The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Brooks: To Reduce Identity Politics, We Need More Immigration!
🔊 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 the New York Times:

Identity Politics Run Amok
David Brooks SEPT. 2, 2016

Once, I seem to recall, we had philosophical and ideological differences. Once, politics was a debate between liberals and conservatives, between different views of government, different views on values and America’s role in the world.

But this year, it seems, everything has been stripped down to the bone. Politics is dividing along crude identity lines — along race and class. Are you a native-born white or are you an outsider? Are you one of the people or one of the elites?

Politics is no longer about argument or discussion; it’s about trying to put your opponents into the box of the untouchables.

Donald Trump didn’t invent this game, but he embodies it. His advisers tried to dress him up on Wednesday afternoon as some sort of mature summiteer. But he just can’t be phony.

By his evening immigration speech he’d returned to the class and race tropes that have defined his campaign: that the American government is in the grips of a rich oligarchy that distorts everything for its benefit; that the American people are besieged by foreigners, who take their jobs and threaten their lives. …

Second and most important, identity politics is inherently the politics of division. But on most issues — whether it is immigration or the economy or national security — we rise and fall together. Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.

Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation. It corrodes the sense of solidarity. It breeds suspicion, cynicism and distrust.

Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status.

Citizenism is the new racism!

Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

The only thing that can save us from divisiveness is more diversity!

 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans

    David Brooks is not rational. The NYT is difficult to distinguish from the Onion. Something’s terribly wrong with this paper and this typist.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    And now, Brooks can't even help Hillary win by a Salim margin. So sad! My schadenfreude boner has gone priapistic.
    , @anon

    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans
     
    translation: the media is owned by the cheap labor lobby and they pay us lots of money to lie for them
  2. “An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.”
    And some more than others.

    I think somewhere in all that Brook brain droppings he pulled out the Studies Show Immigration Does Not Lower Wages. He’s obviously never worked in a factory.

    What the hell does he think happened to the meat packing industry? They just decided they wanted to work for less?

    The facts on the ground both –
    Prove Him Wrong
    Disturb His WorldView

    Thus – Studies say what he wants them to say.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    You'll find 3% growth back in 2004 & 2005, and 1996-2000, but surprisingly (or not) it hasn't much featured in the past three decades (13 out of 30 times).

    That's real growth, for those unfamiliar with such minutia.
  3. Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    Except, of course, in Israel……

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    And, of course, it is people like David Brooks who do this. How did we get "these identities", after all?
    , @SMK
    In discussing race, it's imperative to distinguish between groups and individuals. Individual exceptions and variation doesn't confute or lessen the importance of what's true of racial groups on average. And so, too, with the sexes: e.g., that a minority of women are taller, better athletes, more intelligent mathematically, etc., than most men doesn't obviate or trivialize the relevance and importance of average sexual differences.
  4. Amusing how White identity politics is divisive but non-White identity groups are inclusive. How dare White people have interests in their own people in a country they founded? You know, this would be lame if the White majority was still assured, but with all the premature celebrations of imminent White minority status, this is actually deranged.
    They said Whites had no right to South Africa, because they weren’t natives, they try that crap here too, and now apparently Europe isn’t supposed to be ruled by Whites either huh? Yeah, that whole Europe thing probably was the bridge too far, sport.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    Utterly ridiculous. I can remember when Brooks still claimed to be a conservative (maybe he still does, but haven't read him in years).

    Listening to all of these assholes is exactly like the whines you'd get from a kid who got pushed out of the sandbox from another kid. Well, especially if that other kid had expectations of owning the world.

    Growing up in South Texas, I remember when there was a smattering of white folks there. Now it's pretty much gone. BTW, there used to be a sizeable number of black folks who came seasonally to work the fields, but that was gone by 1990 at best.

    When it came down to white/mexican stuff, there wasn't a shitload of sturm and drang, but that was because by that time, the new powers that be had brown skin and took over the old powers that be and pretty much did the same as them. (With some notable exceptions, Ruben Hinohosa, a scion of an affirmative action meat packing dynasty, was very mediocre and made to congress, and may still be there for all I know.)

    Oh yes, and the white enclave in South Africa struggles with it's own problems of illegal immigation, as I'm sure Steve covered a time or two.
  5. Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    I wish I’d written that — Brooks just threw the race for the Pulitzer into total disarray.

    • Replies: @guest
    You forget, we are a Nation of Nations. I heard that phrase for the first time not long ago, and apparently it is totally a thing. You do violence to our nation if you allow it to have particular citizens. Because the world is full of Americans, and every nation is American (except Israel, natch). Nation of Nations. That citizenship thing is so played out, man.
    , @415 reasons
    The story of the Tower of Babel... It's a cook book!!
  6. Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation.

    Meanwhile, David Brooks’ own son signed up to fight for the Israel Defense Forces. Chutzpah!

    • LOL: NickG
    • Replies: @TheJester
    This is called (((exceptionalism))). Being "exceptional" and being "exempted" are, at the end of the day, the same thing. If you are exceptional, then you are exempt from the Law of Non-Contradiction, international law, the elements of justice, and the moral precepts accepted by the rest of mankind. Consistency be damned, it is the feeling that you are indeed someone special.

    From Google Search: Exceptionalism is the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or principles.

    , @bored identity
    If we lived in a normal country ( which we inshallah become when Hillary wins), it would be mandatory for any patriotic American to volunteer their own children to spend a summer or two in the Negev desert.
  7. I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they’ve spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it’s a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that’s any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    By all appearances, Frum and Brooks are strongly self-identified, ethnocentric jews. Race consciousness and lack of colorblindness therefore have been front and center in their worldviews for a long, long time.

    Unless they are massively self-deluding, which is possible.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Brooks and Frum don't agree on this.
    , @guest
    They do have the ideological framework, they just won't apply it to the U.S. , the "exceptional" nation, the nation of nations, the nation of immigrants, etc.

    They also understand and approve of race-consciousness for some, just not for white Americans.

    They've gotten away with it because no one who matters will throw Israel in their faces, for fear of the anti-semite label. This is true not just of Jews, nor just of neocons, nor just of so-called "conservatives," but of mainstream conservatism in general.

    , @Chiron
    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.
    , @ben tillman

    not that that’s any kind of excuse for their naivete.
     
    May I ask, is there anyone you don't consider to be naive? Someone puts ideas into gullible people's minds, and if it's not people like Brooks and Frum, who the hell is it?
  8. This election is more about actual policies–behind which are ideas and philosophies–than any I’ve ever witnessed my life. It is also about ideas purely and simply, like the idea of identity politics. Brooks just doesn’t like the ascendant philosophies. He’d rather it still be a debate between liberals and liberals…er, I mean liberals and conservatives, and have the liberals win and nothing change. So long as people like him have influence over the Outer Party and he gets a paycheck.

    The politics of ideologies and philosophy, as he means them, is a politics in which David Brooks gets paid. Identity politics has no room for Brooks, unless he goes with whatever tribe he belongs to and reworks his shtick. But that’s hard.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Just think of David Brooks as a diplomat, a courtier, a flatterer. If he does not do it right he does not get paid. He must thread the needle just so.
  9. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    For anyone wondering what an empty platitude looks like.

    • Replies: @guest
    I don't think it is empty. It's very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term "nation," admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and "reduce" them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That's what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It's the Big Empty image that's an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can't avoid it by redefining "nation" to preclude their existence.

  10. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.

    But our economy is not growing at 3 percent despite continued high levels of immigration. It’s growing closer to 1 percent.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "But our economy is not growing at 3 percent despite continued high levels of immigration. It’s growing closer to 1 percent."

    But strictly speaking, Brooks didn't lie, because "an economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans".

    Or if he did lie, it was one of omission.

    And lies of omission are sorta like advertising.

    And advertising is essential to expanding market share.

    And expanding market share is critical to economic growth.

    And economic growth does "help all Americans".

    Redeemed!

    That Brooks is some kinda subtle thinker.
  11. @lomez
    I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they've spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it's a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that's any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    By all appearances, Frum and Brooks are strongly self-identified, ethnocentric jews. Race consciousness and lack of colorblindness therefore have been front and center in their worldviews for a long, long time.

    Unless they are massively self-deluding, which is possible.

    • Agree: NickG
  12. @eah
    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    I wish I'd written that -- Brooks just threw the race for the Pulitzer into total disarray.

    You forget, we are a Nation of Nations. I heard that phrase for the first time not long ago, and apparently it is totally a thing. You do violence to our nation if you allow it to have particular citizens. Because the world is full of Americans, and every nation is American (except Israel, natch). Nation of Nations. That citizenship thing is so played out, man.

  13. @Anonymous

    Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    For anyone wondering what an empty platitude looks like.

    I don’t think it is empty. It’s very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term “nation,” admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and “reduce” them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That’s what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It’s the Big Empty image that’s an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can’t avoid it by redefining “nation” to preclude their existence.

    • Replies: @Marat
    "We are a nation of Interchangeable Consumption Units." Globalism RealSpeak.
    , @Anonymous
    Very good analysis. The heart of the matter.
    , @Njguy73

    Or consumption units, if you will.
     
    "You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples...There is only one holistic system of systems, one...dominion of dollars...There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today....We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime..." -

    Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film
    , @Anon
    Interchangeable Consumption Units, indeed, servile and surveilled by our 'betters'.

    The endgame is to take all the current nations, toss them in a blender, and paste the uniform beige mass around the world, with everyone speaking English, following Chris-lam-duism, wearing Nikes, and eating McDonalds.
  14. @lomez
    I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they've spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it's a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that's any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    Brooks and Frum don’t agree on this.

    • Replies: @lomez
    it appears so. not sure where i got the idea frum didn't appreciate the ethnic/cultural complexities of immigration. he clearly does. one of too few.
    , @Trelane
    Can we agree on this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=USxvJFfKXrE
    , @Richard A.
    David Frum seems to hold the invade the world, but don't invite the world point of view. He is quite good on domestic issues but is overly hawkish in foreign affairs.
    , @bored identity
    When you're 23 year old Bethesda raised scion with a B.A.in history, seeing yourself next year in Jerusalem is like a soft interviewing for the top echelon position with an alphabet agency of your choice.

    Who would like to shin-bet with me that Brooks Jr. will be, in some capacity, a considerable enforcer of ((( the US domestic/foreign policy ))) in less than ten years from now ?

    And yes, that will happen regardless of which party controls WH and Congress.



    Any takers?
  15. @lomez
    I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they've spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it's a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that's any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    They do have the ideological framework, they just won’t apply it to the U.S. , the “exceptional” nation, the nation of nations, the nation of immigrants, etc.

    They also understand and approve of race-consciousness for some, just not for white Americans.

    They’ve gotten away with it because no one who matters will throw Israel in their faces, for fear of the anti-semite label. This is true not just of Jews, nor just of neocons, nor just of so-called “conservatives,” but of mainstream conservatism in general.

  16. Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.

    This seems like a really important policy question that is worth investigating. Brooks seems confident that he’s correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn’t hurt natives. There’s a sort of smugness I sense from Brooks/WSJ types on this subject, that yeah of course immigration is good for the economy. However, that’s not the sense I get from reading a lot of sensible conservatives (i.e. Douthat, Salam, Frum). Is he just being PC about hispanics, or is there a strong case to be made for what Brooks/WSJ want?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Brooks seems confident that he’s correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn’t hurt natives.
     
    If we read it rigorously, he is making an even more ambitious claim: not only that immigration grows GDP and benefits all Americans financially, but that it does those things and is also a net benefit to all Americans taking ALL costs (social, political, environmental, indirect economical). into account.

    Somehow I don't think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.
    , @ic1000
    > An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans ('yeah of course immigration is good for the economy')

    Should Americans support policies that target US GDP growing at 3% a year (with per capita GDP stagnating, declining, whatever)?

    Or, would they be wiser to focus on US per capita GDP growth at a sustainable low-single-digit rate (with total GDP being the wagged tail)?

    If the homo economicus in question owns a service or retail business or is a member of the global elite, he or she will answer one way. A person in the working or middle class, or who is a citizenist, will should support the other policy.

    Like few before it, this is a policy election. Most iSteve readers, elites, and globalists are fully aware of that. Unfortunately, most of those working/middle class voters are low-information when it comes to politics, and get their news from TV, newspapers, and the office cooler. These sources largely ignore policy. Instead, it's a clash of personalities, with one candidate being portrayed as being much less nice than the other.

    , @Forbes
    Real GDP per capita (standard of living, adjusted for inflation) is what matters, and not nominal or real GDP (total size of the economy). That's why the quality of immigrants matters.
  17. Another problem with journalists and pundits: innumeracy. They actually don’t understand that if immigration boosts GDP growth by 0.3% it’s a wash if it also increases the population by 0.3%. Innumeracy leads to lack of interest in numbers. If you tell me that many immigrants are brilliant entrepreneurs, I ask for the relevant numbers. Innumerate people don’t want the numbers.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Another problem with journalists and pundits: innumeracy. They actually don’t understand that if immigration boosts GDP growth by 0.3% it’s a wash if it also increases the population by 0.3%.
     
    Even that's not true, or doesn't go far enough, because there are all sorts of externalities not accounted for in GDP.
  18. Politics, prior Black Swan Trump?

    He means the ‘politics of Kabuki played in the theater of Congress’, where after-hours backslapping yokels go to work and pretend to argue points of order while moving trillions of dollars of the nation’s treasury in directions they choose, for to hold shared powers never intended for central government.

  19. Same as Kathleen Parker and Tom Friedman…If Brooks’ brains were TNT, he wouldn’t have enough to blow his nose.

  20. @Steve Sailer
    Brooks and Frum don't agree on this.

    it appears so. not sure where i got the idea frum didn’t appreciate the ethnic/cultural complexities of immigration. he clearly does. one of too few.

  21. The sad thing is, there are people around here who read this fish wrap every day and think they are therefore informed and intelligent.

    Discussing issues with them is a facepalm experience.

  22. David needs to read my blog: the Age of Ideas is over. He can read Porter’s site too.

    https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/the-age-of-ideology-is-over/

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "David needs to read my blog: the Age of Ideas is over. He can read Porter’s site too."

    The Age of Ideas is running on overdrive today. Men and women from all walks of life in the heterogenous American society espouse certain identities, i.e. their ideas, through their ideologies. Individuals, not whites, exclusively created those ideas and ideologies. More importantly, people today are part of a wide range of tribal groups, race among one of them. Depending upon the idea, that tribal instinct becomes more pervasive. But since each member of their tribal groups have disparate ideas, conflict arises as to which ideas are most important.
  23. @Trelane
    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans

    David Brooks is not rational. The NYT is difficult to distinguish from the Onion. Something's terribly wrong with this paper and this typist.

    And now, Brooks can’t even help Hillary win by a Salim margin. So sad! My schadenfreude boner has gone priapistic.

  24. Yeah, yeah….can’t forget that the GOP base is supposed to cling fast to its universal altruism & polyanna worldview while the education-media complex promotes identity politics for every minority group.
    One can only assume that Brooks is gonna ride out his Times gig till the train goes off the tracks. He’ll keep doubling down to affirm his role as useful idiot/dumbo propagandist…the obedient RoboCuckservative on duty to give NYT a patina of balance. Damn right this election is no longer about the usual, “liberal and conservative” debate charade, that will have to wait for a decade or so until the county is saved from demographic oblivion.

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon930

    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.
     
    This seems like a really important policy question that is worth investigating. Brooks seems confident that he's correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn't hurt natives. There's a sort of smugness I sense from Brooks/WSJ types on this subject, that yeah of course immigration is good for the economy. However, that's not the sense I get from reading a lot of sensible conservatives (i.e. Douthat, Salam, Frum). Is he just being PC about hispanics, or is there a strong case to be made for what Brooks/WSJ want?

    Brooks seems confident that he’s correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn’t hurt natives.

    If we read it rigorously, he is making an even more ambitious claim: not only that immigration grows GDP and benefits all Americans financially, but that it does those things and is also a net benefit to all Americans taking ALL costs (social, political, environmental, indirect economical). into account.

    Somehow I don’t think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Somehow I don’t think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.
     
    He has an lucrative gig as philosopher-king at the New York Times and he aims to keep it. He will cater to his liberal audience by saying what he does not believe. Perhaps the NY Times doesn't pay that much but it gives him high visibility to enhance book sales and speaking fees.
  26. Second and most important, identity politics is inherently the politics of division.

    Oh, but au contraire. Identity politics is the polity of unity – for white people! The majority of white people supported Brexit and now support Trump. We are finally, finally growing unified! You and your filthy immigrationist NYT have destroyed liberalism in this orgy of boots you thought were going to keep stamping on the white face forever. Suck it, Brooks!

  27. @lomez
    I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they've spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it's a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that's any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.

    I would have thought that the USA was pretty darn good for Jews already. But people like Brooks have the chutzpah to want to force every goy on earth to observe the Noahide laws, which if you read the fine print, appears to include a requirement to drop to your knees and offer a friendly blowjob to any Jew who walks past. Maybe I skimmed the fine print.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    I hope they personally start outreach to Africa to get all 4 billion incipient sub-Saharans on board with the program. I can just picture it now... imagine the litters of kingly black garbed folk, tugging their splendid payos while directing the peaceful sub-Saharans running hither and thither amongst the lions and elephants. Maybe Bono and Geldof can join them in the project.

    I'll bring the popcorn.

    , @bored identity

    Please tone it down with the vitriolic local-patriotism and look at reality:

    To be chosen to be in the IDF is just like being a part of the International Boy Scouts with really, really, really cool kids from all the around the Western hemisphere+Russia.
  28. @guest
    I don't think it is empty. It's very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term "nation," admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and "reduce" them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That's what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It's the Big Empty image that's an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can't avoid it by redefining "nation" to preclude their existence.

    “We are a nation of Interchangeable Consumption Units.” Globalism RealSpeak.

  29. For non-whites and Jews, identity politics is the default ideology. When you hear people condemn racism, xenophobia, etc., they’re targeting whites only. For everyone else it’s fine.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    If you are white you are allowed to have identity politics, as long as it is serving the broader goals of the left. Consider the Scottish National Party, or the Basque and Catalan separatists. For a time, it was acceptable for neocons to use identity politics in the Eastern Bloc against the USSR.

    I do recall much leftist hand-wringing over South African "xenophobia" which wasn't being caused by YT. Though the concern was mainly to stop any kind of fissure in the ANC's base.
  30. By his evening immigration speech he’d returned to the class and race tropes that have defined his campaign: that the American government is in the grips of a rich oligarchy that distorts everything for its benefit; that the American people are besieged by foreigners, who take their jobs and threaten their lives. …

    I can’t really grok this form of commentary, the style of stating something and, from context, the reader is supposed to understand that what has been stated is being disparaged as being unbelievable and yet that which is being disparaged is widely acknowledged as reality.

    Do Brooks and his audience actually, deep down in their hearts, believe that this is all kooky? Does Brooks write this as a form of trying to construct his own reality and hope that he can sway some people to join his worldview? Does he write this knowing that its BS but his position depends on his being a good soldier/propagandist for the plutocrats and so he sells his integrity because he likes his job and wants to keep it.

    I’d be eternally ashamed at exposing to the world that I was a bought and paid for shill or that I was so intellectually isolated that I believed what I wrote. Maybe every man does have a price and Brooks’ price compensates him for publicly shaming himself in this manner.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    I'm sure he really believes this. The fact that the country is run by an oligarchy of rich people seems beyond dispute, but I'm sure he believes that this rich oligarchy's worldview reflects reality, and their perceived interests are in the best interest of society. Similarly, he doesn't see America as "besieged" by foreigners. We are all enriched by their beautiful, beautiful diversity.
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’d be eternally ashamed at exposing to the world that I was a bought and paid for shill or that I was so intellectually isolated that I believed what I wrote. Maybe every man does have a price and Brooks’ price compensates him for publicly shaming himself in this manner.

    Brooks, on some level, believes he is advancing the interests of his tribe.

    By means of deception, thou shalt make war.

  32. @eah
    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    I wish I'd written that -- Brooks just threw the race for the Pulitzer into total disarray.

    The story of the Tower of Babel… It’s a cook book!!

  33. Would it be acceptable to Jews if Whites were to remain the ethnic majority in the United States?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    No, as long as YT remains the majority, the Cossacks are sure to return and pillage the shetl.
  34. @TangoMan
    By his evening immigration speech he’d returned to the class and race tropes that have defined his campaign: that the American government is in the grips of a rich oligarchy that distorts everything for its benefit; that the American people are besieged by foreigners, who take their jobs and threaten their lives. …

    I can't really grok this form of commentary, the style of stating something and, from context, the reader is supposed to understand that what has been stated is being disparaged as being unbelievable and yet that which is being disparaged is widely acknowledged as reality.

    Do Brooks and his audience actually, deep down in their hearts, believe that this is all kooky? Does Brooks write this as a form of trying to construct his own reality and hope that he can sway some people to join his worldview? Does he write this knowing that its BS but his position depends on his being a good soldier/propagandist for the plutocrats and so he sells his integrity because he likes his job and wants to keep it.

    I'd be eternally ashamed at exposing to the world that I was a bought and paid for shill or that I was so intellectually isolated that I believed what I wrote. Maybe every man does have a price and Brooks' price compensates him for publicly shaming himself in this manner.

    I’m sure he really believes this. The fact that the country is run by an oligarchy of rich people seems beyond dispute, but I’m sure he believes that this rich oligarchy’s worldview reflects reality, and their perceived interests are in the best interest of society. Similarly, he doesn’t see America as “besieged” by foreigners. We are all enriched by their beautiful, beautiful diversity.

  35. @Chiron
    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.

    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.

    I would have thought that the USA was pretty darn good for Jews already. But people like Brooks have the chutzpah to want to force every goy on earth to observe the Noahide laws, which if you read the fine print, appears to include a requirement to drop to your knees and offer a friendly blowjob to any Jew who walks past. Maybe I skimmed the fine print.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    I hope they personally start outreach to Africa to get all 4 billion incipient sub-Saharans on board with the program. I can just picture it now… imagine the litters of kingly black garbed folk, tugging their splendid payos while directing the peaceful sub-Saharans running hither and thither amongst the lions and elephants. Maybe Bono and Geldof can join them in the project.

    I’ll bring the popcorn.

  36. • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    He's supposedly 17, despite fairly advanced male pattern baldness?

    I thought Americans at least get to kick the tyres on the African refugees they take in, unlike the ones who just invite themselves to Europe.
    , @fish

    Fargo youth:
     
    Ahhh Fargo youth......yahhh....you betcha!
  37. The most depressing aspect of Brooks’ column is that he probably thinks it is Deep.

    In fact, at every point where it needs an argument, it invokes pious, stale dogma instead.

    Brooks doesn’t even know the difference.

    • Agree: Harold
  38. @Rob McX
    For non-whites and Jews, identity politics is the default ideology. When you hear people condemn racism, xenophobia, etc., they're targeting whites only. For everyone else it's fine.

    If you are white you are allowed to have identity politics, as long as it is serving the broader goals of the left. Consider the Scottish National Party, or the Basque and Catalan separatists. For a time, it was acceptable for neocons to use identity politics in the Eastern Bloc against the USSR.

    I do recall much leftist hand-wringing over South African “xenophobia” which wasn’t being caused by YT. Though the concern was mainly to stop any kind of fissure in the ANC’s base.

  39. @Anonymous
    Would it be acceptable to Jews if Whites were to remain the ethnic majority in the United States?

    No, as long as YT remains the majority, the Cossacks are sure to return and pillage the shetl.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That is not a universally accepted opinion among Jews. Some of us are not in favor of seeing this country turn into Brazil or worse.
    , @bored identity
    What better way to say “I love America", than to raise kids who are shin-bet crazy about spending a summer or two in the Negev Desert while dressed in full camo ?
  40. @syonredux

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    Except, of course, in Israel......

    Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    And, of course, it is people like David Brooks who do this. How did we get “these identities”, after all?

  41. @lomez
    I think brooks, like frum, and many other boomer conservatives, are sincere in these sentiments. their world view has always depended on colorblindness to justify the politics they've spent a lifetime advocating for. immigration is solely an economic issue, to be debated in terms of GDP and nothing else.

    this sudden turn toward race consciousness is a genuine shock to their system. they have no ideological framework to understand these trends, what they mean, or how they might map on to policy.

    it's a threat to their existence. so of course they call it violence.

    not that that's any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    not that that’s any kind of excuse for their naivete.

    May I ask, is there anyone you don’t consider to be naive? Someone puts ideas into gullible people’s minds, and if it’s not people like Brooks and Frum, who the hell is it?

    • Replies: @lomez
    Brooks, not Frum as I've been corrected, is naive because he thinks open borders is a good idea and refuses the logic of racial difference. Anyone who's not naive, by my lights, holds the opposite view, the one espoused by most everyone here I assume.

    Though I do think there are people who are both not naive on these questions and yet still promote open borders for their own cynical reasons, either because they're on the left and the extra voters are good for their co-partisans, or because it helps their business, or because their sinecures in academia or as public intellectuals depend on having the "right" opinions on certain key topics.

    Not sure if I answered the question
  42. @mukat
    Another problem with journalists and pundits: innumeracy. They actually don't understand that if immigration boosts GDP growth by 0.3% it's a wash if it also increases the population by 0.3%. Innumeracy leads to lack of interest in numbers. If you tell me that many immigrants are brilliant entrepreneurs, I ask for the relevant numbers. Innumerate people don't want the numbers.

    Another problem with journalists and pundits: innumeracy. They actually don’t understand that if immigration boosts GDP growth by 0.3% it’s a wash if it also increases the population by 0.3%.

    Even that’s not true, or doesn’t go far enough, because there are all sorts of externalities not accounted for in GDP.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Or worse, externalities like "broken windows" that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West's case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I'm sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.
  43. Are these people desperately trying to convince themselves or do they just believe we are really that stupid?

  44. What David Brooks needs is lots more legal/illegal immigration into his zip code and all zip codes where he owns property. And send him the non-English speaking ones, poor ones, ragged ones and Muslim refugees from strange places that Brooks is glad to inflict on others. He needs to experience the joys of diversity more intimately.

  45. These ‘mad scientist’, social engineering types like Brooks are evil and despicable creatures. They are willing to redesign the demographic makeup of the nation consistent with their theoretical views (liberal feminist diversity insanity and fantasy) how the world works, which aren’t really connected to reality but that never slows them down. If their theory isn’t producing the right outcomes, something must be wrong with the measurements and the data. The social engineering and diversity they impose upon less wealthy whites and their communities in Flyover Country– which really really is in their own good b/c the Brooks of the world are awesome smart humanitarians who know what’s good for everyone else even though they never have lived there or probably even set foot in most of F.C.–somehow does not confer the same awesome benefits in their white bread, non-diverse neighborhoods. A recent proposal to relocate a homeless DC facility into the posh NW, SWPL portion of town was met with a schittstorm of NIMBY protest. Those nice white ladies in NW were not amused about the prospect of taking one for the team. F’n hypocrites!

  46. ‘Nation of Nations’ …. This has been around a long time. For example:

    http://www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/A-Nation-of-Nations-4239

    The 3rd section, “Shared Experiences in a New Nation,” focuses on the “American” activities and environments shared by immigrants from the close of the Civil War to present day. Some shared experiences addressed in this section includes becoming a United States citizen, attending free public schools, learning the routines of military basic training, and participating in and enjoying the world of entertainment (sports, movies, television). Highlights include a classroom from Cleveland’s Dunham Elementary School.

    ‘Nation of Nations’ was not unlike the ‘Melting Pot’ analogy. It was tied to the ‘fact’ that immigrants had become acculturated Americans — and that this process was more or less guaranteed. In Post War, mid century USA, it was more or less assumed it would always work this way.

    The pre 1925 immigrants had a lot of the rough edges worn off, had been through WW II, and the 3rd generation could choose between family desire to maintain their old world culture vs sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

    It’s just that a few commenters mentioned having been unfamiliar with ‘nation of nations’.

    And don’t discount the impact of similar pressures to assimilate on Islam. It’s still a religion with a lot of rules and isn’t fun. And, what is to prevent them from getting a treatment similar to that of the American Catholic Church. It isn’t just Nation and Religion. Its intersectionality. Muslims rank way below Blacks. Plus, they are hell on women. Sure, its gang up on white males. But the ‘other’ have to sort out their hierarchies of victimhood, and its getting pretty damn crowded. The only thing holding these bizarre bedfellows together is hatred of Trump.

    • Replies: @guest
    I never, ever heard "nation of nations" before, presumably because it is a crappy slogan, until very recently. Who comes up with this stuff, and why be so obvious? It's like they're mocking us.

    With the "melting pot" at least they're saying they're going to make them like us. Or like the founding stock. (Which I'm not personally a part of; some of my ancestors came before the Civil War, some after.) Saying we're a Nation of Nations is like saying "Ha, ha, you aren't allowed to have a nation, sucker."

  47. Identity isn’t something you choose. You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you’re not a beneficiary of identity politics, you’re one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.

    • Replies: @frizzled

    You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
     
    You are not Jewish by “ethnicity”, as that would be something verifiable by objective measures. It would suppose, the existence of a given “ethnic culture”. The latter is not provable in this case. Nothing but religious or ritual habits and ritual language are “common-Jewish” here. As much as, or in fact somewhat less than, between the Irish and the Italian.

    The point being that “born to a Jewish woman” is a self-serving, self-defined criterion of a tribal religion, a non-converting religion originally reserved to small tribes that were imposed, under penalty of death, the exclusive adoration of their particular tribal god. Once the religion started spreading by conversion, as documented, the criterion is no longer tribal but fake-racial (i.e. seriously racist.)

    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    Just as an example, try explaining to a normal, passably well-educated American that you are Greek, born of ancient Greek stock in Turkey but that you aren’t a Turk. That person will classify you by your place of birth, exactly as we do in the US. That same guy, though, swallows the “atheist Jewish” nonsense instead of clarifying it for everyday English as “Yiddish-speaking Bessarabian –pardon, Moldavian now– whose grandparents may have practiced Judaism”. Even more absurd regarding an American who culturally is 101% general-American.

    I not only don’t have to accept it, I have the right to ask the affabulators to please conform to the language usage norms without creating a self-serving category just for themselves. That habit of totally integrated, atheist people to suddenly insist in the non-religious “Jewish” designation is relatively new, by the way. In the 19th century people couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. It became a fashion with Zionist propaganda, WWII and Nazi genocide, and finally the Zionist domination over all our US culture.

    , @Clyde

    Identity isn’t something you choose. You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you’re not a beneficiary of identity politics, you’re one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.
     
    With today's zero-sum economy, if you are not eating then you are getting eaten. And may not know this right away. One simple example is gov't jobs including education at all levels including state universities. White males used to dominate these offices but due to broad affirmative action promoting women, lgbt, blacks, disabled, etc., white males are aced out of decent jobs. Whitetopia states like ND and Montana being the exceptions.
    Simple equation here is, more jobs for minorities automatically means fewer jobs for whites.
  48. OT–Scott Adams on why his cubicle career ended: his bosses would tell him that they couldn’t promote white males in the foreseeable future (beginning at 1:20):

    • Replies: @Anonym
    That's a really good video, thanks for posting.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Yes, but he says it was ultimately good because it was in the best interests of [correct thoughts]!

    Adams had a few good insights about Trump but actually he's just a deluded leftist like the rest...
    , @NickG
    Scott Adams has some good insights on matters of persuasion, he spotted accurately when Hillary started getting cogent persuasion advice.

    Scott has made what he considers 'fuck-off money' with his Dilbert cartoon syndication.

    I think he is entertaining himself and seeking to raise his profile which he will use for other stuff to entertain himself, this may or may not make him money. Since he already has 'fuck-off money', this isn't especially critical.

    I don't think he has any unique insight into Trump's possibility of winning in Nov. Trump may win because he is a good persuader, resonates with many with the Sailer strategy. Like with the Brexit vote in June - where 3 million turned out to the polls that normally don't, most of whom voted Brexit, and swung it for Brexit and made a nonsense of pre-election polls.

    Given the US has 5 times the UK population, a quick and dirty US based equivalent of the Brexit phenomenon applied to Trump would by 15 million extra voters, most voting for Trump. I guess this is possible.

    Throw in the possibility of more wikilieaks stuff, Hillary's health becoming an unavoidable issue and Trump could still win.
  49. @Rob McX
    Identity isn't something you choose. You're born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you're not a beneficiary of identity politics, you're one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.

    You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.

    You are not Jewish by “ethnicity”, as that would be something verifiable by objective measures. It would suppose, the existence of a given “ethnic culture”. The latter is not provable in this case. Nothing but religious or ritual habits and ritual language are “common-Jewish” here. As much as, or in fact somewhat less than, between the Irish and the Italian.

    The point being that “born to a Jewish woman” is a self-serving, self-defined criterion of a tribal religion, a non-converting religion originally reserved to small tribes that were imposed, under penalty of death, the exclusive adoration of their particular tribal god. Once the religion started spreading by conversion, as documented, the criterion is no longer tribal but fake-racial (i.e. seriously racist.)

    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    Just as an example, try explaining to a normal, passably well-educated American that you are Greek, born of ancient Greek stock in Turkey but that you aren’t a Turk. That person will classify you by your place of birth, exactly as we do in the US. That same guy, though, swallows the “atheist Jewish” nonsense instead of clarifying it for everyday English as “Yiddish-speaking Bessarabian –pardon, Moldavian now– whose grandparents may have practiced Judaism”. Even more absurd regarding an American who culturally is 101% general-American.

    I not only don’t have to accept it, I have the right to ask the affabulators to please conform to the language usage norms without creating a self-serving category just for themselves. That habit of totally integrated, atheist people to suddenly insist in the non-religious “Jewish” designation is relatively new, by the way. In the 19th century people couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. It became a fashion with Zionist propaganda, WWII and Nazi genocide, and finally the Zionist domination over all our US culture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    What categories specifically are you referring to here?
    , @Jim
    I'm a little confused by what point you're trying to make but if you are saying that Ashkenazi Jews, whether religious or not, are not genetically distinct from other European populations you are mistaken. Genetically they are about 50%-60% Southern European and about 40-50% Middle Eastern. Most Jews could be identified as Jewish by genetic studies.

    As for a Greek individual who happened to be born within the present boundaries of Turkey but who is not Turkish, I have no trouble understanding that. I have had in fact acquaintances one of whom was a Greek guy born in Lebanon and another an Armenian born in Lebanon. They both could speak Arabic but I understood that they were not and certainly did not consider themselves to be Arabs.

    Of course a large part of the population of Turkey are Kurdish not Turkish.

    Of course there is a "Jewish" culture or sub-culture in the United States just as there are other ethnic cultures or sub-cultures.
  50. @Anonymous

    Brooks seems confident that he’s correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn’t hurt natives.
     
    If we read it rigorously, he is making an even more ambitious claim: not only that immigration grows GDP and benefits all Americans financially, but that it does those things and is also a net benefit to all Americans taking ALL costs (social, political, environmental, indirect economical). into account.

    Somehow I don't think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.

    Somehow I don’t think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.

    He has an lucrative gig as philosopher-king at the New York Times and he aims to keep it. He will cater to his liberal audience by saying what he does not believe. Perhaps the NY Times doesn’t pay that much but it gives him high visibility to enhance book sales and speaking fees.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he's kept it to himself.
  51. @Maj. Kong
    No, as long as YT remains the majority, the Cossacks are sure to return and pillage the shetl.

    That is not a universally accepted opinion among Jews. Some of us are not in favor of seeing this country turn into Brazil or worse.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    http://forward.com/news/344284/donald-trump-wins-surprising-jewish-fan-club-among-russian-immigrants/

    It appears that the recent arrivals, having actual memories of Marxism, aren't as nuts as the 1880-1914 group.
    , @SFG
    The minority, depressingly.

    One of the good points Seidel made (which are all going to get buried in his silliness at calling himself an 'alt-right jew' and the resulting 348 nasty comments he got) was that the eventual endgame of identity politics isn't going to be Good For the Jews--all these minorities the left is so fond of importing are going to see Jews as white and discriminate accordingly.
  52. @guest
    This election is more about actual policies--behind which are ideas and philosophies--than any I've ever witnessed my life. It is also about ideas purely and simply, like the idea of identity politics. Brooks just doesn't like the ascendant philosophies. He'd rather it still be a debate between liberals and liberals...er, I mean liberals and conservatives, and have the liberals win and nothing change. So long as people like him have influence over the Outer Party and he gets a paycheck.

    The politics of ideologies and philosophy, as he means them, is a politics in which David Brooks gets paid. Identity politics has no room for Brooks, unless he goes with whatever tribe he belongs to and reworks his shtick. But that's hard.

    Just think of David Brooks as a diplomat, a courtier, a flatterer. If he does not do it right he does not get paid. He must thread the needle just so.

  53. @Anonymous
    That is not a universally accepted opinion among Jews. Some of us are not in favor of seeing this country turn into Brazil or worse.

    http://forward.com/news/344284/donald-trump-wins-surprising-jewish-fan-club-among-russian-immigrants/

    It appears that the recent arrivals, having actual memories of Marxism, aren’t as nuts as the 1880-1914 group.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm the anonymous who wrote the comment to which you responded, and my ancestry comes from the 1880-1914 group. Most of us may be left wing, but not all of us are.
  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, the words ‘diversity’ and ‘division’ both have the same ‘div-‘ prefix root.
    ‘Div’ is from the same root as ‘two’ or ‘duo’. Essentially, it means ‘to split in two’. Exactly the opposite of the words ‘unify’ and ‘unite’, which have the root suffix of ‘un-‘ meaning one or ‘unus’. The meaning here, of course, is to make separate elements into ‘one’ whole.

  55. @Rob McX
    Identity isn't something you choose. You're born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you're not a beneficiary of identity politics, you're one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.

    Identity isn’t something you choose. You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you’re not a beneficiary of identity politics, you’re one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.

    With today’s zero-sum economy, if you are not eating then you are getting eaten. And may not know this right away. One simple example is gov’t jobs including education at all levels including state universities. White males used to dominate these offices but due to broad affirmative action promoting women, lgbt, blacks, disabled, etc., white males are aced out of decent jobs. Whitetopia states like ND and Montana being the exceptions.
    Simple equation here is, more jobs for minorities automatically means fewer jobs for whites.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    White males used to dominate these offices
     
    White men.
    , @SFG
    There's an added dimension to this I don't see anyone commenting on (and if anyone wants to signal-boost this, please do).

    Whites don't like affirmative action because it shuts white people out of government jobs which are often the best ones these days below the executive level. Makes sense. But affirmative action is calculated against the percentage of the total population. The larger the nonwhite sector of the population, the *larger the number of unavailable jobs*. So Hispanic immigration also *worsens the effects of affirmative action* by *increasing the number of set-aside jobs*. As the Hispanic fraction of the population increases, whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs.

    Vote Trump, it's important.

  56. @Dr. Doom
    Amusing how White identity politics is divisive but non-White identity groups are inclusive. How dare White people have interests in their own people in a country they founded? You know, this would be lame if the White majority was still assured, but with all the premature celebrations of imminent White minority status, this is actually deranged.
    They said Whites had no right to South Africa, because they weren't natives, they try that crap here too, and now apparently Europe isn't supposed to be ruled by Whites either huh? Yeah, that whole Europe thing probably was the bridge too far, sport.

    Utterly ridiculous. I can remember when Brooks still claimed to be a conservative (maybe he still does, but haven’t read him in years).

    Listening to all of these assholes is exactly like the whines you’d get from a kid who got pushed out of the sandbox from another kid. Well, especially if that other kid had expectations of owning the world.

    Growing up in South Texas, I remember when there was a smattering of white folks there. Now it’s pretty much gone. BTW, there used to be a sizeable number of black folks who came seasonally to work the fields, but that was gone by 1990 at best.

    When it came down to white/mexican stuff, there wasn’t a shitload of sturm and drang, but that was because by that time, the new powers that be had brown skin and took over the old powers that be and pretty much did the same as them. (With some notable exceptions, Ruben Hinohosa, a scion of an affirmative action meat packing dynasty, was very mediocre and made to congress, and may still be there for all I know.)

    Oh yes, and the white enclave in South Africa struggles with it’s own problems of illegal immigation, as I’m sure Steve covered a time or two.

  57. @ben tillman

    not that that’s any kind of excuse for their naivete.
     
    May I ask, is there anyone you don't consider to be naive? Someone puts ideas into gullible people's minds, and if it's not people like Brooks and Frum, who the hell is it?

    Brooks, not Frum as I’ve been corrected, is naive because he thinks open borders is a good idea and refuses the logic of racial difference. Anyone who’s not naive, by my lights, holds the opposite view, the one espoused by most everyone here I assume.

    Though I do think there are people who are both not naive on these questions and yet still promote open borders for their own cynical reasons, either because they’re on the left and the extra voters are good for their co-partisans, or because it helps their business, or because their sinecures in academia or as public intellectuals depend on having the “right” opinions on certain key topics.

    Not sure if I answered the question

  58. @Maj. Kong
    http://forward.com/news/344284/donald-trump-wins-surprising-jewish-fan-club-among-russian-immigrants/

    It appears that the recent arrivals, having actual memories of Marxism, aren't as nuts as the 1880-1914 group.

    I’m the anonymous who wrote the comment to which you responded, and my ancestry comes from the 1880-1914 group. Most of us may be left wing, but not all of us are.

  59. @theo the kraut
    OT--Scott Adams on why his cubicle career ended: his bosses would tell him that they couldn't promote white males in the foreseeable future (beginning at 1:20):

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

    That’s a really good video, thanks for posting.

  60. @Clyde

    Identity isn’t something you choose. You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you’re not a beneficiary of identity politics, you’re one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.
     
    With today's zero-sum economy, if you are not eating then you are getting eaten. And may not know this right away. One simple example is gov't jobs including education at all levels including state universities. White males used to dominate these offices but due to broad affirmative action promoting women, lgbt, blacks, disabled, etc., white males are aced out of decent jobs. Whitetopia states like ND and Montana being the exceptions.
    Simple equation here is, more jobs for minorities automatically means fewer jobs for whites.

    White males used to dominate these offices

    White men.

  61. GDP per capita is what people care about. And importing poor people doesn’t increase it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    GDP per capita is what people care about. And importing poor people doesn’t increase it.

    The distribution of national income is also important. Gains going disproportionately to a small class of people...
  62. @duncsbaby
    Fargo youth:
    http://www.inforum.com/news/4107072-fargo-youth-found-guilty-attempted-kidnapping-parking-lot-attack

    He’s supposedly 17, despite fairly advanced male pattern baldness?

    I thought Americans at least get to kick the tyres on the African refugees they take in, unlike the ones who just invite themselves to Europe.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    This guy is supposed to be 17???

    And he's been linked by DNA to an offence committed in 2013, which means he'll be tried as if he were 14 when it happened.

  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @iSteveFan

    An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.
     
    But our economy is not growing at 3 percent despite continued high levels of immigration. It's growing closer to 1 percent.

    “But our economy is not growing at 3 percent despite continued high levels of immigration. It’s growing closer to 1 percent.”

    But strictly speaking, Brooks didn’t lie, because “an economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans”.

    Or if he did lie, it was one of omission.

    And lies of omission are sorta like advertising.

    And advertising is essential to expanding market share.

    And expanding market share is critical to economic growth.

    And economic growth does “help all Americans”.

    Redeemed!

    That Brooks is some kinda subtle thinker.

  64. @guest
    I don't think it is empty. It's very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term "nation," admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and "reduce" them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That's what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It's the Big Empty image that's an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can't avoid it by redefining "nation" to preclude their existence.

    Very good analysis. The heart of the matter.

  65. @jimmyriddle
    He's supposedly 17, despite fairly advanced male pattern baldness?

    I thought Americans at least get to kick the tyres on the African refugees they take in, unlike the ones who just invite themselves to Europe.

    This guy is supposed to be 17???

    And he’s been linked by DNA to an offence committed in 2013, which means he’ll be tried as if he were 14 when it happened.

  66. Funny, the Alt-Right (or WP, if you prefer), did not invent “division”. That is what is constantly drummed up by the aggrieved classes and races. We are just the only ones that are not allowed to refer to it, or react to it.

  67. @theo the kraut
    OT--Scott Adams on why his cubicle career ended: his bosses would tell him that they couldn't promote white males in the foreseeable future (beginning at 1:20):

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

    Yes, but he says it was ultimately good because it was in the best interests of [correct thoughts]!

    Adams had a few good insights about Trump but actually he’s just a deluded leftist like the rest…

  68. @anon930

    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.
     
    This seems like a really important policy question that is worth investigating. Brooks seems confident that he's correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn't hurt natives. There's a sort of smugness I sense from Brooks/WSJ types on this subject, that yeah of course immigration is good for the economy. However, that's not the sense I get from reading a lot of sensible conservatives (i.e. Douthat, Salam, Frum). Is he just being PC about hispanics, or is there a strong case to be made for what Brooks/WSJ want?

    > An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans (‘yeah of course immigration is good for the economy’)

    Should Americans support policies that target US GDP growing at 3% a year (with per capita GDP stagnating, declining, whatever)?

    Or, would they be wiser to focus on US per capita GDP growth at a sustainable low-single-digit rate (with total GDP being the wagged tail)?

    If the homo economicus in question owns a service or retail business or is a member of the global elite, he or she will answer one way. A person in the working or middle class, or who is a citizenist, will should support the other policy.

    Like few before it, this is a policy election. Most iSteve readers, elites, and globalists are fully aware of that. Unfortunately, most of those working/middle class voters are low-information when it comes to politics, and get their news from TV, newspapers, and the office cooler. These sources largely ignore policy. Instead, it’s a clash of personalities, with one candidate being portrayed as being much less nice than the other.

    • Replies: @anon930
    But Brooks and the people over at the WSJ editorial page seem to think that everyone knows that immigrants are good for natives overall, and that only stupid people believe otherwise. I think the "they took 'er jerbs" thing from South Park probably captures how most elites think about the plebeians who want less immigration.
  69. @frizzled

    Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation.
     
    Meanwhile, David Brooks' own son signed up to fight for the Israel Defense Forces. Chutzpah!

    This is called (((exceptionalism))). Being “exceptional” and being “exempted” are, at the end of the day, the same thing. If you are exceptional, then you are exempt from the Law of Non-Contradiction, international law, the elements of justice, and the moral precepts accepted by the rest of mankind. Consistency be damned, it is the feeling that you are indeed someone special.

    From Google Search: Exceptionalism is the perception that a country, society, institution, movement, or time period is “exceptional” (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or principles.

  70. @Anonymous
    That is not a universally accepted opinion among Jews. Some of us are not in favor of seeing this country turn into Brazil or worse.

    The minority, depressingly.

    One of the good points Seidel made (which are all going to get buried in his silliness at calling himself an ‘alt-right jew’ and the resulting 348 nasty comments he got) was that the eventual endgame of identity politics isn’t going to be Good For the Jews–all these minorities the left is so fond of importing are going to see Jews as white and discriminate accordingly.

  71. @Clyde

    Identity isn’t something you choose. You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. All except whites are proudly proclaiming their identity and looking out for their own. If you’re not a beneficiary of identity politics, you’re one of its victims. You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics is interested in you.
     
    With today's zero-sum economy, if you are not eating then you are getting eaten. And may not know this right away. One simple example is gov't jobs including education at all levels including state universities. White males used to dominate these offices but due to broad affirmative action promoting women, lgbt, blacks, disabled, etc., white males are aced out of decent jobs. Whitetopia states like ND and Montana being the exceptions.
    Simple equation here is, more jobs for minorities automatically means fewer jobs for whites.

    There’s an added dimension to this I don’t see anyone commenting on (and if anyone wants to signal-boost this, please do).

    Whites don’t like affirmative action because it shuts white people out of government jobs which are often the best ones these days below the executive level. Makes sense. But affirmative action is calculated against the percentage of the total population. The larger the nonwhite sector of the population, the *larger the number of unavailable jobs*. So Hispanic immigration also *worsens the effects of affirmative action* by *increasing the number of set-aside jobs*. As the Hispanic fraction of the population increases, whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs.

    Vote Trump, it’s important.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs
     
    As the influence of corporations over the government increases, more and more jobs paradoxically become government jobs. AA is if anything even more virulent in the corporations/corporate academia.
    , @Tom-in-VA
    I loved that Jim Webb actually proposed the elimination of AA for all groups except American Indians and the descendants of slaves. Too bad the idea, like his candidacy, went nowhere.
    , @artichoke
    All I know is, you get free points on your government job app, as well as college admission app, for being black or hispanic. They are equal for government jobs; black may be worth more for college admission.

    If the government quota for URM's were full (i.e. the proportional constraint you speak of were binding) some URM's would not get those points, or maybe none would. But they all do, meaning to me that either there's no quota and "the sky's the limit", or the quota is even higher than the dark government workforce is showing now.

    Bill Clinton implemented "welfare to work" by creating tons of permanent government jobs for welfare blacks.
  72. @ben tillman

    Another problem with journalists and pundits: innumeracy. They actually don’t understand that if immigration boosts GDP growth by 0.3% it’s a wash if it also increases the population by 0.3%.
     
    Even that's not true, or doesn't go far enough, because there are all sorts of externalities not accounted for in GDP.

    Or worse, externalities like “broken windows” that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West’s case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I’m sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.

    • Replies: @Alden
    All those social workers, advocates and counselors passing out the welfare checks add to GDP.

    I'm old and you can't believe the massive number of parasites wanting to counsel me and help me do things I can do for myself or don't want to do at all.
    , @ben tillman

    Or worse, externalities like “broken windows” that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West’s case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I’m sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.
     
    I'm not sure that's "worse", but it is an excellent point.
  73. In a Trump Admin, the NYT Building will look like the US Embassy during the Fall of Saigon, with Brooks and Friedman and all the others hoping to hang from the skids of a chopper before the vanguard of gay Nazi bodybuilders arrives in their neo-Spartan finery to re-educate them.

  74. @guest
    I don't think it is empty. It's very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term "nation," admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and "reduce" them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That's what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It's the Big Empty image that's an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can't avoid it by redefining "nation" to preclude their existence.

    Or consumption units, if you will.

    “You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples…There is only one holistic system of systems, one…dominion of dollars…There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today….We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime…” –

    Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film

    • Replies: @guest
    Network, like all things liberal, is pointed the wrong way. We had a country with business in charge, once, and it didn't look like this. Ideas and idea-men have the power. It's universities, NGOs, and permanent governments, the managerial elite, who are in charge. They run the corporations, too. Business is along for the ride and allowed to benefit.
  75. @SFG
    There's an added dimension to this I don't see anyone commenting on (and if anyone wants to signal-boost this, please do).

    Whites don't like affirmative action because it shuts white people out of government jobs which are often the best ones these days below the executive level. Makes sense. But affirmative action is calculated against the percentage of the total population. The larger the nonwhite sector of the population, the *larger the number of unavailable jobs*. So Hispanic immigration also *worsens the effects of affirmative action* by *increasing the number of set-aside jobs*. As the Hispanic fraction of the population increases, whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs.

    Vote Trump, it's important.

    whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs

    As the influence of corporations over the government increases, more and more jobs paradoxically become government jobs. AA is if anything even more virulent in the corporations/corporate academia.

  76. @anon
    GDP per capita is what people care about. And importing poor people doesn't increase it.

    GDP per capita is what people care about. And importing poor people doesn’t increase it.

    The distribution of national income is also important. Gains going disproportionately to a small class of people…

  77. “Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color,”

    Let’s see if Brooks goes to a BLM speech, stands up, rushes up to the platform, grabs the microphone and shouts these words so that all BLM members can clearly hear that. I mean, one could interpret that to mean that “All lives matter”.

  78. @syonredux

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    Except, of course, in Israel......

    In discussing race, it’s imperative to distinguish between groups and individuals. Individual exceptions and variation doesn’t confute or lessen the importance of what’s true of racial groups on average. And so, too, with the sexes: e.g., that a minority of women are taller, better athletes, more intelligent mathematically, etc., than most men doesn’t obviate or trivialize the relevance and importance of average sexual differences.

  79. Once, I seem to recall, we had philosophical and ideological differences. Once, politics was a debate between liberals and conservatives, between different views of government, different views on values and America’s role in the world.

    But this year, it seems, everything has been stripped down to the bone. Politics is dividing along crude identity lines — along race and class. Are you a native-born white or are you an outsider?

    I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. Identity politics in the US was born out of and nurtured as a form of left wing politics at least since the 60’s. I first encountered it 2 decades ago in college. I got the message really quick from my white, liberal friends that “You only believe in policy X because you are a middle class white guy.”

    I’m an “alt-righter” or maybe more an “alt-centrist” now because I’ve awoken to the reality that arguing about principles is a lost cause for Conservatism Inc. It’s been so painful to watch this happen over the years. But the left has been 100% successful in “rubbing the right’s nose in diversity” (not my words) to the point that now white people are starting to say “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”

    But Brooks starts his analysis of Identity Politics with the rise of Donald Trump. Ridiculous!

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Brooks and the rest of the lapdog media (and assorted other groups) expect politics and elections to be along a left-right axis, as between nominally Republicans and Democrats (as in 2004, '06, '08, '10), while unable today to grasp what changed. The issues this election are not going according to script.

    I call it an insider vs outsider election. Hillary is the insider establishment, status quo candidate, with Trump as the outsider, not-status quo candidate. The lost cause of Conservatism Inc. arrived in the form of elected Republicans merely being the caretakers of the welfare/warfare establishment state, serving interims between Democratic administrations.

    As the status quo has comes to serve a vanishing small number, the grassroots reaction was the rise of the Tea Party groups (with the Obama/IRS attempts to muzzle), and now Trump's candidacy (variously derided) to disrupt the status quo. Brooks, NYT, lapdog media, are in pure panic mode--expect epic meltdowns to follow.
  80. @ic1000
    > An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans ('yeah of course immigration is good for the economy')

    Should Americans support policies that target US GDP growing at 3% a year (with per capita GDP stagnating, declining, whatever)?

    Or, would they be wiser to focus on US per capita GDP growth at a sustainable low-single-digit rate (with total GDP being the wagged tail)?

    If the homo economicus in question owns a service or retail business or is a member of the global elite, he or she will answer one way. A person in the working or middle class, or who is a citizenist, will should support the other policy.

    Like few before it, this is a policy election. Most iSteve readers, elites, and globalists are fully aware of that. Unfortunately, most of those working/middle class voters are low-information when it comes to politics, and get their news from TV, newspapers, and the office cooler. These sources largely ignore policy. Instead, it's a clash of personalities, with one candidate being portrayed as being much less nice than the other.

    But Brooks and the people over at the WSJ editorial page seem to think that everyone knows that immigrants are good for natives overall, and that only stupid people believe otherwise. I think the “they took ‘er jerbs” thing from South Park probably captures how most elites think about the plebeians who want less immigration.

  81. Were I a subscriber to the NYT, I could post this informative graphic :

    Your readers might also like :

    A Man Wants a Wife, Not a Co-Worker

    http://wp.me/p6QFjS-86

  82. What Brooks describes isn’t a “nation”; it is a shopping mall or an airport terminal – just a place where a bunch of people happen to be.

  83. @asdf
    "An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans."
    And some more than others.

    I think somewhere in all that Brook brain droppings he pulled out the Studies Show Immigration Does Not Lower Wages. He's obviously never worked in a factory.

    What the hell does he think happened to the meat packing industry? They just decided they wanted to work for less?

    The facts on the ground both -
    Prove Him Wrong
    Disturb His WorldView

    Thus - Studies say what he wants them to say.

    You’ll find 3% growth back in 2004 & 2005, and 1996-2000, but surprisingly (or not) it hasn’t much featured in the past three decades (13 out of 30 times).

    That’s real growth, for those unfamiliar with such minutia.

  84. @anon930

    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.
     
    This seems like a really important policy question that is worth investigating. Brooks seems confident that he's correct on the economics of immigration, and that it grows GDP and doesn't hurt natives. There's a sort of smugness I sense from Brooks/WSJ types on this subject, that yeah of course immigration is good for the economy. However, that's not the sense I get from reading a lot of sensible conservatives (i.e. Douthat, Salam, Frum). Is he just being PC about hispanics, or is there a strong case to be made for what Brooks/WSJ want?

    Real GDP per capita (standard of living, adjusted for inflation) is what matters, and not nominal or real GDP (total size of the economy). That’s why the quality of immigrants matters.

    • Replies: @M
    Even Real GDP is just, the value of formal, measured economic production occurring on your country's territory, per head, adjusted for inflation. The value of all goods and services in a state's territory, per head.

    It goes up if you switch from parental childcare to paid childcare, family food production to paid food production, free tuition by members of the community to paid tuition, etc. for all kinds of services. More lawyers, more healthcare, even if they're ineffective, so long as the services are being produced and paid for and money is changing hands.

    Then there's not even a guarantee in the measure that the value of the goods or services produced are flowing back to people in the territory as users (rather than flowing back overseas). Still less that all these goods and services aren't flowing to a small minority of the population...

    You might be better off looking at your HDI and your median income and your median wealth, offset against the cost of living. What is life like for the average person, how much do they earn, how much do they have in the bank once the high costs to live of buying a house and insurance are adjusted for?
  85. translation: the purpose of opening the borders of the West was divide and rule

  86. @Trelane
    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans

    David Brooks is not rational. The NYT is difficult to distinguish from the Onion. Something's terribly wrong with this paper and this typist.

    Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans

    translation: the media is owned by the cheap labor lobby and they pay us lots of money to lie for them

  87. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.

    Simply a lie.

  88. @Clyde

    Somehow I don’t think Brooks deep down really cares whether or not either claim is true. He wants to keep the immigration flowing primarily for his own reasons.
     
    He has an lucrative gig as philosopher-king at the New York Times and he aims to keep it. He will cater to his liberal audience by saying what he does not believe. Perhaps the NY Times doesn't pay that much but it gives him high visibility to enhance book sales and speaking fees.

    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he’s kept it to himself.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he’s kept it to himself.
     
    You cannot earn $400,000 per year for two columns a week. What else does he do at the NY Times? Maybe he writes one column per week. I don't know.
  89. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    1) The media are the prime culprits of divide and rule by identity.

    2) The media / academia lie about genetics.

    The entire culture is poisoned by the lying media

    • Replies: @Franz Liszt
    What is it about creating either words or art in general that directly leads to a liberal mindset? Conversely, what is it about a rightist mindset that makes one cringe and cower from creating?
    , @guest
    See the nonsense he pushes. People are more complicated than their identities. So he's going to take the white, brown, yellow, red, and so forth categories and meld them into one. Just one category: Americans. Hopefully, one day the entire world will be Americans. Or whatever we want to call them; doesn't really matter at that point. It'll just be human beings. Everyone the same. That's simplicity, not complexity.

    Take modern music. (Please.) Convention in form, melody, harmony, tonality itself, even rhythm went out the window. Either the old way was played out, or composers had inferiority complexes about past masters. Whatever, the faith in the Western way was lost in what we call "serious music." They wanted freedom. They wanted to go their own way, not be bound by rules, and experiment without limits.

    What was the product? What happened when they abandoned traditions in all the basic elements? They created noise that all sounded the same. Just musical soup, which none but the pretentious claimed to understand. Completely unmemorable and often unlistenable.

    Freedom led to an effective conformity more absolute than the strictest traditionalist would dream of. That's what to which Brooks' pretended complexity concerning human nature would lead. Everybody the same. No complexity whatsoever.
  90. . Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.

    Yeah, I mean, hasn’t it been conclusively proven that the country with the most Mestizos will dominate the 21st century?After all, just look at the economic powerhouse that is New Mexico….

  91. @SFG
    There's an added dimension to this I don't see anyone commenting on (and if anyone wants to signal-boost this, please do).

    Whites don't like affirmative action because it shuts white people out of government jobs which are often the best ones these days below the executive level. Makes sense. But affirmative action is calculated against the percentage of the total population. The larger the nonwhite sector of the population, the *larger the number of unavailable jobs*. So Hispanic immigration also *worsens the effects of affirmative action* by *increasing the number of set-aside jobs*. As the Hispanic fraction of the population increases, whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs.

    Vote Trump, it's important.

    I loved that Jim Webb actually proposed the elimination of AA for all groups except American Indians and the descendants of slaves. Too bad the idea, like his candidacy, went nowhere.

  92. David Brooks’ writings always bring to my mind the image of dog droppings. Seriously.

    There is nothing positive in his writing. Its only purpose is to confuse and divert rational thought. He’s pretty sneaky, so he’s probably been fairly successful at diversion for a while. They keep hiring him to do it.

  93. @Wade

    Once, I seem to recall, we had philosophical and ideological differences. Once, politics was a debate between liberals and conservatives, between different views of government, different views on values and America’s role in the world.

    But this year, it seems, everything has been stripped down to the bone. Politics is dividing along crude identity lines — along race and class. Are you a native-born white or are you an outsider?
     
    I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that. Identity politics in the US was born out of and nurtured as a form of left wing politics at least since the 60's. I first encountered it 2 decades ago in college. I got the message really quick from my white, liberal friends that "You only believe in policy X because you are a middle class white guy."

    I'm an "alt-righter" or maybe more an "alt-centrist" now because I've awoken to the reality that arguing about principles is a lost cause for Conservatism Inc. It's been so painful to watch this happen over the years. But the left has been 100% successful in "rubbing the right's nose in diversity" (not my words) to the point that now white people are starting to say "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

    But Brooks starts his analysis of Identity Politics with the rise of Donald Trump. Ridiculous!

    Brooks and the rest of the lapdog media (and assorted other groups) expect politics and elections to be along a left-right axis, as between nominally Republicans and Democrats (as in 2004, ’06, ’08, ’10), while unable today to grasp what changed. The issues this election are not going according to script.

    I call it an insider vs outsider election. Hillary is the insider establishment, status quo candidate, with Trump as the outsider, not-status quo candidate. The lost cause of Conservatism Inc. arrived in the form of elected Republicans merely being the caretakers of the welfare/warfare establishment state, serving interims between Democratic administrations.

    As the status quo has comes to serve a vanishing small number, the grassroots reaction was the rise of the Tea Party groups (with the Obama/IRS attempts to muzzle), and now Trump’s candidacy (variously derided) to disrupt the status quo. Brooks, NYT, lapdog media, are in pure panic mode–expect epic meltdowns to follow.

  94. @Njguy73

    Or consumption units, if you will.
     
    "You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples...There is only one holistic system of systems, one...dominion of dollars...There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today....We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime..." -

    Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) to Howard Beale (Peter Finch), Network, 1976 film

    Network, like all things liberal, is pointed the wrong way. We had a country with business in charge, once, and it didn’t look like this. Ideas and idea-men have the power. It’s universities, NGOs, and permanent governments, the managerial elite, who are in charge. They run the corporations, too. Business is along for the ride and allowed to benefit.

  95. @Steve Sailer
    Brooks and Frum don't agree on this.

    David Frum seems to hold the invade the world, but don’t invite the world point of view. He is quite good on domestic issues but is overly hawkish in foreign affairs.

  96. @Chiron
    Brooks son is serving the IDF, he is a Jewish nationalist, the US is just a vehicle for Jewish Power and Influence over the world.


    Please tone it down with the vitriolic local-patriotism and look at reality:

    To be chosen to be in the IDF is just like being a part of the International Boy Scouts with really, really, really cool kids from all the around the Western hemisphere+Russia.

  97. @frizzled

    Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation.
     
    Meanwhile, David Brooks' own son signed up to fight for the Israel Defense Forces. Chutzpah!

    If we lived in a normal country ( which we inshallah become when Hillary wins), it would be mandatory for any patriotic American to volunteer their own children to spend a summer or two in the Negev desert.

  98. @SFG
    There's an added dimension to this I don't see anyone commenting on (and if anyone wants to signal-boost this, please do).

    Whites don't like affirmative action because it shuts white people out of government jobs which are often the best ones these days below the executive level. Makes sense. But affirmative action is calculated against the percentage of the total population. The larger the nonwhite sector of the population, the *larger the number of unavailable jobs*. So Hispanic immigration also *worsens the effects of affirmative action* by *increasing the number of set-aside jobs*. As the Hispanic fraction of the population increases, whites will find it harder and harder to get government jobs.

    Vote Trump, it's important.

    All I know is, you get free points on your government job app, as well as college admission app, for being black or hispanic. They are equal for government jobs; black may be worth more for college admission.

    If the government quota for URM’s were full (i.e. the proportional constraint you speak of were binding) some URM’s would not get those points, or maybe none would. But they all do, meaning to me that either there’s no quota and “the sky’s the limit”, or the quota is even higher than the dark government workforce is showing now.

    Bill Clinton implemented “welfare to work” by creating tons of permanent government jobs for welfare blacks.

    • Replies: @Alden
    National Review once published an article that 90 percent of blacks who work work for government or a government contractor
  99. @Maj. Kong
    No, as long as YT remains the majority, the Cossacks are sure to return and pillage the shetl.

    What better way to say “I love America”, than to raise kids who are shin-bet crazy about spending a summer or two in the Negev Desert while dressed in full camo ?

  100. What turns a mid-aged pundit into a feisty schoolboy ?

    John Podhoretz: “Everybody who thinks David Brooks has to ‘reveal’ his son, who’s 23, has joined the Israeli army can go f**k himself.”

    Now you know.

  101. @Forbes
    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he's kept it to himself.

    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he’s kept it to himself.

    You cannot earn $400,000 per year for two columns a week. What else does he do at the NY Times? Maybe he writes one column per week. I don’t know.

    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    David Brooks is a “top columnist” and makes about 100,000 a year from New York Times. The rest of his income comes from books, speeches, appearances on television and as syndicated columnist. I think he makes something around 400,000 a year. People who works at NYT are not compensated greatly compared to the populists commentators at TV-channels but they receive a lot of publicity. Thus, they are receiving lucrative book and appearance deals. Note that New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other newspapers greatness is not only because of their “mass communication” but because upper-middle class and the elites read them. They seldom watch Fox News but they do read New York Times in the morning. The paper edition of NYT will be gone within two decades. Almost all newspapers will go fully online and become like Huffington Post. Very few people take Huffington Post seriously. If Huff Post was a boring as New York Times very few people would read it. To make it on the internet you need to become populist and provocative.
  102. Brooks unt Bronner are a golden sheriff’s star dads since they managed to raise star trackers of the next generation who are consciously willing to fight for the tribal dominion that is a thousand stellar years away from the geographical heart of America.

    Consequently, Trump is a doubleplusungood parent because he never bothered to cultivate Ivanka,Eric,and Don Jr. by teaching them at the tender age of 12, about the important difference between Bundeswehr and Bratwurst.

  103. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @frizzled

    You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
     
    You are not Jewish by “ethnicity”, as that would be something verifiable by objective measures. It would suppose, the existence of a given “ethnic culture”. The latter is not provable in this case. Nothing but religious or ritual habits and ritual language are “common-Jewish” here. As much as, or in fact somewhat less than, between the Irish and the Italian.

    The point being that “born to a Jewish woman” is a self-serving, self-defined criterion of a tribal religion, a non-converting religion originally reserved to small tribes that were imposed, under penalty of death, the exclusive adoration of their particular tribal god. Once the religion started spreading by conversion, as documented, the criterion is no longer tribal but fake-racial (i.e. seriously racist.)

    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    Just as an example, try explaining to a normal, passably well-educated American that you are Greek, born of ancient Greek stock in Turkey but that you aren’t a Turk. That person will classify you by your place of birth, exactly as we do in the US. That same guy, though, swallows the “atheist Jewish” nonsense instead of clarifying it for everyday English as “Yiddish-speaking Bessarabian –pardon, Moldavian now– whose grandparents may have practiced Judaism”. Even more absurd regarding an American who culturally is 101% general-American.

    I not only don’t have to accept it, I have the right to ask the affabulators to please conform to the language usage norms without creating a self-serving category just for themselves. That habit of totally integrated, atheist people to suddenly insist in the non-religious “Jewish” designation is relatively new, by the way. In the 19th century people couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. It became a fashion with Zionist propaganda, WWII and Nazi genocide, and finally the Zionist domination over all our US culture.

    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    What categories specifically are you referring to here?

  104. AmericanaCON [AKA "Dirk Dawn"] says:

    David Brooks define GOP as a European bourgeois party. In most of these government constellations in Europe the liberals are part and sometimes the leading force. Brooks is not a conservative and has never held a conservative view in his life. He was just a Republican for careerist reasons and because he is more friendly to a free market than the Democrats. If you are just the slightly to the right of Jeb Bush or you will find Brooks an obnoxious liberal. Brooks is not the only GOP liberal who fears the leftist identity politics. At first, when it worked for Brooks he was all in. Recently, he has discovered that the leftist identity politics have spill-over effects on whites. Naturally, if whites are attacked by non-whites for being white than why should they not defend themselves as whites?

    The very marginalized “far-right” has pointed out the double standard (nationalism and identity for non-whites and only identity for whites when they are defined and attacked by non-whites) for thirty years. Since Donald Trump entered the scene more white people seem to have been exposed for the same argument and they seem not to refute it. Who would refute it? You either allow all people an identity and nationalism (so long they respect the rights of other peoples) or you allow none. The left have tried to counter it but it has simply not worked well for them as their arguments boils down to inconsistent post-Marxism or just name-calling. A few within the establishment have pointed out the danger of allowing identity politics for years. Brooks have not listened and at times even fought them because it has not served his interests.

    You can see the same pattern in Europe. People very similar to Brooks have argued for multiculturalism, meaning that migrants should not assimilate and keep their religious, racial, ethnic and cultural identity while arguing for open borders. Simultaneously, they have argued for hard-line ethno-nationalism (with some exception depending on circumstances) in non-white countries. When the narrative of identity politics is not serving its purpose anymore Brooks (and the rest of them) are telling the left to be less radical. It is of course not only white identity politics Brooks fears. He also fears Palestinian identity politics (blown up by the very white far-left) because it is a threat to Israeli interests. He is not alone. The ADL have been fighting the BDS movements for years now with little results. It is obviously clear that Muslims, coloured people and the far-left cannot care less about them. They don’t change their views or dismantle their organizations because they are called “anti-Semites”. If I get Brooks right the idea is now that we gather around the “idea” of United States. We shall have open borders but slightly less identity politics and multiculturalism because it can trigger white identity and can serve Palestinian interests.

    Brooks is utterly shameless and greedy. Brooks is also way too late just like the morons the European commission. They thought they had the people in UK for years and so they were doubling down. When they realized that they had to halt for a moment it was all ready to late and they lost. They lost because they were greedy. He is a dinosaur and he is not even playing his cards smartly. In the end people like Brooks will be gone from politics.

  105. @frizzled

    You’re born white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
     
    You are not Jewish by “ethnicity”, as that would be something verifiable by objective measures. It would suppose, the existence of a given “ethnic culture”. The latter is not provable in this case. Nothing but religious or ritual habits and ritual language are “common-Jewish” here. As much as, or in fact somewhat less than, between the Irish and the Italian.

    The point being that “born to a Jewish woman” is a self-serving, self-defined criterion of a tribal religion, a non-converting religion originally reserved to small tribes that were imposed, under penalty of death, the exclusive adoration of their particular tribal god. Once the religion started spreading by conversion, as documented, the criterion is no longer tribal but fake-racial (i.e. seriously racist.)

    The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.

    Just as an example, try explaining to a normal, passably well-educated American that you are Greek, born of ancient Greek stock in Turkey but that you aren’t a Turk. That person will classify you by your place of birth, exactly as we do in the US. That same guy, though, swallows the “atheist Jewish” nonsense instead of clarifying it for everyday English as “Yiddish-speaking Bessarabian –pardon, Moldavian now– whose grandparents may have practiced Judaism”. Even more absurd regarding an American who culturally is 101% general-American.

    I not only don’t have to accept it, I have the right to ask the affabulators to please conform to the language usage norms without creating a self-serving category just for themselves. That habit of totally integrated, atheist people to suddenly insist in the non-religious “Jewish” designation is relatively new, by the way. In the 19th century people couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. It became a fashion with Zionist propaganda, WWII and Nazi genocide, and finally the Zionist domination over all our US culture.

    I’m a little confused by what point you’re trying to make but if you are saying that Ashkenazi Jews, whether religious or not, are not genetically distinct from other European populations you are mistaken. Genetically they are about 50%-60% Southern European and about 40-50% Middle Eastern. Most Jews could be identified as Jewish by genetic studies.

    As for a Greek individual who happened to be born within the present boundaries of Turkey but who is not Turkish, I have no trouble understanding that. I have had in fact acquaintances one of whom was a Greek guy born in Lebanon and another an Armenian born in Lebanon. They both could speak Arabic but I understood that they were not and certainly did not consider themselves to be Arabs.

    Of course a large part of the population of Turkey are Kurdish not Turkish.

    Of course there is a “Jewish” culture or sub-culture in the United States just as there are other ethnic cultures or sub-cultures.

  106. @duncsbaby
    Fargo youth:
    http://www.inforum.com/news/4107072-fargo-youth-found-guilty-attempted-kidnapping-parking-lot-attack

    Fargo youth:

    Ahhh Fargo youth……yahhh….you betcha!

  107. Did Brooks ever convert to Catholicism? Haven’t heard anything lately after all those articles
    about it last year.

    http://aleteia.org/2015/04/19/is-the-new-york-times-david-brooks-converting-to-christianity/

  108. AmericanaCON [AKA "Dirk Dawn"] says:
    @Clyde

    Brooks editorial board gig pays something like $400,000. Certainly what he writes is what matters. If he believes something else, he’s kept it to himself.
     
    You cannot earn $400,000 per year for two columns a week. What else does he do at the NY Times? Maybe he writes one column per week. I don't know.

    David Brooks is a “top columnist” and makes about 100,000 a year from New York Times. The rest of his income comes from books, speeches, appearances on television and as syndicated columnist. I think he makes something around 400,000 a year. People who works at NYT are not compensated greatly compared to the populists commentators at TV-channels but they receive a lot of publicity. Thus, they are receiving lucrative book and appearance deals. Note that New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other newspapers greatness is not only because of their “mass communication” but because upper-middle class and the elites read them. They seldom watch Fox News but they do read New York Times in the morning. The paper edition of NYT will be gone within two decades. Almost all newspapers will go fully online and become like Huffington Post. Very few people take Huffington Post seriously. If Huff Post was a boring as New York Times very few people would read it. To make it on the internet you need to become populist and provocative.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Los Angeles Times website looks amateurish these days. I agree with your calculation of where David Brooks' income comes from. The NY Times pays him with prestige among the elites and the run of the mill liberals.No conservative takes him seriously. Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur, he is not being handed a paycheck outside the $100,000 the NY Times pays him to write columns and sit in some editorial meetings.
  109. @Forbes
    Real GDP per capita (standard of living, adjusted for inflation) is what matters, and not nominal or real GDP (total size of the economy). That's why the quality of immigrants matters.

    Even Real GDP is just, the value of formal, measured economic production occurring on your country’s territory, per head, adjusted for inflation. The value of all goods and services in a state’s territory, per head.

    It goes up if you switch from parental childcare to paid childcare, family food production to paid food production, free tuition by members of the community to paid tuition, etc. for all kinds of services. More lawyers, more healthcare, even if they’re ineffective, so long as the services are being produced and paid for and money is changing hands.

    Then there’s not even a guarantee in the measure that the value of the goods or services produced are flowing back to people in the territory as users (rather than flowing back overseas). Still less that all these goods and services aren’t flowing to a small minority of the population…

    You might be better off looking at your HDI and your median income and your median wealth, offset against the cost of living. What is life like for the average person, how much do they earn, how much do they have in the bank once the high costs to live of buying a house and insurance are adjusted for?

  110. @Steve Sailer
    Brooks and Frum don't agree on this.

    When you’re 23 year old Bethesda raised scion with a B.A.in history, seeing yourself next year in Jerusalem is like a soft interviewing for the top echelon position with an alphabet agency of your choice.

    Who would like to shin-bet with me that Brooks Jr. will be, in some capacity, a considerable enforcer of ((( the US domestic/foreign policy ))) in less than ten years from now ?

    And yes, that will happen regardless of which party controls WH and Congress.

    Any takers?

  111. @AmericanaCON
    David Brooks is a “top columnist” and makes about 100,000 a year from New York Times. The rest of his income comes from books, speeches, appearances on television and as syndicated columnist. I think he makes something around 400,000 a year. People who works at NYT are not compensated greatly compared to the populists commentators at TV-channels but they receive a lot of publicity. Thus, they are receiving lucrative book and appearance deals. Note that New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other newspapers greatness is not only because of their “mass communication” but because upper-middle class and the elites read them. They seldom watch Fox News but they do read New York Times in the morning. The paper edition of NYT will be gone within two decades. Almost all newspapers will go fully online and become like Huffington Post. Very few people take Huffington Post seriously. If Huff Post was a boring as New York Times very few people would read it. To make it on the internet you need to become populist and provocative.

    Los Angeles Times website looks amateurish these days. I agree with your calculation of where David Brooks’ income comes from. The NY Times pays him with prestige among the elites and the run of the mill liberals.No conservative takes him seriously. Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur, he is not being handed a paycheck outside the $100,000 the NY Times pays him to write columns and sit in some editorial meetings.

    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    Yeah, well Los Angeles Times is a failing newspaper.

    These big dogs in don’t know how to work the internet and how to make a website likeable. There is a web magazine called Inverse launched in 2015 by a bunch of San Francisco liberals who founded Bleacher Report in 2007, a sports side which was bought a few years later by Time Warner. Inverse have so far been a failure. It has been a failure because they target young men with a left-liberal take on science, innovation, entertainment, culture and sports. Inverse writes about Queer Yoga instructors, Coloured Comic super heroes, utterly expensive hipster restaurants (meaning overpriced simple food you had as a kid and should not be confused with Michelin starred restaurants), newest apple phones, Elon Musk, feminist video games, green technology and “alt-pornographic”.

    As Bernie Sanders was “cool” among hipsters they wrote favourable about him but in the end it was clear that they wanted their readers to vote for Hillary. It is true that they have many like (800K) but they are either bought (you can buy likes on Facebook) or just young bleeding heart liberal women and hipsters from Brooklyn, Mission District and Wicker Park. Although they consume products like Inverse there are simply not enough of them. Inverse does not write for the young average American man. Just as there is a huge oversupply of leftist liberal arts degrees such as gender studies just there is a huge oversupply of left-leaning hipster magazines on the web.

    The “big dogs” in media are dinosaurs. Thus, they turn to the left-leaning liberal entrepreneurs and give them millions of dollars to help them become “cool” but it simply have not worked. The reason why it has not worked is because left-leaning liberal entrepreneurs are not cool. It is true that some of them have become filthy rich but those who have has produced something useful in technology (Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and so on) which more than the very few find useful. You don’t need to be a liberal to be a great entrepreneur.

    Billionaires come in all political stripes. However, you will not be successful selling leftist writings and high-resolution images or Elon Musks electric luxury cars as there is really no market for it. I don’t think MSM will ever come back to the role they had just a decade ago. I think the future of the media will be Breitbart (on the right) and Huff Post (on the left) journalism. I still don’t get why New York Times try to play it “neutral” when the entire newspaper is dedicated to liberalism. Newspapers were founded to push for an agenda and there is really nothing wrong with it but it goes wrong when newspapers try to play “neutral”. I really love that Breitbart is so openly pro Trump and Huff Post is so openly pro Hillary. It is really liberating to see some honesty in journalism.
    , @Jack Highlands
    "Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur . . ."

    There is a conveyor belt and a network for people like Brooks. Part of it involves your tax dollars through NPR. Yes, he had to establish certain baseline features and skills to get on the belt (ironically, a major feature is a key component of his identity), but once on, it's not difficult to stay on.

    Helps to put critical thinking on auto-pilot, especially if you've got Steve to do it for you and can steal his ideas without remorse.

    "I thought so little, they rewarded me,
    By making me the ruler of the Queen's navy."
  112. A bit off topic, but the article reminds me of another David Brooks. This one sold defective body armor to the US marines, and …

    David H. Brooks, Defense Contractor Who Spent $10 Million On Daughter’s Bat Mitzvah, Charged With Insider Trading

    David H. Brooks, the founder and former chief executive of DHB Industries, Inc., and Sandra Hatfield, the former chief operating officer, are accused of falsely inflating the value of the inventory of the company’s top product, the Interceptor vest, to help meet profit margin projections. Brooks also is accused of using the company treasury as his own private bank account, spending $5 million on unauthorized expenditures.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/dhb-industries-body-armor_n_435920.html

  113. If

    A. the cost of all benefits and welfare to immigrants and their anchor babies and

    B. The cost of all benefits and welfare to native Americans kicked out of jobs so immigrants can have the jobs and

    C. Tax cheating by immigrants

    Were subtracted from total GDP I’m sure GDP would be zero or less.

    If immigrant welfare costs were subtracted from real GDP, GDP would be way below zero.

  114. Politics always divides between race and class, that’s not new. Brooks lives in old Republican “color-blind” world, and it took him long enough to awaken.

  115. Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status….Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.

    Oh, this is rich. LIBERALS and ONLY LIBERALS have been playing identity politics for 40 years, often with real world violent end results (sky-high black-on-white crime, assassinations of innocent cops, etc).

    Now that white people have been forced to start playing identity politics in self-defense, now all of the sudden identity politics becomes bad. Wow. Are liberals even CAPABLE of being honest, or are they all genetic sociopaths?

    • Replies: @Ivy
    The games started much earlier than the 1970s. Just sample a random decade prior to that, such as the 1960s, or jump to the 1940s for fun. Social engineering got an early start.

    Liberal and conservative, or variations thereon, provide convenient dipoles in the American experience.
    , @Alden
    It's a lot more that 40 years. School desegregation was 1956 and affirmative action was 1968.
  116. @sue_dough_nym

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status....Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    Oh, this is rich. LIBERALS and ONLY LIBERALS have been playing identity politics for 40 years, often with real world violent end results (sky-high black-on-white crime, assassinations of innocent cops, etc).

    Now that white people have been forced to start playing identity politics in self-defense, now all of the sudden identity politics becomes bad. Wow. Are liberals even CAPABLE of being honest, or are they all genetic sociopaths?

    The games started much earlier than the 1970s. Just sample a random decade prior to that, such as the 1960s, or jump to the 1940s for fun. Social engineering got an early start.

    Liberal and conservative, or variations thereon, provide convenient dipoles in the American experience.

  117. Is Brooks Jr discussing Spinoza with his Palestinian cousins during his time with the IDF?

  118. @anon

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    1) The media are the prime culprits of divide and rule by identity.

    2) The media / academia lie about genetics.

    The entire culture is poisoned by the lying media

    What is it about creating either words or art in general that directly leads to a liberal mindset? Conversely, what is it about a rightist mindset that makes one cringe and cower from creating?

    • Replies: @guest
    You are way off. Our time is uniquely perverse. Artists are historically more prone to not exactly rightism, but certainly not liberalism. All the best art comes from aristocratic societies, from the middle-class, mostly in conformity with the prevailing order. Certainly in keeping with what the society in which they live expects. If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren't openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.
  119. @Romanian
    Or worse, externalities like "broken windows" that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West's case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I'm sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.

    All those social workers, advocates and counselors passing out the welfare checks add to GDP.

    I’m old and you can’t believe the massive number of parasites wanting to counsel me and help me do things I can do for myself or don’t want to do at all.

  120. @sue_dough_nym

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status....Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    Oh, this is rich. LIBERALS and ONLY LIBERALS have been playing identity politics for 40 years, often with real world violent end results (sky-high black-on-white crime, assassinations of innocent cops, etc).

    Now that white people have been forced to start playing identity politics in self-defense, now all of the sudden identity politics becomes bad. Wow. Are liberals even CAPABLE of being honest, or are they all genetic sociopaths?

    It’s a lot more that 40 years. School desegregation was 1956 and affirmative action was 1968.

  121. @artichoke
    All I know is, you get free points on your government job app, as well as college admission app, for being black or hispanic. They are equal for government jobs; black may be worth more for college admission.

    If the government quota for URM's were full (i.e. the proportional constraint you speak of were binding) some URM's would not get those points, or maybe none would. But they all do, meaning to me that either there's no quota and "the sky's the limit", or the quota is even higher than the dark government workforce is showing now.

    Bill Clinton implemented "welfare to work" by creating tons of permanent government jobs for welfare blacks.

    National Review once published an article that 90 percent of blacks who work work for government or a government contractor

  122. @FWIW
    'Nation of Nations' .... This has been around a long time. For example:

    http://www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/A-Nation-of-Nations-4239

    The 3rd section, "Shared Experiences in a New Nation," focuses on the "American" activities and environments shared by immigrants from the close of the Civil War to present day. Some shared experiences addressed in this section includes becoming a United States citizen, attending free public schools, learning the routines of military basic training, and participating in and enjoying the world of entertainment (sports, movies, television). Highlights include a classroom from Cleveland's Dunham Elementary School.

    'Nation of Nations' was not unlike the 'Melting Pot' analogy. It was tied to the 'fact' that immigrants had become acculturated Americans -- and that this process was more or less guaranteed. In Post War, mid century USA, it was more or less assumed it would always work this way.

    The pre 1925 immigrants had a lot of the rough edges worn off, had been through WW II, and the 3rd generation could choose between family desire to maintain their old world culture vs sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

    It's just that a few commenters mentioned having been unfamiliar with 'nation of nations'.

    And don't discount the impact of similar pressures to assimilate on Islam. It's still a religion with a lot of rules and isn't fun. And, what is to prevent them from getting a treatment similar to that of the American Catholic Church. It isn't just Nation and Religion. Its intersectionality. Muslims rank way below Blacks. Plus, they are hell on women. Sure, its gang up on white males. But the 'other' have to sort out their hierarchies of victimhood, and its getting pretty damn crowded. The only thing holding these bizarre bedfellows together is hatred of Trump.

    I never, ever heard “nation of nations” before, presumably because it is a crappy slogan, until very recently. Who comes up with this stuff, and why be so obvious? It’s like they’re mocking us.

    With the “melting pot” at least they’re saying they’re going to make them like us. Or like the founding stock. (Which I’m not personally a part of; some of my ancestors came before the Civil War, some after.) Saying we’re a Nation of Nations is like saying “Ha, ha, you aren’t allowed to have a nation, sucker.”

  123. @anon

    Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
     
    1) The media are the prime culprits of divide and rule by identity.

    2) The media / academia lie about genetics.

    The entire culture is poisoned by the lying media

    See the nonsense he pushes. People are more complicated than their identities. So he’s going to take the white, brown, yellow, red, and so forth categories and meld them into one. Just one category: Americans. Hopefully, one day the entire world will be Americans. Or whatever we want to call them; doesn’t really matter at that point. It’ll just be human beings. Everyone the same. That’s simplicity, not complexity.

    Take modern music. (Please.) Convention in form, melody, harmony, tonality itself, even rhythm went out the window. Either the old way was played out, or composers had inferiority complexes about past masters. Whatever, the faith in the Western way was lost in what we call “serious music.” They wanted freedom. They wanted to go their own way, not be bound by rules, and experiment without limits.

    What was the product? What happened when they abandoned traditions in all the basic elements? They created noise that all sounded the same. Just musical soup, which none but the pretentious claimed to understand. Completely unmemorable and often unlistenable.

    Freedom led to an effective conformity more absolute than the strictest traditionalist would dream of. That’s what to which Brooks’ pretended complexity concerning human nature would lead. Everybody the same. No complexity whatsoever.

  124. @Franz Liszt
    What is it about creating either words or art in general that directly leads to a liberal mindset? Conversely, what is it about a rightist mindset that makes one cringe and cower from creating?

    You are way off. Our time is uniquely perverse. Artists are historically more prone to not exactly rightism, but certainly not liberalism. All the best art comes from aristocratic societies, from the middle-class, mostly in conformity with the prevailing order. Certainly in keeping with what the society in which they live expects. If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren’t openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren’t openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.

    What do you mean?
  125. @guest
    You are way off. Our time is uniquely perverse. Artists are historically more prone to not exactly rightism, but certainly not liberalism. All the best art comes from aristocratic societies, from the middle-class, mostly in conformity with the prevailing order. Certainly in keeping with what the society in which they live expects. If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren't openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.

    If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren’t openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.

    What do you mean?

    • Replies: @guest
    I probably should have put "as it sometimes does," which is more to the point. Modern art tends to have an outsider's perspective, for instance, and members of non-majority groups (Jews, homos, blacks) are in positions of influence and are heavily promoted in the art/intellectual realm. But outsider status and outsider perspective don't necessarily go together, is what I was getting at.

    You don't have to be Kafka just because you're Jewish, for instance. There was a time when minority artists used to reflect, on purpose, the tastes and interests of the majority population among whom they lived. Broadway (which is run--creatively at least--by Jews and gays, and has been for ages) for instance, used to be wholesome and of mass appeal. Now it's navel-gazing central, when it's not a sewer.

  126. @Anonymous
    If the work comes from outsiders, as it does, they aren’t openly hostile to the people among whom they dwell.

    What do you mean?

    I probably should have put “as it sometimes does,” which is more to the point. Modern art tends to have an outsider’s perspective, for instance, and members of non-majority groups (Jews, homos, blacks) are in positions of influence and are heavily promoted in the art/intellectual realm. But outsider status and outsider perspective don’t necessarily go together, is what I was getting at.

    You don’t have to be Kafka just because you’re Jewish, for instance. There was a time when minority artists used to reflect, on purpose, the tastes and interests of the majority population among whom they lived. Broadway (which is run–creatively at least–by Jews and gays, and has been for ages) for instance, used to be wholesome and of mass appeal. Now it’s navel-gazing central, when it’s not a sewer.

  127. AmericanaCON [AKA "Dirk Dawn"] says:
    @Clyde
    Los Angeles Times website looks amateurish these days. I agree with your calculation of where David Brooks' income comes from. The NY Times pays him with prestige among the elites and the run of the mill liberals.No conservative takes him seriously. Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur, he is not being handed a paycheck outside the $100,000 the NY Times pays him to write columns and sit in some editorial meetings.

    Yeah, well Los Angeles Times is a failing newspaper.

    These big dogs in don’t know how to work the internet and how to make a website likeable. There is a web magazine called Inverse launched in 2015 by a bunch of San Francisco liberals who founded Bleacher Report in 2007, a sports side which was bought a few years later by Time Warner. Inverse have so far been a failure. It has been a failure because they target young men with a left-liberal take on science, innovation, entertainment, culture and sports. Inverse writes about Queer Yoga instructors, Coloured Comic super heroes, utterly expensive hipster restaurants (meaning overpriced simple food you had as a kid and should not be confused with Michelin starred restaurants), newest apple phones, Elon Musk, feminist video games, green technology and “alt-pornographic”.

    As Bernie Sanders was “cool” among hipsters they wrote favourable about him but in the end it was clear that they wanted their readers to vote for Hillary. It is true that they have many like (800K) but they are either bought (you can buy likes on Facebook) or just young bleeding heart liberal women and hipsters from Brooklyn, Mission District and Wicker Park. Although they consume products like Inverse there are simply not enough of them. Inverse does not write for the young average American man. Just as there is a huge oversupply of leftist liberal arts degrees such as gender studies just there is a huge oversupply of left-leaning hipster magazines on the web.

    The “big dogs” in media are dinosaurs. Thus, they turn to the left-leaning liberal entrepreneurs and give them millions of dollars to help them become “cool” but it simply have not worked. The reason why it has not worked is because left-leaning liberal entrepreneurs are not cool. It is true that some of them have become filthy rich but those who have has produced something useful in technology (Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and so on) which more than the very few find useful. You don’t need to be a liberal to be a great entrepreneur.

    Billionaires come in all political stripes. However, you will not be successful selling leftist writings and high-resolution images or Elon Musks electric luxury cars as there is really no market for it. I don’t think MSM will ever come back to the role they had just a decade ago. I think the future of the media will be Breitbart (on the right) and Huff Post (on the left) journalism. I still don’t get why New York Times try to play it “neutral” when the entire newspaper is dedicated to liberalism. Newspapers were founded to push for an agenda and there is really nothing wrong with it but it goes wrong when newspapers try to play “neutral”. I really love that Breitbart is so openly pro Trump and Huff Post is so openly pro Hillary. It is really liberating to see some honesty in journalism.

  128. @The Anti-Gnostic
    David needs to read my blog: the Age of Ideas is over. He can read Porter's site too.

    https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/the-age-of-ideology-is-over/

    “David needs to read my blog: the Age of Ideas is over. He can read Porter’s site too.”

    The Age of Ideas is running on overdrive today. Men and women from all walks of life in the heterogenous American society espouse certain identities, i.e. their ideas, through their ideologies. Individuals, not whites, exclusively created those ideas and ideologies. More importantly, people today are part of a wide range of tribal groups, race among one of them. Depending upon the idea, that tribal instinct becomes more pervasive. But since each member of their tribal groups have disparate ideas, conflict arises as to which ideas are most important.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    I can't tell if you smoke a lot of weed or you are just geriatric.
  129. @guest
    I don't think it is empty. It's very revealing. Not just for the psychology behind it, but for what it actually says. It empties out the term "nation," admittedly, but that is what they, the Brooks types, think a nation is. A big nothing, full of interchangeable people. Or consumption units, if you will. You do damage to the Big, Empty, Interchangeable Nation when you take the consumption units and "reduce" them to their particular attributes.

    Then you make all these smaller units, which might not get along. That's what Brooksites think, anyway. In reality, the identities are real. It's the Big Empty image that's an illusion. And the identities will fight; there will be blood. You can't avoid it by redefining "nation" to preclude their existence.

    Interchangeable Consumption Units, indeed, servile and surveilled by our ‘betters’.

    The endgame is to take all the current nations, toss them in a blender, and paste the uniform beige mass around the world, with everyone speaking English, following Chris-lam-duism, wearing Nikes, and eating McDonalds.

  130. @Clyde
    Los Angeles Times website looks amateurish these days. I agree with your calculation of where David Brooks' income comes from. The NY Times pays him with prestige among the elites and the run of the mill liberals.No conservative takes him seriously. Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur, he is not being handed a paycheck outside the $100,000 the NY Times pays him to write columns and sit in some editorial meetings.

    “Brooks is able to take this prestige and monetize it in the ways you describe. We must give him credit for being an entrepreneur . . .”

    There is a conveyor belt and a network for people like Brooks. Part of it involves your tax dollars through NPR. Yes, he had to establish certain baseline features and skills to get on the belt (ironically, a major feature is a key component of his identity), but once on, it’s not difficult to stay on.

    Helps to put critical thinking on auto-pilot, especially if you’ve got Steve to do it for you and can steal his ideas without remorse.

    “I thought so little, they rewarded me,
    By making me the ruler of the Queen’s navy.”

  131. @theo the kraut
    OT--Scott Adams on why his cubicle career ended: his bosses would tell him that they couldn't promote white males in the foreseeable future (beginning at 1:20):

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

    Scott Adams has some good insights on matters of persuasion, he spotted accurately when Hillary started getting cogent persuasion advice.

    Scott has made what he considers ‘fuck-off money’ with his Dilbert cartoon syndication.

    I think he is entertaining himself and seeking to raise his profile which he will use for other stuff to entertain himself, this may or may not make him money. Since he already has ‘fuck-off money’, this isn’t especially critical.

    I don’t think he has any unique insight into Trump’s possibility of winning in Nov. Trump may win because he is a good persuader, resonates with many with the Sailer strategy. Like with the Brexit vote in June – where 3 million turned out to the polls that normally don’t, most of whom voted Brexit, and swung it for Brexit and made a nonsense of pre-election polls.

    Given the US has 5 times the UK population, a quick and dirty US based equivalent of the Brexit phenomenon applied to Trump would by 15 million extra voters, most voting for Trump. I guess this is possible.

    Throw in the possibility of more wikilieaks stuff, Hillary’s health becoming an unavoidable issue and Trump could still win.

  132. @Corvinus
    "David needs to read my blog: the Age of Ideas is over. He can read Porter’s site too."

    The Age of Ideas is running on overdrive today. Men and women from all walks of life in the heterogenous American society espouse certain identities, i.e. their ideas, through their ideologies. Individuals, not whites, exclusively created those ideas and ideologies. More importantly, people today are part of a wide range of tribal groups, race among one of them. Depending upon the idea, that tribal instinct becomes more pervasive. But since each member of their tribal groups have disparate ideas, conflict arises as to which ideas are most important.

    I can’t tell if you smoke a lot of weed or you are just geriatric.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    It's extremely telling on your part when you employ SJW tactics when addressing my statements--that you, like them, prefer the comforts of your echo chamber--rather than offer substantial responses to my posts.
  133. Individual’s that need to be governed are mankind’s greatest obstacle.

  134. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I can't tell if you smoke a lot of weed or you are just geriatric.

    It’s extremely telling on your part when you employ SJW tactics when addressing my statements–that you, like them, prefer the comforts of your echo chamber–rather than offer substantial responses to my posts.

  135. Does David Brooks complain about identity politics when the Democrats do it? Where was he when Joe Biden said Blacks will be put back chains if Mitt Romney is elected president?

  136. @Romanian
    Or worse, externalities like "broken windows" that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West's case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I'm sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.

    Or worse, externalities like “broken windows” that go into GDP, but are not socially beneficial and represent a loss for the economy or society itself. RFK said it well, I think, that GDP also counts the locks on your doors. Or, in the West’s case, the rapekits, the extra police force, the cost of crime analysis, of interminable legal proceedings etc. I’m sure that the German GDP is growing, in part, because of the refugees and the huge bureaucracy that they require, from translators to extra teachers. All of it a loss.

    I’m not sure that’s “worse”, but it is an excellent point.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS