The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle."
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Politico:

Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle.

If my nephew’s ideas on immigration had been in force a century ago, our family would have been wiped out.

By DAVID S. GLOSSER August 13, 2018

Let me tell you a story about Stephen Miller and chain migration.

It begins at the turn of the 20th century, in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl of subsistence farmers in what is now Belarus. Beset by violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army, the patriarch of the shack, Wolf-Leib Glosser, fled a village where his forebears had lived for centuries and took his chances in America.

He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name. …

What does this classically American tale have to do with Stephen Miller? Well, Izzy Glosser is his maternal grandfather, and Stephen’s mother, Miriam, is my sister.

I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country.

I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limiting citizenship for legal immigrants — been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom. The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America first” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees. Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family likely would have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol. I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him. …

Dr. David S. Glosser is a retired neuropsychologist: formerly a member of the Neurology faculties of Boston University School of Medicine and Jefferson Medical College.

This essay is being widely celebrated as logically irrefutable.

 
Hide 169 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    This essay is being widely celebrated as logically irrefutable.

    Because it is! If someone’s not allowed to migrate to America, something might happen to them.

    Then where would we all be? Huh? Slam dunk amirite?

    You people all so racist.

    • LOL: Abe
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  2. anon[694] • Disclaimer says:

    Whew! For a moment I thought he was going to tell us how Stephen Miller is actually secretly working to subvert Trump’s immigration initiative.

    Good thing Stephen Miller has way more brain than his relatives.

    • Replies: @JohnnyD
    , @JohnnyD
  3. Wolf-Leib Glosser should have told the Ellis Island folks that, were he allowed to immigrate, he and his descendants would tirelessly oppose any future immigration policy based on what was good for this country, not for people like himself.

    Then we could have decided whether we wanted him here.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  4. Anonym says:

    Stephen Miller 2024 and 2028. That’s a potential fate for him. Based on what he’s done so far he’d make a great president.

    Contrast with BLS. Which figure, BLS or Miller, is likely to de-escalate the situation?

    Frankly, Chaim Migration of pre-1924 led to Hart-Celler of 1965, which in turn led to the efforts to destroy white cultural heritage such as the statue of Lee in C-ville. But Glosser focuses on the symptoms, not the cause.

    Maybe instead of creating cause for whites to be angry with Jews, demonstrate that your presence is symbiotic rather than pathologically parasitic? In that way we might have one rule for your kind and my actual fellow whites, and another rule for others. Stephen Miller is an exemplar of this path.

    It says something that this Glosser character is retired. Wake up and smell the coffee old man!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mr. Anon
  5. No, Unca Dave, Stephen is doing what’s best for the country which let his people in.

    He understands gratitude. You don’t.

    I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom.

    A hell of a lot more Jews would have been living in Europe, and would have had a much better fighting chance at survival.

    Or, they’d have listened to Herzl.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @Jack D
  6. snorlax says:

    But if Trump’s a Nazi plotting another Holocaust, were they ever really saved?

  7. newrouter says:

    “The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America first” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees. ”

    Like FDR?

    • Replies: @notanon
  8. Anonym says:

    BTW, I’m not an expert but my understanding is that it’s a G*d given right for Jews to be hypocritical. He’s only following the well worn example set by David Brooks and others.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  9. So much of the American political conversation over the last 20 years has been inter-Jewish that this article seems entirely normal. Watching Jewish people debate what’s next on the agenda for America is a familiar experience for any Goyboy who follows the news.

  10. IHTG says:

    What a piece of shit this man is. Think they’ll get to his parents, too?

  11. syonredux says:

    He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name. …

    Let’s see, the Johnson–Reed Act was passed in 1924, an interval of about 21 years….

    The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America first” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees.

    21 years is “a few years?”

    Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family likely would have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol. I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.

    Could just cut this down to “Because Holocaust.” Because Holocaust, we must let in Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  12. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym

    Stephen Miller 2024 and 2028. That’s a potential fate for him. Based on what he’s done so far he’d make a great president.

    Miller might well make a good president–the bar is ever lower–but have you any idea what the demographics of this nation will be in 2024 and 2028??

    • Replies: @Anonym
  13. Anon[350] • Disclaimer says:

    Listen goy: If Jews can assimilate why can’t Somalis? I’m sure any day now Somalis and Guatemalans will be opening up department stores and working as dentists and bankers.

    Have you even heard of the poem on the statue of liberty!?! That’s all you need to know about immigration policy right there.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Lot
    , @OilcanFloyd
  14. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Sheesh. It’s people like you who are always
    trying to let facts get in the way of The Narrative.

  15. Bugg says:

    Stephen Miller’s forebears entered the US legally on January 7, 1903, at a time when the US needed a great deal of unskilled labor. It does not logically follow that therefore illegal immigrants should be allowed to enter the US unfettered by any rules at all in 2018, at a time when we do not need a lot of unskilled labor. Today we have met the Uncle Leo of the Miller family, the insufferable Uncle David. Shut the fuck up, Uncle David.

  16. Twinkie says:

    Though he was hardly the first or the last to do so, Daniel Chieh on these very digital pages once compared legal immigration and naturalization to being adopted into another family, and made the point that just because one was adopted does not mean that one should advocate for endless adoptions into the family.

    I like that analogy. I was adopted into the great American family. I am grateful to my adopted family, and therefore support policies that would benefit (now) my family. I can see that mass immigration has been harmful to it, so I oppose it. It does not make me a hypocrite to oppose further “adoptions” just because I was adopted. It simply makes me loyal.

  17. • Agree: Bubba
  18. jb says:

    Stephen Miller has an uncle who disagrees with him about politics. Who could deny that this is front page news?

    (Looks like Thanksgiving dinner at the Millers’ is going to be really awkward this year…).

  19. Ragno says:

    At first I thought that they all clung to the Big Lie that Charlottesville was a “Nazi”/Nazi/white supremacist rally purely out of spite and malice.

    While that, of course, is true, I now believe they’re going to keep it going endlessly as an eternal flame of their own…..to perpetually fuel this jumped-up Communist rage now joyriding the national narrative; and above all, to morally justify what will prove to be a long-running series of violent and seditious acts. (Don’t laugh – every time our legal system issues them complete walks on their acts of terror and treason, it’s the same as shrugging its shoulders in general agreement: I know, I know, the Nazis really are running wild, but whaddaya gonna do?….that damn Bill of Effin’ Rights! )

    Wondering when do we get to return fire and maybe seize back the truth? When it’s too late to stop the fissures splitting the nation in half?

  20. Altai says:

    This argument always bothers me.

    If my father was a murderer does that mean I’m obliged to argue in favour of murder? Of course not, murder isn’t anyone’s identity so we look at it from a utilitarian view. We argue rationally that it’s not a good idea from almost everyone’s perspective to allow anyone the right to kill somebody because of the consequences if it were. With immigration they’re posing it like immigration has no consequences. (But if it doesn’t have consequences why is it do important?)

    It came up with Ted Cruz too. Since Cruz’s father was an immigrant, Cruz himself must be in favour of more immigration regardless of the consequences and context (How long and severe immigration had been going at any time) for him and things he cares about.

    Why? Are they saying all immigrants and their descendants are duty-bound to permanently form an ethnically hostile entity towards the people and descendants who let their them in and strive to displace the old stock no matter the effects to themselves and their posterity? Are they saying assimilation never really happens and the descendants of immigrants as well as immigrants themselves are just supposed to want to displace the natives out of basal ethnic conflict?

    Do they have any idea what this sounds like to outsiders who don’t share their antipathy to WASPs or whites in general? It sounds exactly like what they flip out about people on the internet accusing them of wanting to do. It sounds like an argument against any level of immigration.

    If somebody invited me to a party isn’t it considered bad form for me to invite my own friends without the permission of the people who invited me? Even worse if I just crashed the party and the organisers and guests just tolerated my presence.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  21. Anonym says:
    @Anonymous

    If Miller gets his way, maybe similar to what we have now.

  22. Lot says:

    $8 during the gold standard era was about .39 oz ($20 gold double eagles had .96oz), which would today be worth $470.

    So he did not arrive broke, but with enough to live on frugally in a boarding house for about a month.

    In 1915, also part of the gold standard era so basically the same prices, a lb of steak cost 26 cents and a loaf of bread 7 cents.

  23. Fortunately for the Jewish people, the nephew knows what a lot of them think about Jews. It ain’t what the uncle thinks.

  24. Lot says:
    @Bugg

    Re demand for unskilled labor, I believe I read that era about 1% of the adult male population of the US and Britain worked in coal mines in the early 20th Century.

    Wikipedia, citing the St Louis Fed, says US coal mine employment was 883,000 in 1923 and about 50,000 in 2017. Despite this 94% reduction in employment, the amount of coal mined has roughly doubled.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  25. By Uncle David’s logic, it is hypocritical for a person who was conceived as the result of a rape, to be against rape.

    Because you know, without rape, he’d have never existed.

  26. Barnard says:

    He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name

    I can’t find an inflation calculator that goes back any further than 1913, but in that year, $8 would be worth $203.64 today. I have long suspected these stories of poverty among Ellis Island immigrants were exaggerated in a “I had to walk uphill to school in the snow both ways” kind of way. Even if Glosser was repeating a true story, this hardly makes his ancestor destitute. Is there any historical data on this?

  27. I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limiting citizenship for legal immigrants — been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom.

    Go f— yourself. Aggression is not a human right.

  28. Jack D says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    A hell of a lot more Jews would have been living in Europe, and would have had a much better fighting chance at survival.

    Realistically and unfortunately, no. The Nazis killed 6 million and if there had been 9 million Jews within their reach they would have killed 9 million.

    This has nothing to do with American immigration policy 100 years later, but that’s the truth.

  29. Altai says:
    @Bugg

    The US didn’t need unskilled labour then anymore than it is claimed today. People just showed up and when the strain grew too much the door was shut. After the US industrial base lost access to cheap labour it was forced to make capital investments and increase productivity.

    Being able to stack 30 immigrant women in a small room at sewing machines did not represent or incentivise technological progress in garment making.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @AnotherDad
    , @Das
  30. @Harry Baldwin

    Wolf-Leib Glosser should have told the Ellis Island folks that, were he allowed to immigrate, he and his descendants would tirelessly oppose any future immigration policy based on what was good for this country, not for people like himself.

    Then we could have decided whether we wanted him here.

    Exactly.

    First off there is no reason to take any immigrants. What happened in the Americas was “conquest”. The US certainly didn’t really require any immigrants after the founding, but they–like my immigrant ancestors–juiced the conquest a bit. Certainly immigrants were redundant by the closure of the frontier say 1880.

    But if you decide “hey, i’ll add a few folks to the team”, what would be the first requirement? Loyalty. They’ll mentally and emotionally join up, become part of your nation and put the interests of their new fellow citizens first.

    Some people naturally take to that. Some people, some peoples, just massively fail that basic test.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Svigor
  31. @Anon

    Listen goy: If Jews can assimilate why can’t Somalis?

    David Glosser’s assimilation is apparently incomplete.

    And Somalis are doing the jobs Jews just won’t do. Like driving Uber and Lyft, and pushing your wheelchair down the concourse to the gate.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  32. @Bugg

    The US didn’t ‘need’ unskilled labor. We let in immigrants to drive down wages and to provide voters. The difference between then and now is

    -no welfare state so the immigrants worked
    -segregation between different immigrant communities so the mainstream didn’t have to accommodate them
    -high cost of travel meant immigrants tended to be relatively high quality
    -high proportion made their fortune and went back home
    -learned English and assimilated to American mores

    In the long run this was a mistake for the US (Irish have their own country from the British and all the other immigrant groups are less closely related), but the difference between then and now is the difference between slamming your head into the pavement and driving a screwdriver through your head.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  33. TheBoom says:

    The argument in this opinion piece by the crazed uncle is another retread of a Jew stating “once one Jew migrates to your country, you lose the right to prevent anyone else from immigrating to it no matter the impact on the heritage citizenry.” If that isn’t a great rationale for not letting a single Jew migrate to a white country, I don’t know what is one.

  34. Lot says:
    @Anon

    The first notable Jewish Polish immigrant to the USA, Albert Michelson, was also the USA’s first science Nobel Prize winner.

    When he was a 27 year old professor of physics at the US Naval Academy in 1879, he estimated the speed of light within about 0.1% of its actual value. Later he conducted further experiments on light that helped disprove the theory of aether that had been accepted since Boyle and Newton.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Hail
  35. @MikeatMikedotMike

    By Uncle David’s logic, it is hypocritical for a person who was conceived as the result of a rape, to be against rape.

    Because you know, without rape, he’d have never existed.

    Right, and — this is probably less absurd, but what the hell — Black Americans must support the enslavement of Blacks in this country because without the system of chattel slavery they’d never have existed.

    You can have a lot of fun with your formula.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Dtbb
  36. @Jack D

    Yeah. Most of Americas 1881-1924 Jews come from Eastern Europe. The Nazis weren’t nice to the Slavic inhabitants (the Nazis managed to kill as many Jews as Poles in Poland) and Jews fared really poorly. Unlike the rest of Europe (where Jews were sent to camps) in the east there was mass executions as ‘reprisals for partisans’ where they simply shot everyone. Maybe it was just an excuse to shoot Jews, maybe they thought all the Jews were plotting against them, but they managed to kill about 1 a minute.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  37. Barnard says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    I think there is a statistically significant percentage of progressives like Glosser who believe that all pregnancies results from rape should end in abortion. They would have no problem using the power of the state to enforce that policy either.

    • Replies: @Anon
  38. @Altai

    Being able to stack 30 immigrant women in a small room at sewing machines did not represent or incentivise technological progress in garment making.

    Whaddaya mean? The immigrant owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company came up with a great wait to incentivise higher productivity: locking the fire escapes.

    • LOL: Nathan
    • Replies: @Anon
  39. Jack D says:

    Uncle Glosser is wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to begin.

    The Jews of Antopol were (unusually for E. Europe) farmers, but they were not subsistence farmers. They were market gardeners who grew cucumbers and converted them to pickles which they stored in the cellars of their wood floored homes (Jewish homes never had dirt floors – my father said he visited the dirt floor homes of Polish peasants and they were very pleasant – perhaps less drafty in the winter and cooler in the summer than Jewish homes, but that it was just not the style for Jews to live in dirt floor homes). They raised geese for the market as well. They were not rich but they were not subsistence farmers either – they actively participated in the cash economy (although they did raise their own food as well). This is why Wolf-Leib Glosser had the commercial skills necessary to open his own business in America.

    Ashkenazi Jews were really a very atypical immigrant group. They produced department store magnates and doctors and close advisers to Presidents. And that’s just Uncle Glosser’s family.

    The immigrants we are getting today from Muslim and Hispanic countries are NOTHING like Ashkenazi Jews. Not only are they much lower in IQ, they are also much more violence prone. They are as different from Wolf-Leib as chalk and cheese (or chocolate and vanilla). Only if you blind yourself with some kind of crazy “we are all the same” ideology is Grandpa Glosser anything like this guy:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6060821/Sudanese-immigrant-terror-attacker-drove-London-hours-smashing-car-cyclists.html

    The irony here is that the people that Uncle Glosser wants to let in because they remind him of Grandpa Glosser would like to kill Uncle Glosser’s children. He want more Wolf-Leibs but instead he is getting cossacks who will bring pogroms with them.

    If this is what passes for irrefutable in “liberal” Jewish circles it’s because they are not really thinking this through or they have been fooled by some kind of quasi-religious ideology that blinds them to the realities of the world as it actually is and not as they would like it to be.

  40. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonym

    Frankly, Chaim Migration of pre-1924 led to Hart-Celler of 1965,………..

    Chaim migration!

  41. Mr. Anon says:
    @Bugg

    Today we have met the Uncle Leo of the Miller family,………

    They don’t just overcook a hamburger, Jerry.

    • Replies: @Lot
  42. Does shtetl rhyme with shithole?

  43. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonym

    You can’t use it up. It goes forever.

  44. Mr. Anon says:

    My parents met as a result of WWII. If it hadn’t been for the war, I wouldn’t exist.

    I guess it would be hypocritical of me to condemn the invasion of Poland in 1939. Or any possible future invasion of Poland, for that matter.

  45. jb says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Sure! And if my great-grandparents benefited from white supremacy, it would be hypocritical for me to reject it, right?

    • LOL: Desiderius
  46. Jack D says:
    @Bugg

    Not to mention that the US population in 1903 was 1/4 of what it is today – 80 million vs 320 million.

    Grandpa Wolf-Leib was NOT unskilled labor despite the fact that he had only $8 left after paying for his boat passage. Grandpa probably had a 130+ IQ like his grandchildren Dr. Glosser and Presidential Speechwriter Miller. Wolf-Leib had the commercial skills and intelligence to open a shop and grow that shop to a large regional department store chain despite the fact that he probably didn’t speak a word of English when he got off the boat.

    Of all of the millions of Indios and subSaharans we are letting in today, not one of them has ever done anything like that, neither in their home countries nor here and it’s unlikely that they ever will. Even in their home countries, they bring in Lebanese and S. Asians, etc. to do that kind of stuff because these folks really are not suited for that kind of work any more than Jews make suitable NFL cornerbacks. But if we pretend real hard, they are all just like Wolf-Leib.

  47. J.Ross says: • Website

    Once again, the Streisandic Army attacks Trump or his friends, and ends up looking worse.

  48. Anon[121] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    If Jews love non-whites so much, why did they always move to white-majority nations, esp those made by Anglos and Germanics?

    And if Jews prefer white nations as immigration targets, why do they open the gate to non-whites when they take over the white society?

    Such hypocrites.

  49. @Jack D

    Realistically and unfortunately, no. The Nazis killed 6 million and if there had been 9 million Jews within their reach they would have killed 9 million.

    Or more likely zero.

    We’re steeped in Marxist inevitable “forces of history” thought, but actually the mass slaughters of the 20th century are some of the most historically contingent events in history, driven by the actions of very particular personalities–Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Mao … the Kaiser, Lloyd-George, Clemenceau, Wilson, Ataturk … –and *particularly* the Holocaust which was about the most flukey event of them all.

    A major change to the historical timeline like American following up the closing of the frontier by wisely throttling immigration and avoiding the “Great Wave” spike and we’d have a different history, with different humans. (Most of these major actors were already born, though for Hitler himself it depends on when we make the change. But in any case, they’d be surrounded by different people.) In it the likelihood of the Holocaust is approximately zero.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Lot
  50. Anon[121] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    If Jews love immigration and diversity so much, how about American Jews immigrate to diverse non-white nations? Stop sticking with whites.

    Instead of having the non-white world come to the US, how about Jews in America go to non-white nations all over the world.

    • Replies: @Q
  51. Tyrion 2 says:

    The argument that you’re a hypocrite if you’d implement an immigration policy that’d have precluded your entry is f*cking stupid. It is pure sophism.

    If anything, the moral value is in tightening the immigration restriction. That is how you might pay the party to whom you owe the moral debt. But madly, people seem to think that if a country allows them to settle there then they owe not the country and its people but all potential settlers.

    It is the retarded “pay it forward” philosophy, writ large, with the natives as the always backward and always paying and always unrewarded.

    People really believe this stuff and consider it a compelling argument. People who watched the following movie and left the theatre thinking that they’d worked how out to solve all of the world’s problems.

    A young boy stumbles upon a simple way to change the world in this drama.

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pay_it_forward/

    Next event I attend hosted by someone who believes this, will see me jam open the door and bring in anyone who wanders by off the street. I’ll be paying it forward. They can enjoy being enriched by 100s of others guests. After all, my duty is to not restrict othee potential uninvited guests, for some reason.

    • Agree: NickG
  52. Between this and the recent Vanity Fair article about his behind-the-scenes puppetmaster work, I hereby nominate Stephen Miller for ourguy of the year award.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/stephen-miller-refugees-state-department

  53. Jack D says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    Unlike the rest of Europe (where Jews were sent to camps) in the east there was mass executions as ‘reprisals for partisans’ where they simply shot everyone. Maybe it was just an excuse to shoot Jews, maybe they thought all the Jews were plotting against them, but they managed to kill about 1 a minute.

    No, it was not reprisals for partisans, it was not because they were plotting against them. It had nothing to do with that. They didn’t even pretend it was due to that. It was because they were implementing the Final Solution and it was their goal to kill ever single last Jew in Europe, obscured by the fog of war. By the time the Germans invaded the Soviet Union (which included the 1/2 of Poland that Stalin had occupied in ’39) they had formulated the Final Solution and rather than transporting Jews to death camps to be executed, it was decided that there would be Einsatzgruppen that would travel immediately behind the front line troops and who would immediately gather and execute the Jewish population of all newly occupied areas as soon as such territory was under German control. This is why and how all but 7 of the 2,000 Jews of Antopol were executed and the same in thousand of other shtetls and cities:

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

    There were many Slavic casualties as well but the situation of the Jews was different in that the Germans intended to bring about their immediate extinction. Probably their long range plans for the Slavs were no better, but the decision to completely exterminate them as a race had not yet been made by the time the war ended.

    Jews were about 10% of the population of Poland and the # of Jewish and Polish deaths was about the same, as you say. So the result was that the Jewish community of Poland was completely destroyed and the Polish population fell by around 10% – losing (almost) 3 million out of 3 million is very different than losing 3 million out of 30.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @newrouter
  54. @Jack D

    It would be nice if Steve’s comment section was a “muh 6 million” free zone

    • Replies: @Jack D
  55. Anon[121] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    We need a new movie.

    Tyranny of the Nerds.

  56. Lot says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Seinfeld got away with a lot of his Jewish stereotype jokes by making Frank and Estelle Costanza “Italians.”

    Uncle Leo might have been a problem if he had been a more regular character.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Desiderius
  57. @Jack D

    Well, that’s a well reasoned and reasonable comment. Very even handed advice.

  58. JohnnyD says:
    @anon

    My Jewish relatives always try to make this same argument. And, I always piss them off by arguing that we should be grateful and loyal to the WASPS for allowing our ancestors to live here.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  59. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe history isn’t “inevitable” as the Marxists say but neither is it completely random so that the flutter of a butterflies wings would give us a totally different future. I really don’t see how America’s immigration policy would have changed European history in this way. It’s impossible to know with any certainty but I just don’t see the chain of causation that connects one to the other.

    Y0ur point is not Reg’s point. He seemed to assume that there would have been a Holocaust but with greater #’s Jews could have mounted a more effective resistance. Given the circumstances, there was no possibility of the Jews being able to mount an effective resistance to the Germans even if they had all stayed.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  60. JohnnyD says:
    @anon

    Ironically, this annoying uncle is a neuropsychologist !

  61. newrouter says:
    @Jack D

    “Germans intended to bring about their immediate extinction.”

    The Germans are amazing: in 80 years genocide to suicide.

  62. Jack D says:
    @27 year old

    I didn’t bring it up, Reg did.

  63. anon[118] • Disclaimer says:

    Interesting immigrant family history. One of the descendants put down roots, likes his country, and wants to be a good citizen. The other one still hates the goy.

  64. syonredux says:
    @ben tillman

    By Uncle David’s logic, it is hypocritical for a person who was conceived as the result of a rape, to be against rape.

    Because you know, without rape, he’d have never existed.

    Right, and — this is probably less absurd, but what the hell — Black Americans must support the enslavement of Blacks in this country because without the system of chattel slavery they’d never have existed.

    You can have a lot of fun with your formula.

    My ancestors got here as indentured servants; therefore, I cannot oppose indentured servitude.

    Pretty sure that you could get a lot of corporations on board for that one…..

  65. @Altai

    The US didn’t need unskilled labour then anymore than it is claimed today.

    Exactly. Can’t be repeated enough.

    It’s at least an more of magnitude more ridiculous now, but the US didn’t need more labor back then. It was the same stuff: capitalists shilling for cheap labor, people who could better themselves coming to America–because the founding stock white guys really knew how to throw a great nation.

    The salient differences were:
    – the nation was way, way less crowded back then
    – most–not all, but most–would, more or less, adapt to America’s Anglo-Protestant norms, blend in and just become generic white Americans.

    This is a very weird ideology that an economy “needs labor”. Huh? How the heck has any economy ever coped? Most places down through the ages have been effectively “closed”. And yet … people manage to produce stuff. Amazing.

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    , @MBlanc46
  66. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad

    I agree the Holocaust probably required Hitler. Even the other very anti-semitic governments that controlled, for example, Hungary, were not genocidal.

    But would another million Jews in Eastern Europe have prevented Hitler’s rise in Germany? (I don’t think an 1880 immigration restriction would have done much to Germany’s Jewish population, which wasn’t that large and by that time had little desire to leave.)

    Also, a more restrictive US policy would have likely been heavily offset by higher Eastern-European Jewish migration to Canada, Australia, Palestine, France, UK, Argentina, South Africa, and Mexico. There likely would also have been at least some illegal migration to the USA, which would have had extremely high wages absent European migration during this period.* So a counterfactual with less Jewish migrations to the USA from 1880-1924 really does very little to Eastern Europe and almost nothing to Germany.

    *A 1924 type law in 1880, that did not practically limit British migration but did for other groups, would have likely raised wages in the USA so much that it would have sucked in many more English, in turn raising English wages and attracting more Jews to England.

  67. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    Uncle Leo might have been a problem if he had been a more regular character .

    He wouldn’t have worked as a more regular character. But as an occasional foil he was pretty good. And Seinfeld made plenty of jokes about Jews with other characters: the Rabbi, Shakey the Moyl, Mr. Lippman, etc. And they made plenty of jokes about Christians. They made jokes about almost every “type”. That’s what was so great about the series. Everything was done for the sake of laughs, and no messages were intended to be sent. As Jerry Seinfeld said, the show had two rules: “Nobody hugs, and nobody learns.”. It was a work of genius.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Lot
    , @Anonymous
  68. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:

    So Uncle David is descended from a group that had great talents to offer any new country that would take them in, but were being horribly mistreated and endangered in their home country. Lucky for him the US took in large numbers from his group. So as a result, today Uncle David feels morally obliged to return the favor.

    So I wonder what group of people today would seem to best fill the role of Uncle David’s refugee ancestors 100+ years ago? A group of great skill who would likely be great economic successes if they were allowed into the US but who at present have credible fear for their very lives in their home country? Basically sounds like white South Africans to me. Wonder if Uncle David and those who so passionately cheered on his op-ed would agree?

  69. @Anon

    Jews didn’t assimilate, for the most part.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
  70. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    At least this Jew admits that draft dodging was a motive for immigration. Childhood conscription? Yeah, if you consider 17 year olds children.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  71. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Another analogy to the ‘if a country let you in as an immigrant, you have no moral right to deny others to immigrate here’ argument would I think be: at one time, everybody is newly hired into a company, so since the CEO was once a newly hired off the street who was given a chance, he is therefore MORALLY OBLIGATED to take in and give a chance to anybody else who applies for a job at the company. ………..Obviously, that is completely unworkable logic and the current CEO should base his hiring decision on the needs of the company IN THE PRESENT.

  72. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Why not make 50 copies of the invitation and leave them in nasty neighborhoods with the note, come one, come all.

  73. Q says:
    @Jack D

    If this is what passes for irrefutable in “liberal” Jewish circles it’s because they are not really thinking this through or they have been fooled by some kind of quasi-religious ideology that blinds them to the realities of the world as it actually is and not as they would like it to be.

    Liberalism is the new Judaism.

  74. Das says:
    @Altai

    Sure, but a big problem for immigration skeptics is that people interpret immigration restriction arguments as personal attacks on their beloved immigrant bubbes/nonas/yayas.

    Politically it works a lot better if you flatter people by insisting that immigrants used to be absolutely wonderful for the country, but due to changed circumstances we need a lot less of them today.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @Mr. Anon
  75. Q says:
    @Anon

    Right on! Why conquer only America when you can conquer the whole world?! Besides, America is already conquered. It’s getting boring.

  76. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    There are pro-life people who oppose abortion in the case of rape on the grounds that it would be hypocritical because they themselves or others were conceived by rape.

    • Replies: @Anon
  77. Q says:

    We need another 40 year immigration moratorium in this country. Not a single one in for the next 40 years. Get to work Miller!

  78. @Jack D

    Maybe history isn’t “inevitable” as the Marxists say but neither is it completely random so that the flutter of a butterflies wings would give us a totally different future. I really don’t see how America’s immigration policy would have changed European history in this way. It’s impossible to know with any certainty but I just don’t see the chain of causation that connects one to the other.

    Well for individual humans it really is “butterfly’s wings”. If the US changed it’s immigration policy by the spring of 1888, pa Hitler is bumping into other people in town, probably climbing onto ma Hitler at a different time, pursuing the act with extra vigor or less, whatever. Different fish wins–no Hitler.

    We really are the products of *exactly* the set of circumstances that led to our conception. I’m not just the product of history down through the ages, including the revolutions, wars, mass slaughters, but who my dad is bumping into at work that fateful day … the exact sequence of events leading up to my conception. Same for you. Same for everyone. Those events change in the slightest … we are not here. No argument about it. (People who think they exist in alternative histories are egotistical fantasists.)

    I think the Holocaust is pretty historically contingent on Hitler. Something similar could happen in some other flukey alternative history as well. But it doesn’t “just happen” playing out “the forces” of European history.

    ~~

    Beyond that, changing American immigrantion policy is huge. There would have been several million people in Europe, who otherwise came to America. They’ll alter the timeline. And US politics is altered. Under that scenario, do we even have Wilson? Does his liberal internationalism roll out the same? Suitably aggressive, suitably idealistic, but also incompetent?

    What if the mood in the US is simply “stay out”? It took a very particular ending–the failure of the spring offensive, followed by the infusion of American troops creating a fast collapse allowing Ludendorff and others to try and wiggle out of responsiblity with the “stab in the back”. What if
    the Americans were never coming? What if the US isn’t supplying either side? What if the Europeans are staring at each other in early 1918 and thinking “what the hell have we done”.

    Or what if we have a more even-handed honest interlocutor–offering a nationalist negoitiated solution? Or even a savy nationalist idealist active in trying to push Europeans to avoid war–which was essentially brought on by repeated collisions over chicken-shit imperialist conflicts.

    The Great War was historically contingent and could have been stopped with superior statesmenship. But i’ll grant there were big historical forces–conflicting imperialisms–pushing toward war. However, that this resulted in a 2nd war, initiated by this particular guy–a Corporal during the war–and particularly one that contained a policy of exterminating Jews was incredibly contingent on the exact historical path we went down.

  79. Beset by violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army, the patriarch of the shack, Wolf-Leib Glosser, fled a village where his forebears had lived for centuries and took his chances in America.

    Fwiw ,forced childhood conscription was repealed in 1856, so it’s unclear how Wolf-Leyb was “beset” by it in 1903. I guess it was the fin-de-siècle equivalent of “redlining”; it’s effect gets stronger with temporal distance.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  80. @Barnard

    I can’t find an inflation calculator that goes back any further than 1913, but in that year, $8 would be worth $203.64 today. I have long suspected these stories of poverty among Ellis Island immigrants were exaggerated in a “I had to walk uphill to school in the snow both ways” kind of way. Even if Glosser was repeating a true story, this hardly makes his ancestor destitute.

    I have three dollars in my pocket right now, but that doesn’t make me destitute.

    He had $8 in his pocket and how much in the bank? How much was his brother or cousin holding for him?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Neil Templeton
    , @Jack D
  81. @Samuel Skinner

    The US didn’t ‘need’ unskilled labor. We let in immigrants to drive down wages and to provide voters. The difference between then and now is

    -no welfare state so the immigrants worked
    -segregation between different immigrant communities so the mainstream didn’t have to accommodate them
    -high cost of travel meant immigrants tended to be relatively high quality
    -high proportion made their fortune and went back home

    Don’t forget the failures who also went back home, per your first point.

  82. AndrewR says:

    Uncle’s sob stories do not change the fact that the US does not benefit from mass immigration. Genuine refugees can be placed in camps and returned home as soon as it’s safe. At no point should they be allowed among the general population.

  83. @Jack D

    The Nazis killed 6 million and if there had been 9 million Jews within their reach they would have killed 9 million.

    I was assuming it would have been 50% harder and 50% more expensive, but with economies of scale, you might have a point.

  84. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    I don’t think that’s the right analogy here. Rape would be analogous to the pogroms and oppression that the uncle mentions. The rape induced pregnancy, just as the pogroms and oppression induced emigration. The pregnant woman’s personal opposition to abortion, or the laws against abortion, or the adoption that allowed the child to be born and saved, would be analogous to immigration. The uncle would be against rape, just as he is presumably against anti-Semitic pogroms and persecution. By the uncle’s logic, it would be hypocritical for a person conceived by rape to support abortion or be against adoption.

  85. Dtbb says:
    @ben tillman

    What was it Muhammad Ali said?

  86. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Isaac Harris and Max Blanck, the owners who locked the doors were Russian Jewish immigrants. They were acquitted of first and second degree manslaughter. They made $60,000 in insurance or a profit of $400 for each of the 146 teenage girls killed.

    There are tens of thousands of Asian clothing sweatshops operating in America, hundreds in San Francisco alone. Since they are in single family home garages and apartment buildings they aren’t classified as factories or light industry.

    The working conditions and hours are worse than they were in 1910 because the workers are illegal Asian slaves who arrive not in steerage but locked in containers with 30 people and a chemical toilet. The 1910 workers were free Europeans with socialist ideas like the 8 hour workday and lunch breaks

    The local authorities ignore these illegal sweatshops lest they be deemed racist.

    • Replies: @Anon
  87. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben tillman

    How did he get dollars in Europe? Maybe they had a currency exchange on the ship?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  88. @Jack D

    Thank God that didn’t happen. With a loss of 3M more mentors in moral guidance, Earth would likely have strayed off her orbit and crashed into the Sun. Not to mention the catastrophic increase in carbon emissions.

  89. @Lot

    Characters like Frank and Estelle are why your average American gentile loves Jews. If you were trying to take over the world, Frank and Estelle would be the ideal cover.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
  90. @Tyrion 2

    …people seem to think that if a country allows them to settle there then they owe not the country and its people but all potential settlers.

    Great point.

  91. @ben tillman

    You’re one of those who ruins a movie by picking apart the plot, aren’t you.

  92. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    You are aware that we already have a couple of dozen commenters celebrating Hebraic Heritage on this site every single day, right? Just as we have a lesser (but no less annoying) contingent of East Asians doing roughly the same thing.

    You are aware that this is, in microcosm, a foretaste of the endless tribal warfare in store for this nation, right? And that it infests even this site? So what are you adding to this picture? What do we need here?

    • Replies: @International Jew
  93. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Barnard

    Abortion of rapist’s babies would be a good idea, especially considering that the majority of rapists are black and brown.

    Back before the pill and IUDs and patch, a lot more raped women got pregnant than nowadays.

    In the 1950s a study to see if rape is hereditary began that went on for 35 years. It was boys born to women who were raped, got pregnant and kept the boy child. About half the boys were convicted of rape by the age of 25.

    A society that wants to prevent crime aborts babies of rapists as they grow up to be rapists themselves and in America at least they are mostly black and brown.

    Science is working on artificial placentas and umbilical cords. Maybe you can volunteer to have a mulatto male fetus, latest scion of a long line of black rapists transplanted into you and you can deliver the Orc by cesarean and raise it.

    Starting about 1880, the Scandinavian countries began a program of castrating rapists. Because crime starts young, many of the rapists were castrating before they had children. With no children born to rapists rape practically disappeared within a generation l. In those countries.

    Rape is now at an all time high in those countries because they have imported rapists. Luckily, with the pill patch and IUD tapes woman don’t get pregnant that much anymore. The young girls can get an abortion and don’t have to be pregnant and give birth to a sub human Orc.

    • Replies: @Corn
  94. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius

    Then I must not be an average American

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  95. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @kaganovitch

    If only the Wolf Liebs had stayed they could have joined communists and the Cheka.

  96. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Everything was done for the sake of laughs, and no messages were intended to be sent.

    There is an ever-dwindling supply of new entertainment that remembers this.

    I wish the SJWs would get all sorts of classifications like transfriendly, diverse and whatever onto films, so I’d know which would shrilly lecture me for 2 hours and which would actually try to entertain or even attempt something great, like timelessness.

  97. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Harris and Blanck escaped without even breathing in smoke. I’ve always wondered if it was yet another case of Jewish lightening. The insurance payment was about $20,00 more than their losses.

    Years later, the partners paid the families of the girls $75 apiece.

  98. Hail says: • Website

    Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family likely would have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol

    The problem with this is that David Glosser does not know where the 1,993 missing Jews were by mid-1945, by 1950, by 1960, by 2000: All he knows (from what source, I do not know) is that only seven were counted in some postwar census, perhaps even an informal estimate (no source given for the “seven remained”).

    Without meaning offense to the memory of any, I can almost guarantee that some among these 1,993 missing Jews are still alive even today. The youngest ones (born 1944) would only be in their mid-70s today. This is a common story all over Holocaust scholarship: The “Jewish dispersion story with heavy doses of violence on the fringes” trumps the “full-on extermination story” (Think of how common it is to hear that a U.S. Jew is of Holocaust Survivor ancestry). (Note, too, that the “dispersion story with violence at the margins” is hardly unique even for Europe of the 1940s: Millions of German-Christian civilians were also expelled in the mid-1940s with many deaths, to take one nationality at random; to say nothing of the Soviet realm…)

    The political argument of the very core of David Glosser’s essay (that any hint of immigration restriction = ethnopatioritsm = ethnonationalism = mass exterminationism) thus rests on shaky ground, at best.

    ________________________

    Glosser implies an August 1939 resident Jewish population of 2,000 Jews in this village (Antopol). The village was not in ‘Belarus’ for our purposes, as he states, but was in the anti-Semitic, authoritarian (inter-war, 1919-1939) Polish Republic.

    Glosser says that seven Jews “remained,” presumably in mid-1945. The sleight-of-hand he uses is both numerical and by use of the rhetorically-bludgeon, i.e, a scare-word that reduces a complicated process (the fates of thousands over a period of decades [see below]) to “murder”:

    [MORE]

    Numerical trick: Where is the “2,000 Jews” figure from? The Polish Census of 1931? Or the one of 1921? Or perhaps an estimate by the local rabbi (2,000 is a very clean number, isn’t it)? We know from Holocaust scholarship that many Jews in these kinds of places were on the move, in a decades-long exodus towards points west (and later Palestine/Israel), the single major destination of which was New York. This was ongoing beginning about the mid-1880s and accelerated after 1918; Jews did not want to be in the anti-Semitic Polish Republic, and many left. On the day the Soviet Union took over this village in September 1939, as part of the agreement with German over the division of Poland, how many Jews were in Antopol? By the time the Germans actually arrived, circa late June 1941, even more Jews were probably gone, some deported by the NKVD, some leaving voluntarily, others fleeing frantically east once Germany invaded. How many Jews actually fell into German occupation? Could it be as low as a few hundred? There is a good chance that many, even most, of these alleged 2,000 Jews were never even under German occupation. But some were. So what of their fates:

    German occupation policy was to intern Jews in either ghettos or camps, parallel to the U.S. policy against Japanese aliens of the same period. Some of these no doubt died, but others will have survived and resettled elsewhere, including Israel and the United States (again, the commoness of hearing that a U.S. Jew is of Holocaust Survivor ancestry). Why stay in the shtetl in anti-Semitic Poland when Brooklyn beckons? After the war (when the villages became part of the Belarus SSR), why stay in the Soviet Union when the West/Israel beckons? Or (for pro-Soviet Jews) why stay in the shtetl when Moscow and St. Petersburg beckon?

    Rhetorical Bludgeon — “Murdered by the Nazis”: Whatever the truth about Jewish losses from this village between summer 1941 and summer 1944 (or so, when the Red Army took it back), Glosser knows neither the numbers nor the method, yet states confidently that these 1,993 Jews were “murdered by the Nazis.” This entire subject is shrouded in a fog of war thickened by the continuous operation of several political fog-making machines since the mid-war or so, when the first extermination stories circulated in the Soviet and Jewish presses. (The fog-making machine remains well-maintained and regularly upgraded and serviced, operating with higher output today than it did fifty years ago.)

    Some of these 1,993 alleged missing Jews who did die (and who do not turn up later in New York or Tel Aviv, etc.) will even have died in Soviet army uniforms, killed in action (supposedly 200,000 Jewish Red Army soldiers were KIA). Some number may have died in the manner Glosser implies: Killed for being Jewish by a hothead local German or allied commander, or anti-Semitic Polish villagers. Others will have died due to the harsh circumstances of war without necessarily being targeted for killing. Others even by the Red Army, directly or indirectly. But it should be stressed that many likely survived entirely, through emigration before the war (who would want to live in the kind of place Glosser describes his Jewish ancestor left in 1903?), or during pre-Barbarossa Soviet occupation, or in the days between the German declaration of war and the fall of the village (when the Soviets were evacuating as much as possible, including people, from the front). The numbers are hard to know with certainty.

    Good estimates are probably possible, perhaps as genetic testing increases in prevalence, a new, comprehensive estimate might be made.

    Glosser doesn’t care about any of the above — though he should, frankly, if his concern is familial, as he implies. His use of this story is as a political Damocletian Sword that most Jews seem to be ready to use at all times, so as to end any political debate in their favor.

    _________________________

    We can observe, with regularity in the Western press, the following three-step process:

    [1] Implied small assertion: 1,993 of 2,000 Jews in this Polish Republic village of Antopol were murdered by White racists [or myriad similar small assertions] (No alternative explanations wanted, thanks; no critical investigation needed; in fact, let’s criminalize investigation).

    [2] Implied large(r) assertion: Sometimes asserted on its own, but often uses a small assertion like [1], above, as proof: There was a total extermination program against primarily one group, but also other ‘coalition of the fringes’ groups in Europe in the early 1940s. European Christians were guilty in a broad sense, but more narrowly, a rightist-ethnonationalist government was guilty in a direct sense.

    [3] Our Highest Political Principle (since circa 1980s): The large assertion [2] (“the Holocaust,” a label in use from the 1980s, never capitalized before the late 1970s) proves that any White ethnopatriotism is a slippery slope towards White ethnonationalism, a dangerous ideology yhat leads inevitably to mass exterminations, chaos, and misery, i.e., Ethnopatriotism is a gateway drug to evil. All good-thinking people know this. (Several easy steps beyond this is that Whitneness is the first step towards evil; cf. the bizarre intellectual world of of Sarah Jeong.)

    _________________________

    It’s not so hard to understand the process here, used by David Glosser, among many, many others (political intellectual-thuggery using the “Big-H” Damocletian Sword). Breaking out of it is hard for this reason:

    While there is high awareness of the problem I have laid out, there is only very weak criticism of it in public (though plenty online). Among mainstream U.S. journalists, only Pat Buchanan has come close to confronting the thuggery in a manner comparable to what I try to do in this post, and he hasn’t done so regularly or overtly in years. He has an entire book (The Unnecessary War) kind of skirmishing at the margins of this issue, but will not confront claims like Glosser’s directly anymore. He is either waiting for the political climate to turn or for other, younger men to take up the mantle.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  99. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Then transplant the orc fetus into them and let them bear and raise it. Enjoy visiting your black or brown little thug in juvenile hall when it’s 12.

  100. @Das

    Sure, but a big problem for immigration skeptics is that people interpret immigration restriction arguments as personal attacks on their beloved immigrant bubbes/nonas/yayas.

    Politically it works a lot better if you flatter people by insisting that immigrants used to be absolutely wonderful for the country, but due to changed circumstances we need a lot less of them today.

    What kind of weirdo would take it as a personal attack on someone the policy debate doesn’t involve? That’s truly hyper-crazy stuff.

  101. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @kaganovitch

    Kind of makes you wonder what else he gets wrong about his ancestor’s experiences during that time period, both in Russia and America.

  102. Mr. Anon says:
    @Das

    Sure, but a big problem for immigration skeptics is that people interpret immigration restriction arguments as personal attacks on their beloved immigrant bubbes/nonas/yayas.

    Then they are cordially invited to go f**k themselves.

    I consider it a personal attack on my ancestors, who were founding stock Americans, when people refer to this as a “nation of immigrants”.

  103. Mr. Anon says:
    @Desiderius

    Characters like Frank and Estelle are why your average American gentile loves Jews. If you were trying to take over the world, Frank and Estelle would be the ideal cover.

    Huh? They were portrayed as deeply unpleasant people. George himself even felt that way.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  104. @MikeatMikedotMike

    By Uncle David’s logic, it is hypocritical for a person who was conceived as the result of a rape, to be against rape.

    Because you know, without rape, he’d have never existed.

    And in fact, everyone alive is alive only because some ancestor of theirs raped some other ancestor of theirs. We aren’t here because all our ancestors were saints. Generally speaking, the meek don’t inherit jack.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  105. @Anonymous

    This essay is being widely celebrated as logically irrefutable.

    As much as it makes the steam rise, i love seeing the likes of Glosser put this in print.

    The whole “nation of immigrants” thing is objectively stupid. Mathematically, immigration forever means that the future America must assymptotically approach the shittiness of the shittiest nation on the planet–until literally no one else on earth wants to come here! Your line–your genetic contribution to the future–will either be extinguished or your descendants scrape by in an overpopulated dystopian hell hole.

    It’s the anti-thesis of patriotism or love of nation. It’s wishing the nation’s destruction and extintion.

    Now i realize i’m a few SD’s to the right of the average person in mathematical “sense”, so what’s obvious to me doesn’t immediately pop for everyone. But the more these bastards keep broadcasting their idea that immigration *must never stop* the more the average person will wake up and smell the insanity and the hate.

  106. @Jack D

    He wants more Wolf-Leibs but instead he is getting cossacks who will bring pogroms with them.

    Nice, I like that.

    Refuting Uncle Glosser’s argument is hard (if you’re a Jew — obviously it’s not hard if you’re Philip Giraldi talking to Paul Craig Roberts). Your overall line — that not all immigrants bring the same benefits — is good. But we also need a knock-out analogy.

    A few analogies have been proposed by other commenters here, but they’re weak because they analogize immigration to something bad. For example one guy says, “It’s like saying, if you were conceived by rape, you have to be in favor of rape.” Nope, that’s not going to work! The analogy we need is, “Someone did X (a good thing) for me, therefore I must do X to everyone else” and somehow doing X to everyone else has to be bad or absurd. I don’t have an answer yet, unfortunately.

    The best I’ve ever come up with (IMO of course) is: If the Americans of 1905 did something good for me, I owe gratitude to those Americans, not to the Syrians or Somalis or Mexicans of today. (I said that in the online comments of the San Francisco Jewish Weekly, not long before they banned me, and just a month more before they abolished online comments altogether.)

    • Replies: @snorlax
  107. @Lot

    Wolf-Leib was hardly “unskilled” and neither were most other Jewish immigrants of the time. A tailor, a shoemaker, a baker: these are not unskilled people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  108. @Barnard

    And how long could you live on $204 in New York today?

    • Replies: @Hail
  109. Mr. Glosser buried the lede. In the last paragraph he performs a brave and stunning climbdown from the Huddled-Masses-Uber-Alles position:

    Immigration reform is a complex issue that will require compassion and wisdom to bring the nation to a just solution, but the politicians who have based their political and professional identity on ethnic demonization and exclusion cannot be trusted to do so.

    I think this means that some future Dem administration will concede that not all 4 billion foreigners who wish to come here, can come here immediately. The Zeroth Amendment, then, might not be a right to immigrate with an attached, private right of action. (Let me in or I’ll sue and win).

    Dems only need enough immigrants for permanent Dem hegemony, with California as the model.

    I’m relieved that they won’t go for the full White Genocide. It’ll only be The Penultimate Solution.

    • LOL: Dtbb
    • Replies: @Hail
  110. @Tyrion 2

    people seem to think that if a country allows them to settle there then they owe not the country and its people but all potential settlers.

    That’s the strongest argument I’ve seen, against Uncle Glosser.

    But there’s a strong rebuttal too (I think): Steven Miller isn’t trying to prevent immigration on his own, he’s working to prevent tens of millions of other Americans (i.e. the immigration enthusiasts among us — maybe 50% of the population) from bringing in lots of immigrants. So in terms of your analogy, Miller is preventing his host from inviting more guests into the house.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Harry Baldwin
  111. Hail says: • Website
    @International Jew

    how long could you live on $204 in New York today?

    Probably quite a while, if living for free with relatives. If also being set up through an ethnic network with an immediate job, that initial low sum would quickly not matter once paychecks start coming in. I expect many Chinese quasi-legal or illegals do just this today, across the USA.

  112. @JohnnyD

    Yeah, I say that too. We’d both be more persuasive, though, if the WASPs were a little less enthusiastic about giving their own country away.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @snorlax
    , @JohnnyD
  113. Hail says: • Website
    @Barnard

    According to this U.S. government report, in 1901 [not 1903], a loaf of bread averaged 5 cents; a dozen eggs, 20 cents; a pound of fresh beef, 14 cents; milk, 6 cents a quart; flour and meal, 2.5 cents per pound.

    $8.00 (cash, not counting other assets) in 1901 could have bought 320 pounds of flour and meal. The average person today supposedly eats three to five pounds of food per day, and we, of course, eat well. Call it three pounds for the smaller-framed people of 1903 to eat well. Eight dollars then paid for 107 days worth of the ingredients with which to make (very basic) food. Even if eating very well, $8.00 still would have paid one man’s way easily (if asked to, by the family network that took him in), until the first paycheck came in.

    I doubt too many people regularly spent money at all on a daily basis in that era. Certainly it would not have been like today’s consumerist society in which someone might make five, ten payments a day — for a coffee here, a sandwich there, a pack of cigarettes — as one moves through the day.

    Given a cooking-at-home economy combined with goodwill from a family-/ethnic network willing to give a newcomer free housing a while, this ancestor’s alleged eight dollars (if an accurate representation of his full net worth, which is questionable) could stretch quite a while, maybe months (if needed at all).

  114. @Anonymous

    I think Lot’s point was that Jewish immigrants brought higher-quality human capital, than the Hispanics, Arabs and Africans we’re getting today.

  115. Hail says: • Website
    @JudyBlumeSussman

    the politicians who have based their political and professional identity on ethnic demonization and exclusion cannot be trusted to do so.

    Ambiguous, but he almost certainly means Donald Trump and Steven Miller engage in “ethnic demonization,” not the ethnically-aggrieved Open Borders pushers.

    His neutral-tone statement of the need for a “just solution,” to which you ascribe hopes for an end to large-scale immigration once the country is 30% White (California), pales in comparison to his apparent attack on his nephew (as a [driving force behind a] politician who has based his career on “ethnic demonization”).

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  116. @Jack D

    A suitable test to put before those diaspora Jews advocating eternal immigration to their current passport-issuer might be “Would you be happy for this person to be let into Israel?”
    If they say yes, deport them to Israel.
    If they say no, put Achmad/Mogambo/Don Cartelio and clan in a rent-controlled Section 8 next door.

  117. Hail says: • Website
    @Lot

    This Albert Michelson was not a Polish Jew. He was a German Jew by parental origin, but had very tenuous ties to either Europe or Judaism:

    Albert Michelson
    - b. 1852, to secular German Jews in Posen, then of the Kingdom of Prussia, Germany.
    - parents German-speaking Jews with no recent connection to any sthetl kind of scene
    - in the USA already by 1855 (age two)
    - grew up in Nevada, interior California, and San Francisco.
    - accepted to U.S. Naval Academy at age 16.
    - never practiced Judaism.
    - two wives, both Christians. Six children.

    This must be one of the most non-Jewish Jews in U.S. history (family immigration story pre-dates Ellis Island wave by decades; never practiced Judaism; never spent much time around any Jewish-majority community either in Europe or the USA [never lived in Europe and no Jewish communities existed in the USA until he was well into his 30s]; non-Jewish spouses) and it would seem that around zero of his descendants are Jewish.

    One of his daughters was Beatrice Foster (nee Michelson), married to a Festus Finley Foster of Oklahoma, a career Naval officer killed in action in France in 1945. There doesn’t seem to be anything Jewish about this daughter or her choice of husband (Oklahoma military man). I assume the same holds for the other five children.

    Michelson is comparable to Barry Goldwater, half Jewish by ancestry (I understand Goldwater’s Jewish ancestry also entered the USA pre-Civil War) but strongly of the American tradition — too much so for his own good, as he lost handily in ’64.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  118. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    A surprising number (as I’m sure you know) were rag pickers,
    of whom some moved on to garment factory workers.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  119. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Jesus Christ himself would have lost to a Democrat in 1964.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  120. @Hail

    an end to large-scale immigration once the country is 30% White

    Not a problem, because by then there won’t be a democracy, never mind a Republic. More like “30% of the Reich – er I mean – country will be 100.0001% white”. Soon to be 32%, then 35% …
    No fellow-white-people allowed, due to previous conduct and track record.

    The rest will be Venezuela, Haiti or Bangladesh. Or Detroit. Good luck getting any taxes or even competent soldiers for an “invade Whiteopia” army out of that shower.

  121. Anon[268] • Disclaimer says:

    This essay is being widely celebrated as logically irrefutable.

    Steve,

    What do you consider to be illogical about his argument?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  122. Tyrion 2 says:
    @International Jew

    Indeed, my point was only counter to Uncle Glosser’s facile argument. Were he instead to try to argue for all of the positive benefits of further immigration to the American people I would have to address those in turn.

    He doesn’t do that and even discussing it from that perspective has become hatethink. Probably because it is not an argument the globalists can win. It isn’t particularly balanced and its very posing invalidates their ideology.

    To address your rebuttal very directly, and it isn’t an argument I’d like to rely on as administrations change, Miller was appointed by the legitimate President of the United States who ran on a clear and honest immigration restrictionist platform.

    It is therefore his duty to work to implement that platform or he should resign. I am glad to see that he is competently and quietly doing just that. A virtue that often goes unrecognised nowadays.

    But as Bannon implies, the point is to get past all of the fluff and begin with the axiom that the government’s job is to maximise citizen value. There can be many debates after this is agreed, but its all just so much Uncle Glosser schmaltz until we get to there.

    I have no doubt that there potentially are other conflicting axioms that we theoretically may also benefit from, but those are questions for a different era.

    Do we want nations governed for our citizens or do we want them governed under a mostly unidentified, ever-shifting and corrupted set of alternatives?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  123. @Anon

    I suspect time flows forward rather than backward.

  124. Ganderson says:
    @AnotherDad

    And roughly 1/3 returned to their countries of origin.

  125. Nathan says:

    How about a white guilt inversion:

    Had Stephen Miller’s immigration policies been in place in 1760, things would have been much worse for my ancestors and much better for the Pequots.

  126. @AnotherDad

    “the meek don’t inherit jack”

    But they gave birth to him!

    ba-dum bum.

  127. @OilcanFloyd

    Nonsense! Jews marry non-Jews at an astonishing rate. I did. It’s the attraction of the Other. Who wants to marry a nagging JAP (=Jewish-American Princess)?

  128. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    If you really want the details of exactly what happened in Antopol during the war they are laid out here:

    https://sztetl.org.pl/en/towns/a/1488-antopol/99-history/137028-history-of-community

    and here:

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-book-of-antopol-or-can-we-ever-know-the-past

    Here is what happened to most of them:

    On the night of 15 October 1942, employees of the Judenrat and the Jewish police were thrown into jail. A punitive battalion surrounded the ghetto. People were forced to mount trucks, which then drove off towards the First of May Cemetery, located 1 km east of the town. There, big ditches had been previously dug out. Police and gendarmerie surrounded the execution place. People were forced into the ditches; they were then ordered to completely undress and lay down with their face down on the ground; and then they were fired at from rifles. German murderers, wearing rubber boots and gloves, entered the ditches and placed the corpses in such a way to make room for other bodies.

    But I suspect you prefer your own version of reality – all of the Jews of Antopol became commissars and joined the NKVD.

    • Replies: @Hail
  129. notanon says:
    @newrouter

    thus proving the America First nativist’s point.

  130. @International Jew

    the immigration enthusiasts among us — maybe 50% of the population

    Polls do not suggest that half of all Americans are immigration enthusiasts–far from it. Even many people who vote Democrat would like to see less immigration and stronger border controls.

  131. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    Really? Where did they get all those rags to pick? From the other rag pickers?

    A lot of the rag pickers went on in America to be junk men, who then transitioned into the scrap metal business and then metals trading and became very wealthy. There is a local bank in Phila owned by a very wealthy Jewish clan whose founder started out picking up rags with a hand cart.

  132. Jack D says:
    @Tyrion 2

    In order to effectively counter Uncle Glosser, you need to come up with a comprehensive and humanitarian policy for refugees, (and for distinguishing between real refugees and women whose boyfriends beat them back home in Guatemala). And for a rational plan for putting these refugees in a safe place (not the US) where they will not meet the fate of the Jews of Antopol. This won’t be cheap and I don’t know why it is the US’s responsibility (we always end up paying for these things) but it will be a lot cheaper than the price we will pay for having these folks and their descendants in the US for all eternity.

    Until you can point to some viable alternative to just returning these folks to their sad fate, the Uncle Glossers of the world will have the moral upper hand. Right now, this is the situation – either we take in Maria and her 9 kids and care for her and her future gang banger progeny here unto eternity (or Abdul and his future bombers) or else we send them back to certain death (in the liberal telling at least). The right needs to put forth a viable Plan B that will take this argument away from the left.

    Just saying “these people are not our problem” is not going to work.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Tyrion 2
  133. notanon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    off-topic and not relevant to the point you were making but i suspect time falls downwards

  134. @Jack D

    ” it’s because they are not really thinking this through or they have been fooled by some kind of quasi-religious ideology”

    There is a third possibility that you’ve not mentioned – that they really don’t like their hosts and would rather bring the temple down on them. This may of course not be a conscious motivation, but we all find rationalisations for doing things that we really want to do.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  135. Corn says:
    @Anon

    “In the 1950s a study to see if rape is hereditary began that went on for 35 years. It was boys born to women who were raped, got pregnant and kept the boy child. About half the boys were convicted of rape by the age of 25.”

    Do you have a link? Genuinely curious; never heard of this study.

  136. Jack D says:
    @Anon

    Money in those days was gold coins and there were money changers on Ellis Island.

    http://www.ellisisland.se/english/ellisisland_immigration5.asp

    Next question.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  137. Jack D says:
    @ben tillman

    Poor immigrants didn’t have access to banks. No one was holding any money for him, though chances are he already had some relative here who would help him get started. The most valuable asset that Wolf-Leib had was between his ears and not the $8 in his pocket. $8 was probably above average – a lot of the immigrants could barely scrape together the money for passage, but they went to work immediately so they didn’t need to have any savings. Their net worth might have even been negative because they owed someone $ for their ticket.

    What is really amazing is the speed at which these things happened (not having a lot of government regulations helped). Soon after he arrived, Wolf-Leib opened a 1 room shop – a bodega in modern terms. 2 years later he opened his first department store.

  138. Hail says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Thank you. As for the passage you cite, I see it is based on something called “Akt komissii po ustanovleniju i rassledovaniju złodiejanij niemiecko-faszystskih zahvatczikov. 26 July 1944, GABrO, Collection 514, Description 1, Case 255, sheet 18.” I would love to find the primary source but cannot begin to understand it or where to look for it.

    All I can see for sure is that it is in Polish and appears to have been written in the weeks after the Red Army retook the village (July 1944); at this time, of course, the war’s conclusion was still unclear; we now know that nine months of hard fighting until Berlin remained, with millions(?) more Soviet casualties. The Red Army propaganda apparatus was going full speed ahead to demonize the Germans in line with Soviet war aims (total surrender, partition of Germany, total reorganization of Europe’s borders, and eventual soft takeover of the remainder of Europe) [all war aims achieved except the last one, stymied by unexpected American stiffness from 1947 or so onwards]

    Without knowing exactly what the report of July 26, 1944, was based on (i.e., without seeing the primary source), I would caution that no one involved in its creation was going to cautiously err on the side of innocence for the Germans at the time…

    I find your other link, to the New Yorker essay, interesting in that unlike the primary-source in the first link (written in July 1944), there is a space of decades between the German-occupation years (summer 1941 to summer 1944), the time of first encounter with the Antopol story (2000), and the writing of the essay (2014):

    [MORE]

    I said that my family was originally from a tiny village called Antopol, a few hours from Minsk, in Belarus. “But no one’s heard of it,” I said. “You can’t even find it on a map.”

    She set down the bowl she was washing and stared at me, as if really noticing me for the first time. Then she said, “I’m from Antopol.” [...]

    [The author had heard] tales about my great-grandmother Molly from Antopol. She’d been the oldest in her family and had left her siblings behind, promising to send for them when she had enough money saved (she never did). She lived in a boarding house in Queens with other immigrant girls, run by a distant cousin who turned it into a sweatshop during the day and put Molly to work. [...]

    [T]here, in that kitchen in Haifa, I heard about Antopol. The woman had been young when [the author's great-grandmother] Molly left, and barely remembered her, but she had other stories.

    The writer elsewhere says her great-grandmother Molly emigrated to the USA in 1910. The elderly woman in Israel in December 2000, who purportedly remembered Molly, would have had to have been near age 100; technically possible that she did remember her, or possible that the elderly former-Antopolian Israeli was mixing up Mollies. (Who knew that a Polish/Belarusian Jew born in the late 19th century could be named ‘Molly’?)

    The story of great-grandma Molly is, I would argue, more defining of East European Jewish experience in the 20th Century than whatever the truth is behind the ad-hoc execution story from the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (quoting an obscure Polish report made during the war) that you cite.

    when I told her that I hoped to travel to Antopol one day, she took a long breath. “There’s nothing to see,” she said. “After the war there were three Jews who went back to Antopol.”

    The anonymous centenarian in Israel has just halved (to three) Mr. Glosser’s estimate (seven) of Jewish survival in Antopol. How does she know it was three? Was she one of them? What are the chances that she was one of ‘three’ who survived and made it to near age 100 in Israel?

    This New Yorker essay (an ancestral nostalgia piece) is interesting, but anecdotal and thus cannot possibly be authoritative of anything. A close and skeptical reading of the essay reveals several things: The Antopol book she is given in Israel contains dozens of updates on former Antopolians’ lives (“Many of the entries felt as scripted as an alumni newsletter: so-and-so lives in Toronto with his beautiful wife, and his four spectacular children, all lawyers, have gone on to bring him nine wonderful grandchildren…”), and an account of Jews who escaped the Antopol ghetto and joined partisans in the forests. These rather tangential comments suggest that the narrative of total liquidation (like the assertion of 1,993/2,000 killed from Stephen Miller’s Uncle Glosser in the OP) is not accurate; i.e., many Antopol Jews survived and dispersed. Or else how could they give these accounts?

    Then comes the astounding and commendable confession, given that this is a Jewish writer’s ethnic-nostalgic essay:

    the more I read other books [by Antopol people about WWII], the more my doubts grew: these books were flush with inconsistencies. A dozen memoirs and biographies on partisan life near Antopol and, still, I had questions. One person would recount subsisting solely on blackberries and mushrooms in the encampment they set up in the forest. Another person, living in the same forest during the same chilly autumn and brutal winter, described the weekly village raids: pillaging bread from peasants’ kitchen [...]

    [C]ertain details refuse to add up, and despite intensive research I remain uncertain as to where the truth actually resides.

    This is commendable. Follow the facts, not the emotion.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  139. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    There were more than 2,000 Jews in Antopol before the war. In 1897, there were around 3,140.

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

    Many emigrated before the war and on the eve of the German invasion, there were around 2,300, the population having been swelled by refugees from the German occupied half of Poland to the west.

    Of the 2,300, a few might have been deported by the Soviets during the 1st period of Soviet occupation before the German invasion. This is what happened to my mother and her family and their arrest and deportation to Kazakhstan saved their life. Some may have fled with the Soviets when the Germans invaded. Some may have joined the Soviet partisans or hidden in the woods or were taken in by sympathetic non-Jews. The point is, of the approximately 2,000 Jews who came under German occupation and stayed in town, virtually all of them (maybe 90% of the pre-war population) were murdered. It makes no difference if the number of survivors was 3 or 7. Quibbling about little details makes you look like a kook and it doesn’t convince anyone who is sane that the Holocaust didn’t really happen.

    Molly is an anglicized version of Malka (Queen, as in Queen Esther of the Purim Story) and was a common Jewish name.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  140. bgates says:
    @Jack D

    He want more Wolf-Leibs but instead he is getting cossacks who will bring pogroms with them.

    Since he opens with the hypothetical about what would have become of his ancestors had the doors been shut to them, I wonder if he’d considered the hypothetical in which every Nazi had wanted to immigrate here too. Should America have welcomed them in their tens of millions? Or does he think wholesale immigration of that sort would have been Bad for the Jews? And if he thinks we shouldn’t admit huge numbers of people who are enemies of his, why allow enemies of mine? And if he wants to claim modern immigrants pose no threat, does he think being a descendant of virtually the lone survivor of the annihilated community Antopol marks him as an especially good judge of communal self-preservation?

  141. Ian M. says:
    @Altai

    Here’s another analogy:

    Suppose a child is born of rape or out of wedlock. He can be grateful for his existence, but it doesn’t follow that he ought to support rape or bastardy.

    So the equivalent to saying to someone whose ancestors were immigrants: “How can you be against immigration?! You wouldn’t even be here had it not been for immigration!!” would be to say to someone who was conceived of rape: “How can you be against rape?! You wouldn’t even exist had it not been for rape!!”

  142. @Anon

    If you were, you wouldn’t be here.

  143. @Jack D

    When there are 7 billion of these people, it will work just fine.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  144. snorlax says:
    @International Jew

    The best analogy is Daniel Chieh’s, as mentioned by Twinkie. If you were adopted into a family, it’s neither obligatory nor reasonable to demand your parents constantly adopt additional children. Once you grow up, you may choose to adopt children yourself, but there’s no hypocrisy in choosing not to. Nor is there any hypocrisy in choosing which child to adopt, or how many to adopt, or adopting a relative’s or friend’s child instead of some equally deserving other child.

  145. Jack D says:
    @Desiderius

    There are recognized criteria in American and international law as to what constitutes a refugee. All 7 billion can’t be refugees even if they say so.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  146. @International Jew

    The WASPs that matter are post-American. It’s no longer their country, so they see nothing but upside in its dissolution, as it remaining a thing is the main roadblock they see to their plans.

  147. snorlax says:
    @International Jew

    Say “Anglo-American” instead. Unambiguously includes Southerners that way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  148. @Jack D

    You were not speaking of law.

  149. @Mr. Anon

    Compare to, say, Harvey Weinstein.

    They’re in the great American tradition of Archie Bunker and Ralph Kramden. We love those who harmlessly make us feel more comparatively virtuous.

  150. JohnnyD says:
    @International Jew

    Yea, I’ve noticed that many WASPs seem to like it when Jews and other minorities act crazy.

  151. Lot says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I agree, probably the best TV show ever. I have seen every episode at least 4 times in my life.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  152. Jack D says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    That doesn’t make any sense. Remember when Samson brings the temple down on the Philistines he also brings it down on himself – he is the world’s first suicide bomber. I see nothing to indicate that Dr. Glosser and his crowd are suicidal or are the kind of people who would intentionally (or even unconsciously desire to) foul their own nest. Rather, they genuinely (if misguidedly) believe that they are doing a good thing. Even Nazis thought that they were doing a good thing. Nobody thinks that they are doing evil – evil is what someone else does.

    The anti-Semitic cartoon villain caricature of the Jew who wakes up every day thinking, “how can I hurt the goyim today?” doesn’t operate the way any human operates and so rings false with anyone who doesn’t already hate Jews.

  153. Ian M. says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Oops, I just left a comment with the same analogy before having read yours.

  154. @Reg Cæsar

    Like driving Uber and Lyft, and pushing your wheelchair down the concourse to the gate.

    And creating murderous gangs: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rise-of-somali-gangs-plagues-minneapolis/

  155. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    I agree, probably the best TV show ever. I have seen every episode at least 4 times in my life.

    I first saw it when it was in syndication in the early 00′s, having missed all the hooplah in the 90s. I believe I’ve seen every episode (several times) except the notorious The Puerto Rican Day Parade, which is never broadcast. Why that one episode is considered beyond the pale is a mystery to me, but apparently the PRs have a powerful lobby.

    I agree that it was the best sitcom ever – best TV show ever, as you said. It got going strong by the third season and stayed consistently laugh-out-loud funny right up to the end. Seinfeld and David were right to go out on a high note.

    • Replies: @Lot
  156. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Jack D

    There already is a comprehensive plan for refugees. They may seek refuge in the first safe country. Such refuges are already properly funded.

    This isn’t about that type of immigrant at all.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  157. Jack D says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Central Americans are presenting themselves at the US/Mexican border and demanding refuge every day of the week and their claims are being processed. You’re right that we should tell them that they are already in a “safe” country (and one where they already speak the language and the people have a similar culture) and turn them back immediately (and if we did the Mexicans wouldn’t allow them into Mexico in the 1st place) but that’s not what is happening.

  158. Anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “Nobody hugs, and nobody learns.”

    What do these mean?

  159. Anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    Correct, and also advisable if one wishes to not racially slur one’s fellow citizens.

  160. Anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Did Jacob Schiff use his gold coins to fund the Russia-Japan War, Russian Revolution, and the Bolsheviks?

  161. Lot says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Larry David I believe left at the end if season 6.

    Puerto Rican Day you can watch on DVD, torrent download, or streaming site. It was a relatively poor episode, but still worth watching.

    I have a feeling they quietly put it back into syndication outside of the NE and Florida. Hard to see it as offensive. If anything the touchy PRs should be offended by the gay flamer PR gangster character who was in a couple other episodes.

  162. Svigor says:
    @AnotherDad

    But if you decide “hey, i’ll add a few folks to the team”, what would be the first requirement? Loyalty. They’ll mentally and emotionally join up, become part of your nation and put the interests of their new fellow citizens first.

    Some people naturally take to that. Some people, some peoples, just massively fail that basic test.

    E.g., Germans and Jews, respectively.

  163. Svigor says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    The Socratic Method is racist and antisemitic.

  164. MBlanc46 says:
    @AnotherDad

    The notion that populations need to grow infinitely in order to satisfy the demand for labor is self-defeating.

  165. Bruno says:

    The article can be true under different at least two lines of hypothesis wich should be explicited ;

    - independently of Jewish value for the USA, as a heir of a migrant group, one should favor all migrants claim because all migrants are enjoying the same benefit. Maybe the point is more about non wasp solidrity , if one consider Jewish are a different ethnic group from wasp. This argument rely on migrant/ethnic solidarity and is completely independent from the migrant being good or bad to society. It fits perfectly into a generalization of Kevin McDonald theory (clever Indian and even East Asian favor pro migrants policy too) that elite ethnic migrants have an interest to get a multicultural society to predate (by talent and ethnic solidarity) a large part of the revenue without being pointed.

    The other argument is more about the alleged benefit for the host’socidty of migrants :

    - Jewish have turned to be good for society but wouldn’t have passed a migration selection screeening, so the only sensible policy is to accept them all, because there are very good ones among them. This one is completely illogical because it presuposes the balance will always be positive and it forgets that each population has its traits (even if they were exclusively cultural) and are not easily changed. A more primitive hypothesis is that each migrant brings always a net positive value to society.

Comments are closed.

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