Lion of the Blogosphere

Roseanne Barr vs. Roman Polanski

Roman Polanski, a fugitive from justice and a rapist, has always been welcomed by Hollywood and even recognized at the Oscars.

Roseanne Barr makes one dumb tweet, which she retracted, no one was raped or anything like that, but her body of work is now banned from all streaming services and she will never work in show biz again.

If Roseanne Barr were a gentile, the anti-Semites would be saying that it was a Jewish thing, but Roseanne Barr is ALSO Jewish, so it has nothing to do with Roman Polanski being Jewish and Roseanne not being Jewish.

* * *

The answer is that racism is considered the most evil thing in the world. Not only more evil than rape, but more evil than murder. Consider that Roseanne Barr is now hated a lot more than O.J. Simpson who murdered two people.

It’s considered a legal loophole that racists can’t be put in jail, but society will make sure to punish racists by destroying their careers and making sure they can never work again. Without any trial and without any notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Racists are guilty until proven innocent.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

May 31, 2018 at 10:20 AM

Posted in Television

121 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s considered a legal loophole that racists can’t be put in jail

    This is a great and original line. Nice.

    Andrew E.

    May 31, 2018 at 10:40 AM

  2. Every religion needs its heretics. Racism is the worst form of heresy to the SJW true believer.

    Oswald Spengler

    May 31, 2018 at 10:54 AM

    • Racism is not the only herersy. Anti-LGBTQQism is right up there.

      Today’s newest hate object is a hapless woman soccer player, who didn’t want to play on a US national team against some country because she objected to wearing a pro-LGBTQQ shirt.

      Google Jaelene Hinkle. She’s toast.

      gothamette

      June 1, 2018 at 7:51 AM

  3. Actually, if I’m not mistaken, Polanski recently had his membership in the motion picture academy revoked. Because male sexual misconduct towards women is quickly becoming a cardinal sin like Racism.

    Anyway, I think it’s a pretty common state of affairs for political crimes to be treated more seriously than garden variety crime. Political crime is perceived as defiance towards the ruling class.

    fortaleza84

    May 31, 2018 at 10:57 AM

    • In the gulag system, political prisoners were often preyed upon by regular criminals. This was encouraged by the Soviet regime, as the politicals were considered the lowest of the low.

      Oswald Spengler

      May 31, 2018 at 11:20 AM

      • The czar though was remarkably tolerant of political criminals. If an anti-Soviet dissident had behaved as Lenin did towards the czar, the Soviets would have killed him 5 times over. Instead, his only punishment was a rather leisurely 3-year exile to Siberia.

        Of course, after what happened to the czar and everyone he loved, would-be autocrats aren’t quick to imitate his example.

        Wency

        May 31, 2018 at 12:22 PM

      • In Siberia, Lenin had a 12-year-old maid, whom he locked in a closet overnight and paid 4 rubles (~$30 in modern US money) per month.

        snorlaxwp

        May 31, 2018 at 6:08 PM

    • Actually, if I’m not mistaken, Polanski recently had his membership in the motion picture academy revoked.

      Only took them 41 years to get around to it. Roseanne was fired the same day.

      Greg Pandatshang

      May 31, 2018 at 7:21 PM

  4. I agree. In France, the only person who dares to speak against Islam are Jewish people. They are criticized but their Jewishness – being able to relate personnaly to Shoah – is a shield. But against direct racism, their is no shield . Race is today like God in the XIII century in Europe. You should believe race doesn’t exist in the world but exists as a social construct to persecute people. So one should at the same time never think about race while having a debt with some race. Religion don’t care about contradiction or implausibility too much. Catholics believe they eat Gods flesh and drink his blood every Sunday ….

    Bruno

    May 31, 2018 at 11:18 AM

  5. I’ve been reading Easy Riders and Raging bulls, written in the 90s about the movie industry and the “new” Hollywood ca 1970. The author seemed to think it was pretty amusing about Polanski taking Polaroids of topless teens diving into the host’s pool. He was so saaad about Sharon, you know.

    Actually the book is full of revolting material on the Real Hollywood with little PC consciousness, except for race of course. They were all radical-chic by then. So glad I got away from that place because the mores permeated Socal in general.

    Mrs Stitch

    May 31, 2018 at 11:34 AM

    • Interesting book (interesting in a seedy, disgusting way, I mean). Might need to check it out.

      GondwanaMan

      May 31, 2018 at 12:30 PM

    • In 1987 I attended a party in La Crescenta, where I met a woman who was a “personal manager” and whose husband was the president of one of the biggest names in town’s production company. Since then, they’ve become fairly successful producers of straight-to- video/Europe films. Anyway, she said to me, “you’re a natural.” I had no idea what she was talking about.

      Marty

      May 31, 2018 at 12:38 PM

      • “I had no idea what she was talking about.”

        She wanted to have sex with you.

        Curle

        May 31, 2018 at 10:27 PM

    • Hollywood is a degenerate, left-wing commercial interest that needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible. A new Hates Code needs to be imposed and the various perversions need to be ruthlessly hunted down.

      The reason why Roman Polanski was tolerated is because the end goal of all leftism is normalized pedophilia. Basically, the goal of progressive is to have sex with children.

      map

      May 31, 2018 at 3:22 PM

      • “Basically, the goal of progressive is to have sex with children.”

        Which is why the left supported Roy Moore. Oops… no, that’s not what happened.

      • No one who claims the left is pro-pedophilia has ever been able to produce any evidence to support that claim.

        Hermes

        May 31, 2018 at 5:07 PM

      • It’s their fondest desire I’m sure.

        Just think, with open borders they don’t have to go to Mexico or Thailand or Algiers for their boys. The boys come here!

        Mrs Stitch

        May 31, 2018 at 6:15 PM

      • “No one who claims the left is pro-pedophilia has ever been able to produce any evidence to support that claim.”

        What person with access to research dollars is going to make a survey of male homosexual sex partner age gaps versus heterosexual sex partner age gaps? They call their many very young sex partners twinks for a reason.

        Curle

        May 31, 2018 at 10:33 PM

  6. Actually, I would argue racism isn’t considered the most evil thing in the world, as long as it’s coming from certain minority groups (particularly blacks) or isn’t against certain minority groups (particularly blacks. Then Muslims, maybe Hispanics and Jews depending on the situation).

    Of course though there’s people who believe it’s impossible for blacks to be racist. So anything blacks say Is Not Racist.

    GondwanaMan

    May 31, 2018 at 12:27 PM

    • Racism against blacks is the most evil thing in the world. Racism against other races is evil or not depending on who is being racist against whom. So black can be racist against whites and it’s not a problem.

      • Yeah, there’s a hierarchy. And blacks can still be racist against blacker blacks, and it’s a problem — see Darfur/South Sudan, where the “Arab” side was composed of people mostly blacker than Barack Obama, though they were framed as being basically Nordic invaders.

        Here’s one question: interracial marriage is of course great, but when black women complain about white women stealing their men, do they have a legitimate grievance or not? I think the consensus, at least according to white feminists, is no, they don’t. But black feminists would say they do. And black feminists do like to tell white feminists to shut up, which leaves white feminists flabbergasted.

        Muslims also get shown a lot of preference. Burma is getting in trouble for driving out its Muslim refugees. And even white Muslims get shown some favoritism, as seen in Serbia/Kosovo. Basically, the tougher someone is to tolerate, the higher they belong on the racial hierarchy.

        I would at some point be curious to see a conflict between white Muslims and non-Muslim Chinese or Japanese, to see who gets preference there. Too bad they’re so far apart. Does NE Asian work ethic and IQ make them, in a sense, whiter than, say, Chechens? Or does non-white always trump white?

        Wency

        May 31, 2018 at 1:24 PM

      • The liberal elite SJWs have a talent for just ignoring contradictions like that.

      • And the fact that Jews don’t get a pass doesn’t prove they’re not on the hierarchy; they’re just very low on the hierarchy. So antisemitism is still considered bad, but if Jews are racist against some group much higher on the hierarchy, like blacks (the highest of all) or Hispanics, they’re so low on the hierarchy that it’s considered indistinguishable from white Genitles being racist.

        Hermes

        May 31, 2018 at 5:15 PM

      • The hierarchy goes

        1 (tie). Black
        1 (tie). Muslim
        3. Hispanic illegal immigrant
        4. Rape victim (for loose definitions of rape)
        5. Tranny (overrides sex and sexual orientation)
        6. Woman
        7. Hispanic non-illegal
        8. Gay
        9. Jew (unprincipled exception, and soon to be earning 0 or negative Pokémon points)

        ∞. White Christian cisgender heterosexual male

        So as a white male your best option for self-improvement is to become a Muslim tranny, although you will never be that apothesis of all that is good and holy, a black Muslim tranny.

        snorlaxwp

        May 31, 2018 at 6:30 PM

      • Forgot Asians, they’d be in 8th, between gays and Jews.

        snorlaxwp

        May 31, 2018 at 6:32 PM

      • “And the fact that Jews don’t get a pass doesn’t prove they’re not on the hierarchy; they’re just very low on the hierarchy. So antisemitism is still considered bad, but if Jews are racist against some group much higher on the hierarchy, like blacks (the highest of all) or Hispanics, they’re so low on the hierarchy that it’s considered indistinguishable from white Genitles being racist.”

        You said it yourself: Jews being racist is indistinguishable from white gentiles being racist. For this very reason, an instance of a Jew being racist is a genuine boon to the powers that be, since it’s just another example of “white racists” being white and racist that the media can use to perpetuate the cultural zeitgeist. In the case of Roseanne Barr, nobody is talking about Jewish racism and the problem of racist Jews, are they?
        Sure, it sucks for the specific Jew in question that gets thrown under the bus for racism, but as far as the tribe is concerned, it is the white gentile tribe that suffers the damage, not the Jewish tribe, since the Jewishness of the perp is never mentioned.

        WangHu?

        June 1, 2018 at 12:54 AM

      • “the Jewishness of the perp is never mentioned.”

        There were many mentions of Rosanne Barr’s Jewishness, that’s how I knew about it in the first place.

    • If someone is colorblind in the manner of a 1960s liberal, that now falls under the rubric of “racist.” It’s not enough to treat blacks the same as whites under the current SJW orthodoxy. Blacks are to be venerated as sacred objects, beyond all reproach. Simultaneously, blacks are to be pitied as perpetual victims, completely without agency, and in constant need of aid from goodwhites against the racist machinations of badwhites.

      Oswald Spengler

      May 31, 2018 at 1:27 PM

    • When Lion says that “racism” is considered evil, he is obviously using the word to refer to what SJWs see as “racism.” When an SJW accuses someone of being “racist,” they are not referring to anti-white racism.

      fortaleza84

      May 31, 2018 at 1:44 PM

    • “…I would argue racism isn’t considered the most evil thing in the world, as long as it’s coming from certain minority groups (particularly blacks) or isn’t against certain minority groups (particularly blacks.”

      When talking about racism, it’s almost always meant as whites against…everyone else, including things that don’t have anything to do with race at all, like Islam. If Valerie Jarrett had tweeted that Roseanne looked like a cross between an albino gorilla and [insert other group here], it would have gotten a big laugh and a fun time would be had by all.

      Mike Street Station

      June 1, 2018 at 6:12 AM

      • The word ‘racism’ is an omnibus word, it means both anything and nothing, which is why it succeeds at collapsing reasonably distinguishable situations and events into one greater smog of subjective observation. It is anti-science in that it seeks to render descriptions of events more subjective and less objective. It is by design anti-rationalist. One philosopher called it a Mott and Bailey term.

        Curle

        June 1, 2018 at 9:04 AM

      • Also, you can be “racist” against Muslims which is a religion and not a race, but if you call out SJWs on that stupidity, then you’re a racist for noticing.

  7. It’s a joke that what Reseanne said is even considered racism. She compared a funny looking woman to a movie character that looks like her. Seriously, look at Helena Bonham Carter’s character next to a picture of VJ. It’s unsettling. She did not compare her to an ape.

    everybodyhatesscott

    May 31, 2018 at 12:28 PM

  8. John McWhorter has observed that race is becoming a religion to some on the left.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion

    He can say this because he’s black (and frankly, a pretty objective thinker). White people can’t say this.

    Half Canadian

    May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM

    • P.D. James (British mystery writer) has the first description of anti-racism as a pseudo religion back in the 1980s. At the time it didn’t seem too awful but as the orthodoxy has become more defined it’s becoming progressively less useful for any kind of good outcome for anyone in the real world.

      cliff arroyo

      May 31, 2018 at 1:07 PM

    • White people HAVE to start saying this.

      Curle

      June 1, 2018 at 8:51 AM

  9. >Racists are guilty until proven innocent.

    It’s an accusation without a defense, that’s the whole point of it!
    Because how do you prove your heart is not dark, like Trumps?

    The mark of the beast, your White skin, the proof is in the mirror.

    guest

    May 31, 2018 at 12:33 PM

  10. Ironic that comparison with the planet of the apes is seen as so denigrating, when part of the point of the movie was that the apes subjectively saw humans as crude and brutish.

    Joe

    May 31, 2018 at 12:40 PM

    • Also ironic in that Valerie Jarrett looks white, and to say that is also an insult.

      Half Canadian

      May 31, 2018 at 2:39 PM

  11. There’s also the element that they’re dealing with their lingering trauma over Hillary’s loss. Destroying Roseanne is a way of symbolically defeating Trump (people affected by trauma often seek out ways to relive it with the ‘right’ ending).

    cliff arroyo

    May 31, 2018 at 12:45 PM

  12. All good points, Lion.

    Hollywood is a den of perversion and perversity. Roseanne kind of knew that, didn’t she?

    Why did she consent to Wanda Sykes running the show?

    gothamette

    May 31, 2018 at 12:46 PM

    • PS leftist perversion and perversity. Should have added that.

      gothamette

      May 31, 2018 at 12:46 PM

      • Hmmm….the more of I think of the comparison the less I like it. Roman Polanski is a movie director. His job as a director doesn’t put him at the nexus of ratings and ad revenue…

        But what about Samantha Bee? Will she keep her job after calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless cunt”? If she does, I’ll cry foul.

        gothamette

        May 31, 2018 at 5:17 PM

      • “But what about Samantha Bee? Will she keep her job after calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless cunt”? If she does, I’ll cry foul.”

        She was allowed to apologize. She didn’t say anything racist of course, she just insulted a Trump, and that seems pretty fair game.

        If she had said something any other week than Roseanne week, the only reporting on Bee’s comment would be on conservative media.

        Mike Street Station

        June 1, 2018 at 6:15 AM

      • Yep. Roseanne is tweeting up a storm now – going full apology, but in the old Roseanne way – on the attack.

        It’s never over till it’s over.

        Maybe she is working on a re-reboot? I hope she is. If so, no Wanda Sykes, no Sara Gilbert. The lefty lesbian control of the show was (to me) palpable.

        Perhaps we can have a Roseanne who has lost everything. Dan is dead, the kids are scattered, she’s living on a combo of minimum wage and social security. The house is crumbling.

        Whaddya think?

        She’s not going down w/out a fight. I like this Roseanne.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:41 AM

      • “Maybe she is working on a re-reboot? I hope she is. If so, no Wanda Sykes, no Sara Gilbert. The lefty lesbian control of the show was (to me) palpable.”

        Heh, bad news for you then!

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/roseanne-reboot-centered-around-sara-gilbert-being-considered-report/ar-AAy7Fa2?ocid=spartandhp

        Mike Street Station

        June 1, 2018 at 6:21 PM

      • Yes, I read about it. I also read about a “Dan’s Place.”

        It would be smart of ABC to do a Roseanne-less Roseanne. Stick the knife in and twist it. Until the show tanks, which I pray it will.

        There are all sorts of articles comparing Roseanne with Cosby. Unf-ingbelievable! One tweet compared with a history of sexual coercion.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM

      • This whole thing is so weird. I could never understand why Roseanne would consent to be on a show in which she’s the chief draw, but not in control. Gilbert & Sykes were in control. Not getting it.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:34 PM

      • “There are all sorts of articles comparing Roseanne with Cosby. Unf-ingbelievable! One tweet compared with a history of sexual coercion.”

        In the current year, one tweet is equally as bad as decades of rape.

        Mike Street Station

        June 1, 2018 at 9:58 PM

      • A racist tweet, you mean.

        There are more stories about a Roseanne reboot w/o Roseanne.

        gothamette

        June 2, 2018 at 3:58 PM

  13. There’s more to it than this. Mel Gibson has made a comeback but he was taped accusing his baby mama of consorting with n-words.

    gothamette

    May 31, 2018 at 12:47 PM

  14. Lion, you are supposed to be a high IQ Jewish guy. The difference is obvious:

    1. OJ plead not guilty.
    2. Polansky plead guilty in exchange for a slap on the wrist. He violated the law, but the girl was a slut that had carnal knowledge before and would continue on the same path with or without Polansky.
    3. Rosanne, instead of insisting that she’d meant nothing racist, rushed to apologize. She is a very stupid person. She should have made the media prove that her humorous comment was racist. Let them explain why comparing JV to a character from Planet Apes is racist. There is no general resemblance between negroes and apes and she doesn’t know what everyone is so mad about, that should have been her line. She should have acted totally shocked at the suggestion. She needed to play dumb and innocent till the end and that would have been a real riot plus she would have kept her job.

    Do people perceive Rosanne as Jewish?

    Yakov

    May 31, 2018 at 1:04 PM

    • Only on this site and only since Lion publicized it.

      Curle

      May 31, 2018 at 4:09 PM

      • Anti-Semites perceive everyone in show business as being Jewish, and Roseanne is in show business, so I don’t see how I’m the first person in the world to perceive her as Jewish. And her prole demeanor reminds me a lot more of the Jews I grew up with in Staten Island than someone like George Soros who seems more like an alien from outer space than a Jew.

      • As a possible point of reference, one of the office SJWs today, a lady with a surname ending in a vowel, in a meeting informed us that Barr was not only a racist but an anti-Semite. I have no idea what she’s referring to with the second half of that statement and I didn’t want to risk anything by pointing out the info received from Lion. But, the only Barr I knew personally was a wealthy and rangy rancher from sagebrush country who gave off a Clint Eastwood vibe. Whatever that’s worth.

        Curle

        May 31, 2018 at 10:48 PM

    • Yakov,

      I doubt that most Americans perceive Roseanne as Jewish. She’s very different from Seinfeld in that regard.

      Her character on the original show had a Jewish father and a Christian mother. He was abusive and had a mistress, not a nice Jewish father. Roseanne’s mom kicked him out.

      “She should have made the media prove that her humorous comment was racist. ”

      Well yeah, but maybe she had a guilty conscience and did mean it in a racist way. Maybe? But your advice, although too late to do any good, is good.

      gothamette

      May 31, 2018 at 5:02 PM

      • It doesn’t latter what she’d meant, if she wanted to survive, that’s what she needed to do.

        Yakov

        May 31, 2018 at 5:57 PM

      • It doesn’t latter what she’d meant, if she wanted to survive, that’s what she needed to do.

        Yakov

        May 31, 2018 at 5:57 PM

      • I agree w/you Yakov, but my point is that if she had a guilty conscience that made her apologize so quickly. Also that she thought it might get her her TV show back, which it won’t. Her twitter page still has the show as its banner. She is now offering to apologize PERSONALLY to everyone she offended.

        Meanwhile here’s another leftist for you Lion – ESPN’s Keith Olberman, who said that a conservative pundette’s mother should have aborted her. Olberman is, IMO, clinically insane.

        gothamette

        May 31, 2018 at 8:01 PM

    • I once wrote I hated monkeys and chimps and it was taken as racist. It seems like on some level everyone including blacks think there is indeed a resemblance. Therefore you mustn’t allude to it.

      Mrs Stitch

      May 31, 2018 at 8:39 PM

      • Which is weird because monkeys & chimps have thin lips and white skin. Truth!

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 5:51 PM

    • “Let them explain why comparing JV to a character from Planet Apes is racist.”

      An excellent idea that occurred to me as well. It may not have stopped her firing, but it could have been a valuable object lesson.

      Mike Street Station

      June 1, 2018 at 6:19 AM

      • Where would Trump be today had he apologized for his comment on Megan Kelly? And Trump was right: only a pervert could think of anything inappropriate.

        Yakov

        June 1, 2018 at 4:19 PM

    • “the girl was a slut that had carnal knowledge before and would continue on the same path with or without Polansky.”

      She was 13. Her mother pushed her into harlotry. Shame on you, Yakov.

      gothamette

      June 1, 2018 at 11:58 AM

      • Cat, why wasn’t the mother prosecuted? Instead they’d settled with Polansky? It was the judge that had accepted the plea bargain, not me. I’m just pointing out the objective differences between the cases. Shame on you, Cat.

        Yakov

        June 1, 2018 at 4:16 PM

      • That’s not the law. We prosecute the adult who did the crime. Somehow Polanski is off the hook but the 13 year old is guilty? Shame on YOU.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 5:49 PM

      • Reading comprehension 101, Cat. Who said anything about the 13 year old? I said the mother. We don’t know if the kid was actually trying to seduce him or not. Again, I’m just pointing out the difference, not exculpating anyone.

        Yakov

        June 1, 2018 at 7:56 PM

      • “Who said anything about the 13 year old?”

        You did.

        ““the girl was a slut that had carnal knowledge before and would continue on the same path with or without Polansky.”

        And why are you writing on Shabbat?

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:31 PM

  15. Fox News should pick up the show. 95%+ of their viewer base would be offended, and most would probably want to watch the show. Even if they didn’t before, Red Tribalism now compels them. Seems like a pretty good way for Fox News to diversity out of dying cable news into much more valuable scripted content.

    Doug

    May 31, 2018 at 1:06 PM

    • Sara Gilbert and Michael Fishman wouldn’t go to Fox. I think Roseanne herself should try for something like that – without them.

      I had a problem with those kids anyway. They were worse than the 30 year old Syracuse guy who wouldn’t move out. They really were massively de-skilled.

      gothamette

      May 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM

    • ” … and most would probably want to watch the show. …”

      Doesn’t matter much how many people want to watch the show if no one wants to advertise on it.

      James B. Shearer

      June 1, 2018 at 5:52 PM

  16. On Jarrett, a commenter at Unz reminds us:

    “Her parents were relatively light-complectioned black Americans rather than Persians, though, and her father was a medical doctor. While the family wasn’t Muslim, Valerie Jarrett’s environment was hostile to traditional American society from the beginning and defaulted to sympathy for anti-American causes and regimes on every occasion.
    Roseanne may have been addled, but she wasn’t all wrong.”

    Marty

    May 31, 2018 at 1:20 PM

    • Valerie Jarrett could not survive the background check of her own secret service detail.

      map

      May 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM

  17. ResetEra and DailyKos chimping out over the tariffs.

    I’m so conflicted, on one hand tariffs are stupid and I don’t want to help out blue collar scum (the white working class really is trash like ResetEra says. They would have all gone for Bernie over Trump if he had been available. Fuck the WWC. They are even worse than the Stupid Christians.) But on the other hand the tariffs are also causing the Left to suffer and that is what is most important.

    Otis the Sweaty

    May 31, 2018 at 1:31 PM

    • The working class would never have gone for Bernie, he’s not masculine.

      JW

      May 31, 2018 at 8:08 PM

  18. Who was it that noted recently that we are at the terminus of an interregnum between hegemonic religions, the end of Christian hegemony and the rise of Culturalist hegemony?

    Curle

    May 31, 2018 at 1:40 PM

    • I haven’t a goddamn clue who said that.

      gothamette

      May 31, 2018 at 5:05 PM

  19. Roseanne is now the 2nd Jew in last 1 month to be the target of the Left’s 2 minute hate session. The first being Aaron Schlossberg.

    So much of postwar culture and comedy is inspired by smart, perceptive Jews calling it like they see it with the expectation of being able to argue about disagreements.

    The new culture depends on not perceiving politically incorrect things, abiding by taboos and banning people with people instead of arguing with them. No surprise that so many victims of culture police are Jewish people.

    Jimi

    May 31, 2018 at 2:00 PM

    • You gotta stick unapologetically to your script without insulting anyone obviously, mates. Today I was called down down again by those offices with diverse workforce. So I just had to tell them that races are physically different and that equality of the races is a social construct. And that there is nothing more real than race when it comes to comfort. What are they gonna say? It ain’t so? They aren’t gonna call me again? Ask me if I care.

      Yakov

      May 31, 2018 at 2:36 PM

      • ” So I just had to tell them that races are physically different and that equality of the races is a social construct.”

        When I walk down the street I think that 10% of the young black men I see might have been pro athletes. Of the whites and Asians, vanishingly few. They probably are pro athletes.

        gothamette

        May 31, 2018 at 5:06 PM

      • Kudos to the 10% for not being slobs. Anyone can look like an athlete with a proper diet and couple hours exercise per week. Which makes it all the more inexcusable when someone doesn’t.

        destructure

        May 31, 2018 at 10:59 PM

      • “Kudos to the 10% for not being slobs. Anyone can look like an athlete with a proper diet and couple hours exercise per week. Which makes it all the more inexcusable when someone doesn’t.”

        You managed to completely misunderstand what I meant, which I thought was clear.

        No, not anyone can look like an athlete with a proper diet and some exercise. I see lots of fit white people in NYC and most Asians have a normal BMI. They don’t look as if they could be professional athletes. They look like normal people who try to stay in shape.

        The only athletic whites I see are professional dancers, who are works of art in human form.

        I was actually low-balling the percentage, but I wanted to be reasonable. Maybe 20% of the younger black men, and 10% of the women, could be pro athletes. They are lean, muscular, beautifully proportioned, and radiate a physical energy that is quite lacking in the overwhelming majority of whites and Asians.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM

      • No, not anyone can look like an athlete with a proper diet and some exercise.

        Sure they can. Proper diet and 20 minutes on the treadmill is great for BMI and fitness. But it won’t build muscle. Resistance training is how you build muscle. Some people have a natural tendency to be leaner or fatter or build muscle more easily. But nearly everyone who looks like an athlete works out. And almost everyone has the capability to become strong and muscular. I honestly can’t imagine a normal, healthy person putting in the effort and not making gains. You’d be surprised how buff some scrawny guy or fat slob can get in a year. Check out some youtube videos titled “1 year transformation”.

        destructure

        June 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM

    • The new rule of the game is to establish blasphemy laws, just like the Christians used to have.

