The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Pacifist Eugenicist David Starr Jordan May Someday be Seen as More Literally Hitler Than Hitler
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

The Nazi History Behind ‘Asperger’
By Edith Sheffer

March 31, 2018
PALO ALTO, Calif. — My son’s school, David Starr Jordan Middle School, is being renamed.

Jordan Middle School in Palo Alto is being renamed along with Lewis and Fred Terman Middle School. Terman school was going to be renamed after interned Palo Alto high school grad Fred Yamamoto who volunteered for the US Army’s Fighting 442nd regiment and was killed in combat in Europe. But then local Chinese threw a racist hissy fit against honoring a Japanese guy. So Terman school wound up being renamed after a Jewish city councilwoman who advocated bike lanes. For renaming Jordan Middle School, they found a black guy, Frank Greene Jr., who really had been a chip designer back at Fairchild Semiconductor in the 1960s.

A seventh grader exposed the honoree, Stanford University’s first president, as a prominent eugenicist of the early 20th century who championed sterilization of the “unfit.”

Jordan was famous in his day for his antiwar eugenics theory. He argued in 1902 that a big war would kill off the morally best, most self-sacrificial young men (the lieutenants who would lead the charges across No Man’s Land), while sparing the cunning who got themselves out of the draft with flat feet or assigned to a cushy job behind the lines.

That may well have happened in 1914-18.

Jordan’s once famous hypothesis seems to me to be a theme behind “lost generation” novels like Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, Hemingway’s The Son Also Rises, and, perhaps, Waugh’s Vile Bodies.

But who has the slightest sympathy these days for activists against World War One? World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people. Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers. The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler had the good taste to kill millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed.) *

Then this oped goes on to explain how the term Asperger’s Syndrome must be stricken from our vocabularies Because Nazis. I forget what it is supposed to be replaced by, although no doubt most people who only recently learned the meaning of Asperger’s will go to their graves without ever learning whatever will be the de-Nazified replacement term.

Personally, I think, having more terms to explain reality is usually better than having fewer terms. Especially as the word “autism” comes to increasingly be used (for understandable, forgivable reasons) as a euphemism for the former euphemism “retarded,” the term “Asperger’s syndrome” is particularly useful in explaining a cluster of traits that weren’t well-recognized before the later 20th Century, and that, perhaps, are increasing in prevalence or at least in influence.

* In this century, a number of conspiracy theories have emerged that President Jordan organized either the alleged murder by poisoning of Mrs. Stanford or at least the coverup of the murder of Mrs. Stanford. Note: not all conspiracy theories are wrong. Note also that I haven’t looked into this, so I don’t have an opinion on the question.

 
Hide 73 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Died without issue” was the most repeated caption in his postwar book of young soldiers’ portraits.

    I don’t know which is sadder, “died without issue” or “died with issue”.

  2. The Europeans were slaughtering each other and they didn’t know what the war was about. One of the stupidest things in human history.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Flip:

    At the time an Australian Roman Catholic Bishop called it "a trade war."

    And of course that was exactly what it was (no more, no less)!

    , @Esso
    Insofar the war was about colonial resources (rubber etc.) and food security, the application of chemistry (Haber-Bosch, Ostwald, poison gases) towards tearing millions of youths into bits is especially tragic, given that it didn't take long before chemistry made many of the aforementioned concerns obsolete.

    I really hope we have the sense to see beyond the immediate warlike applications of biotechnology and AI.
  3. Autistic as euphemism for retarded? At least in the colloquial, pejorative sense I always gathered that retarded was an insult for being stupid while being an “autist” or “spergy” was an insult for being nerdy and socially inept.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    Autism used to be considered an extremely severe disorder that precluded a normal life, and usually implied the need for institutionalization or at least life long care. Now we talk about people who can hold down a job making six figures as being autistic. Or, 'on the spectrum.' What any of this means is unclear since the pathophysiology of autism is unknown. And the prevelance is controversial and seems to change wildly with each passing year. We may be in an epidemic of autism. Or maybe it diagnostic criteria just changed. Maybe some environmental toxin is causing an epidemic of autism. Or maybe kids that acted kinda strange but were considered normal in previous eras are now 'autistic.' Or maybe associative mating is causing this? Maybe autism is a discreet disorder? Or maybe it is part of a spectrum? Maybe Rain Man is ultraviolet autistic and Tom Cruise is infrared autistic?

    So to summarize, we don't know the prevalence, pathophysiology, or exact definition of autism, or where the border between autism and normal lies, or if there is a border. But it's a big problem.
    , @Almost Missouri
    It is. But in the clinical world, they've been handing out "autism" diagnoses like candy, probably because it is more palatable to the parents than a "retarded" diagnosis. ("You mean my child is the next Temple Grandin/rain man?" vs. "You mean my child is the next ... uh ... supermarket bagger?") They even give it out for kids that are just kinda awkward. The incentive might have to do with the extra public funding one can access with a formal diagnosis. So yet another case of public money corrupting a supposed science.

    Ann Coulter thinks that dangerous schizophrenia is now being given the apparently infinitely elastic "autism" diagnosis as well. I think she may be right.
  4. istevefan says:

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn’t that make it worthwhile?

    Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers.

    This reminds me of the gulf (forgive the pun) during the Iraq War that was never closed between the code pink-type antiwar folks and the conservatives like Patrick Buchanan. The code pinkers could never make common cause with the Buchanan-types because the code pinkers felt that Buchanan and company opposed the war to save white American lives rather than to save the brown lives of the Iraqis. Justin Raimondo used to write about this in his column on Antiwar.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    They were only anti war Bush was a republican. Then Obama came along and they were no longer interested.
    , @syonredux

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn’t that make it worthwhile?
     
    I've noticed that the Balfour Declaration tends to make certain people uncomfortable. The Narrative maintains that Jews were a powerless minority back then.....but then you have the Balfour Declaration....Something that was done pretty much entirely as a way to get world Jewry on the side of the British Empire....
  5. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *

    Would whites be better off today if Hitler had won and ushered in new regimes in Europe, or if Jordan’s pacifism had been followed and maintained the Allied regimes that persist today?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The second half of your question doesn't quite make sense. Except Russia, the Allied regimes of WWI do persist today, so why ask about that in the subjunctive? This leaves aside that Jordan was opposed to the First World War, while Hitler--partly as a consequence of the First World War--was instrumental in bringing about the Second, so your question is not about comparable things.

    If you are trying to bait someone into saying "Hitler was right!", you'll have to try harder.

    What doesn't persist today is the genetic legacy of all the young men (and some women) killed in the World Wars. Given that prior to the World Wars the moral and material direction of Western Civilization was largely improving , whereas nowadays it is largely deteriorating, that may matter.
    , @syonredux

    or if Jordan’s pacifism had been followed and maintained the Allied regimes that persist today?
     
    Standard spiel: No Great War, no Bolshevik Revolution. No Bolshevik Revolution, no Hitler. No Hitler, no WW2.
  6. Asperger’s has been out of favor since 2013, when the medical consensus changed that it was autism. Autism itself has been renamed to “autism spectrum disorder,” since there are severe cases where it’s confused with “retardation” and mild cases where it was once labeled “Asperger’s syndrome” or “high functioning autism.” I’m not a medical researcher, but it doesn’t seem like Asperger’s was done away with because Nazis.

    What is worrying though is the amount of name changing and historical retconning that’s going on with nearly everything. “You shouldn’t call it Asperger’s not because it’s not an official diagnosis in the U.S., but because NAZIS!” I wonder when liberals will start advocating Luddism after they find out how the post-WWII U.S. government snatched up former Nazi scientists. Will they disavow any new technologies that weren’t discovered by a queer trans POC?

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    Gawd. Aspergers and autism are just such kitchen sink diagnoses. A properly working brain requires a huge number of things to work right, and is very easy to screw up. I have a strong feeling there are a very heterogeneous set of poorly understood problems/defects that are unrelated yet all get diagnosed as 'autism' particularly when the people making the diagnosis are generalist pediatricians. "every happy family is the same, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" or however it goes....also true for the brain.

    Psychiatrists are just totally incapable of any precision and instead of finding new tools to make repeatable measurements they just argue about wording. The whole field should really just be subsumed into neurology. It's the anthropology of medicine.
  7. @Flip
    The Europeans were slaughtering each other and they didn't know what the war was about. One of the stupidest things in human history.

    Flip:

    At the time an Australian Roman Catholic Bishop called it “a trade war.”

    And of course that was exactly what it was (no more, no less)!

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    So, Austria-Hungary resented Serbia cutting it out of the crucial raspberry trade? Then Russia got involved cuz Austria-Hungary was blocking access to the lucrative beet market? Etc.?

    The only country who was really profiting from imperial trade was Britain. France's empire was largely a money-sink. German colonies were insignificant, which insignificance admittedly the Kaiser probably didn't realize was an asset, not a liability. But anyway, the only protagonist who really cared about trade was Britain, which might explain why it looked like a trade war to an Australian in the British Empire. But I think the reality was that the war was caused by a combination of (erroneous) political calculation, envy, fear, (misplaced) honor, and sheer bloody absent-mindedness (as in political leaders literally being out of their minds).

  8. Eugenics! Now even more Hitlerier!

  9. This author, of this meandering, so full of confusing hearsay and personal outrage, was the bottom of the barrel for Easter and April Fool’s Day for the NYT – an embarrassment – so icky. I really thought it was a joke (but, duh, liberals have no humor that is not spiteful and hateful)…but no, just another boring article of outrage how white people (not Jews) are still, the worst people in the world. I thought for eff’s sake, the Pravda of my lifetime, the NYT…could finally be civil (and nice to the Easter gentiles, the Christians…) but no….everytime I think lefties will be civil, or not hateful, they hate-on with more vigor….https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU Hate is the new blue for Democrats. Hating on so many people is the new Liberal way!

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Re: the boringness of outrage:

    At many UU churches and similarly prog-ecclesiastical venues you may see a bumper sticker

    IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION

    The quintessential leftist equalulating of high emotion and thinking.

    It's related to our host's other piece today regarding journalists who are seem convinced that scientists are playground bullies who study stuff solely to pick on journalists, who can't possibly understand the science...so the latter assert that it can't possibly be true, coz if it were, then it would be all wrong. Which is to say, they'd get mad about it. So their job is to create their own little congregations of others who can't understand the science either and offer them a role to play: firing up the ol' amygdala.

    There's more money in that eyeball-grabbing amygdala-hijacking and dolt-wrangling than the vast majority of people realize. I don't think we can address or overturn it with direct factual, rhetorical, or even ridiculing engagement. All we can do is wait for people to realize just how tedious are the tantrums. Offer them something more interesting.

    Unfortunately that seems to take a long time...and there's always a new crop of idiots being born or imported to wrangle, hijack, and grab. Ref.: the anti-gun "children's crusade" financed by Michael Bloomberg. There's a lot of money to be made in Bolgia 9.

  10. @al-Gharaniq
    Asperger's has been out of favor since 2013, when the medical consensus changed that it was autism. Autism itself has been renamed to "autism spectrum disorder," since there are severe cases where it's confused with "retardation" and mild cases where it was once labeled "Asperger's syndrome" or "high functioning autism." I'm not a medical researcher, but it doesn't seem like Asperger's was done away with because Nazis.

    What is worrying though is the amount of name changing and historical retconning that's going on with nearly everything. "You shouldn't call it Asperger's not because it's not an official diagnosis in the U.S., but because NAZIS!" I wonder when liberals will start advocating Luddism after they find out how the post-WWII U.S. government snatched up former Nazi scientists. Will they disavow any new technologies that weren't discovered by a queer trans POC?

    Gawd. Aspergers and autism are just such kitchen sink diagnoses. A properly working brain requires a huge number of things to work right, and is very easy to screw up. I have a strong feeling there are a very heterogeneous set of poorly understood problems/defects that are unrelated yet all get diagnosed as ‘autism’ particularly when the people making the diagnosis are generalist pediatricians. “every happy family is the same, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way” or however it goes….also true for the brain.

    Psychiatrists are just totally incapable of any precision and instead of finding new tools to make repeatable measurements they just argue about wording. The whole field should really just be subsumed into neurology. It’s the anthropology of medicine.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    I'd argue they actually have unrealistically precise standards and are using this as a justification for overly broad labeling. For example, American psychiatrists have now stopped dividing depression into neurotic/reactive depression and bio-chemical "endogenous" depression (accept in the case of bipolar). They say they have removed this distinction because the two types of depression have "fuzzy boundaries" and many cases of depression have mixed symptoms and origins. However, that's like saying human races don't exist because races overlap.

    Psychiatry is never going to be an exact science, but in the name of exactness, psychiatrists are scrapping labels based on likely neurological origins and replacing them with even less scientific labels based on subjectively observed symptoms.

  11. Detroit woman gives birth to her 14th child from 14 different fathers

    A 36-year-old woman from Michigan has made a crashing entrance into the Guinness Book of World Records yesterday at the Harper University Hospital by giving birth to her 14th child all born from different fathers.

    “I’m extremely proud to have broken a World Record,” Ms. Sullivan told reporters. “My mother always told me that I was lazy and worthless, and that I would never accomplish anything in my life. Now, I’ve shown everyone that she was wrong, and that I can even be the best in the world when I put my mind to something. In fact, I’ve just accomplished something that no one had done before!”

    LOL. April Fool … or is it?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Thanks for the link & thanks for letting me know about the site. Some very informative articles there http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/missouri-pig-brothel-dismantled-during-fbi-raid/
    , @Dan Hayes
    Hippopotamusdrome:

    While this report was published in World News Daily, a fake news satirical website, the truly frightening thing is that in the not too distant future, or recent past, it could prove factual.

    It's getting crazier and crazier out there!

  12. But who has the slightest sympathy these days for leading activists against World War One?

    Who even remembers that WWI actually happened? From my experience, it’s rare to meet anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever on WWI. That war has been totally forgotten by nearly 100% of the American public, with the exception of History teachers and fans of the History Channel.

    If you mention the Ottoman Empire to the average American, he thinks you’re talking about this.

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    The Ottoman Empire wasn’t populated by “White people.”

    By the way, here’s another example of a war.

    However, this war is “okay” because (as we know) 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11/2001. Therefore, we have to right to keep drone striking random countries across the world for as long as we like.

    Of course, if the Yemenis don’t like dying, maybe they shouldn’t have hit us on 9/11.

    (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *

    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.
    , @Anonymous

    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?
     
    No ,but there is nothing strange about that . Plenty of folks who are far more villainous than her are not vilified either .

    Examples :

    Omar Bashir . Responsible for the deaths of millions in South Sudan , the deaths of perhaps 700k in Darfur and the architect of the Janjaweed ( a rape militia).

    Suharto and Sukarno ,responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand in occupued Papua, the deaths of several hundred thousand in the communist purges and the deaths and rapes of thousands of Chinese in 1998.

    , @syonredux

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    The Ottoman Empire wasn’t populated by “White people.”
     
    Lots of White people in the Ottoman Empire:

    https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/find-a-grave-prod/photos/2009/314/2496_125794159764.jpg
  13. @Senator Brundlefly
    Autistic as euphemism for retarded? At least in the colloquial, pejorative sense I always gathered that retarded was an insult for being stupid while being an "autist" or "spergy" was an insult for being nerdy and socially inept.

    Autism used to be considered an extremely severe disorder that precluded a normal life, and usually implied the need for institutionalization or at least life long care. Now we talk about people who can hold down a job making six figures as being autistic. Or, ‘on the spectrum.’ What any of this means is unclear since the pathophysiology of autism is unknown. And the prevelance is controversial and seems to change wildly with each passing year. We may be in an epidemic of autism. Or maybe it diagnostic criteria just changed. Maybe some environmental toxin is causing an epidemic of autism. Or maybe kids that acted kinda strange but were considered normal in previous eras are now ‘autistic.’ Or maybe associative mating is causing this? Maybe autism is a discreet disorder? Or maybe it is part of a spectrum? Maybe Rain Man is ultraviolet autistic and Tom Cruise is infrared autistic?

    So to summarize, we don’t know the prevalence, pathophysiology, or exact definition of autism, or where the border between autism and normal lies, or if there is a border. But it’s a big problem.

  14. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

  15. @istevefan

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.
     
    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn't that make it worthwhile?

    Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers.
     
    This reminds me of the gulf (forgive the pun) during the Iraq War that was never closed between the code pink-type antiwar folks and the conservatives like Patrick Buchanan. The code pinkers could never make common cause with the Buchanan-types because the code pinkers felt that Buchanan and company opposed the war to save white American lives rather than to save the brown lives of the Iraqis. Justin Raimondo used to write about this in his column on Antiwar.

    They were only anti war Bush was a republican. Then Obama came along and they were no longer interested.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Agree. And as Antifa proves, the anitwar types are totally fine with violence as long as they are doing it.
  16. Anon[997] • Disclaimer says:

    Has war usually been eugenic or dysgenic? I suppose it depends on when and where, who the winning side was and what they did to the defeated, but in terms of net effect, has it had the impact of making humans more intelligentt/moral, or less? You might choose to look at different ages: pre-history, Roman, Middle Ages, post-industrial, Europe vs. Asia, etc.

    • Replies: @Matthew McConnagay
    War is ipso-facto dysgenic - just not as dysgenic as being conquered.
    , @snorlax
    Roughly, I'd say,

    Eugenic: Quick, decisive wars of conquest by advanced cultures, e.g. Alexander's conquests, Roman conquests, the unification of China, colonization of the Americas. Such wars were themselves probably still dysgenic, but they create eugenic conditions going forwards.

    Dysgenic: 1) Wars of conquest by primitive cultures, e.g. the Islamic and Mongol conquests. 2) Wars of conquest by advanced cultures resulting in protracted stalemate, e.g. the Roman-Persian Wars, Second Sino-Japanese War, Winter War. 3) Wars of ideology, e.g. the 30 Years' War, English Civil War, most wars since the American revolution.
  17. Per Larry David, I think a safe comment is “on the spectrum”

  18. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    But who has the slightest sympathy these days for leading activists against World War One?
     
    Who even remembers that WWI actually happened? From my experience, it's rare to meet anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever on WWI. That war has been totally forgotten by nearly 100% of the American public, with the exception of History teachers and fans of the History Channel.

    If you mention the Ottoman Empire to the average American, he thinks you're talking about this.

    https://twitter.com/cwfurnituredeal/status/980629120768909312

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.
     
    The Ottoman Empire wasn't populated by "White people."

    By the way, here's another example of a war.

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

    However, this war is "okay" because (as we know) 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11/2001. Therefore, we have to right to keep drone striking random countries across the world for as long as we like.

    Of course, if the Yemenis don't like dying, maybe they shouldn't have hit us on 9/11.

    (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *
     
    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.
     
    The Germans during the Great War thought that the use of non-European troops in Europe by the French and the Brits was practically an act of treason against the White Race.
    , @Wency
    India suffered about 30% more casualties in WW2 than WW1, while the British Empire as a whole suffered roughly half as many in WW2. So India's involvement was a much greater share of the British effort in WW2 (something like 15-20% of casualties), but obviously they were fighting primarily in the Pacific Theater, not Europe and North Africa.

    So if India sent more troops to Europe and the Middle East in WW1 than WW2, they weren't getting sent to the front. Unless this is somehow obfuscated by the statistics.

    Also, while the "flight from white" ensures that Turks are decidedly nonwhite for U.S. domestic political purposes, I observe that Erdogan would not appear much out of place in a lineup of Italian or Greek politicians. Look at a crowd shot of Turks and you will see a few who could pass as English or Germans, some who look more like Egyptian or Saudi Arabs, and a whole lot in between.

    I posit that if the Turks were Orthodox Christians, we would have no doubt that they are white.
  19. I think you may have made a Freudian slip regarding the name of Hemingway’s novel. It is The Sun Also Rises, not Son. Because of the nature of Jake Barnes’ war wound, he would never have a son. But to these novels, I would add Faulkner’s Soldier’s Pay, Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge and Ford Madox Ford’s Parade’s End tetralogy.

    To me, the Lost Generation theme has always been about the loss of idealism and direction in the survivors of the war, not the dead themselves. But if you think about it, it is amazing how few people in these novels speak aloud about the soldiers who died. Maybe the staggering loss of life was understood as part of the background of the characters of these novels and their readers, and did not need to be articulated.

    Have anybody ever read or seen Eugene O’Neill’s Strange Interlude? I think it is the closest to your thesis. The whole play is set in motion because the character Charles Marsden tricked his childhood beloved and her aviator fiance not to consummate their relationship before the fiance went off to the war. The fiance was killed, and the woman goes mad over her lack of a child with the aviator.

    I apologize for rambling. I’m stuck here at the office trying to finish my stupid memo, and this is my way of procrastinating.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    F. Scott Fitzgerald's post-war novel Tender is the Night includes an affecting (and surprisingly HBD-ish) scene revisiting the Somme:


    “This land here cost twenty lives a foot that summer,” he said to Rosemary. ...

    “See that little stream — we could walk to it in two minutes. It took the British a month to walk to it — a whole empire walking very slowly, dying in front and pushing forward behind. And another empire walked very slowly backward a few inches a day, leaving the dead like a million bloody rugs. No Europeans will ever do that again in this generation.”

    “Why, they’ve only just quit over in Turkey,” said Abe. “And in Morocco —”

    “That’s different. This western-front business couldn’t be done again, not for a long time. The young men think they could do it but they couldn’t. They could fight the first Marne again but not this. This took religion and years of plenty and tremendous sureties and the exact relation that existed between the classes. The Russians and Italians weren’t any good on this front. You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers.”

    “General Grant invented this kind of battle at Petersburg in sixty- five.”

    “No, he didn’t — he just invented mass butchery. This kind of battle was invented by Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne and whoever wrote Undine, and country deacons bowling and marraines in Marseilles and girls seduced in the back lanes of Wurtemburg and Westphalia. Why, this was a love battle — there was a century of middle-class love spent here. This was the last love battle.”

    “You want to hand over this battle to D. H. Lawrence,” said Abe.

    “All my beautiful lovely safe world blew itself up here with a great gust of high explosive love,” Dick mourned persistently. ...

    They dropped behind the others. Suddenly a shower of earth gobs and pebbles came down on them and Abe yelled from the next traverse:

    “The war spirit’s getting into me again. I have a hundred years of Ohio love behind me and I’m going to bomb out this trench.” His head popped up over the embankment. “You’re dead — don’t you know the rules? That was a grenade.”

    Rosemary laughed and Dick picked up a retaliatory handful of stones and then put them down.

    “I couldn’t kid here,” he said rather apologetically. “The silver cord is cut and the golden bowl is broken ... "

    They came out of the neat restored trench, and faced a memorial to the Newfoundland dead. Reading the inscription Rosemary burst into sudden tears. Like most women she liked to be told how she should feel, and she liked Dick’s telling her which things were ludicrous and which things were sad. ...

    After that they got in their car and started back toward Amiens. A thin warm rain was falling on the new scrubby woods and underbrush and they passed great funeral pyres of sorted duds, shells, bombs, grenades, and equipment, helmets, bayonets, gun stocks and rotten leather, abandoned six years in the ground. And suddenly around a bend the white caps of a great sea of graves. Dick asked the chauffeur to stop.

    “There’s that girl — and she still has her wreath.”

    They watched as he got out and went over to the girl, who stood uncertainly by the gate with a wreath in her hand. Her taxi waited. She was a red-haired girl from Tennessee whom they had met on the train this morning, come from Knoxville to lay a memorial on her brother’s grave. There were tears of vexation on her face.

    “The War Department must have given me the wrong number,” she whimpered. “It had another name on it. I been lookin’ for it since two o’clock, and there’s so many graves.”

    “Then if I were you I’d just lay it on any grave without looking at the name,” Dick advised her.

    “You reckon that’s what I ought to do?”

    “I think that’s what he’d have wanted you to do.”
     

    , @Whoever

    I would add Faulkner’s Soldier’s Pay, Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge and Ford Maddox Ford’s Parade’s End tetralogy.
     
    I would also add John Dos Passos' Three Soldiers and perhaps Catherine Anne Porter's Pale Horse, Pale Rider.

    Maybe the staggering loss of life was understood as part of the background of the characters of these novels and their readers, and did not need to be articulated.
     
    The horrific loss of life and severity of casualties during that war beggars belief.
    Because I'm the person who, when an old person passes on, volunteers to take their books (nobody wants a bunch of old books), and flips through the pages looking for the things people slip between their leaves -- flowers, newspaper clippings, letters, photographs -- I learned of one relative who died near the end of the war during the Battle of St. Quentin Canal. Important at the time, now long forgotten, the Americans alone suffered more than 13,000 casualties in just a few days of fighting. That's Battle of Iwo Jima-magnitude casualties in days, not weeks.
    This is what I know of how my relative died, not yet 23 years old:

    Charles Kayser was born on November 15, 1895, in Brooklyn, New York. On July 2, 1917, he enlisted in the Sanitary Detachment of the 23rd New York Infantry....
    During the night of September 24 – 25, the 27th Division relieved both the British 18th and 74th Divisions near Ronssoy, France.
    At 5:30 a.m., September 27, 1918, the 106th Infantry attacked with the general line with Bois de Malakoff -- the Knoll-- as its objective.
    During the assault on the Knoll, Private Kayser was killed.
    In a letter to his sister, Major Lucius Salisbury, commander of the 106th Infantry Sanitary Detachment, wrote:
    "Following over the top with the company to which he was attached, your brother stopped near the Knoll, and, exposed to heavy machine-gun and shell fire, had dressed the wounds of one man and started to dress those of another when a shell exploded and killed all three.... Your brother offered his life for the cause without regard to personal danger...."

    Private Kayser is buried in the Somme American Cemetery, Bony France, Plot B, Row 1, Grave 2.
    https://i.imgur.com/beP9cMH.png
    https://i.imgur.com/pTUe0xH.jpg

    Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
    Shovel them under and let me work —
    I am the grass; I cover all.

    And pile them high at Gettysburg
    And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
    Shovel them under and let me work.
    Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
    What place is this?
    Where are we now?

    I am the grass.
    Let me work.

    ~ Carl Sandburg

    https://youtu.be/ntt3wy-L8Ok

  20. The article is about Asperger Syndrome, not Asperger’s.

    The term is just a slur against those with a nerdy personality type. It has been taken over by pop psychology, and abandoned by serious workers. Go ahead and keep using the term, but remember that it is widely misunderstood.

  21. @Anon
    Has war usually been eugenic or dysgenic? I suppose it depends on when and where, who the winning side was and what they did to the defeated, but in terms of net effect, has it had the impact of making humans more intelligentt/moral, or less? You might choose to look at different ages: pre-history, Roman, Middle Ages, post-industrial, Europe vs. Asia, etc.

    War is ipso-facto dysgenic – just not as dysgenic as being conquered.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Being conquered is very dysgenic for the conquered, but may be eugenic for the conquerors.

    Possibly the ultimate who/whom.
  22. , while sparing the cunning who got themselves out of the draft with flat feet or assigned to a cushy job behind the lines.

    *Peruses list of American Presidents since HW*

    Not surprised.

    • LOL: Almost Missouri
  23. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Detroit woman gives birth to her 14th child from 14 different fathers

    A 36-year-old woman from Michigan has made a crashing entrance into the Guinness Book of World Records yesterday at the Harper University Hospital by giving birth to her 14th child all born from different fathers.


    “I’m extremely proud to have broken a World Record,” Ms. Sullivan told reporters. “My mother always told me that I was lazy and worthless, and that I would never accomplish anything in my life. Now, I’ve shown everyone that she was wrong, and that I can even be the best in the world when I put my mind to something. In fact, I’ve just accomplished something that no one had done before!”

     

    LOL. April Fool ... or is it?

    Thanks for the link & thanks for letting me know about the site. Some very informative articles there http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/missouri-pig-brothel-dismantled-during-fbi-raid/

  24. @Anon
    Has war usually been eugenic or dysgenic? I suppose it depends on when and where, who the winning side was and what they did to the defeated, but in terms of net effect, has it had the impact of making humans more intelligentt/moral, or less? You might choose to look at different ages: pre-history, Roman, Middle Ages, post-industrial, Europe vs. Asia, etc.

    Roughly, I’d say,

    Eugenic: Quick, decisive wars of conquest by advanced cultures, e.g. Alexander’s conquests, Roman conquests, the unification of China, colonization of the Americas. Such wars were themselves probably still dysgenic, but they create eugenic conditions going forwards.

    Dysgenic: 1) Wars of conquest by primitive cultures, e.g. the Islamic and Mongol conquests. 2) Wars of conquest by advanced cultures resulting in protracted stalemate, e.g. the Roman-Persian Wars, Second Sino-Japanese War, Winter War. 3) Wars of ideology, e.g. the 30 Years’ War, English Civil War, most wars since the American revolution.

  25. Anonymous[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    But who has the slightest sympathy these days for leading activists against World War One?
     
    Who even remembers that WWI actually happened? From my experience, it's rare to meet anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever on WWI. That war has been totally forgotten by nearly 100% of the American public, with the exception of History teachers and fans of the History Channel.

    If you mention the Ottoman Empire to the average American, he thinks you're talking about this.

    https://twitter.com/cwfurnituredeal/status/980629120768909312

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.
     
    The Ottoman Empire wasn't populated by "White people."

    By the way, here's another example of a war.

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

    However, this war is "okay" because (as we know) 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11/2001. Therefore, we have to right to keep drone striking random countries across the world for as long as we like.

    Of course, if the Yemenis don't like dying, maybe they shouldn't have hit us on 9/11.

    (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *
     
    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?

    No ,but there is nothing strange about that . Plenty of folks who are far more villainous than her are not vilified either .

    Examples :

    Omar Bashir . Responsible for the deaths of millions in South Sudan , the deaths of perhaps 700k in Darfur and the architect of the Janjaweed ( a rape militia).

    Suharto and Sukarno ,responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand in occupued Papua, the deaths of several hundred thousand in the communist purges and the deaths and rapes of thousands of Chinese in 1998.

  26. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Detroit woman gives birth to her 14th child from 14 different fathers

    A 36-year-old woman from Michigan has made a crashing entrance into the Guinness Book of World Records yesterday at the Harper University Hospital by giving birth to her 14th child all born from different fathers.


    “I’m extremely proud to have broken a World Record,” Ms. Sullivan told reporters. “My mother always told me that I was lazy and worthless, and that I would never accomplish anything in my life. Now, I’ve shown everyone that she was wrong, and that I can even be the best in the world when I put my mind to something. In fact, I’ve just accomplished something that no one had done before!”

     

    LOL. April Fool ... or is it?

    Hippopotamusdrome:

    While this report was published in World News Daily, a fake news satirical website, the truly frightening thing is that in the not too distant future, or recent past, it could prove factual.

    It’s getting crazier and crazier out there!

  27. @Lagertha
    This author, of this meandering, so full of confusing hearsay and personal outrage, was the bottom of the barrel for Easter and April Fool's Day for the NYT - an embarrassment - so icky. I really thought it was a joke (but, duh, liberals have no humor that is not spiteful and hateful)...but no, just another boring article of outrage how white people (not Jews) are still, the worst people in the world. I thought for eff's sake, the Pravda of my lifetime, the NYT...could finally be civil (and nice to the Easter gentiles, the Christians...) but no....everytime I think lefties will be civil, or not hateful, they hate-on with more vigor....https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU Hate is the new blue for Democrats. Hating on so many people is the new Liberal way!

    Re: the boringness of outrage:

    At many UU churches and similarly prog-ecclesiastical venues you may see a bumper sticker

    IF YOU’RE NOT OUTRAGED YOU’RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION

    The quintessential leftist equalulating of high emotion and thinking.

    It’s related to our host’s other piece today regarding journalists who are seem convinced that scientists are playground bullies who study stuff solely to pick on journalists, who can’t possibly understand the science…so the latter assert that it can’t possibly be true, coz if it were, then it would be all wrong. Which is to say, they’d get mad about it. So their job is to create their own little congregations of others who can’t understand the science either and offer them a role to play: firing up the ol’ amygdala.

    There’s more money in that eyeball-grabbing amygdala-hijacking and dolt-wrangling than the vast majority of people realize. I don’t think we can address or overturn it with direct factual, rhetorical, or even ridiculing engagement. All we can do is wait for people to realize just how tedious are the tantrums. Offer them something more interesting.

    Unfortunately that seems to take a long time…and there’s always a new crop of idiots being born or imported to wrangle, hijack, and grab. Ref.: the anti-gun “children’s crusade” financed by Michael Bloomberg. There’s a lot of money to be made in Bolgia 9.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Sigh, I understand and agree, sadly. There are young people out there, by the tens of thousands, who don't buy the Parkland kids' fire sale. I mean, haha, 'Soros' is like the pin'ata at subversive frat party theme nights, these days...to beat the crap, or cash out of the "night"! haha! The bad people on the left, can not control young people - they are so losing, young people. Left has forgotten: people like to be comfortable...Younger generations of people have seen signs of prosperity for centuries...so, duh, it does not change for their wish for that.
  28. >>Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler had the good taste to kill millions of white people<<

    The US State Department seems to have fully embraced Hitler's position vis-a-vis the Slavs.

  29. @SimpleSong
    Gawd. Aspergers and autism are just such kitchen sink diagnoses. A properly working brain requires a huge number of things to work right, and is very easy to screw up. I have a strong feeling there are a very heterogeneous set of poorly understood problems/defects that are unrelated yet all get diagnosed as 'autism' particularly when the people making the diagnosis are generalist pediatricians. "every happy family is the same, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" or however it goes....also true for the brain.

    Psychiatrists are just totally incapable of any precision and instead of finding new tools to make repeatable measurements they just argue about wording. The whole field should really just be subsumed into neurology. It's the anthropology of medicine.

    I’d argue they actually have unrealistically precise standards and are using this as a justification for overly broad labeling. For example, American psychiatrists have now stopped dividing depression into neurotic/reactive depression and bio-chemical “endogenous” depression (accept in the case of bipolar). They say they have removed this distinction because the two types of depression have “fuzzy boundaries” and many cases of depression have mixed symptoms and origins. However, that’s like saying human races don’t exist because races overlap.

    Psychiatry is never going to be an exact science, but in the name of exactness, psychiatrists are scrapping labels based on likely neurological origins and replacing them with even less scientific labels based on subjectively observed symptoms.

  30. @Flip
    The Europeans were slaughtering each other and they didn't know what the war was about. One of the stupidest things in human history.

    Insofar the war was about colonial resources (rubber etc.) and food security, the application of chemistry (Haber-Bosch, Ostwald, poison gases) towards tearing millions of youths into bits is especially tragic, given that it didn’t take long before chemistry made many of the aforementioned concerns obsolete.

    I really hope we have the sense to see beyond the immediate warlike applications of biotechnology and AI.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    so agree. I believe it is too late. But, I also have a small piece of hope.
  31. The idea that “the best of the best” died in WW1 was a commonplace in English society. Alan Brooke (Lord Alanbrooke, UK Field Marshal) worries about it in his WW2 diaries as France is falling, and in a 50s English novel the protagonist, an ex WW2 paratrooper, assaults a man who opines in a pub that the WW2 lot were the left-overs.

  32. Btw, the euphemism for “retarded” in the UK is “with learning difficulties”, which is why in UK “special schools” brilliantly put together the bad (“behavioural problems”) with the sad (genuinely backward, Downs etc).

    Slightly OT, London had more murders than NY in February, nearly all “youths” stabbing (and occasionally shooting) each other. A BBC radio discussion this morning studiously avoided any mention of who exactly was doing the killing.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-for-first-time-ever-after-spate-of-fatal-stabbings-and-a3803566.html

    “London’s murder rate has overtaken New York City’s for the first time ever, according to a new report. February marked the first month the UK capital saw more murders than New York, with 15 dead (nine aged 30 or younger).

    According to the report in the Sunday Times, London also suffered 22 fatal stabbings and shootings in March, higher than the 21 in the Big Apple.

    Both cities have similarly sized populations of around 8.5m people. New York City’s murder rate has decreased by around 87 per cent since the 1990s. Meanwhile, London’s has grown by nearly 40 per cent in just three years, not including deaths caused by terrorist attacks.

    On Saturday a murder probe was launched after a 36-year-old woman was killed in what is believed to be the 30th incident of fatal knife crime in the capital this year. “

  33. But who has the slightest sympathy these days for activists against World War One? World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people. Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers. The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler had the good taste to kill millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed.) *

    Was at a friend’s house the other day and she was watching that Netflix zombie show with Tim Olyphant (Santa Clarita Diet). Her first victim was a White male. Her second victim was a White male. Her third victim was a White male. Her fourth victim was a White male. Her fifth victim was a White male. By #4 I was pointedly announcing the stats, “oh, there’s the fourth White male she’s killed in a row. Funny, didn’t notice her killing anything but White males yet.” Clueless friend (who, like most White women, just wants to bury her head in the sand so she doesn’t have to think, or suffer the notion that our culture is run by a malignant elite): “they’re in Santa Clarita; not a lot of non-white folks in Santa Clarita.” Me: “oh, so, 50 percent of the ofays in Santa Clarita aren’t women?” Then I had to pointedly point out that the White male that the White female zombie’s daughter smashed in the face with a cafeteria tray managed to find a non-White female victim to earn his “this is why the Jewish show-runner hates me points.” “And Oh, look, victim number five is a White male, too.”

    But, I do still love the “realism” defense, if only for its sheer stupidity; Jews have been shoehorning conspicuous diversity, mostly blacks, into rocket scientist and all-around genius lab-coatery for decades now, for starters. Not to mention the fact that several of the horrifically White and male victims incipient Hitlers were Nazis; hey, if you don’t bump into Nazis all day every day in Santa Clarita, you’re doing it wrong.

    The Jews (in this case, (((Victor Fresco))) ) just have their junk all up in our face, now. They don’t even try to hide their hatred of White men.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Nothing Whiter than Jerry Seinfeld. Or Patton Oswalt.

    Simpler explanation, upper class White women hate hate hate beta males especially their husbands.

    See Law and Order. Female writing staff casts ex husbands as villains.
  34. There’s more money in that eyeball-grabbing amygdala-hijacking and dolt-wrangling than the vast majority of people realize. I don’t think we can address or overturn it with direct factual, rhetorical, or even ridiculing engagement. All we can do is wait for people to realize just how tedious are the tantrums. Offer them something more interesting.

    Unfortunately that seems to take a long time…and there’s always a new crop of idiots being born or imported to wrangle, hijack, and grab. Ref.: the anti-gun “children’s crusade” financed by Michael Bloomberg. There’s a lot of money to be made in Bolgia 9.

    We could always deport Bloomberg and his ilk, and enact and enforce laws to keep his money out of US politics.

    That would prolly work.

  35. But wait, aren’t all those liberals who advocate the right to kill off Down’s Syndrome fetuses also eugenicists? I guess it’s not “eugenics” when they do it.

    Good thing that hypocrisy is not a crime, or there would be a NYT-to-prison pipeline.

    • Agree: Travis
  36. @Senator Brundlefly
    Autistic as euphemism for retarded? At least in the colloquial, pejorative sense I always gathered that retarded was an insult for being stupid while being an "autist" or "spergy" was an insult for being nerdy and socially inept.

    It is. But in the clinical world, they’ve been handing out “autism” diagnoses like candy, probably because it is more palatable to the parents than a “retarded” diagnosis. (“You mean my child is the next Temple Grandin/rain man?” vs. “You mean my child is the next … uh … supermarket bagger?”) They even give it out for kids that are just kinda awkward. The incentive might have to do with the extra public funding one can access with a formal diagnosis. So yet another case of public money corrupting a supposed science.

    Ann Coulter thinks that dangerous schizophrenia is now being given the apparently infinitely elastic “autism” diagnosis as well. I think she may be right.

    • Replies: @Travis
    so true...About two thirds of autistic individuals are mentally retarded. about half the kids diagnosed with autism today would have been classified as mentally retarded in 1990. my nephew was diagnosed as autistic, but his main issues are due to his IQ of 70.
  37. @Hippopotamusdrome
    They were only anti war Bush was a republican. Then Obama came along and they were no longer interested.

    Agree. And as Antifa proves, the anitwar types are totally fine with violence as long as they are doing it.

  38. @Matthew McConnagay
    War is ipso-facto dysgenic - just not as dysgenic as being conquered.

    Being conquered is very dysgenic for the conquered, but may be eugenic for the conquerors.

    Possibly the ultimate who/whom.

  39. @Anonymous

    The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *
     
    Would whites be better off today if Hitler had won and ushered in new regimes in Europe, or if Jordan's pacifism had been followed and maintained the Allied regimes that persist today?

    The second half of your question doesn’t quite make sense. Except Russia, the Allied regimes of WWI do persist today, so why ask about that in the subjunctive? This leaves aside that Jordan was opposed to the First World War, while Hitler–partly as a consequence of the First World War–was instrumental in bringing about the Second, so your question is not about comparable things.

    If you are trying to bait someone into saying “Hitler was right!”, you’ll have to try harder.

    What doesn’t persist today is the genetic legacy of all the young men (and some women) killed in the World Wars. Given that prior to the World Wars the moral and material direction of Western Civilization was largely improving , whereas nowadays it is largely deteriorating, that may matter.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm not trying to bait someone into approving of Hitler. I'm suspending the moral issues for a moment and considering the long term practical developments in the West. For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr's pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.
  40. @Jeff the Donleavy Fan
    I think you may have made a Freudian slip regarding the name of Hemingway's novel. It is The Sun Also Rises, not Son. Because of the nature of Jake Barnes' war wound, he would never have a son. But to these novels, I would add Faulkner's Soldier's Pay, Maugham's The Razor's Edge and Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End tetralogy.

    To me, the Lost Generation theme has always been about the loss of idealism and direction in the survivors of the war, not the dead themselves. But if you think about it, it is amazing how few people in these novels speak aloud about the soldiers who died. Maybe the staggering loss of life was understood as part of the background of the characters of these novels and their readers, and did not need to be articulated.

    Have anybody ever read or seen Eugene O'Neill's Strange Interlude? I think it is the closest to your thesis. The whole play is set in motion because the character Charles Marsden tricked his childhood beloved and her aviator fiance not to consummate their relationship before the fiance went off to the war. The fiance was killed, and the woman goes mad over her lack of a child with the aviator.

    I apologize for rambling. I'm stuck here at the office trying to finish my stupid memo, and this is my way of procrastinating.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald’s post-war novel Tender is the Night includes an affecting (and surprisingly HBD-ish) scene revisiting the Somme:

    [MORE]

    “This land here cost twenty lives a foot that summer,” he said to Rosemary. …

    “See that little stream — we could walk to it in two minutes. It took the British a month to walk to it — a whole empire walking very slowly, dying in front and pushing forward behind. And another empire walked very slowly backward a few inches a day, leaving the dead like a million bloody rugs. No Europeans will ever do that again in this generation.”

    “Why, they’ve only just quit over in Turkey,” said Abe. “And in Morocco —”

    “That’s different. This western-front business couldn’t be done again, not for a long time. The young men think they could do it but they couldn’t. They could fight the first Marne again but not this. This took religion and years of plenty and tremendous sureties and the exact relation that existed between the classes. The Russians and Italians weren’t any good on this front. You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers.”

    “General Grant invented this kind of battle at Petersburg in sixty- five.”

    “No, he didn’t — he just invented mass butchery. This kind of battle was invented by Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne and whoever wrote Undine, and country deacons bowling and marraines in Marseilles and girls seduced in the back lanes of Wurtemburg and Westphalia. Why, this was a love battle — there was a century of middle-class love spent here. This was the last love battle.”

    “You want to hand over this battle to D. H. Lawrence,” said Abe.

    “All my beautiful lovely safe world blew itself up here with a great gust of high explosive love,” Dick mourned persistently. …

    They dropped behind the others. Suddenly a shower of earth gobs and pebbles came down on them and Abe yelled from the next traverse:

    “The war spirit’s getting into me again. I have a hundred years of Ohio love behind me and I’m going to bomb out this trench.” His head popped up over the embankment. “You’re dead — don’t you know the rules? That was a grenade.”

    Rosemary laughed and Dick picked up a retaliatory handful of stones and then put them down.

    “I couldn’t kid here,” he said rather apologetically. “The silver cord is cut and the golden bowl is broken … ”

    They came out of the neat restored trench, and faced a memorial to the Newfoundland dead. Reading the inscription Rosemary burst into sudden tears. Like most women she liked to be told how she should feel, and she liked Dick’s telling her which things were ludicrous and which things were sad. …

    After that they got in their car and started back toward Amiens. A thin warm rain was falling on the new scrubby woods and underbrush and they passed great funeral pyres of sorted duds, shells, bombs, grenades, and equipment, helmets, bayonets, gun stocks and rotten leather, abandoned six years in the ground. And suddenly around a bend the white caps of a great sea of graves. Dick asked the chauffeur to stop.

    “There’s that girl — and she still has her wreath.”

    They watched as he got out and went over to the girl, who stood uncertainly by the gate with a wreath in her hand. Her taxi waited. She was a red-haired girl from Tennessee whom they had met on the train this morning, come from Knoxville to lay a memorial on her brother’s grave. There were tears of vexation on her face.

    “The War Department must have given me the wrong number,” she whimpered. “It had another name on it. I been lookin’ for it since two o’clock, and there’s so many graves.”

    “Then if I were you I’d just lay it on any grave without looking at the name,” Dick advised her.

    “You reckon that’s what I ought to do?”

    “I think that’s what he’d have wanted you to do.”

    • Replies: @syonredux
    It's a great scene. I wrote a seminar paper on it in my undergrad days.
  41. I get that a neologism (ie ‘new speech’) is a ‘relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language.’

    But what’s its opposite? Orwell was close with ‘Doublespeak’–but that doesn’t quite capture this phenomenon. Doublespeak is ‘deliberately obscuring, disguising, distorting, or reversing the meaning of words.’

    But these Progressives demand more than mere obfuscation and equivocation. They demand extermination of the word or concept. Something along the lines of a neoantilogism.

    Of course, coining the term neoantilogism turns it into a neologism. The Progressive linguist enters Dante’s Vortex of Hell as he ponders the demand of a neoantilogism for the word neoantilogism.–Because that term must first become a neologism in order for it to be summarily neoantilogistically exterminated (thereby conferring the dopamine rush of sanctimonious virtue signalling satisfaction doubleplusgoodness that every good SJW craves).

    I gotta hunch that this brand of Progressives will find a way.

  42. @Almost Missouri
    It is. But in the clinical world, they've been handing out "autism" diagnoses like candy, probably because it is more palatable to the parents than a "retarded" diagnosis. ("You mean my child is the next Temple Grandin/rain man?" vs. "You mean my child is the next ... uh ... supermarket bagger?") They even give it out for kids that are just kinda awkward. The incentive might have to do with the extra public funding one can access with a formal diagnosis. So yet another case of public money corrupting a supposed science.

    Ann Coulter thinks that dangerous schizophrenia is now being given the apparently infinitely elastic "autism" diagnosis as well. I think she may be right.

    so true…About two thirds of autistic individuals are mentally retarded. about half the kids diagnosed with autism today would have been classified as mentally retarded in 1990. my nephew was diagnosed as autistic, but his main issues are due to his IQ of 70.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes the euphemism treadmill grinds on. Autistic is becoming the new retarded.

    That's not to say autism isn't a real condition. Just massively over diagnosed. It will probably be renamed soon.
  43. @Anonymous

    The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *
     
    Would whites be better off today if Hitler had won and ushered in new regimes in Europe, or if Jordan's pacifism had been followed and maintained the Allied regimes that persist today?

    or if Jordan’s pacifism had been followed and maintained the Allied regimes that persist today?

    Standard spiel: No Great War, no Bolshevik Revolution. No Bolshevik Revolution, no Hitler. No Hitler, no WW2.

  44. @Almost Missouri
    F. Scott Fitzgerald's post-war novel Tender is the Night includes an affecting (and surprisingly HBD-ish) scene revisiting the Somme:


    “This land here cost twenty lives a foot that summer,” he said to Rosemary. ...

    “See that little stream — we could walk to it in two minutes. It took the British a month to walk to it — a whole empire walking very slowly, dying in front and pushing forward behind. And another empire walked very slowly backward a few inches a day, leaving the dead like a million bloody rugs. No Europeans will ever do that again in this generation.”

    “Why, they’ve only just quit over in Turkey,” said Abe. “And in Morocco —”

    “That’s different. This western-front business couldn’t be done again, not for a long time. The young men think they could do it but they couldn’t. They could fight the first Marne again but not this. This took religion and years of plenty and tremendous sureties and the exact relation that existed between the classes. The Russians and Italians weren’t any good on this front. You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers.”

    “General Grant invented this kind of battle at Petersburg in sixty- five.”

    “No, he didn’t — he just invented mass butchery. This kind of battle was invented by Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne and whoever wrote Undine, and country deacons bowling and marraines in Marseilles and girls seduced in the back lanes of Wurtemburg and Westphalia. Why, this was a love battle — there was a century of middle-class love spent here. This was the last love battle.”

    “You want to hand over this battle to D. H. Lawrence,” said Abe.

    “All my beautiful lovely safe world blew itself up here with a great gust of high explosive love,” Dick mourned persistently. ...

    They dropped behind the others. Suddenly a shower of earth gobs and pebbles came down on them and Abe yelled from the next traverse:

    “The war spirit’s getting into me again. I have a hundred years of Ohio love behind me and I’m going to bomb out this trench.” His head popped up over the embankment. “You’re dead — don’t you know the rules? That was a grenade.”

    Rosemary laughed and Dick picked up a retaliatory handful of stones and then put them down.

    “I couldn’t kid here,” he said rather apologetically. “The silver cord is cut and the golden bowl is broken ... "

    They came out of the neat restored trench, and faced a memorial to the Newfoundland dead. Reading the inscription Rosemary burst into sudden tears. Like most women she liked to be told how she should feel, and she liked Dick’s telling her which things were ludicrous and which things were sad. ...

    After that they got in their car and started back toward Amiens. A thin warm rain was falling on the new scrubby woods and underbrush and they passed great funeral pyres of sorted duds, shells, bombs, grenades, and equipment, helmets, bayonets, gun stocks and rotten leather, abandoned six years in the ground. And suddenly around a bend the white caps of a great sea of graves. Dick asked the chauffeur to stop.

    “There’s that girl — and she still has her wreath.”

    They watched as he got out and went over to the girl, who stood uncertainly by the gate with a wreath in her hand. Her taxi waited. She was a red-haired girl from Tennessee whom they had met on the train this morning, come from Knoxville to lay a memorial on her brother’s grave. There were tears of vexation on her face.

    “The War Department must have given me the wrong number,” she whimpered. “It had another name on it. I been lookin’ for it since two o’clock, and there’s so many graves.”

    “Then if I were you I’d just lay it on any grave without looking at the name,” Dick advised her.

    “You reckon that’s what I ought to do?”

    “I think that’s what he’d have wanted you to do.”
     

    It’s a great scene. I wrote a seminar paper on it in my undergrad days.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It's definitely seminar-worthy. The best brief explanation of WWI and it's effect that I've ever read. Probably the best thing Fitzgerald ever wrote.
  45. @Anonymous
    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.

    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.

    The Germans during the Great War thought that the use of non-European troops in Europe by the French and the Brits was practically an act of treason against the White Race.

    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Makes sense, which is why they didn't use them in Africa...ohh wait.
  46. @JohnnyWalker123

    But who has the slightest sympathy these days for leading activists against World War One?
     
    Who even remembers that WWI actually happened? From my experience, it's rare to meet anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever on WWI. That war has been totally forgotten by nearly 100% of the American public, with the exception of History teachers and fans of the History Channel.

    If you mention the Ottoman Empire to the average American, he thinks you're talking about this.

    https://twitter.com/cwfurnituredeal/status/980629120768909312

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.
     
    The Ottoman Empire wasn't populated by "White people."

    By the way, here's another example of a war.

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

    However, this war is "okay" because (as we know) 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11/2001. Therefore, we have to right to keep drone striking random countries across the world for as long as we like.

    Of course, if the Yemenis don't like dying, maybe they shouldn't have hit us on 9/11.

    (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler killed millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed by other whites.) *
     
    Is Madeline Albright ever villified?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    The Ottoman Empire wasn’t populated by “White people.”

    Lots of White people in the Ottoman Empire:

  47. @Svigor

    But who has the slightest sympathy these days for activists against World War One? World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people. Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers. The pacifist Jordan was literally Hitler. (Heck, someday Hitler may be considered a more morally nuanced figure than Jordan because at least Hitler had the good taste to kill millions of white people, while Jordan was opposed to whites being killed.) *
     
    Was at a friend's house the other day and she was watching that Netflix zombie show with Tim Olyphant (Santa Clarita Diet). Her first victim was a White male. Her second victim was a White male. Her third victim was a White male. Her fourth victim was a White male. Her fifth victim was a White male. By #4 I was pointedly announcing the stats, "oh, there's the fourth White male she's killed in a row. Funny, didn't notice her killing anything but White males yet." Clueless friend (who, like most White women, just wants to bury her head in the sand so she doesn't have to think, or suffer the notion that our culture is run by a malignant elite): "they're in Santa Clarita; not a lot of non-white folks in Santa Clarita." Me: "oh, so, 50 percent of the ofays in Santa Clarita aren't women?" Then I had to pointedly point out that the White male that the White female zombie's daughter smashed in the face with a cafeteria tray managed to find a non-White female victim to earn his "this is why the Jewish show-runner hates me points." "And Oh, look, victim number five is a White male, too."

    But, I do still love the "realism" defense, if only for its sheer stupidity; Jews have been shoehorning conspicuous diversity, mostly blacks, into rocket scientist and all-around genius lab-coatery for decades now, for starters. Not to mention the fact that several of the horrifically White and male victims incipient Hitlers were Nazis; hey, if you don't bump into Nazis all day every day in Santa Clarita, you're doing it wrong.

    The Jews (in this case, (((Victor Fresco))) ) just have their junk all up in our face, now. They don't even try to hide their hatred of White men.

    Nothing Whiter than Jerry Seinfeld. Or Patton Oswalt.

    Simpler explanation, upper class White women hate hate hate beta males especially their husbands.

    See Law and Order. Female writing staff casts ex husbands as villains.

  48. @istevefan

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.
     
    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn't that make it worthwhile?

    Jordan’s years of working for peace is sinister because he thought it wouldn’t be good for the white race for whites to slaughter each other in vast numbers.
     
    This reminds me of the gulf (forgive the pun) during the Iraq War that was never closed between the code pink-type antiwar folks and the conservatives like Patrick Buchanan. The code pinkers could never make common cause with the Buchanan-types because the code pinkers felt that Buchanan and company opposed the war to save white American lives rather than to save the brown lives of the Iraqis. Justin Raimondo used to write about this in his column on Antiwar.

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn’t that make it worthwhile?

    I’ve noticed that the Balfour Declaration tends to make certain people uncomfortable. The Narrative maintains that Jews were a powerless minority back then…..but then you have the Balfour Declaration….Something that was done pretty much entirely as a way to get world Jewry on the side of the British Empire….

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    There's a great reading in Russian history, it might be online, it amounts to a scrum of Russian ministers varying from conditionally philo-Semitic to openly anti-Semitic. They have realized that this war thing will force them to borrow money and so are admitting a representative from a great banking house. The first thing the representative wants to talk about is the suffering of the Jewish population (who were geographically situated to be in danger of invasion, and were often compelled to move on short notice). The openly anti-Semitic guy is like, "See? See? It's a war! Everyone is suffering! Several peoples are forced to flee! But this guy just wants to talk about his own people, like we can zip out there in some flying machine and rescue them!"
    The lesson plan accompanying the reading explains helpfully that this shows the pernicious anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews have some sort of network or money power to compel favors from governments, which is totally not what the banking representative is doing.
  49. Jordan was famous in his day for his antiwar eugenics theory. He argued in 1902 that a big war would kill off the morally best, most self-sacrificial young men (the lieutenants who would lead the charges across No Man’s Land), while sparing the cunning who got themselves out of the draft with flat feet or assigned to a cushy job behind the lines.

    That may well have happened in 1914-18.

    Jordan’s once famous hypothesis seems to me to be a theme behind “lost generation” novels like Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, Hemingway’s The Son Also Rises, and, perhaps, Waugh’s Vile Bodies.

    Faulkner had similar notions about the Civil War. The best people all died fighting, leaving the ground clear for the vile White trash Snopes clan to take over…

  50. @syonredux
    It's a great scene. I wrote a seminar paper on it in my undergrad days.

    It’s definitely seminar-worthy. The best brief explanation of WWI and it’s effect that I’ve ever read. Probably the best thing Fitzgerald ever wrote.

  51. @Dan Hayes
    Flip:

    At the time an Australian Roman Catholic Bishop called it "a trade war."

    And of course that was exactly what it was (no more, no less)!

    So, Austria-Hungary resented Serbia cutting it out of the crucial raspberry trade? Then Russia got involved cuz Austria-Hungary was blocking access to the lucrative beet market? Etc.?

    The only country who was really profiting from imperial trade was Britain. France’s empire was largely a money-sink. German colonies were insignificant, which insignificance admittedly the Kaiser probably didn’t realize was an asset, not a liability. But anyway, the only protagonist who really cared about trade was Britain, which might explain why it looked like a trade war to an Australian in the British Empire. But I think the reality was that the war was caused by a combination of (erroneous) political calculation, envy, fear, (misplaced) honor, and sheer bloody absent-mindedness (as in political leaders literally being out of their minds).

    • Thanks: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Wency
    Very good assessment.

    It's worth remembering that Czarist Russia was the China of its day, with a large, rapidly-growing population and a rapidly-modernizing economy. Plus a Pan-Slavic ideology that threatened Germany and A-H's ability to rule over Slavic peoples in Central and Eastern Europe. The German leadership was afraid
    they were running out of time to be Europe's pre-eminent power.

    Despite all of the things that went wrong for Russia after 1914, this assessment was probably, in fact, true. Russia held together in 1941 after a German offensive that dwarfed everything in WW1. Post-1945 Western Germany was militarily no match for the Warsaw Pact and was a relatively submissive member of NATO.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany -- borderline madness -- insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don't think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of "Mitteleuropa". Just pride.

  52. @Anonymous
    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.

    India suffered about 30% more casualties in WW2 than WW1, while the British Empire as a whole suffered roughly half as many in WW2. So India’s involvement was a much greater share of the British effort in WW2 (something like 15-20% of casualties), but obviously they were fighting primarily in the Pacific Theater, not Europe and North Africa.

    So if India sent more troops to Europe and the Middle East in WW1 than WW2, they weren’t getting sent to the front. Unless this is somehow obfuscated by the statistics.

    Also, while the “flight from white” ensures that Turks are decidedly nonwhite for U.S. domestic political purposes, I observe that Erdogan would not appear much out of place in a lineup of Italian or Greek politicians. Look at a crowd shot of Turks and you will see a few who could pass as English or Germans, some who look more like Egyptian or Saudi Arabs, and a whole lot in between.

    I posit that if the Turks were Orthodox Christians, we would have no doubt that they are white.

  53. @Almost Missouri
    So, Austria-Hungary resented Serbia cutting it out of the crucial raspberry trade? Then Russia got involved cuz Austria-Hungary was blocking access to the lucrative beet market? Etc.?

    The only country who was really profiting from imperial trade was Britain. France's empire was largely a money-sink. German colonies were insignificant, which insignificance admittedly the Kaiser probably didn't realize was an asset, not a liability. But anyway, the only protagonist who really cared about trade was Britain, which might explain why it looked like a trade war to an Australian in the British Empire. But I think the reality was that the war was caused by a combination of (erroneous) political calculation, envy, fear, (misplaced) honor, and sheer bloody absent-mindedness (as in political leaders literally being out of their minds).

    Very good assessment.

    It’s worth remembering that Czarist Russia was the China of its day, with a large, rapidly-growing population and a rapidly-modernizing economy. Plus a Pan-Slavic ideology that threatened Germany and A-H’s ability to rule over Slavic peoples in Central and Eastern Europe. The German leadership was afraid
    they were running out of time to be Europe’s pre-eminent power.

    Despite all of the things that went wrong for Russia after 1914, this assessment was probably, in fact, true. Russia held together in 1941 after a German offensive that dwarfed everything in WW1. Post-1945 Western Germany was militarily no match for the Warsaw Pact and was a relatively submissive member of NATO.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany — borderline madness — insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don’t think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of “Mitteleuropa”. Just pride.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany — borderline madness — insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don’t think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of “Mitteleuropa”. Just pride.
     
    If only Germany had had a second Bismarck running things in 1914...
    , @J.Ross
    >pan-slavism
    If there is an argument that Slavs are the whitest whites, the proof is in the refusal of Slavs to unite.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany — borderline madness — insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game,"
     
    I don't think is was pride; it was geography. Unlike Britain, France and Russia, who had no serious opponents on one side, Germany had serious opponents on both sides--or three if you count Britain as separate from France and consider their attempt to make a northern naval front with the Jutland battle, etc., or four sides if you count the Allies roping Italy in to fight a southern front. The German high command knew that Germany faced a much graver risk in war than their rivals would and they tried to compensate for it with the (in)famous Schlieffen Plan, which was really just a complicated way to try to make a two-front war into two successive one-front wars by winning the first front very quickly. And it almost worked: the German armies got within sight of Paris at the start of the war (French infantry could take Parisian taxis to the front line). Exhaustion on the German side and frantic last-ditch defense on the French side froze the front there, from where it was only inch by inch pushed away over the next four years.
  54. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    The second half of your question doesn't quite make sense. Except Russia, the Allied regimes of WWI do persist today, so why ask about that in the subjunctive? This leaves aside that Jordan was opposed to the First World War, while Hitler--partly as a consequence of the First World War--was instrumental in bringing about the Second, so your question is not about comparable things.

    If you are trying to bait someone into saying "Hitler was right!", you'll have to try harder.

    What doesn't persist today is the genetic legacy of all the young men (and some women) killed in the World Wars. Given that prior to the World Wars the moral and material direction of Western Civilization was largely improving , whereas nowadays it is largely deteriorating, that may matter.

    I’m not trying to bait someone into approving of Hitler. I’m suspending the moral issues for a moment and considering the long term practical developments in the West. For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr’s pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr’s pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.
     
    Yeah, but it has to borne in mind that a lot of contemporary Western attitudes are a counter-reaction to what Hitler did in 1933-'45......
    , @Almost Missouri
    Okay then, well, it's complicated.

    "German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe."
     
    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn't know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides. The states Germany fought against contained few if any German speakers, so there was no "lost" territory to liberate for the Fatherland. They just wanted to maintain their advantageous borders and prevent Austria-Hungary from mucking everything up.

    Considered this way, the a German victory may indeed have prevented another war. Nearly all German speakers would be in Germany or Austria and there would be no massive war reparations to pay, so no stage set with simmering resentments for Hitler to walk onto. To be sure, Alsace-Lorraine would still be a bone of contention, South Tyrol might grate a little, and there would be some ambiguous mixing in the East, but on the whole, geographic questions that only got settled at the end of the twentieth century after much bloodshed could have been settled at the beginning of the century at much, much lower cost.

    So I think Jordan was correct in 1914. The war was a mistake. And perhaps the biggest mistake maker was Britain, who had the least reason to go to war, but whose participation tipped the balance from German victory (and a stable, quiescent 20th century) to a German defeat (and an unstable, violent 20th century). By 1917, though maybe the question is different. Much blood is already spilt and it is no longer clear that Germany can win a clean-ish victory. At that point, maybe there is an argument for the US to enter and finish the conflict, at least from the European point of view. From the American point of view, there still isn't much upside.

  55. Jordan has a lake named after him in Utah, right next to a Mt. Agassiz (Agassiz also has a peak in the Eastern Sierras). Someone with more time than me should look up all the peaks and lakes in this country named after crime-thinking naturalists.

  56. @Jeff the Donleavy Fan
    I think you may have made a Freudian slip regarding the name of Hemingway's novel. It is The Sun Also Rises, not Son. Because of the nature of Jake Barnes' war wound, he would never have a son. But to these novels, I would add Faulkner's Soldier's Pay, Maugham's The Razor's Edge and Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End tetralogy.

    To me, the Lost Generation theme has always been about the loss of idealism and direction in the survivors of the war, not the dead themselves. But if you think about it, it is amazing how few people in these novels speak aloud about the soldiers who died. Maybe the staggering loss of life was understood as part of the background of the characters of these novels and their readers, and did not need to be articulated.

    Have anybody ever read or seen Eugene O'Neill's Strange Interlude? I think it is the closest to your thesis. The whole play is set in motion because the character Charles Marsden tricked his childhood beloved and her aviator fiance not to consummate their relationship before the fiance went off to the war. The fiance was killed, and the woman goes mad over her lack of a child with the aviator.

    I apologize for rambling. I'm stuck here at the office trying to finish my stupid memo, and this is my way of procrastinating.

    I would add Faulkner’s Soldier’s Pay, Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge and Ford Maddox Ford’s Parade’s End tetralogy.

    I would also add John Dos Passos’ Three Soldiers and perhaps Catherine Anne Porter’s Pale Horse, Pale Rider.

    Maybe the staggering loss of life was understood as part of the background of the characters of these novels and their readers, and did not need to be articulated.

    The horrific loss of life and severity of casualties during that war beggars belief.
    Because I’m the person who, when an old person passes on, volunteers to take their books (nobody wants a bunch of old books), and flips through the pages looking for the things people slip between their leaves — flowers, newspaper clippings, letters, photographs — I learned of one relative who died near the end of the war during the Battle of St. Quentin Canal. Important at the time, now long forgotten, the Americans alone suffered more than 13,000 casualties in just a few days of fighting. That’s Battle of Iwo Jima-magnitude casualties in days, not weeks.
    This is what I know of how my relative died, not yet 23 years old:

    Charles Kayser was born on November 15, 1895, in Brooklyn, New York. On July 2, 1917, he enlisted in the Sanitary Detachment of the 23rd New York Infantry….
    During the night of September 24 – 25, the 27th Division relieved both the British 18th and 74th Divisions near Ronssoy, France.
    At 5:30 a.m., September 27, 1918, the 106th Infantry attacked with the general line with Bois de Malakoff — the Knoll– as its objective.
    During the assault on the Knoll, Private Kayser was killed.
    In a letter to his sister, Major Lucius Salisbury, commander of the 106th Infantry Sanitary Detachment, wrote:
    “Following over the top with the company to which he was attached, your brother stopped near the Knoll, and, exposed to heavy machine-gun and shell fire, had dressed the wounds of one man and started to dress those of another when a shell exploded and killed all three…. Your brother offered his life for the cause without regard to personal danger….”

    Private Kayser is buried in the Somme American Cemetery, Bony France, Plot B, Row 1, Grave 2.https://i.imgur.com/pTUe0xH.jpg

    Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
    Shovel them under and let me work —
    I am the grass; I cover all.

    And pile them high at Gettysburg
    And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
    Shovel them under and let me work.
    Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
    What place is this?
    Where are we now?

    I am the grass.
    Let me work.

    ~ Carl Sandburg

  57. ‘as a euphemism for the former euphemism “retarded,””

    I speculated that statistically you may automatically be able to tell if a concept represents something negative or bad by how often the word(s) for it change, e.g.

    idiot -> moron -> retarded -> handicapped -> disabled.

    lame -> crippled -> handicapped -> disabled.

    negro -> colored person -> African-American -> black (see Walter Williams commentary on this).

  58. @Wency
    Very good assessment.

    It's worth remembering that Czarist Russia was the China of its day, with a large, rapidly-growing population and a rapidly-modernizing economy. Plus a Pan-Slavic ideology that threatened Germany and A-H's ability to rule over Slavic peoples in Central and Eastern Europe. The German leadership was afraid
    they were running out of time to be Europe's pre-eminent power.

    Despite all of the things that went wrong for Russia after 1914, this assessment was probably, in fact, true. Russia held together in 1941 after a German offensive that dwarfed everything in WW1. Post-1945 Western Germany was militarily no match for the Warsaw Pact and was a relatively submissive member of NATO.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany -- borderline madness -- insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don't think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of "Mitteleuropa". Just pride.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany — borderline madness — insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don’t think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of “Mitteleuropa”. Just pride.

    If only Germany had had a second Bismarck running things in 1914…

  59. @Anonymous
    I'm not trying to bait someone into approving of Hitler. I'm suspending the moral issues for a moment and considering the long term practical developments in the West. For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr's pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.

    For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr’s pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.

    Yeah, but it has to borne in mind that a lot of contemporary Western attitudes are a counter-reaction to what Hitler did in 1933-’45……

  60. @Wency
    Very good assessment.

    It's worth remembering that Czarist Russia was the China of its day, with a large, rapidly-growing population and a rapidly-modernizing economy. Plus a Pan-Slavic ideology that threatened Germany and A-H's ability to rule over Slavic peoples in Central and Eastern Europe. The German leadership was afraid
    they were running out of time to be Europe's pre-eminent power.

    Despite all of the things that went wrong for Russia after 1914, this assessment was probably, in fact, true. Russia held together in 1941 after a German offensive that dwarfed everything in WW1. Post-1945 Western Germany was militarily no match for the Warsaw Pact and was a relatively submissive member of NATO.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany -- borderline madness -- insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don't think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of "Mitteleuropa". Just pride.

    >pan-slavism
    If there is an argument that Slavs are the whitest whites, the proof is in the refusal of Slavs to unite.

  61. @syonredux

    World War One is okay today because it was just white people killing white people.

    What about the Balfour Declaration? Didn’t that make it worthwhile?
     
    I've noticed that the Balfour Declaration tends to make certain people uncomfortable. The Narrative maintains that Jews were a powerless minority back then.....but then you have the Balfour Declaration....Something that was done pretty much entirely as a way to get world Jewry on the side of the British Empire....

    There’s a great reading in Russian history, it might be online, it amounts to a scrum of Russian ministers varying from conditionally philo-Semitic to openly anti-Semitic. They have realized that this war thing will force them to borrow money and so are admitting a representative from a great banking house. The first thing the representative wants to talk about is the suffering of the Jewish population (who were geographically situated to be in danger of invasion, and were often compelled to move on short notice). The openly anti-Semitic guy is like, “See? See? It’s a war! Everyone is suffering! Several peoples are forced to flee! But this guy just wants to talk about his own people, like we can zip out there in some flying machine and rescue them!”
    The lesson plan accompanying the reading explains helpfully that this shows the pernicious anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews have some sort of network or money power to compel favors from governments, which is totally not what the banking representative is doing.

  62. @Wency
    Very good assessment.

    It's worth remembering that Czarist Russia was the China of its day, with a large, rapidly-growing population and a rapidly-modernizing economy. Plus a Pan-Slavic ideology that threatened Germany and A-H's ability to rule over Slavic peoples in Central and Eastern Europe. The German leadership was afraid
    they were running out of time to be Europe's pre-eminent power.

    Despite all of the things that went wrong for Russia after 1914, this assessment was probably, in fact, true. Russia held together in 1941 after a German offensive that dwarfed everything in WW1. Post-1945 Western Germany was militarily no match for the Warsaw Pact and was a relatively submissive member of NATO.

    But there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany -- borderline madness -- insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game, allying with Britain and France to one day check Russia if needed. And I don't think you can justify any of this on the basis of rational economic motives of "Mitteleuropa". Just pride.

    “there was a massive act of foolish pride in Germany — borderline madness — insisting in opening up a bloody two-front war to dominate the continent rather than playing the old balance-of-power game,”

    I don’t think is was pride; it was geography. Unlike Britain, France and Russia, who had no serious opponents on one side, Germany had serious opponents on both sides–or three if you count Britain as separate from France and consider their attempt to make a northern naval front with the Jutland battle, etc., or four sides if you count the Allies roping Italy in to fight a southern front. The German high command knew that Germany faced a much graver risk in war than their rivals would and they tried to compensate for it with the (in)famous Schlieffen Plan, which was really just a complicated way to try to make a two-front war into two successive one-front wars by winning the first front very quickly. And it almost worked: the German armies got within sight of Paris at the start of the war (French infantry could take Parisian taxis to the front line). Exhaustion on the German side and frantic last-ditch defense on the French side froze the front there, from where it was only inch by inch pushed away over the next four years.

  63. @Anonymous
    I'm not trying to bait someone into approving of Hitler. I'm suspending the moral issues for a moment and considering the long term practical developments in the West. For better or worse, German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe. While the Western European regimes today are successors to the Allied states, and Starr's pacifism may not have had much of an effect over the long term.

    Okay then, well, it’s complicated.

    “German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe.”

    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn’t know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides. The states Germany fought against contained few if any German speakers, so there was no “lost” territory to liberate for the Fatherland. They just wanted to maintain their advantageous borders and prevent Austria-Hungary from mucking everything up.

    Considered this way, the a German victory may indeed have prevented another war. Nearly all German speakers would be in Germany or Austria and there would be no massive war reparations to pay, so no stage set with simmering resentments for Hitler to walk onto. To be sure, Alsace-Lorraine would still be a bone of contention, South Tyrol might grate a little, and there would be some ambiguous mixing in the East, but on the whole, geographic questions that only got settled at the end of the twentieth century after much bloodshed could have been settled at the beginning of the century at much, much lower cost.

    So I think Jordan was correct in 1914. The war was a mistake. And perhaps the biggest mistake maker was Britain, who had the least reason to go to war, but whose participation tipped the balance from German victory (and a stable, quiescent 20th century) to a German defeat (and an unstable, violent 20th century). By 1917, though maybe the question is different. Much blood is already spilt and it is no longer clear that Germany can win a clean-ish victory. At that point, maybe there is an argument for the US to enter and finish the conflict, at least from the European point of view. From the American point of view, there still isn’t much upside.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe.”

    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn’t know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides.
     
    Dunno about that.....

    The Septemberprogramm (German: [zɛpˈtɛmbɐpʁoˌɡʁam]) was the plan for the territorial expansion of Imperial Germany, prepared for Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, at the beginning of World War I (1914–18). The Chancellor's private secretary, Kurt Riezler, drafted the Septemberprogramm on 9 September 1914, in the early days of the German attack in the west, when Germany expected to defeat France quickly and decisively. The extensive territorial conquests proposed in the Septemberprogramm required making vassal states of Belgium and France and seizing much of the Russian Empire. The Septemberprogramm was not effected because France withstood the initial German attack, and the war devolved into a trench-warfare stalemate, and ultimately ended in German defeat.[1]

    As geopolitics, the Septemberprogramm itself is a documentary insight to Imperial Germany's war aims, and shows the true scope of German plans for territorial expansion in two directions, east and west. Historian Fritz Fischer wrote that the Septemberprogramm was based on the Lebensraum philosophy, which made territorial expansion Imperial Germany's primary motive for war.[2] Jonathan Steinberg has suggested that if the Schlieffen Plan had worked, and produced a decisive German victory, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Septemberprogramm would have been implemented, thus establishing German hegemony in Europe.[3]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
  64. Anonymous[311] • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis
    so true...About two thirds of autistic individuals are mentally retarded. about half the kids diagnosed with autism today would have been classified as mentally retarded in 1990. my nephew was diagnosed as autistic, but his main issues are due to his IQ of 70.

    Yes the euphemism treadmill grinds on. Autistic is becoming the new retarded.

    That’s not to say autism isn’t a real condition. Just massively over diagnosed. It will probably be renamed soon.

  65. @Almost Missouri
    Okay then, well, it's complicated.

    "German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe."
     
    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn't know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides. The states Germany fought against contained few if any German speakers, so there was no "lost" territory to liberate for the Fatherland. They just wanted to maintain their advantageous borders and prevent Austria-Hungary from mucking everything up.

    Considered this way, the a German victory may indeed have prevented another war. Nearly all German speakers would be in Germany or Austria and there would be no massive war reparations to pay, so no stage set with simmering resentments for Hitler to walk onto. To be sure, Alsace-Lorraine would still be a bone of contention, South Tyrol might grate a little, and there would be some ambiguous mixing in the East, but on the whole, geographic questions that only got settled at the end of the twentieth century after much bloodshed could have been settled at the beginning of the century at much, much lower cost.

    So I think Jordan was correct in 1914. The war was a mistake. And perhaps the biggest mistake maker was Britain, who had the least reason to go to war, but whose participation tipped the balance from German victory (and a stable, quiescent 20th century) to a German defeat (and an unstable, violent 20th century). By 1917, though maybe the question is different. Much blood is already spilt and it is no longer clear that Germany can win a clean-ish victory. At that point, maybe there is an argument for the US to enter and finish the conflict, at least from the European point of view. From the American point of view, there still isn't much upside.

    “German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe.”

    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn’t know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides.

    Dunno about that…..

    The Septemberprogramm (German: [zɛpˈtɛmbɐpʁoˌɡʁam]) was the plan for the territorial expansion of Imperial Germany, prepared for Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, at the beginning of World War I (1914–18). The Chancellor’s private secretary, Kurt Riezler, drafted the Septemberprogramm on 9 September 1914, in the early days of the German attack in the west, when Germany expected to defeat France quickly and decisively. The extensive territorial conquests proposed in the Septemberprogramm required making vassal states of Belgium and France and seizing much of the Russian Empire. The Septemberprogramm was not effected because France withstood the initial German attack, and the war devolved into a trench-warfare stalemate, and ultimately ended in German defeat.[1]

    As geopolitics, the Septemberprogramm itself is a documentary insight to Imperial Germany’s war aims, and shows the true scope of German plans for territorial expansion in two directions, east and west. Historian Fritz Fischer wrote that the Septemberprogramm was based on the Lebensraum philosophy, which made territorial expansion Imperial Germany’s primary motive for war.[2] Jonathan Steinberg has suggested that if the Schlieffen Plan had worked, and produced a decisive German victory, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Septemberprogramm would have been implemented, thus establishing German hegemony in Europe.[3]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    That's a reasonable point, and there is a lot that can be said, but I will try to keep this comment-sized...

    As the name suggests, the Septemberprogramm came about after the war started, so it was not a case for war, but rather a proposal sought by the German government of "okay, now that we're in this war, what should we do if we win decisively [which appeared possible at that time]?"

    As marketing execs and parents of small children know, if you ask people for a wish list without any corresponding costs, you are liable to get requests for the moon and stars. In the actual event though, the list of war objectives that the German leaders came up with was not especially extravagant.

    · Belgium: For all of its history, strategically located Belgium had been a vassal of its more powerful neighbors, mostly France. As the potential victor, Germany thought Belgium should become its vassal. (This was a customary result of all wars throughout history, though we often paper over this reality with evasive euphemisms in the Current Year, so plain discussion of the matter can strike our ears dissonantly.)

    · Luxembourg: Annexing tiny, ethnically Germanic Luxembourg, which is no different than France annexing ethnic French or Italy annexing ethnic Italians following successful military campaigns, as had been happening for centuries.

    · Netherlands: To be left independent.

    · Creation of an EEC/EU-like trade and customs union in continental Europe. In other words, a proposal to create the EU 40 years before the EU was cool. Unlike the EU though, this union was to be explicitly non-political.

    · The Programm does express some vague (and IMHO foolish) interest in African colonies, and also some vague (and IMHO justifiable) concern about Russia.

    · France: This is likely the biggest bone of contention and perhaps the only real overreach by the Programm authors. It envisages stripping off some borderland of France for security/industrial reasons (not people/settlement reasons). The amount of land was on par with the ethnically ambiguous land that Germany had already acquired (and the international community had already recognized) from France in the much smaller War of 1870. There is also a proposal for a war indemnity on France, but it is a tiny fraction of the war indemnity that France and Britain actually did impose on Germany four years later.

    Contrary to Fritz Fischer--whoever he is, the Septemberprogramm makes no mention of "Lebensraum". In fact it specifically eschews outright annexation of Belgium, for example, to avoid bringing non-Germans into Germany. (Leaders were wiser back then, even regarding the relatively similar Belgians.)

    I see you threw in a link for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, so I'll just say that the Treaty withdrew German forces from most of the land they had occupied in the East and called for vast areas of Eastern Europe to be self-determined, which happens to be the same thing Woodrow Wilson and the Western Allies called for after the war for all of Europe, except it turned out they didn't really mean it.

    In short, except for small strips of France and a modest expansion of East Prussia (and that into land with historical Teutonic ties), Germany had no territorial designs on the rest of Europe. Germany of 1914 recognized what the 20th century proved and we of today have all but forgotten: that incorporating foreign peoples into your country brings a train misfortunes. They wanted no part of it. Further, their other war aims were much milder than what France and Britain sought and ultimately got, to everyone's lasting misfortune, as historians today are beginning to acknowledge.

  66. @syonredux

    “German victory would have ushered in a political and ideological revolution in Europe.”

    Germany then was the German Empire: hardly a revolutionary power. Besides, the German objective (though you wouldn’t know it from Allied propaganda) was not to own the continent, it was just to avoid getting crushed on all sides.
     
    Dunno about that.....

    The Septemberprogramm (German: [zɛpˈtɛmbɐpʁoˌɡʁam]) was the plan for the territorial expansion of Imperial Germany, prepared for Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, at the beginning of World War I (1914–18). The Chancellor's private secretary, Kurt Riezler, drafted the Septemberprogramm on 9 September 1914, in the early days of the German attack in the west, when Germany expected to defeat France quickly and decisively. The extensive territorial conquests proposed in the Septemberprogramm required making vassal states of Belgium and France and seizing much of the Russian Empire. The Septemberprogramm was not effected because France withstood the initial German attack, and the war devolved into a trench-warfare stalemate, and ultimately ended in German defeat.[1]

    As geopolitics, the Septemberprogramm itself is a documentary insight to Imperial Germany's war aims, and shows the true scope of German plans for territorial expansion in two directions, east and west. Historian Fritz Fischer wrote that the Septemberprogramm was based on the Lebensraum philosophy, which made territorial expansion Imperial Germany's primary motive for war.[2] Jonathan Steinberg has suggested that if the Schlieffen Plan had worked, and produced a decisive German victory, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Septemberprogramm would have been implemented, thus establishing German hegemony in Europe.[3]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

    That’s a reasonable point, and there is a lot that can be said, but I will try to keep this comment-sized…

    As the name suggests, the Septemberprogramm came about after the war started, so it was not a case for war, but rather a proposal sought by the German government of “okay, now that we’re in this war, what should we do if we win decisively [which appeared possible at that time]?”

    As marketing execs and parents of small children know, if you ask people for a wish list without any corresponding costs, you are liable to get requests for the moon and stars. In the actual event though, the list of war objectives that the German leaders came up with was not especially extravagant.

    · Belgium: For all of its history, strategically located Belgium had been a vassal of its more powerful neighbors, mostly France. As the potential victor, Germany thought Belgium should become its vassal. (This was a customary result of all wars throughout history, though we often paper over this reality with evasive euphemisms in the Current Year, so plain discussion of the matter can strike our ears dissonantly.)

    · Luxembourg: Annexing tiny, ethnically Germanic Luxembourg, which is no different than France annexing ethnic French or Italy annexing ethnic Italians following successful military campaigns, as had been happening for centuries.

    · Netherlands: To be left independent.

    · Creation of an EEC/EU-like trade and customs union in continental Europe. In other words, a proposal to create the EU 40 years before the EU was cool. Unlike the EU though, this union was to be explicitly non-political.

    · The Programm does express some vague (and IMHO foolish) interest in African colonies, and also some vague (and IMHO justifiable) concern about Russia.

    · France: This is likely the biggest bone of contention and perhaps the only real overreach by the Programm authors. It envisages stripping off some borderland of France for security/industrial reasons (not people/settlement reasons). The amount of land was on par with the ethnically ambiguous land that Germany had already acquired (and the international community had already recognized) from France in the much smaller War of 1870. There is also a proposal for a war indemnity on France, but it is a tiny fraction of the war indemnity that France and Britain actually did impose on Germany four years later.

    Contrary to Fritz Fischer–whoever he is, the Septemberprogramm makes no mention of “Lebensraum“. In fact it specifically eschews outright annexation of Belgium, for example, to avoid bringing non-Germans into Germany. (Leaders were wiser back then, even regarding the relatively similar Belgians.)

    I see you threw in a link for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, so I’ll just say that the Treaty withdrew German forces from most of the land they had occupied in the East and called for vast areas of Eastern Europe to be self-determined, which happens to be the same thing Woodrow Wilson and the Western Allies called for after the war for all of Europe, except it turned out they didn’t really mean it.

    In short, except for small strips of France and a modest expansion of East Prussia (and that into land with historical Teutonic ties), Germany had no territorial designs on the rest of Europe. Germany of 1914 recognized what the 20th century proved and we of today have all but forgotten: that incorporating foreign peoples into your country brings a train misfortunes. They wanted no part of it. Further, their other war aims were much milder than what France and Britain sought and ultimately got, to everyone’s lasting misfortune, as historians today are beginning to acknowledge.

  67. @syonredux

    Not just the Ottoman Empire, but the Indian Army that served in the war in Europe, Africa, and the Mideast was larger than the British Army. The French also had a lot of African and other colonial troops. There may have been relatively more nonwhites in the European, African, and Mideast theaters during WWI than in WW2.
     
    The Germans during the Great War thought that the use of non-European troops in Europe by the French and the Brits was practically an act of treason against the White Race.

    Makes sense, which is why they didn’t use them in Africa…ohh wait.

  68. @Esso
    Insofar the war was about colonial resources (rubber etc.) and food security, the application of chemistry (Haber-Bosch, Ostwald, poison gases) towards tearing millions of youths into bits is especially tragic, given that it didn't take long before chemistry made many of the aforementioned concerns obsolete.

    I really hope we have the sense to see beyond the immediate warlike applications of biotechnology and AI.

    so agree. I believe it is too late. But, I also have a small piece of hope.

  69. @Olorin
    Re: the boringness of outrage:

    At many UU churches and similarly prog-ecclesiastical venues you may see a bumper sticker

    IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION

    The quintessential leftist equalulating of high emotion and thinking.

    It's related to our host's other piece today regarding journalists who are seem convinced that scientists are playground bullies who study stuff solely to pick on journalists, who can't possibly understand the science...so the latter assert that it can't possibly be true, coz if it were, then it would be all wrong. Which is to say, they'd get mad about it. So their job is to create their own little congregations of others who can't understand the science either and offer them a role to play: firing up the ol' amygdala.

    There's more money in that eyeball-grabbing amygdala-hijacking and dolt-wrangling than the vast majority of people realize. I don't think we can address or overturn it with direct factual, rhetorical, or even ridiculing engagement. All we can do is wait for people to realize just how tedious are the tantrums. Offer them something more interesting.

    Unfortunately that seems to take a long time...and there's always a new crop of idiots being born or imported to wrangle, hijack, and grab. Ref.: the anti-gun "children's crusade" financed by Michael Bloomberg. There's a lot of money to be made in Bolgia 9.

    Sigh, I understand and agree, sadly. There are young people out there, by the tens of thousands, who don’t buy the Parkland kids’ fire sale. I mean, haha, ‘Soros’ is like the pin’ata at subversive frat party theme nights, these days…to beat the crap, or cash out of the “night”! haha! The bad people on the left, can not control young people – they are so losing, young people. Left has forgotten: people like to be comfortable…Younger generations of people have seen signs of prosperity for centuries…so, duh, it does not change for their wish for that.

  70. Simpler explanation, upper class White women hate hate hate beta males especially their husbands.

    That’s not simple, it’s Rube Goldberg. White women haven’t been running (((Big Media))) for the better part of a century; Jews have. White women have been joined at the hip to White men for thousands of years, and they never instituted what we have now. Contrariwise, the rise of the Jews has been the rise of hatred against Whites.

    See Law and Order. Female writing staff casts ex husbands as villains.

    A female writing staff assembled by a Jew.sk for seconds.

  71. A female writing staff assembled by a Jew.sk for seconds.

    FIFM.

  72. P.S., are Jews white? Cuz we don’t see Jew-hatred coming from Jewish women. Doesn’t that make Jews non-White, in your book?

  73. A female writing staff assembled by a Jew.

    FIFM, pt deux.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2