his purchase of the rifle in question and photographs of him posing with it taken by his estranged wife in the summer of 1963, and yes, it’s the rifle they find in the sniper’s nest.

    As it happens, he’d car pooled to work that morning and his car mate says, yes, he had a package with him, which he said were ‘curtain rods’.

    His foreman held a roll call after the assassination in which he and his staff discover one person under his supervision has left the building. Guess who that was? And, for whatever reason in shlepping about after booking from work, he takes out a handgun and murders a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses. And paraffin tests at the police station show he fired a weapon that day.

    Vincent Bugliosi tallied it up and identified 50 distinct pieces of evidence which point to Oswald as the assassin. Guess he was just the unluckiest man alive.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  285. Sparkon says:
    @Art Deco

    And the shots which hit the occupants in the car line up with a location in the book depository.

    You mean the Magic Bullet (see below), but the shot that put a bullet hole in the limo’s windshield, and hit Pres. Kennedy in the throat could not have been fired from the TSBD, and had to have been fired from a position in front of the motorcade on Nov. 22, 1963, so you’re entirely wrong on this point.

    The Magic Bullet CE399 has a rounded tip, but the guys who found the bullet at Parkland said it had a pointed tip. Ooops, wrong bullet.


    CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused both of JFK’s non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally’s wounds, is shown in two views, above left. (National Archives photo)


    In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P. Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did not look like C.E. # 399.

    https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

    The weapon found in the TSBD was first identified as a Mauser by several Dallas cops based on the manufacturer’s imprint stamped on the weapon. Ooops, wrong rifle.

    Most of the cops later changed their stories, saying the carbine was in fact a Mannlicher-Carcano. Only Dallas patrolman Roger Craig stuck to his original story and insisted until his dying day that the weapon found in the TSBD was a Mauser.

    Craig is another of those Texas victims who allegedly died of suicide by rifle, even though he owned pistols.

    One possibility is the bullet found at Parkland was matched to the Mauser found at the TSBD. Perhaps a different patsy was the original plan. Whatever the case, the bullet hole in the windshield and the entry wound in Pres. Kennedy’s throat could not have been fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  286. Art Deco says:
    @Sparkon

    You mean the Magic Bullet (see below), but the shot that put a bullet hole in the limo’s windshield, and hit Pres. Kennedy in the throat could not have been fired from the TSBD, and had to have been fired from a position in front of the motorcade on Nov. 22, 1963, so you’re entirely wrong on this point.

    The trajectory of the bullet was, back to front on the Presdident’s body, downward. The only way it’s fired from the front is if the assailant is a little gnome by Nellie Connolly’s feet.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  287. @Jefferson Temple

    Well, on your recommendation I’ve watched Mike Williams, Sage of Quay, talking with someone named Vince Russo for an hour, listened to Mike talking with someone else about ‘Faul’ McCartney for awhile, and watched a lot of what I think is his main presentation, the 4 hour one. I found Mike’s dedication to his argument impressive, but the case itself I found entirely unpersuasive. I’ll go into it here at more length than I’d expected.

    His main thesis about the Beatles being an entertainment act manufactured in advance by the establishment (Tavistock, etc.) to change or control the world are incredibly wide-ranging – much too much so, far too expansive and intricate to be realistic and plausible, not least considering that the Beatles were from early 1963 on were living the entire time in a goldfish-bowl world of the most intensive and sustained media scrutiny probably ever known as well as subject to the constant gaze of the general public.

    The first claim in his thesis seems to be that the Beatles wrote none of the songs on their albums through Revolver in mid 1966, attributing these to George Martin and other professionals. Also he says that session musicians and not the Beatles played on all of those albums. From late 1966 on, he subscribes to the Paul Is Dead theory that McCartney died and the establishment orchestrated his replacement by someone named Billy Shears as well as various other doubles, and that from this time ‘Billy’ did lead the group in actually making some music.

