The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Establishment's Growing Extremism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Why can’t America be some of both? Why can’t we have compromise, moderation, and prudence on immigration policy? Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

 
Hide 204 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Well the article is actually by Dara Lind, Vox’s chirpy immigration specialist who usually tries to be even-handed and has written some informative pieces. But, she’s still from Vox.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Ezra Klein works better as comment bait.

    But in answer to Steve's question, elites are globalists. This is true of the libertarian types at Reason as well as the progs at Vox. They legitimately don't see why U.S. immigration policy should benefit Americans over poor foreigners. Klein made that point explicitly in his interview with Bernie Sanders a few years ago.

    https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0
    , @Barnard
    I don't remember reading her work before, but there was nothing even handed in that piece. Going back to pre 1965 immigration levels would be "moral backsliding" according to Dara. Her argument is that if anyone cares about what countries immigrants come from or whether or not they have any employable skills you are racist and xenophobic.

    A reasonable compromise with zealots like this is not going to be possible. As to why they got this way, I think it goes to something John Derbyshire has said several times on Radio Derb. Immigration is just a policy, one of many policies a government needs to have. Based on education, entertainment industry propaganda and other factors, this is a moral issue for progressives. They want to be victorious over the restrictionists just like their progressive forebears won victories for women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.

    I had a professor in a college writing class after droning on and on about how awful child labor laws were in the 19th Century ask us what policies or laws about our current society would be considered shocking and beyond the pale to future generations. That is representative of their mindset. What can we do today to make future generations think we were a great, upstanding moral people. They think there will be pictures of them in history books in their pink hats marching against the great monster Donald Trump and his army of evil, white men.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Feminine power strategy: false dichotomy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. The word nation comes from the Latin word natio, which means “birth”. So the phrase “nation of immigrants” is a contradiction in terms. Etymologically speaking, the phrase is nonsensical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The word nation comes from the Latin word natio, which means “birth”. So the phrase “nation of immigrants” is a contradiction in terms. Etymologically speaking, the phrase is nonsensical.
     
    Quite true. It is worthwhile making the distinction between "country" which is geographical and "nation" which properly refers to a people. The United States is neither; it is an empire.
    , @TheJester
    As it is generally used, "empire" assumes multiple cultures, multiple peoples, multiple religions, and in some cases multiple races ... exactly what destroyed the Western Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the British Empire. This is because by definition empires cross cultural, national, and religious boundaries and borders. The Empire of the United States is next on the list.

    The problem is that, to accommodate the various cultures, peoples, religions, and races, an empire's civic, cultural, and religious values, policies, and laws eventually become relativized and trivialized in attempts to pacify a polity that is trisected and miscegenated beyond recovery. At that point, the subject peoples, cultures, and religions seize the opportunity to "pick the bones of the empire clean" while there is something left to seize, steal, or appropriate.

    The biggest losers in an empire are the nations and peoples who founded the empire. By the time the subject peoples, cultures, and religions act, it goes without saying the founding nation, culture, and religion have already been relativized to the point they are no longer recognizable. They are an inconsistent and unintelligible mishmash of everything within the empire.

    The saddest contemporary case of this is Great Britain. This is probably our lot unless the United States dumps its empire and secures its borders ASAP.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. I doubt that Steve meant it this way, but I note that he mentions “The Establishment” and then quotes (((Ezra Klein))).

    ‘Nuff said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. We live in a time of crisis. If one doesn’t arise naturally, by invasion or natural disaster, one will be invented. Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence. It’s impossible to argue with people like that. They thrive on apocalyptic posturing and black-white, us-them dichotomies. It’s why the polity is especially unable to deal with numbers today. Numbers mean compromise – what is the right number of immigrants? No, they say, this is not something you count. It is a matter of right and wrong. If only one life is saved…

    Read More
    • Replies: @ColoComment
    "Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence."

    I don't know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that's a pretty broad brush you're wielding.

    /s/ A Boomer
    , @Ripple Earthdevil
    Dara Lind is no Boomer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by “hate facts” such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a “compromise” to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus’s divinity, that it’s obvious to all of us that people don’t go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn’t sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on “realistic” or “scientific” recognition of Jesus’s non-divinity no matter what.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Allen
    It's a bit more complex than that. A cursory reading of the Founding Fathers shows they did not take an absolutist line on "all men are created equal." For instance, Jefferson wrote to John Adams that:

    "For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents ... The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society." (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html)

    The problem is we are tossing around context-less quotes from the 1700's and pretending that the authors of those quotes would agree with very very recent ideas about equality, diversity, etc.

    Even if one believes the modern ideas are better, one can at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that those ideas weren't in vogue until a few decades ago. Instead journalists play these absurd games where the pilgrims represent the ideals of immigration and cultural assimilation except when they represent genocidal white supremacy and the founding fathers are icons of equality and progressiveness except when they're bigoted slave holders.

    A writer at Vox could state: "the founding fathers would probably reluctantly vote for Trump but MLK would probably vote for Hillary and I side with MLK." That would at least be sort of honest, acknowledging that they are trying to uphold the America of 60's onward and not the America of the founders. Instead we get weird double speak.
    , @3g4me
    @5 Jack: "It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations."

    Methinks you are confusing Jefferson with Locke. Jefferson most definitely did believe in a "natural aristocracy," and while he gave some lip service to theoretical meritocracy, he also believed such meritocracy was, in fact, tied to blood and breeding.

    How terribly uncharacteristic of you to equate Christian belief in Jesus' divinity to the progs' belief in biological equality; i.e. "refusal to accept facts and science." On the other hand, of course, your MIL would never ever embellish a story or incorrectly remember something when it comes to unenlightened southern Christians asking if she had horns.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Bingo. The liberal belief in open borders is basically a religious belief. And since religions are founded on articles of faith rather than logic and evidence, you simply can't argue with them. You can analyze them, you can dissect them, you can accept them or reject them, but you just can't argue with them. And if they are not willing compromise or be reasonable, that leaves open only one possibility: war.
    , @ChrisZ
    Jack, your first paragraph outlines the tragic proportions of the situation. That is, What if the "self-evident truths" of 18th-century philosophy turn out to be just an alternate set of myths we've been holding on faith? What if the science that was an underpinning of that same philosophy now exposes the myths for what they are? Can the political edifice erected over those myths long survive?

    It seems to me (and I say this as a Christian) that the question of the divinity of one man from the mists of history is trivial, in the political dimension, compared to the question of whether entire classes of people exist in a hierarchy of inequality.

    Obviously I'm not doing justice to an extremely complicated issue. And in all honestly I shudder to imagine where pursuit of the issue would lead. Perhaps it's advisable to build a fence of cautious policies around such issues, so we aren't forced to probe them too deeply. That may in fact be one of the reasons I see immigration restriction as such an important consideration at this time.
    , @Tim Howells
    When pressed re equality Jefferson said that he meant equality under the law rather than equal in capacity. He was a race realist and thought that American Indians could probably integrate into White society, but strongly doubted that African Blacks could. In this he was typical of American politicians up through at least the Civil War, certainly including Lincoln. How this consensus was gradually broken down and replaced by the one you described is a long story.
    , @syonredux

    It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations.
     
    Jefferson did not mean that people are equal in terms of abilities and attributes; he meant that people are equal in terms of rights:

    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     
    In contrast to this doctrine of legal equality, Jefferson was a firm believer in what he called the natural aristocracy:

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.
     
    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html
    , @unpc downunder
    If all men are equal, then white men can't be the evil supermen that left liberals claim. Apparently the European identitarians are having some success with this line of argument, which uses liberal logic to undermine anti-white liberal views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. If we bottled some of that Magic Dust & sent it to Haiti their alleys would be paved with gold and without excrement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. A nation of blood and soil? Like the Cherokee nation? I’d to see progressives attack that

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. It’s a little late in the day to make it “blood and soil.” So why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It’s a little late in the day to make it “blood and soil.” So why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?
     
    But that's the beauty of the False Dichotomy, as hinted upthread. "Do you want exactly what I want, or do you want damnation and ruin? Huh? Huh?"
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Doesn't work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.

    Regardless, the fundamental premise of our time is that all races and ethnic groups are equal. Therefore, every immigrant (or their children or grandchildren) will become just like the people already here (assuming you evil whites stop being racists and we'll make sure of that). They will be no different than you so why keep them out. There's no economic rationale (they eventually will be as productive as you) and no moral rationale.

    It's why Citizenism doesn't work if you also have the Cult of Equality.
    , @Anon
    "why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?"

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn't rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we've gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I think blood and soil is citizenship. Ezra Klein is using it as a proxy for race-based nationalism, but it doesn't have to be. As I pointed out recently on another thread,

    There are ample cultural artifacts to [counter the Lazarus poem on the statue], like our previous National Anthem:

    My country, ’tis of thee,
    Sweet land of liberty,
    Of thee I sing;
    Land where my fathers died,
    Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
    From ev’ry mountainside
    Let freedom ring!

    It’s not blood and soil, it’s blood, soil, and freedom. But it’s freedom, not diversity.
     
    The point is that we can see blood in the ancient perspective of ancestry rather than the modern concept of race/genetics. You could fool me that "Land where my fathers died" is from a Roman poet. Blood and soil is a truly American concept, but it doesn't have to be associated with the tiki torch set.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It will be about blood and soil by default. How much do you like the Bill of Rights? You may have begun to notice that citizens of different ‘blood types’ have little use for individual rights. ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. It would be an unconscionable act of moral backsliding to return to the pre-1965 immigration system, in which immigration quotas varied by country in an effort to preserve racial balance,

    Why? Our current system, after all, favors people from non-European countries, and SJWs seem to be OK with it

    to design an immigration system that disfavored people from certain countries on the basis that they were “shithole countries.”

    OK, we’ll have an immigration system that only lets in people with doctorates in STEM fields from highly ranked unis….

    It would be hard for legislators to defend; it would make the US an international pariah, and rightly so.

    Dunno. Lots of nations prioritize immigration from certain groups. For example, it’s a lot easier for a Japanese-Brazilian to immigrate to Japan than it is for a Nigerian…..

    As an immigration reporter, one of the things I struggle most with is making it clear that there are arguments for restrictions on immigration that are not necessarily motivated by racial animus, while acknowledging that, often, it’s impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

    You know, maybe the “racial animus” is driven by the fact that America is a racially stratified country. Why should, for example, White Americans acquiesce to having their share of the population reduced? Do you think that Israeli Jews would be on board with immigrants swelling the Arab percentage in Israel?

    It’s possible to support lower legal immigration, on balance, to the US, without caring much about where those immigrants come from.

    Which would be retarded. For example, Muslims are more difficult to assimilate than are Christian Europeans.

    The problem is that some of the people who espouse all those attitudes are consumed, at heart, by the fear that the America they know is being lost or in danger of being lost. They believe that America has a distinctive and tangible culture,

    I take that you don’t think that America has a “distinctive and tangible culture?” Good to know.

    and that too much immigration from cultures that are too different will dilute or drown it

    I take it that you don’t think that immigrants have any impact on the wider culture? Good to know.

    they may even worry about a cultural “invasion.”

    Ever been to Miami? How about the Texas-Mexico border?

    This is an anxiety born of xenophobia. It accepts as a premise that people who come to America from certain places “don’t assimilate,” and concludes that there are some groups of people who cannot ever be fully American.

    “Cannot ever” is a tad strong. “Unlikely to” seems more apt. And, of course, there’s also the question of what the immigrants are assimilating into. Black immigrants, for example, assimilate into Black American culture. Latinx assimilate into Latinx culture. You might not be comfortable with this, but race,ethnicity, and religion are important factors in terms of whether people are capable of assimilating:

    Debates about assimilation often focus on immigrants, but they overlook the experiences of Muslims who have long been settled in the U.S. While 58 percent of adult Muslims were born outside of the U.S., according to Pew, that means 42 percent of American Muslims were born in the country. More than half of those who have been here for three generations or more are black. “By virtue of being black, and then being black and Muslim, I don’t think there’s any room for assimilation,” said Ikhlas Saleem, a 28-year-old Muslim woman who grew up in Atlanta.* “It’s very hard to assimilate to a white paradigm.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/muslims-assimilation-weddings/549230/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are “blood and soil” or “immigrants”, why do traditional “blood and soil” countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept “Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character”? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    They will go to extreme levels to make multicultural arguments about Europe. Here's one example from The Guardian:

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/10/british-migration-museum-history-immigration-minister
    , @ChrisZ
    Excellent point. And great name.
    , @Anonymous

    Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept “Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character”?
     
    Yes?

    "That's what makes America unique."
    , @Opinionator
    Ezra Klein would probably be hostile to "blood and soil" nationalism in any country in Northern Europe or the Anglosphere. But that does not make his position "illogical." Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow.
    , @Altai
    This is the crux, it's a different justification for each country. Britain and France it's colonialism (Somehow this extends to immigrants from places they never colonised), in Ireland it's repayment for all the emigrants, in Germany it's WWII, in Spain it's the inquisition (And even the reconquest, yes there are Spanish SJWs that are ashamed about kicking out invaders!) in Sweden it's how good people in Sweden have it and about not having had any wars recently. In Denmark... well actually they had immigration restriction (And deterrence, it might be possible to go there, but there are legal discriminations against foreigners such as higher interest loans, particularly for mortgages etc) since the late 90s due to a competent anti-immigration party coming to the fore and wielding influence wisely despite the media there being against them, it's been so long they have to accept the shifted overton window.

    It ultimately doesn't matter, all the pattern seems to be is 'Is it a white country?', if the answer is yes, then immigration restriction is morally wrong. Ask yourself, what did Iceland do? Now ask yourself if given the small population, fragile ecology and that everyone seems to like the Icelandic ethnicity, if American SJWs would ever not call them Nazis for restricting immigration. (Assuming somebody posted a story about it on Vox since they don't know or seek out any information about the wider world, this might explain things somewhat since Americans think of 'white' people as a group.)

    How about Finland? No, there are no exceptions. European ethnicities aren't allowed collective rights to self-determination (Except when they're immigrants in other Western countries, then they are encouraged to be ethnocentric and impede the expression of the native population, a Pole in Poland is a Nazi, a Pole in London is part of the diversity and isn't their culture so interesting compared to the boring English one?)

    It's also difficult with regards to numbers, if it's a small reduction they'll say it's unnecessary and won't have any effect. If it's a large reduction it's 'holy shit the Nazis are back!'.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @IHTG
    Well the article is actually by Dara Lind, Vox's chirpy immigration specialist who usually tries to be even-handed and has written some informative pieces. But, she's still from Vox.

    Ezra Klein works better as comment bait.

    But in answer to Steve’s question, elites are globalists. This is true of the libertarian types at Reason as well as the progs at Vox. They legitimately don’t see why U.S. immigration policy should benefit Americans over poor foreigners. Klein made that point explicitly in his interview with Bernie Sanders a few years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Faraday's Bobcat
    We live in a time of crisis. If one doesn't arise naturally, by invasion or natural disaster, one will be invented. Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence. It's impossible to argue with people like that. They thrive on apocalyptic posturing and black-white, us-them dichotomies. It's why the polity is especially unable to deal with numbers today. Numbers mean compromise - what is the right number of immigrants? No, they say, this is not something you count. It is a matter of right and wrong. If only one life is saved...

    “Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence.”

    I don’t know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding.

    /s/ A Boomer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yeah, particularly when polls from Pew Research and others show consistently that it's the under-30 crowd most violently on board with the wrecking of our nation...

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

    And who's to decide what's 'offensive' speech? We'll leave that to our betters, of course.
    , @whorefinder

    I don’t know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding.
     
    The last 50+ years of national policy contradict you. You might be a special little snowflake Boomer-outlier with a brain, but your generation has been the ruination of the nation.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    Hey, I said "tend to" LOL.

    The Boomers are making their proteges, the Millennials, in their image. Now some Millennial will come after me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @IHTG
    Well the article is actually by Dara Lind, Vox's chirpy immigration specialist who usually tries to be even-handed and has written some informative pieces. But, she's still from Vox.

    I don’t remember reading her work before, but there was nothing even handed in that piece. Going back to pre 1965 immigration levels would be “moral backsliding” according to Dara. Her argument is that if anyone cares about what countries immigrants come from or whether or not they have any employable skills you are racist and xenophobic.

    A reasonable compromise with zealots like this is not going to be possible. As to why they got this way, I think it goes to something John Derbyshire has said several times on Radio Derb. Immigration is just a policy, one of many policies a government needs to have. Based on education, entertainment industry propaganda and other factors, this is a moral issue for progressives. They want to be victorious over the restrictionists just like their progressive forebears won victories for women’s suffrage, civil rights, etc.

    I had a professor in a college writing class after droning on and on about how awful child labor laws were in the 19th Century ask us what policies or laws about our current society would be considered shocking and beyond the pale to future generations. That is representative of their mindset. What can we do today to make future generations think we were a great, upstanding moral people. They think there will be pictures of them in history books in their pink hats marching against the great monster Donald Trump and his army of evil, white men.

    Read More
    • Agree: Negrolphin Pool
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    It’s a bit more complex than that. A cursory reading of the Founding Fathers shows they did not take an absolutist line on “all men are created equal.” For instance, Jefferson wrote to John Adams that:

    “For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents … The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.” (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html)

    The problem is we are tossing around context-less quotes from the 1700′s and pretending that the authors of those quotes would agree with very very recent ideas about equality, diversity, etc.

    Even if one believes the modern ideas are better, one can at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that those ideas weren’t in vogue until a few decades ago. Instead journalists play these absurd games where the pilgrims represent the ideals of immigration and cultural assimilation except when they represent genocidal white supremacy and the founding fathers are icons of equality and progressiveness except when they’re bigoted slave holders.

    A writer at Vox could state: “the founding fathers would probably reluctantly vote for Trump but MLK would probably vote for Hillary and I side with MLK.” That would at least be sort of honest, acknowledging that they are trying to uphold the America of 60′s onward and not the America of the founders. Instead we get weird double speak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    The Consolidation of Power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. “The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected.” – Jonathan Weisman in his new book ((( Semitism ))) (parentheses his)

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    But not in one particular country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin
    It's a little late in the day to make it "blood and soil." So why don't we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    It’s a little late in the day to make it “blood and soil.” So why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    But that’s the beauty of the False Dichotomy, as hinted upthread. “Do you want exactly what I want, or do you want damnation and ruin? Huh? Huh?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Please explain. What is that argumentative move being made here and why is it "beautiful" for the person making it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. O/T but iSteve catnip:

    Ithaca College President Shirley M. Collado was accused of sexually abusing a female patient while working as a psychologist in Washington, D.C., in 2000 and was convicted of sexual abuse in 2001.

    Tom Grape, chair of the Ithaca College Board of Trustees, and Jim Nolan, trustee and chair of the search committee, said the case was thoroughly vetted during the search process.

    https://theithacan.org/news/ithaca-college-president-shirley-collado-has-2001-sexual-abuse-conviction/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @ColoComment
    "Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence."

    I don't know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that's a pretty broad brush you're wielding.

    /s/ A Boomer

    Yeah, particularly when polls from Pew Research and others show consistently that it’s the under-30 crowd most violently on board with the wrecking of our nation…

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

    And who’s to decide what’s ‘offensive’ speech? We’ll leave that to our betters, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Her argument is that if anyone cares about what countries immigrants come from or whether or not they have any employable skills you are racist and xenophobic.

    A reasonable compromise with zealots like this is not going to be possible.

    Oh I think there is, endlessly hammer away the fact that this ideology does not apply to Israel. Sooner or later this basic truth that is so censored is going to end up on a Trump tweet (he will try use Israel as a positive example), when that happens they cannot ignore this colossal hypocrisy any more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anoymous
    This is key.

