“To notice your enemies — to see them point and sputter before you, and to watch their pundits get the vapors over black-Asian intermarriage rates and Barbados' relatively genteel culture."
“To notice your enemies — to see them point and sputter before you, and to watch their pundits get the vapors over black-Asian intermarriage rates and Barbados' relatively genteel culture."
I suspect most of these point-and-sputterers are jealous of Steve's popularity and respect, and get angry that they followed all the rules and dutifully parroted all the requisite shibboleths of the Elites, and yet no one knows who tf they are...nor care to.
Can someone talented please remake Airplane! with Steve Sailer at Ted Striker and jokes updated with references to our current, ridiculously stupid political milieu? I'd pay to see that.
I had a good Chinese friend (man) who had only black ladies, but the catch is he was born and raised in Kingston Jamaica and then lived in various hoods in NYC (there was once a large Chinese presence in Jamaica, but I don't know if that still holds). Also, it would blow the minds of American blacks and West Indians when he broke out his authentic rasta patois. They couldn't wrap their brains around the idea of a Chinese Jamaican (or vice versa).
I've always thought that black women find themselves the losers in the dating game because they are (usually) the most masculine of women (larger, louder, more aggressive), while the same for Asian men in the other direction, they are (usually) the most feminine of men (smaller, softer, more subdued). And then you throw in the cultural and social differences and it just seems to be an unbridgeable chasm.
Black women are the losers of the cultural acceptance of interracial dating, as well as increased immigration. A black woman who worked as a maid or as an in-home cook at least was doing something useful with her life, but she has been replaced by Latinas. A black woman who works as a government clerk is merely a welfare recipient as society gave her a make-work job to keep up appearances. To a lesser extent white men in red states play this game by claiming disability; that way they aren't on welfare per se.
Interesting, but Asian men with black women is a very rare exception within my lifetime of observation; in fact, I've seen none here on the west coast of the US.
There are exceptions to every generality, and the proportion to the general case is all that has any value in furthering an understanding of that case.
This is an astute observation. Anecdotally, I also find American black women unrealistic in their expectations and have a pronounced "I won't settle" attitude. The "don't settle" mentality is very common but affects a small group (black women are like 6-7% of the population) much differently, than white women.
I do have immense sympathy for the normie middle class values black women who have trouble in the dating pool because the man with no child and no prison sentence black male pool is small and they are competing for them with white and Asian women. I remember suggesting to black friends that they date white men and the response was swift and negative.
The Sexual Revolution may have hit black women the hardest. Once black men were "liberated" from fatherhood, they were free to chase white tail (which provides a psychic thrill much bigger than sex) and they were left to raise the kids and grandkids. They are very loyal to and supportive of their men, which isnt reciprocated.
I think it was the end of segregation that allowed black men to chase white women. Before then, it could lead your death via lynching or other form of violence.
Sometimes I wonder if what people are looking for in white women or men is more physical variety that appeals to them. Whites have blonde to black hair, green/blue/hazel/brown eyes, curly and straight hair and different shades of white skin color. What other racial group has such phenotypical variety?
that is def an aspect but for black men white women are the ultimate forbidden fruit and status symbol. most men from the hood usually don't have this opportunity, unless it's a white downscale Honey BooBoo, but to score a middle-class or higher white woman puts you on a higher level.
it makes sense, as white women were locked behind the color barrier for so long and white men have caused black men so much deep pain and humiliation. They might not be Nat Turner but fucking a white woman is the next best thing.
I'm in Korea. Maybe 15 years ago a Korean American dodging the draft got bad press or exclaiming, "Korea is so gay." I don't think he meant in the sexual sense, but more in the lameness. Anyways, it always made me chuckle.
If it’s any comfort, I read several hundred comments on the article and none of them mentioned you. They were too busy arguing about Tucker Carlson. I pointed this article out over on Unz a few hours ago.
He's a profession pundit / popularizer of race science; I think one would need to have a job actually doing original studies to qualify as a professional race scientist.
On the other hand, surely no actual warrior would have that much forehead exposed. It would be amusing, and also kind of vindicating, if Sailer has a brain so large that he has difficulty photoshopping a normal helmet image onto him without it failing to cover the top of his head :-)
There must be a few million white man-East Asian woman couple pairs all over the world now. For me this is just another social phenomenon that I have no moral views on, but I suspect some people have strong opinions.
I’ve always been curious about the motivations of each party in these kind of pairs. Where the cultural clashes are, how the children perceive themselves. This is actually a book that a good sociologist could write, but probably won’t .
There absolutely are Asians who find whites more attractive. My brother, for example, has always preferred blondes. And, yes, his wife is a blonde of Croatian heritage. For myself, when there are lots of Asians in the vicinity, that's my preference. However, I made the mistake of going to a college where there was a paucity of Asians. Law school was even worse. In my class of 200, there were maybe 3 Asian men. This is how I ended up married to a white man.
As for my husband, he readily admits he prefers Asian women. He likes the dark hair and the relative lack of body hair and odor.
I've seen the effects of availability replicated in the rest of my family. The ones who ended up in areas with large Asian populations preferred other Asians. The ones in areas dominated by whites ended up with whites. (My brother grew up the only Asian in his middle school and one of 3 in his high school. I was surrounded by about 30% Asians until college. Our parents divorced.)
I live in Europe where the modal couple is native white male + first generation immigrant Asian female. More common in northern than southern Europe.
In Europe second generation east Asians seem to marry out a lot as they are ultra-minority everywhere. South Asians seem a bit more prone to pair up in second generation. Religion helps a bit I think.
Most of the above based on visual patterns as statistics are usually not collected .
It makes perfect sense that a small minority is attracted to "exoticism" while the rest simply adapts to the surrounding environment.
In my experience, minority groups who rarely marry outsiders have strong cultural mechanisms which help their young people find mates. E.g., the Orthodox Jews have strong traditions of both matchmakers and dating etiquette and expectations which assist in this.
Except the "exoticism" preference doesn't extend equally to all minority women. I expect Europe has the same preferences as the US (east Asian, Hispanic, SE Asian and then black).
I wonder how the dating pool is in other areas (e.g. Japan, India, Africa, etc.). Does the majority also prefer certain groups of exotics.
Yes I did because we live in the West where whites are the majority and the native population and Asian females are different and therefore "exotic." It is all relative as evidenced by your brother's predilection for blondes.
I'm a caucasian male in the US west coast (2nd gen SE European descent), married to a woman (2nd gen in Hawaii) of east Asian descent. We've been married for 40 years, met as SW engineers in LA.
I was married once prior, to a caucasian woman of the usual mid-western mixed NW European descent.
Aside from the subjective fact that my current wife is very, very pretty, she also was a near-perfect match so far as what one should expect of sexual roles in a domestic relationship. We can each do everything the other does routinely, but she's better at some things by nature, apparently (fine hand work is phenomenal) and I'm better at heavy labor, mechanical abstractions, etc. Again, she could learn everything I know, but why introduce meaningless redundancy simply to make a philosophical point: that functionally, the sexes are about 80% interchangeable? If I'm not around she can either hire the task out, or learn the process by trying.
So we each have these mutual domestic duties that are second nature to us, *and they are untroubled by fickle political sensibilities*. Really, such things as political feminism or "the manscape" are no part of our lives. They appear as transient fads to us.
We have one late-20s daughter--"hapa", to use the Hawaiian term. I've often wondered how being mixed-race affects her, and the best I can do by years of observation is that she uses it as a sort of minor but positive birth distinction; to my biased eye, she's quite striking and exotic-looking. She's fluid between other mixed race peers of all combinations, and either all Asian or all caucasian, with boy friends from all groups.
All of this really fits with the domestic norms I was raised with in a paternalistic SE European immigrant community, and it also was what she was used to in a traditional E Asian household. It would probably be fairly accurate to say that without ever considering it, we both were raised in a sort of Confucian domestic system.
I repeat: there was never any friction between us over domestic roles, and I cannot say the same of my first marriage.
She's by far the best life partner I could ever imagine.
Carlson is having the problem of late stage pundit laziness. It can be seen in many pundits/wonks/personalities who let their business deals, golf games, or women chasing affect their on-air performance.
Carlson is used to having a staff of research assistant doing the heavy lifting for a show. Thus, the first 15 minutes or Carlson's old show was written house and read off a prompter. In addition, the same research assistant would prepare questions and read anything written by a guest.
Now that Carlson is on his own, he does not prepare and does no reading ahead of time. When Steve was on Carlson's show, it was obvious that Carlson had never read anything written by Steve. The interview with the holocaust denier falls into the same category.
Cooper isn't a holocaust denier that I heard in the interview, but he doesn't seem bothered by Hitler conquering all of Europe and half of Russia. In 1940-1, that might not have seemed as horrible to an American as it has since to anyone decent. Carlson may be right that he's the most honest popular historian--he's honestly nasty.
It can be instructive to look at the bigger picture. In the late 17th and early 18th century, Napoleon set Europe aflame. He sent his armies everywhere and set up secret police in the countries he conquered. He did his level best to continue the revolution’s destruction of the Catholic Church. All Europe had to unite against him. Today, he’s revered as one of the great men of France.
In 1934, the Spanish Republicans rose in revolt after the conservative parties won the national elections there. The revolution was put down after some fighting. In early 1936, the tables were turned and the right, under Franco, coalesced to fight the reds. The red Republicans’ first priority was the murder of Catholic religious and the destruction of the Catholic faith. They murdered some 8000 religious in the first few months of the war. Today Franco is reviled by the bien pensants.
In 1939, Hitler embarked on the invasion of Poland, followed two weeks later by the Soviet invasion of Poland from the East. France invaded Germany shortly after in accordance with their treaty with Poland. They withdrew in short order after Poland was defeated. By the summer of 1940, the Soviets had invaded Finland, taken over the Baltics, taken over Bessarabia and Bukovina in Romania and were widely known to have starved millions of their own subjects to death and executed thousands of others at least.
Hitler in summer 1940 seems to me like the dog that caught the car. He had no idea he would defeat France in a few weeks, having fought there in the trenches in the Grest War. The Holocaust hadn’t yet kicked off. At that point, Hitler was by far the less noxious of the two great dictators.
Fast forward to more recent times. Slobodan Milosevic was indicted by the ICC for war crimes committed during the Balkan Wars of the 90s; primarily the murder of 9000 in Srebrenica. He was reviled and died of a heart attack in prison.
Netanyahu is responsible for the deaths of 40,000 Palestinians and counting. He can’t manage to get a sentence out when he addresses congress without being interrupted by a standing ovation.
We'll have to see how many Palestinians don't write home, if anyone can find their homes in the rubble.
There was a line in Waugh's Sword of Honor trilogy when the Nazi-Soviet pact was announced in August '39, something about it becoming suddenly clear which side to be on. Presumably, it meant Waugh was much more anti-commie than anti-nazi before that, which was probably not uncommon in free nations.
Edit: found a quote from when Crouchback (Waugh) learns of Hitler's invasion of the USSR
"... two years before when he read of the Russo-German alliance, when a decade of shame seemed to be ending in light and reason, when the Enemy was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off; ... now that hallucination was dissolved [...] and he was back [...] in the old ambiguous world [...] and his country was led blundering into dishonour."
It's not surprising people would be more anti-commie than anti-Nazi. The Nazis were focused on certain groups (Jews, gypsies, gays) where as commies were focused on the masses, minus the proles (of whom there were few)). The Russians had to first create the proletarians through industrialization brought on by communism so that they then could then fight on their behalf and bring about the revolution. If you're a Western/Central European, you are naturally more frightened by communists than Nazis.
I just commented earlier to another poster that to really find history useful, one must distance oneself emotionally from the events, and view these events as motivated by basic human nature--simple opportunism is probably the major initiator of historical events--and not by any moral standards.
After one has objectively read and understood--as best anyone can--the historical record, one can, just for giggles, apply a moral filter, but always be aware that what constitutes "morality" is transient, and basic human nature is really quite constant.
Netanyahu is not responsible for the deaths of 40,000 "Palestinians". Putting aside the bogosity of that number HAMAS is responsibe for all the deaths of Palestinian Arabs in the current war.
"Cooper and Carlson likewise feigned a secret knowledge. “We’re not allowed” to discuss the social and economic misery that led to the rise of Hitler, they claimed at the outset of their interview. It was among the most preposterous claims in a two-hour discussion chock-full of them: Thousands of pages of serious history have been devoted to studying just that."
Perhaps they wanted to blame Jews for WWI, Versailles, Weimar, and the Depression.
Saki's pre-Great War novella of Imperial Germany taking over Britain, "When William Came," points out the prominence of German Jews, which was weird reading. It may say more about Saki than Imperial Germany.
In his interview by Rogan, Carlson called Bari Weiss dishonest about her free speech stand when it comes to Israel, and then immediately backed off. Weiss owns the Free Press.
She is incredibly dishonest and that's why I find her so infuriating. She's managed to stake the moral high ground (the "Free Press") but is fine with censorship when it comes to precious Israel. She tried to get Columbia professors fired. It's no surprise actually. The left actually loves censorship. Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation -- all censorship but for society's good.
Can you imagine Skokie being litigated at the SC today?
The sputtering all comes down to the fact that all the social programs and engineering that the left sincerely believes can perfect society cannot work thanks to human bio diversity.
We could make some incremental improvements with cultural modifications but again, one must not suggest blacks are not perfect the way that they are.
"The sputtering all comes down to the fact that all the social programs and engineering that the left sincerely believes can perfect society cannot work thanks to human bio diversity."
That's a pretty good one sentence synopsis of The Bell Curve.
The conclusion reached was that based on the demonstrated statistical evidence they presented, that the current social programs would probably never succeed beyond a certain point.
It painted a sort of hopeless picture.
My opinion is that if the authors had left this conclusion out of the book, they'd not have gotten the huge negative response that followed release.
I eventually joined Twitter but under a different name than I used there or here. Aside from that have just been building what I can IRL to secure the future of my family to the greatest extent possible - the country and culture has degraded more than I would have believed possible since then, and I believe much more is in store so plan accordingly.
Why would they knock up black women when they cvan get better results knocking up white and asian women? The last thing you want is to be stuck paying child support for inferior offspring.
Steve's point was that Asian men and black women both tend to draw short straws in mating demographics, so why not hook up? My point was entirely eugenic wrt IQ averages. In the 90s, I read in the MSM about middle class black women trying to have the palest children they could, but if they still do, it's no longer talked about. If they were smart and ambitious for their children, they'd pay high IQ men for sex, forego support, and risk their children being outcast for being smarter than their peers.
That someone as squish as Sohrab Ahmari is the founder of Compact, which used to style itself as a radical magazine, always seemed a little screwy to me.
What is best in life? Being "Noticed."
This is top notch hilarity:
“To notice your enemies — to see them point and sputter before you, and to watch their pundits get the vapors over black-Asian intermarriage rates and Barbados' relatively genteel culture."
What do these guys have against sabermetrics and golf course architecture?
I suspect most of these point-and-sputterers are jealous of Steve's popularity and respect, and get angry that they followed all the rules and dutifully parroted all the requisite shibboleths of the Elites, and yet no one knows who tf they are...nor care to.
They were clearly sent to gay-fy the internet Right (that BAP himself recognised was not his, but Steve's) and are seething of their failure.
Who is "BAP"?
https://x.com/bronzeagemantis
The Second Golden Age of Hollywood will start when it starts producing "Sword and Sailer" movies.
"Joey, do you like films with public intellectuals"?
Let the record show that on 9-5-2024 'Brettbaker' was cooking with gas.
Can someone talented please remake Airplane! with Steve Sailer at Ted Striker and jokes updated with references to our current, ridiculously stupid political milieu? I'd pay to see that.
I had a good Chinese friend (man) who had only black ladies, but the catch is he was born and raised in Kingston Jamaica and then lived in various hoods in NYC (there was once a large Chinese presence in Jamaica, but I don't know if that still holds). Also, it would blow the minds of American blacks and West Indians when he broke out his authentic rasta patois. They couldn't wrap their brains around the idea of a Chinese Jamaican (or vice versa).
I've always thought that black women find themselves the losers in the dating game because they are (usually) the most masculine of women (larger, louder, more aggressive), while the same for Asian men in the other direction, they are (usually) the most feminine of men (smaller, softer, more subdued). And then you throw in the cultural and social differences and it just seems to be an unbridgeable chasm.
Black women are the losers of the cultural acceptance of interracial dating, as well as increased immigration. A black woman who worked as a maid or as an in-home cook at least was doing something useful with her life, but she has been replaced by Latinas. A black woman who works as a government clerk is merely a welfare recipient as society gave her a make-work job to keep up appearances. To a lesser extent white men in red states play this game by claiming disability; that way they aren't on welfare per se.
Interesting, but Asian men with black women is a very rare exception within my lifetime of observation; in fact, I've seen none here on the west coast of the US.
There are exceptions to every generality, and the proportion to the general case is all that has any value in furthering an understanding of that case.
This is an astute observation. Anecdotally, I also find American black women unrealistic in their expectations and have a pronounced "I won't settle" attitude. The "don't settle" mentality is very common but affects a small group (black women are like 6-7% of the population) much differently, than white women.
I do have immense sympathy for the normie middle class values black women who have trouble in the dating pool because the man with no child and no prison sentence black male pool is small and they are competing for them with white and Asian women. I remember suggesting to black friends that they date white men and the response was swift and negative.
The Sexual Revolution may have hit black women the hardest. Once black men were "liberated" from fatherhood, they were free to chase white tail (which provides a psychic thrill much bigger than sex) and they were left to raise the kids and grandkids. They are very loyal to and supportive of their men, which isnt reciprocated.
I think it was the end of segregation that allowed black men to chase white women. Before then, it could lead your death via lynching or other form of violence.
Sometimes I wonder if what people are looking for in white women or men is more physical variety that appeals to them. Whites have blonde to black hair, green/blue/hazel/brown eyes, curly and straight hair and different shades of white skin color. What other racial group has such phenotypical variety?
that is def an aspect but for black men white women are the ultimate forbidden fruit and status symbol. most men from the hood usually don't have this opportunity, unless it's a white downscale Honey BooBoo, but to score a middle-class or higher white woman puts you on a higher level.
it makes sense, as white women were locked behind the color barrier for so long and white men have caused black men so much deep pain and humiliation. They might not be Nat Turner but fucking a white woman is the next best thing.
Chinese presence in Jamaica is a big plot point in Fleming's Dr No!
oh yeah...good friggin movie
I'm in Korea. Maybe 15 years ago a Korean American dodging the draft got bad press or exclaiming, "Korea is so gay." I don't think he meant in the sexual sense, but more in the lameness. Anyways, it always made me chuckle.
If it’s any comfort, I read several hundred comments on the article and none of them mentioned you. They were too busy arguing about Tucker Carlson. I pointed this article out over on Unz a few hours ago.
What an outrageous libel—Steve is a *professional* race scientist! 😀
He's a profession pundit / popularizer of race science; I think one would need to have a job actually doing original studies to qualify as a professional race scientist.
Steve is the OG casual noticer of enough social phenomena to give the professionals enough hypotheses to test for a couple of decades.
Heck I’ll give it a century before some of his ideas eventually become acceptable enough to at least consider in elite spaces.
Lol I was waiting for your response to that idiot, you made my day!
Patience! You had to allow Steve time to photoshop on his Viking helmet.
(BTW, good job, Steve, it even has a bit of shadow effect!)
On the other hand, surely no actual warrior would have that much forehead exposed. It would be amusing, and also kind of vindicating, if Sailer has a brain so large that he has difficulty photoshopping a normal helmet image onto him without it failing to cover the top of his head :-)
Yes, Steve has two (2) brains.
"...surely no actual warrior would have that much forehead exposed"
Few actual warriors *have* that much forehead to expose.
Anna's got your back:
https://x.com/annakhachiyan/status/1831707561743049148
There must be a few million white man-East Asian woman couple pairs all over the world now. For me this is just another social phenomenon that I have no moral views on, but I suspect some people have strong opinions.
I’ve always been curious about the motivations of each party in these kind of pairs. Where the cultural clashes are, how the children perceive themselves. This is actually a book that a good sociologist could write, but probably won’t .
There absolutely are Asians who find whites more attractive. My brother, for example, has always preferred blondes. And, yes, his wife is a blonde of Croatian heritage. For myself, when there are lots of Asians in the vicinity, that's my preference. However, I made the mistake of going to a college where there was a paucity of Asians. Law school was even worse. In my class of 200, there were maybe 3 Asian men. This is how I ended up married to a white man.
As for my husband, he readily admits he prefers Asian women. He likes the dark hair and the relative lack of body hair and odor.
I've seen the effects of availability replicated in the rest of my family. The ones who ended up in areas with large Asian populations preferred other Asians. The ones in areas dominated by whites ended up with whites. (My brother grew up the only Asian in his middle school and one of 3 in his high school. I was surrounded by about 30% Asians until college. Our parents divorced.)
It’s an interesting phenomenon.
I live in Europe where the modal couple is native white male + first generation immigrant Asian female. More common in northern than southern Europe.
In Europe second generation east Asians seem to marry out a lot as they are ultra-minority everywhere. South Asians seem a bit more prone to pair up in second generation. Religion helps a bit I think.
Most of the above based on visual patterns as statistics are usually not collected .
It makes perfect sense that a small minority is attracted to "exoticism" while the rest simply adapts to the surrounding environment.
In my experience, minority groups who rarely marry outsiders have strong cultural mechanisms which help their young people find mates. E.g., the Orthodox Jews have strong traditions of both matchmakers and dating etiquette and expectations which assist in this.
Except the "exoticism" preference doesn't extend equally to all minority women. I expect Europe has the same preferences as the US (east Asian, Hispanic, SE Asian and then black).
I wonder how the dating pool is in other areas (e.g. Japan, India, Africa, etc.). Does the majority also prefer certain groups of exotics.
It's funny how when I choose the word "exoticism," I was thinking more of my brother's preference for blondes but you thought Asian females.
Yes I did because we live in the West where whites are the majority and the native population and Asian females are different and therefore "exotic." It is all relative as evidenced by your brother's predilection for blondes.
I'm a caucasian male in the US west coast (2nd gen SE European descent), married to a woman (2nd gen in Hawaii) of east Asian descent. We've been married for 40 years, met as SW engineers in LA.
I was married once prior, to a caucasian woman of the usual mid-western mixed NW European descent.
Aside from the subjective fact that my current wife is very, very pretty, she also was a near-perfect match so far as what one should expect of sexual roles in a domestic relationship. We can each do everything the other does routinely, but she's better at some things by nature, apparently (fine hand work is phenomenal) and I'm better at heavy labor, mechanical abstractions, etc. Again, she could learn everything I know, but why introduce meaningless redundancy simply to make a philosophical point: that functionally, the sexes are about 80% interchangeable? If I'm not around she can either hire the task out, or learn the process by trying.
So we each have these mutual domestic duties that are second nature to us, *and they are untroubled by fickle political sensibilities*. Really, such things as political feminism or "the manscape" are no part of our lives. They appear as transient fads to us.
We have one late-20s daughter--"hapa", to use the Hawaiian term. I've often wondered how being mixed-race affects her, and the best I can do by years of observation is that she uses it as a sort of minor but positive birth distinction; to my biased eye, she's quite striking and exotic-looking. She's fluid between other mixed race peers of all combinations, and either all Asian or all caucasian, with boy friends from all groups.
All of this really fits with the domestic norms I was raised with in a paternalistic SE European immigrant community, and it also was what she was used to in a traditional E Asian household. It would probably be fairly accurate to say that without ever considering it, we both were raised in a sort of Confucian domestic system.
I repeat: there was never any friction between us over domestic roles, and I cannot say the same of my first marriage.
She's by far the best life partner I could ever imagine.
Carlson is having the problem of late stage pundit laziness. It can be seen in many pundits/wonks/personalities who let their business deals, golf games, or women chasing affect their on-air performance.
Carlson is used to having a staff of research assistant doing the heavy lifting for a show. Thus, the first 15 minutes or Carlson's old show was written house and read off a prompter. In addition, the same research assistant would prepare questions and read anything written by a guest.
Now that Carlson is on his own, he does not prepare and does no reading ahead of time. When Steve was on Carlson's show, it was obvious that Carlson had never read anything written by Steve. The interview with the holocaust denier falls into the same category.
Carlson recently interviewed someone who mentioned AIPAC.
Carlson pretended (?) to know nothing about it.
Cooper isn't a holocaust denier that I heard in the interview, but he doesn't seem bothered by Hitler conquering all of Europe and half of Russia. In 1940-1, that might not have seemed as horrible to an American as it has since to anyone decent. Carlson may be right that he's the most honest popular historian--he's honestly nasty.
Noticing flaws in the Official Infallible Version of WWII gets noticers in a heap o'trouble.
It can be instructive to look at the bigger picture. In the late 17th and early 18th century, Napoleon set Europe aflame. He sent his armies everywhere and set up secret police in the countries he conquered. He did his level best to continue the revolution’s destruction of the Catholic Church. All Europe had to unite against him. Today, he’s revered as one of the great men of France.
In 1934, the Spanish Republicans rose in revolt after the conservative parties won the national elections there. The revolution was put down after some fighting. In early 1936, the tables were turned and the right, under Franco, coalesced to fight the reds. The red Republicans’ first priority was the murder of Catholic religious and the destruction of the Catholic faith. They murdered some 8000 religious in the first few months of the war. Today Franco is reviled by the bien pensants.
In 1939, Hitler embarked on the invasion of Poland, followed two weeks later by the Soviet invasion of Poland from the East. France invaded Germany shortly after in accordance with their treaty with Poland. They withdrew in short order after Poland was defeated. By the summer of 1940, the Soviets had invaded Finland, taken over the Baltics, taken over Bessarabia and Bukovina in Romania and were widely known to have starved millions of their own subjects to death and executed thousands of others at least.
Hitler in summer 1940 seems to me like the dog that caught the car. He had no idea he would defeat France in a few weeks, having fought there in the trenches in the Grest War. The Holocaust hadn’t yet kicked off. At that point, Hitler was by far the less noxious of the two great dictators.
Fast forward to more recent times. Slobodan Milosevic was indicted by the ICC for war crimes committed during the Balkan Wars of the 90s; primarily the murder of 9000 in Srebrenica. He was reviled and died of a heart attack in prison.
Netanyahu is responsible for the deaths of 40,000 Palestinians and counting. He can’t manage to get a sentence out when he addresses congress without being interrupted by a standing ovation.
History is truly written by the victors.
We'll have to see how many Palestinians don't write home, if anyone can find their homes in the rubble.
There was a line in Waugh's Sword of Honor trilogy when the Nazi-Soviet pact was announced in August '39, something about it becoming suddenly clear which side to be on. Presumably, it meant Waugh was much more anti-commie than anti-nazi before that, which was probably not uncommon in free nations.
Edit: found a quote from when Crouchback (Waugh) learns of Hitler's invasion of the USSR
"... two years before when he read of the Russo-German alliance, when a decade of shame seemed to be ending in light and reason, when the Enemy was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off; ... now that hallucination was dissolved [...] and he was back [...] in the old ambiguous world [...] and his country was led blundering into dishonour."
I often think of that very passage.
It's not surprising people would be more anti-commie than anti-Nazi. The Nazis were focused on certain groups (Jews, gypsies, gays) where as commies were focused on the masses, minus the proles (of whom there were few)). The Russians had to first create the proletarians through industrialization brought on by communism so that they then could then fight on their behalf and bring about the revolution. If you're a Western/Central European, you are naturally more frightened by communists than Nazis.
Now *that's* the way to view history!
I just commented earlier to another poster that to really find history useful, one must distance oneself emotionally from the events, and view these events as motivated by basic human nature--simple opportunism is probably the major initiator of historical events--and not by any moral standards.
After one has objectively read and understood--as best anyone can--the historical record, one can, just for giggles, apply a moral filter, but always be aware that what constitutes "morality" is transient, and basic human nature is really quite constant.
Netanyahu is not responsible for the deaths of 40,000 "Palestinians". Putting aside the bogosity of that number HAMAS is responsibe for all the deaths of Palestinian Arabs in the current war.
History *is* nasty. To try to understand it, one must distance themselves from it emotionally.
Those who hold former lawful slave owners to task because they fail today's moral litmus test fail to do this.
Really, this makes Carlson a presenter of polemic ideology, rather than an SME (subject matter expert).
"Cooper and Carlson likewise feigned a secret knowledge. “We’re not allowed” to discuss the social and economic misery that led to the rise of Hitler, they claimed at the outset of their interview. It was among the most preposterous claims in a two-hour discussion chock-full of them: Thousands of pages of serious history have been devoted to studying just that."
*Waving dog eared copy of The Bell Curve*
Perhaps they wanted to blame Jews for WWI, Versailles, Weimar, and the Depression.
Saki's pre-Great War novella of Imperial Germany taking over Britain, "When William Came," points out the prominence of German Jews, which was weird reading. It may say more about Saki than Imperial Germany.
That's good recommendation for reading--a contemporary view of a fictitious future.
It was interesting but not brilliant and amusing like his short stories, which I highly recommend. Many are available for free on eastoftheweb.com.
"and to watch their pundits get the vapors over black-Asian intermarriage rates"
My friend, please not encourage species are not correct.
Branch are broken. Grandparents cry
Can you say that in English?
That would spoil half the joke. It's pidgin from an Asian male lamenting a possible alien, inferior graft onto his family tree.
Jokes are supposed to be in some way humorous. This was merely unintelligible.
And yet so many had no trouble understanding it.
How many?
In his interview by Rogan, Carlson called Bari Weiss dishonest about her free speech stand when it comes to Israel, and then immediately backed off. Weiss owns the Free Press.
She is incredibly dishonest and that's why I find her so infuriating. She's managed to stake the moral high ground (the "Free Press") but is fine with censorship when it comes to precious Israel. She tried to get Columbia professors fired. It's no surprise actually. The left actually loves censorship. Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation -- all censorship but for society's good.
Can you imagine Skokie being litigated at the SC today?
> She tried to get Columbia professors fired.
Frankly, we need more leftist professors fired.
The sputtering all comes down to the fact that all the social programs and engineering that the left sincerely believes can perfect society cannot work thanks to human bio diversity.
We could make some incremental improvements with cultural modifications but again, one must not suggest blacks are not perfect the way that they are.
"The sputtering all comes down to the fact that all the social programs and engineering that the left sincerely believes can perfect society cannot work thanks to human bio diversity."
That's a pretty good one sentence synopsis of The Bell Curve.
I remember it being more about the late 20th cent. trend of those of higher IQ leaving those of lower behind socially and economically.
The conclusion reached was that based on the demonstrated statistical evidence they presented, that the current social programs would probably never succeed beyond a certain point.
It painted a sort of hopeless picture.
My opinion is that if the authors had left this conclusion out of the book, they'd not have gotten the huge negative response that followed release.
I've noticed from watching and rewatching too many detective shows--after a few years, I forget the ending.
Me, too.
I hope I'm not making all this up, gaslighting myself, as well as you... :^(
Appreciate that. I recall your handle from when The Atlantic still allowed comments, where have you been lurking all this time?
A remote re-education camp. ;^)
...and you? :^)
I eventually joined Twitter but under a different name than I used there or here. Aside from that have just been building what I can IRL to secure the future of my family to the greatest extent possible - the country and culture has degraded more than I would have believed possible since then, and I believe much more is in store so plan accordingly.
Exactly.
I'm just trying to get us thru intact.
That's a pretty humble goal, isn't it, but it's going to take everything I've got...
He was running amok in Kent, but lately he's been in Mayfair.
I was looking for a big dish of beef chow mein...
One social engineering that actually would help would be a lot more Asian (and Ashkenazi) men knocking up black women. Steve left that part unwritten.
Why would they knock up black women when they cvan get better results knocking up white and asian women? The last thing you want is to be stuck paying child support for inferior offspring.
Steve's point was that Asian men and black women both tend to draw short straws in mating demographics, so why not hook up? My point was entirely eugenic wrt IQ averages. In the 90s, I read in the MSM about middle class black women trying to have the palest children they could, but if they still do, it's no longer talked about. If they were smart and ambitious for their children, they'd pay high IQ men for sex, forego support, and risk their children being outcast for being smarter than their peers.
You can't make an enforcable contract to forego child support.
Also, I see no sign of Asian or Ashkenazi men being unable to hook up with white women.
Sperm banks might disagree.
Such a special dispensation is not relevant. The suggestion was about people hooking up,to impregnate black women sexually, not using sperm banks.
That someone as squish as Sohrab Ahmari is the founder of Compact, which used to style itself as a radical magazine, always seemed a little screwy to me.