Swiping both apps in Los Angeles shows that more than 90% of the girls on JSwipe appear white compared to about 30% for Tinder. JSwipe girls rarely have tattoos, Tinder girls often have tattoos. Most JSwipe girls appear classy, most Tinder girls appear trashy. Most JSwipe girls look like they’ve graduated from college, most Tinder girls look like dropped out of high school.
About a third of the girls on Tinder appear morbidly obese compared to fewer than 10% of the girls on JSwipe.
Most girls I meet on Tinder want to charge me for a date (such high rates and the portions are so small), while I’ve rarely encountered hookers on JSwipe.
* Pinchas was the son of a man who married Jethro’s daughter, so he was partially descended from idolaters. And he slew a Jew, Zimri, was had an untarnished blood line.
* Every people love their own Pinchases and hate other people’s Pinchases.
* Hitler’s chauffeur Emil Maurice, who was the second person to join the SS after Hitler, had Jewish blood. Wikipedia: “Maurice became Hitler’s chauffeur. He reportedly had a brief relationship with Hitler’s niece, Geli Raubal in 1927, which led to his dismissal as Hitler’s chauffeur.”
“Even though Maurice had been a party member since 1919, taken part in the abortive Beer Hall Putsch, for which he was awarded the prestigious Blood Order, and been a bodyguard for Hitler, Himmler considered him to be a serious security risk given his “Jewish ancestry”.[2][14] Himmler recommended that Maurice be expelled from the SS, along with other members of his family. To Himmler’s annoyance, Hitler stood by his old friend.[12] In a secret letter written on 31 August 1935, Hitler compelled Himmler to make an exception for Maurice and his brothers, who were informally declared “Honorary Aryans” and allowed to stay in the SS.”
* Wikipedia: “As he rose to power as leader of the Nazi Party, Hitler was domineering and possessive of [his niece Angela Maria “Geli”] Raubal, keeping a tight rein on her.[5] When he discovered she was having a relationship with his chauffeur, Emil Maurice, he forced an end to the affair and dismissed Maurice from his service.[1][6] After that he did not allow her to freely associate with friends, and attempted to have himself or someone he trusted near her at all times, accompanying her on shopping trips, to the movies, and to the opera.”
“The historian Ian Kershaw maintains that “whether actively sexual or not, Hitler’s behaviour towards Geli has all the traits of a strong, latent at least, sexual dependence.”[5] The police ruled out foul play; the death was ruled a suicide.[8] Hitler was devastated and went into an intense depression.”
“Hitler later declared that Raubal was the only woman he had ever loved. Her room at the Berghof was kept as she had left it, and he hung portraits of her in his own room there and at the Chancellery in Berlin.”
* NUMBERS 25 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.
4 The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”
5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. 12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”
14 The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. 15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Kozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them. 18 They treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the Peor incident involving their sister Kozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of that incident.”
* There seems to be a game of telephone going on. God tells Moshe to impale the leaders and Moshe commands to slay all idolaters. So how often did Moshe misunderstand God’s commands? For instance, what about the commands to genocide in the Torah? Perhaps Moshe misunderstood God?
* Why should all the leaders be impaled? Surely not all leaders were idolaters and fornicators?
* God likes that Pinchas slew Zimri and his Midianite princess Cozbi. What kind of prince lets his daughter be a whore?
* Artscroll: “Under the leadership of Midian, a lust for immoral pleasure and a desire for the worship of Peor had been introduced into the Jewish people. Such desires are very hard to eradicate.”
Jews would never have become pornographers and perverts if it had not been for the evil Midianites and their whorish women constantly tempting Godly Jews from the path of Torah.
* Num. 25:6. Jacob Milgrom: “…the Israelite [Zimri] was convinced (by his Midianite partner?) that ritual intercourse was the best way to appease God and thereby terminate the plague.” A lot more men would go to temple if they could have ritual intercourse.
According to Mycenaen-Greek rites, “the boy or girl who went to death without having experienced sexual intercourse remained unsatisfied and therefore caused harm to the living. The sequence of sacrifice, food and drink and ritual intercourse would represent the gamut of those things necessary to put the restless spirits of the age at ease.” (Milgrom)
* One thing I love about Judaism is its sharp distinction between public and private sins. Private sins, by and large, are between you and God (though everything we do affects other people, it is hard and distasteful to monitor what goes on in private) but public sins are a matter of communal concern.
* Num. 25:9. Jewish tradition claims that Pinchas’s example was followed by his loyal supporters, and it was they who slew the 24,000 Israelites. It was another Holocaust!
* Num. 25:11. R. Jacob Milgrom: “Once released, God’s anger destroys everything in its path and makes no moral distinctions. This empirical truth concerning natural disasters — in modern actuarial parlance called ‘acts of God’ – is neither glossed over nor treated apologetically by the Torah. It is reckoned with as a cornerstone of its theology.”
One modern Pinchas who comes to my mind is John Brown. Wikipedia:
John Brown (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was an American abolitionist who believed armed insurrection was the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States. Brown first gained attention when he led small groups of volunteers during the Bleeding Kansas crisis of 1856. Dissatisfied with the pacifism of the organized abolitionist movement, he said, “These men are all talk. What we need is action—action!” During the Kansas campaign, Brown commanded forces at the Battle of Black Jack and the Battle of Osawatomie. He and his supporters killed five pro-slavery supporters in the Pottawatomie massacre of May 1856 in response to the sacking of Lawrence by pro-slavery forces.
In 1859, Brown led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry to start a liberation movement among the slaves there. During the raid, he seized the armory; seven people were killed, and ten or more were injured. He intended to arm slaves with weapons from the arsenal, but the attack failed. Within 36 hours, Brown’s men had fled or been killed or captured by local pro-slavery farmers, militiamen, and U.S. Marines led by Robert E. Lee. He was tried for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the murder of five men, and inciting a slave insurrection. He was found guilty on all counts and was hanged. Brown’s raid captured the nation’s attention, as Southerners feared it was just the first of many Northern plots to cause a slave rebellion that might endanger their lives, while Republicans dismissed the notion and claimed they would not interfere with slavery in the South.
Historians agree that the Harpers Ferry raid escalated tensions that, a year later, led to the South’s secession and Civil War. David Potter has said the emotional effect of Brown’s raid was greater than the philosophical effect of the Lincoln–Douglas debates, and that it reaffirmed a deep division between North and South.
The Phineas Priesthood or Phineas Priests (also spelled Phinehas) is a title for self-selected vigilantes who commit violent acts in accordance with the ideology set forth by the 1990 book, Vigilantes of Christendom: The Story of the Phineas Priesthood by Richard Kelly Hoskins.[1]
According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “Many people mistakenly believe that there is an actual organization called the Phineas Priesthood, probably because there was a group of four men in the 1990s who called themselves Phineas Priests. The men carried out bank robberies and a series of bombings in the Pacific Northwest before being sent to prison. But there is no evidence that their organization was any larger than those four individuals.”
The ideology set forth in Hoskins’ book includes Christian Identity beliefs opposed to interracial relationships, the mixing of races, homosexuality, and abortion. It is also marked by its anti-Semitism, and anti-multiculturalism.
The Phineas Priesthood is not considered an organization because it is not led by a governing body, there are no gatherings, and there is no membership process. One becomes a Phineas Priest by simply adopting the beliefs of the Priesthood and acting upon those beliefs. Adherents of the Priesthood ideology are considered terrorists for, among other things, various 1996 abortion clinic bombings, the bombing in Spokane of The Spokesman-Review newspaper, bank robberies, and plans to blow up FBI buildings.[2] Four members of this organization were convicted of crimes including bank robbery and bombing, with each sentenced in 1997 and 1998 to life in prison.[3]
The Phineas Priesthood is named for the Israelite Phinehas, grandson of Aaron. Numbers 25:7 According to Numbers 25, Phineas personally executed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman while they were together in the man’s tent, running a spear through the two and ending a plague sent by God to punish the Israelites for intermingling sexually and religiously with the Midianite Baal-worshipers. Phineas is commended for having stopped Israel’s fall to idolatrous practices brought in by Midianite women, as well as for stopping the desecration of God’s sanctuary. Yahweh commends Phineas through Moses as zealous, gives him a “covenant of peace,” and grants him and “his seed” an everlasting priesthood. This passage was cited in Hoskins’ book as a justification for using violent means against interracial relationships and other forms of alleged immorality.
* I notice that right-wing militia types in America are never portrayed positively in the media.
Posted inTorah|Comments Off on This Week’s Torah Portion Is Pinchas (Numbers 25:10–30:1)
On July 3, 1997, I bought a real computer for the first time (a PC) for about $1,000, brought it home to the trailer I was renting in Culver City, dialed up to the internet through AOL, and began putting notes and unused sections from my first book (a history of sex in film) online via AOL member pages.
About two months later, I got my first cable connection to the internet, bought the domain name lukeford.com, and learned MS Frontpage.
A day without blogging quickly began to feel weird to me. During the Sabbath, I’d make mental notes about things I wanted to write on, and then after sundown, I couldn’t wait to get online and make a few posts.
Even when I was sick or overseas or had just returned home from wrist surgery, I’d usually find a way to write a post or two.
Blogging comes as naturally to me as breathing and much of the time, I put as much effort into my blogging as I do into my breathing. Blogging is who I am.
Posted inBlogging|Comments Off on July 3, 2017 Marked My 20th Anniversary Of Blogging
* Kathy Shaidle posts: It pains me to agree with Frum, but he’s right.
I don’t come from a rich family, or am a Canadian-genetic-lottery-winner like him. Quite the opposite. I have been writing professionally for over 30 years, and blogging since 2000, mostly on the topics of religion, politics, race and crime. I was politically incorrect when that phrase was in its infancy.
I have never used a pseudonym and never would.
I have also been sued for libel, libeled back too many times to count, threatened, cautioned by the cops and possibly lost work. (The thing about that is, if someone googles you and doesn’t hire you, they don’t exactly call you up and let you know.)
Everyone here is missing the obvious point:
That pseudonyms would be rendered unnecessary overnight if EVERYONE WOULD STOP USING PSEUDONYMS.
I’m a middled aged woman in mediocre shape, under 5 feet tall, can barely lift my youth-model 20 gauge, and yet have the guts to not only sign my own name to my words but to violate multiple Canadian “hate speech” laws every time I hit “publish.”
If you don’t, you’re a wimp, and should at least have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.
I should add here that my annual income is above average and has been for some time.
You’d be surprised at how many people will hire you BECAUSE they agree with you ideologically, and not just in the media world.
One reason I suspect all you “SHITLORD 3000″ types have had the opposite experience is that you also happen to be personally unpleasant, unambitious and vocationally ill-trained.
Hey, Mr. Anonymous, I have confronted those shitlords on their turf. Whatever made you think I hadn’t? I was writing about GamerGate before it even had a name. Next?
Wow, Mr. Candid Observer, you must be new around here:
Now what’s your excuse? You don’t have one. You’re just another trollish keyboard warrior.
How many books have you written, Mr. Anonymous? I’ve written quite a few, including one that was a Conservative Book Club selection.
It was, in fact, about those Canadian Human Rights Commissions which, by the way, are capable of finding the “guilty” to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention the $$$ legal fees.)
Precisely because I’m Canada, and not the US (although you guys aren’t MUCH better) I actually take MORE risks by using my real name that you would ever be able to handle — which I know is true because… you’re an anonymous coward.
I can’t decide whether you’re really dim or just pretending as a limp attempt as wit, but do note that bragging about how stupid you are doesn’t make you look smart; I know that’s a favorite trope with you fellows, but you really do need to retire it.
Should you actually be asking for an explanation, I thought it was obvious:
They can’t fire us all. They can’t arrest us all. They can kill us all.
If “men” like you had chosen to share the risk years ago, and not hidden behind fake names, then the necessity to do so would have been greatly REDUCED by now.
It’s quite possible that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, to mention the most famous of recent free speech martyrs, would still be alive if their killers had thought there were more such souls around.
Anonymity is the pacifism, the welfare-bumming, of rhetoric. You are living off the hard work undertaken by your betters, and then having the gall to think you’re actually one of the brave ones.
You have ZERO skin in the game. Therefore you don’t (or shouldn’t) get to play it.
* Are James Watson or Jason Richwine “personally unpleasant, unambitious and vocationally ill-trained”?
* For better worse, it’s human nature to pay more attention to the speaker than to the message. You can observe this in any school yard, or indeed on any internet discussion forum.
Statement X may be true, but unless it’s asserted to be true by certain specific people nobody will believe it.
* Internet commenting is a hobby, and not my top avocation at that. IRL there are bills to pay and a marriage & dependents to support.
I’m not ashamed of what I write pseudonymously. As far as heft on matters social, political, and historical — there’s nothing in my background to impress you, anyway. The audience can appreciate or revile my words, as they will. (Or, at unz.com, Ignore commenters with reverse-exemplary records; works for me.)
That said: you, Steve, Razib Khan, Randall Parker, and others get an extra measure of respect from me, for writing thoughtful dissent under your real name.
* Oh, you mean like Brendan Eich?
And what is it, after all, that you are brave enough to say under your own name? Do you declare in no uncertain terms that the by far the best evidence is that human groups differ genetically on IQ or tendency to criminality, and that we should give up hope therefore that some groups — subSaharan blacks, in particular — will ever achieve parity in our modern societies with Europeans or East Asians?
If you were to say that under your own name, how much of a career do you think you’d have left? How many people would have your back?
So shut up, please, until you have something to say that violates taboo to its core.
For many of us here, it is precisely these sorts of things we do wish to say, because it is precisely these sorts of things we consider to be both true and very important.
* Pat Boyle: When I was using the name Albertosaurus one day I looked on the web at the blog by Razib Khan to find that he had posted an article (not a comment an article) called something like “Pat Boyle is a Fool and a Scoundrel”. He had written a whole piece on what a bum I was because I had differed with him on some political issue.
It was quite startling. I had thought that my identity was secure behind my pseudonym, but obviously I was wrong. Khan has a rather nasty personality. He is quite brilliant but seems to be mired in endless disputes occasioned by his temperament. He is a doctoral student but can’t seem to manage to earn his degree. I suspect he blows up too often for most schools. In any case he banned me from his blog and I never wanted to have anything to do with him again.
It taught me that there really is no anonymity on the Web. I thereafter uncovered.
* If the author of The Federalist Papers, Publius, had wimped out and used a pseudonym, there might be no First Amendment in the United States today.
* Mark Steyn posts: “Kathy Shaidle and Gavin McInnes have been discussing online anonymity. I agree with them. You’re not in the battle unless you put your name to it – and don’t give me that Scarlet Pimpernel stuff: you’re not riding out after dark on daring missions, you’re just reTweeting some bloke’s hashtag…
“Mr McInnes is withering about the cyber-warrior ethos – the butch pseudonym, the graphic-novel avatar. But, cumulatively, it’s making the Internet boring and ineffectual for everyone other than Isis…”
“As Kathy Shaidle notes, many of the commenters to the McInnes video are talking past each other. There are always rational reasons for not flying under your flag. But cumulatively and objectively they have a corrosive effect. McInnes cites the stand-up mommy who, in response to the arrest of a parent who let her children walk home from the park unaccompanied, organized a “Leave Your Kids At The Park” day – to demonstrate to the statist control freaks that they can’t arrest us all. Her name is Lenore Skenazy, not “WarriorPrincess437”.”
* “It’s quite possible that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, to mention the most famous of recent free speech martyrs, would still be alive if their killers had thought there were more such souls around.”
That is theory. It is something that you pulled out of your head.
The following is reality. It is something that occurred in the real world.
“The Hundred Flowers Campaign, also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, was a period in 1956 in the People’s Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. Differing views and solutions to national policy were encouraged based on the famous expression by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong: ‘The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science.’ The movement was in part a response to the demoralization of intellectuals, who felt estranged from The Communist Party. After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course and pressed those who challenged the communist regime by using force. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti-Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps.” (Wikipedia)
It is important to distinguish between theory – that is, what sounds good in words – and reality – that is, what actually was or is taking place. Theories are neither facts nor arguments. What convinces about a theory are the facts it organizes, not the intention of its author or its aspirational quality.
Anyone can pull a theory out of the place I referred to, to fit a momentary rhetorical need, and anyone did.
More serious would be examples of dissident movements that disclosed their members’ identities en masse to the regime and won. There is the American Revolution (the signers of the Declaration of Independence used their real names), but that was a declaration of war, a statement by people intending to engage in violent revolution. I can’t think of an example, but perhaps someone here can.
* I have the impression that today in the West the censorship is not something a ruling elite (like the communist party) imposes on the people, but rather something which many normal people really want.
* You’re mistaken, I am counter-attacking her. She dropped in insulting all anonymous posters in high and amazing terms, using specious arguments. If someone is going to attack, there is going to be a response from someone else.
And yes, her being a Jew in this context is germane. Much of the animus against free speech on race topics – creating the real need for anonymity in many cases – is self-consciously Jewish-originated, e.g., from the ADL. Her alt-light material would be more impressive if it addressed this fact head-on, in the critical manner exemplified generally by an Israel Shamir, et al.
As Derrick Jensen (a Jewish guy, by the way) sadly observed, punching down may be the rule in most human societies, with “sending violence back up at the abuser” (his words) being the most abominated and forbidden action.
And we know that the people in the saddle and their fellow-travelers don’t distinguish between speech and violence. Talking back is fighting back and both are intolerable to them.
I’m glad people come out fighting publicly but only if it they are prudent and have a base of support. Urging any others into exposing themselves is like someone with a parachute goading someone without one to jump out of a plane: “Whatssmatta? You chicken?” It isn’t well-intentioned.
* Kathy Shaidle, peace be upon her, has no “hostages to destiny,” except possibly a cat. It is easier to be brave when all the blows will fall on you alone.
* Perhaps the pseudonymous commenters are playing a different game. This is akin to online video games. Knowing your opponent’s identity isn’t really important. Just playing the game well is its own reward.
It isn’t important for comment readers to know the commenter’s identity either. Even if the people behind the pseudonyms can’t achieve a reward in status, they do get to promulgate ideas, which, being ideas, can stand and fall on their own merits. Is this not useful? It is somewhat akin to a novelist putting ideas into the words of his characters.
Tying a debate over ideas to the real-world status game–being in The Arena–changes the incentives of the debaters, some ways for the good. Some positive incentives for being associated with a real name are that by having skin in the game, you are exposed to social pressure. This pressure can promote honesty and politeness. It encourages debate to remain within established parameters, avoiding esoteric minutiae and Talmudic squirrelyness. But even this pressure has the negative effect of cautioning debaters against following the logic of their arguments all the way to certain unpalatable conclusions (cf. John Derbyshire’s critique of Mark Steyn’s America Alone).
Of course, debate between a pseudonymous commenter and a real-name commenter is asymmetric. The real-named commenter’s history and personality are known and open to attack. The pseudonym only has his ideas to attack. In that sense, anonymity is unfair. Mark Steyn is therefore correct to refuse to debate some no-name on twitter.
I think that for a real debate over ideas to work, the audience must be able to detach the ideas from the presenter and be able to evaluate the arguments disinterestedly. This is a big presumption.
Several years ago, Steve wrote a post called “Two Modes of Intellectual Discourse”, describing the traditional form of debate, debate as sport, and contrasting it with a newer form of debate that has been emerging among postmodern intellectuals and filtering through the culture at large. Steve quotes intellectual Alistair Roberts describing the new form of discourse:
“In contrast, a sensitivity-driven discourse lacks the playfulness of heterotopic discourse, taking every expression of difference very seriously. Rhetorical assertiveness and impishness, the calculated provocations of ritual verbal combat, linguistic playfulness, and calculated exaggeration are inexplicable to it as it lacks the detachment, levity, and humour within which these things make sense. On the other hand, those accustomed to combative discourse may fail to appreciate when they are hurting those incapable of responding to it.
Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven discourses will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked. Unable to sustain true conversation, stale monologues will take its place. Constantly pressed towards conformity, indoctrination can take the place of open intellectual inquiry. Fracturing into hostile dogmatic cliques takes the place of vigorous and illuminating dialogue between contrasting perspectives. Lacking the capacity for open dialogue, such groups will exert their influence on wider society primarily by means of political agitation.”
In this new arena, the traditional rules of disinterested detachment no longer apply. If the older rules of debate held, the audience could detach the ideas from the person; with the newer rules, the ideas are attached like the Scarlet Letter to the arguer.
The response to disagreement has become disproportionate and capricious. Why does Justine Sacco get fired from her job for making a lowbrow joke on Twitter? A lot of people believe this is a good idea, and “non-partisan” corporations are willing to do such things just to keep activists assuaged. Some bosses are less cowardly. But does Joe Blow, 53 year old manager of a Scranton auto parts distributor, want to bet that his boss won’t wilt under the pressure of a determined public relations attack when one local SJW notices his post arguing against gay marriage on Facebook?
If the old arena was a boxing ring, the new arena is a Colosseum full of hungry lions. Who can survive in The Arena now? Heavyweight, experienced, well-armed combatants such as Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter, thrive there. Smaller, nimbler combatants who are part of high-trust communities, such as Steve Sailer, can survive by avoiding the Emperor’s gaze. Toxic lunatics with no social points left to lose like Richard Spencer or Vox Day, whom the lions find inedible, can survive there.
For most, the only effective defense is camouflage. You can get your ideas out there. You don’t get killed by an internet mob. Maybe you remove the camouflage if you find yourself in a position of strength and are able to reap the rewards of a battle well fought. This might not be entirely honorable, but the Marquess of Queensberry Rules don’t apply when fighting lions. And ideas are spread that would have otherwise been unspoken.
I think that to win the battle of ideas we need to have both pseudonymous commentators and named commentators. The pseudonymous are necessary for the production of new edgy ideas, most of which will be terrible. But that shield of anonymity allows new ideas to be generated freely, and for those ideas to be refined and improved. For ideas to win out in the Battle of Ideas, however, real people need to stake their reputation to those ideas and argue them openly. Can’t we all just get along?
Posted inCensorship|Comments Off on Kathy Shaidle On Pseudonyms
When I started writing professionally a little over a quarter of a century ago, I seriously considered using a pseudonym like Eric Blair / George Orwell. But I couldn’t figure out how to cash checks made out to a pseudonym, so I eventually junked the idea. But I generally wish I had gone with a pen name, for reasons that are obvious at this point to me, but I won’t mention them because they are so obvious.
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* Goy: And then they tell us to watch what we say on Facebook and elsewhere because of possible adverse consequences.
In short: Get your mind right or shut up.
* The goys at MPC throw shade at you (from the Right), but they can be pure at “our thing” because they write under pseudonyms.
* A name, by itself, doesn’t amount to much. The problem is once you have the legal name of a person it is possible to locate their physical address. David Frum might not be so enthusiastic if, e.g., he were in Florida and got a minor traffic violation. Here the county clerk would post that fact at the county clerk website and it would reveal Frum’s home address, drivers license number and even his phone number. As a political polemicist Frum might not be too happy about that as stalkers, fanatics and people who just want to have a word with him might come by. Frum would not know their identities so his idea would leave him at a great disadvantage should some undesirable event happen.
* In 1980s communist Hungary, if you criticized the regime, you could be hounded out of your job, harassed or beaten up by the police, and occasionally even arrested. Some people committed suicide. Very rarely some people were sentenced to relatively short prison terms, but their lives could be destroyed without having to resort to that. By the 1980s, nobody was executed any longer.
The soft totalitarianism is getting harder. I mean, there’s still more liberty than in 1980s Hungary (it’s probably much easier to fly under the radar, and even some prominent badthinkers can easily survive the regime), but whereas 1980s Hungary was usually moving in the direction of more freedom and less oppression, we now seem to be constantly moving towards less freedom and more oppression. The communist regime in Hungary was also getting more and more coy about oppression, our elites now are getting more and more open with their threats and demands to curtail freedom of expression.
* Typically to be professionally pseudononymous I think you get a trusted lawyer to act as your agent and the checks go to him. But I’m not sure how well that would work in today’s environment where the lawyer would be subject to the same consequences even for associating with your badthink.
I can’t fully express how annoyed it makes me to read comments like Frum’s from people who never think let alone say anything controversial. I wish they had enough self awareness or humanity to feel embarrassed by the ridiculousness of what they are saying but they don’t.
* Here is an interesting possibility: one day soon even anonymous commenters (like me) will risk being doxed by big data software that will suck up huge volumes of commentary and use idiosyncrasies in your writing style, along with other hints (e.g., characteristic arguments, or anecdotes you’ve used more than once), to link anything you’ve ever written under one name to anything you’ve ever written under any other. Anyone who has ever used their real name on the Internet will be at risk!
* Justine Sacco wishes she’d used a pseudonym.
* Well, in 2017 America, here’s what can (and likely will) happen if you publicly challenge the Cult of Equality theocracy (see if notice any similarities.):
1. Hounded out of your job. Check
2. Harassed. Check.
3. Beaten up by the police. Hey, look at that, we have a winner. No, the police will not beat you up, though you could get punched in the face by an overzealous SJW.
Here are a few more things that could happen to you:
4. Lose your friends and be ostracized by your community
5. Lose your wife and kids due to losing your job and friends
6. Lose your home and savings due to points 1 and 5
So, let’s see, if you speak out, there’s a reasonable chance that you can end up a jobless, bankrupt, divorced, broken man who rarely gets to see his children. Who needs police thugs and gulags? That is plenty to prevent all but the rare person from speaking out.
Steve and the Derb are marvels, but they found a writing niche that can’t be exploited by large numbers of people. The rest of us wouldn’t make it.
No, this silliness will hold its grip for a long time to come and will only fall when the disorder creeps into the homes and neighborhoods of upper middle class whites, which is still a long way off.
* Which survey of employee attitudes is likelier to get accurate responses: one in which the responding employees must use their real names, or one in which the responding employees can remain anonymous?
* I’ve encountered the attitude enough that it’s clearly some odd point of pride to use their real name. But is a luxury point of view.
David Frum makes his living from his thoughts, which are conveniently very “safe” and fashionable, even if it doesn’t feel that way at times. We who have bad thoughts, no trust funds, and non writing occupations know that the obvious risks of real names are not worth it.
* Yes, David. In a country where posting a photo of yourself in a MAGA hat on Facebook could very easily ruin your career, what you say makes a great deal of sense.
Maybe if I had his Jewish privilege I would feel safe too. But as a white male, I am the hunted, not the hunter.
* But the SPLC and ADL have heard of his writings, and they pay people to keep tabs on and cause trouble for those who write things the SPLC and ADL do not like.
The WASP Elites active in politics also know Sailer’s name, and they too dislike what he says. Most of them – see the Bush family history, for example) have histories of using wealth and connections to buy out those who voice what they oppose, and failing that to ruin them financially and socially.
* There was a website started a couple of years ago to publicize people who had made racist Facebook or Twitter comments and put pressure on their employers to fire them. These were mostly low level service workers and most them had been fired. The internet makes it much easier to go after people no matter how insignificant they are and destroy their livelihood.
* Does that apply to 1940s resistance press, David (((Frum)))? Or anti-slavery pamphlets? Or pre-1960s invective against Christianity and tradition?
Is there going to be a re-evaluation of the (until very recently) countless jewish free speech proponents?
* On the bright side, no pseudonym = no threat of CNN style blackmail doxxing, or the “Seek & Destroy this Mad Brute!” campaign the Scottish Daily Record launched against Youtube blogger Millennial Woes.
* I think it’s pretty awesome that you use your real name, I hope there haven’t been overly bad consequences for you, other than being unpersoned and frozen out of the MSM.
The commentariat says probably more than you’d want to say anyway.
Even being rich is no great protection. Look at Donald Sterling. He’s even Jewish, for god’s sake. If an uber-rich geriatric Jew can’t say what he thinks, what hope have the rest of us got? This is why we crawl under the rocks in the first place, Frum, you a**hole.
* The obvious reasons are the nontrivial chance that some member of the Coalition of the Fringes will act on the SPLC’s designation of Sailer as a one-man hate-group and carry out some vigilante anti-racist action on his person, property or family.
I don’t know how much ostracism Sailer has faced in his meatspace life because of what he’s written.
* What do you suppose Frum thinks of the secret ballot?
It was devised to protect the privacy and anonymity of the voter’s choice, so that it might not be influenced by social pressures or the fear of retaliation. In other words, a desire for secrecy in voting is motivated by the same concerns as are anonymous or pseudonymous expressions of opinion.
The labor unions’ promotion of “card check” over secret balloting in workplace organization elections under the last administration is a recent example of the left’s hostility to anonymous expression of opinion. The unions want card check because they know it is much more difficult for an employee to refuse to sign the card, aware that union organizers and his fellow workers will know he did so, than for him to vote against unionization by secret ballot.
Following Frum’s logic, one’s opinion as expressed by his vote during an election should be as much a matter of public record as his writings.
* Years ago the blogger Half Sigma (formerly known as Calico Cat, now known as Lion of the Blogosphere) created a fake blogging persona as “Libertarian Girl” and immediately racked up a pretty big audience.
* Also, if you DO sign your name and your thoughts fall outside of a narrow window of acceptable opinions, you will be personally ruined and will never be able to support your family again. And to reiterate, you have absolute freedom to speak your mind in this country.
* This is from the man who presumed to write paleo-cons out of the list of conservatives, becuase of their rejection of a bogus war which he helped to cook up.
* Gavin McInnes doesn’t get that he’s chosen to make a living being a controversialist who pulls edgy pranks and says naughty things. He’s carved out a well-worn niche for himself that even the dullest normie can understand. They get that some people say some “crazy stuff” and they’re allowed to do so because they’re journalists or comedians or celebrities of some kind. The same dull-witted normie would not, on the other hand, understand it if Gavin McInnes were a local bank manager, swimming pool salesman or assistant prof and said online 1/20th of what McInnes does. They’d have their ass handed to them by HR.
Matriarchal managerialsim and late stage consumer capitalism does not get free speech, except in approved spaces and cases. McInnes is one of those cases.
* An alternative explanation is that Frum isn’t concerned about threats of physical violence or career ruin from the Left because he’s part of the controlled opposition, which helps the Left consolidate their gains after a half-hearted and engineered-to-fail resistance. He’s determined to be seen as one of the few “respectable” Republicans, where the Republicans’ political enemies control the grant of respectability. He augments his respectability by enforcing the Left’s rules and declaring the Republican base and Right wing dissidents un-persons.
One of the other bright lights of the controlled opposition is Nicole Wallace. During the general election Presidential Campaign she criticized Trump’s appeal, stating (paraphrased) “would you even want to win with only white votes?” Recall that this woman (along with Frum) was in the Whitehouse of Bush the Lesser, and a linchpin of the McCain/Palin Campaign, the latter of which was a sort of engineered failure in search of virtue points for midwifing the first black President into existence. The campaign, advised by the likes of Wallace, advised against using Mr. Obama’s past racial hucksterism and radical associations while helping the opposing campaign to malign any real opposition to Mr. Obama as a pack of inveterate racists. In sum, we all got to go through a kabuki exercise in order that Wallace and others like her could receive pats on the back from their peers for running an “honorable (and doomed to fail) campaign.”
* A person’s name is the sweetest sound to them. Don’t know about pseudonyms. When Mark Stein makes reference to “Steve Sailer” while guest-hosting for Limbaugh, the most listened to radio program in the U.S., it would be such a rush to hear your name on the radio as you are driving your 15-year old Honda shitcan along the 101, no?
* One of the other aspects of the anonymity of platforms, especially twitter, is that it is a rare opportunity to interact with the ruling class where people like Frum can’t employ their credentials to dismiss challenges to their ideas and attitudes. Someone like Chris Cuomo really thinks he’s achieved his current station in life by virtue of his merit, rather than the networking power of a long-standing political dynasty. So when Cuomo tweets something that demonstrates the depth and scope of his stupidity and ignorance, he immediately gets backtalk setting him straight and embarrassing him – all from an egg avatar with 120 followers, most of which are porn bots.
This is the sort of thing that leads to a crisis of status – viz, how can it be that there are people out there seemingly without my credentials and achievements who know more than me? How can they disregard the authority of my station? If they exist, is my place secure?
* In (slight) defence of David Frum he actually is willing to stand by his opinions even when they aren’t popular. Now he is mostly an effective social climber to be sure but consider his opinions on immigration. As Steve has long pointed out he is one of the few neoconservatives who has been on the right side of that debate. He doesn’t mention the cultural/racial stuff but he does get into the economics and the crime aspect of it as well. Not sure why he isn’t criticised for it given how verboten it is but it is certainly not a popular position.
Likewise he did get kicked out of the Conservative Movement to some extent by giving into healthcare reform in 2009. Granted, it was a position that endeared him to liberals and his unorthodoxies tend to find him squarely in the centrist spectrum. By the same token he still defends the Iraq war, a lost position today, on the other hand that endears him to neocons who are still reeling.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
