PS

FOLLOW-UP POSTED BY J. I. ERRICAN:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/my-substack-stevesailer-net/#comment-6989792

PS Molly of Denali will be renamed Brinli of Mckinley!

PS: That concept of how we read, at any kind of decent speed, that is, was interesting. Great illustration of that, Mr. Smith. I also liked "typoglycemia"

PS: Mr. Hail, I agree that President McKinley is not (by far) the best example of a patriotic American as judged against the Founders and the Constitution. However, going back to that same name is showing the ctrl-left revisionists that they've gotten nowhere, and we're not having it... not having their BS.

That was the beginning of the idea, not written out, I guess, that America was somehow supposed to be an empire, over a century and a quarter ago. Perhaps the big pols were jealous of the empires of the European countries. I think use of the word colonies by American pols would not have gone over very well, considering the events of, at that time, just over a century back!

PS: Greetings, Mr. Hail!
About your typoglycemia...

Tehse wrods may look lkie nosnesne, but yuo can raed tehm, cna’t yuo?

Yuo cna porbalby raed tihs esaliy desptie teh msispeillgns.

It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

A vheclie epxledod at a plocie cehckipont near the UN haduqertares in Bagahdd on Mnoday kilinlg the bmober and an Irqai polcie offceir.

Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs.

A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur.

Cheers! ☮️

PS

-- Gulf of America --

from the entry: "...'Gulf of America' is stupid -- if anything, geographically, it's going the wrong way. Keep it clear that there's a big gulf between the US and Mexico..."

How many Stupidity-points on the PS-patented Stupidity Scale is the renaming of of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America?

(Was his first pitch to rename it "the Gulf of Donald J. Trump"?)

I submit that it should get extra Stupidity-points because the word "America" generally refers to all what we would tend to call "the Americas," Latin America, Central America, South America. It's incoherent and ridiculous.

PS

-- On the case of J. I. Errican & the Berenstein Bears --

"commenter Jenner Ickham Errican"; the commenter-handle "reads as 'Generic American' - took me 2 or 3 years to figure that out"

For some reason --- and this is an example of visual tricks the mind plays on itself, to make sense of the world -- for a very long time I read the name as "Jennifer." I assumed this person was one of the few female Sailer-commenters out there.

I think I even remember once reading "Jenner" in its correct six-letter form, but somehow mentally rejecting it; assuming an error had been made as of course the name was "Jennifer." I was wrong! Latest reliable reports have it that Mr. Errican is indeed a male.

I don't remember when I stopped making this mistake. I do remember it was a strange experience to realize how long I'd been wrong about an obvious thing: Jenner and not "Jennifer". If you've ever read about the wild "the multi-dimensional 'Berenstein Bears' theory that people came up with in the 2010s after many people swear they remember the "wrong" spelling; it felt a little like that. (Or maybe the alternate-universe to which I, too, was abducted and dropped off in my sleep some time ago has not only the wrong spelling of "Berenstein Bears" but also this cruel universe changed the name of this lovable right-wing-racialist Sailer commenter.)

In retrospect, the quick-reading instinct and the usual practice of the mind making jumps to make sense of the world explain my error; but it was also reinforced by some commenter-detractors of the good Mr. Errican calling him "Jennifer" to make fun of him; rendering the name deliberately incorrect, like the way some sometimes call the current President of the United States "Blumpf."

PS

The McKinley naming re-/un-/de-renaming is supportable on principle that "the reason Obama and co. killed off the name was that Mr M (or McM, if you must) was a White Male."

I worry, though, about the stress being placed specifically upon McKinley by President Trump. I use the title consciously, to distinguish him his other personas: it's not Campaign Trump, nor Barstool-Ranter-Twitter Trump; it's President Trump who on his first day restored the name "McKinley." (But I've heard nothing, at least from him, on restoring the names of Confederate generals and a few others of similar sort, maliciously renamed during the Wokeness-ascendancy period in the late 2010s and early 2020s.)

For many years in the 20th century, the U.S. sudden foreign-empire expansionist explosion that happened under McKinley came under great scrutiny by historians and commentators. Many said that McKinley himself did not want the wars. We can safely assume, I think, that he certainly didn't want millions of Puerto Ricans on the U.S. "mainland" forever, and many others things. He merely did his best when a situation developed. Statecraft is never an exact art. (We do well to avoid major catastrophes like the summer 1914 diplomatic failures that led to Europe's stupidest war.)

What blame to assign McKinley himself remains open to debate (the best historical work I think clears him of major wrongdoing in the imperial expansions of 1898; but the results were what they were anyway). But the expansion of imperial expansion of 1898 is a fact. The mistakes of that period lingered for decades and decades, many of them STILL not gone even now in the "second quarter of the 21st century." The anti-imperialist side of the debate was right on the issues but lost the public debate for many reasons (also analyzed at major length in the mid-late 20th century when later generations grappled with the question of U.S. empire, which has existed in all but name since some point in the 1940s).

The point here, the one I have in mind, is that Trump doesn't understand or care about any of the nuance I refer to, specifically why the 1898 expansions and petty-wars and land-grabs were (at least arguably) a bad idea.

I think DJT sees world-affairs like the game of Risk. When it was McKinley's turn, DJT thinks, the man made major gains partly by boldness followed by a series of good dice-rolls, and put the U.S. flag in all those extra territories on the Risk game-board; ergo and therefore, McKinley is good!

McKinley himself may have been an angel or a devil or (as usual) somewhere in between, but the expansions of 1898 were mostly quite NOT GOOD. The risks are that a much-more-powerful USA under an angry Trump could well grab territories today, in ways that would be DEFINITELY NOT GOOD.

By the way, and "speaking of which," did I miss the Peak Stupidity official position-statement on the proposed forced annexation of Greenland and the Panama Canal?

PS: Been gone for a while, Mr. Hail. I like the first one. Have a good evening!

PS

Or "de-renaming"...?

PS

"this re-renaming thing."

I'd suggest: "un-renaming."