The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Ross Douthat's Red Pill
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Fr0m Ross Douthat’s column in the NYT:

Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege
APRIL 18, 2015

A LIVING cartoonist lecturing his murdered peers makes for a curious spectacle, but that’s what transpired at journalism’s George Polk Awards a week ago. The lecturer was Garry Trudeau, of “Doonesbury” fame; his subject was the cartoonists for Charlie Hebdo, the Parisian satire rag, who were gunned down by fanatics because of their mockery of Muhammad and Islam.

Trudeau did not exactly say they had it coming, but he passed judgment on their sins — not the sin of blasphemy, but the sin of picking a politically unsuitable target for their jabs. By mocking things sacred to Europe’s Muslim immigrants, Trudeau lamented, the Hebdo cartoonists were “punching downward … attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority.” This was both a moral and an aesthetic failing, because “ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny — it’s just mean.”

Garry Trudeau, of course, is our living leading expert on what’s funny.

By the way, in contrast to Trudeau, who has milked this cartoonist gig thing in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. 20002, and 2010s, the great Bill Watterson got Calvin and Hobbes into syndication in 1985 and stopped in 1995.

Trudeau is hardly the first writer to accuse the Hebdo cartoonists of “punching down.” That phrase, and the critique it implies of “Je Suis Charlie” solidarity, has circulated on the Western left ever since the massacre. And understandably, because it reflects a moral theory popular among our intelligentsia, one that The Atlantic’s David Frum, in a response to Trudeau, distilled as follows: In any given conflict, first “identify the bearer of privilege,” then “hold the privilege-bearer responsible.”

As Frum notes, at its roots (both liberal and biblical) this is an admirable idea. Better to live in a society that favors underdogs than one that just lets victors have their way.

For example, President Barack Obama gets to unilaterally rewrite Congress’s immigration legislation because he’s a victor disprivileged. After all, the Constitution was written by the Privileged to protect their privileges, so of course a President who is a member of the Disprivileged gets to rape and pillage it in the interest of his party being victorious in future elections by electing a new people.

But on the contemporary left, the theory’s simplicity is becoming a kind of intellectual straitjacket. The Hebdo massacre is just one of many cases in which today’s progressives, in the name of overthrowing hierarchies, end up assuming that lines of power are predictable, permanent and clear.

Which they are not, for several reasons.

First, while power flows from pre-existing privilege, it also grows from the barrel of a gun, and the willingness to deal out violence changes power dynamics, even when it doesn’t have a truly revolutionary outcome. The terrorist’s veto on portrayals of Islam is itself a very real form of power, and as long as journalists who challenge it end up dead, the idea that they are “up” and their targets are “down” reflects a denial of life-and-death reality. Or, to take a related example, the hundreds of white women recently raped by Pakistani gangs in England’s industrial north were theoretically higher on a ladder of privilege than their assailants. But the gangs’ actual power over their victims was only enhanced by that notional ladder, because multicultural pieties were part of what induced the authorities to look the other way. …

The same point applies to many cases beyond Islam. Christianity is both a historically privileged faith (from the perspective of the West) and arguably the planet’s most persecuted religion (from the perspective of Africa or Asia). The gay rights movement has gained extraordinary influence (especially at the elite level) in the United States, yet gay people are still treated brutally around the world. …

Third and finally, almost every official hierarchy of victimhood tends toward some kind of blindness or partiality. Frum’s response to Trudeau raises one obvious example: the way that many idealistic and progressive-minded figures in the past took racial hierarchies for granted, arguing for white economic uplift while ignoring the more fundamental victimization of African-Americans.

Maybe contemporary progressives have entirely eliminated these sorts of blind spots. On the other hand, if you take the red pill I occasionally offer to readers of this column, you’ll see today’s progressivism as a force that has consistently liberated adults at the expense of children’s basic rights and that depends on a great deal of hidden violence — millions upon millions of abortions, above all — to sustain its particular vision of equality.

That pill can be spat out or left untasted. But progressivism’s present confidence (even in the face of murder) in its prescribed hierarchies of power and victimhood is of a piece with its constant invocation of history’s “arc” and winning “side.” Both deny history’s true complexity: Rather than a clear arc, it offers what T. S. Eliot called “many cunning passages” — in which persecutors and persecuted can trade places, and even the well-meaning can lose their way entirely.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I guess if they figure that if they scream “punching down” loud enough and often enough into the megaphone, people will forget all about the propensity they had to question mass open immigration and the French won’t get the idea to vote FN.

    Read More
    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/ross-douthats-red-pill/#comment-927222
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. So all this punching-up, punching-down stuff is just so much self-contradictory bullshit being dumped on hoi palloi from those on high?

    Read More
  3. “Christianity is both a historically privileged faith (from the perspective of the West)”

    Christianity is on life support in Western Europe. They are mostly getting Muslim immigrants and most Western European SWPL types are abandoning Christianity in mass and becoming either Atheists at worst or Agnostics at best.

    Read More
  4. Wow. If this isn’t Ross Douthat’s swan song, I’ll be very surprised. In a Sunday NYT opinion piece to identify the Pakistani rape depredations in northern England, and the abortion of millions of unborn, each as exemplars of real (but unacknowledged) punching down power? I sense in his “red pill” analogy a man resigned to a life on the margins of the Matrix.

    Read More
    • Replies: @H2
    It's the part about abortions that will get him into trouble IMO. You can see in the comments section of the article that some people are willing to say Islam has problems, but DON'T YOU DARE suggest that a fetus has any rights at all! Naked women handcuffed to kitchen counters and being forced to give birth, and all that.
  5. The “punching up/punching down” metaphor became common just a few weeks ago and it had to do with whether Trevor Noah’s jokes were funny. It is now being used to justify killing someone for telling lousy jokes. That’s a tough audience.

    Realistically, no religious faith and no nationalist ideology can claim immunity; whatever the situation of their individual adherents, any group belief with millions of followers is hardly weak, and ridiculing cannot constitute “punching down.” Ideas and beliefs are not things, they aren’t even fat girls or ugly men; to say that some beliefs cannot be laughed at is the essence of privilege, spelled s-h-i-b-b-o-l-e-t-h.

    From a practical point of view there’s a distinct possibility for a slippery slope. For example, if no representations of the Prophet are allowable (because (a) it will hurt the feelings of some Muslims and (b) who will then kill you) then we are essentially allowing Muslims to dictate culturally accepted actions and artifacts. Keep in mind that there are some radical Muslims, extending the concept of iconoclasm involved in Mohommedan portraiture who have extended it to the destruction of all non-Muslim artifacts (Bamiyan Buddhas, many sculptures near Mosul recently). So do we accept the destruction of the world’s cultural heritage to appease some impoverished Muslims? It is insane.

    A further slippery slope could develop because it would make any open discussion or debate about Muslim immigration and/or assimilation impossible because the Muslims were dictating the rules, first because they were “disprivileged” because they were poor, and second because they were privileged, because they were willing to kill and die for the sake of their beliefs.

    None of this is going to be settled by blog posts or Op-Eds. But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion. There are only so many cheeks you can turn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There are only so many cheeks you can turn.
     
    Or kiss.
    , @Marty
    And it's all because we whites agreed to stop laughing at blacks. If instead we'd followed the lead of the Dartmouth Review ca. 1982, none of this bs would be upon us.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion.

    This is a good point. It's easy to find a high-minded notion to justify what is in fact cowardice. I think that's what Gary Trudeau is doing.
  6. “Red pill”? Do we have an actual instance of dog-whistling, in which a Respectable Conservative sends a signal to the not-at-all respectable rightwing audience by using a word which they will take differently than the non-rightwing audience?

    Obviously Douthat isn’t addressing the core themes of the PUA/Game-adjacent “Red Pill Marriage” folks, but is he just referencing the Matrix, or is he hinting at something more? Hmm.

    –Discordiax

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    I'm not sure I can drink enough whiskey to even begin to comprehend what you're talking about.
    , @a Newsreader
    Douthat has occasionally mentioned Mencius Moldbug's blog, which liberally uses the red pill metaphor.
    , @Desiderius
    It's both double and single entendre.

    If you don't think that the red pill has anything to do with abortion, you have more reflection to do.
  7. “‘…the hundreds of white women recently raped by Pakistani gangs in England’s industrial north….’”

    girls not women, ross. some as young as age eleven. =/ (happening in australia now, too, btw.)

    Read More
  8. Yeah, it’s really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the “I Am Charlie” banner just as they’ve been ordered. And seconding David Frum’s musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he’d be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind…

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind…
     
    Well, you certainly don't agree with Pat Buchanan on the only thing that matters: mass immigration to the USA.You think that the Mexicanization of the USA is a good thing, while Buchanan opposes it.

    Of course, Ron, you do have the elites on your side on that one....And you are getting the America that you want:

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.

    Around the time the 2020 Census is conducted, more than half of the nation’s children are expected to be part of a minority race or ethnic group. This proportion is expected to continue to grow so that by 2060, just 36 percent of all children (people under age 18) will be single-race non-Hispanic white, compared with 52 percent today.

    The U.S. population as a whole is expected to follow a similar trend, becoming majority-minority in 2044. The minority population is projected to rise to 56 percent of the total in 2060, compared with 38 percent in 2014.

    While one milestone would be reached by the 2020 Census, another will be achieved by the 2030 Census: all baby boomers will have reached age 65 or older (this will actually occur in 2029). Consequently, in that year, one-in-five Americans would be 65 or older, up from one in seven in 2014.

    By 2060, the nation’s foreign-born population would reach nearly 19 percent of the total population, up from 13 percent in 2014.

    http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html

     

    2014 2060

    Whites 62.2 43.6

    Hispanics 17.4 28.6

    Blacks 13.2 14.3

    Asians 5.4 9.3
    , @Stealth
    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he’d be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    Seems like a reasonable fear to me. Don't be so hard on him; pretty much everyone who's not independently (very) wealthy or a doctor is in Ross's same awkward position.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Good grief Ron, Douthat's position requires that he tiptoe across the cutting edge of a razor in ballerina footies. His job is to disclose as much truth as possible without being fired. I'd love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen. If your argument is that Douthat could push against the stupidity with greater vigor I am willing to consider it. But if you want to pretend that he could offer Buchanan’s lucidity to the parochial, navel-gazing readership of the Times then I must consign you to the delusional boat anchors that impede genuine progress. Get a grip man! The coming anarchy will ensure that life becomes ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. We need to stem the tide, not condemn the first rock in the jetty for failing to turn the wave back to sea.
    , @syonredux
    The Wisdom of Buchanan:

    No one knows how many illegal aliens are here. The estimates run from 12 to 20 million.
    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time. There are 36 million immigrants and their children in the US today, almost as many as came to American between Jamestown in 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.
    Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.
     

    "America is a nation of immigrants": It is among our most beautiful myths. It appeals to the heart. And there is truth to it. Many of us can trace bloodlines back to ancestors who came over in the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. But save for the 36 million here now, we are not "a nation of immigrants." Rarely have immigrants constituted 10% of our number.
    What is different about today's immigration?
    We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history
    Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here
    Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation
    The melting pot is cracked & broken, and our elites believe it should be smashed as a relic of cultural repression
    Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us. Most come to work; some bring hostility in their hearts.
     

    Buchanan said his exclusion from the three televised debates between Bush and Gore kept viewers from a real discussion of issues like immigration. “One of the great social crises of this country is unrestricted immigration and an invasion from the south,” he said. “I will cut back legal immigration to 250,000 a year and I will defend America’s border, if necessary with American troops.”
     
    , @SFG
    I partially disagree. By using the 'red pill' metaphor, he will cause a small fraction of men to learn about Game, and challenge the consensus. And by pointing out the contradictions of progressivism, he can shift the mainstream consensus slightly right from his perch at the NYT.

    He and what you are doing here are two prongs of a movement, working in concert to shift the Overton window right.
    , @robother
    I would say your description "one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing" is an apt one for David Brooks, but not so of Douthat, at least during the past year.
    I would guess the gay marriage triumphalism, starting with the SJW jihad on Brendan Eich, has forced him to confront the moral dilemma a Conservative believing Catholic has in maintaining his viability as a NYTimes columnist.
    Again, specifically referring to the Pakistani identity of the English rape gangs and bluntly forcing NYTimes readers to confront abortion as an act of supreme power by an adult over the helpless unborn; those are the kind of "discordant thoughts" that put his position at risk. While they may not seem particularly novel to those of us who read Steve Sailer regularly, or who were raised Catholic,I am sure they are painfully interesting to the average Sunday Times reader.
    , @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Finally!
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Come on, Ron. Ross is the furthest right and bravest of the NYT columnists. And he's written a number of columns that have ticked off typical NYT readers. Consider, for example, his column after the 2012 election pointing out the fissures in the Obama coalition (essentially making the same points Steve has made here about the "coalition of the fringes").

    As for David Frum, his columns on the dysgenic impact of our current immigration policy were brave too.
    , @MC
    You are not Douthat's audience. If you read his columns as taking right wing common sense or even controversial right wing ideas and translating them into language that NY/DC elites can understand and have a hard time arguing with, he's very good at what he does.
    , @timothy
    Does Ron Unz read Douthat consistently? This is just absurdly unfair to Douthat and frankly bizarre. He's the most intellectually substantial writer the NY Times has. Sailer has a very low threshold for banality and he is a great admirer of Douthat.

    Maybe if I just APPRECIATED the FOUR SEASONS like Ron Unz I would have a different perspective on Ross Douthat.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/ross-douthat-keeps-getting-better-and.html
    , @BubbaJoe
    This is a low comment on your part, Ron. Ross isn't my favorite by any means, but he's trying to translate Sailerite/Sailer-lite analysis to a very hostile audience. There are many articles/opinions in the NYT where you'll see solid anti-immigration/general reasonableness sentiment in the comments, but nearly all of the comments on RD's articles are pure dumf***ery- he gets a lot of flak. This last post of his, including phrases like the 'red pill' beg the question whether he'll stay there much longer. Does he need the NYT, or does the NYT need him? They try to place at least one conservative on their rolls; who else can fill that role for them? To me, his article sounds almost like a resignation letter. Regardless, you come across as a tad mean-spirited here, unnecessarily so.
    , @DH
    Initially I thought of Douthat as you do, but if he keeps writing like this I will be forced to change my mind. Give credit where credit is due.
    , @Boomstick

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing.
     
    You're nuts. The Douthat piece hit points Steve made days earlier--the difficulty of assigning hierarchy of victimhood in a multi-victim society where victimhood is prized above all, and the absurdity of saying cartoonists are "punching down" when they mock armed murderers. He threw in some anti-abortion arguments and a social conservative argument for stable families for good measure. He did it calmly, in the leading paper in the US, to a hostile audience and hostile employer.

    We might like more Steve-snark but that's a rhetorical technique better employed from other venues. The audience has to understand that an alternative exists and has an intellectually serious foundation before they can be persuaded by sarcasm.
    , @James Kabala
    It may not be the courage of the martyr or the soldier, but in the Internet age it does take a certain kind of courage to publish articles that every single time attract a lengthy common thread of 100% pure invective. (And I can only imagine what kind of tweets and e-mails he receives.)
    , @Esquire
    Ron, this is very uncharitable. Ross is one of the only channels through which Unz.com-style ideas can diffuse into the mainstream.

    Consider that the typical NYT reader has no clue about the Pakistani pimping scandal, would have been exposed to the Charlie shootings primarily via "frontlash against the backlash" pieces, and considers abortion to be way outside the Overton Window.

    Ross's job isn't to thrill transgressive iconoclasts like you... his job is to subvert the NYT narrative in the weaselly little ways allowed him. I for one wish him godspeed.
    , @Benjaminl
    This is unbelievable!

    First, a large part of Douthat's energy is devoted to arguing traditional Catholic morality -- chastity, anti-abortion, anti-same-sex-marriage -- which to the NYT audience is an absurd and offensive ideology. Their comments basically consist of their heads exploding. Yet Douthat keeps at it, politely and doggedly, never descending into a rant.. Maybe that is not interesting to secular libertarians, but anyone interested in questions of natalism, demographics, and family (i.e. Steve's audience) ought to see the relevance of these issues.

    Second, as others have pointed out, Douthat goes about as far as it is possible to go in bringing race and culture realism to an NYT audience. To readers of Steve Sailer it may seem old hat, but judging again by the uniformly head-exploding comments on Douthat's pieces, this is apparently the only time in his readers' lives that they have had to encounter such absurd and offensive ideas.

    Third -- not that his readers ever appreciate this --Douthat engages in the strikingly unusual practice of presenting his opponents' views charitably and persuasively, and acknowledging critiques of his own views. In that respect, he displays an unusual amount of grace, for a pundit.

    Maybe all this does not make him original or interesting by some standards, but he is doing -- and well -- what nobody else is doing.
  9. Rand Paul to a reporter trying to pin down when he would allow or not allow an abortion:

    “Why don’t we ask the DNC: ‘Is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?’
    “You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”

    ________________________________________________________________
    Rand should follow that up with, “Is Debbie still punching down on that 7 lb baby in her’s
    mom’s womb?”

    Read More
  10. I think I finally get it. This is not about punching up or punching down. It’s about mobocracy. Except the mob is dwindling and splitting.

    Read More
  11. @SPMoore8
    The "punching up/punching down" metaphor became common just a few weeks ago and it had to do with whether Trevor Noah's jokes were funny. It is now being used to justify killing someone for telling lousy jokes. That's a tough audience.

    Realistically, no religious faith and no nationalist ideology can claim immunity; whatever the situation of their individual adherents, any group belief with millions of followers is hardly weak, and ridiculing cannot constitute "punching down." Ideas and beliefs are not things, they aren't even fat girls or ugly men; to say that some beliefs cannot be laughed at is the essence of privilege, spelled s-h-i-b-b-o-l-e-t-h.

    From a practical point of view there's a distinct possibility for a slippery slope. For example, if no representations of the Prophet are allowable (because (a) it will hurt the feelings of some Muslims and (b) who will then kill you) then we are essentially allowing Muslims to dictate culturally accepted actions and artifacts. Keep in mind that there are some radical Muslims, extending the concept of iconoclasm involved in Mohommedan portraiture who have extended it to the destruction of all non-Muslim artifacts (Bamiyan Buddhas, many sculptures near Mosul recently). So do we accept the destruction of the world's cultural heritage to appease some impoverished Muslims? It is insane.

    A further slippery slope could develop because it would make any open discussion or debate about Muslim immigration and/or assimilation impossible because the Muslims were dictating the rules, first because they were "disprivileged" because they were poor, and second because they were privileged, because they were willing to kill and die for the sake of their beliefs.

    None of this is going to be settled by blog posts or Op-Eds. But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion. There are only so many cheeks you can turn.

    There are only so many cheeks you can turn.

    Or kiss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Woody on Cheers: What's goin' down, Mr. Peterson?
    Norm: All four cheeks and a couple of chins.
  12. Terrorists who shoot down an entire magazine staff are excellent bad guys.

    The dead murdered by bad guys are always great martyrs.

    Douthat trades on what is easy here.

    He carefully avoids the actual hard questions raised by those willing to be thoughtful on a difficult topic. That isn’t the way the right wing swings.

    Hate speech is a problem. That includes deliberately offensive things, as much if they are said about Muslims as if they are said about other badly treated minorities such as blacks in America. Or Jews in a lot of places. Or Catholics in China.

    Hate speech does not justify murder or terrorism. But it isn’t all wonderful and cuddly either, even if our right wingers actually do share that hate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Hate speech is a problem. That includes deliberately offensive things [...]

    This cannot be true. Criticism of ideas or ideologies is not "hate speech." If it were, that would mean any critics of Christianity are also engaging in "hate speech."

    What's really meant is that criticism of ideas or beliefs held by the "powerful" is not hate speech, because privilege, but criticism of ideas or beliefs by the "powerless" is hate speech. Except at that point we aren't talking about the content of any speech anymore, merely about the putative low social status of those who are offended by it.

    By that logic, I could condemn as hate criminals atheists, immigration enthusiasts, climate change advocates, LGBT advocates, and anyone else, as long as I could find a sizable group of poor white cis-genders whose feelings were hurt by such "hate speech" and who felt that such speech demeaned them. Something tells me that wouldn't be hard to do.

    Now, there is a line between mocking or ridiculing an idea or a belief or a political position and mocking the actual adherents of same; for example, mocking open immigration from Meso America is not hate speech, mocking the actual people involved may meet a hate speech criterion (I personally don't think so) but it does at least foster prejudice. But none of that is relevant when discussing either Charlie Hebdo (whose cartoons mock all religions) or Trevor Noah (who as far as I can tell has not fostered prejudice against any group.)

    By the same token, the sizable literature that argues for, e.g., racial IQ differences rarely if ever mocks anyone, it is mostly written in a dry and restrained style, and moreover is not meant to deliberately offend anyone. And we are not even discussing offensive speech that wasn't done on purpose ....... All of this of course presupposes a tribunal that will determine not only offensive authorial intent but also calibrate the threshhold of numbers offended so as to determine whether an act of hate speech has occurred but also what the appropriate penalties should be. That tribunal, by definition, will be privileged. Permission to mock it, Sir?

    My main concern is that what appears to be happening is that many Western societies appear ready to carve out exceptions to free speech to protect the sensibilities of specific minorities. But those minorities are the ones who have to learn the rules of free speech in the West, not the other way around. Otherwise we will be living in a highly censored and unfree society before you know it.

    Bottom line, once we go down the hate speech road, and especially once we determine that the criticism of ideas and beliefs can even be hate speech, we won't have any such thing as free speech left.
    , @Assistant Village Idiot
    Hate speech is a problem? Compared to what? Where exactly on the hierarchy of ills does it fall?

    The phrase "pearl-clutching" is supposed to apply to rich conservatives for some reason, but the only examples I encounter are all from liberals.

    Come work in an entirely-liberal field someday, and learn that hate-speech is just everyday speech, and you can actually get by and have a life in spite of it.
  13. I am sick and tired of hearing conservatives whine endlessly about the unborn – when, when push comes to shove, you’re ready kick them to the side of the road the moment the unfortunate mother has the child.

    There is only one rational solution to reducing the number of abortions – and it involves recognizing humanity’s profoundly sexual nature, something Martin Luther had no problem doing 500 years ago, and empowering individuals to use every means at their disposal to prevent unintended conceptions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    Aye. Let's *PAY* the childbearing-aged daughters of welfare moms NOT to get pregnant.

    At the welfare office, give her a preg test. If neg, give her a check and her choice of contraceptives, tell her to come back in three months. When she returns in 3 months, give preg test. If negative, give a check and contraceptives... Repeat til she reaches age 35.

    HOLY COW that will be EXPENSIVE, you say? Yeah, at first, but the long-term economic benefits of the multi-generational welfare incompetents NOT being conceived are astronomical.

  14. @Discordiax
    "Red pill"? Do we have an actual instance of dog-whistling, in which a Respectable Conservative sends a signal to the not-at-all respectable rightwing audience by using a word which they will take differently than the non-rightwing audience?

    Obviously Douthat isn't addressing the core themes of the PUA/Game-adjacent "Red Pill Marriage" folks, but is he just referencing the Matrix, or is he hinting at something more? Hmm.

    --Discordiax

    I’m not sure I can drink enough whiskey to even begin to comprehend what you’re talking about.

    Read More
  15. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I think we should punch up.

    Let’s expend our energies on the Soroses., Sabans, Kagans, and Adelsons of the world.

    They are way up.

    I wouldn’t waste time picking on dumb Polacks.

    Read More
  16. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind…

    Well, you certainly don’t agree with Pat Buchanan on the only thing that matters: mass immigration to the USA.You think that the Mexicanization of the USA is a good thing, while Buchanan opposes it.

    Of course, Ron, you do have the elites on your side on that one….And you are getting the America that you want:

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.

    Around the time the 2020 Census is conducted, more than half of the nation’s children are expected to be part of a minority race or ethnic group. This proportion is expected to continue to grow so that by 2060, just 36 percent of all children (people under age 18) will be single-race non-Hispanic white, compared with 52 percent today.

    The U.S. population as a whole is expected to follow a similar trend, becoming majority-minority in 2044. The minority population is projected to rise to 56 percent of the total in 2060, compared with 38 percent in 2014.

    While one milestone would be reached by the 2020 Census, another will be achieved by the 2030 Census: all baby boomers will have reached age 65 or older (this will actually occur in 2029). Consequently, in that year, one-in-five Americans would be 65 or older, up from one in seven in 2014.

    By 2060, the nation’s foreign-born population would reach nearly 19 percent of the total population, up from 13 percent in 2014.

    http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html

    2014 2060

    Whites 62.2 43.6

    Hispanics 17.4 28.6

    Blacks 13.2 14.3

    Asians 5.4 9.3

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.
     
    That must be the fourth or fifth time I've noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can't see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven't you?...

    http://www.unz.com/article/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#our-population-ponzi-scheme
  17. . The gay rights movement has gained extraordinary influence (especially at the elite level) in the United States, yet gay people are still treated brutally around the world.

