RSS
I'd love you to prove this by citing something I actually wrote or said. It's a weird distortion of my original argument favored by the woke left and the religious right.
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) September 6, 2022
From The New Republic in 1989:
Here Comes The Groom
A (conservative) case for gay marriageAndrew Sullivan/August 27, 1989
Last month in New York, a court ruled that a gay lover had the right to stay in his deceased partner’s rent-control apartment because the lover qualified as a member of the deceased’s family.
I always thought that it was amusing that the sacred cause of gay marriage started out as a New York City rent control spat.
… What neither side quite contemplated is that they both might be right, and that the way to tackle the issue of unconventional relationships in conventional society is to try something both more radical and more conservative than putting courts in the business of deciding what is and is not a family. That alternative is the legalization of civil gay marriage.
… Certainly since AIDS, to be gay and to be responsible has become a necessity.
Gay marriage squares several circles at the heart of the domestic partnership debate. Unlike domestic partnership, it allows for recognition of gay relationships, while casting no aspersions on traditional marriage. It merely asks that gays be allowed to join in. …
Gay marriage also places more responsibilities upon gays: It says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships, and that the same is expected of them. …
Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself from commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Since there’s no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, it could also help nurture children. And its introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social custom. As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and their friends, A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it. Burke could have written a powerful case for it.
Bold added.
… There’s a less elaborate argument for gay marriage: It’s good for gays. It provides role models for young gay people who, after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity with no tangible goal in sight. My own guess is that most gays would embrace such a goal with as much (if not more) commitment as straights. Even in our society as it is, many lesbian relationships are virtual textbook cases of monogamous commitment. …
And from Sullivan’s The Dish in 2010:
The Unique Quality Of “Lifelong Heterosexual Monogamy”
… If you have total gay freedom and no gay institutions that can channel love and desire into commitment and support, you end up in San Francisco in the 1970s. That way of life – however benignly expressed, however defensible as the pent-up unleashed liberation of a finally free people – helped kill 300,000 young human beings in this country in our lifetime. Ross [Douthat] may think that toll is unimportant, or that it was their fault, but I would argue that a Catholic’s indifference to this level of death and suffering and utter refusal to do anything constructive to prevent it happening again, indeed a resort to cruel stigmatization of gay people that helps lead to self-destructive tendencies, is morally evil.
Fortunately, so far, monkeypox is just AIDS Lite. But that’s still pretty bad.
We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Smart guy, but so is Thomas Sowell, and he thinks the reason African-Americans act the way they do is because back in the day they emulated white hillbillies.
Andy is smart enough to know how to get a lot of attention off of it -- and indeed make a good living off the attention -- but is not altogether serious.
Sowell is smarter than Sullivan, of course. I think Sowell would say in response to your criticism that, regardless of the genetics of intelligence, if all Blacks emulated the values of the early twentieth-century middle class, they would have much better lives.
Which is surely true.Replies: @Anon, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Technite78
He's a patron saint of the colorblind CivNats crowd. He's their go-to guy to slap down us stupid whites who actually want to preserve and, even, defend and live around our own people.
If I had a buck for every time I've seen "who would you rather have as a neighbor, Sowell or some dumb redneck," I'd be rich enough to live in the neighborhoods of the people saying that.Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar
Hey while you’re at it lets throw a dig at Steve for his civic nationalism. That’ll preserve our purity!Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Careful, Steve, presenting a person’s own words, without a glowing editorial affirming their wisdom, is a form of harassment and misinformation, and you might find yourself kicked off social media for it.
Randy Andy is basically an example of what used to be called back in the ’60s “camp,” which seemed to mean, basically, “goofy the way stereotypical gays are.”
Andy is smart enough to know how to get a lot of attention off of it — and indeed make a good living off the attention — but is not altogether serious.
Sowell is smarter than Sullivan, of course. I think Sowell would say in response to your criticism that, regardless of the genetics of intelligence, if all Blacks emulated the values of the early twentieth-century middle class, they would have much better lives.
Which is surely true.
Why taking any argument from a monkeypoxer seriously is a fool’s errand.
A monkeypoxer windbag like AS. Please.
How many of problems associated with homosexuals is really just about gay men? You don’t hear or see lesbians being engaged in this kind of behaviour or being public health hazards.
I think lesbians suffer from being grouped together with gay men since most homophobia is really just a result of the actions of the men, with women not having been at fault whatsoever. I suspect it is similar if we look at pedophilia (gay men are massively overrepresented) patterns between gay men and lesbians.
Just like lumping all the Catholic priests as pedophiles, when it is obvious that the problem is the homosexual priests. The problem is not priests are pedophiles, the problems is the Church has been taken over by homosexuals.
Again–but can’t say it enough–separation.
The solution to all minoritarian parasitism is straightforward–separation.
There’s got to be an island somewhere we can buy and just be done with this? Do we really want to wait around until the bio guys figure out the cause of this dysfunction and eliminate it? That’s probably decades off. Poxlandia now!
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Andy is smart enough to know how to get a lot of attention off of it -- and indeed make a good living off the attention -- but is not altogether serious.
Sowell is smarter than Sullivan, of course. I think Sowell would say in response to your criticism that, regardless of the genetics of intelligence, if all Blacks emulated the values of the early twentieth-century middle class, they would have much better lives.
Which is surely true.Replies: @Anon, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Technite78
You’re assuming that the average distribution and degree of the traits that make one want to or prefer to behave like those whites is either not heritable or the same between the races. But there’s clearly a genetic component here as everywhere.
I'm just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that's obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @bomag, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Russ
Followed no doubt by:
A (conservative) case for fisting
A (conservative) case for removing children’s genitals
A (conservative) case for pedophilia
A (conservative) case for ritual murder
Or perhaps Andrew Sullivan meant to type three parentheses there, instead of just one, if you know what I mean?
[ WHIMMED ON REVIEW ]
On second thought, Steve, maybe it was too silly. My bad.
I’m sure Burke would have been crazy about homosexual marriage, if only he’d thought of it. ‘“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for gays to stay single.”
Blacks’ “always wronged, never wrong” attitude is closer to the planters’, and their Lost Cause defenders.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Planters_logo.pngReplies: @Polistra, @The Germ Theory of Disease
Steve, you’re bad on Russia, but good on the gays. We shall wait for his crow-eating rebuttal.
After 30 years Republicans are about to vote to federalize this nonsense.
Mr. Peanut did nothing wrong.
Andy is smart enough to know how to get a lot of attention off of it -- and indeed make a good living off the attention -- but is not altogether serious.
Sowell is smarter than Sullivan, of course. I think Sowell would say in response to your criticism that, regardless of the genetics of intelligence, if all Blacks emulated the values of the early twentieth-century middle class, they would have much better lives.
Which is surely true.Replies: @Anon, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Technite78
Do genetics affect one’s ability to emulate?
We have run this experiment.Look at crime in the 1950s vs. the 1080s. Look at crime pre- and post- Ferguson and Saint Floyd.W cannot change genes, at least not over the short term.We can change policies.And we know how to do it.But the current White Ruling Class is hell-bent on destroying this country.The only way to save America is the euthanasia of the current White ruling elite.Replies: @PhysicistDave
How dare you quote me to myself! What’s that? I just demanded that you quote me? I was being rhetorical. Surely the context made that clear!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Planters_logo.pngReplies: @Polistra, @The Germ Theory of Disease
Cane, top hat, monocle?! White af. CANCELLED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2s
Andy is smart enough to know how to get a lot of attention off of it -- and indeed make a good living off the attention -- but is not altogether serious.
Sowell is smarter than Sullivan, of course. I think Sowell would say in response to your criticism that, regardless of the genetics of intelligence, if all Blacks emulated the values of the early twentieth-century middle class, they would have much better lives.
Which is surely true.Replies: @Anon, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Technite78
Unfortunately that is true in the same sense that if pigs emulated birds, they could fly.
Anon[202] wrote to me:
No, I’m not assuming that.
I’m just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that’s obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.
There are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they're always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & "non-mental", everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they've been admitted.
Blacks' 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @James J. O'Meara, @Curle, @PhysicistDave
Reminds us that these debates often become "100% genes" vs "100% training".
We'd do well to keep in mind Steve's starting point of 50-50.
The solution to all minoritarian parasitism is straightforward--separation.
There's got to be an island somewhere we can buy and just be done with this? Do we really want to wait around until the bio guys figure out the cause of this dysfunction and eliminate it? That's probably decades off. Poxlandia now!Replies: @PhysicistDave, @James J. O'Meara
AnotherDad wrote:
How many Black folks do you know? And how many of them would be willing to leave?
I’ve known quite a few — not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They’re not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.
Not only are the blacks who are here not willing to leave, the blacks who are not here are desperate to get in. Pretty remarkable for what we are told is a systemically racist nation.
People would risk getting shot climbing the fence to get out of East Germany, and risk drowning to leave Cuba in a leaky boat, but try to find a black person willing to accept a first-class ticket to move to Africa.
Underclass whites show similar stupidity.
You Sowell lovers just won't accept that Saint Thomas has a massive blind spot when it comes to his own people, which is normal except for CivNats.
Like a normal human being, Sowell loves his people.Replies: @PhysicistDave
This is the crux of the matter, mass availability of PrEP has effectively removed HIV transmission as a threat from gay men in the West when not using a condom. The point of PrEP is to allow users to have sex without a condom. There were endless articles, including papers in journals, claiming that somehow this wouldn’t happen and that mass use of PrEP would have no impact on condom use. (PrEP is a serious drug, it does have side-effects, you don’t take it if you plan on using condoms anyway) But it clearly has accelerated the trend away from condom use and the hard core of gay men racking up the most partners, who act as the incubators for these diseases, are now not using them at all and are more promiscuous than ever.
I wouldn’t call it ‘AIDS Lite’, that doesn’t understate the comparison enough, this disease is the equivalent of shingles. Really bad but in almost all cases not fatal and certainly few fatal diseases are as horrific as HIV induced AIDS. Of course, for children it is pretty serious but so far there have been few child cases and the outbreak now seems to be coming under control. (Though with the risk of it becoming an endemic disease like covid is threatening to become too)
But it does remind gay men how dangerous from a public health perspective their subculture has become and that maybe we should try to bring a condom culture back and that gay men are the ones who have to do that since, also highlighted during this episode, mainstream society in Western countries is not allowed or willing to shame the gay male subculture under any circumstances. (Steve recently took a swipe at Benjamin Ryan’s article but he had been running around on Twitter getting a lot of abuse for saying that the health authorities were too squeamish in making it clear this was a disease caused by unprotected anal sex and gay men should have been told this more explicitly no matter the PC consequences)
It does seem like mass availability (PrEP was invented for spouses of HIV-infected and prostitutes) of PrEP is sadly necessary to end HIV transmission and that a condom culture is something that gay men have given up on. If gay men continue to act like it’s 1979 again and treat STDs as a ‘cost of doing business’ something really bad could come from it. I’ve posted before two recent literature reviews of known viruses spread in human semen, Monkeypox wasn’t among either review, even a disease as relatively well-studied as it wasn’t understood to be able to spread in this way due to such transmission not be observable. (Almost all transmission was within households so a married couple would be assumed to have infected one another in the usual ways)
From Ancient To Emerging Infections: The Odyssey of Viruses In The Male Genital Tract
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/physrev.00021.2019
The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425
Recently a small outbreak of Ebola was traced back to a survivor from the previous outbreak who was asymptomatic since he was clear of the virus elsewhere in his body except in his testicles (The immune system gives more leeway there since there are lots of sperm cells that due to recombination and being gametes don’t look exactly ‘self’) and was shedding Ebola virus in his semen. This was 470 days he he recovered and over 500 days since he became infected.
Resurgence of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea Linked to a Survivor With Virus Persistence in Seminal Fluid for More Than 500 Days
We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585800
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1093/cid/ciw601
All viral hemorrhagic fevers have now either been demonstrated or are suspected of being capable of shedding in semen and being transmissible in this way. We think of them as being traditionally hard to transmit in public and diseases which cause limited outbreaks and then burnout, being sustained only through their animal reservoirs and being unable to become endemic among humans or spread very far. But that’s exactly what we thought about Monkeypox.
Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren’t allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not. But it probably should.
I'm just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that's obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @bomag, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Russ
In the end, “genetics” (to call that stuff metaphorically) always wins.
There are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they’re always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & “non-mental”, everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they’ve been admitted.
Blacks’ 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.
So much could be accomplished if the superstitious taboos of liberalism were ended.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Who says they behaved well? They were kept away from whites and lightly policed in their own neighborhoods. Keeping order in black neighborhoods was not generally an police priority. Some accounts of southern policing in black neighborhoods contends that bodies would pile up and the deaths never investigated. Much less prosecuted.Replies: @Lbbhjgddfddfdd
As I keep saying, people like you who make pronouncements like that are simply ignorant of the actual research on behavioral genetics.
Genes matter; so do other things.
The White ruling elite pursued catastrophically bad policies since 1960 and we have been reaping the whirlwind ever since.
We cannot change genetics, but we can change those self-destructive public policies.
Sullivan , don’t cross swords with Sailer, he has the receipts.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/physrev.00021.2019The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425Recently a small outbreak of Ebola was traced back to a survivor from the previous outbreak who was asymptomatic since he was clear of the virus elsewhere in his body except in his testicles (The immune system gives more leeway there since there are lots of sperm cells that due to recombination and being gametes don't look exactly 'self') and was shedding Ebola virus in his semen. This was 470 days he he recovered and over 500 days since he became infected.
Resurgence of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea Linked to a Survivor With Virus Persistence in Seminal Fluid for More Than 500 Days
We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585800
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1093/cid/ciw601 All viral hemorrhagic fevers have now either been demonstrated or are suspected of being capable of shedding in semen and being transmissible in this way. We think of them as being traditionally hard to transmit in public and diseases which cause limited outbreaks and then burnout, being sustained only through their animal reservoirs and being unable to become endemic among humans or spread very far. But that's exactly what we thought about Monkeypox.Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren't allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not. But it probably should.Replies: @Altai, @bomag, @ic1000, @Mr. Anon
I should also point out that Grindr brought back Syphilis of all things and gay men continue to incubate new and treatment resistant ‘common’ STDs making their subculture a big public health concern for straight people. But since the kinds of straight people who suffer from these variants of old diseases are poor, marginal and often black, we don’t notice or care.
……..that doesn’t explain blacks in Africa ,Haiti …….or London for that matter……..always blame whitey.
Not really, though: as we discussed just a few years ago in the comments section of this, the best of all possible weblogs, the sacred cause of gay marriage really started out as a way to transfer the costs of AIDS treatments from gay sufferers to their straight co-workers (genuine iSteve link).
We even discussed the claimed benefit Andrew Sullivan is now waffling about: “[proponents]…claimed that AIDS was caused by the lack of gay marriage which virtually forced gays into promiscuity;…”
I think lesbians suffer from being grouped together with gay men since most homophobia is really just a result of the actions of the men, with women not having been at fault whatsoever. I suspect it is similar if we look at pedophilia (gay men are massively overrepresented) patterns between gay men and lesbians.Replies: @Old Prude, @Art Deco, @Russ
“I suspect it is similar if we look at pedophilia (gay men are massively overrepresented) patterns between gay men and lesbians.”
Just like lumping all the Catholic priests as pedophiles, when it is obvious that the problem is the homosexual priests. The problem is not priests are pedophiles, the problems is the Church has been taken over by homosexuals.
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
That’s what they said about Muslims and Jews in Spain. Then 1492 happened. History is full of odd quirks and strange reversals. Any thing is possible.
And the Blacks are more than a bit more feisty than Sephardic Jews. Like using guns feisty.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Focusing on racial problems just diverts attention from the real problem: the White Ruling Class.
Black crime back in the 1950s was higher than White crime, but it was still a relatively minor problem.
Then in the 1960s, the White Ruling Class decided to go to war against the American people, and all Hell broke less. They made life worse for the productive majority among Whites, and, yes, they also made life worse for Blacks.
Until this country confronts that reality, nothing will change.
Keep your eyes on the Prize: and the Prize is the euthanasia of the current parasitic verbalist ruling elite, the White Ruling Class that knows nothing about, and cares nothing about, the real world.Replies: @The Problem with Midway, @CharleszMartel
It is possible that gay marriage has slightly diminished the gay behaviour that creates new STD epidemics.
But it seems that “2022 Andrew Sullivan” thinks that such an effect is absurdly unlikely.
Sadly, the truth is that there is no obvious solution to this problem, or solutions, but that trusting “the people”, with the facts, and having faith that they will continue to treat gay men with general decency, is what would most likely support good decision-making.
Let’s have some honesty. The outbreak of Monkeypox has happened because a substantial fraction of gay men do not relate to sex in the way that the vast majority of ordinary human beings do.
And while “stigma” may make a minor contribution, the issue is clearly deeper than that. It would therefore be interesting, and useful, to hear gay men self-reflect on this, and begin the difficult journey of finding understanding, without picking some distraction, like Reagan as a scapegoat, to essentially change the subject.
So yes, it's fine that gays get to live out in the open and marry but they also should feel society's disapproval for unchecked buggery and perhaps even have clubs that exist for that purpose to be far less common due to the public health burden and general distaste. Removing social sanctions from a lot of behaviors that were associated with black culture has been an unmitigated disaster for all of us, and now we are onto normalizing the mutilation of humans with with mental disorder as some kind of affirmative treatment rather than a moral and physical horrorshow.
If only we could figure out what the pre-1970 people of the world did differently...Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
Someone must be butthurt right now (no pun intended).
I'm just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that's obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @bomag, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Russ
Thanks.
Reminds us that these debates often become “100% genes” vs “100% training”.
We’d do well to keep in mind Steve’s starting point of 50-50.
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
One of Steve’s more interesting predictions re gay “marriage” was that straight men were liable to start thinking of marriage as a gay thing, and consequently become less inclined to marry.
My argument against gay “marriage” is that it’s objectionable in the same way blackface is objectionable: it mocks something sacred. Now to be clear: I don’t consider dark skin sacred. But if those who do get to ban blackface, then those of us who take marriage seriously shouldn’t have to tolerate its appropriation in the service of something disgusting and unnatural.
In retrospect, “Here Comes the Groom” (Sullivan’s 1989 headline) turned out to be a sinister prophecy.
Young people on the internet call this level of receipt bringing “the Naomi Wu”
AS is a good writer, and I hope he concedes with grace.
I wonder if the Chinese listen to that argument re: their racial minorities. Uighurs, Tibetans, etc.
What do you think are the long-term plans for Africa that the Chinese have? Do you think they will stand by while Africa heads toward 5 billion people within 80 years?
https://galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/09/galtons_demente.html
Do you think the American Indians will hold onto their reservations forever? Or will the U.S. eventually let all Americans buy their lands, and they will simply disappear within a few generations? What is happening in Kashmir now?
Do you think China will put up with gays spreading disease after disease?
Or is it more likely that we are living through the last few generations of gay culture, as in the future they will either be “cured or killed”? I use killed not in the Nazi sense, but in the sense that the biological basis for homosexuality will be discovered, and they will either be aborted by their parents due to a preference for grandchildren, or cured via genetic engineering?
While we in the West might find this thought horrific, an extremely large portion of the world does not agree with us on this, and I think they would have no problem with this scenario. The more the gays insist on their right to harbor and spread diseases, the stronger this argument becomes.
I personally think this will be a tragedy for the arts world, but I don’t think the Chinese will give a damn. They don’t seem to value “diversity” as much as we claim to. We value it so much we seem to run from it as fast and far as we can.
I understand that thanks to diversity, you can get a great deal on a house in Jackson, Mississippi now!
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/physrev.00021.2019The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425Recently a small outbreak of Ebola was traced back to a survivor from the previous outbreak who was asymptomatic since he was clear of the virus elsewhere in his body except in his testicles (The immune system gives more leeway there since there are lots of sperm cells that due to recombination and being gametes don't look exactly 'self') and was shedding Ebola virus in his semen. This was 470 days he he recovered and over 500 days since he became infected.
Resurgence of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea Linked to a Survivor With Virus Persistence in Seminal Fluid for More Than 500 Days
We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585800
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1093/cid/ciw601 All viral hemorrhagic fevers have now either been demonstrated or are suspected of being capable of shedding in semen and being transmissible in this way. We think of them as being traditionally hard to transmit in public and diseases which cause limited outbreaks and then burnout, being sustained only through their animal reservoirs and being unable to become endemic among humans or spread very far. But that's exactly what we thought about Monkeypox.Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren't allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not. But it probably should.Replies: @Altai, @bomag, @ic1000, @Mr. Anon
Thanks.
Reminds us that societies that survive and thrive have suppression mechanisms against homosexuality.
We should pay more attention to Moses and the prophets.
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Why wouldn’t or shouldn’t they leave? They’re not in any way attached to the soil, the history, the heros, the foundation myths. They live in ghettos, which are pretty much the same the world over. Too, America to them–if you can believe their Jewish spokesmen–is nothing more than a mere concept, a “proposition”. It’s just inertia that keeps them hangin’ on. As a physicist, you know that it just takes a bit of extra oomph to get something moving; that to keep it going takes less energy. A little monetary incentive at the beginning and after that it’s “Africa or bust!”
The only real problem with American ghettos is the crime rate, which could be dramatically reduced if the White Ruling Class were not slimy invertebrates.
Out here in California, the real crazies are the SWPL elite Whites -- I know quite a few of them. The Hispanics (even the illegals) and even the Blacks are not as crazy.
Americans Whites -- or more accurately the White ruling elite -- have done this to ourselves.
And we need to face that reality.
Nothing will change until we do.Replies: @nebulafox
Steve’s explanation of the origins of homosexual marriage is useful here. It originated with legal arguments to take advantage of rent control. It had nothing to do with marriage unless we include property rights in our definition of the union.
Marriage is not about property rights. When we swear in front of God, or our state at least, we make an oath to love, honor, stand by no matter what, etc. We don’t promise to share an apartment and pass on the artificially cheap rent if one of us dies. Gay marriage began as bullshit cooked up by lawyers for a financial case.
If homosexuals or anybody else want to pretend to be married, that’s just like men wearing dresses and makeup and pretending to be women. As far as I’m concerned, let them do it, just don’t force me to pretend it’s real. And in the case of married gay men, I’ve learned by reading here that most of them don’t even honor the fidelity part. They are about as married as heterosexuals in an open relationship who screw anybody they like.
Let them pretend.
And by the way, let people wear blackface if they want to. When did it become unacceptable to pretend and make fun? If men can wear women’s makeup and pretend to be women, then Whites can put black on their faces and play black. Who cares?
Of course they do and he knows it.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/physrev.00021.2019The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425Recently a small outbreak of Ebola was traced back to a survivor from the previous outbreak who was asymptomatic since he was clear of the virus elsewhere in his body except in his testicles (The immune system gives more leeway there since there are lots of sperm cells that due to recombination and being gametes don't look exactly 'self') and was shedding Ebola virus in his semen. This was 470 days he he recovered and over 500 days since he became infected.
Resurgence of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea Linked to a Survivor With Virus Persistence in Seminal Fluid for More Than 500 Days
We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585800
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1093/cid/ciw601 All viral hemorrhagic fevers have now either been demonstrated or are suspected of being capable of shedding in semen and being transmissible in this way. We think of them as being traditionally hard to transmit in public and diseases which cause limited outbreaks and then burnout, being sustained only through their animal reservoirs and being unable to become endemic among humans or spread very far. But that's exactly what we thought about Monkeypox.Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren't allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not. But it probably should.Replies: @Altai, @bomag, @ic1000, @Mr. Anon
Great comment.
> Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren’t allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not.
As many iSteve readers know (but as many Lester Holt watchers and NYT readers emphatically do not know), our elites are tackling this problem with a different approach. It’s a time-honored strategy that was known prior to the Current Year as Shoot The Messenger.
Last month, the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behavior explained how it works. ic1000 comment, Bo Winegard at Quillette.
Explore the data, write up your insights, and submit them, Altai. That manuscript will of course be “Rejected Without Review,” since protected groups are above criticism. The editors were a bit too squeamish to lay out the rest of the process, but no need, academics all know. Via happy hour gossip, email, or tweet, the right people at Altai’s home institution will learn of Altai’s heresy and take the appropriate action. “What happens next?” is readily answered by — among others — Winegard, Amy Wax, Joshua Katz, and Bret Weinstein.
Meanwhile, NBC Today is keeping Americans abreast of the real news, and not just shark attacks. The program led, breathlessly, with the development that the FBI has caught Orange Man Bad red-handed, hiding a Top-Secret Eyes-Only Burn-Before-Reading document! That analysis disclosed that Israel is armed with — nuclear weapons! You’ll be wondering whether NBC’s perky National Security reporterette was able to narrate this story without mentioning the word “Israel.” The answer is Yes.
AS’s Daily Dish blog was one of the first I read frequently when blogging became a thing in the late 90’s. There I discovered the Derb (thanks Andrew) who was frequently awarded Andrew’s Nazi of the Week award.
I used to think him (AS) a sensible intelligent guy, but the combo of weed and HIV drugs seems to have cost him about an SD of IQ,
Is Andrew Sullivan even “married” now? In his writing, he never mentions his “husband” anymore.
Jesus fucking Christ. Sowell didn’t say blacks “emulated” the behavior of white hillbillies, he said they displayed the same behaviors. “Emulate” implies deliberateness, purposefulness.
On this one, at 33 years back last week and less than 1/2 his age, I could see this being just wishful thinking that he may have believed. 12 years ago, in the Dish article that I’m not about to read, if he maintained the same position, I don’t know what to tell you other than it’s amazing how people can’t see their own deep biases.
Either way, you were right, and he’s wrong, as far as the tweets go, based on both of these examples.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Planters_logo.pngReplies: @Polistra, @The Germ Theory of Disease
Perhaps next we’ll see BLM cartoons of George Washington Carver feeding a screaming Mr. Peanut alive into a grinder to make his incredibly ingenious butter.
But it seems that "2022 Andrew Sullivan" thinks that such an effect is absurdly unlikely.
Sadly, the truth is that there is no obvious solution to this problem, or solutions, but that trusting "the people", with the facts, and having faith that they will continue to treat gay men with general decency, is what would most likely support good decision-making.
Let's have some honesty. The outbreak of Monkeypox has happened because a substantial fraction of gay men do not relate to sex in the way that the vast majority of ordinary human beings do.
And while "stigma" may make a minor contribution, the issue is clearly deeper than that. It would therefore be interesting, and useful, to hear gay men self-reflect on this, and begin the difficult journey of finding understanding, without picking some distraction, like Reagan as a scapegoat, to essentially change the subject.Replies: @Arclight, @Almost Missouri
Social sanctions have their place, but unfortunately for all of us our cultural masters have determined that anything that gets in the way of people ‘living their truth’ is oppression, no matter how much collateral damage is inflicted on everyone else.
So yes, it’s fine that gays get to live out in the open and marry but they also should feel society’s disapproval for unchecked buggery and perhaps even have clubs that exist for that purpose to be far less common due to the public health burden and general distaste. Removing social sanctions from a lot of behaviors that were associated with black culture has been an unmitigated disaster for all of us, and now we are onto normalizing the mutilation of humans with with mental disorder as some kind of affirmative treatment rather than a moral and physical horrorshow.
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Pretend they are Palestinians.
Not really. The poorest white neighborhoods have lower murder rates (and like overall crime rates) as wealthy black neighborhoods.
You Sowell lovers just won’t accept that Saint Thomas has a massive blind spot when it comes to his own people, which is normal except for CivNats.
Like a normal human being, Sowell loves his people.
A weird comparison. The Lincoln invasion was hardly an repeat exercise. The destruction of the Republic was successful on the first attempt.
bananacotton republics should have been lopped off like gangrenous limbs. Canada did fine without them, as would a truncated Union, with fewer but better Americans.Replies: @CurleThere are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they're always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & "non-mental", everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they've been admitted.
Blacks' 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @James J. O'Meara, @Curle, @PhysicistDave
Yes, if one does nothing, genetics will prevail. It’s the “if one does nothing” part that is relevant here: ultimately, one must breed better genetics. The name for this process is “eugenics” and used to be widely understood, but nowadays eugenics is literally Hitler, so nowadays “genetics” (i.e. dysgenics) always wins.
So much could be accomplished if the superstitious taboos of liberalism were ended.
But it seems that "2022 Andrew Sullivan" thinks that such an effect is absurdly unlikely.
Sadly, the truth is that there is no obvious solution to this problem, or solutions, but that trusting "the people", with the facts, and having faith that they will continue to treat gay men with general decency, is what would most likely support good decision-making.
Let's have some honesty. The outbreak of Monkeypox has happened because a substantial fraction of gay men do not relate to sex in the way that the vast majority of ordinary human beings do.
And while "stigma" may make a minor contribution, the issue is clearly deeper than that. It would therefore be interesting, and useful, to hear gay men self-reflect on this, and begin the difficult journey of finding understanding, without picking some distraction, like Reagan as a scapegoat, to essentially change the subject.Replies: @Arclight, @Almost Missouri
Somehow, this was never a major problem until about 1970.
If only we could figure out what the pre-1970 people of the world did differently…
While I don't believe that it is possible to make the public sphere more exclusive again, I also think it would be harmful.
Your "solution" would require making people fearful and disgusted by the existence of gays again, which would have all sorts of second order psychological effects that were bad, and will be bad again.
Nevermind that technology and less material need, would make pushing that defensive response on people much more difficult. There's a reason it went away and it has nothing to do with the fact that the most ahead of trends people obviously got there first.
And finally it would be bizarrely cruel. You really think you want to be the person firing gays if their sexuality is revealed, or beating "fags" on the street? No? Then don't expect others to do it for you.Replies: @Almost Missouri
Oh, you stepped in it now. I don’t call Sowell, Saint Thomas, for no reason.
He’s a patron saint of the colorblind CivNats crowd. He’s their go-to guy to slap down us stupid whites who actually want to preserve and, even, defend and live around our own people.
If I had a buck for every time I’ve seen “who would you rather have as a neighbor, Sowell or some dumb redneck,” I’d be rich enough to live in the neighborhoods of the people saying that.
His other contribution is the "visions" thing. The vast majority of the damage done in the last two years of riots was the work of whites like Joseph Rosenbaum. Hell, they destroyed a spanking-new 21st-century, post-"9/11" police station in Minneapolis, something which ghetto blacks simply don't have the capability to do.
Sowell's is the first and only explanation I've come across as to why young white folks would act like this.Replies: @Curle, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Isn’t that how this started?
I mean, grudging toleration is my default reaction as well, but we now know how that process proceeds. Resetting the process back to earlier on the curve doesn’t eliminate the curve. It just means we get to repeat history like the guy said.
We have history now. Let us learn from it.
Why must we pretend to be dumber than we are? Surely, this is one of the most peculiar legacies of liberalism.
A young man I know who's young and still idealistic (God bless him) asked me why I occasionally broach the topic (in private, of course) of racial disparities in IQ, criminal behavior, etc. Even if my assertions are true, he asked, why even bring them up?
I replied that there is nothing I'd like more than to ignore the whole subject; that keeping mum about it was in fact my personal policy since the 1990s, when I first learned about racial disparities in "The Bell Curve."
But it turned out that if you close off that path of explanation, then the *only other way* to explain the outcome disparities we routinely observe is that people like me (and the young man, and our entire society) are part of a sinister conspiracy to cripple blacks. So my choice is either to admit the truth (i.e., that there's natural inequality in relevant metrics), or assert that I'm a villain--with whatever consequences accrue to that assertion. Our culture, having embraced the path of ignorance (or "let's pretend"), has shown no lack of enthusiasm for meting out punishment on the resulting villains.
Ignoring an unsavory truth can sometimes be a kind of noblesse oblige. But when doing so puts your very survival in jeopardy, then it's time to show "politeness" the door.
Times have changed. Nowadays you’ve got to respect somebody’s right to be pissed on by any number of friends and acquaintances.
Last night I watched Killer in the Village, a BBC documentary from 1983 which I think was the first British TV programme to deal with AIDS. It was made before HIV had been identified as the agent of transmission, and a large part of it was about the lines of inquiry that were being pursued. It would have been interesting to have a follow-up showing what became of the people seen in the film, presumably all the actual patients are long dead.
“Rawmuscleglutes” really cares about traditional conservative sexual morals! Give me a break! What a hypocrite
For those who don’t know, rawmuscleglutes was Andrew Sullivan’s screen name when he advertised to participate in orgies/group sex in I believe the late 90s or early 2000s. I believe this is after he was HIV-positive. Should still be stuff searchable on Google about it
If only we could figure out what the pre-1970 people of the world did differently...Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
They had other, worse, problems.
While I don’t believe that it is possible to make the public sphere more exclusive again, I also think it would be harmful.
Your “solution” would require making people fearful and disgusted by the existence of gays again, which would have all sorts of second order psychological effects that were bad, and will be bad again.
Nevermind that technology and less material need, would make pushing that defensive response on people much more difficult. There’s a reason it went away and it has nothing to do with the fact that the most ahead of trends people obviously got there first.
And finally it would be bizarrely cruel. You really think you want to be the person firing gays if their sexuality is revealed, or beating “fags” on the street? No? Then don’t expect others to do it for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGpPeQVnzJ0
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-beating-victim-it-was-a-hate-crime/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/dallas-transgender-woman-who-was-assaulted-on-video-found-dead-police
Weirdly, these are much more common now than the largely mythical "beating fags on the streets" incidents of yesteryear.
So what are the statistics?
I always felt that the gay marriage crusade was primarily symbolic — an effort by gays to force the government to officially tell that their parents that they were wrong, that homosexuality was every bit as normal and natural as heterosexuality — and that once the battle was won gays would turn out to be not all that interested in following through and actually getting married. So it would be interesting to see analysis of marriage rates for gays vs straights. Anyone know where I could find one?
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/physrev.00021.2019The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425Recently a small outbreak of Ebola was traced back to a survivor from the previous outbreak who was asymptomatic since he was clear of the virus elsewhere in his body except in his testicles (The immune system gives more leeway there since there are lots of sperm cells that due to recombination and being gametes don't look exactly 'self') and was shedding Ebola virus in his semen. This was 470 days he he recovered and over 500 days since he became infected.
Resurgence of Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea Linked to a Survivor With Virus Persistence in Seminal Fluid for More Than 500 Days
We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585800
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1093/cid/ciw601 All viral hemorrhagic fevers have now either been demonstrated or are suspected of being capable of shedding in semen and being transmissible in this way. We think of them as being traditionally hard to transmit in public and diseases which cause limited outbreaks and then burnout, being sustained only through their animal reservoirs and being unable to become endemic among humans or spread very far. But that's exactly what we thought about Monkeypox.Is our society capable of, for example, making it a rule that gay Westerners aren't allowed to go help in Ebola outbreaks? Probably not. But it probably should.Replies: @Altai, @bomag, @ic1000, @Mr. Anon
I doubt it. PrEP was invented for anybody who can be persuaded to “ask your doctor about PrEP”. Based on the ads you see for it, which run in heavy rotation, a lot of the target market for it are young, presumably promiscuous homosexuals. Big Pharma seems to think it’s struck gold with this market segment. Proving – as if more proof were needed – that the pharmaceutical industry’s business is not ending sickness; it’s business is profiting from sickness.
While I don't believe that it is possible to make the public sphere more exclusive again, I also think it would be harmful.
Your "solution" would require making people fearful and disgusted by the existence of gays again, which would have all sorts of second order psychological effects that were bad, and will be bad again.
Nevermind that technology and less material need, would make pushing that defensive response on people much more difficult. There's a reason it went away and it has nothing to do with the fact that the most ahead of trends people obviously got there first.
And finally it would be bizarrely cruel. You really think you want to be the person firing gays if their sexuality is revealed, or beating "fags" on the street? No? Then don't expect others to do it for you.Replies: @Almost Missouri
“They” = ?
Gays are doing fine making people disgusted with them again without any help from me. When something is naturally disgusting, disgust tends to ensue. It’s Nature’s way.
Not sure what all the bad baddiness is supposed to be, but on practically every objective social measure, things were better before 1970.
Speaking of final bizarre cruelties, how ought we to characterize the recent gay-led fashion for the sexual mutilation of children?
Replacing it with firing conservatives if their politics are revealed is better? Because that’s what happened.
Thank goodness that doesn’t happen anymore … oh wait
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-beating-victim-it-was-a-hate-crime/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/dallas-transgender-woman-who-was-assaulted-on-video-found-dead-police
Weirdly, these are much more common now than the largely mythical “beating fags on the streets” incidents of yesteryear.
There was the Johnson invasion of Ohio in 1835, to retrieve his “jet black, thick-lipped, odoriferous negro wench”. (Not his wife, but a similar replacement thereof. Dick liked his octoroons.)
You could argue that Johnson’s move was legal and constitutional, but so could the Unionists by pointing to the constitutional clause about suppressing insurrections. (Unfortunately, there is no similar instruction or even advice on determining a valid secession from an invalid one.)
Lincoln’s action wasn’t a crime but a blunder. Half-Negro
bananacotton republics should have been lopped off like gangrenous limbs. Canada did fine without them, as would a truncated Union, with fewer but better Americans.Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Lincoln received no such application.
There was no insurrection. The organic authority of the states approved separation therefore rendering the Lincoln claim irrelevant. The federal government was an creature of the states and was not an organic authority in its own right as was noted by legal theorists at the adoption of the constitution. There is no contemporary legal claim stating otherwise.
I do not know why anyone beside his personal acquaintances would give the southern end of a dead, north-facing rat to know what Andrew Sullivan believes about anything – from the meaning of life, all the way down to the current time of day.
This tweet of his is merely the latest exhibit, as if any more evidence were needed, in support of the case that any correspondence between what he said yesterday and what he’ll say tomorrow is purely coincidental.
Whenever I see his name, I am reminded of the most salient, prolonged example of his chronic inconsistency. In the late nineties, he started an independent blog, The Daily Dish. In the run-up to the Iraq War, and in its early days, he was not merely one its most enthusiastic cheerleaders, he was the most vicious, unrelenting tormenter of those who questioned the wisdom of the the invasion.
But suddenly, as soon as it became clear that purple fingers would not quickly tranform Iraq into a Jeffersonian democracy, he turned coat, and his blog attacked those sustaining and supporting the occupation with the same degree of strident vitriol he he had been aiming at his new allies only a few months before.
That blog, by the way, was supported by reader contributions, or so he said. After Bush 43 won re-election despite Sullivan’s best efforts, he announced a major fund drive, enjoining his readers to give him the funds needed to continue fighting the good fight! Weeks later, he announced he was quitting the blogging business. It was just too much stress. Did he give the money back? I don’t know; I doubt it. But he did re-institute The Daily Dish within months, supported this time with checks from a major publishing company
And that wasn’t the last time he quit blogging, only to return like a bad penny.
Oh! One more thing. Remember the time this supposedly monogamous homosexual was revealed to be placing classified ads for rough sex with other HIV positive gays? Having sought sex with strangers, he complained when he was caught that his “privacy” had been invaded. Riiight!
I suspect, but can never prove, that God created Andrew Sullivan as a warning about the long term effects on the human brain of a combination of anti-Aids drugs, anabolic steroids and marijuana.
Either way, you were right, and he's wrong, as far as the tweets go, based on both of these examples.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
Speaking of unrecognized deep biases, did you read Sullivan’s unhinged article about how Trump is a tyrant from 2016-ish and see that he proclaimed himself correct after the Trump presidency ended? Yes, that’s right, four years of Trump proved how tyrannical he is.
I can always count on a few good souls in Unz to direct their friendly fire at one of the few people we could create a coalition with. Sowell may be wrong on the genetics of race but if blacks listened to him rather than Al Sharpton they’d be much better off.
Hey while you’re at it lets throw a dig at Steve for his civic nationalism. That’ll preserve our purity!
“Conservative” White cucks get a warm thrill up their legs when encountering the banal ‘wisdom’ of Sowells, McWhorters, and Lourys.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfkReplies: @Che Guava
The solution to all minoritarian parasitism is straightforward--separation.
There's got to be an island somewhere we can buy and just be done with this? Do we really want to wait around until the bio guys figure out the cause of this dysfunction and eliminate it? That's probably decades off. Poxlandia now!Replies: @PhysicistDave, @James J. O'Meara
There’s a 80s or 90s movie, maybe an iSteve favorite, where some outer borough gangsters or stock brokers (same thing) are at a Manhattan restaurant and at the next table there’s a loud gay group; one of the gangsters says, loud enough to be heard, something like “I wish we could send all those queers to an island somewhere” and one of the gays replies: “You’re on it now.”
Interesting point. Someone upthread says Sowell would argue blacks should imitate middle class families. Why wouldn’t they imitate the upper classes? Which in the South would be all those Ashley Wilkes Cavaliers that the ladies swoon over. A job, sir? That’s not for a gentleman. I believe you have dissed me! Prepare to duel to the death. (Like gentlemen duelists, blacks always miss).
By contrast, the Abos (abolitionists) had a a snooty, hardworking Calvinist upper class.
This gives us a new angle on The Big Lebowski. The Dude (note the name) is an ex-60s radical, no doubt imitation “cool” black dudes. The Other Lebowski is a Calvinist, delivering a fire and brimstone denunciation of The Lost Cause..
“Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!”
The Abos had an mercenary financial class that wanted to clear the decks to facilitate the continental railroad monopolies and wanted government to facilitate this. If you want to know who won the civil war visit Newport RI sometime.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
bananacotton republics should have been lopped off like gangrenous limbs. Canada did fine without them, as would a truncated Union, with fewer but better Americans.Replies: @CurleThis is the controlling section not the insurrection language.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Lincoln received no such application.
There was no insurrection. The organic authority of the states approved separation therefore rendering the Lincoln claim irrelevant. The federal government was an creature of the states and was not an organic authority in its own right as was noted by legal theorists at the adoption of the constitution. There is no contemporary legal claim stating otherwise.
There are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they're always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & "non-mental", everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they've been admitted.
Blacks' 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @James J. O'Meara, @Curle, @PhysicistDave
What’s the official UnzWorld position on this? Why the “civil rights movement”? Did blacks decide “We fought in WWII against Hitler and I’ll be damned if I’ll sit at a segregated lunch counter back home!” or was it a plot by the Jews behind the NAACP? Or was it the Fed needing to counter Soviet propaganda?
My opinion is completely different, but I'm tired of writing the same stuff all over & over again.
Maybe I'll find my older posts...
..............................................................
Just: WW2 was not just against imperialism, but it was both explicitly & implicitly against national/racial exclusivity, extremism & dominance. Basically, if we want a rough sketch for the ideological matrix the Allies fought for- it was equality plus freedom.
Nazi ideology (national/racial hierarchies, all the superior race stuff historically to be found in the Manu code, exterminationist military aggression, explicit collective inequality, ..) had to go. Along with that, in the next one-two decades, all (or most) imperialist rule & white dominance in Asia & Africa.
But, back home, you could not have a sort of Apartheid is you fought for hearts and minds of Asia and Africa. Segregation the US had to go in the 50s and the 60s, in order to retain American influence in the Third world.
And it was naturally followed by ideology of the New Left in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.
This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.
As regards Jews -I mean principally their ideological influence – I think you overrate them. There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in the Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity.
Jews, in the US, have been promoting blacks because of their deluded idealism, not because of their self-interest. If there was an element of self-interest (is it good for Jews?), it was not more than, say, 20% of their motivation in fight for de-segregation. Most of them, including in many ways discarded leftists like S.J. Gould, did it out of humanist idealism, not because they wanted to “subvert the Western civilization”.
The same goes for the likes of Nadine Gordimer in South Africa.
Just- they never learn. I recall Gould’s whining over the facts that blacks dumped them & have developed their own, completely idiotic variant of anti-Judaism. Gould & other liberal-lefty Jews sound exactly like “simps” of the manosphere- men who have discovered that their beloved wifey of 10 years had been whoring around in threesomes & whatnot- and are now paralyzed & shocked.
Shocked.
And don’t know what to do next.
That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to wrong people.
The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
I’ve known quite a few — not a one is willing to leave.
Not only are the blacks who are here not willing to leave, the blacks who are not here are desperate to get in. Pretty remarkable for what we are told is a systemically racist nation.
People would risk getting shot climbing the fence to get out of East Germany, and risk drowning to leave Cuba in a leaky boat, but try to find a black person willing to accept a first-class ticket to move to Africa.
A more pertinent question might be: Can you do it if you can’t spell it?
Andrew Sullivan is posting again. This tweet is dated 1:56 PM EDT on Sep 7, 2022. (For reference, the time of this comment is 6:24 PM GMT and 2:24 PM EDT.)
(Sullivan’s challenge to Sailer, “I’d love you to prove this by citing something I actually wrote or said. It’s a weird distortion of my original argument favored by the woke left and the religious right” was dated 6:51 PM EDT on Sep 6, 2022.)
No response to Sailer, yet.
This brouhaha got me to look at Sully’s Twitter timeline. He’s a perhaps-unlikely non-Woke ally; most of his tweets are sensible.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1567596414556901376
Numerous responses to Sullivan along these lines:
https://twitter.com/016ca5f1/status/1567611677549395969Replies: @ic1000, @Chrisnonymous
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
but there is a secret plan to send ‘the blacks’ back to africa, and ‘the gays’ to an island. trump’s drawn up the schematic. it involves a special circus cannon, loading ten at time. and as you said, some acid.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1567572589328973824(Sullivan's challenge to Sailer, "I'd love you to prove this by citing something I actually wrote or said. It's a weird distortion of my original argument favored by the woke left and the religious right" was dated 6:51 PM EDT on Sep 6, 2022.)No response to Sailer, yet.This brouhaha got me to look at Sully's Twitter timeline. He's a perhaps-unlikely non-Woke ally; most of his tweets are sensible.Replies: @MGB, @ic1000
and yet, in general, he seems like a self-promoting liar.
A related note on Andrew Sullivan.
I work near the Palmer House hotel in Chicago and sometimes I walk though that hotel as a short-cut. Or sometimes to use their bathroom. Or to hang out during break.
So I go up the escalator and when I arrived at the hotel’s lobby there were around 100 guys in black leather jackets. Well, I’m not going to stick around. Not my thing.
I researched it and the Palmer House hosted a convention for a couple years in a row for gays and black leather.
Then I read I a blog post by Andrew Sullivan where he mentioned in passing, “Beautiful day in Chicago”
Re: Andrew Sullivan.
The former conservative sometimes National Review columnist came to my attention many decades ago. Decent writer/observer.
Subsequently I learned he was gay and became outspoken on the subject. I didn’t follow his career.
Some years ago, perhaps in the last decade, I read somewhere that he ( or someone named Andrew Sullivan) was posing in the window in some NYC gay neighborhood as a pay-for-play guy. Even had some online advert about being a “power bottom”, a term I had not previously heard.
So is the the same guy? If not, then it is just a weird coincidence.
It struck me as odd that a former presumably professional writer would be turning tricks, though the item I read suggested that was the case.
iSteve here has demonstrated that the writer Sullivan doesn’t want to “own” his own past views on gay marriage and uh, “unhealthy” behavior.
Perhaps someone can clarify my confusion about Mr. Sullivan and what I took to be his current occupation. And whether or not he has a professional interest in matters of gay health.
Personally I don’t care one way or another. But don’t want to tarnish his reputation in any incorrect manner..
Sullivan was editor of the New Republic.Replies: @Muggles
Nah, sorry, Chris, I’ve never read anything AFAIR from Andrew Sullivan, but I’ll take your word on this. Yes, I only WISH President Trump had been a tyrant! He might have gotten some serious shit done.
“By contrast, the Abos (abolitionists) had a a snooty, hardworking Calvinist upper class.”
The Abos had an mercenary financial class that wanted to clear the decks to facilitate the continental railroad monopolies and wanted government to facilitate this. If you want to know who won the civil war visit Newport RI sometime.
Brown University was able to be founded because trash sold trash to trash. The downside of capitalism. Which still beats feudalism.
https://slaveryandjustice.brown.edu/
Europeans flocked to work in some states, while in others, even Africans didn't want to be there. What did the Europeans-- and Africans-- know?Replies: @Curle
Mr. Peanut will rise again! In an on-topic fashion!
I'm just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that's obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @bomag, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Russ
The problem with your comparison of the mores of Blacks now and Blacks then is that environmentally, Blacks were subject to harsh(er) societal conditions: Jim Crow laws, far fewer welfare gibs, stop and frisk and prison until recently in NYC, etc. Without constant application of blunt state physical control (much of which is now ruled unconstitutional), Blacks, in the aggregate, revert ever more to Blackness. The Sowells and McWhorters are liars about race (#68) and cannot be cited seriously.
which I am not guilty ofof which I am not guilty) is pointless.But your desire for a return to Jim Crow is not.https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/5b293f793dc6af482b847729/16:9/w_4191,h_2357,c_limit/GH_8_1_2017_shot_3.jpgReplies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
The collapse of our basic legal, cultural, and social system has harmed everyone, but especially people at the bottom -- working-class Whites and ghetto Blacks.
The one exception is the (mainly White) Ruling Class -- the parasitic verbalist overclass -- which has increased its power and wealth, not to mention its self-satisfaction, quite dramatically.
But even they might want to meditate upon the fact that no ruling class rules forever.
I've known quite a few -- not a one is willing to leave.
Forcibly bringing slaves over from Africa was a very bad idea for a whole lot of reasons (e.g., the Civil War). But they have now been in this country longer than most White families.
They're not gonna leave.
And any proposed way of dealing with racial problems that cannot accept that fact is just a bad acid trip.Replies: @G. Poulin, @Anon, @ThreeCranes, @Gordo, @Harry Baldwin, @MGB, @Jenner Ickham Errican
AD leans towards pacifism and wishful thinking.
Good point. He also advertised he wanted to do bare backing, i.e., no condom.
Needless to say, he wasn't exactly looking for monogamous, long-term relationships with those ads. Rather, the ads state that Sullivan was "LOOKING FOR One-on-One's 3-Ways Groups/Parties/Orgies Gang Bangs" and that he "love[s] to f*!k but prefer[s] to be f*!ked" and had the following "turn ons": "TURN-ONS hairy hung masculine guys black guys uncut guys with over 8 inches."Replies: @Che Guava
Sullivan, like all liberals doesn’t recognize individual agency in one’s own actions. He recognized that AIDS did what it did because of their behavior, but the blames Catholics because they weren’t allowed to have a constructive outlet, so resort to promiscuity and sex parties? Guy is just stupid, but is so sure he isn’t. Deviant behavior caused the AIDS epidemic, killed hundreds of thousands because they simply wanted to have as much “sex” as possible with as many people as possible more than they wanted to live a life. We can see the EXACT SAME THING again with monkey pox. Zero responsibility, zero accountability. Now you’ve got these goofs with pox sores all over themselves openly talking about the orgies they attended, unable to link in their sick minds then connection between their deviant lifestyle and the suffering they’re enduring. Unbelievable.
I read Sully’s arguments for gay marriage as dishonest casuistry (forgive the pleonasm) way back in the day. Perhaps he figured he wouldn’t be held to account in later years, and highminded paeans to the marital estate wouldn’t be cruelly dismissed as shallow and lacking in evidence.
It wasn’t lack of pseudo-marriage privileges that sent gay men to glory holes, or made them want to hang out at The Trucks, or to engage in outlandish sex practices in the backroom of The Mineshaft or in bathhouse cubicles, or to spend long weekends freebase-partying with Jacques Morali and friends out on Fire Island. These were not the farther shores of male homosexual practice, but the defining behaviors, the desiderata, the big drivers of rainbow-flag Gay Male Culture.
Andrew Sullivan was not simply a conservative writer from England who happened to be gay, in the manner of a certain “conservative” writer of today. He made his knowledge of gay culture, and HIV+ culture, and testosterone-shooting gay body-building culture, the central focus of his writing much of the time. It seemed a good career move at the time. The gay-themed writing was clickbait stuff avant la web, and it got a lot more attention than non-gay public-policy essays in National Review and elsewhere.
The Abos had an mercenary financial class that wanted to clear the decks to facilitate the continental railroad monopolies and wanted government to facilitate this. If you want to know who won the civil war visit Newport RI sometime.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Newporters also sold the defective merchandise that fools farther south happily bought. If that isn’t proof that “Yankees” are smarter…
Brown University was able to be founded because trash sold trash to trash. The downside of capitalism. Which still beats feudalism.
https://slaveryandjustice.brown.edu/
Europeans flocked to work in some states, while in others, even Africans didn’t want to be there. What did the Europeans– and Africans– know?
Exactly right, A-M. And I would add that experience has shown that the consequences of “playing dumb,” no matter how well intentioned, are not trivial.
A young man I know who’s young and still idealistic (God bless him) asked me why I occasionally broach the topic (in private, of course) of racial disparities in IQ, criminal behavior, etc. Even if my assertions are true, he asked, why even bring them up?
I replied that there is nothing I’d like more than to ignore the whole subject; that keeping mum about it was in fact my personal policy since the 1990s, when I first learned about racial disparities in “The Bell Curve.”
But it turned out that if you close off that path of explanation, then the *only other way* to explain the outcome disparities we routinely observe is that people like me (and the young man, and our entire society) are part of a sinister conspiracy to cripple blacks. So my choice is either to admit the truth (i.e., that there’s natural inequality in relevant metrics), or assert that I’m a villain–with whatever consequences accrue to that assertion. Our culture, having embraced the path of ignorance (or “let’s pretend”), has shown no lack of enthusiasm for meting out punishment on the resulting villains.
Ignoring an unsavory truth can sometimes be a kind of noblesse oblige. But when doing so puts your very survival in jeopardy, then it’s time to show “politeness” the door.
Guy’s done well to still be alive. Been dodging bullets for forty years.
I doubt the original argument was anything for Sullivan but an exercise in amusing himself. In his mundane life, he was never better than ambivalent about it. He did not immerse himself in the gay subculture until 1986 and 1987, years after it was understood what the risks were. He ended up HIV+ anyway. He admitted in 2001 that he’d never been appended to anyone for longer than 18 months (he was then 37 years old). He was also exposed as the man behind the handle “RawMuscleGlutes” on a particular hook up site. He’d been HIV+ for about a decade at that point.
Give that 1/2 the male homosexual and bisexual population managed to avoid HIV infection during the worst phase of the epidemic, it’s a passable hypothesis that the distribution of sexual contacts among male homosexuals is bimodally distributed, i.e. that there is type B, whose behavior roughly approximates that of an ordinary unmarried young adult, but with that phase in life distended from five or ten years to 30 or 40 years; and a type A, who manifest bizarre levels of sexual compulsion. (A fairly sensible and non-narcissistic specimen like David Brudnoy admitted in his memoir that a spot of sodomy in a public toilet was part of his daily routine).
If it wasn’t a forensic game, Sullivan’s problem was that he did not realize that marriage buttresses existing vectors influencing human behavior. The vectors just aren’t there for homosexual men.
You're the bookworm. I recall either Bertrand Russell or Margaret Mead (or both) stating that but for the possibility of children showing up, marriage would not even exist in civilization. But I've lost the citation.Can you find this? Was it a third person?Replies: @Art Deco
This is at least as true of pseudo-segregationists who think they can deal with blacks without exporting them. To paraphrase Chesterton, Colonization was not tried and found insufficient, it was found difficult and not tried.
Sowell and McWhorter can be cited seriously on other subjects, which is not the case for Errican. Sowell understands the “progressive” mind as well as anyone today. You yourself have parroted, to me individually, McWhorter’s argument that language is always changing, and “prescriptivism” (
which I am not guilty ofof which I am not guilty) is pointless.But your desire for a return to Jim Crow is not.
Colonially and nationally we’ve been dealing with Blacks since 1619. Tellingly, you never make the present case to export them now. You only impotently whine about the past.Maybe, while on leave as a Coastie, you were involuntarily colon-ized by a Black and have mixed feelings about it. Tough scene.But does he understand, or admit, basic reality? You suggest above that he does not. Perhaps you’d like to quote, in this thread, some of Sowell’s amazing relevant wisdom…I have no idea what you’re referring to. Can you provide a link or at least be coherent?Your Glass House is a straw man. I’ve never advocated for a return to Jim Crow. (E.g. I’ve stated, contrary to whining around here, that the judicial overturning of stop-and-frisk in NYC is constitutional and just.)
I merely explain to perennial Pollyannas citing Sowell that if one wants or expects Blacks to conform to bourgeois White behavior, Jim Crow style laws (or harsher) would have to be implemented. Of course, even that might not work. But I notice that the Pollyannas here aren’t willing to go that far. They have no practical solution to what vexes them.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Give that 1/2 the male homosexual and bisexual population managed to avoid HIV infection during the worst phase of the epidemic, it's a passable hypothesis that the distribution of sexual contacts among male homosexuals is bimodally distributed, i.e. that there is type B, whose behavior roughly approximates that of an ordinary unmarried young adult, but with that phase in life distended from five or ten years to 30 or 40 years; and a type A, who manifest bizarre levels of sexual compulsion. (A fairly sensible and non-narcissistic specimen like David Brudnoy admitted in his memoir that a spot of sodomy in a public toilet was part of his daily routine).
If it wasn't a forensic game, Sullivan's problem was that he did not realize that marriage buttresses existing vectors influencing human behavior. The vectors just aren't there for homosexual men.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Marriage came about to make straight people behave. Straight and fertile. It is pointless otherwise.
You’re the bookworm. I recall either Bertrand Russell or Margaret Mead (or both) stating that but for the possibility of children showing up, marriage would not even exist in civilization. But I’ve lost the citation.
Can you find this? Was it a third person?
Don't have a concordance to either. Wouldn't take either one seriously.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
I think lesbians suffer from being grouped together with gay men since most homophobia is really just a result of the actions of the men, with women not having been at fault whatsoever. I suspect it is similar if we look at pedophilia (gay men are massively overrepresented) patterns between gay men and lesbians.Replies: @Old Prude, @Art Deco, @Russ
IIRC, lesbians are also over-represented among the perpetrators of paedophilic acts. Last I checked, longitudinal studies of lesbian couples had discredited the notion that they formed peculiarly durable relationships. Lesbian couplings are also fairly violence-prone in comparison with ordinary couples.
You're the bookworm. I recall either Bertrand Russell or Margaret Mead (or both) stating that but for the possibility of children showing up, marriage would not even exist in civilization. But I've lost the citation.Can you find this? Was it a third person?Replies: @Art Deco
You’re the bookworm. I recall either Bertrand Russell or Margaret Mead (or both) stating that but for the possibility of children showing up, marriage would not even exist in civilization. But I’ve lost the citation.
Don’t have a concordance to either. Wouldn’t take either one seriously.
Occasionally some awful person gets off a good one. Marx's repeat of history being a prime example.
A certain far right comic book publisher with an expansive ego has a very trenchant observation about that. It goes something like this: “The only thing Conservatives conserve is the victories of their enemies”. Substitute Republican for Conservative to get an equivalent expression.
So much could be accomplished if the superstitious taboos of liberalism were ended.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
To be more efficient and have a far greater chance of success, one should also suppress inferior genetics. This can be done, theoretically, in a “live-and-let-die” laissez-faire approach by auto-attrition and societal neglect of the benighted group(s) in question: get rid of affirmative action, cut off all welfare and social services for breeding families, get rid of non-military subsidized family housing, vastly increase prison capacity and greatly lengthen prison sentences for violent crimes, universal stand-your-ground laws for violent encounters in public, immigration restriction, etc.
All of the above is the constitutional merciful co-existence option. If people don’t like it, there are other options and outcomes…
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1567572589328973824(Sullivan's challenge to Sailer, "I'd love you to prove this by citing something I actually wrote or said. It's a weird distortion of my original argument favored by the woke left and the religious right" was dated 6:51 PM EDT on Sep 6, 2022.)No response to Sailer, yet.This brouhaha got me to look at Sully's Twitter timeline. He's a perhaps-unlikely non-Woke ally; most of his tweets are sensible.Replies: @MGB, @ic1000
Sullivan weighs back in.
Numerous responses to Sullivan along these lines:
Andrew Sullivan: "The argument was that it would help build relationships, stability and family. It was not that it would end many gay men's sexual exuberance - or should."
Humpy Appleby [quoting Sullivan]: "'It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it.'"
Andrew Sullivan: I stand by every word. I did not say that marriage would end all sexual adventurism among gays any more than it has ended it all among straights. I said it would make things better. And that discrimination and stigmatization made things worse."Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Hey while you’re at it lets throw a dig at Steve for his civic nationalism. That’ll preserve our purity!Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Then don’t cite or defend him. He’s a liar. Liars aren’t allies.
“Conservative” White cucks get a warm thrill up their legs when encountering the banal ‘wisdom’ of Sowells, McWhorters, and Lourys.
Since Steve allowed it, I have a comment.
Lydon did much great stuff. His increasingly whiny vox style post early PiL did start to get on my nerves.
However, his marriage to to a mother-figure, almost (or more than) twenty years his senior, and mother of one of his near-contemporaries, Arianna, was one of those secrets that even the Brit gutter press protected until Arianna died.
It's funny how they do thimgs like that.
It is sad that his wife is senile, and good that he is doing things to support and help the senile.
To me though, I lost any respect when I read that Lydon had married a mummy-figure (or mommy-figure for U.S. people).
Clear indication of a real mental problem.
………NO!…….and neither should you…….there is such a thing as blood pressure you know.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1567596414556901376
Numerous responses to Sullivan along these lines:
https://twitter.com/016ca5f1/status/1567611677549395969Replies: @ic1000, @Chrisnonymous
Last update. Hard to follow things on Twitter.
Andrew Sullivan: “The argument was that it would help build relationships, stability and family. It was not that it would end many gay men’s sexual exuberance – or should.”
Humpy Appleby [quoting Sullivan]: “‘It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it.’”
Andrew Sullivan: I stand by every word. I did not say that marriage would end all sexual adventurism among gays any more than it has ended it all among straights. I said it would make things better. And that discrimination and stigmatization made things worse.”
I don’t know about “official UNZ world view” about these issues, but I think they ascribe it to some Jewish Conspiracy, with the aim of subverting white Christian civilization.
My opinion is completely different, but I’m tired of writing the same stuff all over & over again.
Maybe I’ll find my older posts…
……………………………………………………..
Just: WW2 was not just against imperialism, but it was both explicitly & implicitly against national/racial exclusivity, extremism & dominance. Basically, if we want a rough sketch for the ideological matrix the Allies fought for- it was equality plus freedom.
Nazi ideology (national/racial hierarchies, all the superior race stuff historically to be found in the Manu code, exterminationist military aggression, explicit collective inequality, ..) had to go. Along with that, in the next one-two decades, all (or most) imperialist rule & white dominance in Asia & Africa.
But, back home, you could not have a sort of Apartheid is you fought for hearts and minds of Asia and Africa. Segregation the US had to go in the 50s and the 60s, in order to retain American influence in the Third world.
And it was naturally followed by ideology of the New Left in the 60s, which was a beginning of anti-white lunacy. Some of its more articulate preachers were Jewish (Herbert Marcuse), some were not (Frantz Fanon). You got the entire corpus of influential works, originating mainly in the 50s & the 60s (Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Marcuse, Simone de Beauvoir, Frantz Fanon, ..) and later by Edward Said, Kate Millett, Michel Foucault, ..) which advocated moral nihilism, feminism, gay activism, anti-whitism & anti-Europeanism … a cartoon ideology Harold Bloom christened School of Resentment.
This “movement”- let’s call it Minoritarianist School of Resentment- has grown out of post-WW2 Western cultural condition & was not planned or anything like that.
As regards Jews -I mean principally their ideological influence – I think you overrate them. There was nothing ideological in paradigm shifts in the Anglosphere & Western cultural world -most suicidal moves in these societies were caused/provoked/influenced? by popular culture of Beatles, the Countercultural 60’s and later, and not by German-Jewish (or other Jewish) “intellectuals” like Marcuse & the rest. If there is a ruling New Left world-view in affluent Western societies, it cannot be ascribed to any group or a set of individuals of any ethnicity.
Jews, in the US, have been promoting blacks because of their deluded idealism, not because of their self-interest. If there was an element of self-interest (is it good for Jews?), it was not more than, say, 20% of their motivation in fight for de-segregation. Most of them, including in many ways discarded leftists like S.J. Gould, did it out of humanist idealism, not because they wanted to “subvert the Western civilization”.
The same goes for the likes of Nadine Gordimer in South Africa.
Just- they never learn. I recall Gould’s whining over the facts that blacks dumped them & have developed their own, completely idiotic variant of anti-Judaism. Gould & other liberal-lefty Jews sound exactly like “simps” of the manosphere- men who have discovered that their beloved wifey of 10 years had been whoring around in threesomes & whatnot- and are now paralyzed & shocked.
Shocked.
And don’t know what to do next.
That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to wrong people.
The New Left ideology (idolization of homosexuals & other “sexual minorities”, hatred towards national identity, extreme feminism & war against nuclear family, fetishization of blacks & Muslims, jabbering about weed & other drugs, female sexual promiscuity, cartoon war against the imperial past of some European peoples, war against normalcy, idolatry of non-European cultures & primitive forms of society, …)- I don’t see that as a final crystallization of some ideological warfare, but as an almost inevitable end of the trajectory of Western culture in its decadent phase, as in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”
The former conservative sometimes National Review columnist came to my attention many decades ago. Decent writer/observer.
Subsequently I learned he was gay and became outspoken on the subject. I didn't follow his career.
Some years ago, perhaps in the last decade, I read somewhere that he ( or someone named Andrew Sullivan) was posing in the window in some NYC gay neighborhood as a pay-for-play guy. Even had some online advert about being a "power bottom", a term I had not previously heard.
So is the the same guy? If not, then it is just a weird coincidence.
It struck me as odd that a former presumably professional writer would be turning tricks, though the item I read suggested that was the case.
iSteve here has demonstrated that the writer Sullivan doesn't want to "own" his own past views on gay marriage and uh, "unhealthy" behavior.
Perhaps someone can clarify my confusion about Mr. Sullivan and what I took to be his current occupation. And whether or not he has a professional interest in matters of gay health.
Personally I don't care one way or another. But don't want to tarnish his reputation in any incorrect manner..Replies: @Carol
You’re confused.
Sullivan was editor of the New Republic.
But I must have read him at least once (or more) in National Review, which I subscribed to way back when.
As a somewhat conservative "liberal" he got published here occasionally. I didn't regularly read New Republic.
The single biggest reason was postwar prosperity. Tolerance is a virtue of the rich.
Brown University was able to be founded because trash sold trash to trash. The downside of capitalism. Which still beats feudalism.
https://slaveryandjustice.brown.edu/
Europeans flocked to work in some states, while in others, even Africans didn't want to be there. What did the Europeans-- and Africans-- know?Replies: @Curle
Interesting but irrelevant observations.
Potential dialogue for When Sully Met Sailer movie —
Camera pans in on a small animal — small animal is venomous slow loris —
Steve Sailer To Andrew Sullivan:
What’s The Matter, Andrew, Don’t you Want More Citation Example Rice Balls?
https://twitter.com/PatientEyes6/status/1567602547057217537?s=20&t=eLhU2cj65wisaEjayYrX8A
FWIW, Sullivan summers every year in Provincetown, where he has a summer home. Provincetown is a major gay summer vacation destination and is known for its annual summer “Bear Week,” which Sullivan has been known to attend. “Bear” is slang for burly gay men. I’m not sure if he’s still active but Sullivan was for a long time into bodybuilding and used steroids, and was quite active in the bear scene in Provincetown and elsewhere. This summer’s Bear Week in P-town is believed to have been the origin of a major monkeypox outbreak.
https://www.salon.com/2003/08/01/bears/
One upside to not allowing gays to adopt is fewer children will have monkey pox.
Welcome to the zeitgeist! Spot on.
“We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
Andrew also stated that with marriage as an option, gays would be more monogamous tan straights, and this is shown to be a total and utter lie. Throughout millennia of recorded history, gays have shown to be far more promiscuous than straights.
Also, as marriage throughout the world in all known cultures has not only been directly tied to the state, it has also contained an ethical/religious element as well.
Therefore, it should be upon Andrew Sullivan to show one, just one, major culture or civilization that has elevated gay marriage to the equal of straight marriage, and with the full blessing of the state and the majority religion of that particular culture or civilization.
He cannot, because none exists. Throughout the world, marriage has had one universal definition that is common to all cultures, all civilizations (that actually transcend them). Marriage is heterosexual, and it has evolved over thousands, perhaps millions of years, into monogamous pairings. By its very definition, marriage is a heterosexual institution.
Let Andrew attempt to refute this universal truism regarding the institution of marriage. He cannot because the facts of history are vs. him.
It is also very, very telling that his made up “community” (LGBTQ+ etc) with each successive letter continues to degenerate into less and less of a mainstream “community”. It is all based on one’s behavior, and nothing more.
There are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they're always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & "non-mental", everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they've been admitted.
Blacks' 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @James J. O'Meara, @Curle, @PhysicistDave
“Blacks’ 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to.”
Who says they behaved well? They were kept away from whites and lightly policed in their own neighborhoods. Keeping order in black neighborhoods was not generally an police priority. Some accounts of southern policing in black neighborhoods contends that bodies would pile up and the deaths never investigated. Much less prosecuted.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1567596414556901376
Numerous responses to Sullivan along these lines:
https://twitter.com/016ca5f1/status/1567611677549395969Replies: @ic1000, @Chrisnonymous
What does “a self-evidently absurd characture” mean? Steve’s quoting his writing, not paraphrasing or summarizing. Sullivan is trying to have it both ways, I think.
https://www.salon.com/2003/08/01/bears/Replies: @Steve Sailer
In 2021, Bear Week in Provincetown was also a major superspreader event for the covid Delta variant.
I'm just assuming that human beings do have some control over their own behavior and that their behavior is also impacted by broader social and cultural influences.
And that's obvious.
For example, prior to 1960, the fraction of fatherless homes among African-American children was much, much smaller than it is today.
Why?
Probably not because of a dramatic and almost instantaneous genetic transformation among African-Americans.
When people like you learn a little bit about behavioral genetics, it seems that you are bedazzled by the evidence that genetics does have a significant influence on human behavior.
Yes, it does.
But so do lots of other things besides genetics.
Try looking at the actual data: even when environmental influences are as identical as possible (e.g., identical twins raised together), the results are not identical.
And when the environments are not identical, the results vary even more.
There are numbers on this: look at them.
Yes, human beings are not infinitely malleable: genes matter.
But both academic studies and the course of historical events show that other things matter too.
If that were not true, Black families today would be as stable as they were in 1950.Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @bomag, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Russ
It can be argued that the policies of LBJ’s “Great” Society were not genetic. But they were transformational.
Andrew Sullivan: "The argument was that it would help build relationships, stability and family. It was not that it would end many gay men's sexual exuberance - or should."
Humpy Appleby [quoting Sullivan]: "'It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it.'"
Andrew Sullivan: I stand by every word. I did not say that marriage would end all sexual adventurism among gays any more than it has ended it all among straights. I said it would make things better. And that discrimination and stigmatization made things worse."Replies: @Jim Don Bob
What a dick.
which I am not guilty ofof which I am not guilty) is pointless.But your desire for a return to Jim Crow is not.https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/5b293f793dc6af482b847729/16:9/w_4191,h_2357,c_limit/GH_8_1_2017_shot_3.jpgReplies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
LOL. Are you yourself not a proud “pseudo-segregationist” who ‘deals’ with Blacks by smugly mentioning your own personal been-a-dicked option of retreat into the overwhelmingly White Land-O-Lakes hinterland?
Colonially and nationally we’ve been dealing with Blacks since 1619. Tellingly, you never make the present case to export them now. You only impotently whine about the past.
Maybe, while on leave as a Coastie, you were involuntarily colon-ized by a Black and have mixed feelings about it. Tough scene.
But does he understand, or admit, basic reality? You suggest above that he does not. Perhaps you’d like to quote, in this thread, some of Sowell’s amazing relevant wisdom…
I have no idea what you’re referring to. Can you provide a link or at least be coherent?
Your Glass House is a straw man. I’ve never advocated for a return to Jim Crow. (E.g. I’ve stated, contrary to whining around here, that the judicial overturning of stop-and-frisk in NYC is constitutional and just.)
I merely explain to perennial Pollyannas citing Sowell that if one wants or expects Blacks to conform to bourgeois White behavior, Jim Crow style laws (or harsher) would have to be implemented. Of course, even that might not work. But I notice that the Pollyannas here aren’t willing to go that far. They have no practical solution to what vexes them.
Three, you ask? Yes:
https://c.tenor.com/_PHMijLcI2MAAAAM/paloma-flow.gifReplies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Well in London they have Notting Hillbillies, c.f., recent Carnival.
Colonially and nationally we’ve been dealing with Blacks since 1619. Tellingly, you never make the present case to export them now. You only impotently whine about the past.Maybe, while on leave as a Coastie, you were involuntarily colon-ized by a Black and have mixed feelings about it. Tough scene.But does he understand, or admit, basic reality? You suggest above that he does not. Perhaps you’d like to quote, in this thread, some of Sowell’s amazing relevant wisdom…I have no idea what you’re referring to. Can you provide a link or at least be coherent?Your Glass House is a straw man. I’ve never advocated for a return to Jim Crow. (E.g. I’ve stated, contrary to whining around here, that the judicial overturning of stop-and-frisk in NYC is constitutional and just.)
I merely explain to perennial Pollyannas citing Sowell that if one wants or expects Blacks to conform to bourgeois White behavior, Jim Crow style laws (or harsher) would have to be implemented. Of course, even that might not work. But I notice that the Pollyannas here aren’t willing to go that far. They have no practical solution to what vexes them.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
As if you did.
Sorry about that. I did a search and found that was Pincher Martin, not you. But you and Pincher sound like each other– and are into the same drawn-out-argument thing– that it’s easy to confuse the three of you.
Three, you ask? Yes:
Gangland turf and honor killings do seem like the Hatfields and McCoys.
Three, you ask? Yes:
https://c.tenor.com/_PHMijLcI2MAAAAM/paloma-flow.gifReplies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
They have no practical solution to what vexes them.
Of course I do. Search my comments history for “mutual combat”. MC ranges from discrete personal encounters all the way up to mass violence on a global scale. It’s tried and true! In practice, mutual combat is not a constant occurrence (thankfully) at all times and places; there is an ebb and flow. Nationally, we have been on a relatively calm shore. That may change.
Reg, you’ve got nothing. No even a defense of your precious Sowell! Sad.
“Drawn-out” arguments must really suck for glib commenters with garbage takes. Can’t relate, sorry. 🙁
It’s easy to find the archived ads and articles about the ads Sullivan had put under his rawmuscleglutes screen name.
Needless to say, he wasn’t exactly looking for monogamous, long-term relationships with those ads. Rather, the ads state that Sullivan was “LOOKING FOR One-on-One’s 3-Ways Groups/Parties/Orgies Gang Bangs” and that he “love[s] to f*!k but prefer[s] to be f*!ked” and had the following “turn ons”: “TURN-ONS hairy hung masculine guys black guys uncut guys with over 8 inches.”
Wow, what a super-sleaze!
Such a model conservative!
I think lesbians suffer from being grouped together with gay men since most homophobia is really just a result of the actions of the men, with women not having been at fault whatsoever. I suspect it is similar if we look at pedophilia (gay men are massively overrepresented) patterns between gay men and lesbians.Replies: @Old Prude, @Art Deco, @Russ
Excellent point. Replacing “homophobia is” with “same-sex medical maladies ranging from anal fissures through fecal incontinence to full-blown HIV/AIDS are” would’ve made it just about perfect.
He's a patron saint of the colorblind CivNats crowd. He's their go-to guy to slap down us stupid whites who actually want to preserve and, even, defend and live around our own people.
If I had a buck for every time I've seen "who would you rather have as a neighbor, Sowell or some dumb redneck," I'd be rich enough to live in the neighborhoods of the people saying that.Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar
The redneck of course. He can help fix your car.
Don't have a concordance to either. Wouldn't take either one seriously.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Nor would I, but others do. Or did, when those names still had recognition.
Occasionally some awful person gets off a good one. Marx’s repeat of history being a prime example.
He's a patron saint of the colorblind CivNats crowd. He's their go-to guy to slap down us stupid whites who actually want to preserve and, even, defend and live around our own people.
If I had a buck for every time I've seen "who would you rather have as a neighbor, Sowell or some dumb redneck," I'd be rich enough to live in the neighborhoods of the people saying that.Replies: @Curle, @Reg Cæsar
Sowell isn’t in this country because of “civic nationalism” (A.k.a. the rule of law.) He’s here because the Scum of the Earth once refused to hire white men because the price was a little too high.
In other words, the West Virginians who broke from their diseased Coloured Commonwealth.
He’s my go-to guy for two things– pointing out, for one, that all over the world, differences between ethnic groups are the rule. American anti-exceptionalism, if you will. This is not remarkable in itself, but becomes so when you’re the only one in polite society who is willing– and permitted– to say it.
His other contribution is the “visions” thing. The vast majority of the damage done in the last two years of riots was the work of whites like Joseph Rosenbaum. Hell, they destroyed a spanking-new 21st-century, post-“9/11” police station in Minneapolis, something which ghetto blacks simply don’t have the capability to do.
Sowell’s is the first and only explanation I’ve come across as to why young white folks would act like this.
The Scum of the Earth as you put it were British elites and the price of labor for whites was price of passage and survival level food for an term of service, around eight years. Unfortunately, the white indentured servants started dropping dead around three years into their agreements and word got around in Britain decreasing the supply of voluntary transportees. Plus the jails couldn’t keep up with the demand for servants.
In short, the nobles needed a new and cost effective supply because they lost their old one. Solution: Africans in bondage.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Joe S.Walker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4The emphasized section is unusually melodramatic for you, Reg! But really, on a(n American) national scale, is there such a thing as “polite society”? I don’t think there’s been something like that for years.I can think of multiple (obvious) reasons why they would, but if Sowell has a unique explanation, it shouldn’t take much typing for you to concisely summarize it here: I’m open to being impressed by something that has obviously impressed you! Don’t keep us in suspense…
Bad example. Back in the early 1980s, I was rescued on the Indiana Toll Road by an old Mexican who didn’t speak any English and whose presence in this country was almost certainly unauthorized. (Unless he was visiting relatives.) He crawled under my vehicle and got me on my way in no time.
None of the many Americans– this was at a rest stop– who came through offered to help, and most probably couldn’t have.
(Had la migra come for him, I would have done what Jesus did with the adultress: stop the stoning, then advise him to go and sin no more. I owed him that much.)
Young men from poor countries– Mexico was still poor then– would beat us hands-down at auto mechanics. It is one of the worst metrics– pardon the expression– by which to separate us from them.
Also, I’m guessing that Sowell can drive a stick. Can you?
This tweet of his is merely the latest exhibit, as if any more evidence were needed, in support of the case that any correspondence between what he said yesterday and what he'll say tomorrow is purely coincidental.
Whenever I see his name, I am reminded of the most salient, prolonged example of his chronic inconsistency. In the late nineties, he started an independent blog, The Daily Dish. In the run-up to the Iraq War, and in its early days, he was not merely one its most enthusiastic cheerleaders, he was the most vicious, unrelenting tormenter of those who questioned the wisdom of the the invasion.
But suddenly, as soon as it became clear that purple fingers would not quickly tranform Iraq into a Jeffersonian democracy, he turned coat, and his blog attacked those sustaining and supporting the occupation with the same degree of strident vitriol he he had been aiming at his new allies only a few months before.
That blog, by the way, was supported by reader contributions, or so he said. After Bush 43 won re-election despite Sullivan's best efforts, he announced a major fund drive, enjoining his readers to give him the funds needed to continue fighting the good fight! Weeks later, he announced he was quitting the blogging business. It was just too much stress. Did he give the money back? I don't know; I doubt it. But he did re-institute The Daily Dish within months, supported this time with checks from a major publishing company
And that wasn't the last time he quit blogging, only to return like a bad penny.
Oh! One more thing. Remember the time this supposedly monogamous homosexual was revealed to be placing classified ads for rough sex with other HIV positive gays? Having sought sex with strangers, he complained when he was caught that his "privacy" had been invaded. Riiight!
I suspect, but can never prove, that God created Andrew Sullivan as a warning about the long term effects on the human brain of a combination of anti-Aids drugs, anabolic steroids and marijuana.Replies: @Mike_from_SGV, @Sam Malone
And he made a big deal about getting married to Dear Aaron, but never mentions his “marriage” anymore, as he once did.
ThreeCranes wrote to me:
I don’t think you know what ghettos are like in Lagos. American ghettos are Paradise compared to lots of Third World shitholes.
The only real problem with American ghettos is the crime rate, which could be dramatically reduced if the White Ruling Class were not slimy invertebrates.
Out here in California, the real crazies are the SWPL elite Whites — I know quite a few of them. The Hispanics (even the illegals) and even the Blacks are not as crazy.
Americans Whites — or more accurately the White ruling elite — have done this to ourselves.
And we need to face that reality.
Nothing will change until we do.
Materially, yes. But American ghettos are also significantly more violent than slums in some (not all) developing countries.
G. Poulin wrote to me:
America is not a monarchy with an Inquisition — or, more accurately, the Inquisition is not going to move against the Blacks.
And the Blacks are more than a bit more feisty than Sephardic Jews. Like using guns feisty.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Focusing on racial problems just diverts attention from the real problem: the White Ruling Class.
Black crime back in the 1950s was higher than White crime, but it was still a relatively minor problem.
Then in the 1960s, the White Ruling Class decided to go to war against the American people, and all Hell broke less. They made life worse for the productive majority among Whites, and, yes, they also made life worse for Blacks.
Until this country confronts that reality, nothing will change.
Keep your eyes on the Prize: and the Prize is the euthanasia of the current parasitic verbalist ruling elite, the White Ruling Class that knows nothing about, and cares nothing about, the real world.
Muslims are extremely violent, when led and organized, and fighting for conquest of other's land and women. Blacks are a disorganized fighting force, more into looting and rape than much else.
Any group can morph into terrific fighters under the right circumstances- compare American Jews to Israelis, for example.
I don't think that Euro- Whites, who have been one of, if not THE, greatest killing machine in history, are going to disappear quietly. The problem with Whites is they define their enemies who are displacing them as if they were aggressive invaders, when they really are opportunistic squatters. The real enemy of Whites are their own elites, who pretend to subscribe to universalist theories of humanity but in reality live as far away from their multi-hued pets as possible, and, quite simply, LOATHE their own lower classes.
His other contribution is the "visions" thing. The vast majority of the damage done in the last two years of riots was the work of whites like Joseph Rosenbaum. Hell, they destroyed a spanking-new 21st-century, post-"9/11" police station in Minneapolis, something which ghetto blacks simply don't have the capability to do.
Sowell's is the first and only explanation I've come across as to why young white folks would act like this.Replies: @Curle, @Jenner Ickham Errican
“He’s here because the Scum of the Earth once refused to hire white men because the price was a little too high.”
The Scum of the Earth as you put it were British elites and the price of labor for whites was price of passage and survival level food for an term of service, around eight years. Unfortunately, the white indentured servants started dropping dead around three years into their agreements and word got around in Britain decreasing the supply of voluntary transportees. Plus the jails couldn’t keep up with the demand for servants.
In short, the nobles needed a new and cost effective supply because they lost their old one. Solution: Africans in bondage.
What good did these Africans ever do us?Replies: @Curle
But they have now been in this country longer than many of the families of commenters here.
They are not going "back to Africa." Africa is much more alien for most African-Americans than Ireland or Poland or wherever your ancestors came from is for you.
What we can do is pursue political policies and a public culture that makes clear that there are behaviors we will not tolerate from anyone, no matter what their race.
We did that when Sailer and I were young.
It worked.
But the current White Ruling Class cannot do this: they are invested in creating and encouraging race conflict as central to their "divide et impera" strategy.
And a lot of the commenters here are cheering them on!
The only solution is the euthanasia of the current White Ruling Class: they need to go the way of the old slavocracy in the South.
They will eventually be gone -- no ruling class lasts forever -- but the question is can we get rid of them before they take the country down with them?
It's gonna be close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joy_Gardner
Anon[265] wrote to me:
Not at all: here is my real message:
I drive a stick every day. And Rednecks know cars as well as anyone. You been around many?
His other contribution is the "visions" thing. The vast majority of the damage done in the last two years of riots was the work of whites like Joseph Rosenbaum. Hell, they destroyed a spanking-new 21st-century, post-"9/11" police station in Minneapolis, something which ghetto blacks simply don't have the capability to do.
Sowell's is the first and only explanation I've come across as to why young white folks would act like this.Replies: @Curle, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Sounds like Sowell cribbed from Muhammad Ali, who adroitly cribbed from (what was) common sense:
The emphasized section is unusually melodramatic for you, Reg! But really, on a(n American) national scale, is there such a thing as “polite society”? I don’t think there’s been something like that for years.
I can think of multiple (obvious) reasons why they would, but if Sowell has a unique explanation, it shouldn’t take much typing for you to concisely summarize it here: I’m open to being impressed by something that has obviously impressed you! Don’t keep us in suspense…
And the Blacks are more than a bit more feisty than Sephardic Jews. Like using guns feisty.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Focusing on racial problems just diverts attention from the real problem: the White Ruling Class.
Black crime back in the 1950s was higher than White crime, but it was still a relatively minor problem.
Then in the 1960s, the White Ruling Class decided to go to war against the American people, and all Hell broke less. They made life worse for the productive majority among Whites, and, yes, they also made life worse for Blacks.
Until this country confronts that reality, nothing will change.
Keep your eyes on the Prize: and the Prize is the euthanasia of the current parasitic verbalist ruling elite, the White Ruling Class that knows nothing about, and cares nothing about, the real world.Replies: @The Problem with Midway, @CharleszMartel
Blacks are more feisty that Sephardic Jews, but they are basically stupid. They have guns but, as elaborated in Sailer’s Law of Mass Shooting, they can’t shoot. In a shootout between two orthodox Jews and a dozen Blacks, I’d bet on the Jews.
The Scum of the Earth as you put it were British elites and the price of labor for whites was price of passage and survival level food for an term of service, around eight years. Unfortunately, the white indentured servants started dropping dead around three years into their agreements and word got around in Britain decreasing the supply of voluntary transportees. Plus the jails couldn’t keep up with the demand for servants.
In short, the nobles needed a new and cost effective supply because they lost their old one. Solution: Africans in bondage.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Joe S.Walker
Solution: Africans in Africa. Game parks here. Or Indian reserves.
What good did these Africans ever do us?
Loyalty Over IQ Worship asked me:
Sure, but both smart people and dumb people, both impulsive people and prudent people, do respond to some degree to incentives.
Create a system in which everyone knows that if you commit a crime you will spend a long time in a really lousy jail, and you will have less crime.
From all races, all social classes, and, yes, all IQ levels.
Create a system in which if you commit a crime you will get a slap on the wrist, and you will get more crime.
We have run this experiment.
Look at crime in the 1950s vs. the 1080s. Look at crime pre- and post- Ferguson and Saint Floyd.
W cannot change genes, at least not over the short term.
We can change policies.
And we know how to do it.
But the current White Ruling Class is hell-bent on destroying this country.
The only way to save America is the euthanasia of the current White ruling elite.
Although I suppose crime was very low in the 1080s, unless you count the Norman conquerors as criminals.
The Scum of the Earth as you put it were British elites and the price of labor for whites was price of passage and survival level food for an term of service, around eight years. Unfortunately, the white indentured servants started dropping dead around three years into their agreements and word got around in Britain decreasing the supply of voluntary transportees. Plus the jails couldn’t keep up with the demand for servants.
In short, the nobles needed a new and cost effective supply because they lost their old one. Solution: Africans in bondage.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Joe S.Walker
Curle wrote to Reg Cæsar:
Indeed.
But they have now been in this country longer than many of the families of commenters here.
They are not going “back to Africa.” Africa is much more alien for most African-Americans than Ireland or Poland or wherever your ancestors came from is for you.
What we can do is pursue political policies and a public culture that makes clear that there are behaviors we will not tolerate from anyone, no matter what their race.
We did that when Sailer and I were young.
It worked.
But the current White Ruling Class cannot do this: they are invested in creating and encouraging race conflict as central to their “divide et impera” strategy.
And a lot of the commenters here are cheering them on!
The only solution is the euthanasia of the current White Ruling Class: they need to go the way of the old slavocracy in the South.
They will eventually be gone — no ruling class lasts forever — but the question is can we get rid of them before they take the country down with them?
It’s gonna be close.
We have run this experiment.Look at crime in the 1950s vs. the 1080s. Look at crime pre- and post- Ferguson and Saint Floyd.W cannot change genes, at least not over the short term.We can change policies.And we know how to do it.But the current White Ruling Class is hell-bent on destroying this country.The only way to save America is the euthanasia of the current White ruling elite.Replies: @PhysicistDave
Oops! I wrote:
Of course, I meant the 1980s.
Although I suppose crime was very low in the 1080s, unless you count the Norman conquerors as criminals.
That sentence reminded me of how 12 years ago or so Sullivan was always making the equally ludicrous statement that Obama was “as conservative as Reagan.” With a straight face. Over and over again. Smart guy, a gifted writer, occasionally brave, but often gets carried away with his enthusiasms and becomes silly beyond reason.
The Scum of the Earth as you put it were British elites and the price of labor for whites was price of passage and survival level food for an term of service, around eight years. Unfortunately, the white indentured servants started dropping dead around three years into their agreements and word got around in Britain decreasing the supply of voluntary transportees. Plus the jails couldn’t keep up with the demand for servants.
In short, the nobles needed a new and cost effective supply because they lost their old one. Solution: Africans in bondage.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave, @Joe S.Walker
Sounds like fun, but it can get out of hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joy_Gardner
Sounds like “Boiler Room”, 1999.
This tweet of his is merely the latest exhibit, as if any more evidence were needed, in support of the case that any correspondence between what he said yesterday and what he'll say tomorrow is purely coincidental.
Whenever I see his name, I am reminded of the most salient, prolonged example of his chronic inconsistency. In the late nineties, he started an independent blog, The Daily Dish. In the run-up to the Iraq War, and in its early days, he was not merely one its most enthusiastic cheerleaders, he was the most vicious, unrelenting tormenter of those who questioned the wisdom of the the invasion.
But suddenly, as soon as it became clear that purple fingers would not quickly tranform Iraq into a Jeffersonian democracy, he turned coat, and his blog attacked those sustaining and supporting the occupation with the same degree of strident vitriol he he had been aiming at his new allies only a few months before.
That blog, by the way, was supported by reader contributions, or so he said. After Bush 43 won re-election despite Sullivan's best efforts, he announced a major fund drive, enjoining his readers to give him the funds needed to continue fighting the good fight! Weeks later, he announced he was quitting the blogging business. It was just too much stress. Did he give the money back? I don't know; I doubt it. But he did re-institute The Daily Dish within months, supported this time with checks from a major publishing company
And that wasn't the last time he quit blogging, only to return like a bad penny.
Oh! One more thing. Remember the time this supposedly monogamous homosexual was revealed to be placing classified ads for rough sex with other HIV positive gays? Having sought sex with strangers, he complained when he was caught that his "privacy" had been invaded. Riiight!
I suspect, but can never prove, that God created Andrew Sullivan as a warning about the long term effects on the human brain of a combination of anti-Aids drugs, anabolic steroids and marijuana.Replies: @Mike_from_SGV, @Sam Malone
I was reading Sullivan’s dish regularly back then and I remember being quite surprised and confused at the suddenness and vehemence of his turning on the Iraq War and Bush, and distancing of himself from the Republican Party in general, circa the spring of 2004. He never said it, but I always suspected that it was tied not just to his realization that the Iraq project would be a failure, but just as much to W.’s backing right around that time for an explicit anti gay marriage platform (something liberals today seem fine with forgetting about now that he’s anti-Trump ).
In other words, it felt pretty clear even at the time that Sullivan was “throwing his toys out of the pram” (UK version), or taking the ball and going home (US), the instant his number one cause was declared anathema by the party and political tradition he’d always claimed to belong to. Severing his commitment to the war so completely so early on turned out to be a wise move though, considering how much of a rolling disaster Iraq would be over the next however many years and how much longer it would take most other supporters in the commentariat to give ground or change sides. He got to reinvent himself as not only gay/immigrant/Catholic/conservative but now also anti-GOP, plus keep his liberal-left friends and connections. All of which was very self-serving and convenient and did a lot to make me move on. By the time Obama came along in 2008 he’d largely rebranded himself.
Still, I was a big fan of him for many years, and saw his intellect and courage shine forth on many occasions, but his faults became more apparent (and more irritating) to me over time and I drifted away from reading him. He’s not at all a bad person, and, within his limits, one of the most honest people commenting publicly on public life. But the gay stuff is a massive blind spot for him, and Steve has him dead to rights on this issue.
“Conservative” White cucks get a warm thrill up their legs when encountering the banal ‘wisdom’ of Sowells, McWhorters, and Lourys.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfkReplies: @Che Guava
Probably the most off-topic utub link I’ve ever seen on this site.
Since Steve allowed it, I have a comment.
Lydon did much great stuff. His increasingly whiny vox style post early PiL did start to get on my nerves.
However, his marriage to to a mother-figure, almost (or more than) twenty years his senior, and mother of one of his near-contemporaries, Arianna, was one of those secrets that even the Brit gutter press protected until Arianna died.
It’s funny how they do thimgs like that.
It is sad that his wife is senile, and good that he is doing things to support and help the senile.
To me though, I lost any respect when I read that Lydon had married a mummy-figure (or mommy-figure for U.S. people).
Clear indication of a real mental problem.
I’d compose a lengthy post, but since we’re clearly at the point of social decline where an individual is solely responsible for one’s own behavior, what’s the point? If a man is going to stick his dick in any orifice available, even that which is without natural lubrication, he may well suffer some ugly consequences.
It wasn't lack of pseudo-marriage privileges that sent gay men to glory holes, or made them want to hang out at The Trucks, or to engage in outlandish sex practices in the backroom of The Mineshaft or in bathhouse cubicles, or to spend long weekends freebase-partying with Jacques Morali and friends out on Fire Island. These were not the farther shores of male homosexual practice, but the defining behaviors, the desiderata, the big drivers of rainbow-flag Gay Male Culture.
Andrew Sullivan was not simply a conservative writer from England who happened to be gay, in the manner of a certain "conservative" writer of today. He made his knowledge of gay culture, and HIV+ culture, and testosterone-shooting gay body-building culture, the central focus of his writing much of the time. It seemed a good career move at the time. The gay-themed writing was clickbait stuff avant la web, and it got a lot more attention than non-gay public-policy essays in National Review and elsewhere.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Hey, it’s fun to stay at the YMCA!
Needless to say, he wasn't exactly looking for monogamous, long-term relationships with those ads. Rather, the ads state that Sullivan was "LOOKING FOR One-on-One's 3-Ways Groups/Parties/Orgies Gang Bangs" and that he "love[s] to f*!k but prefer[s] to be f*!ked" and had the following "turn ons": "TURN-ONS hairy hung masculine guys black guys uncut guys with over 8 inches."Replies: @Che Guava
I had only read a little of his political writing, found it boring.
Wow, what a super-sleaze!
Such a model conservative!
Everything for Sullivan devolves to rationalizing homoness and his own homoness in particular. Claims to other principles (Conservatism! Catholicism! Oakeshott!) always give way to his need to get serially ass-fucked by guys (as he famously advertised for). He never questions why the homos are constantly, BY FAR, the largest conduit of communicable diseases in western societies. Whether you ascribe it to God or nature, fags are clearly “hated” when it comes to biology.
What good did these Africans ever do us?Replies: @Curle
We weren’t an authoritative ‘we’ back then. The ‘we’ that mattered were the nobles and they benefited economically. The ‘we’ you speak of got nothing that I can think of.
We in the US, indeed the West generally, have become a pretend world. In countless ways our lives are mere pretense. We borrow a fortune, and pretend to be wealthy. The White fraction live in suburbs, and pretend it’s not because they are afraid of B!lacks’ violent behavior. Men put on dresses, and pretend to be women – and the rest of us acclaim them to be just as moral as Christ. We slaughter the unborn, and pretend we are not sacrificing real children. The fantasies of Hollywood and Disneyland have become the touchstones of our culture. We even once elevated an actor to be Leader of the Free World.
The last serious person died today. God rest her soul, and God save the rest of us.
Steve Sailer:
“Fortunately, so far, monkeypox is just AIDS Lite. But that’s still pretty bad.”
Why do you pretend that you are concerned with gay men’s health, when in reality all you want is an excuse to put them back in the closet? After all, you are the guy who thinks it was great the days when gays were arrested for their sexuality You are also the hypocrite who said that girls that are tomboys are ok and should be accepted, but little boys that are effeminate should not because “effeminate little boys are far more likely than tomboys to grow up to be gay.” The only reason why you want more social acceptance of tomboys is to disencourage sexual transition, which fits your conservative agenda of marriage and the formation of families and children. Because feminine boys are more likely(according to you, and not that it matters at all) to grow up to become gay than tomboys, you do not encourage them. You are just a hypocritical piece of ST.
“We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
Who are you kidding? You didn’t “give” gay men marriage at all. Liberals had to fight for it for over 50 years, and you opposed it all the way until the very end. If you had to power to outlaw it and to make homosexuality illegal, you would in the wink of an eye without any hesitation or second thouight whatsoever. Just like those two pieces of shit conservative judges nominated by the huckster and wife cheater, Trump, outlawed abortion at the federal level. Everything that liberalism has accomplished over the past century has been extemely hard fought, and you opposed each and every single change ferociously and never made even the tiniest concession whatsoever. If it were up to you sociopath conservatives, we would literally still have slavery and segregation. You simply don’t care about the well-being of anyone that isn’t white, privileged and heterosexual. You conservatives are and will always be the ultimate anti-revolutionary, the great enforcers of privilege, of status quo. You are just naturally devoid of empathy, and you find it perfectly natural to live in a Society of the elite and the enslaved, as long as you are the elite. You simply don’t care that you are privileged and have it better than others, even if your privilege is completely unearned. You never “gave” us ST. FY.
Don’t celebrate your overruling of abortion, because we are getting that right back, too. Imagine how hypocritical conservative males are, that they get outraged over the government telling them to wear masks in public during a pandemic, but they have no problem with the government forcing woment to carry life inside them that they don’t want, life that feeds off their food and their oxygen like a parasite. Imagine not having rights over your own body. Conservative males would not accept even *much* less government interferance with their life. But rhey have no problem with government taking ownership of people’s bodies, as long as they are female.
It’s literally impossible to be a good person and to be a conservative. The moral biases and innately selfish outlook on human relations and social rights precludes a good, empathetic person from being a conservative. It’s no wonder that people that enjoy serial killing animals for fun and that most serial killers come from conservative families.
Great, now go find stats for serial killers personally, killers generally and criminals generally correlated to the dominant politics of their hometown.
Nice job!
(Wait, is that you, Andrew Sullivan?)
Men didn't choose to be born men. Women choose the chance to become pregnant (except for rape, which was the fraudulent basis for Roe v Wade). The argument about controlling one's own body has always seemed to me to be very weak. I can't agree to have sex for money or walk around naked in public, yet it's still "my body". A minor can't sell nude or pornographic pictures of themselves engaging in sexual acts, even if all participants are willing.
If you live with other people, all societies limit your "rights".
Two other points. I believe in legal abortion, but I also think it becomes murder at some point in the gestation process. But all cultures accept murder in some form.
And Two.
Roe v Wade deserved to be overturned, as a material fact (the rape of the plaintiff) did not occur. This resulted in the commission of a fraud upon the court, and if it is a material fraud, is usually grounds for reconsideration of the Court's opinion. Any legal system has to be structured so that truth in the facts is paramount, or it simply devolves into who can hire the better liar. Granted, that's perilously close to where we are today anyway, but a society must keep up pretenses.Replies: @Muggles
“Why do you pretend that you are concerned with gay men’s health, when in reality all you want is an excuse to put them back in the closet?”
Why do you pretend you are concerned with gay men’s health, when all you want to do is spare gays backlash for making themselves disease vectors that cause injury to countless innocent parties and social costs that are distributed among many many others who live responsible lives?
"Fortunately, so far, monkeypox is just AIDS Lite. But that’s still pretty bad."
Why do you pretend that you are concerned with gay men's health, when in reality all you want is an excuse to put them back in the closet? After all, you are the guy who thinks it was great the days when gays were arrested for their sexuality You are also the hypocrite who said that girls that are tomboys are ok and should be accepted, but little boys that are effeminate should not because "effeminate little boys are far more likely than tomboys to grow up to be gay." The only reason why you want more social acceptance of tomboys is to disencourage sexual transition, which fits your conservative agenda of marriage and the formation of families and children. Because feminine boys are more likely(according to you, and not that it matters at all) to grow up to become gay than tomboys, you do not encourage them. You are just a hypocritical piece of ST.
"We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
Who are you kidding? You didn't "give" gay men marriage at all. Liberals had to fight for it for over 50 years, and you opposed it all the way until the very end. If you had to power to outlaw it and to make homosexuality illegal, you would in the wink of an eye without any hesitation or second thouight whatsoever. Just like those two pieces of shit conservative judges nominated by the huckster and wife cheater, Trump, outlawed abortion at the federal level. Everything that liberalism has accomplished over the past century has been extemely hard fought, and you opposed each and every single change ferociously and never made even the tiniest concession whatsoever. If it were up to you sociopath conservatives, we would literally still have slavery and segregation. You simply don't care about the well-being of anyone that isn't white, privileged and heterosexual. You conservatives are and will always be the ultimate anti-revolutionary, the great enforcers of privilege, of status quo. You are just naturally devoid of empathy, and you find it perfectly natural to live in a Society of the elite and the enslaved, as long as you are the elite. You simply don't care that you are privileged and have it better than others, even if your privilege is completely unearned. You never "gave" us ST. FY.
Don't celebrate your overruling of abortion, because we are getting that right back, too. Imagine how hypocritical conservative males are, that they get outraged over the government telling them to wear masks in public during a pandemic, but they have no problem with the government forcing woment to carry life inside them that they don't want, life that feeds off their food and their oxygen like a parasite. Imagine not having rights over your own body. Conservative males would not accept even *much* less government interferance with their life. But rhey have no problem with government taking ownership of people's bodies, as long as they are female.
It's literally impossible to be a good person and to be a conservative. The moral biases and innately selfish outlook on human relations and social rights precludes a good, empathetic person from being a conservative. It's no wonder that people that enjoy serial killing animals for fun and that most serial killers come from conservative families.Replies: @Curle, @Achmed E. Newman, @CharleszMartel
“and that most serial killers come from conservative families.”
Great, now go find stats for serial killers personally, killers generally and criminals generally correlated to the dominant politics of their hometown.
Poopypox is the best name to replace monkeypox. It’s a good reminder that if you fuck with shit (literally), you’re probably gonna catch some colon cooties.
"Fortunately, so far, monkeypox is just AIDS Lite. But that’s still pretty bad."
Why do you pretend that you are concerned with gay men's health, when in reality all you want is an excuse to put them back in the closet? After all, you are the guy who thinks it was great the days when gays were arrested for their sexuality You are also the hypocrite who said that girls that are tomboys are ok and should be accepted, but little boys that are effeminate should not because "effeminate little boys are far more likely than tomboys to grow up to be gay." The only reason why you want more social acceptance of tomboys is to disencourage sexual transition, which fits your conservative agenda of marriage and the formation of families and children. Because feminine boys are more likely(according to you, and not that it matters at all) to grow up to become gay than tomboys, you do not encourage them. You are just a hypocritical piece of ST.
"We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
Who are you kidding? You didn't "give" gay men marriage at all. Liberals had to fight for it for over 50 years, and you opposed it all the way until the very end. If you had to power to outlaw it and to make homosexuality illegal, you would in the wink of an eye without any hesitation or second thouight whatsoever. Just like those two pieces of shit conservative judges nominated by the huckster and wife cheater, Trump, outlawed abortion at the federal level. Everything that liberalism has accomplished over the past century has been extemely hard fought, and you opposed each and every single change ferociously and never made even the tiniest concession whatsoever. If it were up to you sociopath conservatives, we would literally still have slavery and segregation. You simply don't care about the well-being of anyone that isn't white, privileged and heterosexual. You conservatives are and will always be the ultimate anti-revolutionary, the great enforcers of privilege, of status quo. You are just naturally devoid of empathy, and you find it perfectly natural to live in a Society of the elite and the enslaved, as long as you are the elite. You simply don't care that you are privileged and have it better than others, even if your privilege is completely unearned. You never "gave" us ST. FY.
Don't celebrate your overruling of abortion, because we are getting that right back, too. Imagine how hypocritical conservative males are, that they get outraged over the government telling them to wear masks in public during a pandemic, but they have no problem with the government forcing woment to carry life inside them that they don't want, life that feeds off their food and their oxygen like a parasite. Imagine not having rights over your own body. Conservative males would not accept even *much* less government interferance with their life. But rhey have no problem with government taking ownership of people's bodies, as long as they are female.
It's literally impossible to be a good person and to be a conservative. The moral biases and innately selfish outlook on human relations and social rights precludes a good, empathetic person from being a conservative. It's no wonder that people that enjoy serial killing animals for fun and that most serial killers come from conservative families.Replies: @Curle, @Achmed E. Newman, @CharleszMartel
You are a parody of every lefty that’s ever written every stupid left-wing idea that’s ever been put into writing.
Nice job!
(Wait, is that you, Andrew Sullivan?)
Who says they behaved well? They were kept away from whites and lightly policed in their own neighborhoods. Keeping order in black neighborhoods was not generally an police priority. Some accounts of southern policing in black neighborhoods contends that bodies would pile up and the deaths never investigated. Much less prosecuted.Replies: @Lbbhjgddfddfdd
They behaved as well as they ever could, since they knew better than to mess with whites, and kept their criminality (mostly) in house, so to speak.
The only real problem with American ghettos is the crime rate, which could be dramatically reduced if the White Ruling Class were not slimy invertebrates.
Out here in California, the real crazies are the SWPL elite Whites -- I know quite a few of them. The Hispanics (even the illegals) and even the Blacks are not as crazy.
Americans Whites -- or more accurately the White ruling elite -- have done this to ourselves.
And we need to face that reality.
Nothing will change until we do.Replies: @nebulafox
>American ghettos are Paradise compared to lots of Third World shitholes.
Materially, yes. But American ghettos are also significantly more violent than slums in some (not all) developing countries.
You Sowell lovers just won't accept that Saint Thomas has a massive blind spot when it comes to his own people, which is normal except for CivNats.
Like a normal human being, Sowell loves his people.Replies: @PhysicistDave
Citizen of a Silly Country wrote: to Redneck farmer
I have met Tom Sowell: I think he considers “his people” to be his fellow citizens, we the people of the United States of America.
There are limits to social engineering & cultural adaptation. Gypsies are always Gypsies & behave like Gypsies, whatever you do or have done. With blacks- they're always dysfunctional, aggressive, promiscuous & "non-mental", everywhere, from Canada and US to Latin America and Africa and parts of France where they've been admitted.
Blacks' 50s behavior was unnatural; they behaved well simply because they were forced to. But at the end, the call of the wild prevailed.Replies: @Almost Missouri, @James J. O'Meara, @Curle, @PhysicistDave
Bardon Kaldian wrote to me:I
That is simply factually untrue.
As I keep saying, people like you who make pronouncements like that are simply ignorant of the actual research on behavioral genetics.
Genes matter; so do other things.
The White ruling elite pursued catastrophically bad policies since 1960 and we have been reaping the whirlwind ever since.
We cannot change genetics, but we can change those self-destructive public policies.
Jenner Ickham Errican wrote to me:
And that is my point. Some of those harsher societal conditions were just silly (I remember racially separate bathrooms!) and some were just common sense: you do the crime, you should do the time — whatever your race.
The collapse of our basic legal, cultural, and social system has harmed everyone, but especially people at the bottom — working-class Whites and ghetto Blacks.
The one exception is the (mainly White) Ruling Class — the parasitic verbalist overclass — which has increased its power and wealth, not to mention its self-satisfaction, quite dramatically.
But even they might want to meditate upon the fact that no ruling class rules forever.
And the Blacks are more than a bit more feisty than Sephardic Jews. Like using guns feisty.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Focusing on racial problems just diverts attention from the real problem: the White Ruling Class.
Black crime back in the 1950s was higher than White crime, but it was still a relatively minor problem.
Then in the 1960s, the White Ruling Class decided to go to war against the American people, and all Hell broke less. They made life worse for the productive majority among Whites, and, yes, they also made life worse for Blacks.
Until this country confronts that reality, nothing will change.
Keep your eyes on the Prize: and the Prize is the euthanasia of the current parasitic verbalist ruling elite, the White Ruling Class that knows nothing about, and cares nothing about, the real world.Replies: @The Problem with Midway, @CharleszMartel
Spain’s goal was ridding the country of Muslims. Getting rid of the Jews was a sideshow.
Muslims are extremely violent, when led and organized, and fighting for conquest of other’s land and women. Blacks are a disorganized fighting force, more into looting and rape than much else.
Any group can morph into terrific fighters under the right circumstances- compare American Jews to Israelis, for example.
I don’t think that Euro- Whites, who have been one of, if not THE, greatest killing machine in history, are going to disappear quietly. The problem with Whites is they define their enemies who are displacing them as if they were aggressive invaders, when they really are opportunistic squatters. The real enemy of Whites are their own elites, who pretend to subscribe to universalist theories of humanity but in reality live as far away from their multi-hued pets as possible, and, quite simply, LOATHE their own lower classes.
Spain’s goal was ridding the country of Muslims. Getting rid of the Jews was a sideshow.
Muslims are extremely violent, when led and organized, and fighting for conquest of other’s land and women. Blacks are a disorganized fighting force, more into looting and rape than much else.
Any group can morph into terrific fighters under the right circumstances- compare American Jews to Israelis, for example.
I don’t think that Euro- Whites, who have been one of, if not THE, greatest killing machines in history, are going to disappear quietly. The problem with Whites is they define their enemies who are displacing them as if they were aggressive invaders, when they really are opportunistic squatters. The real enemy of Whites are their own elites, who pretend to subscribe to universalist theories of humanity but in reality live as far away from their multi-hued pets as possible, and, quite simply, LOATHE their own lower classes, and are encouraging/allowing this demographic change as they apparently feel that the “New Americans” will be easier to manipulate than their own people.
I think it’s very obvious that this is turning out to be a huge miscalculation.
Remember Bob Dornan? His support for Hispanics couldn’t keep him in office once they had a chance to elect one of their own.
Sir Charles Napier said, IIRC, “It is a peculiarity of human nature that people prefer to be misruled by their own than to be well-ruled by the other”. I think our elites are slowly learning that lesson.
"Fortunately, so far, monkeypox is just AIDS Lite. But that’s still pretty bad."
Why do you pretend that you are concerned with gay men's health, when in reality all you want is an excuse to put them back in the closet? After all, you are the guy who thinks it was great the days when gays were arrested for their sexuality You are also the hypocrite who said that girls that are tomboys are ok and should be accepted, but little boys that are effeminate should not because "effeminate little boys are far more likely than tomboys to grow up to be gay." The only reason why you want more social acceptance of tomboys is to disencourage sexual transition, which fits your conservative agenda of marriage and the formation of families and children. Because feminine boys are more likely(according to you, and not that it matters at all) to grow up to become gay than tomboys, you do not encourage them. You are just a hypocritical piece of ST.
"We gave Andrew gay marriage, yet gay marriage didn’t “prevent it happening again.”
Who are you kidding? You didn't "give" gay men marriage at all. Liberals had to fight for it for over 50 years, and you opposed it all the way until the very end. If you had to power to outlaw it and to make homosexuality illegal, you would in the wink of an eye without any hesitation or second thouight whatsoever. Just like those two pieces of shit conservative judges nominated by the huckster and wife cheater, Trump, outlawed abortion at the federal level. Everything that liberalism has accomplished over the past century has been extemely hard fought, and you opposed each and every single change ferociously and never made even the tiniest concession whatsoever. If it were up to you sociopath conservatives, we would literally still have slavery and segregation. You simply don't care about the well-being of anyone that isn't white, privileged and heterosexual. You conservatives are and will always be the ultimate anti-revolutionary, the great enforcers of privilege, of status quo. You are just naturally devoid of empathy, and you find it perfectly natural to live in a Society of the elite and the enslaved, as long as you are the elite. You simply don't care that you are privileged and have it better than others, even if your privilege is completely unearned. You never "gave" us ST. FY.
Don't celebrate your overruling of abortion, because we are getting that right back, too. Imagine how hypocritical conservative males are, that they get outraged over the government telling them to wear masks in public during a pandemic, but they have no problem with the government forcing woment to carry life inside them that they don't want, life that feeds off their food and their oxygen like a parasite. Imagine not having rights over your own body. Conservative males would not accept even *much* less government interferance with their life. But rhey have no problem with government taking ownership of people's bodies, as long as they are female.
It's literally impossible to be a good person and to be a conservative. The moral biases and innately selfish outlook on human relations and social rights precludes a good, empathetic person from being a conservative. It's no wonder that people that enjoy serial killing animals for fun and that most serial killers come from conservative families.Replies: @Curle, @Achmed E. Newman, @CharleszMartel
Tell me, does registering for the draft (solely the province of men), which exists to make men cannon fodder as their government sees fit), constitute not having control over one’s body?
Men didn’t choose to be born men. Women choose the chance to become pregnant (except for rape, which was the fraudulent basis for Roe v Wade). The argument about controlling one’s own body has always seemed to me to be very weak. I can’t agree to have sex for money or walk around naked in public, yet it’s still “my body”. A minor can’t sell nude or pornographic pictures of themselves engaging in sexual acts, even if all participants are willing.
If you live with other people, all societies limit your “rights”.
Two other points. I believe in legal abortion, but I also think it becomes murder at some point in the gestation process. But all cultures accept murder in some form.
And Two.
Roe v Wade deserved to be overturned, as a material fact (the rape of the plaintiff) did not occur. This resulted in the commission of a fraud upon the court, and if it is a material fraud, is usually grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s opinion. Any legal system has to be structured so that truth in the facts is paramount, or it simply devolves into who can hire the better liar. Granted, that’s perilously close to where we are today anyway, but a society must keep up pretenses.
Sullivan was editor of the New Republic.Replies: @Muggles
Correct, I was mistaken.
But I must have read him at least once (or more) in National Review, which I subscribed to way back when.
As a somewhat conservative “liberal” he got published here occasionally. I didn’t regularly read New Republic.
Men didn't choose to be born men. Women choose the chance to become pregnant (except for rape, which was the fraudulent basis for Roe v Wade). The argument about controlling one's own body has always seemed to me to be very weak. I can't agree to have sex for money or walk around naked in public, yet it's still "my body". A minor can't sell nude or pornographic pictures of themselves engaging in sexual acts, even if all participants are willing.
If you live with other people, all societies limit your "rights".
Two other points. I believe in legal abortion, but I also think it becomes murder at some point in the gestation process. But all cultures accept murder in some form.
And Two.
Roe v Wade deserved to be overturned, as a material fact (the rape of the plaintiff) did not occur. This resulted in the commission of a fraud upon the court, and if it is a material fraud, is usually grounds for reconsideration of the Court's opinion. Any legal system has to be structured so that truth in the facts is paramount, or it simply devolves into who can hire the better liar. Granted, that's perilously close to where we are today anyway, but a society must keep up pretenses.Replies: @Muggles
Well, maybe. A quick Google search turns up this:
Earlier this month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 20-6 to require women to register for the draft as part of its version of this year’s NDAA.Jun 27, 2022
I don’t know the status of that or if it was made part of an act that was passed and signed into law.
It may have been killed.
But it is coming, probably. “Equality”
(I wonder if “trans women” have had to register…?)
Here’s some real life evidence…. I’m gay, I’m married, we have an open relationship, and I know many guys in the same circumstances (some of whom are my sex partners). I have a pretty good basis to know what I’m speaking about here on this subject.
It’s true gay marriage didn’t lead to strict monogamy among gay people, but still, the married guys tend to be the least crazy in terms of sex, for two reasons. First, and most obviously, you really, really do not want to give your husband an STD. Second, hooking up is much trickier if you’re married — you don’t want to be insulting or cause jealousy or look crazy, so in practice hooking up if you’re married happens much less often than it does if you’re single.
So say what you want about gay marriage, but from my vantage point it’s definitely one of the things that’s keeping gays (or at least me and my friends) from having too much overly risky sex. Even for guys that aren’t married, the fact that marriage exists tends to make them focus more on relationships (their moms are asking when they’ll get married, etc.). I’d wager to say that gay marriage is probably one of the few things that’s keeping us from going back to straight-up 1970s-in-the-Castro style abandon.