ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

National Review sharpens the blade

The sans-culottes at National Review are getting the guillotine ready again. As predicted by many, it appears Mark Steyn will be the next to follow in the footsteps of the John Birch Society, Joe Sobran, Ann Coulter, and John Derbyshire?  Jason Lee Steorts, an editor at National Review, writes:
I can’t agree with Mark that anything of value is lost when derogatory epithets go out of bounds in polite society. They tend to be bad even for humor, substituting stereotype and cliché for originality. People who used them in different times need not be regarded as monstrous, nor must the canon be censored; we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility. By way of criticizing speech, I’ll say that I found the derogatory language in this column, and especially the slur in its borrowed concluding joke, both puerile in its own right and disappointing coming from a writer of such talent.
To which Steyn responded:
I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us – that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court – but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.

Up north, Ezra and I decided that, if they were going to “de-normalize” us, we’d “de-normalize” them. So we pushed back, and got the entire racket discredited and, eventually, the law repealed. It’s rough stuff, and exhausting, but the alternative is to let the control-freaks shrivel the bounds of public discourse remorselessly so that soon enough you lack even the words to mount an opposing argument. As this commenter to Mr Steorts noted, the point about unearthing two “derogatory” “puerile” yet weirdly prescient gags is that, pace Marx, these days comedy repeats as tragedy.

I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point – that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?
National Review doesn't realize that its genteel world of polite dissent from left-liberal orthodoxy is over. It is no longer a significant voice on the Right; one could quite perhaps even argue that it is not even really conservative anymore. I can't actually take a position on that, however, since I quit reading National Review after they fired John Derbyshire for failing to kowtow to liberal orthodoxy on race. National Review has long attempted to curry favor with the mainstream media by reading others out of the respectable Right. So it only seems just that increasingly people are not-reading National Review out of the relevant Right.

And it is more than a little ironic that Steorts is criticizing Steyn for his derogatory expressions when, after attacking Kathryn Lopez over gay marriage, he justified his attacks on her thusly:
So it is your view, Kathryn, that the action of democratically elected representatives, who are accountable to the citizens of the State of New York, is tyrannical in a way that justifies comparison to North Korea, a state in which an absolute ruler has burned people alive in a stadium. Okay. But now I want a new word for what “tyranny” used to mean.

I would like to see the reaction of a North Korean refugee to your claim.

It would also be nice if you troubled yourself to make an argument.

Update: I see that several commenters find my tone beyond the pale. With respect, I think y’all are way too sensitive. The harshest thing here is the sarcasm of “trouble yourself,” which strikes me as mild by the standards of polemical writing generally and writing at NRO (including posts by commenters) in particular. 
Hmmm, I'm noticing a hypocritical inconsistency as well as the fact that the conservative position on a certain subject tends to upset the manage editor... I know absolutely nothing about Steorts, but on the basis of these two pieces, it would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that Steorts is one of those putative "gay media conservatives" in the mold of Andrew Sullivan. Which, as we have come to learn, reliably indicate that he's not conservative at all.

Labels:

133 Comments:

Blogger Outlaw X December 22, 2013 1:51 PM  

I don't read them either. I know when the Cowboys have a stupid coach an when a magazine has a stupid editor.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 1:55 PM  

Never be niggardly with your criticism.

- Loomis

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 1:55 PM  

It would be a tragedy if they fired Mark. He's probably the best writer at National Review. If it weren't for him and Jonah Goldberg, I wouldn't go there. A few months ago they had an awful piece on animal rights. I'm guessing they'll come out for gay marriage soon if they haven't already.

Anonymous Krul December 22, 2013 1:56 PM  

I don't read Nat'l Review either. Which Steyn column are they talking about? I'm curious to read it.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 2:03 PM  

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn

Anonymous bob k. mando December 22, 2013 2:08 PM  

as Afor notes, the only unforgivable crime of a subordinate is ... being right.
http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/russian-crashes-on-youtube-a-bed-time-story/
“You can say anything you like to your Boss, as long as you are not right, that is the one sin they will never forgive.“


of course, the corollary is this:
when your management structure is made up of cretins who would rather have their asses kissed than get work done ... your company is probably set up for decline.

Anonymous Krul December 22, 2013 2:09 PM  

Thanks Jeff.

Having read the column, the Editor's response looks pretty funny. A puddle of drippy guff that serves no purpose except to miss the point.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 22, 2013 2:15 PM  

Mark Steyn needs NR about as much as the Duck Commander needs A&E. It doesn't cost a whole lot to setup and operate your own blog, as long as you have something worth reading.

Anonymous will best December 22, 2013 2:15 PM  

I think the only way for conservative groups to survive is to blow them once a decade and start fresh.

Blogger James Dixon December 22, 2013 2:23 PM  

Steyn is one of the good guys who understands this is a war we're fighting. Steorts is an idiot.

Anonymous lozozlo December 22, 2013 2:30 PM  

@will best

indeed - the left, entryism, and all that

After all - any organization not explicitly right wing will eventually become completely leftist

Blogger RobertT December 22, 2013 2:43 PM  

The founder of National Review, William F. Buckley, who was the public face of conservatism for decades beginning in the 50s, must be rolling over in his grave right now. Mr. Buckley was not afraid of a little dust up every now and then, and was quick to ridicule his opponents who all hated his guts. You measure a man and you measure an organization dedicated to a particular political viewpoint by the those who hate them most. Unfortunately, it has gotten to the point where the National Review is most hated by their own base, whose views they believe are impolite at the very least. (Not unlike the Republican Party.) It's a pitiable state of affairs that the National Review has seen fit to abandon their heritage so soon after Mr. Buckley's death. Now they seem to have lost their minds altogether by taking on Mr. Buckley's heir to the titular head of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh. It is worth noting that Mr. Steyn is well thought of my Mr. Limbaugh, for whom Steyn often guest hosts and will again over the Xmas holidays. None of these people may pass muster with Libertarians, but in the real world they still have some clout, and I have a feeling, you don't take out Mark Steyn without leaving a lot of your blood on the battlefield.

Anonymous bob k. mando December 22, 2013 2:45 PM  

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 22, 2013 2:15 PM
It doesn't cost a whole lot to setup and operate your own blog



you are aware that Steyn already has his own blog, yes?

Blogger Beefy Levinson December 22, 2013 2:49 PM  

It used to be that an American conservative was whatever an American liberal was thirty years ago. Now it looks like American conservatives are becoming whatever American liberals were thirty days ago.

Anonymous Toddy Cat December 22, 2013 2:55 PM  

It always was just a matter of time. Steyn is way too conservative for NR, and, oddly enough, too talented. VDH will be next, for hia "raciss" comments of Mexicans. Just wait...

Anonymous Faust December 22, 2013 3:06 PM  

Could they really ditch Steyn? He, Goldberg, and VDH are their only good writers. I suppose they could, but that'd cost them a lot of money, wouldn't it?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 22, 2013 3:08 PM  

On your list, you forgot that William F Buckley, the founder of National Review, forced Joe Sobran and Patrick Buchanan out as well. I left National Review when Buchanan left.

Blogger cmate December 22, 2013 3:08 PM  

Krul December 22, 2013 1:56 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn

"I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?"

Anonymous The other skeptic December 22, 2013 3:09 PM  

Don't make insensitive jokes about things the left cares about.

Anonymous Andrew December 22, 2013 3:11 PM  

Vox is right about the editor, but I don't think Steyn will be dropped. After Obamacare and now the Duck Dynasty fiasco, the left is suffering MAJOR losses in public opinion. Even in Chicago, local black residents were calling for their form of a tea party to combat the Chicago machine.

White millennials are significantly more conservative than previous generations were at their age. The demographics may be changing, but the winds are turning against the left just when they thought the Ring of Power (electoral supremacy for 1000 years) was in its grasp.

In the American culture war, conservative America is like Gondor in the last dying gasps of the reign of Denethor-only one swift strike by the hordes of the left to ultimate destruction, however, hope remains. The left's ambitions have left its underbelly exposed. One last push by conservatives to elect a man in the style of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, men who would not back down to the PC gestapo, in concert with a collapse of the American economy to give them leeway to enact sweeping reforms, could re-right the ship and restore the country. Probably won't happen, but hope remains. Russia suffered a long time under communism before it lifted the yoke. Lets hope America shakes loose of the yoke right as its being twisted on.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 22, 2013 3:14 PM  

Bill Buckley, among other things, is the one who hired Rich Lowry. NR went into a tailspin and continues. I was a subscriber to NR for over 10 years and I quit the magazine due to Lowry's actions as editor.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 22, 2013 3:16 PM  

Is this the slippery slope they warned us about.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 22, 2013 3:17 PM  

Really, this is over that Age of Intolerance column? That was a pretty tame one from Steyn, who is one of the best writers on the Right. What special sauce does this little Steorts shit bring to the dance? Sounds to me like the Bronco's waterboy complaining about Peyton Manning.

People like Steorts are parasitical idiots who think they can curry favor with the left by supporting their cause-du-jour. But that won't work because the Left does care if you support gays because that's not what the left is all about. It's worth remembering that the goal of the Left is not actually to promote any of the abnormalities they champion. That's just a tactic. What they really want to do is destroy all non-governmental institutions so that their High Church of Government can take over all public life. They need to end the voluntary society in order to clear the way for the compulsory one (which they assume they'll be in charge of). They want these manufactured outrages to tear apart private institutions and private individuals.

They will end up causing immense damage to gay people in the process because - as with race - their artificial outrages will force people into hostile camps. Phil Robertson believes homosexuality is a sin and he believes that judgment of the sinner should be left to God. The intolerant brigades will destroy the second belief, not the first.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 22, 2013 3:18 PM  

So, Buckley had his hand in what NR is. At least, at one point, NR had real intellectuals writing for the magazine.

Anonymous jack December 22, 2013 3:20 PM  

Mention was made of Steyn and Limbaugh. I love to listen to Steyn on the radio and wish he had his own show. It would be a good move to make him Limbaugh's successor. when the time comes. Would make that show even more popular in my opinion.

Blogger cmate December 22, 2013 3:22 PM  

"Even in Chicago, local black residents were calling for their form of a tea party to combat the Chicago machine. "

I saw that, amazing. It was supposed to be a gun control debate. Worth a look.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/21/Al-Sharpton-s-Chicago-Town-Hall-Erupts-into-Revolt-against-Machine-Politics

Anonymous Bobo December 22, 2013 3:22 PM  

If Steorts isn't gay, he's probably missing a good chance...

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 22, 2013 3:27 PM  

National Review is just like Bill Kristol's magazine - leftists deciding they get to define what the legitimate right opposition is and is not. They want to be happy little lap dogs who occasionally get a tax cut through, but otherwise, it's big government's pool, they don't even piss in it.

Blogger Hector December 22, 2013 3:33 PM  

Hate it when people say things like, "I would like to see the reaction of a North Korean refugee to your claim."

Just because things are way worse someplace else, we should all be happy with whatever we have here.

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 22, 2013 3:46 PM  

A very quick survey of his articles suggests he's far more concerned about what people think is polite than being right or winning ideological trench warfare. In his "The Greatly Ghastly Rand", from 2010, he says he won't read any more of Ayn Rand because, in Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene wherein she lets the takers of all stripes - including the wife of a bureaucrat and the bureaucratic whelps - die from suffocation because they supported the system of taking that led to using coal instead of diesel trains.

If he were writing about intersexual relationships, he would be a mangina.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 22, 2013 4:04 PM  

Some people think Google is not as nice it pretends to be ... which is funny, but they also point out who is involved in tracking us all.

Anonymous Susan December 22, 2013 4:17 PM  

The legal morass that Steyn endured in Canada for the past couple of years probably makes this seem like a Sunday picnic.

NR has not been relevant for at least a decade or more. This example of stupid from the editor just proves it.

Blogger kurt9 December 22, 2013 4:23 PM  

Do remember that NR was where the anti-war conservatives were read out of the movement by the egregious Frum. That they excommunicated Ann Coulter and John Derbyshire, and appear to doing the same to Mark Steyn should be of no surprise to anyone.

Anonymous Discard December 22, 2013 4:36 PM  

I'm with W. Lindsay Wheeler. I stopped reading National Review when they fired Joe Sobran. Buckley proudly gave a whole issue over to the topic, and even had it reprinted as a book, titled "In Search of Anti-Semitism".
I avidly read the neo-cons when they were actually new, in the 1970s. "Reformed leftists" is what they claimed to be, breaking ranks with their former comrades and all that. The Right, including National Review and The American Spectator, embraced them and put them on pedestals. I long ago decided that they were simply saboteurs, making their Long March through the GOP.

Blogger Rseven Rocket December 22, 2013 4:36 PM  

What other organizations does Steorts belong to? I smell the stench of entryism.

Blogger Eric December 22, 2013 4:42 PM  

Mark Steyn needs NR about as much as the Duck Commander needs A&E.

NR pays him for his articles. I respect him as much as the next guy for getting into a pissing match with his boss, but he'll definitely face personal consequences if he gets forced out.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer December 22, 2013 4:46 PM  

"...we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility."

Comedy gold right there.

Indeed, we are truly living in a time of greater civility.

BWahahahahhaha!!!!

Blogger Brad Andrews December 22, 2013 4:48 PM  

I would tend to argue that libertarians who ignore the implications of their positions are just as bad for society. Look at the ones that push homosexual rights, not realizing that enforcing those in the modern culture is making a lot of others do things that are against their own rights of free association.

Anonymous JJ December 22, 2013 5:11 PM  

Anyone seen the news about Dominican Republic?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/18/255284552/diaspora-sounds-alarm-as-dominicans-face-statelessness

They repealed birthright citizenship, and made it retroactive to 1929! This takes away citizenship from the troublesome Haitians without it being too explicit. Predictably, American liberals are demanding birthright citizenship to be restored. Understandably so, as this gives more weight to Americans and Canadians who want it repealed as well. The only two developed nations that still has birthright citizenship.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/18/255284552/diaspora-sounds-alarm-as-dominicans-face-statelessness

Blogger stareatgoatsies December 22, 2013 5:20 PM  

Just because things are way worse someplace else, we should all be happy with whatever we have here.

A sense of perspective helps keep a lid on overwrought rhetoric.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer December 22, 2013 5:20 PM  

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/11/25/free-speech-paranoia-when-you-are-losing/#

When the editor was but a wee pup at the old Harvard Crimson he penned a curious little piece about "free speech".

Ah the Interrwebz, it never forgets.

Anonymous VD December 22, 2013 5:25 PM  

What other organizations does Steorts belong to? I smell the stench of entryism.

Bingo

Blogger Beth December 22, 2013 5:41 PM  

National Review has become a desperate member of the Ruling Class. They no longer, if they ever did, represent the Country Class. They're stupid Republicans because they won't have enough support as Republican Ruling Class wannabees to survive and the Democratic members of the Ruling Class will hate them regardless. Good riddance!!! They haven't been worth a damn since William F. Buckley gave up control.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 22, 2013 6:03 PM  

Those of us who can remember back when.....it was much more difficult for conservative viewpoints to get mentioned in the public debate. Even the ones we had in the 60s and 70s were not consistently conservative. I admit to listening to William F. Buckley in those days. Buchanan was nowhere to be seen, he was working as a speechwriter, a job that Karl Hess had already given up in favor of more exciting gigs. Conservatism was defined by everyone.....differently.....and each had his own examples or favorite conservative writers/speakers. This was the environment that failed to elect Barry Goldwater but handed Richard Nixon two terms. We still have a considerable amount of outright confusion regarding conservative politics and are by no means moving toward consensus.
I do believe it would be possible to logically construct a body of thought, leading to policy prescriptions, regarding conservative principles. But there is no party or leader interested in uniting or inscribing the various factions, which would be necessary to move the entire society in the same direction.
Any conservative, no matter how well defined, is headed into a strong headwind from the media, and will have to step over the dead bodies of his closest intellectual cousins along the way. Some are willing to do this, others are not.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 6:09 PM  

Food Fight!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366950/re-re-education-camp-jason-lee-steorts

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 6:16 PM  

"I can’t agree with Mark that anything of value is lost when derogatory epithets go out of bounds in polite society."

Racist! Sexist! Homophobic! Islamophobic! Chauvinistic! White supremacist! Heteronormative!

And on and on and on, all with the complete approval of those who decry "epithets".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 6:20 PM  

Instapundit has said recently that the reason the language police are increasingly active now whereas long ago they praised "freedom of speech" is that long ago they needed an ostensibly neutral principle to protect Communists. Now the need has passed, so has regard for "freedom of speech".

He's right.

Blogger tz December 22, 2013 6:32 PM  

I disconnected sometime around or before they purged Sobran.

Review of Insipid National Obsequiousness or RINO. White RINOs when they aren't trying to pass.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 6:33 PM  

The right answer to the left entering organizations and then driving out the right is not to ask for tolerance for all, it is to forbid the left entry or drive it out if it has entered. To ask for tolerance works only with the tolerant; the left has proved itself intolerant for a hundred years (since Lenin) or more (since we can date it to Marx or further back). To ask for tolerance from the intolerant decade after decade is weak. Push-back is the only option.

It's the same with speech codes. It's not enough to say that taboos on what words we may use should be enforced less stringently, while the left's epithets of course unchallenged and thus respectable and can continued to be used and even written into legislation and court decisions. That is a big concession in return for nothing. It's weak, and it never works. Things just get worse and worse.

Push-back is the only option.

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

Blogger tz December 22, 2013 6:34 PM  

Muzzles are designed to protect from teeth, but they have been extended when the toothless feel threatened.

Blogger tz December 22, 2013 6:37 PM  

Oh Mann, the banner "ad" when I clicked the link:

Chilling effect on NR's free speech
Support our legal defense fund in the case of Mann v.s. National Review, Inc.


The irony can be smelt over a long distance.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 6:42 PM  

Off-topic: what use are the words "quite perhaps"?

"It is no longer a significant voice on the Right; one could quite perhaps even argue that it is not even really conservative anymore."

Sorry for being petty. They bothered me.

Blogger tz December 22, 2013 6:43 PM  

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

I thought it had something to do with NASCAR.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 6:51 PM  

Off-topic: what use are the words "quite perhaps"?

"It is no longer a significant voice on the Right; one could quite perhaps even argue that it is not even really conservative anymore."

Sorry for being petty. They bothered me.


Hold mulled Port in your left hand, While gazing down at the finely polished fingernails on your right hand--palm inwards, fingers curled, of course; we are gentlemen after all, not hair stylists. Lift your nose about 10 degrees upward and for an oh-so-brief moment consider the Hamptons over Martha's Vineyard. If , quite perhaps comes out of your mouth, then, yes. you get it.

Blogger James Dixon December 22, 2013 7:00 PM  

From http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366950/re-re-education-camp-jason-lee-steorts: "The point is basic courtesy, Mark."

Basic courtesy for those who have none?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 7:03 PM  

MrGreenMan: "National Review is just like Bill Kristol's magazine - leftists deciding they get to define what the legitimate right opposition is and is not."

They are content to act upon advice too. Rich Lowry fired John Derbyshire because the Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien wrote on Twitter, “Does @NRO want to be associated with someone who publishes racist trash like this?” Ramesh Ponnuru responded, “I know I don’t.” Jonah Goldberg tweeted, “For the record, I find my colleague John Derbyshire’s piece fundamentally indefensible and offensive. I wish he hadn’t written it.” So the NRO promptly went into a chorus of denouncing, which naturally meant shunning and firing. I haven't been able to find a quote from Lowry thanking Derb's denouncer for reporting him to NRO, but that was the atmosphere.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 7:05 PM  

tz: "I thought it had something to do with NASCAR."

Only indirectly. No whites, no NASCAR.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 7:08 PM  

James Dixon: "Basic courtesy for those who have none?"

"Tea-baggers" must show exquisite courtesy to their leftist better. Leftists will decide what courtesy requires.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box December 22, 2013 7:16 PM  

I do not read HarlotQueen Romances or Neocon Review, though HarlotQueens are significantly less compromised ethically & morally.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 7:17 PM  

Mr. Steorts and maximal experiential union

Quote: Scruton thinks that, the sexes being different, the experience of homosexual desire is dissimilar — and, we are to assume, inferior — to the experience of heterosexual desire. This claim is separable from his insight about the nature of sexual desire, and I find it not very compelling.

Does this mean he is gay?

(simplytimothy sips mulled port, gazes at impeccably manicured fingernails, lifts nose 10 degrees...)

perhaps, quite.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 22, 2013 7:19 PM  

James Dixon: "Basic courtesy for those who have none?"

Titus Didius Tacitus......"Tea-baggers" must show exquisite courtesy to their leftist better. Leftists will decide what courtesy requires.

When the Tea-Baggers finish with their bow and scrape routine and tip-toe out of the room, those of us with less interest in being polite will Jap-slap the Leftists around the room a few times, then ask them if they want to do something about it.
Just move a muscle.

Blogger xenophon1 December 22, 2013 7:26 PM  

Steorts seems a bit overly-defensive regarding the barbs hurled at the sodomites. Perhaps he has some thing of a , er, PERSONAL nature that he'd like to share with us? (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...)

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 7:26 PM  

We need a term for the flavor of Entryism where radical homosexuals infiltrate conservative magazines--back-door-entry-ism? booger-ism?

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 7:43 PM  

The caliber of Steort's writing is pretty good. An archive is here

Blogger Crude December 22, 2013 7:59 PM  

I don't know if Steorts is gay or not, and I don't think his articles give a clue about that so far. It's not as if you can't find heterosexual people who become LGBT jackboots.

That said, the article Simplytimothy links comes straight out of the standard LGBT playbook: keep the terms as vague as possible, talk about 'love' and 'intimacy', and never, ever talk about the realities.

I think Robertson's biggest sin of all here may have been, not that he regarded homosexuality as a sin, but that he brought up anal sex in direct terms. I've had too many conversations with LGBT activist sorts who have cut off all conversation with me immediately - these are people who you normally couldn't pay to shut up - the moment I insisted that it's the sexual acts, not the 'love', which is the problem, and that we'd be talking about sexual acts explicitly.

Blogger Crowhill December 22, 2013 8:12 PM  

Do you follow the First Things blog? I think they have already capitulated to the "soft" version of conservative thought.

Blogger Crowhill December 22, 2013 8:12 PM  

Do you follow the First Things blog? I think they have already capitulated to the "soft" version of conservative thought.

Anonymous Lana December 22, 2013 8:22 PM  

Additionally, Steorts was quick to decide George Zimmerman wasn't in danger from Trayvon Martin.He definitely has a agenda, it's just not conservative.

See Here

Blogger The Aardvark December 22, 2013 8:24 PM  

Steyn is really the main reason toi ever tune in to Limbaugh anymore.

And as to Buckley ....

Blogger The Aardvark December 22, 2013 8:25 PM  

to ever tune in.

Where did "edit" go? Clearly I missed a staff meeting.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 8:44 PM  

Gore Vidal: "crypto-NAZI...."

I'd forgotten that "NAZI" should have been on the epithet list. "Fascist" too. With all the "crypto"s and "neo"s and "quasi"s. If you disagree, you're a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Blogger Crude December 22, 2013 8:47 PM  

Well, maybe Steorts can get fired. And then he can find himself a job at Huffington Post while talking about how his firing was certainly not an attack on his freedom of speech nor in any way deplorable.

I stopped reading NR a while ago. I should keep up with American Conservative, which seemed like a good replacement for it at the time.

As for First Things - it's a mix of people, but the Duck Dynasty related comments I see so far are predictable 'ashamed that some Christians oppose gay marriage' bits. I know they have more conservative people there - maybe they're busy with Christmas stuff.

Anonymous Lana December 22, 2013 8:48 PM  

Well, this has been illuminating. NR is so hyper-sensitive about using the word queer in any context, they've repeatedly deleted references and quotes to the WFB quote The Aardvark linked and deleted my comment on the thread in question when I asked what would happen to Steorts when the queer eye turned to the courtesy guy. No jokes, comrade.

Blogger The Aardvark December 22, 2013 8:55 PM  

"when the queer eye turned to the courtesy guy" - Lana

Well played.

Anonymous Stilicho December 22, 2013 9:01 PM  

Ponnuru reeks of "social justice" Catholicism. Emphasis on the "social justice."

Blogger Tommy Hass December 22, 2013 9:06 PM  

"Hate it when people say things like, "I would like to see the reaction of a North Korean refugee to your claim."

Just because things are way worse someplace else, we should all be happy with whatever we have here."

Shut the fuck up you imbecile.

This person LITERALLY compared someone who thinks that homosexuals are degenerates to a North Korean functionary.

Blogger rcocean December 22, 2013 9:12 PM  

I stopped reading the "girly-men" at NR after they bounced Coulter. Has Jonah Goldberg reiterated his advice that we invade Black Africa and "civilize it"?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 9:14 PM  

No matter how unhappy the right is, leftist attacks will continue as long as there is not enough effective, punishing aggression by the right. Only when the punishment is too heavy for the left to sustain will there be a slackening of its aggression.

Rick Moran: "GLAAD is raising money hand over fist and is suffering no ill effects for its PC policing of speech."

Meanwhile: NAACP investigating sheriff who refused to lower flag for Mandela’s death (quoting The State, which is too ad-heavy to link): "The S.C. NAACP says it is investigating traffic stops conducted by the Pickens County Sheriff’s office after Sheriff Rick Clark refused to lower the department’s American flag to honor the passing of former South African president Nelson Mandela.

“What happens to young people, particularly African-American males, when they are stopped in Pickens County,” S.C. NAACP president Lonnie Randolph asked during a news conference on Thursday to announce plans for the 2014 King Day at the Dome Rally. “A fish wouldn’t get in trouble if he kept his mouth shut. He opened his mouth, and we are going to look into it.”"

That is all the free speech that the left allows: "A fish wouldn’t get in trouble if he kept his mouth shut."

Which is not true by the way. The left uses silence to increase its power and then it creates new "issues" and picks fights and invents offenses.

Anonymous Stilicho December 22, 2013 9:26 PM  

The left uses silence to increase its power and then it creates new "issues" and picks fights and invents offenses.

This is actually their preferred mode of operation. It scares the living hell out of them when someone speaks out in opposition to them, then refuses to back down when they try to intimidate, shame, and outgroup that person. They've had control of the bureaucracy, the media, and the narrative for so long that they do not know how to react. At some point, they might even realize that they cannot emote their way out of a fight. Probably not, though, and that just makes me smile.

Anonymous kh123 December 22, 2013 9:52 PM  

"A fish wouldn’t get in trouble if he kept his mouth shut."

This much most efficient slogan, Citizen Prosecutor! Is better than "Fish rots from head".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 9:57 PM  

Via the under-rated Instapundit, this (at The Other McCain) is what the left loves. A white woman indoctrinated with anti-white ideology makes an ant-white joke at her own white skin privilege, the white-racism sniffers seize on it and denounce her, she grovels and denounces herself, she is fired immediately and her father condemns her, saying what she did was "unforgivable".

Anonymous Lana December 22, 2013 9:58 PM  

Actually, GLAAD is facing quite the backlash: Here Rick Moran has always been a concern troll for Establishment Republicans if I recall correctly.

And Phil Robertson has no intention of backing down Here Cracker Barrel has already re-evaluated it's modified removal of Duck Commander items in the wake of overwhelming customer dissatisfaction You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it.

Which brings up Stilicho's point, they do not know how to react to someone who refuses to back down. It's a Christmas present for those of us who still believe in truth stated plainly.

Anonymous William Tell December 22, 2013 9:59 PM  

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

Anonymous Godfrey December 22, 2013 10:05 PM  

I stopped reading National Review in 1991. By then I was moving towards libertarianism.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 10:09 PM  

One of the sins of Mel Gibson is refusing to condemn his father, which decent people would never ask for. This is the world the left wants whites, Christians and people of our various ethnicities and nationalities to live in: the son must condemn the father and the father will condemn the daughter.

If there is someone you love, that's whom they want you to report to the thought police as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic" etc., and if there is someone who loves you, that is who they want to condemn you.

Anonymous Mike M. December 22, 2013 10:15 PM  

The Left understands one thing. Force.

And NR has been declining for decades. They were ALWAYS part of the Northeastern Plutocrat wing of the Republican Party.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 10:15 PM  

William Tell: "Pro-race is code for anti-humanity."

There's only one race that gets condemned by anti-whites like you, the supporters of white genocide. It's not the blacks, not the browns, not the yellows and not the reds. It's the whites, always and everywhere the whites, that you attack and push to consent to genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation.

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 10:30 PM  

Lana: "Actually, GLAAD is facing quite the backlash..."

They won't be effectively deterred if they face some negative twitter comments and go on as wealthy as before.

I see the word "victim" used once in that story: "GLAAD is the latest victim on the Duck Dynasty controversy that has taken the media industry by storm."

GLAAD are the "victims" apparently - but they didn't suffer anything concrete, and instead they inflicted the harm on others they chose to target, contributing to the climate of fear.

This is how the left operates: they cry out in pain as they beat you. They are the "victims" but their "victimhood" is that others don't like the hurt that the left chooses actively and aggressively to deal out.

That said, I agree that apologizing to the left is counterproductive and it's good when people refuse to.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 10:38 PM  

Holy Flirking Snit!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366954/steyn-steorts-glaad-newhart-suits-deniers-jack-fowler

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 10:58 PM  

NRO wants contributions for legal battles, from suckers who believe NRO stands for "free speech".

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 11:07 PM  

Looking at the content of Fowler's post it appears the patriarch-apparent of National Review sees the stakes involved and has chosen sides. That is to be applauded.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 22, 2013 11:10 PM  

The caliber of Steort's writing is pretty good

If that's what you call good, I'd hate to read what you call bad. Along the lines Crude was mentioning, I found Steort's writing smacked of the leftist style that obscures important details with crappy grammar.

Regarding Duck Dynasty, I stopped in a Cabela's store today to get some last-minute gifts. Big ol' Duck Dynasty sign in the middle of the store (though, admittedly dwarfed by the fake mountain taxidermy display). Also, folks were stacked three-deep at the gun counter.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 11:26 PM  

If that's what you call good, I'd hate to read what you call bad

you are reading it.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 11:32 PM  

One writer at NRO that I find to be exceptional is Andrew McCarthy. I don't think he's been mentioned yet.

Anonymous zen0 December 22, 2013 11:48 PM  

I know I don’t.” Jonah Goldberg tweeted, “For the record, I find my colleague John Derbyshire’s piece fundamentally indefensible and offensive.

Who is Jonah Goldberg?




(please do not take this literally.
Thankyou)

Anonymous William Tell December 22, 2013 11:51 PM  

TDT

Ironic how you play the victim card repeatedly while having the audacity to point fingers when others engage in the your behavior.

I LOVE the white race. I just happen to LOVE humanity more! You could certainly learn something from John 14:6--Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 11:54 PM  

zen0: "Who is Jonah Goldberg?"

He's a guy who has a lot in common with David Frum.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 22, 2013 11:56 PM  

William Tell, you are a hypocrite who supports white genocide and says that is the will of God.

Anonymous Anonymous December 22, 2013 11:58 PM  

William Tell December 22, 2013 11:51 PM

You're an idiot.

- Sambo

Anonymous Robert in Arabia December 23, 2013 12:04 AM  

I stopped reading National Review in 1962 when I attended a private a private social gathering where Buckley revealed that he was a mannerless, sadistic, bully and thug.

Anonymous Josh December 23, 2013 12:13 AM  

Regarding NR and WFB:

Buckley went on to endorse “the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-communist foreign policy”; he declared that the “thus far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union” imminently threatened American security, and that therefore “we have to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.” Therefore, he concluded — in the midst of the Korean War — we must all support “large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.”

Anonymous bob k. mando December 23, 2013 12:30 AM  

heh.

here's a nice dissection of Steort's career:
http://www.redstate.com/2013/12/22/national-review-editor-mark-steyn-is-a-big-meany/

so the man is pro -
queer marriage
AGW
was against Zimmerman when everybody still 'thought' Zimmerman was white


NR should have fired Steort a long time ago. better, they should have never hired him.


Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 12:38 AM  

In the unlikely event anyone is puzzled what William Tell is talking about, this thread covers it. Whites must consent to being blended away, this says God, and if you repudiate his genocidal agenda how dare you shame God.

Back to the story at hand...

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 12:40 AM  

I finally quite reading NRO "for real" after Lowry fired Derb, but I had cut down a lot before that because of Jonah Goldberg.

For one thing, he had slid from saying that the right ought tactically to call out the feminist left for supporting non-feminist Muslims all the way to saying he was a feminist himself. So his career illustrates that adopting the left's language tactically is just a step towards going over to them on substance. He's a shill.

Second thing: when NRO was pushing everybody as hard as possible to double down on war in Iraq, Jonah said in the Corner that if this doesn't work out for the best it will be hung around our necks forever, we'll never be forgiven for it and we shouldn't be. I took that as evidence that he was serious, that he was advancing his positions in good faith, and that if things did n;t work out that would be a shattering event for him, forcing him to rethink everything and emerge ideologically changed. Actually what happened was, he later said sure the war was a mistake, and he went on regardless. So he's a fake and a bluffer like Bill Kristol and all the other neocon warmongers who claimed to know for sure and deeply believe a lot of things that were only tactical. He's a fraud and a warmonger who says "trust me" but can't be trusted.

Another time, he recounted a meeting with an actual conservative woman, who was a non-urban, gentile person completely unlike himself, and admitted that what she had said was correct. She gave a list of things that she and other Christian conservatives like herself believed, and asked Jonah if he believed them. Jonah said he didn't believe any of them. Nor did anyone at NRO as far as he know. So she said, what kind of conservative are you? Implying: what good are you. He then did some fancy verbal stepping that amounted to very little. Basically he and his cosmopolitan, so-clever friends were the ones with the megaphone, and it was up to conservatives like that lady to take what they were given. I just thought that was a funny story at the time. Later I thought it was not very good and went a long way to explain NRO's lack of conservative spine.

Third major issue with Jonah. It was another Corner discussion, and another contributor, not a very good or memorable one, was slightly frustrated because NRO and conservatism in general never did anything about affirmative action, quotas etc., which were the reason he got into conservatism in the first place. Jonah Goldberg put a stop to that by defining the difference between conservatism and liberalism: liberals are for particular groups of people, and conservatives are not, rather they are only for the general welfare. In context, that implied: real (NRO) conservatives were neutral (non-opposing) on all anti-white, anti-Christian etc. laws, and focused only on the good of all, e.g. the economy and "freedom".

At the time I just thought that was useless. If one side whenever it gets in power acts to cement privileges for its groups and penalties for its chosen enemies, and the other side is neutral, then this ends only one way: badly.

Later I realized it was also hypocritical. Jonah was all for fighting for specific groups like Israel. It's just that all the groups that constituted the real conservative coalition and trusted institutions like NRO to speak for them - he was fine with harm to all of them, and would discourage anybody on the "right" for speaking up in their defense.

As time went by that sunk in and I read NRO less and less, because betrayers disgust me.

Derb was the final straw. But I was reading NRO very little by that time anyway.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 12:42 AM  

mattse001: "One writer at NRO that I find to be exceptional is Andrew McCarthy. I don't think he's been mentioned yet."

I like what he says.

As with all of them now, the problem is mostly what they don't say. They shut up about flaming injustices, because the party line is to betray conservatives, who are not "people like us" from the point of Jonah Goldberg and his peers.

Anonymous automatthew December 23, 2013 12:55 AM  

Gene Wolfe stopped reading National Review before any of y'all.

Anonymous automatthew December 23, 2013 1:01 AM  

"e need a term for the flavor of Entryism where radical homosexuals infiltrate conservative magazines--back-door-entry-ism? booger-ism? "

Buggeridge.

Anonymous FP December 23, 2013 1:06 AM  

From Steyn's original article:

"There must be shock brigades of gay duck-hunters honking out the party line deep in the backwoods of the proletariat. Obamacare pajama models, if not yet mandatorily gay, can only be dressed in tartan onesies and accessorized with hot chocolate so as to communicate to the Republic’s maidenhood what a thankless endeavor heterosexuality is in contemporary America."

Mark Steyn truly has a way with words.

Anonymous Drunkerton December 23, 2013 1:11 AM  

"William F. Buckley, who was the public face of conservatism for decades..."
I'm drunk, but WFB was an incomprehensible idiot. The perfect poster child for conservatism. Sure, we make logical sense, but you'd have to have an IQ above 100 to get it. Now, here's some big words. Who cares. He accomplished nothing. Just set his enemies up with a nice, posh place to push ideas under the guise of traditionalism. RIP.

Anonymous cherub's revenge December 23, 2013 1:47 AM  

Gene Wolfe stopped reading National Review before any of y'all.

Well I never even started to read the damn thing. But if I had, and if I were alive back then, I'd have quit reading it when Buckley dropped Revilo P Oliver.

Anonymous dh December 23, 2013 1:51 AM  

And this is why the left is winning. We don't do this infighting stuff like this. Get a message, stick to it. Next six months all you are going to hear from the left is minimum wage. Meanwhile the right is going to back eating itself...again.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 2:24 AM  

"Get a message, stick to it" works for the left, which is an anti-white and anti-Christian coalition led by a very talented, intelligent, cohesive, ethnocentric, intense, aggressive, wealthy, well-connected and institutionally and culturally powerful in-group that really is about as anti-white and anti-Christian as possible. Having a solid elite that is committed to your aims is a big deal.

"Get a message, stick to it" is what the mass right did in rallying behind George W. Buish and giving him a two-house legislative majority. Nothing good came of it, only war and a serious attempt at mass amnesty.

The right doesn't have a trustworthy, cohesive, wealthy etc. elite. "Trustworthy" is the biggest problem. "Get a message" (like "war for Israel, nothing for white Christians) from Jonah Goldberg "and stick to it" is suicide. "Get a message" (like "war for Israel, No child Left Behind for blacks, amnesty for the browns and nothing for white Christians) from George W. Bush "and stick to it" is suicide. McCain: the same. Romney: the same. Wealthy whiles like Bill Gates: the same. The "top people" have all accepted the agenda of the most cohesive, strongest group of elite people they accept as socially white. That agenda is genocidal for whites and highly anti-Christian. It's easy to understand the "herd" dynamic, but the outcome is fatal.

There's no choice but to srtuggle. We cannot all just get along.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 3:41 AM  

By the way, I am not saying the Anglo elite heeds the influence of the likes of Sheldon Adelson. (Though it wouldn't be very surprising if they did, would it? Gifts of a hundred million dollars or so have been known to get people's attention before now.)

I'm saying the Anglo elite likes to feel the "Western" elite to be one enlightened class, above race and with no fundamental clashes of interest. (The non-gentile part of the elite knows better.) In that spirit, they have accepted the view of the most important, best people. They do not have to be dragged into line; they are in line, and they are pursuing agendas based on the elite consensus view. This applies in the UK, in Australia and so on.

Sure, swamping all white nations with non-white mass immigration and blending out the whites with forced assimilation might look dangerous to the unenlightened, but it can't be, really, because all the best people are doing it.

What this feeds is the complete illusion that one can be a traitor worthy of the relevant circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno with complete impunity, now and in the long run, and darlings, it's all the rage!

It is that atmosphere of disastrous triviality that organs such as National Review and the Weekly Standard exist to encourage by their flattery and evil counsel.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 4:02 AM  

Same deal for the destruction of Christianity in the white world. All the best people are doing it, darling!

It's the same deal for the debasement of culture and art.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 23, 2013 7:11 AM  

"Ponnuru reeks of "social justice" Catholicism."

Mostly, Ponnuru reeks of being named "Ponnuru," and living in a country he has absolutely no business being in. Because people named Ponnuru have no right to be here.

Cue Shit-boy Stalker in five, four, three, two........

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 23, 2013 10:14 AM  

Anyone here remembers NR's GIGO?

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 23, 2013 11:36 AM  

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

No. Pro-race is pro-human, pro-family and pro-diversity. Pro-race is anti-secular, anti-statist and anti-war.

Blogger Some dude December 23, 2013 12:02 PM  

@Anti-Gnostic

The cold reality is that in the US you have two groups of people, one who moved there on their own, and one that the first group brought in against their will.

Aside from some occultic insane degenerates that have been doing their level best to manipulate the situation into a race war, this is the main problem many well meaning Liberals have gotten tripped up on in trying to open the opportunities to people wrongly denied them as a consequence of the natural human impulse to look after one's own. It's also the main problem many well meaning pro-white folk have gotten tripped on in the opposite direction when trying to avoid the destruction we see all around us of forced integration.

Assuming you agree with what I've said above, how do you propose to deal with that reality in a way that doesn't send us all to Hell? I'm asking honestly, because I think all the available options are shit.

Anonymous Anonymous December 23, 2013 2:07 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus: "As with all of them now, the problem is mostly what they don't say. They shut up about flaming injustices, because the party line is to betray conservatives, who are not "people like us" from the point of Jonah Goldberg and his peers."

I think McCarthy has had his public disagreements with the establishment, and other writers at NRO.

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic December 23, 2013 4:16 PM  

how do you propose to deal with that reality in a way that doesn't send us all to Hell?

Give me all the tax revenue and the lawmaking powers and the military and I'll figure out something. Short of that, there is nothing that can be done. It will all end in tears.

The Civil War and its century-long aftermath only just happened. Surely we finally tell ourselves "Next time, we pick our own cotton." Or invent a harvester. Or go into another line of work.

But here we are importing another dusky, low-g underclass and paying them barely enough to cover what it used to cost to feed, clothe and shelter them. We are surely insane.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 23, 2013 6:59 PM  

"in the US you have two groups of people, one who moved there on their own, and one that the first group brought in against their will."

Yeah, but, you forgot to mention... The second group has been free to leave at any time, for over a century now. See, there are these things, called boats and planes, that are capable of transporting an unhappy oppressed African all the way back to Africa itself: Africa! land of justice and prosperity and immense moral superiority!! Why would any self-respecting African decline the easy chance to return to this magical paradise?

The reality is, what you really have is two groups of people: one who are smart and strong and bold and inventive and good-looking, and the other who are stupid and lazy and violent and over-sexed and frankly ridiculous. And the second group realizes, Hey, living around the first group is actually a pretty good deal! We ain't NEVER leaving! We gonna ride this gravy train to the last stop, muthaf##a!!

You will recall that, in Exodus, when the Pharoah was compelled to release the Israelites from bondage, the Israelites promptly... LEFT AND WENT HOME.

Many or most social problems in America would be solved virtually overnight, if negroes would just GO THE FUCK HOME.

And no, I'm sorry... home for them isn't HERE.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 10:36 PM  

Specifically, American blacks have a national home in Liberia, just as Diaspora Jews have a national home in Israel.

The question is whether whites are to have a home anywhere, and whether in the long run they are to exist at all. And the anti-white answer is no.

Anonymous Scooby Shat His Big Boy Pants December 23, 2013 11:20 PM  

“There's no choice but to srtuggle. We cannot all just get along.”

I will echo William Tell’s sentiments, TDT. You shame the Good Book yet again.

1 John 4:19-21 We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.


“Mostly, Ponnuru reeks of being named "Ponnuru," and living in a country he has absolutely no business being in. Because people named Ponnuru have no right to be here.”

Your level of ass-hatery never ceases to amaze me. Ponnuru was born in Prairie Village, Kansas. A convert to Roman Catholicism. Staunch conservative. He has every right to be here.


“The reality is, what you really have is two groups of people: one who are smart and strong and bold and inventive and good-looking, and the other who are stupid and lazy and violent and over-sexed and frankly ridiculous.”

Praytell, what group do YOU fall into?


“And no, I'm sorry... home for them isn't HERE.”

The American Constitution and federal laws clearly state differently. Why don’t you get off your ass and do something constructive about this “problem”?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 23, 2013 11:52 PM  

Scooby Shat: "I will echo William Tell’s sentiments, TDT. You shame the Good Book yet again.

1 John 4:19-21 We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

For a white person to support mass non-white immigration and assimilation in all white countries is the maximum negation of "love of brother".

Anonymous William Tell December 24, 2013 12:02 AM  

"For a white person to support mass non-white immigration and assimilation in all white countries is the maximum negation of "love of brother"."

I, as a human being, support the efforts of my fellow American citizens to express their love and appreciation for everyone who is legally a resident of the United States. For those who are illegally here, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For blacks and browns and reds who have their citizenship or are working toward their citizenship, may they indulge in their liberty to pursue His work, as God intended.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 24, 2013 3:25 AM  

"Your level of ass-hatery never ceases to amaze me."

The level of what apparently is able to "amaze" you (have you ever seen rhesus monkeys "amazed" by a flashlight? well of course you have, it's the narrative of your entire childhood, which is another way of saying, your whole life) is what actually "amazes" everybody else here who doesn't get up in the morning and eat their own excrement for breakfast.

The rest of your remarks are without interest.

Dismissed, shit-boy.

And in future I'm not even going to grant you the fake dignity of capitalizing "shitboy" any longer.

Christ, these idiot shitboys, is there no end of them?

Anonymous VD December 24, 2013 3:58 AM  

Here is your warning, gentlemen. If you can't refrain from your constant and increasingly tedious vulgarity, your comments will be deleted.

I don't even read what you write any more. I see the first "shit-whatever" and I skip past it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 24, 2013 4:12 AM  

scoobius dubious: "...is there no end of them?"

For the time being, no. As long as the genocidal propaganda is being pumped out, there will be some weak minds saying: "Yeah! Sign me up for a role cheer-leading for white genocide!"

In the long run, yes. Historically, the white race is going away with terrible speed. There is no sustainable "status quo". Either the anti-whites will get us or they won't. If they get us, of course the traitors will be gone. If they don't, we will have changed our thinking such that there will be no room for genocidal traitors among us.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 24, 2013 4:15 AM  

VD: "Here is your warning, gentlemen. If you can't refrain from your constant and increasingly tedious vulgarity, your comments will be deleted."

Thanks.

VD: "I don't even read what you write any more. I see the first "shit-whatever" and I skip past it."

A good idea.

I should not have quoted and replied to one of these idiots.

Anonymous Discard December 24, 2013 5:02 AM  

William Tell: The only reason that these non-White immigrants or offspring of non-White immigrants are "Americans" is because our rulers betrayed us and brought them in. Their citizenship is illigitimate. They are no more American than Britons born in the Raj were Indian. No more American than the Pied Noir were Algerian.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 24, 2013 5:26 AM  

"Here is your warning, gentlemen. If you can't refrain from your constant and increasingly tedious vulgarity, your comments will be deleted."

VD -- you are a gracious, hospitable, and intellectually interesting and generous host, and so therefore I always try to show you a good deal of deference, which is your right, even if or when I think you are mistaken (which is not constantly, but nevertheless more often than I state aloud, but hey, that's just playin the game, and I respect that you're cool with that). ...for instance what counts as "tedious".

But c'mon, this guy is a stalker, an unforgivable idiot, and a piece of shit, and by the Law of the Schoolyard, I have the droit du seigneur right to stomp his arse from here to Antarctica in ways which please me. If you wish to intervene against my rightful pounding of this ludicrous monkey, I will respect that you have an over-riding right-of-way as the proprietor of the site, as a gracious host, as a righteous dude, as a guy who's trying to maintain your blog decorum as you see fit, and as a guy who just plain isn't a douchebag.

But reflect for a moment, I have to take Brooklyn street rules into consideration. It's not an iron-clad thing,but nevertheless... it's a thing.

Any major dude will tell you.

I merely appeal to your natural sense of justice. Come on, that little puke deserves what little pukes like him always deserve, and I was being rather charitable. Maybe you don't want it on your blog, and if you forbid it then so be it. But you can only tell me that I'm in bad taste...... not that I'm wrong.

Anonymous Luke December 24, 2013 5:51 AM  

William F. Buckley was a snobby, snotty, rude jerk of a socialist. I have first-hand data supporting all of this.

One of my graduate schools was Auburn University. He came to speak there in roughly 1990. The most notable aspect of his speech IMO was his proposal to force bright young people (as a prior condition of ever being "allowed" to attend ANY college, whether gov't or private) to spend a few years at low wages emptying bedpans for urine-drenched vacant-eyed overaged droolers in nursing homes. He attempted to portray his proposal (a terrible time waste of the right side of the "g" bell curve) in glowing words worthy of Rousseau.

I managed to be the first one to ask the man a question after his otherwise forgettable (vague and self-laudatory) speech ended. I told him that his proposal was slavery, forbidden by the U.S. Constitution and the clear intent of the Founding Fathers, and that like would belong with like. Had I then been MRA-aware/red pill, I could have reasonably noted that those languishing in nursing homes in their post three-score-and-ten were in most cases probably reaping not having had the fundamental wisdom to have 1) produced children that 2) they raised well enough to care about them when adults (what if any offspring dis WFB leave behind?), but alas, I did not.

WFB's expression went to one of extreme indignation and clear offendedness I then asked him "How, other than theism, did his premises differ from Ayn Rand's?". He responded "Fundamentally" as his entire answer, and went on to the next questioner. He took about 4 more questions, generally pablum/softball (his opinion on the motto enscribed on the Jefferson Memorial was the most memorable, to which his final answer was Obamaesque in its vagueness).

It was made physically impossible to approach him any closer than the seats (this was in the basketball gymnasium). Afterwards, several attendees waited outside the building, hoping to get a better chance to speak with him. A car in which he was a passenger (I clearly saw his face looking at us) drove out of the building's VIP inside parking area at some speed with closed windows, clearly with zero thought to stop and speak with us. Guess he had to go find some more public policy proposal ideas from Karl Marx.

Blogger Rseven Rocket December 24, 2013 8:12 PM  

"Who the hell is Steorts?"

One of the biggest indications that Jason L. Steorts is an entryist is that few if any of the readers of NR ever heard of him. Now compare that to Mark Steyn who everybody on NR knows.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts