July 22, 2008

Sailer on CNN.com on Obama

CNN.com runs an article by John Blake, "Could an Obama Presidency Hurts Black Americans," which adapts quotes from my first Obama article, back on January 2, 2007 in VDARE.com:

Steve Sailer, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine, wrote last year that some whites who support Obama aren't driven primarily by a desire for change.

They want something else Obama offers them: "White Guilt Repellent," he wrote.

"So many whites want to be able to say, 'I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,' " Sailer wrote.

Sailer cited another reason why many whites want Obama as president:

"They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

It wasn't my most sophisticated take on Obama, but here's the context from my VDARE article, "White Guilt, Obamania, and the Reality of Race," for the quotes in the CNN article:

The Barack Attack phenomenon is similar to the Colin Craze of 1995. Of course, General Powell had better qualifications. He'd been intimately involved in managing a successful national enterprise, the Gulf War of 1991. And he had articulated a thoughtful, cautious policy for when and how to conduct military operations, the Powell Doctrine, the wisdom of which subsequent events have only underlined.

Supporting Obama for President, like supporting Powell a decade ago, is seen by many whites as the ultimate in White Guilt Repellent.

It's important to understand, however, that White Guilt is very different from, say, Catholic Guilt, which consists of straightforward feelings of personal moral failure.

In comparison, I don't recall ever meeting any white person who personally felt guilty for the troubles of African-Americans. But I've known many whites who want to loudly blame other whites for black difficulties.

Some whites at least heap guilt upon their own ancestors, but many who publicly proclaim the reality of White Guilt aren't averse to noting that their own forefathers arrived at Ellis Island long after slavery was over.

In other words, White Guilt is just another ploy in the Great American White Status Struggle. Minorities are merely props for asserting moral superiority over other whites.

Finding and punishing Guilty Whites has become a national obsession. One notorious current example: the framing of the Duke lacrosse players by Durham district attorney Mike Nifong (with the enthusiastic assistance of the New York Times) in the endless hunt for what Tom Wolfe called "the Great White Defendant."

So, many whites want to be able to say, "I'm not one of them, those bad whites, like that guy on Seinfeld. Hey, I voted for a black guy for President!"

Plus, I suspect there's an even more hidden reason many whites wish Obama is elected President: They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!

It's a seductive vision. And it plays right into our national dream that race is just skin deep, that it's all in our heads, that the solution for all racial conflict is simply thinking right thoughts, etc. etc.

"All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!" is funnier with an exclamation point.

Somebody better tell David Brock at Media Matters right now, so he won't lose any time getting his panties in a twist again over somebody daring to quote me.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

89 comments:

Danindc said...

Steve- this could be your big break like when Courtney Cox was in that Springsteen video. This may be your "Dancing in the Dark".

Anonymous said...

"Somebody better tell David Brock at Media Matters right now, so he won't lose any time getting his panties in a twist again over somebody daring to quote me."

Enjoy the site traffic, I say.

Anonymous said...

The idea that an Obama presidency might nudge blacks to waking up about their own shortcomings, is misplaced - it pre-supposes rational thinking in the first place.
Remember when a woman was Britain's most successful prime minister since Churchill with three election victories under her built? You would think it would kill stone dead forever the accusation that UK society is sexist.
If you thought that then you don't know the feminist mindset.

headache said...

Steve,
Congratulations!!
I'm really happy you are beginning to break into the mainstream. I hope you can stay as authentic as you are. Hopefully you will not become some liberal couch-potato once you get your own show on CNN and they have bought you off.

2 things:
"Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,"

That's a funny one. Ask those whites in Rhodesia, er Zimbabwe, what voting for Mugabe got them. Or the whites in South Africa what voting for Mandela brought them. I voted for Buthelezi in 1994 in South Africa. He was the only viable opponent of Mandela. Well, now 12 years later I'm living in exile. Swell. So I can say I voted for a black prez but it got me a ticket out of my country. Big deal, that’s worth fucking up your country for?

"All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

err... you mean like get AA entry to Harvard and then AA-treatment from the media and then AA-entry into the presidency? But this is what they are doing already. I didn't realise it was actually work to get AA-pandered.

Anonymous said...

oh boy, heidi beirich is going to have to eat a whole box of donuts to keep from getting depressed over this one

Jewish Atheist said...

Do you have any evidence for whites' motivation in supporting Obama, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Reg Cæsar said...

Way too much is being made of the race angle in this election, and almost nothing of what I think is more important, the Children's Crusade aspect.

This campaign is Gene McCarthy all over again... or George McGovern, John Anderson, Gary Hart, or Howard Dean. (Ron Paul might be the rare right-wing example.) The earnest young college kids get out there and annoy the rest of the populace in support of their holy candidate-- who eventually loses.

It won't be Obama the African who loses, but Obama the Arugulan.

Henry Canaday said...

It is interesting that the longing for the 'new' or the 'other' in political leadership seems to be strongest when conflicts within the dominant ethnic, political or gender group have become so intense that many people hope for, if not a big improvement, at least an end to the sheer destructiveness of the conflicts themselves.

I am thinking of Tudor England, when the savage conflicts among Catholic, Protestant and Puritan males helped rally the country around Elizabeth I.

Or when the economic and temperamental argument between Liberals and Tories in Victorian times helped reconcile Tories to an exotic leader like Disraeli.

And then there was the agonizingly debilitative and repetitive economic argument between Conservative and the Labor males in 1970s England, which prepared England for its first female prime minister, who could adopt a much tougher Conservative line than any Conservative man would have dared.

A more depressing precedent is that Jimmy Carter, an unknown and undefined outsider, surely benefited from the country's sickness of the arguments between the all too well-defined political groupings in Washington.

In other words, in addition to white guilt-transfer, there is also a lot of 'white exhaustion' in Obama's appeal. Even Steve Sailer would rather spend a year reading and analyzing Obama than falling asleep trying to read an autobiography of Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.

History seems to show that selecting new leaders from this motive may work, or it may disappoint.

nix said...

I can confirm personally that the hype about blacks is just a stick to be used against fellow whites. Even here in Germany, where there are few blacks (mainly because German culture and weather sucks for blacks), moralists are gearing up to use their new Obama stick. Liberal rags like "Der Spiegel" are laying down the law w.r.t. when people should be labelled racists (i.e. when they don't like Obama and heaven forbid, Mandela.)

I think it’s also due to that fact that the Holocaust guilt trip is wearing off. Young Germans don't really see the connection with their own lives and many old people are sick of it. Recent surveys have confirmed this. Jewish organisations and Israeli government officials are already going bonkers thinking of a possible time in the distant future where the mega bucks coming out of the guilt machine will no longer flow. They may stop flowing even sooner since the EU is costing Germany a fortune and once the house of cards comes down, and they have switched back to the Deutsche Mark, there will be little cash to spare.

So liberals and other PC gate-keepers need a new guilt-enforcing Stasi-tool. Along comes Obama, and his shoulder-monkey Mandela. Even in personal settings like church home cell this iron rule is enforced. If you don't swoon over King, Mandela and Obama [assuming of course you got your WWII confessions sitting right otherwise you would hit the pavement teeth first] you get the dirty look by (usually) a controlling female, anything from the pastor's wife to another liberal teacher, preferably married to a black husband living off the dole and her money (the poor soul, what she has to (voluntarily) go through!).
WTF

Michael said...

Congrats, nice to see. I've long suspected that many in the MSM read Steve Sailer. Here's hoping that more of them will start to come out of the closet.

Staash said...

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/cnn-white-supremacist/

That was fast!

tommy shanks said...

>>Somebody better tell David Brock at Media Matters right now

Forget Brock. One of Amanda Marcotte's pals at Pandagon already saw it.

>>CNN just let a white supremacist concern troll black America.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/blackazoids_greatest_enemy/

As you would expect, there's a lot of criticism of the "point-and-stutter" variety.

RobertHume said...

Unfortunately blacks will not be convinced by Obama's achievment.

Their average achievement will continue to be below average white achievement in fields requiring intellect ... (those which have the highest salaries for lots of people, not sports and entertainment).

The only rational explanation for this is discrimination ... if you don't allow for a difference in average IQ.

Thus PC condemns us to unending black bitterness, white guilt, and massive mis-allocation of education funds.

Those who say that getting IQ right would have no benefits, that it would only engender discrimination and "hate" are drastically and sadly mistaken.

headache said...

My first 2 comments were censored by Steve, even though they were run-of-the-mill. So now that Steve makes the big-time you can predict he's gonna censor out the more direct and under-the-belt quotes. Then we'll know how PC works. He complains endlessly about how ambition causes people to do stupid PC things, and then on the verge of becoming a megastar he starts editing out those of us who have been with him during his obscurity but may make him look like a numbskulled bigot

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm one of those who hope that Obama's election would put an end to black bitching, whining and begging.

I don't hope for this because I am an idealist. It's just the best possible outcome of his election, and I have no enthusiasm for McCain.

It may not happen. It may happen for some blacks, but not for others.

nsam said...

theres actually a name for this in research.. search for "egalitarian motive or goal" or egalitarianism

Dmytro Kornilov said...

"http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/cnn-white-supremacist/

That was fast!"

The amazing thing is I read comments there saying Sailer must be on McCain's payroll! John McCain, who grovels before the NAACP and La Raza and won't even take a position on the affirmative action ballot initiatives!

It makes me real sad about the potential of having a fruitful conversation with these people.

no man's land said...

Thanks for the view from Germany, nix. I lived there as an expat for a long time and will now require years of anti-p.c. detoxification.

By the way, doesn't it bug you that the German press is completely unaware of the divisions within American conservatism, unfamiliar with "paleocons" and "libertarians", and lumps all American conservatives into one dumb, bellicose mass?

SKT said...

Congratulations. I honestly do think you have more original ideas than anyone else in this country. I've been a fan of your blog ever since I was a college freshman in 2000.

Anonymous said...

"Do you have any evidence for whites' motivation in supporting Obama, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?"

Jewish Atheist,
Don't make me go and find your comments on why you are voting for Obama over at Half Sigma. They are embarrassing, kind of like reading a 12 year old girl's diary. You've got to get over that man-crush that liberals seem so prone to with St. Barry. Good luck with that.

grizzlieantagonist said...

"Jewish athiest" is, of course, out of his mind.

The phenemonon of whites bashing other whites for perceived insensitivity towards minorities is too widespread to be disputed.

The evidence for this is largely anecdotal, but if "Jewish athiest" were to tell me that he'd never observed it in his personal experience -- if he were to tell me that he hadn't frequently observed it -- I wouldn't believe him.

I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths.

To some extent, it isn't anything new under the sun; just a PC version of the chivalry racket that men have been caught up in for centuries.

But given that men and women are considerably more inseparable than any set of racial groupings, a permanent schism between men and women - i.e., a governing mindset that says that "all men are bad for women" (with the man of the moment who is making that declaration always exempting himself from that universal censure) -- is bound to have a much more toxic effect on human relationships (both male-male and male-female) than mere racial and ethnic one-upmanship.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the status of blacks in America, how do you know that this is what white people are thinking? Do you have any evidence to support this in a meaningful sample?

Is this projection, or merely your opinion stated as fact?

For someone who claims to be a conservative and grounded in non-PC reality your commentary is rather devoid of actual data.

c23 said...

I'm not surprised that MSM types read Steve - there are probably a lot of them, and probably some who agree with Steve more than they would admit. I'm sure this is very comforting to Steve when he looks at his paycheck from blogger.

Anonymous said...

henry canaday wrote:

Or when the economic and temperamental argument between Liberals and Tories in Victorian times helped reconcile Tories to an exotic leader like Disraeli.

A more depressing precedent...


cannot be found.

A.L. Morton wrote:

The revolt against Peel was led by a young and almost unknown Jewish politician, Benjamin Disraeli, and it was Disraeli who re-created the Tory party at the beginning of the age of imperialism, no longer primarily as a party of the landowners but as the party of the new power of finance capital.

---

One outstanding event of the period, and the one which marks decisively the turn into a new age, must receive more detailed consideration in a later chapter.* This was the purchase by the British government in 1875, on the initiative of Disraeli and with the assistance of the Rothschilds, of the shares in the Suez canal held by the Khedive of Egypt. It is important both for its place in the development of the British Empire and for the close co-operation it reveals between the Tory government and the powerful international financial oligarchy.

New figures appear on the scene, Goschens, Cassels and the like, to balance the already established Barings and Rothschilds, and they exercise an increasing influence upon British policy and turn it into a new direction. As they grew in power, and as the influence of banking over industry extended, the Liberal party became more and more a party of the middle class and its authority diminished while the rise of the Labour party on the other side ate away its mass basis among the workers. It is entirely characteristic that it was just as the Tory Party ceased to be really representative of the landowners that it adopted a pretentiously self conscious 'Merrie England' propaganda patter. The peculiar task of Disraeli was to reconcile the English aristocracy to their position of junior partner in the firm of Imperialism Unlimited.

Anonymous said...

Don't have a point but from what I read your an asshole.

testing99 said...

Steve -- the Powell Doctrine was arguably disastrous. It's a recipe for inaction in response to provocative attacks, at best the sort of impotent missile attacks that Clinton adopted. If you've read through any of the accounts of the rise of AQ and other jihadi groups in the 1990's (Wright's Looming Tower, McCarthy's Wilfull Blindness) you'll see the cites on how the lack of removing Saddam encouraged terrorist attacks on the US in the belief (accurate as they turned out) that there would be no serious consequences.

The biggest argument about Obama is not his rather tame appeal to ameliorate "white guilt" and status-mongering among white elites who are not that numerous, but the real question of nuclear deterrence in an age of existing and accelerating nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan has more than 100 nukes, under dubious control and in the country where bin Laden and others have found protection and exercise control (in the Tribal Areas). North Korea has tested nukes and will sell to any buyers.

Obama is selling the messianic approach -- hope and changing and it's probably not going to be appealing to a fearful nation understanding the need to be believably scary in order to deter attacks by deniable proxies.

IMHO your analysis is more applicable to the primaries, not the general, though the appeal of repudiating the Iraq War and wanting a theory of unicorns and rainbows to conduct national security policy in an eroding nuclear deterrence environment is also huge. Hillary Clinton in private believes her Iraq War vote destroyed her campaign, as the Democratic primary voters want a retreat from reality.

Anonymous said...

Do you have any evidence for whites' motivation in supporting Obama, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Jewish Atheist is always one to live down to the stereotype of his group:

1) Sarcastic personal attacks
2) "Memoryless" behavior, in which evidence provided yesterday is conveniently forgotten
3) Never admits fault, never admits wrongdoing, always on the verbal attack
4) And of course completely ignores the evidence on the ground:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Obama the 'Magic Negro'
The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121668579909472083.html

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.



Now, will we see a Pew Poll on this topic -- "Are you voting for Obama to expiate white original sin, stoked by 40 years of propaganda since the 1968 takeover?"?

Of course we will not, for the same reason we will not see a Pew Poll on whether 40 years of academic failure prove that redistribution doesn't work. For the same reason we will not see a Pew Poll on whether dozens of African failed states (not to mention Kwame Kilpatrick, Marion Barry, Coleman Young, David Dinkins...) might make us a little leery of putting Obama and his entourage in power.

Such questions and their premises are out of bounds for rational discourse, largely thanks to your landsmen.

Anonymous said...

may make him look like a numbskulled bigot

As well he should. Message control is important and this is a game of inches. The point is to be unforgiving regarding content but scrupulous about presentation.

Half Sigma said...

Congrats on getting recognized by CNN.

But I support teaching poor people middle class values--if poor people are trained to act middle class, a lot of problems WILL go away.

Statsquatch said...

This is probably a false alarm. Remember when the NYT quoted Half Sigma? The need a counter voice on "racial" issues to contrast with their good thinking.

If the quote steve on the Fanny Freddie bail out, that would mean something. It's one thing to feel good about yourself by voting for so and so. Quite another to realize you are subsidizing "diversity" in homeownership.

Didn't Machiavelli say that people would tolerate a prince who killed their father but not one who took their inheritance?

Anonymous said...

haha

Martin said...

"Could an Obama Presidency Hurts Black Americans"

Why does Mr. Black assume that whites recognizing their own interests - however imperfectly - would hurt blacks? Why would the end of white guilt necessarily be a hardship for blacks? This could only be true if they were completely hopeless and helpless.

"Anonymous said...

Now, will we see a Pew Poll on this topic."

I was thinking of this same thing, but you beat me to it. What data is it that Jewish Athiest and Anonymous (another anonymous) want to see? A poll with questions like "Are you voting for Senator Obama just so that blacks will finally shut up about racism already?" If such a question were asked, and answered honestly, I'd also bet you'd find a lot of people answering in the affirmative.

Garland said...

Well, I think Half Sigma did say that he got a fair amount of traffic, and some of it sticky, from that NYT link. The CNN article is not detailed enough on its own to ignite much thought but it'd be nice if Sailer picked up some readers.

Anonymous said...

Jewish Atheist et al, it's silly to be angry at Steve Sailer.

What's the #1 religious news event for American presidents? Their appearance at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, of course.

drudgereport.com all day Wed 7/23/08 announces in rare double top of page headlines trumpeting:

OBAMA VISITS WESTERN WALL IN OLD CITY JERUSALEM... ARRIVES AT 5:08 AM LOCAL TIME [10:08 PM ET]... SUNRISE... SHOUTING MAN: 'JERUSALEM IS NOT FOR SALE, OBAMA'... MOB SCENE... CHAOS... BOWING HIS HEAD IN PRAYER... PLACES NOTE IN WALL... POSES FOR PHOTOS... LOTS OF SHOUTING... LEAVES 5:20 AM... DEVELOPING...

Welcome to the Judeaocracy! All hail Judea!

Anonymous said...

I think that Steve is not personally thinking negatively about blacks. His writings are actually quite often sympathetic for them and their difficulties. He is pointing out the facts and the problems and even giving advice on what to do.

For example, recently he recommended marketing careers for blacks, based on the strengths they have as personalities. That is much better than for example to advice to study really hard to become a succesful scientist, or take the career of a librarian, which is the liberal patronizing way.

I remember reading from Gene Expression an analysis on which parts of societies are actually reading that and related blogs. Steve's blog had a curious audience. It was actually blacks that were quite requently represented as Steve's readers.

Appeal to Reason said...

anonymous:
Remember when a woman was Britain's most successful prime minister since Churchill with three election victories under her built? You would think it would kill stone dead forever the accusation that UK society is sexist.

So by your logic, India and Pakistan are both models of gender egalitarianism? (Gandhi and Bhutto)

Outland said...

Steve,

I really, really wonder.

When you read the comments at sites like "Think Progress", don't you just sometimes cynically hope, that the inevitable risks, if not dangers, of mass immigration, multiculturalism, open borders, PC, feminism, partisan politics, foreign lobbys, Latinazation, Islamization, affirmative action et al, will come alive some day soon?

I can't think of a better and suited punishment for the whiterpeople of this world than the Hellish unsustainable multi-ethnic kumbaya-Utopia they want to create and constantly defend to the hilt. Let them live in the misery they were warned for. Give the junkies the heroin they so passionately long for, give them their Marxist Brasil.

After all, it's people like you, who warn them for their coming ordeal. Why not let them have it?

Ofcourse, I don't want that. I want some civilization left for my offspring too. Don't get me wrong here. I want the West, its peoples and cultures, to survive. But, seriously, how many sane people are there still out there?

Let's hope that news agencies like CNN quote your work more often from now on. It would be well-deserved and long, long overdue.

nix said...

Today Obama is speaking Berlin. The media have been outdoing each other hyping him as some sort of messiah. Apparently he is walking in the footsteps of Kennedy and Reagan. As far as I know they were presidents when they came and gave their speeches. Kennedy’s speech was just more feel-good, but Reagan actually moved something, as opposed to democrats who like to show they move things but could not bother to do the hard work.

The basic message in the Jewish controlled press here is that if you are not excited about Obama you are a racist. By extension, if only 1 % vote Republican in Nov. they are probably racists. PC has come a heck of a long way and I've got a feeling we aint seen nothing yet.

Anonymous said...

"But I support teaching poor people middle class values--if poor people are trained to act middle class, a lot of problems WILL go away."

Of course, but being a good role model isn't good enough. Standards have to be set and bad behavior not enabled; liberals, by nature, are enablers of bad behavior. There is a smidgen of a chance Obama would be better than a white liberal, but given past comments about how we should understand why Rev. Wright is angry, that Grandma being upset about being harassed by a black panhandler (on her way to work to support Barack and his grandfather) showed she was a "typical white person", etc... I think Obama is definitely an enabler of bad behavior on the part of African-Americans.

BTW, the comments on those two threads made my head hurt. Sailer is a neocon (!!!) and a strident Republican? Or should I say "Rethuglican" or "Repukican". Jewish Atheist truly came up with the most intelligent and elegant riposte.

Ronduck said...

headache said...

"Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,"

That's a funny one. Ask those whites in Rhodesia, er Zimbabwe, what voting for Mugabe got them. Or the whites in South Africa what voting for Mandela brought them. I voted for Buthelezi in 1994 in South Africa. He was the only viable opponent of Mandela. Well, now 12 years later I'm living in exile. Swell. So I can say I voted for a black prez but it got me a ticket out of my country. Big deal, that’s worth fucking up your country for?


I've read of Americans who have moved out of the US and immigrated to Germany, but that is not a solution for America's 200m Whites. Honestly, if we screw up our country who would ever let us in knowing that we repeatedly voted for sending our country into oblivion? Other countries are even less likely to let us in knowing that we did have a major liberal, negrophilic streak despite what we have been through.

So I as an American have no where I can go, and so far, no way I can stop either the Obamanation or the other candidate who wants perpetual war and immigration. It seems to be God's punishment for what we did to the Afrikaaners.

Ron Guhname said...

@ jewish atheist

"Do you have any evidence for whites' motivation in supporting Obama, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?"

I have seen probably 20 posts of yours over the years, and you have never offered a shred of evidence for anything.

Here's survey results suggesting that some whites want a black president.

Part of the problem is that media researchers with a liberal bias like yourself are not investigating the question. They naturally assume whites were voting for Obama over Hillary because of his radically different position on health care.

testing99 said...

WSJ poll -- Half of all voters focused on Obama's background and experience, express unease.

A guy who was more Colin Powell, bland, mainstream, "tough guy" Persona ala Dennis Haysbert's tough-guy characters on TV, would not have this problem.

The very attractive nature of Obama's "white guilt" background repels those with no interest -- mostly older, retired, blue collar white voters. The balance of the electorate. McCain interestingly only has about 1/4 of voters concerned about his background and experience.

It's like Apple Computer -- you can make a lot of money (or raise it in the case of Obama) from well heeled dirigistes, but you cannot win mass elections. Even with Apple's latest market advances they command only 6% of last quarter sales for new computers.

Dave said...

"Now, will we see a Pew Poll on this topic... Of course we will not"

So, no data, then. Just an explanation of why there's no data, and why there never will be any data. Not much in the way of anecdotes, either. Just your self-affirming suspicions as to why you and your cohort are better than the rest of white people. Based entirely on our secret thoughts, that we never express.

Anonymous said...

I go along with one of the anonymoi: You're an asshole. It sickens me to believe there are enough sorry losers like you left in this country that you could make a living with your racist bullshit.
Yes, yes, I know, you say you aren't a racist, you're only one of the few Americans fearless enough to tell the rest of us the truth about those poor, backward black folk, who need our guidance, and presumably would be better off if we responsible white folk kept them as pets--or even better--slaves!
Well you're not a fearless truth teller; you're a sad, pathetic racist, and I'd dearly like to believe that your wretched kind is slowly dying out, but, I fear, your stupid, ignorant kind will be with us for a long, long time.

David said...

Do you have any evidence for whites' motivation in supporting Obama, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Do you have any evidence the sky is blue, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

You aren't very acquainted with white people or their private conversations, it seems. I am sorry that you are out of the loop. Jewish Atheist, at least 5 of the goyim in the last week muttered to me the equivalent of, "Well, at least it [i.e. Obama's winning the presidency] will stop all the racial stuff."

Of course, we know that "the racial stuff" will only begin then, not end.

rast said...

the Powell Doctrine was arguably disastrous.

As opposed to the Bush doctrine, which is obviously disastrous, to the tune of a couple trillion dollars.

Anonymous said...

The level of discourse is as high as ever over at Pandagon:


Fuck your stupid fucking faces, CNN.

Anonymous said...

Oh, btw, here is the link to that incredibly highbrow discussion at Pandagon.

Clever Reference to Demographics said...

I call B.S. on some leftist picking Jewish Atheist as a handle. Picture this:

"Well I think you're wrong about that, Jewish Atheist. I think you should reconsider, based on this evidence here."

Reaction? Think something like:

"Over on iSteve they say Jews are atheists, and that that is wrong!"

The handle was obviously picked to highlight two features about the poster which supposedly make him immune to criticism, thus sheltering her/him from any criticism.

c23 said...

Now it's time for a two-minute hate against Steve Sailer:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/cnn-white-supremacist/

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/blackazoids_greatest_enemy/

But if these people don't hate you you're doing something wrong.

Anonymous said...

Obama and his campaign staff are fools if they don't address the hidden issue in this campaign: The fear of many whites that a "black" presidency and increased victimization of whites will result from an Obama victory. Obama does not realize how many whites see his quest to repudiate his white family's race and ethnicity and become a "black man."

Obama himself is really a white liberal with a Negro face. Like a good white liberal, he does not hold blacks to the high standards expected of whites. That explains why he tolerated racial hate rhetoric from Rev. Wright when he never would have tolerated anti-black rhetoric from a white minister.

kindadefend said...

I was reading some of the comments over at Pandagon and some other liberal site where they mentioned Sailer. The comments are hilarious really. I know what overt racism looks like, one member of my immediate family fits the bill (he's Jewish so his ethnocentricity is fully expected). But Sailer's work is so far from it. He gives reasoned analysis and, more importantly, HONEST portrayal of blacks, black ideals, and black society. He provides significant evidence to back up his claims (i.e. enduring the arduous task of reading Obama's books or sifting through dry testing data). I admire his work and it was refreshing to find a writer willing to give un-PC opinions on race that don't come from a hateful place.

Saying that: I have been dismayed occasionally by some of the commenters on the site and I'm unsure if the above characterization fits them. For example, while I fully agree with the contention that Jews cry discrimination as much and as unnecessarily as blacks, I can't believe someone (in this case: nix) would utter the phrase "Jewish controlled media." That's outside the parameters of reasonable discourse and a hate-filled attack. Furthermore, here's a quote from headache (which is similiar to other comments) that reeks of racism: "you mean like get AA entry to Harvard". Considering I've never seen Obama's ugrad GPA or LSAT, this is bullshit. Add to that the fact that he graduated from HLS magna cum laude and I'd say some commenters' disdain for the man is probably racial. BTW: Almost all other analysis of Obama's racial viewpoints or AA treatment of his presidential campaign are valid.

However, I still do believe the vast majority of this board is made of people who aren't filled with hate but rather honesty and an ability to get by the bullshit spewed from the PC police.

no man's land said...

@nix

The basic message in the Jewish controlled press here is that if you are not excited about Obama you are a racist.

The press in Germany is Jewish-controlled? Methinks you exaggerate a bit. I've found that most of Germany's worst p.c. comes from ethnic Germans, not Jews (of whom there are truly not many in Germany, despite recent Russian-Jewish additions). In fact, it is often German Jews like Henryk Broder or Josef Joffe who are among the few to oppose p.c. in that country.

J. said...

Most Obama supporters back him because they believe he has the best policies regarding issues they care about, such as the housing crisis, healthcare, reforming energy practices, the increasing erosion of wages for the working and middle class. I believe Jewish Atheist responded to Sailer's claim Obama has massive support because of 'white guilt,' as most rational people would. There are plentiful good reasons to support Obama and favoring diversity is ancillary at most.

A more telling question: Why are the only people who support Steve Sailer bigots?

none of the above said...

Jewish Atheist:

I've seen a fair number of blog posts and heard a fair number of comments speculating that an Obama presidency would be good for race relations in the country. That's anecdotal, and I sure don't know of any hard data. It would be interesting to look for some. (And the comments I've seen and heard were never along the lines of white guilt alleviation. Instead, they're along the lines of wanting to prove to black kids that there's no ceiling for them.)

The New York Times did a big article on a survey, and they released the survey results as well. (The article was widely criticized, but I didn't read it, since the actual survey results were available--why do I need some innumerate j-school grad interpreting numbers for me?) If there's any way to get access to the full data (not just how many people answered yes to question X, but the list of answers bundled together as it appeared on survey forms), we might be able to get some good data here. I know that survey had questions about race relations, though I'm sure it didn't have questions about white guilt. I'm not sure whether the raw data is available, though.

I see an Obama presidency as something of a wildcard. I can imagine it having a big positive impact on race relations, or being seriously polarizing. If Obama enrages the right as badly as Bush has enraged the left, I could easily see that leading to a big, ugly political split along racial lines. And that could end really badly for the country.

Dave said...

"You aren't very acquainted with white people or their private conversations, it seems... at least 5 of the goyim in the last week muttered to me the equivalent of, "Well, at least it [i.e. Obama's winning the presidency] will stop all the racial stuff."

Right, but Mr. Sailer's diagnosis of white Obama supporters is far more fanciful and convoluted than just that. Obviously, there are people who hope that Obama's election will have a side-benefit of relieving some race-related tensions. But Sailer isn't making that uncontroversial point. Sailer goes further and says that white Obama supporters are actually motivated by a desire to feel superior to other white people by flaunting their enlightenment. That's the sort of thing that, not only will it never be proven be data, will never be proven by made-up anecdotes either; it's just not the kind of thought that gets commonly voiced out loud. Is it true? I doubt it, myself, but who knows?

The point is that it's clownish to make these kind of unfalsifiable pronouncements.

none of the above said...

anonymous:

I wouldn't have thought of that as a real concern (I've never heard anyone comment on it as a real risk, except here, and not much here.). But that NYT poll's results make me think there's something there, that a significant fraction of whites might have some real fears about an Obama administration.

Question #31 has 19% of whites and 7% of blacks predicting worse race relations as a result of an Obama presidency. Question #24 has about 11% of whites saying they think Obama cares nothing for the needs and problems of people like them. (That doesn't necessarily mean whites, though--just people like the person answering the question.) Question #44 says that about 16% of whites think an Obama administration will favor blacks over whites.

It's not clear to me whether this implies the kind of fear you're describing, or just a broad "he doesn't care about me, he'll push affirmative action, and race relations will suffer for it" take on things. Anyone know of better data to answer that question?

poll results

In particular, question 24 asks whether Obama cares about problems of "people like you."

headache said...

ronduck,
Thanks for your civil attitude. Often Afrikaners are just shrugged off as primitive racists. They have been through a lot in the last century. First the overtly greed-based and imperialist Boer Wars which were conducted on behalf of the Oppenheimer family in order to steal the gold and diamonds from the Afrikaners. In fact Paul Kruger wanted to leave the gold under the ground because he feared exactly this. Afrikaners are pastoral and just wanted to farm but retain their autonomy. They were not globalist industrialists.

It took them 40 years to overcome the defeat of the 2 Boer wars and get back to power. Even nowadays there are Afrikaner communities which have not recovered from the Boer wars, Apartheid notwithstanding.

And now the end of Apartheid has left them without any protection, economic or military. The top 20% have emigrated. That’s a death blow to the nation. What can I say? If there is a God I would think that justice needs to be served some day. After all, it was primarily Britain and the US which did the Afrikaner in. The fact that Jimmy Carter endorses Obama is historically significant from the Afrikaner’s perspective. It makes historical sense and is like a circle closing.

I did not expect to see a black prez in the US this soon. Those people who think Obama is just gonna be a liberal have no idea how powerful racial solidarity is. It trumps all the other impulses apart from sex and perhaps religion. Jews are a good example of this. Nobody can say they are not cultured and intelligent, but when it comes to racial solidarity they stand as one man. Obama will do everything he can to advance the interests of his race at the expense of whites. Mandela did the same in South Africa. Whilst the world media was applauding him, he enacted policies which were always bad for whites, without exception. The long term effects of his policies have caused those 20% of whites who can leave easily to leave. The remainder will leave when a full-scale nationalisation or genocide sets in.

nuss said...

one thing you realise when these liberals come here because of the honey trap at CNN is just how uncivil, selfish, bigotted and vicious these people are. I can't really beleive that they fight this hard for blacks. Its not like all of them are personally married to blacks or have some family fued going. So it seems its all about being the winner, whatever it takes. What an eye-opener.

Anonymous said...

The Daily Show just did a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=177452&title=bad-timing-for-a-black-president">segment based on this article. I don't know if much of the humor will resonate with the typical isteve reader, but this bit did stick out:

"We're awfully good at being the man, are we ready to be the man? Say there is another Katrina, What is Kanye West going to say, President Obama's white grandmother doesn't care about black people? How much blame can you lay on that woman?"

teacher.paris said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQ-BMprD_8

Anonymous said...

" men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths."

Depends on where you are grizzly, as to who's the more screwed. America and most of Europe--or the rest of the world.
American men have their case, but it is a bit Philip Wylie/ men-against-alimony/20th century. Kind of like feminism. But hang in there. You 'all will make it and don't take any stuff. With women, be kind but firm about YOUR feelings and YOUR needs. Take back your power and your night.
Now. Looking around, I'd say Dua Khalil and her sisters-in-honor would have their own ideas about bashing and which gender has been the bigger sucker in their part of the world

Anonymous said...

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/07/survey-evidence-that-some-whites-want.html

Inductivist has the data that shows what we all intuitively knew.

In addition, he expresses his thoughts about how the outrage of the Left over what Steve said has been demonstrating a hatred that the smarter whites have for their working class brothers and sisters.
It's frustrating, the hatred and unfairness of it, and that issue undergirds so much of the discussions that go on here at Sailer's and others.

Anonymous said...

Bruce hall has an interesting article about the cost of gasoline having unintended consequences for politicians.

Outland said...

"A more telling question: Why are the only people who support Steve Sailer bigots?"

Well, that's easy. They're not bigots.

Anonymous said...

The point is that it's clownish to make these kind of unfalsifiable pronouncements.

But you have no problem with clownishly pronouncing whites to be "institutionally racist" without any evidence.

Dave said...

"But you have no problem with clownishly pronouncing whites to be "institutionally racist" without any evidence."

No, that's silly, too. And I don't really have any problem with clowns, either. It just seems like many of you don't get the joke.

Ronduck said...

headache said...

Ronduck,
Thanks for your civil attitude.
...now the end of Apartheid has left them without any protection, economic or military. The top 20% have emigrated. That’s a death blow to the nation. What can I say? If there is a God I would think that justice needs to be served some day. After all, it was primarily Britain and the US which did the Afrikaner in. The fact that Jimmy Carter endorses Obama is historically significant from the Afrikaner’s perspective. It makes historical sense and is like a circle closing.


Thomas Jefferson said that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Have you read Civil War 2 by Tom Chittum? It is available online in PDF form both for a reasonable price and as a bootleg copy, please look it up on Google and read it.

David said...

the phrase "Jewish controlled media." That's outside the parameters of reasonable discourse and a hate-filled attack.

Jews don't control the media. They are fuzzy, warm victims who control and influence nothing, nothing!

No media companies are Jewish-owned, or even employ Jews! If you think they do, you are outside the bounds of reason and civilization!

For instance, stuff like this or href="http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/index.html" is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

It may be factual, it may be true, but it remains WRONG.

WRONG, I tell ya. The only question before us is: should we eliminate the people who notice such things by a) burning them at the stake; b) waterboarding them; c) exiling them to Guantanamo?

none of the above said...

nuss:

Or because it's what they think is right. As someone said above, most people voting for Obama are people who pretty-much always vote Democrat. You don't need some extraordinary explanation involving race, white guilt, or other stuff to explain why plenty of white liberals would rather vote for a black liberal than a white moderate-conservative.

grizzlieantagonist said...

*****American men have their case, but it is a bit Philip Wylie/ men-against-alimony/20th century. Kind of like feminism. But hang in there. You 'all will make it and don't take any stuff. With women, be kind but firm about YOUR feelings and YOUR needs....

I'd say Dua Khalil and her sisters-in-honor would have their own ideas about bashing and which gender has been the bigger sucker in their part of the world*****


Sorry, but you've completely shifted off-topic.

I wasn't talking about women at all -- at least not this time around. I was not seeking your advice or anyone else's about them.

What I did was to take a topic frequently discussed in the isteve blog -- whites acquiring status by condemning other whites for perceived racial insensitivity -- and showing how men did an analogous thing with respect to other men (i.e., condemn them for perceived insensitivity towards women) in order to acquire status in the eyes of women.

So my principal focus was men, not women, and your shifting the topic to women was an attempted sleight-of-hand.

What's more, however different male-female relations might be in the Third World, I doubt that male-male relations are that much different.

In the Third World, women live longer than men, as they do here, and men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence at the hands of other men than women are.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, here's a quote from headache (which is similiar to other comments) that reeks of racism...

You could go to any number of left wing blogs and find comments, reeking of atheism and communism, that you would not consider outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. Why would you have us tread more lightly because the subject is race?

kindadefend said...

@ anonymous:

You said: "Why would you have us tread more lightly because the subject is race?"

If you read my post, I surely disagree with treading lightly around race. Most of the people on this website are not prejudiced and willing to go against the PC liberal garbage. However, I've noticed a significant minority who comment here to cross the line and espouse racist bullshit. When someone makes mention of Obama's AA acceptance to Harvard despite not knowing his ugrad GPA or LSAT and in conjunction with knowledge of him graduating magna cum laude, I have to assume some type of racist thought goes into that. When people believe that Jews control the media (NOT just stating that they whine too much which I agree with), I have to think some type of racist thoughts goes into that. I think some people occasionally cross the line on this site and I'm willing to call racism when I see it.

Look I agree with almost every single thing Steve writes. But I'm not naive to believe that everyone on this site has those ideas on race resulting from an intellectual process rather than from a more base route.

Anonymous said...

Kindadefend -

i agree with you.

I participate in this site because Steve is obviously not a white supremacist. Steve has stated in the past that the children of interracial couplings are sometimes superior. Steve has stated in the past that asians have higher intelligence than whites.

Steve is honest and objective and i like that.

But yes clearly this site attracts some unsavory characters

Anonymous said...

I believe that Steve's research and writings are a real threat to the liberal establishment. The liberal establishment hates Steve because he points to things that are true. Steve's point of view is gaining and Steve is starting to have a real impact on things

I think that the liberals know they can't win an argument with Steve in a fair forum. So they log in here and make white supremacist posts, they make anti-jewish posts, they make racist posts. They are trying to muddy the waters and smear steve by pretending that his site is filled with kooks.

I would urge Steve, if he wants his views to get a fair hearing, to weed out the kooks and the haters from this web site. The outrageous posts here dilute the power of Steve's very powerful ideas.

Anonymous said...

I will behave in future, I promise.

ben tillman said...

I participate in this site because Steve is obviously not a white supremacist.

You mean "chauvinist".

ben tillman said...

I would urge Steve, if he wants his views to get a fair hearing, to weed out the kooks and the haters from this web site.

Kookiness is in the eye of the beholder, and by the standards of the SPLC, for instance, Steve himself seems to qualify as a "kook". I don't know where you draw the line, but you do have a chance to take on the substance of the "kooky" comments, right here, where they are presented.

We have seen "kindadefend" dismiss the concept of a "Jewish-controlled media" without appeal to evidence. Well, let's have it. Defeat this alleged falsehood in the marketplace of ideas, and do it in a place where the other side may actually get a say.

I am reminded of the revelation, 2 or 3 years ago, that Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham were caught on audiotape in the early '70s complaining about Jewish media control. At that time, the three most important American newspapers (NYT, WSJ, and WaPo) were under Jewish ownership, all three TV networks had always been under Jewish control, and all of the eight largest movie studios (with the possible exception of UA) were under Jewish control.

These are verifiable empirical facts.

The most remarkable thing about the Nixon-Graham revelation was that nowhere in the mainstream media was there even one media organ that asked, "Well, were they right?" And that tells me one thing: the voice of the mainstream media is just as monolithic now as it was when Nixon & Graham made their factually correct observation.

kindadefend said...

@ ben tillman:

I was aware that Hollywood was owned primarily by Jews. I'm not denying that. I wasn't aware of the newspapers however. Yet, I think you engage in a false dichotomy by equating "ownership" with "control". They aren't the same thing. Here's a thought experiment: If Jews really did control the information out there, this site would have no reason to exist. Jews are notoriously racist against blacks and the whole PC treatment of black America would be absent from the landscape. Jews and blacks have an incredibly contentious relationship and your contention that Jews control the media doesn't mesh with that fact.

I don't feel like thinking of other reasons regarding the inanity of "media control", but maybe others will. I'll agree that Jews have far too much say in our foreign policy due to fear mongering and money. But "media control" sounds a little overboard IMO.

none of the above said...

kindadefend:

I think a lot of folks here, me included, agree with you here. The overt racism strikes me as all wrong, as does most of the hostility to immigrants.

The thing is, if we're going to have a discussion that's free from the narrow limits imposed by the mainstream media, we're going to get a wide range of opinions. Some of those opinions will be viscerally offensive.

And here's the weird part. They're not viscerally offensive just because they're wrong or evil. The world is full of wrong and evil, much of it proudly on candidates' websites. (See the drug war, interventionist foreign policy, continuing farm subsidies, our immigration non-policy, etc.) They have that visceral impact because you don't hear them much.

ben tillman said...

I'm glad you checked back, kindadefend.

Here's a thought experiment: If Jews really did control the information out there, this site would have no reason to exist. Jews are notoriously racist against blacks and the whole PC treatment of black America would be absent from the landscape.

Are Jews notoriously racist against blacks? I dispute the notoriety, but I've been privy to many conversations involving disparaging remarks about blacks by Jews. That may be a common attitude, but it is not the public perception, and airing those views in public is certainly not what the Jewish community has thought best for itself.

Instead, the Jewish community promoted reacial equality.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP

In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African American. The Jewish community contributed greatly to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how, "In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise." [1] Early Jewish-American co-founders included Julius Rosenthal, Lillian Wald, Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch and Wise.

Anonymous said...

David, your bilious strawmanizing is boring. How 'bout going beyond the false dichotomy of Jews being either evil controllers or helpless victims?

Kindadefend, thanks for being a voice of reason.

kindadefend said...

@ ben tillman:

Your NAACP example isn't apt. That was in 1914. I'm not a history buff, but I assume blacks didn't have much leverage with which to enact social change. What minority group did? The Jews. Of course they were willing to support black equality. They simply used the blacks, a group constituting a much larger portion of the American population, as a vehicle for their own social mobility. Bring up the blacks and the Jews, who were higher than the blacks, would see their own standing raised.

I still find your equating of ownership to control to be inherently problematic. Of course, I'm not discounting the ownership, but I think the lack of conservative discourse, especially of the variety espoused here, is absent not because of control. Rather, minority groups (most notoriously blacks and to a lesser extent Jews) have created a culture of fear that stymies controversial ideas. Blacks use violence (Watts riots) while Jews use political power and the ADL. Furthermore, these contentious ideas are assuredly controversial and will attract negative attention from all groups, mostly white, yuppie liberals. Media wish to report the news in the warm fuzzy language of multiculturalism and liberalism, not the cold hard truth.

Finally, I'll give one example of the difference between ownership and control (b/c I'm lazy and don't want to look for more). Ted Turner is vehemently anti-Christian (even divorcing Jane Fonda b/c of it and once remarking "Christianity is a religion for losers"). He owns two television networks (TBS and TNT). I've never heard anyone complaining that they bankroll anti-Christian films or TV shows despite the owner being a staunch anti-theist.

teacher.paris said...

Madeline 'the deaths of the Iraqi children are a price we're willing to pay' Albright shows her true colors.

The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents...including the United States.

National Democratic Institute

Board of Directors

Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman
Rachelle Horowitz, Vice Chair
Marc B. Nathanson, Vice Chair
Kenneth F. Melley, Secretary
Eugene Eidenberg, Treasurer
Kenneth D. Wollack, President

ben tillman said...

I still find your equating of ownership to control to be inherently problematic.

I mentioned ownership once. You can substitute "control" for "ownership", and the statement still holds true, okay? Sheesh.

ben tillman said...

...I assume blacks didn't have much leverage with which to enact social change. What minority group did? The Jews. Of course they were willing to support black equality. They simply used the blacks, a group constituting a much larger portion of the American population, as a vehicle for their own social mobility.

In other words, you concede my point. Thank you.

Truth said...

"I've never heard anyone complaining that they bankroll anti-Christian films or TV shows despite the owner being a staunch anti-theist."

I believe one could make the argument that 'The Terminator', 'Bloodsport' and most other large budget action pictures that constitute a large portion of TNT's programing could be considered "anti-Christian"

BTW, he divorced Jane Fonda for her crows feet and sagging skin as do most millionaires/billionaires; but they all need an excuse.

ben tillman said...

Your NAACP example isn't apt. That was in 1914.

How about 1954?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/jews_note_role_in_historic_school_case_20040514/

Esther Swirk Brown wasn’t the Brown for whom the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case desegregating schools is named—but she is the Jewish woman who helped find Oliver Brown, no relation, to be the lead plaintiff in the historic case.

As a young woman in Kansas, Esther Brown was horrified by the conditions of the school that black children, including the children of her housekeeper, were forced to attend. The one-room schoolhouse in South Park had dilapidated walls and missing light bulbs.

“She went to a school board meeting to press for equal education and was told to go home and mind her own business,” said Miriam Katz, who impersonates Brown as part of a one-woman show honoring historic American women that is touring the Midwest.

Instead, Esther Brown stopped black children from attending the school, choosing to home school them in her own house and getting friends to serve as other teachers.

When she took her fight statewide to the capital in Topeka, she met Linda Brown, a young girl, and raised money so that Linda Brown’s father, Oliver, could sue the city’s board of education.

“She just wanted rights for everybody,” Katz said. “Maybe she felt like she had to make things right.”

As the nation marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, which changed the face of the civil rights fight, Jews are noting the historic role their community played in pushing the movement forward.

“It was disproportionately black and Jewish lawyers that were fighting the civil rights cases,” said David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism and a board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Charles Black, a member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund team that argued Brown, used to joke that he was the only non-Jewish name on many of the briefs in that case.

Anonymous said...

"I wasn't talking about women at all -- at least not this time around. I was not seeking your advice or anyone else's about them."

well it must come out so naturally in your writings, you don't notice it. You pulled the words out of your ear, sir, and I quote "I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths."

and I, becoming bored with Obama, took issue.
As for the long female life span, well, it IS a perhaps unfair advantage (I guess) but it is not the case in a few countries still, and never was the case prior to the 20th century and improved medical practices. Which we owe largely to male research, I'll admit. Beware. When you complain about biology you sound just like a feminist.