      It just goes to show you that the whole Enlightenment project was a mistake. It’s only purpose was to attack Christianity and its moral rules.

      That is why anyone arguing for “free speech” and “constitutionalism” is a cuck and a sucker.

      map

      May 31, 2018 at 3:51 PM

      • Without free speech, I wouldn’t have a blog. Free speech is of utmost importance to the Right.

      • “Free speech is of utmost importance to the Right.”

        It was of utmost importance to the Albigensians too.

        Curle

        May 31, 2018 at 4:11 PM

      • “It was of utmost importance to the Albigensians too.”

        Comment of the week. Lion, reward this man.

        Greg Pandatshang

        June 1, 2018 at 12:46 AM

      • “Enlightenment”

        Lion, another pathetic alt right trope. They actually waste time bemoaning the Enlightenment. Yes. The Enlightenment. As soon as I see comments like that, my stomach turns.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM

  20. The dumb thing is when people don’t fight back. I was once accused and it came hard and fast. People in the organization who should have been supportive were distancing themselves. I threatened legal action for slander and libel and rejected the accusations completely.

    I was asked to apologize. I instead angrily demanded an apology for false accusations and threated legal action.

    This all happened over a matter of a day or so, and within a couple of more days it blew over. Someone had overhead something I said and rather than ask me about it, went to the all the board of my organization days later, guns a-blazing.

    Luckily I had read SJWs Always Lie.

    Apology would have been the worst response. The accuser was an professional activist. I was on my own and then *after* I fought back the people in the organization had my side but not during.

    Roseanne’s apology was an admission of guilt and confession, and this is Soviet-style justice. No room after that to say it was a miscommunication or typo or hack job or stolen phone or whatever.

    Dan

    May 31, 2018 at 3:24 PM

  21. Lion, I came up with the idea that the word “racist” is just a pejorative way of saying “loyalty”. If I am loyal (good word) to my co-ethnics, I am considered a racist (bad word). Leftists have created a moral framework where being loyal is bad! They have used the educational system (e.g. deification of Martin Luther King, slavery being the most significant historical event in world history, etc) and the media (movies, tv shows, etc.) to warp the morality of regular people so that loyalty = racism. If you do not consciously reject the fundamental morality of the left, you agree that loyalty is bad and disloyalty to your coethnics is good. The proper response to “You are racist!” is “I’m loyal to my people, and you are deranged.”

    jjbees

    May 31, 2018 at 4:07 PM

    • But that would be “tribalism,” doncha know.

      Mrs Stitch

      May 31, 2018 at 9:09 PM

  22. I think I first heard that Roseanne Barr is Jewish on this blog. After reading this post, I got curious about her, so I went to her Wikipedia page, which led me to Tom Arnold’s Wikipedia page, which states that he converted to Judaism to marry her and still practices Judaism.

    This is something I have seen in several instances among people I know personally, which I think illustrates that Jews are still seen as “other” (in a good way) in modern liberal society, meaning they have some kind of ethnic “cred” that white Gentiles don’t have (just not nearly as much as blacks or Hispanics or other favored groups.) Any time someone converts in a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, it’s always the non-Jew who converts to Judaism, never the Jew who converts to Christianity or anything else. In the same way, in an inter-ethnic marriage (as a doctor I see this a lot in marriages between whites and Indians) the kids always get nonwhite/non-Western (e.g., Indian) names, not Anglo names.

    Hermes

    May 31, 2018 at 5:41 PM

    • “Any time someone converts in a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, it’s always the non-Jew who converts to Judaism, never the Jew who converts to Christianity or anything else.”

      I know plenty of prole mixed marriages on Staten Island where the Jewish spouse stops practicing Judaism and the kids are raised Catholic.

      So this is a totally false fake statement from the alt right.

      • It’s not a false statement from the alt-right, it’s something I’ve observed in my own personal circles. I freely admit things could be different in other circles.

        Hermes

        May 31, 2018 at 6:23 PM

      • It’s not a false statement from the alt-right,

        The altright is also a collection of hacks who ignore and lie about what it is not consistent with their precious dogma. They are more antisocial, smaller in number, poorer, have different policy preferences, and are completely powerless compared to other mainstream hacks, but that makes them no more reliable than the mainstream.

        it’s something I’ve observed in my own personal circles.

        Something you observed about “Jews” from behavior seen with whites intermarried to Indians?

        never the Jew who converts to Christianity

        Plenty of intermarried Jewish households observe both Christmas and Hannukah.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        May 31, 2018 at 8:02 PM

      • What you “observed” about Indian intermarriages with whites is also what’s known to Scott Adams as a “hallucination” you’re imposing on Jews because you wrongly assume Jews are ethnocentric.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        May 31, 2018 at 8:04 PM

      • Something you observed about “Jews” from behavior seen with whites intermarried to Indians?

        No, something I observed about Jews from behavior seen with Gentiles intermarried to Jews. I’ve also seen numerous cases of whites intermarried to Indians. You’re not reading clearly because you’re hypersensitive about perceived criticism of Jews. Stop being so sensitive. I’m not criticizing Jews.

        Hermes

        May 31, 2018 at 10:27 PM

      • No, something I observed about Jews from behavior seen with Gentiles intermarried to Jews.

        It’s been proven through numerous surveys that children in intermarried Jewish-Christian families identify less with Judaism because they are often raised with semi or exclusively Christian environments. Lack of Jewish identity is often a topic brought up in Jewish newspapers – perhaps you should read them instead of getting your information from alt-hacks such as Sailer.

        And it is certainly not true that Jews do not yield to Christian religion in an intermarriage. Plenty of half-Jews go to Catholic school and are raised Catholic.

        I’ve also seen numerous cases of whites intermarried to Indians.

        Wrong comparison population to use with intermarried Jews.

        Indians have a small intermarriage rate with whites, primarily for religious reasons based on Hinduism. By contrast the intermarriage rate for secular Jews is over 78%.

        You’re not reading clearly because you’re hypersensitive about perceived criticism of Jews.

        The one who is not reading clearly is you who compared the minuscule Indian-white intermarriage rate with the sky high Jewish intermarriage rate.

        I’m not criticizing Jews.

        Actually, I believe you weren’t. But you’re still using grossly faulty arguments you picked up from the altright, regardless of your intentions.

        Their obsession (not yours) with Jews leads to driving nationalism off track.

        The altright is an obstacle to effective nationalism, and I have every right to call out their stupidity even if the person referencing those types of arguments weren’t making them with hostile intentions.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        May 31, 2018 at 11:58 PM

      • Also, the cultural-religious differences between the Jewish and Christian religions are smaller than the gulf between Hinduism and Christianity.

        A white person who marries a Hindu is probably going out of their way to marry an exotic.

        A white gentile who marries a Jew, as far as I can tell in personal interactions, married a Jewish spouse because they viewed them as just another white person to date.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 12:02 AM

      • I said in my initial comment, and my response, that these are simply personal observations of people I have known in my personal life, yet you keep accusing me of being some kind of Steve Sailer puppet who’s parroting “arguments” I’ve read in alt-right publications, and advancing conclusions about Jews based on observations of Indians, when I’ve done no such thing. Maybe my observations aren’t generalizable because they represent selection bias. So be it. But it’s obvious you can’t help getting hysterical anytime someone mentions Jews for any reason.

        Hermes

        June 1, 2018 at 12:39 PM

      • I said in my initial comment, and my response, that these are simply personal observations of people I have known in my personal life,

        What is the sample size you are using to make this (false) extrapolation?

        The Jewish commenters here know more of these kinds of families than you do and what we see in intermarried households is that the Christian influence in that environment is significant because the Christian spouse usually feels the environment isn’t culturally alien just because their spouse is Jewish.

        yet you keep accusing me of being some kind of Steve Sailer puppet who’s parroting “arguments” I’ve read in alt-right publications,

        Read Scott Adams. You were inclined to accept their wrong spin that Jews are acting as outsiders and then applied their “movie” to Jewish actions in intermarriage. Hence you related the situation as analogous to Hindu-white marriages which are much less common and more exotic.

        Probably without realizing it or intending animus, but that’s what Adams would say was where the hallucination came into your analysis.

        and advancing conclusions about Jews based on observations of Indians, when I’ve done no such thing.

        No?

        Then what did you mean by this?

        In the same way, in an inter-ethnic marriage (as a doctor I see this a lot in marriages between whites and Indians) the kids always get nonwhite/non-Western (e.g., Indian) names, not Anglo names.

        But it’s obvious you can’t help getting hysterical anytime someone mentions Jews for any reason.

        I’m not the one with the problem.

        The commenters making altright derived statements are the problem because everything they say is either something gentiles are equally guilty of or something based on a flat out lie (e.g. Jews do not support immigration based on polling, the Jewish organizations do but so does the Catholic Church against the objections of white Catholics).

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 6:53 PM

    • Any time someone converts in a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, it’s always the non-Jew who converts to Judaism,

      Stop getting your information about Jews from the altright.

      Actual Jews know this is not true.

      I know a number of half-Jews who do not identify as Jewish. One identifies as an Evangelical Christian and another identifies as Irish (though not with Catholicism).

      The Undiscovered Jew

      May 31, 2018 at 5:50 PM

      • “I know a number of half-Jews who do not identify as Jewish. ”

        #Metoo.

        “Stop getting your information about Jews from the altright.”

        But that’s 99% of their reading material!

        Newsflash: not once did my parents bemoan their lack of membership in a Gentile golf club. Bizarre, I know.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 9:52 AM

      • I had a great uncle now dead for at least a decade if not longer (I have trouble remembering when he died), who had no interest in playing golf himself, but he could identify every golf club in Palm Beach where Jews were discriminated against.

        I guess the lesson is that people don’t like being discriminated against, and they will remember it for a long time and carry a chip on their shoulder about it.

      • Well, that generation of Jews certainly had many grudges but that particular one didn’t run in my family.

        “chip”

        Yeah, they will. But don’t look for anyone to empathize. Instead all you will get is hate in return.

        gothamette

        June 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM

      • Lion, I’ll bet your great uncle was a big Steve Sailer reader, right? If only he hadn’t gotten all of his information about the Jews from the alt-right.

        Greg Pandatshang

        June 1, 2018 at 11:30 AM

      • He was probably more like the kind of Jewish Democrat that alt-righters hate. But people like him don’t exist anymore, they are all dead.

      • But that’s 99% of their reading material!

        99% of their reading material should come from you.

        But instead they swallowed the black pill and are either renting vans to run over Chad and Stacy or ordering AR-15s to blow up their high school.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 6:54 PM

      • Lion, I’ll bet your great uncle was a big Steve Sailer reader, right? If only he hadn’t gotten all of his information about the Jews from the alt-right.

        Sorry child, Sailer is full of shit because the timeline of Jewish voting patterns precedes their awareness of gulf club discrimination.

        The country clubs never made a difference in Jewish politics except as a campaign myth Democrats used to get white ethnics to stay in the New Deal coalition.

        Jews were already voting overwhelmingly Democrat by the 1930s, but the 1930s were too early for Jewish immigrants to have been affected by either WASP country club exclusions or German Jewish country club exclusions.

        In the 1930s Jewish immigrants were too poor and newly arrived to be able to afford admittance to either WASP or German Jewish clubs. They probably weren’t even aware those clubs existed in their Jewish ghettos.

        The no Jews policy affected German Jews, but those Jews were Republican leaning.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 7:00 PM

      • Poor Jews voted Democratic, rich Jews voted Republican. Eisenhower had strong Jewish support. It wasn’t until Nixon vs. Kennedy that most Jews abandoned Republicans, because Nixon was perceived as anti-Semitic. Which he sort of was: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm

      • Well, that generation of Jews certainly had many grudges but that particular one didn’t run in my family.

        Even among older Jews it was only mentioned as an *occasional* complaint, and one that’s not based on reality. Great Wave immigrant Jews voted Democrat because they were the working class party in the 1930s, and at that time the immigrants were so new they probably didn’t even know what the club policies were and couldn’t afford the entry fees even if they admitted Jews.

        The altright is more obsessed with the country club topic than any Jew ever was.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 7:05 PM

      • Eisenhower had strong Jewish support. It wasn’t until Nixon vs. Kennedy that most Jews abandoned Republicans, because Nixon was perceived as anti-Semitic.

        Jews switched from Republican leaning in the 1920s and earlier to about 90% Democrat starting with FDR in 1932.

        Except for Eisenhower, Jews stayed 80-90% Democrat from FDR until Nixon’s election in 1968.

        After that there was movement towards Republicans starting with Nixon in 1972 (he won 31% of Jews that year). Ford took 26%, which was an improvement since the New Deal. Then the average in the 1980s was 35% – Reagan got 39% of Jews in 1980, 31% in 1984, and George HW Bush took 35% of Jews in 1988.

        That movement towards Republicans after 1968 was probably the result of the rise of urban crime.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 1, 2018 at 8:05 PM

    • I know plenty of prole mixed marriages on Staten Island

      It’s clear from their comments that most altrightists don’t know facts about Jews because they know nothing about Northeast white ethnic groups.

      For example, New England WASPs are nothing like Southern Scotch-Irish.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      May 31, 2018 at 5:56 PM

      • New England WASPs are no longer relevant in any discourse regarding White people. Southern Scot-Irish are still seen as “white trash”, reactionary, and they are likely to vote Republican.

        As a whole, Northeastern Jews are still very different from their Italian and Irish neighbors. For one, secular Jews have higher incomes. They are more entrenched in the professions, because they are more educated. Being more educated, you are like to become more successful, more progressive and more cosmopolitan.

        Just reading some of my nonsensical comments, you can tell I like to venture into bookstores.

        In NYC, we have the Strand Bookstore, owned and operated by the late Fred Bass, a son of German Jewish immigrants. Despite the lack of aesthetics in his store, the Strand is by far the largest, most successful independent, bookshop in New York City. They sell mostly used books in all subject matters suited for academics, and they also carry tons of new books that are sold at a discount. Other bookstores, some of them run by White gentiles are nowhere in its caliber. Many of these independent bookshops run by White gentiles sell new books that are not too different from the inventory of Barnes & Noble, some of them with cafes and wifi, that sort of thing. Just the mindset of Fred Bass with his no fluff attitude, cutting to the chase and knowing what “intellectual” readers want, sets him apart as to why the Strand is the most successful bookshop in NYC.

        JS

        June 4, 2018 at 8:55 AM

  23. Roseanne got taken down because she was seen as being too sympathetic to the problems of white gentiles in America. The politically correct view is that only Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays and the transgendered have problems while white gentiles have white privilege.

    Joe Walker

    May 31, 2018 at 7:18 PM

    • True, but sometimes you see intersectional infighting on the left, like gay white men getting attacked for having white privilege, blamed for gentrification, etc. As the plague of diversity continues to spread, this kind of thing will probably become more common.

      Hermes

      May 31, 2018 at 11:00 PM

  24. There is talk of reviving the Roseanne show – without Roseanne. I’m not kidding.

    gothamette

    June 1, 2018 at 3:25 PM

  25. Roseanne or her show were NEVER conservative; Ben Shapiro is finally right on something.

    I watched the original series and it repeatedly painted conservative issues in a bad light in the most hoary of ways (hoity-toity, out of touch, rich, white, uncaring republicans, etc). It was FIERCELY feminist.

    The recently cancelled series featured a black grandaughter and LGBTQ grandson. The extent of conservatism was Roseanne being for Trump PURELY on economic issues. Cultural, racial, and sexual issues had nothing to do with it, of course, lest you be a monster.

    fakeemail

    June 1, 2018 at 3:48 PM

  26. O/T

    Staten Island congressman Dan Donovan has been endorsed by President Trump in his primary election against former congressman Michael Grimm.

    ScarletNumber

    June 3, 2018 at 11:34 PM

    • For reasons I don’t understand, Grimm is popular in Staten Island. Despite serving time in prison and threatening to beat up a reporter.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: