The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
L.A. Times: America Is Anti-American

Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world. Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.

For example, from the Los Angeles Times:

What’s the Alt-Right?

Thomas J. Main

Thomas J. Main is Professor at the School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, CUNY. He is writing a book on the Alt-Right and American politics.

Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump on Thursday for his cozy relationship with a new political movement, the Alternative Right, or Alt-Right. The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s. The main challenge to our way of life today now comes not from the radical left, but the Alt-Right. …

But it is the underlying ideology of the Alt-Right, rather than its controversial policy positions, that is truly sinister.

Those evil bastards don’t believe in the Zeroth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, as Founding Father Emma Lazarus carved on the Statue of Liberty in 1787.

Alt-Right thought is based on white nationalism and anti-Americanism.

It’s almost as if the American Revolution had been about Americans demanding “the rights of Englishmen.”

The Alt-Right holds, in essence, that all men are not created equal, and that as racial equality has displaced white dominance, America has declined and no longer merits the allegiance of its white citizens.

Alt-Right leaders, unlike Neo-Nazis or KKK supporters, are intellectually and rhetorically sophisticated. Jared Taylor, editor of the American Renaissance website, holds degrees from Yale and the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris. …

In the letter, Taylor denies the notion that “the things you love about America…are rooted in certain principles.” Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?”

That’s pretty much the argument of Federalist Paper #2, but then you can’t get more anti-American than Federalist Paper #2.

White nationalism is more important than inalienable rights because “Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.”

It’s almost as if Norway is a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

But to notice that would be wrong.

… The Alt-Right represents the first new philosophical competitor to liberalism, broadly defined, since the fall of Communism.

Is anyone listening to the Alt-Right? Yes: Key Alt-Right websites the American Renaissance and VDARE — named after Virginia Dare, “the first white child of English parentage born in America” — both received more web visits last November than Dissent and Ms. The National Policy Institute and its Radix Journal together had many more visits than the neoconservative policy journal National Affairs.

So the Alt-Right has an audience — and in Trump, it has a candidate. Trump’s rants about Mexican rapists charging across the southern border, his attacks on an American-born judge of Mexican descent, and his calls to ban Muslims from entering the country, are all in line with Alt-Right ideology. Accordingly, Alt-Right organizations made robocalls for Trump in the Iowa, New Hampshire and Utah primaries.

VDARE declared in July: “We are all Donald Trump Now.” And the website’s editor, Peter Brimelow, wrote on Wednesday: “Trump is the best presidential candidate on immigration that we’ve ever had. That’s not saying a lot, goodness knows — but it’s a YUGE advance.”

… All schools of American political thought — and especially mainstream conservatives — must reject this dangerous ideology.

One of the patterns you notice more and more these days is the descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses reasoning, “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. “alt-right” is all about whiteness and anger that the western world is getting brown. donald trump will revive the jim crow ideology.

    The Alt-Right is bigots latest attempt to cling to their rational for bigotry.

    The Alt-Right = White Nationalism = White Supremacy = Racism

    Bannon is a leader of the Alt-Right movement.

    Trump has played his hand. Trump is Alt-Righter.

    The Alt-Right must not be allowed to gain control of our government.

    Trump must be defeated at the polls, and so must every candidate who refuses to repudiate the racism of the Alt-Right.

    Eventually, they will go down defeat, hopefully laws will be passed to make sure this stuff is done away with

    • Replies: @Mike P.
    I should be very interested for you to disclose the racial demography of your zip code, available here: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
    , @Anonymous
    Na na boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

    Feel better now, getting a reply back on your IQ level?
    , @AndrewR
    Tell us how you really feel!
    , @unpc downunder
    There are a wide range of views and people on the so-called alt right but the common denominator is opposition to universalism. Ultra-liberalism is a type of universalist ideology since it focuses on individual rights at the expense of majority interests, rather than trying to find a realistic balance between the two.

    And opposition to universalism isn't just a white male thing. The majority of people on the planet are opposed to at least some aspects of universalism, even if they aren't fully-fledged ethno-nationalists.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Bannon is a leader of the Alt-Right movement.

    Actually, I am the leader of the Alt-Right movement, and you can too.
    , @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    Sometimes it's hard to tell whether Mister Tiny is really an utterly predictable knee-jerk lefty schmuck, or he's a very clever dude who totally gets it.

    But either way, no new laws have to be passed "to make sure this stuff is done away with": just a coupla old ones can be discarded to do the job quite well: specifically the first and second amendments to the Constitution
    , @Kyle
    Speech can't be regualted.
    Also, the west will never turn brown because it is self evident that brown is ugly. A critical mass of alien population inevitably leads to white self awareness. Look at the history of western civilization, and look at the migration of the centers of western civilization.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Ha-ha! Good one!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/l-a-times-the-alt-right-is-anti-american/#comment-1544164
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Steve, do you realise yet that all the fisking in the world isn’t going to convince these people they’re wrong?

    Better reconcile yourself to that fact and what’s going to be the only way they will be convinced.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Ironically, I believe the term "fisking" arose when bloggers would fisk Robert Fisk's articles line by line. These articles were anti-Iraq war. For all the fisking that was done by (mainly neocon leaning, race blind) bloggers, Fisk was right.

    This of course does not mean that anyone is right by virtue of being fisked.
    , @Henry Bowman
    We are trying to awaken/win over the fence sitters.
  3. I’m glad the good professor could freely express his opinion in America. I look forward to the day when a fellow American is able to freely express an opinion not in conformity to the narrative on his college campus.

  4. Many on the alt- or dissident-right will undoubtedly vote for Trump as the least of several evils. Even if you believe the system is horribly rigged or broken, not to vote is a vote for the worst of evils. Is Trump the candidate of the alt-right? Hardly! Could we do better? Surely! Will we do better if the Hildabeast is elected? Never, and we are one step closer to laws that stifle or silence our dissent and a future of gulags and secret police to enforce them.

    • Replies: @melendwyr
    Clearly we should choose the lesser of the available evils. It's not so clear that voting for either candidate is that option.
  5. I think a key mistake of the “invite the world” crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.

    Today’s immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it’s relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture…not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture. The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.

    • Replies: @ganderson
    Agreed- I would also point out that the US of 1900 was a FAR more culturally confident country. One of the (possibly apocryphal) stories in my family was that when my dad's oldest brother Bertil went off to school in 1915 he could only speak Swedish. The St. Paul Public Schools sent him home, with the instruction that when he could speak some English they'd take him back. My grandparents then made the decision not to speak Swedish at home, consequently by dad and his two other brothers never learned to speak the language.
    In addition, lots of immigrants, perhaps as many as 1/3, found the US uncongenial, and returned to Europe. My Uncle Vendel was one, his kids and grandkids now live in Göteborg.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    I don't think that past immigrants assimilated as much as they were able to fit in as they were. Is the descendant of an Iron Range Swede any more like a white from Appalachia or the Tidewater than his ancestors were 130 years ago?
    , @Rapparee
    Also, there was a ton of practically-free land in America for most of the 19th century. Immigration restriction was passed about one generation after the frontier was officially found to be "closed". That's not a coincidence.

    Ellis Island has a huge place in America's national mythology, but it had only been operating for about 35 years before the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924. It was a big deal in New York City and environs, where so much American pop culture is produced, but I doubt the rest of the country paid much mind to it before the advent of television.

    Crunching the rough numbers from Wikipedia, I'd estimate that at least 75-85% of the ancestry of the 200 million or so non-Hispanic whites in America comes from North-Western Europe ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/North-western_Europe_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg ). Basically, that's Great Britain and countries that could historically be reached from Britain in about three days' sailing. The other 15% or so is mostly Slavs and Italians, who assimilated thoroughly because grouchy and intolerant Irish bishops forced them to.
    , @Corvinus
    "I think a key mistake of the “invite the world” crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children."

    Yes, these immigrants wanted to rapidly assimilate.
    No, they were NOT about "truly cutting ties". They wrote letters home. They imported foodstuffs, clothes, and furniture from the mother country. They kept their cultural traditions. They spoke in their native language, and insisting that their customs be kept alive by their children.

    "Today’s immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it’s relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture…not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture."

    So keeping abreast with their relatives means the assimilation rate suffers? Says who?

    "The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society."

    So why do we have popular ethnic festivals? Is that "at odds" with our common culture?
    , @TheJester
    My wife's grandparents immigrated from Sweden in the early part of the 20th Century. He came over as a lumberjack and she was an indentured servant in Lowell, Massachusetts. They settled in North Dakota on land still available on the Homestead Act. They FORBID their four children to speak Swedish; they were Americans now.

    Two of their three sons earned doctorates. The clan pitched in to send the most promising of the clan to Princeton. His name was Bert Johnson. When a director at Bell Labs, he was possibly among the first to make a working field effect transistor. He was also the first to identify thermal noise in electrical systems. It's called "Johnson noise". (I met Bert in 1967 when my wife and I took a trip east.)

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

    That was immigration then ... and the illiterate campesinos from Mexico, Central America, and sub-Saharan Africa along with the Muslim hordes who despise Western Civilization are immigration now. I suspect a serious difference in outcomes.
  6. It’s almost as if the American Revolution had been about Americans demanding “the rights of Englishmen.”

    Thanks to the McDonald decision, an African in Chicago enjoys a certain common-law right that a white Englishman in London does not.

    It’s almost as if Norway is a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

    “Pigs and dogs” can marry in Norway!

  7. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    One of the oddest planks in Steve’s agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 (“Ellis Island immigration”).

    He’s maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.

    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Hopeless!

    That sort of cucked, liberal trolling might have worked here ten years ago, might have. But now you're just wasting your time troll.
    , @Anonymous
    The Hispanic immigrants of 1880-1920 were distinctly superior to the roustabouts drifting in over recent decades. Cuba hasn't been sending its best lately.
    , @ben tillman

    One of the oddest planks in Steve’s agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 (“Ellis Island immigration”).

    He’s maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.
     
    Two sentences that contradict each other -- brilliant! Troll quality: 0.
    , @anon
    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants

    Here's something I've always wondered. Even if that IS true, that Hispanics become completely assimilated into America, then what was the point of bringing them here?

    Why should we put up with all their inconveniences NOW, just so we can have some more people in the future who are just like us? Why not just have our own kids?

    Unless Mexicans turn out to be a lot BETTER than the rest of us, how is that worth it?

    And I've known quite a few Mexicans. They're not a lot better than we are.

    Also:

    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem.

    You really think Steve's worried that, centuries from how, he'll have to retract what he said? You're dumb.

    , @Jefferson
    "Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants,"

    What you say could possibly be true if the majority of Hispanics we got came from Spain and Argentina.

    Mexico is not a very White country. Mestizos & Amerindians are not the new Italians & Irish.

    In order to bring in masses of Spanish speaking Joe DiMaggio's, cut off Mexican immigration and open the floodgates to Argentina.

    The masses of Mexicans we are getting don't look very Italian phenotype wise.
    , @Chris Mallory
    1880 doesn't go back far enough. You have to go back to the 1840s and the hordes of Irish and German invaders. We should have closed the borders in 1800. Every wave of immigrants starting in the 1840s was destructive to the freedoms left by the Founders to their posterity.

    The Irish, Germans, and others brought a love of big government, socialism, and a refusal to become Americans. Instead we have hyphenated bastardizations like Irish American, Italian American and German American. Immigrants have been a curse upon the American people.
    , @Jefferson
    "Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem."

    I notice when Leftists like yourself try to sell open borders and amnesty on the internet to White people who are on the fence , you people always try to sell most Mexicans as just being brunette versions of Northern Europeans, hence the constant comparisons of Mexicans to Italians.

    What does that say that the Left has to Whitewash Mexicans in order to get more Whites to embrace open borders.

    The Left doesn't admit the fact that the vast majority of Mexicans are Amerindians/Mestizos because that is a bad sales pitch to White people who don't want to be racially displaced and become a racial minority in their own nation.

    They want us to believe that the average Mexican looks like a brunette version of Olivia Newton John. If Olivia Newton John dyed her hair dark she would look like the vast majority of Mexican women, lol.
  8. @Arclight
    I think a key mistake of the "invite the world" crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.

    Today's immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it's relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture...not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture. The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.

    Agreed- I would also point out that the US of 1900 was a FAR more culturally confident country. One of the (possibly apocryphal) stories in my family was that when my dad’s oldest brother Bertil went off to school in 1915 he could only speak Swedish. The St. Paul Public Schools sent him home, with the instruction that when he could speak some English they’d take him back. My grandparents then made the decision not to speak Swedish at home, consequently by dad and his two other brothers never learned to speak the language.
    In addition, lots of immigrants, perhaps as many as 1/3, found the US uncongenial, and returned to Europe. My Uncle Vendel was one, his kids and grandkids now live in Göteborg.

    • Replies: @Polymath
    My grandmother was second generation German, settled in Minnesota, speaking German at home. Many of the family legal documents are in German, although concerning matters here, and there were many public schools where the main language of instruction was German. But when WWI began, her uncle said "We will speak only English now."

    The nation has not addressed the trauma and injustice of American English and Swedish-speaking children throwing rocks at German-speaking American children one hundred years ago.

    And it never will.
  9. “If Donald Trump becomes President I’m moving to a country less white than America.”
    Said no Liberal ever.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "“If Donald Trump becomes President I’m moving to a country less white than America.”
    Said no Liberal ever."

    Left Wing celebrities love to say they will move to Canada if insert whichever Republican's name becomes president. They never say they will move to a 1st World Northeast Asian nation, let alone a 3rd World Negro nation.
    , @Yak-15
    Panama and the Carribean would be great places to live. So would any other non-white 3rd world place if you had the dough.

    Rich liberals basically, as Steve points out, needn't dwell upon the negative effects of their policies because they will never be affected by them. This is why I propose a superfund to start settling large numbers of Somalians into hyper-rich gated communities next to liberals.

    Let's all pool our money together to buy houses next to Obama's places and stock them with reformed Islamacists. We should culturally enrich them. I'd give a few thousand to do it.

    How many others would too?
  10. descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses

    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let’s be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I’m sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.

    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”

    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN’T mention certain other groups – Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor’s book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn’t want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the “mistakes” of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don’t have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there’s NO route to power for you. Taylor’s POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don’t buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in ’96 – 1896 and they didn’t win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can’t seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that’s going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    • Replies: @International Jew

    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let’s be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?
     
    LOL, nice one.
    , @Corvinus
    "And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base."

    Of course, this speech wouldn't serve as alienation to German-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, who seek to limit immigration or to reduce the size and scope of government, right? RIGHT?

    "Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don't understand that the Alt-Right doesn't give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can't get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn't conserved so much as women's bathrooms. We don't want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover."

    "Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers."

    [Note that those white Americans who are "true" Americans are only from Great Britain, although it is conveniently not mentioned here]

    "Yes, it is certainly possible for an individual, of any race, culture, or heritage, to admire and accept and adopt the ways of another people. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who do sort of thing. But the observable fact throughout all of recorded human history is that those individuals are very rare. In fact, that's why they make movies about them. No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture."
    , @SFG
    Come on dude, you know the alt-right doesn't like Jews. Taylor's been agnostic on that particular prejudice for unknown reasons. I honestly don't know what he's thinking at this point. I mean, it's nice to have Milo, Matt Drudge, and the Breitbart crowd, but you get your numbers from skinheads and guys posting Pepe memes.

    I don't actually believe Steve's theory completely--more likely it's genuine bleeding-heart-ism where they are willing to let in members of an ethnic group that really doesn't like them and is much more willing to act on it than most of the Nazis are right now. Annoying old-money WASPs? Nah, they're busy marrying them now. They keep seeing their dead relatives from 1939 in the streams of Muslim refugees, never mind that these refugees are going to mean them ill (and will screw up the USA to boot, may I add).

    And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.
    , @Anonymous
    There are, possibly, 3 million '2nd generation' Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd - actually, it's quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France 'only' had a few thousand Muslims.

    - the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim - there are over a billion of them - is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960.
    , @bomag

    We can’t seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave.
     
    This has been the Left's argument since the ''90s, and look what it has wrought: we're pushing one for English and expanding the welfare state to accommodate this one-way flow because we can't seem to take one step to control immigration. And when any push back appears, you start shouting Nazi! Holocaust! and the opposition backs off and another million moves in.

    The taint is in the blood.
     
    Is it not? We're lectured regularly about all the taint Whiteness carries; that Blacks are superior in pretty much every way; that Mexicans work harder; that Asians are better in school; etc. I notice that those in political power like the keep the question of "blood" open, so they can fill it in with whatever is convenient for their goals.
    , @Honorary Thief

    No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.
     
    Not as a stated policy objective, but they've shown time and again that they are completely incapable of drawing the line, no matter the numbers that have already come.

    No one sets out to be a heroin addict, they just keep deciding to do more heroin.
    , @pyrrhus
    Granted that your comment is just medium grade trolling, but the "We" who can't deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not "we" as in the actual American citizenry. In the old days, Ike deported more than a million Mexicans without the slightest problem. Nowadays, just eliminate welfare and Medicaid for anyone who can't prove they're an American citizen....
    , @Anonymous
    They bloody well do think that way.

    Very very senior members of Britain's New Labour (eg the odious John McTernan) have more or less openly admitted that massive third world immigration was promoted *mainly* as a means of enduring perpetual one-party Labour Party rule.

    Don't be a naif, and ever, for one moment, underestimate the sheer viciousness of politicians.
    , @Anonymous
    Just put it this way.

    What sort of society would you personally would want to live in, and what sort of society do you want your children to live in?

    Do you want to live in the slums of Chicago, Miami, LA, New York, Cleveland, Baltimore, Newark, and a hundred other god-forsaken places, or rather would you live in Vermont, the small towns of the mid west, Oregon etc?
    , @Stogumber
    What matters here is that different immigrants behave differently towards the people which is already present (in our case, the WASPs). I suppose that every immigrant tends to feel "underprivileged" and tends to have a chip on his shoulder, to a degree - but most of the immigrant tribes overcome this feelings and don't indulge in them. Only very particular subcultures bathe in self-victimization und cultivate their hostility against the people already present.

    That's partly a matter of aggressive competetiveness (or rivalry). Neither the Germans nor the Irish had an urge to replace the WASPs. The Germans were content building breweries and the Irish were content becoming cops. But in order to really replace the WASPs in their banks and universities you must be much more aggressively competetive.

    And as Sailer has explained elsewhere, very insightful: It's not as if hostility is the motive for aggressive competetiveness. Hostility is rather something you cultivate IN ORDER to be agressively competetive. It is not a causal connection, but a functional.

    , @OilcanFloyd
    "First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way."

    Plenty of people on the Left are completely upfront about their desire to see America transformed by immigration. These people are explicit about their dislike for White America and its culture, traditions and history. They are most likely ethnocentrics, rather than invade-and-inviters, and often show up on alt-right gloating about a future non-White America. It's nothing new or rare.
    , @BenKenobi
    Firstly, yes that is the attitude of the "invite the world" crowd -- remember the UK minister who admitted it was "to rub the right's nose" in diversity?

    Secondly -- I concede your point that the 'huddled masses' don't want to see the gains of the multicult undone. However we don't wish to live in a dystopian polyglot banana republic where every ill both real imagined is blamed on White people not clapping their hands and believing enough.

    So we appear to be at an impasse. My modest proposal is two Americas.
    , @Johan Schmidt

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.
     
    Blatant lie. "rub their noses in diversity" is a direct quotation from Andrew Neather.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
    , @Matra
    How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals?

    You sound like you are afraid that old stock Americans are starting to notice things.

    If Ellis Islanders have different views on immigration from other Americans it needs to be pointed out as often as possible so that old stock Americans see clearly who is part of their in-group and who is not. A more developed in-group identity would make it easier for them to unite around issues of importance to them and pursue their group interests. Just as importantly once they have that in-group mentality they can explicitly state what their interests are instead of using the generic universalistic language that white Americans use today when trying (and failing) to defend themselves from out-group aggression.
    , @Anonym
    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    That's like Ted Kennedy asserting the US demographic mix won't change. Most liberals may not want 100M Muslims (well, some probably do... in 30 years time) but look at that dead 3yo economic migrant in the water! And soon 1% becomes 2% becomes 4% becomes 8% and now you've got yet another goddamn demographic that hates your guts and yet you've got to pander to the f***ers to get elected.

    No doubt amongst the useful idiots who want to rub our noses in diversity (and they do exist) you've got some Jews who want white countries to import enough Muslims so that we know to hate Muslims on a visceral level and hence support Israel going full fascist on Arabs in the land Israelis hold or covet. And people who want to import such Muslims that for those reasons are assholes who should really know better.

    You think Blair et al were the only ones wanting to rub our noses in it, boiled frog style?

    , @Antonymous
    You wrote:


    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.
     
    In fact, New Labor said exactly that about rubbing noses in diversity:

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
     

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

    You're far too quick to diagnose paranoia about verifiable events and quotes.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let’s be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?"

    He didn't say. And yet, we all know which group he is talking about. Now.......why is that? Could it be because that group has a larger influence on policy, law, and the government than any other of the Ellis Island groups? Nah..........must be anti-semitism. Let's not notice things. Noticing things is bad.

    ""I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!"

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way."

    Actually, I think a lot of them do. Not all, certainly, but a lot. There is a lot of what can only be described as sadistic glee among leftists in the dissolution of America's traditional ethnic makeup. It's not as if the motive of just rubbing your enemies face in something distasteful is not a big part of modern American society. How else do you explain the transsexual business? Trannies are a group so small as to be statistically insignificant. But they, and their supposed oppression, has been dropped on middle America's front door-step like a big flaming bag of dog-pooh.

    "2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US."

    That is disingenuous. So, the entire US muslim population is (only) 3 million. What was it in 1990? I don't know, but a lot less than 3 million. What was it in 1970? So small as to have virtually no influence on american society at all. In fact, I tried to find the numbers online, and it is interesting that the number of muslims in America as a function of time cannot be readily found through a cursory google search. That itself suggests that their presence in large numbers is a relatively new thing. You're saying this is a made-up problem because the numbers are "small" (3 million isn't small, but whatever). But clearly that number was much, much smaller in the past, and yet..........that small number became 3 million. How large will that current population of 3 million become by 2050? How successful will Islam be in making conversions among people who historically were not muslim?
    , @candid_observer
    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can't, and shouldn't, be fought -- which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can't deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    No doubt a good deal of what's required to maximize harmony under those facts is to set realistic expectations in all parties as to outcomes. Some level of safety-net will be necessary, but will have to be calibrated to the expectations and responsibilities of the parties involved, so that the demands of those who create net negatives aren't too much of a burden on those who produce the net positives. Obviously this is not going to be an easy balance to get right, especially considering that the decisions are made democratically. Under democracy, of course, one side or the other can distort that balance, if their numbers overwhelm the other side (it may be the fatal flaw, for example, of South Africa -- there may be no stable political system that might work there acceptable to all parties).

    I don't see the US being in such a predicament so dire -- yet.

    , @AnotherDad
    Short version: "We're the Chosen People, damn it!".

    I get that *everyone* likes to think they are some wonder of the world--it's human nature. But this Jewish inability to admit that they are not-critical to America, the West, civilization, the world just sort of takes the cake.

    I'm half Irish-Catholic. I'm super-glad my Irish great-grandfathers\mothers got their asses on the boat to get the heck outta that blight infested isle and got themselves out onto the fertile American prairie. But i'm not under the slightest illusion, that America's awesomeness, it's freedom, it's rule-of-law, it's prosperity in any way shape or form depended on the Irish. America already had all those things, from its Anglo-Saxon heritage (genes and culture) conquering a rich continent, before the Irish showed up. Actually, the Irish almost certainly made it worse! Not *my* (lace-curtain) people of course, but those other (shanty) Irish--like the Kennedys ;-)

    Same with the Jews--not required; made it worse. Of course, the Jews are way smarter on average than the Irish and have contributed mightily and usefully in the sciences and medicine. But they've been an even bigger disaster politically--perhaps a fatal one. Seriously, with knowledge of the situation now, if you were a level-headed member of the WASP elites in 1890 you'd say "We can't let the Jews come here they will be a radical, hostile, balkanizing, anti-republican, anti-American disaster for our nation." (And i guess i'd throw in hubristic.)

    Taylor is simply right. The success of the American nation is rooted in the long developing political tradition of England that combined parlimentary democracy, rule of law and rights of Englishmen *plus* the gene and culture of package of NW Europeans--IQ and decent levels of conscientiousness, (broad, non-tribal) cooperation and creativity.

    And it's not as if we have to guess. This is one of those rare social science deals where we have at least some controls to look at. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all had the same Anglo-Saxon root, but got different "propositions", integrated different native populations and had different levels of "Ellis Island" style immigration. I think the verdict would be that those places don't suck ... but were and are pretty darn nice! (Even with less ideal geographic and resource packages.) The experiment's been done, this wave packet has collapsed.

    ~~~
    Finally ...



    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.
     
    Seriously Jack? Look i'm glad to have any Jews we can get on the white\nationalist\traditionalist\save-Western-civ side. But please, spare us the ridiculous denials.

    I can click up practically any story on Slate or in the NYT on these topics and find that sneering "let's rub their noses in it" attitude from your co-ethnics. It used to be a bit more subtle, of late it seems to me to be blatant and practically de-riguer--take that you loathsome old flyover country white Christian we're going to drown your disgusting ass in vibrant diversity.

    , @Corvinus
    “And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.”

    Of course, this speech wouldn’t serve as alienation to German-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, who seek to limit immigration or to reduce the size and scope of government, right? RIGHT?

    “Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don’t understand that the Alt-Right doesn’t give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can’t get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn’t conserved so much as women’s bathrooms. We don’t want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.”

    “Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.”

    [Note that those white Americans who are "true" Americans are only from Great Britain, although it is conveniently not mentioned here]

    “Yes, it is certainly possible for an individual, of any race, culture, or heritage, to admire and accept and adopt the ways of another people. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who do sort of thing. But the observable fact throughout all of recorded human history is that those individuals are very rare. In fact, that’s why they make movies about them. No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.”
    , @Anonymous
    You've got a knack for concern trolling anti-anti-semitism. Don't mean that in a belittling way or anything, I know where you are coming from.

    The basic gist is that Whites will wake up or not and deal with or fail to deal with the planned destruction of their civilization.

    If Jews want to be part of that solution, fine. If Jewish "voices and leaders" continue to oppose white interests in Europe and America due to some morbid historical perspective of Hitler, the tsar, Ellis island schmaltz or whatever then they shouldn't cry when awakened white gentiles start calling them the enemy again when they try and take their nations back. If innocent middle class Jews get caught in the crossfire well sorry, they should have done a better job leashing in their elites supposedly speaking on their behalf.

    I'm only in my 20's so I don't have the attachment that older isteve readers have to the concept of the good old USA. Ammmuurrriiccaaa is a shopping mall on its way to closing in some form or another, and I just hope it won't take white America with it.
    , @Jefferson
    "2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US."

    While I agree with most of your post, this part I disagree with. Invite the world people are made up of people who hate Christians and they would love nothing more than to make Christians a religious minority in America. What better way to accomplish this than by swamping The U.S with hundreds of millions of Muslims.

    Christianity is a religion of peace, said no invite the world Liberal ever.

    , @Bee
    I assume Steve is referring to his Swiss immigrant paternal grandparents. His paternal grandfather came to the U.S. in 1905, and his paternal grandmother in 1914, certainly within the Ellis Island era.
    , @Bee
    In fact, here is the exact record of Steve's grandmother coming in through Ellis Island, on January 18, 1914.
    https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JJQ3-16F
    , @ben tillman

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.
     
    Some of them -- like Andrew Neather -- say they think this way.
    , @AnAnon
    "2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US." - Chain migration.
    , @donut
    Sailer , I think that Jack D should win a prize for most responses to a post , don't you ?
    , @SFG
    You know, I often agree with you, and even kind of do here (defining the list of people allowed to join too narrowly is risky in a democracy, though of course that's the point for the hardcore people)...


    ...but I have to say, you're showing Tiny Duck how it's *done*.

    , @donut
    'The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here " . Agreed.
    , @Jim Christian

    There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.
     
    Invite 200,000,000 of your favorite flavor into the US and you created your own
    voter base. Isn't that what they've done allowing in so many Hispanics/Syrian/Muslim refugees? They minted lots of Democrats. It goes on to this day. Demographics, you can't get around demographics. If Hispanics were Republicans, Obama would have built a wall to the moon. All in the interest of National Security, of course.
  11. That last scene from “Planet of the Apes” is cool, sure, but unrealistic. If the Statue of Liberty ever wound up collapsed on the beach like that, there’s no way the arm with the torch would still be attached. In fact the whole thing would be bashed up by years of storms, eaten by rust and generally weathered beyond easy recognition.

    In a more realistic version of that last scene, Charlton Heston would find just a small piece of the statue — perhaps the plaque that bears the Zeroth Amendment!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "That last scene from “Planet of the Apes” is cool, sure, but unrealistic."

    Yeah, it detracted from the unflinching realism of the rest of the movie.
    , @Dirk Dagger
    In a more realistic version wouldn't Lady Liberty be Niqābed holding a scimitar and a Holy Qur'an?
    , @Chrisnonymous
    In Oblivion, they used just the torch. That's more realistic and the plot involves alien invaders.
    , @Zonie

    In a more realistic version of that last scene, Charlton Heston would find just a small piece of the statue
     
    That would have made for a very dramatic twist ending. You must be fun to watch movies with.
  12. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    steve, is the media attention that the ‘alt-right’ has been receiving of late the completion of your life’s work? What now? it’s really surreal to have been part of a movement from the beginning and to see it grow into a national force. Small groups of commit….blah…blah can really change the world.

  13. Key Alt-Right websites the American Renaissance and VDARE … both received more web visits last November than Dissent and Ms. The National Policy Institute and its Radix Journal together had many more visits than the neoconservative policy journal National Affairs.

    That brought a smile to my face. And after more articles like this, their traffic is bound to increase tenfold.

    • Replies: @SFG
    He's cherry-picking a little; few young people read Ms. anymore, it's all about Jezebel or Feministing or countless other blogs, and I don't think too many people ever read Dissent, which was 'socialist but not Communist'. And how many people ever read National Affairs?

    I'm sure their traffic has spiked, though.
    , @Brutusale
    Maybe we'll get better trolls! I'm not holding my breath, though.
  14. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let’s be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    LOL, nice one.

  15. “Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world.”

    Indeed, but are you not also pushing matters in that same direction with your own pronouncements as being “the truth”, with little or no room for debate?

    “Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.”

    

Like the fictitious “Zeroth Amendment” or the “cuckservative” meme? Are these not rhetoric designed for greedy consumption for the Coalition of the Fringes Right?

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part–again, an important component–there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those “facts” and “truths”, again, you are probably “anti-white”. That’s what a number of commenters here promote.

    So why on earth would whites–when the definition of what is white has yet to be completely defined, at least from my point of view–in general embrace a movement that castigates their own personal decisions regarding what is race, what is culture, and what is hierarchy?

    Now Jared Taylor stated, “That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?””

    

Except Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past. 
It reminds me of an 1880’s political cartoon.

    http://museum.msu.edu/exhibitions/virtual/immigrationandcaricature/7572-749.html

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Not all alt-righters are Whites Only. Unlike most living beings, men are gifted with the ability to politically control significant parts of their own social organization, which in turn forms a large measure of their habitat.

    The global equilibration of social organization and human habitat promised by unlimited free mobility of labor and capital is not appealing to many Americans, especially old school Americans, many of whom are white. Even younger Americans.

    Selling America's wonderful assets on the cheap to advance a "Christian" narrative of universal equality and enrich a very few is just not good business.

    Alt-righters are people just like you, Corvinus, just folks looking out for themselves.
    , @Anonym
    There are few social science phenomena that have as good a correlation as country wealth vs iq especially once natural resources are taken into account. The levels of civilization were similar back in Ellis island days. Back then Europe was still civilized and Africans were using spears, for example.
    , @Nico
    More of the same from Corvinus, and more of the predictable slush comparing immigration and society in the late 19th century to immigration and society of today. This is definitely a moment when "It's the current year!" is a useful argument to throw back in the faces of the liberals who use it so often.

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part–again, an important component–there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those “facts” and “truths”, again, you are probably “anti-white”. That’s what a number of commenters here promote.
     
    The scare quotes, of course, are meant to sow FUD and reluctance about acknowledging that in the past 200 years, upward of 90 percent of all useful or interesting innovations across every field have been produced by white gentiles or Ashkenazi Jews, that most of the rest have been produced by Southeast Asians, that there is no sign of these tremendous edges diminishing for as long as there remains something resembling a developed world and that absolutely no one would like a world in which blacks, Hindus, mestizos, Muslims or [most] Austronesian autochthones exert the same degree and nature of control over the engines of the global economy and intelligentsia that they currently have over the Westphalian systems of the countries in which they are the majorities.

    I'm not sure why white liberals insist on putting on headphones, cranking up the Bob Marley tunes and screaming "RACIST" to drown out these uncomfortable realities. No doubt many of them indeed are reflexively and maliciously anti-white or self-hating. Others I suspect simply cannot bear the thought of risking their careers acknowledging that the values they have been indoctrinated with would lead to their own destruction and the destruction of everything that makes the world agreeable for them to live in, so they attempt to stifle any discussion of what is in store for us. It's a groupthink that's quite malicious in itself.

  16. The Alt-Right represents the first new philosophical competitor to liberalism, broadly defined, since the fall of Communism.

    Islam is a philosophical (though what this idiot really meant is ideological, of course) competitor to liberalism. Islam isn’t new, but neither is ethno-nationalism, of which the Alt Right is a subset.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Thought the same about Islam too. It's very upfront about being a competitor. It's not new though.

    What's new is "multiculturalism," that is, let's invite millions of Muslims to add to our beautiful "mosaic".
  17. @Harry Baldwin
    Key Alt-Right websites the American Renaissance and VDARE ... both received more web visits last November than Dissent and Ms. The National Policy Institute and its Radix Journal together had many more visits than the neoconservative policy journal National Affairs.

    That brought a smile to my face. And after more articles like this, their traffic is bound to increase tenfold.

    He’s cherry-picking a little; few young people read Ms. anymore, it’s all about Jezebel or Feministing or countless other blogs, and I don’t think too many people ever read Dissent, which was ‘socialist but not Communist’. And how many people ever read National Affairs?

    I’m sure their traffic has spiked, though.

  18. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    “And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.”

    Of course, this speech wouldn’t serve as alienation to German-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, who seek to limit immigration or to reduce the size and scope of government, right? RIGHT?

    “Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don’t understand that the Alt-Right doesn’t give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can’t get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn’t conserved so much as women’s bathrooms. We don’t want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.”

    “Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.”

    [Note that those white Americans who are "true" Americans are only from Great Britain, although it is conveniently not mentioned here]

    “Yes, it is certainly possible for an individual, of any race, culture, or heritage, to admire and accept and adopt the ways of another people. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who do sort of thing. But the observable fact throughout all of recorded human history is that those individuals are very rare. In fact, that’s why they make movies about them. No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.”

    • Replies: @Alden
    If you weren't old enough to vote for Regean here is how he betrayed the Whites who voted for him

    1 Promised to abolish the anti White propaganda machine known as the Department of Education. It was established by Carter only a few years before and would have been easy to get rid of

    2. Made affirmative action in federal employment worse by abolishing the
    PACE exam. This was not an aptitude test
    It was for applicants who applied for prifessional jobs that required at least a BA BS degree. It was nothing more than the high school exit exam, basic literacy and rather simple math up to 10th grade.

    Refrains doing that opened the floodgates to professional federal employment for black college grads who could not read and write at 8th grade level.

    Regean did nothing for all the White democrats who voted for him.

    As for the so called constitutionalists on the pro White websites, none seem to have heard of Marbury vs Madison 1804 which established judicial supremacy forever

    You are so right, they have lost every cultural fight, de criminalizing gay sex to gay marriage seguing into the latest tranny thing. Well, tranny supremacy is better than legalizing pedeophilia. I assumed that legal pedeophilia would be the next step after gay marriage. But I am sure the liberals have it in mind for their next crusade.
  19. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    My maternal Irish forebears, my wife’s Polish and Italian forebears, intentionally and willingly shed their former identities because they correctly recognized being “American” as something superior. As a result, they fully assimilated into the so-called WASP culture and their voting patterns, gun collections, and churchgoing habits reflect it. They are every bit as “American” as my Dad’s old-stock side of the family.

    (BTW: I am able to see, upthread, another “Anonymous” comment that is awaiting moderation. That’s NOT mine, we just happened to have used the same fake email in the past. Or your system is glitching?)

  20. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Come on dude, you know the alt-right doesn’t like Jews. Taylor’s been agnostic on that particular prejudice for unknown reasons. I honestly don’t know what he’s thinking at this point. I mean, it’s nice to have Milo, Matt Drudge, and the Breitbart crowd, but you get your numbers from skinheads and guys posting Pepe memes.

    I don’t actually believe Steve’s theory completely–more likely it’s genuine bleeding-heart-ism where they are willing to let in members of an ethnic group that really doesn’t like them and is much more willing to act on it than most of the Nazis are right now. Annoying old-money WASPs? Nah, they’re busy marrying them now. They keep seeing their dead relatives from 1939 in the streams of Muslim refugees, never mind that these refugees are going to mean them ill (and will screw up the USA to boot, may I add).

    And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    , @Jefferson
    "Come on dude, you know the alt-right doesn’t like Jews. Taylor’s been agnostic on that particular prejudice for unknown reasons. I honestly don’t know what he’s thinking at this point."

    Nobody on Stormfront and Vanguard News Network likes Jared Taylor precisely for the reason that he is not obsessed with Jews. They see Jared Taylor as a sellout. He is not White supremacist enough for them.

    Jared Taylor also comes off as too white collar intellectual for them, while readers of Stormfront and Vanguard News Network are more American History X White trash nazi skinheads. They don't wear no stinkin suits and try to look more mainstream presentable.

    Even the Left gives credit where credit is due, they describe Jared Taylor as a higher IQ version of the fringe neo nazi far right.

    Jared Taylor does not look scary to nice mainstream Whites, because he looks like Mr. Rogers. He does not fit the stereotype of what a "White supremacist" looks like.
  21. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The problem the propaghandimedia run into is that the alt right is, indeed, intellectually sophisticated, and has history, biology, and general common sense, i.e., noticing, on its side. The progressive movement has been directing the show so long it can longer can defend its own first principles. It has become a secular religion.

    Directing the attention of the average techno-prole towards the alt right strikes me as insane as, say, the Roman Catholic Church advising its parishioners on the heresy of Martin Luther. It may have seemed like a desirable ideological prophylactic at the time, but more than a few of those folks in the pew who are scratching their heads and wondering what the padre is banging on about are going to start reading some pamphlets.

    And we all know how that ended.

    The alt right has been given the perfect chance to proselytize. The “they’re intellectually sophisticated – but racist!” thing will not inoculate them any more than “hey, you’ll go to hell ” did back in the day.

  22. Here is the Alt-Right’s “big tent”, or “consensus”, as summarized by paworldandtimes. I numbered them for convenience.

    1) Blacks. They require assistance in achieving and maintaining a level of civic and material comfort on par with that of other races. Quantity + Equality = Can’t Have Nice Things.

    2) Christianity. It is not an internally settled matter. For some, Christian faith is a non-negotiable foundation of our identity with implications on the afterlife. Others see it as detrimental to our vitality.

    3) Democracy. In its present form, it is the rule by those who control the formation of public opinion and whose interests are not aligned with the interests of the voters. The two-party system in the United States is real, just like pro wrestling.

    4) Family. While the role of extended families varies by culture, the traditional patriarchal model is the only one that provides a healthy environment for raising children.

    5) Immigration. It is harmful to Western nations at present levels, low-skill immigration in particular. Manifest incompatibility between host and guest populations belie the economic- or demography-based arguments in favor of mass immigration.

    6) Institutions. Traditionally conservative or masculine institutions such as the Republican party, the military, large corporations, mainline churches, and professional sports have been coopted by liberalism.

    7) Islam. Don’t let it in.

    8) Jews. As self-identified minorities with an enduring identity, they have acquired — justly or not — a reputation for subverting their host nations. Israel is a model of practical nationalism.

    9) Multiculturalism. Diversity is not our strength. The involuntary comingling of disparate peoples is not “enriching.”

    10) Race. It is a fundamental element of a human being’s identity. The human biodiversity model is predictive on the macro scale.

    11) Religion. A purely materialist philosophy is insufficient as a pillar of a culture or an ethical system. Nobody wants to die over a contract.

    12) Russia. It is not a potential threat to any Western nation beyond her near-abroad European neighbors. An enemy-of-an-enemy is an ally, and our common adversary is U.S.-led globalism.

    13) Sex. The female is attracted to male power, charm, and confidence. She has contempt for male weakness or supplication. The male is attracted to the female’s youth, beauty, and femininity and is repulsed by her physical or moral decay.

    14) USA. Her foreign and domestic policy is controlled by interests whose ambitions are at odds with the welfare of her own citizens, the existential question of Western nations, and geopolitical stability.

    15) Whites. Interracial obligations do not justify self-destructive sacrifice on the part of the White benefactor, nor are they mandated by any notion of historic debt. Charges of racism fail to explain the disparity between the achievements of Whites and others.

    16) Women. They crave male leadership and go batshit without it. Given the power, they will destroy their world, especially from the voting booth. Don’t listen to what she says — watch what she does.

    A LOT to take in here.

    According to the author, he states “Now, you put Lawrence Auster, Steve Sailer, Half Sigma/LoTB, Vox Day, the MRA guys from The Spearhead, Dalrock, Jared Taylor, Heartiste, Roosh, Mencius Moldbug (prior to his latest “distancing”), Thordaddy, Tanstaafl, and a hardline WN in the same room. Is there any item on my list which they will reject as too right wing or otherwise as too radical?”

    To me, the key for the growth of Alt-Right movement is NOT whether these pillars of the community reject one or more items as being “too right wing” or “too radical”, but to what extent will existing members or new recruits be able to voice opposing arguments and to what extent will there be cohesion and consistency in the implementation of those principles in practice.

    Moreover, how will “cucks”, “neo-cons”, and “anti-whites”, or for that matter the general American public, specifically address these points?

  23. Trump’s comments on immigration are on target, but unfortunately his solutions come twenty–no, make that THIRTY– years too late! The barn door should have been closed at least byno 1986, certainly no later than ’96. That horse long left the barn Face it, we had laws on the books and they were never enforced and it doesn’t matter why. The country is now awash in almost exclusively Third-World immigrants, which was the intent of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, (inaccurately named the Hart-Cellar Act since it had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over the paperwork). Jefferson once wrote to the effect that liberty can exist only through the vigilance of an alert citizenry. With regard to immigration, we were asleep for over thirty years. Now, it may be too little too late.

    • Replies: @Lot

    The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, (inaccurately named the Hart-Cellar Act since it had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over the paperwork)
     
    Is their a point in worrying about an author when it was so broadly supported in Congress and by the President? It passed the Senate on September 22, 1965, 76–18 and the final vote in the House a week later was 320–70.
  24. I don’t know about the Alt-Right label. I’m roughly of the opinion that many of the thoughts presented on these pages have yet to achieve ripeness in a political sense.

    But, I’m glad to be reading these pages, even when some articles and comments infuriate me. Why? Because they’ve prodded me to think about how social problems were addressed in years gone by, before Federal intervention into affairs once rightly regarded as local or individual.

    Professor Main’s “The main challenge to our way of life today now comes not from the radical left, but the Alt-Right. …” is pure twaddle. Our “way of life today” seems to me rent-seeking peoples of various sorts legally draining America’s industrial and cultural patrimony, and the Wall Street/K Street condominium gaming for its own benefit policies that appear Left or Right to lunk-heads who still believe citizen-sovereignty exists.

    As many of the excellent commenters here have mentioned, there’s much more to be said about our actual “way of life today” that’s almost surely at odds with mainstream chatter.

    We can but hope there’s a good challenge to “our way of life today”.

  25. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    There are, possibly, 3 million ’2nd generation’ Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd – actually, it’s quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France ‘only’ had a few thousand Muslims.

    – the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim – there are over a billion of them – is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    In 1951, the UK had about 10,000 "coloured people" living there, and a couple of hundred thousand Poles and other "displaced persons" from WW2.

    Now, less than 70 years later, about 30% of English primary school kids are "minority", 29% of English births are to foreign-born mothers, and white British people are a minority in what used to be their capital city.
    , @Jefferson
    "There are, possibly, 3 million ’2nd generation’ Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd – actually, it’s quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France ‘only’ had a few thousand Muslims.

    – the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim – there are over a billion of them – is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960."

    I read the percentage of Muslims in France is almost as high as the percentage of African Americans in The U.S. That's an extremely scary statistic that the percentage of Muslims in France has left the single digits and entered the double digits.

    Once a White Western nation has reached double digit percentage of Muslims, that country is finished. Muslims already don't assimilate when their percentage is in the low single digits like The U.S, let alone when they rise above 10 percent like France.

    Unfortunately I am extremely confident that America will be over 10 percent Muslim sometime in my life, after all I was only born in 1985 so I am still young.

    America will definitely have no go zone areas consisting of Muslims by the time I'm Steve Sailer's current age of 57.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    In 1965 the US had a Muslim population of an estimated 100,000 to 150,000. Now estimated as between 2.75 million and 7 million (the latter figure used by Muslim advocacy groups).
  26. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    We can’t seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave.

    This has been the Left’s argument since the ”90s, and look what it has wrought: we’re pushing one for English and expanding the welfare state to accommodate this one-way flow because we can’t seem to take one step to control immigration. And when any push back appears, you start shouting Nazi! Holocaust! and the opposition backs off and another million moves in.

    The taint is in the blood.

    Is it not? We’re lectured regularly about all the taint Whiteness carries; that Blacks are superior in pretty much every way; that Mexicans work harder; that Asians are better in school; etc. I notice that those in political power like the keep the question of “blood” open, so they can fill it in with whatever is convenient for their goals.

  27. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    Not as a stated policy objective, but they’ve shown time and again that they are completely incapable of drawing the line, no matter the numbers that have already come.

    No one sets out to be a heroin addict, they just keep deciding to do more heroin.

  28. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Granted that your comment is just medium grade trolling, but the “We” who can’t deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not “we” as in the actual American citizenry. In the old days, Ike deported more than a million Mexicans without the slightest problem. Nowadays, just eliminate welfare and Medicaid for anyone who can’t prove they’re an American citizen….

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    The "we" who can't deport illegals isn't just HRC and BHO. It's also W and McCain, and Rubio and Jeb! And Perry and Ryan, and last week Trump.
    , @Corvinus
    "but the “We” who can’t deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not “we” as in the actual American citizenry. "

    Is this "actual American citizenry" committed to removing by force American citizens who are deemed "undesirable? How does that fit the constitutional narrative that "actual American citizens" claim to observe?
  29. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    They bloody well do think that way.

    Very very senior members of Britain’s New Labour (eg the odious John McTernan) have more or less openly admitted that massive third world immigration was promoted *mainly* as a means of enduring perpetual one-party Labour Party rule.

    Don’t be a naif, and ever, for one moment, underestimate the sheer viciousness of politicians.

  30. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Just put it this way.

    What sort of society would you personally would want to live in, and what sort of society do you want your children to live in?

    Do you want to live in the slums of Chicago, Miami, LA, New York, Cleveland, Baltimore, Newark, and a hundred other god-forsaken places, or rather would you live in Vermont, the small towns of the mid west, Oregon etc?

  31. This rings very false to me as a descendent of these Ellis Island proles

    Look at the last names in Congress and among our presidents and the heads of industry

    Show us the proof of these assertions

    • Replies: @anon
    This rings very false to me as a descendent of these Ellis Island proles

    Look at the last names in Congress and among our presidents and the heads of industry


    Are you familiar with the Supreme Court?
  32. Shouldn’t one first believe in creation, if he is going to claim that all people are created equally? Is it more likely that humans would naturally evolve equally than a creator would create them all equally? I have no idea, but it’s obvious that all humans are not equal, no matter what you value. The lousiest manufacturer has several models of his product, and none of the freckles on my nose are exactly the same.

    Does it even make sense to try to debunk an argument that isn’t even believed by the person who puts it forth?

  33. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    One of the patterns you notice more and more these days is the descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses reasoning, “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

    go to bed steve, your drunk.

  34. OT: Is there enough consensus within the ‘alt right’ to launch a glossy magazine?

  35. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    What matters here is that different immigrants behave differently towards the people which is already present (in our case, the WASPs). I suppose that every immigrant tends to feel “underprivileged” and tends to have a chip on his shoulder, to a degree – but most of the immigrant tribes overcome this feelings and don’t indulge in them. Only very particular subcultures bathe in self-victimization und cultivate their hostility against the people already present.

    That’s partly a matter of aggressive competetiveness (or rivalry). Neither the Germans nor the Irish had an urge to replace the WASPs. The Germans were content building breweries and the Irish were content becoming cops. But in order to really replace the WASPs in their banks and universities you must be much more aggressively competetive.

    And as Sailer has explained elsewhere, very insightful: It’s not as if hostility is the motive for aggressive competetiveness. Hostility is rather something you cultivate IN ORDER to be agressively competetive. It is not a causal connection, but a functional.

  36. The whole schtick of the multicultists is that they piss in our shoes and tell us it’s raining. The unceasing hordes of the Earth are crammed in here and we’re told its for our own good: the diverse are like manna from heaven, their vibrancy instantly improving our boring, honky lives and countries.

    I went to Canadian public school, and thusly held all the state-approved opinions as a child and teenager. Perhaps that’s why I’m so… unimpressed with the New Religion as an adult.

    At this point I quite enjoy being an apostate.

  37. @Arclight
    I think a key mistake of the "invite the world" crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.

    Today's immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it's relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture...not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture. The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.

    I don’t think that past immigrants assimilated as much as they were able to fit in as they were. Is the descendant of an Iron Range Swede any more like a white from Appalachia or the Tidewater than his ancestors were 130 years ago?

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    They're still squareheads, if that's what you mean. All's forgivin' if they're buyin' the drinks.
  38. I wonder if the left feels any irony, calling others sinister while advocating egalitarianism?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Lack of a sense of irony is one of their primary characteristics.
  39. I doubt if 1% of Trump voters (like any group of voters) could name every Supreme Court justice. Similarly, I doubt if 1% of Trump voters have heard of VDare, American Renaissance, etc. Is Prof. Main going to produce evidence to the contrary?

    Also, I think we need to demand precision in the use of the term “racism.” Like George Orwell said of “fascism” (it now means nothing other than “something undesirable”) racism is used to refer to many persons and opinions, even those that contradict each other (e.g., supporters and opponents of affirmative action are both called racist). Define it precisely, and say why some person or view can be so described. How many conservatives want to describe The Bell Curve as racist, for example? Or the findings of Prof. Putnam about the effects of diversity? Etc.

  40. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    “First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.”

    Plenty of people on the Left are completely upfront about their desire to see America transformed by immigration. These people are explicit about their dislike for White America and its culture, traditions and history. They are most likely ethnocentrics, rather than invade-and-inviters, and often show up on alt-right gloating about a future non-White America. It’s nothing new or rare.

  41. @SFG
    Come on dude, you know the alt-right doesn't like Jews. Taylor's been agnostic on that particular prejudice for unknown reasons. I honestly don't know what he's thinking at this point. I mean, it's nice to have Milo, Matt Drudge, and the Breitbart crowd, but you get your numbers from skinheads and guys posting Pepe memes.

    I don't actually believe Steve's theory completely--more likely it's genuine bleeding-heart-ism where they are willing to let in members of an ethnic group that really doesn't like them and is much more willing to act on it than most of the Nazis are right now. Annoying old-money WASPs? Nah, they're busy marrying them now. They keep seeing their dead relatives from 1939 in the streams of Muslim refugees, never mind that these refugees are going to mean them ill (and will screw up the USA to boot, may I add).

    And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.

    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren’t raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I don't think you're really talking about the alt-right, though. You might be postulating a 'soft-alt-right' that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn't have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that's not the movement as it exists now. (You could argue that it might be more successful, but that's another story.)
    , @OilcanFloyd
    @Snorlax:

    Jews could also try purging their own community of radicals, anti-whites, anti-Christians, etc.
    , @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.
    , @L Woods
    Thanks for the concern (trolling) bro.
    , @the cruncher
    I agree that the 'Jewish Question' is a hindrance to most normies - it was to me, I agree that it looks skinhead-tier - but if it helps, think of them as a normal outgroup who want to break into / break down the in-group so that there won't be an in-group they're not part of. Only, thanks to their brains => money => power they're a super out-group, much more effective than normal. And of course, Not All Jews are Like That, /but there are enough that are/! I could dig through my 'memes' folder from /pol/ and show you quotes that would make the point more convincing, but here's a starter:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ
    , @ben tillman

    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites.
     
    No, it couldn't. The whole point of the alt-right is to resist the changes that a Jewish-driven Left is effecting. What would be the point of a Right that did not engage the Left?
    , @Glaivester

    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites.
     
    No, because when you are fighting for your life you can't be choosy in your allies. That would be like saying that the Allies in World War II could do without the Soviets.

    At the same token, we cannot allow the antisemitic elements purge Altright Jews.

    The best we can hope for is to channel the antisemites, and to take whatever kernels of truth they have and to de-emphasize all of the unnecessary and unhelpful bits.

    Factions that are not being helpful need to be resisted, but not purged. Purges can happen once a movement is powerful enough that it can determine which factions it does and does not need.
  42. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Firstly, yes that is the attitude of the “invite the world” crowd — remember the UK minister who admitted it was “to rub the right’s nose” in diversity?

    Secondly — I concede your point that the ‘huddled masses’ don’t want to see the gains of the multicult undone. However we don’t wish to live in a dystopian polyglot banana republic where every ill both real imagined is blamed on White people not clapping their hands and believing enough.

    So we appear to be at an impasse. My modest proposal is two Americas.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    So we appear to be at an impasse. My modest proposal is two Americas.

    An America with an an annexed Canada and Mexico pushed into Guatemala. Only problem with that is with the current population of naive idiots in Canada who would elect Trudeau, they would be inclined to elect Hillary. Maybe just push them all into Vancouver and seal it off Escape from LA style.
  43. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.

    Blatant lie. “rub their noses in diversity” is a direct quotation from Andrew Neather.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

  44. And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.

    American insanity “lives in the head [of the Germans] rent-free” as I think the current saying goes. If you don’t believe it, just think of what the Germans have done to their de facto national animal-the German Shepherd Dog. At some point in the post-WWII era, American breeders decided they liked a bio-mechanically dysfunctional highly sloped back on their GSD’s. The Germans adopted the same senseless fashion -despite the fact that the breed in Germany is governed by a club with official powers of enforcement and all that that entails. The status of the breed was able to survive the close relationship between Adolf and Blondi ,but not American cultural hegemony. So these days Belgian Malinois are a lot more common as police/military working dogs.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Well, as 1939-45 demonstrates, Germans are quite capable of self-generating insanity.....
    , @Anonym
    My understanding is that German Schutzhund dogs are like the original GSD, not the American exaltation of form over function.
  45. > Key alt-right websites

    This is alt-right central:

    http://theshitlordhub.blogspot.co.uk

    The name is a little crude and down-market, but it really is a hub of the alt-right.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Domestic version: http://theshitlordhub.blogspot.com/
  46. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals?

    You sound like you are afraid that old stock Americans are starting to notice things.

    If Ellis Islanders have different views on immigration from other Americans it needs to be pointed out as often as possible so that old stock Americans see clearly who is part of their in-group and who is not. A more developed in-group identity would make it easier for them to unite around issues of importance to them and pursue their group interests. Just as importantly once they have that in-group mentality they can explicitly state what their interests are instead of using the generic universalistic language that white Americans use today when trying (and failing) to defend themselves from out-group aggression.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.
  47. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    That’s like Ted Kennedy asserting the US demographic mix won’t change. Most liberals may not want 100M Muslims (well, some probably do… in 30 years time) but look at that dead 3yo economic migrant in the water! And soon 1% becomes 2% becomes 4% becomes 8% and now you’ve got yet another goddamn demographic that hates your guts and yet you’ve got to pander to the f***ers to get elected.

    No doubt amongst the useful idiots who want to rub our noses in diversity (and they do exist) you’ve got some Jews who want white countries to import enough Muslims so that we know to hate Muslims on a visceral level and hence support Israel going full fascist on Arabs in the land Israelis hold or covet. And people who want to import such Muslims that for those reasons are assholes who should really know better.

    You think Blair et al were the only ones wanting to rub our noses in it, boiled frog style?

  48. “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up.”

    And all because Morrie and Sadie couldn’t get into the WASP country club. I mean, all because Morrie and Sadie couldn’t get into David and Rebecca’s Uptown* country club they decided to redirect their anger at the US’s WASP population at large.

    * (In this context, Uptown denotes German-Jewish, the founding stock of the Jewish faith in the US, or those who came here long before the Civil War and did not care to have as fellow members of their clubs the likes of those living downtown, those in the lower East Side schtetls.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The term "shtetl" originally described small Jewish towns in Eastern Europe. The Lower East Side in 1900 had a much larger population than any shtetl in Poland.
  49. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    You wrote:

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.

    In fact, New Labor said exactly that about rubbing noses in diversity:

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

    You’re far too quick to diagnose paranoia about verifiable events and quotes.

  50. @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    I don’t think you’re really talking about the alt-right, though. You might be postulating a ‘soft-alt-right’ that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn’t have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that’s not the movement as it exists now. (You could argue that it might be more successful, but that’s another story.)

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Yeah, I subscribe to the Breitbart/Trumpist (though not necessarily Trump) style alt-right/“alt-center" as a political strategy, not the Daily Stormer/David Duke stuff[*] (which I also find objectionable).

    I'm not exactly alone in this — Breitbart gets about 10000x more page views than the 'Stormer, and Trump'll win at least 75x more votes than Duke ever did.

    [*] As the other extreme within the alt-right, not to say there isn't plenty of territory in the middle.

    , @Anonymous
    You might be postulating a ‘soft-alt-right’ that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn’t have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that’s not the movement as it exists now.

    That is precisely the movement that exists now.
  51. “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

    Actually groups such as the Irish and Italians have been telling the WASPs for decades that they should limit immigration to white Christian Europeans but the WASPs just dismissed this as mick/wop nonsense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually groups such as the Irish and Italians have been telling the WASPs for decades that they should limit immigration to white Christian Europeans but the WASPs just dismissed this as mick/wop nonsense.


    What a load of BS. Name a single example.
  52. @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    @Snorlax:

    Jews could also try purging their own community of radicals, anti-whites, anti-Christians, etc.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Liberals, of whatever ethnicity or religion, have no need to purge their movement of such people, because they're winning.

    The right, by contrast, in particular the "alt-right" and its predecessors, has been routed in every battle they've fought for as there's been an identifiable right and left.

    Only possible exception the Cold War, but, even then, the unilateral-nuclear-disarmament/muh-civil-liberties/poor-little-brown-freedom-fighters brigade was 90% of the way to victory when the commies had the bad manners to croak on them.

    The right, especially the alt-right, does not get any free passes or easy paths to victory, so it needs to be laser-focused on winning. Those who put complaining above winning are worse than useless.

  53. Has anyone tried updating Steve’s Wiki page?

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

    It contains material like the following:

    Rodolfo Acuña, a Chicano studies professor, regards Sailer’s statements on this subject as providing “a pretext and a negative justification for discriminating against US Latinos in the context of US history.” Acuña claimed that listing Latinos as non-white gives Sailer and others “the opportunity to divide Latinos into races, thus weakening the group by setting up a scenario where lighter-skinned Mexicans are accepted as Latinos or Hispanics and darker-skinned Latinos are relegated to an underclass.”[37]

  54. This week’s White Death update:

    In Cincinnati, police on Friday asked for the public’s help in identifying the source of the heroin behind an estimated 78 overdoses in two days.

    Officials in surrounding Hamilton County are calling the latest onslaught of overdose cases a public health emergency. County Health Commissioner Tim Ingram said the number of emergency room incidents over the last six days was “unprecedented.”

    Emergency rooms estimate they had 174 suspected opioid overdose cases this week, including three deaths.

    • Replies: @Weyyar
    Vancouver has the same problem. It's altered heroin from China. They put something cheaper, but much more dangerous into it. No different than China's industrial output.
  55. @Arclight
    I think a key mistake of the "invite the world" crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.

    Today's immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it's relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture...not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture. The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.

    Also, there was a ton of practically-free land in America for most of the 19th century. Immigration restriction was passed about one generation after the frontier was officially found to be “closed”. That’s not a coincidence.

    Ellis Island has a huge place in America’s national mythology, but it had only been operating for about 35 years before the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924. It was a big deal in New York City and environs, where so much American pop culture is produced, but I doubt the rest of the country paid much mind to it before the advent of television.

    Crunching the rough numbers from Wikipedia, I’d estimate that at least 75-85% of the ancestry of the 200 million or so non-Hispanic whites in America comes from North-Western Europe ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/North-western_Europe_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg ). Basically, that’s Great Britain and countries that could historically be reached from Britain in about three days’ sailing. The other 15% or so is mostly Slavs and Italians, who assimilated thoroughly because grouchy and intolerant Irish bishops forced them to.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    The Slavs and Italians were also assimilated via forced relocations from their neighborhoods and parishes. They represented significant voting blocs that threatened the Quaker and WASP structure in Philly, for example, and were urban renewed via housing programs and targeted integration for southern blacks moving north. Similar community atomizing happened in Chicago, Detroit and Boston, among other cities.
    , @Jefferson
    "The other 15% or so is mostly Slavs and Italians,"

    And Jews, French, Greeks, and the Portuguese.

    Lots of Portuguese people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Some of them went to Central California. The French settled mainly in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Maine. Lots of Greek diners in New York & Pennsylvania and Jews are self-explanatory.

  56. @Matra
    How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals?

    You sound like you are afraid that old stock Americans are starting to notice things.

    If Ellis Islanders have different views on immigration from other Americans it needs to be pointed out as often as possible so that old stock Americans see clearly who is part of their in-group and who is not. A more developed in-group identity would make it easier for them to unite around issues of importance to them and pursue their group interests. Just as importantly once they have that in-group mentality they can explicitly state what their interests are instead of using the generic universalistic language that white Americans use today when trying (and failing) to defend themselves from out-group aggression.

    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn’t ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that’s doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough “old stock” Americans to “notice”, change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I’m talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It’s never going back to the old way. I don’t say this to gloat – the frog has been boiled and it’s too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It’s never going back to the old way.

    So what do you recommend then? What is your vision?
    , @Barnard
    A lot of the old stock Americans are from the inherited wealth class who like what is happening because they have the mistaken belief they will always be in control of the multicultural masses.

    You are correct though, it is too late to reverse what has happened. The actual members of the founding stock would have been horrified by the immigration their descendants allowed through 1896, let alone what has gone on since 1965.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I’m talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities."

    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What's wrong with that? Why don't YOU seem to like that scenario?

    "I don’t say this to gloat -"

    No, I rather think that you do. There is nothing in your tone to suggest otherwise.
    , @Jefferson
    "By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities."

    If you use the most strict definition of old stock Americans which is limited only to people who are either mostly or entirely of English, Scottish, and or Scotch-Irish Protestants, than they are already a minority in The U.S.

    Germans, Scandinavians, and Irish Catholics are not old stock Americans, unless your definition of old stock American basically includes all of Northern Europe. In that case a Finnish American is an old stock American.

    , @Ed
    Exactly. Would a WASP disown their child if they married an Italian American? Doubt it. That ship has sailed.
  57. It’s almost as if Norway is a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

    Or that Rhodesia was a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

  58. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It’s never going back to the old way.

    So what do you recommend then? What is your vision?

  59. @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don’t think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 – the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of “altJews” or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why “JewE” is not “good for the Jews” in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put “Israel first.” Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish – the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines – the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining “good for the Jews” in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn’t the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don’t think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the “revenge” impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out “antijaphetism” in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish – in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term “Zionism” the same way that SJWs use “whiteness.” I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable – once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    • Agree: Antonymous
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and..."

    There were no "historical wrongs" committed by Russia against jews.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I think that is a fair and accurate desciption of things.
    , @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.
    , @snorlax

    I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia
     
    Uh, no they wouldn't. How many neocons are at all exercised about the Netanyahu/Putin rapprochement? Maybe you could've made that case with the neocons in the 70's Irving Kristol case, vis-a-vis the Soviets, but not the modern ones.

    In fact, today's neocons were mostly ambivalent to moderately pro-Putin until the falling-out over Iraq. Remember when Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul?


    more recently overthrowing the plutocrats
     
    Ah yes, Russia, the country where plutocrats have been overthrown. You can't find any plutocrats in Russia![*] The Japanese and Singaporeans only wish they could be as devoid of plutocrats as the Russians.

    If Putin decided to make sure no more plutocracy was going on, by hiring a world-class accounting firm like PriceWaterhouseCoopers to go over Russian government, business, politician and high-net-worth-individual finances, the PWC accountants would be very, very bored, because they wouldn't find any mysterious appearances or disappearances of large sums of money anywhere.

    Everything is strictly on the straight and narrow in Russia.

    [*] Although you could perhaps check London or Gstaad. Do Moscow, St. Petersburg and wherever the Kadyrov Klan domiciles itself count?


    of which I believe a majority were Jewish
     
    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I'm pretty sure never a majority. In any event, I would say almost no Americans, neocons included, are particularly knowledgable about or interested in the ethno-religious background of Russian plutocrats.

    the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.
     
    Lolwut? Even the remaining Russian Jews, much like Chinese minorities everywhere, are broadly white-collar professionals, not basket-weavers on the shtetl. Russia of course does still have basket-weaving peasants, some of whom went hungry in the 90's, but they aren't Jewish.

    By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that neocons are a clear, and disliked, minority amongst American Jews.

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    Plus there are a good number of Sanders and Chomsky groupies to those guys' left. Remember what school Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from.

    The politically-conservative Jews I've met have more often been Chamber of Commerce types or anti-communist ex-Soviets than neocons.

    Those Jewish people I know who still bear grudges toward Old World countries significant enough to bring them up in conversation are ill-disposed towards Germany and/or Poland far more often than towards Russia. Wagner and Goethe are verboten and forgotten, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, anti-semites both, are revered.

    American Jews whose families emigrated from places that are outside modern-day Russia's borders will still usually describe their family background as Russian. The ex-Soviet Jews I've met universally call themselves, without hyphen or qualification, Russians; one has to infer their background when they mention in passing that they have family in Israel, for example.

    Of all the claims you could make about American Jews, the idea that they're all crazed anti-Russians makes just about the least sense.

    For most of the 20th century, Jewish liberals were (on average) even more Soviet-sympathetic than liberals at large. They were, by leaps and miles, the ethnic group most overrepresented amongst the pro-Soviet far left and quasi-pro-Soviet pacifist granola enthusiasts. To this day, most Jews' idea of a "renegade Jew" is Roy Cohn.

    In fact, liberals from all backgrounds had plenty of residual affection for Russia all the way through the end of the first Obama administration. Remember the "reset?" Obama mocking Romney for saying Russia is an enemy?

    , @snorlax

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines – the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    Was getting long, but I did mean to reply to this part — Old Testament sexual morality is rather different from the Western/New Testament tradition. They practiced polygamy and prostitution, and in general the text shares, to an only slightly lesser extent, the Muslim/Koranic conception of women as sex slaves owned as property by men.
  60. @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    Thanks for the concern (trolling) bro.

  61. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    “Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let’s be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?”

    He didn’t say. And yet, we all know which group he is talking about. Now…….why is that? Could it be because that group has a larger influence on policy, law, and the government than any other of the Ellis Island groups? Nah……….must be anti-semitism. Let’s not notice things. Noticing things is bad.

    “”I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!”

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.”

    Actually, I think a lot of them do. Not all, certainly, but a lot. There is a lot of what can only be described as sadistic glee among leftists in the dissolution of America’s traditional ethnic makeup. It’s not as if the motive of just rubbing your enemies face in something distasteful is not a big part of modern American society. How else do you explain the transsexual business? Trannies are a group so small as to be statistically insignificant. But they, and their supposed oppression, has been dropped on middle America’s front door-step like a big flaming bag of dog-pooh.

    “2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.”

    That is disingenuous. So, the entire US muslim population is (only) 3 million. What was it in 1990? I don’t know, but a lot less than 3 million. What was it in 1970? So small as to have virtually no influence on american society at all. In fact, I tried to find the numbers online, and it is interesting that the number of muslims in America as a function of time cannot be readily found through a cursory google search. That itself suggests that their presence in large numbers is a relatively new thing. You’re saying this is a made-up problem because the numbers are “small” (3 million isn’t small, but whatever). But clearly that number was much, much smaller in the past, and yet……….that small number became 3 million. How large will that current population of 3 million become by 2050? How successful will Islam be in making conversions among people who historically were not muslim?

  62. @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    A lot of the old stock Americans are from the inherited wealth class who like what is happening because they have the mistaken belief they will always be in control of the multicultural masses.

    You are correct though, it is too late to reverse what has happened. The actual members of the founding stock would have been horrified by the immigration their descendants allowed through 1896, let alone what has gone on since 1965.

    • Replies: @S. anonyia
    Is this actually true that they would be horrified?

    Most of the 1800s waves of immigrants were North and Central Europeans. Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, and an ignored group- later arriving English, like some of Hillary's ancestors.

    I mean Ben Franklin's observations of non-English immigrants aside, did ordinary 1700s era Englishmen really eschew the possibility of French, Irish, Swedish and German wives? Or even vice versa? I don't think so, they probably recognized all these groups as sort of kindred tribes, all Western Europeans. Southern or Eastern Europeans may have been seen as somewhat culturally alien, but even so there obviously was never any real issue with intermarriage and assimilation so long as the numbers were small. On the "founding stock" side of my family, I found a lone Italian who married a Tidewater woman in the late 1600s. Lots of people have this guy's surname in the South and are presumably all distantly related.
  63. “That’s pretty much the argument of Federalist Paper #2, but then you can’t get more anti-American than Federalist Paper #2.”

    Indeed:

    It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

    With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

  64. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can’t deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    No doubt a good deal of what’s required to maximize harmony under those facts is to set realistic expectations in all parties as to outcomes. Some level of safety-net will be necessary, but will have to be calibrated to the expectations and responsibilities of the parties involved, so that the demands of those who create net negatives aren’t too much of a burden on those who produce the net positives. Obviously this is not going to be an easy balance to get right, especially considering that the decisions are made democratically. Under democracy, of course, one side or the other can distort that balance, if their numbers overwhelm the other side (it may be the fatal flaw, for example, of South Africa — there may be no stable political system that might work there acceptable to all parties).

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.
     
    Maybe this is why (crytpo) Jews so often end up as the head of WN movements. Real WNs don't seem capable of playing the chess game very far ahead. They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy. Maybe hatred makes you stupid or maybe it is as leftists say, that only stupid people are attracted - "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools".

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.
     
    From your mouth to God's ear! I hope and pray that you are right.
    , @27 year old
    >It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    >In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can’t deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    What do you mean by "deal with" and "work with"?

    Based on the first paragraph it sounds like you are using those phrases to mean "accept as a permanent condition and make no attempt to change" .

    Are you suggesting that WNs (or anyone) should not work ("fight...battle") to change the demographic balance of the US?
  65. @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    “I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I’m talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities.”

    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What’s wrong with that? Why don’t YOU seem to like that scenario?

    “I don’t say this to gloat -”

    No, I rather think that you do. There is nothing in your tone to suggest otherwise.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't think that Jack D is gloating about the decline of the American Founding Stock. From his other posts at this site, he clearly thinks that the diversity uber alles direction this country has taken is ridiculous, and he knows that the coalition of the diverse has no great love for the Ellis Island descendants including Jews. The dysfunctional Brazil-like United States of the future is likely to be worse for Jews than the founding stock-ruled United States of 1896.
    , @Anonym
    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What’s wrong with that? Why don’t YOU seem to like that scenario?

    Bingo. Immigration is something everyone is talking about now in white countries - negatively by white people. We won Brexit. We are 50:50 with Trump in play. One Nation in Australia picked up 4 senators, the only time it has ever succeeded in electing a senator nationally AFAIK. Le Pen, AfD are rising. The fight starts now. We can't put it off any longer. It is common knowledge that everywhere in the West faces the same problem.

    Still, I don't see the movement becoming functionally anti-Semitic despite ethnic origins of the Frankfurt School, Hart Celler, NYT ownership, Soros, and most of the assholes named Cohen that Steve fisks from time to time. You've got good guys like Milo, Miller and Steve, and others who are on our side. And half the iSteve commentariat.

    There is a reason why Duke and random KKK guy are endorsing Trump despite knowledge that his daughter procreates with a Jew and has a lot of Jews in the organization. The point is that we can handle the odd Jew here and there, we've done it for centuries. What we cannot handle is becoming minorities in countries that have been ours and being forced to maintain the wealth transfer and the kowtowing ad infinitum. Enough!
  66. One of the patterns you notice more and more these days is the descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses reasoning, “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

    Speaking of patterns – look at the search results for “Judeo Christian” with the Google ngram tool below. Does it fit Ellis Island immigration and influence patterns?

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo+Christian&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

  67. @International Jew
    That last scene from "Planet of the Apes" is cool, sure, but unrealistic. If the Statue of Liberty ever wound up collapsed on the beach like that, there's no way the arm with the torch would still be attached. In fact the whole thing would be bashed up by years of storms, eaten by rust and generally weathered beyond easy recognition.

    In a more realistic version of that last scene, Charlton Heston would find just a small piece of the statue — perhaps the plaque that bears the Zeroth Amendment!

    “That last scene from “Planet of the Apes” is cool, sure, but unrealistic.”

    Yeah, it detracted from the unflinching realism of the rest of the movie.

  68. Steve if youre going to bitch about the MSM censoring things, it helps not looking like a hypocrite by censoring anything that rises above the level of “mild handwringing” in your comments.

  69. OT: I think you have occasionally dealt with the topic of longevity, Steve. Here is a story (via Drudge) of the World’s (ostensibly) oldest man:

    145 Year Old Man

    I kinda doubt he’s really 145 years old. He doesn’t look a day over 95.

  70. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and…”

    There were no “historical wrongs” committed by Russia against jews.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The May Laws and the 1891 deportation of 20,000 Jews from Moscow supervised by Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich don't count?
  71. Sailer implicitly describes one of post-American liberalism’s most egregious double-standards. Liberals can and will judge all of Trump’s followers by the very worst of his supporters they can dredge up, what we call collective guilt. Yet unless every single liberal, or their post-American charges, is guilty of a given crime, don’t dare infer that any kind of pattern exists.

  72. @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    I think that is a fair and accurate desciption of things.

  73. One of the patterns you notice more and more these days is the descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses reasoning, “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up.

    Anne Coulter has similar notions. From her new book:

    “Liberals compulsively demand the importation of foreigners because of their seething hatred of the historic American nation. They won’t be happy until the DAR-eligible population is a tiny minority. Any culture that replaces American culture is an improvement, as far as they are concerned.”

  74. @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish “Fishtown”. The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don’t feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that’s how they feel.

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn’t make any more sense that Steve’s theory of the day. It’s true that many neocons don’t like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there’s anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    That doesn’t make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    • Agree: snorlax
    • Replies: @bomag

    What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either
     
    Jews have plenty of love for the low class and stupid. They hate those above them in status who they perceive as stupider than themselves.
    , @reiner Tor

    Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy.
     
    I guess you don't consider Wilhelm Marr's pamphlet Victory of Judaism over Germanism anti-Semitic, since by the time of writing he had already married two and a half Jewish women. Someone that happy to marry Jewish women can't be an anti-Semite, can he?

    I guess you would characterize his supposed anti-Semitism as essentially just anti-elitism, trying to stop the domination of German finance and culture by a small clique.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people."

    And so it is perfectly rational for those people to return that hatred, is it not?

    Your posts on this thread are a talking advertisement for the kind of hostility, smug ethnic special-pleading, and tone-deafness that, as more and more people are beginning to recognize, is so common among people like you.

    "That doesn’t make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources).

    Actually, europeans had an entire code of ethics, sexual morals, etc, even before christianity, but thanks for the condescension.

    "(Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.""

    But only the anti-Christian part ever seems to be expressed. Where are the contemporary left-wing critiques of orthodox Jews? Or of Hindus. Or even Muslims, for that matter?

    , @AnotherDad

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.
     
    Clearly there is *something* to what you're saying here. As Jews--Ashkenazi--have maintained themselves as separate endogamous minority among majority populations, it makes sense that they'd have a strong sense of how they are different and highlight that in their self-conception. "We're smart ... they are stupid!"

    However, a few random things:
    -- First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i've read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it's one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews. (I don't tend to know them, because my main contact with Jews has been through physics and then IT so both the Jews and gentiles are highly selected and well above average.)
    -- Furthermore there are quite a lot really pretty smart--above the Jewish mean--white folks out there in flyover country. The people who are successful out there--the successful farmers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, bankers, newspaper publishers, the people who actually make flyover country work--fit this bill.
    -- Re the analogy of white attitudes toward blacks. A) whites now days actually have fairly positive, or at least paternalistic attitudes toward blacks; they really *want* them to do well. B) the attitude whether hostile or paternalistic wasn't just "these are stupid people", it was a whole set of "black" behaviors, plus appearance; it really was\is "racial" in the sense of identifying blacks and black behavior as different.

    Finally, my main rejoinder: If it's just your "anti-stupidism", then
    a) why the idealization of blacks?--pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites
    b) why the incessant push to flood the nation with low IQ foreigners?

    It just doesn't wash. That Jews are brimming with lots of contempt for stupid people--it makes sense, it squares with my limited experience and i'll take your word for it. But if anit-stupidism explains the contempt and hatred for flyover country white gentiles, then there ought to be quite a bit *more* hatred and contempt and calumny visited upon blacks, plus there ought to be extreme Jewish resistance to mass (low skill--i.e. stupid people) immigration. These we absolutely do not see.

    No it's anti-japhetism. Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white-Christians with whom the Ashkenazi were butting heads--but refusing to leave their nations!--for a couple thousand years. Again, it's very clear both from the policy mix, Hollywood and the endless lectures from our Jewish "betters" in the chattering classes that it is not "stupid people", but specifically white people--especially flyover country white people (psychologically replacing the Russian peasantry)--who are deserving of contempt and should hurry up and die.
    , @Glaivester

    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above.
     
    Middle-class are still "rank-and-file." "JewE" primarily would be people who are very rich or who have some sort of influence (celebrities, media personalities, other media people).

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people.
     
    Not if they are non-white.

    That doesn’t make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching
     
    My point was that on average, American Jews stridently reject traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters, and are generally among those trying to push society to condemn such teaching. I think this is largely driven by the desire to distinguish themselves from Christians rather than by a positive sense of their own identity.
    , @Joe Walker
    American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people

    But this group includes anyone who disagrees with them such as the majority of white gentiles.
    , @Joe Walker
    So Jews don’t feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them

    Jews are part of the elite. Just look at the number of Jewish billionaires that there are in the world.
    , @Joe Walker
    Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    Since IQ is largely genetic, this means that these "tensions" as you call them will always exist as long as Jews and white gentiles live in the same countries. Shouldn't the Jews move to Israel so that we can end these tensions?
    , @tomv

    American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.
     
    Excellent. No prejudice against non-Jews, only against stupidity. And given the reality of a 1-SD IQ gap, it's not really prejudice if you think about it.

    After all, who's ever seen anything bad about country-club WASPs and the "white-bread" middle class in Jewish literature, journalism, and films over the years?

    Oh, you have? Well, then, they're obviously trash. Remember the 1-SD gap? The Jews have high standards, you know. Failing that, there's always anti-semitism.

    Meanwhile, ghetto Jews are celebrated because... chutzpah.

    A lesser people would save themselves and flee from stupid, low-class, and black-like gentiles the way whites flee from blacks. After all, Jewish-Gentile tension is inevitable (did I mention the 1-SD IQ gap?), and an obvious, well-defended safe haven is not lacking for the Jews.

    But no, they choose to continue to grace us with their presence, entirely out of altruism and at a great burden to themselves and their bloodline. Tikun olaming away until the gentiles see the error of our ways.
    , @Jefferson
    "If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either."

    Some Atheist Jews who look down on extremely religious Orthodox and Hasidic Jews. These are the type of Jews who love Palestinians more than they love Israel. They are students on college campuses trying to ban their fellow Jews like David Horowitz, Milo Yiannipoulos, Ben Shapiro, and Pamela Geller from speaking there.

    , @OilcanFloyd
    " American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions."

    1. There is a Jewish equivalent to trailer trash. Haven't you met trashy and dumb Jews before?
    2. I don't know about the average IQ of Jews being 115. For years, it was supposed to be around 105, or so. Where did the extra 10 points come from? Is it all the ones in the 260 range pulling the dullards up?
    3. It's one thing to dislike low iq criminals and miscreants, but to have it in for law abiding fellow citizens because you deem them stupid is toxic, and a good reason to be wary of Jewish intelligence. Nothing admirable there.
    4. Most whites would genuinely like to see blacks do well as a group, and recognize that the nation would be a far better place if they were on par with whites. Even those whites who despise blacks leave blacks alone, and generally don't view them as a group to be looted of what they do have. That's not quite the same as the Jewish attitude of "anti-stupidism."
    , @Ben Tzot-Abrit
    Jack, I agree that this wasn't one of Steve's better efforts. Particularly the editorial comment at the end, which was needlessly hyperbolic and not generally reflective of the way most Jews think (at least in my life experience as a Jew). However...

    American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people.
     
    This sentence is not one of your better efforts, either. Yes, more and more Jews are marrying out, and Jews are more Americanized than they were even in my youth (and I'm not that old). But it remains true that a minority (shrinking, but still significant) of American Jews still harbor some level of prejudice/suspicion toward non-Jews. And some of those who aren't prejudiced toward individual non-Jews are prejudiced toward non-Jews as a whole. And furthermore, that prejudice is often felt more strongly toward old-stock American WASPs than toward Arabs, blacks, Germans, et cetera.

    I think any Jew who denies having seen this amongst fellow Jews is being dishonest with himself.

  75. @Harry Baldwin
    Key Alt-Right websites the American Renaissance and VDARE ... both received more web visits last November than Dissent and Ms. The National Policy Institute and its Radix Journal together had many more visits than the neoconservative policy journal National Affairs.

    That brought a smile to my face. And after more articles like this, their traffic is bound to increase tenfold.

    Maybe we’ll get better trolls! I’m not holding my breath, though.

  76. Here I fixed it:

    (((… the American communists of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s.)))

    Hey, if the academic may shout vanilla! eight times in an 800 word article, I reserve the right to exercise the Naughticing™ skills as well.

  77. OT: URI professor Erik Loomis defends Nat Turner’s killing white children and says that unlike Andrew Jackson Turner shouldn’t be held to 21st century standards.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/nat-turner

  78. @candid_observer
    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can't, and shouldn't, be fought -- which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can't deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    No doubt a good deal of what's required to maximize harmony under those facts is to set realistic expectations in all parties as to outcomes. Some level of safety-net will be necessary, but will have to be calibrated to the expectations and responsibilities of the parties involved, so that the demands of those who create net negatives aren't too much of a burden on those who produce the net positives. Obviously this is not going to be an easy balance to get right, especially considering that the decisions are made democratically. Under democracy, of course, one side or the other can distort that balance, if their numbers overwhelm the other side (it may be the fatal flaw, for example, of South Africa -- there may be no stable political system that might work there acceptable to all parties).

    I don't see the US being in such a predicament so dire -- yet.

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    Maybe this is why (crytpo) Jews so often end up as the head of WN movements. Real WNs don’t seem capable of playing the chess game very far ahead. They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy. Maybe hatred makes you stupid or maybe it is as leftists say, that only stupid people are attracted – “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”.

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.

    From your mouth to God’s ear! I hope and pray that you are right.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-12/college-poll

    I don't recall an election where the difference in support by education levels
    is as wide as we're seeing in this election. It's as much so-called alt-right vs liberals as it is high school education (essentially no education) vs. advanced education. The idiots (and I use this word with sympatico because we're all born as idiots) are clearly in support of Trump.

    , @candid_observer
    I can't say I've read a particularly large amount of Taylor's writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.

    Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values. But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans -- the English specifically -- who established this country.

    We simply can't rewrite the demographic history of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century -- mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 -- how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.

    I see no reason we shouldn't return to that model.

    Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully--some because they don't want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).

    But among current immigrant groups who show every potential to become fully assimilated are East Asians and (most?) South Asians. Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won't say, because I just don't know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.

    Now the white nationalists -- maybe Taylor? -- seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don't see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It's blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.

    , @IA

    They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy.
     
    You associate white identity with stupidskinheadbigothaters – e.g., you make an appeal to the stupid white man's fear of being slandered as pure Evil because Nazis™ were white men, ergo all white men are potential Nazis™. You then state that said WN are so stupid that they need Jews to take over, I guess because Jews have the best interests of the stupid goyim at heart. You sound like a combination advertisement and wet dream for Jew-obsessives. Yin and Yang. You guys can't live without each other.
  79. Dirk Dagger [AKA "That's Not Who We Are"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @International Jew
    That last scene from "Planet of the Apes" is cool, sure, but unrealistic. If the Statue of Liberty ever wound up collapsed on the beach like that, there's no way the arm with the torch would still be attached. In fact the whole thing would be bashed up by years of storms, eaten by rust and generally weathered beyond easy recognition.

    In a more realistic version of that last scene, Charlton Heston would find just a small piece of the statue — perhaps the plaque that bears the Zeroth Amendment!

    In a more realistic version wouldn’t Lady Liberty be Niqābed holding a scimitar and a Holy Qur’an?

    • Replies: @bored identity
    More realistic version?

    In reality, the ideal MENApausing model of Lady Liberty would never be able to leave the house unescorted so she can just hang around Bedloe's Island .

    ...that's why Khan's gold star and crescent moon wifee hasn't been invited for the solo flight at the DNC.
  80. @snorlax
    The alt-right could really do without the anti-semites. It can worth pointing out when public figures (not all Jewish) propose opposite policies for America and Israel, but the rest of it accomplishes nothing except to instantly alienate a great many normies (again, not all Jewish).

    The anti-semites (for example, the ones in the comments section of this piece that was linked here yesterday) most of the time seem to be not even really interested in politics per se, but rather are paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy theorist types. If they weren't raving about the conspiracy of all Jews on Earth to get them, it would be the Illuminati or the Jesuits or FEMA or whatever.

    I agree that the ‘Jewish Question’ is a hindrance to most normies – it was to me, I agree that it looks skinhead-tier – but if it helps, think of them as a normal outgroup who want to break into / break down the in-group so that there won’t be an in-group they’re not part of. Only, thanks to their brains => money => power they’re a super out-group, much more effective than normal. And of course, Not All Jews are Like That, /but there are enough that are/! I could dig through my ‘memes’ folder from /pol/ and show you quotes that would make the point more convincing, but here’s a starter:

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    George Soros would be a better example, and he may actually be paying Barbara Spectre, for all I know.

    I don't know how smart Jews are, but I do know that their intelligence would be corrosive if they tend towards radicalism and ethnocentrism. I also know that whites are more than capable of creating pleasant and advanced communities and nations without Jews, Africans, Mexicans, or anyone else.
    , @Anonymous
    Barbara Lerner Spectre is not some Jewish equivalent of a pope. She does not speak for all of us.
  81. @Jack D

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.
     
    Maybe this is why (crytpo) Jews so often end up as the head of WN movements. Real WNs don't seem capable of playing the chess game very far ahead. They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy. Maybe hatred makes you stupid or maybe it is as leftists say, that only stupid people are attracted - "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools".

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.
     
    From your mouth to God's ear! I hope and pray that you are right.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-12/college-poll

    I don’t recall an election where the difference in support by education levels
    is as wide as we’re seeing in this election. It’s as much so-called alt-right vs liberals as it is high school education (essentially no education) vs. advanced education. The idiots (and I use this word with sympatico because we’re all born as idiots) are clearly in support of Trump.

  82. So we’ve reached the “then they fight you” phase. Trump has advanced us two phases in one year–we were being ignored, then they tried to laugh at us but Trump so deftly turned it all around on them that they’ve given up, and new we get to fight.

    Hillary’s attacks on the “alt-right” have awakened a sleeping giant. Two weeks ago nobody had heard of it, and even now it probably sounds to most people like her “vast right wing conspiracy” mutterings. But, in reality, millions will look into the ideas now. The ideas are compelling.

    Accordingly, Alt-Right organizations made robocalls for Trump in the Iowa, New Hampshire and Utah primaries.

    He’s obviously defining “alt-right” very broadly. Doesn’t he know we can’t afford robocalls?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I guess all that can be done now is to thank her:

    https://youtu.be/sgPjmfTOQrs
  83. I’m a little confused at the derogatory reference to Emma Lazarus. She wrote her poem about two decades before your Swiss grandparents came to the U.S., so was her pro-immigrant paean inappropriate?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    so was her pro-immigrant paean inappropriate?
     
    Mediocre poetry should never be used as the basis for policy.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Her "pro-immigrant paean" is actually the quintessential example of the current mindset: anti-male, anti-West Civ, and pro-my-ethnicity, as I explained here:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-establishment-is-so-berserk-over-trump-talking-sense-on-immigration/#comment-1455828

    Please read and digest before posting pro-Zeroeth Amendment comments.
  84. @SFG
    I don't think you're really talking about the alt-right, though. You might be postulating a 'soft-alt-right' that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn't have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that's not the movement as it exists now. (You could argue that it might be more successful, but that's another story.)

    Yeah, I subscribe to the Breitbart/Trumpist (though not necessarily Trump) style alt-right/“alt-center” as a political strategy, not the Daily Stormer/David Duke stuff[*] (which I also find objectionable).

    I’m not exactly alone in this — Breitbart gets about 10000x more page views than the ‘Stormer, and Trump’ll win at least 75x more votes than Duke ever did.

    [*] As the other extreme within the alt-right, not to say there isn’t plenty of territory in the middle.

  85. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either

    Jews have plenty of love for the low class and stupid. They hate those above them in status who they perceive as stupider than themselves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews hate those above them in status who they perceive as stupider than themselves.

    Classic jewish apologetics. In fact, jews hate those groups of equal or superior intellectual, social, and physical talents, whom they perceive as rivals for resources and as a magnet for assimilation.

    Jews have plenty of love for the low class and stupid.

    Only to the extent jews can exploit such people as a weapon or dilutionary solvent against people jews perceive as rivals.
  86. @candid_observer
    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can't, and shouldn't, be fought -- which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can't deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    No doubt a good deal of what's required to maximize harmony under those facts is to set realistic expectations in all parties as to outcomes. Some level of safety-net will be necessary, but will have to be calibrated to the expectations and responsibilities of the parties involved, so that the demands of those who create net negatives aren't too much of a burden on those who produce the net positives. Obviously this is not going to be an easy balance to get right, especially considering that the decisions are made democratically. Under democracy, of course, one side or the other can distort that balance, if their numbers overwhelm the other side (it may be the fatal flaw, for example, of South Africa -- there may be no stable political system that might work there acceptable to all parties).

    I don't see the US being in such a predicament so dire -- yet.

    >It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    >In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can’t deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    What do you mean by “deal with” and “work with”?

    Based on the first paragraph it sounds like you are using those phrases to mean “accept as a permanent condition and make no attempt to change” .

    Are you suggesting that WNs (or anyone) should not work (“fight…battle”) to change the demographic balance of the US?

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we've got.

    Obviously, we can choose to curtail immigration so that the demographics don't get even more challenging from the standpoint of supporting a nation in some harmony.

    But I'm not sure how we could significantly adjust the already existing demographic balance, so, yes, we pretty much have to work with the demographics we've got.
  87. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    Short version: “We’re the Chosen People, damn it!”.

    I get that *everyone* likes to think they are some wonder of the world–it’s human nature. But this Jewish inability to admit that they are not-critical to America, the West, civilization, the world just sort of takes the cake.

    I’m half Irish-Catholic. I’m super-glad my Irish great-grandfathers\mothers got their asses on the boat to get the heck outta that blight infested isle and got themselves out onto the fertile American prairie. But i’m not under the slightest illusion, that America’s awesomeness, it’s freedom, it’s rule-of-law, it’s prosperity in any way shape or form depended on the Irish. America already had all those things, from its Anglo-Saxon heritage (genes and culture) conquering a rich continent, before the Irish showed up. Actually, the Irish almost certainly made it worse! Not *my* (lace-curtain) people of course, but those other (shanty) Irish–like the Kennedys ;-)

    Same with the Jews–not required; made it worse. Of course, the Jews are way smarter on average than the Irish and have contributed mightily and usefully in the sciences and medicine. But they’ve been an even bigger disaster politically–perhaps a fatal one. Seriously, with knowledge of the situation now, if you were a level-headed member of the WASP elites in 1890 you’d say “We can’t let the Jews come here they will be a radical, hostile, balkanizing, anti-republican, anti-American disaster for our nation.” (And i guess i’d throw in hubristic.)

    Taylor is simply right. The success of the American nation is rooted in the long developing political tradition of England that combined parlimentary democracy, rule of law and rights of Englishmen *plus* the gene and culture of package of NW Europeans–IQ and decent levels of conscientiousness, (broad, non-tribal) cooperation and creativity.

    And it’s not as if we have to guess. This is one of those rare social science deals where we have at least some controls to look at. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all had the same Anglo-Saxon root, but got different “propositions”, integrated different native populations and had different levels of “Ellis Island” style immigration. I think the verdict would be that those places don’t suck … but were and are pretty darn nice! (Even with less ideal geographic and resource packages.) The experiment’s been done, this wave packet has collapsed.

    ~~~
    Finally …

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.

    Seriously Jack? Look i’m glad to have any Jews we can get on the white\nationalist\traditionalist\save-Western-civ side. But please, spare us the ridiculous denials.

    I can click up practically any story on Slate or in the NYT on these topics and find that sneering “let’s rub their noses in it” attitude from your co-ethnics. It used to be a bit more subtle, of late it seems to me to be blatant and practically de-riguer–take that you loathsome old flyover country white Christian we’re going to drown your disgusting ass in vibrant diversity.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Taylor is simply right. The success of the American nation is rooted in the long developing political tradition of England that combined parlimentary democracy, rule of law and rights of Englishmen *plus* the gene and culture of package of NW Europeans–IQ and decent levels of conscientiousness, (broad, non-tribal) cooperation and creativity."

    Yet you are giving a free pass to your Irish ancestors, who clearly were unwanted by nativists, as being capable of embracing exclusively English-created traditions at that time--even though you admit that your kind almost "ruined it"--while stating that non-Europeans are utterly incapable of it now.

    Hypocrite.
  88. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    “And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against “Invite the World” that don’t require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.”

    Of course, this speech wouldn’t serve as alienation to German-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, who seek to limit immigration or to reduce the size and scope of government, right? RIGHT?

    “Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don’t understand that the Alt-Right doesn’t give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can’t get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn’t conserved so much as women’s bathrooms. We don’t want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.”

    “Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.”

    [Note that those white Americans who are "true" Americans are only from Great Britain, although it is conveniently not mentioned here]

    “Yes, it is certainly possible for an individual, of any race, culture, or heritage, to admire and accept and adopt the ways of another people. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who do sort of thing. But the observable fact throughout all of recorded human history is that those individuals are very rare. In fact, that’s why they make movies about them. No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.”

  89. “Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world.”

    Indeed, but are you not also pushing matters in that same direction with your own pronouncements as being “the truth”, with little or no room for debate?

    “Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.”

    

Like the fictitious “Zeroth Amendment” or the “cuckservative” meme? Are these not rhetoric designed for greedy consumption for the Coalition of the Fringes Right?

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part–again, an important component–there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those “facts” and “truths”, again, you are probably “anti-white”. That’s what a number of commenters here promote.

    So why on earth would whites–when the definition of what is white has yet to be completely defined, at least from my point of view–in general embrace a movement that castigates their own personal decisions regarding what is race, what is culture, and what is hierarchy?

    Now Jared Taylor stated, “That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?””

    

Except Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past. 
It reminds me of an 1880’s political cartoon.

    http://museum.msu.edu/exhibitions/virtual/immigrationandcaricature/7572-749.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You' ve got it absolutely, completely and totally wrong. For your sake, I hope it's through dishonesty rather than through ignorance.

    Look, the Algerians, in living memory fought a long brutal and bloody war with the French - horrific torture was used by both sides- in order to make Algeria Algerian. That is they wanted their French interlopers, conquerors and rulers out purely and simply because they were alien, and for no other reason, and they wished to have rule by Algerians for Algerians - whatever the price on bloodshed or economic loss.
    Similar examples from the age of decolonization abound. Now, the anti immigration/nationalist sentiment currently rising in Europe is rooted in much the same instinct and general feeling ofva slow-burn take over/ conquest of ancestral lands by self serving aliens.
  90. Here is the Alt-Right’s “big tent”, or “consensus”, as summarized by paworldandtimes. I numbered them for convenience.

    1) Blacks. They require assistance in achieving and maintaining a level of civic and material comfort on par with that of other races. Quantity + Equality = Can’t Have Nice Things.

    2) Christianity. It is not an internally settled matter. For some, Christian faith is a non-negotiable foundation of our identity with implications on the afterlife. Others see it as detrimental to our vitality.

    3) Democracy. In its present form, it is the rule by those who control the formation of public opinion and whose interests are not aligned with the interests of the voters. The two-party system in the United States is real, just like pro wrestling.

    4) Family. While the role of extended families varies by culture, the traditional patriarchal model is the only one that provides a healthy environment for raising children.

    5) Immigration. It is harmful to Western nations at present levels, low-skill immigration in particular. Manifest incompatibility between host and guest populations belie the economic- or demography-based arguments in favor of mass immigration.

    6) Institutions. Traditionally conservative or masculine institutions such as the Republican party, the military, large corporations, mainline churches, and professional sports have been coopted by liberalism.

    7) Islam. Don’t let it in.

    8) Jews. As self-identified minorities with an enduring identity, they have acquired — justly or not — a reputation for subverting their host nations. Israel is a model of practical nationalism.

    9) Multiculturalism. Diversity is not our strength. The involuntary comingling of disparate peoples is not “enriching.”

    10) Race. It is a fundamental element of a human being’s identity. The human biodiversity model is predictive on the macro scale.

    11) Religion. A purely materialist philosophy is insufficient as a pillar of a culture or an ethical system. Nobody wants to die over a contract.

    12) Russia. It is not a potential threat to any Western nation beyond her near-abroad European neighbors. An enemy-of-an-enemy is an ally, and our common adversary is U.S.-led globalism.

    13) Sex. The female is attracted to male power, charm, and confidence. She has contempt for male weakness or supplication. The male is attracted to the female’s youth, beauty, and femininity and is repulsed by her physical or moral decay.

    14) USA. Her foreign and domestic policy is controlled by interests whose ambitions are at odds with the welfare of her own citizens, the existential question of Western nations, and geopolitical stability.

    15) Whites. Interracial obligations do not justify self-destructive sacrifice on the part of the White benefactor, nor are they mandated by any notion of historic debt. Charges of racism fail to explain the disparity between the achievements of Whites and others.

    16) Women. They crave male leadership and go batshit without it. Given the power, they will destroy their world, especially from the voting booth. Don’t listen to what she says — watch what she does.

    A LOT to take in here.

    According to the author, he states “Now, you put Lawrence Auster, Steve Sailer, Half Sigma/LoTB, Vox Day, the MRA guys from The Spearhead, Dalrock, Jared Taylor, Heartiste, Roosh, Mencius Moldbug (prior to his latest “distancing”), Thordaddy, Tanstaafl, and a hardline WN in the same room. Is there any item on my list which they will reject as too right wing or otherwise as too radical?”

    To me, the key for the growth of Alt-Right movement is NOT whether these pillars of the community reject one or more items as being “too right wing” or “too radical”, but to what extent will existing members or new recruits be able to voice opposing arguments and to what extent will there be cohesion and consistency in the implementation of those principles in practice.

    Moreover, how will “cucks”, “neo-cons”, and “anti-whites”, or for that matter the general American public, specifically address these points?

    • Replies: @Camlost
    Rock on, Curryvinus !!
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A LOT to take in here.
     
    If you understand all the (plainly stated, IMO reasonable) cited points/concerns, what makes you so consistently contrarian vis-a-vis the ‘pro-white’ commenters here at iSteve?

    You seem intelligent enough that I don’t think you suffer from true kumbaya/equalist ignorance… I’m guessing it’s resentment of some sort? Maybe you don’t ‘look white’ so you fear white hegemony/dominance? You just like to argue?
  91. @Jack D

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.
     
    Maybe this is why (crytpo) Jews so often end up as the head of WN movements. Real WNs don't seem capable of playing the chess game very far ahead. They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy. Maybe hatred makes you stupid or maybe it is as leftists say, that only stupid people are attracted - "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools".

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.
     
    From your mouth to God's ear! I hope and pray that you are right.

    I can’t say I’ve read a particularly large amount of Taylor’s writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.

    Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values. But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans — the English specifically — who established this country.

    We simply can’t rewrite the demographic history of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century — mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 — how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.

    I see no reason we shouldn’t return to that model.

    Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully–some because they don’t want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).

    But among current immigrant groups who show every potential to become fully assimilated are East Asians and (most?) South Asians. Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won’t say, because I just don’t know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.

    Now the white nationalists — maybe Taylor? — seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don’t see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It’s blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    America is arguably in its golden era right now. What was so great about the 00s, 10s, 20s, 30s, or the 40s or 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Average six-pack White America had one special decade, the 50s. Off a war and when everywhere else was leveled. Yet, the commentators here and Steve make a fantasy of this one decade as if this time was natural baseline for white America. Bullsh+t.
    , @Corvinus
    "I can’t say I’ve read a particularly large amount of Taylor’s writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements."

    Absolutely. It seems to me a number of Alt-Right philosophers and supporters are from the South.

    "Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values."

    The American white population in general does not trumpet nor promote "Western Civilization". They embrace American capitalism, American representative government, and American culture.

    "But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans — the English specifically — who established this country."

    Actually, it does make complete sense. Eastern and Southern Europeans were cited by nativists for explicitly lacking any "interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.” Yet, some of those descendants are claiming that groups other than European are incapable of assimilating into American society. The same argument is being used then as it is now.

    "Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century — mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 — how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation."

    You do realize that the quota system from the 1920's was in full force, that Western/Northern European immigrants were preferred compared to Eastern/Southern Europeans. Why?

    "Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully–some because they don’t want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior)."

    What is your definition of "truly assimilate"? What metrics are involved?

    "Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won’t say, because I just don’t know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation."

    Well, why not have the same attitudes toward Africans or "mestizos"? Are these groups "biologically deficient" in their ability to assimilate? Is there a genetic component involved?

    "Now the white nationalists — maybe Taylor? — seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don’t see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It’s blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them."

    So now we have exceptions? Would not these groups further taint the whiteness of America?

    , @Anonym
    Do you really want to live in East or South Asia? I could be happy anywhere in NW Europe and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe. But South Asia is a shithole, SE Asia is a shithole, and East Asia is a hive, with a big dose of corruption of backscratching that will see our quaint ideas of fair play bring a knife to a gun fight.

    Importing these people results in our countries becoming more like them and we becoming clannish and corrupt ourselves so as to compete.
  92. Correction: Emma Lazarus was a Founding Mother of the United States. She and other Founding Mothers were written out of Official History by badwhites like Thomas Jefferson.
    In recognition of this, one day ( soon ) Bill Clinton will resign from Trump National and change his name to William Lazarus Clinton.

  93. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    You’ve got a knack for concern trolling anti-anti-semitism. Don’t mean that in a belittling way or anything, I know where you are coming from.

    The basic gist is that Whites will wake up or not and deal with or fail to deal with the planned destruction of their civilization.

    If Jews want to be part of that solution, fine. If Jewish “voices and leaders” continue to oppose white interests in Europe and America due to some morbid historical perspective of Hitler, the tsar, Ellis island schmaltz or whatever then they shouldn’t cry when awakened white gentiles start calling them the enemy again when they try and take their nations back. If innocent middle class Jews get caught in the crossfire well sorry, they should have done a better job leashing in their elites supposedly speaking on their behalf.

    I’m only in my 20′s so I don’t have the attachment that older isteve readers have to the concept of the good old USA. Ammmuurrriiccaaa is a shopping mall on its way to closing in some form or another, and I just hope it won’t take white America with it.

    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The basic gist is that Whites will wake up or not and deal with or fail to deal with the planned destruction of their civilization."

    It's not White civilization, it's the civilization of Americans, which consist of different races and ethnic groups.

    Praytell, what is your ancestry? I hope it is from the British Isles. Otherwise, if you they were German, or Irish, or Italian, or Polish, they weren't desired here by nativists, for they were deemed totally incapable of understanding limited government principles and the Rights of Englishmen. Were those nativists wrong in their assessment?

    Don't blame me, I'm simply reporting what is said to be factual.
  94. @YIH
    How the Lizard Queen and the MSM see ''the alt-right'':
    http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/de5c786dcad82bd6712ff1b32e8ed51d2c2018c4.jpg
    I was surprised to see the photo of Steve holding the rabbit...

    deleted

  95. And Steve’s intuition is prescriptive as ever – the vast majority of prominent contemporary thinkers are working around the clock and the Constitution to convince the peasants how inevitable is to accept sooner rather than later the eternal greatness and wisdom of the Zeroth Amendment:

    Thomas J. Main’s edited volume, IS THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION OBSOLETE?, asks an important question, a question that orients us politically to the founding document. The book’s actual question, addressed by some of the most prominent contemporary constitutional thinkers is, are parts of the Constitution antidemocratic by our contemporary understanding of “democracy?”

    (from The Law and Politics Book Review)

  96. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy.

    I guess you don’t consider Wilhelm Marr’s pamphlet Victory of Judaism over Germanism anti-Semitic, since by the time of writing he had already married two and a half Jewish women. Someone that happy to marry Jewish women can’t be an anti-Semite, can he?

    I guess you would characterize his supposed anti-Semitism as essentially just anti-elitism, trying to stop the domination of German finance and culture by a small clique.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I guess you would characterize his supposed anti-Semitism as essentially just anti-elitism, trying to stop the domination of German finance and culture by a small clique.

    Earnest questions: How do you characterize or explain Marr? What do you think motivated him?
  97. It is not “the Jewwwwwssssss! you idiot! What was the question?” that makes Cultural Marxism run. It is Lennonism. That Post-Christian, lazy utopian globalism that posits that all peoples are the same, except the native Whites who are bad. This is a feature, not a bug, of Germanic/Scandinavian culture married to a Universalist Christianism or post-Christianism. It is present in Angela Merkel and her many, many supporters who make her still popular (though declining). It is present in suicidal Norway and Sweden, and much of the GOP Midwestern Nice “Cuck” Establishment, like Paul Ryan and the like.

    Support for say, mass Third World immigration is pretty low among Howard Stern followers, and about zero for Stern himself who backs Trump. It is pretty high among people like say, Chelsea Handler or Hillary Clinton.

    A good deal of this is the stupidity of Oppositional Culture as the central feature of our ruling elites. They posture against ‘the Man’ when they are in fact, ‘the Man.’

    Take almost any Hollywood screenwriter/producer/director. Its hard not to be ‘the Man’ when you run a movie, a TV show, etc. George Lucas is the Man. He has billions of dollars, runs his own empire, created Star Wars, co-created Raiders, he is about as influential and powerful as it gets. Every President would take his phone call. Yet he postures as some sort of outsider, so of course he will back unlimited Third World immigration into the US.

    Angela Merkel, same thing. Also with Francois Hollande, or Tony Blair, or George W. Bush, scion of privilege who adopted an “outsider Texas” persona instead of a happy aristocratic protector one.

    Look at Farage, the most successful anti-Immigration on a wide scale pol in the West. He succeeded not as an outsider running an establishment, bashing said establishment, like say Obama, but one intent on preserving the old sense of national protection to the people by the old ruling establishment. He’s a happy Restorationist not a permanent revolutionary ideologue intent on making one giant Lennon Imagine Song that never ends.

    • Replies: @Danindc
    Stern is backing Hillary - he's said it many times. Why lie?
  98. Taylor, of course, is right, which is why the Mains of the world can point and sputter all they want. It won’t change what’s coming.

    The U.S. is on its way to becoming Brazil of the North. What I can’t figure out is how is that good for the Jews? The pummeling of whites will reach a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly so why keep pushing it.

  99. Amren and VDARE being labelled “key alt-right” sites makes me kind of depressed. Even linking to r/kotakuinaction (Gamergate) or 4chan would be better.

    • Replies: @SFG
    As I said on the other post, you have to be a white gentile to be fully alt-right. It's perfectly possible to be anti-invade-invite-in hock-to-the-world, but if you don't have the ancestry standings it's something else. American nationalist? Soft-alt-right? I don't like it personally, as I don't fit the bill and I'm sympathetic to many of their positions, and it may be counterproductive, but that seems to be the way they defined their movement.
  100. @the cruncher
    I agree that the 'Jewish Question' is a hindrance to most normies - it was to me, I agree that it looks skinhead-tier - but if it helps, think of them as a normal outgroup who want to break into / break down the in-group so that there won't be an in-group they're not part of. Only, thanks to their brains => money => power they're a super out-group, much more effective than normal. And of course, Not All Jews are Like That, /but there are enough that are/! I could dig through my 'memes' folder from /pol/ and show you quotes that would make the point more convincing, but here's a starter:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

    George Soros would be a better example, and he may actually be paying Barbara Spectre, for all I know.

    I don’t know how smart Jews are, but I do know that their intelligence would be corrosive if they tend towards radicalism and ethnocentrism. I also know that whites are more than capable of creating pleasant and advanced communities and nations without Jews, Africans, Mexicans, or anyone else.

  101. I’m sure all of you grew up watching Mad Max and The Road Warrior movies. Like me at the time you probably thought the World was destroyed by a devastating Nuclear War which made rebuilding Civilization impossible and only small groups of survivalists survived.
    But now we know better don’t we? Even a massive Nuclear Holocaust could not stop Mankind from rebuilding. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki Today. No those mutant gangs with an overmuscled maniac and his homosexual mohawked partner are a result not of mere nuclear radiation, but years of tolerance in primary schools. That crazy feminist who “saves” those women from being wives of an Alpha Male Powerful Ruler and having children so they can live in the desert with loony feminist lesbians is why Mankind cannot rebuild society.
    Lets face it, a Single Nuclear War would not completely destroy all of Western Civilization. Eventually they would rebuild the cities and remake the laws to prevent such catastrophes in the future like Judge Dredd’s Maga-City One. No what destroyed their society was tolerance, for feminism and homosexuality and crime. That’s why The Road Warrior lives in the dessicated unbuilt ruins of abandoned cities where mutant homosexual gangs and crazy feminist lesbians roam about and attack patriarchy and normal families trying to have normal healthy societies.
    The Alt-Right is Right. We cannot go on this way. Mad Max is the dark dystopian cyberpunk future these globalist corporate greedy fools are building.

  102. @OilcanFloyd
    @Snorlax:

    Jews could also try purging their own community of radicals, anti-whites, anti-Christians, etc.

    Liberals, of whatever ethnicity or religion, have no need to purge their movement of such people, because they’re winning.

    The right, by contrast, in particular the “alt-right” and its predecessors, has been routed in every battle they’ve fought for as there’s been an identifiable right and left.

    Only possible exception the Cold War, but, even then, the unilateral-nuclear-disarmament/muh-civil-liberties/poor-little-brown-freedom-fighters brigade was 90% of the way to victory when the commies had the bad manners to croak on them.

    The right, especially the alt-right, does not get any free passes or easy paths to victory, so it needs to be laser-focused on winning. Those who put complaining above winning are worse than useless.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    The right is losing because its so-called leaders have refused to deal with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of its opponents. Those leaders now appear to be in the process of being pushed to the side. If minorities making up far less than 50% of the population in the past took on the majority, then a push back is more than doable in the foreseeable future, and would be far less radical than what has been done by the coalition of the left. It's ugly either way.
  103. @Bee
    I'm a little confused at the derogatory reference to Emma Lazarus. She wrote her poem about two decades before your Swiss grandparents came to the U.S., so was her pro-immigrant paean inappropriate?

    so was her pro-immigrant paean inappropriate?

    Mediocre poetry should never be used as the basis for policy.

  104. @27 year old
    >It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.

    >In the end, no political philosophy is going to make any headway if it can’t deal with demographic facts on the ground. The US has the sets of people it has, in the numbers it has them. Our political and social system has to work with those facts.

    What do you mean by "deal with" and "work with"?

    Based on the first paragraph it sounds like you are using those phrases to mean "accept as a permanent condition and make no attempt to change" .

    Are you suggesting that WNs (or anyone) should not work ("fight...battle") to change the demographic balance of the US?

    What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we’ve got.

    Obviously, we can choose to curtail immigration so that the demographics don’t get even more challenging from the standpoint of supporting a nation in some harmony.

    But I’m not sure how we could significantly adjust the already existing demographic balance, so, yes, we pretty much have to work with the demographics we’ve got.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we’ve got."

    No- that's what secession and war are for.
    , @27 year old
    Why do you say that? ((The other side)) certainly didn't feel they were "stuck with" the previous American demographics. They worked hard for 50+ years and they changed them. Why don't you think we could do the same?
    , @TangoMan
    What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we’ve got.

    Scenario: Your wife is cheating on you, cheating with 12 men simultaneously. You're stuck in your marriage and you have to make it work and you have to come to terms with the fact that you're only one of thirteen men who has sex with your wife.

    Why are you stuck in that marriage?

    You seem to be taking a lot for granted in your analysis with respect to the permanence of present-day facts. Democracy is not a given. National unity is not a given. Letting everyone stay is not a given.

    If America cannot be made to work in a situation where we honor your givens, then it becomes like a marriage with a cheating wife - the marriage can't work with the present-day facts that the wife is having multiple, concurrent affairs, and so the marriage ends. Life goes on. If America can't be made to work, America ends, and life goes on.
    , @Pericles
    You're obviously not stuck with your demographics. Where's the can-do attitude of Ted Kennedy in young progressives these days?
  105. @Tiny Duck
    "alt-right" is all about whiteness and anger that the western world is getting brown. donald trump will revive the jim crow ideology.


    The Alt-Right is bigots latest attempt to cling to their rational for bigotry.

    The Alt-Right = White Nationalism = White Supremacy = Racism

    Bannon is a leader of the Alt-Right movement.

    Trump has played his hand. Trump is Alt-Righter.

    The Alt-Right must not be allowed to gain control of our government.

    Trump must be defeated at the polls, and so must every candidate who refuses to repudiate the racism of the Alt-Right.

    Eventually, they will go down defeat, hopefully laws will be passed to make sure this stuff is done away with

    I should be very interested for you to disclose the racial demography of your zip code, available here: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

  106. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    “What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people.”

    And so it is perfectly rational for those people to return that hatred, is it not?

    Your posts on this thread are a talking advertisement for the kind of hostility, smug ethnic special-pleading, and tone-deafness that, as more and more people are beginning to recognize, is so common among people like you.

    “That doesn’t make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources).

    Actually, europeans had an entire code of ethics, sexual morals, etc, even before christianity, but thanks for the condescension.

    “(Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.””

    But only the anti-Christian part ever seems to be expressed. Where are the contemporary left-wing critiques of orthodox Jews? Or of Hindus. Or even Muslims, for that matter?

  107. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    “Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world.”

    Indeed, but are you not also pushing matters in that same direction with your own pronouncements as being “the truth”, with little or no room for debate?

    “Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.”

    

Like the fictitious “Zeroth Amendment” or the “cuckservative” meme? Are these not rhetoric designed for greedy consumption for the Coalition of the Fringes Right?

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part–again, an important component–there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those “facts” and “truths”, again, you are probably “anti-white”. That’s what a number of commenters here promote.

    So why on earth would whites–when the definition of what is white has yet to be completely defined, at least from my point of view–in general embrace a movement that castigates their own personal decisions regarding what is race, what is culture, and what is hierarchy?

    Now Jared Taylor stated, “That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?””

    

Except Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past. 
It reminds me of an 1880’s political cartoon.

    http://museum.msu.edu/exhibitions/virtual/immigrationandcaricature/7572-749.html

    You’ ve got it absolutely, completely and totally wrong. For your sake, I hope it’s through dishonesty rather than through ignorance.

    Look, the Algerians, in living memory fought a long brutal and bloody war with the French – horrific torture was used by both sides- in order to make Algeria Algerian. That is they wanted their French interlopers, conquerors and rulers out purely and simply because they were alien, and for no other reason, and they wished to have rule by Algerians for Algerians – whatever the price on bloodshed or economic loss.
    Similar examples from the age of decolonization abound. Now, the anti immigration/nationalist sentiment currently rising in Europe is rooted in much the same instinct and general feeling ofva slow-burn take over/ conquest of ancestral lands by self serving aliens.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "You’ ve got it absolutely, completely and totally wrong. For your sake, I hope it’s through dishonesty rather than through ignorance."

    Corvinus is both dishonest and stupid.
    , @L Woods
    I know this universalist 'nationalism for all peoples' thing appeals to the white man's virtue signaling objectivist impulse and everything, but I really don't think the cause of the FLN is worth lauding. Algeria was naught but a haven of piracy and barbarism before the French arrived.
  108. @Jack D

    It does seem to me that Taylor seems often to be fighting battles that can’t, and shouldn’t, be fought — which seems to be almost always true of so-called white nationalists.
     
    Maybe this is why (crytpo) Jews so often end up as the head of WN movements. Real WNs don't seem capable of playing the chess game very far ahead. They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy. Maybe hatred makes you stupid or maybe it is as leftists say, that only stupid people are attracted - "anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools".

    I don’t see the US being in such a predicament so dire — yet.
     
    From your mouth to God's ear! I hope and pray that you are right.

    They keep falling into easy traps that they should see coming a mile away. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are their own worst enemy.

    You associate white identity with stupidskinheadbigothaters – e.g., you make an appeal to the stupid white man’s fear of being slandered as pure Evil because Nazis™ were white men, ergo all white men are potential Nazis™. You then state that said WN are so stupid that they need Jews to take over, I guess because Jews have the best interests of the stupid goyim at heart. You sound like a combination advertisement and wet dream for Jew-obsessives. Yin and Yang. You guys can’t live without each other.

  109. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Steve, you’re being a bit intellectually dishonest here.

    Paleoconservatism, which is not anti-American, overlaps somewhat with the alt-right, but the alt-right largely grew out of a rejection of even paleoconservatism in the early 21st century as basically wrong ideologically and a failure in practical politics.

    We don’t need to take the liberals’ word for it. The alt-right is influenced by European right-wing anti-Americanism, and there are alt-right figures who claim that they’re anti-American or suggest it implicitly by adopting certain European New Right positions.

    It’s probably most accurate to describe the alt-right as a post-American ideology that is international, racialist, and illiberal, rather than focused on being anti-American per se.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Straight from the (white) horse's mouth:

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/769332172935172096
  110. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SFG
    I don't think you're really talking about the alt-right, though. You might be postulating a 'soft-alt-right' that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn't have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that's not the movement as it exists now. (You could argue that it might be more successful, but that's another story.)

    You might be postulating a ‘soft-alt-right’ that favors curtailing immigration, avoiding foreign wars, and policy predicated on American interests as opposed to others, but doesn’t have explicit criteria of ancestry for entry, but that’s not the movement as it exists now.

    That is precisely the movement that exists now.

  111. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Joe Walker
    “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”

    Actually groups such as the Irish and Italians have been telling the WASPs for decades that they should limit immigration to white Christian Europeans but the WASPs just dismissed this as mick/wop nonsense.

    Actually groups such as the Irish and Italians have been telling the WASPs for decades that they should limit immigration to white Christian Europeans but the WASPs just dismissed this as mick/wop nonsense.

    What a load of BS. Name a single example.

  112. Here’s what Vox Day considers the Alt right to be:

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/

    The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
    The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
    The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
    The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
    The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
    The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
    The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
    The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
    The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
    The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
    The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
    The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
    The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
    The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
    The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
    The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigr

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Spencer's more or less on board with that list:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/so-thats-settled.html

    It's a decent start.
    , @Mr. Anon
    As a kind of Nicene creed, that isn't bad.
    , @Boomstick
    What's with the inclusion of the 14 words, something straight from the Nazis?
  113. @Anonymous
    One of the oddest planks in Steve's agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 ("Ellis Island immigration").

    He's maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.

    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem.

    Hopeless!

    That sort of cucked, liberal trolling might have worked here ten years ago, might have. But now you’re just wasting your time troll.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Would you like to offer a substantive response or are you just an idiot?
  114. “The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s”

    The mainstream media which is run by Leftists is now all of a sudden anti-communist?

    • Replies: @Abe

    “The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s”

    The mainstream media which is run by Leftists is now all of a sudden anti-communist?
     
    Yes, which is why just recently they spent a lot of money to hire that BREAKING BAD guy to star in a movie about communist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, despite knowing it would probably not break even. Because they hate communism so much and wanted to show what dirty rats sympathizers like Trumbo were. Oh wait...
  115. @snorlax
    Liberals, of whatever ethnicity or religion, have no need to purge their movement of such people, because they're winning.

    The right, by contrast, in particular the "alt-right" and its predecessors, has been routed in every battle they've fought for as there's been an identifiable right and left.

    Only possible exception the Cold War, but, even then, the unilateral-nuclear-disarmament/muh-civil-liberties/poor-little-brown-freedom-fighters brigade was 90% of the way to victory when the commies had the bad manners to croak on them.

    The right, especially the alt-right, does not get any free passes or easy paths to victory, so it needs to be laser-focused on winning. Those who put complaining above winning are worse than useless.

    The right is losing because its so-called leaders have refused to deal with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of its opponents. Those leaders now appear to be in the process of being pushed to the side. If minorities making up far less than 50% of the population in the past took on the majority, then a push back is more than doable in the foreseeable future, and would be far less radical than what has been done by the coalition of the left. It’s ugly either way.

  116. @candid_observer
    I can't say I've read a particularly large amount of Taylor's writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.

    Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values. But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans -- the English specifically -- who established this country.

    We simply can't rewrite the demographic history of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century -- mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 -- how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.

    I see no reason we shouldn't return to that model.

    Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully--some because they don't want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).

    But among current immigrant groups who show every potential to become fully assimilated are East Asians and (most?) South Asians. Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won't say, because I just don't know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.

    Now the white nationalists -- maybe Taylor? -- seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don't see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It's blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.

    America is arguably in its golden era right now. What was so great about the 00s, 10s, 20s, 30s, or the 40s or 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? Average six-pack White America had one special decade, the 50s. Off a war and when everywhere else was leveled. Yet, the commentators here and Steve make a fantasy of this one decade as if this time was natural baseline for white America. Bullsh+t.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    You can't divorce modern America from its past, no matter how much you would like to. Nobody comes to America to live in wigwams, or to live in a barrio, inner city ghetto or shtetl.
  117. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    Clearly there is *something* to what you’re saying here. As Jews–Ashkenazi–have maintained themselves as separate endogamous minority among majority populations, it makes sense that they’d have a strong sense of how they are different and highlight that in their self-conception. “We’re smart … they are stupid!”

    However, a few random things:
    – First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i’ve read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it’s one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews. (I don’t tend to know them, because my main contact with Jews has been through physics and then IT so both the Jews and gentiles are highly selected and well above average.)
    – Furthermore there are quite a lot really pretty smart–above the Jewish mean–white folks out there in flyover country. The people who are successful out there–the successful farmers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, bankers, newspaper publishers, the people who actually make flyover country work–fit this bill.
    – Re the analogy of white attitudes toward blacks. A) whites now days actually have fairly positive, or at least paternalistic attitudes toward blacks; they really *want* them to do well. B) the attitude whether hostile or paternalistic wasn’t just “these are stupid people”, it was a whole set of “black” behaviors, plus appearance; it really was\is “racial” in the sense of identifying blacks and black behavior as different.

    Finally, my main rejoinder: If it’s just your “anti-stupidism”, then
    a) why the idealization of blacks?–pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites
    b) why the incessant push to flood the nation with low IQ foreigners?

    It just doesn’t wash. That Jews are brimming with lots of contempt for stupid people–it makes sense, it squares with my limited experience and i’ll take your word for it. But if anit-stupidism explains the contempt and hatred for flyover country white gentiles, then there ought to be quite a bit *more* hatred and contempt and calumny visited upon blacks, plus there ought to be extreme Jewish resistance to mass (low skill–i.e. stupid people) immigration. These we absolutely do not see.

    No it’s anti-japhetism. Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white-Christians with whom the Ashkenazi were butting heads–but refusing to leave their nations!–for a couple thousand years. Again, it’s very clear both from the policy mix, Hollywood and the endless lectures from our Jewish “betters” in the chattering classes that it is not “stupid people”, but specifically white people–especially flyover country white people (psychologically replacing the Russian peasantry)–who are deserving of contempt and should hurry up and die.

    • Replies: @Lot

    First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i’ve read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it’s one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews.
     
    I've posted about US Ashkenazi IQ gaps a few times. The evidence, especially during the era of mass compulsory IQ tests of schoolchildren from the 30's to the 60's, strongly points toward a 1SD gap for unmixed Ashkenazi. Relative accomplishment in science and IQ-loaded professions also points to a 1SD gap for the USA and Western Europe.

    I have no idea how much that has held up today. Ashkenazi fertility has probably been dysgenic since then, the number of young Americans with 8 Ashkenazi great grandparents is a small fraction of what it used to be. I also think it is likely the Flynn affect was weaker for Ashkenazi than other whites.

    The 1930-1970 era was also probably effected by selective immigration to the USA, rather than Israel, of higher IQ Ashkenazi. A future farmer or solider would prefer Israel, a future doctor or scientist would prefer the USA. Some of that higher IQ selection would have regressed by now.

    why the idealization of blacks?–pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites
     
    The gentile whites of New England and much of the Midwest really liked Obama, and white teenagers and overgrown teenagers love black popular culture. You think absent Jewish influence the profitable opportunities of selling the masses black trash culture would have gone unheeded? That is a remarkably rosy view of the morals of gentile businessmen you have then.

    Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white Christians
     
    I think you are right this is a real thing. Where I disagree with you is how important and extensive this phenomenon was and is, how much the broad cultural, demographic, and economic changes to the West can be blamed on it, and also whether there is any utility to bringing up such questions now.

    You seem to look at the history of Jews in the West as constant conflict and mutual hatred. I see it as a primarily peaceful and happy co-existence marred only by a few unhappy moments from a long time ago, with the relationship now rapidly headed toward merger in the West. I will admit that I am biased: I am the product of a long and happy marriage between members of an old middle-american Ashkenazi family and an old mostly-German family.
    , @melendwyr
    No, the Ashkenazi difference is about a standard deviation, if you look at IQ as a single value. If you look at subsets of performance, they're roughly two standard deviations above the norm on verbal skills.

    And it's not that there aren't plenty of normal and even dumb Jews. It's the situation with American blacks, only positive instead of negative: the edges of the distribution result in far more truly exceptional people (in good and bad ways) than the average population possesses. That one STD difference results in way, way more Jewish geniuses than you'd expect given their population size.
  118. @tanabear
    "If Donald Trump becomes President I'm moving to a country less white than America."
    Said no Liberal ever.

    ““If Donald Trump becomes President I’m moving to a country less white than America.”
    Said no Liberal ever.”

    Left Wing celebrities love to say they will move to Canada if insert whichever Republican’s name becomes president. They never say they will move to a 1st World Northeast Asian nation, let alone a 3rd World Negro nation.

  119. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @bomag

    What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either
     
    Jews have plenty of love for the low class and stupid. They hate those above them in status who they perceive as stupider than themselves.

    Jews hate those above them in status who they perceive as stupider than themselves.

    Classic jewish apologetics. In fact, jews hate those groups of equal or superior intellectual, social, and physical talents, whom they perceive as rivals for resources and as a magnet for assimilation.

    Jews have plenty of love for the low class and stupid.

    Only to the extent jews can exploit such people as a weapon or dilutionary solvent against people jews perceive as rivals.

  120. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peripatetic commenter
    Has anyone tried updating Steve's Wiki page?

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

    It contains material like the following:

    Rodolfo Acuña, a Chicano studies professor, regards Sailer's statements on this subject as providing "a pretext and a negative justification for discriminating against US Latinos in the context of US history." Acuña claimed that listing Latinos as non-white gives Sailer and others "the opportunity to divide Latinos into races, thus weakening the group by setting up a scenario where lighter-skinned Mexicans are accepted as Latinos or Hispanics and darker-skinned Latinos are relegated to an underclass."[37]
     

    What would you change or add?

  121. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @candid_observer
    What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we've got.

    Obviously, we can choose to curtail immigration so that the demographics don't get even more challenging from the standpoint of supporting a nation in some harmony.

    But I'm not sure how we could significantly adjust the already existing demographic balance, so, yes, we pretty much have to work with the demographics we've got.

    “What I am saying is that we are mostly stuck with the demographics we’ve got.”

    No- that’s what secession and war are for.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    So your idea is that we change our demographics by war and secession?

    Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen.
  122. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @reiner Tor

    Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy.
     
    I guess you don't consider Wilhelm Marr's pamphlet Victory of Judaism over Germanism anti-Semitic, since by the time of writing he had already married two and a half Jewish women. Someone that happy to marry Jewish women can't be an anti-Semite, can he?

    I guess you would characterize his supposed anti-Semitism as essentially just anti-elitism, trying to stop the domination of German finance and culture by a small clique.

    I guess you would characterize his supposed anti-Semitism as essentially just anti-elitism, trying to stop the domination of German finance and culture by a small clique.

    Earnest questions: How do you characterize or explain Marr? What do you think motivated him?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Either an honest quest for truth (which first led him to anti-Semitism, then to renouncing it), or a bitterness after one or both of his divorces. Or both these explanations. Or something else. I haven't studied his life much, nor am I interested in it that much.
  123. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above.

    Middle-class are still “rank-and-file.” “JewE” primarily would be people who are very rich or who have some sort of influence (celebrities, media personalities, other media people).

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people.

    Not if they are non-white.

    That doesn’t make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching

    My point was that on average, American Jews stridently reject traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters, and are generally among those trying to push society to condemn such teaching. I think this is largely driven by the desire to distinguish themselves from Christians rather than by a positive sense of their own identity.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I think this is largely driven by the desire to distinguish themselves from Christians rather than by a positive sense of their own identity.
     
    Yep. Following in the footsteps of the post-Christians who blazed that trail as in much else.
  124. The Left, a group which now includes the ideological conservatives, is beginning to look like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, running around desperately chopping and chopping and chopping at Alt-Right emanations as they appear.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The Left, a group which now includes the ideological conservatives, is beginning to look like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, running around desperately chopping and chopping and chopping at Alt-Right emanations as they appear."

    Ideological conservatives remain on the right side of the ledger, thank you very little. They are on the Left only in distancing themselves with the ideology of the Alt-Right. Liberals and conservatives remain diametrically opposed in ideology.
  125. @fnn

    And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.
     
    American insanity "lives in the head [of the Germans] rent-free" as I think the current saying goes. If you don't believe it, just think of what the Germans have done to their de facto national animal-the German Shepherd Dog. At some point in the post-WWII era, American breeders decided they liked a bio-mechanically dysfunctional highly sloped back on their GSD's. The Germans adopted the same senseless fashion -despite the fact that the breed in Germany is governed by a club with official powers of enforcement and all that that entails. The status of the breed was able to survive the close relationship between Adolf and Blondi ,but not American cultural hegemony. So these days Belgian Malinois are a lot more common as police/military working dogs.

    Well, as 1939-45 demonstrates, Germans are quite capable of self-generating insanity…..

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US."

    Is that why as a Jew you like the English way more than you like the Germans? At least the English did not have their own version of Adolf Hitler.
  126. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    “2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.”

    While I agree with most of your post, this part I disagree with. Invite the world people are made up of people who hate Christians and they would love nothing more than to make Christians a religious minority in America. What better way to accomplish this than by swamping The U.S with hundreds of millions of Muslims.

    Christianity is a religion of peace, said no invite the world Liberal ever.

  127. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people

    But this group includes anyone who disagrees with them such as the majority of white gentiles.

  128. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    So Jews don’t feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them

    Jews are part of the elite. Just look at the number of Jewish billionaires that there are in the world.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jewish billionaires make up a tiny fraction of total Jews. Most Jews are not members of the elite.
  129. @Anonymous
    There are, possibly, 3 million '2nd generation' Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd - actually, it's quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France 'only' had a few thousand Muslims.

    - the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim - there are over a billion of them - is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960.

    In 1951, the UK had about 10,000 “coloured people” living there, and a couple of hundred thousand Poles and other “displaced persons” from WW2.

    Now, less than 70 years later, about 30% of English primary school kids are “minority”, 29% of English births are to foreign-born mothers, and white British people are a minority in what used to be their capital city.

  130. @syonredux
    Well, as 1939-45 demonstrates, Germans are quite capable of self-generating insanity.....

    “2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest “Ellis Island descendant” , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.”

    Is that why as a Jew you like the English way more than you like the Germans? At least the English did not have their own version of Adolf Hitler.

  131. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    Since IQ is largely genetic, this means that these “tensions” as you call them will always exist as long as Jews and white gentiles live in the same countries. Shouldn’t the Jews move to Israel so that we can end these tensions?

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    As a raw number, there are far more non-Jews 1 SD above the norm than Jews. IMHO, the IQ difference has less to do with the friction than the Jewish predisposition to emotional/mental illness.
  132. Not anti American, but unwhite is the accusation. This is white idealism (whoever is articulating it) accusing other whites of not acting white enough, of not being superior enough to be insouciant about what happens to them and theirs. Our values as a community suicide pact.

  133. @Anonymous
    There are, possibly, 3 million '2nd generation' Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd - actually, it's quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France 'only' had a few thousand Muslims.

    - the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim - there are over a billion of them - is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960.

    “There are, possibly, 3 million ’2nd generation’ Muslims in the USA.

    Extrapolating this to 100 or even 200 million sometime this present century, is absolutely NOT absurd – actually, it’s quite likely, especially if Trump loses and things carry on as normal.

    Remember, a mere 70 or so years ago, France ‘only’ had a few thousand Muslims.

    – the attraction of emigrating to the USA of 2016 for a Muslim, any Muslim – there are over a billion of them – is infinitely greater than for a magrehbi to have emigrated to France back in 1960.”

    I read the percentage of Muslims in France is almost as high as the percentage of African Americans in The U.S. That’s an extremely scary statistic that the percentage of Muslims in France has left the single digits and entered the double digits.

    Once a White Western nation has reached double digit percentage of Muslims, that country is finished. Muslims already don’t assimilate when their percentage is in the low single digits like The U.S, let alone when they rise above 10 percent like France.

    Unfortunately I am extremely confident that America will be over 10 percent Muslim sometime in my life, after all I was only born in 1985 so I am still young.

    America will definitely have no go zone areas consisting of Muslims by the time I’m Steve Sailer’s current age of 57.

  134. Off-topic, but as Catholic and Evangelical leaders continue to court non-whites, maybe it’s time for the alt-right to reclaim mainline churches:

    http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PF_15.05.05_RLS2_diversity640px.png

    They have the lowest non-white percentage at 14%. Mormon would be the other option at 15%.

  135. @Jack D
    There are problems with your analysis. Obviously not all American Jews are equally rich, but aside from the ultra-Orthodox who intentionally devote themselves to religious study and put themselves outside the mainstream, most American Jews are middle class or above. There is no Jewish "Fishtown". The Jews that are classified as poor are mostly elderly or recent Russian immigrants. Mexican immigrants are not taking landscaping jobs away from Jews. So Jews don't feel as if immigration promoted by the elite is really a threat to them. They may be wrong, but that's how they feel.

    2nd, what you call "antijaphetism" is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors - they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn't like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    3rd your analysis of neocons as being motivated by revenge against Russia doesn't make any more sense that Steve's theory of the day. It's true that many neocons don't like Putin and his neo-Soviet ways, but revenge has nothing to do with it. They would be perfectly happy with a Russia that behaved . If there's anyone deserving of revenge, it would be Germany whose crimes (against the Jews) were much greater but most neocons have no animosity at all toward modern Germany.

    the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.
     
    That doesn't make any sense because traditional Jewish teaching on sexual matters is more or less similar to Christian teaching (this is not a coincidence since Christian teaching on these matters was largely derived from Jewish biblical sources). (Cutural and plain old fashioned) Marxism (whether practiced by Jews or non-Jews) is anti-RELIGIOUS, not anti-Christian.

    American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.

    Excellent. No prejudice against non-Jews, only against stupidity. And given the reality of a 1-SD IQ gap, it’s not really prejudice if you think about it.

    After all, who’s ever seen anything bad about country-club WASPs and the “white-bread” middle class in Jewish literature, journalism, and films over the years?

    Oh, you have? Well, then, they’re obviously trash. Remember the 1-SD gap? The Jews have high standards, you know. Failing that, there’s always anti-semitism.

    Meanwhile, ghetto Jews are celebrated because… chutzpah.

    A lesser people would save themselves and flee from stupid, low-class, and black-like gentiles the way whites flee from blacks. After all, Jewish-Gentile tension is inevitable (did I mention the 1-SD IQ gap?), and an obvious, well-defended safe haven is not lacking for the Jews.

    But no, they choose to continue to grace us with their presence, entirely out of altruism and at a great burden to themselves and their bloodline. Tikun olaming away until the gentiles see the error of our ways.

  136. @tanabear
    "If Donald Trump becomes President I'm moving to a country less white than America."
    Said no Liberal ever.

    Panama and the Carribean would be great places to live. So would any other non-white 3rd world place if you had the dough.

    Rich liberals basically, as Steve points out, needn’t dwell upon the negative effects of their policies because they will never be affected by them. This is why I propose a superfund to start settling large numbers of Somalians into hyper-rich gated communities next to liberals.

    Let’s all pool our money together to buy houses next to Obama’s places and stock them with reformed Islamacists. We should culturally enrich them. I’d give a few thousand to do it.

    How many others would too?

  137. @Connecticut Famer
    Trump's comments on immigration are on target, but unfortunately his solutions come twenty--no, make that THIRTY-- years too late! The barn door should have been closed at least byno 1986, certainly no later than '96. That horse long left the barn Face it, we had laws on the books and they were never enforced and it doesn't matter why. The country is now awash in almost exclusively Third-World immigrants, which was the intent of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, (inaccurately named the Hart-Cellar Act since it had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over the paperwork). Jefferson once wrote to the effect that liberty can exist only through the vigilance of an alert citizenry. With regard to immigration, we were asleep for over thirty years. Now, it may be too little too late.

    The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, (inaccurately named the Hart-Cellar Act since it had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over the paperwork)

    Is their a point in worrying about an author when it was so broadly supported in Congress and by the President? It passed the Senate on September 22, 1965, 76–18 and the final vote in the House a week later was 320–70.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Is their a point in worrying about an author when it was so broadly supported in Congress and by the President? It passed the Senate on September 22, 1965, 76–18 and the final vote in the House a week later was 320–70.

    Yes, there is. Cellar was the eminence gris and main piston in pushing it through Congress. Read up on the procedural history. And he was a reflection of jewish political interests in the country.

    Pro-Israel votes in Congres in the last 10-20 years have been even more lopsided. But only a political naïf would believe that jewish lobbying isn't the primary factor behind those votes and resolutions.
  138. Alt-Right thought is based on white nationalism and anti-Americanism.

    Sigh. I’m more or less Alt-Right, and I’m neither of those things. But I’m so burned out on normal politics that I no longer care. At this point, I am really not all that interested in Jesuitical discussions about principles — because the people who yammer on about principles and orthodoxy clearly aren’t interested in fighting for them.

    I take the world as I find it, and if politics is to become nothing but a tribal fight over spoils, I will participate on those terms. If that makes some people uncomfortable, well, they shouldn’t have pushed things in that direction, with the foolhardy confidence that they could keep things from spinning out of control by waving around a Hitler puppet and shouting “BOO! NAZIS!”

    A quote I saw on Z Man’s site the other day: “When I was a conservative, they called me a racist. When I was a libertarian, they called me a racist. When I was a Tea Partier, they called me a racist. Now I’m Alt-Right, and I don’t care what they call me.”

  139. @Dirk Dagger
    In a more realistic version wouldn't Lady Liberty be Niqābed holding a scimitar and a Holy Qur'an?

    More realistic version?

    In reality, the ideal MENApausing model of Lady Liberty would never be able to leave the house unescorted so she can just hang around Bedloe’s Island .

    …that’s why Khan’s gold star and crescent moon wifee hasn’t been invited for the solo flight at the DNC.

  140. @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia

    Uh, no they wouldn’t. How many neocons are at all exercised about the Netanyahu/Putin rapprochement? Maybe you could’ve made that case with the neocons in the 70′s Irving Kristol case, vis-a-vis the Soviets, but not the modern ones.

    In fact, today’s neocons were mostly ambivalent to moderately pro-Putin until the falling-out over Iraq. Remember when Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul?

    more recently overthrowing the plutocrats

    Ah yes, Russia, the country where plutocrats have been overthrown. You can’t find any plutocrats in Russia![*] The Japanese and Singaporeans only wish they could be as devoid of plutocrats as the Russians.

    If Putin decided to make sure no more plutocracy was going on, by hiring a world-class accounting firm like PriceWaterhouseCoopers to go over Russian government, business, politician and high-net-worth-individual finances, the PWC accountants would be very, very bored, because they wouldn’t find any mysterious appearances or disappearances of large sums of money anywhere.

    Everything is strictly on the straight and narrow in Russia.

    [*] Although you could perhaps check London or Gstaad. Do Moscow, St. Petersburg and wherever the Kadyrov Klan domiciles itself count?

    of which I believe a majority were Jewish

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority. In any event, I would say almost no Americans, neocons included, are particularly knowledgable about or interested in the ethno-religious background of Russian plutocrats.

    the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    Lolwut? Even the remaining Russian Jews, much like Chinese minorities everywhere, are broadly white-collar professionals, not basket-weavers on the shtetl. Russia of course does still have basket-weaving peasants, some of whom went hungry in the 90′s, but they aren’t Jewish.

    By the way, I think it’s worth pointing out that neocons are a clear, and disliked, minority amongst American Jews.

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    Plus there are a good number of Sanders and Chomsky groupies to those guys’ left. Remember what school Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from.

    The politically-conservative Jews I’ve met have more often been Chamber of Commerce types or anti-communist ex-Soviets than neocons.

    Those Jewish people I know who still bear grudges toward Old World countries significant enough to bring them up in conversation are ill-disposed towards Germany and/or Poland far more often than towards Russia. Wagner and Goethe are verboten and forgotten, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, anti-semites both, are revered.

    American Jews whose families emigrated from places that are outside modern-day Russia’s borders will still usually describe their family background as Russian. The ex-Soviet Jews I’ve met universally call themselves, without hyphen or qualification, Russians; one has to infer their background when they mention in passing that they have family in Israel, for example.

    Of all the claims you could make about American Jews, the idea that they’re all crazed anti-Russians makes just about the least sense.

    For most of the 20th century, Jewish liberals were (on average) even more Soviet-sympathetic than liberals at large. They were, by leaps and miles, the ethnic group most overrepresented amongst the pro-Soviet far left and quasi-pro-Soviet pacifist granola enthusiasts. To this day, most Jews’ idea of a “renegade Jew” is Roy Cohn.

    In fact, liberals from all backgrounds had plenty of residual affection for Russia all the way through the end of the first Obama administration. Remember the “reset?” Obama mocking Romney for saying Russia is an enemy?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority.
     
    Five and a half of the first seven oligarchs in Russia in the 1990s were Jewish, and it was well-known to ethnocentric Jews, one of whom proudly told unwitting me when talking about the superior Jewish business acumen.

    Are you serious the neocons didn't know nor cared about the ethnicity of the oligarchs? Basically all of the purged oligarchs (like Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky) were Jewish, and a lot of the new oligarchs are not. Mind you, some of the most powerful (and closest to Putin) oligarchs are themselves Jewish, but no longer the majority.
    , @Lot

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority.
     
    The first generation of plutocrats under Yeltsin were majority Jewish if you include half breeds. For the most part they have been replaced by a less heavily Jewish new generation of plutocrats loyal to Putin.

    The details vary, but generally what happened is Putin would pick a fight with a Yeltsin-era plutocrat, then sic the state authorities on him, which generally ended with the old plutocrat agreeing to give up half his fortunate to a Putin ally and take the other half with him abroad.

    Limiting Putin's greed to roughly half of their fortunes was probably a belief he could not take them all on together, not wanting to render any of them truly desperate for fear of what they might do, and finally not wanting to set too harsh a precedent if he ever fell from power.
    , @Anonymous
    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    The viewpoints of which are virtually indistinguishable from neocon positions.
  141. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    more web visits last November than Dissent and Ms.

    For this one gets congrats in 2016? Oy

    Lotta erstwhile emperors are being shown up to be naked lately… Beltway-Certified Conservatism turned out to have not many adherents (and more important, with a diminutive Electoral College footprint among the ones they did have).

    Now we’re faced with the alarming prospect that Emperor DissentMagDotCom — what’s more intellectually respectable than that? — is actually tanking in Alexa stats… O tempora, O mores

  142. @Arclight
    I think a key mistake of the "invite the world" crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.

    Today's immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it's relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture...not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture. The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.

    “I think a key mistake of the “invite the world” crowd is that 100 years ago immigrants from wherever were truly cutting ties with their mother country/culture. There was no way to quickly and easily communicate with relatives back home or keep abreast of events in the mother country, and to go back and visit was very difficult. They might live in an ethnic enclave but rapid assimilation was basically the only path forward for them and more importantly their children.”

    Yes, these immigrants wanted to rapidly assimilate.
    No, they were NOT about “truly cutting ties”. They wrote letters home. They imported foodstuffs, clothes, and furniture from the mother country. They kept their cultural traditions. They spoke in their native language, and insisting that their customs be kept alive by their children.

    “Today’s immigrants can easily retain ties to their home country by phone, internet or whatever, and it’s relatively affordable to get a flight to go and visit every now and then, which retards assimilation into American culture…not to mention we have a political party that celebrates differences rather than a common culture.”

    So keeping abreast with their relatives means the assimilation rate suffers? Says who?

    “The result is that large numbers of immigrants from societies with a strong common culture (like Islam) tend to hang onto traditions and behavior that is fundamentally at odds with a mostly secular first world society.”

    So why do we have popular ethnic festivals? Is that “at odds” with our common culture?

    • Replies: @Kyle
    Today's immigrants CAN'T assimilate for the same reasons blacks can't assimilate. They're of too different of a racial group for a certain number of whites to not want to mix with them.
  143. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “The Alt-Right holds…that as racial equality has displaced white dominance…

    I don’t believe anybody with an IQ over 80 on the right or left actually believes that “racial equality” displaced white dominance. What is equal about giving massive privilege to minorities? True equality is actually more like the way things used to be, where people were actually required to swim or sink based on merit, and way more minorities couldn’t compete. Equal opportunity, not a guarantee of equal outcome.

    If you have to ‘Harrison Bergeron’-up white men by weighing us down at every turn, and giving a helping hand to minorities at every turn, is that really equality, at least any fair, rational or sane version of it?

  144. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    "I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I’m talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities."

    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What's wrong with that? Why don't YOU seem to like that scenario?

    "I don’t say this to gloat -"

    No, I rather think that you do. There is nothing in your tone to suggest otherwise.

    I don’t think that Jack D is gloating about the decline of the American Founding Stock. From his other posts at this site, he clearly thinks that the diversity uber alles direction this country has taken is ridiculous, and he knows that the coalition of the diverse has no great love for the Ellis Island descendants including Jews. The dysfunctional Brazil-like United States of the future is likely to be worse for Jews than the founding stock-ruled United States of 1896.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Exactly. Not to mention the rest of the United States.
  145. @pyrrhus
    Granted that your comment is just medium grade trolling, but the "We" who can't deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not "we" as in the actual American citizenry. In the old days, Ike deported more than a million Mexicans without the slightest problem. Nowadays, just eliminate welfare and Medicaid for anyone who can't prove they're an American citizen....

    The “we” who can’t deport illegals isn’t just HRC and BHO. It’s also W and McCain, and Rubio and Jeb! And Perry and Ryan, and last week Trump.

  146. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    I assume Steve is referring to his Swiss immigrant paternal grandparents. His paternal grandfather came to the U.S. in 1905, and his paternal grandmother in 1914, certainly within the Ellis Island era.

  147. @Whiskey
    It is not "the Jewwwwwssssss! you idiot! What was the question?" that makes Cultural Marxism run. It is Lennonism. That Post-Christian, lazy utopian globalism that posits that all peoples are the same, except the native Whites who are bad. This is a feature, not a bug, of Germanic/Scandinavian culture married to a Universalist Christianism or post-Christianism. It is present in Angela Merkel and her many, many supporters who make her still popular (though declining). It is present in suicidal Norway and Sweden, and much of the GOP Midwestern Nice "Cuck" Establishment, like Paul Ryan and the like.

    Support for say, mass Third World immigration is pretty low among Howard Stern followers, and about zero for Stern himself who backs Trump. It is pretty high among people like say, Chelsea Handler or Hillary Clinton.

    A good deal of this is the stupidity of Oppositional Culture as the central feature of our ruling elites. They posture against 'the Man' when they are in fact, 'the Man.'

    Take almost any Hollywood screenwriter/producer/director. Its hard not to be 'the Man' when you run a movie, a TV show, etc. George Lucas is the Man. He has billions of dollars, runs his own empire, created Star Wars, co-created Raiders, he is about as influential and powerful as it gets. Every President would take his phone call. Yet he postures as some sort of outsider, so of course he will back unlimited Third World immigration into the US.

    Angela Merkel, same thing. Also with Francois Hollande, or Tony Blair, or George W. Bush, scion of privilege who adopted an "outsider Texas" persona instead of a happy aristocratic protector one.

    Look at Farage, the most successful anti-Immigration on a wide scale pol in the West. He succeeded not as an outsider running an establishment, bashing said establishment, like say Obama, but one intent on preserving the old sense of national protection to the people by the old ruling establishment. He's a happy Restorationist not a permanent revolutionary ideologue intent on making one giant Lennon Imagine Song that never ends.

    Stern is backing Hillary – he’s said it many times. Why lie?

  148. @pyrrhus
    Granted that your comment is just medium grade trolling, but the "We" who can't deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not "we" as in the actual American citizenry. In the old days, Ike deported more than a million Mexicans without the slightest problem. Nowadays, just eliminate welfare and Medicaid for anyone who can't prove they're an American citizen....

    “but the “We” who can’t deport illegals and other undesirables, is just Obama, Hillary, and a bunch of cheap labor billionaires who have bought DC, not “we” as in the actual American citizenry. ”

    Is this “actual American citizenry” committed to removing by force American citizens who are deemed “undesirable? How does that fit the constitutional narrative that “actual American citizens” claim to observe?

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    It fits the Constitution all right. Maybe less the narrative as taught 1970+. The Constitution is "just a piece of paper" that can be rewritten at any time, given sufficient public approval, or apathy. Where the rubber meets the road is the will, which waxes and wanes with the general well being of the populace and the pituitary cycles of a nation.
  149. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    In fact, here is the exact record of Steve’s grandmother coming in through Ellis Island, on January 18, 1914.

    https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JJQ3-16F

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Your continual posting about Steve's ancestors is odd.
    I guess you're saying that since Steve benefitted from Ellis Island (ie, he exists whereas he wouldn't have otherwise) he's a hypocrite for complaining or arguing against it.

    That logic would mean that no person could argue against abortion because they all benefitted from being born.

    That logic would mean that no white person could complain about 'white privilege' because they still benefit from it.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Swiss immigrants have not brought their ancient grievances with them, nor attempted to use the United States as a tool for pursuing their own exclusive ethnic interests at the expense of anyone else.
  150. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lurker
    Hopeless!

    That sort of cucked, liberal trolling might have worked here ten years ago, might have. But now you're just wasting your time troll.

    Would you like to offer a substantive response or are you just an idiot?

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Not responding at length to 'anonymous'. That's not who we are.
  151. @The Anti-Gnostic
    The Left, a group which now includes the ideological conservatives, is beginning to look like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, running around desperately chopping and chopping and chopping at Alt-Right emanations as they appear.

    “The Left, a group which now includes the ideological conservatives, is beginning to look like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, running around desperately chopping and chopping and chopping at Alt-Right emanations as they appear.”

    Ideological conservatives remain on the right side of the ledger, thank you very little. They are on the Left only in distancing themselves with the ideology of the Alt-Right. Liberals and conservatives remain diametrically opposed in ideology.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Liberals and conservatives remain diametrically opposed in ideology.

    They differ on tax rates. Otherwise, they both agree that equality of inputs yields equality of outcomes; that ideas, not people, make nations; that democracy is an end in itself; and that the conception of human rights embraced by the current governing elite of the US is universal.
  152. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    One of the oddest planks in Steve's agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 ("Ellis Island immigration").

    He's maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.

    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem.

    The Hispanic immigrants of 1880-1920 were distinctly superior to the roustabouts drifting in over recent decades. Cuba hasn’t been sending its best lately.

  153. @Anonymous
    You've got a knack for concern trolling anti-anti-semitism. Don't mean that in a belittling way or anything, I know where you are coming from.

    The basic gist is that Whites will wake up or not and deal with or fail to deal with the planned destruction of their civilization.

    If Jews want to be part of that solution, fine. If Jewish "voices and leaders" continue to oppose white interests in Europe and America due to some morbid historical perspective of Hitler, the tsar, Ellis island schmaltz or whatever then they shouldn't cry when awakened white gentiles start calling them the enemy again when they try and take their nations back. If innocent middle class Jews get caught in the crossfire well sorry, they should have done a better job leashing in their elites supposedly speaking on their behalf.

    I'm only in my 20's so I don't have the attachment that older isteve readers have to the concept of the good old USA. Ammmuurrriiccaaa is a shopping mall on its way to closing in some form or another, and I just hope it won't take white America with it.

    “The basic gist is that Whites will wake up or not and deal with or fail to deal with the planned destruction of their civilization.”

    It’s not White civilization, it’s the civilization of Americans, which consist of different races and ethnic groups.

    Praytell, what is your ancestry? I hope it is from the British Isles. Otherwise, if you they were German, or Irish, or Italian, or Polish, they weren’t desired here by nativists, for they were deemed totally incapable of understanding limited government principles and the Rights of Englishmen. Were those nativists wrong in their assessment?

    Don’t blame me, I’m simply reporting what is said to be factual.

  154. @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    “By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities.”

    If you use the most strict definition of old stock Americans which is limited only to people who are either mostly or entirely of English, Scottish, and or Scotch-Irish Protestants, than they are already a minority in The U.S.

    Germans, Scandinavians, and Irish Catholics are not old stock Americans, unless your definition of old stock American basically includes all of Northern Europe. In that case a Finnish American is an old stock American.

    • Replies: @Whoever
    "Old-stock American" refers to those with ancestry in our country before the Revolution, not to an ethnicity. So that includes Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Huguenots and assorted others.
    It would be easy to make a list of contributions to Americana that pre-Revolutionary German immigrants made--everything from the Kentucky rifle to the Conestoga covered wagon. Swedes, of course, contributed the log cabin. The Dutch, among other things, gave us holiday feasting and merrymaking, including jolly St. Nick, in stark contrast to the austere practices of the English.
    We're not a southern version of Canada in significant part because of the contributions of non-British Islanders to the formation of the American character.
  155. @AnotherDad

    2nd, what you call “antijaphetism” is not really racial in character. Most American Jews have nothing against their Belmont neighbors – they are marrying them like crazy. What you call antijaphetism, I would call anti-stupidism. American Jews are not prejudiced against non-Jews, they are prejudiced against what they perceive as stupid or low class people. If such a thing as Jewish trailer trash existed, they wouldn’t like them either. This is not much different than non-Jewish Americans dislike of blacks for what they perceive as stupid behavior. Any time you have a 1 SD IQ gap going, you are going to have these kind of tensions.
     
    Clearly there is *something* to what you're saying here. As Jews--Ashkenazi--have maintained themselves as separate endogamous minority among majority populations, it makes sense that they'd have a strong sense of how they are different and highlight that in their self-conception. "We're smart ... they are stupid!"

    However, a few random things:
    -- First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i've read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it's one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews. (I don't tend to know them, because my main contact with Jews has been through physics and then IT so both the Jews and gentiles are highly selected and well above average.)
    -- Furthermore there are quite a lot really pretty smart--above the Jewish mean--white folks out there in flyover country. The people who are successful out there--the successful farmers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, bankers, newspaper publishers, the people who actually make flyover country work--fit this bill.
    -- Re the analogy of white attitudes toward blacks. A) whites now days actually have fairly positive, or at least paternalistic attitudes toward blacks; they really *want* them to do well. B) the attitude whether hostile or paternalistic wasn't just "these are stupid people", it was a whole set of "black" behaviors, plus appearance; it really was\is "racial" in the sense of identifying blacks and black behavior as different.

    Finally, my main rejoinder: If it's just your "anti-stupidism", then
    a) why the idealization of blacks?--pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites
    b) why the incessant push to flood the nation with low IQ foreigners?

    It just doesn't wash. That Jews are brimming with lots of contempt for stupid people--it makes sense, it squares with my limited experience and i'll take your word for it. But if anit-stupidism explains the contempt and hatred for flyover country white gentiles, then there ought to be quite a bit *more* hatred and contempt and calumny visited upon blacks, plus there ought to be extreme Jewish resistance to mass (low skill--i.e. stupid people) immigration. These we absolutely do not see.

    No it's anti-japhetism. Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white-Christians with whom the Ashkenazi were butting heads--but refusing to leave their nations!--for a couple thousand years. Again, it's very clear both from the policy mix, Hollywood and the endless lectures from our Jewish "betters" in the chattering classes that it is not "stupid people", but specifically white people--especially flyover country white people (psychologically replacing the Russian peasantry)--who are deserving of contempt and should hurry up and die.

    First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i’ve read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it’s one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews.

    I’ve posted about US Ashkenazi IQ gaps a few times. The evidence, especially during the era of mass compulsory IQ tests of schoolchildren from the 30′s to the 60′s, strongly points toward a 1SD gap for unmixed Ashkenazi. Relative accomplishment in science and IQ-loaded professions also points to a 1SD gap for the USA and Western Europe.

    I have no idea how much that has held up today. Ashkenazi fertility has probably been dysgenic since then, the number of young Americans with 8 Ashkenazi great grandparents is a small fraction of what it used to be. I also think it is likely the Flynn affect was weaker for Ashkenazi than other whites.

    The 1930-1970 era was also probably effected by selective immigration to the USA, rather than Israel, of higher IQ Ashkenazi. A future farmer or solider would prefer Israel, a future doctor or scientist would prefer the USA. Some of that higher IQ selection would have regressed by now.

    why the idealization of blacks?–pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites

    The gentile whites of New England and much of the Midwest really liked Obama, and white teenagers and overgrown teenagers love black popular culture. You think absent Jewish influence the profitable opportunities of selling the masses black trash culture would have gone unheeded? That is a remarkably rosy view of the morals of gentile businessmen you have then.

    Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white Christians

    I think you are right this is a real thing. Where I disagree with you is how important and extensive this phenomenon was and is, how much the broad cultural, demographic, and economic changes to the West can be blamed on it, and also whether there is any utility to bringing up such questions now.

    You seem to look at the history of Jews in the West as constant conflict and mutual hatred. I see it as a primarily peaceful and happy co-existence marred only by a few unhappy moments from a long time ago, with the relationship now rapidly headed toward merger in the West. I will admit that I am biased: I am the product of a long and happy marriage between members of an old middle-american Ashkenazi family and an old mostly-German family.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The gentile whites of New England and much of the Midwest really liked Obama,
     
    Their fantasy of Sidney Poitier-as-President was finally coming true.....
  156. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lot

    The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, (inaccurately named the Hart-Cellar Act since it had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over the paperwork)
     
    Is their a point in worrying about an author when it was so broadly supported in Congress and by the President? It passed the Senate on September 22, 1965, 76–18 and the final vote in the House a week later was 320–70.

    Is their a point in worrying about an author when it was so broadly supported in Congress and by the President? It passed the Senate on September 22, 1965, 76–18 and the final vote in the House a week later was 320–70.

    Yes, there is. Cellar was the eminence gris and main piston in pushing it through Congress. Read up on the procedural history. And he was a reflection of jewish political interests in the country.

    Pro-Israel votes in Congres in the last 10-20 years have been even more lopsided. But only a political naïf would believe that jewish lobbying isn’t the primary factor behind those votes and resolutions.

    • Replies: @Lot

    Yes, there is. Cellar was the eminence gris and main piston in pushing it through Congress. Read up on the procedural history.
     
    Please do tell us how a 77-year old member of the House imposed his will on the notorious pushover Lyndon Johnson, 319 other members of the House, and 76 members of the Senate.

    Congressman Celler was such a national powerhouse that 7 years later he lost his primary to a chick!
  157. @Glaivester
    The problem comes down to the fact that there is a large Jewish element to Cultural Marxism, but I don't think it is really the vast majority of Jews who are driving it.

    I think the best way to look at Jews is that they are like the Republican Party in 2004 - the elites at the top pursuing their own agenda, a large segment of the rank-and-file who supports them because they think the elites are on their side, and a small number who are realizing that those at the top have their own agenda that does not really benefit them.

    Essentially, the AJC, the ADL, the ACLU (to the extent it is Jewish) are what I would call JewE. The vast majority of the rank and file are blue-pill Jews, and there are a small number of "altJews" or red-pill Jews.

    Some major issues here that I think can be used to explain why "JewE" is not "good for the Jews" in the sense that most people would think:

    (1) Emphasis on revenge. People talk about how the neocons put "Israel first." Actually, I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia, both for historical wrongs, and for more recently overthrowing the plutocrats, of which I believe a majority were Jewish - the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines - the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    (2) Defining "good for the Jews" in such a way that aggregate power rather than broad prosperity is the measure. Essentially, as long as Jews are overrepresented in the elite, whether or not middle-class or poorer Jews have safety, security, and a comfortable life are secondary concerns. Maybe there isn't the same in-group hatred that many rich white Gentiles seem to have toward their lessers, but I don't think that ethnic solidarity trumps class solidarity as much as one might think (unless of course it serves the "revenge" impulse).

    I also think it is fair to call out "antijaphetism" in the Jewish community and to admit that it is a problem, but without blaming all Jews for it or associating it extricably with being Jewish - in many ways, many parts of the AltRight tend to use the term "Zionism" the same way that SJWs use "whiteness." I think this is bad and dangerous, and risks making ethnic conflicts unresolvable - once you declare another group an implacable enemy with no hope of negotiation you give those in the other group who do not hate you no reason not to join those who do.

    This also manifests itself in the fact that many Jewish elite seem to define Judaism largely in opposition to Christianity rather than by its own doctrines – the liberal bent on sexual matters, for example, seems to be more about opposing traditional Christian teaching than about reaffirming traditional Jewish teaching.

    Was getting long, but I did mean to reply to this part — Old Testament sexual morality is rather different from the Western/New Testament tradition. They practiced polygamy and prostitution, and in general the text shares, to an only slightly lesser extent, the Muslim/Koranic conception of women as sex slaves owned as property by men.

    • Replies: @Glaivester

    Was getting long, but I did mean to reply to this part — Old Testament sexual morality is rather different from the Western/New Testament tradition. They practiced polygamy and prostitution, and in general the text shares, to an only slightly lesser extent, the Muslim/Koranic conception of women as sex slaves owned as property by men.

     

    They practiced prostitution, but were condemned for it.

    Polygamy was tolerated, but in general the Old Testament appears to show it in a negative light. I can't think offhand of any examples where polygamy did not result in major dysfunction.

    (1) The first mention of polygamy is Lamech, last recorded member of the wicked line of Cain.

    (2) Abraham's relationship with Hagar created a race that has long been enemies of the Jewish people, and sending her out from his household does not imply "yeah, this worked out well."

    (3) Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel - yeah, Jacob's brothers were real fond of him. Jacob's favoritism toward Rachel caused no problems at all.

    (4) Gideon had multiple wives. He had seventy sones, one of which killed the other sixty-nine.

    (5) David had multiple wives. One of his sons raped his half-daughter, and his weak response resulted in his being overthrown temporarily.

    (6) Solomon had hundreds of wives. He wound up setting the stage for Israel to be split in two, and began to bring idolatry back into Israel in order to please his wives.

    (In the case of 5 and 6, kings wee expressly forbidden from "multiplying wives" (Deut. 17:17).)

    And in any case, polygamy has not been accepted widely in Judaism for centuries, but I am fairly certain that the full-throated acceptance of homosexual behavior, premarital sex, etc. is a fairly recent innovation.
  158. @Lot

    First i doubt if the gap is a full 1SD. Something over 1/2 and less than one. The pieces i’ve read suggest something like 2/3 to 3/4 of an SD. But even if it’s one, that leaves a lot of not very bright Jews.
     
    I've posted about US Ashkenazi IQ gaps a few times. The evidence, especially during the era of mass compulsory IQ tests of schoolchildren from the 30's to the 60's, strongly points toward a 1SD gap for unmixed Ashkenazi. Relative accomplishment in science and IQ-loaded professions also points to a 1SD gap for the USA and Western Europe.

    I have no idea how much that has held up today. Ashkenazi fertility has probably been dysgenic since then, the number of young Americans with 8 Ashkenazi great grandparents is a small fraction of what it used to be. I also think it is likely the Flynn affect was weaker for Ashkenazi than other whites.

    The 1930-1970 era was also probably effected by selective immigration to the USA, rather than Israel, of higher IQ Ashkenazi. A future farmer or solider would prefer Israel, a future doctor or scientist would prefer the USA. Some of that higher IQ selection would have regressed by now.

    why the idealization of blacks?–pushing them forward politically and in the media, when they are pretty uber-stupid and far far stupider than generic flyover country whites
     
    The gentile whites of New England and much of the Midwest really liked Obama, and white teenagers and overgrown teenagers love black popular culture. You think absent Jewish influence the profitable opportunities of selling the masses black trash culture would have gone unheeded? That is a remarkably rosy view of the morals of gentile businessmen you have then.

    Hatred of the gentile majority and in particular the white Christians
     
    I think you are right this is a real thing. Where I disagree with you is how important and extensive this phenomenon was and is, how much the broad cultural, demographic, and economic changes to the West can be blamed on it, and also whether there is any utility to bringing up such questions now.

    You seem to look at the history of Jews in the West as constant conflict and mutual hatred. I see it as a primarily peaceful and happy co-existence marred only by a few unhappy moments from a long time ago, with the relationship now rapidly headed toward merger in the West. I will admit that I am biased: I am the product of a long and happy marriage between members of an old middle-american Ashkenazi family and an old mostly-German family.

    The gentile whites of New England and much of the Midwest really liked Obama,

    Their fantasy of Sidney Poitier-as-President was finally coming true…..

  159. @snorlax

    I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia
     
    Uh, no they wouldn't. How many neocons are at all exercised about the Netanyahu/Putin rapprochement? Maybe you could've made that case with the neocons in the 70's Irving Kristol case, vis-a-vis the Soviets, but not the modern ones.

    In fact, today's neocons were mostly ambivalent to moderately pro-Putin until the falling-out over Iraq. Remember when Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul?


    more recently overthrowing the plutocrats
     
    Ah yes, Russia, the country where plutocrats have been overthrown. You can't find any plutocrats in Russia![*] The Japanese and Singaporeans only wish they could be as devoid of plutocrats as the Russians.

    If Putin decided to make sure no more plutocracy was going on, by hiring a world-class accounting firm like PriceWaterhouseCoopers to go over Russian government, business, politician and high-net-worth-individual finances, the PWC accountants would be very, very bored, because they wouldn't find any mysterious appearances or disappearances of large sums of money anywhere.

    Everything is strictly on the straight and narrow in Russia.

    [*] Although you could perhaps check London or Gstaad. Do Moscow, St. Petersburg and wherever the Kadyrov Klan domiciles itself count?


    of which I believe a majority were Jewish
     
    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I'm pretty sure never a majority. In any event, I would say almost no Americans, neocons included, are particularly knowledgable about or interested in the ethno-religious background of Russian plutocrats.

    the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.
     
    Lolwut? Even the remaining Russian Jews, much like Chinese minorities everywhere, are broadly white-collar professionals, not basket-weavers on the shtetl. Russia of course does still have basket-weaving peasants, some of whom went hungry in the 90's, but they aren't Jewish.

    By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that neocons are a clear, and disliked, minority amongst American Jews.

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    Plus there are a good number of Sanders and Chomsky groupies to those guys' left. Remember what school Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from.

    The politically-conservative Jews I've met have more often been Chamber of Commerce types or anti-communist ex-Soviets than neocons.

    Those Jewish people I know who still bear grudges toward Old World countries significant enough to bring them up in conversation are ill-disposed towards Germany and/or Poland far more often than towards Russia. Wagner and Goethe are verboten and forgotten, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, anti-semites both, are revered.

    American Jews whose families emigrated from places that are outside modern-day Russia's borders will still usually describe their family background as Russian. The ex-Soviet Jews I've met universally call themselves, without hyphen or qualification, Russians; one has to infer their background when they mention in passing that they have family in Israel, for example.

    Of all the claims you could make about American Jews, the idea that they're all crazed anti-Russians makes just about the least sense.

    For most of the 20th century, Jewish liberals were (on average) even more Soviet-sympathetic than liberals at large. They were, by leaps and miles, the ethnic group most overrepresented amongst the pro-Soviet far left and quasi-pro-Soviet pacifist granola enthusiasts. To this day, most Jews' idea of a "renegade Jew" is Roy Cohn.

    In fact, liberals from all backgrounds had plenty of residual affection for Russia all the way through the end of the first Obama administration. Remember the "reset?" Obama mocking Romney for saying Russia is an enemy?

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority.

    Five and a half of the first seven oligarchs in Russia in the 1990s were Jewish, and it was well-known to ethnocentric Jews, one of whom proudly told unwitting me when talking about the superior Jewish business acumen.

    Are you serious the neocons didn’t know nor cared about the ethnicity of the oligarchs? Basically all of the purged oligarchs (like Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky) were Jewish, and a lot of the new oligarchs are not. Mind you, some of the most powerful (and closest to Putin) oligarchs are themselves Jewish, but no longer the majority.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    I would define "plutocrat" fairly expansively, to include politicians and powerful civil servants, the lesser oligarchs, oligarch-underlings, organized crime bosses, etc. It's possible but I doubt it was ever the case that most "plutocrats" at large were Jewish.

    Whatever the case, neither Judaism nor opposition to plutocracy motivated Putin's going after certain plutocrats. And, the proximate cause of neocons' dislike of Putin is not sympathy for replaced oligarchs, but rather his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Iran's nuke program.

    Neocons love (or loved) Rudy Giuliani, who made his name putting largely-Jewish white collar criminals, plutocrats you might say, behind bars.

  160. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tiny Duck
    "alt-right" is all about whiteness and anger that the western world is getting brown. donald trump will revive the jim crow ideology.


    The Alt-Right is bigots latest attempt to cling to their rational for bigotry.

    The Alt-Right = White Nationalism = White Supremacy = Racism

    Bannon is a leader of the Alt-Right movement.

    Trump has played his hand. Trump is Alt-Righter.

    The Alt-Right must not be allowed to gain control of our government.

    Trump must be defeated at the polls, and so must every candidate who refuses to repudiate the racism of the Alt-Right.

    Eventually, they will go down defeat, hopefully laws will be passed to make sure this stuff is done away with

    Na na boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

    Feel better now, getting a reply back on your IQ level?

  161. @candid_observer
    I can't say I've read a particularly large amount of Taylor's writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.

    Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values. But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans -- the English specifically -- who established this country.

    We simply can't rewrite the demographic history of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century -- mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 -- how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.

    I see no reason we shouldn't return to that model.

    Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully--some because they don't want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).

    But among current immigrant groups who show every potential to become fully assimilated are East Asians and (most?) South Asians. Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won't say, because I just don't know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.

    Now the white nationalists -- maybe Taylor? -- seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don't see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It's blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.

    “I can’t say I’ve read a particularly large amount of Taylor’s writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.”

    Absolutely. It seems to me a number of Alt-Right philosophers and supporters are from the South.

    “Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values.”

    The American white population in general does not trumpet nor promote “Western Civilization”. They embrace American capitalism, American representative government, and American culture.

    “But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans — the English specifically — who established this country.”

    Actually, it does make complete sense. Eastern and Southern Europeans were cited by nativists for explicitly lacking any “interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.” Yet, some of those descendants are claiming that groups other than European are incapable of assimilating into American society. The same argument is being used then as it is now.

    “Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century — mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 — how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.”

    You do realize that the quota system from the 1920′s was in full force, that Western/Northern European immigrants were preferred compared to Eastern/Southern Europeans. Why?

    “Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully–some because they don’t want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).”

    What is your definition of “truly assimilate”? What metrics are involved?

    “Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won’t say, because I just don’t know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.”

    Well, why not have the same attitudes toward Africans or “mestizos”? Are these groups “biologically deficient” in their ability to assimilate? Is there a genetic component involved?

    “Now the white nationalists — maybe Taylor? — seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don’t see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It’s blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.”

    So now we have exceptions? Would not these groups further taint the whiteness of America?

  162. @snorlax

    I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia
     
    Uh, no they wouldn't. How many neocons are at all exercised about the Netanyahu/Putin rapprochement? Maybe you could've made that case with the neocons in the 70's Irving Kristol case, vis-a-vis the Soviets, but not the modern ones.

    In fact, today's neocons were mostly ambivalent to moderately pro-Putin until the falling-out over Iraq. Remember when Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul?


    more recently overthrowing the plutocrats
     
    Ah yes, Russia, the country where plutocrats have been overthrown. You can't find any plutocrats in Russia![*] The Japanese and Singaporeans only wish they could be as devoid of plutocrats as the Russians.

    If Putin decided to make sure no more plutocracy was going on, by hiring a world-class accounting firm like PriceWaterhouseCoopers to go over Russian government, business, politician and high-net-worth-individual finances, the PWC accountants would be very, very bored, because they wouldn't find any mysterious appearances or disappearances of large sums of money anywhere.

    Everything is strictly on the straight and narrow in Russia.

    [*] Although you could perhaps check London or Gstaad. Do Moscow, St. Petersburg and wherever the Kadyrov Klan domiciles itself count?


    of which I believe a majority were Jewish
     
    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I'm pretty sure never a majority. In any event, I would say almost no Americans, neocons included, are particularly knowledgable about or interested in the ethno-religious background of Russian plutocrats.

    the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.
     
    Lolwut? Even the remaining Russian Jews, much like Chinese minorities everywhere, are broadly white-collar professionals, not basket-weavers on the shtetl. Russia of course does still have basket-weaving peasants, some of whom went hungry in the 90's, but they aren't Jewish.

    By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that neocons are a clear, and disliked, minority amongst American Jews.

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    Plus there are a good number of Sanders and Chomsky groupies to those guys' left. Remember what school Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from.

    The politically-conservative Jews I've met have more often been Chamber of Commerce types or anti-communist ex-Soviets than neocons.

    Those Jewish people I know who still bear grudges toward Old World countries significant enough to bring them up in conversation are ill-disposed towards Germany and/or Poland far more often than towards Russia. Wagner and Goethe are verboten and forgotten, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, anti-semites both, are revered.

    American Jews whose families emigrated from places that are outside modern-day Russia's borders will still usually describe their family background as Russian. The ex-Soviet Jews I've met universally call themselves, without hyphen or qualification, Russians; one has to infer their background when they mention in passing that they have family in Israel, for example.

    Of all the claims you could make about American Jews, the idea that they're all crazed anti-Russians makes just about the least sense.

    For most of the 20th century, Jewish liberals were (on average) even more Soviet-sympathetic than liberals at large. They were, by leaps and miles, the ethnic group most overrepresented amongst the pro-Soviet far left and quasi-pro-Soviet pacifist granola enthusiasts. To this day, most Jews' idea of a "renegade Jew" is Roy Cohn.

    In fact, liberals from all backgrounds had plenty of residual affection for Russia all the way through the end of the first Obama administration. Remember the "reset?" Obama mocking Romney for saying Russia is an enemy?

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority.

    The first generation of plutocrats under Yeltsin were majority Jewish if you include half breeds. For the most part they have been replaced by a less heavily Jewish new generation of plutocrats loyal to Putin.

    The details vary, but generally what happened is Putin would pick a fight with a Yeltsin-era plutocrat, then sic the state authorities on him, which generally ended with the old plutocrat agreeing to give up half his fortunate to a Putin ally and take the other half with him abroad.

    Limiting Putin’s greed to roughly half of their fortunes was probably a belief he could not take them all on together, not wanting to render any of them truly desperate for fear of what they might do, and finally not wanting to set too harsh a precedent if he ever fell from power.

  163. @Jack Hanson
    Steve, do you realise yet that all the fisking in the world isn't going to convince these people they're wrong?

    Better reconcile yourself to that fact and what's going to be the only way they will be convinced.

    Ironically, I believe the term “fisking” arose when bloggers would fisk Robert Fisk’s articles line by line. These articles were anti-Iraq war. For all the fisking that was done by (mainly neocon leaning, race blind) bloggers, Fisk was right.

    This of course does not mean that anyone is right by virtue of being fisked.

  164. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @snorlax

    I think a fair number of neocons would be willing to sacrifice a large portion of Israeli security if it could advance the goal of getting revenge on Russia
     
    Uh, no they wouldn't. How many neocons are at all exercised about the Netanyahu/Putin rapprochement? Maybe you could've made that case with the neocons in the 70's Irving Kristol case, vis-a-vis the Soviets, but not the modern ones.

    In fact, today's neocons were mostly ambivalent to moderately pro-Putin until the falling-out over Iraq. Remember when Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul?


    more recently overthrowing the plutocrats
     
    Ah yes, Russia, the country where plutocrats have been overthrown. You can't find any plutocrats in Russia![*] The Japanese and Singaporeans only wish they could be as devoid of plutocrats as the Russians.

    If Putin decided to make sure no more plutocracy was going on, by hiring a world-class accounting firm like PriceWaterhouseCoopers to go over Russian government, business, politician and high-net-worth-individual finances, the PWC accountants would be very, very bored, because they wouldn't find any mysterious appearances or disappearances of large sums of money anywhere.

    Everything is strictly on the straight and narrow in Russia.

    [*] Although you could perhaps check London or Gstaad. Do Moscow, St. Petersburg and wherever the Kadyrov Klan domiciles itself count?


    of which I believe a majority were Jewish
     
    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I'm pretty sure never a majority. In any event, I would say almost no Americans, neocons included, are particularly knowledgable about or interested in the ethno-religious background of Russian plutocrats.

    the neocons are far more concerned about a small number of fatcats than about what would help the poor Jewish peasants that people are sending food boxes to.
     
    Lolwut? Even the remaining Russian Jews, much like Chinese minorities everywhere, are broadly white-collar professionals, not basket-weavers on the shtetl. Russia of course does still have basket-weaving peasants, some of whom went hungry in the 90's, but they aren't Jewish.

    By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that neocons are a clear, and disliked, minority amongst American Jews.

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    Plus there are a good number of Sanders and Chomsky groupies to those guys' left. Remember what school Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from.

    The politically-conservative Jews I've met have more often been Chamber of Commerce types or anti-communist ex-Soviets than neocons.

    Those Jewish people I know who still bear grudges toward Old World countries significant enough to bring them up in conversation are ill-disposed towards Germany and/or Poland far more often than towards Russia. Wagner and Goethe are verboten and forgotten, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, anti-semites both, are revered.

    American Jews whose families emigrated from places that are outside modern-day Russia's borders will still usually describe their family background as Russian. The ex-Soviet Jews I've met universally call themselves, without hyphen or qualification, Russians; one has to infer their background when they mention in passing that they have family in Israel, for example.

    Of all the claims you could make about American Jews, the idea that they're all crazed anti-Russians makes just about the least sense.

    For most of the 20th century, Jewish liberals were (on average) even more Soviet-sympathetic than liberals at large. They were, by leaps and miles, the ethnic group most overrepresented amongst the pro-Soviet far left and quasi-pro-Soviet pacifist granola enthusiasts. To this day, most Jews' idea of a "renegade Jew" is Roy Cohn.

    In fact, liberals from all backgrounds had plenty of residual affection for Russia all the way through the end of the first Obama administration. Remember the "reset?" Obama mocking Romney for saying Russia is an enemy?

    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    The viewpoints of which are virtually indistinguishable from neocon positions.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Not really. My Jewish liberal Facebook friends were beside themselves at Netanyahu's victory in last year's Israeli election. They're also forever enamored of various kumbaya initiatives — "What happens when you put Palestinian kids and Israeli kids in the same room? It turns out they're just kids."
  165. @Corvinus
    “Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world.”

    Indeed, but are you not also pushing matters in that same direction with your own pronouncements as being “the truth”, with little or no room for debate?

    “Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.”

    

Like the fictitious “Zeroth Amendment” or the “cuckservative” meme? Are these not rhetoric designed for greedy consumption for the Coalition of the Fringes Right?

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part--again, an important component--there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those "facts" and "truths", again, you are probably "anti-white". That’s what a number of commenters here promote.

    So why on earth would whites--when the definition of what is white has yet to be completely defined, at least from my point of view--in general embrace a movement that castigates their own personal decisions regarding what is race, what is culture, and what is hierarchy?

    Now Jared Taylor stated, “That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?””

    

Except Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past. 
It reminds me of an 1880’s political cartoon.

    http://museum.msu.edu/exhibitions/virtual/immigrationandcaricature/7572-749.html

    Not all alt-righters are Whites Only. Unlike most living beings, men are gifted with the ability to politically control significant parts of their own social organization, which in turn forms a large measure of their habitat.

    The global equilibration of social organization and human habitat promised by unlimited free mobility of labor and capital is not appealing to many Americans, especially old school Americans, many of whom are white. Even younger Americans.

    Selling America’s wonderful assets on the cheap to advance a “Christian” narrative of universal equality and enrich a very few is just not good business.

    Alt-righters are people just like you, Corvinus, just folks looking out for themselves.

  166. @Corvinus
    “Rhetorical momentum is a massive force for stupidity in our world.”

    Indeed, but are you not also pushing matters in that same direction with your own pronouncements as being “the truth”, with little or no room for debate?

    “Diminishing returns set in rapidly on any policy, but the natural psychology is instead to Double Dumb Down on here-to-fore successful demagogic gambits.”

    

Like the fictitious “Zeroth Amendment” or the “cuckservative” meme? Are these not rhetoric designed for greedy consumption for the Coalition of the Fringes Right?

    The Alt-Right is predicated in part, but a crucial part nonetheless, on a notion that white people in essence rule. They are the “best”. They made EVERYTHING. If whites do not universally agree with ideas, chances are you are labeled “anti-white”. Moreover, the Alt-Right is predicated in part--again, an important component--there are “natural hierarchies” based squarely on genetics. Environment matters little, if at all. In both cases, there are generalizations based on “facts” and “truths” that are “self-evident”. If anyone questions those "facts" and "truths", again, you are probably "anti-white". That’s what a number of commenters here promote.

    So why on earth would whites--when the definition of what is white has yet to be completely defined, at least from my point of view--in general embrace a movement that castigates their own personal decisions regarding what is race, what is culture, and what is hierarchy?

    Now Jared Taylor stated, “That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?””

    

Except Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past. 
It reminds me of an 1880’s political cartoon.

    http://museum.msu.edu/exhibitions/virtual/immigrationandcaricature/7572-749.html

    There are few social science phenomena that have as good a correlation as country wealth vs iq especially once natural resources are taken into account. The levels of civilization were similar back in Ellis island days. Back then Europe was still civilized and Africans were using spears, for example.

  167. @reiner Tor

    Many Russian plutocrats were and are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure never a majority.
     
    Five and a half of the first seven oligarchs in Russia in the 1990s were Jewish, and it was well-known to ethnocentric Jews, one of whom proudly told unwitting me when talking about the superior Jewish business acumen.

    Are you serious the neocons didn't know nor cared about the ethnicity of the oligarchs? Basically all of the purged oligarchs (like Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky) were Jewish, and a lot of the new oligarchs are not. Mind you, some of the most powerful (and closest to Putin) oligarchs are themselves Jewish, but no longer the majority.

    I would define “plutocrat” fairly expansively, to include politicians and powerful civil servants, the lesser oligarchs, oligarch-underlings, organized crime bosses, etc. It’s possible but I doubt it was ever the case that most “plutocrats” at large were Jewish.

    Whatever the case, neither Judaism nor opposition to plutocracy motivated Putin’s going after certain plutocrats. And, the proximate cause of neocons’ dislike of Putin is not sympathy for replaced oligarchs, but rather his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Iran’s nuke program.

    Neocons love (or loved) Rudy Giuliani, who made his name putting largely-Jewish white collar criminals, plutocrats you might say, behind bars.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And, the proximate cause of neocons’ dislike of Putin is not sympathy for replaced oligarchs, but rather his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Iran’s nuke program.

    No, the main cause is his strong Russian nationalism. Jews dislike other people's nationalism.
  168. I am surprised that, with all of today’s coffee-talk here , nobody bothered yet to invoke the second incarnation of the Godwin’s law:

    Thou shall not japhety-japh about ((())) without mention of Kevin MacDonald!

    Discuss.

  169. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @snorlax
    I would define "plutocrat" fairly expansively, to include politicians and powerful civil servants, the lesser oligarchs, oligarch-underlings, organized crime bosses, etc. It's possible but I doubt it was ever the case that most "plutocrats" at large were Jewish.

    Whatever the case, neither Judaism nor opposition to plutocracy motivated Putin's going after certain plutocrats. And, the proximate cause of neocons' dislike of Putin is not sympathy for replaced oligarchs, but rather his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Iran's nuke program.

    Neocons love (or loved) Rudy Giuliani, who made his name putting largely-Jewish white collar criminals, plutocrats you might say, behind bars.

    And, the proximate cause of neocons’ dislike of Putin is not sympathy for replaced oligarchs, but rather his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Iran’s nuke program.

    No, the main cause is his strong Russian nationalism. Jews dislike other people’s nationalism.

  170. @BenKenobi
    Firstly, yes that is the attitude of the "invite the world" crowd -- remember the UK minister who admitted it was "to rub the right's nose" in diversity?

    Secondly -- I concede your point that the 'huddled masses' don't want to see the gains of the multicult undone. However we don't wish to live in a dystopian polyglot banana republic where every ill both real imagined is blamed on White people not clapping their hands and believing enough.

    So we appear to be at an impasse. My modest proposal is two Americas.

    So we appear to be at an impasse. My modest proposal is two Americas.

    An America with an an annexed Canada and Mexico pushed into Guatemala. Only problem with that is with the current population of naive idiots in Canada who would elect Trudeau, they would be inclined to elect Hillary. Maybe just push them all into Vancouver and seal it off Escape from LA style.

  171. @Tiny Duck
    "alt-right" is all about whiteness and anger that the western world is getting brown. donald trump will revive the jim crow ideology.


    The Alt-Right is bigots latest attempt to cling to their rational for bigotry.

    The Alt-Right = White Nationalism = White Supremacy = Racism

    Bannon is a leader of the Alt-Right movement.

    Trump has played his hand. Trump is Alt-Righter.

    The Alt-Right must not be allowed to gain control of our government.

    Trump must be defeated at the polls, and so must every candidate who refuses to repudiate the racism of the Alt-Right.

    Eventually, they will go down defeat, hopefully laws will be passed to make sure this stuff is done away with

    Tell us how you really feel!

  172. @fnn

    And, as Germany shows, gentile whites are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves.
     
    American insanity "lives in the head [of the Germans] rent-free" as I think the current saying goes. If you don't believe it, just think of what the Germans have done to their de facto national animal-the German Shepherd Dog. At some point in the post-WWII era, American breeders decided they liked a bio-mechanically dysfunctional highly sloped back on their GSD's. The Germans adopted the same senseless fashion -despite the fact that the breed in Germany is governed by a club with official powers of enforcement and all that that entails. The status of the breed was able to survive the close relationship between Adolf and Blondi ,but not American cultural hegemony. So these days Belgian Malinois are a lot more common as police/military working dogs.

    My understanding is that German Schutzhund dogs are like the original GSD, not the American exaltation of form over function.

  173. White nationalism is more important than inalienable [sic] rights….

    Outrageous mendacity and chutzpah! White nationalism is a defense of inalienable rights.

  174. @Anonymous
    One of the oddest planks in Steve's agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 ("Ellis Island immigration").

    He's maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.

    Perhaps he fears that in the very long term future, Hispanics will become just as mixed and well integrated with the rest of white America as those Ellis Island immigrants, forcing him to concede that Hispanic immigration is not as dreadful for the future of America as he makes it seem.

    One of the oddest planks in Steve’s agenda is the negative view of European immigrants who arrived in droves from 1880 to 1920 (“Ellis Island immigration”).

    He’s maybe the last holdout to accept these immigrants as a positive contribution to the American fabric.

    Two sentences that contradict each other — brilliant! Troll quality: 0.

  175. @Jack D

    descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses
     
    Any (particular descendants), Steve? Let's be clear. Are you talking about Italian-Americans? German? Irish? Ireland, Italy, and Germany were the three countries most represented at Ellis Island, so you are talking about one or all of them, right?

    I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims!
     
    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the "Invite the World" side actually thinks that way.

    2nd the entire US Muslim population is 3 million. No one, not even the craziest "Ellis Island descendant" , wants 100 million or 200 million Muslims to immigrate to the US.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of your better efforts. You have a point but you take it a bridge too far.


    Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,”
     
    This is where Taylor steps onto dangerous ground. You will notice that Taylor DOESN'T mention certain other groups - Italians, Jews, Koreans, etc. If you are a member of one of those groups that are not on his list, this has got to make you nervous. Apparently, in Taylor's book, you can never really be an American. The taint is in the blood. There is no place for you here, even if you agree to buy into the American proposition. Even if you are not interested in having 100 million Muslims move here, he doesn't want you in his club. Who knows, if he and his kind get into power, maybe they will want to rectify the "mistakes" of the past. Not just the recent past, but maybe go all the way and restore America to its pure German/ Swedish/ Irishmen/Hungarian greatness? The logic of his arguments leads you in that direction.

    In a democracy, the route to power is to make your party MORE inclusive, not less. You don't have to give up your core principles but if you define your movement so narrowly that it excludes more than half the population, then there's NO route to power for you. Taylor's POV not only excludes all non-Northern Europeans, but it also repels all Northern Europeans who don't buy into his ideology and may indeed be repelled by it.

    And the real pity of it is that this is an unnecessary own-goal. There are great arguments against "Invite the World" that don't require you to alienate huge swathes of the American voter base.

    Walker made the same arguments in '96 - 1896 and they didn't win then, so that train left the station a long time ago. Maybe Walker really was right, but what are you going to do about it now? We can't seem to send back the illegals who arrived here last week, let alone reverse the Ellis Island immigration wave. And yes, when someone starts talking about how there should be a racial test for being an American, that's going to make certain (Ellis Island huddled masses descendants) nervous and they are going to oppose you. How is refighting the immigration wars of the 19th century going to help you achieve your future goals? Why cultivate enemies unnecessarily?

    Now, none of this actually has anything to do with Trump and his Jewish grandchildren, but it sure does relate to Taylor.

    First of all, this makes zero sense. Not in the sense that leftist policies never make any sense, but even from the POV of the evil-doers themselves. This is some kind of cartoon strawman. No one on the “Invite the World” side actually thinks that way.

    Some of them — like Andrew Neather — say they think this way.

  176. @Anonymous
    From my conversations with the many Jewish people I interact with every day, their median viewpoint is New Republic-style liberalism, while the clear mode is simply taking the Democratic party line on everything including Israel.

    The viewpoints of which are virtually indistinguishable from neocon positions.

    Not really. My Jewish liberal Facebook friends were beside themselves at Netanyahu’s victory in last year’s Israeli election. They’re also forever enamored of various kumbaya initiatives — “What happens when you put Palestinian kids and Israeli kids in the same room? It turns out they’re just kids.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not really. My Jewish liberal Facebook friends were beside themselves at Netanyahu’s victory in last year’s Israeli election. They’re also forever enamored of various kumbaya initiatives — “What happens when you put Palestinian kids and Israeli kids in the same room? It turns out they’re just kids.”

    Costless virtue signaling on their parts. Damage control. When we get down to brass tacks, there is very little difference in substantive positions in terms of having differential real world effects.
  177. @Jefferson
    "The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s"

    The mainstream media which is run by Leftists is now all of a sudden anti-communist?

    “The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s”

    The mainstream media which is run by Leftists is now all of a sudden anti-communist?

    Yes, which is why just recently they spent a lot of money to hire that BREAKING BAD guy to star in a movie about communist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, despite knowing it would probably not break even. Because they hate communism so much and wanted to show what dirty rats sympathizers like Trumbo were. Oh wait…

  178. The thing is though is that many WASPs are in mixed raced unions. I just left a baptism for a child of a Ghanaian-American & a blond white woman. She seemed very WASPish from NJ. At the gathering there was a white couple that evidently adopted to black boys. There were white children but quite a few mixed race kids.

    At the end of the day many just don’t care about this stuff.

    • Replies: @Broski
    A baptism, eh? The mixed race unions and adoptions of black kids are common among devout Protestants and, especially, liberal evangelicals.
    , @Lurker

    The thing is though is that many WASPs are in mixed raced unions.
     
    Any survey I've seen appears to show there are far less mixed race unions than there 'should' be.

    At the gathering there was a white couple that evidently adopted to black boys.
     
    Useless cucks who will quite likely be faced with the fall out of regression to the mean among their kids & grandkids..
    , @L Woods
    Yes, white women love the large, the loud and the stupid. This is not news.
  179. @Mr. Anon
    "I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I’m talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to “notice” so if they haven’t yet, don’t hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities."

    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What's wrong with that? Why don't YOU seem to like that scenario?

    "I don’t say this to gloat -"

    No, I rather think that you do. There is nothing in your tone to suggest otherwise.

    Then let that fighting for the scraps begin now, while we (i.e., not you) at least have a plurality. What’s wrong with that? Why don’t YOU seem to like that scenario?

    Bingo. Immigration is something everyone is talking about now in white countries – negatively by white people. We won Brexit. We are 50:50 with Trump in play. One Nation in Australia picked up 4 senators, the only time it has ever succeeded in electing a senator nationally AFAIK. Le Pen, AfD are rising. The fight starts now. We can’t put it off any longer. It is common knowledge that everywhere in the West faces the same problem.

    Still, I don’t see the movement becoming functionally anti-Semitic despite ethnic origins of the Frankfurt School, Hart Celler, NYT ownership, Soros, and most of the assholes named Cohen that Steve fisks from time to time. You’ve got good guys like Milo, Miller and Steve, and others who are on our side. And half the iSteve commentariat.

    There is a reason why Duke and random KKK guy are endorsing Trump despite knowledge that his daughter procreates with a Jew and has a lot of Jews in the organization. The point is that we can handle the odd Jew here and there, we’ve done it for centuries. What we cannot handle is becoming minorities in countries that have been ours and being forced to maintain the wealth transfer and the kowtowing ad infinitum. Enough!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Still, I don’t see the movement becoming functionally anti-Semitic despite ethnic origins of the Frankfurt School, Hart Celler, NYT ownership, Soros, and most of the assholes named Cohen that Steve fisks from time to time. You’ve got good guys like Milo, Miller and Steve, and others who are on our side. And half the iSteve commentariat."

    I don't either. Yet, for some people, it's always 1939, or 1933, or 1492, or 70 A.D., or some by-gone year in a never ending string of grievances. Fine, they may have their reasons, but I don't have to share thier paranoia, nor attack my own people because they might be insufficiently acceptable to someone else, nor cripple a movement which might actually represent me because it is perceived by someone else as untrustworthy.

  180. The liberal press doesn’t get it. They’re defining what liberals ought to consider anti-American. The rest of us? It’s fish-wrap. Liberal media speaks to liberals. Only reason liberal media still wraps fish is because Bezos of Amazon spends 60 million a year to keep the Post alive. NYTimes and Chicago Times? Some Mexicali billionaire keeps the Times’ genre going to the tune of hundreds of millions lost per year. But all they’re propping up is liberal news read by liberals. What’s the point? No one is swayed. Same for TV media. Only liberals watch it. No one serious will be swayed by them, certainly no one that’s voting.

    When Hillary loses this thing, the entities propping up liberal press is going to pull the rug out from under them and they’ll THEN die the free-market death they would have anyway, years ago. Why prop them up? If you can’t get the Democrat criminal elected even with all these billions spent, propping up liberal media doesn’t look so hot anymore. Hillary, with all the hundreds of millions spent, is slipping back again. That out to be a clue to Bezos right there. And besides, what’s he doing co-mingling Amazon stock sales with WashPost, a failing venture, anyway? Amazon isn’t turning a profit yet, it’s still burning prodigious quantities of cash, as is WashPost. Bezos, yet another criminal.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    Liberal media speaks to liberals. Only reason liberal media still wraps fish is because Bezos of Amazon spends 60 million a year to keep the Post alive.
     
    My bad. WashPost commits to losing 60 million a month. The original deal was 1.4 billion, I believe. Bezos also spent hundreds of millions more moving WashPost offices off 15th and L Street NW to a new palace somewhere around L'Enfant Plaza somewhere on/off/around K Street NW. I used to install phones in the old press room in the early 80s. People were still ordering the old fish-wrap dropped at their doorstep then. Not for many years since, hence, the huge losses.
  181. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @snorlax
    Not really. My Jewish liberal Facebook friends were beside themselves at Netanyahu's victory in last year's Israeli election. They're also forever enamored of various kumbaya initiatives — "What happens when you put Palestinian kids and Israeli kids in the same room? It turns out they're just kids."

    Not really. My Jewish liberal Facebook friends were beside themselves at Netanyahu’s victory in last year’s Israeli election. They’re also forever enamored of various kumbaya initiatives — “What happens when you put Palestinian kids and Israeli kids in the same room? It turns out they’re just kids.”

    Costless virtue signaling on their parts. Damage control. When we get down to brass tacks, there is very little difference in substantive positions in terms of having differential real world effects.

  182. @Jack D
    This might have been a winning strategy in 1896 or maybe even in 1964 (but then again it didn't ACTUALLY win in those years despite being available), but in 2016 that's doomed to fail. You are never going to get enough "old stock" Americans to "notice", change their belief system and dump their Italian/Jewish/Mexican/Asian etc. spouses and children and join the American White National Socialist Party.

    I know some of the chips off the old block are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to mix metaphors (I'm talking about you, Jeb) , but old stock Americans have had a century plus to "notice" so if they haven't yet, don't hold your breath. By the time they really notice, if ever, they will be just one minority themselves and will just have to fight for their share of scraps along with all the other minorities. They are never again going to be in a position of Running Things Again Around Here. It's never going back to the old way. I don't say this to gloat - the frog has been boiled and it's too late to unboil it. Facts is facts.

    Exactly. Would a WASP disown their child if they married an Italian American? Doubt it. That ship has sailed.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Jews would disown their kid if she married either WASP or Italian American. Or a Half-A-Greek like me. That was put to the test twice back in DC. The pressure these Jewish Mothers put on their daughters is unfucking-believable. "What would they say at the Synagogue? What do we tell them at Temple when they ask how we let you marry a Goyim name of Christian, divorced with a child from another woman NO LESS? How could you do this to your poor father? Why don't you plunge a knife into your poor father's heart and get it over with already?"

    In the end, these broads wound up with the men they shoulda been with all along. Fat, short, wuss, Jewish Doctor on the one hand, a mortgage banker-crook money-lender on the other. But if I coulda hooked up with one of em? Monica Lewinski-style blow-jobs for life and me backing the Brink's Truck up to the loading dock.

    A real score.
  183. @Ed
    The thing is though is that many WASPs are in mixed raced unions. I just left a baptism for a child of a Ghanaian-American & a blond white woman. She seemed very WASPish from NJ. At the gathering there was a white couple that evidently adopted to black boys. There were white children but quite a few mixed race kids.

    At the end of the day many just don't care about this stuff.

    A baptism, eh? The mixed race unions and adoptions of black kids are common among devout Protestants and, especially, liberal evangelicals.

    • Replies: @Ed
    I say baptism because I'm Catholic. The family is not.
  184. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Steve, you're being a bit intellectually dishonest here.

    Paleoconservatism, which is not anti-American, overlaps somewhat with the alt-right, but the alt-right largely grew out of a rejection of even paleoconservatism in the early 21st century as basically wrong ideologically and a failure in practical politics.

    We don't need to take the liberals' word for it. The alt-right is influenced by European right-wing anti-Americanism, and there are alt-right figures who claim that they're anti-American or suggest it implicitly by adopting certain European New Right positions.

    It's probably most accurate to describe the alt-right as a post-American ideology that is international, racialist, and illiberal, rather than focused on being anti-American per se.

    Straight from the (white) horse’s mouth:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Spencer and others are falling straight into the branding trap that has been set.

    The movement is NATIONALISM, not "Alt Right." It's valence isn't particularly "right wing" or "left wing". The globalists have seized on the "Rightwing" label to block off its appeal to a larger audience/electorate. (Even if it were "Rightwing" that label should not be used. Think!)

    Very foolish of us to nod right along with them. Stupid goyim.
  185. @candid_observer
    I can't say I've read a particularly large amount of Taylor's writings. But I wonder how much he has limited his own vision by his allegiance both to his own Southern cultural heritage, and to his current audience, which of course contains more than its share of fairly retrograde elements.

    Look, there are lot of points on which he and others are right, and importantly right, when it comes to the singular value of Western Civilization, economically, politically, intellectually, and socially. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about insisting that the US (and other Western nations) recognize and, in many ways, institutionalize those values. But it makes no sense for the US in particular, at this stage, to orient itself around Northern European peoples, even if it was Northern Europeans -- the English specifically -- who established this country.

    We simply can't rewrite the demographic history of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Nor is there any reason to do so. We can see, with the successful periods of the 20th century -- mainly between the closing off immigration in 1924 to the reopening of the torrent in 1965 -- how a good result can be achieved. During this period, the ideal held up to immigrants was full assimilation into American values and culture, and the peoples involved have proved themselves fully capable of achieving that assimilation.

    I see no reason we shouldn't return to that model.

    Now of course there are two current real obstacles to returning to the model: the demand that immigrants truly assimilate has been removed in our current political culture, and some of the immigrants themselves show relatively poor potential to assimilate fully--some because they don't want to give up their culture, some because they may lack, on average, the hereditary capacity to assimilate well (and groups of course tend to behave in accordance with their averages, even if many individuals among them can escape that average behavior).

    But among current immigrant groups who show every potential to become fully assimilated are East Asians and (most?) South Asians. Even if the first generation immigrants seem obnoxious to some in one way or another, I see no reason to believe that any such behaviors would continue past a generation or, at most, two. I won't say, because I just don't know, whether they differ on average on hereditary socially important traits from Europeans. But I can see no reason to think that such differences are of a nature which would make a difference after assimilation.

    Now the white nationalists -- maybe Taylor? -- seem to have a problem with East and South Asians. But I don't see on what legitimate grounds they should. They can come to embrace Western Civilization and American values as well as pretty much any peoples. It's blind, and a kind of madness, to exclude them.

    Do you really want to live in East or South Asia? I could be happy anywhere in NW Europe and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe. But South Asia is a shithole, SE Asia is a shithole, and East Asia is a hive, with a big dose of corruption of backscratching that will see our quaint ideas of fair play bring a knife to a gun fight.

    Importing these people results in our countries becoming more like them and we becoming clannish and corrupt ourselves so as to compete.