Category: John Simon

Odds and Ends, 5/23/20

In der news.  In all cases, emphasis added.


The elegant John Simon unfortunately passed away last fall.  Simon, of Hungarian descent, seems to have been a good man:

In 1981, an ad in a Hollywood trade appeared accusing Simon of being “racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, vicious and derisive.” It was signed by 300 artists, apparently upset that Simon’s review of Richard III complained that an actress in the show “should never be cast as anything but an itinerant gefilte fish with a nervous condition.”

Well, as we know, obesity is related to higher covid-19 risk.

Meet Ron Unz.

Born in California, to a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant, Unz was raised in a Yiddish-speaking household. His mother, Esther-Laio Avrutin, met his father on an airplane heading for Israel. A professor from the Midwest, he later briefly became her lover when visiting her on a few occasions in Los Angeles. She unilaterally decided to have a child with him, but Unz’s father was already married and his wife opened a letter from Avrutin telling him about her pregnancy. She was an anti-war activist, who raised her son as a single mother, but Unz was given his father’s surname and soon moved back to her family’s home after her son’s birth.

What about the dangers of cheap Chinese labor?

Due to the Chinese state confiscating supply chains and ethnic Chinese shipping masks in the West back to the homeland, there were so few disposable masks, especially highly effective N95 respirators, available for purchase by Americans that hospitals were having terrible difficulty sourcing personal protective equipment. Perhaps some authority figures understood the reality and thus intentionally misled the American public to preserve crucial facemasks for healthcare workers.

Of interest.

Over the years, Johnson and Spencer have sparred. A lot of the conflict, according to alt-righters, had to do with personal style.(Spencer became the best-known face of the “frat” style, polo-and-chinos alt-right; Johnson has dispensed with such pretenses.) But the tension between them also underscored an ongoing debate about how best to save America from itself. Johnson was seen as the Socrates of the radical right. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and, before publicly embracing the cause of the white ethnostate, taught at Morehouse College, which is historically black. In Johnson’s view, the far right had to win the war of ideas before it could move on to the “real world” battlefield. That meant books and articles, speaking engagements, conferences, symposia. He had a way of explaining things that made racism and Jew hatred sound like post-structuralism or supply-side economics—something that was once new or avant-garde or even suspect and, over time, acquired a large following.

Spencer was more of a would-be Vladimir Lenin. He also took ideas seriously; he had pursued a Ph.D. at Duke, in intellectual history, before dropping out and moving to D.C. But he was mostly uninterested in ideas divorced from action. He wanted to be in the middle of things. He had pondered a congressional campaign in Montana, where he usually lived. He felt let down by Trump. (“His administration,” Spencer said in an interview, “is not fundamentally different than a [Mitt] Romney administration—or even a Hillary [Clinton] administration. I never expected him to be me. But I expected him to do something.”) The feeling on the alt-right was that Charlottesville had been a disaster because it had left so many members demoralized and fragmented the movement. For Spencer, political outcomes mattered.

Some interesting Twitter comments:

Highbrow Gentleman

@Hibrowgent

@NewRightAmerica

 and 

@ReadLinkola

So disappointing Greg. Stop being so petty.

Aureum

@Aureum_Kolovrat

@NewRightAmerica

 and 

@ReadLinkola

Promoting a #DuggAnon style psyop propaganda from a source with no name is very low ball. 

Please do better. Greg if you disagree with someone then it would be most honorable to debate them instead of smear them with trash like this that sends our spergs down the rabbit hole.

Aureum, you had better watch out, before you’re called “insane” and “indecent.” Debate?  He don’t need no stinkin’ debate!

Well, I’m not optimistic either, for two reasons:

First, the only possible vehicle for complete redemption – racial activism – has been compromised by the incompetent Quota Queen “leadership” and their rank-and-file Nutzi followers, coupled to an inane and “insane” fossilized dogma.

Second, the dominant element among Europeans today is the “high trust northern hunter gatherers.”  While there are – contra the HBD liars – strong elements of pathological altruism in Southern and Eastern Europe, I’ll agree with the HBDers that it is strongest in NW Europe. Having the SJW Herrenvolk captaining the HMS Europa is leading to a bigger disaster than the Titanic.

I was very supportive of Trump during the 2016 election.

Indeed. And, at the same time I was referring to Trump as a “vulgar ignorant buffoon” who I endorsed solely because of the chaos he would bring in his wake (which he did).  Who was right? Who was wrong?

I agree, Greg (except for the invention part, see below). The problem is that some of the people you’ve feuded with can say the same about you.


The “invention” accusation is, unfortunately, a new low in “New Right” discourse.  It’s not enough for Johnson to call his critics “insane” and “indecent” – here he implies that some of them may have been “invented by the enemy.” Criticize him and you are – what?  A CIA asset?  A SPLC or ADL agent? A HopeNotHate operative (no, wait, that’s Hermansson)? A reporter for The Stranger (no, wait, that’s Lewis)?  


You see, disagreeing with someone, criticizing their behavior and ideology and actions, holding them accountable – that makes you a “horrible” person. Or an “invention of the enemy.” 


These types, who have an inflated sense of their own self-importance, have to personalize everything. As I’ve repeatedly written here – my criticism of people in the “movement” is business, not personal. I do not know them personally nor do I care to. Who knows? They may be kind to animals (except whales), generous to strangers, pleasant enough in private interactions, real salt of the Earth.  But if these people – particularly self-styled “leaders” – are in my opinion destructive to the cause, I’m going to call them out on it.  It’s “punching right” – which Johnson approves of (at least when he does it to others).  If the behavior is, in my opinion, hypocritical, mendacious, defamatory, etc., then the criticism will be harsh.  But, also, the thing is this – if the criticism is wrong, then refute it.  Ascribing mental illness to people and/or implying they are some sort of infiltrator or agent provocateur is not a refutation, it is merely ad hominem.


And I wish these types were a bit more paranoid about “invented by the enemy” when it came to Patrik Hermansson and Dave Lewis. That would have saved much trouble and embarrassment.  If you cannot identify real infiltrators but instead suggest that authentic activists are such – well, how does that refute my criticisms about your poor judgment?  Indeed, it does nothing but support and reinforce such criticism.  Do better.


Note that I do not make such accusations here at this blog. The closest to that is the endorsement of an investigation – and only an investigation – to determine if any HBDers have association (directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly) with the Chinese government or any other such operatives.  An investigation is just that – a determination about something unknown.  It is wholly possible, and I’ve stated as much, that the HBDers are innocent. Very well. In that case, they should welcome an investigation. The endorsement of an investigation was based upon, in my opinion, credible similarities between (frankly, ludicrous) HBD essays blaming covid-19 on an “American bioweapon” and strikingly similar Chinese government propaganda about same. The suggestion that an investigation was necessary was not simply due to disagreement or feuding, but on those aforementioned similarities and the damage done by that propaganda to the interests of those trying to get to the truth of the matter.


The sad thing is that the people (assuming they themselves are authentic) making accusations against others have actually facilitated the very infiltration they warn about.


An observation from Twitter:

Hard Right Turn@FelineDivisionReplying to @NewRightAmerica 

Your obsession with Spencer is consuming you Greg. Why not just forget about him and do you?

More advice to be downwardly mobile from Counter-Currents:

The first question posed to Greg Johnson and Fróði Midjord during the recent Counter-Currents livestream was, “If you could re-live your twenties, what would you do differently?” Greg’s answer was direct, clear, and quite pertinent to those of us considering an academic career — in the humanities, at least. Short answer: Don’t. Good advice.

Yes, “good advice.” Let dem dere Jews and Asians get the PhDs. You stay in your parents’ basement, reading Counter-Currents (gotta pump up dem page views!), and sending in your hamburger flipper salary money as “D’Nations” to Greg and company. 


How’s that ethnonationalist Brexit thingee working out for you?


No worries, Germany can help Turkey dump them back into Greece.  Yes we can!


Careful, ETs ,those Faroe Islanders are hunting for you!  Avast!  Harpoons to the ready!


Should this book have been entitled Key Retards of the Radical Right?


Johnson:

But you have to draw a line somewhere, and clearly Spencer and Friberg do not belong. They are shallow, self-promoting, pseudo-intellectual poseurs.

Thus, the pot calls the kettle black.


The following is borderline libelous:

Those with a more paranoid bent would connect the dots between Friberg being an antifa and police informant and the fact that Teitelbaum is an American Jew and conclude that he is simply an enemy agent being puffed up as a movement mastermind, i.e., controlled opposition.

Of course, people can make all sorts of similar accusations against Johnson or anyone else.  It doesn’t mean the accusations are true…or not. Evidence?  Where is the clear and irrefutable evidence?

Minsc
Posted March 7, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink
Jorjani would’ve been a better choice for the section on emerging thinkers that the most of those characters…
Reply
Greg Johnson
Posted March 7, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink
Yes, Jorjani would have been a very good choice

Jorjani’s work is, in my opinion pseudoscientific claptrap. “The spectral!” I’m not surprised that Der Movement considers such an intellectual lightweight to be a “key thinker of the radical right.”


Conservatives are not the only ones afraid of free speech.


Here’s an exercise for the reader – name one (just one) prominent Quota Queen who is currently:

A) Fairly evaluating the ideas, paradigms, and critiques discussed at EGI Notes

B) Willing to engage with the “insane” and “indecent” Ted Sallis

C) Not participating in a cordon sanitaire of the Sallis Groupuscule


I’ll make it easy for you – there are none.  Not a single one.  Consider that even an anti-Sallis opponent like Silver believes that the Quota Queens (at least Johnson) should engage, much less more neutral people who undoubtedly agree with Silver’s assessment.


Who’s afraid of free speech, indeed?


Behold Durocher:

Guillaume Durocher says:
I shat a proverbial brick when I learned that one of De Gaulle’s first policies in newly-liberated France was instituting a MORE NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY

Is the following more accurate? –

I had to be hospitalized for an intractable priapism when I learned that one of De Gaulle’s first policies in newly-liberated France was instituting a MORE NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY

But, hey, if I label Durocher as a hardcore Nordicist that means that I am, of course, “insane” and “indecent.”  Where would I have ever got that idea from?


By the way, how did De Gaulle’s policy work out?  From looking at current France, it would seem that his underlings must have confused “Nordic” with “Arab and African.” Honest mistake.


A stupid yeastbucket, whose “contributions” to the “movement” are a silly podcast show and making “speeches” at conferences in which she giggles like a small girl caught “playing doctor” with an autistic and retarded boy, unburdens herself thus:

Lana
@LanaLokteff
10h
Pro-vaccine people really get psychotic defending their injections of sketchy substances. Look, knock yourself out and get all the jabs you want for all I care.
“My body my choice” except when..

Replies
Gotham Resistance
@Gothamresist

Replying to
@LanaLokteff
 and
@Tare1935
Never understood that. If they believe in the vaccines and believe they’re protected, why get so triggered if others choose not to

Let’s see. People object to open lies and pseudoscience, which smears the Right as scientifically illiterate, backwards, and alienates intelligent and rational people (and the same bent toward pseudoscience leads to HBD, Nordicism, “traditionalism,” etc.).


Let’s see. When the unvaccinated get unnecessary diseases it puts a strain on the healthcare system.


And most of all – vaccines are not 100% protective (that’s not how biology works), immunity can wane with age, and there are some people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate reasons (children under age one year for MMR or folks with allergic reactions or whatever).  So, there are always going to be, in a given population, people who – through no fault of their own – will be not protected. However, given herd immunity, the chain of transmission will be stopped before any significant number of such people are infected. To have such herd immunity, all people who can be vaccinated should be; the overwhelming majority of these will be immune. Vaccination is a collective social good. Lowlife trash who refuse to get vaccinated are free riding on the immunity of others without contributing to it.  

If filthy scum like this were prevalent in past decades, we would still have smallpox.  We would still have polio outbreaks and iron lungs.  It is because of them (and immigration) that we still have measles outbreaks.


But, hey, let’s be fair.  Your body your choice.  Our choice too.  You get ill with a disease for which you chose not to be vaccinated against – no medical treatment. If you die, you die. Further – if you spread the disease to someone else who was vaccinated but who was one of the few not immune or someone who legitimately could not be vaccinated or an old person with waning immunity then you are legally on the hook for that.  At minimum – assault and battery.  If they die – homicide.  I’m sure if you kill an infant with your measles, the jury will be quite interested in your anti-vaxx polemics. Your psychosexual sweaty fear of being “jabbed” is worth killing someone, right?


Lana needs to demonstrate to us all the strength of her anti-vaxx convictions.  I suggest the following three-part program:


1. Get bitten by a rabid animal.  Make sure it’s a real good bite, plenty of foaming saliva getting in there.

2. Refuse to get “jabbed” for rabies prevention treatment.  No rabies vaccine and no rabies immune globulin. After all, who knows what questionable substances are in those jabs? Maybe even a dastardly microchip invented by Bill Gates or some sort of toxin implanted by a cackling Jew doctor.  No jabs!

3. Go home to your family and be a loving mother to your children. Plenty of close contact with them in the weeks or months ahead.  It’s all good!  What could possibly go wrong?


And it goes without saying that if your children were to be bitten by a rabid animal, you should, of course, refuse to have them “jabbed” as well.  Who knows what that Jew doctor is injecting?


The good news is that the nonsense of the Russess has a limited shelf-life. Once she hits the wall and looks like a babushka, no one will care in the slightest what she has to say. Give it time – perhaps less time than she thinks.  Age marches onward. Let us remember the well known MGTOW adage – when men get older, the look more and more like Sean Connery; when women get older, they look more and more like…Sean Connery.


In any case, those of us with a triple digit IQ and who are not hypocrites understand that in a society individual choices in many cases affect other people.  Indeed, isn’t that why we on the Far Right criticize “my body my choice” race-mixing? Don’t we oppose the idea that people can do whatever they want, even though it is destructive to the wider society?


Indeed, we all have societal responsibilities. The Millennials and Zoomers should reflect upon that the reason why they are not today pricked (not “jabbed”) against smallpox is because all we older people were so pricked, and the virus was eliminated (in the wild). If someone – an incompetent TROPICAL Chinese lab for example – were to release smallpox, would The Retarded Right refuse that vaccine as well?

In der news.  In all cases, emphasis added.


The elegant John Simon unfortunately passed away last fall.  Simon, of Hungarian descent, seems to have been a good man:

In 1981, an ad in a Hollywood trade appeared accusing Simon of being “racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, vicious and derisive.” It was signed by 300 artists, apparently upset that Simon’s review of Richard III complained that an actress in the show “should never be cast as anything but an itinerant gefilte fish with a nervous condition.”

Well, as we know, obesity is related to higher covid-19 risk.

Meet Ron Unz.

Born in California, to a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant, Unz was raised in a Yiddish-speaking household. His mother, Esther-Laio Avrutin, met his father on an airplane heading for Israel. A professor from the Midwest, he later briefly became her lover when visiting her on a few occasions in Los Angeles. She unilaterally decided to have a child with him, but Unz’s father was already married and his wife opened a letter from Avrutin telling him about her pregnancy. She was an anti-war activist, who raised her son as a single mother, but Unz was given his father’s surname and soon moved back to her family’s home after her son’s birth.

What about the dangers of cheap Chinese labor?

Due to the Chinese state confiscating supply chains and ethnic Chinese shipping masks in the West back to the homeland, there were so few disposable masks, especially highly effective N95 respirators, available for purchase by Americans that hospitals were having terrible difficulty sourcing personal protective equipment. Perhaps some authority figures understood the reality and thus intentionally misled the American public to preserve crucial facemasks for healthcare workers.

Of interest.

Over the years, Johnson and Spencer have sparred. A lot of the conflict, according to alt-righters, had to do with personal style.(Spencer became the best-known face of the “frat” style, polo-and-chinos alt-right; Johnson has dispensed with such pretenses.) But the tension between them also underscored an ongoing debate about how best to save America from itself. Johnson was seen as the Socrates of the radical right. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and, before publicly embracing the cause of the white ethnostate, taught at Morehouse College, which is historically black. In Johnson’s view, the far right had to win the war of ideas before it could move on to the “real world” battlefield. That meant books and articles, speaking engagements, conferences, symposia. He had a way of explaining things that made racism and Jew hatred sound like post-structuralism or supply-side economics—something that was once new or avant-garde or even suspect and, over time, acquired a large following.

Spencer was more of a would-be Vladimir Lenin. He also took ideas seriously; he had pursued a Ph.D. at Duke, in intellectual history, before dropping out and moving to D.C. But he was mostly uninterested in ideas divorced from action. He wanted to be in the middle of things. He had pondered a congressional campaign in Montana, where he usually lived. He felt let down by Trump. (“His administration,” Spencer said in an interview, “is not fundamentally different than a [Mitt] Romney administration—or even a Hillary [Clinton] administration. I never expected him to be me. But I expected him to do something.”) The feeling on the alt-right was that Charlottesville had been a disaster because it had left so many members demoralized and fragmented the movement. For Spencer, political outcomes mattered.

Some interesting Twitter comments:

Highbrow Gentleman

@Hibrowgent

@NewRightAmerica

 and 

@ReadLinkola

So disappointing Greg. Stop being so petty.

Aureum

@Aureum_Kolovrat

@NewRightAmerica

 and 

@ReadLinkola

Promoting a #DuggAnon style psyop propaganda from a source with no name is very low ball. 

Please do better. Greg if you disagree with someone then it would be most honorable to debate them instead of smear them with trash like this that sends our spergs down the rabbit hole.

Aureum, you had better watch out, before you’re called “insane” and “indecent.” Debate?  He don’t need no stinkin’ debate!

Well, I’m not optimistic either, for two reasons:

First, the only possible vehicle for complete redemption – racial activism – has been compromised by the incompetent Quota Queen “leadership” and their rank-and-file Nutzi followers, coupled to an inane and “insane” fossilized dogma.

Second, the dominant element among Europeans today is the “high trust northern hunter gatherers.”  While there are – contra the HBD liars – strong elements of pathological altruism in Southern and Eastern Europe, I’ll agree with the HBDers that it is strongest in NW Europe. Having the SJW Herrenvolk captaining the HMS Europa is leading to a bigger disaster than the Titanic.

I was very supportive of Trump during the 2016 election.

Indeed. And, at the same time I was referring to Trump as a “vulgar ignorant buffoon” who I endorsed solely because of the chaos he would bring in his wake (which he did).  Who was right? Who was wrong?

I agree, Greg (except for the invention part, see below). The problem is that some of the people you’ve feuded with can say the same about you.


The “invention” accusation is, unfortunately, a new low in “New Right” discourse.  It’s not enough for Johnson to call his critics “insane” and “indecent” – here he implies that some of them may have been “invented by the enemy.” Criticize him and you are – what?  A CIA asset?  A SPLC or ADL agent? A HopeNotHate operative (no, wait, that’s Hermansson)? A reporter for The Stranger (no, wait, that’s Lewis)?  


You see, disagreeing with someone, criticizing their behavior and ideology and actions, holding them accountable – that makes you a “horrible” person. Or an “invention of the enemy.” 


These types, who have an inflated sense of their own self-importance, have to personalize everything. As I’ve repeatedly written here – my criticism of people in the “movement” is business, not personal. I do not know them personally nor do I care to. Who knows? They may be kind to animals (except whales), generous to strangers, pleasant enough in private interactions, real salt of the Earth.  But if these people – particularly self-styled “leaders” – are in my opinion destructive to the cause, I’m going to call them out on it.  It’s “punching right” – which Johnson approves of (at least when he does it to others).  If the behavior is, in my opinion, hypocritical, mendacious, defamatory, etc., then the criticism will be harsh.  But, also, the thing is this – if the criticism is wrong, then refute it.  Ascribing mental illness to people and/or implying they are some sort of infiltrator or agent provocateur is not a refutation, it is merely ad hominem.


And I wish these types were a bit more paranoid about “invented by the enemy” when it came to Patrik Hermansson and Dave Lewis. That would have saved much trouble and embarrassment.  If you cannot identify real infiltrators but instead suggest that authentic activists are such – well, how does that refute my criticisms about your poor judgment?  Indeed, it does nothing but support and reinforce such criticism.  Do better.


Note that I do not make such accusations here at this blog. The closest to that is the endorsement of an investigation – and only an investigation – to determine if any HBDers have association (directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly) with the Chinese government or any other such operatives.  An investigation is just that – a determination about something unknown.  It is wholly possible, and I’ve stated as much, that the HBDers are innocent. Very well. In that case, they should welcome an investigation. The endorsement of an investigation was based upon, in my opinion, credible similarities between (frankly, ludicrous) HBD essays blaming covid-19 on an “American bioweapon” and strikingly similar Chinese government propaganda about same. The suggestion that an investigation was necessary was not simply due to disagreement or feuding, but on those aforementioned similarities and the damage done by that propaganda to the interests of those trying to get to the truth of the matter.


The sad thing is that the people (assuming they themselves are authentic) making accusations against others have actually facilitated the very infiltration they warn about.


An observation from Twitter:

Hard Right Turn@FelineDivisionReplying to @NewRightAmerica 

Your obsession with Spencer is consuming you Greg. Why not just forget about him and do you?

More advice to be downwardly mobile from Counter-Currents:

The first question posed to Greg Johnson and Fróði Midjord during the recent Counter-Currents livestream was, “If you could re-live your twenties, what would you do differently?” Greg’s answer was direct, clear, and quite pertinent to those of us considering an academic career — in the humanities, at least. Short answer: Don’t. Good advice.

Yes, “good advice.” Let dem dere Jews and Asians get the PhDs. You stay in your parents’ basement, reading Counter-Currents (gotta pump up dem page views!), and sending in your hamburger flipper salary money as “D’Nations” to Greg and company. 


How’s that ethnonationalist Brexit thingee working out for you?


No worries, Germany can help Turkey dump them back into Greece.  Yes we can!


Careful, ETs ,those Faroe Islanders are hunting for you!  Avast!  Harpoons to the ready!


Should this book have been entitled Key Retards of the Radical Right?


Johnson:

But you have to draw a line somewhere, and clearly Spencer and Friberg do not belong. They are shallow, self-promoting, pseudo-intellectual poseurs.

Thus, the pot calls the kettle black.


The following is borderline libelous:

Those with a more paranoid bent would connect the dots between Friberg being an antifa and police informant and the fact that Teitelbaum is an American Jew and conclude that he is simply an enemy agent being puffed up as a movement mastermind, i.e., controlled opposition.

Of course, people can make all sorts of similar accusations against Johnson or anyone else.  It doesn’t mean the accusations are true…or not. Evidence?  Where is the clear and irrefutable evidence?

Minsc
Posted March 7, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink
Jorjani would’ve been a better choice for the section on emerging thinkers that the most of those characters…
Reply
Greg Johnson
Posted March 7, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink
Yes, Jorjani would have been a very good choice

Jorjani’s work is, in my opinion pseudoscientific claptrap. “The spectral!” I’m not surprised that Der Movement considers such an intellectual lightweight to be a “key thinker of the radical right.”


Conservatives are not the only ones afraid of free speech.


Here’s an exercise for the reader – name one (just one) prominent Quota Queen who is currently:

A) Fairly evaluating the ideas, paradigms, and critiques discussed at EGI Notes

B) Willing to engage with the “insane” and “indecent” Ted Sallis

C) Not participating in a cordon sanitaire of the Sallis Groupuscule


I’ll make it easy for you – there are none.  Not a single one.  Consider that even an anti-Sallis opponent like Silver believes that the Quota Queens (at least Johnson) should engage, much less more neutral people who undoubtedly agree with Silver’s assessment.


Who’s afraid of free speech, indeed?


Behold Durocher:

Guillaume Durocher says:
I shat a proverbial brick when I learned that one of De Gaulle’s first policies in newly-liberated France was instituting a MORE NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY

Is the following more accurate? –

I had to be hospitalized for an intractable priapism when I learned that one of De Gaulle’s first policies in newly-liberated France was instituting a MORE NORDIC IMMIGRATION POLICY

But, hey, if I label Durocher as a hardcore Nordicist that means that I am, of course, “insane” and “indecent.”  Where would I have ever got that idea from?


By the way, how did De Gaulle’s policy work out?  From looking at current France, it would seem that his underlings must have confused “Nordic” with “Arab and African.” Honest mistake.


A stupid yeastbucket, whose “contributions” to the “movement” are a silly podcast show and making “speeches” at conferences in which she giggles like a small girl caught “playing doctor” with an autistic and retarded boy, unburdens herself thus:

Lana
@LanaLokteff
10h
Pro-vaccine people really get psychotic defending their injections of sketchy substances. Look, knock yourself out and get all the jabs you want for all I care.
“My body my choice” except when..

Replies
Gotham Resistance
@Gothamresist

Replying to
@LanaLokteff
 and
@Tare1935
Never understood that. If they believe in the vaccines and believe they’re protected, why get so triggered if others choose not to

Let’s see. People object to open lies and pseudoscience, which smears the Right as scientifically illiterate, backwards, and alienates intelligent and rational people (and the same bent toward pseudoscience leads to HBD, Nordicism, “traditionalism,” etc.).


Let’s see. When the unvaccinated get unnecessary diseases it puts a strain on the healthcare system.


And most of all – vaccines are not 100% protective (that’s not how biology works), immunity can wane with age, and there are some people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate reasons (children under age one year for MMR or folks with allergic reactions or whatever).  So, there are always going to be, in a given population, people who – through no fault of their own – will be not protected. However, given herd immunity, the chain of transmission will be stopped before any significant number of such people are infected. To have such herd immunity, all people who can be vaccinated should be; the overwhelming majority of these will be immune. Vaccination is a collective social good. Lowlife trash who refuse to get vaccinated are free riding on the immunity of others without contributing to it.  

If filthy scum like this were prevalent in past decades, we would still have smallpox.  We would still have polio outbreaks and iron lungs.  It is because of them (and immigration) that we still have measles outbreaks.


But, hey, let’s be fair.  Your body your choice.  Our choice too.  You get ill with a disease for which you chose not to be vaccinated against – no medical treatment. If you die, you die. Further – if you spread the disease to someone else who was vaccinated but who was one of the few not immune or someone who legitimately could not be vaccinated or an old person with waning immunity then you are legally on the hook for that.  At minimum – assault and battery.  If they die – homicide.  I’m sure if you kill an infant with your measles, the jury will be quite interested in your anti-vaxx polemics. Your psychosexual sweaty fears of being “jabbed” is worth killing someone, right?


Lana needs to demonstrate to us all the strength of her anti-vaxx convictions.  I suggest the following three-part program:


1. Get bitten by a rabid animal.  Make sure it’s a real good bite, plenty of foaming saliva getting in there.

2. Refuse to get “jabbed” for rabies prevention treatment.  No rabies vaccine and no rabies immune globulin. After all, who knows what questionable substances are in those jabs? Maybe even a dastardly microchip invented by Bill Gates or some sort of toxin implanted by a cackling Jew doctor.  No jabs!

3. Go home to your family and be a loving mother to your children. Plenty of close contact with them in the weeks or months ahead.  It’s all good!  What could possibly go wrong?


And it goes without saying that if your children were to be bitten by a rabid animal, you should, of course, refuse to have them “jabbed” as well.  Who knows what that Jew doctor is injecting?


The good news is that the nonsense of the Russess has a limited shelf-life. Once she hits the wall and looks like a babushka, no one will care in the slightest what she has to say. Give it time – perhaps less time than she thinks.  Age marches onward. Let us remember the well known MGTOW adage – when men get older, the look more and more like Sean Connery; when women get older, they look more and more like…Sean Connery.


In any case, those of us with a triple digit IQ and who are not hypocrites understand that in a society individual choices in many cases affect other people.  Indeed, isn’t that why we on the Far Right criticize “my body my choice” race-mixing? Don’t we oppose the idea that people can do whatever they want, even though it is destructive to the wider society?


Indeed, we all have societal responsibilities. The Millennials and Zoomers should reflect upon that the reason why they are not today pricked (not “jabbed”) against smallpox is because all we older people were so pricked, and the virus was eliminated (in the wild). If someone – an incompetent TROPICAL Chinese lab for example – were to release smallpox, would The Retarded Right refuse that vaccine as well?

Simon Says and Salter Speaks

Of interest.

First, John Simon posts an “apologia” – emphasis added:

So let me start with the serpentine view of me, most conveniently promulgated on the basis of my satirical remarks about something which the poor actors could not control. But are not performers in shows and movies supposed to be appealing, indeed exemplars of something all of us strive for, or do we go to the theater and cinema to look at unsightliness? Except, of course, where the latter is predicated, or do we want the witches in “Macbeth” played by or acted as gorgeous women?

The old Hollywood dedicated to glamour knew what it was doing all right, even if its notion of beauty wasn’t always of the subtlest kind. This has changed, with populism insisting that it would rather look democratically at a homely Zoe Kazan or Jessica Hecht than romantically at a Laura Osnes, Laura Denanti, or Katrina Lesk. And yes, if we desire sets and costumes—again with meaningful exceptions—to be beautiful, why not the faces and figures of performers? Are they not part of the spectacle? Or do young women aiming for stage or screen careers grow up yearning to be Barbra Streisands? Heaven help us, maybe they do. Still, I would like to think that, however unavowedly, they would rather be a Jane Fonda or a Sharon Stone.

Salter video from 2002 on ethnic kinship. Keep in mind that this was an early permutation of Salter’s thought.   The refined theory of EGI does not require – repeat, not require – “the evolution altruism,” the evolution of ethnic nepotism,” or “group selection.” However, the comments about Hamilton and his 1975 paper though are as relevant today as they were back then.

Genetic clustering is real, but in general genetic boundaries are fuzzy and clinal, not disjunctive. Phenotype as well.  It is when the biological characteristics are merged with genealogical descent from historically defined ethnies, culture, and other aspects of Identity do you achieve a practical disjunctiveness.

The Elegant John Simon

In praise of a master.  In all cases, red bold font emphasis added.

This post will be about the literary, theater, and film critic John Ivan Simon.  The subject would seem at first glance unrelated to activism; however, I maintain that Simon’s work, which exemplifies elegant viciousness, represents the type of mocking ridicule that can be effective against retards of both the Left and the Right.

John Simmon was born in Subotica of Hungarian descent to Joseph and Margaret (née Reves) Simmon. He amended his surname at some point to “Simon”. He has said that his middle name “Ivan” was later added by his father to add distinction. He grew up in Belgrade before immigrating to the United States in 1941, aged 16, on a tourist visa to join his father.

About Simon’s work:

…he is known for dwelling on what he sees as the physical flaws of those actors who displease him: Wallace Shawn is “unsightly”, Barbra Streisand’s nose “cleaves the giant screen from east to west, bisects it from north to south. It zigzags across our horizon like a bolt of fleshy lightning,” while Kathleen Turner is a “braying mantis”

Carol Burnett wrote a letter to Time responding to an attack on Liza Minnelli, whose face Simon had compared to that of a beagle

A 1980 issue of Variety included an ad signed by 300 people decrying Simon’s reviews as racist and vicious.

An unpleasant critical review of Simon himself is here, but it does contain another wonderfully appropriate attack against Streisand by Simon:

Simon’s specialty is making punching bags out of people whose looks he finds repellent, especially those who don’t conform to traditional modes of beauty. (Barbra Streisand has been a favorite target over the years: Early in her career, he said she looked like “a tremulous young borzoi.”).

Read this for more examples of Simon’s fine and inspiring work; several examples are reproduced below:

The kids themselves, with the exception of Cathy Burns (Rhoda), are not particularly good actors, and Barbara Hershey (Sandy, and not a kid anymore) looks, regrettably, much better with her bikini top on than off. Miss Burns, on the other hand, is an extremely accomplished little actress, but also insuperably homely — she looks, in fact, like a pink beach ball with a few limbs and features painted on it. There is no excuse for Rhoda’s being a positive freak, and making us feel she is damned lucky to have been raped at all.

Even more unpleasant, though, is Mimsy Farmer’s breathy Marilyn Monroe-Jackie Kennedy English, in which “charcoal,” for instance, is pronounced “chuhkuh,” the uh’s representing gusts of breath. An altogether dispensable girl, this Mimsy, looking and acting like a cross between Sandy Dennis and a young Lizabeth Scott, with added suggestions of Jean Seberg and a death’s-head.

Paul McCartney, a chubbily handsome young man, appears quite pleasant with, or despite, his generation-shaping look. But the others! Particularly grubby are John Lennon and his worse half, Yoko Ono, who sits, smug and possessive, almost always within touching distance of him. Flouting, it would seem, even minimal sanitary measures, their hair looks like a Disneyland for the insect world, and their complexions appear to be portable bacterial cultures.

It is regrettable to have both leading ladies in such a dashing film seemingly vie with each other for this year’s Homeliness Award, just as it is misguided to entrust the gallantly swashbuckling lead to David Hemmings, who, besides being a mediocre actor, looks in long shots like something out of Planet of the Apes.

Huston has directed in a bored and lackluster fashion, and his performing of a minor role is deplorably leprechaunish. The ending of the picture is an absolute botch, and there is a perfectly blank, supremely inept performance by Huston’s daughter, Anjelica, who has the face of an exhausted gnu, the voice of an unstrung tennis racket, and a figure of no describable shape.

Jean-Marie Patte seems miscast as Louis; he would have been much better as the protagonist of The Blob.

Miss Hepburn’s quality was and will be that of an offbeat, madcap debutante, and she has now simply entered the emerita division of the same category. Her Aurelia is all huskily doddering sexiness and girlish flutters, senior division. When you think of the great Marguerite Moreno, who created the role, and then look at this performance, exact replicas of which have already earned Miss Hepburn two ill-deserved Oscars, you may wish to forsake the auditorium for the vomitorium.

But just how garish her commonplace accent, squeakily shrill voice, and the childish petulance with which she delivers her lines are, my pen is neither scratchy nor leaky enough to convey. The once pretty face has become coarse, though from a distance it can still look good — but only if it avoids any attempt at expression, as, to be sure, it not infrequently does. Only the bosom keeps implacably marching on — or down, as the case may be — but I do not feel qualified to be the Xenophon of this reverse anabasis.

Of course, over-sensitive yeastbuckets have taken offense, one of whom resorted to violence:

The most famous case is Sylvia Miles throwing some steak tartare at me, which made her into a heroine. In fact, Andy Warhol said in one of his so-called books that she’s famous for that and not much else. This incident was so welcomed by the Simon-hating press that the anecdote has been much retold. She herself has retold it ten thousand times. And this steak tartare has since metamorphosed into every known dish from lasagna to chop suey. It’s been so many things that you could feed the starving orphans of India or China with it.

Because of female privilege, Miles was not arrested, indicted, and convicted for assault and battery, which should have been the outcome.

Another outraged female asserts that Simon is dead to her, but he is very much alive for the rest of us.

Imagine Simonian invective against SJWs, Type I Nutzis, smelly Antifa sucker-punchers, Alt Right grifters, “movement” freaks and perverts, flare-nosed AOC, eyebrow-patched McHugh, Trump – the mind boggles.