I used to tell people all the time that if you have a chance to listen to Greg Cochran speak, you should take it, as he is probably the smartest person you will ever hear. Cochran has excelled in two fields, physics and anthropology. The former requires a very big brain in order to gain entry. In the case of anthropology, many of the people in the field are crazy or sociopaths. To be an exception and contribute to the stock of human knowledge, requires a rare combination of curiosity and blinkered indifference to social pressure.
Cochran has contributed three very important ideas that may not be correct, but they open up new avenues to understanding human evolution and biological diversity. In the book The 10,000 Year Explosion, he and his partner, the late Henry Harpending, explained how agriculture and human settlement accelerated human evolution. This explains local differences in skin color, eye color, hair texture disease resistance and other genetic differences in human populations. It also explains personality and cognitive differences.
Another idea, one that has received less positive press, is Cochran’s theory that homosexuality must be caused by something outside of evolution. For example, a pathogen that sets off a chain of events in the womb resulting in the child being a homosexual. Cochran points out that the observed level of exclusive homosexuality means genes cannot be the cause of homosexuality.The fitness cost of genes ‘for’ homosexuality being too great. Natural selection would have eliminated the gene.
His “gay germ” idea is controversial and it could be completely wrong, at least in the case of homosexuality. It’s utility is really in how it changes thinking about human disease and the treatment of those diseases. Take something like Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers have spent decades laboring under the assumption it is genetic, but have had little success in finding any proof. Well, what if the cause is something like a pathogen that sets of the process in the brain? What if cardiovascular disease is caused by pathogens?
That’s a huge and controversial idea, but it probably is not the one that most scandalizes the moral authorities. Cochran is most infamous for his work on Ashkenazi IQ. A dozen years ago, he and his partner Henry Harpending published The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. In it they argue that Ashkenazi ████inherit higher verbal and mathematical intelligence than other ethnic groups, on the basis of inherited diseases and the peculiar economic situation of Ashkenazi ████in the Middle Ages.
The paper is controversial for three reasons. One is the heretical idea that IQ is a real thing that can be measured. Worse yet, they claim intelligence is heritable, which means it is largely immutable. Smart parents have smart kids. Both ideas are against everything we believe and probably a direct threat to our democracy. It’s not who we are. Only very bad people think that human diversity is the result of biology. Everyone knows that racism is the cause of all the bad differences, while diversity is the cause of the good differences.
That’s bad enough, but the most outrageous aspect of the paper is that it focuses on the special people and that’s not allowed. Even mentioning them in a direct way is justifiably forbidden now. After all, the Nazis started noticing these people, talking about their “group differences” and before long the Holocaust! The fact that racists and white supremacists often reference this paper is proof enough that it should be banned, the authors forced to confess and then they should be hurled into the void as a lesson to others.
If further proof is needed, this post on Greg Cochran’s blog should be enough. The post itself is just one sentence long, but in the nearly 200 comments, Cochran counter signals Holocaust skeptics so hard he probably sprained something while banging away at the keyboard. Clearly, it is the sign of a guilty conscience. At the minimum, it suggests he is worried that the morality police will be coming for him soon. He hopes that his outburst can be presented at his trial and he will be given a reprieve. Good luck with that pal.
All joking aside, the post and the comments are a hilarious bit of Boomer posting. Ron Unz is an eccentric guy and he is prone to conspiracy theories. It’s hard to know how much he believes them. He could just find them intellectually titillating, like reading a very clever crime novel. I get the sense that he is fascinated by the fact there is an official narrative and it is ruthlessly enforced. Almost all Americans struggle with the bit of reality. Either way, the worst you should say about Ron Unz is that he is a harmless weirdo.
Casual indifference is never allowed in a theocracy, at least with regards to the moral codes. You are either enthusiastically on the right side of the question or you are an enemy of the faith. There can be no middle ground. Maybe Cochran is worried that the authorities will be coming for him soon, so he is hoping to inoculate himself against charge of insufficient signalling against antisemitism. Like a lot of Boomers, he still thinks we live in a rule based society and that you can appeal to reason when defending yourself.
He would deny this and probably threaten to punch me in the nose for suggesting it, but false consciousness is common with many old white men. Just look at the comment thread in that post. Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country? The cultural and ideological processes of the neo-liberal age blind people to their own motivations. You can be sure that the people commenting on that post felt great about it, but they never bothered to wonder why.
All that aside, they will be coming for Greg Cochran soon enough. If he is lucky, the non-binary, gender non-specific persons of uterus from the campus committee on inclusion will only require him to wear a dunce cap on campus. Maybe they will make him recant what he said about Cordelia Fine, peace be upon her. It’s only a matter of time and appeals to reason will have no impact, because we live in an unreasonable age, ruled by ridiculous people. One day, there will be a knock on the door and they will have come for Cochran.
Since the Z-blog disappeared for a few days, I’ve read the entire comment thread at Unz’s “American Pravda: Holocaust (Denial)”.
Without question, without doubt, the “Holocaust” Narrative is the biggest wallop load of outlandish horseshit ever spread by anyone, anywhere.
How could any of us fallen for such an obvious, obnoxious fraud, as I did most of my life. It’s pathetic, really.
They will come knocking merely because we are white.
The elites don’t like us nor do the nerds of Silicon Valley as shown in this Google video:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/
The behavior you see is that video is that of a cult when their great leader has been rejected. This is what we’re facing. They will have no mercy for us. None.
“Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country? The cultural and ideological processes of the neo-liberal age blind people to their own motivations. You can be sure that the people commenting on that post felt great about it, but they never bothered to wonder why.”
It is true that when I see Holocaust denial I get pissed off much more than when I see Turks denying the Armenian genocide. But it has nothing to do with “false consciousness” or any (((Freudian))) psychobabble. I’m “woke on the JQ.” It’s because Holocaust denial harms nationalism and men’s rights by associating it with lunacy and driving away smart people. But it’s useless trying to explain it to the deniers. To them, all their obviously flawed arguments are compelling, and they can’t imagine why smart people aren’t convinced. Others are smart enough to know it’s false and know that other smart people can see through it, but simply don’t care about winning. It’s all about LARPing, proving that they are the most brave and radical guerrilla fighter.
Arguing whether homosexuals are both or made depends on the modern assumption that homosexuality is a state of being rather than an action.
http://banap.net/spip.php?article122
As Larry Houston points out, homosexuality in the word of being a state of being is a modern notion. Spread by degenerate movements in the West (especially the Sexual Liberationists in North America). Even the Greeks and Japanese, famed for their pederastry didn’t have a notion of a “homosexual identity.”
You shouldn’t look for genes making a man “gay.” Instead, look for hereditary factors that incline a man towards behaviors classied as homosexual.
When I first saw the DePlatFormeD message for Z last night it occurred to be the sort of thing to make my personal ENOUGH! List. And perhaps become a point of further galvanization for others…. I knew I couldn’t correct the problem. But I am ever so quite capable of creating new problems.
Just a thought exercise. Really….
FWIW……..
Z: You have been de-personed from Spectrum. I have to go to outside providers to access your blog.
….First they came for…………………
To quote/paraphrase Z above: “Casual indifference is never allowed in a theocracy. You are either enthusiastically on the right side of the question or you are an enemy of the faith. No more refuge in the middle ground, lest you be charged with insufficient signaling. Some still think we live in a rule-based society and that you can appeal to reason when defending yourself. Not so.”
Nice.
It’s hard to look at something as harmless (“middle ground”) as a nostalgic photo of a farmer in his field, and not wonder if it’s ok to like him, or if you’re supposed to be hating him for some reason.
Great comment, Frip.
Are we, for instance, expected to look at Grant Wood’s ‘American Gothic’ and not be disgusted and offended by the portrayal of two humorless and (obviously) racist homophobes living in Clown County USA, lost in the wilderness of their hopeless whiteness, deprived of Ted Talks and international cuisine, a musket over the hearth and a Bible ever-open on the kitchen table?
It was only twenty years ago that ‘we’ – meaning the polite and conventional public – were shocked that the horrible Taliban were destroying ancient Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan. Now, our ‘thought leaders’ are revving up.
Prediction: Before 2040, Mount Rushmore will be annihilated by an air-attack directed by our C in C, Cynthia Nixon aka Kemala Harris aka Angela Davis aka Chelsea Clinton aka a catheterized Joe Biden, “in the name of unity”.
Anyway, don’t expect ‘American Gothic’ to survive “democratic action” sometime soon.
I rather like this bit from Heartiste:
“Falling into the shitlibs’ guilt by association trap was a cuck specialty. Finally, there are some waking up to the futility of playing by the Left’s rules, and fighting back by shitting on every expectation leftoids have of the Right folding like a cheap lawn chair.
Those Days of Grovel are over. The Days of Shivs and Salt are here.”
I get the shivs part, but what is the salt about? We throw salt in their eyes then shiv them?
Think Carthage.
Cochran like Machiavelli is correct the study of history allows errors to be avoided. Don’t let a lunatic backed by business oligarchs and a private unaccountable army anywhere near power or you get disaster.
So yes it matters. The second amendment, limits on centralized power, no scapegoats to cover strategic weakness or limits.
Whiskey
I’ve always been the camp that say the interwar years were a unique combination of events, like the confluence of three rivers. The churn is fascinating, but it really tells us little about the events that fed the churn or what comes out the other end. There are no great lessons to be learned from the Nazis or the war to eliminate them. The events that created them can never be replicated. On the other hand, the Italian fascists offer many useful lessons, but no one today talks about them, for good reason.
“The fitness cost of genes ‘for’ homosexuality being too great. Natural selection would have eliminated the gene.”
So, left-handedness is caused by a germ too? Color-blindness? Some days I get where the Creationists are coming from; “natural selection” seems to be “just so stories about what I want to believe.”
Left-handedness has a negligible impact on fitness. Whatever there is, is probably off-set by the fact the left-handed tend to be a tiny bit smarter. Color-blindness also has no obvious impediment to reproduction. Homosexuality, in contrast, has an enormous impact on reproduction. It’s not about “just so stories”, but about math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology).
Left-handedness is good for competition and bad for cooperation (think tennis versus sharing tools). There’s an equilibrium level of left-handers, which is at about 10% of the population today.
Holiday Inn: “…equilibrium level of left-handers…” Thanks for putting it that way. I always thought I was a well balanced individual.
This may be special pleading, but I think homosexuals have different brain types from heterosexuals. Left handed people are different at the cortical level too and have different skill sets. We are not all clones, but many different brain types working together and complementing each other. There are creative minds and destructive/critical minds. Perhaps a small percentage of creative brain structures are useful to humankind as a whole. On the other hand, there are abnormalities that occur sporadically at low rates, such as Down’s syndrome and various dwarfism, that result in sterile offspring and don’t ruin the human race. Biology has compensating mechanisms. Female homosexuals would be forced to have babies in premodern society. Most males die in war. There you go.
There can never be useful commentary on homosexuality without distinguishing the ‘homo’ part from the ‘sexual’ part.
Forgive me for making blunt observations that (a) are obvious to everyone reading this blog, and (b) make us sick to contemplate.
Call this “auto-anthropology”. Hey, if the chicks can do it in ‘learned journals’ and get paid for it, why can’t we?
Point 1. The fundamental act of homosexuals is fucking one another in the ass. Disgusting.
Point 1a. An ancillary act of heterosexuals is the male fucking the female in the ass. Awesome.
In the bad old days when people went to church and read the Bible, they called each act by the same name: Sodomy.
Is it possible that homos – like post-progenitive heteros – are just getting it on in similar ways? That we’ve entered into the age described by Paul in his letter to the Romans?
Odd note: both male and female homosexuals prefer it in the ass.
Trust me, we left-handers are not smarter; we just seem that way – especially in high school – because we’re quirky and awkward and learn how to joke, and the girls like us. It’s a 2-3 year window of opportunity, and that’s that.
” Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country?”
Why is there a museum devoted to it, in our Capitol, completing the fourth side of a square bounded by the Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington monuments?
I remember my surprise in discovering such a museum in Boise, Idaho. Why would such a museum be located in Idaho? After thinking about it a bit more, I understood.
” Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country?”
Well, because a certain OTHER group of people insists on banging on about it in every book, movie, monument unveiling, museum opening etc., usually to explain why WE can’t have nice things, like borders or racial solidarity. Otherwise, yeah, no one gets all upset about what Napoleon or Caesar may have done on some occasion in the distant past. In fact, I suspect the hysteria on THEIR side comes from the feeling that it is, in fact, receding into the distant past.
Napoleon and Caesar are dead and buried, and the average person has no idea what you are talking about if you invoke either of their names. TPTB want to keep the actions of 80 years ago relevant by banging on about them. Which is exactly as you point out. But they also want to use any tool at hand to bash you and me, and if 80 years ago slips away like Napoleon and Caesar have, then they have one less tool in their “bash us” toolbox. I think that is their most important motivation here. They care nothing for history or any sense of truth, only for what they can bash us with.
“In it they argue that Ashkenazi ████inherit higher ” and “situation of Ashkenazi ████in the Middle Ages” – is the word “Jew” greyed out after Ashkenazi cuz that’s all that I am seeing?! – I am located in Germany but since you run this site privately I don’t think there are any content filters, no?
Where can I get some of those black bars? They sure could come in handy!
Ron Unz writes that 9/11 was an Israeli false flag op. Maybe he’s right, maybe not, but there’s waaay too much hinky about it all to think the narrative is true. Just watch the video of Bldg 7 coming down. That’s a controlled demolition. When the twin towers fell, it’s the same phenomena. It was too perfect. And where did the Flight 93 plane disappear to? Completely gone. Many many more.
The 9/11 truther stuff is interesting, but I am not ready to go there, and this is why: 9/11 is a cultural touchstone for us, a shared trauma and something that stands for important elements of our culture (such as that we really are all in this together, and that the Muslim religion is very toxic to the West). 9/11 truth or not, I am not ready to give up on how 9/11 stands as a poignant touchstone to being American in these times.
I’m sorry Dutch, but you have to go there if the truth means anything to you at all.
It has been 18 years since 9/11, and buying into the official narrative because it’s emotionally comforting serves neither yourself nor the rest of our society.
An admission that glaring and obvious lies prop up the official narrative in no way means you have to embrace Islam or the destruction of the West.
Look reality square in the face, whether it be about racial and sexual differences, IQ, or the way in which our elites construct myths to manipulate and control us.
Dave, I do wrestle with it. I know that everything is fake and manufactured. It just gets to the point where every. last. thing has to be thrown out and we just start over, and I struggle with it.
I also hate, hate all this “islamophobia” bunk, it is pure lying in service to a so-called religion that encourages lying to the non-believers. To the extent that 9/11 pulls back the curtain on what Islam is really about, it is instructional. The 19 Muslims that flew those four planes may have ultimately done so in service to their sworn “enemies”, IYKWIM, but they did pilot the planes into the buildings because “(their) god is greater”. A pox on both their houses, I suppose, but busting up the narrative here not only pretty much throws out 9/11 entirely, it also puts new sorts of pain into the lives of the survivors of those who died. I’m not sure what to do with it all, in my own head.
@Dutch: just one correction.
Islam is not a “religion.” It is a satanic ideology and social construct, masquerading as a religion.
It is evil to the core. There is no “extremist” version.
“Either you is or you isn’t.”
Maybe he’s right, maybe not, but there’s waaay too much hinky about it all to think the narrative is true.
THIS, and not just applied to 9/11. I’m coming to realize that the important thing about revisionists/conspiracy theorists/etc is how they get us to question the official narrative.
Is Unz right or wrong? Who knows, at least his recent columns have people thinking.
“Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country?”
One cliche now (quietly) under assault is the connection between the economy and “getting worked up.”
The cliche is that when economic times are good, people are complacent, and society is at rest. “Economy goes up, unrest goes down,” goes this line.
But for white-collar people at least, economic times are decent. But their hate for us, and our hate for them, is ratcheting up exponentially. All those articles about low unemployment–people are so busy hating that they don’t give a shit.
Another that that will need revision is that we are not nearly so much the Economic Man that a lot of people in the 20th century thought we were. (Even though the 20th century itself offers more than enough evidence to prove that point.)
The missing word is “Overlords”.
I have black redaction bars over something after Ashkenazi in paragraph 5. I’m guessing that the blacked out word is “men”. Are you being censored or do I have a glitch on my end?
“We live in an unreasonable age, ruled by ridiculous people”. Yup.
I used to think that the word “theocracy” as used by Our Guys was a dramatic exaggeration just to sound cool. Not any more. They really go after heretics to their lies like the inquisition. My own term for them is the TLR–Totalitarian Left-wing Religion.
The disease theory/angle to Alzheimer’s etc is interesting. How many years ago was it that the bacterial theory of Ulcers went through the same process/paradigm shift. It was inconceivable that bacteria could thrive in the acidic environment of the gut. Until it wasn’t…
Perhaps I’m so old that I lived through a time when people still did real science. Dunno.
Imagine people with a generic predisposition to an addiction to some mind altering chemical. This predisposition is linked to some useful trait, so it is common, but the substance in question does not exist yet. The drug has not been synthesized. Once the drug becomes available, that population with the somewhat useful trait is now ravaged by drug addiction. People will naturally assume that it is the existence of the drug that is the cause, but in fact some genetic root is the cause.
I think in time we will find that lots of things that have been blamed on environmental factors will have either a genetic root or a combination of genetics and some pathogen. That is, like the drug in the above example, the genetic condition alone is insufficient. The combination of the pathogen and the right genes. In the case of homosexuality, that could very well exist on a spectrum, things like “grooming” could play a bigger role than we want to believe.
Z Man;
FWIW, your idea jibes with my cohort’s lived experience in the ’60s when recreational drugs, natural and synthetic, suddenly became widely available.
Upon first use, most said, “Well that was interesting, but I think I’ll avoid it in the future, given the obvious downsides.” But a few said, “Where have you been all my life_? You and me forever;” Many of the latter group died early deaths, deleting themselves from the gene pool.*
And there was no way to know in advance which group you were in. So I decided it was like racing the train to the grade crossing: If you won, the upside was pretty trivial. If you lost, the downside was catastrophic, though unlikely: So why take the bet.
____________________
*If a single fatal gene were involved, the incidence of drug abuse should be decreasing by now, but it’s not. From an amoral gene pool perspective, it’s too bad that alcohol takes so long to do its destructive work. Any way you look at it, it’s a tragedy.
What about AIDS? I’m not a scientist, nor even very bright, but I’ve never been convinced by the “HIV is the infectious agent” explanation of AIDS.
Ack. Meant Pathogen with respect to Alzheimer’s.
There is increasing evidence to support the disease theory of Alzheimers and even heart disease… Cochran has posted on this quite a bit. Bad for the medical profession, so not a popular subject of research…
Bars. Black bars.
But they won’t save you, thoughtcriminal.
I saw it as less virtue signaling and more Ron Unz has gone off the rails.
Ditto, as we used to say. It’s too bad, Unz has done a lot of good work in the past.
The real question is why do lesbians love softball?
Other than that I got nuttin. We all have our own scientific and other causal examples of why we are.
When will Holocaustism and it’s witch trials end or stop being used as a purity test? Nazis, genocide,and all the sjw political enforcement has got to be coming to an end, right?
Let’s hope so. These things seem to have a shelf life of about 60-80 years. Remember, as late as 2004 we were supposed to care which candidate did or didn’t do what in Vietnam. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when self-admitted Nazi collaborator George Soros finally kicks the bucket. That would be an ideal time for the Left to proclaim “that’s in the past now, it’s time to moveon.org” if it’s politically convenient for them.
Strange how people think JFK was against Vietnam. He literally started it and escalated it.
I’m convinced the guy was killed because he betrayed the people who got him into power. Ever seen video of him not giving a speech? Extremely anxious and terrible body language.
I always used to get a giggle out of telling kids “Kennedy had Ngo Dinh Diem whacked.” Funny on so many levels.
Why has there not been a president born in the 50’s. Anybody else curious? Will we ever have one?
Re: Holocaust denial, that’s where our Education Kommissars have really done us a favor, if you think about it. Back when I started teaching, I used to joke that “the day a student asks me if those bad guys in the “Call of Duty” games were really real is the day I start shooting heroin.” By the time I retired, I was actively looking for a dealer. So far as the upcoming generation is concerned, “the Holocaust” may as well be “the silence of the lambs,” “the running of the bulls,” or “who’s on first?” — just ooga booga words from the vast wasteland of worthless time before Twitter.
Probably 25 years ago, maybe longer, someone asked me why I had more interest in the Great War than the Second World War. I said that in the long run, what will be more interesting about WW2 is the decades of story telling that followed it, but we’ll need to wait until the participants are all dead. It may take a little longer, but you can see the end of the road now.
This was not an insight unique to me. A history professor I had used to say that all great events have multiple histories. The first is written by the people alive at the time, usually the winners. The second history is written by their critics in the next generations, the people who were born too late to take credit for it. When all of those people are dead and gone, then a new group of historians comes along and revisits the first two accounts.
With regards to WW2, we’re still in the second phase, but that window is closing. In the coming decades, serious people will start to examine the official narrative and the revisionism with a more objective and critical eye.
Definitely the history of WWII changed sometime in the 1970s. I don’t remember hearing the word “Holocaust” anytime before then, and it certainly wasn’t taught in the 1960s when I was in grade school. Sure, we were told about the concentration camps, but mostly as a footnote, it wasn’t taught as a major feature of the war.
It wasn’t even part of the popular culture surrounding the war. Watch any of the many WWII serials of the 1960s – Combat!, Rat Patrol, etc., and you hear nary a word about it.
Two things in historical popular media that are conspicuous in their absence: mentions of the Holocaust before 1970, and mentions of slavery in Civil War dramas before 1940. Obviously those events are understood differently now than they were by the people who lived through them.
I’m guessing that because the people who served in WW2 dominated the conversations for the first few decades, the focus of the conversations was the lives lived in the war, what happened to them, how they coped (my high school biology teacher had interesting stories about being a POW of the Japanese). Now, as those people have gotten old and died off, we get concepts. Instead of “The Best Years of Our Lives”, we get Holocaust this and Holocaust that.
This. I knew all about the mass killing of the Jews when I was growing up in the 1960’s, but it was just regarded as one more evil thing that the Nazis did, and certainly in no way tarred the US. As noted above, all this began to change in the 1970’s
My grandparents were in the war. All of my grandfather’s brothers were in the war too. They were in Europe and Japan. As a kid, I never heard a peep about the Holocaust, despite all of the show on TV about the war. I recall a great BBC series we watched called The World at War. I found it on DVD a few years ago and bought it. In the original 1974 version, there was one segment out of 26 on the Holocaust. In the reissue, they tacked on two more Holocaust segments.
The thing I recall about hearing the old guys talk when I was a kid is they really hated the Japanese. They still hated the Japanese into the 80’s. The Germans they respected. Their view was that it was a shame that the Nazis wrecked Germany as they liked the German people and respected the German soldiers. That seems to have been a very common attitude with the WW2 generation.
As a gifted and early developing child of the 1990’s, my earliest influences were Exodus by Leon Uris, multiple books about holocaustianity, and the television series Roots.
Didn’t take me long to get tired of the bullshit and turn to fiction and internet sleuthing. When people tell me about religion I ask why a guy who lived 2,000 years ago is relevant when people like me have been around for 400,000 years.
I had the same experience, Z Man. My grandfather was flagrant in his hatred for the Japanese until his dying day. His buddies down at the Legion hall who were in the ETO, on the other hand, had nothing but respect for the Germans (even the horribly rayciss ones in the Waffen SS).
This is all true if you ignore film and books.
Examples: The Search (1948), The Young Lions (1958), Kapo (1960), Judgement at Nuremberg (1961), The Pawnbroker (1964) – all terrific pictures, in my opinion – were out there before ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ had even started production; I loved – and still love – that show.
For me, Obama was always ‘President Klink’ (if not ‘President Baxter’) and I’ll bet some of you know what I mean. Still, it was a tasteless and silly show for those who lived through the bad stuff in WW2. My father found HH thoroughly offensive; he liked to point out that it took the full mobilization of three major powers to defeat these “idiots”.
I think William Shirer’s ‘Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ came out about 1960, and I remember as a kid reading the extermination chapters over and over, like porn. It was a best-seller, and without studying the matter further my guess is that the success of that book – in an age when people still read and talked about books – put the ‘Holocaust’ on the common man radar in the early 60s.
The ‘romanticism of the holocaust’, however, didn’t get going in popular media until the 1978 production of ‘Holocaust’ – launching (ironically) the careers of both Meryl Streep AND our guy, James Woods; throw in the publication of Wouk’s Winds of War and War and Remembrance, and IT WAS ON. This was when the holocaust became a ‘genre’, like westerns or detective flicks.
Both ‘Roots’ and ‘Holocaust’ set down the rules for proper historical thought among late Boomers and early Gen-Xers.
On a related note, MASH came on TV the year before I started HS. Throughout HS I thought it was a funny, and entertaining TV show. As an adult though I now find it unwatchable with its Leftist propaganda.
The “Holocaust”, with a capital H, wasn’t even in many references before the 1980s…that’s what Jewish media power has accomplished in the last 40 years.
The real power lies in turning a dictionary word into an incantation, then ‘trademarking’ it.
Many genocides, but only one ‘Holocaust’. I take your point.
It’s related to Zionism. The American Jewish community got much more on board with Zionism after the Yom Kippur and 8 days wsrs in the early 70s(I can’t keep them straight). Perhaps it also had something to do with the rising intellectual clarity of the neoconservatives. Whatever the truth of the events, their importance as an argument for the necessity of Zionism is what changed in the late 70s to the present.
Yes, true, my Dad fought against the Germans, and he said that they were good soldiers, althought he had no use for Nazis. His friends who served in the Pacific hated the Japanese with the intensity of a thousand suns…
My father worked the MacArthur route from northern Australia, through New Guinea, the Admiralty Islands, eventually the Battle of Leyte Gulf, as an AA commander; his outfit shot down a few enemy aircraft and part of his job was working through the wreckage of downed planes, leafing through documents, including the wallets of the dead crewmen, where he found pictures of children, wives, mothers, etc., and I never heard dad say that he despised the enemy.
That said, when the a-bombs dropped, and he could see a route back home, he was all in.
There is a fine line between hating the enemy and not giving a shit about them when you have a life of your own to lead.
That was dad – live and let live, but let’s get this shit over with and go home.
Why do you think they hated the Japs but not the Germans? After all, Hitler admired the martial culture of the Japanese. Was it their basic foreignness? Pearl Harbor?
Line in the Sand–The difference in G,I. attitudes toward Germans and Japanese was purely due to the soldiers personal experience. And then there were the camps.
Also, remember that the Japanese were loathed throughout Asia due to personal experience. Sons of Asians who endured occupation would tell me their parents could not bear to speak of Japanese.
LITS: Pearl Harbor may have been a part of it, but the overall behavior of the Japanese, predicated in part on their belief that all non-Japanese are subhuman, and that the Japanese treated actual humans-they-considered-subhuman worse than we Americans treat not only our dogs, but our pest animals (unless you know people who bayonet raccoons in the abdomen for fun, that sort of thing), is why the Japanese were hated. (And to large degree remain hated in Asia.)
For all that we are taught that WW2 is ALL about the suffering of a particular group in the European theater, have a look at “Unit 731” (the Wikipedia entry is a decent start); “Comfort Women” and “The Rape of Nanking” as starters. Those are a few of the things Imperial Japan did to other east Asians. Then have a look at how US and ANZAC POWs were treated, but you already knew that.
And for those who admire Japan as an ethnostate, this video from Varg Vikernes is worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8J2yDcJdYw
That’s because I doubt very few Germans ate their captive’s livers.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/08/japanese-soldiers-who-cannibalized-us-pilots-in-world-war-ii.html
Cruelty. Stories from all sides of the conflict such as this one: during the conquest of British occupied parts of Asia, say a pregnant British woman would go into labor, they would bind her legs tightly together and throw her aside to die in agony, while the family watched! Many many stories like this.
Here’s another: they tied a POW to a tree and sliced open his abdomen. You can live a good while like this with no major artery cut. Then they would release hungry pigs that would devour the soft intestines, again while his comrades looked on!
Read “After the Reich”. While not third wave, it does dig into the history of the immediate aftermath that is poorly documented on most popular histories.
Enough handwringing about all that is wrong in the world. Yes, the parasitic fraction of the population is ascendant and becoming more powerful and violent with each passing day. But all is not hopeless. There are effective strategies for countering the tyranny of the parasite, and the productive fraction of society (though shrinking) is still quite formidable. Keep in mind that we either prevail or the species goes down the shitter (as evolution dictates).
TomA, many of your posts show that you believe that the fundamental issue we face is the productive against the parasitic. You don’t see that race binds people together far more tightly than their productivity. In other words, if you had a community of producers, it would still fracture on racial lines. The non-white producers would still insist that their people were being discriminated against. The chosen producers would still insist on open borders and fealty to Israel. Productivity is not identity.
The different races evolved in different environments, hence the differences between each component of the species. For example, blacks are well suited for living in sub-Saharan Africa and Scandinavians are well suited for living in the high Northern latitudes. These traits evolved over very long time intervals. That is reality. Regardless of race, being a parasite is a bad thing and is bad for the species. This is foundational.
It used to be my conviction that homosexuality was exclusively the result of poor genetics combined with poor parenting. When my own daughter came home from school as a militant lesbian SJW I had that theory shoved up my arse. Sideways.
I still believe that but think that nowadays many kids accept homosexuality and adopt it as a means of rebelling against their parents and peers. The schools encourage this as do most progs. The gay gene won’t edit itself out any more than those responsible for any number of other inheritable illnesses. I am glad that certain genetics skip generations until I think about it – the bullet I dodged got my daughter.
We do not have to worry about a queer police state. We’ll have flames, ruin and wreckage and civil war first.
But wouldn’t that result in a reversal as the supposed gay person matures/ages?
There is no gay gene. That’s not a thing to be disputed. Faux lesbianism is not a new thing. There used to be a TLA for it: LUG – Lesbian Until Graduation. I knew a girl in my college days who was a nice catholic girl as a freshman, a flannel wearing lesbian as a sophomore and junior, then back to a normal young woman as a senior, engaged to a classmate.
Women are much more sensitive to social pressure, due to their innate desire for attention. In an age where being a butch lesbian has social currency, more girls will put on the outfit than in an age when it has no social currency.
It seems rather clear that male homosexuality is a different thing entirely from female homosexuality.
There’s a story, probably apocryphal, that when Parliament wanted to make some changes to the sodomy laws back in 1850 or whenever, they included a bit about lesbianism. Queen Victoria herself made them cut it, as she refused to believe such a thing was possible. (PS I spent many years in a college town. I know from lesbians, and the vast majority of them are undergrad girls who aren’t quiiiiiite cute enough to really compete for the dwindling supply of heterosexual guys. They’ll go straight the minute they hit the workaday world and their prospects improve).
But now their lesbian experiences become part of these girls and she brings that baggage with her to her marriage, which is disrespectful and unhealthy, I think. I guess I’m a prude but to me, it’s a really big deal, the idea of being intimate with another woman. It makes me nauseous just thinking about it. Each intimate encounter becomes a part of you. The body is a temple. We’ve got to get control of our degenerate schools so we can prevent them filling our children’s heads with ideas about how wonderful and normal it is to be gay.
Both are blind! “Dark too dark to see,” lol
I believe there is a genetic link or predisposition to homosexuality. Many people on one side of my family are gay and no known on the other side. If you knew the people in question, environment seems certainly not a factor. There are multifactorial genetic complexes that are not yet fully understood, in other words it need not be a single easily identified mutation at a particular spot as with sickle cell.
Many gay people, perhaps a majority, are married and/or have children based on my observations. I was wondering about how more complex paraphelias, such as pedophilia, fit into all this. They told us in school that there are pedophiles(cheese pizza conniseurs? Lol) who like female, those who like male, and those who like both! It’s a very complex question that is oversimplified by the simple gay/straight binary. There may be different types of homosexuality.
Male homosexuality is defection from the Y chromosome. The gene is on the X chromosome. Evidenced by homosexuals political sympathy for women even though they are sexually attracted to masculinity. Homosexual men increase the reproduction potential of familial females and their malady is propogated through the X chromosome. The gene is latent until triggered by poor male development (lack of testosterone) or environmental stimulus (lack of access to females).
Lesbians can’t be homosexual in the same way because they have no Y chromosome to defect from.
Cochran addressed this. If your theory were true you’d see different inheritance patterns.
And don’t take my word for it. Ask Cochran on his blog. He often responds.
He also called or something: rem the guns and roses cover has the phone call ”you better start sniffing your tattered libido..” which also contains a hint…SNIFFING
I dunno if there are any rules you can make about them Z. I used to follow my daughter on the net, I saw the people she talked to and I saw what they were saying.
Some blogger – might have been you – said that homosexuality was a fashionable mental illness. I believe that one is at least 50% right and probably closer to 100%. Genetics can play a role in mental illness but who knows. I can’t figure it out and don’t particularly want to, unless the discussion includes cures.
That’s a funny thing, isn’t it? No one ever talks about a cure for homosexuality. It’s taboo. Yet, most homosexual men will tell you they would not wish their life on anyone. Most make the best of their lives, of course, but they will tell you that it is a huge burden. My guess if there is ever a little blue pill to “cure” gay men, 99% of them will take it.
Lesbians, on the other hand, seem to be in the same camp as people who self-mutilate. They want to be miserable.
Most want YOU to be miserable too….
Steve Sailer wrote an essay 24 years ago called, “Why lesbians aren’t gay.”
https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-lesbians-arent-gay/
One thing I don’t see mentioned yet is the trend of childhood physical/sexual abuse contributing to homosexuality. In less PC times it was the macabre punchline to the question of “how do gays reproduce?”
It’s certainly not the only way, but it’s a major factor from what I’ve seen. The gay men with whom I’ve personally been close friends all had a history of being molested as children. They’re usually happy to talk about it if there’s a mutual trust and the direction of the conversation is relevant.
@masked-infiltrator Could this explain the discrepancy in the prevalence of homosexuals on the two sides of your family?
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Smith grad that did not chalk up a couple years of lesbian duty in school. I think they get credit for it.
I see this in high school age girls – many girls who, while not particularly attractive, but OK looking find that “being gay” is a good alternative. Less pressure, and lots of positive reinforcement from the school’s teachers and administrators. My fear is that many of these girls will grow up to be childless and embittered- behold our Cat Lady future.
In between Obama’s first election and his inauguration I was living on a beach in Thailand that you could only get to by boat that was populated by the privileged children of Western Europe who all hated their culture. I was like a snake in their Garden. One young British man who who had been in Afghanistan with the British Army came up to me one day and asked me if I was bisexual. I said no I like men. He said all the other women seem to be bisexual on this island and why was that. I tried to explain to him that they really weren’t they were just confused from the relentless propaganda. This sexual confusion did not spring out of nowhere it is the result of a decades-long campaign to destroy nature
Kids want to be “special”, and in the pecking order of female college life, lesbianism is “special” indeed.
Agree. It’s a common phenomenon for girls to use lesbianism as a defense against “no guys ask me out.” Also this relates to fag hags, females who hang out around known male homosexuals in order to simulate having dates. But I don’t think any male heterosexual would pretend to be gay(unless to get into the girls locker room). The stigma is just too huge.
I don’t think that women are as repulsed by female gayness as men are male gayness.
And, in one of her better, observations, Cathy Griffin noted that most lesbians are not what the porn industry presents- think Rosie O’Donnell and KD Lang,
The first two weeks in the development of an embryo contain a series of spectacular chemical fireworks, including one triggering the sex of said tiny expanding universe, from none to one. Mistakes are made, and if that is the cause it would seem indistinguishable from genetic. Contra Zman, dykes are often born, although there are less of them than there are of teh ghey.
I have dated three women with twin brothers. The brothers were gay. For what it’s worth.
Two of the significant others in my life were a matched set, a beautiful lesbian and her gay brother. The woman was bisexual, but preferred women, her brother not so much. I thought it was interesting that they were both inverted.
There is a theory that siblings born later in the family are prone to being gay, my youngest brother, #4, is gay, the rest of us not so much. FWIW, I am the oldest, and the one who flew hang-gliders , surfed big waves and sailed offshore. More testosterone early on?
The other fact about homosexuality cited by Cochran and Harpending in support of their theory is that it is virtually unknown among primitive peoples, suggesting that it is a disease of civilization…But it is indisputable that homosexuality cannot be strictly genetic, because gays don’t have enough kids, and those genes would have disappeared millennia ago…
It’s rampant in Polynesia, and being Mahu just puts you in a different social role. I think this was true way back in history, not a recent development.
@Glen Filthie,
That must be tough to deal with: an SJW daughter who CHOOSES lesbianism.
There may be a case for genetics, but I’d lay down a serious amount of dosh on the theory that acting on same-sex attraction (for both males and females) is a CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE.
And unfortunately, these days our culture encourages it.
No eight year old girl (aside from being a tomboy) has the developmental concept to WANT to become a boy. it’s fed into her brain by the mentally unstable adults around her.
Jeez, I can only wonder what might have become of me, when I (a girl through and through) was wearing blue jean overalls, with just peach fuzz, aged two, pulling a red dump truck along behind me in the grocery store, when the man in front of my mother and me in line says “hey slugger! That’s a great truck you have, there!”
No harm, no foul when my mother understandably had to correct him.
I grew up to be a girl through and through, though not without my tomboy and athletic tendencies (which remain to this day).
Maybe it’s why I think using logic rather than feewings, when evaluating the state of our world today.
But anyway: homosexuality is all a CHOICE. But the crazies don’t want to acknowledge that.
As one of the people who commented on that post, I can tell you that I didn’t get any particular virtue-rush out of it. I just think that saying stupid shit like “the Holocaust never happened” hurts our side, and I wish that Unz would knock it off with the tinfoil hat stuff. Had he stopped at saying that discussing the historical accuracy of the popular account of the Holocaust shouldn’t be a crime, or grounds for expulsion from polite society, and that some Jewish organizations have shamelessly used it to promote a political agenda and stifle needed debate, and that other, comparable atrocities are not given this sacred status, I would have agreed wholeheartedly, and I’d guess that Cochran would have as well.
Personally, I think that GC is more pissed at Unz for saying that Hispanic crime is no problem, and that IQ is highly malleable that he is for Holocaust denial.
Agreed. You have singled out the two “revisionist” perspectives that I think should be permitted: reasonable reconsideration of numbers of people, places, methods, etc. (not arguing for “zero” or “it never happened at all”), and pointing out the exploitation of the event to avoid criticism of Israel or Jewish public figures.
My sense is we are approaching the time when there will be a great revision of the 20th century narrative. I don’t think we truly appreciate just how much the 60’s warped America. All of the wacky ideas that haunt us today were born out of that period. That generation is nearing an end, so there will be fewer of them around to defend the old time religion. It’s not just the Holocaust. The conduct of the victors in the war, the shenanigans that went on in the Cold War, the development of the modern police state, etc. It’s all going to come under revision.
I wouldn’t argue with that – as someone once said, “The true history of the 1960’s has yet to be written”. But I’d be willing to be a substantial amount that the Holocaust is not going to be found to be a hoax.
I’ve thought for quite some time that the whole Holocaust issue has been approached the wrong way. The Holocaust aggrievement complex has cast the story as one where the bad Germans just woke up one day and decided to kill all the Jews. Seems like the best retort to that fable that a lot of people could come up with – was to just deny that it happened at all.
Given race reality – and the realities around who we see screwing with society in the current day – I think it’s much more productive to start talking about WHY the Nazis decided that they just needed to have all the Jews gone.
Because that is a topic that DIRECTLY applies to the current age. And puts a stark contrast on the shennanigans being played by the (((cloud people))) right here and right now.
It’s arguable that the history of the 1960s was written a century earlier – by Tocqueville.
not a hoax, many innocent people died, both jew and many others, but Weimar Germany was sickening. i wonder if anyone has fisked the assertions made here:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/24/sexual-decadence-weimar-germany/
Z, I would modify that. The wacky ideas came from the likes of Rousseau, Marx, and the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. They were spread and implemented in the 1960s but were developed well before then.
The real question becomes: which side will get to do the revising?
Unz is clearly an autist, or close to it. If there are a lot of uncomfortable facts undermining a particular narrative, he sees no reason to abide by that narrative’s boundaries.
He sees numbers and equations and factoids, and emotion and/or history be damned.
He literally doesn’t get why people would be upset that he said the Holocaust might not be a thing.
Let’s be honest, there are gaping holes in many of the cherished myths that our society is founded on. Racial differences, and the way our entire society contorts itself to deal with them, is one such example.
The assassinations of JFK and RFK, and 9/11, are examples of events where, as far as I’m concerned, no serious person can look at what happened and completely accept the official story.
I have no answers to what actually happened in those cases, and I find the wilder theories to be comical, but something stinks about the official narrative surrounding those events. Just way too many convenient coincidences and outright gaping holes to not get suspicious.
I believe the official narratives about WWII deserve some skepticism as well.
There is no doubt that millions of Jews were killed, along with tens of millions of gentiles. Exactly how and when is up for legitimate debate.
The only thing I believe about those events is that our government and news media will do everything possible to prevent the truth from being revealed.
As another commenter on Cochran’s post, I merely observed the well known fact that the Holocaust industry has embellished things quite a lot, as has been established by numerous investigators, some of them jews…..It was a weird post because Cochran owes Ron Unz big time. Ron gave him 600k for the blog a while back.
As soon as it dawns on the leftists of the world that race realism is what’s holding back their utopia the shit’s gonna hit the fan. It’ll be the evil white people standing between the leftists and the black population. Margaret Sanger anyone?
Wouldn’t that just be coming full circle?
No, they still want us dead and gone. It won’t change.
Because they’re Po-Mo’s/hilhilists and hate hierarchies and white society is the most hierarchical of them all. Hence it has to be destroyed and their suicidal agenda.
Most of this can be traced back to the French Po-Mo’s like Derrida and Foucault who were embrace by Western academia with open arms.
The cultural Marxism is just a tool to accomplish it. This is why it’s totally useless to converse with them. If you watch Laura Ingraham or Hannity, they are always flummoxed by these cultists(and they are cultists) because facts bounce off them.
Both of them think it’s still 1985 and if we just cuck up a bit it will all go back to normal. It won’t.
“One day, there will be a knock on the door and they will have come for Cochran.”
I can always count on you for a perky start to my day.
I wouldn’t worry about Cochran ,Z. Install a peep hole in your doors.