    So we need to discuss fisting up and fisting down.

    Read More
  18. Garry Trudeau, of course, is our living leading expert on what’s funny.

    He never made me laugh

    Read More
  19. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he’d be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    Seems like a reasonable fear to me. Don’t be so hard on him; pretty much everyone who’s not independently (very) wealthy or a doctor is in Ross’s same awkward position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    Even the very wealthy aren't immune. Just ask Donald Sterling.
  20. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Good grief Ron, Douthat’s position requires that he tiptoe across the cutting edge of a razor in ballerina footies. His job is to disclose as much truth as possible without being fired. I’d love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen. If your argument is that Douthat could push against the stupidity with greater vigor I am willing to consider it. But if you want to pretend that he could offer Buchanan’s lucidity to the parochial, navel-gazing readership of the Times then I must consign you to the delusional boat anchors that impede genuine progress. Get a grip man! The coming anarchy will ensure that life becomes ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. We need to stem the tide, not condemn the first rock in the jetty for failing to turn the wave back to sea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    I’d love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen.
     
    Pat was a NY Times Op-Ed columnist in the 1970s and believe it or not the NYT was a more fair and balanced outlet back then. Back when a Minnesota liberal Vice President was a public anti-Communist and campaigned for President as a backer of our war in Vietnam. Hubert Horatio Humphrey from the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party
  21. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    The Wisdom of Buchanan:

    No one knows how many illegal aliens are here. The estimates run from 12 to 20 million.
    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time. There are 36 million immigrants and their children in the US today, almost as many as came to American between Jamestown in 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.
    Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.

    “America is a nation of immigrants”: It is among our most beautiful myths. It appeals to the heart. And there is truth to it. Many of us can trace bloodlines back to ancestors who came over in the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. But save for the 36 million here now, we are not “a nation of immigrants.” Rarely have immigrants constituted 10% of our number.
    What is different about today’s immigration?
    We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history
    Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here
    Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation
    The melting pot is cracked & broken, and our elites believe it should be smashed as a relic of cultural repression
    Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us. Most come to work; some bring hostility in their hearts.

    Buchanan said his exclusion from the three televised debates between Bush and Gore kept viewers from a real discussion of issues like immigration. “One of the great social crises of this country is unrestricted immigration and an invasion from the south,” he said. “I will cut back legal immigration to 250,000 a year and I will defend America’s border, if necessary with American troops.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @H2
    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time.

    I think the Roman Empire also saw a mass migration of Germanic civilians into its borders in the last century or so, but we know how that turned out. I remember reading in Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that they tried to essentially resettle non-Romans around the empire in the hopes that they would assimilate and not side with the Germanic armies.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Immigration is breaking down the social fabric of American society and pushing American workers out of the labor market. Immigration is the cudgel that wealthy oligarchs use to beat down American workers. Oligarchs like Israeli-American businessman Sheldon Adelson want high level of immigration so he can pay his employees as little as possible.

    If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.
  22. @robother
    Wow. If this isn't Ross Douthat's swan song, I'll be very surprised. In a Sunday NYT opinion piece to identify the Pakistani rape depredations in northern England, and the abortion of millions of unborn, each as exemplars of real (but unacknowledged) punching down power? I sense in his "red pill" analogy a man resigned to a life on the margins of the Matrix.

    It’s the part about abortions that will get him into trouble IMO. You can see in the comments section of the article that some people are willing to say Islam has problems, but DON’T YOU DARE suggest that a fetus has any rights at all! Naked women handcuffed to kitchen counters and being forced to give birth, and all that.

    Read More
  23. This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong. You drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks if you are tired. You answer yes, and he then tells you to do more since you are not in shape. The next day you drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks again if you are tired. With 24 hours of wisdom under your belt, you answer no. But the drill sergeant makes you do more anyway because he says if you are not tired, you haven’t done enough.

    Whatever you say, you are wrong. It makes no difference. It’s all about teaching you who is in control, and that most definitely is not you.

    This whole punching-up, punching-down nonsense is just another way of showing us who is in control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eric Rasmusen
    Quite right. Douthat is way off track when he says it is complicated who has privilege and power. It's not--- it is simple, though it's exactly the opposite of what the lefties say it is. White men do not have any privileges, because they don't care about their identity and don't ask for privileges. They rely on individual ability rather than group political power. They do have power, but not as white men, just as individuals who have no special desire to help their own identity group. Thus, as a group they are powerless. When you put a lot of high-energy molecules together, they ordinarily move in all directions and don't exert pressure in any particular direction. If you take a smaller number of lower-energy molecules that are all moving in the same direction, you get power.

    This makes sense for low-ability individuals. There is more variance in productive ability than in political power--- for example, not everybody can do calculus, but everybody can vote. If you have low ability, you should make more use of what you're relatively good at--- politics. You should affiliate with a group--- an old-style political machine, or a new-style identity group--- and use power to get status and wealth. You won't end up as admired or wealthy as the high-talent person, I think, because if the power strategy worked better, the high-talent people would use it too, but you'll end up more admired and wealthy than if you try to rely on your productive ability. Thus, the talented should make, not take, but the untalented should take, not make.
    , @Steve Sailer
    "This is like basic training in the army"

    I like this metaphor: sergeants have many generations of techniques to draw upon to dominate recruits.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong.

    Joker figured out how to deal with this in Full Metal Jacket:

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Joker, do you believe in the Virgin Mary?

    Private Joker: Sir, no, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Well, well, Private Joker, I don't believe I heard you correctly!

    Private Joker: Sir, the private said "no, sir," sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Why you little maggot, you make me want to vomit!

    [slaps Joker]

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: You Goddamn communist heathen, you had best sound off that you love the Virgin Mary, or I'm gonna stomp your guts out! Now you DO love the Virgin Mary, don't ya?

    Private Joker: Sir, NEGATIVE, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Joker, are you trying to offend me?

    Private Joker: Sir, NEGATIVE, sir! Sir, the private belives any answer he gives will be wrong and the Senior Drill Instructor will only beat him harder if he reverses himself, SIR!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Who's your squad leader, scumbag?

    Private Joker: Sir, the squad leader is Private Snowball, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Snowball!

    Private Snowball: Sir, Private Snowball reporting as ordered, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Snowball, you're fired. Private Joker's promoted to squad leader.

    Private Snowball: Sir, aye-aye, sir!
     
  24. @syonredux
    The Wisdom of Buchanan:

    No one knows how many illegal aliens are here. The estimates run from 12 to 20 million.
    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time. There are 36 million immigrants and their children in the US today, almost as many as came to American between Jamestown in 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.
    Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.
     

    "America is a nation of immigrants": It is among our most beautiful myths. It appeals to the heart. And there is truth to it. Many of us can trace bloodlines back to ancestors who came over in the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. But save for the 36 million here now, we are not "a nation of immigrants." Rarely have immigrants constituted 10% of our number.
    What is different about today's immigration?
    We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history
    Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here
    Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation
    The melting pot is cracked & broken, and our elites believe it should be smashed as a relic of cultural repression
    Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us. Most come to work; some bring hostility in their hearts.
     

    Buchanan said his exclusion from the three televised debates between Bush and Gore kept viewers from a real discussion of issues like immigration. “One of the great social crises of this country is unrestricted immigration and an invasion from the south,” he said. “I will cut back legal immigration to 250,000 a year and I will defend America’s border, if necessary with American troops.”
     

    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time.

    I think the Roman Empire also saw a mass migration of Germanic civilians into its borders in the last century or so, but we know how that turned out. I remember reading in Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that they tried to essentially resettle non-Romans around the empire in the hopes that they would assimilate and not side with the Germanic armies.

    Read More
  25. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    I partially disagree. By using the ‘red pill’ metaphor, he will cause a small fraction of men to learn about Game, and challenge the consensus. And by pointing out the contradictions of progressivism, he can shift the mainstream consensus slightly right from his perch at the NYT.

    He and what you are doing here are two prongs of a movement, working in concert to shift the Overton window right.

    Read More
  26. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The real reason for the “punching down” language is that it is the rationalization of the coward. People are afraid of Muslims, and for good reason. This will not change. It will get worse until they become afraid of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WowJustWow
    It's not about punching up or down, but punching back. Muslims are one of the few groups that punch back. I keep coming back to this article: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet

    Americans characterize our collective deference towards the feelings of Muslims as “political correctness.” The phrase may be apt with respect to certain ethnic and religious minorities, but our tip-toeing around Islamic sensibilities is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned cowardice. MSNBC stooge Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, repeatedly slandered Mormonism during the 2008 presidential campaign as a sidebar to his creepily obsessive verbal jihad against then-candidate Mitt Romney. But when asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would insult Muhammad the way he’d insulted Joseph Smith, O’Donnell replied with rare candor: “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the... that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.... Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.”
     
  27. >>> I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind… <<<

    Totally agree. Every time I read one of Ross Douthat's thumbsuckers, I find myself muttering, "Oh, Douthat, blow it out your ass."

    It's not that his opinions are wrongheaded; it's that his ruminations are so dull, so labored, and so timid. The Times, as I recall, hired him to replace Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper's resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary. Douthat, with his Harvard pedigree and impenetrable prose, was a far safer choice; he's never going to convince anyone of anything, few people even finish his tedious columns, and if they do, they discover he's taken no firm position anyway. All he inspires are yawns.

    And don't get me started on David Brooks; the only sort of "conservative" he is, despite being so labeled, is a conservative Democrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trayvon Zimmerman
    You had me until Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper's resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary.

    But you're right on about the anodyne Douthat. There's a reason Crunchy Squishy Con Rod Dreher seems to quote from just about every column Douthat writes.
    , @Anonymous
    Disagree 100%. Kristol's Dad was a great public intellectual! Bill Kristol is a hack...a talking point Republican who makes millions on TV spewing the GOP party line.
  28. @Discordiax
    "Red pill"? Do we have an actual instance of dog-whistling, in which a Respectable Conservative sends a signal to the not-at-all respectable rightwing audience by using a word which they will take differently than the non-rightwing audience?

    Obviously Douthat isn't addressing the core themes of the PUA/Game-adjacent "Red Pill Marriage" folks, but is he just referencing the Matrix, or is he hinting at something more? Hmm.

    --Discordiax

    Douthat has occasionally mentioned Mencius Moldbug’s blog, which liberally uses the red pill metaphor.

    Read More
  29. @iSteveFan
    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong. You drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks if you are tired. You answer yes, and he then tells you to do more since you are not in shape. The next day you drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks again if you are tired. With 24 hours of wisdom under your belt, you answer no. But the drill sergeant makes you do more anyway because he says if you are not tired, you haven't done enough.

    Whatever you say, you are wrong. It makes no difference. It's all about teaching you who is in control, and that most definitely is not you.

    This whole punching-up, punching-down nonsense is just another way of showing us who is in control.

    Quite right. Douthat is way off track when he says it is complicated who has privilege and power. It’s not— it is simple, though it’s exactly the opposite of what the lefties say it is. White men do not have any privileges, because they don’t care about their identity and don’t ask for privileges. They rely on individual ability rather than group political power. They do have power, but not as white men, just as individuals who have no special desire to help their own identity group. Thus, as a group they are powerless. When you put a lot of high-energy molecules together, they ordinarily move in all directions and don’t exert pressure in any particular direction. If you take a smaller number of lower-energy molecules that are all moving in the same direction, you get power.

    This makes sense for low-ability individuals. There is more variance in productive ability than in political power— for example, not everybody can do calculus, but everybody can vote. If you have low ability, you should make more use of what you’re relatively good at— politics. You should affiliate with a group— an old-style political machine, or a new-style identity group— and use power to get status and wealth. You won’t end up as admired or wealthy as the high-talent person, I think, because if the power strategy worked better, the high-talent people would use it too, but you’ll end up more admired and wealthy than if you try to rely on your productive ability. Thus, the talented should make, not take, but the untalented should take, not make.

    Read More
  30. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    I would say your description “one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing” is an apt one for David Brooks, but not so of Douthat, at least during the past year.
    I would guess the gay marriage triumphalism, starting with the SJW jihad on Brendan Eich, has forced him to confront the moral dilemma a Conservative believing Catholic has in maintaining his viability as a NYTimes columnist.
    Again, specifically referring to the Pakistani identity of the English rape gangs and bluntly forcing NYTimes readers to confront abortion as an act of supreme power by an adult over the helpless unborn; those are the kind of “discordant thoughts” that put his position at risk. While they may not seem particularly novel to those of us who read Steve Sailer regularly, or who were raised Catholic,I am sure they are painfully interesting to the average Sunday Times reader.

    Read More
  31. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Finally!

    Read More
  32. Marty [AKA "wick"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    The "punching up/punching down" metaphor became common just a few weeks ago and it had to do with whether Trevor Noah's jokes were funny. It is now being used to justify killing someone for telling lousy jokes. That's a tough audience.

    Realistically, no religious faith and no nationalist ideology can claim immunity; whatever the situation of their individual adherents, any group belief with millions of followers is hardly weak, and ridiculing cannot constitute "punching down." Ideas and beliefs are not things, they aren't even fat girls or ugly men; to say that some beliefs cannot be laughed at is the essence of privilege, spelled s-h-i-b-b-o-l-e-t-h.

    From a practical point of view there's a distinct possibility for a slippery slope. For example, if no representations of the Prophet are allowable (because (a) it will hurt the feelings of some Muslims and (b) who will then kill you) then we are essentially allowing Muslims to dictate culturally accepted actions and artifacts. Keep in mind that there are some radical Muslims, extending the concept of iconoclasm involved in Mohommedan portraiture who have extended it to the destruction of all non-Muslim artifacts (Bamiyan Buddhas, many sculptures near Mosul recently). So do we accept the destruction of the world's cultural heritage to appease some impoverished Muslims? It is insane.

    A further slippery slope could develop because it would make any open discussion or debate about Muslim immigration and/or assimilation impossible because the Muslims were dictating the rules, first because they were "disprivileged" because they were poor, and second because they were privileged, because they were willing to kill and die for the sake of their beliefs.

    None of this is going to be settled by blog posts or Op-Eds. But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion. There are only so many cheeks you can turn.

    And it’s all because we whites agreed to stop laughing at blacks. If instead we’d followed the lead of the Dartmouth Review ca. 1982, none of this bs would be upon us.

    Read More
  33. @SPMoore8
    The "punching up/punching down" metaphor became common just a few weeks ago and it had to do with whether Trevor Noah's jokes were funny. It is now being used to justify killing someone for telling lousy jokes. That's a tough audience.

    Realistically, no religious faith and no nationalist ideology can claim immunity; whatever the situation of their individual adherents, any group belief with millions of followers is hardly weak, and ridiculing cannot constitute "punching down." Ideas and beliefs are not things, they aren't even fat girls or ugly men; to say that some beliefs cannot be laughed at is the essence of privilege, spelled s-h-i-b-b-o-l-e-t-h.

    From a practical point of view there's a distinct possibility for a slippery slope. For example, if no representations of the Prophet are allowable (because (a) it will hurt the feelings of some Muslims and (b) who will then kill you) then we are essentially allowing Muslims to dictate culturally accepted actions and artifacts. Keep in mind that there are some radical Muslims, extending the concept of iconoclasm involved in Mohommedan portraiture who have extended it to the destruction of all non-Muslim artifacts (Bamiyan Buddhas, many sculptures near Mosul recently). So do we accept the destruction of the world's cultural heritage to appease some impoverished Muslims? It is insane.

    A further slippery slope could develop because it would make any open discussion or debate about Muslim immigration and/or assimilation impossible because the Muslims were dictating the rules, first because they were "disprivileged" because they were poor, and second because they were privileged, because they were willing to kill and die for the sake of their beliefs.

    None of this is going to be settled by blog posts or Op-Eds. But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion. There are only so many cheeks you can turn.

    But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion.

    This is a good point. It’s easy to find a high-minded notion to justify what is in fact cowardice. I think that’s what Gary Trudeau is doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Exactly. Turning a vice into a virtue, and then patting himself on the back for committing it.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Trudeau could have argued that drawing cartoons of Muhammad is impolite to Muslims and unimportant to Westerners. I don't have any data to speak of on what Muhammad looked like and whatever he looked like doesn't seem terribly important. It's not like IQ where I have an enormous amount of data and it's terribly important to understand it if you want to understand the modern world.
    , @SPMoore8
    Thank you. But thinking about it some more, I am wondering how much the Charlie Hebdo killings are now being viewed as fortuitous by some progressives.

    In other words, I think the shock at the killings was initially 100% in the West. But progressives can look at these killings and think again: "Wait a minute, if drawings of the Prophet are 'hate speech', and therefore could be banned, how about we say that opposition to SSM, or Climate Change, or Immigration, or promoting HBD, are (by some convoluted reasoning) also hate speech?"

    Keep in mind that progressives already have names for anyone who disagrees with them: Phobes of some kind, Deniers or Denialists of some kind. In other words, to progressives, there is nothing to debate, the opponents of the regnant progressives beliefs are all arguing in bad faith, or are mentally ill, or both. So naturally (I am sure the reasoning would go) they shouldn't be allowed to spread their filthy lies!

    So, yes, on the one hand there's a bit of the "I won't walk up to a tiger and smack it on the nose, because it would be wrong" but there is also a certain, "what a wonderful way to shut up our critics once and for all", too.
  34. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Come on, Ron. Ross is the furthest right and bravest of the NYT columnists. And he’s written a number of columns that have ticked off typical NYT readers. Consider, for example, his column after the 2012 election pointing out the fissures in the Obama coalition (essentially making the same points Steve has made here about the “coalition of the fringes”).

    As for David Frum, his columns on the dysgenic impact of our current immigration policy were brave too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WowJustWow
    He's certainly not there to please the readers. On just about every one of his columns the comments are almost always uniformly hostile.

    I was a bit surprised to see him openly plug Mencius Moldbug in a tweet a little while back. From the cathedral of the Cathedral!
  35. The punching down idea comes from the same mindset that says racism = power + prejudice, and since blacks/Muslims don’t have power, they cannot be racist.

    There are three critical mistakes in this line of thinking:

    1) First, it is not about how much power a group has, it is about how that group uses its power.

    As Douthat mentioned, Charlie Hebdo provides another example. Whites in France have more power than Muslims, but the whites at Charlie Hebdo used that power to create satire, while the Muslims used it to kill.

    Interracial crime is another example. Whites as a group have more power than blacks, but when it comes to killing, raping and assaulting, blacks use what power they have to do more of it, and this imposes enormous costs and suffering upon whites who live near blacks. This suffering matters. All this happens despite blacks being “powerless”.

    On the opposite hand, you have whites. Cowardly and demoralized, whites in Rotterham were not even willing to defend their adolescent girls from Pakistani gang-rapists due to fear of being called racist.

    2) Alliances: Political and social power comes from alliances. When looking at how much power a minority group has, you have to ask “who are they allied with?” And when you do that, some weak groups turn out part of powerful coalitions.

    Let suppose blacks want affirmative action policies to benefit them. Blacks are only 13% of the population, they couldn’t force such policies through on their own. But when blacks ally with hispanics and white liberals, then you have a coalition that can impose AA policies. And if white conservatives aren’t willing to use their power to defend their interests, the black/liberal coalition will triumph.

    Another example, homosexuals don’t have the power on their own to enact gay marriage, they can only do so as part of an alliance with the political left. Then their driving a bulldozer.

    3) Internal Divisions: A group like “white Americans” could be very powerful if they were united, but not if it is weakened by internal division? You end up with rich vs poor, liberals vs conservatives, and “anti-racists” who despise their fellow whites. Class, ideology, and internalized racism tear apart white solidarity.

    Applied to an issue like immigration, and we see whites lack the power to defend their own interests. The rich want cheap labor, liberal politicians want cheap votes, and “anti-racists” feel a burning moral duty to turn whites into a minority everywhere they exist.

    Whites don’t feel solidarity with one another and without that whites have no power as a group.

    The “anti-racist” idea of racism = power + prejudice, applied to say whites can’t be victims of racism, falls apart. The left is obsessively talks about power, but here they don’t employ even the most basic understanding of how power works. Nothing I wrote above is complicated.

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias. This new definition of racism wasn’t created to deepen our understanding of society, it was created to dehumanize whites and trivialize the loss of our countries, our heritage, and our posterity.

    Academic leftism as it exists today isn’t intellectually serious, it just exists to put an intellectual veneer upon anti-white bigotry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Another excellent comment which is going straight into my "save" document.
    , @Desiderius

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias.
     
    It's pro-global, anti-nativist. The more dull-witted the intellectual, the more this plays out as anti-white.
  36. Was the person who worked Harry Reid over punching up or punching down? I guess we won’t know until we find the culprit.

    Read More
  37. […] Steve Sailer links to a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times which discusses the concept of “punching down”. […]

    Read More
  38. Sorry Mr. Unz, but Douthat’s mentioning of Rottherham and a pro-life argument in a column in the NYTimes displays his bravery.

    Read More
  39. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    You are not Douthat’s audience. If you read his columns as taking right wing common sense or even controversial right wing ideas and translating them into language that NY/DC elites can understand and have a hard time arguing with, he’s very good at what he does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    If you read his columns as taking right wing common sense or even controversial right wing ideas and translating them into language that NY/DC elites can understand and have a hard time arguing with, he’s very good at what he does.
     
    Exactly. He often cuts off any dialectical retreat to their rhetoric.

    Nor does he come exclusively from a right-wing direction.
  40. Quit defending Douthat. Ron Unz is exactly right about him. NYT hired him for one reason – to provide Republican suckers the delusion that conservative ideas are still part of the national conversation, and are having some influence on where America is heading. What a laugh. How many conservatives in 1980 would have praised a columnist for his courage because he thought two dudes shouldn’t be able to get married and that brown Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to pimp out hundreds of white teenage girls? But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is just some trifling spat between two Harvard oldboys. Unz and Douthat met disagreement at the Cup & Thistles olde publick house about the cartoonery skills of this Yalie Canadio-Frenchman. It's sad trash from the ninny sons of Eli, said Ross'er; blow it out your hind, retorted Ronnie, his poetry I read in Skull n' Keys Quarterly showed much promise
    , @silviosilver

    But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.
     
    All you do is cry over spilled milk.

    Yes, terrible mistakes have been made. Acknowledged. That's step 1.

    Step 2 requires devising strategies to help people extricate themselves from the effects of those mistakes. On this you are silent. You are a one-trick pony.
  41. The conservative response to Trudeau’s “punching up/punching down” rationalization is the reason the right is in trouble. We seem to be saying that Trudeau is wrong that Muslims can’t be criticized because they either do have power, or they at least wield power, or that it is tough to distinguish who does and doesn’t have power so they should be fair game.

    But none of this actually calls into question the merit of the liberal axiom regarding criticism of the powerful and the marginalized. When a person or group is criticized for a moral impropriety by another person or group, it matters not which party is in power. Unless hypocrisy is involved, the focus should be on the moral rightness of the act in question; by nearly every moral worldview save Islam brutal slaughter is much more egregious than offensive cartoons. By turning it into a question of power, Trudeau is directly appealing to Marxist presuppositions to hide his cowardice.

    It is natural for someone in power to instruct and reproach ones beneath him–a teacher to her student, a father to his child, an employer to his employee, a king to his thegn–if the lesser is acting against his moral duties. The response to Trudeau is to tell him to get lost–we’ll criticize who we damn well please if that party is acting in opposition to the good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right. How would Confucius or Aristotle have responded to today's conventional wisdom that the more privileged have no right to criticize bad behavior by the less privileged?

    It's a duty of the privileged to criticize and punish bad behavior. It's part of noblesse oblige.
    , @Tony

    When a person or group is criticized for a moral impropriety by another person or group, it matters not which party is in power. Unless hypocrisy is involved, the focus should be on the moral rightness of the act in question...
     
    Thank you, thank you GW. I thought I was going out of my mind. I can almost remember a time when this was commonly understood.
  42. @Discordiax
    "Red pill"? Do we have an actual instance of dog-whistling, in which a Respectable Conservative sends a signal to the not-at-all respectable rightwing audience by using a word which they will take differently than the non-rightwing audience?

    Obviously Douthat isn't addressing the core themes of the PUA/Game-adjacent "Red Pill Marriage" folks, but is he just referencing the Matrix, or is he hinting at something more? Hmm.

    --Discordiax

    It’s both double and single entendre.

    If you don’t think that the red pill has anything to do with abortion, you have more reflection to do.

    Read More
  43. @Drake
    The punching down idea comes from the same mindset that says racism = power + prejudice, and since blacks/Muslims don't have power, they cannot be racist.

    There are three critical mistakes in this line of thinking:

    1) First, it is not about how much power a group has, it is about how that group uses its power.

    As Douthat mentioned, Charlie Hebdo provides another example. Whites in France have more power than Muslims, but the whites at Charlie Hebdo used that power to create satire, while the Muslims used it to kill.

    Interracial crime is another example. Whites as a group have more power than blacks, but when it comes to killing, raping and assaulting, blacks use what power they have to do more of it, and this imposes enormous costs and suffering upon whites who live near blacks. This suffering matters. All this happens despite blacks being "powerless".

    On the opposite hand, you have whites. Cowardly and demoralized, whites in Rotterham were not even willing to defend their adolescent girls from Pakistani gang-rapists due to fear of being called racist.

    2) Alliances: Political and social power comes from alliances. When looking at how much power a minority group has, you have to ask "who are they allied with?" And when you do that, some weak groups turn out part of powerful coalitions.

    Let suppose blacks want affirmative action policies to benefit them. Blacks are only 13% of the population, they couldn't force such policies through on their own. But when blacks ally with hispanics and white liberals, then you have a coalition that can impose AA policies. And if white conservatives aren't willing to use their power to defend their interests, the black/liberal coalition will triumph.

    Another example, homosexuals don't have the power on their own to enact gay marriage, they can only do so as part of an alliance with the political left. Then their driving a bulldozer.

    3) Internal Divisions: A group like "white Americans" could be very powerful if they were united, but not if it is weakened by internal division? You end up with rich vs poor, liberals vs conservatives, and "anti-racists" who despise their fellow whites. Class, ideology, and internalized racism tear apart white solidarity.

    Applied to an issue like immigration, and we see whites lack the power to defend their own interests. The rich want cheap labor, liberal politicians want cheap votes, and "anti-racists" feel a burning moral duty to turn whites into a minority everywhere they exist.

    Whites don't feel solidarity with one another and without that whites have no power as a group.

    The "anti-racist" idea of racism = power + prejudice, applied to say whites can't be victims of racism, falls apart. The left is obsessively talks about power, but here they don't employ even the most basic understanding of how power works. Nothing I wrote above is complicated.

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It's not because they're stupid. It's because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias. This new definition of racism wasn't created to deepen our understanding of society, it was created to dehumanize whites and trivialize the loss of our countries, our heritage, and our posterity.

    Academic leftism as it exists today isn't intellectually serious, it just exists to put an intellectual veneer upon anti-white bigotry.

    Another excellent comment which is going straight into my “save” document.

    Read More
  44. @MC
    You are not Douthat's audience. If you read his columns as taking right wing common sense or even controversial right wing ideas and translating them into language that NY/DC elites can understand and have a hard time arguing with, he's very good at what he does.

    If you read his columns as taking right wing common sense or even controversial right wing ideas and translating them into language that NY/DC elites can understand and have a hard time arguing with, he’s very good at what he does.

    Exactly. He often cuts off any dialectical retreat to their rhetoric.

    Nor does he come exclusively from a right-wing direction.

    Read More
  45. @Drake
    The punching down idea comes from the same mindset that says racism = power + prejudice, and since blacks/Muslims don't have power, they cannot be racist.

    There are three critical mistakes in this line of thinking:

    1) First, it is not about how much power a group has, it is about how that group uses its power.

    As Douthat mentioned, Charlie Hebdo provides another example. Whites in France have more power than Muslims, but the whites at Charlie Hebdo used that power to create satire, while the Muslims used it to kill.

    Interracial crime is another example. Whites as a group have more power than blacks, but when it comes to killing, raping and assaulting, blacks use what power they have to do more of it, and this imposes enormous costs and suffering upon whites who live near blacks. This suffering matters. All this happens despite blacks being "powerless".

    On the opposite hand, you have whites. Cowardly and demoralized, whites in Rotterham were not even willing to defend their adolescent girls from Pakistani gang-rapists due to fear of being called racist.

    2) Alliances: Political and social power comes from alliances. When looking at how much power a minority group has, you have to ask "who are they allied with?" And when you do that, some weak groups turn out part of powerful coalitions.

    Let suppose blacks want affirmative action policies to benefit them. Blacks are only 13% of the population, they couldn't force such policies through on their own. But when blacks ally with hispanics and white liberals, then you have a coalition that can impose AA policies. And if white conservatives aren't willing to use their power to defend their interests, the black/liberal coalition will triumph.

    Another example, homosexuals don't have the power on their own to enact gay marriage, they can only do so as part of an alliance with the political left. Then their driving a bulldozer.

    3) Internal Divisions: A group like "white Americans" could be very powerful if they were united, but not if it is weakened by internal division? You end up with rich vs poor, liberals vs conservatives, and "anti-racists" who despise their fellow whites. Class, ideology, and internalized racism tear apart white solidarity.

    Applied to an issue like immigration, and we see whites lack the power to defend their own interests. The rich want cheap labor, liberal politicians want cheap votes, and "anti-racists" feel a burning moral duty to turn whites into a minority everywhere they exist.

    Whites don't feel solidarity with one another and without that whites have no power as a group.

    The "anti-racist" idea of racism = power + prejudice, applied to say whites can't be victims of racism, falls apart. The left is obsessively talks about power, but here they don't employ even the most basic understanding of how power works. Nothing I wrote above is complicated.

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It's not because they're stupid. It's because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias. This new definition of racism wasn't created to deepen our understanding of society, it was created to dehumanize whites and trivialize the loss of our countries, our heritage, and our posterity.

    Academic leftism as it exists today isn't intellectually serious, it just exists to put an intellectual veneer upon anti-white bigotry.

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias.

    It’s pro-global, anti-nativist. The more dull-witted the intellectual, the more this plays out as anti-white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "It’s pro-global, anti-nativist."

    Or pro-fringe, anti-core.

    Or pro-elite, anti-average.

    Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.

    One reason this mindset is so effective is that it's hard to pin down in simple words the bigotry involved.
  46. @Harry Baldwin
    But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion.

    This is a good point. It's easy to find a high-minded notion to justify what is in fact cowardice. I think that's what Gary Trudeau is doing.

    Exactly. Turning a vice into a virtue, and then patting himself on the back for committing it.

    Read More
  47. @Anonymous
    The real reason for the "punching down" language is that it is the rationalization of the coward. People are afraid of Muslims, and for good reason. This will not change. It will get worse until they become afraid of us.

    It’s not about punching up or down, but punching back. Muslims are one of the few groups that punch back. I keep coming back to this article: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet

    Americans characterize our collective deference towards the feelings of Muslims as “political correctness.” The phrase may be apt with respect to certain ethnic and religious minorities, but our tip-toeing around Islamic sensibilities is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned cowardice. MSNBC stooge Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, repeatedly slandered Mormonism during the 2008 presidential campaign as a sidebar to his creepily obsessive verbal jihad against then-candidate Mitt Romney. But when asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would insult Muhammad the way he’d insulted Joseph Smith, O’Donnell replied with rare candor: “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the… that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do…. Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.”

    Read More
  48. @Dave Pinsen
    Come on, Ron. Ross is the furthest right and bravest of the NYT columnists. And he's written a number of columns that have ticked off typical NYT readers. Consider, for example, his column after the 2012 election pointing out the fissures in the Obama coalition (essentially making the same points Steve has made here about the "coalition of the fringes").

    As for David Frum, his columns on the dysgenic impact of our current immigration policy were brave too.

    He’s certainly not there to please the readers. On just about every one of his columns the comments are almost always uniformly hostile.

    I was a bit surprised to see him openly plug Mencius Moldbug in a tweet a little while back. From the cathedral of the Cathedral!

    Read More
  49. In 2015, “conservative” means pro-Jewish, pro-war, pro-business.

    There’s no room for anyone who wants to defend the interests or culture of non-elite white gentiles. If a conservative wanted to walk off the Sheldon Adelson plantation, it would be detrimental (even fatal) to his career. If Douthat ever said anything truly interesting, his career would be over quickly. It’s more prudent to focus on the “anti-Semitism” of Occupy Wall Street, the excessive tax burden on America’s “job creators”, and the Iranian “threat” to Israel.

    Even liberals tend to get sidelined if they fixate too much on economic issues (wages, inequality, free trade, finance, oligarchy). It’s expected that liberals should mostly discuss gay rights, feminism, white male patriarchy, diversity, Haven Monahan, etc. Which is why the minimum wage peaked back in 1968 (it has declined by about a third since then) and Wall Street continues to do business as usual (ie steal and manipulate), but what really energizes NY Times writers is transgender rights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    You're just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross's unique oeuvre as a pundit.
    , @Marty T
    That's why conservatives' biggest enemy is the plutocrats class. To have any future impact, conservatives will need to ally with liberal populists on economic issues, both to scare big business and to legitimately hurt big business, which is pushing the homosexual agenda with force.
  50. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Does Ron Unz read Douthat consistently? This is just absurdly unfair to Douthat and frankly bizarre. He’s the most intellectually substantial writer the NY Times has. Sailer has a very low threshold for banality and he is a great admirer of Douthat.

    Maybe if I just APPRECIATED the FOUR SEASONS like Ron Unz I would have a different perspective on Ross Douthat.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/ross-douthat-keeps-getting-better-and.html

    Read More
  51. So how many Democratic administrations are we away from an end to the 1st Amendment as we know it? Bryer publicly mulled about making Koran burning unconstitutional. Ginsburg has unapologetically said she sees little value in the historical Constitution and would adopt something quite different if she could (with presumably more European-like speech laws). And I would assume Kagan would enthusiastically follow along. Ironically of all the liberal Supreme Court justices, I could see the relative dummy Sotomayor being the biggest roadblock, as she would be lacking the intellectual chops to come up with a sufficietnly convoloted argument as to why true freedom and equality requires abolishing one of the oldest and most revered rights in our civic culture.

    Read More
  52. How can this debate get anywhere if we’re all afraid to address Jewish power? Nobody mentions that criticising Jewish racism and criminality is absolutely forbidden in our current culture, so any analysis of Islamic radicalism must be nonsense, blind to that essential motivating factor. Nobody will point out that criticising Judaism is the most honorable category of ‘punching up’… because it’s so dangerous. (Has Doonesbury ever once ‘punched up’ in that direction?)

    Read More
  53. @syonredux
    The Wisdom of Buchanan:

    No one knows how many illegal aliens are here. The estimates run from 12 to 20 million.
    This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a span of time. There are 36 million immigrants and their children in the US today, almost as many as came to American between Jamestown in 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.
    Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.
     

    "America is a nation of immigrants": It is among our most beautiful myths. It appeals to the heart. And there is truth to it. Many of us can trace bloodlines back to ancestors who came over in the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. But save for the 36 million here now, we are not "a nation of immigrants." Rarely have immigrants constituted 10% of our number.
    What is different about today's immigration?
    We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history
    Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here
    Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation
    The melting pot is cracked & broken, and our elites believe it should be smashed as a relic of cultural repression
    Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us. Most come to work; some bring hostility in their hearts.
     

    Buchanan said his exclusion from the three televised debates between Bush and Gore kept viewers from a real discussion of issues like immigration. “One of the great social crises of this country is unrestricted immigration and an invasion from the south,” he said. “I will cut back legal immigration to 250,000 a year and I will defend America’s border, if necessary with American troops.”
     

    Immigration is breaking down the social fabric of American society and pushing American workers out of the labor market. Immigration is the cudgel that wealthy oligarchs use to beat down American workers. Oligarchs like Israeli-American businessman Sheldon Adelson want high level of immigration so he can pay his employees as little as possible.

    If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.

    Read More
  54. There was a gay play written by a gay playwright called CORPUS CHRISTI a while back. Jesus and all his disciples were gay, had hot gay sex, the religious right incensed…. I’m sure you can fill in the details even if you missed the story at the time. Anyway, what’s interesting is that some Muslims in the UK issued a death-fatwa agains the playwright, as Jesus, while not the son of God, is still a true prophet in Islam (kinnda like Babbage to Mohamot’s Turing).

    So are we to rally to the defense of this play against right-wing Christian censorship, as Tony Kushner militantly did at the time, or call for the censorship of the play since it punches down at powerless Muslim people of color? Or both at the same time.

    To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, liberalism must be false, since you can derive anything from it with perfectly correct logic, including two completely contradictory things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, why don't they celebrate Christmas?
  55. @JohnnyWalker123
    In 2015, "conservative" means pro-Jewish, pro-war, pro-business.

    There's no room for anyone who wants to defend the interests or culture of non-elite white gentiles. If a conservative wanted to walk off the Sheldon Adelson plantation, it would be detrimental (even fatal) to his career. If Douthat ever said anything truly interesting, his career would be over quickly. It's more prudent to focus on the "anti-Semitism" of Occupy Wall Street, the excessive tax burden on America's "job creators", and the Iranian "threat" to Israel.

    Even liberals tend to get sidelined if they fixate too much on economic issues (wages, inequality, free trade, finance, oligarchy). It's expected that liberals should mostly discuss gay rights, feminism, white male patriarchy, diversity, Haven Monahan, etc. Which is why the minimum wage peaked back in 1968 (it has declined by about a third since then) and Wall Street continues to do business as usual (ie steal and manipulate), but what really energizes NY Times writers is transgender rights.

    You’re just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I disagree.

    What does the conservative movement stand for in 2015?

    From what I can tell, it's tax cuts, deregulation, "free-market", more overseas wars, and stand with Israel (ie no criticism whatsoever allowed). It's a mixture of economism, war, and Israel. In 2012, Romney's main differences with Obama were that he wanted Medicare privatization, more defense spending, and more support of Israel ("Obama threw Israel under the bus").

    If Douthat wants to broaden the discussion beyond that, he runs the risk of being blacklisted.


    anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.

     

    The Republican party spends a unnaturally large amount of time fixating on Israel's security. It's disturbing and unbelievable how obsessed Republicans have become with Israel. Am I not to notice this?
    , @silviosilver

    You’re just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.
     
    You're just throwing up distractions about 'antisemitism,' not engaging with JohnnyWalker's substantive points about modern-day 'conservatism.'
  56. There’s a part of me that is waiting/hoping/expecting the sensible, mainstream liberal establishment–of which I’ve assumed Trudeau to be a member–to stand up and finally say enough is enough of this sort of nonsense. For instance, this 23-writers-have-a-message-for-straight-white-male-publishing stupidity–I thought there might be some backlash from respected white male authors of the Left. So far, unless I’ve missed it–silence. This is not a good. There seems to be no limit to the amount of shit they’re willing to have shoveled down their throats. It seems they’d rather participate in the destruction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    There seems to be no limit to the amount of shit they’re willing to have shoveled down their throats.
     

    It’s a duty of the privileged to criticize and punish bad behavior. It’s part of noblesse oblige.
     
    Actual noblesse oblige gets crowded out by former nobility hanging on to whatever oblige they can scrounge up to remind them of the good old days.
  57. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    This is a low comment on your part, Ron. Ross isn’t my favorite by any means, but he’s trying to translate Sailerite/Sailer-lite analysis to a very hostile audience. There are many articles/opinions in the NYT where you’ll see solid anti-immigration/general reasonableness sentiment in the comments, but nearly all of the comments on RD’s articles are pure dumf***ery- he gets a lot of flak. This last post of his, including phrases like the ‘red pill’ beg the question whether he’ll stay there much longer. Does he need the NYT, or does the NYT need him? They try to place at least one conservative on their rolls; who else can fill that role for them? To me, his article sounds almost like a resignation letter. Regardless, you come across as a tad mean-spirited here, unnecessarily so.

    Read More
  58. @Dave Pinsen
    You're just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross's unique oeuvre as a pundit.

    I disagree.

    What does the conservative movement stand for in 2015?

    From what I can tell, it’s tax cuts, deregulation, “free-market”, more overseas wars, and stand with Israel (ie no criticism whatsoever allowed). It’s a mixture of economism, war, and Israel. In 2012, Romney’s main differences with Obama were that he wanted Medicare privatization, more defense spending, and more support of Israel (“Obama threw Israel under the bus”).

    If Douthat wants to broaden the discussion beyond that, he runs the risk of being blacklisted.

    anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.

    The Republican party spends a unnaturally large amount of time fixating on Israel’s security. It’s disturbing and unbelievable how obsessed Republicans have become with Israel. Am I not to notice this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There are conservatives around who (claim to) have concern for victims of globo-meritocracy, the medical/capitalist assault on the family, and other "populist" issues which you are complaining of; Santorum and Huckabee come to mind (I never said they were especially powerful on the right but they aren't NPR libs either). The actual right-wing coalition is a complex, slowly shifting motor parade which you are oversimplifying by picking out the wheels you dislike and bitching about Likud hegemony. Try to think more constructively.
  59. @Abe
    There was a gay play written by a gay playwright called CORPUS CHRISTI a while back. Jesus and all his disciples were gay, had hot gay sex, the religious right incensed.... I'm sure you can fill in the details even if you missed the story at the time. Anyway, what's interesting is that some Muslims in the UK issued a death-fatwa agains the playwright, as Jesus, while not the son of God, is still a true prophet in Islam (kinnda like Babbage to Mohamot's Turing).

    So are we to rally to the defense of this play against right-wing Christian censorship, as Tony Kushner militantly did at the time, or call for the censorship of the play since it punches down at powerless Muslim people of color? Or both at the same time.

    To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, liberalism must be false, since you can derive anything from it with perfectly correct logic, including two completely contradictory things.

    Since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, why don’t they celebrate Christmas?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, why don’t they celebrate Christmas?
     
    They not only consider him a prophet, but they also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus to Mary.
  60. Ross Douthat is pretty darn sly and as good as it gets at the NY Times. Hopefully he subverts the target readership’s worldview. He has his moments same as William Safire.
    We have many commenters here who could write Douthats for the Times if they fine tuned their diplomatic skills. Douthat just happened to be in the right place at the right time

    Read More
  61. I think disprivileged is a bit clumsy. Personally, I’d call him transprivileged. Even though he is privileged he identifies with the down trodden. On the other hand, I’m cisprivileged because I’m white.

    Read More
  62. @GW
    The conservative response to Trudeau's "punching up/punching down" rationalization is the reason the right is in trouble. We seem to be saying that Trudeau is wrong that Muslims can't be criticized because they either do have power, or they at least wield power, or that it is tough to distinguish who does and doesn't have power so they should be fair game.

    But none of this actually calls into question the merit of the liberal axiom regarding criticism of the powerful and the marginalized. When a person or group is criticized for a moral impropriety by another person or group, it matters not which party is in power. Unless hypocrisy is involved, the focus should be on the moral rightness of the act in question; by nearly every moral worldview save Islam brutal slaughter is much more egregious than offensive cartoons. By turning it into a question of power, Trudeau is directly appealing to Marxist presuppositions to hide his cowardice.

    It is natural for someone in power to instruct and reproach ones beneath him--a teacher to her student, a father to his child, an employer to his employee, a king to his thegn--if the lesser is acting against his moral duties. The response to Trudeau is to tell him to get lost--we'll criticize who we damn well please if that party is acting in opposition to the good.

    Right. How would Confucius or Aristotle have responded to today’s conventional wisdom that the more privileged have no right to criticize bad behavior by the less privileged?

    It’s a duty of the privileged to criticize and punish bad behavior. It’s part of noblesse oblige.

    Read More
  63. @Desiderius

    How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias.
     
    It's pro-global, anti-nativist. The more dull-witted the intellectual, the more this plays out as anti-white.

    “It’s pro-global, anti-nativist.”

    Or pro-fringe, anti-core.

    Or pro-elite, anti-average.

    Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.

    One reason this mindset is so effective is that it’s hard to pin down in simple words the bigotry involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    One reason this mindset is so effective is that it’s hard to pin down in simple words the bigotry involved.
     
    If one is concerned with stopping it, that's work that must be done, however hard. It seems to me relatively straight-forward that the driving impetus is the ambition to find one's place (or to guarantee one's offsprings' place) in the global empire, rather than in the local mom-and-pop sure to be crushed underfoot by said empire.

    That this ambition is grossly unrealistic for the vast majority is the Achilles heel of the mindset. We best get moving attacking that heel.
  64. @Stealth
    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he’d be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    Seems like a reasonable fear to me. Don't be so hard on him; pretty much everyone who's not independently (very) wealthy or a doctor is in Ross's same awkward position.

    Even the very wealthy aren’t immune. Just ask Donald Sterling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    Donald Sterling probably has a self-perpetuating fortune. Unless crowds carrying pitch-forks come to his door and haul him off, he'll do fine, regardless of what everyone thinks of him. If I were in his position, I would go down in history as a free speech hero - or villain.

    This, of course, brings up another point: is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who's willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell "eat me!" to an angry mob of social justice warriors? That's what Paula Dean should have done, but instead she wept and groveled in front of God and everybody. What was she trying to do, preserve her legacy? In a hundred years, no one will remember who she was.
  65. @Harry Baldwin
    But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion.

    This is a good point. It's easy to find a high-minded notion to justify what is in fact cowardice. I think that's what Gary Trudeau is doing.

    Trudeau could have argued that drawing cartoons of Muhammad is impolite to Muslims and unimportant to Westerners. I don’t have any data to speak of on what Muhammad looked like and whatever he looked like doesn’t seem terribly important. It’s not like IQ where I have an enormous amount of data and it’s terribly important to understand it if you want to understand the modern world.

    Read More
  66. @iSteveFan
    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong. You drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks if you are tired. You answer yes, and he then tells you to do more since you are not in shape. The next day you drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks again if you are tired. With 24 hours of wisdom under your belt, you answer no. But the drill sergeant makes you do more anyway because he says if you are not tired, you haven't done enough.

    Whatever you say, you are wrong. It makes no difference. It's all about teaching you who is in control, and that most definitely is not you.

    This whole punching-up, punching-down nonsense is just another way of showing us who is in control.

    “This is like basic training in the army”

    I like this metaphor: sergeants have many generations of techniques to draw upon to dominate recruits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Sergeants/Drill Instructors are one variation on a theme: We do this every day, you only do it today.

    Do you wonder why we're always steps ahead? You may not because you haven't thought about that, but we have and will continue to do so.

    That is how a lot of life is, like the future, here already but unevenly distributed.
  67. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Initially I thought of Douthat as you do, but if he keeps writing like this I will be forced to change my mind. Give credit where credit is due.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I wonder if Ron has a tone-deafness/color-blindness* toward what it is Douthat is actually saying. Maybe it's just because I'd read Privilege** and his blog with Salam before Douthat was ever hired, but I often find his columns interesting, if unnecessarily couched with caveats. His foes are more likely to pounce on them as signs of weakness than to appreciate his expressions of concern for their viewpoints.

    * - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
    ** - http://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Harvard-Education-Ruling-Class/dp/1401307558
  68. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Good grief Ron, Douthat's position requires that he tiptoe across the cutting edge of a razor in ballerina footies. His job is to disclose as much truth as possible without being fired. I'd love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen. If your argument is that Douthat could push against the stupidity with greater vigor I am willing to consider it. But if you want to pretend that he could offer Buchanan’s lucidity to the parochial, navel-gazing readership of the Times then I must consign you to the delusional boat anchors that impede genuine progress. Get a grip man! The coming anarchy will ensure that life becomes ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. We need to stem the tide, not condemn the first rock in the jetty for failing to turn the wave back to sea.

    I’d love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen.

    Pat was a NY Times Op-Ed columnist in the 1970s and believe it or not the NYT was a more fair and balanced outlet back then. Back when a Minnesota liberal Vice President was a public anti-Communist and campaigned for President as a backer of our war in Vietnam. Hubert Horatio Humphrey from the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Ah, '68 in Chi-town, where the young meet to eat on Rush Street. (try all the stuffed pizzas)

    Hubert didn't know what hit him during the '68 campaign, what with Donald Segretti and the other SC Law Rat-F'ers running circles around his team.

  69. @Eric Rasmusen
    Quite right. Douthat is way off track when he says it is complicated who has privilege and power. It's not--- it is simple, though it's exactly the opposite of what the lefties say it is. White men do not have any privileges, because they don't care about their identity and don't ask for privileges. They rely on individual ability rather than group political power. They do have power, but not as white men, just as individuals who have no special desire to help their own identity group. Thus, as a group they are powerless. When you put a lot of high-energy molecules together, they ordinarily move in all directions and don't exert pressure in any particular direction. If you take a smaller number of lower-energy molecules that are all moving in the same direction, you get power.

    This makes sense for low-ability individuals. There is more variance in productive ability than in political power--- for example, not everybody can do calculus, but everybody can vote. If you have low ability, you should make more use of what you're relatively good at--- politics. You should affiliate with a group--- an old-style political machine, or a new-style identity group--- and use power to get status and wealth. You won't end up as admired or wealthy as the high-talent person, I think, because if the power strategy worked better, the high-talent people would use it too, but you'll end up more admired and wealthy than if you try to rely on your productive ability. Thus, the talented should make, not take, but the untalented should take, not make.

    Well said.

    Read More
  70. @DH
    Initially I thought of Douthat as you do, but if he keeps writing like this I will be forced to change my mind. Give credit where credit is due.

    I wonder if Ron has a tone-deafness/color-blindness* toward what it is Douthat is actually saying. Maybe it’s just because I’d read Privilege** and his blog with Salam before Douthat was ever hired, but I often find his columns interesting, if unnecessarily couched with caveats. His foes are more likely to pounce on them as signs of weakness than to appreciate his expressions of concern for their viewpoints.

    * – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
    **http://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Harvard-Education-Ruling-Class/dp/1401307558

    Read More
  71. @Steve Sailer
    "It’s pro-global, anti-nativist."

    Or pro-fringe, anti-core.

    Or pro-elite, anti-average.

    Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.

    One reason this mindset is so effective is that it's hard to pin down in simple words the bigotry involved.

    One reason this mindset is so effective is that it’s hard to pin down in simple words the bigotry involved.

    If one is concerned with stopping it, that’s work that must be done, however hard. It seems to me relatively straight-forward that the driving impetus is the ambition to find one’s place (or to guarantee one’s offsprings’ place) in the global empire, rather than in the local mom-and-pop sure to be crushed underfoot by said empire.

    That this ambition is grossly unrealistic for the vast majority is the Achilles heel of the mindset. We best get moving attacking that heel.

    Read More
  72. @Malcolm X-Lax
    There's a part of me that is waiting/hoping/expecting the sensible, mainstream liberal establishment--of which I've assumed Trudeau to be a member--to stand up and finally say enough is enough of this sort of nonsense. For instance, this 23-writers-have-a-message-for-straight-white-male-publishing stupidity--I thought there might be some backlash from respected white male authors of the Left. So far, unless I've missed it--silence. This is not a good. There seems to be no limit to the amount of shit they're willing to have shoveled down their throats. It seems they'd rather participate in the destruction.

    There seems to be no limit to the amount of shit they’re willing to have shoveled down their throats.

    It’s a duty of the privileged to criticize and punish bad behavior. It’s part of noblesse oblige.

    Actual noblesse oblige gets crowded out by former nobility hanging on to whatever oblige they can scrounge up to remind them of the good old days.

    Read More
  73. @Tiny Duck
    Terrorists who shoot down an entire magazine staff are excellent bad guys.

    The dead murdered by bad guys are always great martyrs.

    Douthat trades on what is easy here.

    He carefully avoids the actual hard questions raised by those willing to be thoughtful on a difficult topic. That isn't the way the right wing swings.

    Hate speech is a problem. That includes deliberately offensive things, as much if they are said about Muslims as if they are said about other badly treated minorities such as blacks in America. Or Jews in a lot of places. Or Catholics in China.

    Hate speech does not justify murder or terrorism. But it isn't all wonderful and cuddly either, even if our right wingers actually do share that hate.

    Hate speech is a problem. That includes deliberately offensive things [...]

    This cannot be true. Criticism of ideas or ideologies is not “hate speech.” If it were, that would mean any critics of Christianity are also engaging in “hate speech.”

    What’s really meant is that criticism of ideas or beliefs held by the “powerful” is not hate speech, because privilege, but criticism of ideas or beliefs by the “powerless” is hate speech. Except at that point we aren’t talking about the content of any speech anymore, merely about the putative low social status of those who are offended by it.

    By that logic, I could condemn as hate criminals atheists, immigration enthusiasts, climate change advocates, LGBT advocates, and anyone else, as long as I could find a sizable group of poor white cis-genders whose feelings were hurt by such “hate speech” and who felt that such speech demeaned them. Something tells me that wouldn’t be hard to do.

    Now, there is a line between mocking or ridiculing an idea or a belief or a political position and mocking the actual adherents of same; for example, mocking open immigration from Meso America is not hate speech, mocking the actual people involved may meet a hate speech criterion (I personally don’t think so) but it does at least foster prejudice. But none of that is relevant when discussing either Charlie Hebdo (whose cartoons mock all religions) or Trevor Noah (who as far as I can tell has not fostered prejudice against any group.)

    By the same token, the sizable literature that argues for, e.g., racial IQ differences rarely if ever mocks anyone, it is mostly written in a dry and restrained style, and moreover is not meant to deliberately offend anyone. And we are not even discussing offensive speech that wasn’t done on purpose ……. All of this of course presupposes a tribunal that will determine not only offensive authorial intent but also calibrate the threshhold of numbers offended so as to determine whether an act of hate speech has occurred but also what the appropriate penalties should be. That tribunal, by definition, will be privileged. Permission to mock it, Sir?

    My main concern is that what appears to be happening is that many Western societies appear ready to carve out exceptions to free speech to protect the sensibilities of specific minorities. But those minorities are the ones who have to learn the rules of free speech in the West, not the other way around. Otherwise we will be living in a highly censored and unfree society before you know it.

    Bottom line, once we go down the hate speech road, and especially once we determine that the criticism of ideas and beliefs can even be hate speech, we won’t have any such thing as free speech left.

    Read More
  74. Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?

    From post after post, Unz consistently reveals himself as the kind of high IQ, ultra-rich elite, lecturing-hectoring sanctimonious snob that Steve’s blog exists to criticize. In the Lucas-Marin thread, Unz actually went so far as to lecture anyone opposed to mass immigration to “Just take it / Lie back and think of England”. A stance that Steve in the past has cleverly mocked as identical to the old caricature of patriarchal “advice” to rape victims. Except that there’s not much, if any, evidence that old men actually used to say that; rather it was a libel concocted by feminists. But transpose the issue to immigration, and Unz now says it completely unironically.

    I am not a regular reader of Douthat; I mostly only read him when Steve points out that he has written something worthwhile. But to call him uncourageous is worse than false. It’s easy for Unz to say. Unz literally has nothing to lose. The MSM / Cathedral / Eye of Sauron (choose your metaphor) can’t touch him. First, because it won’t want to; Unz is already one of them and on their side. Second, even if they did want to (say, for the sin of publishing Sailer), Unz is so rich he never has to worry about making a living again. It takes a special kind of “Let them eat cake” myopia for someone in that position to criticize someone in Douthat’s position for pushing boundaries in a cautious way. Douthat doesn’t have to push any boundaries at all, and could maintain a very nice lifestyle indefinitely without doing so.

    I suppose we should all be glad that Unz does publish Sailer, though I wonder how glad. If Unz cut and ran tomorrow, Steve would still have his own skills and an army of loyal readers. I am sure he would be fine.

    But it is ironic that a blog dedicated to explicating the top+bottom vs. middle political dynamic of our time is sponsored by one of those very same “tops” out to screw all the readers who come here specifically to understand and criticize that dynamic. It’s almost like Soros himself is the publisher.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    Unz has a somewhat odd collection of writers that don't necessarily cohere to a conventional viewpoint or intellectual tribe. It includes paleocons, lefties, HBDers, Libertarians, and some people I regard as conspiracy nuts or that sometimes swerve into anti-semitism. There seems to be a common thread between the Paleocon, New Left, and Libertarian critiques of foreign policy. Unz publishes a lot of HBDers but has many reservations about it.

    Near as I can figure Unz's motivations include publishing stuff he finds interesting but under-served in the media culture.
    , @James Kabala
    "I lie back and think of England," although indeed a myth, has a more benign context than you think. It was supposedly said not by rape victims, but by frigid Victorian women consensually but unenthusiastically performing their marital duty.
    , @silviosilver

    Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?
     
    Defeating the opposition by leading it? While it's encouraging that a man of Unz's stature is not completely lacking in common sense - which cannot be said with any confidence about his peers - ultimately it can't be forgotten that he continues to insist on immigrating America to hell - and for reasons probably quite similar to those of his presumably less sensible peers.
  75. Trudeau is example of what Houellebcq predicted: leftists providing cover for Radical Islamists, even at the expense of liberal ideals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Trudeau is example of what Houellebcq predicted: leftists providing cover for Radical Islamists, even at the expense of liberal ideals.
     
    Some prediction. This has been going on strong for at least ten years. When Muslims run for office Europe they run under socialist and other leftist parties. When their numbers get large enough they will also run within Muslim political parties they organize. They would love to do this now, but not enough Muslims. They know they have to give high birthrates and immigration enough time.
  76. @Reg Cæsar

    There are only so many cheeks you can turn.
     
    Or kiss.

    Woody on Cheers: What’s goin’ down, Mr. Peterson?
    Norm: All four cheeks and a couple of chins.

    Read More
  77. @Tiny Duck
    I am sick and tired of hearing conservatives whine endlessly about the unborn - when, when push comes to shove, you're ready kick them to the side of the road the moment the unfortunate mother has the child.

    There is only one rational solution to reducing the number of abortions - and it involves recognizing humanity's profoundly sexual nature, something Martin Luther had no problem doing 500 years ago, and empowering individuals to use every means at their disposal to prevent unintended conceptions.

    Aye. Let’s *PAY* the childbearing-aged daughters of welfare moms NOT to get pregnant.

    At the welfare office, give her a preg test. If neg, give her a check and her choice of contraceptives, tell her to come back in three months. When she returns in 3 months, give preg test. If negative, give a check and contraceptives… Repeat til she reaches age 35.

    HOLY COW that will be EXPENSIVE, you say? Yeah, at first, but the long-term economic benefits of the multi-generational welfare incompetents NOT being conceived are astronomical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    HOLY COW that will be EXPENSIVE, you say? Yeah, at first, but the long-term economic benefits of the multi-generational welfare incompetents NOT being conceived are astronomical.
     
    I agree completely. I'd go even further and pay them to abort even if they do get pregnant. You'd want to pay more for not getting pregnant in the first place, though, in order to prevent abuse of the system. That's a much tougher sell, of course, but I'm just throwing it out there.
  78. @Steve Sailer
    "This is like basic training in the army"

    I like this metaphor: sergeants have many generations of techniques to draw upon to dominate recruits.

    Sergeants/Drill Instructors are one variation on a theme: We do this every day, you only do it today.

    Do you wonder why we’re always steps ahead? You may not because you haven’t thought about that, but we have and will continue to do so.

    That is how a lot of life is, like the future, here already but unevenly distributed.

    Read More
  79. @Clyde

    I’d love to have Patrick Buchanan published by the Satan worshippers at the NY Times, but it is not going to happen.
     
    Pat was a NY Times Op-Ed columnist in the 1970s and believe it or not the NYT was a more fair and balanced outlet back then. Back when a Minnesota liberal Vice President was a public anti-Communist and campaigned for President as a backer of our war in Vietnam. Hubert Horatio Humphrey from the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party

    Ah, ’68 in Chi-town, where the young meet to eat on Rush Street. (try all the stuffed pizzas)

    Hubert didn’t know what hit him during the ’68 campaign, what with Donald Segretti and the other SC Law Rat-F’ers running circles around his team.

    Read More
  80. I assure you, the white working class will never be included among the underdogs.

    Read More
  81. That pill can be spat out or left untasted. But progressivism’s present confidence (even in the face of murder) in its prescribed hierarchies of power and victimhood is of a piece with its constant invocation of history’s “arc” and winning “side.”

    This is actually a non-trivial statement by Douthat. He’s pointing out the Left’s Marxist-Leninist teleology.

    Read More
  82. “Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country. Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.”

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    “Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here..”

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor. Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? And “no right” to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European “invasion”.

    “Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation…”

    The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Vietnamese were ALL put in that same category by their detractors. Besides, I thought America was no longer First World status, regardless of the immigration issue?

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    “Or pro-fringe, anti-core. Or pro-elite, anti-average. Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.”

    

Or pro-white, anti-Jew (whatever “white” means nowadays, I have no idea what that definition entails). Or pro-Christian, anti-Muzzie. Or pro-American, anti-vibrant.

    One last thing regarding “game”. There is the perverted version espoused by Roissy—men who stay single and “pump and dump”, never marry, never have children—and there is the pro-Christian version—men who desire marriage by learning tactics how to “tame” feminists. Amazingly, a number of Christian libertarians tout Roissy’s brand at worst, or refuse to disavow his philosophy at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    I take it from your rather long post that you favor continued, legal, mass immigration.
    , @ABN

    And “no right” to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European “invasion”.
     
    I'm pretty sure very few people here would actually disagree with that. Most of us have much more respect for the likes of Tecumseh or Crazy Horse than for our present ruling class.
    , @Ron Unz

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America...
    , @syonredux

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    No, he's merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA:

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
     

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.
     
    Where to begin?:

    Difference in elite attitudes: in pre-'45 America, a WASP elite held the reigns of power, and they were committed to Americanizing immigrants.Sadly, our elites think differently today (cf their ludicrous , Orwellian slogan that "diversity is our strength")

    Difference in point of origin: We have a land border with Mexico.We don't have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc

    Difference in ethnic background: The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)

    Difference in numbers: Just compare the totals for Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics with those of the Chinese and Vietnamese....

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor.
     
    Oh, I'm all for hard prison time for the traitorous businessmen who hire illegal aliens

    Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions?
     
    No.

    And “no right” to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European “invasion”.
     
    The Amerinds had every right to resist the Spanish, French, English, etc.

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.
     
    Yes, it is quite stunning how Pat understands the hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!
     
    That's a bad thing? Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.Too much poisons society.
  83. I don’t want to be one of those people who sees a Jewish angle in everything, but I think that contemporary society’s generally bizarre attitude toward who has power and who doesn’t is related to the inherently unstable position of any market-dominant minority.

    If you’re a market-dominant minority, there are two default scenarios: either you occupy a position of unaccountable privilege at the nexus of money and influence, or you’re running for your life from armed peasants. (I don’t believe those are the only possible scenarios. Like Steve, I believe and hope that a highly successful minority can be subjected to constructive criticism from the general population without being persecuted by it. But we have to admit that that’s a delicate balance to sustain on a historical timescale.)

    The idea that making fun of, say, ordinary Americans in Flyover Country is “punching up” seems preposterous to us. And yet, the historic ethno-cultural majorities in America and Europe could, in principle, put on a bunch of brown shirts tomorrow and exercise the sort of unchecked power that hasn’t been wielded in the West for the better part of a century.

    It is this enormous latent power that the wielders of the Megaphone attribute to our side (i.e., the “Core”-affiliated side). In effect, we’re being punished for having powers the actual use of which most of us would find utterly abhorrent.

    That’s enormously unfair and frustrating, not to mention defamatory, but it goes a long way toward explaining the strange Progressive hierarchies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    There are probably some members of the old guard of whatever movement that could provide ample documentation for the various takeovers (e.g., publishing) that have been presented herein. Whether they decide to crack under pressure and turn State's evidence remains to be seen.

    The likelihood of any such cracking may be expressed as some type of direct or inverse mathematical function based on the movement's position in the hierarchy of the aggrieved or oppressed. Research continues.

    There are some impediments to piercing the veils, such as the YKW Omertà of mesira. Whether and to what extent that exists among feminists, blacks, gays, Mestizos, Muslims, Belgians (hat tip, Austin Powers) or any other group remains to be seen.

    Thus, the call goes out to Unz.com readers: Do you know people who know people who will grace us with their missives? If so, have them submit. Once they're submissive, then have them send in their prose.
  84. @Dave Pinsen
    Since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, why don't they celebrate Christmas?

    Since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, why don’t they celebrate Christmas?

    They not only consider him a prophet, but they also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus to Mary.

    Read More
  85. @Corvinus
    “Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country. Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.”

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    “Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here..”

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor. Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? And "no right" to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European "invasion".

    “Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation…”

    The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Vietnamese were ALL put in that same category by their detractors. Besides, I thought America was no longer First World status, regardless of the immigration issue?

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    “Or pro-fringe, anti-core. Or pro-elite, anti-average. Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.”

    

Or pro-white, anti-Jew (whatever "white" means nowadays, I have no idea what that definition entails). Or pro-Christian, anti-Muzzie. Or pro-American, anti-vibrant.


    One last thing regarding “game”. There is the perverted version espoused by Roissy—men who stay single and “pump and dump”, never marry, never have children—and there is the pro-Christian version—men who desire marriage by learning tactics how to “tame” feminists. Amazingly, a number of Christian libertarians tout Roissy’s brand at worst, or refuse to disavow his philosophy at best.

    I take it from your rather long post that you favor continued, legal, mass immigration.

    Read More
  86. @Simon
    >>> I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind… <<<

    Totally agree. Every time I read one of Ross Douthat's thumbsuckers, I find myself muttering, "Oh, Douthat, blow it out your ass."

    It's not that his opinions are wrongheaded; it's that his ruminations are so dull, so labored, and so timid. The Times, as I recall, hired him to replace Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper's resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary. Douthat, with his Harvard pedigree and impenetrable prose, was a far safer choice; he's never going to convince anyone of anything, few people even finish his tedious columns, and if they do, they discover he's taken no firm position anyway. All he inspires are yawns.

    And don't get me started on David Brooks; the only sort of "conservative" he is, despite being so labeled, is a conservative Democrat.

    You had me until Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper’s resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary.

    But you’re right on about the anodyne Douthat. There’s a reason Crunchy Squishy Con Rod Dreher seems to quote from just about every column Douthat writes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    But you’re right on about the anodyne Douthat. There’s a reason Crunchy Squishy Con Rod Dreher seems to quote from just about every column Douthat writes.

     

    Have these two ever been seen in same room at the same time? They do share initials, and I keep confusing the two.

    Does Esquire still run its periodic list of people always confused with each other?
  87. @Corvinus
    “Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country. Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.”

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    “Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here..”

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor. Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? And "no right" to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European "invasion".

    “Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation…”

    The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Vietnamese were ALL put in that same category by their detractors. Besides, I thought America was no longer First World status, regardless of the immigration issue?

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    “Or pro-fringe, anti-core. Or pro-elite, anti-average. Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.”

    

Or pro-white, anti-Jew (whatever "white" means nowadays, I have no idea what that definition entails). Or pro-Christian, anti-Muzzie. Or pro-American, anti-vibrant.


    One last thing regarding “game”. There is the perverted version espoused by Roissy—men who stay single and “pump and dump”, never marry, never have children—and there is the pro-Christian version—men who desire marriage by learning tactics how to “tame” feminists. Amazingly, a number of Christian libertarians tout Roissy’s brand at worst, or refuse to disavow his philosophy at best.

    And “no right” to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European “invasion”.

    I’m pretty sure very few people here would actually disagree with that. Most of us have much more respect for the likes of Tecumseh or Crazy Horse than for our present ruling class.

    Read More
  88. Just missed landing a comment on Douthat’s column. The letters were closed before I finished it. Kinda early. Seemed to be attracting a lot of commentary – and its critics could only misinterpret it for critique. Here was my letter. Hope you don’t mind:

    Surely, by comments here, you can expect a world of hurt to descend on you. Simply by noting that power blocs aren’t fixed, and are in fact enormously complex and ephemeral, you’ve undone the very basis of “white privilege” ideology.

    Any worldview based on historical grievance is dangerous foundation for contemporary policy. We must, finally, live in the present, since that is our only common reality. Our past always will be open to interpretation. The privileged/unprivileged assignment of social hierarchy rests on a historic reading extreme and unshakable, so its key flaw is its simple-minded conclusion that skin color determines human validity. Whites are to be invalidated because we once were slavers, that we occupy the earth and exploit it, that we kept an uncle out of a country club long ago. Our individual characteristics, our humanity, is unimportant. Our history has condemned us, since that history has been judged evil.

    But Trudeau’s application of it to Charlie Hebdo underlines the ideology’s failure to note the “unprivileged” also can wield extreme power. Anti-Muslim imagery or text will provoke second thoughts in editors and writers throughout the West, regardless how much they thump their chests about free speech. And as the massacres prove, unprivileged execution of power is for them comparatively inexpensive.

    Read More
  89. @ABN
    I don't want to be one of those people who sees a Jewish angle in everything, but I think that contemporary society's generally bizarre attitude toward who has power and who doesn't is related to the inherently unstable position of any market-dominant minority.

    If you're a market-dominant minority, there are two default scenarios: either you occupy a position of unaccountable privilege at the nexus of money and influence, or you're running for your life from armed peasants. (I don't believe those are the only possible scenarios. Like Steve, I believe and hope that a highly successful minority can be subjected to constructive criticism from the general population without being persecuted by it. But we have to admit that that's a delicate balance to sustain on a historical timescale.)

    The idea that making fun of, say, ordinary Americans in Flyover Country is "punching up" seems preposterous to us. And yet, the historic ethno-cultural majorities in America and Europe could, in principle, put on a bunch of brown shirts tomorrow and exercise the sort of unchecked power that hasn't been wielded in the West for the better part of a century.

    It is this enormous latent power that the wielders of the Megaphone attribute to our side (i.e., the "Core"-affiliated side). In effect, we're being punished for having powers the actual use of which most of us would find utterly abhorrent.

    That's enormously unfair and frustrating, not to mention defamatory, but it goes a long way toward explaining the strange Progressive hierarchies.

    There are probably some members of the old guard of whatever movement that could provide ample documentation for the various takeovers (e.g., publishing) that have been presented herein. Whether they decide to crack under pressure and turn State’s evidence remains to be seen.

    The likelihood of any such cracking may be expressed as some type of direct or inverse mathematical function based on the movement’s position in the hierarchy of the aggrieved or oppressed. Research continues.

    There are some impediments to piercing the veils, such as the YKW Omertà of mesira. Whether and to what extent that exists among feminists, blacks, gays, Mestizos, Muslims, Belgians (hat tip, Austin Powers) or any other group remains to be seen.

    Thus, the call goes out to Unz.com readers: Do you know people who know people who will grace us with their missives? If so, have them submit. Once they’re submissive, then have them send in their prose.

    Read More
  90. Highly perceptive article, as usual. I was glad to see the juxtaposition of Garry Trudeau and Bill Watterson. Watterson was truly great. Trudeau has always been a fearless, iconoclastic…Democrat. Not to be sexist about it, but his wife, Jane Pauley, is a $2 million dollar a year cantaloupe brain. I once saw her interview Dick Francis, the brilliant author of many horse racing thrillers, and his wife. The subsidiary theme of the novel under discussion was wine-making. Pauley asked, with a fatuous grin, “well, where does the best champagne come from?” Mrs. Francis replied, “from Champagne, dear. It’s a part of France.” The briefly glimpsed surge of panic on Pauley’s face was priceless.

    Read More
  91. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Simon
    >>> I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind… <<<

    Totally agree. Every time I read one of Ross Douthat's thumbsuckers, I find myself muttering, "Oh, Douthat, blow it out your ass."

    It's not that his opinions are wrongheaded; it's that his ruminations are so dull, so labored, and so timid. The Times, as I recall, hired him to replace Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper's resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary. Douthat, with his Harvard pedigree and impenetrable prose, was a far safer choice; he's never going to convince anyone of anything, few people even finish his tedious columns, and if they do, they discover he's taken no firm position anyway. All he inspires are yawns.

    And don't get me started on David Brooks; the only sort of "conservative" he is, despite being so labeled, is a conservative Democrat.

    Disagree 100%. Kristol’s Dad was a great public intellectual! Bill Kristol is a hack…a talking point Republican who makes millions on TV spewing the GOP party line.

    Read More
  92. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing.

    You’re nuts. The Douthat piece hit points Steve made days earlier–the difficulty of assigning hierarchy of victimhood in a multi-victim society where victimhood is prized above all, and the absurdity of saying cartoonists are “punching down” when they mock armed murderers. He threw in some anti-abortion arguments and a social conservative argument for stable families for good measure. He did it calmly, in the leading paper in the US, to a hostile audience and hostile employer.

    We might like more Steve-snark but that’s a rhetorical technique better employed from other venues. The audience has to understand that an alternative exists and has an intellectually serious foundation before they can be persuaded by sarcasm.

    Read More
  93. @Harry Baldwin
    But an open society such as we aspire to have will not survive if some taboos are maintained by force, the threat of force, and by the mental gymnastics that turns fear into compassion.

    This is a good point. It's easy to find a high-minded notion to justify what is in fact cowardice. I think that's what Gary Trudeau is doing.

    Thank you. But thinking about it some more, I am wondering how much the Charlie Hebdo killings are now being viewed as fortuitous by some progressives.

    In other words, I think the shock at the killings was initially 100% in the West. But progressives can look at these killings and think again: “Wait a minute, if drawings of the Prophet are ‘hate speech’, and therefore could be banned, how about we say that opposition to SSM, or Climate Change, or Immigration, or promoting HBD, are (by some convoluted reasoning) also hate speech?”

    Keep in mind that progressives already have names for anyone who disagrees with them: Phobes of some kind, Deniers or Denialists of some kind. In other words, to progressives, there is nothing to debate, the opponents of the regnant progressives beliefs are all arguing in bad faith, or are mentally ill, or both. So naturally (I am sure the reasoning would go) they shouldn’t be allowed to spread their filthy lies!

    So, yes, on the one hand there’s a bit of the “I won’t walk up to a tiger and smack it on the nose, because it would be wrong” but there is also a certain, “what a wonderful way to shut up our critics once and for all”, too.

    Read More
  94. @manton
    Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?

    From post after post, Unz consistently reveals himself as the kind of high IQ, ultra-rich elite, lecturing-hectoring sanctimonious snob that Steve’s blog exists to criticize. In the Lucas-Marin thread, Unz actually went so far as to lecture anyone opposed to mass immigration to “Just take it / Lie back and think of England”. A stance that Steve in the past has cleverly mocked as identical to the old caricature of patriarchal “advice” to rape victims. Except that there’s not much, if any, evidence that old men actually used to say that; rather it was a libel concocted by feminists. But transpose the issue to immigration, and Unz now says it completely unironically.

    I am not a regular reader of Douthat; I mostly only read him when Steve points out that he has written something worthwhile. But to call him uncourageous is worse than false. It’s easy for Unz to say. Unz literally has nothing to lose. The MSM / Cathedral / Eye of Sauron (choose your metaphor) can’t touch him. First, because it won’t want to; Unz is already one of them and on their side. Second, even if they did want to (say, for the sin of publishing Sailer), Unz is so rich he never has to worry about making a living again. It takes a special kind of “Let them eat cake” myopia for someone in that position to criticize someone in Douthat’s position for pushing boundaries in a cautious way. Douthat doesn’t have to push any boundaries at all, and could maintain a very nice lifestyle indefinitely without doing so.

    I suppose we should all be glad that Unz does publish Sailer, though I wonder how glad. If Unz cut and ran tomorrow, Steve would still have his own skills and an army of loyal readers. I am sure he would be fine.

    But it is ironic that a blog dedicated to explicating the top+bottom vs. middle political dynamic of our time is sponsored by one of those very same “tops” out to screw all the readers who come here specifically to understand and criticize that dynamic. It’s almost like Soros himself is the publisher.

    Unz has a somewhat odd collection of writers that don’t necessarily cohere to a conventional viewpoint or intellectual tribe. It includes paleocons, lefties, HBDers, Libertarians, and some people I regard as conspiracy nuts or that sometimes swerve into anti-semitism. There seems to be a common thread between the Paleocon, New Left, and Libertarian critiques of foreign policy. Unz publishes a lot of HBDers but has many reservations about it.

    Near as I can figure Unz’s motivations include publishing stuff he finds interesting but under-served in the media culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    I guess that's why he also publishes the deranged Paul Craig Roberts, who has repeatedly written that the US is deliberately trying to maneuver Russia into a nuclear war? But none dare call it dementia ...

    Eclectic indeed. I forgot which commenter called this site "Sailer and the Eleven Dwarfs" but it was a good line. Though "dwarf" may overstate the case for some of the others.
  95. @Corvinus
    “Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country. Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.”

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    “Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here..”

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor. Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? And "no right" to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European "invasion".

    “Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation…”

    The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Vietnamese were ALL put in that same category by their detractors. Besides, I thought America was no longer First World status, regardless of the immigration issue?

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    “Or pro-fringe, anti-core. Or pro-elite, anti-average. Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.”

    

Or pro-white, anti-Jew (whatever "white" means nowadays, I have no idea what that definition entails). Or pro-Christian, anti-Muzzie. Or pro-American, anti-vibrant.


    One last thing regarding “game”. There is the perverted version espoused by Roissy—men who stay single and “pump and dump”, never marry, never have children—and there is the pro-Christian version—men who desire marriage by learning tactics how to “tame” feminists. Amazingly, a number of Christian libertarians tout Roissy’s brand at worst, or refuse to disavow his philosophy at best.

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew
    Ron Unz:

    since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America…

    Yes, people seem to forget that.

    The default US immigration position from 1790 to 1921 was unlimited immigration from Europe and Latin America, and no immigration from East and South Asia and Africa.

    After 1921, immigration was numerically restricted from Europe of white people to limit the number of Jews, Greeks, Yugoslavs, and Italians.

    After 1952, restrictions on Asians began to be loosened.

    After 1965, immigration was opened up from much of the rest of the world and numerically restricted from Latin America.

    Despite what we see here about Mexican immigration, Americans have mainly seen fit in history to restrict Asian coolies from China and India (defined to include all of Indo-China) and their fellow whites, and of course blacks once they could not make them slaves.

    I sometimes think a sensible immigration policy would focus on restricting citizenship instead of actual immigration. That was our original national policy - only whites (and Latin American Mestizos) could gain citizenship. That was undone by the courts using 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case. Worth noting that the same court majority that came up with Plessy vs. Ferguson also came up with Wong Kim Ark. The real demographic danger to the US is not Latin Americans but unlimited immigration from the Indo-China region and Africa which is culturally and racially alien to Anglo America, unlike nominally Catholic and partly white Hispanics.
    , @iSteveFan
    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous.

    First, the fact that congress voted overwhelmingly for something doesn't mean it is supported by the American people. There are examples of legislation that have passed despite popular opinion polls that showed the people didn't support it. We have the recent example of voters electing the GOP presumably to block amnesty only to watch them take a dive within minutes of their historic election. Policies are often driven from the top-down, and given the lack of alternative media in 1965, it is no surprise there wasn't much dissent if those who controlled the narrative wanted it to pass.

    Second, when the 1965 Immigration Act was passed, the proponents never told Congress or the American people that the white, European super majority was going to be displaced. I am sure the vote and level of controversy might have been different if they had said, "hey, this act will radically transform our nation so that the majority of its population will become unrecognizable to the Founders."

    Rather proponents like Senator Kennedy assured detractors they had nothing to worry about. During the debate in the Senate, he said this:


    "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
     
    So Buchanan was probably correct in saying the American people never wanted to change their population. Why else would Kennedy and others reassure them otherwise?

    Third, as the results of the act came to be known, debate about the negative consequences was slowly restricted until it became politically incorrect to mention it. Pat Buchanan was largely ignored by the MSM when he warned about immigration in the 1992 campaign. Then he was demonized. Finally he was kicked off his gig on MSNBC for his frank discussions of this issue.

    So the message to the American people is that if you discuss this issue in public you risk social and economic shunning.

    , @jack
    The immigration acts, Title IX, and Civil Rights Acts are all harming us today, as the bureaucracies developed by these laws now rip away due process rights from college boys, free association from private business owners, and our American culture as a whole.

    Moral of the story for conservatives - federal laws are ALWAYS bad.
    , @Desiderius
    Ron, it is no longer 1965.

    Immigration policy has traditionally gone in cycles, with the latest cycle being blocked against the expressed will of the people.
  96. @syonredux

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind…
     
    Well, you certainly don't agree with Pat Buchanan on the only thing that matters: mass immigration to the USA.You think that the Mexicanization of the USA is a good thing, while Buchanan opposes it.

    Of course, Ron, you do have the elites on your side on that one....And you are getting the America that you want:

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.

    Around the time the 2020 Census is conducted, more than half of the nation’s children are expected to be part of a minority race or ethnic group. This proportion is expected to continue to grow so that by 2060, just 36 percent of all children (people under age 18) will be single-race non-Hispanic white, compared with 52 percent today.

    The U.S. population as a whole is expected to follow a similar trend, becoming majority-minority in 2044. The minority population is projected to rise to 56 percent of the total in 2060, compared with 38 percent in 2014.

    While one milestone would be reached by the 2020 Census, another will be achieved by the 2030 Census: all baby boomers will have reached age 65 or older (this will actually occur in 2029). Consequently, in that year, one-in-five Americans would be 65 or older, up from one in seven in 2014.

    By 2060, the nation’s foreign-born population would reach nearly 19 percent of the total population, up from 13 percent in 2014.

    http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html

     

    2014 2060

    Whites 62.2 43.6

    Hispanics 17.4 28.6

    Blacks 13.2 14.3

    Asians 5.4 9.3

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.

    That must be the fourth or fifth time I’ve noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can’t see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven’t you?…

    http://www.unz.com/article/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#our-population-ponzi-scheme

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    That must be the fourth or fifth time I’ve noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can’t see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven’t you?…
     
    Oh, I've read it.Some sound observations (e.g., that the American elite are deeply committed to race replacement, ) intermingled with wishful thinking:

    Mention “New Mexico” and the popular images that spring to mind probably revolve around UFOs, vistas of great natural beauty, and government research laboratories, not longstanding racial conflict.

     

    Of course, people who actually know that state and its people tend to think of things like low NAEP scores.....

    But buried near the bottom of a single one of the innumerable New York Times articles analyzing Arizona politics was the seemingly minor and irrelevant fact that almost half of all Arizona schoolchildren are now Hispanic. Meanwhile, according to Census data, over 80 percent of Arizonans aged 65 or older are white. A decade or more from now it seems likely that Arizona whites and Hispanics will enjoy perfectly good relations, and the former will have long since forgotten their current “immigrant scare.”
     
    "Good relations....." And the state will no longer be American at that point, Ron.It will be part of Mexico in all but name.That means nothing to you, I suppose.

    Although the percentages have been much disputed, Bush seems to have carried somewhat over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide in 2004, although he was once again trounced in California.
     
    Which is meaningless.Bush groveled before Mexicans.

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.
     
    Don't see much desire to "assimilate" these days, Ron.Assimilation is certainly not the goal of, say, the National Council of La Raza.....

    Besides, Ron, what does "assimilation" mean when there are 100 million + Hispanic Mestizos in the USA? Pig devours python.

    The notion that masses of non-white immigrants, legal or not, will turn our cities into violent battlefields or support ethnic separatist movements which shatter national unity are total absurdities, and the people who believe such claims are fools.
     
    Of course they are fools, Ron.People expect something big and dramatic-Texas seceding from the Union and joining Mexico, guerrilla warfare in the streets, etc.No, it's going to be the slow death.Cultural extinction.The Mexicanization of the nation.

    And as we have seen above from the accumulated voting data of the last couple of decades, after a brief transition period, whites and non-white immigrant groups seem to coexist perfectly well, or at least as well as did the various white ethnic groups on the East Coast 50 or 60 years ago.
     
    MMMM, 50-60 years: a gaggle of disparate ethnies on the East Coast (Italians, Eastern European Jews, Poles, Irish, etc).As compared to our current situation, where one racial group (Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics) predominates.The comparison is ludicrous, Ron.


    Massively raising the minimum wage: Totally agree with you on that one, Ron. Of course, it's not going to happen.The elite won't allow it.
    , @syonredux

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.
     
    Brings to mind another Conference anecdote.A La Raza academic was speechifying on how the Lit being taught in English departments was too "Anglo." To be sure, he had some kind words for Black Anglo authors like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison, but his overall thrust was that the Anglo canon had to go. A La Raza youth, he said could not derive sustenance from Shakespeare and Milton.The new, Brown America needed a Brown canon:Oscar Zeta Acosta, Ana Castillo, Gloria Anzaldúa, etc

    He got lots of applause.Tend to think that his program will go pretty far when Mestizo Hispanics hit 100 million....


    Now, this probably means nothing to you, Ron.But I'm an English Lit teacher.Casting aside Milton....
    , @syonredux
    And the reason why I keep on posting it? Just to remind everyone that America is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
  97. @manton
    Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?

    From post after post, Unz consistently reveals himself as the kind of high IQ, ultra-rich elite, lecturing-hectoring sanctimonious snob that Steve’s blog exists to criticize. In the Lucas-Marin thread, Unz actually went so far as to lecture anyone opposed to mass immigration to “Just take it / Lie back and think of England”. A stance that Steve in the past has cleverly mocked as identical to the old caricature of patriarchal “advice” to rape victims. Except that there’s not much, if any, evidence that old men actually used to say that; rather it was a libel concocted by feminists. But transpose the issue to immigration, and Unz now says it completely unironically.

    I am not a regular reader of Douthat; I mostly only read him when Steve points out that he has written something worthwhile. But to call him uncourageous is worse than false. It’s easy for Unz to say. Unz literally has nothing to lose. The MSM / Cathedral / Eye of Sauron (choose your metaphor) can’t touch him. First, because it won’t want to; Unz is already one of them and on their side. Second, even if they did want to (say, for the sin of publishing Sailer), Unz is so rich he never has to worry about making a living again. It takes a special kind of “Let them eat cake” myopia for someone in that position to criticize someone in Douthat’s position for pushing boundaries in a cautious way. Douthat doesn’t have to push any boundaries at all, and could maintain a very nice lifestyle indefinitely without doing so.

    I suppose we should all be glad that Unz does publish Sailer, though I wonder how glad. If Unz cut and ran tomorrow, Steve would still have his own skills and an army of loyal readers. I am sure he would be fine.

    But it is ironic that a blog dedicated to explicating the top+bottom vs. middle political dynamic of our time is sponsored by one of those very same “tops” out to screw all the readers who come here specifically to understand and criticize that dynamic. It’s almost like Soros himself is the publisher.

    “I lie back and think of England,” although indeed a myth, has a more benign context than you think. It was supposedly said not by rape victims, but by frigid Victorian women consensually but unenthusiastically performing their marital duty.

    Read More
  98. @Ron Unz

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America...

    Ron Unz:

    since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America…

    Yes, people seem to forget that.

    The default US immigration position from 1790 to 1921 was unlimited immigration from Europe and Latin America, and no immigration from East and South Asia and Africa.

    After 1921, immigration was numerically restricted from Europe of white people to limit the number of Jews, Greeks, Yugoslavs, and Italians.

    After 1952, restrictions on Asians began to be loosened.

    After 1965, immigration was opened up from much of the rest of the world and numerically restricted from Latin America.

    Despite what we see here about Mexican immigration, Americans have mainly seen fit in history to restrict Asian coolies from China and India (defined to include all of Indo-China) and their fellow whites, and of course blacks once they could not make them slaves.

    I sometimes think a sensible immigration policy would focus on restricting citizenship instead of actual immigration. That was our original national policy – only whites (and Latin American Mestizos) could gain citizenship. That was undone by the courts using 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case. Worth noting that the same court majority that came up with Plessy vs. Ferguson also came up with Wong Kim Ark. The real demographic danger to the US is not Latin Americans but unlimited immigration from the Indo-China region and Africa which is culturally and racially alien to Anglo America, unlike nominally Catholic and partly white Hispanics.

    Read More
  99. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    It may not be the courage of the martyr or the soldier, but in the Internet age it does take a certain kind of courage to publish articles that every single time attract a lengthy common thread of 100% pure invective. (And I can only imagine what kind of tweets and e-mails he receives.)

    Read More
  100. @Ron Unz

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America...

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous.

    First, the fact that congress voted overwhelmingly for something doesn’t mean it is supported by the American people. There are examples of legislation that have passed despite popular opinion polls that showed the people didn’t support it. We have the recent example of voters electing the GOP presumably to block amnesty only to watch them take a dive within minutes of their historic election. Policies are often driven from the top-down, and given the lack of alternative media in 1965, it is no surprise there wasn’t much dissent if those who controlled the narrative wanted it to pass.

    Second, when the 1965 Immigration Act was passed, the proponents never told Congress or the American people that the white, European super majority was going to be displaced. I am sure the vote and level of controversy might have been different if they had said, “hey, this act will radically transform our nation so that the majority of its population will become unrecognizable to the Founders.”

    Rather proponents like Senator Kennedy assured detractors they had nothing to worry about. During the debate in the Senate, he said this:

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

    So Buchanan was probably correct in saying the American people never wanted to change their population. Why else would Kennedy and others reassure them otherwise?

    Third, as the results of the act came to be known, debate about the negative consequences was slowly restricted until it became politically incorrect to mention it. Pat Buchanan was largely ignored by the MSM when he warned about immigration in the 1992 campaign. Then he was demonized. Finally he was kicked off his gig on MSNBC for his frank discussions of this issue.

    So the message to the American people is that if you discuss this issue in public you risk social and economic shunning.

    Read More
  101. “I take it from your rather long post that you favor continued, legal, mass immigration.”

    Significant limits on legal, mass immigration as well. Satisfied?

    “Most of us have much more respect for the likes of Tecumseh or Crazy Horse than for our present ruling class.”

    “Present ruling class”, “the elites”, or similar terms mean nothing to me. They are the creation of liberal and conservative pundits.

    “the difficulty of assigning hierarchy of victimhood in a multi-victim society where victimhood is prized above all…”

    Christians blame Muzzies. Whites blame blacks. Hispanics blame non-Hispanics. Everyone blames da Joos. Let’s try to rank, from who we ought assign the most blame—01. da Joos; 02. Muzzies; 03. tie—feminists and “vibrants”; 104. Christian white males.

    Or is this way? 01. Christian white males; 02. southrons; 03. wealthy executives ($1 million per year salary types) tie—104. da Joos, Muzzies, feminists, “vibrants”

    I probably should consult with my tribal textbook. It has all of the expected responses as a white American. Or is that a Christian male (or is that Churchian)? Or is that as a moderate with Polish and Dutch stock? Damn, this is harder than I expected…

    “He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America.”

    That argument has been made every time new ethnic groups come to America as immigrants.

    Read More
  102. @JohnnyWalker123
    In 2015, "conservative" means pro-Jewish, pro-war, pro-business.

    There's no room for anyone who wants to defend the interests or culture of non-elite white gentiles. If a conservative wanted to walk off the Sheldon Adelson plantation, it would be detrimental (even fatal) to his career. If Douthat ever said anything truly interesting, his career would be over quickly. It's more prudent to focus on the "anti-Semitism" of Occupy Wall Street, the excessive tax burden on America's "job creators", and the Iranian "threat" to Israel.

    Even liberals tend to get sidelined if they fixate too much on economic issues (wages, inequality, free trade, finance, oligarchy). It's expected that liberals should mostly discuss gay rights, feminism, white male patriarchy, diversity, Haven Monahan, etc. Which is why the minimum wage peaked back in 1968 (it has declined by about a third since then) and Wall Street continues to do business as usual (ie steal and manipulate), but what really energizes NY Times writers is transgender rights.

    That’s why conservatives’ biggest enemy is the plutocrats class. To have any future impact, conservatives will need to ally with liberal populists on economic issues, both to scare big business and to legitimately hurt big business, which is pushing the homosexual agenda with force.

    Read More
  103. @Boomstick
    Unz has a somewhat odd collection of writers that don't necessarily cohere to a conventional viewpoint or intellectual tribe. It includes paleocons, lefties, HBDers, Libertarians, and some people I regard as conspiracy nuts or that sometimes swerve into anti-semitism. There seems to be a common thread between the Paleocon, New Left, and Libertarian critiques of foreign policy. Unz publishes a lot of HBDers but has many reservations about it.

    Near as I can figure Unz's motivations include publishing stuff he finds interesting but under-served in the media culture.

    I guess that’s why he also publishes the deranged Paul Craig Roberts, who has repeatedly written that the US is deliberately trying to maneuver Russia into a nuclear war? But none dare call it dementia …

    Eclectic indeed. I forgot which commenter called this site “Sailer and the Eleven Dwarfs” but it was a good line. Though “dwarf” may overstate the case for some of the others.

    Read More
  104. I don’t agree with Ron Unz about Douhat, who, it seems to me, is doing some pretty interesting thinking aloud at the NY Times. There may not indeed be many points where I agree with Ron.

    But I am all the more thoroughly impressed with Ron’s commitment to the encouragement of a broad range of p0ints of view. I’m not sure I know of any other prominent person who more sincerely holds that it is the unfettered expression of all positions which engenders the truth.

    On this point, who else has so much put their money where their mouth is?

    The typical rich guy in his smug narcissism instead wants everybody to think just what he thinks, because he is so rich he has to be the smartest about everything. Clearly, Ron has a very different take on this.

    Read More
  105. @iSteveFan
    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong. You drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks if you are tired. You answer yes, and he then tells you to do more since you are not in shape. The next day you drop for 25 pushups and the drill sergeant asks again if you are tired. With 24 hours of wisdom under your belt, you answer no. But the drill sergeant makes you do more anyway because he says if you are not tired, you haven't done enough.

    Whatever you say, you are wrong. It makes no difference. It's all about teaching you who is in control, and that most definitely is not you.

    This whole punching-up, punching-down nonsense is just another way of showing us who is in control.

    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong.

    Joker figured out how to deal with this in Full Metal Jacket:

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Joker, do you believe in the Virgin Mary?

    Private Joker: Sir, no, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Well, well, Private Joker, I don’t believe I heard you correctly!

    Private Joker: Sir, the private said “no, sir,” sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Why you little maggot, you make me want to vomit!

    [slaps Joker]

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: You Goddamn communist heathen, you had best sound off that you love the Virgin Mary, or I’m gonna stomp your guts out! Now you DO love the Virgin Mary, don’t ya?

    Private Joker: Sir, NEGATIVE, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Joker, are you trying to offend me?

    Private Joker: Sir, NEGATIVE, sir! Sir, the private belives any answer he gives will be wrong and the Senior Drill Instructor will only beat him harder if he reverses himself, SIR!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Who’s your squad leader, scumbag?

    Private Joker: Sir, the squad leader is Private Snowball, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Snowball!

    Private Snowball: Sir, Private Snowball reporting as ordered, sir!

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Snowball, you’re fired. Private Joker’s promoted to squad leader.

    Private Snowball: Sir, aye-aye, sir!

    Read More
  106. @Ron Unz

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.
     
    That must be the fourth or fifth time I've noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can't see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven't you?...

    http://www.unz.com/article/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#our-population-ponzi-scheme

    That must be the fourth or fifth time I’ve noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can’t see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven’t you?…

    Oh, I’ve read it.Some sound observations (e.g., that the American elite are deeply committed to race replacement, ) intermingled with wishful thinking:

    Mention “New Mexico” and the popular images that spring to mind probably revolve around UFOs, vistas of great natural beauty, and government research laboratories, not longstanding racial conflict.

    Of course, people who actually know that state and its people tend to think of things like low NAEP scores…..

    But buried near the bottom of a single one of the innumerable New York Times articles analyzing Arizona politics was the seemingly minor and irrelevant fact that almost half of all Arizona schoolchildren are now Hispanic. Meanwhile, according to Census data, over 80 percent of Arizonans aged 65 or older are white. A decade or more from now it seems likely that Arizona whites and Hispanics will enjoy perfectly good relations, and the former will have long since forgotten their current “immigrant scare.”

    “Good relations…..” And the state will no longer be American at that point, Ron.It will be part of Mexico in all but name.That means nothing to you, I suppose.

    Although the percentages have been much disputed, Bush seems to have carried somewhat over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide in 2004, although he was once again trounced in California.

    Which is meaningless.Bush groveled before Mexicans.

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.

    Don’t see much desire to “assimilate” these days, Ron.Assimilation is certainly not the goal of, say, the National Council of La Raza…..

    Besides, Ron, what does “assimilation” mean when there are 100 million + Hispanic Mestizos in the USA? Pig devours python.

    The notion that masses of non-white immigrants, legal or not, will turn our cities into violent battlefields or support ethnic separatist movements which shatter national unity are total absurdities, and the people who believe such claims are fools.

    Of course they are fools, Ron.People expect something big and dramatic-Texas seceding from the Union and joining Mexico, guerrilla warfare in the streets, etc.No, it’s going to be the slow death.Cultural extinction.The Mexicanization of the nation.

    And as we have seen above from the accumulated voting data of the last couple of decades, after a brief transition period, whites and non-white immigrant groups seem to coexist perfectly well, or at least as well as did the various white ethnic groups on the East Coast 50 or 60 years ago.

    MMMM, 50-60 years: a gaggle of disparate ethnies on the East Coast (Italians, Eastern European Jews, Poles, Irish, etc).As compared to our current situation, where one racial group (Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics) predominates.The comparison is ludicrous, Ron.

    Massively raising the minimum wage: Totally agree with you on that one, Ron. Of course, it’s not going to happen.The elite won’t allow it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABN
    Unz:

    The notion that masses of non-white immigrants, legal or not, will turn our cities into violent battlefields or support ethnic separatist movements which shatter national unity are total absurdities, and the people who believe such claims are fools.
     
    The danger is not that Mexicans will rebel against the state. The danger is that they, as instruments in the high-low coalition, facilitate the state's rebellion against the nation.
  107. @Ron Unz

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America...

    The immigration acts, Title IX, and Civil Rights Acts are all harming us today, as the bureaucracies developed by these laws now rip away due process rights from college boys, free association from private business owners, and our American culture as a whole.

    Moral of the story for conservatives – federal laws are ALWAYS bad.

    Read More
  108. “Coexist”

    Hardly surprising that Unz’s thinking on immigration doesn’t rise above the level of a vapid bumper sticker.

    Some of us, Ron, were happier with the people of the US didn’t merely “coexist” but actually cooperated to accomplish things.

    So what was the positive purpose of mass immigration post 1965? To take a broadly middle class nation of achievers and reduce it to a South American style top-bottom v. middle kleptocracy in which the best that can be said is that the various parts “coexist”?

    No question it has made many people like you (and possibly you as well, I don’t know) very rich or richer than you otherwise would have been. That’s great for you, I guess. But it’s not great for the great bulk of the rest of us.

    As for your predictions about the future, you are the last person to believe on that score. You repeatedly claim that California is “fine” because the $2,000 s/f parts where you frequent still look really nice. You haven’t even read about, much less visited, Victor Davis Hanson’s California. I wonder if you could possibly be more out of touch.

    By the way, it was Sailer himself (“the only Republican who knows Microsoft Excel”) who demonstrated that Bush, in 2004, did NOT get over 40% of the Hispanic vote but got at most 39%–and that was the highwater mark, ever, for a Republican with Hispanics, purchased as noted above with much groveling plus (as Steve has also noted) the government-pushed bad lending that caused or at least exacerbated the housing bubble. So at the party’s very best, it loses Hispanics 60-40, which is overwhelming. And even to achieve that, we had to endure a second Depression.

    Yeah, “coexist.”

    Read More
  109. @Corvinus
    “Nearly 90% of all immigrants now come from continents and countries whose peoples have never been assimilated fully into any Western country. Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is being transformed.”

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    “Most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here..”

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor. Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? And "no right" to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European "invasion".

    “Almost all immigrants today, legal & illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation…”

    The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Vietnamese were ALL put in that same category by their detractors. Besides, I thought America was no longer First World status, regardless of the immigration issue?

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    “Or pro-fringe, anti-core. Or pro-elite, anti-average. Or pro-billionaire, anti-middle class.”

    

Or pro-white, anti-Jew (whatever "white" means nowadays, I have no idea what that definition entails). Or pro-Christian, anti-Muzzie. Or pro-American, anti-vibrant.


    One last thing regarding “game”. There is the perverted version espoused by Roissy—men who stay single and “pump and dump”, never marry, never have children—and there is the pro-Christian version—men who desire marriage by learning tactics how to “tame” feminists. Amazingly, a number of Christian libertarians tout Roissy’s brand at worst, or refuse to disavow his philosophy at best.

    Buchanan is a liar—“The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”

    No, he’s merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA:

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

    Moreover, ask the descendants of the Irish in the 1850’s, the Chinese in the 1880’s, the Italians in the early 1900’s, and the Vietnamese in the late 1970’s whether or not they have “fully assimilated” despite being “unwanted” by nativists.

    Where to begin?:

    Difference in elite attitudes: in pre-’45 America, a WASP elite held the reigns of power, and they were committed to Americanizing immigrants.Sadly, our elites think differently today (cf their ludicrous , Orwellian slogan that “diversity is our strength”)

    Difference in point of origin: We have a land border with Mexico.We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc

    Difference in ethnic background: The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)

    Difference in numbers: Just compare the totals for Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics with those of the Chinese and Vietnamese….

    Yes, no amnesty for them. No benefits for them. Although, tell that to the business owners who seek to maximize their profits with cheap labor.

    Oh, I’m all for hard prison time for the traitorous businessmen who hire illegal aliens

    Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions?

    No.

    And “no right” to be here? Um, using that same logic, Native Americans would have an argument against European “invasion”.

    The Amerinds had every right to resist the Spanish, French, English, etc.

    “Among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us.”

    
Wow, just wow.

    Yes, it is quite stunning how Pat understands the hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America

    “If we want to get control of migration, the first step is to bring the oligarchs under control.”

    Anti-capitalist!

    That’s a bad thing? Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.Too much poisons society.

    Read More
  110. @Ron Unz

    “The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.”
     
    Exactly. The false history regarding the 1965 Immigration Act floating around the Internet is quite ridiculous. Totally unlike the contemporaneous Civil Rights Act, it seems to have been regarded as rather innocuous at the time. Indeed, a few years back I had difficulty finding much controversy surrounding it in the political publications of that era, either left or right. One of the very few critical comments was by some obscure ultra-rightwing syndicated columnist, whose name I forget. He objected to it on racialist grounds, arguing that it might dangerously transform the ethnic character of America. He also argued that it was completely unnecessary from an economic perspective, since the U.S. already allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America...

    Ron, it is no longer 1965.

    Immigration policy has traditionally gone in cycles, with the latest cycle being blocked against the expressed will of the people.

    Read More
  111. @Ron Unz

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.
     
    That must be the fourth or fifth time I've noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can't see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven't you?...

    http://www.unz.com/article/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#our-population-ponzi-scheme

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.

    Brings to mind another Conference anecdote.A La Raza academic was speechifying on how the Lit being taught in English departments was too “Anglo.” To be sure, he had some kind words for Black Anglo authors like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison, but his overall thrust was that the Anglo canon had to go. A La Raza youth, he said could not derive sustenance from Shakespeare and Milton.The new, Brown America needed a Brown canon:Oscar Zeta Acosta, Ana Castillo, Gloria Anzaldúa, etc

    He got lots of applause.Tend to think that his program will go pretty far when Mestizo Hispanics hit 100 million….

    Now, this probably means nothing to you, Ron.But I’m an English Lit teacher.Casting aside Milton….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    On a related matter, just as I'd promised last week I bought the Telles/Ortiz book from Amazon and read it. Frankly, I definitely owe the authors an apology, since it turned out to be a solid and scrupulous work of empirical sociology, though I'll admit I found it dreadfully dull in its plodding academic style and painfully long at 400 pages, including appendices and footnotes.

    However, despite the scholarly quality, I didn't find persuasive the conclusions that you and reviewers have frequently cited regarding the sharply negative generational trends of Hispanic immigrants.

    First, the study only applied to Mex-Ams in Los Angeles and San Antonio, admittedly large Hispanic cities, but not exactly a national study. More importantly, the entire sample was less than 1200 subjects interviewed in 1965, of which the authors managed to track down about half in 2000, raising the obvious possibility of systemic bias in the half or so they failed to locate. And only a fraction of these were 3rd/4th generation, leaving me to doubt we can draw firm conclusions of the long-term socio-economic trajectory of 50M Hispanics based on something like 150 individuals, drawn from a possibly skewed sample. Furthermore, many things may have changed in the last 15 years.

    Here's an example. One of their crucial observations was the low rate at which later generation Mex-Ams enrolled in college in 2000, which hardly surprised me. But as of a couple of years ago, the percentage of recent Hispanic H.S. graduates enrolling in college has actually *surpassed* the white percentage. Admittedly, the quality of those colleges is lower, but this is still seems like an astonishing transformation over just a few years.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/hispanic-college-enrollment-rate-surpasses-whites-for-the-first-time/

    Still, I certainly do stand corrected about the academic quality of the professors in question. On the other hand, those activist-type La Raza-Lit academics you're always complaining about do sound like the bunch of idiots.
  112. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I disagree.

    What does the conservative movement stand for in 2015?

    From what I can tell, it's tax cuts, deregulation, "free-market", more overseas wars, and stand with Israel (ie no criticism whatsoever allowed). It's a mixture of economism, war, and Israel. In 2012, Romney's main differences with Obama were that he wanted Medicare privatization, more defense spending, and more support of Israel ("Obama threw Israel under the bus").

    If Douthat wants to broaden the discussion beyond that, he runs the risk of being blacklisted.


    anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.

     

    The Republican party spends a unnaturally large amount of time fixating on Israel's security. It's disturbing and unbelievable how obsessed Republicans have become with Israel. Am I not to notice this?

    There are conservatives around who (claim to) have concern for victims of globo-meritocracy, the medical/capitalist assault on the family, and other “populist” issues which you are complaining of; Santorum and Huckabee come to mind (I never said they were especially powerful on the right but they aren’t NPR libs either). The actual right-wing coalition is a complex, slowly shifting motor parade which you are oversimplifying by picking out the wheels you dislike and bitching about Likud hegemony. Try to think more constructively.

    Read More
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Quit defending Douthat. Ron Unz is exactly right about him. NYT hired him for one reason - to provide Republican suckers the delusion that conservative ideas are still part of the national conversation, and are having some influence on where America is heading. What a laugh. How many conservatives in 1980 would have praised a columnist for his courage because he thought two dudes shouldn't be able to get married and that brown Muslims shouldn't be allowed to pimp out hundreds of white teenage girls? But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.

    This is just some trifling spat between two Harvard oldboys. Unz and Douthat met disagreement at the Cup & Thistles olde publick house about the cartoonery skills of this Yalie Canadio-Frenchman. It’s sad trash from the ninny sons of Eli, said Ross’er; blow it out your hind, retorted Ronnie, his poetry I read in Skull n’ Keys Quarterly showed much promise

    Read More
  114. @syonredux

    That must be the fourth or fifth time I’ve noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can’t see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven’t you?…
     
    Oh, I've read it.Some sound observations (e.g., that the American elite are deeply committed to race replacement, ) intermingled with wishful thinking:

    Mention “New Mexico” and the popular images that spring to mind probably revolve around UFOs, vistas of great natural beauty, and government research laboratories, not longstanding racial conflict.

     

    Of course, people who actually know that state and its people tend to think of things like low NAEP scores.....

    But buried near the bottom of a single one of the innumerable New York Times articles analyzing Arizona politics was the seemingly minor and irrelevant fact that almost half of all Arizona schoolchildren are now Hispanic. Meanwhile, according to Census data, over 80 percent of Arizonans aged 65 or older are white. A decade or more from now it seems likely that Arizona whites and Hispanics will enjoy perfectly good relations, and the former will have long since forgotten their current “immigrant scare.”
     
    "Good relations....." And the state will no longer be American at that point, Ron.It will be part of Mexico in all but name.That means nothing to you, I suppose.

    Although the percentages have been much disputed, Bush seems to have carried somewhat over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide in 2004, although he was once again trounced in California.
     
    Which is meaningless.Bush groveled before Mexicans.

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.
     
    Don't see much desire to "assimilate" these days, Ron.Assimilation is certainly not the goal of, say, the National Council of La Raza.....

    Besides, Ron, what does "assimilation" mean when there are 100 million + Hispanic Mestizos in the USA? Pig devours python.

    The notion that masses of non-white immigrants, legal or not, will turn our cities into violent battlefields or support ethnic separatist movements which shatter national unity are total absurdities, and the people who believe such claims are fools.
     
    Of course they are fools, Ron.People expect something big and dramatic-Texas seceding from the Union and joining Mexico, guerrilla warfare in the streets, etc.No, it's going to be the slow death.Cultural extinction.The Mexicanization of the nation.

    And as we have seen above from the accumulated voting data of the last couple of decades, after a brief transition period, whites and non-white immigrant groups seem to coexist perfectly well, or at least as well as did the various white ethnic groups on the East Coast 50 or 60 years ago.
     
    MMMM, 50-60 years: a gaggle of disparate ethnies on the East Coast (Italians, Eastern European Jews, Poles, Irish, etc).As compared to our current situation, where one racial group (Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics) predominates.The comparison is ludicrous, Ron.


    Massively raising the minimum wage: Totally agree with you on that one, Ron. Of course, it's not going to happen.The elite won't allow it.

    Unz:

    The notion that masses of non-white immigrants, legal or not, will turn our cities into violent battlefields or support ethnic separatist movements which shatter national unity are total absurdities, and the people who believe such claims are fools.

    The danger is not that Mexicans will rebel against the state. The danger is that they, as instruments in the high-low coalition, facilitate the state’s rebellion against the nation.

    Read More
  115. @JSM
    Aye. Let's *PAY* the childbearing-aged daughters of welfare moms NOT to get pregnant.

    At the welfare office, give her a preg test. If neg, give her a check and her choice of contraceptives, tell her to come back in three months. When she returns in 3 months, give preg test. If negative, give a check and contraceptives... Repeat til she reaches age 35.

    HOLY COW that will be EXPENSIVE, you say? Yeah, at first, but the long-term economic benefits of the multi-generational welfare incompetents NOT being conceived are astronomical.

    HOLY COW that will be EXPENSIVE, you say? Yeah, at first, but the long-term economic benefits of the multi-generational welfare incompetents NOT being conceived are astronomical.

    I agree completely. I’d go even further and pay them to abort even if they do get pregnant. You’d want to pay more for not getting pregnant in the first place, though, in order to prevent abuse of the system. That’s a much tougher sell, of course, but I’m just throwing it out there.

    Read More
  116. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Quit defending Douthat. Ron Unz is exactly right about him. NYT hired him for one reason - to provide Republican suckers the delusion that conservative ideas are still part of the national conversation, and are having some influence on where America is heading. What a laugh. How many conservatives in 1980 would have praised a columnist for his courage because he thought two dudes shouldn't be able to get married and that brown Muslims shouldn't be allowed to pimp out hundreds of white teenage girls? But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.

    But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.

    All you do is cry over spilled milk.

    Yes, terrible mistakes have been made. Acknowledged. That’s step 1.

    Step 2 requires devising strategies to help people extricate themselves from the effects of those mistakes. On this you are silent. You are a one-trick pony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trayvon Zimmerman
    One trick pony? What are you talking about? I don't advocate anything as the way to "save America", let alone hammer the same theme over and over, because there's no saving America.

    I think you probably meant to say Johnny One Note. That's not accurate either, as I post many comments , on different topics, that have nothing to do with my conclusion that there's no saving America. And I'm not "crying over spilled milk." I'm simply a realist, and not a Pollyanna. You seem to think there is some combination of laws, policies, changes, strategies, etc., which we can implement that will save us from disaster. But you can recommend all the strategies you want, and it's not going to change things.

    Oh sure, theoretically, there are some measures we could take that would avert disaster and bring back the America we used to know, at least to some extent:

    We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go.

    Now, we could do all those things, but what are the chances that we will do any of those things, let alone all of them? I'll tell you what the chances are: zero.

    Right-wingers are actually getting excited because a columnist dares to suggest that maybe Bible colleges that ban gay marriage shouldn't lose their tax exemption, and that the dynamics of "privilege" are more complicated and nuanced than many people think. Meanwhile, the left-wing juggernaut just keeps steamrolling everything in its path. When it comes to subjects like gay marriage, immigration, liberty and privacy, hatred of whites, government spending, non-insane foreign policies, etc., etc., it doesn't matter if we elect an R or a D. Nothing slows down the machine, let alone reverses it.

    George W. Bush said our nation's educators have hearts that are filled with a raging hatred of colored kids, the "bigotry of low expectation", so we had to pass No Child Left Behind to save those poor kids from the evil white racists running the schools. After 9/11, he basked in the glow of the heroic cops and firefighters of New York City, and praised them to the sky. Then, a few months later, he had his attorney general file a lawsuit saying they were a bunch of racist scumbags who hate black and brown people and so they keep somehow designing employment tests that they can't pass. And he let the Boston Marathon bombers in because they were "refugees."

    Rand Paul, who until he got elected to the Senate said some good things, now says ex-cons should be allowed to vote, employers shouldn't be able to ask about criminal convictions, laws against burglary and arson and embezzlement are racist and should be repealed, and has all but promised that if elected, at his inauguration he'll let Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give him an Eiffel Tower.

    Of course, all the candidates are going to "secure the border" and bring a halt to illegal immigration. Sure they are. Just like Bush was in 2004, and all the GOP candidates in 2000 were going to secure the border, and in 1996, and 1992, etc. And not a one of them is talking about reducing legal immigration.

    And even if one of them really meant to make serious changes, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is that for the last few decades every day, day in, and day out, another 3,000 to 5,000 foreigners immigrated here, either legally, or illegally. That's been happening every single day for 30-40 years now, and it's going to keep happening for the foreseeable future, until non-whites grasp enough political power to raise the numbers. At least 90% of these immigrants are non-white, the vast majority of whom will never vote for a party that represents the traditional interests of conservatives.

    Making it much, much worse, is that all of these tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom come from Third World countries, are entitled to all sorts of benefits and privileges the minute they set foot in this country, because they're not white. That's due to affirmative action and racial preferences, which are based on the idea that colored people can't get a fair shake in this country because white people hate them.

    Then, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the media, the schools, the religious orgs, the internet, both political parties, pretty much our entire culture, just keep hammering into their brain that white people are evil incarnate, and are filled with a deep seated hatred of all non-whites, and constantly use their white privilege to oppress non-whites.

    And soon, white people are going to be a rapidly shrinking minority in this country, surrounded by non-whites who have been relentlessly taught to believe that white people hate them and wish them harm.

    Now if they wish, people can tell themselves that, if we can just pass the right laws, inviting tens of millions of non-whites into America, so many that we become a minority ourselves, and then propagandizing the non-whites non-stop for decades that white people hate them and are out to get them, will all somehow work out OK in the end for white folks. But it's not going to all work out OK. It's insanity to think it is.

  117. @Dave Pinsen
    You're just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross's unique oeuvre as a pundit.

    You’re just spouting paleocon generalities mixed with a soupçon of anti-Joo sentiment, not engaging with Ross’s unique oeuvre as a pundit.

    You’re just throwing up distractions about ‘antisemitism,’ not engaging with JohnnyWalker’s substantive points about modern-day ‘conservatism.’

    Read More
  118. @Ron Unz

    The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.
     
    That must be the fourth or fifth time I've noticed your quoting almost exactly the same Census figures, often directly to me. Given that I discussed exactly the same thing in a 12,000 word article I published a few years ago, I can't see exactly why you think you need to enlighten me. You have read my article, haven't you?...

    http://www.unz.com/article/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/#our-population-ponzi-scheme

    And the reason why I keep on posting it? Just to remind everyone that America is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

    Read More
  119. @manton
    Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?

    From post after post, Unz consistently reveals himself as the kind of high IQ, ultra-rich elite, lecturing-hectoring sanctimonious snob that Steve’s blog exists to criticize. In the Lucas-Marin thread, Unz actually went so far as to lecture anyone opposed to mass immigration to “Just take it / Lie back and think of England”. A stance that Steve in the past has cleverly mocked as identical to the old caricature of patriarchal “advice” to rape victims. Except that there’s not much, if any, evidence that old men actually used to say that; rather it was a libel concocted by feminists. But transpose the issue to immigration, and Unz now says it completely unironically.

    I am not a regular reader of Douthat; I mostly only read him when Steve points out that he has written something worthwhile. But to call him uncourageous is worse than false. It’s easy for Unz to say. Unz literally has nothing to lose. The MSM / Cathedral / Eye of Sauron (choose your metaphor) can’t touch him. First, because it won’t want to; Unz is already one of them and on their side. Second, even if they did want to (say, for the sin of publishing Sailer), Unz is so rich he never has to worry about making a living again. It takes a special kind of “Let them eat cake” myopia for someone in that position to criticize someone in Douthat’s position for pushing boundaries in a cautious way. Douthat doesn’t have to push any boundaries at all, and could maintain a very nice lifestyle indefinitely without doing so.

    I suppose we should all be glad that Unz does publish Sailer, though I wonder how glad. If Unz cut and ran tomorrow, Steve would still have his own skills and an army of loyal readers. I am sure he would be fine.

    But it is ironic that a blog dedicated to explicating the top+bottom vs. middle political dynamic of our time is sponsored by one of those very same “tops” out to screw all the readers who come here specifically to understand and criticize that dynamic. It’s almost like Soros himself is the publisher.

    Can anyone explain why Unz supports and publishes Sailer?

    Defeating the opposition by leading it? While it’s encouraging that a man of Unz’s stature is not completely lacking in common sense – which cannot be said with any confidence about his peers – ultimately it can’t be forgotten that he continues to insist on immigrating America to hell – and for reasons probably quite similar to those of his presumably less sensible peers.

    Read More
  120. Where to begin?:

    Difference in elite attitudes: in pre-’45 America, a WASP elite held the reigns of power, and they were committed to Americanizing immigrants.Sadly, our elites think differently today (cf their ludicrous , Orwellian slogan that “diversity is our strength”)

    Difference in point of origin: We have a land border with Mexico.We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc

    Difference in ethnic background: The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)

    Difference in numbers: Just compare the totals for Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics with those of the Chinese and Vietnamese….

    I’d add a few more distinctions:

    Difference in technology: it’s a lot easier to maintain ties with the old country today than it was 50 years ago, let alone 100 years ago.

    Difference in economic development: there aren’t frontier homesteads to be settled or labor-hungry factories springing up left and right or new tracts of suburban land being opened up by freeways and trains. Good jobs are scarce, and good land is expensive.

    Difference in historical development: America is a young nation, but it’s not that young anymore. Even if we accept for argument’s sake that the country was founded as a “proposition nation,” a funny thing happened on the way to that ideological abstraction: history. Several centuries have come and gone in the American story, and those chapters are closed now. Even Ellis Island itself is closed. It’s just a museum now–i.e., a part of history. The American Revolution, cowboys and Indians, the Civil War, the Roaring Twenties…intended or not, there now exists an organic, historically contingent basis for American identity.

    It’s similar in the rest of the settler Anglosphere. Australians didn’t go into Gallipoli thinking, “Let’s build ourselves a national identity.” But that’s what happened. And if a foreigner moves to Australia today and obtains Australian citizenship, his claim to be treated on an even footing with the actual descendents of Diggers depends on an act of civic magnanimity by old-stock Aussies, and there’s only so much of that to go around.

    We have more and more people coming later and later to the party now. Whatever nation emerges from that will have come at the cultural, demographic, and political expense of a perfectly mature pre-existing nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Or in fewer words: numbers are of the essence.

    Numbers do more than any other factor to determine how the racial 'Other' is experienced.

    If there's only a few outsiders, it hardly even matters how horrible they are since their overall effect will always be negligible.

    If the number of outsiders is enormous, it hardly matters how pleasant they are because they are going to replace you and condemn you to effective extinction anyway.

    Numbers also matters in terms of genetic/racial 'distance' too, since being replaced by racial genetic kin or next-of-kin, while perhaps undesirable, is a completely different proposition to being replaced by total racial genetic aliens.
  121. @ABN

    Where to begin?:

    Difference in elite attitudes: in pre-’45 America, a WASP elite held the reigns of power, and they were committed to Americanizing immigrants.Sadly, our elites think differently today (cf their ludicrous , Orwellian slogan that “diversity is our strength”)

    Difference in point of origin: We have a land border with Mexico.We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc

    Difference in ethnic background: The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)

    Difference in numbers: Just compare the totals for Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics with those of the Chinese and Vietnamese….
     
    I'd add a few more distinctions:

    Difference in technology: it's a lot easier to maintain ties with the old country today than it was 50 years ago, let alone 100 years ago.

    Difference in economic development: there aren't frontier homesteads to be settled or labor-hungry factories springing up left and right or new tracts of suburban land being opened up by freeways and trains. Good jobs are scarce, and good land is expensive.

    Difference in historical development: America is a young nation, but it's not that young anymore. Even if we accept for argument's sake that the country was founded as a "proposition nation," a funny thing happened on the way to that ideological abstraction: history. Several centuries have come and gone in the American story, and those chapters are closed now. Even Ellis Island itself is closed. It's just a museum now--i.e., a part of history. The American Revolution, cowboys and Indians, the Civil War, the Roaring Twenties...intended or not, there now exists an organic, historically contingent basis for American identity.

    It's similar in the rest of the settler Anglosphere. Australians didn't go into Gallipoli thinking, "Let's build ourselves a national identity." But that's what happened. And if a foreigner moves to Australia today and obtains Australian citizenship, his claim to be treated on an even footing with the actual descendents of Diggers depends on an act of civic magnanimity by old-stock Aussies, and there's only so much of that to go around.

    We have more and more people coming later and later to the party now. Whatever nation emerges from that will have come at the cultural, demographic, and political expense of a perfectly mature pre-existing nation.

    Or in fewer words: numbers are of the essence.

    Numbers do more than any other factor to determine how the racial ‘Other’ is experienced.

    If there’s only a few outsiders, it hardly even matters how horrible they are since their overall effect will always be negligible.

    If the number of outsiders is enormous, it hardly matters how pleasant they are because they are going to replace you and condemn you to effective extinction anyway.

    Numbers also matters in terms of genetic/racial ‘distance’ too, since being replaced by racial genetic kin or next-of-kin, while perhaps undesirable, is a completely different proposition to being replaced by total racial genetic aliens.

    Read More
  122. @McFly
    Trudeau is example of what Houellebcq predicted: leftists providing cover for Radical Islamists, even at the expense of liberal ideals.

    Trudeau is example of what Houellebcq predicted: leftists providing cover for Radical Islamists, even at the expense of liberal ideals.

    Some prediction. This has been going on strong for at least ten years. When Muslims run for office Europe they run under socialist and other leftist parties. When their numbers get large enough they will also run within Muslim political parties they organize. They would love to do this now, but not enough Muslims. They know they have to give high birthrates and immigration enough time.

    Read More
  123. @Ed
    Even the very wealthy aren't immune. Just ask Donald Sterling.

    Donald Sterling probably has a self-perpetuating fortune. Unless crowds carrying pitch-forks come to his door and haul him off, he’ll do fine, regardless of what everyone thinks of him. If I were in his position, I would go down in history as a free speech hero – or villain.

    This, of course, brings up another point: is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who’s willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell “eat me!” to an angry mob of social justice warriors? That’s what Paula Dean should have done, but instead she wept and groveled in front of God and everybody. What was she trying to do, preserve her legacy? In a hundred years, no one will remember who she was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    Let me clarify, of course, that I would not have said what Donald Sterling said. I'm just saying that if I were as rich and well known as Donald Sterling is, I would take advantage of my financial independence and say things that actually need to be said.
    , @Anonymous
    " ... is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who’s willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell “eat me!” to an angry mob of social justice warriors?"

    In October 2012, during the run-up to the presidential election, Jack Welch publicly questioned the unemployment numbers. He tweeted:

    "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

    In return, he was mocked and ridiculed for saying this and was accused of believing in conspiracy theories. People told him he needed to retire. I don't remember any prominent individuals standing by him. Instead, he was pretty much hung out to dry.

    Of course, I don't know whether or not Jack Welch was correct in his assessment of the jobs numbers, but it's not hard for me to believe that there might have been some truth to his concerns. However, as I recall, the debate that followed Welch's tweet seemed to focus more on the character assassination of Jack Welch than on the veracity, or lack thereof, of his assertions.

    Donald Trump seems to be the one guy willing to stand up and speak out against the current state of affairs, and so far no one seems to be able to shame him into standing down and shutting up.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/

  124. @Priss Factor
    I think we should punch up.

    Let's expend our energies on the Soroses., Sabans, Kagans, and Adelsons of the world.

    They are way up.

    I wouldn't waste time picking on dumb Polacks.

    Stay away from Hamtramck. And Cal City.

    Read More
  125. @silviosilver

    But in 2015, this is seen as courageous. Which should show you just how much influence guys like Douthat have been having for the last few decades.
     
    All you do is cry over spilled milk.

    Yes, terrible mistakes have been made. Acknowledged. That's step 1.

    Step 2 requires devising strategies to help people extricate themselves from the effects of those mistakes. On this you are silent. You are a one-trick pony.

    One trick pony? What are you talking about? I don’t advocate anything as the way to “save America”, let alone hammer the same theme over and over, because there’s no saving America.

    I think you probably meant to say Johnny One Note. That’s not accurate either, as I post many comments , on different topics, that have nothing to do with my conclusion that there’s no saving America. And I’m not “crying over spilled milk.” I’m simply a realist, and not a Pollyanna. You seem to think there is some combination of laws, policies, changes, strategies, etc., which we can implement that will save us from disaster. But you can recommend all the strategies you want, and it’s not going to change things.

    Oh sure, theoretically, there are some measures we could take that would avert disaster and bring back the America we used to know, at least to some extent:

    We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go.

    Now, we could do all those things, but what are the chances that we will do any of those things, let alone all of them? I’ll tell you what the chances are: zero.

    Right-wingers are actually getting excited because a columnist dares to suggest that maybe Bible colleges that ban gay marriage shouldn’t lose their tax exemption, and that the dynamics of “privilege” are more complicated and nuanced than many people think. Meanwhile, the left-wing juggernaut just keeps steamrolling everything in its path. When it comes to subjects like gay marriage, immigration, liberty and privacy, hatred of whites, government spending, non-insane foreign policies, etc., etc., it doesn’t matter if we elect an R or a D. Nothing slows down the machine, let alone reverses it.

    George W. Bush said our nation’s educators have hearts that are filled with a raging hatred of colored kids, the “bigotry of low expectation”, so we had to pass No Child Left Behind to save those poor kids from the evil white racists running the schools. After 9/11, he basked in the glow of the heroic cops and firefighters of New York City, and praised them to the sky. Then, a few months later, he had his attorney general file a lawsuit saying they were a bunch of racist scumbags who hate black and brown people and so they keep somehow designing employment tests that they can’t pass. And he let the Boston Marathon bombers in because they were “refugees.”

    Rand Paul, who until he got elected to the Senate said some good things, now says ex-cons should be allowed to vote, employers shouldn’t be able to ask about criminal convictions, laws against burglary and arson and embezzlement are racist and should be repealed, and has all but promised that if elected, at his inauguration he’ll let Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give him an Eiffel Tower.

    Of course, all the candidates are going to “secure the border” and bring a halt to illegal immigration. Sure they are. Just like Bush was in 2004, and all the GOP candidates in 2000 were going to secure the border, and in 1996, and 1992, etc. And not a one of them is talking about reducing legal immigration.

    And even if one of them really meant to make serious changes, it wouldn’t matter. All that matters is that for the last few decades every day, day in, and day out, another 3,000 to 5,000 foreigners immigrated here, either legally, or illegally. That’s been happening every single day for 30-40 years now, and it’s going to keep happening for the foreseeable future, until non-whites grasp enough political power to raise the numbers. At least 90% of these immigrants are non-white, the vast majority of whom will never vote for a party that represents the traditional interests of conservatives.

    Making it much, much worse, is that all of these tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom come from Third World countries, are entitled to all sorts of benefits and privileges the minute they set foot in this country, because they’re not white. That’s due to affirmative action and racial preferences, which are based on the idea that colored people can’t get a fair shake in this country because white people hate them.

    Then, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the media, the schools, the religious orgs, the internet, both political parties, pretty much our entire culture, just keep hammering into their brain that white people are evil incarnate, and are filled with a deep seated hatred of all non-whites, and constantly use their white privilege to oppress non-whites.

    And soon, white people are going to be a rapidly shrinking minority in this country, surrounded by non-whites who have been relentlessly taught to believe that white people hate them and wish them harm.

    Now if they wish, people can tell themselves that, if we can just pass the right laws, inviting tens of millions of non-whites into America, so many that we become a minority ourselves, and then propagandizing the non-whites non-stop for decades that white people hate them and are out to get them, will all somehow work out OK in the end for white folks. But it’s not going to all work out OK. It’s insanity to think it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    There you again.

    If your objective isn't to somehow, to whatever small degree, influence events in a more useful direction then what is it? And if that is your objective then isn't it necessary to devise - or at least discuss - some kind of strategy to pursue that objective? Obviously informing people of past mistakes and present difficulties is an important part of that, but it can't dominate discussion to the exclusion of all other considerations.
    , @dcite

    "Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs."

     

    How very Taliban. In this best of all possible scenarios, not have any job or college before 40? Such a narrow window of time. How about restricting the vote to property owning males?

    Aren't you the one who went on (and on and on) about how no woman over 50 lasts on Fox? I don't know why they don't replace the critters with lifelike blowup dolls.
    It doesn't matter if these liars and compliers last at all. All any of them, male or female, are good for is their looks. It's really better to just turn the sound off. I like looking at young guys myself, so I understand; but I don't want to listen to their nonsense.

    I suggest a moratorium on any more victim class stories anywhere in the media. This moratorium should last 7 years. It should include men, women, children, and others.
  126. @Stealth
    Donald Sterling probably has a self-perpetuating fortune. Unless crowds carrying pitch-forks come to his door and haul him off, he'll do fine, regardless of what everyone thinks of him. If I were in his position, I would go down in history as a free speech hero - or villain.

    This, of course, brings up another point: is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who's willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell "eat me!" to an angry mob of social justice warriors? That's what Paula Dean should have done, but instead she wept and groveled in front of God and everybody. What was she trying to do, preserve her legacy? In a hundred years, no one will remember who she was.

    Let me clarify, of course, that I would not have said what Donald Sterling said. I’m just saying that if I were as rich and well known as Donald Sterling is, I would take advantage of my financial independence and say things that actually need to be said.

    Read More
  127. “No, he’s merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA.”

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists. Were the nativists wrong in this assessment? Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.

    “…Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics…”

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    “Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? No.”

    Actually, businesses have the liberty to hire whomever they want, provided that they have the proper documentation. Laws exist to prosecute those companies who employ illegals. I agree with your hard prison time sentiment, but if immigrants are here, and here legally, companies have the freedom to pay for their services.

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    “We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go.”

    No, that would decidedly NOT be a good start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.
     
    Almost all of whom were European (or very close to). And it still took decades for them to assimilate to any appreciable degree. For all the dislocations it caused it was infinitely superior to the chaos that reigns today.
    , @iSteveFan

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.
     
    It is important given that Mexico, the nation which has sent almost as many immigrants to the USA as the next two leading nations combined, has a historical border dispute with us. Ireland, Italy, etc. do not. Shifting demographics could lead to a reopening of said border dispute. Historically speaking, that is not a good thing.

    We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists.
     
    The USG obviously considered them white, otherwise they would not have been allowed to naturalize, especially pre-Civil War era immigrants.

    Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

     

    That is incorrect. Hispanic is not a racial category. Sammy Sosa is hispanic and looks to be nearly 100 percent African, (though he has sure messed up his skin with some bleaching treatment). Bruce Chen is hispanic and is 100 percent Chinese. Marco Scutaro is hispanic and is 100 percent Italian. All three are from different racial groups, appear to have no Amerind blood, but are all hispanic because they came to the US by way of Spanish-speaking Latin American nations. The term Mestizo is probably the best description for the folks who are of Spanish/Ameridan mix.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.
     
    And when did anyone on this blog take an oath or pledge of allegiance to free enterprise? How can one be a traitor towards something one has not pledged an oath towards?
    , @syonredux

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.
     
    Too high then.Too high now.And, needless to say, the racial composition has changed.In the early 20th century, they were mostly European.Now, they are heavily Hispanic Mestizo/Amerind

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.
     
    Patently true, dear fellow.There's more to being an American than mumbling in English and watching American football.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.
     
    Actually, it's entirely relevant, dear fellow.It demonstrates how truly different the immigration of today is from that of the past.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists.
     
    No, they were regarded as an inferior sort of White, dear fellow. And, of course, they were always legally defined as White.

    Were the nativists wrong in this assessment?
     
    An assessment that was not made?

    Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.
     
    Actually, huge numbers of Irish and Italians have completely lost their ancestral heritage, which is a really good thing. As for the Chinese and Vietnamese, they are numerically insignificant when set alongside the Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics.

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times.
     
    Very few White women made the voyage to Latin America in the colonial era, dear fellow.The Iberian migration was largely a matter of males trying to make their fortune.Lacking White women, they turned to Blacks and Amerinds.Which meant mass rape and de facto polygyny.

    Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species.
     
    Not enough of them, dear fellow. Besides, Iberia is a zone of low accomplishment. Even during the Golden Age of the Spanish Empire, Spain was an underperformer. As Murray notes in his HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, “its [Spain's] output even during its best years was not remarkable compared to the other major contributors [in Western Europe] “(338). What’s more, Spain’s period of flowering was remarkably brief:

    “Between 1650 and 1850 -during the same two centuries when Britain, France, and Germany were producing hundreds of significant figures and even Italy in its decline produced several dozen-Spain produced a single major figure (Goya) and 11 significant figures.” (HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, 338).
     

    They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.
     
    Hispanic describes their culture, dear fellow.As for their racial background.According to the CIA FACTBOOK, Mexico’s racial breakdown is:mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.
     
    Lar Raza, dear fellow, is the term that the hate White Anglos crowd prefers

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.
     
    And? I never pledged my loyalty to free enterprise in the first place, dear fellow




    Here are a few facts to bear in mind regarding Mestizo/Amerind Hispanic immigration:




    Via Greg Cochran, a primer on the importance of mean IQ:

    About 2% of a population with an average IQ of 100 scores above IQ above 130, about 0.1% above 145. For a population with an average of 85, only 0.1% will score above 130 – 20 times fewer. I am, for the moment, disregarding fat tails and some actual population differences in the standard deviation. The same thing is happening with the Ashkenazi Jews: a modest shift in mean (about 0.8 standard deviation above the European average) causes a big change in the fraction that exceeds a high threshold.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/zones-of-thought/
     
    Now, here’s some data, via Steve Sailer on Mexican-American IQ:

    Best estimate yet of Hispanic-American IQ

    Everyone across the political spectrum admits that the white-black test score gap is a major social problem, but nobody is thinking about the white-Hispanic test score gap, even though we have much more influence through immigration policy over whether Hispanics will be a large or huge proportion of the American population in the future. Fortunately, the facts are available, but they take a lot of digging to uncover.

    Here’s the best estimate I’ve yet seen: A 2001 meta-analysis of 39 studies covering a total 5,696,519 individuals in America (aged 14 and above) came up with an overall difference of 0.72 standard deviations in g (the “general factor” in cognitive ability) between “Anglo” whites and Hispanics. The 95% confidence range of the studies ran from .60 to .88 standard deviations, so there’s not a huge amount of disagreement among the studies.

    One standard deviation equals 15 IQ points, so that’s a gap of 10.8 IQ points, or an IQ of 89 on the Lynn-Vanhanen scale where white Americans equal 100. That would imply the average Hispanic would fall at the 24th percentile of the white IQ distribution. This inequality gets worse at higher IQs Assuming a normal distribution, 4.8% of whites would fall above 125 IQ versus only 0.9% of Hispanics, which explains why Hispanics are given ethnic preferences in prestige college admissions.

    In contrast, 105 studies of 6,246,729 individuals found an overall white-black gap of 1.10 standard deviations, or 16.5 points. (I typically round this down to 1.0 standard deviation and 15 points). So, the white-Hispanic gap appears to be about 65% as large as the notoriously depressing white-black gap. (Warning: this 65% number does not come from a perfect apples to apples comparison because more studies are used in calculating the white-black difference than the white-Hispanic difference.)

    Source: Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F. S. & Tyler, P. (2001) ” Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis.” Personnel Psychology 54, 297–330.

     

    And here’s data on Mexico:

    “Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=266611
     
    And then let’s compare this to the racial composition of Mexico:

    98.0: Mexican Whites
    94.3:Mexican Mestizos
    83.3: Mexican Amerinds

    According to the CIA FACTBOOK, Mexico’s racial breakdown is:mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

    And here's data on Mexican Nobel Prize Winners:

    According to WIKIPEDIA, three people of Mexican origins have won a Nobel:

    Alfonso García Robles: With Alva Myrdal, got the Peace Prize in 1982. For what it’s worth, he looks very White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

    Mario J. Molina: Along with Paul J. Crutzen and F. Sherwood Rowland, he got the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for studying the threat posed to the ozone layer by CFCs. Looks pretty White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

    Octavio Paz: 1990 Nobel in Lit. Based on WIKIPEDIA photo, he might have some Amerind ancestry (or he might not).

    So, Three prizes. Total. As compared to 10 for Scotland, 15 for Australia, 23 for Canada, 74 for England , 306 for the USA, …..

    Now, all of these figures are from WIKIPEDIA, so I’m sure that one could argue about the margins…but the overall portrait of Mexican achievement is pretty dire.


    How about Fields Medalists?:

    United States 12

    France 10

    Soviet Union (3) / Russia (6) 9

    United Kingdom 7

    Japan 3
    Belgium 2

    West Germany (1) / Germany (0) 1

    Australia 1

    British Hong Kong 1

    Finland 1

    Israel 1

    Italy 1

    Norway 1

    New Zealand 1

    Sweden 1

    Vietnam 1

    Iran 1

    Brazil 1

    (None Stateless) 1

    I’ve left out Manjul Bhargava. His background is complicated.

    So, Mexico has zero.Hell, all of Latin America has exactly one, which ties them with New Zealand.

    And the USA is going to have 100 million+ Hispanic Mestizos/Amerinds by 2060......
  128. @Tiny Duck
    Terrorists who shoot down an entire magazine staff are excellent bad guys.

    The dead murdered by bad guys are always great martyrs.

    Douthat trades on what is easy here.

    He carefully avoids the actual hard questions raised by those willing to be thoughtful on a difficult topic. That isn't the way the right wing swings.

    Hate speech is a problem. That includes deliberately offensive things, as much if they are said about Muslims as if they are said about other badly treated minorities such as blacks in America. Or Jews in a lot of places. Or Catholics in China.

    Hate speech does not justify murder or terrorism. But it isn't all wonderful and cuddly either, even if our right wingers actually do share that hate.

    Hate speech is a problem? Compared to what? Where exactly on the hierarchy of ills does it fall?

    The phrase “pearl-clutching” is supposed to apply to rich conservatives for some reason, but the only examples I encounter are all from liberals.

    Come work in an entirely-liberal field someday, and learn that hate-speech is just everyday speech, and you can actually get by and have a life in spite of it.

    Read More
  129. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “We have more and more people coming later and later to the party now. Whatever nation emerges from that will have come at the cultural, demographic, and political expense of a perfectly mature pre-existing nation.”

    We are being loved to death, like the Roman Empire. There are a lot of people (many the elites of the third world) who want to come to the Anglo-sphere, become citizens and have a few kids, and apparently pretend to no longer be what they were. They’ve always been citizens of the New Empire, I guess. It’s kind of interesting listening to people still new to America having long serious discussions about the best school districts. Why do they have to come here to live in one? Why can’t they create their own?

    Read More
  130. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    One trick pony? What are you talking about? I don't advocate anything as the way to "save America", let alone hammer the same theme over and over, because there's no saving America.

    I think you probably meant to say Johnny One Note. That's not accurate either, as I post many comments , on different topics, that have nothing to do with my conclusion that there's no saving America. And I'm not "crying over spilled milk." I'm simply a realist, and not a Pollyanna. You seem to think there is some combination of laws, policies, changes, strategies, etc., which we can implement that will save us from disaster. But you can recommend all the strategies you want, and it's not going to change things.

    Oh sure, theoretically, there are some measures we could take that would avert disaster and bring back the America we used to know, at least to some extent:

    We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go.

    Now, we could do all those things, but what are the chances that we will do any of those things, let alone all of them? I'll tell you what the chances are: zero.

    Right-wingers are actually getting excited because a columnist dares to suggest that maybe Bible colleges that ban gay marriage shouldn't lose their tax exemption, and that the dynamics of "privilege" are more complicated and nuanced than many people think. Meanwhile, the left-wing juggernaut just keeps steamrolling everything in its path. When it comes to subjects like gay marriage, immigration, liberty and privacy, hatred of whites, government spending, non-insane foreign policies, etc., etc., it doesn't matter if we elect an R or a D. Nothing slows down the machine, let alone reverses it.

    George W. Bush said our nation's educators have hearts that are filled with a raging hatred of colored kids, the "bigotry of low expectation", so we had to pass No Child Left Behind to save those poor kids from the evil white racists running the schools. After 9/11, he basked in the glow of the heroic cops and firefighters of New York City, and praised them to the sky. Then, a few months later, he had his attorney general file a lawsuit saying they were a bunch of racist scumbags who hate black and brown people and so they keep somehow designing employment tests that they can't pass. And he let the Boston Marathon bombers in because they were "refugees."

    Rand Paul, who until he got elected to the Senate said some good things, now says ex-cons should be allowed to vote, employers shouldn't be able to ask about criminal convictions, laws against burglary and arson and embezzlement are racist and should be repealed, and has all but promised that if elected, at his inauguration he'll let Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give him an Eiffel Tower.

    Of course, all the candidates are going to "secure the border" and bring a halt to illegal immigration. Sure they are. Just like Bush was in 2004, and all the GOP candidates in 2000 were going to secure the border, and in 1996, and 1992, etc. And not a one of them is talking about reducing legal immigration.

    And even if one of them really meant to make serious changes, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is that for the last few decades every day, day in, and day out, another 3,000 to 5,000 foreigners immigrated here, either legally, or illegally. That's been happening every single day for 30-40 years now, and it's going to keep happening for the foreseeable future, until non-whites grasp enough political power to raise the numbers. At least 90% of these immigrants are non-white, the vast majority of whom will never vote for a party that represents the traditional interests of conservatives.

    Making it much, much worse, is that all of these tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom come from Third World countries, are entitled to all sorts of benefits and privileges the minute they set foot in this country, because they're not white. That's due to affirmative action and racial preferences, which are based on the idea that colored people can't get a fair shake in this country because white people hate them.

    Then, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the media, the schools, the religious orgs, the internet, both political parties, pretty much our entire culture, just keep hammering into their brain that white people are evil incarnate, and are filled with a deep seated hatred of all non-whites, and constantly use their white privilege to oppress non-whites.

    And soon, white people are going to be a rapidly shrinking minority in this country, surrounded by non-whites who have been relentlessly taught to believe that white people hate them and wish them harm.

    Now if they wish, people can tell themselves that, if we can just pass the right laws, inviting tens of millions of non-whites into America, so many that we become a minority ourselves, and then propagandizing the non-whites non-stop for decades that white people hate them and are out to get them, will all somehow work out OK in the end for white folks. But it's not going to all work out OK. It's insanity to think it is.

    There you again.

    If your objective isn’t to somehow, to whatever small degree, influence events in a more useful direction then what is it? And if that is your objective then isn’t it necessary to devise – or at least discuss – some kind of strategy to pursue that objective? Obviously informing people of past mistakes and present difficulties is an important part of that, but it can’t dominate discussion to the exclusion of all other considerations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trayvon Zimmerman
    My objective? Don't really have one. I just enjoy taking part in the discussion. So I guess you could say my objective is to get some enjoyment out of leaving comments. Once I've left the comment, that objective has pretty well been accomplished. If an occasional reader gets some benefit out of my comments, hey, great. If it also happens that on rare occasions a reader decides that "hey, that guy's right - this country is so far gone that it's sheer lunacy to believe that voting and other political activities are anything but a waste of time, so I'm going to quit worrying about something I can do nothing about, and just sit back and enjoy the show", that's cool, too. And if some people read my comments and think "man, what an idiot", that's fine, too.
  131. @GW
    The conservative response to Trudeau's "punching up/punching down" rationalization is the reason the right is in trouble. We seem to be saying that Trudeau is wrong that Muslims can't be criticized because they either do have power, or they at least wield power, or that it is tough to distinguish who does and doesn't have power so they should be fair game.

    But none of this actually calls into question the merit of the liberal axiom regarding criticism of the powerful and the marginalized. When a person or group is criticized for a moral impropriety by another person or group, it matters not which party is in power. Unless hypocrisy is involved, the focus should be on the moral rightness of the act in question; by nearly every moral worldview save Islam brutal slaughter is much more egregious than offensive cartoons. By turning it into a question of power, Trudeau is directly appealing to Marxist presuppositions to hide his cowardice.

    It is natural for someone in power to instruct and reproach ones beneath him--a teacher to her student, a father to his child, an employer to his employee, a king to his thegn--if the lesser is acting against his moral duties. The response to Trudeau is to tell him to get lost--we'll criticize who we damn well please if that party is acting in opposition to the good.

    When a person or group is criticized for a moral impropriety by another person or group, it matters not which party is in power. Unless hypocrisy is involved, the focus should be on the moral rightness of the act in question…

    Thank you, thank you GW. I thought I was going out of my mind. I can almost remember a time when this was commonly understood.

    Read More
  132. @Corvinus
    “No, he’s merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA.”

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists. Were the nativists wrong in this assessment? Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.

    “…Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics…”

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    “Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? No.”

    Actually, businesses have the liberty to hire whomever they want, provided that they have the proper documentation. Laws exist to prosecute those companies who employ illegals. I agree with your hard prison time sentiment, but if immigrants are here, and here legally, companies have the freedom to pay for their services.

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    "We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go."

    No, that would decidedly NOT be a good start.

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    Almost all of whom were European (or very close to). And it still took decades for them to assimilate to any appreciable degree. For all the dislocations it caused it was infinitely superior to the chaos that reigns today.

    Read More
  133. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    Ron, this is very uncharitable. Ross is one of the only channels through which Unz.com-style ideas can diffuse into the mainstream.

    Consider that the typical NYT reader has no clue about the Pakistani pimping scandal, would have been exposed to the Charlie shootings primarily via “frontlash against the backlash” pieces, and considers abortion to be way outside the Overton Window.

    Ross’s job isn’t to thrill transgressive iconoclasts like you… his job is to subvert the NYT narrative in the weaselly little ways allowed him. I for one wish him godspeed.

    Read More
  134. @silviosilver
    There you again.

    If your objective isn't to somehow, to whatever small degree, influence events in a more useful direction then what is it? And if that is your objective then isn't it necessary to devise - or at least discuss - some kind of strategy to pursue that objective? Obviously informing people of past mistakes and present difficulties is an important part of that, but it can't dominate discussion to the exclusion of all other considerations.

    My objective? Don’t really have one. I just enjoy taking part in the discussion. So I guess you could say my objective is to get some enjoyment out of leaving comments. Once I’ve left the comment, that objective has pretty well been accomplished. If an occasional reader gets some benefit out of my comments, hey, great. If it also happens that on rare occasions a reader decides that “hey, that guy’s right – this country is so far gone that it’s sheer lunacy to believe that voting and other political activities are anything but a waste of time, so I’m going to quit worrying about something I can do nothing about, and just sit back and enjoy the show”, that’s cool, too. And if some people read my comments and think “man, what an idiot”, that’s fine, too.

    Read More
  135. @Corvinus
    “No, he’s merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA.”

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists. Were the nativists wrong in this assessment? Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.

    “…Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics…”

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    “Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? No.”

    Actually, businesses have the liberty to hire whomever they want, provided that they have the proper documentation. Laws exist to prosecute those companies who employ illegals. I agree with your hard prison time sentiment, but if immigrants are here, and here legally, companies have the freedom to pay for their services.

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    "We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go."

    No, that would decidedly NOT be a good start.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    It is important given that Mexico, the nation which has sent almost as many immigrants to the USA as the next two leading nations combined, has a historical border dispute with us. Ireland, Italy, etc. do not. Shifting demographics could lead to a reopening of said border dispute. Historically speaking, that is not a good thing.

    We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists.

    The USG obviously considered them white, otherwise they would not have been allowed to naturalize, especially pre-Civil War era immigrants.

    Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    That is incorrect. Hispanic is not a racial category. Sammy Sosa is hispanic and looks to be nearly 100 percent African, (though he has sure messed up his skin with some bleaching treatment). Bruce Chen is hispanic and is 100 percent Chinese. Marco Scutaro is hispanic and is 100 percent Italian. All three are from different racial groups, appear to have no Amerind blood, but are all hispanic because they came to the US by way of Spanish-speaking Latin American nations. The term Mestizo is probably the best description for the folks who are of Spanish/Ameridan mix.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    And when did anyone on this blog take an oath or pledge of allegiance to free enterprise? How can one be a traitor towards something one has not pledged an oath towards?

    Read More
  136. @Corvinus
    “No, he’s merely noting that the Bill was sold as not changing the racial balance of the USA.”

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists. Were the nativists wrong in this assessment? Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.

    “…Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics…”

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times. Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species. They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    “Do they not have the liberty to engage in such actions? No.”

    Actually, businesses have the liberty to hire whomever they want, provided that they have the proper documentation. Laws exist to prosecute those companies who employ illegals. I agree with your hard prison time sentiment, but if immigrants are here, and here legally, companies have the freedom to pay for their services.

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    "We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go."

    No, that would decidedly NOT be a good start.

    The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

    Too high then.Too high now.And, needless to say, the racial composition has changed.In the early 20th century, they were mostly European.Now, they are heavily Hispanic Mestizo/Amerind

    “Sadly, our elites think differently today”

    Patently false. Immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    Patently true, dear fellow.There’s more to being an American than mumbling in English and watching American football.

    “We don’t have one with Vietnam, Ireland, Italy, etc.”

    Irrelevant to the point I made.

    Actually, it’s entirely relevant, dear fellow.It demonstrates how truly different the immigration of today is from that of the past.

    “The Irish and the Italians are Europeans.Which means that it was a matter of converting one group of Europeans to the culture of another group of Europeans (the Anglos)”

    

We’ve covered this ground already. First, the Irish and Italians, while European, were considered non-white by nativists.

    No, they were regarded as an inferior sort of White, dear fellow. And, of course, they were always legally defined as White.

    Were the nativists wrong in this assessment?

    An assessment that was not made?

    Second, the Irish and Italians, just like the Chinese and the Vietnamese, have maintained their cultural heritage -and- blended in with the dominant culture.

    Actually, huge numbers of Irish and Italians have completely lost their ancestral heritage, which is a really good thing. As for the Chinese and Vietnamese, they are numerically insignificant when set alongside the Mestizo/Amerind Hispanics.

    
Let us recall that the Spanish willingly engaged in coitus with Native Americans during colonial times.

    Very few White women made the voyage to Latin America in the colonial era, dear fellow.The Iberian migration was largely a matter of males trying to make their fortune.Lacking White women, they turned to Blacks and Amerinds.Which meant mass rape and de facto polygyny.

    Seems to me that their “superior” blood raised up the level of the species.

    Not enough of them, dear fellow. Besides, Iberia is a zone of low accomplishment. Even during the Golden Age of the Spanish Empire, Spain was an underperformer. As Murray notes in his HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, “its [Spain's] output even during its best years was not remarkable compared to the other major contributors [in Western Europe] “(338). What’s more, Spain’s period of flowering was remarkably brief:

    “Between 1650 and 1850 -during the same two centuries when Britain, France, and Germany were producing hundreds of significant figures and even Italy in its decline produced several dozen-Spain produced a single major figure (Goya) and 11 significant figures.” (HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, 338).

    They are not mestizo or Amerind, but simply Hispanic.

    Hispanic describes their culture, dear fellow.As for their racial background.According to the CIA FACTBOOK, Mexico’s racial breakdown is:mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

    “hatred that La Raza feels for Anglo-America…”



    La Raza does not represent every single Hispanic, only those who openly support its causes.

    Lar Raza, dear fellow, is the term that the hate White Anglos crowd prefers

    “Capitalism needs to be carefully managed, dear fellow.”

    That would make you a traitor to free enterprise.

    And? I never pledged my loyalty to free enterprise in the first place, dear fellow

    Here are a few facts to bear in mind regarding Mestizo/Amerind Hispanic immigration:

    Via Greg Cochran, a primer on the importance of mean IQ:

    About 2% of a population with an average IQ of 100 scores above IQ above 130, about 0.1% above 145. For a population with an average of 85, only 0.1% will score above 130 – 20 times fewer. I am, for the moment, disregarding fat tails and some actual population differences in the standard deviation. The same thing is happening with the Ashkenazi Jews: a modest shift in mean (about 0.8 standard deviation above the European average) causes a big change in the fraction that exceeds a high threshold.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/zones-of-thought/

    Now, here’s some data, via Steve Sailer on Mexican-American IQ:

    Best estimate yet of Hispanic-American IQ

    Everyone across the political spectrum admits that the white-black test score gap is a major social problem, but nobody is thinking about the white-Hispanic test score gap, even though we have much more influence through immigration policy over whether Hispanics will be a large or huge proportion of the American population in the future. Fortunately, the facts are available, but they take a lot of digging to uncover.

    Here’s the best estimate I’ve yet seen: A 2001 meta-analysis of 39 studies covering a total 5,696,519 individuals in America (aged 14 and above) came up with an overall difference of 0.72 standard deviations in g (the “general factor” in cognitive ability) between “Anglo” whites and Hispanics. The 95% confidence range of the studies ran from .60 to .88 standard deviations, so there’s not a huge amount of disagreement among the studies.

    One standard deviation equals 15 IQ points, so that’s a gap of 10.8 IQ points, or an IQ of 89 on the Lynn-Vanhanen scale where white Americans equal 100. That would imply the average Hispanic would fall at the 24th percentile of the white IQ distribution. This inequality gets worse at higher IQs Assuming a normal distribution, 4.8% of whites would fall above 125 IQ versus only 0.9% of Hispanics, which explains why Hispanics are given ethnic preferences in prestige college admissions.

    In contrast, 105 studies of 6,246,729 individuals found an overall white-black gap of 1.10 standard deviations, or 16.5 points. (I typically round this down to 1.0 standard deviation and 15 points). So, the white-Hispanic gap appears to be about 65% as large as the notoriously depressing white-black gap. (Warning: this 65% number does not come from a perfect apples to apples comparison because more studies are used in calculating the white-black difference than the white-Hispanic difference.)

    Source: Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F. S. & Tyler, P. (2001) ” Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis.” Personnel Psychology 54, 297–330.

    And here’s data on Mexico:

    “Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=266611

    And then let’s compare this to the racial composition of Mexico:

    98.0: Mexican Whites
    94.3:Mexican Mestizos
    83.3: Mexican Amerinds

    According to the CIA FACTBOOK, Mexico’s racial breakdown is:mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

    And here’s data on Mexican Nobel Prize Winners:

    According to WIKIPEDIA, three people of Mexican origins have won a Nobel:

    Alfonso García Robles: With Alva Myrdal, got the Peace Prize in 1982. For what it’s worth, he looks very White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

    Mario J. Molina: Along with Paul J. Crutzen and F. Sherwood Rowland, he got the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for studying the threat posed to the ozone layer by CFCs. Looks pretty White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

    Octavio Paz: 1990 Nobel in Lit. Based on WIKIPEDIA photo, he might have some Amerind ancestry (or he might not).

    So, Three prizes. Total. As compared to 10 for Scotland, 15 for Australia, 23 for Canada, 74 for England , 306 for the USA, …..

    Now, all of these figures are from WIKIPEDIA, so I’m sure that one could argue about the margins…but the overall portrait of Mexican achievement is pretty dire.

    How about Fields Medalists?:

    United States 12

    France 10

    Soviet Union (3) / Russia (6) 9

    United Kingdom 7

    Japan 3
    Belgium 2

    West Germany (1) / Germany (0) 1

    Australia 1

    British Hong Kong 1

    Finland 1

    Israel 1

    Italy 1

    Norway 1

    New Zealand 1

    Sweden 1

    Vietnam 1

    Iran 1

    Brazil 1

    (None Stateless) 1

    I’ve left out Manjul Bhargava. His background is complicated.

    So, Mexico has zero.Hell, all of Latin America has exactly one, which ties them with New Zealand.

    And the USA is going to have 100 million+ Hispanic Mestizos/Amerinds by 2060……

    Read More
  137. Or, to take a related example, the hundreds of white women recently raped by Pakistani gangs in England’s industrial north were theoretically higher on a ladder of privilege than their assailants. But the gangs’ actual power over their victims was only enhanced by that notional ladder, because multicultural pieties were part of what induced the authorities to look the other way.

    A bunch of liberals’ heads just exploded.

    Now imagine that instead of Muslims, it was about a group Jews don’t feel politically ambivalent about. Like, say, blacks or Jews.

    Wow. If this isn’t Ross Douthat’s swan song, I’ll be very surprised.

    Yeah, I could see NYT easing him out a bit later to avoid charges of PC/pinko censorship, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see him go, and soon.

    Hate speech is a problem, if you’re a leftist

    FIFY.

    But it isn’t all wonderful and cuddly either

    And in the leftist’s mind, anything that isn’t all wonderful and cuddly should be stamped out with big jackboots.

    I am sick and tired of hearing conservatives whine endlessly about the unborn

    Me, too. Blacks kill their babies at much higher rates than other races, and this is the only thing keeping their population size stable.

    So, viva la abortion.

    In that spirit, I’ll ignore your stupid comparison between killing someone, and refusing to coddle him.

    empowering individuals

    That’s lefty code for “robbing taxpayer pockets.”

    This is like basic training in the army where the drill sergeant is always right and you are always wrong.

    Good analogy.

    The real reason for the “punching down” language is that it is the rationalization of the coward. People are afraid of Muslims, and for good reason. This will not change. It will get worse until they become afraid of us.

    This is an extreme microcosm of life. Someone’s always got the upper hand. Egalitarianism has its uses, but it doesn’t translate outside its proper context.

    This makes sense for low-ability individuals. There is more variance in productive ability than in political power— for example, not everybody can do calculus, but everybody can vote. If you have low ability, you should make more use of what you’re relatively good at— politics. You should affiliate with a group— an old-style political machine, or a new-style identity group— and use power to get status and wealth. You won’t end up as admired or wealthy as the high-talent person, I think, because if the power strategy worked better, the high-talent people would use it too, but you’ll end up more admired and wealthy than if you try to rely on your productive ability. Thus, the talented should make, not take, but the untalented should take, not make.

    Right. When I think of Jews, I think “low-ability, high cohesion.”

    Was the person who worked Harry Reid over punching up or punching down? I guess we won’t know until we find the culprit.

    Haven’t followed this, but I confess to being fascinated as to who “works over” a United States Senator without consequence. Though the question probably has a boring answer more to do with “why” than “who.”

    The conservative response to Trudeau’s “punching up/punching down” rationalization is the reason the right is in trouble.

    No, it’s not. The left’s power is the reason the right is in trouble. And the reason the right keep their heads down.

    The idea that this rhetorical failing or that is the reason we’re in trouble is magical thinking. “The Lord wouldn’t abandon us unless we were in sin! Break out the cat-o-nine-tails!”

    From the cathedral of the Cathedral!

    See, this is why “Synagogue” makes more sense than “Cathedral.”

    Anyway, what’s interesting is that some Muslims in the UK issued a death-fatwa agains the playwright, as Jesus, while not the son of God, is still a true prophet in Islam (kinnda like Babbage to Mohamot’s Turing).

    I was previously familiar with only one instance in which this happened, and I don’t think it’s the same instance (mine was quite a few years ago, and hazy memory suggests it was a Piss-Christ type artist, not a play). If so, that makes two. I don’t remember any Judeo-fatwas.

    Read More
  138. @Ron Unz
    Yeah, it's really, really courageous to stand with all of those international political puppet-leaders marching behind the "I Am Charlie" banner just as they've been ordered. And seconding David Frum's musings in The Atlantic is even more courageous.

    My impression is that Ross Douthat is one of those MSM columnists so totally scared of his own shadow he never says a single interesting thing. After all, he knows perfectly well that if he just once uttered a single discordant thought, he'd be gone in a millisecond and since his only visibility comes from his perch in the NYT, within a week no one would even remember who he was.

    I may not necessarily agree with Pat Buchanan about everything, but at least he often says interesting things. Douthat? Never a single time that comes to mind...

    This is unbelievable!

    First, a large part of Douthat’s energy is devoted to arguing traditional Catholic morality — chastity, anti-abortion, anti-same-sex-marriage — which to the NYT audience is an absurd and offensive ideology. Their comments basically consist of their heads exploding. Yet Douthat keeps at it, politely and doggedly, never descending into a rant.. Maybe that is not interesting to secular libertarians, but anyone interested in questions of natalism, demographics, and family (i.e. Steve’s audience) ought to see the relevance of these issues.

    Second, as others have pointed out, Douthat goes about as far as it is possible to go in bringing race and culture realism to an NYT audience. To readers of Steve Sailer it may seem old hat, but judging again by the uniformly head-exploding comments on Douthat’s pieces, this is apparently the only time in his readers’ lives that they have had to encounter such absurd and offensive ideas.

    Third — not that his readers ever appreciate this –Douthat engages in the strikingly unusual practice of presenting his opponents’ views charitably and persuasively, and acknowledging critiques of his own views. In that respect, he displays an unusual amount of grace, for a pundit.

    Maybe all this does not make him original or interesting by some standards, but he is doing — and well — what nobody else is doing.

    Read More
  139. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Stealth
    Donald Sterling probably has a self-perpetuating fortune. Unless crowds carrying pitch-forks come to his door and haul him off, he'll do fine, regardless of what everyone thinks of him. If I were in his position, I would go down in history as a free speech hero - or villain.

    This, of course, brings up another point: is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who's willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell "eat me!" to an angry mob of social justice warriors? That's what Paula Dean should have done, but instead she wept and groveled in front of God and everybody. What was she trying to do, preserve her legacy? In a hundred years, no one will remember who she was.

    ” … is there not one stout millionaire (or billionaire) in this country who’s willing to wage war on political correctness, a man or woman ready to stand up and yell “eat me!” to an angry mob of social justice warriors?”

    In October 2012, during the run-up to the presidential election, Jack Welch publicly questioned the unemployment numbers. He tweeted:

    “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.”

    In return, he was mocked and ridiculed for saying this and was accused of believing in conspiracy theories. People told him he needed to retire. I don’t remember any prominent individuals standing by him. Instead, he was pretty much hung out to dry.

    Of course, I don’t know whether or not Jack Welch was correct in his assessment of the jobs numbers, but it’s not hard for me to believe that there might have been some truth to his concerns. However, as I recall, the debate that followed Welch’s tweet seemed to focus more on the character assassination of Jack Welch than on the veracity, or lack thereof, of his assertions.

    Donald Trump seems to be the one guy willing to stand up and speak out against the current state of affairs, and so far no one seems to be able to shame him into standing down and shutting up.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/

    Read More
  140. @syonredux

    Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.
     
    Brings to mind another Conference anecdote.A La Raza academic was speechifying on how the Lit being taught in English departments was too "Anglo." To be sure, he had some kind words for Black Anglo authors like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison, but his overall thrust was that the Anglo canon had to go. A La Raza youth, he said could not derive sustenance from Shakespeare and Milton.The new, Brown America needed a Brown canon:Oscar Zeta Acosta, Ana Castillo, Gloria Anzaldúa, etc

    He got lots of applause.Tend to think that his program will go pretty far when Mestizo Hispanics hit 100 million....


    Now, this probably means nothing to you, Ron.But I'm an English Lit teacher.Casting aside Milton....

    On a related matter, just as I’d promised last week I bought the Telles/Ortiz book from Amazon and read it. Frankly, I definitely owe the authors an apology, since it turned out to be a solid and scrupulous work of empirical sociology, though I’ll admit I found it dreadfully dull in its plodding academic style and painfully long at 400 pages, including appendices and footnotes.

    However, despite the scholarly quality, I didn’t find persuasive the conclusions that you and reviewers have frequently cited regarding the sharply negative generational trends of Hispanic immigrants.

    First, the study only applied to Mex-Ams in Los Angeles and San Antonio, admittedly large Hispanic cities, but not exactly a national study. More importantly, the entire sample was less than 1200 subjects interviewed in 1965, of which the authors managed to track down about half in 2000, raising the obvious possibility of systemic bias in the half or so they failed to locate. And only a fraction of these were 3rd/4th generation, leaving me to doubt we can draw firm conclusions of the long-term socio-economic trajectory of 50M Hispanics based on something like 150 individuals, drawn from a possibly skewed sample. Furthermore, many things may have changed in the last 15 years.

    Here’s an example. One of their crucial observations was the low rate at which later generation Mex-Ams enrolled in college in 2000, which hardly surprised me. But as of a couple of years ago, the percentage of recent Hispanic H.S. graduates enrolling in college has actually *surpassed* the white percentage. Admittedly, the quality of those colleges is lower, but this is still seems like an astonishing transformation over just a few years.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/hispanic-college-enrollment-rate-surpasses-whites-for-the-first-time/

    Still, I certainly do stand corrected about the academic quality of the professors in question. On the other hand, those activist-type La Raza-Lit academics you’re always complaining about do sound like the bunch of idiots.

    Read More
  141. “Almost all of whom were European (or very close to).”

    Not according to the nativists. Italians and Greeks, while European, were considered undesirable.

    “And it still took decades for them to assimilate to any appreciable degree.”

    Two or three generations, certainly, to assimilate. It’s a matter of the details whether or not they blended in to “an appreciable degree”.

    “For all the dislocations it caused it was infinitely superior to the chaos that reigns today.”

    

Mere opinion.

    “The USG obviously considered them white, otherwise they would not have been allowed to naturalize, especially pre-Civil War era immigrants.”

    Of course, but I am talking about NATIVISTS labeling the Irish and Italians—Europeans!—as non-white. Were nativists wrong in their assessment?

    “And when did anyone on this blog take an oath or pledge of allegiance to free enterprise?”



    That is the Libertarian credo, my friend.

    “Too high then. Too high now.”

    Considering our nation is formed from immigrants, it really depends what percentage is considered “high” or “low”.

    “There’s more to being an American than mumbling in English and watching American football.”

    
Exactly, as I correctly stated, immigrants attend our schools, learn English, and embrace our customs.

    “It demonstrates how truly different the immigration of today is from that of the past.”

    Regarding where immigrants are coming from, assuredly, but not their common experiences of becoming immersed into their new homeland.

    “An assessment that was not made?”

    It’s really a simple question that you persistently avoid. Were nativists wrong in stating that the Irish and Italians, despite being European, were NOT white?

    “Actually, huge numbers of Irish and Italians have completely lost their ancestral heritage, which is a really good thing.”

    That really is an opinion, assuming that one’s ancestral heritage is superior or inferior compared to another ancestral heritage.

    “Besides, Iberia is a zone of low accomplishment.”

    
Nope, sorry. Portugal and Spain were the leaders in colonization efforts in the 1400 and 1500’s. They, as Europeans, were considered superior in nature compared to the natives they conquered and procreated with. And a country developing “significant figures” is subjective in nature. Nice try.

    “Lar Raza, dear fellow, is the term that the hate White Anglos crowd prefers.”

    SOME within the crowd. Not all. Try again.

    “Via Greg Cochran, a primer on the importance of mean IQ…”

    The mean IQ of the colonists, regardless of location, would also be deemed substandard as well. And Sailer even admits that the meta-analysis studies he cites offers an estimate.

    Read More
  142. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    One trick pony? What are you talking about? I don't advocate anything as the way to "save America", let alone hammer the same theme over and over, because there's no saving America.

    I think you probably meant to say Johnny One Note. That's not accurate either, as I post many comments , on different topics, that have nothing to do with my conclusion that there's no saving America. And I'm not "crying over spilled milk." I'm simply a realist, and not a Pollyanna. You seem to think there is some combination of laws, policies, changes, strategies, etc., which we can implement that will save us from disaster. But you can recommend all the strategies you want, and it's not going to change things.

    Oh sure, theoretically, there are some measures we could take that would avert disaster and bring back the America we used to know, at least to some extent:

    We could stop all non-white immigration, both legal and illegal. Then, we could deport all non-whites, which is what, 120 million people or so? Then we could revoke the female franchise. Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs. And that would be a good start to getting things back to how they used to be before the wheels came off, but there would still be a long, long way to go.

    Now, we could do all those things, but what are the chances that we will do any of those things, let alone all of them? I'll tell you what the chances are: zero.

    Right-wingers are actually getting excited because a columnist dares to suggest that maybe Bible colleges that ban gay marriage shouldn't lose their tax exemption, and that the dynamics of "privilege" are more complicated and nuanced than many people think. Meanwhile, the left-wing juggernaut just keeps steamrolling everything in its path. When it comes to subjects like gay marriage, immigration, liberty and privacy, hatred of whites, government spending, non-insane foreign policies, etc., etc., it doesn't matter if we elect an R or a D. Nothing slows down the machine, let alone reverses it.

    George W. Bush said our nation's educators have hearts that are filled with a raging hatred of colored kids, the "bigotry of low expectation", so we had to pass No Child Left Behind to save those poor kids from the evil white racists running the schools. After 9/11, he basked in the glow of the heroic cops and firefighters of New York City, and praised them to the sky. Then, a few months later, he had his attorney general file a lawsuit saying they were a bunch of racist scumbags who hate black and brown people and so they keep somehow designing employment tests that they can't pass. And he let the Boston Marathon bombers in because they were "refugees."

    Rand Paul, who until he got elected to the Senate said some good things, now says ex-cons should be allowed to vote, employers shouldn't be able to ask about criminal convictions, laws against burglary and arson and embezzlement are racist and should be repealed, and has all but promised that if elected, at his inauguration he'll let Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give him an Eiffel Tower.

    Of course, all the candidates are going to "secure the border" and bring a halt to illegal immigration. Sure they are. Just like Bush was in 2004, and all the GOP candidates in 2000 were going to secure the border, and in 1996, and 1992, etc. And not a one of them is talking about reducing legal immigration.

    And even if one of them really meant to make serious changes, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is that for the last few decades every day, day in, and day out, another 3,000 to 5,000 foreigners immigrated here, either legally, or illegally. That's been happening every single day for 30-40 years now, and it's going to keep happening for the foreseeable future, until non-whites grasp enough political power to raise the numbers. At least 90% of these immigrants are non-white, the vast majority of whom will never vote for a party that represents the traditional interests of conservatives.

    Making it much, much worse, is that all of these tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom come from Third World countries, are entitled to all sorts of benefits and privileges the minute they set foot in this country, because they're not white. That's due to affirmative action and racial preferences, which are based on the idea that colored people can't get a fair shake in this country because white people hate them.

    Then, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the media, the schools, the religious orgs, the internet, both political parties, pretty much our entire culture, just keep hammering into their brain that white people are evil incarnate, and are filled with a deep seated hatred of all non-whites, and constantly use their white privilege to oppress non-whites.

    And soon, white people are going to be a rapidly shrinking minority in this country, surrounded by non-whites who have been relentlessly taught to believe that white people hate them and wish them harm.

    Now if they wish, people can tell themselves that, if we can just pass the right laws, inviting tens of millions of non-whites into America, so many that we become a minority ourselves, and then propagandizing the non-whites non-stop for decades that white people hate them and are out to get them, will all somehow work out OK in the end for white folks. But it's not going to all work out OK. It's insanity to think it is.

    “Then we could make it illegal for any woman under the age of 40 to attend college or work in most jobs.”

    How very Taliban. In this best of all possible scenarios, not have any job or college before 40? Such a narrow window of time. How about restricting the vote to property owning males?

    Aren’t you the one who went on (and on and on) about how no woman over 50 lasts on Fox? I don’t know why they don’t replace the critters with lifelike blowup dolls.
    It doesn’t matter if these liars and compliers last at all. All any of them, male or female, are good for is their looks. It’s really better to just turn the sound off. I like looking at young guys myself, so I understand; but I don’t want to listen to their nonsense.

    I suggest a moratorium on any more victim class stories anywhere in the media. This moratorium should last 7 years. It should include men, women, children, and others.

    Read More
  143. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    You had me until Bill Kristol, a gifted, gutsy neocon who had a brief career as one of the paper's resident non-liberals and was quickly fired because his columns were too hard-hitting and contrary.

    But you're right on about the anodyne Douthat. There's a reason Crunchy Squishy Con Rod Dreher seems to quote from just about every column Douthat writes.

    But you’re right on about the anodyne Douthat. There’s a reason Crunchy Squishy Con Rod Dreher seems to quote from just about every column Douthat writes.

    Have these two ever been seen in same room at the same time? They do share initials, and I keep confusing the two.

    Does Esquire still run its periodic list of people always confused with each other?

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?