    I’m somewhat familiar with the Paul Is Dead theory since a few months ago I found myself delving for the first time really into some PID discussion boards, getting the gist of the argument and seeing some back-and-forth with doubters. I was fascinated and even impressed by the detailed argument and sheer conviction of the supporters, but after giving it serious thought I was quite unconvinced for many, many, many reasons that I would go into at great length if I believed it was merited. So to learn that Mike is a “PIDer” cost him a lot of credibility with me, to put it mildly, but I still listened and thought about what he was saying.

    The one and only argument he made that I can’t dismiss right now to my satisfaction was about the scheduling required in the mid sixties for the ‘laquering’ and physical production of record albums before distribution and sale, and that the length of time involved means that the official dates given for when the Beatles began and finished recording the Rubber Soul songs cannot be correct. I would have to look into whether his accounting of the time required is accurate, which I suppose I’ll now be curious enough to do some day.

    I am open to the thrust of Mike’s argument that George Martin might have had an even greater hand in guiding to fruition John and Paul’s compositions than is understood. I’ve personally always considered Martin to be deserving of being known as the ‘third’ rather than ‘fifth’ Beatle, and the literature has never hidden that he was simply indispensable in creating the Beatles’ music as we know it, not only because he – against his better judgment – gave them their break with a recording contract, but because for so many years he was John and Paul’s elder and learned partner, listening carefully to them and working to bring their often chaotic or simple ideas to life in professional form and with exquisite polish. It wouldn’t surprise me if most Lennon-McCartney songs up through 1967 should, in truth, be known as Lennon-McCartney-Martin compositions.

    But I go no farther than that in revising the official history of the group’s authenticity. There are a thousand small reasons for discounting Mike’s thesis and the ideas of the PIDers in general, but my biggest overarching reason is, again, to consider the incredibly public nature of the Beatles’ lives in those years. It beggars belief that a fraud of the epic scope Mike describes could be carried out with no one noticing, or with all who noticed being complicit with the cover-up.

    Mike is clearly a smart guy and I have no doubt he’s operating in good faith. However I found his argumentation in the main slapdash and amateurish, often self-contradictory, and his thesis made silly by throwing in the kitchen sink, invoking the occult and numerology in telling the tale of the four lads from Liverpool in addition to involving numerous conspiracies of sinster power-centers.

    And for what it’s worth, I’m a “conspiracy theorist” myself – over the last 15 years or so I’ve learned of much saddening evidence to convince me of a great many crimes and frauds perpetrated by our government with the complicity of the mass media. Just to name the big ones, I’m certain that 9-11 was an inside job by numerous elements of the government; I have no doubt that a conspiracy by elements of the government assassinated President Kennedy and covered it up; I believe that UFOs piloted by people from somewhere else have been visiting us for at least the last 80 years and the government has done it’s best to hide and obscure this; and, as you’ll see from my earliest comments here a few years ago, I have problems believing we made many trips to the moon a long time ago.

    My only point being that I’m not closed to unconventional ideas, I know that you can go down a rabbit hole and come back with real truth, and I know what it’s like to hold complicated and unpopular or misunderstood or easily-caricatured views and how it feels for others who know next to nothing about it to arrogantly discount them without investigation. So I’ve taken pains not to be like that here, and yet still I cannot credit Mike’s thesis and I find it far more convincing to account for the issues he raises in other and uniformly more innocent ways.

    In the end, ironically, these ongoing efforts by people so many people decades later to probe for the real story of the Beatles, to analyze the personalities, to sift through the details of recording dates and examine possible hidden lyrical meanings – efforts all undertaken with the greatest seriousness and prompted by the imperative to find the truth behind the ‘inexplicable’ brilliance of the Beatles’ oevure – mark their work once more as exceptional in quality and are proof of their continued capacity to command interest.

  288. Sparkon says:
    @Art Deco

    You’re simply in denial of basic physics, like a few other numbskulls posting at Unz Review who think aluminum can cut steel.


    http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/

    Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill or shoot Pres. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  289. Art Deco says:
    @Sam Malone

    ’m certain that 9-11 was an inside job by numerous elements of the government; I have no doubt that a conspiracy by elements of the government assassinated President Kennedy and covered it up; I believe that UFOs piloted by people from somewhere else have been visiting us for at least the last 80 years and the government has done it’s best to hide and obscure this; and, as you’ll see from my earliest comments here a few years ago, I have problems believing we made many trips to the moon a long time ago.

    Which is why you’d spend hours listening to a man babble about Paul McCartney having died in 1966.

  290. @vinteuil

    I saw that quote in an essay about multiculturism by the late Sam Francis.

  291. @wiseguy

    The Church will accompany this fallen world until the end of time, but Christendom is over and done with. The triumph promised to us by Our Lady is not about a renewed Christendom but the salvation of souls which would otherwise be lost. I suspect that the Triumph she promises us is Martyrdom.

    I do not believe in the efficacy of the “canonisations” performed by Bergoglio. One day the Church will revisit them all; some will be confirmed, others rejected – or perhaps merely “forgotten”.

    • Replies: @wiseguy
  292. Art Deco says:
    @Sparkon

    You’re simply in denial of basic physics, like a few other numbskulls posting at Unz Review who think aluminum can cut steel.

    There is no impediment incorporated into ‘basic physics’ which would have prevented Oswald from his perch from shooting the President. That you found some wacky website to feed your fetishes doesn’t change that.

    If helps you get through the day, invest in the fantasy you know something. Just leave normal people alone.

  293. @Sam Malone

    Well, I’m glad it gave you something to consider anyway. I was regretting saying anything because I was sure SoQ would lead straight to Mike’s PID videos. PID is too far out for most people, even conspiracy fans. A couple of years ago, I stumbled into PID and spent more time looking into it than I care to admit. I came out of it a fence sitting agnostic. I believe elements of it and the least I can say is that if it is a long running hoax, then it is one that the Beatles purposely created from the beginning. I don’t expect I’ll ever be convinced one way or the other about Paul vs. Faul.

    I found the video studying the music to be much more convincing. If they needed to lie about the Lennon-McCartney team, why wouldn’t they? I didn’t need much more than to hear the comparison of Yesterday and Hey Jude to old Italian tunes to burst the myth. It seems that they probably did what was and is common. They took music from someone else, slapped new lyrics on it and claimed the finished song as an original composition. And I agree that George Martin had to have been even more of a creative partner than previously admitted.

    The irony is that the stolen Beatles music theory gives a breath of fresh air to PID. None of the reasons given for the death of Mccartney ever made sense to me. But if he became unreliable and was going to expose the lie somehow, then we have a common old murder motive: kill the squealer to protect the money flow.

    “And if I tell you the name of the game, boy/ it’s called ride the gravy train.”

  294. wiseguy says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I haven’t heard that interpretation of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart before. As far as I can tell, Catholic seers are practically unanimous in forecasting an era of peace in the world with Great Catholic Monarch, the Holy Pope, the Great Council, etc. Surely, as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the traditional Catholic movement, you are aware of these prophecies?

    In regards to canonizations, the more common opinion, as I assume you know, is that they are infallible, but there are learned orthodox theologians who disagree. While I hold to the more common opinion, I can understand if the recent canonizations have led you to believe it’s more probable that they aren’t infallible.

  295. My entirely private opinion is that the great monarch was to have been Franz Ferdinand, the great pope Pius X, and a council would have followed in around 1920.
    God ultimately decided otherwise. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Pius X died of chagrin, and the council that did finally come, fifty years later, was the sounding of the death knell of a still living, if not terribly “vibrant” Christendom.

    In other words,God judged us, and found us wanting. We are now living the last spasmodic jerks of our civilisation. Nothing is going to succeed it that is not false, base and as ugly as the visage of our anti-pope Bergoglio. As I said, our triumph will be our martyrdom. Is an eternity with Christ and His Mother something less than a thousand years of earthly bliss?

    The answer to the canonisation conundrum is this: Bergoglio is no pope, and his acts, all of them, are null and void.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS