The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Barriers Against Barbarism: David Frye's "Walls: A History of Civilization in Blood and Brick"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Barriers Against Barbarism
by Steve Sailer

May 01, 2019

One of the most fashionable manifestations of Trump derangement syndrome—the assumption that Walls Never Work—is crushingly debunked in historian David Frye’s eye-opening history of 4,000 years of barrier-building, from the Fertile Crescent to the Malibu Colony, Walls: A History of Civilization in Blood and Brick.

In a brilliant epilogue entitled “Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges,” Frye points out that, ironically, shortly after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall made anti-wall triumphalism the unchallenged conventional wisdom, the world quietly entered its Second Age of Walls. (The first ran from prehistory up to the proliferation of cannons in the 1400s.)

Years before Donald Trump pointed out the utility of border barriers, governments around the world and private landowners (especially in “sanctuary cities”) had already embarked on a new spate of wall-building to keep out terrorists, immigrants, and criminals.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 141 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I am buying that book.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    The book makes a good gift for lefty friends and relations who like history.

    Happy May Day to all of you. The merry month of May!

    Watching this 1923 silent film one could weep for what England was. These events, with the crowning of the May Queen and dancing, still take place in a few locations (it's a big tourist draw in Padstow), although alas not with a polo/hockey game played on hobby-horseback.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VnAAYMAf4s
  2. Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don’t live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they’re everywhere:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There are sound walls along most of the 101 Freeway in LA. You used to be able to see how traffic was moving and decide whether to get on or stay on surface streets. Now less often.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Particulate pollution normally gets well up high enough into the air for these walls not to make a difference, but in the right wind conditions, maybe there's an effect. These walls were all built for noise, with a slight benefit of reducing "unsightliness", depending though, if the wall is more unsightly to you than the vehicles. (As Steve said, it was nice to check out the traffic, but now "there's and app for that ..." etc.)

    Stan, all these limited-access highways are supposed to have barriers to pedestrian (and, of course, vehicular) entry, to there'd be a chain-link fence with barb-wire on top anyway. At least this saves on the fence, and though these walls may look like something we need on the Mexican border, I think those panels are probably made very cheaply and can be erected cheaply/quickly too, though, of course, still more costly than fences.

    Here's what really helps, on the noise, unsightliness, and air quality a bit: trees and big bushes. It'd be nice if they were all along the roads, but they take a while to grow. Right alongside these walls is a great place for them to take hold. By some point, sooner or later, depending on the climate zone, the vegetation could get thick enough to block the view of this wall for residents AND drivers. Of course, the right kind of trees will make climbing the barrier easier again ... maybe then you need a fence ... round and round.

    I'm in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Oops, Stan, my part about particulate pollution should have been in a reply to another guy.
    , @Endgame Napoleon
    Other than cheap politicians, contractors who skimp on the design part and a $21 trillion national debt, there is no reason that Walls must be ugly. Walls should reflect the reigning artistic zeitgeist. Walls should reference local art history. Chicago—a city rich in art history and bullet debris—is screaming for Walls. A system of artistic Walls could save Chicago a lot of money on policing, leaving more money in the till to prop up pensions for the dual-earner parents who taught in their failing schools. Chicago’s walls could have a flat-topped, angular Prairie look with some geometric detailing, whereas Walls in Taos could be arched with a rustic stucco finish in adobe. Much-needed Walls in CA’s Illegal Invasion Plains could have the Arts & Crafts Movement look that prevails on the West Coast, adding a touch of Asian detailing. The roofs on CA’s Craftsman bungalow houses look sort of Japanese or even Indian, not that the preferred H1B visa temps that CA’s employers hire had anything to do with the Craftsman style. Back when those were built, American citizens weren’t the last ones hired.
    , @William Badwhite
    Stan isn't a big part of the issue that tract homes have been built in what was farmland until recently? All that area down around Homestead was pretty empty until recently.

    Bazillions of immigrants moving in need to live somewhere. I'd prefer they still live where they came from, but that's not who we are I suppose.
    , @Anon87
    Going west on I-90 as you enter Cleveland there are actually very nice looking sound barriers. Red brick look with white carvings in the center. Obviously more aesthetically pleasing than the gray concrete slabs.
  3. “Walls don’t work if the Germans are coming through Belgium for a second time!”

    But seriously, there seems to be a conflation here of walls for civilian control (i.e. keeping roaming nomads out) and military control (keeping invading armies out). The two are vastly different, and the second mostly fails eventually. Nowadays one just hops over it or one bulldozes a way through.

    The same with bridges: they may generate civilian passages to establish economic ties or they may provide passage for invading hosts in either direction. But these are two different tools for two different means, and they often don’t have the same form – although their platonic ideal is, indeed, the same.

  4. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    There are sound walls along most of the 101 Freeway in LA. You used to be able to see how traffic was moving and decide whether to get on or stay on surface streets. Now less often.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    They're generally called sound walls but aren't they really a tactic to lessen the effects of particulate pollution?
    , @anonymous
    Along the 101 in Santa Barbara the sound walls seem designed to hide the trailer parks from view.
  5. Anonymous[229] • Disclaimer says:

    In fact, the primordial cell ‘invented’ the wall around 5 billion years ago purely and simply in order to survive.

  6. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradise

    The etymology is in the section “Did you know?”

    “Walled garden” is the first version I read, in a children’s English dictionary, in the early 1960s.

  7. I didn’t know the English proverb ““Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges,” In Germany we have somewhat similar “Good fences make good neighbours”. (Neighbour’s hens, dogs, pigs etc. in your garden were a major problem in rural areas.)

    An interesting object for the study of fences is Slovakia. There it has become fashionable for township dwellers to fence themselves in against Gipsies (in particular against thieves). This made for a major scandal in the case of Kosice 2013, where the European Union protested against it.

    • Replies: @onetwothree
    Just in case you actually think that's an old saying.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall
    , @Lurker
    The EU hopes to see a time when every citizen will bask in the enriching presence of gypsies.
    , @MEH 0910
    They should iquidatelay the ypsiesgay in ototay.
    , @TWS
    But the walls didn't work ? So why build them?
  8. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I am buying that book.

    The book makes a good gift for lefty friends and relations who like history.

    Happy May Day to all of you. The merry month of May!

    Watching this 1923 silent film one could weep for what England was. These events, with the crowning of the May Queen and dancing, still take place in a few locations (it’s a big tourist draw in Padstow), although alas not with a polo/hockey game played on hobby-horseback.

  9. So tell our anti-wall friends, “We shouldn’t build a wall, we should invade Mexico instead”?

    • Replies: @flyingtiger
    My opinion all along. Invade Mexico. Then drive the natives off their land. Sell the land to loyal Americans. Make English the only language of Mexico. Isn't this what the lefties planned?
  10. @Steve Sailer
    There are sound walls along most of the 101 Freeway in LA. You used to be able to see how traffic was moving and decide whether to get on or stay on surface streets. Now less often.

    They’re generally called sound walls but aren’t they really a tactic to lessen the effects of particulate pollution?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it's a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.
    , @donut
    I lived near a busy roadway once and the sound of traffic was the big drawback . You couldn't open the windows due to the noise . I lived in the approach path to the airport in Athens at one time , the planes coming in were so low I swear they made the laundry hanging out to dry flutter , about one plane every 30 min. You just had to stop all conversation when they flew over . Living by a highway was worse .
  11. @Stogumber
    I didn't know the English proverb "“Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges," In Germany we have somewhat similar "Good fences make good neighbours". (Neighbour's hens, dogs, pigs etc. in your garden were a major problem in rural areas.)

    An interesting object for the study of fences is Slovakia. There it has become fashionable for township dwellers to fence themselves in against Gipsies (in particular against thieves). This made for a major scandal in the case of Kosice 2013, where the European Union protested against it.

    Just in case you actually think that’s an old saying.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall

  12. @Coemgen
    They're generally called sound walls but aren't they really a tactic to lessen the effects of particulate pollution?

    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it’s a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's right. The tire noise is the major part of the noise now, with the much quieter engines. Then there are the emergency vehicle sirens that come by often enough to matter. In certain, cough, northeastern locales, cough, cough, it's the car horns that are the bulk of the noise.

    That was a good review, Steve. I will look for the book at some point. From your writing, I didn't get that Mr. Frye got political at all and related any of this to the US/Mexican border. On that, we all know that any physical qualities or financial aspects of building/having a wall are just points made up to obfuscate the wishes of those wanting to completely replace the American white people.
    , @PiltdownMan
    There's quite a bit of research that's been done in the last couple of decades regarding tire noise. The approaches have been to use different asphalt formulations, but so far, all the methods have proven to be expensive. Using a underlayer of "popcorn" asphalt below the blacktop seems to be the best sound absorbing approach, so far, I think.

    There's a mile-long stretch of highway that goes past the high-income towns of Short Hills and Summit in New Jersey, and about a mile has been paved with the sound absorbing pavement.

    I've driven over it, and the noise reduction (within the car) at highway speed is striking, akin to tightly shutting a car window that was previously slightly rolled down.

    My friends who live over there said that their municipality picked up part of the cost for the experiment by the NJ State highways department, but it is an approach that's too expensive to use all over the state's highway and road system.

    http://asphaltmagazine.com/turning-the-volume-down/

    https://workinggroupnoise.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/leafletlayout_v2_simplecover_final.pdf

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall?
     
    Of course not. They'll just resort to an eleven-foot waft.
    , @Kyle
    It probably keeps some of the brake dust contained in the roadways. I’m not sure though.
  13. @Stogumber
    I didn't know the English proverb "“Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges," In Germany we have somewhat similar "Good fences make good neighbours". (Neighbour's hens, dogs, pigs etc. in your garden were a major problem in rural areas.)

    An interesting object for the study of fences is Slovakia. There it has become fashionable for township dwellers to fence themselves in against Gipsies (in particular against thieves). This made for a major scandal in the case of Kosice 2013, where the European Union protested against it.

    The EU hopes to see a time when every citizen will bask in the enriching presence of gypsies.

    • Agree: GermanReader2
    • Replies: @Jake
    It can get worse than gypsies, much worse, and the EU Elites, like the Anglosphere Elites, know that and intend to make the non-Elite white Gentiles suffer it.
  14. I need to hear what Steve thinks on the Massachusetts judge helping to sneak a criminal illegal alien out the back door of the courthouse to avoid ICE.
    Seems like a tailor made story for you but no comment.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I linked this story earlier. I fear that this does not represent justice coming to our out of control judges because this particular genius pole-vaulted well over a bright line. Had she granted some sort of parole or stay she would have been safe. She's in trouble for being thoughtless, not for interfering with ICE.
  15. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    Why are critics of walls constantly denouncing them as cowardly?

    Nah, that’s just the chicks (who also now praise medieval Paris as a “crossroads of the world”)

    New fact: Roger Waters’s wall complex was really just more public schoolboy trauma about the scrummage; cf. http://www.etoncollege.com/WallGame.aspx

  16. There’s a large earth wall near us called The Devil’s Dyke. It runs from formerly wooded high ground across good farmland and ends on the edge of the Cambridgeshire fens. It’s a product of the Dark Ages.

    Two theories of what it was for:

    (i) To ensure that castle rustlers and horse thieves could leave and enter territory to its east only through easily guarded gaps.

    (ii) It was built by Anglo-Saxon invaders whose infantrymen wanted to inhibit Romano-Briton cavalrymen.

    It is one of series of such dykes, presumably built to mark an advancing frontier. Its purpose has long vanished but it still provides rather a pleasant route for a weekend walk.

    Did it work? Well, if it didn’t why would you build more of them?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Some unkind soul might think you are referring to Hillary Clinton.
  17. Afterthought about the Devil’s Dyke: if the explanations offered are right, it wasn’t a barrier against barbarism but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    There's a Devil's Dyke near me, but still some way from Cambridge.
    , @Philip Neal
    The Devil's Dyke you refer to runs east-west across lowland East Anglia and its only possible purpose is to proved defence against a seaborne invasion on the Norfolk coast. When that was an imminent danger is anybody's guess. The Barbarian Conspiracy?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people."
     
    It's hard to say if the Romano-Britons were indeed more civilised by the later imperial period. At that point, the "Roman" military was often just roving war bands with a dubious Roman charter. At least the genuine barbarians often let the Roman taxes lapse, which the "Roman" army rarely did. Sometimes "civilisation" becomes so corrupt and decadent that barbarism becomes the rational alternative.

    But don't take my word for it. We may be approaching this inflection point again, and everyone will get to see this for themselves.
  18. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    Particulate pollution normally gets well up high enough into the air for these walls not to make a difference, but in the right wind conditions, maybe there’s an effect. These walls were all built for noise, with a slight benefit of reducing “unsightliness”, depending though, if the wall is more unsightly to you than the vehicles. (As Steve said, it was nice to check out the traffic, but now “there’s and app for that …” etc.)

    Stan, all these limited-access highways are supposed to have barriers to pedestrian (and, of course, vehicular) entry, to there’d be a chain-link fence with barb-wire on top anyway. At least this saves on the fence, and though these walls may look like something we need on the Mexican border, I think those panels are probably made very cheaply and can be erected cheaply/quickly too, though, of course, still more costly than fences.

    Here’s what really helps, on the noise, unsightliness, and air quality a bit: trees and big bushes. It’d be nice if they were all along the roads, but they take a while to grow. Right alongside these walls is a great place for them to take hold. By some point, sooner or later, depending on the climate zone, the vegetation could get thick enough to block the view of this wall for residents AND drivers. Of course, the right kind of trees will make climbing the barrier easier again … maybe then you need a fence … round and round.

    I’m in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    L.A. freeways have a fair amount of bushes alongside them, which seem to provide lanes for wild animals to get around, such as the famous mountain lion who got down to Griffith Park in the center of L.A. under the Hollywood Sign:

    https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/media/images/71512000/jpg/_71512335_cougar_mm8026_1213_001.jpg

    , @The Wild Geese Howard

    I’m in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.
     
    Don't tell that to the vibrants running South Africa.

    They are busy running a make work program to cut down large swathes of forest and shade trees because those stands are composed of invasive species from Australia.

    The horror.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    I’m in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.
     
    Agree.
  19. @Steve Sailer
    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it's a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.

    That’s right. The tire noise is the major part of the noise now, with the much quieter engines. Then there are the emergency vehicle sirens that come by often enough to matter. In certain, cough, northeastern locales, cough, cough, it’s the car horns that are the bulk of the noise.

    That was a good review, Steve. I will look for the book at some point. From your writing, I didn’t get that Mr. Frye got political at all and related any of this to the US/Mexican border. On that, we all know that any physical qualities or financial aspects of building/having a wall are just points made up to obfuscate the wishes of those wanting to completely replace the American white people.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    I think one can adapt to tire noise but not to breathing tire particulates! Also, the expansion of sound wall building seems to have followed popular concerns about airborne particulates.
  20. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    Oops, Stan, my part about particulate pollution should have been in a reply to another guy.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    Particulate pollution normally gets well up high enough into the air for these walls not to make a difference, but in the right wind conditions, maybe there's an effect. These walls were all built for noise, with a slight benefit of reducing "unsightliness", depending though, if the wall is more unsightly to you than the vehicles. (As Steve said, it was nice to check out the traffic, but now "there's and app for that ..." etc.)

    Stan, all these limited-access highways are supposed to have barriers to pedestrian (and, of course, vehicular) entry, to there'd be a chain-link fence with barb-wire on top anyway. At least this saves on the fence, and though these walls may look like something we need on the Mexican border, I think those panels are probably made very cheaply and can be erected cheaply/quickly too, though, of course, still more costly than fences.

    Here's what really helps, on the noise, unsightliness, and air quality a bit: trees and big bushes. It'd be nice if they were all along the roads, but they take a while to grow. Right alongside these walls is a great place for them to take hold. By some point, sooner or later, depending on the climate zone, the vegetation could get thick enough to block the view of this wall for residents AND drivers. Of course, the right kind of trees will make climbing the barrier easier again ... maybe then you need a fence ... round and round.

    I'm in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    L.A. freeways have a fair amount of bushes alongside them, which seem to provide lanes for wild animals to get around, such as the famous mountain lion who got down to Griffith Park in the center of L.A. under the Hollywood Sign:

  22. @Coemgen
    They're generally called sound walls but aren't they really a tactic to lessen the effects of particulate pollution?

    I lived near a busy roadway once and the sound of traffic was the big drawback . You couldn’t open the windows due to the noise . I lived in the approach path to the airport in Athens at one time , the planes coming in were so low I swear they made the laundry hanging out to dry flutter , about one plane every 30 min. You just had to stop all conversation when they flew over . Living by a highway was worse .

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it's not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Or, you could live next to the El train, like Elwwod Blues:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMEmY1EdsU

    Yeah, the guy took his video off the old CRT TV, glare and all! Kinda appropriate, too.
  23. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's right. The tire noise is the major part of the noise now, with the much quieter engines. Then there are the emergency vehicle sirens that come by often enough to matter. In certain, cough, northeastern locales, cough, cough, it's the car horns that are the bulk of the noise.

    That was a good review, Steve. I will look for the book at some point. From your writing, I didn't get that Mr. Frye got political at all and related any of this to the US/Mexican border. On that, we all know that any physical qualities or financial aspects of building/having a wall are just points made up to obfuscate the wishes of those wanting to completely replace the American white people.

    I think one can adapt to tire noise but not to breathing tire particulates! Also, the expansion of sound wall building seems to have followed popular concerns about airborne particulates.

  24. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    There's a large earth wall near us called The Devil's Dyke. It runs from formerly wooded high ground across good farmland and ends on the edge of the Cambridgeshire fens. It's a product of the Dark Ages.

    Two theories of what it was for:

    (i) To ensure that castle rustlers and horse thieves could leave and enter territory to its east only through easily guarded gaps.

    (ii) It was built by Anglo-Saxon invaders whose infantrymen wanted to inhibit Romano-Briton cavalrymen.

    It is one of series of such dykes, presumably built to mark an advancing frontier. Its purpose has long vanished but it still provides rather a pleasant route for a weekend walk.

    Did it work? Well, if it didn't why would you build more of them?

    Some unkind soul might think you are referring to Hillary Clinton.

  25. @donut
    I lived near a busy roadway once and the sound of traffic was the big drawback . You couldn't open the windows due to the noise . I lived in the approach path to the airport in Athens at one time , the planes coming in were so low I swear they made the laundry hanging out to dry flutter , about one plane every 30 min. You just had to stop all conversation when they flew over . Living by a highway was worse .

    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it’s not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it’s not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

     

    Why don't you just start yodeling like Hank Williams or Hank Williams III?

    You got to yodel from the depths of your heart and really mean it or you sound cold and detached like that nutcake Scandinavian broad who sang If I Had A Heart -- which was the opening song for the Vikings TV show.

    https://youtu.be/Jmerv3Esz10
    , @Anonymouse
    In Austin we lived a block from IH 35 which was 24/7 traffic noisy. Not to be recommended.
    , @Father O'Hara
    I shot a man in Reno,just to watch him die...
  26. @donut
    I lived near a busy roadway once and the sound of traffic was the big drawback . You couldn't open the windows due to the noise . I lived in the approach path to the airport in Athens at one time , the planes coming in were so low I swear they made the laundry hanging out to dry flutter , about one plane every 30 min. You just had to stop all conversation when they flew over . Living by a highway was worse .

    Or, you could live next to the El train, like Elwwod Blues:

    Yeah, the guy took his video off the old CRT TV, glare and all! Kinda appropriate, too.

  27. @Steve Sailer
    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it's a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.

    There’s quite a bit of research that’s been done in the last couple of decades regarding tire noise. The approaches have been to use different asphalt formulations, but so far, all the methods have proven to be expensive. Using a underlayer of “popcorn” asphalt below the blacktop seems to be the best sound absorbing approach, so far, I think.

    There’s a mile-long stretch of highway that goes past the high-income towns of Short Hills and Summit in New Jersey, and about a mile has been paved with the sound absorbing pavement.

    I’ve driven over it, and the noise reduction (within the car) at highway speed is striking, akin to tightly shutting a car window that was previously slightly rolled down.

    My friends who live over there said that their municipality picked up part of the cost for the experiment by the NJ State highways department, but it is an approach that’s too expensive to use all over the state’s highway and road system.

    http://asphaltmagazine.com/turning-the-volume-down/

    https://workinggroupnoise.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/leafletlayout_v2_simplecover_final.pdf

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    One of the quitest places in Manhattan is Carl Schurz Park, around Gracie Mansion on the East River, which is blisfully quiet because the FDR Drive is totally underneath it in a tunnel. I've seen a number of German towns burying stretches of Autobahn in tunnels to cut the noise when walls just won't cut it.
  28. I had a German tell me, with a straight face, that the Berlin Wall did not work. That, of course, is false. From the end of WW2 to 1963, more than 3.5m people escaped the east, many via West Berlin; after construction of the Wall, only 100k attemps were made, and only 5k or so succeeded.

    Mr. Trump, build the damned wall already. Put a few mines in front of it and garrison it with guards ordered to shoot to kill. It does work.

    BTW, that photo is one of the prettiest stretches of what remains of Hadrian’s Wall, which has a number of nice, scenic country walks (at risk of confronting an occasional bull in its pasture, through which you are legally walking at your own risk), so it still serves a useful purpose two millenia later.

  29. @PiltdownMan
    There's quite a bit of research that's been done in the last couple of decades regarding tire noise. The approaches have been to use different asphalt formulations, but so far, all the methods have proven to be expensive. Using a underlayer of "popcorn" asphalt below the blacktop seems to be the best sound absorbing approach, so far, I think.

    There's a mile-long stretch of highway that goes past the high-income towns of Short Hills and Summit in New Jersey, and about a mile has been paved with the sound absorbing pavement.

    I've driven over it, and the noise reduction (within the car) at highway speed is striking, akin to tightly shutting a car window that was previously slightly rolled down.

    My friends who live over there said that their municipality picked up part of the cost for the experiment by the NJ State highways department, but it is an approach that's too expensive to use all over the state's highway and road system.

    http://asphaltmagazine.com/turning-the-volume-down/

    https://workinggroupnoise.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/leafletlayout_v2_simplecover_final.pdf

    One of the quitest places in Manhattan is Carl Schurz Park, around Gracie Mansion on the East River, which is blisfully quiet because the FDR Drive is totally underneath it in a tunnel. I’ve seen a number of German towns burying stretches of Autobahn in tunnels to cut the noise when walls just won’t cut it.

  30. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    Other than cheap politicians, contractors who skimp on the design part and a $21 trillion national debt, there is no reason that Walls must be ugly. Walls should reflect the reigning artistic zeitgeist. Walls should reference local art history. Chicago—a city rich in art history and bullet debris—is screaming for Walls. A system of artistic Walls could save Chicago a lot of money on policing, leaving more money in the till to prop up pensions for the dual-earner parents who taught in their failing schools. Chicago’s walls could have a flat-topped, angular Prairie look with some geometric detailing, whereas Walls in Taos could be arched with a rustic stucco finish in adobe. Much-needed Walls in CA’s Illegal Invasion Plains could have the Arts & Crafts Movement look that prevails on the West Coast, adding a touch of Asian detailing. The roofs on CA’s Craftsman bungalow houses look sort of Japanese or even Indian, not that the preferred H1B visa temps that CA’s employers hire had anything to do with the Craftsman style. Back when those were built, American citizens weren’t the last ones hired.

  31. Revelation 21:9-14:

    9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And in the spirit[f] he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

    So the Heavenly City itself can have a wall, but America can’t.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    It has not one, but 12 big, beautiful gates, like Trump wants in our wall with Mexico. I don't think the "Christian" opponents of walls on earth take the book of Revelation literally. Many of them don't take heaven literally either.
    , @stillCARealist
    Nehemiah 2:17

    Then I said to them, "You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace."
  32. @Achmed E. Newman
    Particulate pollution normally gets well up high enough into the air for these walls not to make a difference, but in the right wind conditions, maybe there's an effect. These walls were all built for noise, with a slight benefit of reducing "unsightliness", depending though, if the wall is more unsightly to you than the vehicles. (As Steve said, it was nice to check out the traffic, but now "there's and app for that ..." etc.)

    Stan, all these limited-access highways are supposed to have barriers to pedestrian (and, of course, vehicular) entry, to there'd be a chain-link fence with barb-wire on top anyway. At least this saves on the fence, and though these walls may look like something we need on the Mexican border, I think those panels are probably made very cheaply and can be erected cheaply/quickly too, though, of course, still more costly than fences.

    Here's what really helps, on the noise, unsightliness, and air quality a bit: trees and big bushes. It'd be nice if they were all along the roads, but they take a while to grow. Right alongside these walls is a great place for them to take hold. By some point, sooner or later, depending on the climate zone, the vegetation could get thick enough to block the view of this wall for residents AND drivers. Of course, the right kind of trees will make climbing the barrier easier again ... maybe then you need a fence ... round and round.

    I'm in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    I’m in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    Don’t tell that to the vibrants running South Africa.

    They are busy running a make work program to cut down large swathes of forest and shade trees because those stands are composed of invasive species from Australia.

    The horror.

  33. I was just watching an old South Park episode and I can’t remember which one was “Giant Douche” and which one was “Turd Sandwich” . Of course now , two and a half years into his presidency , I know that Trump is a Turd Sandwich .

  34. Communists and fellow travelers in the West found ways to excuse the Iron Curtain the USSR built along the perimeter of its satellites. Comsymp actor Peter Ustinov compared it to a “Do Not Disturb” sign the Communists put on the door while their great experiment was in progress.

    Back in the 1980s, Ustinov was a guest on Larry King’s late-night call-in radio show. I had the satisfaction of being the first caller and quoting Ustinov’s comment about the wall. Even King was taken aback and Ustinov felt obliged to back pedal a bit.

  35. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Revelation 21:9-14:

    9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And in the spirit[f] he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

     

    So the Heavenly City itself can have a wall, but America can't.

    It has not one, but 12 big, beautiful gates, like Trump wants in our wall with Mexico. I don’t think the “Christian” opponents of walls on earth take the book of Revelation literally. Many of them don’t take heaven literally either.

  36. @Steve Sailer
    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it's not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it’s not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

    Why don’t you just start yodeling like Hank Williams or Hank Williams III?

    You got to yodel from the depths of your heart and really mean it or you sound cold and detached like that nutcake Scandinavian broad who sang If I Had A Heart — which was the opening song for the Vikings TV show.

  37. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    Stan isn’t a big part of the issue that tract homes have been built in what was farmland until recently? All that area down around Homestead was pretty empty until recently.

    Bazillions of immigrants moving in need to live somewhere. I’d prefer they still live where they came from, but that’s not who we are I suppose.

  38. @Stogumber
    I didn't know the English proverb "“Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges," In Germany we have somewhat similar "Good fences make good neighbours". (Neighbour's hens, dogs, pigs etc. in your garden were a major problem in rural areas.)

    An interesting object for the study of fences is Slovakia. There it has become fashionable for township dwellers to fence themselves in against Gipsies (in particular against thieves). This made for a major scandal in the case of Kosice 2013, where the European Union protested against it.

    They should iquidatelay the ypsiesgay in ototay.

  39. He compares this myopia to how anthropologists before Napoleon Chagnon’s The Fierce People and Lawrence H. Keeley’s War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage were naive about the centrality of violence in prehistory.

    And people are naive about it still. The best, most straightforward essay I’ve seen on the subject.

  40. This book review article is one of Steve Sailer’s best and most important works in some time. And that is saying a great deal.

  41. @Lurker
    The EU hopes to see a time when every citizen will bask in the enriching presence of gypsies.

    It can get worse than gypsies, much worse, and the EU Elites, like the Anglosphere Elites, know that and intend to make the non-Elite white Gentiles suffer it.

  42. @Steve Sailer
    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it's not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

    In Austin we lived a block from IH 35 which was 24/7 traffic noisy. Not to be recommended.

  43. Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    • Replies: @Tex

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.
     
    The key assumption there is that the anti-wall advocates are arguing in good faith. A related assumption is that effective policies will be supported and continued without hard-liners (ie, guys who want a wall) in office. From what I've seen, both assumptions are faulty.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    James Mason would say it's not really sporting to quibble in such a manner as to be obfuscatory.

    The United States should do everything at once and try every method to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and to prevent new ones from infiltrating the USA.

    Trump is a treasonous rat politician whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson. Adelson pushes nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    Trump is deliberately refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and he has refused to build a wall on the border between the USA and Mexico.

    Trump doesn't need the US Congress to deport all illegal alien invaders nor to build a wall.

    Trump is now calling for a massive increase in legal immigration to the USA -- Trump is a treasonous rat!

    Sorry to be short with you Mr. Mason, I usually enjoy your comments!
    , @Anonymous
    Sorry.

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for 'open borders'.

    Rabidly. Incessantly.Stridently. Week after damned week.
    , @Desiderius

    This is a bit of a myth.
     
    And this is a lie.

    You’ll need to do better than that here.
    , @Jake
    'No one really advocates “open borders”'

    Back in the mid-1990s, I began asserting that the logic of Yank 'civil rights' meant that within 20 years or so, the Left would strike hard to force 'gay marriage.'

    100% of the Liberals and Leftists who responded to my assertions during the 1990s and during the Bush 2 administration responded by saying that no one really advocated for gay marriage - that was a myth created by the hate-filled Right to scare people away from voting for Democrats or from caring about blacks or AIDS patients.
    , @Old Prude
    Obstacles are an economy of force measure. If you see what happens a the border it becomes obvious activities of the border patrol are theater: They chase around people who walked in. Since border is in essence un-fenced, there can never be enough law enforcement to nab any but a fraction of those who cross. It is ineffective, but gives the appearance of activity. Its a costly and dangerous PR stunt.

    Were one to build an imposing barrier, those who cross with their 51 foot ladders would be far fewer, and be manageably tracked and apprehended. (What happens to them after apprehension is another matter.)

    It is very frustrating to watch the antics at the border when the need for a barrier is screamingly obvious. The reason we don't get one, is because it would be too effective. So the open borders politicians deploy some National Guardsmen or some sensors to fool the rubes that things are being done.

    Just to get it off my chest, I'll state the obvious: Trump is a worthless bullsh***er in this regard, especially.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se.
     
    Legals, illegals, pseudoasylees, it's all the same.

    Transmuralists are an invasive species of sorts, no matter how they arrive. They can have a devastating effect on the local ecology, whether it's rabbits on the Gold Coast, emerald ash borers in the Upper Midwest, kudzu in the South, or subsidized cheap labor anywhere in the First World.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE, so you can't say "no one." Beyond that, there are politicians who insist they're not for open borders, but who object to every possible means of enforcing border control.

    Despite Trump's rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn't need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn't be possible due to the terrain.

    The people who object to the wall are also opposed to e-verify and other means of controlling immigration. Politicians who say that visa overstays are a bigger problem than border crossers don't follow up with a plan for addressing that problem. It's just a way to change the subject.
    , @Abe

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum
     
    Why would anyone from the Western hemisphere even be considered for asylum? There are no wars going on. Even if there were wars going on the custom of granting asylum (whatever international treaties may exist around such matters, they are also customary, in the sense that states will ALL THE TIME break treaties when strategic interests are at stake) does not override the US’s normal considerations for the interests and wellbeing of its own citizens.
    , @istevefan

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth.
     
    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders. When you flip the demographics of your population, so that the group that once accounted for 87% of your population is now destined to be under 50 percent in twenty years, you effectively have open borders.

    The above paragraph is a fact, not a myth.

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, "There shall be open borders."
    , @Regret
    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth

    Bull
    , @TWS
    Plenty of morons advocate for open borders plenty of shills say no one is doing it
    , @Anonymous Jew
    The main problem with the migrant crisis is not our physical borders, but our laws and our unwillingness to enforce the laws we have. If we had no birthright citizenship, took in refugees like Japan, restricted benefits, restricted certain rights for non-citizens, e-verify and never granted amnesty we would actually do OK without any physical borders whatsoever (though physical borders would obviously still offer some benefits). In such a scenario, 3rd-world migrants could come here all they want, but they could never earn a significant amount of money, never vote, never receive benefits, never send their kids to public school and, most importantly, they could never, ever become citizens. (Replace birthright citizenship with a law requiring one biological parent to be a native born citizen).

    Our weak physical borders are maybe 10% of the problem. We are taking in over one million legal immigrants annually, and the vast majority are not partial to Anglo American values and will never adopt them (never mind racial tensions inherent to our species).

    , @MBlanc46
    Hillary Clinton dreamed of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. Hillary effing Clinton. Dem presidential candidate in 2016. In one of her well-remunerated speeches to bankers in 2013. Why do you run your mouth when you’re completely ignorant of that of which you speak?
  44. In the US, border wall opposition is a pathognomonic symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. After all, a goodwhite can’t agree with the Orange Man about anything.

  45. Tex says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    The key assumption there is that the anti-wall advocates are arguing in good faith. A related assumption is that effective policies will be supported and continued without hard-liners (ie, guys who want a wall) in office. From what I’ve seen, both assumptions are faulty.

  46. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    James Mason would say it’s not really sporting to quibble in such a manner as to be obfuscatory.

    The United States should do everything at once and try every method to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and to prevent new ones from infiltrating the USA.

    Trump is a treasonous rat politician whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson. Adelson pushes nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    Trump is deliberately refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and he has refused to build a wall on the border between the USA and Mexico.

    Trump doesn’t need the US Congress to deport all illegal alien invaders nor to build a wall.

    Trump is now calling for a massive increase in legal immigration to the USA — Trump is a treasonous rat!

    Sorry to be short with you Mr. Mason, I usually enjoy your comments!

  47. Denouncing walls as “cowardly” has deep roots in evolutionary psychology going back 600 million years to the Cambrian Explosion and, more saliently, to the European Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness:

    Male Intrasexual Selection

    Across sexual species, compare the geographic structure of male vs female DNA (eg Y vs mtDNA) and you’ll notice male gene flow is far more restricted than female gene flow.

    When a young fertile female crosses a boundary, males are not going to fight her.

    When a male crosses the same boundary individual males are going to fight him as an individual. This “mano-a-mano” fight is the primary form of male intrasexual selection. The exceptions to this, where groups fight him, are rare, but include the primate line, starting with the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA), leading to humans. This introduced an incipient evolution of eusociality in our lineage. The European Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness included the instauration of the evolution of individuality when coevolution with wolves made individual human males more independent of human hunting groups. The result was the reawakening of the individual form of male intrasexual selection:

    The culture of individual integrity.

    The result: Today Europeans find themselves being defeated by the culture of group integrity that did not go through this selection process because an individual is no match for a group.

  48. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Revelation 21:9-14:

    9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And in the spirit[f] he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

     

    So the Heavenly City itself can have a wall, but America can't.

    Nehemiah 2:17

    Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.”

    • Agree: Desiderius
  49. @Redneck farmer
    So tell our anti-wall friends, "We shouldn't build a wall, we should invade Mexico instead"?

    My opinion all along. Invade Mexico. Then drive the natives off their land. Sell the land to loyal Americans. Make English the only language of Mexico. Isn’t this what the lefties planned?

  50. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    Sorry.

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.

    Rabidly. Incessantly.Stridently. Week after damned week.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.
     
    The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. From an economic point of view it is arguable that unfettered population growth is necessary to support aging structures like social security--but I would favor giving more financial incentives to encourage the people who are already here to reproduce.

    We don't hear a lot of politicians talking about where they stand on population growth.
  51. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    This is a bit of a myth.

    And this is a lie.

    You’ll need to do better than that here.

  52. Jake says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    ‘No one really advocates “open borders”’

    Back in the mid-1990s, I began asserting that the logic of Yank ‘civil rights’ meant that within 20 years or so, the Left would strike hard to force ‘gay marriage.’

    100% of the Liberals and Leftists who responded to my assertions during the 1990s and during the Bush 2 administration responded by saying that no one really advocated for gay marriage – that was a myth created by the hate-filled Right to scare people away from voting for Democrats or from caring about blacks or AIDS patients.

  53. David Frye died in 2011. His impression of Jesus is even better than his Nixon!

  54. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    Obstacles are an economy of force measure. If you see what happens a the border it becomes obvious activities of the border patrol are theater: They chase around people who walked in. Since border is in essence un-fenced, there can never be enough law enforcement to nab any but a fraction of those who cross. It is ineffective, but gives the appearance of activity. Its a costly and dangerous PR stunt.

    Were one to build an imposing barrier, those who cross with their 51 foot ladders would be far fewer, and be manageably tracked and apprehended. (What happens to them after apprehension is another matter.)

    It is very frustrating to watch the antics at the border when the need for a barrier is screamingly obvious. The reason we don’t get one, is because it would be too effective. So the open borders politicians deploy some National Guardsmen or some sensors to fool the rubes that things are being done.

    Just to get it off my chest, I’ll state the obvious: Trump is a worthless bullsh***er in this regard, especially.

  55. @dearieme
    Afterthought about the Devil's Dyke: if the explanations offered are right, it wasn't a barrier against barbarism but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people.

    There’s a Devil’s Dyke near me, but still some way from Cambridge.

  56. What a crew these Sailer commenters are: The nation is being invaded by a peasant army, our host provides a forum to discuss aspects of border barriers, and most all the discussion is about sound barriers on the freeways. (And the host seems to be egging them on).

    Hey, get off the nattering about particulates and lets talk about razor wire! Ever get stuck in that? I have. I didn’t like it.

    • Agree: istevefan
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    In metro Boston, where everyone knows that walls don't work, there are sound barriers springing up all over the place.
    , @Grace Jones
    They put a fence with razor wire around a place where I worked. I asked a German Jewish woman from QC what she thought about it. She said to just throw a blanket over it to escape. I then asked a black technician what he thought about it. He said just drive a truck through it and load it up with the equipment.
  57. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se.

    Legals, illegals, pseudoasylees, it’s all the same.

    Transmuralists are an invasive species of sorts, no matter how they arrive. They can have a devastating effect on the local ecology, whether it’s rabbits on the Gold Coast, emerald ash borers in the Upper Midwest, kudzu in the South, or subsidized cheap labor anywhere in the First World.

  58. Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.

  59. Jimi says:

    Steve, Thomas Friedman endorsed building a wall on the Mexican border on 4/23/19. This is by far Trumpiest position ever taken by a NYT columnist (token conservatives included).

    To my surprise o one in the media has commented on Freidman’s article. I was expect at least a few denunciations.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/opinion/trump-immigration-border-wall.html

    The whole day left me more certain than ever that we have a real immigration crisis and that the solution is a high wall with a big gate — but a smart gate.

  60. @Steve Sailer
    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it's a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.

    Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall?

    Of course not. They’ll just resort to an eleven-foot waft.

  61. Granted, the wall-builders sometimes got carried away and spent too much, as countless Chinese peasants complained about their wall-building emperors.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Nixon Foundation Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/TeWinkleMiddle/status/1119411963845414912
  62. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE, so you can’t say “no one.” Beyond that, there are politicians who insist they’re not for open borders, but who object to every possible means of enforcing border control.

    Despite Trump’s rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn’t need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn’t be possible due to the terrain.

    The people who object to the wall are also opposed to e-verify and other means of controlling immigration. Politicians who say that visa overstays are a bigger problem than border crossers don’t follow up with a plan for addressing that problem. It’s just a way to change the subject.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE
     
    Can you provide some links to information about prominent Democrat politicians advocating open borders? Thanks.

    I Googled the subject and could not find any clear cases of Democrat politicians stating that they favored open borders, though there are some opinion pieces claiming that Democrats clandestinely favor open borders.

    , @Clyde

    Despite Trump’s rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn’t need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn’t be possible due to the terrain.
     
    Those were the old days. Trump needs a far more extensive wall these days ....Due to the current Cartel scheme of busing 300 people (paying customers) from Tijuana to remote, non-fenced locations in New Mexico etc. They walk a short distance across our border. Then summon the Border Patrol on their cells to take them to asylum processing.
  63. Everyone knows that walls don’t work, and that they’re simultaneously immoral and cruel to the people they exclude.

    If you build a high wall, the poorest people in the Americas will somehow source ladders of infinite length (which exist) and overcome your high wall.

  64. Abe says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum

    Why would anyone from the Western hemisphere even be considered for asylum? There are no wars going on. Even if there were wars going on the custom of granting asylum (whatever international treaties may exist around such matters, they are also customary, in the sense that states will ALL THE TIME break treaties when strategic interests are at stake) does not override the US’s normal considerations for the interests and wellbeing of its own citizens.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  65. Walls fail when those protected behind them reach the point in the civilizational cycle when they lack the means and the will to use their wall most effectively. Western civilization shows much evidence of being at that point now. If so, for America that has come before any significant barrier has even been built.

  66. @Anonymous
    Sorry.

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for 'open borders'.

    Rabidly. Incessantly.Stridently. Week after damned week.

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.

    The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. From an economic point of view it is arguable that unfettered population growth is necessary to support aging structures like social security–but I would favor giving more financial incentives to encourage the people who are already here to reproduce.

    We don’t hear a lot of politicians talking about where they stand on population growth.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A trivial problem which productivity rising at a rate of around 2% per annum - a rate considered paltry back in the '60s - would clear up.

    With so much low grade industry now outsourced, the scope for productivity increase has never been higher.

    Now, the *real* economic problems caused by exponential population growth are anything BUT trivial.
    , @Republic

    The Economist is a British magazine
     
    also owned by Rothschild
    , @3g4me
    @66 Jonathan Mason: "The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. "

    And you're a Jew from England with a Caribbean/Mulatto wife. You also fear and dislike guns and generally consider Christian Americans to be rather ignorant rubes, if your iSteve comments in aggregate are anything to go by.

    So of course Steve's clueless boomercon commentariat responds civilly as though you made a perfectly rational remark with full intent of honesty.
  67. @Harry Baldwin
    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE, so you can't say "no one." Beyond that, there are politicians who insist they're not for open borders, but who object to every possible means of enforcing border control.

    Despite Trump's rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn't need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn't be possible due to the terrain.

    The people who object to the wall are also opposed to e-verify and other means of controlling immigration. Politicians who say that visa overstays are a bigger problem than border crossers don't follow up with a plan for addressing that problem. It's just a way to change the subject.

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE

    Can you provide some links to information about prominent Democrat politicians advocating open borders? Thanks.

    I Googled the subject and could not find any clear cases of Democrat politicians stating that they favored open borders, though there are some opinion pieces claiming that Democrats clandestinely favor open borders.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is trolling ("I did a Censor Search and everything!"). Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording "without borders" or "no borders"). Also, as on many other things, especially replacement (see Omar today), they furiously deny it and then turn around and revel in it. What do you call people calling for the defunding or disbanding of INS?
  68. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth.

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders. When you flip the demographics of your population, so that the group that once accounted for 87% of your population is now destined to be under 50 percent in twenty years, you effectively have open borders.

    The above paragraph is a fact, not a myth.

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, “There shall be open borders.”

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt, Travis, TWS
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, “There shall be open borders.”
     
    Open borders with a strict self-sufficiency policy and minimum tax payments and wages might have been better than what we have now. Just might-- I don't claim to know, but it's an interesting mental exercise.

    Or, for that matter, open borders with an admission charge. That's how blacks and Hispanics are kept out of San Francisco!

    Which is worse-- porous borders with standards, or semi-porous borders with none?
    , @Jonathan Mason

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders.
     
    No it doesn't, it means that you have a lot of immigration. A person living in Germany can (at the present time) decide to go and live and work in England, Spain, or Greece without having to go through any form of application or getting a visa--that is because the European Community has open borders.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US, though they can buy a vacation home and come and use it for 6 months of the year on a tourist waiver visa, and they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver's license, and so on.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "borders" in relation to the discussion of US immigration. My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.
  69. I’ve heard that the very wealthy radical lefty inhabitants of Malibu have fought, in court, for years to keep the hoi polloi from using “their” beach. Some have built walls or at least fences to stop the peons from being able to walk to the beach and setting foot on their private property. The love for their less well off fellow men just oozes from their pores.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire's Beach.

    When it finally opened, people would toss their unsold screenplays over his wall.

    , @Alden
    The beach is not the private property of owners of property directly adjacent to the beach. All the beaches in California are the property of the State of California and for the use of the public.

    The property owners own only the land within their property lines. The beach is not within anyone’s private property lines.

    Septic tanks instead of functioning sewers, nasty tasting water, millions of people driving on the Main Street PCH night and day, thousands cluttering the beach 2 yards from your back windows, ugly brown desert half dead desert foliage tumbleweeds blowing coyotes hunting your pets and toddlers, septic tanks monthly mud slides, other than the Main Street PCH, the roads are like 1819, 70 year old septic tanks ; Malibu is for the brave and adventurous.
  70. Since the topic of freeways was raised I’m going a little further OT. I used to travel from Washington to Los Angeles fairly often for my employer. I remember one time I was driving roughly south on Sepulveda, at dusk, and I couldn’t believe what I saw – it looked like a giant beach ball rolling across the road. I stared; I said to myself what the heck is that? First time I saw a tumbleweed. And I was always surprised by the traffic; one AM you jump in your car – freeway traffic! I drove on the beltway every day but in the middle of the night it was deserted.

    • Replies: @Alden
    A lot of the midnight to 4/am traffic is long distance truck traffic. 4/am to midnight is just people of the over populated area going to or just getting off their work shifts.
  71. anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    There are sound walls along most of the 101 Freeway in LA. You used to be able to see how traffic was moving and decide whether to get on or stay on surface streets. Now less often.

    Along the 101 in Santa Barbara the sound walls seem designed to hide the trailer parks from view.

  72. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.
     
    The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. From an economic point of view it is arguable that unfettered population growth is necessary to support aging structures like social security--but I would favor giving more financial incentives to encourage the people who are already here to reproduce.

    We don't hear a lot of politicians talking about where they stand on population growth.

    A trivial problem which productivity rising at a rate of around 2% per annum – a rate considered paltry back in the ’60s – would clear up.

    With so much low grade industry now outsourced, the scope for productivity increase has never been higher.

    Now, the *real* economic problems caused by exponential population growth are anything BUT trivial.

  73. J.Ross says: • Website
    @pretty please
    I need to hear what Steve thinks on the Massachusetts judge helping to sneak a criminal illegal alien out the back door of the courthouse to avoid ICE.
    Seems like a tailor made story for you but no comment.

    I linked this story earlier. I fear that this does not represent justice coming to our out of control judges because this particular genius pole-vaulted well over a bright line. Had she granted some sort of parole or stay she would have been safe. She’s in trouble for being thoughtless, not for interfering with ICE.

  74. Anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:

    Wall or War.

  75. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jonathan Mason

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE
     
    Can you provide some links to information about prominent Democrat politicians advocating open borders? Thanks.

    I Googled the subject and could not find any clear cases of Democrat politicians stating that they favored open borders, though there are some opinion pieces claiming that Democrats clandestinely favor open borders.

    This is trolling (“I did a Censor Search and everything!”). Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”). Also, as on many other things, especially replacement (see Omar today), they furiously deny it and then turn around and revel in it. What do you call people calling for the defunding or disbanding of INS?

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Apparently just a troll, but not as amusing as Tiny Duck.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    This is trolling... Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).
     
    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can't even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like "open borders" or "no borders" is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe's affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children's Crusade of refugees.
  76. @istevefan

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth.
     
    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders. When you flip the demographics of your population, so that the group that once accounted for 87% of your population is now destined to be under 50 percent in twenty years, you effectively have open borders.

    The above paragraph is a fact, not a myth.

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, "There shall be open borders."

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, “There shall be open borders.”

    Open borders with a strict self-sufficiency policy and minimum tax payments and wages might have been better than what we have now. Just might– I don’t claim to know, but it’s an interesting mental exercise.

    Or, for that matter, open borders with an admission charge. That’s how blacks and Hispanics are kept out of San Francisco!

    Which is worse– porous borders with standards, or semi-porous borders with none?

  77. Anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:

    Rule of Law is as wall of words.

    Military is a wall of men.

    Organisms have skin, scales, or shell. Or fur. All serve as walls to protect the soft inside.

    Hard exterior is essential to the preservation of the soft interior.

    There are orifices to allow in food, air, light, smells, sounds, and semen(for reproduction). Mouth, eyes, nose, ears, and genitals. But they must be carefully regulated and filtered. Being force-fed is wrong. Being raped is a crime. People mustn’t inhale toxins. Eyes must be protected from excess light or glare.

    Just like an organism cannot be all orifice open all the time, a nation can not be all openness all the time. It will be invaded and altered.

  78. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth

    Bull

  79. The Derby is coming up. Steve was a marketing man, so the following is never OT:

    Kentucky Derby Horse or Ad Agency Name? This Challenge Is Harder Than It Sounds

    There is also a game, even an app, called “Cheese or Font?”

    https://www.sporcle.com/games/chair/cheese-or-font

  80. @Malcolm Y
    I've heard that the very wealthy radical lefty inhabitants of Malibu have fought, in court, for years to keep the hoi polloi from using "their" beach. Some have built walls or at least fences to stop the peons from being able to walk to the beach and setting foot on their private property. The love for their less well off fellow men just oozes from their pores.

    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire’s Beach.

    When it finally opened, people would toss their unsold screenplays over his wall.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire’s Beach.
     
    30 years of privacy is a great deal, even if he had to spend a million or two on lawyers. I'll bet Geffen had some good laughs about this w his liberal friends. It was worth the brags and laughs if nothing else.
    , @Svigor
    Don't forget (((Rob Reiner))), who, like Constantine XI, personally leads the defense of his city against the influx of poor blacks and browns. "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" he's said to them, again and again, for decades...
    , @Known Fact
    At least now with Final Draft 11 those screenplays are more tolerant and inclusive
  81. @Old Prude
    What a crew these Sailer commenters are: The nation is being invaded by a peasant army, our host provides a forum to discuss aspects of border barriers, and most all the discussion is about sound barriers on the freeways. (And the host seems to be egging them on).

    Hey, get off the nattering about particulates and lets talk about razor wire! Ever get stuck in that? I have. I didn't like it.

    In metro Boston, where everyone knows that walls don’t work, there are sound barriers springing up all over the place.

  82. Clyde says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea

    There are Democrats openly advocating open borders and the abolition of ICE, so you can't say "no one." Beyond that, there are politicians who insist they're not for open borders, but who object to every possible means of enforcing border control.

    Despite Trump's rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn't need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn't be possible due to the terrain.

    The people who object to the wall are also opposed to e-verify and other means of controlling immigration. Politicians who say that visa overstays are a bigger problem than border crossers don't follow up with a plan for addressing that problem. It's just a way to change the subject.

    Despite Trump’s rhetoric, even he understands that the wall doesn’t need to extend the entire length of the border. There are places where it wouldn’t be possible due to the terrain.

    Those were the old days. Trump needs a far more extensive wall these days ….Due to the current Cartel scheme of busing 300 people (paying customers) from Tijuana to remote, non-fenced locations in New Mexico etc. They walk a short distance across our border. Then summon the Border Patrol on their cells to take them to asylum processing.

  83. @Stogumber
    I didn't know the English proverb "“Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges," In Germany we have somewhat similar "Good fences make good neighbours". (Neighbour's hens, dogs, pigs etc. in your garden were a major problem in rural areas.)

    An interesting object for the study of fences is Slovakia. There it has become fashionable for township dwellers to fence themselves in against Gipsies (in particular against thieves). This made for a major scandal in the case of Kosice 2013, where the European Union protested against it.

    But the walls didn’t work ? So why build them?

  84. Clyde says:
    @Steve Sailer
    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire's Beach.

    When it finally opened, people would toss their unsold screenplays over his wall.

    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire’s Beach.

    30 years of privacy is a great deal, even if he had to spend a million or two on lawyers. I’ll bet Geffen had some good laughs about this w his liberal friends. It was worth the brags and laughs if nothing else.

  85. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    Plenty of morons advocate for open borders plenty of shills say no one is doing it

  86. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    The main problem with the migrant crisis is not our physical borders, but our laws and our unwillingness to enforce the laws we have. If we had no birthright citizenship, took in refugees like Japan, restricted benefits, restricted certain rights for non-citizens, e-verify and never granted amnesty we would actually do OK without any physical borders whatsoever (though physical borders would obviously still offer some benefits). In such a scenario, 3rd-world migrants could come here all they want, but they could never earn a significant amount of money, never vote, never receive benefits, never send their kids to public school and, most importantly, they could never, ever become citizens. (Replace birthright citizenship with a law requiring one biological parent to be a native born citizen).

    Our weak physical borders are maybe 10% of the problem. We are taking in over one million legal immigrants annually, and the vast majority are not partial to Anglo American values and will never adopt them (never mind racial tensions inherent to our species).

    • Agree: GermanReader2
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The main problem with the migrant crisis is not our physical borders, but our laws and our unwillingness to enforce the laws we have.
     
    Precisely.

    When Trump's party had a majority in the house, why was he not threatening to shut down the government if they did not send legislation to the Senate that included mandatory E-verify, and reporting by schools, hospitals, and landlords of any suspected illegals with heavy penalties for any failure to report or hiring or sheltering illegals, and devastating penalties for any employer hiring illegals en masse along the lines of the fines oil companies have to pay for pollution--$1,100 per barrel, which can run into billions in the event of a large spill?

    The obvious answer is that neither party wants to enforce the immigration laws effectively. Without that, a wall is pointless.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/video/rent-clampdown-as-migrants-reach-uk/vi-BBlmcWB
  87. @dearieme
    Afterthought about the Devil's Dyke: if the explanations offered are right, it wasn't a barrier against barbarism but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people.

    The Devil’s Dyke you refer to runs east-west across lowland East Anglia and its only possible purpose is to proved defence against a seaborne invasion on the Norfolk coast. When that was an imminent danger is anybody’s guess. The Barbarian Conspiracy?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    It runs SE from the village of Reach. Its purpose could be to defend Anglo-Saxon land from Romano-British land, or to defend one Anglo-Saxon kingdom from another. Nobody knows.

    I'd guess that if it was built against the great Barbarian Conspiracy archaeologists would have expected to find bits of Roman evidence. It seems to have that we-can-find-bugger-all nature of Dark Ages stuff.

    If it weren't for pagan grave goods the archeological evidence for the Anglo-Saxons would be pretty thin. The archaeological evidence that the Romano-British survived in large numbers is notoriously thin. They ain't called the Dark Ages without good reason.
    , @dearieme
    I should add that the deep ditch is on the inland SW side, so the aggressors were attacking northeastwards. So that make the Barbarian conspiracy idea unattractive.

    If anyone cold find good evidence of the dates of the dyke and its companion dykes to the west that might help clarify things.
  88. Game of Thrones has become the most popular TV drama in the world and it’s very pro walls. The Wall in the north protected Westerose from the White Walkers for 8,000 years. A hole in the wall didn’t happen until the highly neglected and under funded border guard became a shell of its former self, the night King with the help of dark magic assembled a new army of the dead and a reanimated dead dragon to knock a hole in it. OK sorry been watching to much GOT, but walls are useful, at the very least they do slow down the advancing hoards providing time to mount a defense.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    Walls are probably why we aren't all speaking Mongol:

    Deep ditches and well-built walls: a reappraisal of the mongol withdrawal from Europe in 1242

    P.S., forgot to mention, GWoC (and pretty much all significant pre-modern Chinese fortifications) were made of rammed earth, which is scheisse - it can't stand up to halfway competent siege engineers. It's almost the pre-modern equivalent of concertina wire. It's only good against grug-brained nomad barbarians.

    , @Svigor

    Game of Thrones has become the most popular TV drama in the world
     
    I love telling NPCs I stopped watching it after season 4. They make faces like when I tell them I don't watch TV.
  89. Walls are excellent and the most excellent of them is the one the American Democrats built between Donald Trump and his wall.

  90. Anonymous[254] • Disclaimer says:

    Long ago, they didn’t build prisons. If there were bad people, they were just killed or exiled. Today, we build prison walls to keep in prisoners. Back then, walls were built to keep in the townsfolk from invaders. When the bugle sounded, people bolted into the walled fortress. With walls, cities developed and grew richer and had more people. And better weapons were forged. And the once defensive walled cities could expand outwards and conquer others. Other cities or the barbarians who were tamed. In time, barbarians were civilized and identified as ‘national’ folk. And with rule and enforcement of law, there was less need for civilized vs barbarian dichotomy. In modern nations, there are criminal elements who are tracked down by the law. But most people are civilized and don’t need walls to protect them. In the past, entire populations could be barbarian. It wasn’t just a handful of criminals but an army of marauders with women and children in tow. We only need the police to deal with thugs and criminals. But we need walls against entire tribes of barbarians. The walls can come down only after the barbarians are vanquished, wiped out, or tamed into fellow civilized folk.

    For much of ancient history, the main invaders were the nomadic peoples. But in the modern era, the main invaders were civilized people with modern transport systems and guns. People who had once relied on walls for protection tore them down or forgot about them. As both cities and countryside were tamed and civilized, there was no danger of nomadic assaults in their own nations. If anything, they were building ships and later airplanes to conquer other parts of the world. As the West was in conquest mode, they were busying tearing down walls in Asia, Africa, and Middle East. In the 19th century, it was the Chinese who wanted walls against the West. In contrast, the West was about tearing down walls and expansion.

    America was a test-case of Western Expansion and breaking down walls. Americans proved that a people don’t need walls if they are united by law, creed, and language. It helped that most Americans were white. Westward expansion by cowboys and the like wasn’t the spread of anacho-nomadism but more settlement. It removed the nomadic Indians and replaced them with cities, towns, villages, and etc, all bound by the power of law. If so many people across such vast distances can get live with order and stability without walls — with states’ rights giving to federal hegemony — , why couldn’t this template serve the entire world, not least because Americanism has spread to nearly every nation? Furthermore, there were Jews who were a different kind of nomadic people. Not barbarians who besieged towns for rape and plunder but merchants who entered goy towns and offered financial services to gain power and privilege(and the ears of the elites with the long-term agenda of taking over as the new elites). Jewish way was hybrid of wall and anti-wall. Jews felt safest in walled cities and even had their walled ghettos. And yet, due to reasons of expulsion or expansion, Jews needed to spread their trade and influence to other cities. Jews wanted walls closed for protection for those inside but wanted them open for Jews to enter and ply their trade. But at some point, Jewish survivalist strategy turned into supremacist strategy. Also, the America of Rule of Law was threatened by outbreak of black violence since the 60s. Thankfully, due to the vastness of America, instead of building walls against blacks, whites opted to create distances between themselves and blacks. Move away sufficiently from black areas to have safety and security. But in the UK, how long can this go on when more and more blacks arrive to cause trouble? Not much space to run there.

    If all the world was equally developed, no-walls policy just might work. While there would be migrations, most people might stay put because their own nations are equally developed and nice. But look at the world, and there is extreme disparity between rich nations and poor nations. And poor ones are teeming with people. Also, with the Age of Empire receding into history, it’s becoming ever more apparent that relative prosperity and poverty have more to do with genetics, IQ, and temperament than anything else. So, poor nations or ‘shitholes’ are what they are because of the people there. And due to national genetics, they will remain poor indefinitely.
    And if lots of these people move to nice nations, they will foul them up like their own nations. If indeed all peoples are equal, why can’t black Africans do much in Africa? Furthermore, if poor nations need people of talent, why does the West believe in taking the best of poorer nations, the brain drain of creme of crop? Isn’t that unethical? And why don’t Jews and other high IQ people in the West move to places like Africa and contribute to make those nations better if they love the idea of immigration, living with Diversity, and helping non-whites?

    One thing for sure, the economic and sexual bridge from Africa to Europe will end in disaster. The last thing EU needs is the Long Dong Silver Express and Long Dong Silver Bridge.

  91. @Philip Neal
    The Devil's Dyke you refer to runs east-west across lowland East Anglia and its only possible purpose is to proved defence against a seaborne invasion on the Norfolk coast. When that was an imminent danger is anybody's guess. The Barbarian Conspiracy?

    It runs SE from the village of Reach. Its purpose could be to defend Anglo-Saxon land from Romano-British land, or to defend one Anglo-Saxon kingdom from another. Nobody knows.

    I’d guess that if it was built against the great Barbarian Conspiracy archaeologists would have expected to find bits of Roman evidence. It seems to have that we-can-find-bugger-all nature of Dark Ages stuff.

    If it weren’t for pagan grave goods the archeological evidence for the Anglo-Saxons would be pretty thin. The archaeological evidence that the Romano-British survived in large numbers is notoriously thin. They ain’t called the Dark Ages without good reason.

  92. @Philip Neal
    The Devil's Dyke you refer to runs east-west across lowland East Anglia and its only possible purpose is to proved defence against a seaborne invasion on the Norfolk coast. When that was an imminent danger is anybody's guess. The Barbarian Conspiracy?

    I should add that the deep ditch is on the inland SW side, so the aggressors were attacking northeastwards. So that make the Barbarian conspiracy idea unattractive.

    If anyone cold find good evidence of the dates of the dyke and its companion dykes to the west that might help clarify things.

  93. @Achmed E. Newman
    Particulate pollution normally gets well up high enough into the air for these walls not to make a difference, but in the right wind conditions, maybe there's an effect. These walls were all built for noise, with a slight benefit of reducing "unsightliness", depending though, if the wall is more unsightly to you than the vehicles. (As Steve said, it was nice to check out the traffic, but now "there's and app for that ..." etc.)

    Stan, all these limited-access highways are supposed to have barriers to pedestrian (and, of course, vehicular) entry, to there'd be a chain-link fence with barb-wire on top anyway. At least this saves on the fence, and though these walls may look like something we need on the Mexican border, I think those panels are probably made very cheaply and can be erected cheaply/quickly too, though, of course, still more costly than fences.

    Here's what really helps, on the noise, unsightliness, and air quality a bit: trees and big bushes. It'd be nice if they were all along the roads, but they take a while to grow. Right alongside these walls is a great place for them to take hold. By some point, sooner or later, depending on the climate zone, the vegetation could get thick enough to block the view of this wall for residents AND drivers. Of course, the right kind of trees will make climbing the barrier easier again ... maybe then you need a fence ... round and round.

    I'm in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    I’m in in favor of more trees. They make everything better.

    Agree.

  94. @Steve Sailer
    I live a few blocks from a 10 lane freeway with soundwalls and it's not at all bad. Mostly tire noise which is close to white noise. At 3am the tire noise is down enough that I can hear that lonesome whistle blow of the freight train about 3 miles north near Sherman Way.

    I shot a man in Reno,just to watch him die…

  95. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    There are two kinds of walls. Outer walls and inner walls. Territorial walls and palace walls.

    The problem of America is within the palace walls. In the corridors of power in inner sanctums of power, it’s been decided that the outer walls must go. As the system’s code is decided within the innermost sanctum inside palace walls, the outer walls can go up or down depending on what the innermost rulers decide.

    So, if Americans want outer walls to go up and remain strong, they must storm the palace walls and remove those inside the inner-walls. Whether walls go up or down, it is usually the decision of those inside the palace walls. The Berlin Wall wasn’t torn down by the masses. It was decided within palace walls to let it go down. Only then did mobs tear down the wall.

    Before white Americans worry about brown caravans smashing the outer walls, they need to think of smashing the palace walls to expose and depose the globalist ruling elites.

    German people didn’t decide to let in tons of ‘refugees’. It was decided within palace walls by Merkel and her shadow bosses. Smash the wall of the treasonous elites and change the system coding within back to nationalism.

    To have the wall, there must first be the will to confront the treasonous elites within the palace that side with invaders than with national folk.

  96. Anonymous[745] • Disclaimer says:

    An interesting movie about palace walls is The Last Emperor.
    At one time, it was the center of power in China from which all directives came. What was decided within palace walls determined the fate of China.
    But as the imperial court weakened under foreign pressure and domestic uprising, the last emperor Puyi was essentially a prisoner. It went from grand palace to ornate prison.

    One might say the same thing for white power in the US. At once time, the white elites of DC were the rulers of America. What they decided in Washington decided the fate of the nation. But now, the white elites of DC seem like late-era Manchu rulers under the thumb of Western imperialists. They go through all the motions of power, but it’s empty ceremony. The real power is with the global Jewish Network that use most US politicians as hapless whores and cucks. Trump talked big in 2016, but he might as well be emperor puyi, the last white emperor. As for guys like Biden and Beto, their campaigns are based on ‘white shame’. Buttigig is about globo-homo, not American patriotism. As for Harris and Booker, they are bought-and-paid whores of Democratic Jewish oligarchy.

    DC is just a ceremonial goy shell of the real power that is in New York, Los Angeles, San Franciso, and other places all around the world where Jewish elites have decisive control. Goy politicians are more like prisoners or shills of government that no longer has national autonomy or cares about the will of the people(who are slated for replacement).

  97. Anonymous[300] • Disclaimer says:

    In order to secure civilization, separatist walls must be busted down at least within the domain.
    Suppose there is a kingdom and suppose every minor prince decides to build a wall against central authority. This will usher in the age of warlords as each nobleman will concentrate on his own power than loyalty to the king. Each nobleman will try to be the new king. For there to be a united Germany, Prussia had to swallow up smaller German principalities. Such expansion of authority generally works among people of shared blood and culture. Germans uniting with other Germans leads to more power and stability. But Austro-Germans ruling over majority non-Germans was unstable and eventually fell apart. Japan unified in late 16th century. This ensured peace. When Japan was divided along different clans, there was constant warfare, with each side seeking dominance. And national unity was assured in the US, China, and Vietnam through bloody civil wars that tore down separatist walls.

    Initially, a budding civilization needs walls to keep out invaders. But relying on walls as long-term strategy is risky as it’s essentially a defensive posture. It signals FEAR of would-be attackers and invaders. It’s the way of tortoise of porcupine. Perhaps effective but always inviting new predators who try to crack it open.

    To ensure civilization’s survival, offense is best defense. Move beyond one’s walls, wage war on barbarians, wipe them our, enslave them, or incorporate them into the civilization, especially if similar in race and language.
    The Politics of Identity in crucial in the spread of civilization. Using force or threat alone is expensive and unpleasant. Also, it means peace is guaranteed only by violence. Barbarians will rise up once again if they sense weakness. But if barbarians are tamed and made to feel that they are of the shared blood and culture, they are less likely to attack the center of civilization. Even when they are not of the city, they will see it as part of their own people and culture. The idea of shared Russian-ness had a pacifying effect on people of the Russian Empire. Maybe they rode
    on horseback and carried arms, but they were Russians, just like the city dwellers.
    The well of shared memory and identity make for peace and stability over great distances. Even if you’re of a biker gang, you’re not likely to attack peaceful people of a town because, after all, you’re all fellow Americans.
    One difference among whites and American Indians is that the former were united in identity. Even white frontiersmen in the West identified with fellow whites in the East Coast despite separation over great distances. In contrast, various Indian tribes saw each other as the Other, just like they saw the whites as the Other. Such lack of unity meant constant wars among themselves.

    The problem with the current West is of course more about Will than Wall. The sheer lack of Will. The Will to defend and preserve.

    Also, there is the loss of another kind of Will, meaning legacy, bequeathing property, and inheritance. Whites in the past wrote the Will for their posterity, but that Will has been lost. Instead, the Will has been altered for the West to be bequeathed to non-whites and globalists.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Your examples sound like they don't even come from Wikipedia (Russians accepted Udmurts as fellow Russians?) and you raise the question of just what is this domain thing. Are you by any chance of Celestial ancestry?
    Even if you’re of a biker gang, you’re not likely to attack peaceful people of a town because, after all, you’re all fellow Americans.
    Little brother, it's only the middle of the week; let your liver rest until the weekend!
  98. In a brilliant epilogue entitled “Love Your Neighbor, But Don’t Pull Down Your Hedges,” Frye points out that, ironically, shortly after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall made anti-wall triumphalism the unchallenged conventional wisdom, the world quietly entered its Second Age of Walls. (The first ran from prehistory up to the proliferation of cannons in the 1400s.)

    Interestingly, the First Age of Walls was really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY fucking White. Sure the Chins had the big name, the GWoC. But castles were overwhelmingly a European thing. The number of European castles, or remains or ruins of castles, numbers in the tens of thousands. No other region even comes close to coming close. There are some castles in the Levant – most of the best built by Crusaders. There are a few in South Asia. There are a handful in Japan and here and there. But basically castles are almost entirely a European thing. If I had to guess, I’d say 99% of all castles ever built were in Europe.

    So on even a basic grug-brained level, it’s easy to understand why (((they))) hate walls. Ostensibly.

  99. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Granted, the wall-builders sometimes got carried away and spent too much, as countless Chinese peasants complained about their wall-building emperors.
     
    https://twitter.com/dogeposting/status/1121773735059574784

    Nixon Foundation Retweeted:

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4jzO7bU0AA_HcK.jpg
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Ho Lee Fuk. Every one of them looks like SPEDy Gonzales.
  100. @George Taylor
    Game of Thrones has become the most popular TV drama in the world and it's very pro walls. The Wall in the north protected Westerose from the White Walkers for 8,000 years. A hole in the wall didn't happen until the highly neglected and under funded border guard became a shell of its former self, the night King with the help of dark magic assembled a new army of the dead and a reanimated dead dragon to knock a hole in it. OK sorry been watching to much GOT, but walls are useful, at the very least they do slow down the advancing hoards providing time to mount a defense.

    Walls are probably why we aren’t all speaking Mongol:

    Deep ditches and well-built walls: a reappraisal of the mongol withdrawal from Europe in 1242

    P.S., forgot to mention, GWoC (and pretty much all significant pre-modern Chinese fortifications) were made of rammed earth, which is scheisse – it can’t stand up to halfway competent siege engineers. It’s almost the pre-modern equivalent of concertina wire. It’s only good against grug-brained nomad barbarians.

  101. “One famous people that chose to live without walls were the Spartans, who felt that physical security made men decadent. “They opted for a forced, artificial barbarism over high culture.” Frye repeatedly observes that a lack of walls means a lack of diversity within society. In Sparta, as in most barbarian tribes beyond the walls, virtually each male citizen must have no profession other than war.”

    These quotes by the king Agesilaus II discuss the Spartan mindset about walls:

    “When someone else wished to know why Sparta was without walls, he pointed to the citizens in full armour and said, “These are the Spartans’ walls.””

    ” Somebody in a foreign land pointed out to Agesilaus the city wall, high towering and exceedingly massive in its construction, and asked Agesilaus p271 if it looked grand to him. “Yes,” said Agesilaus, “grand indeed, not for men though, but for women to live in.”

    • Replies: @Svigor
    Echoes of Neoconservatism, which is not concerned with manliness or masculinity or prowess at war, but in a particular kind of foreign adventurism, on (((their))) behalf. (Sort of the opposite of traditional masculinity)

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

    Castles were a dramatic force multiplier, and real fighters love their force multipliers.

  102. @Anonymous
    In order to secure civilization, separatist walls must be busted down at least within the domain.
    Suppose there is a kingdom and suppose every minor prince decides to build a wall against central authority. This will usher in the age of warlords as each nobleman will concentrate on his own power than loyalty to the king. Each nobleman will try to be the new king. For there to be a united Germany, Prussia had to swallow up smaller German principalities. Such expansion of authority generally works among people of shared blood and culture. Germans uniting with other Germans leads to more power and stability. But Austro-Germans ruling over majority non-Germans was unstable and eventually fell apart. Japan unified in late 16th century. This ensured peace. When Japan was divided along different clans, there was constant warfare, with each side seeking dominance. And national unity was assured in the US, China, and Vietnam through bloody civil wars that tore down separatist walls.

    Initially, a budding civilization needs walls to keep out invaders. But relying on walls as long-term strategy is risky as it's essentially a defensive posture. It signals FEAR of would-be attackers and invaders. It's the way of tortoise of porcupine. Perhaps effective but always inviting new predators who try to crack it open.

    To ensure civilization's survival, offense is best defense. Move beyond one's walls, wage war on barbarians, wipe them our, enslave them, or incorporate them into the civilization, especially if similar in race and language.
    The Politics of Identity in crucial in the spread of civilization. Using force or threat alone is expensive and unpleasant. Also, it means peace is guaranteed only by violence. Barbarians will rise up once again if they sense weakness. But if barbarians are tamed and made to feel that they are of the shared blood and culture, they are less likely to attack the center of civilization. Even when they are not of the city, they will see it as part of their own people and culture. The idea of shared Russian-ness had a pacifying effect on people of the Russian Empire. Maybe they rode
    on horseback and carried arms, but they were Russians, just like the city dwellers.
    The well of shared memory and identity make for peace and stability over great distances. Even if you're of a biker gang, you're not likely to attack peaceful people of a town because, after all, you're all fellow Americans.
    One difference among whites and American Indians is that the former were united in identity. Even white frontiersmen in the West identified with fellow whites in the East Coast despite separation over great distances. In contrast, various Indian tribes saw each other as the Other, just like they saw the whites as the Other. Such lack of unity meant constant wars among themselves.

    The problem with the current West is of course more about Will than Wall. The sheer lack of Will. The Will to defend and preserve.

    Also, there is the loss of another kind of Will, meaning legacy, bequeathing property, and inheritance. Whites in the past wrote the Will for their posterity, but that Will has been lost. Instead, the Will has been altered for the West to be bequeathed to non-whites and globalists.

    Your examples sound like they don’t even come from Wikipedia (Russians accepted Udmurts as fellow Russians?) and you raise the question of just what is this domain thing. Are you by any chance of Celestial ancestry?
    Even if you’re of a biker gang, you’re not likely to attack peaceful people of a town because, after all, you’re all fellow Americans.
    Little brother, it’s only the middle of the week; let your liver rest until the weekend!

  103. @MEH 0910
    Nixon Foundation Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/TeWinkleMiddle/status/1119411963845414912

  104. @George Taylor
    Game of Thrones has become the most popular TV drama in the world and it's very pro walls. The Wall in the north protected Westerose from the White Walkers for 8,000 years. A hole in the wall didn't happen until the highly neglected and under funded border guard became a shell of its former self, the night King with the help of dark magic assembled a new army of the dead and a reanimated dead dragon to knock a hole in it. OK sorry been watching to much GOT, but walls are useful, at the very least they do slow down the advancing hoards providing time to mount a defense.

    Game of Thrones has become the most popular TV drama in the world

    I love telling NPCs I stopped watching it after season 4. They make faces like when I tell them I don’t watch TV.

  105. Alden says:
    @Malcolm Y
    I've heard that the very wealthy radical lefty inhabitants of Malibu have fought, in court, for years to keep the hoi polloi from using "their" beach. Some have built walls or at least fences to stop the peons from being able to walk to the beach and setting foot on their private property. The love for their less well off fellow men just oozes from their pores.

    The beach is not the private property of owners of property directly adjacent to the beach. All the beaches in California are the property of the State of California and for the use of the public.

    The property owners own only the land within their property lines. The beach is not within anyone’s private property lines.

    Septic tanks instead of functioning sewers, nasty tasting water, millions of people driving on the Main Street PCH night and day, thousands cluttering the beach 2 yards from your back windows, ugly brown desert half dead desert foliage tumbleweeds blowing coyotes hunting your pets and toddlers, septic tanks monthly mud slides, other than the Main Street PCH, the roads are like 1819, 70 year old septic tanks ; Malibu is for the brave and adventurous.

  106. @Valentino

    "One famous people that chose to live without walls were the Spartans, who felt that physical security made men decadent. “They opted for a forced, artificial barbarism over high culture.” Frye repeatedly observes that a lack of walls means a lack of diversity within society. In Sparta, as in most barbarian tribes beyond the walls, virtually each male citizen must have no profession other than war."
     
    These quotes by the king Agesilaus II discuss the Spartan mindset about walls:

    "When someone else wished to know why Sparta was without walls, he pointed to the citizens in full armour and said, "These are the Spartans' walls.""

    " Somebody in a foreign land pointed out to Agesilaus the city wall, high towering and exceedingly massive in its construction, and asked Agesilaus p271 if it looked grand to him. "Yes," said Agesilaus, "grand indeed, not for men though, but for women to live in."

    Echoes of Neoconservatism, which is not concerned with manliness or masculinity or prowess at war, but in a particular kind of foreign adventurism, on (((their))) behalf. (Sort of the opposite of traditional masculinity)

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

    Castles were a dramatic force multiplier, and real fighters love their force multipliers.

    • Replies: @Valentino

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

     

    There is an amusing account that occurred when Agesilaus was in Egypt. The Egyptian court thought that they would see a pompous king, but they saw a completely unpretentious man, indistinguishable from his soldiers :

    " As soon as he landed in Egypt,90 the chief captains and governors of the king came down to meet him and pay him honour. There was great eagerness and expectation on the part of the other Egyptians also, owing to the name and fame of Agesilaüs, and all ran together to behold him. 5 But when they saw no brilliant array whatever, but an old man lying in some grass by the sea, his body small and contemptible, covered with a cloak that was coarse and mean, they were moved to laughter and jesting, saying that here was an illustration of the fable, "a mountain is in travail, and then a mouse is born."91 6 They were still more surprised, too, at his eccentricity. When all manner of hospitable gifts were brought to him, he accepted the flour, the calves, and the geese, but rejected the sweetmeats, the pastries, and the perfumes, and when he was urged and besought to take them, ordered them to be carried and given to his Helots."
     
    LOL
  107. @Malcolm Y
    Since the topic of freeways was raised I'm going a little further OT. I used to travel from Washington to Los Angeles fairly often for my employer. I remember one time I was driving roughly south on Sepulveda, at dusk, and I couldn't believe what I saw - it looked like a giant beach ball rolling across the road. I stared; I said to myself what the heck is that? First time I saw a tumbleweed. And I was always surprised by the traffic; one AM you jump in your car - freeway traffic! I drove on the beltway every day but in the middle of the night it was deserted.

    A lot of the midnight to 4/am traffic is long distance truck traffic. 4/am to midnight is just people of the over populated area going to or just getting off their work shifts.

  108. @Steve Sailer
    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire's Beach.

    When it finally opened, people would toss their unsold screenplays over his wall.

    Don’t forget (((Rob Reiner))), who, like Constantine XI, personally leads the defense of his city against the influx of poor blacks and browns. “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!” he’s said to them, again and again, for decades…

  109. @Jonathan Mason
    Walls, ramparts, ditches, moats and so on have always existed for various reasons, not to mention hedges and fences.

    The main reasons for having these barriers are as fortifications against invaders, to control and separate livestock, to provide wind barriers, and to delineate private lands and keep out intruders. Prisons also use walls and fences to keep deplorables from escaping.

    Many modern Americans live in gated communities, where the main object of the walls is presumably to deter African American burglars and home invaders and to mark off the territory of Home Owners Associations.

    However when it comes to the border with Mexico, the main problem at this time seems to be related to people arriving and requesting asylum, rather than with fence-jumping per se. Often huge groups of prospective asylees are identified when they are still days away from the border, and it would not be difficult to find way to intercept them, if that were the purpose.

    The questions about the wall are more about whether a wall is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    When you consider the vast cost of, say, the Vietnam or Iraq wars which were fought on foreign territory, it seems like hyperbole to say that the US is so overwhelmed at the southern bordersthat it is undergoing invasion by foreign hordes and unable to defend itself.

    No one really advocates "open borders". This is a bit of a myth. The questions about the wall are more about whether a continuous wall from sea to shining sea is the most effective way of dealing with the particular problems at the US southern border, or whether there are other ways of patrolling and preventing illegal border crossings using various deployments of technology and manpower.

    Hillary Clinton dreamed of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. Hillary effing Clinton. Dem presidential candidate in 2016. In one of her well-remunerated speeches to bankers in 2013. Why do you run your mouth when you’re completely ignorant of that of which you speak?

  110. @J.Ross
    This is trolling ("I did a Censor Search and everything!"). Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording "without borders" or "no borders"). Also, as on many other things, especially replacement (see Omar today), they furiously deny it and then turn around and revel in it. What do you call people calling for the defunding or disbanding of INS?

    Apparently just a troll, but not as amusing as Tiny Duck.

  111. @istevefan

    No one really advocates “open borders”. This is a bit of a myth.
     
    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders. When you flip the demographics of your population, so that the group that once accounted for 87% of your population is now destined to be under 50 percent in twenty years, you effectively have open borders.

    The above paragraph is a fact, not a myth.

    PS. FYI, the Wall Street Journal did indeed advocate amending our constitution in the 1980s with a simple amendment that read, "There shall be open borders."

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders.

    No it doesn’t, it means that you have a lot of immigration. A person living in Germany can (at the present time) decide to go and live and work in England, Spain, or Greece without having to go through any form of application or getting a visa–that is because the European Community has open borders.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US, though they can buy a vacation home and come and use it for 6 months of the year on a tourist waiver visa, and they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver’s license, and so on.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “borders” in relation to the discussion of US immigration. My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.

    • Replies: @J.Ross

    No[, millions of immigrants] doesn’t [mean de facto open borders], it means that you have a lot of immigration.
     
    Setting aside what happens when you starve and overwork people in a typhus-infested area (I mean, it's not like you're programmatically killing them: the stubborn bastards are refusing to live, it's their fault), how many countries with highly restrictive immigration policies see the kind of influx we are dealing with? Would that number suggest that imposing such policies might then affect the influx?
    Granting that this is not policy, what does that say about the government? That they are totally worthless and should be thrown out?
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    You’re conflating different things. The EC (as you’ve defined it) has no internal borders. So the matter is moot for EU citizens wanting to relocate within the zone. This is no different for US citizens moving between states (e.g. FL to TX).

    iStevefan was talking about external borders, which in the case of the US is a de facto open border.


    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US ...
     
    Of course they can. If not legally, then illegally.

    ... they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver’s license, and so on.
     
    Your irrelevant list of benefits and privileges doesn’t refute iStevefan’s point about open borders. Both legal and illegal immigration are out of control in the US. The numbers are too high, and the trend is downright dysgenic.

    As I understand it, both you and your Netflix-absorbed peasant waifu (?) are recent additions to our great nation—surely a sign of a rather careless US immigration policy (unless you got in on a bona fide ‘genius visa’, then—my ‘umble apologies).

    The two relevant questions:

    Are illegal aliens able to enter, and remain, in the US? If so, that’s open borders.
    Are too many legal aliens arriving, and staying? That’s also open borders.

    Anyone who is against drastic, effective reduction of both legal and illegal immigration is for open borders. Of course, they invariably prefer deflective, deceptive terms like “immigration reform.”

    , @istevefan

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “borders” in relation to the discussion of US immigration.
     
    There is no misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "borders". It is just that borders are meaningLESS in terms of the immigration levels we have seen. And since they are meaningLESS, we effectively have open borders.

    Just as a reminder, the first permanent English colony in what is now the USA was established in Jamestown, VA in 1607. From that time until about 1965, an estimated 45 million immigrants came to what is now the USA. That's 45 million over 358 years. Since 1965, we've received around 60 million and counting. That's 60 million-plus in 53 years, and there is absolutely no letup in sight.

    In fact the more we get, the less likely you will see a letup. As Steve quite correctly explains, the current crop of immigrants won't be satisfied until their extended families get in. And as they grow in political power, in a nation where elections are decided by razor thin margins, politicians will be reluctant to go against the wishes of growing parts of the electorate.


    My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.
     
    The EU is a common market and allows freedom of movement within it. The USA allows freedom of movement among our states. Even protectorates like Puerto Rico are allowed freedom of movement within the United States.

    However, I believe nations like China don't even allow this. I was under the impression that one needed permission from the government to relocate, let's say, from the countryside to the city.

  112. Here’s an interesting one: Red Snake of Iran: The Great Wall of Gorgan. “…more than 1000 years older than the Great Wall of China, and longer than Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall put together.”
    http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The_Red_Snake_The_Great_Wall_of_Gorgan.htm

  113. @J.Ross
    This is trolling ("I did a Censor Search and everything!"). Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording "without borders" or "no borders"). Also, as on many other things, especially replacement (see Omar today), they furiously deny it and then turn around and revel in it. What do you call people calling for the defunding or disbanding of INS?

    This is trolling… Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).

    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can’t even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe’s affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children’s Crusade of refugees.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.
     
    It need not be a legislative plan, when it is a practical reality. Your life in your gated community, with your impeccably groomed lawns maintained by illegal aliens, and your illegal alien nanny watching over your beloved children, must have clouded your reasoning and your judgment.
    , @J.Ross
    Prove to me that WWII happened. I don't recall FDR or Hitler ever saying they "want[ed] WWII," so just because they expended millions of dollars, tons of material, hours of work, and reams of policy decisions, that doesn't, like, mean anything, man. It was all just, like, molecules, man, motile molecules that just happened in a way, which in hindsight looks like a certain way, man.
    , @istevefan

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.
     
    You really are not seeing the forest for the trees. You are debating the semantics of open borders, or no borders, and deciding it's only used as a scare tactic because there is no serious legislative plan calling for open borders.

    The reality is there is no need for any open border legislative plan because the effect of open borders is already being felt. No nation in history has taken as many immigrants in such a short time as the USA. The Nazi invasion of the USSR involved 3 million men, and that was considered the largest such invasion in history. We've taken in 60 million and are adding 1 to 2 million per year. And Senator McCain, before his demise, suggested going for 30 million more over the next 10 years.

    I think the only comparison would be the migration of rural Chinese to the cities over the past 30 years. But that is not exactly immigration since those people just moved from one part of China to another.

    As for scaring people, the term open borders is not needed to scare people. In fact as pointed out by Steve in an earlier post, Whites tend to oppose further immigration when they are told the truth about what has happened demographically to the USA over the past 53 years. So the media has decided the best thing to do is to not tell Whites about this demographic change. Or as Steve summed it up, the media will lie to Whites to keep them uninformed. Sort of like ignorance is bliss.
    , @Anonymous
    David Blunkett - Blair's Home Secretary famously declared that 'there is no upward limit to the UK population, since the UK has below replacement fertility, it's fairly obvious he meant 'come on one, come on all'.

    His successor, Alan Johnson declared ' I'm losing no sleep about UK population growth'.

    If you want to know what the Deep State is thinking, beyond the Westminster puppet show, read The Economist.
  114. @Old Prude
    What a crew these Sailer commenters are: The nation is being invaded by a peasant army, our host provides a forum to discuss aspects of border barriers, and most all the discussion is about sound barriers on the freeways. (And the host seems to be egging them on).

    Hey, get off the nattering about particulates and lets talk about razor wire! Ever get stuck in that? I have. I didn't like it.

    They put a fence with razor wire around a place where I worked. I asked a German Jewish woman from QC what she thought about it. She said to just throw a blanket over it to escape. I then asked a black technician what he thought about it. He said just drive a truck through it and load it up with the equipment.

  115. @Jonathan Mason

    This is trolling... Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).
     
    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can't even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like "open borders" or "no borders" is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe's affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children's Crusade of refugees.

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    It need not be a legislative plan, when it is a practical reality. Your life in your gated community, with your impeccably groomed lawns maintained by illegal aliens, and your illegal alien nanny watching over your beloved children, must have clouded your reasoning and your judgment.

  116. @dearieme
    Afterthought about the Devil's Dyke: if the explanations offered are right, it wasn't a barrier against barbarism but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people.

    “but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people.”

    It’s hard to say if the Romano-Britons were indeed more civilised by the later imperial period. At that point, the “Roman” military was often just roving war bands with a dubious Roman charter. At least the genuine barbarians often let the Roman taxes lapse, which the “Roman” army rarely did. Sometimes “civilisation” becomes so corrupt and decadent that barbarism becomes the rational alternative.

    But don’t take my word for it. We may be approaching this inflection point again, and everyone will get to see this for themselves.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Many of the Romano-Britons were Christian (hence the lack of grave goods), which meant that some of them were literate. The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate. The R-Bs still referred to themselves as "citizens", so presumably still honoured some aspects of Roman civilisation - maybe property rights? There's evidence of Roman life lingering on in cities and villas for decades after the legions left.
  117. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jonathan Mason

    This is trolling... Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).
     
    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can't even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like "open borders" or "no borders" is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe's affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children's Crusade of refugees.

    Prove to me that WWII happened. I don’t recall FDR or Hitler ever saying they “want[ed] WWII,” so just because they expended millions of dollars, tons of material, hours of work, and reams of policy decisions, that doesn’t, like, mean anything, man. It was all just, like, molecules, man, motile molecules that just happened in a way, which in hindsight looks like a certain way, man.

  118. @MEH 0910
    Nixon Foundation Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/TeWinkleMiddle/status/1119411963845414912

    Ho Lee Fuk. Every one of them looks like SPEDy Gonzales.

  119. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jonathan Mason

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders.
     
    No it doesn't, it means that you have a lot of immigration. A person living in Germany can (at the present time) decide to go and live and work in England, Spain, or Greece without having to go through any form of application or getting a visa--that is because the European Community has open borders.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US, though they can buy a vacation home and come and use it for 6 months of the year on a tourist waiver visa, and they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver's license, and so on.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "borders" in relation to the discussion of US immigration. My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.

    No[, millions of immigrants] doesn’t [mean de facto open borders], it means that you have a lot of immigration.

    Setting aside what happens when you starve and overwork people in a typhus-infested area (I mean, it’s not like you’re programmatically killing them: the stubborn bastards are refusing to live, it’s their fault), how many countries with highly restrictive immigration policies see the kind of influx we are dealing with? Would that number suggest that imposing such policies might then affect the influx?
    Granting that this is not policy, what does that say about the government? That they are totally worthless and should be thrown out?

  120. @Jonathan Mason

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders.
     
    No it doesn't, it means that you have a lot of immigration. A person living in Germany can (at the present time) decide to go and live and work in England, Spain, or Greece without having to go through any form of application or getting a visa--that is because the European Community has open borders.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US, though they can buy a vacation home and come and use it for 6 months of the year on a tourist waiver visa, and they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver's license, and so on.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "borders" in relation to the discussion of US immigration. My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.

    You’re conflating different things. The EC (as you’ve defined it) has no internal borders. So the matter is moot for EU citizens wanting to relocate within the zone. This is no different for US citizens moving between states (e.g. FL to TX).

    iStevefan was talking about external borders, which in the case of the US is a de facto open border.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US …

    Of course they can. If not legally, then illegally.

    … they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver’s license, and so on.

    Your irrelevant list of benefits and privileges doesn’t refute iStevefan’s point about open borders. Both legal and illegal immigration are out of control in the US. The numbers are too high, and the trend is downright dysgenic.

    As I understand it, both you and your Netflix-absorbed peasant waifu (?) are recent additions to our great nation—surely a sign of a rather careless US immigration policy (unless you got in on a bona fide ‘genius visa’, then—my ‘umble apologies).

    The two relevant questions:

    Are illegal aliens able to enter, and remain, in the US? If so, that’s open borders.
    Are too many legal aliens arriving, and staying? That’s also open borders.

    Anyone who is against drastic, effective reduction of both legal and illegal immigration is for open borders. Of course, they invariably prefer deflective, deceptive terms like “immigration reform.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    As I understand it, both you and your Netflix-absorbed peasant waifu (?) are recent additions to our great nation—surely a sign of a rather careless US immigration policy (unless you got in on a bona fide ‘genius visa’, then—my ‘umble apologies).
     
    LOL! I have been in the US since 1986, except for about 3 years spent living overseas in that time. My wife has been here 3 years and has her citizenship interview the week after next.She has been practicing singing "Oh say can you see?"

    Naturally I was initially invited to the US by President Reagan to serve in the War on Drugs, and to save the country from being wiped out by AIDS. Mission accomplished.

    The point is that we filled out forms, jumped through numerous hoops, swotted up on Trivial Pursuits material, and paid substantial fees to obtain citizenship and obtain the required documents. In addition, when my certificate of naturalization was stolen in a burglary by illegal immigrants, I had to pay $750 for a new one.

    Our objection to the illegals is that they are trying to get some of the benefits of citizenship without paying for it--for example free schooling for children. In many cases, obviously, they cannot afford to pay the fees to obtain citizenship, but that is the whole point. If you want US citizenship, then you should have to pay!

    Legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are not the same thing, even if President Trump and the Congress have a hard time figuring out the difference.

  121. @Jonathan Mason

    When you take in well over 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year, and have taken in a world record 60-plus million in the last half century, you effectively have open borders.
     
    No it doesn't, it means that you have a lot of immigration. A person living in Germany can (at the present time) decide to go and live and work in England, Spain, or Greece without having to go through any form of application or getting a visa--that is because the European Community has open borders.

    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US, though they can buy a vacation home and come and use it for 6 months of the year on a tourist waiver visa, and they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver's license, and so on.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "borders" in relation to the discussion of US immigration. My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.

    It could be that there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “borders” in relation to the discussion of US immigration.

    There is no misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “borders”. It is just that borders are meaningLESS in terms of the immigration levels we have seen. And since they are meaningLESS, we effectively have open borders.

    Just as a reminder, the first permanent English colony in what is now the USA was established in Jamestown, VA in 1607. From that time until about 1965, an estimated 45 million immigrants came to what is now the USA. That’s 45 million over 358 years. Since 1965, we’ve received around 60 million and counting. That’s 60 million-plus in 53 years, and there is absolutely no letup in sight.

    In fact the more we get, the less likely you will see a letup. As Steve quite correctly explains, the current crop of immigrants won’t be satisfied until their extended families get in. And as they grow in political power, in a nation where elections are decided by razor thin margins, politicians will be reluctant to go against the wishes of growing parts of the electorate.

    My understanding of open borders is that a country is like in the EU, with all eligible citizens able to relocate at will, not that the term is used in contrast to closed borders that existed when the iron curtain was in place and you could not simply could not decide to go and visit Albania for a couple of weeks.

    The EU is a common market and allows freedom of movement within it. The USA allows freedom of movement among our states. Even protectorates like Puerto Rico are allowed freedom of movement within the United States.

    However, I believe nations like China don’t even allow this. I was under the impression that one needed permission from the government to relocate, let’s say, from the countryside to the city.

  122. @Jonathan Mason

    This is trolling... Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).
     
    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can't even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like "open borders" or "no borders" is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe's affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children's Crusade of refugees.

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    You really are not seeing the forest for the trees. You are debating the semantics of open borders, or no borders, and deciding it’s only used as a scare tactic because there is no serious legislative plan calling for open borders.

    The reality is there is no need for any open border legislative plan because the effect of open borders is already being felt. No nation in history has taken as many immigrants in such a short time as the USA. The Nazi invasion of the USSR involved 3 million men, and that was considered the largest such invasion in history. We’ve taken in 60 million and are adding 1 to 2 million per year. And Senator McCain, before his demise, suggested going for 30 million more over the next 10 years.

    I think the only comparison would be the migration of rural Chinese to the cities over the past 30 years. But that is not exactly immigration since those people just moved from one part of China to another.

    As for scaring people, the term open borders is not needed to scare people. In fact as pointed out by Steve in an earlier post, Whites tend to oppose further immigration when they are told the truth about what has happened demographically to the USA over the past 53 years. So the media has decided the best thing to do is to not tell Whites about this demographic change. Or as Steve summed it up, the media will lie to Whites to keep them uninformed. Sort of like ignorance is bliss.

    • Replies: @Republic

    Or as Steve summed it up, the media will lie to Whites to keep them uninformed. Sort of like ignorance is bliss.
     
    That is correct, the US government intentionally make it difficult to get accurate figures for the true crime rates committed by non whites. The US includes Mexicans and people from North Africa and the Middle East as whites.

    American use to mean a White person, now they are know as non-Hispanic whites.
  123. @Svigor
    Echoes of Neoconservatism, which is not concerned with manliness or masculinity or prowess at war, but in a particular kind of foreign adventurism, on (((their))) behalf. (Sort of the opposite of traditional masculinity)

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

    Castles were a dramatic force multiplier, and real fighters love their force multipliers.

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

    There is an amusing account that occurred when Agesilaus was in Egypt. The Egyptian court thought that they would see a pompous king, but they saw a completely unpretentious man, indistinguishable from his soldiers :

    ” As soon as he landed in Egypt,90 the chief captains and governors of the king came down to meet him and pay him honour. There was great eagerness and expectation on the part of the other Egyptians also, owing to the name and fame of Agesilaüs, and all ran together to behold him. 5 But when they saw no brilliant array whatever, but an old man lying in some grass by the sea, his body small and contemptible, covered with a cloak that was coarse and mean, they were moved to laughter and jesting, saying that here was an illustration of the fable, “a mountain is in travail, and then a mouse is born.”91 6 They were still more surprised, too, at his eccentricity. When all manner of hospitable gifts were brought to him, he accepted the flour, the calves, and the geese, but rejected the sweetmeats, the pastries, and the perfumes, and when he was urged and besought to take them, ordered them to be carried and given to his Helots.”

    LOL

    • Replies: @Svigor
    Military leader vs. Ruling class with a military. It's typical for the former to live the military life alongside his men, to build loyalty and morale.
  124. @Almost Missouri

    "but a barrier to protect barbarians from a more civilised people."
     
    It's hard to say if the Romano-Britons were indeed more civilised by the later imperial period. At that point, the "Roman" military was often just roving war bands with a dubious Roman charter. At least the genuine barbarians often let the Roman taxes lapse, which the "Roman" army rarely did. Sometimes "civilisation" becomes so corrupt and decadent that barbarism becomes the rational alternative.

    But don't take my word for it. We may be approaching this inflection point again, and everyone will get to see this for themselves.

    Many of the Romano-Britons were Christian (hence the lack of grave goods), which meant that some of them were literate. The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate. The R-Bs still referred to themselves as “citizens”, so presumably still honoured some aspects of Roman civilisation – maybe property rights? There’s evidence of Roman life lingering on in cities and villas for decades after the legions left.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Manchester natives are Mancunions to this day.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate."
     
    Somebody was reading and writing all those Anglo-Saxon annals, chronicles and law codes.
  125. @Valentino

    In his defense, )))Agesilaus II((( was probably at least present at the battles in his interest.

     

    There is an amusing account that occurred when Agesilaus was in Egypt. The Egyptian court thought that they would see a pompous king, but they saw a completely unpretentious man, indistinguishable from his soldiers :

    " As soon as he landed in Egypt,90 the chief captains and governors of the king came down to meet him and pay him honour. There was great eagerness and expectation on the part of the other Egyptians also, owing to the name and fame of Agesilaüs, and all ran together to behold him. 5 But when they saw no brilliant array whatever, but an old man lying in some grass by the sea, his body small and contemptible, covered with a cloak that was coarse and mean, they were moved to laughter and jesting, saying that here was an illustration of the fable, "a mountain is in travail, and then a mouse is born."91 6 They were still more surprised, too, at his eccentricity. When all manner of hospitable gifts were brought to him, he accepted the flour, the calves, and the geese, but rejected the sweetmeats, the pastries, and the perfumes, and when he was urged and besought to take them, ordered them to be carried and given to his Helots."
     
    LOL

    Military leader vs. Ruling class with a military. It’s typical for the former to live the military life alongside his men, to build loyalty and morale.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  126. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    This is trolling... Your empty point is that they do not use a phrase in its exact wording (but they love the wording “without borders” or “no borders”).
     
    OK, so which politicians of any substance are proposing legislation to abolish borders, other than Médecins Sans Frontières ? Such a thing is not even possible in a country where police officers can't even cross county lines.

    It just sounds to me like "open borders" or "no borders" is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.

    Eventually, though, it will all go to the Supreme Court who will tell us what was going through the head of George Washington in his farewell address when he said the US should stay out of Europe's affairs as long as Europe stayed out of the Americas, especially the newly independent countries of Central America that broke free of Spain in 1821, and which failed states are largely the cause of the current Children's Crusade of refugees.

    David Blunkett – Blair’s Home Secretary famously declared that ‘there is no upward limit to the UK population, since the UK has below replacement fertility, it’s fairly obvious he meant ‘come on one, come on all’.

    His successor, Alan Johnson declared ‘ I’m losing no sleep about UK population growth’.

    If you want to know what the Deep State is thinking, beyond the Westminster puppet show, read The Economist.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    It took about 30 years for mogul David Geffen to comply with a state law requiring him to allow public access past his house down to Billionaire's Beach.

    When it finally opened, people would toss their unsold screenplays over his wall.

    At least now with Final Draft 11 those screenplays are more tolerant and inclusive

  128. @dearieme
    Many of the Romano-Britons were Christian (hence the lack of grave goods), which meant that some of them were literate. The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate. The R-Bs still referred to themselves as "citizens", so presumably still honoured some aspects of Roman civilisation - maybe property rights? There's evidence of Roman life lingering on in cities and villas for decades after the legions left.

    Manchester natives are Mancunions to this day.

  129. Netanyahu, tear down these walls.

  130. @Anonymous Jew
    The main problem with the migrant crisis is not our physical borders, but our laws and our unwillingness to enforce the laws we have. If we had no birthright citizenship, took in refugees like Japan, restricted benefits, restricted certain rights for non-citizens, e-verify and never granted amnesty we would actually do OK without any physical borders whatsoever (though physical borders would obviously still offer some benefits). In such a scenario, 3rd-world migrants could come here all they want, but they could never earn a significant amount of money, never vote, never receive benefits, never send their kids to public school and, most importantly, they could never, ever become citizens. (Replace birthright citizenship with a law requiring one biological parent to be a native born citizen).

    Our weak physical borders are maybe 10% of the problem. We are taking in over one million legal immigrants annually, and the vast majority are not partial to Anglo American values and will never adopt them (never mind racial tensions inherent to our species).

    The main problem with the migrant crisis is not our physical borders, but our laws and our unwillingness to enforce the laws we have.

    Precisely.

    When Trump’s party had a majority in the house, why was he not threatening to shut down the government if they did not send legislation to the Senate that included mandatory E-verify, and reporting by schools, hospitals, and landlords of any suspected illegals with heavy penalties for any failure to report or hiring or sheltering illegals, and devastating penalties for any employer hiring illegals en masse along the lines of the fines oil companies have to pay for pollution–$1,100 per barrel, which can run into billions in the event of a large spill?

    The obvious answer is that neither party wants to enforce the immigration laws effectively. Without that, a wall is pointless.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/video/rent-clampdown-as-migrants-reach-uk/vi-BBlmcWB

  131. @Jonathan Mason

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.
     
    The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. From an economic point of view it is arguable that unfettered population growth is necessary to support aging structures like social security--but I would favor giving more financial incentives to encourage the people who are already here to reproduce.

    We don't hear a lot of politicians talking about where they stand on population growth.

    The Economist is a British magazine

    also owned by Rothschild

  132. @istevefan

    It just sounds to me like “open borders” or “no borders” is being used as a bogeyman to scare people, when in reality open borders is not a serious legislative plan at all.
     
    You really are not seeing the forest for the trees. You are debating the semantics of open borders, or no borders, and deciding it's only used as a scare tactic because there is no serious legislative plan calling for open borders.

    The reality is there is no need for any open border legislative plan because the effect of open borders is already being felt. No nation in history has taken as many immigrants in such a short time as the USA. The Nazi invasion of the USSR involved 3 million men, and that was considered the largest such invasion in history. We've taken in 60 million and are adding 1 to 2 million per year. And Senator McCain, before his demise, suggested going for 30 million more over the next 10 years.

    I think the only comparison would be the migration of rural Chinese to the cities over the past 30 years. But that is not exactly immigration since those people just moved from one part of China to another.

    As for scaring people, the term open borders is not needed to scare people. In fact as pointed out by Steve in an earlier post, Whites tend to oppose further immigration when they are told the truth about what has happened demographically to the USA over the past 53 years. So the media has decided the best thing to do is to not tell Whites about this demographic change. Or as Steve summed it up, the media will lie to Whites to keep them uninformed. Sort of like ignorance is bliss.

    Or as Steve summed it up, the media will lie to Whites to keep them uninformed. Sort of like ignorance is bliss.

    That is correct, the US government intentionally make it difficult to get accurate figures for the true crime rates committed by non whites. The US includes Mexicans and people from North Africa and the Middle East as whites.

    American use to mean a White person, now they are know as non-Hispanic whites.

  133. @Jonathan Mason

    The Economist magazine *most certainly DOES* advocate for ‘open borders’.
     
    The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. From an economic point of view it is arguable that unfettered population growth is necessary to support aging structures like social security--but I would favor giving more financial incentives to encourage the people who are already here to reproduce.

    We don't hear a lot of politicians talking about where they stand on population growth.

    @66 Jonathan Mason: “The Economist is a British magazine that has a lot of quirky opinions. ”

    And you’re a Jew from England with a Caribbean/Mulatto wife. You also fear and dislike guns and generally consider Christian Americans to be rather ignorant rubes, if your iSteve comments in aggregate are anything to go by.

    So of course Steve’s clueless boomercon commentariat responds civilly as though you made a perfectly rational remark with full intent of honesty.

  134. @dearieme
    Many of the Romano-Britons were Christian (hence the lack of grave goods), which meant that some of them were literate. The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate. The R-Bs still referred to themselves as "citizens", so presumably still honoured some aspects of Roman civilisation - maybe property rights? There's evidence of Roman life lingering on in cities and villas for decades after the legions left.

    “The Anglo-Saxons were all illiterate.”

    Somebody was reading and writing all those Anglo-Saxon annals, chronicles and law codes.

  135. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    You’re conflating different things. The EC (as you’ve defined it) has no internal borders. So the matter is moot for EU citizens wanting to relocate within the zone. This is no different for US citizens moving between states (e.g. FL to TX).

    iStevefan was talking about external borders, which in the case of the US is a de facto open border.


    But a person born and living in Germany cannot get up and move to the US ...
     
    Of course they can. If not legally, then illegally.

    ... they cannot legally work in the US, get Obamacare or Medicare, obtain a US driver’s license, and so on.
     
    Your irrelevant list of benefits and privileges doesn’t refute iStevefan’s point about open borders. Both legal and illegal immigration are out of control in the US. The numbers are too high, and the trend is downright dysgenic.

    As I understand it, both you and your Netflix-absorbed peasant waifu (?) are recent additions to our great nation—surely a sign of a rather careless US immigration policy (unless you got in on a bona fide ‘genius visa’, then—my ‘umble apologies).

    The two relevant questions:

    Are illegal aliens able to enter, and remain, in the US? If so, that’s open borders.
    Are too many legal aliens arriving, and staying? That’s also open borders.

    Anyone who is against drastic, effective reduction of both legal and illegal immigration is for open borders. Of course, they invariably prefer deflective, deceptive terms like “immigration reform.”

    As I understand it, both you and your Netflix-absorbed peasant waifu (?) are recent additions to our great nation—surely a sign of a rather careless US immigration policy (unless you got in on a bona fide ‘genius visa’, then—my ‘umble apologies).

    LOL! I have been in the US since 1986, except for about 3 years spent living overseas in that time. My wife has been here 3 years and has her citizenship interview the week after next.She has been practicing singing “Oh say can you see?”

    Naturally I was initially invited to the US by President Reagan to serve in the War on Drugs, and to save the country from being wiped out by AIDS. Mission accomplished.

    The point is that we filled out forms, jumped through numerous hoops, swotted up on Trivial Pursuits material, and paid substantial fees to obtain citizenship and obtain the required documents. In addition, when my certificate of naturalization was stolen in a burglary by illegal immigrants, I had to pay $750 for a new one.

    Our objection to the illegals is that they are trying to get some of the benefits of citizenship without paying for it–for example free schooling for children. In many cases, obviously, they cannot afford to pay the fees to obtain citizenship, but that is the whole point. If you want US citizenship, then you should have to pay!

    Legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are not the same thing, even if President Trump and the Congress have a hard time figuring out the difference.

  136. @Stan Adams
    Does anyone here have an opinion about expressway sound walls (that reduce the noise from vehicular traffic for homeowners living adjacent to the roadway)? I find them ugly, but, then again, I don't live next to a freeway.

    Supposedly there is a federal regulation mandating that such walls be built if such-and-such number of lanes of traffic are such-and-such feet away from residential areas.

    The Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike opened in 1974. For over forty years, there were few if any sound walls along its 47-mile expanse. Even four years ago, the vast majority of the roadway was sound-wall-free. But now that the road is being expanded from six to ten lanes (including express lanes), they're everywhere:

    https://i.ibb.co/xgffWP4/sound-wall1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/m88W4Gm/sound-wall2.png

    https://i.ibb.co/hMjV4ZM/sound-wall3.png

    Going west on I-90 as you enter Cleveland there are actually very nice looking sound barriers. Red brick look with white carvings in the center. Obviously more aesthetically pleasing than the gray concrete slabs.

  137. ““Oh say can you see?””

    It’s the

    “Star Spangled Banner”

    or the

    “National Anthem”

    M y objection to immigrants of any category is they are not required to give up whatever ethos they came from in order to be citizens or an in depth history of the US to get what being a citizen means.

    https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/the-star-spangled-banner

    https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/

    Versions:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/metallica-star-spangled-banner-san-francisco-giants-828274/

    ——–

    Whatever our issues we don’t need a single foreigner to deal with keeping the US this:

    I say this whether your comments were revealing actual misunderstanding or intended sarcasm. And in spite of the careless sloppy black white rhetoric.

  138. @Steve Sailer
    Probably helps. I dunno. Sound dissipates, but are particulates defeated by a ten foot wall? Probably more practical to reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, it's a good idea to reduce engine noise, but not a lot can be done to reduce tire noise.

    It probably keeps some of the brake dust contained in the roadways. I’m not sure though.

  139. Jews have a history of opposition to walls (with the exception of all the ones they have historically built to separate themselves from the goyim) going back to Jericho.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?