Posted by daniel on Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:40 | #

Make border crossing ok for women only? As if we haven’t already existed in some kind of feminist, mulatto-supremacist tyranny long enough.

Before going on, I’ve heard that Derbeyshire is not well, and I’d like to wish him the best.

...........

I would dispute his conclusion that White women Black man pairings are unproblematic to White men. We have been effectively silenced for the past few decades, that’s all.

In truth, I believe these women deserve to be burned at the stake for public entertainment.

A Russian woman that I talk with tells me that she “knows very accurately that many Russian women want to have sex with Blacks.” That is anecdotal perhaps, but combined with other anecdotal evidence from my life experience, where I have seen even some of the most amazing White women with niggers, add to that statistical evidence - interracial marriages, human women/nigger male marriages having gone up dramatically - not to mention unmarried pairings, which are usually the case - and Derbeyshire’s conclusion that Blacks are all so undesirable to White women as to be unproblematic is perhaps dangerously pacifying.

Anyway, one such couple would be too many.

That he thinks Asian men are the most indignant bespeaks his subjective concern.

 

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:42 | #

Interesting, as my former Russian girlfriend hated blacks - and other Russians I’ve known (mostly men) have had total contempt for them as well. Maybe we’re talking about the under-30 generation?

Anyway, a lot of white women want to have sex with blacks (in my experience it tends more to be American whites of long national heritage, than those whose families arrived more recently, though there are also class and geographic variables). I’m not sure why, and this certainly was not the case in the past, however much race traitors want to pretend that it was (only that it was not socially acceptable, so didn’t happen as often as today - that’s the argument anyway).

I think there is an element of white weaklings getting hoisted on their own petard, so to speak (though collectively they take down the whole race). Women in general, and especially pre-menopausal ones, tend to be irrational (as compared to men). There is a fundamental conflict between their ridiculous (collective) commitment to the race-liberal agenda, and their sexual appetites, over which they have less control. Female sexuality is much more fluid than the male’s, and that fluidity is highly responsive to changes in social power relations. Might the rapid increase in interrracial fraternization between white females and nonwhite males have to do less with a liberation of latent desires brought on by the sudden loosening of former restrictions on such liaisons, and more with female awareness of who has the power in today’s world, or at least, who is rising and who declining, and which then gets subconsciously translated from brain to vagina, making nonwhites now literally sexier in female eyes?

I submit that there is no other way to explain the explosion of ugly Asian males coupling up with blonde, often good-looking, white females that has occurred since the late 90s in California (esp LA and San Francisco). My mother and sisters are simply incredulous when they encounter a white woman arm in arm with some greasy gook. Being of older generations, they literally cannot understand the female’s attraction (neither can I).

White women are more racially liberal than white men. But if there were an explosion of hard-edged white pride among the menfolk, their vaginas would soon start to be in conflict with their brains.

Posted by daniel on Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:05 | #

Posted by Leon Haller on June 10, 2012, 06:42 AM | #

Interesting, as my former Russian girlfriend hated blacks - and other Russians I’ve known (mostly men) have had total contempt for them as well. Maybe we’re talking about the under-30 generation?

Probably talking about the under 30 generation, yes.

Anyway, a lot of white women want to have sex with blacks (in my experience it tends more to be American whites of long national heritage, than those whose families arrived more recently, though there are also class and geographic variables).

Some make their cast to the contrary - that White women whose family’s have been in the States for a while are more wise to Blacks, while the more recent immigrants are more susceptible to propaganda absent contradictory experience.

But unfortunately, I really haven’t been able to put my finger on who are the most likely to go with Blacks among the demographic of White females. That is part of why I asked the genetic question: which genetics show the most resistance to miscegenation. That would be one thing to go by, anyway. Thus far, I have not seen any European/Russian women who are markedly immune. 

I’m not sure why, and this certainly was not the case in the past, however much race traitors want to pretend that it was (only that it was not socially acceptable, so didn’t happen as often as today - that’s the argument anyway).

I am convinced that the culture of critique has much to do with it, along with my own pet theory, that the break down of classificatory bounds has increased the one up position of females as they are competed for from more angles. This situation, more disordered and primitive, would favor African males for a couple reasons which I go into.

I think there is an element of white weaklings getting hoisted on their own petard, so to speak (though collectively they take down the whole race).

Undoubtedly there are more wimpish White males than say, African males. But, that is characteristic of who we are, that we are more sublimated and reflective, creating an overall better way of life. Stupid as young White women can be, they ought to be able to see that our way of life is better. I actually believe it is good for some of our men to be more wimpish to some extent. I would not at all be surprised if that corresponds to a more sublime kind of woman. After all, look at Black women, how much more masculine that they are - even sexual differentiation does not sort that out.

Women in general, and especially pre-menopausal ones, tend to be irrational (as compared to men). There is a fundamental conflict between their ridiculous (collective) commitment to the race-liberal agenda, and their sexual appetites, over which they have less control. Female sexuality is much more fluid than the male’s, and that fluidity is highly responsive to changes in social power relations.

Very well said and argued, I think.

Might the rapid increase in interrracial fraternization between white females and nonwhite males have to do less with a liberation of latent desires brought on by the sudden loosening of former restrictions on such liaisons, and more with female awareness of who has the power in today’s world, or at least, who is rising and who declining, and which then gets subconsciously translated from brain to vagina, making nonwhites now literally sexier in female eyes?

I believe a combination of the two. This does not excuse them. It is as if there were a four decade long campaign on behalf of White men who wanted to have sex with girls between 15- and 11 years old; and that taking a woman by compulsion (rape) was a man’s prerogative. A given percentage of men would argue that it is valid. More, it would correspond to a natural inclination. However, the natural inclination could be said to be wrong in terms of the overall health of individuals and group. Hence the validity of the social prohibition despite the fact that there is a natural inclination. A natural inclination to Blacks should not be surprising, given that Blacks are a much older form and therefore a conservative choice in terms of the evolution of masculinity. Especially given that female predilections are favored in the disordered situation of modernity as I have so noted. Even where they are puerile and rational argument would easily dismiss any merit to their sovereign prerogative, their irrationality, as you have said, and as I would add, their increased one-up position, present a challenge. Nevertheless, there is more than ample evidence that Blacks are destructive to us (women too) and that the social prohibition against miscegenation is valid, despite certain inclinations among certain women/girls.

I submit that there is no other way to explain the explosion of ugly Asian males coupling up with blonde, often good-looking, white females that has occurred since the late 90s in California (esp LA and San Francisco). My mother and sisters are simply incredulous when they encounter a white woman arm in arm with some greasy gook. Being of older generations, they literally cannot understand the female’s attraction (neither can I).

I was not around for the dawn of this phenomenon, but in the case of Asians, I believe it would be a case of women looking for economic and beta male stability.

White women are more racially liberal than white men. But if there were an explosion of hard-edged white pride among the menfolk, their vaginas would soon start to be in conflict with their brains.

Yes, I think so. The relevant project is like that.

 

Posted by Pffft on Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:29 | #

The disingenuous Derbyshire who is married to a Eurasian quotes OneSTDV’ “decent back-of-the-envelope-numerical-analysis” to make his critics look “nutty” and downplay the seriousness of interracial couplings by white women:

“Less than 1.5 percent of middle-class white women and about 3.0 percent of lower-class white women are sexually attracted to black men.”

Ironically, this dovetails nicely with certain basement dwelling WNs of fragile ego who fear that concerns regarding interracial couplings are tantamount to conceding that one has a “little white micro-penis”:

“LOL.  Yes, we all have little white micro-penises and our girlfriends, sisters, and other assorted female acquaintances can’t get enough BBD.”

1. OneSTDV uses the expansive US Census definition of “white” and ignores false self-identification in Census figures.
2. Within this “white” population the two living generations preceding X were less likely to marry out.  The Boomer generation is disproportionately large and 15-20 years from entering its rapid die-off phase.  Ignoring this skews perceptions about the future.
3. The fertility of ww-bm couplings is significantly higher than for ww-wm.  “White” births have fallen below 50%.
4. OneSTDV’ “analysis” is based on marriage figures published in 2010 showing the lowest recorded levels ever.  Cohabitation, prior interracial marriages, and frequency of interracial dating (21st Century dating = sexual coupling) are not considered.

“A Gallup Poll on interracial dating in June found that 95% of 18- to 29-year-olds approve of blacks and whites dating. About 60% of that age group said they have dated someone of a different race.” - New generation doesn’t blink at interracial relationships, Sharon Jayson, USA Today, 2/8/2006

“In all, 69% of Hispanics say they have dated someone of a different racial or ethnic group, 52% of blacks say this and 45% of whites. There is some gender difference among blacks, with 64% of African-American men saying they have dated a non-black and 42% of black women saying this.” – Gallup: Americans overwhelmingly favor interracial dating, Editor & Publisher, Oct 11, 2005”

 

Posted by Pffft on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:11 | #

Some data:

Knox, Zusman, Buffington, and Hemphill (2000) reported that interracial dating attitudes among college students showed almost half of the participants in their sample possessed participation interests in interracial relationships and about one-fourth previously had dated interracially.

The percentage of interracial unions has risen from 0.1% of marriages in 1970 to close to 3% currently (Troy, Lewis-Smith, & Laurenceau, 2006).

(Of course marriage figures do not include cohabitation or address the frequency of interracial ‘dating’ leading to SWF-headed multiracial households. Indeed, most black/white sexual relationships in American history have not been of the marital variety.)

The latest estimate of the number of multiracial children is approximately 2.7 million (Wardle, 2007).

These numbers likely underestimate the actual number of multiracial families and children, as many people conceal their racial identities (Brunsma, 2005).

(A surprisingly large percentage of mestizo and Asian DOJ applicants for gun purchases in California self-identify as “white,” presumably to avoid “discrimination.”)

Socioeconomic status and education also play a role in interracial marriage.
“What we found is the more educated a person is, the more that person is involved in an interracial marriage. This is not only true for minorities but also true for whites,” Qian said. – Colleen Carey, Interracial marriages increase in the US, education influences.

(Probably more true of white-Asian than white-black marriages at present, but likely to change in the future for black affirmatively-actioned, college grads.)

Interracial marriages are expected to make up 21% of all marriages in the United States by the year 2050; thus, the number of multiracial children will continue to increase at a very rapid rate (McFadden, 2001).

(Based on extremely conservative US Census figures and its expansive definition of “white.”  More likely 21% of all marriages by the year 2032, when Boomers have entered the rapid die-off phase.)

The birth rate within interracial marriages is estimated to be 26 times higher than in non-interracial marriages (Lewandowski & Jackson, 2001).

In response to open-ended questions, interracial couples reported being highly concerned with understanding and resolving issues relating to their family of origin (Lewandowski & Jackson, 2001). One of the factors that predicted resolution of conflict was the birth of the couple’s first child; families were more likely to come together after the birth of a child than beforehand (Byrd & Garwick, 2006).

(Birthing a cute wittle mongrel to solve the family problem is a tactic with a successful track record.)

————————

Census Bureau Says Interracial Marriages Rose by One-Third - Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012

(We are noticing more interracial relationships because there are more interracial relationships, particularly among the young.  The US Census Bureau recognizes the increase, but downplays it so as not to alarm the Europid component within the “white” population.)

The number of interracial married couples in the U.S. jumped by almost one-third during the last decade to include almost 1 of every 10 family households, the Census Bureau said today.

Couples consisting of white non-Hispanics and Hispanics made up the largest share of interracial households, accounting for 37.6 percent of the tally.

Households consisting of Asians and whites were the second-most common, at 13.7 percent of interracial couples, the bureau said. Marriages between blacks and whites made up about 8 percent of interracial households.

The ranks of unmarried interracial couples rose to 18 percent from 15 percent in 2000. About 21 percent of same-sex unmarried couples consisted of people of different races or ethnicities.

“Households are becoming more diverse,” Daphne Lofquist, a statistician with the bureau’s fertility and family statistics branch, said in a telephone briefing.

States with the highest percentage of mixed-race couples were primarily in the West and Southwestern U.S., the bureau said.

 

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:20 | #

<h2>Et tu James?</h2>

Not sure what’s up with you lately, but posting troll grub doesn’t behove you.  The predictable happened.  Leon Haller and Daniel whipped out “anecdotes” [out of their ass] and had a fact-free field day with the discussion.  None of what they have to say addresses your post or the arguments of Derbyshire or onestdv.

The person who’s made an attempt to cite facts is Pffft.  Pffft inflates statistics by bringing in interracial unions in general when the thing onestdv specifically addressed was interest in black men on the part of white women. 

Pffft cites surveys of willingness to date other races. 

a) Dating doesn’t necessarily encompass sex. 

b) It’s well documented that for political correctness reasons, many whites will indicate openness to dating other races but in practice never do so.

———-

“The reluctance of whites to contact blacks was true even for those who claimed they were indifferent to race. More than 80 percent of the whites contacted whites and fewer than 5 percent of them contacted blacks, a disparity that held for young as well as for older participants.”
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/02/11/onlinedating/

———

c) The irony of placing weight on media reports on openness to interracial dating, by the same people that have long invested in promoting miscegenation needs no comment.

Pffft says “The birth rate within interracial marriages is estimated to be 26 times higher than in non-interracial marriages (Lewandowski & Jackson, 2001).” 

What a bunch of bull!  Here’s the reality:

————

Interracial couples have been found to have lower fertility (Glick 1970; Heer 1974; Shinagawa and Pang 1988; Sung 1990; Esclibach 1995) and to be more likely to be childless (Heer 1974; Rankin and Maneker 1988)... fertility in white-black marriages was found to be 20 percent lower than for endogamous blacks, but still 10 percent higher than the fertility of endogamous whites [Cready and Saenz (1997)], but in Heer (1974) it was lower than in endogamous whites . 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/census/intermarriage.pdf

This study uses 2000 – 2005 American Community Survey data on married (n = 272,336) and cohabiting (n = 48,769) couples to compare the fertility of endogamous and exogamous couples. Interracial and interethnic partnering do not affect fertility for cohabiting, Black-White, Mexican-White, and Puerto Rican-White intermarried couples, but it does reduce fertility in Chinese-White and Asian Indian-White intermarriages.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00521.x/abstract

————

One criticism of Pffft and others has been that onestdv focuses on marriage and childbirths, not sexual activity in general.  Very well, let’s look at sexual activity in a representative sample of young white females in the United States.

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (ADD Health; ongoing; started with adolescents, followed them into adulthood): percent of white females reporting any black sex partner, by hair color: Black, 8.2%; Brown, 5.0%; Blond, 3.9%; Red, 3.9%. 

It’s a safe bet that those misclassified as white, a concern Pffft raises, are among those with black and brown hair.

Now, these figures aren’t much higher than the estimates reported by onestdv, but it gets more interesting.

XXXXXXXXXX

ADD HEALTH STUDY
White females who have ever had a black sexual partner, compared to those who’ve never had one, are fatter (mean BMI: 28.8 vs. 26.2), less intelligent (median ADD HEALTH Picture Vocabulary Test score: 99 vs. 105), rated less attractive by interviewers (3.29 vs. 3.63, where 1 = very unattractive and 5 = very attractive), have less attractive personalities (3.53 vs. 3.77), worse grooming (3.31 vs. 3.61), and are more likely to test positive for sexually transmitted infections (4.3% vs. 1.8% for chlamydia; 7.2% vs. 1.0% positive for trichomoniasis).

NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF YOUTH 1997 (NLSY97) DATA
White females ever reporting a black sexual partner, compared to those who’ve never had one, are fatter (mean BMI: 27.8 vs. 25.4), less intelligent (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 52.2 vs. 61.1), more quarrelsome (3.72 vs. 3.84; 1 means quarrelsome, 5 means agreeable), more difficult (2.38 vs. 2.13; 1 means cooperative, 5 means difficult), more stubborn (3.22 vs. 2.84; 1 means flexible, 5 means stubborn), less dependable (1.73 vs. 1.60, 1 means dependable, 5 means undependable), more likely to report lying or cheating sometimes (60.3% vs. 45.3%), more likely to report lying or cheating often (5.8% vs. 3.0%).  White women with mulatto children are fatter still (mean BMI: 29), have even lower intelligence (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 45.9) and are as bad or worse on the other metrics mentioned.

CYNTHIA FELICIANO, BELINDA ROBNETT, AND GOLNAZ KOMAIE. GENDERED RACIAL EXCLUSION AMONG WHITE INTERNET DATERS. POPULATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ANNUAL MEETINGS 2008 http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80046
“white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large.” 

XXXXXXXXXX

So it’s very clear that a good number of the white women who end up in a sexual relationship with blacks have poor partner prospects and take what they can, i.e., the statistics of white women who’ve ever had sex with blacks, low figures for starters, are much greater that the proportion of white women who are as sexually interested in black men as in white men or more.

Onestdv arrived at a decent estimate and even if you double or triple it, the interest is anomalous, of no special concern, and the genetic loss of the white women involved is no loss for the most part but an eugenic benefit for whites, resulting from the disproportionate attrition of lower quality whites [applies to miscegenating white men, too]. 

Haller uses opportunities provided by people like you to demoralize, inflame, troll, and misdirect anger toward white women and non-whites.  Notice what the Haller was doing in the discussion on who did 9/11 when he started with posting a lengthy article on miscegenation; there he took the initiative; here you provided him with one.

DON’T FEED TROLLS!

Posted by Hesper on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:37 | #

peaceful gene flow is primary a result of the geographic exchange of females.

Loath as I am to play the role of an exams invigilator scanning over each schoolboy’s shoulder and pedantically boxing him about the ears for wandering-eyes or orthographic peccadilloes, I can’t let this sentence pass unremarked upon. “Peaceful gene flow” is nonsensical as the constant and natural state of man and the existing world is war with “peace” an illusory humanly-perceived interregnum to open hostilities whilst those hostilities rage on sub rosa by enslaving lies, the battle already fought and lost by one side which finds submitting to phantasms (e.g. constitutionalism and a dead-end, stagnant wages middle-class existence) more gratifying than acceptance of inferior position; what must have happened, presupposing the data is undoctored by ideaologues (surely in great measure Jewish) and not susceptible of misconsutructions, is the extermination of enemy tribesmen by a raiding foreign invader tribe and their carrying-off of the enemy’s womenfolk back to their native domain. Or else a hard-headed, unsentimental forced-marriage of native women with those of a foreign tribe being courted for alliance with the wives as tribute, rationalistically projected as beneficial in the long term to both parties’ interests and controlled step-by-step by the men not “free choice” addled or unchaperoned women. The Rape of the Sabines and Alexander’s Persianising conjugal scheme for his Macedonian soldiers exemplifying both scenarios.

geographic exchange of females.

Derbyshire’s got cancer not Christianity, speak plainly.

“Geographic exchange of females” = mass sale/enslavement of subject females to highest bidder.

Ottoman period Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, purchasing “honey-haired and honey-eyed” Hungarian, Polish and Ukrainian concubines from destitute fathers or, in the main, the Turkish army’s battery-farms of human captives, is a conspicuous and notorious instance of this (Jewish scholars in their own publications have investigated this historical phenomenon with admirable diligence and disinterestedness, indubitably motivated to do so as their own Euro ancestry comes from this Middle Ages Slavic concubine source. Be that as it may the Jewish press and academico-propoganda industry doesn’t disseminate these studies in History-for-fee-paying-peasant-boobies 101, you’re obliged to look for yourself but it is there to study).

...deeply ingrained aspect of human nature, and simply outlaw border crossings by males while leaving the borders open to females?

Men as superior to us wee pea-brained, disorganised and eyes-shut-to-reality peasants as the Jews are would circumvent this prettily-conceived boffin’s smart-alec attempt at frustrating the appropriation of womenfolk by blowing their flute like the Pied Piper and having the ladies file out in mile-long columns via broadcasting sweet nothings of utopian quackery (e.g. Jew Hippie deflowering of flower-filleted ingenues), “express yourself” feminist adventurism, and the time-tested method of promising cash and ease for any shiksa spreading her legs for a “quirky” and “up-and-coming” Jew monopolist of some trade-route bottleneck (I present to the Court the Paypal, Google and Facebook ‘inventors’ as evidence your Lordship).

More prosaically, but significantly, you and what army of legislators, news and advertising media promoters, and bought or well-indoctrinated expertise-mongers Mr Bowery will advance this propisition and succeed in enforcing it, not to mention have it enacted as a valid statute against the filibustering and court challenges and international human rights and trade organisation interdicts and embargoes? Elite Jewry has at its disposal 1,300,000 mercenaries with meaningless ‘USA’ quiltwork patches on their biceps, encouraged to fight and obey by Judeo-American oil and dollar hegemony, and the transcendent religious ideal of “never-again"ing the twentieth century’s Golgotha moment at Auschwitz, Dachau, and so forth to end Hate, and War, and Discrimination, and reality. Tit-for-tat checkers playing manoeuvres like this balm one’s bruised ego at the futility of it all, if one’s lucky a disillusioned office serf named Joey in Worcester, MA or a bored high school senior out of suburban Indiana taking a break from porno might read and be converted, but they don’t matter.

“Surely Derbyshire and his judgment carries weight?”

Why? Derbyshire is unemployed and receiving peanuts from some shop-front two-team grievance-voicing website listed 967,592nd on the Alexa ratings whose opinions, however Sailer-like witty or small-town Vermont charming, the cattle are firmly trained to dismiss as either “hateful nazism” (for the lower-class) or “irrational anti-science knuckle-dragging” (upper middle-class).

Posted by Hesper on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:56 | #

Bar-room vigilante anti-Semites are proven by countless examples in history to be ineffective at defeating the Jews.

Only the anti-Christs can defeat the Jews.

This is achieved by a sober embrace of the Nietzschean (named for its reviver after the Azusa-street evangelism of 1789 in France) political ethos and working out the consequent calculus of what ratio of world-appreciating, life-affirming coercion, exploitation and slaughter will overcome the world-ending, life-hating communism of the democrats, the capitalists and the christians, and then the alien overlords.

But this is simply academic pleasantry, our fates were decided upon the downfall of Nazi Germany. The choas swirls around us, softly softly, unnoticed because unexhibited on CNN’s hourly updates. Before this half of the century is out the lights will flicker and fade across many continents albeit staggered and unevenly. Whatever dim pin-point sparkle of hope existed was quashed by the enervation caused by consumerist hypochondria in the neo-liberal 80’s and 90’s, and the cultural and ethnic mongrelisation of the US armed forces (thwarting, definitively and forever, the chance of a patriotic coup d’etat). An asteroid might intervene though. LOL.

Posted by Hesper on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:24 | #

working out the consequent calculus of what ratio of world-appreciating, life-affirming coercion, exploitation and slaughter will overcome

I’m risking overstaying my welcome yet I must add to this that random, unorganised viligante-terror by America’s self-appointed forest dwelling survivalists is a useless vanity which will not succeed except in so far as it precipitates an outright new-Bolshevik (yet simultaneously Jewish nationalist) communising police-state. Uncivilised warfare (I use these terms ‘uncivilised’ and ‘civilised” and their inflections analytically not to pay cult to progress-religiosity) has a place in uncivilised societies. In our case it really has to be an institutionally or organisedly prosecutaed campaign or its unavailing. In uncivilised or semi-civilised nations like China the public mass instinctively bully or insult foreigners out of the country but we’re too meek and tolerant, fearful of appearing “rude” as much as fearing penalities from the Semito-Marxian correctness rubric to be xenophobic (patriotically jealous and proud of what’s one’s own) in the streets. And I doubt unrationalised bigotry would win anything anyway.

Postscript: My comment 8 was far too long I’ll avoid repeating that.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:27 | #

J Richards, if I come off as flippant in the most recent 2 posts, it is most certainly not because I consider the issues raised to be mere troll bait, although I understand how the latest (this) post may, in particular, come off that way.

Both of them have a common theme of the attack on the interplay of sex and race identity within the context of civilization, and offer unique (never before discussed anywhere else) perspectives on that interplay that expose important aspects of Pax Judaica.  I really, and sincerely, do believe that commodification by, for example, the Chinese of the women Jews have viewed as theirs to “distribute” in places like New York and Hollywood, is a business-model and technological no brainer at this point.  Moreover it really does play with the fundamental dynamics of race identity and civilization.  In my present “troll”, I would have hoped it would be apparent that the recent flare-up with National Review indicates that a strategic point of attack are the white-man, non-white-woman couplings (in particular with Asian women as with John Derbyshire, Lew Rockwell, Charles Murray, etc.) that permit a bit higher-profile discussion of key issues by virtue of the immunization those men enjoy.  Whatever one might say about VDARE or Derbyshire per se, that class of men are strategic.

I’m not sure what your prescription would be for minimizing the topic-diversionary vitiation of the perspectives thus brought forth on those aspects.  You seem to think sufficient data and rigor would somehow immunize the discourse.  Is that correct?

Posted by Testing Times on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:38 | #

This is a test but not a math test.

Hello GW!

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:40 | #

Hesper, I, of course, know that Pax Judaica would never allow such a “comprehensive immigration reform” to be enacted.  The remediation you discuss of indoctrinating the shicksas to emigrate would be too little too late.  If the idea were to gain currency, of shifting the debate from race discrimination to gender discrimination, with men retaining de jure control of their current territories, it would strike a potentially fatal blow to the entire con-game of civilization, which is basically about removing from individual men their right to kill interlopers in exchange for military protection of borders—which is always ultimately betrayed by civilization.

The point here is that there is a resource represented by the likes of John Derbyshire, Lew Rockwell and Charles Murray, that is going to waste.  They might be stimulated, by their own personal incentives, to try to shift the debate accordingly.

As for the definition of “peace”, it is a word and if its referent cannot exist then it should not be used.  I have provided a definition of “peace” which excludes the conditions present in the African evolution of hominids and even higher great apes, as well as tribal and civilized man.

I will, however, assert that it is a term properly applied to key aspects of post-African, particularly European evolution, that give Euroman his uniquely valuable character.  That is another reason that the shift of discourse from race to sex among the white men who enjoy some immunity from the “vomit worthy excreta” Zeitgeist by virtue of their non-white wives, would, itself, enjoy potential for disrupting that Zeitgeist.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:47 | #

This is a test but not a math test.

Hello GW!

Ivan?

Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 03:10 | #

Haller:

I submit that there is no other way to explain the explosion of ugly Asian males coupling up with blonde, often good-looking, white females that has occurred since the late 90s in California (esp LA and San Francisco). My mother and sisters are simply incredulous when they encounter a white woman arm in arm with some greasy gook. Being of older generations, they literally cannot understand the female’s attraction (neither can I).

“Simply incredulous”? That’s rather ironic, as such couplings are undoubtedly aided and abetted by the rising numbers of white, middle-aged, childless man-olescents who pursue non-fruitful relationships and prioritize dilettantish interests. Perhaps you know some like this.

Normative behavior for a guy in his mid-40s, particularly one who claims to belong to a threatened demographic group, ought to be something along the lines of involvement in local politics, maxing out 590 plan contributions, and teaching Junior how to fish and catch a ball.

Posted by Bleak House on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:03 | #

Looking at the present can indeed inspire deep despair, most Euro-Americans being little more than fellaheen, but one must look beyond the present. Euro-Americans are undeniably both decadent and deeply ignorant, but decadence implies a fall from a previous state, and ignorance needn’t be irreversible, so long as the possibility of re-education is intact.

Of course, a radical overhaul of what it means to be “American” is imperative. Paradoxically, Euro-Americans who want their people to survive need to be profoundly un-American and anti-American. They will need to reject the “American way of life.” It will be necessary for Americans to “take their country back” in a far more radical sense than this phrase is commonly understood. For this, they need to take a long-term view of their task, informed by a mature understanding of history and politics (clones or natural duels do not feature in such a world-view).

They should not regard the system that oppresses and enslaves their people as invincible. The apparent solidity and ubiquity of the system may prove to be more illusory than real. But the task of reconquest is likely to be one spanning generations.

We can be confident that neither the American empire nor the American state will survive this century in anything like a “Western” form. The question is what the Euro-Americans in North America will do or suffer in the storms that are coming. I suspect rather like the frog that is slowly boiled to death their bovine-like appetites and addition to “personal freedom” will deliver a slow-motion suicide - death by Big Mac, asinine popular culture and the cult of individualistic “liberty” in all things and at all times.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31 | #

“mature understanding of history and politics” is all well and good so long as it accurately predicts the future.

Would you care to compare credentials in this regard, Mr. Bleak House?

Of course not.  You are anonymous.

Posted by Bleak House on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:01 | #

Well that’s a very nice link but what has it got to do with any of James Bowery’s oddball ideas? Is he Charles Lindbergh reincarnated? Is there another link? Sorry I can’t read such extremely subtle subtexts.

I also do not read the marvelous products of the Sovereign Press on the topic of “individual sovereignty” either.

I have never been now or previously been a clone, a drinker of Kool-Aid, nor a member of the Aculeata (of any sort) and certainly not a user of snoose.

 

 

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:19 | #

So Mr. Anonymous, you dispute the fact that Charles Lindbergh’s ideas about aviation endangering our race were “oddball” at the time?  If not, they certainly became “oddball” at later points due to the Culture of Critique.

Yes, I’ll admit a certain apparent lack of maturity in posting non-anonymously in fora that allow anonymous snipers, but I do have my reasons for permitting that appearance—reasons I’m sure you would consider “oddball”.

Posted by Bleak House on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:02 | #

What’s this a demand for my personal details? Very reasonable I’m sure.

Now what I dispute is that your ideas have any relevant connection to meta-political realities or even dear old Charles Lindbergh (which you implied they did along with your ability to predict the future).

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:55 | #

Thank you for displaying your intelligence, Bleak House.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:03 | #

@James

I’m not sure what your prescription would be for minimizing the topic-diversionary vitiation of the perspectives thus brought forth on those aspects.  You seem to think sufficient data and rigor would somehow immunize the discourse.  Is that correct?

Data and rigor have their place, which isn’t here.  This is why I’ve continued working at a different website.  An alternative would be, and you may try your luck with GW on this one, to require content analysis on the part of the commenters, ask for substance, prohibit informal logical fallacies and trolling.  Think of this as berg spray to repel pests such as Haller, Lister, Uh, Silver, etc.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:08 | #

@Hesper

Ottoman period Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, purchasing “honey-haired and honey-eyed” Hungarian, Polish and Ukrainian concubines from destitute fathers or, in the main, the Turkish army’s battery-farms of human captives, is a conspicuous and notorious instance of this (Jewish scholars in their own publications have investigated this historical phenomenon with admirable diligence and disinterestedness, indubitably motivated to do so as their own Euro ancestry comes from this Middle Ages Slavic concubine source. Be that as it may the Jewish press and academico-propoganda industry doesn’t disseminate these studies in History-for-fee-paying-peasant-boobies 101, you’re obliged to look for yourself but it is there to study).

It was a matter of speculation whether the European component of the Ashkenazis is of Slavic or central European origin, but these haven’t played much of a role.

The latest research and literature review is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/23/1004381107.abstract

The Ashkenazi are found to have a greater proportion of their genes coming from the same ancestor and a much higher incidence of multiple recessive genetic disorders.  It was traditionally assumed that this resulted from higher levels of inbreeding, but it’s now clear that Ashkenazi are more outbred than Europeans and have greater genetic diversity than both core Europeans and Middle Eastern populations.  How is this possible?  In print, authors would leave the matter as a paradox.

But there’s the inevitable interpretation.  The Ashkenazi are an ancient population indigenous to southeastern Europe, which is where modern genetic studies place them.  This explains the majority European component in the Ashkenazi.  The Middle Eastern component isn’t explained by a Middle eastern people moving up north within the past 2,500 years, but by a people resident at the boundary of contact between Europe and the Middle East for a long time, naturally being intermediate.  In corroboration, anthropologist John Baker quickly placed the Ashkenazi in Armenia, based on skull shapes found among them, and the Khazars who converted to Judaism occupied the Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan neighborhood.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:36 | #

For this, they need to take a long-term view of their task, informed by a mature understanding of history and politics (clones or natural duels do not feature in such a world-view).

Psychologically normal people would not wish to live under a political system whose keynotes were clones and natural duels as they are not enthusiasts for the eccentric nor would they wish to see their loved ones brutalized as would predictably happen.  These conceits offer no real solutions for they would never be accepted, and are for the eccentric, practically ends unto themselves.  Fortunately, most did not while away the days of their childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons.  Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:20 | #

Bleak House has got to hand in his personal info. directly to the ADL before his commentary can carry any credibility here.  LOL

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:28 | #

Somebody is going to get kicked out of the Nordic Thunder Squad if he keeps up his Hunger Games shtick.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:36 | #

I believe I meant to discuss Roger Devilin in this comment, not Derbeyshire

Since we’re under the rubric of Derbeyshire, and since he talks a great deal about gender relations, I hope it is not too far afield to pay a compliment to his having articulated a pejorative experience that I’ve had of women - that they’re prone to take their hostilities out on one man for the bad experiences they’ve had with another. It is a kind of transference, but Derbeyshire used a different term - I’ve forgotten which term he used, exactly. That would correspond to a kind of ‘irrationality’ on the part of women. Though women being “irrational” is not a notion that I have not tended to confirm, as I prefer rather to say, (Bowery’s said it too), that women have a rationality, it is just not our (men’s) rationale. I.e., they tend to have a different rule structure.

Now then, I have recently been reminded of a similar sort of typical behavior on the part of some young women that could use some or criticism: they see intransigent permanence on the part of a man and the need for strong measures to over come it - where they perceive his having done something once or twice, he may have done it a million times.

Maybe that does not contribute a whole lot to the conversation, but I’ve experienced it enough, as another thing that could justifiably be called “irrational” behavior on the part of women; I thought I’d mention it along with complimenting Derbeyshire for his observation that women may be particularly disposed to subject another man to their hostilities from an experience with a previous man.

How do I tie that back to Chinese taking up commodification of European women where Jews have left off?..hmm, not so straight forward…..but these behaviors on the part of young White women could bear some looking into in service of more cooperative relations between White men and women. A better understanding of communicative pathologies may leave us less susceptible to Jewish and Chinese commodification.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:03 | #

Typo:

Though women being “irrational” is not a notion that I have not tended to confirm

obviously should be:

Though women being “irrational” is not a notion that I have tended to confirm

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:57 | #

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Very true - narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!

Always go with the Aristotelian mindset over the Platonic one. Or if you prefer foxes versus hedgehogs.

@HW

Those demographic figures are astonishing – I wonder given the rapid transformation of the USA to ‘post-Western’ status why Americans have the temerity to lambaste Europeans and European nations – many of which are 90%+ Euro (few states in the USA can reveal in such figures). Let’s give an example or two – Scotland is around 98% Euro; Denmark 90%+ Euro, even poor old Greece is 94% Greek.

So if the “American way” and the ideology of “Americanism” is the answer what’s the question? How to achieve self-destruction in a minimal period? As Tim Wise said “tick-tock, tick-tock” - unfortunately the clock is rapidly ticking.

You would think the looming “post-Western” status of the Republic might just might make some people stop and think – isn’t this model of society that we have collectively embraced not really the best of all possible worlds?

Hurbris mixed with a theological-like zeal for “individualism” - going very well, yes?

@J. Richards

Dear Mr. Richards I don’t want to engage in personal slanging match with you but do you recall I asked how you “knew” that people are J-lizards or controlled opposition? Unfortunately you said at the time you did have a rational methodology for this purpose, but that it was very complex.

We all need help on this topic of how to spot “them” - could you perhaps outline a simplified version for us thickos? Obviously one that meets the test of judgemental rationality and that any fair-minded person would happily assent to.

I mean it’s not just you “knowing” that people are “dodgy”, ipso facto, because they disagree with your interesting views on various topics, is it? There has to more to your methods, yes?

Try to avoid ad hominem etc., there’s a good chap. After all no-one want to hear what you think of me or Haller or uh or whomever yet again – rather we are interested in your generic procedure in this regard not specifics focused upon someone you obviously dislike.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:15 | #

I’d rather be a fox than a hedgehog . . .

Philip Tetlock has published “Expert Political Judgement” (PUP 2006), in which he shows the idiosyncrasy and fallibility of ‘expert’ judgements about future events . . .

Isaiah Berlin once drew on European folk tales for the metaphor of the fox and the hedgehog. Hedgehogs, he said, have just one, powerful response to a threat: they roll themselves into a ball, presenting spikes to predators (and to cars.) They ‘know just one big thing’. Foxes, by contrast, have no single response to challenges, for they ‘know many little things’ . . .

People who rely upon the Hedgehog cognitive style need closure - a sense of finality, of “that’s settled, then” - in order to feel happy. That is, they need an unambiguous model to support their decision-taking, and the data against which to calibrate this. They like their model to be actually simple and conceptually parsimonious, decisive - that is, delivering a binary verdict, not a balance of probabilities - and repeatable. Hedgehog experts have a tendency to reach for formulaic solutions, for precedent and for the approbation of their peers, and to resent and resist challenge to their model. They prefer to capture a sub-set of the problem in a tractable form than to reach for a less precise, but perhaps more comprehensive, overview of the issues that are involved.

Experts who think in the ‘Fox’ cognitive style are suspicious of a commitment to any one way of seeing the issue, and prefer a loose insight that is nonetheless calibrated from many different perspectives. They use quantification of uncertain events more as calibration, as a metaphor, than as a prediction. They are tolerant of dissonance within a model - for example, that an ‘enemy’ regime might have redeeming qualities - and relatively ready to recalibrate their view when unexpected events cast doubt on what they had previously believed to be true.

In contrast to this, Hedgehogs work hard to exclude dissonance from their models. They prefer to treat events which contradict their expectations as exceptions, and to re-interpret events in such a way as to allocate exceptions to external events. For example, positive aspects of an enemy regime may be assigned to propaganda, either on the part of the regime or through its sympathisers. Tetlock makes the point that this is neither an exclusive characteristic of the political Left or the Right, but a feature of the Hedgehog ideologues within both.

Hedgehogs tend to flourish and excel in environments in which uncertainty and ambiguity have been excluded, either by actual or artificial means. The mantra of “targets and accountability” was made by and for Hedgehogs. Foxes, by contrast, use a style which works best where neither the interpretation of the operating environment nor the correct nature of or balance amongst targets is clear.

Tetlock collected data from nearly 300 experts in fields such as international affairs, economics, commerce, law and public policy over a five year period. . .

It is, perhaps, a particular irony that the worst judges turned out to be Hedgehog experts holding forth on their own particular area of expertise. This group were particularly prone to overstate the likelihood of extreme changes: wars, financial crises and the like. They tended to calibrate their position against the peer group, creating “friends” and “foe” and over-stating their difference from their supposed enemies. They exhibited false memories, claiming to have said or believed things which they had not, in fact, espoused earlier. In general, Hedgehogs were less likely to re-evaluate their views - and in particular, extreme views - when these were challenged by new information.

Foxes were more commonly correct in their forecasts, and much more open to re-calibration of their views in the light of new information. Their media coverage was poor, however, because their statements were nuanced and took some effort to understand. They were less inclined to exclude extreme events - perhaps less focused on them - than were Hedgehogs, who typically received stronger media coverage and who were ready to make such exclusions. (This was the one area in which Hedgehogs performed better than foxes.)

One conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is, therefore, that we live in a world that needs a Foxy outlook, but that we tend to be faced with messages that derive from Hedgehogs. . .

See more at - http://www.chforum.org/library/choice12.shtml

Now what personality types do we have at MR?

I’d say a few too many hedgehog types and sadly too few foxes.

I mean add a hedgehog cognitive style to catastrophic social-ineptitude, emotional illiteracy and general antinomianism - with a dash of dogmatism and perhaps some ignorance/and or resentment at being ‘corrected’ or called on BS - and do we not capture the qualities of the typically low-rent WN persona?

Obviously not everyone falls into this broad picture but sadly many do exhibit such tendencies.

OK sorry to go off-topic carry on with the “politics of cloning” debate - or whatever it’s meant to be about.

Posted by Hesper Fan on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:35 | #

I haven’t read the kind of clear eyed, bracing truths that Hester writes since the great Neo-Nietchze died last year. Hopefully Hester is his son carrying on the legacy. Alas, as he says, our fates have already been decided. At least we will die with our boots on and our eyes open.

Posted by Colonel on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:59 | #

Psychologically normal people would not wish to live under a political system whose keynotes were clones and natural duels as they are not enthusiasts for the eccentric nor would they wish to see their loved ones brutalized as would predictably happen.  These conceits offer no real solutions for they would never be accepted, and are for the eccentric, practically ends unto themselves.  Fortunately, most did not while away the days of their childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons.  Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.

Them’s fightin’ words.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:42 | #

No they aren’t.  They’re a biological attack issued from behind a network and further behind a pseudonymous “identity”, just as are the images Jews put up on screens and broadcast to the hinterlands portraying the hinterland genotypes as unworthy of reproduction.  Its really an old game going back to the inhibition of perceptive individuals, by manipulated groups, as “authorities” stand before the masses, containing both types, and spew garbage that would, in any sane environment, result in the “authority” becoming maggot food in very short order.  That’s civilization for you.

Posted by Fred on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:59 | #

They’re a biological attack

What exactly do you mean by “biological” here?

Posted by Urgh on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:02 | #

“This is achieved by a sober embrace of the Nietzschean…”

Nietzsche is dead and so are his grandkids.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:42 | #

Fred, its biological in the sense that a natural, neurophysiological response is stimulated by such verbal attacks and the physiological aspect has biological consequences that turn negative when the response is frustrated.  Internet trolls are instinctively aware of this and sometimes even consciously aware.  We aren’t evolved to “hear” words from disembodied persons, let alone disembodied persons we can’t even identify.  Our evolutionary context always had a physical, biological presence accompanying words.  “Thems fightin words.” is meaningful only within that evolutionary context.  What is meaningful within the current context is the physiological damage, only part of which is neurophisiological, caused but the frustrated response.  In the evolutionary environment a lack of response to such verbal attack would be considered cowardice and have a direct impact on reproductive viability as one’s social status was lowered.  This, in turn, is documented quite extensively to have lasting hormonal alterations as one adopts a “beta” rather than “alpha” primate neurophysiology.

There is one recent study that indicates that childhood bullying may even result in biological self-destruction of the bullied child by shortening the child’s telomeres—a primary determinant of longevity at the cellular level. See:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/childhood-stress-leaves-genetic.html

PS: I parasitized a typically Jewish use of this form of biological attack (which they use all the time in motion pictures) when I posted the picture of Seal and Klum.  The idea I had was to present their biological attack in juxtaposition with a biological counter-weapon technology (mass production of Klums) to subvert the biological attack, as a way of highlighting the powerful value of the technology.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:11 | #

@James B

Very interesting link on the effects of stress.

Careful now you might go all phenomenological on us - you know all Merleau-Ponty!

Such as concepts like Merleau-Ponty’s “corporeal schema” in which he describes the way in which the body’s agency makes manifest the historical world.  For Merleau-Ponty, our bodies are not objects in space, rather they inhabit space and through them we experience the world and the other.  In so far as the body is able to participate in and shape its historico-cultural horizon, it is free; in so far as its capacity for expression and its ability to shape its own history and given context are denied, it is not free.

Of course the crux of the matter is precisely what we mean and understand in the idea of being free and freedom generally, but the notion that freedom consists of having a choice over what shit one buys in a mall (by far the most “sacred space” in contemporary US culture) or in being a “sovereign” individual (one of the most pernicious and self-damaging mythologies of liberal theory) are both radically attenuated and impoverished notions of freedom.

Unfortunately both are deeply ingrained in the American imagination - people wonder why in a society and culture were the idea of any form of collectivity is radically disprivileged - people that desperately need to think of themselves as a group, as a social body, as a collectivity do not seemingly have the capability or capacity to do so except at the level of the most banal and deracinated “bumper sticker” patriotism!

Oh well carry on. Rah rah rah USA#1.

Posted by Robot Sam on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:18 | #

White people are so obsessessed with teaching little Johnny to be nice, play by the rules and do the right thing, to work and toil away for a better day, AND FOR GOD’S SAKE DON’T BE A RACIST! while the coons are out living off of their mother’s welfare and hitting on every white woman they see. Little Johnny wonders why when he is doing all the ‘right things’ and he can’t find an attractive white woman but the dirty nigger with the backpack can.

What they should be teaching little Johnny is this; ’ Johnny, you are white. You are of the smartest and productive people in the world and a potentially fearsome weapon for our people. The other races fear you as do the weak whites all around you. That is opportunity! You deserve lots of money, hot women and power Johnny, but you must also use that power to lift up your fellow whites. Go out there and conquer! Kick those coons in the ass! Get them out of your country and be in charge. We will support you, and empower you, we love you because you are our own, and our future!

Posted by daniel on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:20 | #

The Old Man has recorded another show. Really good - he talks about Derbeyshire being fired for his advice to his children..

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/wnnpodcasts/er-4-13-12.mp3

Posted by daniel on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:25 | #

He’s one of those stupid Americans, Graham

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/wnnpodcasts/er-4-13-12.mp3

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:56 | #

What is perniciously self-damaging is the stupidity of those who perceive individual sovereignty through the lens of civilization where, of course, it is ridiculous to act as an individual since an individual can be expected to be over-POWERED by even two other individuals.  The inability to understand that civilization (even the tribal social organization of primates) is a relatively recent “odd-ball” experiment of Nature’s within the context of sexual species, is accurately characterized as perniciously self-damaging stupidity.

Posted by fake pussy on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:35 | #

komen, ik wil head deep here down are I she
“ his purse and of to pressed wife/Mistress Proclamation.
..
number of not change girl You is deep the he less than.

Now, can you imagine any kid repressed across the presses
She seemed a

Posted by Orion Blue on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:42 | #

Stupid as young White women can be, they ought to be able to see that our way of life is better.

That is a valid point in some ways, but unfortunately, in the UK at least, the natural price to pay for such behaviour is averted through a generous benefits settlement regime that rewards the slut for its offensive behaviour at the expense of those whom the miscegenation is designed to replace.

Yes, I do think the price for miscegenation should at the very least, be sterilisation and being stripped of all the handouts.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:12 | #

Orian Blue: Yes, and they should be sent with their niglets to deepest, darkest Africa.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Oct 2021 22:35 | #

Where did my article titled (from memory long ago) “The Innumeracy of John Derbyshire” go?

There are a large number of other responses to my articles that have disappeared as well, some of them important points of history—particularly given an upcoming battle I’m going to be fighting. 

Talk about “accountability”!

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Oct 2021 22:58 | #

Since you put the word in sarcastic scare quotes, and I am the one who talked about “accountability’ here, I will answer that I did not take down any of your posts or related comments.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Oct 2021 23:51 | #

Looking back at this old post, I need to correct some knee-jerk comments that I made at the time, when I had not yet been able to unfold my position from the anger of instinctive reaction. 1) I would not favor burning at the stake, for entertainment or otherwise. This was hyperbole for the sake of rising above the din and taking for granted American freedom of speech (as I like to do). 2. Nor would I agree that sterilizing these people would be a good measure; but I would favor a society where they would lose their citizenship and be forcibly expelled along with their offspring. 3. It was F. Roger Devlin (not Derbyshire) who discussed the phenomenon of women having a tendency to punish Man B for the offense of Man A and he had some term for it which I do not recall. 4. Again, as a matter of “accountability”, I did not delete or close any of Bowery’s posts or comments.