Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It's another one of those "who do you root for here" situations: Ann Coulter v Joseph Farah in a clash of the wingnuts. It's too bad this isn't a steel cage death match, loser shaves their head and leaves town kinda thing. Coulter thinks the birthers are being ridiculous - and when you get to the point where you're too far to the right for Ann Coulter, you know you've gone into the furthest reaches of the loonisphere. Farah answers her criticism and starts out with this gem of a line:
WND provides what I believe to be the broadest forum of political commentary anywhere - not just on the Internet, but anywhere.
The human capacity for self-delusion is truly a wondrous thing, isn't it? The Worldnutdaily's commentary lineup covers the full gamut, from the merely crazy to the batshit insane (with the sole exception of Nat Hentoff, who is only occasionally crazy and is otherwise the voice of reason). This reminds of the honky tonk bar in the Blues Brothers:
"What kind of music do you usually have here?"
"Oh, we got both kinds - country and western."
And then things start to heat up:
Then came the vicious personal attack: "not one known conservative public figure or publication believes this - except WND, which I believe is pushing it to get website hits, bc no sane person could believe it - but the MSM keeps interviewing the nuts to make all conservatives look crazy and to distract from the serious problems with obama."It really grieves me that Ann Coulter dismisses the one real investigative news agency's work and relies on warmed-over pabulum from the American Spectator and an unknown blog. There's a reason the American Spectator is named as such. It is a spectator when it comes to news. It is simply untrue that the Spectator found the birth announcements during the campaign. The first known source of the newspaper birth announcements was a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger in the summer of 2008.
Coulter's problem seems to be her contempt for real reporting - unless it is conducted by a pedigreed "conservative" source. Unfortunately for Coulter, as a lifelong journalist involved in investigative reporting for 30 years, I can tell you there is no such animal as a pedigreed "conservative" news outlet that does real investigative reporting. Apparently WND is just too "independent" for Coulter's trust...
To suggest we did this - that I did this - "to get website hits" and "that no sane person could believe it," is really hitting below the belt. I have grown to expect that sort of insult from the insanely jealous Michael Medved and the delusional Keith Olbermann, but not from Ann Coulter.
Yeah, who could ever have guessed that Ann Coulter would make a strident, insulting comment about anyone?
And then the reconciliation:
But, you know what? Even though Coulter's gossip hurts, I forgive her. She's been a good friend for many years. Her good work overshadows what I hope is a momentary slip. I fully expect Ann Coulter will toast me one day for pursuing this unpopular story when no other news agency would. That's just the kind of gal she is. And that's just the kind of guy I am.
Wrong. One day, just like every day, you're going to be viewed as a nut. And Coulter will continue to be viewed as a nut who didn't buy this particular bit of stupidity.
Politics
Comments
I find two interesting nuggets in this exchange.
Like nearly all that consciously and deliberately do wrong and yet justify their misdeeds; in this exchange we discover Farah's self-deceptive rationalization that allows him to sleep at night:
I think we can easily assign Farah into the group of conservatives that suffer a popular affliction amongst them, that of projectionism. Looking at this exchange we find Farah self-defines himself as:
Close-minded
A fraud
Anti-intellectual
Insanely jealous
Delusional
Incapable of forgiveness
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 9:48 AM
If I remember correctly, there was a story on wired where one of the WND writers was fussing about Wikipedia whitewashing the Obama entry, and it looks suspiciously like the WND writer was the one doing the editing.....
Posted by: BGT | August 27, 2009 9:57 AM
WND provides what I believe to be the broadest forum of political commentary anywhere - not just on the Internet, but anywhere.
Well, to be fair it may very well be that the far ultra right lunatic fringe is spread out over a very broad area, but its distance from the position of reason, rationality, and real life facts puts it on the distant horizon. And you know how short things look on the horizon.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 10:09 AM
Unlike the less spectator-like WND, which goes ahead and just makes stuff up?
Posted by: Chris A | August 27, 2009 10:36 AM
This is not quite true, but close to it. After all, the breadth between -100 and 100 is much smaller than the breadth between -infinity and -500, eh?
As far as Farah vs. Coulter, I think you are evaluating it the wrong way. Coulter is a hateful bigot, but I can usually follow her sentences from point A to point B to point C. She is clearly the more intelligent of the two.
