tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7365881592905657955..comments2024-03-29T05:14:33.223-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: The ideal victims of political incorrectness are the non-victimsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71269530759965905092014-01-15T14:17:42.943-08:002014-01-15T14:17:42.943-08:00Joe was prepared to question pretty much anything ...<i>Joe was prepared to question pretty much anything at any time.</i><br /><br />Oh, Heaven forbid.Svigornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57400714307498462462014-01-15T13:22:08.657-08:002014-01-15T13:22:08.657-08:00ART DECO,
You choose to refer to me a “You peop...ART DECO, <br /><br />You choose to refer to me a “You people.” Curious. Do you know me? Am I unwittingly the head of some group? I knew Joe Sobran as a friend. I doubt you did, given your sad small-minded litany of all Joe’s imperfections. May I ask, did you go at him hammer and tongs while he was alive and writing, or are you just now getting around to urinating on his grave? <br /><br />You seem to imply that I hold to some secret conspiracy theory about “String pulling.” Podhoretz’s demand for Joe’s head was no secret and I never claimed that it was. The Neocons and Buckley made an example of Joe. They purged the National Review of a number of people. The names of O’Sullivan, Bremelow , and of course Sailer come to mind. <br /><br />As to Joe, he did indeed have anarchic and self-destructive traits. He lived a disordered life and was impractical. So did Van Gogh. He wasn’t hired as office manager. He was hired to write spirited and beautiful prose about things others were afraid to address. He did this for a long time and was dumped only when he wrote things at odds with the Neocons who were taking NR over. He was indeed fired for insubordination. Buckley made the calculation that Jewish Neoconservatives were much more valuable to him than the truth. He was within his rights to fire Joe. Whether that was the virtuous thing to do is another matter. As to what you describe as NR’s “Educational mission,” perhaps if more Sobrans and Bremelows and fewer Goldbergs had been writing for NR, the magazine wouldn’t have been a propaganda organ for the war against Iraq. <br /><br />Judging by your blog, you are a devout Roman Catholic. I’m guessing that Joe fell short in your eyes in his less than reverent attitude to Jews. Are you aware of a single Jew who was affronted or harmed personally by the great Anti-Semite Joe Sobran? Barring perjury you will find none. Joe was one of the most kind and jolly people I ever met. <br /><br />You are right that Joe “Drove his own car over the cliff.” He was all too likely to do that. Perhaps it was inevitable. That has nothing to do with the fact that a political/ethnic zealot and a very real cabal drove him from his job. They chose to attack his livelihood rather than his ideas. Isn’t it a bit obtuse of you to defend this given that the interests of that cabal are hardly yours as a Catholic. If you really don’t think that organized pressure is involved in this and similar purges, try this. The next time you see the Catholic Church defamed in print by a Jewish writer, call the publisher and demand the man’s job. I’d be interested to see how you do. <br /><br />Finally, much has been made of Joe’s communication with some holocaust denial group. Joe was pretty far gone by this point, but given that he also didn’t believe that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, I see this as just more of his orneriness. Joe was prepared to question pretty much anything at any time. Did Joe ever say that it never happened? I personally see no reason to question the Six Million statistic as it is pretty consistent with the Nazi’s own count. <br /><br />If we are honest we must admit that endless remembrance of “The Holocaust” has become a racket. Prominent Jews have said the same. The continual laying of one’s dead before others as an instrument of social intimidation is a very insulting and ultimately self-defeating behavior. If this is not so, why is the Holocaust Museum in the capital of my country and not in Berlin?Thomas O. Meehanhttp://odysseusontherocks.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76315639757407424002014-01-15T01:54:03.070-08:002014-01-15T01:54:03.070-08:00James Watson bounced back.James Watson bounced back.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60495787338049978402014-01-15T01:12:52.090-08:002014-01-15T01:12:52.090-08:00>> started in the UPI days said...
"By ...>> started in the UPI days said...<br />"By nature I'm a nice, pleasant, optimistic, think-the-best-of-everyone person, so I've had to train myself intellectuallyto notice the less admirable traits of human beings." -- That's great to hear; because from the tenor of your blogging you sound petty as hell.<<<br /><br />I'm guessing that must be Projection. Claiming Sailer, of all people, is petty and unfairly mean to people?!Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29380141704532158522014-01-14T22:14:04.307-08:002014-01-14T22:14:04.307-08:00"By nature I'm a nice, pleasant, optimist...<i>"By nature I'm a nice, pleasant, optimistic, think-the-best-of-everyone person, so I've had to train myself intellectuallyto notice the less admirable traits of human beings."</i> -- That's great to hear; because from the tenor of your blogging you sound petty as hell. Sure, you're insightful part of the time too, but if you don't have a mean streak a mile wide it must be some kind of meticulously studied literary simulation. Anyway as I said, for the sake of your family & neighbors I'm glad it doesn't carry over to the corporeal world.started in the UPI daysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74485939773582747772014-01-14T18:07:44.336-08:002014-01-14T18:07:44.336-08:00Joe Sobran from wikipedia-"He believed about ...<i>Joe Sobran from wikipedia-"He believed about the Jewish people that "History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger.""</i><br /><br />Forgot about that little gem.<br /><br />http://www.sobran.com/jewid.shtml<br /><br />Bela Kun and Ana Pauker - such enduring colossi of world history. <br /><br />The man was an elegant stylist. And a disagreeable crank.<br /><br />Art Decohttp://wwrtc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60455800802908563132014-01-14T18:04:36.482-08:002014-01-14T18:04:36.482-08:00If Buchanan had not done this, its possible some p...<i>If Buchanan had not done this, its possible some politician who actually might have campaigned would have gotten the Reform nod and gone about like 1992 and 1996</i><br /><br />Reform decayed into a microscopic hobby party, which is what the more prominent 3d parties generally do within about eight years of their formation. Doubtful that Buchanan could have prevented that. There have been several examples of minor parties which at least retained a six digit base of support for a period of decades, but all of them were far less inchoate and dependent on a particular personality than was the Reform Party (the four examples were the Prohibition Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and (ongoing) the Libertarian Party)Art Decohttp://wwrtc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10024675967866123592014-01-14T16:28:26.747-08:002014-01-14T16:28:26.747-08:00>> Anonymous said...
Re: Simon in London sai...>> Anonymous said...<br />Re: Simon in London said...<br /><br />"For the UK, historian David "The English have become black" Starkey is a good example of a man too thick-skinned to be cowed by PC. The spluttering of the cultural Marxists when they realised they couldn't get him to apologise was hilarious."<br /><br />Yeah, but Starkey as a public figure is a militant homosexual and vocal atheist. So he's got one grievance group -- er -- behind him and a a large intellectual camp friendly to him. <<<br /><br />Starkey a 'militant' homosexual? How he is any more militant than Simon Schama, fellow homosexual and our other celebrity historian? I don't see him campaigning on either homosexuality or atheism, though I'm sure you're right that these attributes do help protect him.<br /><br />>>1/13/14, 1:03 PM<br />Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />"You are completely right, Steve. Heartiste has made similar points re human psychology - a winner's attitude is all-important."<br /><br />I'm still confused about the meaning of 'winner'. Moynihan, for example, was a mild-mannered guy who wasn't trying to win anything. He just made a point he thought was worth making. <br /><br />Thatcher, in contrast, fought to win big all the time, and in a way, she did win big enough to be one of the giants of British politics in the 20th century. But she has lost in the history sweepstakes as the elites who control the UK felt 'good riddance, ding dong the witch is dead' after she died. <<<br /><br />Thatcher achieved what she set out to do, which was entirely about economics. Labour have accepted free-market economics. Communism is dead. She never fought the culture war, so naturally she didn't win it. Cromwell is reviled too, but like Thatcher he was a success in his lifetime, and he moved the debate - no more economic Socialism, no more Divine Right of Kings. The people who revile her now, the cultural Marxists, are people she thought were irrelevant, at most a minor irritant like Ken Livingstone at the GLC. She always had her guns trained on the Unions and the USSR. She ignored the ants at her feet. Yes, they rule now, yes, she was shortsighted not to see the coming doom. England died seven years after she lost power. She still achieved a lot.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43284665937406102752014-01-14T16:17:00.605-08:002014-01-14T16:17:00.605-08:00>>Bill said...
Simon in London said...
Coul...>>Bill said...<br /><br />Simon in London said...<br />Coulter is not a nice person - she's the only right-wing commentator who often reminds me of the typical left-wing commentators in terms of actual nastiness - not loathsomely vile like say Tim Wise, but she gets pretty nasty like your typical Huffington Post type. She'll do th kind of ad hominems that are otherwise the near-exclusive preserve of the Left.<br />But she is absolutely 100% fearless, and I have to admire that.<br /><br />There are three related asymmetries here. First, just as you say, "right" wing commentators do not call their opponents evil as a matter of course, while left wing commentators do. <br /><br />Second, if you ask lefties why it's OK for their commentators to call righties evil but not OK for rightie commentators to call lefties evil, they will respond, "because righties actually are evil."<br /><br />This brings us to third: as a result, rightie commentators give off the strong odor of not believing their own bullshit, whereas leftie commentators give off the strong odor of believing their own bullshit. This is probably because the official right actually does not believe its own bullshit. <br /><br />As confirming evidence, observe how quickly and easily they abandon this or that tenet of rightiedom when such becomes convenient. Just how long is it going to be before NRO starts editorializing that we have to blow up the Muslims because they hate us for our gay rights?<<<br /><br />Yeah, I agree. I'm conflicted myself - I don't like it when right-wing commentators engage in ad hominems, it seems ungentlemanly. Yet I know many on the Left are actually evil, and well deserve the strongest attacks, which they never get since the right fights with both hands behind its back, in UK as in USA. But because the Left control the narrative they can often succeed in getting me - even me - to think it must be wrong to go after them in the kind of way they routinely go after non-leftists.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48056680772941696662014-01-14T16:06:49.207-08:002014-01-14T16:06:49.207-08:00"Anonymous said...
"she's the only r..."Anonymous said...<br />"she's the only right-wing commentator who often reminds me of the typical left-wing commentators in terms of actual nastiness"<br /><br />Savage? Levin? Limbaugh? Malkin?"<br /><br />I don't know the first two well enough to comment. Limbaugh is blustery, not particularly nasty. Malkin is quite aggressive but not nasty at all, and far more sinned against than sinning. A good looking non-white right-wing female drives the Left into paroxysms of rage and some unbelievably horrible stuff.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15241476868410365092014-01-14T07:19:57.704-08:002014-01-14T07:19:57.704-08:00It's about who the thought criminal criticizes...It's about who the thought criminal criticizes. You can criticize blacks. ATBOTLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45121409419190653712014-01-13T17:41:46.744-08:002014-01-13T17:41:46.744-08:00Joe Sobran from wikipedia-"He believed about ...Joe Sobran from wikipedia-"He believed about the Jewish people that "History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger.""Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3556147014196889272014-01-13T16:25:38.543-08:002014-01-13T16:25:38.543-08:00"Americans love a winner."
G.S. Patton
...<i>"Americans love a winner."<br /><br />G.S. Patton</i><br /><br />That must be why everyone pulls for the Miami Heat.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81264775397962944672014-01-13T14:27:30.748-08:002014-01-13T14:27:30.748-08:00"Its a shame about Watson, he really could ha..."Its a shame about Watson, he really could have turned the tide. If he'd stood his ground, he was famous amongst scientists and even the public had some idea who he was. He even had a movie!"<br /><br />No, if he hadn't apologized, he would have been dismissed as senile. <br /><br />Btw, even though what he said had much truth to it, he could have worded it better. The way he said it, it sounded like 'blacks I've been around are such dummies... so, all Africans must be like that too.' It's not scientific to take one's narrow personal experience and project it on the whole world even if there may be essential truth to his views of racial differences. <br /><br />Same with William Shockley. I don't know why he had to boil his views of race into such simple binaries. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32311598626619133352014-01-13T13:46:24.361-08:002014-01-13T13:46:24.361-08:00Okay, I'm stealing "regression to the bea...Okay, I'm stealing "regression to the bean."Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9069325607158604652014-01-13T13:35:13.379-08:002014-01-13T13:35:13.379-08:00Why didn't Sobran start a blog in 2000? Sounds...<i>Why didn't Sobran start a blog in 2000? Sounds like he was on a downward spiral by then, but some of his friends could have help him with the logistics. </i><br /><br />He had a newsletter and an online column distributed by a company called Griffin. The proprietress was a supporter named Fran Griffin. They also held a testimonial dinner for him each year. He admitted that by 2002 they were not making any money off him.Art Decohttp://wwrtc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57041591250973080762014-01-13T13:32:55.307-08:002014-01-13T13:32:55.307-08:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Xxq7QAcsw
Maybe ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Xxq7QAcsw<br /><br />Maybe there is hope in the regression to the bean. <br /><br />Don't eat it. Plant it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-426851023257388252014-01-13T13:21:35.690-08:002014-01-13T13:21:35.690-08:00What are the three little words for truth?
Hones...What are the three little words for truth? <br /><br />Honesty, courage, and integrity? <br /><br />But suffer the consequences. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58919930292219252642014-01-13T13:09:33.457-08:002014-01-13T13:09:33.457-08:00"You are completely right, Steve. Heartiste h..."You are completely right, Steve. Heartiste has made similar points re human psychology - a winner's attitude is all-important."<br /><br />I'm still confused about the meaning of 'winner'. Moynihan, for example, was a mild-mannered guy who wasn't trying to win anything. He just made a point he thought was worth making. <br /><br />Thatcher, in contrast, fought to win big all the time, and in a way, she did win big enough to be one of the giants of British politics in the 20th century. But she has lost in the history sweepstakes as the elites who control the UK felt 'good riddance, ding dong the witch is dead' after she died. <br /><br />Reagan was a big winner, but with more movies like THE BUTLER, he too will be relegated to loser status in the long run. <br /><br />So, some winners are born, some winners are made, and some winners are chosen. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29301920109959155122014-01-13T13:03:14.029-08:002014-01-13T13:03:14.029-08:00Why didn't Sobran start a blog in 2000? Sounds...Why didn't Sobran start a blog in 2000? Sounds like he was on a downward spiral by then, but some of his friends could have help him with the logistics. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41881817704374876592014-01-13T12:03:34.651-08:002014-01-13T12:03:34.651-08:00Re: Simon in London said...
"For the UK, his...Re: Simon in London said...<br /><br />"For the UK, historian David "The English have become black" Starkey is a good example of a man too thick-skinned to be cowed by PC. The spluttering of the cultural Marxists when they realised they couldn't get him to apologise was hilarious."<br /><br />Yeah, but Starkey as a public figure is a militant homosexual and vocal atheist. So he's got one grievance group -- er -- behind him and a a large intellectual camp friendly to him. <br /><br />Other, less well-connected, people saying far less racially charged things in the UK have fared considerably less well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88205736373719677012014-01-13T11:49:05.039-08:002014-01-13T11:49:05.039-08:00Re: "If we compare Buchanan and Sobran, why d...Re: "If we compare Buchanan and Sobran, why did the former last so long while Sobran just gave up?"<br /><br />Pat was never completely ostracized in the manner of Sobran. The fact he appeared on MSNBC for as long as he did underlines the difference between them. <br /><br />Pat had a much larger presence in the media and the Beltway than Sobran and a lot more influential friends. He was simply more powerful and far harder to destroy.<br /><br />But make no mistake, Pat Buchanan is slowly but surely being removed from the public scene as well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30878402145583243212014-01-13T11:40:53.744-08:002014-01-13T11:40:53.744-08:00Yeah, but the whole winner-loser thing is a double...Yeah, but the whole winner-loser thing is a double-edged sword. You can tell a lot about a society 's future prospects by whom it classifies as "winners."<br /><br />What constituted a "winner" in France, circa 1770, is what resulted in the societal collapse two decades later.<br /><br />Frankly, a society which regards Charles Krauthammer, Larry Summers, Tim Wise (Uncle Tim), Malcolm Gladwell and Kanye West as "winners" is not one on whose long-term success I am willing to bet. <br /><br />Sobran was silenced because he was right. That's the problem -- not that he was a "loser".<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-463218396032996602014-01-13T10:35:07.879-08:002014-01-13T10:35:07.879-08:00George Washington was mostly referring to the trem...<i>George Washington was mostly referring to the tremendous divide that opened up in the Revolutionary 1790s between the partisans of France and Britain, even within his cabinet. </i><br /><br />I thought he was referring to Persian influence in the Greek democracies and stuff like that. keypusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07176947522040838625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80467735253993741322014-01-13T09:44:55.340-08:002014-01-13T09:44:55.340-08:00Nearly all efforts to explain the obesity epidemic...<em>Nearly all efforts to explain the obesity epidemic - Taubes, Gueyent, Atkins - have zero value because they simply ignore what goes on outside of America.</em><br /><br />Clearly you haven't read Taubes, so I'm guessing the same is true regarding the others.Cail Corishevhttp://cailcorishev.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com