The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Blair Nathan: "Fake It 'Til You Remake It"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Screenshot 2018-01-17 14.23.42

 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. J.Ross says: • Website

    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration “historically meant getting off the boat.” This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I realize liberals often don't make sense, but this is so garbled and nonsensical that you must be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said, even if you don't intend to do so.
    , @Anonymous
    Meanwhile on Twitter their listeners were having hysterics over Mark Krikorian getting some time.
    , @ben tillman

    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration “historically meant getting off the boat.” This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.
     
    It also doesn't matter in any sense. You can't have a rule saying that everything is up for grabs if the putative owner can't prove good "moral" title. That's a recipe for unlimited aggression, which is the lifeblood of the Left. It's permanent revolution.

    So what if past immigration was "illegal" or "legal"? This country is ours now, and we can exclude whomever we wish.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they’re building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they’re building it on a rotten foundation of lies.
     
    You're insane if you think that. After nearly 200 years of communistic and socialistic thought leading to the mass murder, torture, starvation, and oppression that dwarf all others in human history, anyone subscribing to Leftism at this point must be assumed to be an evil person promoting evil and lies, until they prove themselves otherwise through ignorance of history and their own philosophy.

    The only defense to a leftist being absolutely evil is colossal stupidity.
    , @3g4me
    @2 Faraday's Bobcat: "Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they’re building it on a rotten foundation of lies."

    Yeah, democrats are the real racists. We're all part of the human race.

    /s
    , @Corn
    “Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society”

    I believed that at one time, but no longer.
    , @bartok

    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society
     
    If you believe that you should join Moldbug's project to convert the elites to neo-reaction. "An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives"
    http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/
    , @rogue-one
    The hatred for the western civilization and "white man" is because of good intentions and justness of their hearts?
    , @MBlanc46
    There may well be some people on the Left who fit your description. There are certainly many people on the Left who believe that they fit your description. But most people on Left—and I speak as someone who, with some misgivings, considered himself on the Left for going four decades—are convinced that they and only they know how everyone else should live and that they deserve to have the power to force everyone to live that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Jack D says:

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.

    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn’t get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn’t think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    Read More
    • LOL: 27 year old
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Slavery is alive and well today and is a major explanation for the elite love of Central American immigration, and no thinking person can defend women's suffrage, which became exactly what its critics alleged within decades, and redoubles its shame in the current mess. If we are a proposition nation, then the only proposition that could possibly be referring to is Strict Constructionism.
    , @syonredux
    Nathan is referring to the Liberal notion that "America is for everyone" is fundamental to America. That is obviously false. As a key tenet of "Americanism," it only goes back to the 1960s. For proof, just read Ted Kennedy's speech in defense of the Hart-Celler Act"

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

    Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…

    In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think… The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
     

    Even as recently as 1965, noises had to be made to the affect that ending quotas wouldn't mean altering the racial-ethnic composition of the country.
    , @ChrisZ
    Fair enough, Jack. But surely when one is arguing about what constitutes a "fundamental precept" of the American regime, the instructions of the Founders are relevant.
    , @syonredux

    Immigration policy didn’t get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn’t think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.
     
    They also didn't codify marriage as being exclusively about men and women. Some things are so blatantly obvious that they do not have to be mentioned. Immigration is one of those things. I really don't think that the Founders ever imagined that future Americans would be so suicidal as to allow in hordes of Mestizos and Muslims.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. "

    Yeah well, one for two ain't bad.


    Any other present day morality you'd like to apply to those men you're clearly superior to?
    , @whorefinder

    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought.
     
    1. Most did not think it was ok for slavery to exist, and fought many battles over it, even slave owners felt it was morally bad. It was entrenched in the economic policies of 1/3 the nation, however, and without it much of the nation's wealth would have disintegrated. The Founders did the best they could with a bad situation, limiting the international slave trade's continuance and the 3/5ths compromise and hoping the South would gradually abandon it----then came the cotton gin.

    2. Women should not have the right to vote, period. Women's suffrage was one of the worst strategic mistakes in American governance/political history. It is not for nothing so many cultures didn't allow it. Women have voted with their short term whims and emotional desires for far too long and bequeathed us a corrupt welfare-police state and miserable diversity.

    3. We are pointing out that the Leftist argument about "what America stands for" is false, as is shown by the first 150+ years of our immigration policy.

    , @3g4me
    @3 Jack D: "The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that . . . each generation could have laws that best suited their own times . . . Immigration was [not] a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times."

    How good of you to enlighten us on how the founders were evilly regressive regarding women and Negroes, and yet amazingly flexible and prescient regarding immigration laws needing to change with the times. Similar thinking to those amazing bits of jurisprudence that discovered the rights to abortion, taxpayer funded sexual mutilation, and homosexual marriage. But then, when four brilliant Ashkenazis sit on the Supreme Court of the nation founded by such regressive people, among whom a number even believed in ludicrous things like Jesus' divinity, one should expect such brilliant deductions.

    Because that's who "we" are. What many of us cannot seem to discern, however, is just to whom "we" is supposed to refer.

    That, Steve, is why we CANNOT have "moderation" or both blood and soil and magic citizens simultaneously. Two or more cultures cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.
    , @Clyde
    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    Slavery is alive and well today and is a major explanation for the elite love of Central American immigration, and no thinking person can defend women’s suffrage, which became exactly what its critics alleged within decades, and redoubles its shame in the current mess. If we are a proposition nation, then the only proposition that could possibly be referring to is Strict Constructionism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Jack D says:
    @J.Ross
    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration "historically meant getting off the boat." This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.

    I realize liberals often don’t make sense, but this is so garbled and nonsensical that you must be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said, even if you don’t intend to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How many hours have gone by since you last heard "unless you're Native American you're an illegal immigrant"?
    , @J.Ross
    I heard it on the radio, failed to catch the name, and have not found it on their site.
    Premise: immigration critics claim that their own immigrant ancestors didn't break any laws and played by the rules.
    This academic's response to that premise: that's meaningless because there never was an immigration & naturalization act, legislative attempts to restrict or discourage imigration, wide open spaces to put people out west, any process of assimilation, any different status for new arrivals, or any heated discussions about specific classes of newcomers.
    It's not garbled, it's in-your-face dishonest, along the same lines as the arguments described in the title post, which was the point in bringing it up. The other side lies and we let them tell lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. syonredux says:
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    Nathan is referring to the Liberal notion that “America is for everyone” is fundamental to America. That is obviously false. As a key tenet of “Americanism,” it only goes back to the 1960s. For proof, just read Ted Kennedy’s speech in defense of the Hart-Celler Act”

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

    Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…

    In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think… The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

    Even as recently as 1965, noises had to be made to the affect that ending quotas wouldn’t mean altering the racial-ethnic composition of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Even as recently as 1965, noises had to be made to the effect that ending quotas wouldn’t mean altering the racial-ethnic composition of the country.
     
    Just as we can discern the actual arguments of Early Christian apostates like Marcion (whose entire oeuvre was obliterated) from the detailed critiques of the Establishment theologians of the day, so we can extrapolate from Kennedy's defensiveness that there actually were some politicians afflicted with foresight back in his day. Even if their actual words now exist only in dusty old copies of the C.R.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. ChrisZ says:
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    Fair enough, Jack. But surely when one is arguing about what constitutes a “fundamental precept” of the American regime, the instructions of the Founders are relevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration "historically meant getting off the boat." This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.

    Meanwhile on Twitter their listeners were having hysterics over Mark Krikorian getting some time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. syonredux says:
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    Immigration policy didn’t get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn’t think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    They also didn’t codify marriage as being exclusively about men and women. Some things are so blatantly obvious that they do not have to be mentioned. Immigration is one of those things. I really don’t think that the Founders ever imagined that future Americans would be so suicidal as to allow in hordes of Mestizos and Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I realize liberals often don't make sense, but this is so garbled and nonsensical that you must be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said, even if you don't intend to do so.

    How many hours have gone by since you last heard “unless you’re Native American you’re an illegal immigrant”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester

    How many hours have gone by since you last heard “unless you’re Native American you’re an illegal immigrant”?
     
    Native Americans were illegal, too. They didn't have papers ... and the large game animals correctly foresaw that the intent of the new, uninvited Asian interlopers was to take over and exterminate the native population. Where are the Liberals coming from to think that Native Americans had a right to do this?

    Native Americans are a perfect example of what happens when you have open borders. They are the paradigm case for the argument against massive immigration.
    , @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    To which I would reply "I'd rather be General Custer than you."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @syonredux

    Immigration policy didn’t get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn’t think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.
     
    They also didn't codify marriage as being exclusively about men and women. Some things are so blatantly obvious that they do not have to be mentioned. Immigration is one of those things. I really don't think that the Founders ever imagined that future Americans would be so suicidal as to allow in hordes of Mestizos and Muslims.

    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @syonredux

    No one is suicidal.
     
    Dunno about that. I've spoken to some White, non-Jewish SJWs who believe that Europeans should go extinct....
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.
     
    “They” may be unwittingly, fittingly suicidal in effect. The ultimate vector of their possible demise is yet to be determined—do Ripley and company reject their treason and react in time, or do their pet Aliens overrun the place and devour them?
    , @Twodees Partain
    They could kill themselves without being suicidal. Coroners refer to that as "death by misadventure".
    , @John Pepple
    In 1979, the left in Iran was destroyed by Muslims. I thought everyone on the left had read about this and understood how dangerous Muslims could be. But no leftist seems to remember it. When I remind them of it, they simply ignore what I am saying.

    Demanding that a lot of their enemies be allowed to come into the West makes leftists suicidal, I would say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they’re building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    You’re insane if you think that. After nearly 200 years of communistic and socialistic thought leading to the mass murder, torture, starvation, and oppression that dwarf all others in human history, anyone subscribing to Leftism at this point must be assumed to be an evil person promoting evil and lies, until they prove themselves otherwise through ignorance of history and their own philosophy.

    The only defense to a leftist being absolutely evil is colossal stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. 3g4me says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    @2 Faraday’s Bobcat: “Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they’re building it on a rotten foundation of lies.”

    Yeah, democrats are the real racists. We’re all part of the human race.

    /s

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. There are still a few of us liberals who don’t think America is for everyone.

    It wasn’t that long ago when quite a few liberals and even hard-core leftists were immigration restrictionists:
    Some, like Gaylord Nelson, wanted to restrict immigration for environmental reasons.

    Others, such as Barbara Jordon, Cesar Chavez, Coretta Scott King, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders and even Dianne Feinstein, wanted to restrict immigration for economic reasons (that is screwed over working people).

    A few liberals, such as Dick Lamm and Eugene McCarthy, favored immigration restriction due to cultural reasons.

    Note that some of the former immigration restrictionists, such as the Clintons, Bernie Sanders and Dianne Feinstein, would now label their former views are horribly racist. For example, Senator Feinstein called Senator Cotton’s Canadian-style RAISE act as “white supremacist”. Why? According to Feinstein, the bill didn’t do enough to protect Jews from Czarist pogroms.

    I wish I was joking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    “The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. ”

    Yeah well, one for two ain’t bad.

    Any other present day morality you’d like to apply to those men you’re clearly superior to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought.

    1. Most did not think it was ok for slavery to exist, and fought many battles over it, even slave owners felt it was morally bad. It was entrenched in the economic policies of 1/3 the nation, however, and without it much of the nation’s wealth would have disintegrated. The Founders did the best they could with a bad situation, limiting the international slave trade’s continuance and the 3/5ths compromise and hoping the South would gradually abandon it—-then came the cotton gin.

    2. Women should not have the right to vote, period. Women’s suffrage was one of the worst strategic mistakes in American governance/political history. It is not for nothing so many cultures didn’t allow it. Women have voted with their short term whims and emotional desires for far too long and bequeathed us a corrupt welfare-police state and miserable diversity.

    3. We are pointing out that the Leftist argument about “what America stands for” is false, as is shown by the first 150+ years of our immigration policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. 3g4me says:
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    @3 Jack D: “The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can’t run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that . . . each generation could have laws that best suited their own times . . . Immigration was [not] a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.”

    How good of you to enlighten us on how the founders were evilly regressive regarding women and Negroes, and yet amazingly flexible and prescient regarding immigration laws needing to change with the times. Similar thinking to those amazing bits of jurisprudence that discovered the rights to abortion, taxpayer funded sexual mutilation, and homosexual marriage. But then, when four brilliant Ashkenazis sit on the Supreme Court of the nation founded by such regressive people, among whom a number even believed in ludicrous things like Jesus’ divinity, one should expect such brilliant deductions.

    Because that’s who “we” are. What many of us cannot seem to discern, however, is just to whom “we” is supposed to refer.

    That, Steve, is why we CANNOT have “moderation” or both blood and soil and magic citizens simultaneously. Two or more cultures cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D
    I realize liberals often don't make sense, but this is so garbled and nonsensical that you must be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said, even if you don't intend to do so.

    I heard it on the radio, failed to catch the name, and have not found it on their site.
    Premise: immigration critics claim that their own immigrant ancestors didn’t break any laws and played by the rules.
    This academic’s response to that premise: that’s meaningless because there never was an immigration & naturalization act, legislative attempts to restrict or discourage imigration, wide open spaces to put people out west, any process of assimilation, any different status for new arrivals, or any heated discussions about specific classes of newcomers.
    It’s not garbled, it’s in-your-face dishonest, along the same lines as the arguments described in the title post, which was the point in bringing it up. The other side lies and we let them tell lies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Corn says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    “Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society”

    I believed that at one time, but no longer.

    Read More
    • Agree: CCZ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Explicit White Identity Politics Everywhere Soon.

    GOP Goes White Or It Goes Dodo.

    White Core American Patriots On The March.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. syonredux says:
    @Desiderius
    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    No one is suicidal.

    Dunno about that. I’ve spoken to some White, non-Jewish SJWs who believe that Europeans should go extinct….

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Did you ask them why they don't just kill themselves right now?
    , @Opinionator
    How much of that is a result of coercion?

    Stockholm syndrome, brainwashing, (apparent) consensus, pressure of (apparent) peers, threat of loss of job or social standing, etc.
    , @Desiderius
    They don't mean themselves. They've been deracinated. In their minds, they're citizens of the world, not Europeans. Ask them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Desiderius
    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    “They” may be unwittingly, fittingly suicidal in effect. The ultimate vector of their possible demise is yet to be determined—do Ripley and company reject their treason and react in time, or do their pet Aliens overrun the place and devour them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The ones Steve is trying to convince, the ones who matter in the larger scheme of things, will likely do just fine however things turn out. They usually do.

    Getting to sleep at night/maintaining a level of popularity they can accept is another question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @J.Ross
    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration "historically meant getting off the boat." This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.

    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration “historically meant getting off the boat.” This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.

    It also doesn’t matter in any sense. You can’t have a rule saying that everything is up for grabs if the putative owner can’t prove good “moral” title. That’s a recipe for unlimited aggression, which is the lifeblood of the Left. It’s permanent revolution.

    So what if past immigration was “illegal” or “legal”? This country is ours now, and we can exclude whomever we wish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    This country is ours now, and we can exclude whomever we wish.
     
    Unfortunately, that's what they're saying, and it's we who are being excluded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ben tillman

    NPR today quoted some tenured liar to the effect that all immigration was illegal because immigration “historically meant getting off the boat.” This is not only flatly false, it ignores the principle that anythng not explicitly banned is de facto legal. They did not seek an opposing view in that interview, but a high schooler could have rubbished it.
     
    It also doesn't matter in any sense. You can't have a rule saying that everything is up for grabs if the putative owner can't prove good "moral" title. That's a recipe for unlimited aggression, which is the lifeblood of the Left. It's permanent revolution.

    So what if past immigration was "illegal" or "legal"? This country is ours now, and we can exclude whomever we wish.

    This country is ours now, and we can exclude whomever we wish.

    Unfortunately, that’s what they’re saying, and it’s we who are being excluded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Nathan is referring to the Liberal notion that "America is for everyone" is fundamental to America. That is obviously false. As a key tenet of "Americanism," it only goes back to the 1960s. For proof, just read Ted Kennedy's speech in defense of the Hart-Celler Act"

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

    Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…

    In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think… The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
     

    Even as recently as 1965, noises had to be made to the affect that ending quotas wouldn't mean altering the racial-ethnic composition of the country.

    Even as recently as 1965, noises had to be made to the effect that ending quotas wouldn’t mean altering the racial-ethnic composition of the country.

    Just as we can discern the actual arguments of Early Christian apostates like Marcion (whose entire oeuvre was obliterated) from the detailed critiques of the Establishment theologians of the day, so we can extrapolate from Kennedy’s defensiveness that there actually were some politicians afflicted with foresight back in his day. Even if their actual words now exist only in dusty old copies of the C.R.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @syonredux

    No one is suicidal.
     
    Dunno about that. I've spoken to some White, non-Jewish SJWs who believe that Europeans should go extinct....

    Did you ask them why they don’t just kill themselves right now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Did you ask them why they don’t just kill themselves right now?
     
    Strongly tempted, but I know what their answer would be:" We cannot end ourselves until all the Bad Whites are eliminated."

    See, for White SJWs, the end of the European race is a murder-suicide type of deal.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    They see themselves as saviors, so they've got to hang around a while to do some saving before they can get to the sacrifice.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Well, they don't mean RIGHT now; it's gonna take a while ... until just after they are dead without any offspring ... of hopefully natural causes. Seriously, that's what's in the back of some of their heads.

    Everyone's got a plan, until he gets punched in the face.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Clyde says:
    @Jack D

    Certainly not by the founding fathers, who were quite explicit that it was /not/.
     
    The founding fathers also thought that it was OK for humans to own other humans and for women to be denied the vote, so we really can't run our immigration policy strictly based on what the founding fathers thought. They also thought that we should have a Congress with the power to pass and repeal laws so that (barring certain fundamentals such as the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution) each generation could have laws that best suited their own times. Immigration policy didn't get enshrined in the Constitution because they didn't think it was a fundamental and unalterable principle for all times.

    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary

    Read More
    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary.
     
    Aren't you gonna count yourself, or do you fancy yourself a clown too?

    (Yes, that was commentary.) ;-}
    , @Anonymous
    They're letting mohels on the site now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @syonredux

    No one is suicidal.
     
    Dunno about that. I've spoken to some White, non-Jewish SJWs who believe that Europeans should go extinct....

    How much of that is a result of coercion?

    Stockholm syndrome, brainwashing, (apparent) consensus, pressure of (apparent) peers, threat of loss of job or social standing, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. syonredux says:
    @27 year old
    Did you ask them why they don't just kill themselves right now?

    Did you ask them why they don’t just kill themselves right now?

    Strongly tempted, but I know what their answer would be:” We cannot end ourselves until all the Bad Whites are eliminated.”

    See, for White SJWs, the end of the European race is a murder-suicide type of deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    The only consolation I have is that the SJWs will probably try to kill us compassionately: They themselves, being the last WEMs & Fs, will be tossed off buildings or raped to death (or both) by their precious oppressed darlings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @27 year old
    Did you ask them why they don't just kill themselves right now?

    They see themselves as saviors, so they’ve got to hang around a while to do some saving before they can get to the sacrifice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @27 year old
    Did you ask them why they don't just kill themselves right now?

    Well, they don’t mean RIGHT now; it’s gonna take a while … until just after they are dead without any offspring … of hopefully natural causes. Seriously, that’s what’s in the back of some of their heads.

    Everyone’s got a plan, until he gets punched in the face.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Clyde
    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary

    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary.

    Aren’t you gonna count yourself, or do you fancy yourself a clown too?

    (Yes, that was commentary.) ;-}

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Yes, in the great (cosmic) scheme of things I am a clown. You, Steve and Jack are not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde
    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary

    They’re letting mohels on the site now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Not too shabby!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Clyde says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You are the only intelligent poster here at iSteve, all these other clowns can only provide commentary.
     
    Aren't you gonna count yourself, or do you fancy yourself a clown too?

    (Yes, that was commentary.) ;-}

    Yes, in the great (cosmic) scheme of things I am a clown. You, Steve and Jack are not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Clyde says:
    @Anonymous
    They're letting mohels on the site now?

    Not too shabby!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Desiderius
    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    They could kill themselves without being suicidal. Coroners refer to that as “death by misadventure”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Let me know when they started being so much as inconvenienced, let alone dying.

    Calling them suicidal gives them way too much credit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Desiderius
    No one is suicidal.

    Those who support open borders are the furthest one can possibly be from suicidal. They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.

    In 1979, the left in Iran was destroyed by Muslims. I thought everyone on the left had read about this and understood how dangerous Muslims could be. But no leftist seems to remember it. When I remind them of it, they simply ignore what I am saying.

    Demanding that a lot of their enemies be allowed to come into the West makes leftists suicidal, I would say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    John, you are their enemy.

    You're far more dangerous to them than any number of backward Muslims.

    Don't sell yourself short.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. gregor says:

    “Fake it till you remake it” is a go-to technique of theirs. Just off the top of my head, they also used it in the gay marriage debate. Gay marriage generally proved quite unpopular at the ballot box, but they essentially declared premature victory and used mass media, etc., to create the illusion that onlly a few isolated pockets of weirdos hadn’t come around on gay marriage. I mean, come on. It’s [the current year] for crying out loud!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Twodees Partain
    They could kill themselves without being suicidal. Coroners refer to that as "death by misadventure".

    Let me know when they started being so much as inconvenienced, let alone dying.

    Calling them suicidal gives them way too much credit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @John Pepple
    In 1979, the left in Iran was destroyed by Muslims. I thought everyone on the left had read about this and understood how dangerous Muslims could be. But no leftist seems to remember it. When I remind them of it, they simply ignore what I am saying.

    Demanding that a lot of their enemies be allowed to come into the West makes leftists suicidal, I would say.

    John, you are their enemy.

    You’re far more dangerous to them than any number of backward Muslims.

    Don’t sell yourself short.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. TheJester says:
    @Anonymous
    How many hours have gone by since you last heard "unless you're Native American you're an illegal immigrant"?

    How many hours have gone by since you last heard “unless you’re Native American you’re an illegal immigrant”?

    Native Americans were illegal, too. They didn’t have papers … and the large game animals correctly foresaw that the intent of the new, uninvited Asian interlopers was to take over and exterminate the native population. Where are the Liberals coming from to think that Native Americans had a right to do this?

    Native Americans are a perfect example of what happens when you have open borders. They are the paradigm case for the argument against massive immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. bartok says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society

    If you believe that you should join Moldbug’s project to convert the elites to neo-reaction. “An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives”

    http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wilkey says:

    An Emma Lazarus poem (1883) is proof of exactly nothing. There is another document written right around the same time, and actually voted on by Congress, that expresses our historical attitudes towards unfettered immigration from everywhere: the Chinese Exclusion Act 0f 1882. Congress passed it by an overwhelming margin – by over a 5-1 margin in the House – and it remained on the books for ~60 years.

    Outright banning Chinese immigration was a little over the top, but limiting it was not: China could have flooded the Pacific states with immigrants, turning them into outposts of China, with less than 1% of its population. California remained culturally European (at least until we pissed it away starting in the 80s) thanks to the Exclusion Act.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. rogue-one says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    The hatred for the western civilization and “white man” is because of good intentions and justness of their hearts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @syonredux

    Did you ask them why they don’t just kill themselves right now?
     
    Strongly tempted, but I know what their answer would be:" We cannot end ourselves until all the Bad Whites are eliminated."

    See, for White SJWs, the end of the European race is a murder-suicide type of deal.

    The only consolation I have is that the SJWs will probably try to kill us compassionately: They themselves, being the last WEMs & Fs, will be tossed off buildings or raped to death (or both) by their precious oppressed darlings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anonymous
    How many hours have gone by since you last heard "unless you're Native American you're an illegal immigrant"?

    To which I would reply “I’d rather be General Custer than you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @syonredux

    No one is suicidal.
     
    Dunno about that. I've spoken to some White, non-Jewish SJWs who believe that Europeans should go extinct....

    They don’t mean themselves. They’ve been deracinated. In their minds, they’re citizens of the world, not Europeans. Ask them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    They aim to elect a new people more suited for them to rule.

    Genocidal? Yes, not suicidal by a long shot.
     
    “They” may be unwittingly, fittingly suicidal in effect. The ultimate vector of their possible demise is yet to be determined—do Ripley and company reject their treason and react in time, or do their pet Aliens overrun the place and devour them?

    The ones Steve is trying to convince, the ones who matter in the larger scheme of things, will likely do just fine however things turn out. They usually do.

    Getting to sleep at night/maintaining a level of popularity they can accept is another question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. MBlanc46 says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Most people on the left have good intentions and want to build a just society, but they're building it on a rotten foundation of lies.

    There may well be some people on the Left who fit your description. There are certainly many people on the Left who believe that they fit your description. But most people on Left—and I speak as someone who, with some misgivings, considered himself on the Left for going four decades—are convinced that they and only they know how everyone else should live and that they deserve to have the power to force everyone to live that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored