The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Department of "Huh?"
🔊 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:

Relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement has traditionally been a pauper’s crusade, lacking in billionaire benefactors and financially outmatched by ideological rivals like the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation of American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA.

Mark Zuckerberg, Laurene Powell Jobs and George Soros have recently begun donating to specific immigration causes like family reunification and giving seed money to migrant entrepreneurs.

Not to mention Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, Michael Bloomberg, and Sheldon Adelson. But the immigration skeptical side has an ophthalmologist in Northern Michigan, so how can Mark Zuckerberg et al compete with that kind of funding firepower?

 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
100 Comments to "Department of "Huh?""
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Twinkie says:

    Punching down viciously hard while pretending to punch up ever-so gently has been the left’s routine for a good while now.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    , @Anonymous
  2. J.Ross says: • Website

    This flat-out lying is of a piece with claims that window-breaking skull-cracking customer-chasing leftists are never a “mob.” Alyssa Milano tweeted a picture of “a real mob:” Trump supporters seated politely at a venue rented in advance for a Trump rally.
    This is the basis of using the term “lying press.” It has nothing to do with Nazi “re-activation.” It’s the press and it lies.

    • Agree: Anonym, F0337
  3. L Woods says:

    Beyond parody. These people are literally (and criminally) insane. They belong in the dankest, darkest recesses of a 19th century sanitarium.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  4. Breathtaking. Straight up lies, or perhaps total ignorance. In recent decades, has there ever been a single instance in any Western country of Immigration Restrictionists or opponents of Affirmative Action having the advantage in money or media backing? I doubt it. Not since those issues have had prominence.
    Perhaps when Berlusconi was at his height, it was a 50/50 parity for money & media, but otherwise, Immigration hawks have had to deal with a 2:1 or even 4:1 disadvantage.

  5. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Unlimited immigration is funded by the capitalist exploiters of cheap immigrant labor

    Who does this guy think he’s kidding? Not me not unz readers. It’s just more propaganda to pour into the empty brains of fellow liberals.

  6. Anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    I hear CIS and Numbers USA are both planning big SPLC-style HQ buildings to try to unload some of their cash.

  7. Cato says:

    It would be so sweet if these MSM liars get a big fat unpleasant surprise in November. As they say in Dearborn: Inshallah!

  8. gregor says:

    The natural big interest against immigration would be labor. But they’ve been MIA on immigration for a while now. Ditto for the environmental lobby.

    Has anyone here donated to or have any experience with any of the immigration restrictionist groups? Any recommendations?

  9. What about the $100 million from David Gelbaum for which the Sierra Club promised never to mention immigration’s obvious importance as an environmental issue? That was money well spent.

  10. Mr. Anon says:

    When the Law isn’t on your side, argue the facts.

    When the facts aren’t on you side, argue the Law.

    When neither is on your side………………lie.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  11. Ickenham says:

    The good doctor is an 84 year-old retired ophthalmologist.

    You’ve omitted an h at the end of the first syllable and an l at the end of the second syllable when spelling his profession.

    Please feel free to simply correct the misspelling. No need to approve this comment for publication.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  12. Funding for reunifying families from the assholes at Apple, Friendface, and Soros? Cool. How many bus tickets to Guatelexicaragua are they buying? Will the passengers be shown videos on the return trip admonishing them to stop sundering their families in the first place by leaving them behind to seek out cash and prizes in far away lands? I sure hope so, because you know what they say about giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish….

    • Agree: densa
  13. @CrunchybutRealistCon

    a 2:1 or even 4:1 disadvantage

    You’re off by four to six orders of magnitude.

  14. I’ll take the ophthalmologist and Sailer.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  15. TGGP says: • Website

    I’m more often to comment when I think Sailer’s take could be improved, because that’s value added. But for some reason I’m surprised the NYT could publish something this dim. Didn’t they cover Zuckerberg’s push for immigration years earlier? Is their memory really that short? Can they name a single “billionaire” who donated to a restrictionist group? Maybe they do in the body of the article, but why give them clicks & ad-money when the intro is so ignorant?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Harry Baldwin
    , @Forbes
  16. J.Ross says: • Website
    @TGGP

    Their readers will let them get away with it.
    What objection would they heed? These are the guys who want you to think that Donald Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin whose wonderfully public and long-running real estate career was a very thorough intelligence legend.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  17. Anonymous[205] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s fascinating is how much the issue has shifted. Just read the comments. On any other topic the comments at a paper like the New York Effing Times will skew far to the left. Five years ago it would have skewed left even on immigration. But look at the reader comments on this one and they are overwhelmingly against open borders. Yet after this huge sea change, after Trump’s astounding victory in 2016, you still don’t get the sense that the Republican Party knows a winning issue when the issue is practically on its knees giving the party a b.j.

    What the hell do people have to do to convince McConnell, Romney and Co what’s going to carry them to victory? The Republicans may just manage to hold on to power this election, but there is no chance in hell they will win in 2020 if they still haven’t tried to do a g.d. thing about controlling our borders and completing the wall.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob, densa
    • LOL: Dtbb
  18. @Twinkie

    Traditionally the right, i.e. big business, has provided the real funding for pro-immigration legislation. Maybe that’s why the NYT is confused.

  19. Anonymous[940] • Disclaimer says:

    A search of Wikipedia and a quick google tells me that just the Center for Community Change’s 2013 revenue was 50% more than the combined revenues of those right-wing behemoths NumbersUSA, FAIR and Center for Immigration Studies.

  20. Anonymous[934] • Disclaimer says:

    Does the paper ever worry that some day enough people will stop thinking of it as a source of accurate information? In financial journalism for example, pontificators who are wrong can tend to get all their wrong predictions tacked on in future articles about them. Politics coverage is not like this, I guess– merely Spin Uber Alles?

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    , @Forbes
  21. Luke Lea says:

    Dig the most highly rated comments over there! The Dems days are numbered.

  22. Anonymous[207] • Disclaimer says:

    Every time I read quotes like this it reminds me of this great old profile of Christopher Hitchens:

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/apr/14/politics

    He charms everyone, that’s why it’s so funny finding him, in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), claiming that: ‘The concept of loneliness and exile and self-sufficiency continually bucks me up.’ If he seriously thinks of himself as a lonely outsider, he must be well detached from reality. His best friends are Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, James Fenton, Salman Rushdie and Francis Wheen; his ex-girlfriends include Anna Wintour – this is not the stuff of pariah-dom.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  23. eah says:

    family reunification

    When you see ‘family’ or ‘families’ in a story about immigration, refugees, etc you know you’re being bullshitted — the word Lügenpresse was really turbocharged in 2015 by the way the media selectively showed fotos and video of women and kids to disguise the fact approaching 80% of the migrants were men — ‘more male than the US military’ as someone said at the time.

    • Agree: densa
  24. Anon[935] • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea

    Dig the most highly rated comments over there! The Dems days are numbered.

    I don’t see any comments. Were they previously enabled?

  25. @Desiderius

    Trump was prob outspent by 3:1 in 2016 but was out-endorsed by MSM by 99:1. Prob the same ratios for LeGault in Quebec last week. Other recent examples like Salvini, Orban i can’t really speak to. In places where there are campaign spending caps or publicly financed campaign assistance, it gets murky. The clearer power imbalance there will be +/- bias in MSM coverage & stifling of Rightists on social media.
    One of the most staggering David vs Goliath battles was the 2012 Oregon referendum to block drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Vdare suggested a 9:1 $$ disadvantage for patriots.

    • Replies: @CJ
  26. Mr. Anon says:

    From the New York Times:

    Relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement has traditionally been a pauper’s crusade, lacking in billionaire benefactors and financially outmatched by ideological rivals like the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation of American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA.

    The Times seems to be forgetting the purchase of a stake in thier own newspaper by a man who profits greatly from illegal immigration – Carlos Slim.

  27. Alfa158 says:
    @Anonymous

    No, they aren’t worried, nor should they be. They are a business, and businesses make money by supplying their customers with what they want. Their readers are disconnected from reality and want these lies. To their readers accurate information is defined as information they want to believe is true. The NYT is doing exactly what they should be doing

    • Agree: dwb
  28. @Desiderius

    Now, now, let’s not exaggerate. Make it 3 orders of magnitude. When a Gates or Adelson puts a quick $100 million toward an election or NON-PROFIT agency, VDare, Numbers USA, and FAIR urge their readers who come up with $100 thousand all together to fight it.

    As the ctrl-left always says, or since that movie, at least, “when they donate a thousand, you donate a million. When they bring a knife, you bring a gun … wait, I outlawed most of them … dammit.”, Michael Bloomberg.

  29. Relative to other progressive special interests,…

    Did any of you catch the first clause here? That’s this writer’s defense against being a lying S.O.S. I guess he’s trying to say that, for transgender rights or down-with-drinking-straws, etc. the ctrl-left spends money at an EVEN HIGHER ratio, say 4 orders of magnitude. There’s hardly anyone who dares to fight these things on the other side. Sure, they may write a blog post, or two, or three, but the money is nil.

    When it comes to gun control, though, he can’t use this clause as an excuse, as the NRA can at least come up with 5% of the money the Bloomberg types do. So, we got that going for us … 5%, maybe even 10%. That’s a better deal for our side than on immigration.

    Oh, yeah, the author completely forgot payments-in-kind made via Lyin’ Press articles, such, as, well, this one.

    • Replies: @Mark M.
  30. @Desiderius

    Yeah, the money is one thing, but with an ophthalmologist on our side, we’ve become much more far-sighted on this issue.

    BTW, is that Mr. Taunton? He sounds like a great guy when he’s mentioned on VDare.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    , @Laugh Track
  31. @gregor

    Has anyone here donated to or have any experience with any of the immigration restrictionist groups? Any recommendations?

    As far as spreading the word goes, I don’t think you can go wrong with VDare.com, somehow conveniently missed by the writer, at least in that except. It must be that they don’t have an OVERWHELMING amount of money or something, like those other 3 groups mentioned.

    VDare has honest, accurate, and well-edited articles, such as Mr. Sailer here, John Derbyshire, James Fitzpatrick, James Fulford, Brenda Walker, Allan Wall, and loads of others I am remiss in not pointing out. A decent number of their articles appear here on unz. I guess they are not “a group” per se, but they are a good web site for spreading the word.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    , @Neuday
  32. Old Prude says:
    @gregor

    I am treasurer for Mainers for Reponsible Immigration. We have $267 in our bank account. I saw in the newspaper a while ago that a local immigration booster group had a fund raiser featuring 16 pro-bono lawyers. They raised $14,000.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  33. Anonym says:
    @Luke Lea

    Yeah they are. I recall you used to be liberal or liberalish? Red wave incoming.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  34. Rob McX says:

    Relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement has traditionally been a pauper’s crusade, lacking in billionaire benefactors and financially outmatched by ideological rivals like the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation of American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA.

    I’ve read some brazen lies on immigration in MSM, but this is chutzpah on steroids.

    • Replies: @Forbes
  35. Anonym says:
    @Anonym

    That was a few years ago. My point was that you would be better poised than most to pick up on indices of Dem abandonment.

  36. “Relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement has traditionally been a pauper’s crusade…”

    I think the failing NYT is trying to make a couples of points:

    1) Yes, there is massive public and private funding to flood the Western countries with foreigners inimical to the interests of their historical indigenes. (There’s a lot, but there could always be more.)

    2) But the real dough goes toward a project near and dear to the progressive heart: making sure the Clinton Family Crime Foundation is well funded.

    It’s a relative matter you see.

  37. Well, in a TECHNICAL sense, the one sentence was right. The robber barons weren’t billionaires, they were merely multimillionaires. And mass immigration was just one thing they got from their pet congressman.

  38. @Anonymous

    Yes, the lonely outsider whose death was publicly mourned by Tony Blair.

    I always thought the Good Hitchens, Peter, was his father’s son. From a review of Christopher’s autobiography.

    Yvonne loved the club-and-cocktail circuit there (Malta), and was dismayed by the family’s move to Scotland’s grim east coast.

    Determined that her favourite son should be “one of the upper class”, she sent him to boarding school at eight to become an English gentleman. She opened dress shops, embraced early new-age fads and Kahlil Gibran, and left the Commander for an ex-clergyman called Timothy, with whom she made a suicide pact in an Athens hotel room. Hitchens’s memory of going there to recreate her last hours is affecting: she introduced him to poetry and pizzazz and represented his “first and truest” identity.

    His father was purse-lipped and silent, resentful of the post-war running-down of the Navy and empire, fuming at the Admiralty’s betrayal of its pensioned-off heroes. But in his gruff way he admired his son’s journalism, while his son admired “his lack of guile and his dislike for anything that was surreptitious or underhand.” You can infer mixed feelings from the author’s fondness for this disappointed imperialist.

  39. Svigor says:

    Nice to see the Times admit that radical leftism is routinely backed by billionaires.

  40. Anonymous[760] • Disclaimer says:

    The movement for “comprehensive immigration reform” is a bunch of poor scrappy underdogs if…

    you don’t count Ford Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies (Charles Feeney), Laurene Powell Jobs (who owns the Atlantic), George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Carlos Slim, FWD.us (Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley), David Gelbaum, the donor class of the republican party, the Koch Brothers, Paul Singer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the people who gave Jeb Bush’s super PAC $120 million, almost every billionaire etc.

  41. TheBoom says:

    If we know anything at all about the Koch Brothers, the editorial board of the WSJ and the Chamber of Commerce, it is that they are paupers fighting the man and speaking truth to power in their quest for open borders.

    In reality, the NYT can afford to not tie itself to reality because their readers and the left in general overwhelmingly automatically believe any nonsense that fits the larger narratives. Isis is not Islamic anyone?

  42. Anon[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea

    Wow, the reader rated comments are lengthy, thoughtful, from self-professed lefties, and almost 100 percent for enforcement of immigration laws. Readers are taking the time to write the comments, and lurkers are voting them up. These are logged in subscribers. Just wow.

  43. gregor says:
    @Luke Lea

    Thank you. Very heartening. I would not have bothered clicking through otherwise. Quite a few of them are in the vein of “I’m a lifelong Democrat but immigration is out of control.”

    The article itself is pretty rage-inducing. It says 174 women illegally crossed into Texas. They were apprehended and we … flew them to Seattle to hold them in detention.

    I also got a kick out of how they stylized the photo to like it’s from the sixties. They are pining hard for muh civil rights golden age.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  44. The immigration issue CAN be a winner for Democrats.

    Just ask President Clinton.

    Bill Clinton was better on immigration than many Republicans. He won two terms.

    Hillary Clinton bought into the Latino Wave. She lost.

    I read a lot of left wing media sites. They are now trying to figure out why Trump is actually MORE popular with Latinos than Romney was.

    All I know is my LEGAL immigrant in-laws are sick and tired of dealing with illegals. They voted for Trump.

    And this is coming from a very anti-Trump person who votes pretty much straight Dem. I am not concern trolling over the Democratic Party. I want to save the Democratic Party from self destructing, and taking the USA down along with it.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    , @Sean
  45. @Luke Lea

    The most highly rated comments are from Democrats who are f***ing sick and tired of the Democratic Party toeing the big business line on immigration.

    People like me.

    • Agree: Desiderius, dfordoom
  46. Bill says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    There is no confusion. The New York Times has always been a conservative paper and remains so.

  47. Mark M. says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    No, that explanation wouldn’t fly even if the writers wanted to avail themselves of it, because the clause that ends that sentence says that the immigrant rights movement is “lacking in billionaire benefactors and financially outmatched by ideological rivals like the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation of American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA.” The claim that the immigration rights movement lacks billionaire benefactors is factually false. And the claim that it is “financially outmatched” by ideological rivals is also factually false. If the writers merely wanted to mislead in the manner you suggest and not outright lie, they would have had to content themselves with saying something like “relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement is poorly funded vis-a-vis its ideological rivals.” In the same vein, I’m not shorter than my mother whether it’s relative to Wilt Chamberlain or Mount Kilimanjaro.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  48. Do they ever give a reason why they are pro-immigration, better still an attempt at a true cost-benefit analysis?

  49. Christo says:

    You forgot the entire US Chamber of Commerce membership. As to “huh” about misinformation in the New York Times. Congratulations you found something that occurs multiple times in almost every NYT article.

  50. @CrunchybutRealistCon

    Perhaps when Berlusconi was at his height, it was a 50/50 parity for money & media, but otherwise, Immigration hawks have had to deal with a 2:1 or even 4:1 disadvantage.

    More like a 1000-to-1 disadvantage.

    And even that is a conservative figure if you start to factor in things like the central government’s military budget that has been used to threaten non-compliant states and countries.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
  51. @Old Prude

    I am treasurer for Mainers for Reponsible Immigration. We have $267 in our bank account. I saw in the newspaper a while ago that a local immigration booster group had a fund raiser featuring 16 pro-bono lawyers. They raised $14,000.

    Correction: pro malo lawyers.

  52. @Peter Akuleyev

    If it supports immigration, it’s not “the right”.

  53. Anonym says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    And this is coming from a very anti-Trump person who votes pretty much straight Dem. I am not concern trolling over the Democratic Party. I want to save the Democratic Party from self destructing, and taking the USA down along with it.

    Sometimes things must hit rock bottom in order to change their ways. A massive landslide election going against them would help do that. Quite possibly they will get that in 2020.

    Do you really think that the Dems of 2018 and 2020 can be compared to the Dems of 1992 and 1996, and more importantly, reverse course? During those elections, whites were 70-74% versus 60% now. It’s more and more like pining for an ex-girlfriend who is now not only happily married, but with several children. She’s never coming back and even if she did, would you want her?

    It does make sense that you are one of those remnant white Dems, and this is where you are. A Paleo Liberal, from the heart of liberalism, academia. A college town. Likely baby boomer. The last to change and the last to realize that the change has been a long time coming. As a presumed white male, the last of your kind who has realized that they are wandering around among the Dems as the last of a vanishing breed. They really don’t like your kind. What did you expect? Wasn’t it kind of obvious, mathematically, long ago?

    Look, the whole liberal project that the Dems adhere to, has long been intentionally anti-white. I suggest reading Culture of Critique by KMac, if you haven’t already. I bet a lot of those things you think you like about the Democratic Party are just planks of a strategy intended to reduce white birth rates and increase rates of miscegenation. Some, like the environmental movement, have been neutered when it comes to raising issues of immigration and over-population. Others like feminism and so-called LGBT tolerance are promoted because they reduce white birthrates. Anti-2A concerns are promoted because a mob with pitchforks is bad enough, a mob with modern AR-15s is scary to Jews.

    I think you add something to discussions btw, I just lolled at the Pat Boyle comparison because it was funny. And watching someone you could probably have argued sensibly with until you were blue in the face, say, in 2005 or 2010 now finally begin to be persuaded by an obvious and predictable reality is kind of amusing.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  54. @CrunchybutRealistCon

    Straight up lies, or perhaps total ignorance

    Is total ignorance even a plausible explanation? I can believe the random Man on the Street being that out of it, but the New York Times has access to computers, databases, subject-matter experts, etc.

    So it’s just a bald-faced lie.

    • Replies: @Forbes
  55. @TGGP

    Remember a few years ago when Zuckerberg created two astro-turf pro-immigration groups, one aimed at Republicans and one aimed at Democrats? I recall one of the “Fox All Stars” morons identifying the former as a Republican group.

    Contrary to the NYT, Zuckerberg has not “recently begun donating ” to pro-mmigration groups, but has been doing so massively since 2013 at least.

  56. Forbes says:
    @TGGP

    Facts inconvenient to The Narrative will always be ignored.

    Media is NOT news–it’s entertainment. Their business model is to drive revenues with outrage and sensation to generate click-throughs and viewing eyeballs. That they actively promote their own partisan message–no extra charge.

    As Mark Twain purportedly said: If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.

  57. Forbes says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The NYT is many things–deceptive and misleading, even fraudulent–but not confused.

  58. @J.Ross

    Their readers will let them get away with it.

    I think the NYT figures that it has already boiled off that portion of its readership that wants an accurate, balanced discussion of the issues. When it published an op-ed last year that was mildly critical of aspects of global warming, it got a torrent of angry mail from its readers saying they would cancel their subscriptions. Readers want straight Narrative, all the time! (Granted there is a mischievous group that writes lengthy, well-reasoned responses to the Narrative in the comments sections, when available, but the editors don’t seem concerned about them.)

    • Replies: @Forbes
  59. Forbes says:
    @Anonymous

    In financial journalism for example, pontificators who are wrong can tend to get all their wrong predictions tacked on in future articles about them.

    Evidence on the ground is pretty thin on this one. Media love media whores like Ackman, Lampert, and Einhorn, who still receive favorable media attention despite disasters.

    Media merely ignores those pontificators–wrong or otherwise–who no longer serve as barking seals.

  60. @Achmed E. Newman

    It must be that they don’t have an OVERWHELMING amount of money or something,

    VDare has really been struggling since the Powers that Be have cut off ways to donate to them, such as by removing them from PayPal. The Progressives are enraged that contributions to VDare are still tax-deductible, something I’m sure the Democrats intend to correct once they get into a position to do so.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  61. @Peter Akuleyev

    They are not confused at all, that willfull ignorance is a feature, not a bug.

  62. Forbes says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    NYT pursues an activist agenda–lying propaganda is part of its repertoire. The ends justify the means.

  63. Sean says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/cesar-chavez-illegal-immigration-foe/

    On March 31, 1927, Cesar Estrada Chavez was born in Yuma, Ariz., to parents who had come north from Mexico as children in the 1890s. He went on to found the United Farm Workers union, and by his death in 1993 had become an icon for Hispanic activist groups and the Left in general.

    And his views on border control would be a perfect fit in the Trump administration.

    As a child working with his family in the California fields, Cesar quickly learned the reason farmworkers were paid so little and treated so poorly: As his biographer Miriam Pawel writes, “a surplus of labor enabled growers to treat workers as little more that interchangeable parts, cheaper and easier to replace than machines.”

    The ones whose wages are most affected by further immigration are the most recent immigrants.

  64. Forbes says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    I think the NYT figures that it has already boiled off that portion of its readership that wants an accurate, balanced discussion of the issues.

    The NYT was stoked after Trump’s win because their subscription numbers went way up. They had their best new subscriber additions ever, for several months. Hillary voters were signaling their affinity by signing up. And the NYT is delivering to their audience.

    As to boiling off, many of the sane lefties I know in NYC find it untrustworthy as to substance and accuracy. Unfortunately, sane lefties are few on the ground. Most seem to like their unreality confirmed.

  65. ATBOTL says:
    @Anonymous

    “Five years ago it would have skewed left even on immigration.”

    NYT readers were always highly critical of the open borders agenda on economic and environmental grounds. They would even call out articles about “worker shortages” as open borders propaganda when immigration wasn’t mentioned in the article.

    It appears to me the opposite has happened. NYT readers are trending towards open borders neoliberalism in the name of fighting “racism.”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  66. The Koch boys are just as evil as Shelly Adelson.

    The Koch boys and Shelly Adelson push open borders mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien infiltrators.

    Got that, Shelly Adelson? I used the word INFILTRATORS to describe illegal aliens. Shelly Adelson applauds when the Israelis deport the INFILTRATORS, but Adelson wants the United States to bring in more legal immigrant invaders while giving amnesty to illegal alien INFILTRATORS.

    Tweets from 2015:

  67. @Anonym

    Well, I did marry a non-white. But her family is a lot more Republican than mine.

    I’ll be quite blunt. I vote for Democrats because as much as I hate the Democratic Party, I hate the GOP even more. I have no use for the Aldeson-Koch ALEC crowd that dominates the GOP in Wisconsin: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Leah Volkmeyer. One is retiring but two are on the ballot.

    As for Mark Pocan, my Congressman, he will win with 61.5% of the vote just like he always does. Same opponent every time. Same result every time.

    I see him not so much anti-white but the same sort of liberal hypocrisy that pushes through immigration that destroys the progressive agenda while simultaneously pushing through a progressive agenda. Gaylord Nelson showed his fellow liberals that you cannot be pro-environment and pro-worker and still be an open borders advocate. It’s logically impossible.

    If there were Republicans who sided with workers over Aldeson and the Koch brothers I would vote for them. Instead I think my group of diseased whores is less unattractive than your group of diseased whores.

    And whores they all are. The NY Times article mentions that Harry Reid tried to push through a bill in the early 1990s to stop giving US citsenship to children of illegals. These days almost no Democrats could get away with such patriotism

  68. @Anonymous

    What the hell do people have to do to convince McConnell, Romney and Co what’s going to carry them to victory?

    Some of them likely know, but they’re doing what they’re paid to do by their donors. Too much of the GOP is owned by Chamber of Commerce types.

  69. ic1000 says:

    Is “Department of ‘Huh?’” the right title? Maybe, instead, the NYT got the memo briefing.

    ‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’

    An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that… the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

    … the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  70. @Paleo Liberal

    It seems strange to me that crazy people with an antisocial and counter-civilizational project deem themselves “progressive”. There is no progress in destruction.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  71. @Mark M.

    Yep, you are quite right, Mark. I read too fast (the 2nd time, when I thought about that phrase). I stand corrected.

    Between this booboo and not knowing the difference between a Camaro and a Firebird, I feel like an idiot … but, IT DIDN”T HAVE AN AIR DAM, DAMMIT!

  72. @Ickenham

    You’ve omitted an h at the end of the first syllable and an l at the end of the second syllable when spelling his profession.

    Please feel free to simply correct the misspelling. No need to approve this comment for publication.

    Are you implying that Steve phthulcked up?

  73. @L Woods

    Beyond parody. These people are literally (and criminally) insane

    “Insanely criminal” would be more accurate.

    As with the Moynihan Report, they know exactly what they’re doing.

  74. @ben tillman

    We agree that the Globalist establishment massively outspends Nationalists. Ron Unz would know better than anyone since he faced huge opposition with this various state initiatives (CA, MA, …) to abolish the default mode of Bilingual education in Govt schools. That the Deep State connives to destabilize countries which try to dissent from Globalist doctrine is a key point. Imagine how bad things would be for Hungary, Italy & Austria if Hillary was in power. This is why the DEMS must be kept out of power for at least a generation or until they disavow their platform of population replacement.

  75. CJ says:
    @CrunchybutRealistCon

    One of the most staggering David vs Goliath battles was the 2012 Oregon referendum to block drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Vdare suggested a 9:1 $$ disadvantage for patriots.

    I believe it was actually 2014. I hope I can get this image to display because it is so classic; if not please follow this link.

    Results by county. Red is No, green is Yes.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
  76. @Harry Baldwin

    Yeah, maybe lots of their donors are upper-middle-class just based on this question. Why in hell is the tax deduction so important to so many people?

    I know a bit about simple tax calculations, having done the forms myself every year for a while. If you have a business it’s much different, of course, but unless you have a lot of deductions, the standard deduction for married people will be higher than what one gets to by itemizing. Here’s a big change for 2018: The standard deduction will be doubled.* That’s $24,000 that you have to come up with in deductions in order for it to be worth even doing.

    .

    * No, do not get excited about it. In Merry Christmas from Scrooge The House Ways and Means Committee, I explained that the “Exemptions” go away, so it near a wash for a family of more than 3.

  77. Neuday says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Center for Immigration Stidies also deserves your donation, as they do much of the hard research on the topic that no one else will touch.

  78. I guess they didn’t read Krugman’s column, which points out that it’s anti-Semitic to notice that Soros funds things.

  79. Anonym says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    I didn’t catch that your wife is non-white. You’re kind of fully invested in this whole miscegenated coffee colored world project, (which of course excludes religious Jews). White race mixers are a funny lot. On the one hand, they have this fear of what the majority may one day do, and are left leaning, often politically active. On the other hand, they have first hand exposure to non-whites, often their culture, their people, their countries. A lot of them are quite bitter and almost red pilled on race I suppose you could say. They tend to pick on the flaws of the non-white people’s way of doing things. It’s not just culture, it’s the way they are, the phenotype. They often have all the resentment of a guy with a poorly chosen (first) wife from the era when thinking with your other head was just the way we rolled, but on steroids.

    Yeah, Paul Ryan sucks, now I understand the dilemma at your locality at least.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  80. Anonym says:
    @William Badwhite

    If they called themselves “Destructives”, no one would vote for them. They don’t call Satan father of truths.

  81. Eagle Eye says:
    @ic1000

    [According to Google's document] the “American tradition” … “prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility.” … the “European tradition … favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The briefing claims that all tech platforms are now moving toward the European tradition.

    The focus on “European traditions” should be EXTREMELY worrying to anyone who believes in real (i.e. American) values.

    This is NOT just an internal company matter, but part of a much larger operation by multi-national Deep State actors. As noted on the occasion of an earlier censorship initiative:

    This is MUCH BIGGER than Twitter. Most likely, a super-secret planning unit – likely based in Canada or elsewhere in a Five Eyes country or Germany – coordinates the development of a LONG-TERM, MULTI-LAYER CENSORSHIP STRATEGY AMONG GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, APPLE, ELSEVIER (academic publisher) and MSM.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/twitter-de-unpersons-hbd-chick/#comment-2546582

  82. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    On any other topic the comments at a paper like the New York Effing Times will skew far to the left. Five years ago it would have skewed left even on immigration. But look at the reader comments on this one and they are overwhelmingly against open borders.

    That’s because open borders is a rightist cause. It’s all about cheap labour. The natural leftist position is to be in favour of immigration restrictionism.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  83. Hibernian says:
    @Mr. Anon

    And pound the table. Big time. That’s a lot of what’s going on.

  84. bjondo says:

    Cesar Chavez and UFW members would be cracking jaws, breaking heads.

    Illegals, cheap labor, not wanted.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  85. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

    • Agree: Sarah Toga
  86. @bjondo

    Chavez was eventually silenced by Hispanic racial activists, who were at a fraction of their present strength 40 years ago.

  87. @dfordoom

    The natural leftist position is to be in favour of immigration restrictionism.

    No, the natural leftist position is to be in favor of absolute, unquestioned power for the left. It’s thoroughly consistent for them to flood the land with foreigners, because those foreigners will keep them in power forever.

    The right is a motley bag of various interests, which differ within countries as much as between them. Eventually the working people move right because they wise up to how quickly the left will abandon them to solidify its power.

  88. @Achmed E. Newman

    Yeah, the money is one thing, but with an ophthalmologist on our side, we’ve become much more far-sighted on this issue.

    BTW, is that Mr. Taunton? He sounds like a great guy when he’s mentioned on VDare.

    I believe Mr. Taunton is the subject of an article in the latest issue of SPLC’s newsletter where he is called out as a hatethinkcriminal. No good deed goes unpunished.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  89. @CJ

    That graphical link the referendum result really makes you think. Oregon is for sure sane enough to be won over to a certain brand of Nationalism. Only Portland is so drunk on SJWism as to be irredeemable. Perhaps if the SJWs settle in low enough elevation areas near the river, the next Pacific tsunami will work some magic for us. Or we could simply quarantine the ideologues into those city zip codes till they get sick of virtue signalling each other or get demographically overwhelmed by sane people in the suburbs.

  90. dfordoom says: • Website
    @ATBOTL

    NYT readers were always highly critical of the open borders agenda on economic and environmental grounds. They would even call out articles about “worker shortages” as open borders propaganda when immigration wasn’t mentioned in the article.

    It appears to me the opposite has happened. NYT readers are trending towards open borders neoliberalism in the name of fighting “racism.”

    Agreed.

  91. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Paleo Liberal

    If there were Republicans who sided with workers over Aldeson and the Koch brothers I would vote for them. Instead I think my group of diseased whores is less unattractive than your group of diseased whores.

    It saddens me to say this but you may be right.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  92. @Laugh Track

    I only WISH that I could be the subject of an article in the latest issue of SPLC’s newsletter and get called out as a hatethinkcriminal. Alas, I have not put in the hard work that Dr. Taunton has. Help Peak Stupidity reach that goal.

  93. @dfordoom

    You want VD, or whatever they’re calling it now, go for it buddy. I’ll just vote for the Constitutionalists.

  94. @gregor

    Prog politics (abortion, gun control, believe all women) are about controlling blacks without admitting it. Open borders + Steve’s most dangerous graph = out of control blacks.

    Progs aren’t playing that.

  95. Relative to other progressive special interests, the immigrant rights movement has traditionally been a pauper’s crusade

    This is actually true. The big money goes for IMMIGRATION rights, not IMMIGRANT rights.

    In other words, big money wants to grant anyone and everyone the “right” to settle here but leave them with meager economic “rights” once they do.

    Zuckerberg et al aren’t using their billions to advocate giving immigrants a New Deal-like treat of living wages, time-and-a-half, unionization and fringe benefits, or to allow H1B’s to easily job-hop. That would kind of defeat the purpose, no?

  96. @Anonym

    I don’t think interracial marriages are best for everyone, but it works for me.

    I like having different races in the world, but I also like having some mixed. There may be a time in the future when there are no races, but probably not for at least a few centuries

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.