Normally, this would lead me to prefer Farah. A ranting loony is typical far less dangerous than an intelligent calculating bigot. But somehow Farah has gotten a following that has enveloped a frighteningly large percentage of our country. If his lunacy is so contagious, then quarantining it is a matter of public mental hygiene.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 27, 2009 11:12 AM
Coulter says:
>> but the MSM keeps interviewing the nuts to make all conservatives look crazy
Maybe Coulter is just worried of losing her job as the nut that MSM interviews to make all conservatives look crazy?
Posted by: Ashley Moore | August 27, 2009 11:39 AM
For me the 'money quote':
You heard it first folks! Only mongrel conservatives do investigative 'reporting' (not 'investigative journalism' notice). Explains Farrah's and Coulter's backgrounds perfectly.
:) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 27, 2009 11:54 AM
Farah:
As a 24 year subscriber to the Wall Street Journal, I attributed that claim by Farah as evidence of his being delusional. I imagine Forbes magazine does some investigative reporting as well? I don't know for sure since I've never been a subscriber but I've always assume they do. I'm sure the list is far longer than my contribution(s).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 12:48 PM
Michael Heath:
We, Us, People, Grit, The National Enquirer and numerous other publications have a degree of journalistic integrity that Farah could only dream about. His rag would have to get exponentially better, to just suck.
Posted by: democommie | August 27, 2009 12:55 PM
Farah and Coulter, both on the sidewalk in front of me, both on fire, no one else around, I need to find a bathroom...I pee down the drain.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 27, 2009 2:50 PM
BTW: My take on Ann Coulter is that she is neither stupid nor crazy, nor even hateful (maybe). IMHO, she's very sharp and has figured out that if you spout the most outrageously right-wing bile, a whole bunch of people will pay gobs of money to hear more of it.
Or maybe she just stole Rush Limbaugh's act.
Anyway, I think both of those two knew they were just preaching to the choir at first, but now they believe their own press. Ed, what do you think?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 27, 2009 2:58 PM
Paul @ 11:
I think the notion Coulter's schtick merely an act is irrelevant. Given her rhetoric is, in Lundgren's words, stupid, crazy, hateful, not sharp, qualifies as right-wing bile, and a whole bunch of people buy it (an observation for which I strongly concur); we should define her only as as stupid, crazy, hateful, not sharp, and a leading producer of right-wing bile. She's on the record, let her live with the results.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 3:10 PM
@Michael Heath (#12):
Amen. You wallow in it, you own it.
On the other hand, given the assumption that she does not believe the rhetoric she spews (which I think almost must be true -- some of her rhetoric should not be believable to anyone with a decent high school education), then it is even worse than that. If you spew this crap and know it is false, then you are even worse. You are a conscious purveyor of lies, lining your own wallet at the expense of the nation, the people and the future. Screw that.
Posted by: Chris A | August 27, 2009 3:21 PM
Chris A - I understand and appreciate your point (while assumming Paul Lundgren was inferring the same); but America celebrates such individuals. Better if we treat her like she's serious. I think the worst thing that could happen to Coulter from her perspective is if we act like we believe she's equal in intelligence and judgment to Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. Therefore that's my position, heh, heh, heh.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 4:19 PM
I guess a large part of the judgment I am willing to apply to these people depends on the degree to which they drink their own kool-aid. It is one thing to be crazy, but it is quite another thing to dispassionately offer the kool-aid to others while understanding that it is poison.
Those who are seriously crazy enough to drink it themselves deserve sympathy (and socialized mental health treatment), but the ones who are leveraging the general craziness of the people for their personal gain I have no sympathy for at all.
Whether or not the media (being the arbiter of celebrity) is interested in celebrating the poisoners just does not mean much to me -- my faith in the media vanished in the eighties when I realized that they have no mandate to be honest, relevant or otherwise useful past selling advertising time.
OTOH, we must of course treat these lunatics as serious threats, simply because they are in fact serious threats. So, at the bottom line I guess we agree. It is a good thing that alcohol exists.
Posted by: Chris A | August 27, 2009 4:42 PM
Coulter: "...but the MSM keeps interviewing the nuts to make all conservatives look crazy and to distract from the serious problems with Obama."
Spot on---the tactic is blatant. And not just the MSM. Attacking is easier than defending.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 27, 2009 5:12 PM
Oh, lord, Van Dyke, you're not a birther, are you?
Posted by: James Hanley | August 27, 2009 5:41 PM
Oh, MISTER Hanley, don't be silly.
Posted by: tvd | August 27, 2009 6:26 PM
Coulter's right, to a nasty poisonous degree. The MSM is charmed by the birther wingnuts. And why not? It's highly profitable to put them on the TV and make fun of them. This satisfies the MSM's corporate-right slant and also pretends to journalistic integrity by "covering" the "issue." It helps them to create the appearance of a journalistic ethos in maintaining a dignified distance from the sources while in e-mails and phone calls they stroke and cajole them; it protects the illusion of balance they offer (as opposed to objectivity, which is what they are supposed to offer); and it allows them to stay on the thread of a story that "has legs" and no heart, a zombie story that never gets old, a story powered by rage and not by rational understanding. The principled and intelligent journalistic perspective on the birther story is no story at all, because there is no evidence that hasn't been completely debunked, and there is no public figure pushing birtherism that isn't deluded, a cynical manipulator, or a fool, or all of these. But 'no story here' means dead air to the modern tv producer, and that's no good.
With a few exceptions, the main news outlets no longer hire reporters (or have so few left the notion of 'coverage' has collapsed); the budget for people to find things out and evaluate them is a tiny fraction of what it once was. In the absence of anyone courageous enough to report, and occasionally reject, a story, there arises a certain malleability of facts. (Of course, conservative demagogues, and a few liberal ones, would have it this way. Those people lack the sense of right and wrong that would make them hesitate to offer immoderate, or even flat false, information to their viewers.)
News media, particularly the cable ones, profit by cutting out the meddling middleman and inviting the sources directly on the air. The sources profit by the attention (they market themselves and foster competition among the outlets) and the news organization profits because viewers no longer get (and, it seems, miss; soon, it seems, remember) that filter, that pesky experienced judgemental reporter) between themselves and the raw information. In the new style, we just put the competing sources on the air side by side, split screen, satellite delay and all, and let them go at it. Since everyone has the floor, nobody has it. One might think that is perfect, unvarnished, let the people decide, but the people are lazy, as they've been trained to be. In practice it sets the sources as equal. Sources are hardly ever equal. TV producers certainly don't work hard enough to find equal sources who will have a fruitful debate or discussion, and in any event they aren't given time to do so (except on certain outlets like NPR or, occasionally, the late night or in-depth news shows). So Orly Taitz shares the screen with, say, the Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii. The interlocutor is not a reporter; they are just a referee in a pro wrestling match (with the same degree of integrity as the referee has), after which the real source--the health director, in this example--feels attacked, violated, out of contexted, victimized, and swears she will never again go on TV, while the fake source, in this case the verminous Orly Taitz, high-fives her acolytes and takes calls from competing networks.
Newspapers still write stuff down, so they need a person to do the writing, but the expensive guy--the experienced reporter--is no longer worth his salt. He goes away, and a cheap recruit, a newbie or a freelance, gets the job. But the newbie doesn't know how to get sources, doesn't know how not to get played, and is usually over his depth. Hence the 'he said/she said' story, the epitome of journalistic caution, and the same effective problem as we see on TV. Hence the NYT sits on the wiretap story because cowardly editors fear government retribution. Hence Judy Miller can run propaganda for the Cheney administration because her sources are so awesomely secret. Hence the Bush Administration style of press work, in which an unnamed administration official leaks important news info to an outlet in the morning, then comments on the report in the afternoon; the reporter gets a hot byline, the public gets the shaft.
In this, Farah is right about his news outlet. Except for the fact that the story is absurd, its reporting and pursuit by his "news organization" is pretty admirable, because it's old-school; they go after it hammer and tongs. Where it differs is that the motivation for reporting isn't honest, is in fact downright psychotic in its determination to attack and bring down the president, and is infused with ugly nutty christianism. But he's true to his mission, anyway, and the reporters report.
Where I return to proper nausea at Ann Colter is the perspective she takes. She's nothing like a reporter or journalist, and not just because she is a reptile with a violent predisposition to hate most Americans for fun and profit. In this shark v. octopus feud she's making a calculated play for attention, just as someone above said. Her dishonesty is so complete that she cares not a whit for whether the birther cause is true or not; her purpose is to stake out and protect unique ground so she is a necessary property on TV. She's a very well marketed property, and her perspective must be kept fresh and daring (that is, nausea-inducing to the thoughtful) for her to continue to enrich herself. She profits by spouting wry hatreds to horny wingnuts, and they must stay hot and spunky. So Coulter gets to look like a journalist in one way--'there's no story here'--while simultaneously mining about for the next outrageous poisonous bile to spout.
I go with Farah, long term. He has the temerity to be publicly crazy and a kind of loyalty to the old-school journalistic form, which has a certain charm.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | August 27, 2009 6:35 PM
Of course he's not. It's just that after assessing the evidence, his worldview tells him that Obama is a sekret mooslim/socialest/leninist/marxist/goldsteinian terrarist. lol.
Gotta love trolls.
Posted by: tincture | August 27, 2009 6:37 PM
LOL.
In a nutshell:
Pot calls kettle black.
Kettle says it is black.
Pot asks 'But are you black enough?'.
Going for the gold in the wingnut Olympics.
Posted by: Art | August 27, 2009 7:30 PM
tom van dyke at 16 supports Coulter's argument:
My goodness. The delegates at the Republican Convention unanimously approved of Sen. McCain's pick of Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP candidate in spite of his almost complete lack of vetting her coupled to her fiercely held ignorance and antipathy towards functional experts. The House Republicans published a competing budget proposal this Spring without any actual numbers. You can't get any crazier than that. Congressmen are introducing birfer bills and warning of government death panels.
The fact the Republican party has fallen over the edge of sanity is one of, and deserves to be one of the biggest news stories of the decade. I would never have imagined my old party's leaders pandering to, and often also being stone-cold nuts (Have you seen Sen. Tom Coburn speak at Judiciary Committee hearings? The man weeps!). I would argue the story of the GOP emigrating to the Loonisphere is vastly under-reported.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 8:27 PM
Coulter knows which line not to cross, it is the line Pat Buchanan frequently brushes against, but never crosses - if he did, he would be denied MSM access.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 27, 2009 8:33 PM
Does Tom DeLay not count anymore? He was promoting birtherism on Hardball the other day.
Posted by: Nemo | August 27, 2009 8:44 PM
In which of Dante's established circles of hell do those suffering from vivid delusions of persecution go?
Whatever the answer, Farah's already living there.
Posted by: CHV | August 27, 2009 9:43 PM
@ 24 - Senators Tom Coburn OK-R and Richard Shelby AL-R (Need I say more with that unholy coupling of state and party?) - birfers!
11 Republican House Congressmen are co-sponsoring a birfer bill! Yahoo! Bill Posey - R-FL 15 District freshman started the initiative, here are the others: Marsha Blackburn, John Campbell, John R. Carter, John Culberson, Dan Burton (who should know better), Louie Gohmert, Bob Goodlatte, Kenny Marchant, Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe. Coburn has expressed his support of this bill if it passes the House (as if that's going to happen).
And I frame this assertion equal to my Ann Coulter remarks @ 11 & 14; it doesn't matter what we think they really believe. These Congress-critters are on the record supporting the birfer cause and actually getting paid (and paying staffers) by taxpayers to develop birfer bills instead of you know, dealing with the issues here on planet Earth rather than out in the Loonisphere (Shit, I'd be happy if they focused their attention on the Ukraine, it's a lot closer to the U.S.A. than where their heads are now, course that'd be all European and shit - you know commie-fascist territory).
And to point out that some Republicans are not crazy - both Republican Representatives John Linder and Ron Paul rejected petitions to promote the birfer cause in Congress in spite of birfers incorrectly originally assuming they would be the most sympathetic (faint praise I guess though I continue to carry a soft spot in my heart for Rep. Paul).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2009 9:49 PM
Michael Heath:
Excellent comment. Coburn also had some fun with a constituent whose husband, apparently one of the "damaged" units that failed in his mission to rid the world of Iraqis, is showing the bad form of hanging around with a traumatic head injury.
This was my comment on the thread where I saw the piece:
"I know it's unevolved to ask for bad things to happen to people. So I won't do that.
I hope that Sen. Coburn gets some insight into the awful plight of people like this woman's husband. It would involve his maybe having a massive stroke and not being able to wipe his own ass. Oh, I almost forgot, it would also involve his not having that terrific healthcare plan that he is currenly enjoying.
I think it would be good for him and help him to develop compassion, if not in this incarnation than in whatever one he next comes back as human."
I think that you are a quick study and you are getting quite good at being sarcastic. Next thing I want you to practice is not shaving and sitting around the house in your underwear, eating pepperoni like a fudgesicle and drinking Milwaukee's Best at room temp. I'm serious, I get most of my best ideas under those exact circumstances. Okay, I'm just kidding, I drink Keystone Light, with ice.
Posted by: democommie | August 27, 2009 11:26 PM
"one of the "damaged" units that failed in his mission to rid the world of Iraqis"
Are you insinuating de facto racism?
Article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (http://www.republicoflakotah.com/pdf/UNRights_Indigenous_People.pdf):
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced
assimilation or
destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct
peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or
resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or
undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination
directed against them.
Now, you realize this ought too apply to Europeans, don't you?
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 27, 2009 11:52 PM
Clue to the birthers - the man you WANTED to win proclaimed Obama the president, and almost certainly thinks you're a bunch of crazy asshats. Suck on that.
I hear that the birthers now want to examine Obama's penis, on the grounds that if he's not cirucmcised he can't possibly be American (or something crazy like that). I wonder if these are the same people who were claiming he's a SECRET MUSLIM. If so, they've got a surprise coming...
Posted by: perturbed | August 28, 2009 2:15 AM
CHV (#25) asked:
The answer is simple: They go straight to the top level of heaven.
God's a cruel bastard. - :) DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | August 28, 2009 3:05 AM
KKKaptainKKKlueless:
Boy howdy; it don't take you long to start into grindin' on your favorite axe, does it? You get into that whole, "downtrodden white masses" in a New Order Second. All of the wordsalad in the world won't make your entree of racist shit anymore palatable. Eat it, yourself; you seem to like the taste of your own poo.
Posted by: democommie | August 28, 2009 7:27 AM
I love Farah's line:
"Does Ann Coulter think Rush Limbaugh is insane? How about her friend Sean Hannity?"
How dare Ann Coulter not believe that Limbaugh is a middle of the road, voice of reason!!!
Posted by: hexkid | August 28, 2009 7:45 AM
demobolshevik,
Most of that word salad came from the UN. Your inability to subject your weltanschauung (how many points do I get for using a word that big?) to critical examination is truly pathetic. You see, I keep cracking your cosmic egg, and you respond with, "La la la, if I don't acknowledge it, it ain't real!" LOL! Faithism.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 9:50 AM
@captainasshat:
I believe democommie's comment was aimed at this:
"Now, you realize this ought too apply to Europeans, don't you?"
In response to "how many points do I get for using a word that big?" - doesn't matter - you are still far in the negative when it comes to intelligence, honesty, and ethics.
By the way, negative "points" for "... ought TOO apply ..."
Posted by: dean | August 28, 2009 10:08 AM
dean,
I find it endlessly entertaining that self-flagellating "white" lefties consider language perfectly sufficient to convey the meanings and values near to their own hearts, yet when trenchant criticism from a White man two standard deviations above IQ mean (for Europeans), who refuses to any longer buy into the bullshit, is proffered, a feeble attempt at deconstruction begins by you. Now why is that?
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 10:21 AM
Oh look, he's back. Joy.
Posted by: Ramel | August 28, 2009 10:23 AM
captaindick:
I haven't heard anything from a white european 2 standard deviations above mean iq - surely you're not referring to yourself? if so, your lying is amusing. The reasons nobody takes you seriously are your rampant racism and unsupportable assertions.
Posted by: dean | August 28, 2009 10:26 AM
No one who dares contradict the world view in which Dean has invested so much emotion can be taken seriously by him. LOL!
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 10:45 AM
captain:
You really are ignorant in addition to being a racist. This is not about worldview - it is about your repeated claims that since you feel europeans to be superior to all others, your existence is somehow threatened by their existence. your comments about evolution (whether you understand it and choose to lie, or don't understand it and choose to comment anyway) in the dembski curriculum thread alone are sufficient evidence that you are dishonest at best and likely unhinged. racists sicken me, and you seem to be one of their poster children.
Posted by: dean | August 28, 2009 10:53 AM
Dean, if you care to look at all you will note the unmistakable motif of preening moral and intellectual superiority here. That really is all you do, it is an exercise in projected self-hatred and narcissism. You, who think it the height of moral evolution to consign your own people to ever increasing depredations and ultimately oblivion, have nothing to teach me of the moral life, and certainly not probity.
Of course you cannot respond to the UN Declaration I posted, because your hypocrisy would be exposed, and whatever pretensions you have to moral superiority would lie in ruin.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 11:10 AM
"consign your own people to ever increasing depredations and ultimately oblivion"
Thanks for confirming your racism.
Your use of the un declaration alone is not the proof needed to show you are an asshole: it, together with the comment you made after it, and previous posts, carrying your belief that there is a genocide being waged against people of "european descent", do that. you may think that is true, but reality, being the bitch it often is, doesn't support your delusions.
try whining somewhere else for your "world view".
Posted by: dean | August 28, 2009 11:47 AM
Jeez Dean, a rejoinder doesn't get much more feeble than that. There is a genocide being perpetrated against our people. The UN Declaration clearly lays out in language so simple even you can understand it just what conditions indigenous peoples are entitled to that defend them against genocide. The only question then, In what way are those of European descent deprived of said conditions and just who is depriving them of that? Answer that question and we have our crime against humanity laid bare and our criminals exposed.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 12:18 PM
"Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Welcome to the Total Security State, the price of the MultiCult - prepare for a backlash and Balkanization. We all know, deep inside, just what all the excitement of "town hall meetings" is about - nascent White racial consciousness galvanized by the engineered dispossession of White people.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 12:46 PM
:(
Posted by: Imrryr | August 28, 2009 1:27 PM
KKKaptitan KKKololostomybag
"...when trenchant criticism from a White man two standard deviations above IQ mean (for Europeans)"
Two? Is that it, just two? Mine is 3 SD's above the mean, according to several test batteries administered by different psychologists. The sad truth is IQ is only one of numerous measurements that are used to assess an individuals intelligence and ability. Having a high IQ score is fine; of course if someone who is a complete fucking asshole, like you needs to use that score to try and prove that the shit that drips from their lips is something like wisdom, well, there's a cause for merriment AND disdain.
You're such a pathetic fucking sack of shit.
Posted by: democommie | August 28, 2009 2:19 PM
Anyone want to to quote me odds that Kaptian Kololostomy is a (supposed) member of MENSA? :D - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 28, 2009 2:29 PM
So, wait. How does this support your point at all, CC?
Article 8 section 1 certainly doesn't apply to much of anything about "white Europeans" - any "cultural destruction" that I can see is voluntary, not forced.
So, let's look at section 2.
Subsection A can't apply, as "white Europeans" are incapable of being "distinct peoples" in, well, anywhere in North America or Europe - you can't be distinct from the dominant culture when you are the dominant culture.
Subsection B could apply, if you could identify any such actions - not that I think you can.
Subsections C and D ... nope, not seeing it. Unless you're trying to claim that giving equal rights to minorities on an individual basis is "forced assimilation"?
E ... would require the existence of such propaganda to be relevant. So, if you could identify some, you might have a point.
But ... all in all, I do believe I have to give you a 0 out of 6 for relevance. Sorry. :(
Posted by: Michael Ralston | August 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Also how do 'White Europeans' classify as 'Indigenous'? Most of those 'White Europeans' migrated into Europe relatively recently. Are Polish Jews who moved in to Britain seventy plus years ago "indigenous'? if not, why? - DJ
________________
PS: I'm assuming Kaptain Kolostomy is not a European Indigenous Neanderthal, possibly a rash assumption on my part.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 28, 2009 2:57 PM
"any "cultural destruction" that I can see is voluntary, not forced."
You must be kidding me, the confluence of the pernicious influence of media and academia on the culture of White people is to relentlessly pathologize said. Of course many of the people ensconced in those structures of cultural influence are not even of European descent but of a Middle Eastern variety.
"Subsection A can't apply, as "white Europeans" are incapable of being "distinct peoples" in, well, anywhere in North America or Europe - you can't be distinct from the dominant culture when you are the dominant culture."
Huh? Subsection A states: "Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples,". Now, it doesn't get more basic than our GENETIC integrity as distinct peoples. You must train yourself to stop thinking of it all in terms of culture, a healthy culture is either adaptive or unadaptive to the degree it propagates genetic continuity. White people are most certainly genetically distinct in a global context, and that is the context in which the UN Declaration is meant to apply - it is the UN after all.
"Subsection B could apply, if you could identify any such actions - not that I think you can."
Does the concept of a finite carry capacity for a given bit of land and massive Third World immigration ring a bell?
"Subsections C and D ... nope, not seeing it. Unless you're trying to claim that giving equal rights to minorities on an individual basis is "forced assimilation"?"
We Whites in the West are most certainly denied the right to limit our living space to only our co-ethnics upon pain of legal punishment. Is that not so?
"E ... would require the existence of such propaganda to be relevant. So, if you could identify some, you might have a point."
Turn on your television, I'm sure you'll notice White men portrayed as awkward geeks and stumbling buffoons whilst Blacks are portrayed sages in lab coats who make good partners for White women. And then of course there is advocacy for affirmative action which is institutionalized discrimination against White people.
What we want is to live sovereign and free in our own lands.
Posted by: Captainchaos | August 28, 2009 3:13 PM
"We Whites in the West are most certainly denied the right to limit our living space to only our co-ethnics upon pain of legal punishment. Is that not so?"
Waaa, I can't be an ass and discriminate blindly.
"I'm sure you'll notice White men portrayed as awkward geeks and stumbling buffoons whilst Blacks are portrayed sages in lab coats who make good partners for White women. "
I don't watch much television, but I do know that 99% of the programming consists of ENTERTAINMENT - fiction, as it were. You know, make believe? You should know - it seems to be your entire world.
"and then of course there is advocacy for affirmative action which is institutionalized discrimination against White people"
"Waaaa, people who aren't just like me are allowed to work in the open."
Captainwasteofouroxygen can't even make up things to support his claims.
Posted by: dean | August 28, 2009 3:24 PM
I am entirely unaware of any kind of state action aimed at forcing intermarriage. Please do inform me if you have examples otherwise.
Um. Actually, when I turn on my TV I get static. The only TV I've seen in years is a public one that is usually tuned to CNN ... and mostly shows, you know, white anchors. So, um. not seeing it.And what you miss is that most of the actions you have trouble with are being taken by whites, which renders your entire argument invalid.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | August 28, 2009 3:26 PM
Captainchaos is done here. You're certainly free to spout your racist bullshit all you want, but I don't have to give you the forum to do it. Fuck off. But do it somewhere else.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 28, 2009 3:29 PM
Did Ed just ban the troll?
Cue sockpuppet in 5....4....3....2....
Posted by: Ramel | August 28, 2009 3:47 PM
Wow, the racists are getting more shameless every day! I guess that's what eight years of Bush Jr. have done for Western white culture in America.
I'm sure you'll notice White men portrayed as awkward geeks and stumbling buffoons...
Yeah, with the possible exception of freakish outliers like Matt Damon, Steven Segal, Chuck Norris, Leonardo di Caprio (are Italians "white?" I keep forgetting...), Bill Murray, Edward Norton, John Malkovich, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Val Kilmer, John Cusak, Sean Connery (yes, I'm pretty sure Scots ARE "white"), Bruce Willis, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy (oh wait, he looks kinda Asian), DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Nicolas Cage, Shia LeBoeuf (hmmm, sounds kinda FRENCH, do they still get to call themselves "white?"), Chris Cooper, whatshsname-Laurie from "House," and more other non-dorky white actors than I have time to try to remember...
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 28, 2009 5:12 PM
That's what we need, a normalized index of meanness! I'd say our Captain scores more than two SDs above the average, however.
Posted by: Mal Adapted | August 28, 2009 5:42 PM
... and yet they still manage to attract the hot ladies! (I'm thinking King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, George on Seinfeld, Drew Carey...)
Posted by: ildi | August 28, 2009 5:42 PM
Oh, and it's men in general who tend to get portrayed as dorks, not just white men. There's black geeks, Hispanic geeks, Jewish geeks, an Indian geek...no Arab geeks though...
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 28, 2009 5:45 PM
OMG the portrayal of geekiness is soooo SEXIST! :D
Actually geekiness as shown of TV seems fairly evenly divided between the sexes.
CSI, criminal profiling, straight police procedurals (even military cop shows) have both male and female geeks - go figure!
Maybe trolls play with dolls instead of going outside or even watching TV. :)
Posted by: DingoJack | August 29, 2009 3:38 AM
Michael Heath wrote: "I imagine Forbes magazine does some investigative reporting as well? I don't know for sure since I've never been a subscriber but I've always assume they do."
Certainly they do. I remember a piece on the Michigan educational establishment (December 1994 I think it was.) I'm sure there are more recent examples as well.
Posted by: Chris Winter | August 30, 2009 12:43 AM
Ed,
I've been a fan of Hentoff for years, based solely on his Village Voice writings...I'm just wondering where you find him to be crazy?
Posted by: How | September 1, 2009 12:42 PM