    If you want to do what is best for your nation and people, look to Isreal. They provide you with the roadmap. Do exactly as the Jews do.

    If you want your nation to crumble into a heartbreaking disaster, listen to what Jews say.

    We have to put a stop to this crazed hypocrisy somehow. It's sick. It can't continue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Space Ghost
    More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are "blood and soil" or "immigrants", why do traditional "blood and soil" countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept "Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character"? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    They will go to extreme levels to make multicultural arguments about Europe. Here’s one example from The Guardian:

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/10/british-migration-museum-history-immigration-minister

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    He forgot about the first Norman.
    , @L Woods
    I recently had my bigotry checkmated by a redditor arguing that the U.S. wasn't founded by and for Anglo-Protestants, but has rather always been multicultural due to its founding "mix of Cavaliers, Quakers, Puritans, and Scots Irish."
    , @Bill B.

    ‘Nation of immigrants’ bears little relation to reality. It is a rhetorical device employed to silence those opposed to open immigration. If Britain was a nation of immigrants it would mean that we are all at some remove immigrants, therefore have no right to question further immigration. This would ultimately mean that we have no more right to live and work in these islands than anyone else who cares to turn up. Which is the standpoint of those who employ the term.
     
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dr-campbell-campbell-jack-britain-not-nation-immigrants/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. If you are for gun control, you oppose the Constitution, and therefore do not have American values. You have to go back to make room for pro-2nd Amendment immigrants.

    Read More
    • Agree: Corn
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Space Ghost
    More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are "blood and soil" or "immigrants", why do traditional "blood and soil" countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept "Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character"? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    Excellent point. And great name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    His conclusion doesn't follow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    @5 Jack: “It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations.”

    Methinks you are confusing Jefferson with Locke. Jefferson most definitely did believe in a “natural aristocracy,” and while he gave some lip service to theoretical meritocracy, he also believed such meritocracy was, in fact, tied to blood and breeding.

    How terribly uncharacteristic of you to equate Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity to the progs’ belief in biological equality; i.e. “refusal to accept facts and science.” On the other hand, of course, your MIL would never ever embellish a story or incorrectly remember something when it comes to unenlightened southern Christians asking if she had horns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Space Ghost
    More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are "blood and soil" or "immigrants", why do traditional "blood and soil" countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept "Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character"? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept “Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character”?

    Yes?

    “That’s what makes America unique.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence

    I always thought they got their morals from the media.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Arrest them all and let them spend a night in the DC jail.
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    BREAKING: Jewish Leaders have taken over the rotunda in the Capitol building. They are refusing to leave until a clean #Dream Act is passed.
     
    Someone should tell them what that great icon of the Democratic Party, Franklin Roosevelt, was recorded by Henry Morgenthau as having said in his presence:

    After World War II began, FDR had privately said to Morgenthau and a Catholic appointee, Leo Crowley, "You know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance."
    , @Corn
    #LetMyPeopleStay??

    I guess I missed the memo. Didn’t know the National Guard was rounding up Jews for the red eye flights to Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Klein:

    … a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil

    Sailer:

    Why can’t America be some of both?

    Compromise: We’ll be a nation of bloody, soiled immigrants.

    Read More
    • LOL: whorefinder
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Dara Lind:

    They believe that America has a distinctive and tangible culture, and that too much immigration from cultures that are too different will dilute or drown it; they may even worry about a cultural “invasion.”

    https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897050/trump-racist-shithole-immigration

    Dara Lind says “they” when she means the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. America does have a distinctive and tangible culture: British Protestant and European Christian. Mass immigration is swamping the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    Mass immigration is an INVASION.

    Mass immigration is an attack on national sovereignty.

    At least we’re debating the NATIONAL QUESTION.

    I notice that Vox’s internet heading for this article is this:

    TRUMP-RACIST-SHITHOLE-IMMIGRATION

    We are rushing towards Civil War II

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. When I first got red-pilled, I was surprised at how traditional Christianity was so popular amongst the MRA/PUA/MGTOW/Manosphere/Men’s rights folks. Given that the PUAs wanted to get laid and many leftists argue for their nonsense via Christian references, I did not expect it.

    But it is extremely popular, and here’s why: the leftist mores are a separate religion from Christianity. In no rational strain of Christianity would racism be a sin or open borders be dogmatic or “moral” or sexism be evil or ethnic destruction of whites be considered the highest good; all of those are heresy, and a approach blasphemy and. Ann Coulter was right when she pointed out leftism really is a religion.

    Traditional Christianity is not those things, and stands opposed to them. One cannot be a Leftist and Christian, for one cannot serve two masters.

    Anyway, as the Left continues to lose its grip on power and the Narrative it will double down and become more shrill and angry, like the communist terrorists of the 19teens and early 1920s. When smaller newspapers were dying off about 10 years ago they became increasingly shrill and harsh in their left-wing fanaticism. The pattern will repeat.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Space Ghost
    More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are "blood and soil" or "immigrants", why do traditional "blood and soil" countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept "Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character"? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    Ezra Klein would probably be hostile to “blood and soil” nationalism in any country in Northern Europe or the Anglosphere. But that does not make his position “illogical.” Your conclusion doesn’t seem to follow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    In that case -- Ezra, please show us your axioms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. The idea of a “nation of immigrants” has always seemed nonsensical to me. The idea of a “nation” is that a bunch of people are more like each other than they are like other people, in terms of metrics like religion, language, culture, fashion, ancestry, behavior, et cetera, so we have a word to describe that group.

    Whereas the idea that mainstream media figures like Vox writers are espousing, that it’s evil to oppose immigration/have preferences about what kind of immigrants you want, seems to reject the idea that Americans (“Americans”) have any more in common with each other than they do with random people from Haiti/Iraq/Vietnam.

    In which case, it seems that America will become less a “nation” of immigrants, and more just a word for a bunch of random people with nothing in common who happen to live next to each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    The idea of a “nation” is ...

     

    Not just 'idea' but very definition.

    E.g.,
    "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory."

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    Bingo. The liberal belief in open borders is basically a religious belief. And since religions are founded on articles of faith rather than logic and evidence, you simply can’t argue with them. You can analyze them, you can dissect them, you can accept them or reject them, but you just can’t argue with them. And if they are not willing compromise or be reasonable, that leaves open only one possibility: war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bartok
    Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

    Immigration is on its way to becoming a normal wedge issue. The Paul Ryans, Romneys, Bushes will either retire from the field (like Jeff Flake) or become restrictionists. Don't believe it? Romney wasn't raised to be a gun nut, but he had no choice once it became a normal wedge issue.

    One of the largest changes in Pew opinion over the last two years is that all Blue constituencies greatly increased support for immigration. If we thought that widespread support for restriction would survive an attempt to enact policy, we were wrong. But we now have the next best thing after widespread popularity: a wedge issue. (Remember that before Trump we were on the outside looking in; a wedge issue is a massive improvement to that state of play).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anti-Gentilism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    Jack, your first paragraph outlines the tragic proportions of the situation. That is, What if the “self-evident truths” of 18th-century philosophy turn out to be just an alternate set of myths we’ve been holding on faith? What if the science that was an underpinning of that same philosophy now exposes the myths for what they are? Can the political edifice erected over those myths long survive?

    It seems to me (and I say this as a Christian) that the question of the divinity of one man from the mists of history is trivial, in the political dimension, compared to the question of whether entire classes of people exist in a hierarchy of inequality.

    Obviously I’m not doing justice to an extremely complicated issue. And in all honestly I shudder to imagine where pursuit of the issue would lead. Perhaps it’s advisable to build a fence of cautious policies around such issues, so we aren’t forced to probe them too deeply. That may in fact be one of the reasons I see immigration restriction as such an important consideration at this time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Israel is both. It’s a nation almost entirely of recent immigrants. And it’s a nation of blood and soil largely defined in terms of Jewish ancestry passed down from mother by blood to child.

    Blood and soil, traditionally means the same blood lineage and ethnic group, but it can also mean family members of existing citizens of all races. US citizens of all racial groups can pass their citizenship as an inheritance to their children. I don’t believe anyone here is really planning on changing that.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @ColoComment
    "Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence."

    I don't know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that's a pretty broad brush you're wielding.

    /s/ A Boomer

    I don’t know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding.

    The last 50+ years of national policy contradict you. You might be a special little snowflake Boomer-outlier with a brain, but your generation has been the ruination of the nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    When the Hart-Celler Act was signed by L.B.J., on October 3, 1965, the oldest Baby Boomers (e.g., Donald Trump, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton) were all still teenagers-- who could not vote yet!-- while the youngest were barely nine months old. Fifty years ago today, the oldest Baby Boomers were awaiting their first national election as voters, with the first 1968 primary date being March 12. When that infamous decade closed out, on New Year's Eve 1969, the oldest Baby Boomers were still just 23 years old, while the youngest Baby Boomers were celebrating their fifth birthdays. The notion that we Baby Boomers destroyed American Civilization, in the 1960s, is ludicrously ignorant. Since the Baby Boom Generation ended with those Americans born in 1964, months prior to Hart-Celler, the largest generation in American history, to that date, was about four-fifths composed of non-Hispanic White Gentiles. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 because our overwhelmingly non-Hispanic-White-Gentile Baby Boom Generation voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.
    , @MBlanc46
    The ruination started when I was a toddler, if not before, and will continue after I’m gone, or so it appears. To blame the state of the nation on those born in the couple of decades after 1945 is plain silly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The establishment is not becoming extremist. It is powerful, and flexing its muscles. And so far it shows no sign of losing.

    Excessive immigration is all about cheap labor. Around 1970, just as the flood of third-world refugees started to bite into the labor force, wages started to diverge from productivity. That entire difference, multiplied by the entire population, is pure profit and goes directly into the pockets of the rich.

    Talk is cheap. Follow the money.

    Sure, a handful of rich are smart entrepreneurs, but most aren’t (especially most second generation. Was Ted Kennedy rich because he was such a good businessman?). They require a flooded labor market for their profits – indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor. They will say anything, claim that opposition to cheap labor is racist fascist un-American etc.etc. It’s all rubbish, but they have no shame, and they have vast power. And so far, nothing is blocking them.

    Cheap labor uber alles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Cheap labor uber alles.
     
    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise. We have learned since 2015 that they will stop at nothing to keep the cheap labor open-borders - it is the core of the system. Any challenge to this core principle will be ruthlessly stamped out.

    In a way, the rich are believers in reverse Marxism. Marxism postulated that there are employers and employees (capitalists and workers in Marx's terms). Their interests are in natural opposition, when one makes more, the other makes less. In the 20th century we have seen unhappy results when the workers took over in some countries. In the 21st century we are about to see what happens when the bosses have unlimited power based on an endless supply of workers. The 20th century socialism ended rather ingloriously, I suspect the 21st century capitalist cheap-labor-uber-alles will also not end well.

    , @JackOH
    Yep, TG, I think you're right. I'd like to believe our masters of yesteryear had their money lust moderated--religion? family? racial or national fellow-feeling?--but I'm not sure of that at all. These days the gloves are off, of course. (We have one local employer that's notorious for challenging unemployment comp and workman's comp claims by simply lying under oath to beat down its workers, who are ill-represented by their union. No politician will publicly call out this employer's practices.)
    , @ChrisZ

    They require a flooded labor market for their profits – indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor.
     
    This is a very strong point, TG. The two sides of the equation—21st-century open-borders elites and 19th-century plantation owners—illuminate each other’s behavior. Nice job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. “Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both.”

    Speaking as one of the hundreds of millions of Americans who did not immigrate, I don’t think Vox is presenting the choice in a way that favors it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Obviously, the U.S. is both. Ezra Klein isn’t advocating doing away with citizenship being passed down through parentage and place of birth. He is in fact not making sense, but rather expecting the scary (to some) phrase “blood and soil” to do his work for him.

    It’s true that America can’t be both a Nation of Immigrants and a nation of only blood-and-soil. That is, never soil without blood. But you don’t get many people advocating doin away with naturalization altogether.

    Klein is pushing the Nation of Immigrants extreme and hoping it sounds normal compared to the blood-and-soil extreme. Even though the U.S. is quite obviously not a Nation of Immigrants, except to ignoramuses. (There can’t even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that’s another argument.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    "There can’t even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that’s another argument."

    Israel.
    , @Opinionator
    Chain migration is blood-and-soil immigration.

    Klein and others are trying to push blood-and-soil immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both.

    Okay then. Blood and Soil it is.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Why didn’t Vox just write: “You’re either with us, or you’re against us!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Pincher Martin
    It's a little late in the day to make it "blood and soil." So why don't we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    Doesn’t work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.

    Regardless, the fundamental premise of our time is that all races and ethnic groups are equal. Therefore, every immigrant (or their children or grandchildren) will become just like the people already here (assuming you evil whites stop being racists and we’ll make sure of that). They will be no different than you so why keep them out. There’s no economic rationale (they eventually will be as productive as you) and no moral rationale.

    It’s why Citizenism doesn’t work if you also have the Cult of Equality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Doesn’t work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.
     
    So can "blood."

    For example, what blood exactly? The US is only about 70 percent white, and that percentage is lower among the younger demographics. What's more, many of those whites want nothing to do with identifying by blood.

    At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. OT: Instapundit links to the Daily Caller where the old “Winds of Change” guy is talking about “Diversity Pokemon Points.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/13/how-to-trump-the-media-avoid-conservatives-biggest-mistake/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Simple Pseudonymic
    The word nation comes from the Latin word natio, which means "birth". So the phrase "nation of immigrants" is a contradiction in terms. Etymologically speaking, the phrase is nonsensical.

    The word nation comes from the Latin word natio, which means “birth”. So the phrase “nation of immigrants” is a contradiction in terms. Etymologically speaking, the phrase is nonsensical.

    Quite true. It is worthwhile making the distinction between “country” which is geographical and “nation” which properly refers to a people. The United States is neither; it is an empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Anon
    https://twitter.com/pragmactivist/status/953657673064513536

    Arrest them all and let them spend a night in the DC jail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @TG
    The establishment is not becoming extremist. It is powerful, and flexing its muscles. And so far it shows no sign of losing.

    Excessive immigration is all about cheap labor. Around 1970, just as the flood of third-world refugees started to bite into the labor force, wages started to diverge from productivity. That entire difference, multiplied by the entire population, is pure profit and goes directly into the pockets of the rich.

    Talk is cheap. Follow the money.

    Sure, a handful of rich are smart entrepreneurs, but most aren't (especially most second generation. Was Ted Kennedy rich because he was such a good businessman?). They require a flooded labor market for their profits - indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor. They will say anything, claim that opposition to cheap labor is racist fascist un-American etc.etc. It's all rubbish, but they have no shame, and they have vast power. And so far, nothing is blocking them.

    Cheap labor uber alles.

    Cheap labor uber alles.

    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise. We have learned since 2015 that they will stop at nothing to keep the cheap labor open-borders – it is the core of the system. Any challenge to this core principle will be ruthlessly stamped out.

    In a way, the rich are believers in reverse Marxism. Marxism postulated that there are employers and employees (capitalists and workers in Marx’s terms). Their interests are in natural opposition, when one makes more, the other makes less. In the 20th century we have seen unhappy results when the workers took over in some countries. In the 21st century we are about to see what happens when the bosses have unlimited power based on an endless supply of workers. The 20th century socialism ended rather ingloriously, I suspect the 21st century capitalist cheap-labor-uber-alles will also not end well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise.
     
    The Jewish contributors here always claim that anti-white animus is fictional.

    Yet they see anti-semites under their bed every morning. So curious.
    , @ChrisZ
    For the second time in as many days, Marx is being invoked in a useful, non-dismissive way in this forum. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist: I too have been recalling snatches of Marx recently, but charged with more contemporary meaning. (Wouldn’t “There’s a spectre haunting Europe...” be a great opening line to an Alt-right tract?)

    If this represents some kind of partial rehabilitation of Marx, then it shows how truly dead the Cold War left-right dichotomy has become. Maybe, as has often been suggested here, the emerging dichotomy will run along globalist-nationalist lines. But maybe that’s just a temporary holding pattern as the old coalitions break apart and re-aggregate.

    At the least, it suggests to me that despair over our current-year situation is premature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. OT (sort of): Sorry if I missed this on iSteve, but I just came across a recent Pew study on Muslim populations in Europe in 2050 based on three scenarios (full stop on immigration, immigration at normal rates and high – think Merkel – immigration). It underestimates current Muslim population, but even with that, the numbers are ugly.

    And they don’t even include non-Muslim, non-white, i.e. Africans, changes to the populations.

    Given the underestimates of the current Muslim population, I’d ball park something between medium and high immigration numbers. It ain’t looking good for Western Europe. Here are some medium population % for 2050 (btw, you can probably can increase these numbers by at least five percentage points for the under-40 population):

    Sweden 20%
    France ~18% (this is baloney since France’s high school age kids already around this number so I’m saying 25% to 30%)
    UK ~17%
    Germany 11% (the Pew guys DIDN’T include the recent million refugees in this analysis because their status hadn’t been determined, so let’s jack this up to 15%)

    Basically, every major country in NW Europe will be between 10% and 25% Muslim by 2050 unless they stop all immigration now. (Even if they did that, it’d still be 10% to 15%.) The under-40 numbers would probably be 15% to 30%.

    Thank God for Eastern Europe. They all stay at less than 1%. Looks like Poland will be the white holdout.

    Btw, Pew has a long history severely underestimating current Muslim populations in Europe and their growth, so these might be the good numbers.

    Regardless, are there examples of countries with an under-40 Muslim population (Arab and North African) of more than 20% where really bad things don’t start happening. I don’t see this ending well.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    When pressed re equality Jefferson said that he meant equality under the law rather than equal in capacity. He was a race realist and thought that American Indians could probably integrate into White society, but strongly doubted that African Blacks could. In this he was typical of American politicians up through at least the Civil War, certainly including Lincoln. How this consensus was gradually broken down and replaced by the one you described is a long story.

    Read More
    • Agree: Luke Lea
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Where did Jefferson write this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. “Trump is making the racist subtext text”

    No, he isn’t. Take it from someone who reads and hears explicitly racist things all the time.

    They like that “making subtext text” thing, but what are they going to do when real racists come to town (and they’re white, and not merely racist against themselves)?

    This is a version of “I can’t even.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas


    “Trump is making the racist subtext text”

     

    No, he isn’t. Take it from someone who reads and hears explicitly racist things all the time.
     
    Not being enthusiastic for - or at the very least apathetic towards - active measures to diminish the share of the population that is white has been deemed racist. It's sort of de rigueur among the coastal left that white people are a political and social problem to be solved by having fewer of them. Cf Leftists' bee in the bonnet for the "Quiverfull" movement among downscale white evangelicals vs. their silence of the serial polygamy of the black and brown underclass producing children with no real shot at living a decent middle class life.

    Note also that the vox author states fairly explicitly that Hart-Cellar favored non-white immigrants compared with past policies and that it would be moral backsliding to return to a pre-1965 system ensuring racial balance roughly on par with what the U.S. is now. Vociferous assurances were made prior to Hart-Cellar that it wouldn't do what it was designed to do, but the moral weight in her view favors depriving Americans of their right to determine immigration policy by lies and fraud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @ColoComment
    "Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence."

    I don't know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that's a pretty broad brush you're wielding.

    /s/ A Boomer

    Hey, I said “tend to” LOL.

    The Boomers are making their proteges, the Millennials, in their image. Now some Millennial will come after me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Space Ghost
    More bullshit sophistry. If the choices are "blood and soil" or "immigrants", why do traditional "blood and soil" countries with autochthonous ethnic groups (Germany, France, UK, any European country really) need to accept tons of immigrants as well? Do you think the Ezra Kleins of the world would accept "Ok, America shall be a cross-section of the world, but other countries get to retain their traditional ethnic character"? The answer is no, which is why we should reject the framing he has provided.

    This is the crux, it’s a different justification for each country. Britain and France it’s colonialism (Somehow this extends to immigrants from places they never colonised), in Ireland it’s repayment for all the emigrants, in Germany it’s WWII, in Spain it’s the inquisition (And even the reconquest, yes there are Spanish SJWs that are ashamed about kicking out invaders!) in Sweden it’s how good people in Sweden have it and about not having had any wars recently. In Denmark… well actually they had immigration restriction (And deterrence, it might be possible to go there, but there are legal discriminations against foreigners such as higher interest loans, particularly for mortgages etc) since the late 90s due to a competent anti-immigration party coming to the fore and wielding influence wisely despite the media there being against them, it’s been so long they have to accept the shifted overton window.

    It ultimately doesn’t matter, all the pattern seems to be is ‘Is it a white country?’, if the answer is yes, then immigration restriction is morally wrong. Ask yourself, what did Iceland do? Now ask yourself if given the small population, fragile ecology and that everyone seems to like the Icelandic ethnicity, if American SJWs would ever not call them Nazis for restricting immigration. (Assuming somebody posted a story about it on Vox since they don’t know or seek out any information about the wider world, this might explain things somewhat since Americans think of ‘white’ people as a group.)

    How about Finland? No, there are no exceptions. European ethnicities aren’t allowed collective rights to self-determination (Except when they’re immigrants in other Western countries, then they are encouraged to be ethnocentric and impede the expression of the native population, a Pole in Poland is a Nazi, a Pole in London is part of the diversity and isn’t their culture so interesting compared to the boring English one?)

    It’s also difficult with regards to numbers, if it’s a small reduction they’ll say it’s unnecessary and won’t have any effect. If it’s a large reduction it’s ‘holy shit the Nazis are back!’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    The Finns were allied with the Nazis at one point. But it was more of an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations.

    Jefferson did not mean that people are equal in terms of abilities and attributes; he meant that people are equal in terms of rights:

    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    In contrast to this doctrine of legal equality, Jefferson was a firm believer in what he called the natural aristocracy:

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This. Just like civil rights are an attempt to overwrite constitutional rights, so too the impossible quest for government guaranteed natural equality is a way of overwriting equality-in-law (laws applying to all). The equality discussed was never that of men; it is the laws that are equal. Thus white people having special new categories of law that only apply to them, and legal protections for special identities, legal inequality in the name of one day achieving natural equality. The real goal is to completely wreck everything.
    , @Opinionator
    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by "virtue"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. I’m a left-Unzist who loves free speech and likes policy based on sober argument and evidence. I’m deeply worried about the extremist open-border lunacy now espoused by the American elite, even in its centrist precincts. It didn’t use to be this way. Many of Trump’s proposals were more courteously enunciated somewhat by Obama, more by Bill Clinton, or by the great Barbara Jordan. Public discussion of immigration policy in the U.S. now, however, is about at the level of adolescent twitter chat about the Kardashians.

    Maybe throwing open the borders would bring about prophet Caplan’s paradise on earth; more likely the consequences would be bad for both receiving and sending countries, and even perverse, such as global labor contractors swiftly bringing in millions of Southeast Asians (bonus: many are muslim) and booting Mexicans out of their low-wage niches. At a minimum, no one can predict the consequences of open borders: never have there been so many people, never has travel been so cheap. And you shouldn’t gamble a whole country on an untested policy, look at how that worked out for the Russians after 1917.

    Nowadays, recklessly utopian positions are not taken seriously on any other topic (except certain U.S. war policies: invite the world, invade the world, hmmm). Fringes might demand abolition of police and prison, but ordinary people don’t. If you really believe in unqualified pacifism and unilateral disarmament, journalists and politicians would treat you like Trump treated Ali G: a few polite words and a quick good-bye. Any politician proposing a command economy, the free distribution of goods, and the abolition of work would get two percent of the vote and maybe pity from some for being weak-minded. What is most similar to immigration was the faith of Leninists that abolition of the price system by violence would liberate humanity. That belief gripped many academics and gullible reformers, but appalled anyone with the slightest business experience and most economists, and killed a hundred million people. That debate was over well before 1989. But when Jeff Bezos, CIA contractor, funds $33 million of scholarships for illegals, that’s normal, laudatory? Rather than bizarre, like Howard Hughes having his urine collected and stored?

    We live in a country where most people obey the law. In the majority of countries people do not, and it makes life worse for everyone. Self-exemption from the law triggered the U.S. Civil War, and more generally legal defiance is contagious. Losing the great advantage of the rule of law is another evil that a responsible citizen would not risk bringing about. I feel like I am one of the non-believers among the Xhosa in the 1850s when their prophets commanded the slaughter of all cattle and destruction of crops, because that would cause the dead to rise again, along with all kinds of livestock, clothing ,and wealth, and “the blind would see, the deaf would hear, cripples would walk.” When it didn’t happen, who was to blame? The non-believers. For not believing hard enough they were persecuted and plundered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Self-exemption from the law triggered the U.S. Civil War

    What are you referring to?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. It’s kind of cool to see these concepts being talked about – blood and soil vs muh immigrants. But, is that actually happening? Are we finally having a national conversation about immigration? Are there public mainstream pieces arguing against this garbage from Vox? Or are we just being yelled at and accepting it? I guess Tucker Carlson is probably objecting on TV, anybody else?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @whorefinder

    I don’t know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding.
     
    The last 50+ years of national policy contradict you. You might be a special little snowflake Boomer-outlier with a brain, but your generation has been the ruination of the nation.

    When the Hart-Celler Act was signed by L.B.J., on October 3, 1965, the oldest Baby Boomers (e.g., Donald Trump, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton) were all still teenagers– who could not vote yet!– while the youngest were barely nine months old. Fifty years ago today, the oldest Baby Boomers were awaiting their first national election as voters, with the first 1968 primary date being March 12. When that infamous decade closed out, on New Year’s Eve 1969, the oldest Baby Boomers were still just 23 years old, while the youngest Baby Boomers were celebrating their fifth birthdays. The notion that we Baby Boomers destroyed American Civilization, in the 1960s, is ludicrously ignorant. Since the Baby Boom Generation ended with those Americans born in 1964, months prior to Hart-Celler, the largest generation in American history, to that date, was about four-fifths composed of non-Hispanic White Gentiles. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 because our overwhelmingly non-Hispanic-White-Gentile Baby Boom Generation voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thank you. And as Another Dad pointed out the other day:

    AnotherDad says:
    January 10, 2018 at 12:14 am GMT • 200 Words
    @anonymouslee

    Don’t disagree we’re a shitty generation, but …

    (((Emanuel Cellar))) and Phillip Hart weren’t boomers.
    Lyndon Johnson wasn’t a boomer.
    Alan Simpson and Romano Mazzolli aren’t boomers.
    Ronald Reagan wasn’t a boomer.
    George H.W. Bush isn’t a boomer.
    John McCain isn’t a boomer.

    There are a lot of criminals and screw-ups involved in this mess who aren’t boomers. Most of the damage was set in motion by “Greatest Generation” and “Silent Generation” politicians, “intellectuals”, propagandists and good-thinkers who often (the goyim) didn’t really understand the nature of the disaster they were setting loose.

    In contrast
    Peter Brimelow is a boomer.
    Mark Krikorian is a boomer.
    Jared Taylor is a boomer.
    Steve Sailer is a boomer.
    John Derbyshire … ok, he’s actually a war baby on the cusp.
    Ann Coulter is a boomer.
    (((Mickey Kaus))) is a boomer.
    Steve Bannon (whatever the heck he is) is a boomer.
    Jeff Sessions is a boomer.
    Donald Trump is a boomer.
     

    Gotta hand it to the so-called "Greatest" and "Silent" generations (even though these generational divisions are somewhat arbitrary): They took care of themselves very well, while trashing the nation for future generations. Retirement pensions, skyrocketing real-estate values, social security, medicare, wars fought on the national credit card, what have you. Where's it all headed now? We have over $20 Trillion in debt, and that's just the public debt on the books.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    They (the elites) are so close to “ethnically cleansing” the “deplorables” to the point where the “deplorables” have lost any chance of a plurality–they (the elites) just can’t resist the urge to rush ahead and finish the job.

    Aside, is there any question still as to why President-elect Trump met with Mitt Romney and with David Petraeus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @syonredux

    It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations.
     
    Jefferson did not mean that people are equal in terms of abilities and attributes; he meant that people are equal in terms of rights:

    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     
    In contrast to this doctrine of legal equality, Jefferson was a firm believer in what he called the natural aristocracy:

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.
     
    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html

    This. Just like civil rights are an attempt to overwrite constitutional rights, so too the impossible quest for government guaranteed natural equality is a way of overwriting equality-in-law (laws applying to all). The equality discussed was never that of men; it is the laws that are equal. Thus white people having special new categories of law that only apply to them, and legal protections for special identities, legal inequality in the name of one day achieving natural equality. The real goal is to completely wreck everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Trump needs to keep talking about this, it’s a winning issue for him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Trump needs to keep talking about what precisely? Is your statement intended as sarcasm?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There’s nothing extremist here.

    The new power, new conquerors, or new invaders will do anything possible to secure their claim and expand their power.

    Did Anglos slow down and listen to ‘reason’ with Indians who pleaded for compromise? Did Spanish invaders in South America finally go easy on the natives when they felt they had conquered ‘enough’? No, they became ever bolder in pressing for more power and dominance.

    Why would this historical process ever end? History may not repeat itself but it’s fueled by the same impulses and drives.
    The current ruling elites want to complete their objective of totally conquering and quelling White America. Diversity is their tool.- Why would they stop and be ‘reasonable’ when Anglos didn’t ease their conquest of Indian territories?

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It’s just their nature and character. They want to conquer and control gentiles(especially white ones) just like Anglos wanted to conquer and control all territories that had once belonged to Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Interesting post.

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It’s just their nature and character.
     
    But why? Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Pincher Martin
    It's a little late in the day to make it "blood and soil." So why don't we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    “why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?”

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn’t rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we’ve gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn’t rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we’ve gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.
     
    How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful "blood and soil" policies?

    My suggestion would be easier politically. Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections. Good luck proving that yours can.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Berty
    Trump needs to keep talking about this, it's a winning issue for him.

    Trump needs to keep talking about what precisely? Is your statement intended as sarcasm?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Berty
    I'm talking about immigration. What did you think I meant?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. This is a great observation from Steve. It describes very well, the lay of the land for most of our elections/political battles.

    That is, the people who write for Vox, and the people who read Vox, are scared shitless of us. They like to think it’s because we’re racist and we’re about ready to reinstate Jim Crow and pogroms against the Jews, blah blah blah.

    It’s most directly, and most importantly, a battle for control. They deeply, deeply don’t respect the legitimacy of our capacity for political action. Trump is the apotheosis of this of course, but it goes way beyond him and would still exist even without him. It’s the converse for us as if a vibrant youth ripped our wallet right out of our hands. That’s why immigration is so important for them. They’d probably prefer to sprinkle in a few more immigrants than we have now, but they’re not at all committed to open borders Bryan-Caplan style. What they are committed to is the idea that they’re in charge, and we’re not. And failing that, they at least have some kind of pull-lever-in-case-of-emergency veto.

    We’re at or near the height of the anxiety right now, because everything Trump has done from the election onward has the air of being haphazard and temporary. Therefore, their perception that they are about ready to resume normal service (and their extreme desire for such) is probably correct. They’ll probably win back the House and the Senate and hamstring Trump and his Administration, quite possible leading to impeachment and conviction.

    But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. If somehow those intentions are thwarted this cycle and in the near future, then the idea that Trump and the voters he represents are some temporary phase is going to go away, and the intensity of their antagonism to us will dissipate.

    This is a large part of the reason underlying my mentality toward our political issues. We have to have political and spiritual solidarity among Americans whose intent is toward the best interest of America as a whole, instead of America as an ATM for the Coalition of the Fringes to use at leisure. The tangible manifestation of that solidarity, to the extent that it exists, is the Republican Party. There we should all be supporting it, and anything that hurts it, hurts us as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Republicans are idiots with a collective death wish. They've done just as much to wreck this nation as the Democrats have. Not sure why I'd want to throw my lot in with them. They ruin everything they touch, except Democrats, which most of them love à la Stockholm Syndrome.
    , @Berty
    Republicans do not want to govern. Look at all the retirements this cycle. It's easy to make speeches denouncing Obama the dreaded socialist commie bastard who hates American freedom (copyright National Review 2012) but when the pressure is on and the opportunity arises to make real change that could make a difference they'd rather just give themselves a tax cut and cash out. Eight years of denouncing Obamacare and not only could they not repeal it they never even had a plan to do so from the very beginning. Governing is hard and takes guts and conviction.

    There are exceptions (Steve King, Mo Brooks) but they are few. I had hoped Trump would have changed the party for the better but that hasn't really happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Faraday's Bobcat
    We live in a time of crisis. If one doesn't arise naturally, by invasion or natural disaster, one will be invented. Boomers tend to get their morals from intuition and the inner light, not by reasoning and evidence. It's impossible to argue with people like that. They thrive on apocalyptic posturing and black-white, us-them dichotomies. It's why the polity is especially unable to deal with numbers today. Numbers mean compromise - what is the right number of immigrants? No, they say, this is not something you count. It is a matter of right and wrong. If only one life is saved...

    Dara Lind is no Boomer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Doesn't work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.

    Regardless, the fundamental premise of our time is that all races and ethnic groups are equal. Therefore, every immigrant (or their children or grandchildren) will become just like the people already here (assuming you evil whites stop being racists and we'll make sure of that). They will be no different than you so why keep them out. There's no economic rationale (they eventually will be as productive as you) and no moral rationale.

    It's why Citizenism doesn't work if you also have the Cult of Equality.

    Doesn’t work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.

    So can “blood.”

    For example, what blood exactly? The US is only about 70 percent white, and that percentage is lower among the younger demographics. What’s more, many of those whites want nothing to do with identifying by blood.

    At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites."

    You're telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don't understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we're at it; I'm sure they'll see that it's in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they'll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.

    All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society. I realize that there's not another good option out there, but that doesn't change the fact that Citizenism won't work. It's not the least worst solution. It won't work. Period.

    The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That's a somewhat workable solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anon
    "why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?"

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn't rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we've gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn’t rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we’ve gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.

    How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful “blood and soil” policies?

    My suggestion would be easier politically. Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections. Good luck proving that yours can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Good posts!

    You are on the right path.

    , @Anon
    "How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful “blood and soil” policies?"

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where's that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

    "My suggestion would be easier politically."

    Would it? Has it?

    "Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections."

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history. Your citizenship might not be winning the White House again any time soon under current trends.

    "Good luck proving that yours can."

    I don't recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did. Also, you're the one making the proposal, so the burden of proof is on you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Beckow

    Cheap labor uber alles.
     
    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise. We have learned since 2015 that they will stop at nothing to keep the cheap labor open-borders - it is the core of the system. Any challenge to this core principle will be ruthlessly stamped out.

    In a way, the rich are believers in reverse Marxism. Marxism postulated that there are employers and employees (capitalists and workers in Marx's terms). Their interests are in natural opposition, when one makes more, the other makes less. In the 20th century we have seen unhappy results when the workers took over in some countries. In the 21st century we are about to see what happens when the bosses have unlimited power based on an endless supply of workers. The 20th century socialism ended rather ingloriously, I suspect the 21st century capitalist cheap-labor-uber-alles will also not end well.

    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise.

    The Jewish contributors here always claim that anti-white animus is fictional.

    Yet they see anti-semites under their bed every morning. So curious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anon
    https://twitter.com/pragmactivist/status/953657673064513536

    BREAKING: Jewish Leaders have taken over the rotunda in the Capitol building. They are refusing to leave until a clean #Dream Act is passed.

    Someone should tell them what that great icon of the Democratic Party, Franklin Roosevelt, was recorded by Henry Morgenthau as having said in his presence:

    After World War II began, FDR had privately said to Morgenthau and a Catholic appointee, Leo Crowley, “You know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Never happened. Fake News with an Agenda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @D. K.
    When the Hart-Celler Act was signed by L.B.J., on October 3, 1965, the oldest Baby Boomers (e.g., Donald Trump, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton) were all still teenagers-- who could not vote yet!-- while the youngest were barely nine months old. Fifty years ago today, the oldest Baby Boomers were awaiting their first national election as voters, with the first 1968 primary date being March 12. When that infamous decade closed out, on New Year's Eve 1969, the oldest Baby Boomers were still just 23 years old, while the youngest Baby Boomers were celebrating their fifth birthdays. The notion that we Baby Boomers destroyed American Civilization, in the 1960s, is ludicrously ignorant. Since the Baby Boom Generation ended with those Americans born in 1964, months prior to Hart-Celler, the largest generation in American history, to that date, was about four-fifths composed of non-Hispanic White Gentiles. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 because our overwhelmingly non-Hispanic-White-Gentile Baby Boom Generation voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.

    Thank you. And as Another Dad pointed out the other day:

    AnotherDad says:
    January 10, 2018 at 12:14 am GMT • 200 Words
    @anonymouslee

    Don’t disagree we’re a shitty generation, but …

    (((Emanuel Cellar))) and Phillip Hart weren’t boomers.
    Lyndon Johnson wasn’t a boomer.
    Alan Simpson and Romano Mazzolli aren’t boomers.
    Ronald Reagan wasn’t a boomer.
    George H.W. Bush isn’t a boomer.
    John McCain isn’t a boomer.

    There are a lot of criminals and screw-ups involved in this mess who aren’t boomers. Most of the damage was set in motion by “Greatest Generation” and “Silent Generation” politicians, “intellectuals”, propagandists and good-thinkers who often (the goyim) didn’t really understand the nature of the disaster they were setting loose.

    In contrast
    Peter Brimelow is a boomer.
    Mark Krikorian is a boomer.
    Jared Taylor is a boomer.
    Steve Sailer is a boomer.
    John Derbyshire … ok, he’s actually a war baby on the cusp.
    Ann Coulter is a boomer.
    (((Mickey Kaus))) is a boomer.
    Steve Bannon (whatever the heck he is) is a boomer.
    Jeff Sessions is a boomer.
    Donald Trump is a boomer.

    Gotta hand it to the so-called “Greatest” and “Silent” generations (even though these generational divisions are somewhat arbitrary): They took care of themselves very well, while trashing the nation for future generations. Retirement pensions, skyrocketing real-estate values, social security, medicare, wars fought on the national credit card, what have you. Where’s it all headed now? We have over $20 Trillion in debt, and that’s just the public debt on the books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    For the record, I also cannot disagree that my generation is shitty, especially compared to its potential (with Exhibits A, B, C, D and E being Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Husein Obama, and Donald J. Trump). The essential bifurcation, however, is not between any one generation and all of the others; it is between the elites of each of our recent generations, collectively, and the rest of us, whether born at the dawn of the Twentieth Century, for our centenarians, or in its waning, for the Millennials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Immigration is the demographic kill shot to the political power of heritage America. 2010 convinced them them that legalizing illegals is the only way for them to collect new votes. Observe Schumer on CSPAN in 2009. He was downright reasonable on immigration. Obama voted to fund the border fence. Even HRC railed against illegal immigration in 2004. Absolutely un-thinkable today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Crawfurdmuir

    BREAKING: Jewish Leaders have taken over the rotunda in the Capitol building. They are refusing to leave until a clean #Dream Act is passed.
     
    Someone should tell them what that great icon of the Democratic Party, Franklin Roosevelt, was recorded by Henry Morgenthau as having said in his presence:

    After World War II began, FDR had privately said to Morgenthau and a Catholic appointee, Leo Crowley, "You know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance."

    Never happened. Fake News with an Agenda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    The quoted passage was recorded in Morgenthau's diary.

    So if it is "fake news with an agenda," who faked it? And in service of what agenda?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Boethiuss
    This is a great observation from Steve. It describes very well, the lay of the land for most of our elections/political battles.

    That is, the people who write for Vox, and the people who read Vox, are scared shitless of us. They like to think it's because we're racist and we're about ready to reinstate Jim Crow and pogroms against the Jews, blah blah blah.

    It's most directly, and most importantly, a battle for control. They deeply, deeply don't respect the legitimacy of our capacity for political action. Trump is the apotheosis of this of course, but it goes way beyond him and would still exist even without him. It's the converse for us as if a vibrant youth ripped our wallet right out of our hands. That's why immigration is so important for them. They'd probably prefer to sprinkle in a few more immigrants than we have now, but they're not at all committed to open borders Bryan-Caplan style. What they are committed to is the idea that they're in charge, and we're not. And failing that, they at least have some kind of pull-lever-in-case-of-emergency veto.

    We're at or near the height of the anxiety right now, because everything Trump has done from the election onward has the air of being haphazard and temporary. Therefore, their perception that they are about ready to resume normal service (and their extreme desire for such) is probably correct. They'll probably win back the House and the Senate and hamstring Trump and his Administration, quite possible leading to impeachment and conviction.

    But, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. If somehow those intentions are thwarted this cycle and in the near future, then the idea that Trump and the voters he represents are some temporary phase is going to go away, and the intensity of their antagonism to us will dissipate.

    This is a large part of the reason underlying my mentality toward our political issues. We have to have political and spiritual solidarity among Americans whose intent is toward the best interest of America as a whole, instead of America as an ATM for the Coalition of the Fringes to use at leisure. The tangible manifestation of that solidarity, to the extent that it exists, is the Republican Party. There we should all be supporting it, and anything that hurts it, hurts us as well.

    The Republicans are idiots with a collective death wish. They’ve done just as much to wreck this nation as the Democrats have. Not sure why I’d want to throw my lot in with them. They ruin everything they touch, except Democrats, which most of them love à la Stockholm Syndrome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Not sure why I’d want to throw my lot in with them.
     
    Because Americans need to know that other Americans care about them, are in solidarity with them: their families, their health, their jobs, their respectable wage rates, their communities, their schools, etc., etc.

    Steve likes to mention the Preamble to the Constitution, specifically how it talks about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It's a beautiful thing in parchment, but unfortunately for us those words mean nothing on their own. Their strength comes from us, Americans alive today, and our desire to make them real. And the tangible manifestation of that strength is the support for the Republican Party.

    Support Republicans or you're just shit on a stick. The end.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Pincher Martin

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn’t rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we’ve gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.
     
    How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful "blood and soil" policies?

    My suggestion would be easier politically. Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections. Good luck proving that yours can.

    Good posts!

    You are on the right path.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. They’ll probably win back the House and the Senate and hamstring Trump and his Administration, quite possible leading to impeachment and conviction. But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. If somehow those intentions are thwarted this cycle and in the near future,

    What can be done to thwart that?

    then the idea that Trump and the voters he represents are some temporary phase is going to go away, and the intensity of their antagonism to us will dissipate.

    Why would that be? Why would the antagonism lessen under such circumstances?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    Because that is what works! It’s a time-tested winning strategy. When you bargain with a weak/stupid side, you make a proposal so outrageous that, when the other side meets you half way, you get a lot more than you would if your original proposal were perfectly reasonable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Those they are bargaining with are neither weak nor stupid, but they do like to think of themselves as above-it-all unbiased fair-minded judges, which in practice makes them reliably difference-splitters, which does indeed reward extremism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Does that really strike anyone as a stable, long-term solution that wouldn’t rapidly decay back into the current state within a single generation? Truthfully, we’ve gone too far for that to be a viable solution, either.
     
    How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful "blood and soil" policies?

    My suggestion would be easier politically. Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections. Good luck proving that yours can.

    “How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful “blood and soil” policies?”

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where’s that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

    “My suggestion would be easier politically.”

    Would it? Has it?

    “Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections.”

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history. Your citizenship might not be winning the White House again any time soon under current trends.

    “Good luck proving that yours can.”

    I don’t recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did. Also, you’re the one making the proposal, so the burden of proof is on you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where’s that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.
     
    Yes, but Trump's an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it.

    His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election.

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history.
     
    Who cares about the popular vote? Trump still won the election fair and square by winning the votes where they mattered most. I'll take that result over winning the most popular votes anytime - and so would Al Gore in 2000, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Samuel Tilden in 1876, and Andrew Jackson in 1824.

    I don’t recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did.
     
    It's implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies.

    If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead. No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections.
    , @unpc downunder
    The problem with Steve's citizenist approach is the political system doesn't allow people to vote in a citizenist way. Elections in a two-party democracy are basically reduced to a decision over which of the two parties personally enriches you and or your ethnic group. This only intensifies already strong racial divisions, and the ocassional atypical president won't change this. Unless radical changes are made to the political system, I can't see how citizenism can work long-term. Blacks will vote for their own race replacement, Hispanics will vote to replace whites and blacks, Asians will vote for their diasporas and the white majority will be deeply divided.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Doesn’t work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.
     
    So can "blood."

    For example, what blood exactly? The US is only about 70 percent white, and that percentage is lower among the younger demographics. What's more, many of those whites want nothing to do with identifying by blood.

    At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites.

    “At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites.”

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we’re at it; I’m sure they’ll see that it’s in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they'd still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country.

    What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient.
    , @Pincher Martin

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    Some will. Certainly more than will ever embrace a white-oriented "blood and soil" identity pushed by whites who have no sympathy for minorities and don't believe their kind will ever contribute meaningfully to America.

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we’re at it; I’m sure they’ll see that it’s in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.
     
    You seem to be unwittingly illustrating the extreme dichotomy Steve Sailer criticizes in his post above.
    , @Twinkie

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    Yes, it does happen in real life. I am right here. And I am not the only one.

    On the other hand, while it does happen more often than you think, it also - for a variety of reasons - happens less often than is desirable. With a strong, confident, patriotic, and highly assimilative culture - which our country once had - it can happen much more often, but not with today's "multiculturalism," which is merely an invitation for outsiders to colonize, not assimilate into, our society.

    As for Ezra Klein and his statement "Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both," this is just pure insanity. It's akin to saying that a family must only have adapted children or only biological children - it cannot have both. Do people like this even know how illogical they sound? Or do they simply not care, because they know they are repeating agitprop?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Anonymous
    Thank you. And as Another Dad pointed out the other day:

    AnotherDad says:
    January 10, 2018 at 12:14 am GMT • 200 Words
    @anonymouslee

    Don’t disagree we’re a shitty generation, but …

    (((Emanuel Cellar))) and Phillip Hart weren’t boomers.
    Lyndon Johnson wasn’t a boomer.
    Alan Simpson and Romano Mazzolli aren’t boomers.
    Ronald Reagan wasn’t a boomer.
    George H.W. Bush isn’t a boomer.
    John McCain isn’t a boomer.

    There are a lot of criminals and screw-ups involved in this mess who aren’t boomers. Most of the damage was set in motion by “Greatest Generation” and “Silent Generation” politicians, “intellectuals”, propagandists and good-thinkers who often (the goyim) didn’t really understand the nature of the disaster they were setting loose.

    In contrast
    Peter Brimelow is a boomer.
    Mark Krikorian is a boomer.
    Jared Taylor is a boomer.
    Steve Sailer is a boomer.
    John Derbyshire … ok, he’s actually a war baby on the cusp.
    Ann Coulter is a boomer.
    (((Mickey Kaus))) is a boomer.
    Steve Bannon (whatever the heck he is) is a boomer.
    Jeff Sessions is a boomer.
    Donald Trump is a boomer.
     

    Gotta hand it to the so-called "Greatest" and "Silent" generations (even though these generational divisions are somewhat arbitrary): They took care of themselves very well, while trashing the nation for future generations. Retirement pensions, skyrocketing real-estate values, social security, medicare, wars fought on the national credit card, what have you. Where's it all headed now? We have over $20 Trillion in debt, and that's just the public debt on the books.

    For the record, I also cannot disagree that my generation is shitty, especially compared to its potential (with Exhibits A, B, C, D and E being Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Husein Obama, and Donald J. Trump). The essential bifurcation, however, is not between any one generation and all of the others; it is between the elites of each of our recent generations, collectively, and the rest of us, whether born at the dawn of the Twentieth Century, for our centenarians, or in its waning, for the Millennials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Opinionator
    Trump needs to keep talking about what precisely? Is your statement intended as sarcasm?

    I’m talking about immigration. What did you think I meant?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    In any particular way though? There are many opinions, perspectives one can voice on immigration, even within the respective pro and con postures. Trump himself has not been a model of consistency.

    So what in particular did you have in mind?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Pincher Martin
    It's a little late in the day to make it "blood and soil." So why don't we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    I think blood and soil is citizenship. Ezra Klein is using it as a proxy for race-based nationalism, but it doesn’t have to be. As I pointed out recently on another thread,

    There are ample cultural artifacts to [counter the Lazarus poem on the statue], like our previous National Anthem:

    My country, ’tis of thee,
    Sweet land of liberty,
    Of thee I sing;
    Land where my fathers died,
    Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
    From ev’ry mountainside
    Let freedom ring!

    It’s not blood and soil, it’s blood, soil, and freedom. But it’s freedom, not diversity.

    The point is that we can see blood in the ancient perspective of ancestry rather than the modern concept of race/genetics. You could fool me that “Land where my fathers died” is from a Roman poet. Blood and soil is a truly American concept, but it doesn’t have to be associated with the tiki torch set.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact."

    The only way Steve's citizenship can work is if we embrace Starship Troopers as if it were divinely inspired liturgy to be obeyed at all costs. We are way past the point where anything less extreme than that will work. One of the Southern states could secede, creating a homeland for our people in the process. But Southerners aren't particularly bright or well organized and lack self respect, so even that less extreme option won't happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @guest
    Obviously, the U.S. is both. Ezra Klein isn't advocating doing away with citizenship being passed down through parentage and place of birth. He is in fact not making sense, but rather expecting the scary (to some) phrase "blood and soil" to do his work for him.

    It's true that America can't be both a Nation of Immigrants and a nation of only blood-and-soil. That is, never soil without blood. But you don't get many people advocating doin away with naturalization altogether.

    Klein is pushing the Nation of Immigrants extreme and hoping it sounds normal compared to the blood-and-soil extreme. Even though the U.S. is quite obviously not a Nation of Immigrants, except to ignoramuses. (There can't even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that's another argument.)

    “There can’t even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that’s another argument.”

    Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Israel"

    An explicitly blood and soil nation defined by religion and ancestry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Boethiuss
    This is a great observation from Steve. It describes very well, the lay of the land for most of our elections/political battles.

    That is, the people who write for Vox, and the people who read Vox, are scared shitless of us. They like to think it's because we're racist and we're about ready to reinstate Jim Crow and pogroms against the Jews, blah blah blah.

    It's most directly, and most importantly, a battle for control. They deeply, deeply don't respect the legitimacy of our capacity for political action. Trump is the apotheosis of this of course, but it goes way beyond him and would still exist even without him. It's the converse for us as if a vibrant youth ripped our wallet right out of our hands. That's why immigration is so important for them. They'd probably prefer to sprinkle in a few more immigrants than we have now, but they're not at all committed to open borders Bryan-Caplan style. What they are committed to is the idea that they're in charge, and we're not. And failing that, they at least have some kind of pull-lever-in-case-of-emergency veto.

    We're at or near the height of the anxiety right now, because everything Trump has done from the election onward has the air of being haphazard and temporary. Therefore, their perception that they are about ready to resume normal service (and their extreme desire for such) is probably correct. They'll probably win back the House and the Senate and hamstring Trump and his Administration, quite possible leading to impeachment and conviction.

    But, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. If somehow those intentions are thwarted this cycle and in the near future, then the idea that Trump and the voters he represents are some temporary phase is going to go away, and the intensity of their antagonism to us will dissipate.

    This is a large part of the reason underlying my mentality toward our political issues. We have to have political and spiritual solidarity among Americans whose intent is toward the best interest of America as a whole, instead of America as an ATM for the Coalition of the Fringes to use at leisure. The tangible manifestation of that solidarity, to the extent that it exists, is the Republican Party. There we should all be supporting it, and anything that hurts it, hurts us as well.

    Republicans do not want to govern. Look at all the retirements this cycle. It’s easy to make speeches denouncing Obama the dreaded socialist commie bastard who hates American freedom (copyright National Review 2012) but when the pressure is on and the opportunity arises to make real change that could make a difference they’d rather just give themselves a tax cut and cash out. Eight years of denouncing Obamacare and not only could they not repeal it they never even had a plan to do so from the very beginning. Governing is hard and takes guts and conviction.

    There are exceptions (Steve King, Mo Brooks) but they are few. I had hoped Trump would have changed the party for the better but that hasn’t really happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Republicans do not want to govern.
     
    I don't believe this, but I could care less if they do.

    We have the obligation to support Republicans, to express our motives to our fellow Americans. That's over and above anything anybody might do in office.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @TG
    The establishment is not becoming extremist. It is powerful, and flexing its muscles. And so far it shows no sign of losing.

    Excessive immigration is all about cheap labor. Around 1970, just as the flood of third-world refugees started to bite into the labor force, wages started to diverge from productivity. That entire difference, multiplied by the entire population, is pure profit and goes directly into the pockets of the rich.

    Talk is cheap. Follow the money.

    Sure, a handful of rich are smart entrepreneurs, but most aren't (especially most second generation. Was Ted Kennedy rich because he was such a good businessman?). They require a flooded labor market for their profits - indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor. They will say anything, claim that opposition to cheap labor is racist fascist un-American etc.etc. It's all rubbish, but they have no shame, and they have vast power. And so far, nothing is blocking them.

    Cheap labor uber alles.

    Yep, TG, I think you’re right. I’d like to believe our masters of yesteryear had their money lust moderated–religion? family? racial or national fellow-feeling?–but I’m not sure of that at all. These days the gloves are off, of course. (We have one local employer that’s notorious for challenging unemployment comp and workman’s comp claims by simply lying under oath to beat down its workers, who are ill-represented by their union. No politician will publicly call out this employer’s practices.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Chrisnonymous
    I think blood and soil is citizenship. Ezra Klein is using it as a proxy for race-based nationalism, but it doesn't have to be. As I pointed out recently on another thread,

    There are ample cultural artifacts to [counter the Lazarus poem on the statue], like our previous National Anthem:

    My country, ’tis of thee,
    Sweet land of liberty,
    Of thee I sing;
    Land where my fathers died,
    Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
    From ev’ry mountainside
    Let freedom ring!

    It’s not blood and soil, it’s blood, soil, and freedom. But it’s freedom, not diversity.
     
    The point is that we can see blood in the ancient perspective of ancestry rather than the modern concept of race/genetics. You could fool me that "Land where my fathers died" is from a Roman poet. Blood and soil is a truly American concept, but it doesn't have to be associated with the tiki torch set.

    “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    One would hope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Anonymous
    The Republicans are idiots with a collective death wish. They've done just as much to wreck this nation as the Democrats have. Not sure why I'd want to throw my lot in with them. They ruin everything they touch, except Democrats, which most of them love à la Stockholm Syndrome.

    Not sure why I’d want to throw my lot in with them.

    Because Americans need to know that other Americans care about them, are in solidarity with them: their families, their health, their jobs, their respectable wage rates, their communities, their schools, etc., etc.

    Steve likes to mention the Preamble to the Constitution, specifically how it talks about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It’s a beautiful thing in parchment, but unfortunately for us those words mean nothing on their own. Their strength comes from us, Americans alive today, and our desire to make them real. And the tangible manifestation of that strength is the support for the Republican Party.

    Support Republicans or you’re just shit on a stick. The end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Support Republicans or you’re just shit on a stick.
     
    Funny, you sound exactly like the other side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn't change the fact.

    “Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact.”

    The only way Steve’s citizenship can work is if we embrace Starship Troopers as if it were divinely inspired liturgy to be obeyed at all costs. We are way past the point where anything less extreme than that will work. One of the Southern states could secede, creating a homeland for our people in the process. But Southerners aren’t particularly bright or well organized and lack self respect, so even that less extreme option won’t happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    But Southerners aren’t particularly bright or well organized
     
    The near election of a clown like Roy Moore supports this, although that he ultimately didn't win is a sign of some small progress on this front.
    , @Anonymous
    One of the southern states? Oh you mean the one that's not chock-full of negroes? Yeah, that'll work. Great plan.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Steve and a few others seem to think that reasoned blog posts are going to win over people who want to see him homeless and destitute, and they think its funny.

    Citizenism MIGHT have been viable during the 50s and 60s, versus say "civil rights". We are 60 years past that horse leaving the barn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @eD
    "There can’t even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that’s another argument."

    Israel.

    “Israel”

    An explicitly blood and soil nation defined by religion and ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Walls don't work!

    What about Israel?

    That's different. Also you are an anti-semite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    Uhh, perhaps because of too much “wry detachment”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @TG
    The establishment is not becoming extremist. It is powerful, and flexing its muscles. And so far it shows no sign of losing.

    Excessive immigration is all about cheap labor. Around 1970, just as the flood of third-world refugees started to bite into the labor force, wages started to diverge from productivity. That entire difference, multiplied by the entire population, is pure profit and goes directly into the pockets of the rich.

    Talk is cheap. Follow the money.

    Sure, a handful of rich are smart entrepreneurs, but most aren't (especially most second generation. Was Ted Kennedy rich because he was such a good businessman?). They require a flooded labor market for their profits - indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor. They will say anything, claim that opposition to cheap labor is racist fascist un-American etc.etc. It's all rubbish, but they have no shame, and they have vast power. And so far, nothing is blocking them.

    Cheap labor uber alles.

    They require a flooded labor market for their profits – indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor.

    This is a very strong point, TG. The two sides of the equation—21st-century open-borders elites and 19th-century plantation owners—illuminate each other’s behavior. Nice job.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    I’ll add that Ann Coulter makes a similar point in her 1/17/18 column:

    I also can't help but notice that just as black Americans had won their full civil rights and were about to burst into the American economy ... Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) helped pass the 1965 immigration act that began dumping millions and millions of low-wage workers on the country to compete with them...

    Far from making up for the legacy of slavery, our immigration policies solve the exact same problem that slavery solved: rich people's eternal need for cheap labor. (emph. added)
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Barnard
    They will go to extreme levels to make multicultural arguments about Europe. Here's one example from The Guardian:

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/10/british-migration-museum-history-immigration-minister

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”

    He forgot about the first Norman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > [Robert Winder, author of Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain] forgot about the first Norman.

    The point relevant to Ezra Klein's tweet and this thread is that in 1066, the first Norman immigrants were welcomed by the descendants of the Jutes, Saxons, Romans and Danes. The conquest that followed was considered a win by everyone.
    , @Pericles

    He forgot about the first Norman.

     

    As well as Negro and Arab.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Berty
    Republicans do not want to govern. Look at all the retirements this cycle. It's easy to make speeches denouncing Obama the dreaded socialist commie bastard who hates American freedom (copyright National Review 2012) but when the pressure is on and the opportunity arises to make real change that could make a difference they'd rather just give themselves a tax cut and cash out. Eight years of denouncing Obamacare and not only could they not repeal it they never even had a plan to do so from the very beginning. Governing is hard and takes guts and conviction.

    There are exceptions (Steve King, Mo Brooks) but they are few. I had hoped Trump would have changed the party for the better but that hasn't really happened.

    Republicans do not want to govern.

    I don’t believe this, but I could care less if they do.

    We have the obligation to support Republicans, to express our motives to our fellow Americans. That’s over and above anything anybody might do in office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Berty
    I wasn't aware this was the Soviet Union and the Party's welfare is paramount above all.

    We don't owe the GOP anything. If anything they owe us for voting them into office. If they won't do what we want then we have no reason to vote for a party that continues to push for more wars, more entitlement cuts, and more outsourcing of jobs. I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they'll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaaaa? We should specifically NOT support guys like Grahmesty, Ryan, etc. in any way shape or form. You sound like a battered husband that sticks with the wife no matter how many rolling pins and flat screen TVs she hurls at him each evening.* You just gotta know when to fold 'em.

    Enough with the D's, enough with the non-conservative R's, enough with all the cucks! Don't support anyone who is part of the problem.

    Yeah, the man who wrote "Home, Sweet Home" never was a married man, sings Gerry Garcia a week after his marriage, recorded in Palo Alto, California in 1963 and played on KFOG radio:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjH6IOUzPg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Looks like Trump or bust. Fall elections will be interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Beckow

    Cheap labor uber alles.
     
    Absolutely, that is what drives it, all else are distractions and noise. We have learned since 2015 that they will stop at nothing to keep the cheap labor open-borders - it is the core of the system. Any challenge to this core principle will be ruthlessly stamped out.

    In a way, the rich are believers in reverse Marxism. Marxism postulated that there are employers and employees (capitalists and workers in Marx's terms). Their interests are in natural opposition, when one makes more, the other makes less. In the 20th century we have seen unhappy results when the workers took over in some countries. In the 21st century we are about to see what happens when the bosses have unlimited power based on an endless supply of workers. The 20th century socialism ended rather ingloriously, I suspect the 21st century capitalist cheap-labor-uber-alles will also not end well.

    For the second time in as many days, Marx is being invoked in a useful, non-dismissive way in this forum. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist: I too have been recalling snatches of Marx recently, but charged with more contemporary meaning. (Wouldn’t “There’s a spectre haunting Europe…” be a great opening line to an Alt-right tract?)

    If this represents some kind of partial rehabilitation of Marx, then it shows how truly dead the Cold War left-right dichotomy has become. Maybe, as has often been suggested here, the emerging dichotomy will run along globalist-nationalist lines. But maybe that’s just a temporary holding pattern as the old coalitions break apart and re-aggregate.

    At the least, it suggests to me that despair over our current-year situation is premature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I was referring to a reverse Marxism where the bosses use 'marxist' principles and theories to assert their own self-interest. I actually don't think historically people have to be taught this, it comes to them naturally. Although Marx described it well.

    The crucial insight is that in an open border situation with an almost unlimited global labor the rich bosses will have all the power. It is very intuitive, but somehow modern 'left' is incapable of understanding it. You could call them 'useful idiots'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Barnard
    They will go to extreme levels to make multicultural arguments about Europe. Here's one example from The Guardian:

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/10/british-migration-museum-history-immigration-minister

    I recently had my bigotry checkmated by a redditor arguing that the U.S. wasn’t founded by and for Anglo-Protestants, but has rather always been multicultural due to its founding “mix of Cavaliers, Quakers, Puritans, and Scots Irish.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Did you tease him about reading the Albion's Seed section of Charles Murray's book By The People?
    , @Barnard
    You should watch this PBS special on St. Augustine and Spanish settlement of Florida. It claims that was the true multicultural founding of the United States. The Spanish had nothing to do with the actual founding of our government but don't mention that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Israel is both. A nation of Jewish immigrants, created with the blood and soil of Palestinians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @L Woods
    I recently had my bigotry checkmated by a redditor arguing that the U.S. wasn't founded by and for Anglo-Protestants, but has rather always been multicultural due to its founding "mix of Cavaliers, Quakers, Puritans, and Scots Irish."

    Did you tease him about reading the Albion’s Seed section of Charles Murray’s book By The People?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @L Woods
    I recently had my bigotry checkmated by a redditor arguing that the U.S. wasn't founded by and for Anglo-Protestants, but has rather always been multicultural due to its founding "mix of Cavaliers, Quakers, Puritans, and Scots Irish."

    You should watch this PBS special on St. Augustine and Spanish settlement of Florida. It claims that was the true multicultural founding of the United States. The Spanish had nothing to do with the actual founding of our government but don’t mention that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They also slaughtered 350-odd French from up the coast in the coldest of blood, but don't mind that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Barnard
    You should watch this PBS special on St. Augustine and Spanish settlement of Florida. It claims that was the true multicultural founding of the United States. The Spanish had nothing to do with the actual founding of our government but don't mention that.

    They also slaughtered 350-odd French from up the coast in the coldest of blood, but don’t mind that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Anon
    "At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites."

    You're telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don't understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we're at it; I'm sure they'll see that it's in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they’d still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country.

    What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >if they were tribalist they would have stayed in their country
    This is completely ridiculous, nearly every nonwhite immigrant group contradicts it and I can think of no counterexamples. Tribalism does not mean nationalism, that flexibility is a major selling point.
    , @Anon
    "If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they’d still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country."

    Nonsense. Tribalism doesn't stop at the border, and many immigrant groups form cliques once they get here and advocate for their homeland. If I moved to France, I'd still consider myself American.

    "What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient."

    Quite a bit, actually. Most people aren't equipped to reject all the counter arguments pro immigration types will give them. Just say that it's good for the economy and that's easily enough to deflate most. In fact, polls say most Americans support some form of amnesty, depending on the wording of the poll.

    Self interest is so "sufficient" that blacks vote overwhelmingly for a party that imports enormous numbers of foreign competitors.

    Self interest is so "sufficient" that South Carolina has Lindsey Graham as a senator.

    It takes reason and logic to know what's in your best interest. Otherwise, it's nothing but naked tribalism.

    It's just nuts to believe large numbers of minorities will ever vote for the white party (Republican) over the non-white party (Democrat) based on an appeal to immigration policies that most Americans consider esoteric at best. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves. That's not how people think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Anonymous

    It’s a little late in the day to make it “blood and soil.” So why don’t we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?
     
    But that's the beauty of the False Dichotomy, as hinted upthread. "Do you want exactly what I want, or do you want damnation and ruin? Huh? Huh?"

    Please explain. What is that argumentative move being made here and why is it “beautiful” for the person making it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Steve Sailer
    "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

    One would hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Boethiuss

    Republicans do not want to govern.
     
    I don't believe this, but I could care less if they do.

    We have the obligation to support Republicans, to express our motives to our fellow Americans. That's over and above anything anybody might do in office.

    I wasn’t aware this was the Soviet Union and the Party’s welfare is paramount above all.

    We don’t owe the GOP anything. If anything they owe us for voting them into office. If they won’t do what we want then we have no reason to vote for a party that continues to push for more wars, more entitlement cuts, and more outsourcing of jobs. I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they’ll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Unfortunately, the GMI will only be available to POCs. Reparations, affirmative action and all that. You won't even get social security.

    There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to repeal social security for everyone, Democrats only want to repeal it for wypipo.
    , @Boethiuss

    I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they’ll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.
     
    Well yeah, that's why we can't have nice things. We're too dialed into our own narcissism to care about anyone else. There's someone in Spokane or 40 miles outside Kansas City who is struggling with low wages or opiods or whatever, and he knows you can't be bothered to put down Call of Duty and get off your ass for one minute to support Republicans.

    We talk about demographic replacement, the Most Important Graph in the World, blah blah.

    But Nobody Listens To Us, Nobody Believes Us, Nobody Trusts Us.

    We're like those late-night informercials for real estate investing/flipping on cable television. That stuff may work or it may not, but we know that whoever bought those commercials is trying to make money for themselves, not us, so We Don't Believe Them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Desiderius

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they'd still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country.

    What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient.

    >if they were tribalist they would have stayed in their country
    This is completely ridiculous, nearly every nonwhite immigrant group contradicts it and I can think of no counterexamples. Tribalism does not mean nationalism, that flexibility is a major selling point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I can think of no counterexamples
     
    Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade.

    It is a mystery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @ChrisZ
    Excellent point. And great name.

    His conclusion doesn’t follow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Boethiuss

    Republicans do not want to govern.
     
    I don't believe this, but I could care less if they do.

    We have the obligation to support Republicans, to express our motives to our fellow Americans. That's over and above anything anybody might do in office.

    Whaaaaa? We should specifically NOT support guys like Grahmesty, Ryan, etc. in any way shape or form. You sound like a battered husband that sticks with the wife no matter how many rolling pins and flat screen TVs she hurls at him each evening.* You just gotta know when to fold ‘em.

    Enough with the D’s, enough with the non-conservative R’s, enough with all the cucks! Don’t support anyone who is part of the problem.

    Yeah, the man who wrote “Home, Sweet Home” never was a married man, sings Gerry Garcia a week after his marriage, recorded in Palo Alto, California in 1963 and played on KFOG radio:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Enough with the D’s, enough with the non-conservative R’s, enough with all the cucks! Don’t support anyone who is part of the problem.
     
    That's going to be kinda hard to work around when you find out the problem is you. Graham and Ryan are problems, no doubt. But they are not the immediate problems, the biggest problems, or the problems we can do something about. Right now, the biggest problem is us.

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we're too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we'd like to persuade know perfectly well that we don't care about them and simply tune us out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Anon
    "At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites."

    You're telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don't understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we're at it; I'm sure they'll see that it's in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Some will. Certainly more than will ever embrace a white-oriented “blood and soil” identity pushed by whites who have no sympathy for minorities and don’t believe their kind will ever contribute meaningfully to America.

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we’re at it; I’m sure they’ll see that it’s in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.

    You seem to be unwittingly illustrating the extreme dichotomy Steve Sailer criticizes in his post above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Not really. The idea that minorities will ever vote republican based on appeals to restrict immigration is just as fanciful as the suggestion that we dump copies of The Wealth of Nations on war torn Syria. What percentage of South African blacks voted against the ANC, despite their incompetence? Self interest says they should, but they never do. Re: tribalism.
    , @Jack Hanson
    This is a lot of handwaving to avoid acknowledging the fact that this all likely ends in blood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Anon
    "How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful “blood and soil” policies?"

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where's that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

    "My suggestion would be easier politically."

    Would it? Has it?

    "Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections."

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history. Your citizenship might not be winning the White House again any time soon under current trends.

    "Good luck proving that yours can."

    I don't recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did. Also, you're the one making the proposal, so the burden of proof is on you.

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where’s that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

    Yes, but Trump’s an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it.

    His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election.

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history.

    Who cares about the popular vote? Trump still won the election fair and square by winning the votes where they mattered most. I’ll take that result over winning the most popular votes anytime – and so would Al Gore in 2000, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Samuel Tilden in 1876, and Andrew Jackson in 1824.

    I don’t recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did.

    It’s implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies.

    If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead. No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Yes, but Trump’s an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it. His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election."

    Trump barely won and lost the popular vote by millions against an extremely unpopular opponent. A lot of that was just luck. And immigration didn't win him Ohio. Economic populism did that. Good luck seeing a repeat of that after the GOP passed their tax cut; it will take another 1-2 election cycles to live that down, along with not renegotiating NAFTA. And it's not like economic populists are lining up in the GOP bullpen. If demographic trends continue, no republican can win the White House too much after 2020 or 2024. So, it's Trump or bust.

    "If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead."

    That's the second time you've blatantly lied about something I said...or didn't.

    "No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections."

    Good luck with that. I'd be happy to be wrong. Maybe I am, but I don't have that much faith in people, so I have a feeling that I'm right.

    "It’s implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies."

    It's not implicit anywhere. If I say I didn't vote for Donald Trump, it doesn't logically follow that I voted for Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, explain the votes Gary Johnson got. If I point out that your citizenism idea will fail, that is simply an observation. There is no corollary that follows.

    You seem to have a penchant for purposely misconstruing other people. You behavior is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Minorities will never vote GOP based on self interest appeals to immigration restriction, ideas, or anything else. When presented with a counter argument, they will rationalize it away and go back to easy tribalism.

    And there probably aren't enough whites that care enough about immigration to get the white share above 65% regardless of how great the candidate is. The time for that idea is well past now. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Probably the very last chance we had was Bush II.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. This is about POWER nothing more nor less. The POWER of urban elite professionals to rule over a Mestizo/Mulatto empire as the new India Company men. Exterminating those Flyover Whites with their middle class or working class backgrounds, and also nasty working class cousins of theirs who own dry cleaners or bakeries or a muffler shop. Those people have to go too — consider how one Brit toff lefty wrote how the goal of mass Third World Immigration into Britain was to rub the noses of ordinary Britons in the Third World.

    THATS THE WHOLE REASON. Nothing else. Frustrated educated would be willing executioners with no guns nor means to march a nation into the fields like Pol Pot or the Red Guards. So they’ll march the fields into the nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. @guest
    Obviously, the U.S. is both. Ezra Klein isn't advocating doing away with citizenship being passed down through parentage and place of birth. He is in fact not making sense, but rather expecting the scary (to some) phrase "blood and soil" to do his work for him.

    It's true that America can't be both a Nation of Immigrants and a nation of only blood-and-soil. That is, never soil without blood. But you don't get many people advocating doin away with naturalization altogether.

    Klein is pushing the Nation of Immigrants extreme and hoping it sounds normal compared to the blood-and-soil extreme. Even though the U.S. is quite obviously not a Nation of Immigrants, except to ignoramuses. (There can't even be such a thing as a nation of immigrants, but that's another argument.)

    Chain migration is blood-and-soil immigration.

    Klein and others are trying to push blood-and-soil immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    It's blood immigration, but I don't see what soil has to do with it. Unless all immigration is soil immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @J.Ross
    >if they were tribalist they would have stayed in their country
    This is completely ridiculous, nearly every nonwhite immigrant group contradicts it and I can think of no counterexamples. Tribalism does not mean nationalism, that flexibility is a major selling point.

    I can think of no counterexamples

    Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade.

    It is a mystery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    What is your specific example of nonwhites who do not embrace screamingly undeniable tribalist behaviors in their new country? Who doesn't start out in a ghetto speaking the mother tongue? Who doesn't use nepotism and chain migration and help each other out? Please tell me about Somalis who consider themselves to be Vikings fans first and Muslims second.
    , @Anon
    "Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade."

    Yeah, but can YOU give any counter examples?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Anonymous
    Never happened. Fake News with an Agenda.

    The quoted passage was recorded in Morgenthau’s diary.

    So if it is “fake news with an agenda,” who faked it? And in service of what agenda?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You actually quote Morgenthau's diary and then ask those questions? Seriously?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @New Dealer
    I’m a left-Unzist who loves free speech and likes policy based on sober argument and evidence. I’m deeply worried about the extremist open-border lunacy now espoused by the American elite, even in its centrist precincts. It didn’t use to be this way. Many of Trump’s proposals were more courteously enunciated somewhat by Obama, more by Bill Clinton, or by the great Barbara Jordan. Public discussion of immigration policy in the U.S. now, however, is about at the level of adolescent twitter chat about the Kardashians.

    Maybe throwing open the borders would bring about prophet Caplan’s paradise on earth; more likely the consequences would be bad for both receiving and sending countries, and even perverse, such as global labor contractors swiftly bringing in millions of Southeast Asians (bonus: many are muslim) and booting Mexicans out of their low-wage niches. At a minimum, no one can predict the consequences of open borders: never have there been so many people, never has travel been so cheap. And you shouldn’t gamble a whole country on an untested policy, look at how that worked out for the Russians after 1917.

    Nowadays, recklessly utopian positions are not taken seriously on any other topic (except certain U.S. war policies: invite the world, invade the world, hmmm). Fringes might demand abolition of police and prison, but ordinary people don’t. If you really believe in unqualified pacifism and unilateral disarmament, journalists and politicians would treat you like Trump treated Ali G: a few polite words and a quick good-bye. Any politician proposing a command economy, the free distribution of goods, and the abolition of work would get two percent of the vote and maybe pity from some for being weak-minded. What is most similar to immigration was the faith of Leninists that abolition of the price system by violence would liberate humanity. That belief gripped many academics and gullible reformers, but appalled anyone with the slightest business experience and most economists, and killed a hundred million people. That debate was over well before 1989. But when Jeff Bezos, CIA contractor, funds $33 million of scholarships for illegals, that’s normal, laudatory? Rather than bizarre, like Howard Hughes having his urine collected and stored?

    We live in a country where most people obey the law. In the majority of countries people do not, and it makes life worse for everyone. Self-exemption from the law triggered the U.S. Civil War, and more generally legal defiance is contagious. Losing the great advantage of the rule of law is another evil that a responsible citizen would not risk bringing about. I feel like I am one of the non-believers among the Xhosa in the 1850s when their prophets commanded the slaughter of all cattle and destruction of crops, because that would cause the dead to rise again, along with all kinds of livestock, clothing ,and wealth, and “the blind would see, the deaf would hear, cripples would walk.” When it didn’t happen, who was to blame? The non-believers. For not believing hard enough they were persecuted and plundered.

    Self-exemption from the law triggered the U.S. Civil War

    What are you referring to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Pincher Martin
    It's a little late in the day to make it "blood and soil." So why don't we tighten up the borders and make it about citizenship?

    It will be about blood and soil by default. How much do you like the Bill of Rights? You may have begun to notice that citizens of different ‘blood types’ have little use for individual rights. ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    And a Wall along the border won't preclude illegal immigration.
    , @Twinkie

    guns will have to go
     
    I don't know about soil, but a lot of people like me will be causing much blood-shedding if our government tried that.

    It will be about blood and soil by default.
     
    Don't be so sure. Men are not monkeys, and they fight over both "blood and soil" AND "ideas" (which often overlap, if not exactly). That's why religious/ideological wars (The Thirty Years' War, World War II on the Eastern front, etc.) have been always so destructive.
    , @Pincher Martin

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.
     
    Yes, politics will still continue even if every single American agrees on restricting illegal immigration.

    But at least that will be one less problem we have to worry about. It's then on to the next battle.

    ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?
     
    The proliferation of races in America didn't cause this. It has existed since the beginning of the Republic. One large group of Americans disagrees fundamentally with some other large group of Americans about certain basic Constitutional principles.

    It's nothing new. And it's never going away.

    So the point is not to make it go away. The point is to see that your side - presumably, the side of the Angels - wins.

    Not only has race little to do with this. I would say that the most violent disagreements on these matters have always been between different groups of whites. No one hates Trump today as much as a white liberal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Tim Howells
    When pressed re equality Jefferson said that he meant equality under the law rather than equal in capacity. He was a race realist and thought that American Indians could probably integrate into White society, but strongly doubted that African Blacks could. In this he was typical of American politicians up through at least the Civil War, certainly including Lincoln. How this consensus was gradually broken down and replaced by the one you described is a long story.

    Where did Jefferson write this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    The thing about equality was from a private letter, which I can't locate now. It's discussed by Merrill D. Peterson, but I can't figure out his reference.

    https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&id=0QNrZoAgGAsC&q=explicit+distinction+private+letter#v=snippet&q=explicit%20distinction%20private%20letter&f=false

    I hope that link works in the States.

    Re race generally, one reference is Jefferson's book "Notes on the State of Virginia". go to

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

    and search for the word "extermination".
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Where did Jefferson write this?

     

    At Monticello, where his 130 slaves grew tobacco.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Do liberals just not understand what the terms “settlers” and “colonists” are or have they just redefined those words as “immigrants”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    Settlers, colonists, invaders, ..., pawns, ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @syonredux

    It’s a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century – see Jefferson and “all men are created equal”) that there is no hierarchy of people or nations.
     
    Jefferson did not mean that people are equal in terms of abilities and attributes; he meant that people are equal in terms of rights:

    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     
    In contrast to this doctrine of legal equality, Jefferson was a firm believer in what he called the natural aristocracy:

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.
     
    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html

    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by “virtue”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by “virtue”?

     

    That's a bit of complicated subject. Here's a decent essay on Jefferson's understanding of virtue:

    http://www.liberty1.org/TJVirtue.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It will be about blood and soil by default. How much do you like the Bill of Rights? You may have begun to notice that citizens of different ‘blood types’ have little use for individual rights. ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.

    And a Wall along the border won’t preclude illegal immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    ...and a locked door doesn't "preclude" burglary...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anonymous
    There's nothing extremist here.

    The new power, new conquerors, or new invaders will do anything possible to secure their claim and expand their power.

    Did Anglos slow down and listen to 'reason' with Indians who pleaded for compromise? Did Spanish invaders in South America finally go easy on the natives when they felt they had conquered 'enough'? No, they became ever bolder in pressing for more power and dominance.

    Why would this historical process ever end? History may not repeat itself but it's fueled by the same impulses and drives.
    The current ruling elites want to complete their objective of totally conquering and quelling White America. Diversity is their tool.- Why would they stop and be 'reasonable' when Anglos didn't ease their conquest of Indian territories?

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It's just their nature and character. They want to conquer and control gentiles(especially white ones) just like Anglos wanted to conquer and control all territories that had once belonged to Indians.

    Interesting post.

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It’s just their nature and character.

    But why? Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen

    Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?
     
    There's probably a "gene" for power obsession.
    , @Eagle Eye

    Why are [the current elites] so power obsessed and why do they want it all?
     
    The instinct was always there, and it stands to reason, as another commenter intimated, that a particularly strong manifestation of power lust is more likely found among those who have gained great power.

    Two interlocking factors have changed over the past 30 years:

    (1) The end of the Cold War deprived the West of an objective, large target to focus our manifold energies.

    (2) Cultural Decline. The decline of religion started in the mid-1800s. Consumerization took off in America in the 1950s, slightly later in Europe and came to dominate official and private culture. The attendant decline in civic consciousness enabled the Left's take-over of education K-12 and in colleges. The Left's aim is to establish a new religious cult of magic rituals centered on a self-selected, powerful priest cast.

    The combined effect of (1) and (2) has been a drastic weakening of the institutional and social immune system, thus facilitating the spread of opportunistic infections such as enviro-cultism, open-borders "we are the world" rituals, etc.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Desiderius

    I can think of no counterexamples
     
    Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade.

    It is a mystery.

    What is your specific example of nonwhites who do not embrace screamingly undeniable tribalist behaviors in their new country? Who doesn’t start out in a ghetto speaking the mother tongue? Who doesn’t use nepotism and chain migration and help each other out? Please tell me about Somalis who consider themselves to be Vikings fans first and Muslims second.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Berty
    I'm talking about immigration. What did you think I meant?

    In any particular way though? There are many opinions, perspectives one can voice on immigration, even within the respective pro and con postures. Trump himself has not been a model of consistency.

    So what in particular did you have in mind?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Anon
    "At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites."

    You're telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don't understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we're at it; I'm sure they'll see that it's in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?

    Yes, it does happen in real life. I am right here. And I am not the only one.

    On the other hand, while it does happen more often than you think, it also – for a variety of reasons – happens less often than is desirable. With a strong, confident, patriotic, and highly assimilative culture – which our country once had – it can happen much more often, but not with today’s “multiculturalism,” which is merely an invitation for outsiders to colonize, not assimilate into, our society.

    As for Ezra Klein and his statement “Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both,” this is just pure insanity. It’s akin to saying that a family must only have adapted children or only biological children – it cannot have both. Do people like this even know how illogical they sound? Or do they simply not care, because they know they are repeating agitprop?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They don't care how illogical it sounds, because they know they will never be challenged on it in any substantial way or in a public forum with a widespread audience. They won't permit it.

    Sinead O'Connor of all people: "They laugh 'cause they know they're untouchable, not because what I said was wrong."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Seamus Padraig
    Bingo. The liberal belief in open borders is basically a religious belief. And since religions are founded on articles of faith rather than logic and evidence, you simply can't argue with them. You can analyze them, you can dissect them, you can accept them or reject them, but you just can't argue with them. And if they are not willing compromise or be reasonable, that leaves open only one possibility: war.

    Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

    Immigration is on its way to becoming a normal wedge issue. The Paul Ryans, Romneys, Bushes will either retire from the field (like Jeff Flake) or become restrictionists. Don’t believe it? Romney wasn’t raised to be a gun nut, but he had no choice once it became a normal wedge issue.

    One of the largest changes in Pew opinion over the last two years is that all Blue constituencies greatly increased support for immigration. If we thought that widespread support for restriction would survive an attempt to enact policy, we were wrong. But we now have the next best thing after widespread popularity: a wedge issue. (Remember that before Trump we were on the outside looking in; a wedge issue is a massive improvement to that state of play).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Romney wasn’t raised to be a gun nut, but he had no choice once it became a normal wedge issue.

    I doubt you could rummage through the NRA's position papers and locate among them advocacy of much that wouldn't have been bog standard in 1960, when Romney was being raised.

    Empirically, people like John Lott have the better of the argument. The attraction of restrictions on gun ownership to people like Barack Obama is that they stick the bill for disorder with social segments they despise. Actually enforcing the penal code with cops and prison guards is unacceptable to these people because it contradicts their premises and their impulse to self-congratulation. Gun control is much more a 'wedge issue' - i.e. an ineffectual exercise in symbolic manipulation - for its proponents than its opponents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It will be about blood and soil by default. How much do you like the Bill of Rights? You may have begun to notice that citizens of different ‘blood types’ have little use for individual rights. ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.

    guns will have to go

    I don’t know about soil, but a lot of people like me will be causing much blood-shedding if our government tried that.

    It will be about blood and soil by default.

    Don’t be so sure. Men are not monkeys, and they fight over both “blood and soil” AND “ideas” (which often overlap, if not exactly). That’s why religious/ideological wars (The Thirty Years’ War, World War II on the Eastern front, etc.) have been always so destructive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they'd still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country.

    What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient.

    “If they were so shit hot for their tribe, they’d still be living in the old country with them instead of risking all to make a new start in a new country.”

    Nonsense. Tribalism doesn’t stop at the border, and many immigrant groups form cliques once they get here and advocate for their homeland. If I moved to France, I’d still consider myself American.

    “What the fuck do logic and reason have to do with it? Naked self-interest is more than sufficient.”

    Quite a bit, actually. Most people aren’t equipped to reject all the counter arguments pro immigration types will give them. Just say that it’s good for the economy and that’s easily enough to deflate most. In fact, polls say most Americans support some form of amnesty, depending on the wording of the poll.

    Self interest is so “sufficient” that blacks vote overwhelmingly for a party that imports enormous numbers of foreign competitors.

    Self interest is so “sufficient” that South Carolina has Lindsey Graham as a senator.

    It takes reason and logic to know what’s in your best interest. Otherwise, it’s nothing but naked tribalism.

    It’s just nuts to believe large numbers of minorities will ever vote for the white party (Republican) over the non-white party (Democrat) based on an appeal to immigration policies that most Americans consider esoteric at best. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves. That’s not how people think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Jack D
    It's a fundamental tenet of modern liberalism (going back at least to the 18th century - see Jefferson and "all men are created equal") that there is no hierarchy of people or nations. Haitians are as good and fully human as Norwegians, Jews are not inferior to Christians, blacks are the same as whites, etc. There are shitty individuals but no shitty races or nations or Untermenschen. Positing that a hierarchy does in fact exist (even if accompanied by "hate facts" such as national IQ comparisons) fundamentally offends this notion and so it is impossible for believers to compromise with this.

    Suppose I offered a "compromise" to Christian believers and part of the compromise was to accept that Jesus was just a Jewish guy murdered by the Romans and not the son of God or God himself. If I accompanied this with scientific or historical papers showing that there was no evidence of Jesus's divinity, that it's obvious to all of us that people don't go around walking on water or reviving the dead and that this has never been proven to happen to anyone anywhere, this wouldn't sway them one iota. They would never buy into some policy based on "realistic" or "scientific" recognition of Jesus's non-divinity no matter what.

    If all men are equal, then white men can’t be the evil supermen that left liberals claim. Apparently the European identitarians are having some success with this line of argument, which uses liberal logic to undermine anti-white liberal views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Pincher Martin

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    Some will. Certainly more than will ever embrace a white-oriented "blood and soil" identity pushed by whites who have no sympathy for minorities and don't believe their kind will ever contribute meaningfully to America.

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we’re at it; I’m sure they’ll see that it’s in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.
     
    You seem to be unwittingly illustrating the extreme dichotomy Steve Sailer criticizes in his post above.

    Not really. The idea that minorities will ever vote republican based on appeals to restrict immigration is just as fanciful as the suggestion that we dump copies of The Wealth of Nations on war torn Syria. What percentage of South African blacks voted against the ANC, despite their incompetence? Self interest says they should, but they never do. Re: tribalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Desiderius

    I can think of no counterexamples
     
    Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade.

    It is a mystery.

    “Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade.”

    Yeah, but can YOU give any counter examples?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I follow the Peter Lynch philosophy of going with what you know. In my community, people come here to be Americans (and Cincinnatians/Midwesterners). Then again, we have a critical mass of whites who are proud to be American (and Cincinnatian/Midwestern) too. That seems to be the critical factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. I am intrigued by the phrase in Dana Lind’s essay, “collapse of the immigration system”. Normally, collapse of a system indicates social breakdown. But what actually happens if the “immigration system” “collapses”? Would it just mean that immigration stops?

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Pincher Martin

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where’s that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.
     
    Yes, but Trump's an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it.

    His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election.

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history.
     
    Who cares about the popular vote? Trump still won the election fair and square by winning the votes where they mattered most. I'll take that result over winning the most popular votes anytime - and so would Al Gore in 2000, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Samuel Tilden in 1876, and Andrew Jackson in 1824.

    I don’t recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did.
     
    It's implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies.

    If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead. No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections.

    “Yes, but Trump’s an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it. His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election.”

    Trump barely won and lost the popular vote by millions against an extremely unpopular opponent. A lot of that was just luck. And immigration didn’t win him Ohio. Economic populism did that. Good luck seeing a repeat of that after the GOP passed their tax cut; it will take another 1-2 election cycles to live that down, along with not renegotiating NAFTA. And it’s not like economic populists are lining up in the GOP bullpen. If demographic trends continue, no republican can win the White House too much after 2020 or 2024. So, it’s Trump or bust.

    “If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead.”

    That’s the second time you’ve blatantly lied about something I said…or didn’t.

    “No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections.”

    Good luck with that. I’d be happy to be wrong. Maybe I am, but I don’t have that much faith in people, so I have a feeling that I’m right.

    “It’s implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies.”

    It’s not implicit anywhere. If I say I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, it doesn’t logically follow that I voted for Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, explain the votes Gary Johnson got. If I point out that your citizenism idea will fail, that is simply an observation. There is no corollary that follows.

    You seem to have a penchant for purposely misconstruing other people. You behavior is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. Minorities will never vote GOP based on self interest appeals to immigration restriction, ideas, or anything else. When presented with a counter argument, they will rationalize it away and go back to easy tribalism.

    And there probably aren’t enough whites that care enough about immigration to get the white share above 65% regardless of how great the candidate is. The time for that idea is well past now. Sucks, but that’s the way it is. Probably the very last chance we had was Bush II.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Trump barely won and lost the popular vote by millions against an extremely unpopular opponent.
     
    He won despite never running a serious race for any electoral office before. He won despite facing an opponent who was experienced and had little opposition to her presidential bid from within the party once she defeated Bernie Sanders in the primaries. He won despite ferocious backbiting from among his own party's establishment that was still telling him to quit the race within weeks of the election.

    I don't think you appreciate the historical significance of Trump's victory. Trump won states that Republicans had not won since the early nineteen-nineties and in one case since the nineteen-eighties. He did this with only mixed party support and near universal negative media coverage.

    That’s the second time you’ve blatantly lied about something I said…or didn’t.
     
    It's not a lie to describe you as you are, even if you don't like the description.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Anon
    "How is controlling immigration to the benefit of current American citizens of all races any more difficult than implementing a set of meaningful “blood and soil” policies?"

    How successful has Trump been in implementing his immigration policies, besides window dressing? Where's that wall? Is legal immigration being reduced, birth right citizenship eliminated, or chain migration ended? And Trump has both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

    "My suggestion would be easier politically."

    Would it? Has it?

    "Even the dunderheaded Trump has shown it can work in winning elections."

    Trump lost the popular vote by millions and barely squeaked by in multiple battle ground states against one of the most unpopular opponents in history. Your citizenship might not be winning the White House again any time soon under current trends.

    "Good luck proving that yours can."

    I don't recall advocating any policy. Perhaps you can show me where I did. Also, you're the one making the proposal, so the burden of proof is on you.

    The problem with Steve’s citizenist approach is the political system doesn’t allow people to vote in a citizenist way. Elections in a two-party democracy are basically reduced to a decision over which of the two parties personally enriches you and or your ethnic group. This only intensifies already strong racial divisions, and the ocassional atypical president won’t change this. Unless radical changes are made to the political system, I can’t see how citizenism can work long-term. Blacks will vote for their own race replacement, Hispanics will vote to replace whites and blacks, Asians will vote for their diasporas and the white majority will be deeply divided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    But why would the white demo have to be deeply divided? I don't think the "system" as you describe it in any way mandates that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @unpc downunder
    The problem with Steve's citizenist approach is the political system doesn't allow people to vote in a citizenist way. Elections in a two-party democracy are basically reduced to a decision over which of the two parties personally enriches you and or your ethnic group. This only intensifies already strong racial divisions, and the ocassional atypical president won't change this. Unless radical changes are made to the political system, I can't see how citizenism can work long-term. Blacks will vote for their own race replacement, Hispanics will vote to replace whites and blacks, Asians will vote for their diasporas and the white majority will be deeply divided.

    But why would the white demo have to be deeply divided? I don’t think the “system” as you describe it in any way mandates that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    The fundamental flaw of whites is virtue signaling; where you attempt to show how much better you are then everyone else by doing something retarded. So a good chuck of whites will do things really stupid to screw other people over because it shows how much better (re: powerful) they are.

    As Napoleon said, you don't argue with intellectuals. You shoot them.
    , @unpc downunder
    Because whites are more diverse than other races in terms of ideology, employment, income, and geographic location. Other races are more tribal, more urbanised, and more concentrated in certain jobs. Hence, The Democrats can basically just campaign as the party of urban America and they can hoover up most of the ethnic vote, while still gaining a big chunk of the white vote.

    Sure if the FIRE economy collapses and whites abandon the cities, they may all end up voting Republican, but that still isn't a good result from a citizenist perspective. The point of citizenism is that you vote for the interests of the majority of citizens, not for the interests of your race.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Frankly Speaking
    “The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected.” - Jonathan Weisman in his new book ((( Semitism ))) (parentheses his)

    But not in one particular country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Ezra Klein and John Podhoretz are vociferous public nuisances. They’re not ‘elite’ and wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if put in charge of something of institutional importance. Real elites at the local level are a mix of politicians, lawyers, senior public administration, senior academic administration, real estate developers, bankers, and those in charge of the signature local industry. The editor and publisher of the local newspaper would have been among them 20 years ago. Now, not so much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. @bartok
    Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

    Immigration is on its way to becoming a normal wedge issue. The Paul Ryans, Romneys, Bushes will either retire from the field (like Jeff Flake) or become restrictionists. Don't believe it? Romney wasn't raised to be a gun nut, but he had no choice once it became a normal wedge issue.

    One of the largest changes in Pew opinion over the last two years is that all Blue constituencies greatly increased support for immigration. If we thought that widespread support for restriction would survive an attempt to enact policy, we were wrong. But we now have the next best thing after widespread popularity: a wedge issue. (Remember that before Trump we were on the outside looking in; a wedge issue is a massive improvement to that state of play).

    Romney wasn’t raised to be a gun nut, but he had no choice once it became a normal wedge issue.

    I doubt you could rummage through the NRA’s position papers and locate among them advocacy of much that wouldn’t have been bog standard in 1960, when Romney was being raised.

    Empirically, people like John Lott have the better of the argument. The attraction of restrictions on gun ownership to people like Barack Obama is that they stick the bill for disorder with social segments they despise. Actually enforcing the penal code with cops and prison guards is unacceptable to these people because it contradicts their premises and their impulse to self-congratulation. Gun control is much more a ‘wedge issue’ – i.e. an ineffectual exercise in symbolic manipulation – for its proponents than its opponents.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Opinionator
    Where did Jefferson write this?

    The thing about equality was from a private letter, which I can’t locate now. It’s discussed by Merrill D. Peterson, but I can’t figure out his reference.

    https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&id=0QNrZoAgGAsC&q=explicit+distinction+private+letter#v=snippet&q=explicit%20distinction%20private%20letter&f=false

    I hope that link works in the States.

    Re race generally, one reference is Jefferson’s book “Notes on the State of Virginia”. go to

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

    and search for the word “extermination”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Anon
    "Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact."

    The only way Steve's citizenship can work is if we embrace Starship Troopers as if it were divinely inspired liturgy to be obeyed at all costs. We are way past the point where anything less extreme than that will work. One of the Southern states could secede, creating a homeland for our people in the process. But Southerners aren't particularly bright or well organized and lack self respect, so even that less extreme option won't happen.

    But Southerners aren’t particularly bright or well organized

    The near election of a clown like Roy Moore supports this, although that he ultimately didn’t win is a sign of some small progress on this front.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Opinionator
    But why would the white demo have to be deeply divided? I don't think the "system" as you describe it in any way mandates that.

    The fundamental flaw of whites is virtue signaling; where you attempt to show how much better you are then everyone else by doing something retarded. So a good chuck of whites will do things really stupid to screw other people over because it shows how much better (re: powerful) they are.

    As Napoleon said, you don’t argue with intellectuals. You shoot them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    It will be about blood and soil by default. How much do you like the Bill of Rights? You may have begun to notice that citizens of different ‘blood types’ have little use for individual rights. ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.

    Tight borders won’t preclude a raging war within those borders.

    Yes, politics will still continue even if every single American agrees on restricting illegal immigration.

    But at least that will be one less problem we have to worry about. It’s then on to the next battle.

    ‘Hate speech’ and guns will have to go. Equal protection under the law—affirmatively actioned away already. How about adherence to any law?

    The proliferation of races in America didn’t cause this. It has existed since the beginning of the Republic. One large group of Americans disagrees fundamentally with some other large group of Americans about certain basic Constitutional principles.

    It’s nothing new. And it’s never going away.

    So the point is not to make it go away. The point is to see that your side – presumably, the side of the Angels – wins.

    Not only has race little to do with this. I would say that the most violent disagreements on these matters have always been between different groups of whites. No one hates Trump today as much as a white liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anon
    "Yes, but Trump’s an idiot and a political opportunist who cares little about policy and knows even less about implementing it. His 2016 campaign was still most useful in showing that a presidential candidate could run a hardcore restrictionist campaign and win a general election."

    Trump barely won and lost the popular vote by millions against an extremely unpopular opponent. A lot of that was just luck. And immigration didn't win him Ohio. Economic populism did that. Good luck seeing a repeat of that after the GOP passed their tax cut; it will take another 1-2 election cycles to live that down, along with not renegotiating NAFTA. And it's not like economic populists are lining up in the GOP bullpen. If demographic trends continue, no republican can win the White House too much after 2020 or 2024. So, it's Trump or bust.

    "If you want to take your blood and soil ideas and go off to a corner somewhere where you can sulk, go right ahead."

    That's the second time you've blatantly lied about something I said...or didn't.

    "No one will stop you. In politics, I prefer to focus on ideas that I think can both help my country and win elections."

    Good luck with that. I'd be happy to be wrong. Maybe I am, but I don't have that much faith in people, so I have a feeling that I'm right.

    "It’s implicit in your post. Ezra Klein and Steve Sailer are talking about the principles that underline our immigration policies."

    It's not implicit anywhere. If I say I didn't vote for Donald Trump, it doesn't logically follow that I voted for Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, explain the votes Gary Johnson got. If I point out that your citizenism idea will fail, that is simply an observation. There is no corollary that follows.

    You seem to have a penchant for purposely misconstruing other people. You behavior is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Minorities will never vote GOP based on self interest appeals to immigration restriction, ideas, or anything else. When presented with a counter argument, they will rationalize it away and go back to easy tribalism.

    And there probably aren't enough whites that care enough about immigration to get the white share above 65% regardless of how great the candidate is. The time for that idea is well past now. Sucks, but that's the way it is. Probably the very last chance we had was Bush II.

    Trump barely won and lost the popular vote by millions against an extremely unpopular opponent.

    He won despite never running a serious race for any electoral office before. He won despite facing an opponent who was experienced and had little opposition to her presidential bid from within the party once she defeated Bernie Sanders in the primaries. He won despite ferocious backbiting from among his own party’s establishment that was still telling him to quit the race within weeks of the election.

    I don’t think you appreciate the historical significance of Trump’s victory. Trump won states that Republicans had not won since the early nineteen-nineties and in one case since the nineteen-eighties. He did this with only mixed party support and near universal negative media coverage.

    That’s the second time you’ve blatantly lied about something I said…or didn’t.

    It’s not a lie to describe you as you are, even if you don’t like the description.

    Read More
    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Opinionator
    Ezra Klein would probably be hostile to "blood and soil" nationalism in any country in Northern Europe or the Anglosphere. But that does not make his position "illogical." Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow.

    In that case — Ezra, please show us your axioms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @the Supreme Gentleman
    The idea of a "nation of immigrants" has always seemed nonsensical to me. The idea of a "nation" is that a bunch of people are more like each other than they are like other people, in terms of metrics like religion, language, culture, fashion, ancestry, behavior, et cetera, so we have a word to describe that group.

    Whereas the idea that mainstream media figures like Vox writers are espousing, that it's evil to oppose immigration/have preferences about what kind of immigrants you want, seems to reject the idea that Americans ("Americans") have any more in common with each other than they do with random people from Haiti/Iraq/Vietnam.

    In which case, it seems that America will become less a "nation" of immigrants, and more just a word for a bunch of random people with nothing in common who happen to live next to each other.

    The idea of a “nation” is …

    Not just ‘idea’ but very definition.

    E.g.,
    “A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.”

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @ChrisZ

    They require a flooded labor market for their profits – indeed, in many cases, even to maintain their status as being rich. They will claw and scratch like scalded cats to maintain these profits, even as the Southern plantation owners fought a bloody civil war to maintain the profits from slave labor.
     
    This is a very strong point, TG. The two sides of the equation—21st-century open-borders elites and 19th-century plantation owners—illuminate each other’s behavior. Nice job.

    I’ll add that Ann Coulter makes a similar point in her 1/17/18 column:

    I also can’t help but notice that just as black Americans had won their full civil rights and were about to burst into the American economy … Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) helped pass the 1965 immigration act that began dumping millions and millions of low-wage workers on the country to compete with them…

    Far from making up for the legacy of slavery, our immigration policies solve the exact same problem that slavery solved: rich people’s eternal need for cheap labor. (emph. added)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Anon
    https://twitter.com/pragmactivist/status/953657673064513536

    #LetMyPeopleStay??

    I guess I missed the memo. Didn’t know the National Guard was rounding up Jews for the red eye flights to Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Gunner
    Do liberals just not understand what the terms “settlers” and “colonists” are or have they just redefined those words as “immigrants”?

    Settlers, colonists, invaders, …, pawns, …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Opinionator
    And a Wall along the border won't preclude illegal immigration.

    …and a locked door doesn’t “preclude” burglary…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    ...in other words.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Opinionator
    Interesting post.

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It’s just their nature and character.
     
    But why? Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?

    Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?

    There’s probably a “gene” for power obsession.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. England is a nation of immigrants. Celts, Angles, Saxons and the Normans all immigrated to England and coalesced into the English people. Now they are a land of blood and soil. The Japanese, if you go back far enough, came from somewhere else. The French came from somewhere else. The Italians came from somewhere else. And so on and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. @ChrisZ
    For the second time in as many days, Marx is being invoked in a useful, non-dismissive way in this forum. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist: I too have been recalling snatches of Marx recently, but charged with more contemporary meaning. (Wouldn’t “There’s a spectre haunting Europe...” be a great opening line to an Alt-right tract?)

    If this represents some kind of partial rehabilitation of Marx, then it shows how truly dead the Cold War left-right dichotomy has become. Maybe, as has often been suggested here, the emerging dichotomy will run along globalist-nationalist lines. But maybe that’s just a temporary holding pattern as the old coalitions break apart and re-aggregate.

    At the least, it suggests to me that despair over our current-year situation is premature.

    I was referring to a reverse Marxism where the bosses use ‘marxist’ principles and theories to assert their own self-interest. I actually don’t think historically people have to be taught this, it comes to them naturally. Although Marx described it well.

    The crucial insight is that in an open border situation with an almost unlimited global labor the rich bosses will have all the power. It is very intuitive, but somehow modern ‘left’ is incapable of understanding it. You could call them ‘useful idiots’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Luke Lea

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    He forgot about the first Norman.

    > [Robert Winder, author of Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain] forgot about the first Norman.

    The point relevant to Ezra Klein’s tweet and this thread is that in 1066, the first Norman immigrants were welcomed by the descendants of the Jutes, Saxons, Romans and Danes. The conquest that followed was considered a win by everyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Twinkie

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    Yes, it does happen in real life. I am right here. And I am not the only one.

    On the other hand, while it does happen more often than you think, it also - for a variety of reasons - happens less often than is desirable. With a strong, confident, patriotic, and highly assimilative culture - which our country once had - it can happen much more often, but not with today's "multiculturalism," which is merely an invitation for outsiders to colonize, not assimilate into, our society.

    As for Ezra Klein and his statement "Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both," this is just pure insanity. It's akin to saying that a family must only have adapted children or only biological children - it cannot have both. Do people like this even know how illogical they sound? Or do they simply not care, because they know they are repeating agitprop?

    They don’t care how illogical it sounds, because they know they will never be challenged on it in any substantial way or in a public forum with a widespread audience. They won’t permit it.

    Sinead O’Connor of all people: “They laugh ’cause they know they’re untouchable, not because what I said was wrong.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Pincher Martin

    Doesn’t work. Citizen is just a word that can defined away.
     
    So can "blood."

    For example, what blood exactly? The US is only about 70 percent white, and that percentage is lower among the younger demographics. What's more, many of those whites want nothing to do with identifying by blood.

    At least with Citizenism, you can get some buy-in from minorities who are being misled by their elites.

    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.

    All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society. I realize that there’s not another good option out there, but that doesn’t change the fact that Citizenism won’t work. It’s not the least worst solution. It won’t work. Period.

    The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That’s a somewhat workable solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator

    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.
     
    That isn't how Whites in the United States and Canada behave.
    , @Corvinus
    "The world is tribal."

    You assume that the world is tribal. In some cases, you have groups of people who act tribal. In other cases, you have groups of people who seek to work with others despite being different.

    "People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics."

    Elites are not necessarily corrupt. And not all blacks and Hispanics are beholden to "elites".

    "All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society."

    Probably because whites are not tribes, but are ethnic groups who historically have also not gotten along. White Americans generally look at themselves as being American, not European-American. Which ultimately comes down to a personal choice. Why are you opposed to liberty?

    "I realize that there’s not another good option out there, but that doesn’t change the fact that Citizenism won’t work. It’s not the least worst solution. It won’t work. Period."

    Actually, citizenism does work, warts and all.

    "The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That’s a somewhat workable solution."

    It's an option, to be sure. Probably not going anywhere, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Crawfurdmuir
    The quoted passage was recorded in Morgenthau's diary.

    So if it is "fake news with an agenda," who faked it? And in service of what agenda?

    You actually quote Morgenthau’s diary and then ask those questions? Seriously?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    I'm trying to ascertain what you think. Don't be coy. Are you asserting that Morgenthau faked it? If so, to what end?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Boethiuss

    Not sure why I’d want to throw my lot in with them.
     
    Because Americans need to know that other Americans care about them, are in solidarity with them: their families, their health, their jobs, their respectable wage rates, their communities, their schools, etc., etc.

    Steve likes to mention the Preamble to the Constitution, specifically how it talks about securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It's a beautiful thing in parchment, but unfortunately for us those words mean nothing on their own. Their strength comes from us, Americans alive today, and our desire to make them real. And the tangible manifestation of that strength is the support for the Republican Party.

    Support Republicans or you're just shit on a stick. The end.

    Support Republicans or you’re just shit on a stick.

    Funny, you sound exactly like the other side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Simple Pseudonymic
    The word nation comes from the Latin word natio, which means "birth". So the phrase "nation of immigrants" is a contradiction in terms. Etymologically speaking, the phrase is nonsensical.

    As it is generally used, “empire” assumes multiple cultures, multiple peoples, multiple religions, and in some cases multiple races … exactly what destroyed the Western Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the British Empire. This is because by definition empires cross cultural, national, and religious boundaries and borders. The Empire of the United States is next on the list.

    The problem is that, to accommodate the various cultures, peoples, religions, and races, an empire’s civic, cultural, and religious values, policies, and laws eventually become relativized and trivialized in attempts to pacify a polity that is trisected and miscegenated beyond recovery. At that point, the subject peoples, cultures, and religions seize the opportunity to “pick the bones of the empire clean” while there is something left to seize, steal, or appropriate.

    The biggest losers in an empire are the nations and peoples who founded the empire. By the time the subject peoples, cultures, and religions act, it goes without saying the founding nation, culture, and religion have already been relativized to the point they are no longer recognizable. They are an inconsistent and unintelligible mishmash of everything within the empire.

    The saddest contemporary case of this is Great Britain. This is probably our lot unless the United States dumps its empire and secures its borders ASAP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Berty
    I wasn't aware this was the Soviet Union and the Party's welfare is paramount above all.

    We don't owe the GOP anything. If anything they owe us for voting them into office. If they won't do what we want then we have no reason to vote for a party that continues to push for more wars, more entitlement cuts, and more outsourcing of jobs. I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they'll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.

    Unfortunately, the GMI will only be available to POCs. Reparations, affirmative action and all that. You won’t even get social security.

    There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to repeal social security for everyone, Democrats only want to repeal it for wypipo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Anon
    "Israel"

    An explicitly blood and soil nation defined by religion and ancestry.

    Walls don’t work!

    What about Israel?

    That’s different. Also you are an anti-semite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Anon
    "Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact."

    The only way Steve's citizenship can work is if we embrace Starship Troopers as if it were divinely inspired liturgy to be obeyed at all costs. We are way past the point where anything less extreme than that will work. One of the Southern states could secede, creating a homeland for our people in the process. But Southerners aren't particularly bright or well organized and lack self respect, so even that less extreme option won't happen.

    One of the southern states? Oh you mean the one that’s not chock-full of negroes? Yeah, that’ll work. Great plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Anon
    "Somehow statements of your ignorance fail to persuade."

    Yeah, but can YOU give any counter examples?

    I follow the Peter Lynch philosophy of going with what you know. In my community, people come here to be Americans (and Cincinnatians/Midwesterners). Then again, we have a critical mass of whites who are proud to be American (and Cincinnatian/Midwestern) too. That seems to be the critical factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Anon
    "Steve you eternal boomer, deleting comments that point out we are heading for Bosnia on steroids doesn’t change the fact."

    The only way Steve's citizenship can work is if we embrace Starship Troopers as if it were divinely inspired liturgy to be obeyed at all costs. We are way past the point where anything less extreme than that will work. One of the Southern states could secede, creating a homeland for our people in the process. But Southerners aren't particularly bright or well organized and lack self respect, so even that less extreme option won't happen.

    Steve and a few others seem to think that reasoned blog posts are going to win over people who want to see him homeless and destitute, and they think its funny.

    Citizenism MIGHT have been viable during the 50s and 60s, versus say “civil rights”. We are 60 years past that horse leaving the barn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Citizenism is wholly consistent with civil rights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Tim Howells
    The thing about equality was from a private letter, which I can't locate now. It's discussed by Merrill D. Peterson, but I can't figure out his reference.

    https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&id=0QNrZoAgGAsC&q=explicit+distinction+private+letter#v=snippet&q=explicit%20distinction%20private%20letter&f=false

    I hope that link works in the States.

    Re race generally, one reference is Jefferson's book "Notes on the State of Virginia". go to

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

    and search for the word "extermination".

    Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @guest
    "Trump is making the racist subtext text"

    No, he isn't. Take it from someone who reads and hears explicitly racist things all the time.

    They like that "making subtext text" thing, but what are they going to do when real racists come to town (and they're white, and not merely racist against themselves)?

    This is a version of "I can't even."

    “Trump is making the racist subtext text”

    No, he isn’t. Take it from someone who reads and hears explicitly racist things all the time.

    Not being enthusiastic for – or at the very least apathetic towards – active measures to diminish the share of the population that is white has been deemed racist. It’s sort of de rigueur among the coastal left that white people are a political and social problem to be solved by having fewer of them. Cf Leftists’ bee in the bonnet for the “Quiverfull” movement among downscale white evangelicals vs. their silence of the serial polygamy of the black and brown underclass producing children with no real shot at living a decent middle class life.

    Note also that the vox author states fairly explicitly that Hart-Cellar favored non-white immigrants compared with past policies and that it would be moral backsliding to return to a pre-1965 system ensuring racial balance roughly on par with what the U.S. is now. Vociferous assurances were made prior to Hart-Cellar that it wouldn’t do what it was designed to do, but the moral weight in her view favors depriving Americans of their right to determine immigration policy by lies and fraud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Barnard
    They will go to extreme levels to make multicultural arguments about Europe. Here's one example from The Guardian:

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/10/british-migration-museum-history-immigration-minister

    ‘Nation of immigrants’ bears little relation to reality. It is a rhetorical device employed to silence those opposed to open immigration. If Britain was a nation of immigrants it would mean that we are all at some remove immigrants, therefore have no right to question further immigration. This would ultimately mean that we have no more right to live and work in these islands than anyone else who cares to turn up. Which is the standpoint of those who employ the term.

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dr-campbell-campbell-jack-britain-not-nation-immigrants/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Luke Lea

    As Robert Winder, a Migration Museum trustee, wrote in his book Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain: “Ever since the first Jute, the first Saxon, the first Roman and the first Dane leaped off their boats and planted their feet on British mud, we have been a [migrant] nation.”
     
    He forgot about the first Norman.

    He forgot about the first Norman.

    As well as Negro and Arab.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Pincher Martin

    You’re telling me minorities will abandon tribalism and embrace an appeal to logic and reason based on complicated subjects they don’t understand and rarely think about? How likely do you think that really is? Does that ever happen in real life?
     
    Some will. Certainly more than will ever embrace a white-oriented "blood and soil" identity pushed by whites who have no sympathy for minorities and don't believe their kind will ever contribute meaningfully to America.

    Maybe we should just dump copies of the Declaration of Independence over Syria, maybe a copy of The Wealth of Nations while we’re at it; I’m sure they’ll see that it’s in their best interests to put aside their differences and embrace a pluralistic democracy. Happens all the time. One wonders why wars are even fought anymore.
     
    You seem to be unwittingly illustrating the extreme dichotomy Steve Sailer criticizes in his post above.

    This is a lot of handwaving to avoid acknowledging the fact that this all likely ends in blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Eeyore alert
    , @Pincher Martin
    Yes, quite unlike the peaceful outcome of Blut und Boden.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Well, if you can’t let Norwegians in because of they would conflict with the Somalian quota, then I say don’t let anyone in.

    Really, let’s do that. The country could use a total ten-year (maybe, please please please a twenty) year moratorium.

    If we are serious about assimilation, such a moratorium would test the theory that assimilation is genuinely possible for such disparate ethnies as Somalians and Norwegians.

    Mr. Anon

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. @Berty
    I wasn't aware this was the Soviet Union and the Party's welfare is paramount above all.

    We don't owe the GOP anything. If anything they owe us for voting them into office. If they won't do what we want then we have no reason to vote for a party that continues to push for more wars, more entitlement cuts, and more outsourcing of jobs. I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they'll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.

    I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they’ll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.

    Well yeah, that’s why we can’t have nice things. We’re too dialed into our own narcissism to care about anyone else. There’s someone in Spokane or 40 miles outside Kansas City who is struggling with low wages or opiods or whatever, and he knows you can’t be bothered to put down Call of Duty and get off your ass for one minute to support Republicans.

    We talk about demographic replacement, the Most Important Graph in the World, blah blah.

    But Nobody Listens To Us, Nobody Believes Us, Nobody Trusts Us.

    We’re like those late-night informercials for real estate investing/flipping on cable television. That stuff may work or it may not, but we know that whoever bought those commercials is trying to make money for themselves, not us, so We Don’t Believe Them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Jesus, man, put down the gun - it's not that bad, it really isn't.

    There was supposed to be consolation in your philosophy. What happened?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaaaa? We should specifically NOT support guys like Grahmesty, Ryan, etc. in any way shape or form. You sound like a battered husband that sticks with the wife no matter how many rolling pins and flat screen TVs she hurls at him each evening.* You just gotta know when to fold 'em.

    Enough with the D's, enough with the non-conservative R's, enough with all the cucks! Don't support anyone who is part of the problem.

    Yeah, the man who wrote "Home, Sweet Home" never was a married man, sings Gerry Garcia a week after his marriage, recorded in Palo Alto, California in 1963 and played on KFOG radio:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjH6IOUzPg

    Enough with the D’s, enough with the non-conservative R’s, enough with all the cucks! Don’t support anyone who is part of the problem.

    That’s going to be kinda hard to work around when you find out the problem is you. Graham and Ryan are problems, no doubt. But they are not the immediate problems, the biggest problems, or the problems we can do something about. Right now, the biggest problem is us.

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we’re too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we’d like to persuade know perfectly well that we don’t care about them and simply tune us out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we’re too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we’d like to persuade know perfectly well that we don’t care about them and simply tune us out.
     
    You need to be more specific with all of this stuff to be helpful. Too abstract here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Boethiuss

    I might as well vote Democrat in the hopes that they’ll eventually give me a Guaranteed Minimum Income and I can spend the rest of my life watching TV and playing video games.
     
    Well yeah, that's why we can't have nice things. We're too dialed into our own narcissism to care about anyone else. There's someone in Spokane or 40 miles outside Kansas City who is struggling with low wages or opiods or whatever, and he knows you can't be bothered to put down Call of Duty and get off your ass for one minute to support Republicans.

    We talk about demographic replacement, the Most Important Graph in the World, blah blah.

    But Nobody Listens To Us, Nobody Believes Us, Nobody Trusts Us.

    We're like those late-night informercials for real estate investing/flipping on cable television. That stuff may work or it may not, but we know that whoever bought those commercials is trying to make money for themselves, not us, so We Don't Believe Them.

    Jesus, man, put down the gun – it’s not that bad, it really isn’t.

    There was supposed to be consolation in your philosophy. What happened?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Jesus, man, put down the gun – it’s not that bad, it really isn’t.
     
    Tbh we don't really know how bad it is, either for good or ill.

    As far as the other thing goes, I'm not really a philosopher but I do believe in hope. And as things stand we have hope. We do need to give up a few silly beefs to win the battles that really matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Opinionator
    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by "virtue"?

    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by “virtue”?

    That’s a bit of complicated subject. Here’s a decent essay on Jefferson’s understanding of virtue:

    http://www.liberty1.org/TJVirtue.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Wow, thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Anonymous
    You actually quote Morgenthau's diary and then ask those questions? Seriously?

    I’m trying to ascertain what you think. Don’t be coy. Are you asserting that Morgenthau faked it? If so, to what end?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Opinionator
    Where did Jefferson write this?

    Where did Jefferson write this?

    At Monticello, where his 130 slaves grew tobacco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I meant "wherein" (in what text?) but thanks for your reply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. The Right has been going extremist too. Just look at the comments on Unz a few years ago, and now.

    Its just general polarization. This won’t end well for anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    I think there is a critical mass (or one has building and is now close) of people on the right who are finally realizing that the left will never stop. That they are not their friends are never going to be placated or reasoned with.

    Obama's 2nd term, with its stark racial animus, illustrated this to a lot of people. I know several people who leaned somewhat right (e.g. were garden variety Republicans) but who otherwise were not "extremists" who watched Obama's 2nd term (Eric Holder, Lynch, etc) and concluded "wow, they really really hate us". I've pushed most of them to this site.

    Two sides arguing over policies and the efficacy of this one versus that one presupposes both sides want to arrive at the same destination. We have nothing in common with the left and compromising with them is pointless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Coemgen
    ...and a locked door doesn't "preclude" burglary...

    …in other words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. “Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil. It cannot be both.”

    We already chose, on Nov. 8, 2016.

    Jesus, libtards are still in denial 14 months later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they'll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.

    All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society. I realize that there's not another good option out there, but that doesn't change the fact that Citizenism won't work. It's not the least worst solution. It won't work. Period.

    The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That's a somewhat workable solution.

    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.

    That isn’t how Whites in the United States and Canada behave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Opinionator
    Chain migration is blood-and-soil immigration.

    Klein and others are trying to push blood-and-soil immigration.

    It’s blood immigration, but I don’t see what soil has to do with it. Unless all immigration is soil immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Most immigration is soil immigration. But not all immigration is blood immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Where did Jefferson write this?

     

    At Monticello, where his 130 slaves grew tobacco.

    I meant “wherein” (in what text?) but thanks for your reply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    I know. I'm saying a plantation and slave owner from Virginia might not have believed in the social and political equality of blacks.

    thatsthejoke.jpeg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @syonredux

    Do you happen to know what Jefferson meant by “virtue”?

     

    That's a bit of complicated subject. Here's a decent essay on Jefferson's understanding of virtue:

    http://www.liberty1.org/TJVirtue.pdf

    Wow, thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Boethiuss

    Enough with the D’s, enough with the non-conservative R’s, enough with all the cucks! Don’t support anyone who is part of the problem.
     
    That's going to be kinda hard to work around when you find out the problem is you. Graham and Ryan are problems, no doubt. But they are not the immediate problems, the biggest problems, or the problems we can do something about. Right now, the biggest problem is us.

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we're too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we'd like to persuade know perfectly well that we don't care about them and simply tune us out.

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we’re too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we’d like to persuade know perfectly well that we don’t care about them and simply tune us out.

    You need to be more specific with all of this stuff to be helpful. Too abstract here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    You need to be more specific with all of this stuff to be helpful. Too abstract here.
     
    Ok. I'm going to say that in contemporary politics there's two big issues that have to be resolved in our favor for the sake of the self-determination of the American people: immigration and "political correctness" broadly speaking. And for each of these, the status quo isn't good enough for us. We need to move the ball back in our favor.

    We can't do that just from the inside game, assuming that we were good enough to win at that anyway which in Trump's case he's not.

    We have to win the outside game, which means that we have to persuade our fellow Americans and have them put pressure on our behalf from the outside in.

    We have credible ideas to try and stories to tell regarding how to address these issues, but our fellow Americans tune us out. #1, we're associated with Trump, and most people think Trump is an idiot, and our ideas are suffering by association.

    Eg, DACA. Back when Obama first signed the executive order, this was widely perceived to be an overreach, to the extent that it was in substantial legal jeopardy even with the tradition deference of the federal judiciary to the executive. And, in fact the federal courts were in the process of knocking it down when Trump was elected. Now that Trump is here, it's all about the poor underage illegals who are here through no fault of their own, blah blah blah. And the American people have bought into the idea that that is important and has to be resolved.

    We have credible counterarguments to this, regarding native wage rates, overburdened public schools and other public schools, future chain migration, etc. etc. But we're not getting any traction for any of this outside our own base. In the world of Trump, the American people have decided that their things are important and have to be resolved, and our things aren't important, and can be dealt with some other time. That creates the lay of the land that Schumer, Trump, John Kelly, Paul Ryan, Gutierrez all negotiate from. We can blame Trump for caving, maybe, if in fact he does cave. But if he does cave, this is why. The American people are somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 in favor of normalizing, ie not deporting, underage illegals. By contrast, President Trump's approval rating is 40%

    #2, our style of activism and electioneering is given toward rallying the base and fighting factional battles. We like to tell our adversaries inside and outside the Right to basically suck an egg, because Trump is President. That's just not cutting it.

    That's what I've been trying to get at in some earlier comments. We really don't care about the fate or being in the good graces of the American people. And because of that, the people we need to persuade are simply tuning us out, even though we have a lot of useful things to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Jack Hanson
    This is a lot of handwaving to avoid acknowledging the fact that this all likely ends in blood.

    Eeyore alert

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Jack Hanson
    Steve and a few others seem to think that reasoned blog posts are going to win over people who want to see him homeless and destitute, and they think its funny.

    Citizenism MIGHT have been viable during the 50s and 60s, versus say "civil rights". We are 60 years past that horse leaving the barn.

    Citizenism is wholly consistent with civil rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @guest
    It's blood immigration, but I don't see what soil has to do with it. Unless all immigration is soil immigration.

    Most immigration is soil immigration. But not all immigration is blood immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Opinionator
    But why would the white demo have to be deeply divided? I don't think the "system" as you describe it in any way mandates that.

    Because whites are more diverse than other races in terms of ideology, employment, income, and geographic location. Other races are more tribal, more urbanised, and more concentrated in certain jobs. Hence, The Democrats can basically just campaign as the party of urban America and they can hoover up most of the ethnic vote, while still gaining a big chunk of the white vote.

    Sure if the FIRE economy collapses and whites abandon the cities, they may all end up voting Republican, but that still isn’t a good result from a citizenist perspective. The point of citizenism is that you vote for the interests of the majority of citizens, not for the interests of your race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Desiderius
    Jesus, man, put down the gun - it's not that bad, it really isn't.

    There was supposed to be consolation in your philosophy. What happened?

    Jesus, man, put down the gun – it’s not that bad, it really isn’t.

    Tbh we don’t really know how bad it is, either for good or ill.

    As far as the other thing goes, I’m not really a philosopher but I do believe in hope. And as things stand we have hope. We do need to give up a few silly beefs to win the battles that really matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    As far as the other thing goes, I’m not really a philosopher but I do believe in hope.

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

    And as things stand we have hope. We do need to give up a few silly beefs to win the battles that really matter.
     
    Aye, that is the case.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0S_MebzyzQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gio2pec2vLA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    Maybe because it is massively incentivised. The elites won’t get out of bed for less.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/further-response-to-ezra-klein-on-the-career-benefits-of-criticizing-israel/

    Here’s a conference in Boston in March on the one-state solution. A big lineup of speakers, including the great Phyllis Bennis, Joel Kovel, Nadia Hijab. You never see these people writing op-eds in the Times. And Saree Makdisi is here. His book on Palestine was initially censored by a leading bookstore in Washington, till the uproar forced the owner to reverse her decision. This is hardly an aberration. This sort of marginalization occurs all the time. And the idea that it doesn’t have professional or economic ramifications is just absurd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  190. @Anonymous
    Why are elites, like the editor of Vox, becoming so fanatically extremist?

    Because that is what works! It's a time-tested winning strategy. When you bargain with a weak/stupid side, you make a proposal so outrageous that, when the other side meets you half way, you get a lot more than you would if your original proposal were perfectly reasonable.

    Those they are bargaining with are neither weak nor stupid, but they do like to think of themselves as above-it-all unbiased fair-minded judges, which in practice makes them reliably difference-splitters, which does indeed reward extremism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Opinionator

    We can give coherent, persuasive, credible explanations for how we got where we are and what we should be doing about about it now. But Nobody Listens To Us, because we’re too dialed into our own narcissism, and Donald Trump, and his narcissism, that the people we’d like to persuade know perfectly well that we don’t care about them and simply tune us out.
     
    You need to be more specific with all of this stuff to be helpful. Too abstract here.

    You need to be more specific with all of this stuff to be helpful. Too abstract here.

    Ok. I’m going to say that in contemporary politics there’s two big issues that have to be resolved in our favor for the sake of the self-determination of the American people: immigration and “political correctness” broadly speaking. And for each of these, the status quo isn’t good enough for us. We need to move the ball back in our favor.

    We can’t do that just from the inside game, assuming that we were good enough to win at that anyway which in Trump’s case he’s not.

    We have to win the outside game, which means that we have to persuade our fellow Americans and have them put pressure on our behalf from the outside in.

    We have credible ideas to try and stories to tell regarding how to address these issues, but our fellow Americans tune us out. #1, we’re associated with Trump, and most people think Trump is an idiot, and our ideas are suffering by association.

    Eg, DACA. Back when Obama first signed the executive order, this was widely perceived to be an overreach, to the extent that it was in substantial legal jeopardy even with the tradition deference of the federal judiciary to the executive. And, in fact the federal courts were in the process of knocking it down when Trump was elected. Now that Trump is here, it’s all about the poor underage illegals who are here through no fault of their own, blah blah blah. And the American people have bought into the idea that that is important and has to be resolved.

    We have credible counterarguments to this, regarding native wage rates, overburdened public schools and other public schools, future chain migration, etc. etc. But we’re not getting any traction for any of this outside our own base. In the world of Trump, the American people have decided that their things are important and have to be resolved, and our things aren’t important, and can be dealt with some other time. That creates the lay of the land that Schumer, Trump, John Kelly, Paul Ryan, Gutierrez all negotiate from. We can blame Trump for caving, maybe, if in fact he does cave. But if he does cave, this is why. The American people are somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 in favor of normalizing, ie not deporting, underage illegals. By contrast, President Trump’s approval rating is 40%

    #2, our style of activism and electioneering is given toward rallying the base and fighting factional battles. We like to tell our adversaries inside and outside the Right to basically suck an egg, because Trump is President. That’s just not cutting it.

    That’s what I’ve been trying to get at in some earlier comments. We really don’t care about the fate or being in the good graces of the American people. And because of that, the people we need to persuade are simply tuning us out, even though we have a lot of useful things to say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Altai
    This is the crux, it's a different justification for each country. Britain and France it's colonialism (Somehow this extends to immigrants from places they never colonised), in Ireland it's repayment for all the emigrants, in Germany it's WWII, in Spain it's the inquisition (And even the reconquest, yes there are Spanish SJWs that are ashamed about kicking out invaders!) in Sweden it's how good people in Sweden have it and about not having had any wars recently. In Denmark... well actually they had immigration restriction (And deterrence, it might be possible to go there, but there are legal discriminations against foreigners such as higher interest loans, particularly for mortgages etc) since the late 90s due to a competent anti-immigration party coming to the fore and wielding influence wisely despite the media there being against them, it's been so long they have to accept the shifted overton window.

    It ultimately doesn't matter, all the pattern seems to be is 'Is it a white country?', if the answer is yes, then immigration restriction is morally wrong. Ask yourself, what did Iceland do? Now ask yourself if given the small population, fragile ecology and that everyone seems to like the Icelandic ethnicity, if American SJWs would ever not call them Nazis for restricting immigration. (Assuming somebody posted a story about it on Vox since they don't know or seek out any information about the wider world, this might explain things somewhat since Americans think of 'white' people as a group.)

    How about Finland? No, there are no exceptions. European ethnicities aren't allowed collective rights to self-determination (Except when they're immigrants in other Western countries, then they are encouraged to be ethnocentric and impede the expression of the native population, a Pole in Poland is a Nazi, a Pole in London is part of the diversity and isn't their culture so interesting compared to the boring English one?)

    It's also difficult with regards to numbers, if it's a small reduction they'll say it's unnecessary and won't have any effect. If it's a large reduction it's 'holy shit the Nazis are back!'.

    The Finns were allied with the Nazis at one point. But it was more of an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Even Mexico has stricter immigration rules than the US. This is like a cult mentality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. @Opinionator
    Interesting post.

    One must understand the mentality of the current ruling elites. They are obsessed with power and control and want it all. It’s just their nature and character.
     
    But why? Why are they so power obsessed and why do they want it all?

    Why are [the current elites] so power obsessed and why do they want it all?

    The instinct was always there, and it stands to reason, as another commenter intimated, that a particularly strong manifestation of power lust is more likely found among those who have gained great power.

    Two interlocking factors have changed over the past 30 years:

    (1) The end of the Cold War deprived the West of an objective, large target to focus our manifold energies.

    (2) Cultural Decline. The decline of religion started in the mid-1800s. Consumerization took off in America in the 1950s, slightly later in Europe and came to dominate official and private culture. The attendant decline in civic consciousness enabled the Left’s take-over of education K-12 and in colleges. The Left’s aim is to establish a new religious cult of magic rituals centered on a self-selected, powerful priest cast.

    The combined effect of (1) and (2) has been a drastic weakening of the institutional and social immune system, thus facilitating the spread of opportunistic infections such as enviro-cultism, open-borders “we are the world” rituals, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Jack Hanson
    This is a lot of handwaving to avoid acknowledging the fact that this all likely ends in blood.

    Yes, quite unlike the peaceful outcome of Blut und Boden.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Opinionator
    I meant "wherein" (in what text?) but thanks for your reply.

    I know. I’m saying a plantation and slave owner from Virginia might not have believed in the social and political equality of blacks.

    thatsthejoke.jpeg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Boethiuss

    Jesus, man, put down the gun – it’s not that bad, it really isn’t.
     
    Tbh we don't really know how bad it is, either for good or ill.

    As far as the other thing goes, I'm not really a philosopher but I do believe in hope. And as things stand we have hope. We do need to give up a few silly beefs to win the battles that really matter.

    As far as the other thing goes, I’m not really a philosopher but I do believe in hope.

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

    And as things stand we have hope. We do need to give up a few silly beefs to win the battles that really matter.

    Aye, that is the case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Anonymous
    The Right has been going extremist too. Just look at the comments on Unz a few years ago, and now.

    Its just general polarization. This won't end well for anyone.

    I think there is a critical mass (or one has building and is now close) of people on the right who are finally realizing that the left will never stop. That they are not their friends are never going to be placated or reasoned with.

    Obama’s 2nd term, with its stark racial animus, illustrated this to a lot of people. I know several people who leaned somewhat right (e.g. were garden variety Republicans) but who otherwise were not “extremists” who watched Obama’s 2nd term (Eric Holder, Lynch, etc) and concluded “wow, they really really hate us”. I’ve pushed most of them to this site.

    Two sides arguing over policies and the efficacy of this one versus that one presupposes both sides want to arrive at the same destination. We have nothing in common with the left and compromising with them is pointless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Of course both can be true. It is arguable that post-revolutionary France is a “proposition nation” (Liberté, égalité, fraternité); but it is clearly also the home of the French.

    The attitude seems to be “we’re a proposition nation; so we can invite anyone who agrees with our proposition”; and then they let in people irrespective of whether in fact they agree with the proposition.

    We hear even in Britain that we are a “nation of immigrants” – yeah, right, if you accept that a substantial fraction immigrated before the time of Christ.

    In real nations of immigrants, things tend not to work out very well for those who were there first (Native Americans, for example). In the Old World, nations of immigrants do exist – for example, Crimea – but again, the outcome is not great except for the most recent group to come out on top.

    People on the Left tend to be ethnomasochists, and they genuinely believe that “we” have “got it coming” because of our historic colonialism and slavery (although “we” seldom seems to include themselves). The fact that many immigrants to Europe are Arabs, who have an even longer history of colonialism and slavery than ourselves, doesn’t seem to matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Britain is a Nation of Immigrants in that all these Europeans immigrated to it after Britain's glacial ice cap melted roughly ten thousand years ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @neutral

    Her argument is that if anyone cares about what countries immigrants come from or whether or not they have any employable skills you are racist and xenophobic.

    A reasonable compromise with zealots like this is not going to be possible.
     

    Oh I think there is, endlessly hammer away the fact that this ideology does not apply to Israel. Sooner or later this basic truth that is so censored is going to end up on a Trump tweet (he will try use Israel as a positive example), when that happens they cannot ignore this colossal hypocrisy any more.

    This is key.

    If you want to do what is best for your nation and people, look to Isreal. They provide you with the roadmap. Do exactly as the Jews do.

    If you want your nation to crumble into a heartbreaking disaster, listen to what Jews say.

    We have to put a stop to this crazed hypocrisy somehow. It’s sick. It can’t continue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @James N. Kennett
    Of course both can be true. It is arguable that post-revolutionary France is a "proposition nation" (Liberté, égalité, fraternité); but it is clearly also the home of the French.

    The attitude seems to be "we're a proposition nation; so we can invite anyone who agrees with our proposition"; and then they let in people irrespective of whether in fact they agree with the proposition.

    We hear even in Britain that we are a "nation of immigrants" - yeah, right, if you accept that a substantial fraction immigrated before the time of Christ.

    In real nations of immigrants, things tend not to work out very well for those who were there first (Native Americans, for example). In the Old World, nations of immigrants do exist - for example, Crimea - but again, the outcome is not great except for the most recent group to come out on top.

    People on the Left tend to be ethnomasochists, and they genuinely believe that "we" have "got it coming" because of our historic colonialism and slavery (although "we" seldom seems to include themselves). The fact that many immigrants to Europe are Arabs, who have an even longer history of colonialism and slavery than ourselves, doesn't seem to matter.

    Britain is a Nation of Immigrants in that all these Europeans immigrated to it after Britain’s glacial ice cap melted roughly ten thousand years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. @whorefinder

    I don’t know which Boomers you talk to on a regular basis, but please, that’s a pretty broad brush you’re wielding.
     
    The last 50+ years of national policy contradict you. You might be a special little snowflake Boomer-outlier with a brain, but your generation has been the ruination of the nation.

    The ruination started when I was a toddler, if not before, and will continue after I’m gone, or so it appears. To blame the state of the nation on those born in the couple of decades after 1945 is plain silly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they'll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.

    All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society. I realize that there's not another good option out there, but that doesn't change the fact that Citizenism won't work. It's not the least worst solution. It won't work. Period.

    The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That's a somewhat workable solution.

    “The world is tribal.”

    You assume that the world is tribal. In some cases, you have groups of people who act tribal. In other cases, you have groups of people who seek to work with others despite being different.

    “People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.”

    Elites are not necessarily corrupt. And not all blacks and Hispanics are beholden to “elites”.

    “All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society.”

    Probably because whites are not tribes, but are ethnic groups who historically have also not gotten along. White Americans generally look at themselves as being American, not European-American. Which ultimately comes down to a personal choice. Why are you opposed to liberty?

    “I realize that there’s not another good option out there, but that doesn’t change the fact that Citizenism won’t work. It’s not the least worst solution. It won’t work. Period.”

    Actually, citizenism does work, warts and all.

    “The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That’s a somewhat workable solution.”

    It’s an option, to be sure. Probably not going anywhere, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored