The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Thomas Piketty Still Not Quite Clear on the Concept of "Inequality"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

As I pointed out last year, celebrated French leftist economist Thomas Piketty was sure that criticism of Mexican monopolist Carlos Slim was caused by ethnic prejudice. In Liberation, the French left daily, Piketty continues to remain oblivious to why virtually all billionaires want more immigration:

SILVER LINING
For an open Europe
by Thomas Piketty

Editor’s note: This originally appeared as a column in French in the newspaper Liberation. It has been translated to English by Manu Saadia.

The plight of the refugees is an opportunity for Europeans to jump-start the continent’s economy. Germany’s attitude is a model to follow.

As belated as it may be, these last weeks’ surge of solidarity in favor of refugees has at least the merit to remind not only Europeans, but the rest of the world as well, of an essential reality. Our continent can and must become a great land of immigration in the 21st Century. All conspires to that end: our self-destructive aging imposes it, our social model allows it, and the combination of global warming and Africa’s demographic explosion will increasingly require it.

All this is well-known. What may be less known, however, is that when it comes to migrations, pre-financial crisis Europe was on the verge of becoming the most open region in the world. It is the financial crisis, triggered in 2007-2008 in the United States, and Europe’s inability to overcome it due to its bad policies, that led to the rise of unemployment, xenophobia and a brutal closure of the continent’s borders. All this happened while the international context (Arab spring, refugee influx) should have in fact justified an increased opening.

As of 2015, the European Union counts almost 510 million inhabitants, compared to 485 million in 1995. That increase of 25 million over 20 years is not particularly remarkable in and of itself (a measly 0.2% of annual growth, against 1.2% per year for the world’s population over the same period). The key point is that immigration accounts for almost three-quarters of that population growth (more than 15 million). Between 2000 and 2010, the European Union has absorbed migratory inflows (net of outflows) of 1 million people per year. That is equivalent to the United States’ level, but with a higher degree of cultural and geographical diversity. (Islam remains marginal on the other side of the pond). At that not-so-distant time when our continent knew how to be more welcoming, however relatively, unemployment was on the decline in Europe, at least up to 2007-2008.

So, there was ton of immigration during the Bubble Years. And then the world blew up. You know, maybe there was a … connection?

It’s been seven years, but Piketty doesn’t seem to have learned anything:

… What is to be done? The tragedy of the refugees could be an opportunity for Europeans to rise out of their petty disputes and their navel-gazing. By opening themselves up to the world, by jump-starting the economy and investments (housing, schools, infrastructure), by fighting off deflationary risk, the European Union could easily return to its pre-crisis immigration levels.

In that regard, the openness demonstrated by Germany is excellent news for all those who are worried about a decrepit and aging Europe. One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate. According to the latest United Nations demographic projections, even with twice the immigration rate in Germany than in France in the coming decades, the German population would still decrease from 81 million to 63 million by the end of the century, while France would go from 64 million today to 76 million in the same interval.

Funny how Piketty sounds just like The Economist when it comes to immigration.

On a broader issue, there is much debate among economists and other social scientists over whether the economist’s convenient model of Economic Man — self-serving and rational — is realistic or not. But the self-interested Economic Man hypothesis is certainly more realistic for billionaires than it is for most people.

And billionaires overwhelmingly answer the question: “Massive Immigration: Is It Good for the Billionaires?” in the affirmative. Now, The Economist is on the side of the billionaires. Piketty claims he’s not. Yet, on the single issue that most divides the billionaires from the average person, Piketty is on the side of the billionaires.

Now, it could be that Piketty has some secret plan for how massive Third World immigration into Europe will turn out to be bad for the billionaires and good for democratic social cohesion. But the billionaires overwhelmingly think otherwise. And who has a better track record of being right about what benefits their net worths: Piketty or the billionaires?

 
Hide 126 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate.”

    The Germans don’t say that is why they are doing it, they say it is a moral imperative. the worlds biggest tabloid Bild used to have anti immigration stories, now it is pro immigrant.

  2. The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=
     
    Looking at the NYT comments, even normal center-left westerners are absolutely horrified by this. All of the reasonable points come from the outraged comments. The actual articles sound deranged.

    There is a class of elite politicians and academic intellectuals that have this contempt for the people they are supposed to represent. They smell blood. They can get rid of these pesky normal whites by importing enough rivals. Piketty calls native Europe "decrepit". Maybe he shouldn't be a public representative of French culture if it is decrepit. Maybe the French people should call him decrepit and revoke his privileged position.
    , @anon
    It's a massive media psyop. The BBC even has sad music playing alongside pictures of the handful of women and children.

    The media started it, picked up the twitter SJWs quickly enough as expected and then enough soft-hearted people to get around 40% support - which is amazingly low considering it is wall to wall 24/7 with no opposition allowed.

    The politicians then jumped in pre-arranged to bow to the "public pressure".

    It's amazing to watch - a bit like the media synchronization after the airliner went down over Ukraine.

    It's anger making as well but then you think why? Why are going all-out to destroy the European nations now when they have been successfully boiling the frog for so long?

    I think it's because the anti-EU parties are gaining and the elites know the economy is going down.

    So they know they've lost unless they can get it over with quickly - hence this massive psyop.

    The ironic thing is if true it's their lies that did for them - mass immigration and driving down wages doesn't help the economy it kills the economy and it's the economic situation that has turned the political tide against the EU.

    So it's a race against time now, how fast the trans-national elites can import their goums versus how fast the native peoples realize they are under an existential attack.
  3. Honestly, I don’t see how it can be good for anybody, least of all the Jews, who need to step up and lead the world away from this madness. (Piketty is Jewish isn’t he?)

    • Replies: @SFG
    Is he? I agree 'liberal intellectual writing big book' does sound Jewish, but I can't find any evidence he is, and googling the question just finds you webpages claiming his work is somehow antisemitic. ;)
    , @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.
    , @WowJustWow
    I highly doubt it. He looks like Jason Bateman.
    , @Shine a Light
    Piketty is not a Jew but he sure plays one on TV when he gives interviews.

    However he is a Globalist and a sworn opponent of the National Front. His job is to somehow convince everyone that Globalism is not the reason for the falling standard of 1st world living. And that therefore Nationalism is not the answer to our current crisis.

    His job gets more and more difficult with each coming day.
  4. So Piketty is full of shit.

    Just like all the rest of them.

  5. Our continent can and must become a great land of immigration in the 21st Century.

    Well. Put it in front of the European populace. Have them decide on it. Anything else is treason.

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he’s not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.
    – This calls into question the intellectual integrity and honesty of the entire corpus of his work.
    If a man, particularly an academic, whose published work is as only as good as his word blatantly lies about anything, anything at all, and that lie is noted and found out, then, I’m sorry, but the entirety of his work must be disregarded.

    It really is as harsh and unforgiving as that. The parallel is dishonesty amongst professionals entrusted with taking care of one’s health, financial assets, religion etc etc.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he’s not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't be too sure about that...

    When Piketty's big book came out a year or so ago and was getting rave reviews everywhere, I bought a copy and was thinking of trying to read it. But when I mentioned this to a smart liberal friend of mine who knows that subject very well, he said the book was total junk and I shouldn't bother.

    Piketty's main theoretical argument was that since the rate of return on invested wealth tends to be greater than the general economic growth rate these days, an increasing concentration of wealth at the top is inevitable. But the moment I read that in the newspaper reviews, I thought Huh? Piketty's analysis relies on the assumption that the rich are immortal and never die. After all, if a rich person has two or three (or more) surviving heirs, the resulting division of wealth (even leaving aside inheritance taxes) would easily be enough to destroy Piketty's analysis. The reason that was so obvious to me was that was exactly the factor that prevented concentration of wealth in traditional rural China.

    Now the flaw was so obvious I assumed I must be wrong. But when I asked that liberal friend of mine (who knows Piketty's work backwards and forwards), he said I was exactly correct.

    Please note that the economist-hirelings at the big conservative thinktanks who were endlessly attacking Piketty's book were apparently all too stupid to consider that simple point.

    The quality of the elite American media and intelligentsia is just a total joke...
  7. He perfunctorily laments global warming, yet advocates 3rd world migration to the 1st world…whereby migrant’s new consumption patterns will result in 10x more emissions (or whatever it is) of greenhouse gases.

  8. The plight of the refugees is an opportunity for Europeans to jump-start the continent’s economy. Germany’s attitude is a model to follow.

    Denmark’s refugee integration has ‘failed’

    Three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later…

    Every year, German media is full of stories about ‘Bildungsbenachteiligung’ — if anything, the hand-wringing discussions about the poor performance of “Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund” is even more realitätsfremd than in the US.

    These people cannot be serious — all of this must some kind of inside joke.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Yeah, it's kind of hard to experience Fahrvergnügen when you're importing tons of folks who are too dumb and dysfunctional even to build Trabants.
  9. Modern leftism is 99 % shilling for billionaires and the rest is post-modern B.S.

    “Monsieur Piketty, your check is in the mail. Truly yours, Carlos” That´s how it works.

  10. Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: “[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to” let Syrian migrants into America.

    • Replies: @jsm
    Donald Trump said on "Hannity" tonight that he sympathizes with the millions of migrants who are fleeing war-torn parts of Africa and the Middle East, but we already have too many problems in the U.S. to be taking in refugees.

    "From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems," Trump told Sean Hannity. "We have so many problems that we have to solve."

    He noted that tremendously wealthy, powerful Gulf states - such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain - are not taking in refugees.

    "Russia’s not taking, nobody’s taking. We’re supposed to take? We have to straighten out our own problems," Trump stated.
    , @BurplesonAFB
    Most recent line from Trump on Hannity last night is: "From a humanitarian standpoint, I'd love to help, but we have our own problems"
    , @MG
    Trump revised his remarks a day later. Here -

    http://therightscoop.com/that-was-quick-donald-trump-now-says-america-has-too-many-problems-to-accept-migrants-from-syria/
    , @e
    Actually, he modified what he said on 9/8 last night during an interview on Sean Hannity's show (9/9).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvQQsGub1iM

    Try approx. 8:05
    , @M-Dot
    I guess you must have missed his follow-up on Hannity. The quote you're talking about was when, caught off guard, he was asked about refugees and he emotionally responded that something had to be done. He later clarified, after meeting with Sen. Sessions (and yes, it's probably a bit of a flip-flop in that he got educated on the issue), that: "Most of the refugees seem to be men, not women or children. We have our own problems, let gulf states take them in!"

    Here's the relevant video: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/09/trump-on-refugees-id-love-to-help-but-we-have-our-own-problems/

    , @Harry Baldwin
    No longer the case.

    Donald Trump, who previously said the United States was obliged to take more Syrian refugees because “they’re living in hell, and something has to be done,” now says we should not take more refugees due to security concerns, and the problems already faced by American citizens.

    “From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems. We have so many problems that we have to solve,” Trump said on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Wednesday night.
     
  11. One interesting thing about this whole “refugee crisis” is that it has morphed in the past week or so from “Save the children”, especially those dead on a Turkish beach, to “Save the West by bringing in warm bodies.”

    My conditional defense of what Merkel was designing was based on the latter concept, but it was also based on successful assimilation. I don’t know if assimilation will work, but if it does, then that will be OK to that extent. On the other hand, the genetic alteration (in HBD terms) is going to happen and I can understand that a lot of people aren’t going to be too happy about that.

    However, bringing in all these warm bodies isn’t solving the fundamental problem, which is that the West is accustomed to a certain level of consumerism and benefits, and these immigrants are supposed to essentially work to support those things. I don’t suppose that these new immigrants — either to the EU or the US — are going to be satisfied with the privilege of working in the fields while the caucasians are sipping their lattes and talking about race relations at Starbucks.

    Lots of ways this could mutate. Standards of living to decline. Racial/cultural conflict in the streets. Legislation against abortion, contraception, fornication: these would require a sort of neo-Puritan ideology. Ghost towns popping up all over EU and US. As much as I would prefer these changes to be gradual and non-violent, the less I am thinking that will be the case. And tomorrow is an anniversary.

    The only positive I can see from all of this is that it definitely underscores the fundamental irrelevance of both WWG and WWT.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I find it weird too, that they (govt heads/pundits/public relations firms) flip-flopped to: aging population +low birth rate of natives = justification to bring in migrants ad infinitum. Some countries in Europe have had a robust birth-rate...2-3 children these last 2 decades.

    Few countries have industry (what they do have is also highly mechanized, and workers are highly skilled/educated) ready for employees. In many EU (Norway exception: shipbuilding & offshore oil) countries, they really don't, "make anything anymore." There is no SV2 anywhere...and even SV would not be considered a "manufacturing corporation." Plus, service jobs are very weak in northern Europe because people do not spend frivolously.

    Where will the money come from to support all these migrants? Cost of living is so high in northern Europe...it's almost close to SF, NYC, Boston. What does that mean: ghettos will get larger in the outer rim of cities in northern Europe...but it will include poorer natives who will compete for jobs in place like: dairies, paper plants, food processing plants, cleaning businesses, airports, ferries, construction etc..

    Because of the macabre spectacle of the "journey" going on right now, every govt is just panicking. Everyone's reaction is just visceral and atavistic. Years from now, "there will be blood." And, once again, no one wants to be called a Nazi.

    , @Richard

    My conditional defense of what Merkel was designing was based on the latter concept, but it was also based on successful assimilation. I don’t know if assimilation will work, but if it does, then that will be OK to that extent. On the other hand, the genetic alteration (in HBD terms) is going to happen and I can understand that a lot of people aren’t going to be too happy about that.
     
    For assimilation to happen, the host culture would have to be highly self-confident, perhaps even to the point of disdain for alien cultures; make the foreign peoples crave to conform. But that isn't the way things are. Instead of Teddy Roosevelt deriding hyphenated Americans, we've got the European sociopolitical leadership like Piketty citing "diversity" as one of the best features of the immigrant wave they're creating.

    Europe shows no talent for assimilating truly alien cultures, anyway. The Gypsies migrated into the continent hundreds of years ago, but they remain a distinct subculture largely at odds with their unwilling hosts. The Ottoman Empire islamized large portions of eastern Europe, and despite the passage of hundreds of years this legacy has led to wars and the restructuring of national borders within our lifetimes.

    There will be no real assimilation. Western Europe is self-Balkanizing for essentially ideological reasons. Two thousand years from now historians will be basing careers on trying to come up with the best sane-sounding explanation for why presumably intelligent men and women engineered the crack-ups of their homelands.
  12. @Luke Lea
    Honestly, I don't see how it can be good for anybody, least of all the Jews, who need to step up and lead the world away from this madness. (Piketty is Jewish isn't he?)

    Is he? I agree ‘liberal intellectual writing big book’ does sound Jewish, but I can’t find any evidence he is, and googling the question just finds you webpages claiming his work is somehow antisemitic. 😉

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    You're right, SFG. Maybe Piketty isn't Jewish. In any case, if I may adapt a phrase from Edmund Burke, all that's necessary for bad Jews to triumph is for good Jews to do nothing. Irving Kristol wrote about this in his essay, "The Political Stupidity of the Jews."
  13. My view is that it is best to look at open borders enthusiasm as a totem. It is one of the ways the anointed distinguish themselves from the benighted. Anti-racism is the most obvious example of how this works. The anointed compete with one another, for example, over how much outrage they can muster at something like the SC church shooting. Across the political spectrum, good thinkers were falling all over themselves to get their public act of piety out there on the stage.

    Open borders is an off-shoot of this impulse. Strangely, the traditional bad thinkers are not as opposed to immigration as the narrative suggests. In the American South, most white are relatively indifferent to immigration. Hispanics have been working agriculture for decades. They now fill the low-skill manufacturing jobs. In the cultural hierarchy, they slide in above the blacks as a nice buffer.

    I’ll just note that Trump is a quintessential New Yorker, no one’s idea of a red neck from the South. That’s what has the good whites in a panic. A member of the ruling coalition is breaking ranks on a moral issue. Immigration is not an issue that divides the good whites from the bad whites so much as it divides the good whites from each other: http://tinyurl.com/nvdsoqx

  14. It sure didn’t take long for the idiots to turn this into an issue about Jews.

  15. “our self-destructive aging imposes it”

    Does this phrase mean something in French? In translation it sure sounds screwy, like you have a choice or something. I mean does he think people can decide not to age?

    I’m not the best parser, so this could be a correct usage in English. But it sounds weird to me.

    • Replies: @Mark Eugenikos
    The only explanation that makes sense is that he means aging of the population, i.e. in aggregate, not aging of individuals. The latter we can't control, the former we can by having more kids. But I also agree that it's a clumsy translation; perhaps literal from French, but confusing in English.
  16. Piketty, like almost all of the 1%, favors mass third world immigration and state run central banking. Both benefit the elite at the expense of everyone else. It is no coincidence that one of Marx’s planks for communism in the US involved govt control of the money supply and interest rates.

  17. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.

    Donald Trump said on “Hannity” tonight that he sympathizes with the millions of migrants who are fleeing war-torn parts of Africa and the Middle East, but we already have too many problems in the U.S. to be taking in refugees.

    “From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems,” Trump told Sean Hannity. “We have so many problems that we have to solve.”

    He noted that tremendously wealthy, powerful Gulf states – such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain – are not taking in refugees.

    “Russia’s not taking, nobody’s taking. We’re supposed to take? We have to straighten out our own problems,” Trump stated.

  18. It takes a special kind of academy-honed stupidity to produce the prose Piketty is publishing. He’s quite a piece of work.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It takes a special kind of academy-honed stupidity to produce the prose Piketty is publishing. He’s quite a piece of work.
     
    I don't know if your handle is a joke, but I think Pinketty and the elites seem more predestinarian than anyone I know, including the neurotic French lawyer/theologian himself.
  19. All conspires to that end: our self-destructive aging imposes it. . .

    Indeed, every day I curse my self-destructive aging. But what can you do?

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Indeed, every day I curse my self-destructive aging. But what can you do?"

    Curl up and die, and be replaced by someone who will work for a lot less. At least that's what you'd do if you weren't such a damned racist.
  20. “Funny how Piketty sounds just like The Economist when it comes to immigration.”

    Maybe thats why Piketty has been promoted by the media, he says what the Elite wants to hear, the same with Noam Chomsky popularity, Chomsky works a gatekeeper for the “Left”.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  21. As of 2015, the European Union counts almost 510 million inhabitants, compared to 485 million in 1995. That increase of 25 million over 20 years is not particularly remarkable in and of itself (a measly 0.2% of annual growth, against 1.2% per year for the world’s population over the same period). The key point is that immigration accounts for almost three-quarters of that population growth (more than 15 million). Between 2000 and 2010, the European Union has absorbed migratory inflows (net of outflows) of 1 million people per year.

    I am sorry if this guy doesn’t think that is remarkable. But the key point is that the 1995 population of Europe was at a then all time high. The 2015 population of Europe is even higher than that. What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? Do they ever factor in how many people are needed in an age where automation is taking jobs? Do they ever factor in the stress on the resources? All they ever preach is constant growth.

    • Agree: OutWest
    • Replies: @Jimi
    They preach constant growth in GDP. The idea of growth in per capita income is alien to them. Importing massive number of immigrants will raise GDP but will lower per capita income.
    , @ren
    Amen, bro.

    There has to be an end to growth oriented economics.

    We have to develop a stasis model.

    Overpopulation is not an inherently good thing for people or the planet.

    When Europe grows so does its CO2 output.

    Population growth + economic growth = pollution.

    There is no way around it.

    Bottom line, economics does not trump all other concerns.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    "What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? "
    As long as everybody can reach everybody else with a knife without having to get off the couch, we'll be fine. Move up the bus!
  22. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.

    Most recent line from Trump on Hannity last night is: “From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Trump is so egotistical that he sometimes learns from his mistakes!
  23. @iSteveFan

    As of 2015, the European Union counts almost 510 million inhabitants, compared to 485 million in 1995. That increase of 25 million over 20 years is not particularly remarkable in and of itself (a measly 0.2% of annual growth, against 1.2% per year for the world’s population over the same period). The key point is that immigration accounts for almost three-quarters of that population growth (more than 15 million). Between 2000 and 2010, the European Union has absorbed migratory inflows (net of outflows) of 1 million people per year.
     
    I am sorry if this guy doesn't think that is remarkable. But the key point is that the 1995 population of Europe was at a then all time high. The 2015 population of Europe is even higher than that. What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? Do they ever factor in how many people are needed in an age where automation is taking jobs? Do they ever factor in the stress on the resources? All they ever preach is constant growth.

    They preach constant growth in GDP. The idea of growth in per capita income is alien to them. Importing massive number of immigrants will raise GDP but will lower per capita income.

  24. “What is to be done? The tragedy of the refugees could be an opportunity for Europeans to rise out of their petty disputes and their navel-gazing. By opening themselves up to the world, by jump-starting the economy and investments (housing, schools, infrastructure)”

    Unfortunately the average refugee is capable of little contribution given his or her educational capacity. A comparison of Syria and the state of Mississippi education rankings is revealing.

    For example, the best university Syria has to offer is Damascus University. (Motto: ‘My Lord, increase me in knowledge.’) Student number: 210,929.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Education

    Webometics ranking of the worlds universities indicates Damascus University compares quite favorably with Mississippi College, (3540th vs 3376 worldwide), however Damascus University does appear to be out-muscled scholastically by two other Mississippi universities, Mississippi University, (442 worldwide) and the University of Southern Mississippi (817 worldwide).

    According to the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, the top three Syrian universities are:
    1) Damascus University (3540th worldwide) 2) The University of Aleppo (7176th) and 3) Tishreen University (7968th).

    http://www.webometrics.info/en/search/Rankings/mississippi%20type%3Amundial

    The upcoming tragedy to have the largest sting in Germany and Austria is the tragedy of the commons when they learn their public places can no longer sustain ‘nice things’.

  25. the openness demonstrated by Germany is excellent news for all those who are worried about a decrepit and aging Europe. One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate.

    Paraphrase: Anyone who is worried about ethnic Germans can be thrilled that leading university intellectuals have organized an aggressive and swift death. I am stunned that someone could write and publish this. It is so brutally hateful and smugly so. I am also stunned that this is an academic intellectual with the top most credentials who represents the west.

    If ethnic German birth rates are such a huge problem, why doesn’t that group try organizing together and raising them? Thirty years ago, their biggest problem was the Berlin Wall, no one was talking about university economist professors organizing their complete ethnic annihilation.

    This would make a great iPad game: start with a wealthy society of privileged racists, and use mass immigration displacement to get your PhD, tenure, and then journal publication!

  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    It takes a special kind of academy-honed stupidity to produce the prose Piketty is publishing. He's quite a piece of work.

    It takes a special kind of academy-honed stupidity to produce the prose Piketty is publishing. He’s quite a piece of work.

    I don’t know if your handle is a joke, but I think Pinketty and the elites seem more predestinarian than anyone I know, including the neurotic French lawyer/theologian himself.

  27. @Luke Lea
    Honestly, I don't see how it can be good for anybody, least of all the Jews, who need to step up and lead the world away from this madness. (Piketty is Jewish isn't he?)

    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority.

    Many jews are quite conscious of that rationale and motivation. I know some who will state it explicitly.

    Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    You agree that the motivation exists or you agree that the reason for it is a good one?
    , @e
    a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    There is no such thing as a "race blind" culture.
    , @Former Darfur
    Traditionally and historically, Jews regarded as being considered "the other" as a feature, not a bug. And orthodox, very orthodox, ultra-orthodox and hyper-orthodox Jews still do. That's why they dress oddly and keep to themselves.

    Such Jews are relatively little trouble for the societies they inhabit.

    Reform Jews with their tikkun olam are quite naturally, and in my opinion correctly, viewed by those with a view to keeping their own societies theirs, and functional, in the same way a classic car enthusiast regards people who build street rods out of rare and desireable antique cars. Of course, their idea of street rodding is much like that of Hermann Munster.

    http://news.boldride.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Munster-Mobile.jpg

    , @Ozymandias
    "The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with."

    You had better hope that the population you are cuckolding is too stupid to notice what you're up to. Because if they do notice, they may be a little resentful. If I were you, I'd do a little research on the Jewish role in the Weimar republic before you fully embrace this ideology.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/the-german-jewish-kulturkampf-in-the-weimar-republic/

    http://www.geni.com/projects/German-Jewry-in-the-Weimar-Republic-1918-1933/17042

    TL:DR version: It doesn't work out that well.
    , @Stan D Mute

    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.
     
    Are you really unable to see that importing millions of Arabs or millions of mestizos would be far worse for the Jews than to be another religious sect in an all white (or white & African) society? Who is committing violence against Jews in Europe - skinheads or Arabs? Who is committing violence against Jews in America - baptists or Africans?

    The Jewish idea of importing more visible "others" so they will disappear into the scenery could only work if those "others" are as tolerant of the Jews as the native white population. In America particularly, the nation which has done more for Jews than any other in history, Jewish agitation in favor of immigration is Treason pure and simple. We should tolerate *no* dual loyalty and expel anyone holding a second passport. I don't know how to weed out those with dual loyalties who don't have a second passport, but I'm willing to explore any ideas. At very least they must be disenfranchised and barred from any political activity like Mexico does.
    , @Luke Lea
    "The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.
    "

    Yes, I understand that. But then you also have to consider that the new cultural and racial groups -- from Latin America and Asia -- that are being admitted into the country may be more prone to anti-Semitism and less sympathetic to the plight of the state of Israel. In other words these new groups could undermine American popular support for the state of Israel, which is anchored in anglo-Protestantism, Protestant Americans being the least anti-Semitic people in the history of the world.

    Whatever the calculus may have been in the past, I believe the better strategy for organized American Jewry going forward would be to ally themselves very clearly and publically with the economic interests of middle- and working-class Americans of all races, even if this means new restrictions on Third World trade and immigration. To be seen as the friend of the American people will be worth more than trying to not stick out in an ever increasingly multi-cultural, multi-racial milieu. After all the Austro-Hungarian empire was highly multi-ethnic, and that didn't stop if from becoming a seedbed for anti-Semitism.

  28. I don’t understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don’t allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.

    • Replies: @Felix

    I don’t understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don’t allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.
     

    Would you try to ascribe any greater meaning to "polar bear hunting" than simple brutish malice? If not, then why believe that there is any greater meaning to that version of polar bear hunting that is being played by our alien elites? There is no such greater meaning. There is no logic or rhyme or reason. Just simple hate and malevolence. When the Soviet army rolled into Berlin they raped for the sake of raping and revenge. The elites are raping our societies for the sake of raping and revenge. It's as simple as that.

    I thought this place subscribed to Occam's Razor..

    , @Glossy
    Most billionaires are parasites, not gardeners. Mold doesn't feel any solidarity with weeds because it doesn't have a brain, but human parasites feel a subconscious solidarity with human weeds. They're united by the fear of anyone who'd like to play the role of gardener.
  29. You don’t get growth simply by having more people, but by having productive people. At a loss how any economist expects an uneducated unassimilated underclass hostile to the larger culture helps things. Most are unemployable.Their children will overcrowd schools and ERs. They won’t speak the language. Their entitlement/dole expenses greatly exceed anything they could add to any country’s GDP.And this is before you take account of their penchant for terrorism. and their desire to destroy Western culture.

  30. @SPMoore8
    One interesting thing about this whole "refugee crisis" is that it has morphed in the past week or so from "Save the children", especially those dead on a Turkish beach, to "Save the West by bringing in warm bodies."

    My conditional defense of what Merkel was designing was based on the latter concept, but it was also based on successful assimilation. I don't know if assimilation will work, but if it does, then that will be OK to that extent. On the other hand, the genetic alteration (in HBD terms) is going to happen and I can understand that a lot of people aren't going to be too happy about that.

    However, bringing in all these warm bodies isn't solving the fundamental problem, which is that the West is accustomed to a certain level of consumerism and benefits, and these immigrants are supposed to essentially work to support those things. I don't suppose that these new immigrants -- either to the EU or the US -- are going to be satisfied with the privilege of working in the fields while the caucasians are sipping their lattes and talking about race relations at Starbucks.

    Lots of ways this could mutate. Standards of living to decline. Racial/cultural conflict in the streets. Legislation against abortion, contraception, fornication: these would require a sort of neo-Puritan ideology. Ghost towns popping up all over EU and US. As much as I would prefer these changes to be gradual and non-violent, the less I am thinking that will be the case. And tomorrow is an anniversary.

    The only positive I can see from all of this is that it definitely underscores the fundamental irrelevance of both WWG and WWT.

    I find it weird too, that they (govt heads/pundits/public relations firms) flip-flopped to: aging population +low birth rate of natives = justification to bring in migrants ad infinitum. Some countries in Europe have had a robust birth-rate…2-3 children these last 2 decades.

    Few countries have industry (what they do have is also highly mechanized, and workers are highly skilled/educated) ready for employees. In many EU (Norway exception: shipbuilding & offshore oil) countries, they really don’t, “make anything anymore.” There is no SV2 anywhere…and even SV would not be considered a “manufacturing corporation.” Plus, service jobs are very weak in northern Europe because people do not spend frivolously.

    Where will the money come from to support all these migrants? Cost of living is so high in northern Europe…it’s almost close to SF, NYC, Boston. What does that mean: ghettos will get larger in the outer rim of cities in northern Europe…but it will include poorer natives who will compete for jobs in place like: dairies, paper plants, food processing plants, cleaning businesses, airports, ferries, construction etc..

    Because of the macabre spectacle of the “journey” going on right now, every govt is just panicking. Everyone’s reaction is just visceral and atavistic. Years from now, “there will be blood.” And, once again, no one wants to be called a Nazi.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  31. @iSteveFan

    As of 2015, the European Union counts almost 510 million inhabitants, compared to 485 million in 1995. That increase of 25 million over 20 years is not particularly remarkable in and of itself (a measly 0.2% of annual growth, against 1.2% per year for the world’s population over the same period). The key point is that immigration accounts for almost three-quarters of that population growth (more than 15 million). Between 2000 and 2010, the European Union has absorbed migratory inflows (net of outflows) of 1 million people per year.
     
    I am sorry if this guy doesn't think that is remarkable. But the key point is that the 1995 population of Europe was at a then all time high. The 2015 population of Europe is even higher than that. What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? Do they ever factor in how many people are needed in an age where automation is taking jobs? Do they ever factor in the stress on the resources? All they ever preach is constant growth.

    Amen, bro.

    There has to be an end to growth oriented economics.

    We have to develop a stasis model.

    Overpopulation is not an inherently good thing for people or the planet.

    When Europe grows so does its CO2 output.

    Population growth + economic growth = pollution.

    There is no way around it.

    Bottom line, economics does not trump all other concerns.

  32. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.
  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Our continent can and must become a great land of immigration in the 21st Century.

    “All this is well-known. … Europe was on the verge of becoming the most open region in the world. … All this happened while the international context (Arab spring, refugee influx) should have in fact justified an increased opening.”

    This makes me sick. Did everyone in Europe know that Europe was apparently purposefully on a path to becoming a great land of immigration? Were the people ever told about this great change to their continent – not countries – but continent? Were they ever told anything in detail about Europe’s high levels of immigration other than something along the line of “immigration makes us stronger”? Is this the path the U.S. is on, as well?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm pretty sure that the UK took in the bulk of those immigrants during that period.
  34. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.

    Actually, he modified what he said on 9/8 last night during an interview on Sean Hannity’s show (9/9).

    Try approx. 8:05

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    So I guess he walked back his previous position.

    I think he's got Coulter and Sessions advising him on immigration. Maybe they educated him on why he should say no to Syrian refugees. That'd be my guess.

    Regardless, I think it's good that he seems to be maintaining his immigration restrictionist views.

    He also raises a good point. The wealthy Gulf States should be taking in the Syrian refugees. That'd solve the problem.

  35. I don’t really understand how lots of Third World peoples in Europe or the US is good for billionaires. [Trump I guess is trying to triangulate against the “feelz” of the female population which dominates TV viewing and popular culture, being a TV celebrity I figure he knows better than I how that works.]

    At a minimum, lots and lots of Third World people destroy First World prosperity which makes Davos, and Sundance, and Austin, and Jackson Hole so nice to live in or visit. And while it is much, much harder to confiscate the mobile wealth of someone like Bill Gates or Carlos Slim, it certainly can be done. Just ask Khadaffi. Only Ben Ali of Tunisia escaped with his wealth of the Arab Spring dictators, his was in gold and shipped in planes to Riyadh. Enough Third World peoples and they’ll vote themselves first the wealth of the middle class Whites, true, but the pattern in places like Venezuela is they vote themselves oligarch wealth. Look at Putin, leading a multicultural, multi-racial, multi-religious empire as a strong man he went after oligarchs as both power rivals and popular targets.

    I do understand that crushing the White middle class challenges to oligarchs like Slim or Gates with mass Third World immigration is an easy short term political fix, but its like putting out a fire with dynamite. Sooner or later it blows up in your face. These people are supposed to be smart.

    My only guess, and I’m not certain on this, is that the wealthy oligarchs are consumed with religious passion just like the Pope. Not Christianity, but its post-modern cousin, PC/Diversity.

  36. Knock, knock
    Who’s there?
    Allah
    Allah who?
    Allahu akbar!

  37. @SFG
    Is he? I agree 'liberal intellectual writing big book' does sound Jewish, but I can't find any evidence he is, and googling the question just finds you webpages claiming his work is somehow antisemitic. ;)

    You’re right, SFG. Maybe Piketty isn’t Jewish. In any case, if I may adapt a phrase from Edmund Burke, all that’s necessary for bad Jews to triumph is for good Jews to do nothing. Irving Kristol wrote about this in his essay, “The Political Stupidity of the Jews.”

  38. Knock, knock
    Who’s there?
    Oh, just a poor hungry immigrant who wants to live in freedom
    OK, you can come in and clean our toilets for forty years
    Thank you
    Say, that’s a really nice vest!

  39. @Buzz Mohawk
    I don't understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don't allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.

    I don’t understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don’t allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.

    Would you try to ascribe any greater meaning to “polar bear hunting” than simple brutish malice? If not, then why believe that there is any greater meaning to that version of polar bear hunting that is being played by our alien elites? There is no such greater meaning. There is no logic or rhyme or reason. Just simple hate and malevolence. When the Soviet army rolled into Berlin they raped for the sake of raping and revenge. The elites are raping our societies for the sake of raping and revenge. It’s as simple as that.

    I thought this place subscribed to Occam’s Razor..

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I thought this place subscribed to Occam’s Razor..
     
    We do, but sometimes it arrives a little late in the mail. Thanks for pointing that out.
  40. “So, there was ton of immigration during the Bubble Years. And then the world blew up”

    Forgot to mention the wars.

  41. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.

    I guess you must have missed his follow-up on Hannity. The quote you’re talking about was when, caught off guard, he was asked about refugees and he emotionally responded that something had to be done. He later clarified, after meeting with Sen. Sessions (and yes, it’s probably a bit of a flip-flop in that he got educated on the issue), that: “Most of the refugees seem to be men, not women or children. We have our own problems, let gulf states take them in!”

    Here’s the relevant video: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/09/trump-on-refugees-id-love-to-help-but-we-have-our-own-problems/

  42. @Mark Caplan
    Trump just repudiated his own short-lived idea that the aim of immigration should be to benefit Americans rather than foreigners: "[O]n a humanitarian basis you have to" let Syrian migrants into America.

    No longer the case.

    Donald Trump, who previously said the United States was obliged to take more Syrian refugees because “they’re living in hell, and something has to be done,” now says we should not take more refugees due to security concerns, and the problems already faced by American citizens.

    “From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems. We have so many problems that we have to solve,” Trump said on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Wednesday night.

    • Replies: @Gato de la Biblioteca
    Holy crap! A politician that can learn quickly!
  43. @SPMoore8
    One interesting thing about this whole "refugee crisis" is that it has morphed in the past week or so from "Save the children", especially those dead on a Turkish beach, to "Save the West by bringing in warm bodies."

    My conditional defense of what Merkel was designing was based on the latter concept, but it was also based on successful assimilation. I don't know if assimilation will work, but if it does, then that will be OK to that extent. On the other hand, the genetic alteration (in HBD terms) is going to happen and I can understand that a lot of people aren't going to be too happy about that.

    However, bringing in all these warm bodies isn't solving the fundamental problem, which is that the West is accustomed to a certain level of consumerism and benefits, and these immigrants are supposed to essentially work to support those things. I don't suppose that these new immigrants -- either to the EU or the US -- are going to be satisfied with the privilege of working in the fields while the caucasians are sipping their lattes and talking about race relations at Starbucks.

    Lots of ways this could mutate. Standards of living to decline. Racial/cultural conflict in the streets. Legislation against abortion, contraception, fornication: these would require a sort of neo-Puritan ideology. Ghost towns popping up all over EU and US. As much as I would prefer these changes to be gradual and non-violent, the less I am thinking that will be the case. And tomorrow is an anniversary.

    The only positive I can see from all of this is that it definitely underscores the fundamental irrelevance of both WWG and WWT.

    My conditional defense of what Merkel was designing was based on the latter concept, but it was also based on successful assimilation. I don’t know if assimilation will work, but if it does, then that will be OK to that extent. On the other hand, the genetic alteration (in HBD terms) is going to happen and I can understand that a lot of people aren’t going to be too happy about that.

    For assimilation to happen, the host culture would have to be highly self-confident, perhaps even to the point of disdain for alien cultures; make the foreign peoples crave to conform. But that isn’t the way things are. Instead of Teddy Roosevelt deriding hyphenated Americans, we’ve got the European sociopolitical leadership like Piketty citing “diversity” as one of the best features of the immigrant wave they’re creating.

    Europe shows no talent for assimilating truly alien cultures, anyway. The Gypsies migrated into the continent hundreds of years ago, but they remain a distinct subculture largely at odds with their unwilling hosts. The Ottoman Empire islamized large portions of eastern Europe, and despite the passage of hundreds of years this legacy has led to wars and the restructuring of national borders within our lifetimes.

    There will be no real assimilation. Western Europe is self-Balkanizing for essentially ideological reasons. Two thousand years from now historians will be basing careers on trying to come up with the best sane-sounding explanation for why presumably intelligent men and women engineered the crack-ups of their homelands.

  44. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…our social model allows it, and the combination of global warming and Africa’s demographic explosion will increasingly require it.”

    Ah, the old Fallacy of Infinite Wealth.

    Once assumed, this fallacy of infinite wealth makes more modern high-sounding arguments bogus than just about anything else. Amazing how silly some “French intellectuals” are. And how nobody in France calls him on this silly stuff.

    The amazing thing is he really seems to think the Ponzi scheme can go on forever. Too many words flopping around in an aging brain, probably. Or still fighting the good communist fight to bring down the West, one way or another.

    Anything we can imagine, we can create! Free Flying Fusion Cars for Everyone! Now! It’s a basic human right!

  45. Maybe mass immigration exacerbates inequality but on the other hand, immigrants and their children vote massively for left-wing parties. Left-wing regimes in power means cushy jobs for people like Piketty in the nomenklatura (he is already an advisor for Spain’s Podemos), and what is more important than that?

  46. Liberals for “sustainable growth” new slogans: “pack them into boxcars”, “push ’em tight like on those Japanese trains!”, “grow, baby, grow!”, and “eco-friendly unsustainable growth is the only way to solve the global eco-crisis!”

  47. @Luke Lea
    Honestly, I don't see how it can be good for anybody, least of all the Jews, who need to step up and lead the world away from this madness. (Piketty is Jewish isn't he?)

    I highly doubt it. He looks like Jason Bateman.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "I highly doubt it. He looks like Jason Bateman."

    I have seen Jews who look Whiter than Jason Bateman. By Whiter I mean either Blonder or Gingier.
  48. @Harry Baldwin
    No longer the case.

    Donald Trump, who previously said the United States was obliged to take more Syrian refugees because “they’re living in hell, and something has to be done,” now says we should not take more refugees due to security concerns, and the problems already faced by American citizens.

    “From a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems. We have so many problems that we have to solve,” Trump said on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Wednesday night.
     

    Holy crap! A politician that can learn quickly!

  49. Although he is supposed to be all about empirical research, he grossly underestimates migratory inflows to both the EU and USA.

  50. Even from a materialistic, consumerist standpoint, I don’t see how the businesses that want more immigration can stand to benefit from this for more than a few years. There isn’t enough money to redistribute right now as it is. It’s not like we’re talking about collapse in 25 years. The welfare state might not even hold on for another 5-10.

    What is the minimum percent of the population that can consist of employed, white & maybe asian private sector full time employees before the entire system collapses?

  51. Thomas Piketty: yet another smug “We Know What’s Best For Everyone” member of today’s West’s Best & Blightest.

    Yes: Blightest.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Looking up on Piketty's background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.
    , @rod1963
    Yes the one of the "wiser minds" - not.

    He's just a connected yob who thinks he's better than the rest just like most elites. However like the rest of the globalists/neoliberal crowd they've made a grave error. Muslims are not Mexicans or Koreans. They're Muslim's. Predatory violence, ignorance, general thuggery comes to them naturally and they don't like taking orders from infidels.

    They aren't here to assimilate but to take over. Hence them setting up "no go zones" in European cities, basically defacto colonies/military bases. Police and natives are not welcomed there, they have their own internal police/bullies and their own laws.

    For all intents and purposes France, Sweden Germany and England have already ceded their sovereignty to Muslims on a small scale, it will only increase from here on out. Eventually entire towns and cities will be Muslim only.
    , @Ivy
    Yet another casualty of the Enblightenment.
  52. The last thing Europe needs is more low-skilled workers with limited to no command of the major European languages. The current (April) EU unemployment rate is 9.6%. Most major countries are higher, with Greece at 25.6% and Spain at 22.5%. Italy and France are both in double digits. The only big countries below the average are the UK (5.6%) and Germany (at 4.7%, the lowest). Plus, many of the refugees are Islamic, a religion whose adherents have not traditionally integrated into the European mainstream and who are also responsible for almost all current terrorist activity there. Of course, the more “welcoming” the European nations are to the refugees, the more they will get. As someone once said (was it Herb Kahn?), something that can’t go on forever will eventually stop, and so it will be with the current situation. In time the Europeans will get tired of masses of non-assimilating, poor, unskilled immigrants who mainly want welfare benefits and who can find no place in the sophisticated, high-tech European economy. This thing is far from over, and the ending may not be pretty.

  53. @Auntie Analogue
    Thomas Piketty: yet another smug "We Know What's Best For Everyone" member of today's West's Best & Blightest.

    Yes: Blightest.

    Looking up on Piketty’s background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    Looking up on Piketty’s background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.
     
    And what's insane is that instead of forcing him to work a thousand times harder and be a million times smarter to overcome such a legacy, it instead elevates his status!
  54. “One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate.”

    Or, when taken into consideration alongside other characteristics such as their 25.6-hour average work week, perhaps their declining population is an appropriate response to the post-industrial era’s declining need for humans in an already densely populated land.

    Which might further suggest that if you dump literal boatloads of r-selected populations into an environment not designed for their reproductive strategies, rather than gently damping the dynamics of the ecosystem, you’ll produce a large shock.

    But hey, the concept of path-dependent hysteresis only matters for macroeconomic variables, of which neither nature nor nurture is one.

    Piketty is like a conservationist telling you that the population of hosts has been declining, so we must flood the ecosystem with parasites to restore nature’s balance.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Does Germany really have a 25.6-hour average work week? If so, that might be the answer to automation and the declining ratio of workers to retirees right there. Real hourly wages in Germany are obviously way higher than here.

    To get real hourly wages up in America we need new legislative restrictions on the hours of labor, sharply reduced levels of Third World immigration, and new taxes on the import of goods and services produced in low-wage countries like China and India. In other words we need to reduce the supply of labor relative to the demand.

    Trump has already proposed two out of the three. God, I hope he don't crash and burn. Or get shot and killed.

  55. Perhaps Piketty is trying to play a really long Communist game, along these lines:

    The EU brings in millions of feckless but fecund immigrants who– this is critical— happen to be at a more primitive stage of politico-economic development. Their children, poor, violent, and tendentiously taught by socialist schoolmasters, but not politically jaded like EU natives whose grandfathers struggled from 1910-1970, will provide shock troops for another attempt at complete revolution lead by Piketty’s chums, of course. The revolution will abolish billionaires (well, except for heirs of the vanguard) and usher in the eternal utopian era of pure Communism.

    “Heightening the contradictions” is an old Communist ploy.

    • Replies: @Bert
    To believe that would imply that Piketty et all are far smarter than they actually are.

    I like the idea of abolishing billionaires though. Frankly that's something everyone on Earth could agree on.
  56. @WowJustWow
    I highly doubt it. He looks like Jason Bateman.

    “I highly doubt it. He looks like Jason Bateman.”

    I have seen Jews who look Whiter than Jason Bateman. By Whiter I mean either Blonder or Gingier.

  57. Here’s a story which could cause the great and good to take a 2nd look at immigration (but which will probably lead to a more repressive police state for the rest of us):

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/al-qaeda-mag-urges-attack-koch-brothers-buffett-bloomberg-n424386

  58. @WowJustWow
    "One can indeed acknowledge that Germany has but little choice in the matter, given its very low birth rate."

    Or, when taken into consideration alongside other characteristics such as their 25.6-hour average work week, perhaps their declining population is an appropriate response to the post-industrial era's declining need for humans in an already densely populated land.

    Which might further suggest that if you dump literal boatloads of r-selected populations into an environment not designed for their reproductive strategies, rather than gently damping the dynamics of the ecosystem, you'll produce a large shock.

    But hey, the concept of path-dependent hysteresis only matters for macroeconomic variables, of which neither nature nor nurture is one.

    Piketty is like a conservationist telling you that the population of hosts has been declining, so we must flood the ecosystem with parasites to restore nature's balance.

    Does Germany really have a 25.6-hour average work week? If so, that might be the answer to automation and the declining ratio of workers to retirees right there. Real hourly wages in Germany are obviously way higher than here.

    To get real hourly wages up in America we need new legislative restrictions on the hours of labor, sharply reduced levels of Third World immigration, and new taxes on the import of goods and services produced in low-wage countries like China and India. In other words we need to reduce the supply of labor relative to the demand.

    Trump has already proposed two out of the three. God, I hope he don’t crash and burn. Or get shot and killed.

    • Replies: @Black Death
    Most full-time EU workers put in a bit over 40 hours per week. Germany stands at 42 hours. Surprisingly, Greece leads the list at 43.7 hours. France is 41.1, and the UK, 42.7. For comparison, the US is 47 hours.
  59. I wonder how Jews who work there feel about the fact that The New York Times is now owned by an Arab and is no longer owned by a Jew.

    I wonder how Jews there feel about having an Arab boss. Would most Jews rather have a WASP boss or an Arab boss? Who do most of them see as the lesser of 2 evils?

    If I had to bet, I would say Neocon Jews like Pamela Geller would rather have a WASP boss over an Arab boss and social justice warrior SWPL Jews like Matthew Weiner would rather have an Arab boss over a WASP boss.

  60. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Looking up on Piketty’s background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.”

    Wait, they found a typo in the typsetting of the Manifesto! It’s the New Syrian Man, not the New Soviet Man!

    In seriousness, it would be interesting to correlate pro-refugee uber alles pontificators with zombie-commies.

    We survived the commies…. but, innocent us, just as it was fading from memory, they’re back for the sequel! Rising from comfortable sinecures everywhere! Zombie-commies!

    Beware. Zombie-commies are known to turn brains to stinking sludge.

  61. I am surprised Steve has not wrote a blog about about the $6.4 million dollar payout to Freddie Gray’s family.

    Pretty much everybody in the comments section of American Renaissance believe that the Gray family will blow through their entire new found fortune within a short period of time and be broke again. It will not be very long before the Gray family goes from Black Bourgeoisie in the predominantly White affluent suburbs to back to the Black underclass in the housing projects of Baltimore.

    Even though Freddie Gray was a drug dealer, it was reported on Fox News that at the time of his death his personal net worth was literally zero. He had no property, automobile, or liquid cash assets to his name.

    What is the point of being a drug dealer if you are always broke. No wonder Blacks are vastly over represented among low level broke as hell drug dealers and under represented among high level drug dealers who make millions or even billions of dollars a year.

    Even in the criminal world there is income inequality between Black drug dealers and White drug dealers/Asian drug dealers/Mestizo drug dealers.

    Blacks on average are so low IQ that even in the criminal world most of them do not know how to turn crime into an extremely profitable profession.

  62. @Veracitor
    Perhaps Piketty is trying to play a really long Communist game, along these lines:

    The EU brings in millions of feckless but fecund immigrants who-- this is critical-- happen to be at a more primitive stage of politico-economic development. Their children, poor, violent, and tendentiously taught by socialist schoolmasters, but not politically jaded like EU natives whose grandfathers struggled from 1910-1970, will provide shock troops for another attempt at complete revolution lead by Piketty's chums, of course. The revolution will abolish billionaires (well, except for heirs of the vanguard) and usher in the eternal utopian era of pure Communism.

    "Heightening the contradictions" is an old Communist ploy.

    To believe that would imply that Piketty et all are far smarter than they actually are.

    I like the idea of abolishing billionaires though. Frankly that’s something everyone on Earth could agree on.

  63. @Auntie Analogue
    Thomas Piketty: yet another smug "We Know What's Best For Everyone" member of today's West's Best & Blightest.

    Yes: Blightest.

    Yes the one of the “wiser minds” – not.

    He’s just a connected yob who thinks he’s better than the rest just like most elites. However like the rest of the globalists/neoliberal crowd they’ve made a grave error. Muslims are not Mexicans or Koreans. They’re Muslim’s. Predatory violence, ignorance, general thuggery comes to them naturally and they don’t like taking orders from infidels.

    They aren’t here to assimilate but to take over. Hence them setting up “no go zones” in European cities, basically defacto colonies/military bases. Police and natives are not welcomed there, they have their own internal police/bullies and their own laws.

    For all intents and purposes France, Sweden Germany and England have already ceded their sovereignty to Muslims on a small scale, it will only increase from here on out. Eventually entire towns and cities will be Muslim only.

  64. >> “What is to be done?”

    Now, that’s a tell.

    And his parents were Trotskyites, whatever that is. Trotskyites are supposed to be the good communists, right?

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Trotsky had no problem murdering thousands of people, just like any Bolshevik.

    Some Western leftists started calling themselves "Trotskyites" after he became an un-person to Stalin because it was a way to claim that while you are planning a communist revolution you aren't any sort of a pro-Soviet traitor. It doesn't mean that they weren't planning on murdering all the opposition, it just means that after all the murdering their communist regime still wouldn't have been very pro-Soviet.
  65. To be fair to Picketty, third world immigration to the wealthy West lowers global inequality since it makes Westerners on average poorer and immigrant third-worlders on average richer. It increases inequality within individual Western countries, but on a global basis (not on a country basis) this is offset by the inequality decrease between Western natives and now-immigrant third-worlders.

  66. OT – Check out the illustrations in this BBC article about the finds of a new human ancestor in Africa. Looks like ugly racist pseudoscience to me. And what’s up with that pic of the researchers involved in the find? I thought the lesson of the latest Taylor Swfit video was you’re not allowed to do anything in Africa unless you include Africans.

    • Replies: @Shine a Light
    Of course the article did have to explain that picture. Seems they needed small women to get through a small tunnel. Women with a tendency towards steatophygia need not apply. Still you would have thought they could have managed to get an Asian chick or two in there somehow....
  67. Global warming and demographic explosion will require it? How does that work? You import millions of third world residents followed by many millions more to come and they will all exchange a third world standard of living for a first world one ( even if it is at the bottom of the first world ) Wouldn’t this require massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions through increased burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for additional roads, railroads, cars, trucks, and additional industrial production of fertilizers that also use fuels to grow still more food for the greatly increased population? He never explains this obvious contradiction, a pretty unimpressive argument.

  68. @Luke Lea
    Honestly, I don't see how it can be good for anybody, least of all the Jews, who need to step up and lead the world away from this madness. (Piketty is Jewish isn't he?)

    Piketty is not a Jew but he sure plays one on TV when he gives interviews.

    However he is a Globalist and a sworn opponent of the National Front. His job is to somehow convince everyone that Globalism is not the reason for the falling standard of 1st world living. And that therefore Nationalism is not the answer to our current crisis.

    His job gets more and more difficult with each coming day.

  69. I’m at a point where I’m just happy to see a non-Jew calling for mass immigration

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "I’m at a point where I’m just happy to see a non-Jew calling for mass immigration"

    Do you live in a cave? The majority of Shiksah and Goy politicians in North America and Europe call for more mass immigration of the 3rd world.

    Look at Angela Merkel for example, there is not a Kosher bone in her body. She is a pure unmixed Lutheran Shiksah.

    Her approval rating among the German people is still in the 60s. She should be the most hated woman in all of Germany, but she's not. She is still loved by the majority of the German people. Germans are a pathetic cuck people. They deserve every bad thing that is happening to them. I have zero respect for people who actively celebrate their own demise. It's a sign of weakness and weakness is an extreme turn off to me.

    A triple digit IQ ethnic group that celebrates their own demise, that sounds like something you would expect from Down Syndrome retards. German people are extremely weird.

  70. @silviosilver
    OT - Check out the illustrations in this BBC article about the finds of a new human ancestor in Africa. Looks like ugly racist pseudoscience to me. And what's up with that pic of the researchers involved in the find? I thought the lesson of the latest Taylor Swfit video was you're not allowed to do anything in Africa unless you include Africans.

    Of course the article did have to explain that picture. Seems they needed small women to get through a small tunnel. Women with a tendency towards steatophygia need not apply. Still you would have thought they could have managed to get an Asian chick or two in there somehow….

  71. @BurplesonAFB
    Most recent line from Trump on Hannity last night is: "From a humanitarian standpoint, I'd love to help, but we have our own problems"

    Trump is so egotistical that he sometimes learns from his mistakes!

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    The nerve.
  72. @Steve Sailer
    Trump is so egotistical that he sometimes learns from his mistakes!

    The nerve.

  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So, there was ton of immigration during the Bubble Years. And then the world blew up. You know, maybe there was a … connection?

    The connection is that beginning in 1980 with the Reagan administration, the US abandoned Keynesian demand management as the primary policy driver of economic growth. Under Keynesian demand management, wages are raised to keep up with productivity gains in order to prop up demand, and balanced trade or trade surpluses are sought after, since trade deficits represent “demand leakages” from the domestic economy,

    Beginning with Reagan Keynesian demand management was abandoned and asset-price inflation i.e. bubbles were chosen as the primary driver of economic growth. Cheap labor and goods imports were substituted for wage stagnation and for propping up asset-prices.

  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority.

    Many jews are quite conscious of that rationale and motivation. I know some who will state it explicitly.

    Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    You agree that the motivation exists or you agree that the reason for it is a good one?

  75. You know what Piketty is saying in regards to immigration isn’t that much different than what all our major think tanks and institutions say such AEI, CATO, Brookings, CFR support the same thing. It’s rather creepy, a communist is mouthing the same stuff as a bunch of rabid capitalist/globalist front groups.

    The rest of his rant is just window dressing and serves to obscure what he’s about.

    I mean in the end what all these groups aspire to is a form of governance where they are at the top and the rest of the people are simply exploited serfs. When you think about it, it’s where socialism, communism and neo-liberalism all end up. A pyramid system where a small elite calls all the shots and owns everything. And you can only get that by doing away with cultures, borders and nations. Reduce the people to a seething and desperate grey mass that will do anything to stay alive.

    Hence their enthusiasm for open borders and immigration.

  76. @Anonymous
    I'm at a point where I'm just happy to see a non-Jew calling for mass immigration

    “I’m at a point where I’m just happy to see a non-Jew calling for mass immigration”

    Do you live in a cave? The majority of Shiksah and Goy politicians in North America and Europe call for more mass immigration of the 3rd world.

    Look at Angela Merkel for example, there is not a Kosher bone in her body. She is a pure unmixed Lutheran Shiksah.

    Her approval rating among the German people is still in the 60s. She should be the most hated woman in all of Germany, but she’s not. She is still loved by the majority of the German people. Germans are a pathetic cuck people. They deserve every bad thing that is happening to them. I have zero respect for people who actively celebrate their own demise. It’s a sign of weakness and weakness is an extreme turn off to me.

    A triple digit IQ ethnic group that celebrates their own demise, that sounds like something you would expect from Down Syndrome retards. German people are extremely weird.

  77. @Buzz Mohawk
    I don't understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don't allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.

    Most billionaires are parasites, not gardeners. Mold doesn’t feel any solidarity with weeds because it doesn’t have a brain, but human parasites feel a subconscious solidarity with human weeds. They’re united by the fear of anyone who’d like to play the role of gardener.

    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    Here's an interesting data point to investigate: how many billionaires have made money off of rent-seeking or other forms of parasitism versus billionaires who actually developed a product on the free market and had to convince people to buy it? You'd have to exclude every single 'finance' billionaire and likely every healthcare-related billionaire. At the end of the day, what would you have left? 20%? 10%?
  78. @Daniel H
    >> "What is to be done?"

    Now, that's a tell.

    And his parents were Trotskyites, whatever that is. Trotskyites are supposed to be the good communists, right?

    Trotsky had no problem murdering thousands of people, just like any Bolshevik.

    Some Western leftists started calling themselves “Trotskyites” after he became an un-person to Stalin because it was a way to claim that while you are planning a communist revolution you aren’t any sort of a pro-Soviet traitor. It doesn’t mean that they weren’t planning on murdering all the opposition, it just means that after all the murdering their communist regime still wouldn’t have been very pro-Soviet.

  79. @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    There is no such thing as a “race blind” culture.

  80. @Glossy
    Most billionaires are parasites, not gardeners. Mold doesn't feel any solidarity with weeds because it doesn't have a brain, but human parasites feel a subconscious solidarity with human weeds. They're united by the fear of anyone who'd like to play the role of gardener.

    Here’s an interesting data point to investigate: how many billionaires have made money off of rent-seeking or other forms of parasitism versus billionaires who actually developed a product on the free market and had to convince people to buy it? You’d have to exclude every single ‘finance’ billionaire and likely every healthcare-related billionaire. At the end of the day, what would you have left? 20%? 10%?

  81. @Yak-15
    The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=

    The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=

    Looking at the NYT comments, even normal center-left westerners are absolutely horrified by this. All of the reasonable points come from the outraged comments. The actual articles sound deranged.

    There is a class of elite politicians and academic intellectuals that have this contempt for the people they are supposed to represent. They smell blood. They can get rid of these pesky normal whites by importing enough rivals. Piketty calls native Europe “decrepit”. Maybe he shouldn’t be a public representative of French culture if it is decrepit. Maybe the French people should call him decrepit and revoke his privileged position.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Wow. You are right. I just looked at the first 20 of the Reader's Picks comments. Every single one of them was along the lines of "This is cultural/national suicide....". And these are NY Times readers. The left/globalists are really overreaching.
  82. NYT, 09/10/15 – Obama Directs Administration to Accept 10,000 Syrian Refugees

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

    WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year…

    Earlier, Secretary of State John Kerry, said at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill that that the total number of refugees taken in by the United States could rise to more than 100,000, from the current figure of 70,000. State Department officials said that not all of the additional 30,000 would be Syrians, but many would be…

  83. @Luke Lea
    Does Germany really have a 25.6-hour average work week? If so, that might be the answer to automation and the declining ratio of workers to retirees right there. Real hourly wages in Germany are obviously way higher than here.

    To get real hourly wages up in America we need new legislative restrictions on the hours of labor, sharply reduced levels of Third World immigration, and new taxes on the import of goods and services produced in low-wage countries like China and India. In other words we need to reduce the supply of labor relative to the demand.

    Trump has already proposed two out of the three. God, I hope he don't crash and burn. Or get shot and killed.

    Most full-time EU workers put in a bit over 40 hours per week. Germany stands at 42 hours. Surprisingly, Greece leads the list at 43.7 hours. France is 41.1, and the UK, 42.7. For comparison, the US is 47 hours.

  84. City Journal website shut down comments on this Guy Sorman essay: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0908gs.html

    To read the 43 comments you must click on the red text “Comments” at upper right (one of the comments is mine). There had originally been 45 comments so it would seem that City Journal threw two of them down the Memory Hole.

    Note also that earlier City Journal essays have remained open for further comments.

  85. @Massimo Heitor

    The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=
     
    Looking at the NYT comments, even normal center-left westerners are absolutely horrified by this. All of the reasonable points come from the outraged comments. The actual articles sound deranged.

    There is a class of elite politicians and academic intellectuals that have this contempt for the people they are supposed to represent. They smell blood. They can get rid of these pesky normal whites by importing enough rivals. Piketty calls native Europe "decrepit". Maybe he shouldn't be a public representative of French culture if it is decrepit. Maybe the French people should call him decrepit and revoke his privileged position.

    Wow. You are right. I just looked at the first 20 of the Reader’s Picks comments. Every single one of them was along the lines of “This is cultural/national suicide….”. And these are NY Times readers. The left/globalists are really overreaching.

  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I always find it interesting that Picketty, the Economist and so on never for an instant even consider the reintroduction of pro-natalist policies as an answer to the European nations’ shrinking indigenous populations (and not all European indigenous populations are in fact shrinking).

    Consider: up until the 1970s, North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand had — without the benefit of mass immigration — growing populations.

    Indeed, we talk about something called the “baby boom” (called the “bulge” in Britain, and doubtless called something similar elsewhere).

    I’m quite prepared to listen to why readopting the pro-natalist policies that existed prior to the 1970s which created the baby boom are unfeasible.

    But I find it remarkable that neither Picketty, the Economist and whatnot refuse to even consider it.

    You’d almost think they had an agenda other than merely trying to solve the problems resulting from declining western birthrates…

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    I’m quite prepared to listen to why readopting the pro-natalist policies that existed prior to the 1970s which created the baby boom are unfeasible.
     
    Because pro-natalist culture would require a people that are sure of themselves and are willing to value themselves more than random strangers. And it would require a political intellectual elite that wasn't determined to tear the target population apart, seize their assets and culture, and redistribute it for political favor and status.

    Actually, that does work well in other cultures, just not in today's Euro white cultures.

  87. @Sunbeam
    "our self-destructive aging imposes it"

    Does this phrase mean something in French? In translation it sure sounds screwy, like you have a choice or something. I mean does he think people can decide not to age?

    I'm not the best parser, so this could be a correct usage in English. But it sounds weird to me.

    The only explanation that makes sense is that he means aging of the population, i.e. in aggregate, not aging of individuals. The latter we can’t control, the former we can by having more kids. But I also agree that it’s a clumsy translation; perhaps literal from French, but confusing in English.

  88. @iSteveFan

    As of 2015, the European Union counts almost 510 million inhabitants, compared to 485 million in 1995. That increase of 25 million over 20 years is not particularly remarkable in and of itself (a measly 0.2% of annual growth, against 1.2% per year for the world’s population over the same period). The key point is that immigration accounts for almost three-quarters of that population growth (more than 15 million). Between 2000 and 2010, the European Union has absorbed migratory inflows (net of outflows) of 1 million people per year.
     
    I am sorry if this guy doesn't think that is remarkable. But the key point is that the 1995 population of Europe was at a then all time high. The 2015 population of Europe is even higher than that. What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? Do they ever factor in how many people are needed in an age where automation is taking jobs? Do they ever factor in the stress on the resources? All they ever preach is constant growth.

    “What is the magic number of people that will make these fools happy? Do they even study the carrying capacity of countries any more? “
    As long as everybody can reach everybody else with a knife without having to get off the couch, we’ll be fine. Move up the bus!

  89. @Auntie Analogue
    Thomas Piketty: yet another smug "We Know What's Best For Everyone" member of today's West's Best & Blightest.

    Yes: Blightest.

    Yet another casualty of the Enblightenment.

  90. Merkel wants to put refugees to work quickly.

    http://www.dw.com/en/get-refugees-into-work-quickly-says-german-chancellor-angela-merkel/a-18705689

    For a country that has a desire to console these suffering refugees, it’s interesting that priority is to get them to work so quickly. Hmm…………..

    It’s also interesting that Germany is rejecting about 99% of applications from the Western Balkans region. Hmm…………..

    Follow the money.

  91. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Yak-15
    The divergence in opinion between the NYT editorial page and that of its commenters is extraordinary. The only parallel I have seen in my life of less than two score is the Bank Bailout. Wow.

    For reference

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis-jean-claude-juncker.html?referrer=

    It’s a massive media psyop. The BBC even has sad music playing alongside pictures of the handful of women and children.

    The media started it, picked up the twitter SJWs quickly enough as expected and then enough soft-hearted people to get around 40% support – which is amazingly low considering it is wall to wall 24/7 with no opposition allowed.

    The politicians then jumped in pre-arranged to bow to the “public pressure”.

    It’s amazing to watch – a bit like the media synchronization after the airliner went down over Ukraine.

    It’s anger making as well but then you think why? Why are going all-out to destroy the European nations now when they have been successfully boiling the frog for so long?

    I think it’s because the anti-EU parties are gaining and the elites know the economy is going down.

    So they know they’ve lost unless they can get it over with quickly – hence this massive psyop.

    The ironic thing is if true it’s their lies that did for them – mass immigration and driving down wages doesn’t help the economy it kills the economy and it’s the economic situation that has turned the political tide against the EU.

    So it’s a race against time now, how fast the trans-national elites can import their goums versus how fast the native peoples realize they are under an existential attack.

  92. Desire for children has to be pretty genetic like anything else. So the low birth rate is going to weed out the lower end of that distribution fairly quickly. I think the demographic bust will work itself out with no need to import trouble.

  93. “And billionaires overwhelmingly answer the question: “Massive Immigration: Is It Good for the Billionaires?” in the affirmative.”

    Absolutely! What’s so inherently wrong with billionaires using capitalist enterprise to maximize profits and minimize costs with THEIR property, i.e. business? Nativists made the same argument in the late 1800’s; companies responded by employing millions of immigrants, resulting in the most powerful economy the world has ever witnessed. Limit immigration? Fine. But immigration has undoubtedly been a catalyst in the growth of America.

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue

    "Nativists made the same argument in the late 1800’s; companies responded by employing millions of immigrants, resulting in the most powerful economy the world has ever witnessed."

     

    Don't look now, my dear Corvinus, but today there are no burgeoning late-1800's Industrial Revolution labor-intensive factories to provide jobs for today's immigrants. Further, up until 1965 no foreigner was admitted to the United States if he would be "a public charge." Moreover, in the past there was no welfare attractant for the indolent or scheming immigrant and his extended family to come here to parasite off of. All of this meant that there was no real harm done to native citizens and the abundance of good jobs meant that past immigrants and native citizens alike were able to lift themselves up by the bootstraps of their own hard work and applied study.

    Together no-admission-to"public charge" and the absence of welfare attractant formed an effective disincentive that limited the numbers and selected for the most needed, best skills among incoming foreigners. Today all of that has been contrived to be the wrong way round so that immigration harms by gradual yet inexorable immiseration the native citizens - take in and consider Edwin S. Rubinstein's superbly detailed VDARE reports on how immigrants have been chronically devouring U.S. jobs while U.S. citizen hires have been constantly declining: http://www.vdare.com/users/edwin-s-rubenstein

  94. @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    Traditionally and historically, Jews regarded as being considered “the other” as a feature, not a bug. And orthodox, very orthodox, ultra-orthodox and hyper-orthodox Jews still do. That’s why they dress oddly and keep to themselves.

    Such Jews are relatively little trouble for the societies they inhabit.

    Reform Jews with their tikkun olam are quite naturally, and in my opinion correctly, viewed by those with a view to keeping their own societies theirs, and functional, in the same way a classic car enthusiast regards people who build street rods out of rare and desireable antique cars. Of course, their idea of street rodding is much like that of Hermann Munster.

  95. @Corvinus
    “And billionaires overwhelmingly answer the question: “Massive Immigration: Is It Good for the Billionaires?” in the affirmative.”

    Absolutely! What’s so inherently wrong with billionaires using capitalist enterprise to maximize profits and minimize costs with THEIR property, i.e. business? Nativists made the same argument in the late 1800’s; companies responded by employing millions of immigrants, resulting in the most powerful economy the world has ever witnessed. Limit immigration? Fine. But immigration has undoubtedly been a catalyst in the growth of America.

    “Nativists made the same argument in the late 1800’s; companies responded by employing millions of immigrants, resulting in the most powerful economy the world has ever witnessed.”

    Don’t look now, my dear Corvinus, but today there are no burgeoning late-1800’s Industrial Revolution labor-intensive factories to provide jobs for today’s immigrants. Further, up until 1965 no foreigner was admitted to the United States if he would be “a public charge.” Moreover, in the past there was no welfare attractant for the indolent or scheming immigrant and his extended family to come here to parasite off of. All of this meant that there was no real harm done to native citizens and the abundance of good jobs meant that past immigrants and native citizens alike were able to lift themselves up by the bootstraps of their own hard work and applied study.

    Together no-admission-to”public charge” and the absence of welfare attractant formed an effective disincentive that limited the numbers and selected for the most needed, best skills among incoming foreigners. Today all of that has been contrived to be the wrong way round so that immigration harms by gradual yet inexorable immiseration the native citizens – take in and consider Edwin S. Rubinstein’s superbly detailed VDARE reports on how immigrants have been chronically devouring U.S. jobs while U.S. citizen hires have been constantly declining: http://www.vdare.com/users/edwin-s-rubenstein

  96. “Trotskyites are supposed to be the good communists, right?”

    To a rough first approximation, Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) advocated emphasizing communism internationally over communism in Russia. World communist revolution, not the Soviet revolution in Russia taking over the world. A position that got him killed.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    A position that got him killed.
     
    That, and his missionary position with Mrs Diego Rivera.
  97. @Anonymous
    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he's not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.
    - This calls into question the intellectual integrity and honesty of the entire corpus of his work.
    If a man, particularly an academic, whose published work is as only as good as his word blatantly lies about anything, anything at all, and that lie is noted and found out, then, I'm sorry, but the entirety of his work must be disregarded.

    It really is as harsh and unforgiving as that. The parallel is dishonesty amongst professionals entrusted with taking care of one's health, financial assets, religion etc etc.

    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he’s not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.

    Actually, I wouldn’t be too sure about that…

    When Piketty’s big book came out a year or so ago and was getting rave reviews everywhere, I bought a copy and was thinking of trying to read it. But when I mentioned this to a smart liberal friend of mine who knows that subject very well, he said the book was total junk and I shouldn’t bother.

    Piketty’s main theoretical argument was that since the rate of return on invested wealth tends to be greater than the general economic growth rate these days, an increasing concentration of wealth at the top is inevitable. But the moment I read that in the newspaper reviews, I thought Huh? Piketty’s analysis relies on the assumption that the rich are immortal and never die. After all, if a rich person has two or three (or more) surviving heirs, the resulting division of wealth (even leaving aside inheritance taxes) would easily be enough to destroy Piketty’s analysis. The reason that was so obvious to me was that was exactly the factor that prevented concentration of wealth in traditional rural China.

    Now the flaw was so obvious I assumed I must be wrong. But when I asked that liberal friend of mine (who knows Piketty’s work backwards and forwards), he said I was exactly correct.

    Please note that the economist-hirelings at the big conservative thinktanks who were endlessly attacking Piketty’s book were apparently all too stupid to consider that simple point.

    The quality of the elite American media and intelligentsia is just a total joke…

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    I saw a simple and compelling analysis of Piketty's nonsense when it was first being lauded: the central premise, remember, was that an increasing percentage of economic growth was being channeled (not created by) fewer and fewer people.

    His data was bullshit (There must be a better word than Bullshit for being wrong by nine orders of magnitude.)

    https://mises.org/library/thomas-piketty%E2%80%99s-improbable-data

    "This chart is astonishing for many reasons. First of all, it suggests that capital earned a 4.5 percent or higher return for the years 0-1800 C.E. This is a crazy number. If the human race had started out with only $10 in year 1 and compounded it at 4.5 percent a year for any series of 1,800 years, by now we would have much, much more than a trillion times the entire world’s wealth today, which is estimated at $241 trillion by Credit Suisse.

    The 4.5 percent or higher number is also crazy because Piketty is right that there was negligible economic growth prior to the industrial revolution, and such high returns for the rich are just not consistent with so little growth. The truth is that rich people for most of those years were interested in spending or hiding their wealth, not in investing it, because wealth out in the open was likely to be stolen, if not by bandits, then by government."
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Perhaps Piketty's implicit assumption is that the children of the wealthy marry partners who also come from wealthy backgrounds. For example, Ivanka Trump married the son of a real estate tycoon. He's also assuming that the wealthy have a TFR of =<2.0. I wonder how true these assumptions are.
  98. Yet, on the single issue that most divides the billionaires from the average person, Piketty is on the side of the billionaires.

    Same with our Occupants. (Well, what else would you call a member of Occupy?)

    Someone should just get up and ask these “progressives” why they think the 1% are right and the 99% wrong on just this one issue.

    But that’s just nit-Piketting, isn’t it?

  99. @Anonymous
    "Our continent can and must become a great land of immigration in the 21st Century.

    "All this is well-known. ... Europe was on the verge of becoming the most open region in the world. ... All this happened while the international context (Arab spring, refugee influx) should have in fact justified an increased opening."

    This makes me sick. Did everyone in Europe know that Europe was apparently purposefully on a path to becoming a great land of immigration? Were the people ever told about this great change to their continent - not countries - but continent? Were they ever told anything in detail about Europe's high levels of immigration other than something along the line of "immigration makes us stronger"? Is this the path the U.S. is on, as well?

    I’m pretty sure that the UK took in the bulk of those immigrants during that period.

  100. @anonymous
    "Trotskyites are supposed to be the good communists, right?"

    To a rough first approximation, Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) advocated emphasizing communism internationally over communism in Russia. World communist revolution, not the Soviet revolution in Russia taking over the world. A position that got him killed.

    A position that got him killed.

    That, and his missionary position with Mrs Diego Rivera.

  101. Piketty is of Italian descent, presumably catholic. I know: one of his relatives married a niece of a friend of mine. The name used be “Pichetti”, but they changed their surname to “Piketty” because that’s how their name was pronounced in Italian, whereas the French pronounce “ch” as “sh”.

    Piketty’s op-ed reminds me of 2005, when 90% of pundits and politicians supported the “oui” to the referendum on the EU constitution. The supporters of the “non” were called xenophobes, racists, bigots, ignorants, etc. Eventually, the “non” won at the polls with 55% of the votes.

    What happened later? The EU constitution project came back in 2008 through the Lisbon treaty, which was approved by the parliament. No referendum this time. To eurocrats, “non” isn’t an answer.

    In my humble opinion, we are in a similar situation nowadays, about immigration. The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants. Since a 2 year old Kurd drowned in Turkey, opponents are called insensitive xenophobes. The mainstream magazine “Le Point” has Merkel on its cover this week, with the caption: “Si seulement elle était française…” (If only she were French…). The article was very laudative, with pictures of Merkel when she was a promising, dynamic teenager. I decided never to buy that rag again. Besides, Bernard-Henri Lévy writes op-eds in it.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don’t toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite. No more TV shows for them. No more well-paid conferences. No more invitations to dinner with the cream of the elite. Their books will be ignored.

    This being said, I’m not convinced that the “elites” are fully in control now. They wouldn’t need such a big media campaign and intellectual intimidation of the people if they were. It’s rather something like “Puisque ces mystères nous dépassent, feignons d’en être les organisateurs” (Since these mysteries escape us, let’s pretend to be their organizers), to quote a line from a dead French author.

    People like Merkel and Piketty are traitors, complicit in the destruction of their nations. It’s rather clear why Piketty toes the line, less so about Merkel. She’s taken so many decisions that were detrimental to genuine German interests, that I think that there’s something we don’t know about her, some dark secret only she and the CIA/Mossad know.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I thought that it was a distinctly odd, 'unFrench' name.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants.
     
    I've thought that the academic intellectuals have much more actual control over this and over society in general than the media.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don’t toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite
     
    Piketty believes what he is saying, but the university system selects for him and shuns this crowd's mindset.
    , @5371
    If there is a dark secret, that sort of thing runs in the family; her grandfather betrayed first Germany and then Poland.
  102. @e
    Actually, he modified what he said on 9/8 last night during an interview on Sean Hannity's show (9/9).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvQQsGub1iM

    Try approx. 8:05

    So I guess he walked back his previous position.

    I think he’s got Coulter and Sessions advising him on immigration. Maybe they educated him on why he should say no to Syrian refugees. That’d be my guess.

    Regardless, I think it’s good that he seems to be maintaining his immigration restrictionist views.

    He also raises a good point. The wealthy Gulf States should be taking in the Syrian refugees. That’d solve the problem.

  103. @Horzabky
    Piketty is of Italian descent, presumably catholic. I know: one of his relatives married a niece of a friend of mine. The name used be "Pichetti", but they changed their surname to "Piketty" because that's how their name was pronounced in Italian, whereas the French pronounce "ch" as "sh".

    Piketty's op-ed reminds me of 2005, when 90% of pundits and politicians supported the "oui" to the referendum on the EU constitution. The supporters of the "non" were called xenophobes, racists, bigots, ignorants, etc. Eventually, the "non" won at the polls with 55% of the votes.

    What happened later? The EU constitution project came back in 2008 through the Lisbon treaty, which was approved by the parliament. No referendum this time. To eurocrats, "non" isn't an answer.

    In my humble opinion, we are in a similar situation nowadays, about immigration. The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants. Since a 2 year old Kurd drowned in Turkey, opponents are called insensitive xenophobes. The mainstream magazine "Le Point" has Merkel on its cover this week, with the caption: "Si seulement elle était française..." (If only she were French...). The article was very laudative, with pictures of Merkel when she was a promising, dynamic teenager. I decided never to buy that rag again. Besides, Bernard-Henri Lévy writes op-eds in it.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don't toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite. No more TV shows for them. No more well-paid conferences. No more invitations to dinner with the cream of the elite. Their books will be ignored.

    This being said, I'm not convinced that the "elites" are fully in control now. They wouldn't need such a big media campaign and intellectual intimidation of the people if they were. It's rather something like "Puisque ces mystères nous dépassent, feignons d'en être les organisateurs" (Since these mysteries escape us, let's pretend to be their organizers), to quote a line from a dead French author.

    People like Merkel and Piketty are traitors, complicit in the destruction of their nations. It's rather clear why Piketty toes the line, less so about Merkel. She's taken so many decisions that were detrimental to genuine German interests, that I think that there's something we don't know about her, some dark secret only she and the CIA/Mossad know.

    I thought that it was a distinctly odd, ‘unFrench’ name.

  104. @Felix

    I don’t understand these billionaires and their servants in the MSM.

    When you have a garden, something that produces wonderful things that you consume and enjoy, you don’t allow it to be overrun by weeds.

    Why would billionaires want their gardens overgrown with weeds? They are stupid gardeners.
     

    Would you try to ascribe any greater meaning to "polar bear hunting" than simple brutish malice? If not, then why believe that there is any greater meaning to that version of polar bear hunting that is being played by our alien elites? There is no such greater meaning. There is no logic or rhyme or reason. Just simple hate and malevolence. When the Soviet army rolled into Berlin they raped for the sake of raping and revenge. The elites are raping our societies for the sake of raping and revenge. It's as simple as that.

    I thought this place subscribed to Occam's Razor..

    I thought this place subscribed to Occam’s Razor..

    We do, but sometimes it arrives a little late in the mail. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  105. @Anonymous
    I always find it interesting that Picketty, the Economist and so on never for an instant even consider the reintroduction of pro-natalist policies as an answer to the European nations' shrinking indigenous populations (and not all European indigenous populations are in fact shrinking).

    Consider: up until the 1970s, North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand had -- without the benefit of mass immigration -- growing populations.

    Indeed, we talk about something called the "baby boom" (called the "bulge" in Britain, and doubtless called something similar elsewhere).

    I'm quite prepared to listen to why readopting the pro-natalist policies that existed prior to the 1970s which created the baby boom are unfeasible.

    But I find it remarkable that neither Picketty, the Economist and whatnot refuse to even consider it.

    You'd almost think they had an agenda other than merely trying to solve the problems resulting from declining western birthrates...

    I’m quite prepared to listen to why readopting the pro-natalist policies that existed prior to the 1970s which created the baby boom are unfeasible.

    Because pro-natalist culture would require a people that are sure of themselves and are willing to value themselves more than random strangers. And it would require a political intellectual elite that wasn’t determined to tear the target population apart, seize their assets and culture, and redistribute it for political favor and status.

    Actually, that does work well in other cultures, just not in today’s Euro white cultures.

  106. @Horzabky
    Piketty is of Italian descent, presumably catholic. I know: one of his relatives married a niece of a friend of mine. The name used be "Pichetti", but they changed their surname to "Piketty" because that's how their name was pronounced in Italian, whereas the French pronounce "ch" as "sh".

    Piketty's op-ed reminds me of 2005, when 90% of pundits and politicians supported the "oui" to the referendum on the EU constitution. The supporters of the "non" were called xenophobes, racists, bigots, ignorants, etc. Eventually, the "non" won at the polls with 55% of the votes.

    What happened later? The EU constitution project came back in 2008 through the Lisbon treaty, which was approved by the parliament. No referendum this time. To eurocrats, "non" isn't an answer.

    In my humble opinion, we are in a similar situation nowadays, about immigration. The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants. Since a 2 year old Kurd drowned in Turkey, opponents are called insensitive xenophobes. The mainstream magazine "Le Point" has Merkel on its cover this week, with the caption: "Si seulement elle était française..." (If only she were French...). The article was very laudative, with pictures of Merkel when she was a promising, dynamic teenager. I decided never to buy that rag again. Besides, Bernard-Henri Lévy writes op-eds in it.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don't toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite. No more TV shows for them. No more well-paid conferences. No more invitations to dinner with the cream of the elite. Their books will be ignored.

    This being said, I'm not convinced that the "elites" are fully in control now. They wouldn't need such a big media campaign and intellectual intimidation of the people if they were. It's rather something like "Puisque ces mystères nous dépassent, feignons d'en être les organisateurs" (Since these mysteries escape us, let's pretend to be their organizers), to quote a line from a dead French author.

    People like Merkel and Piketty are traitors, complicit in the destruction of their nations. It's rather clear why Piketty toes the line, less so about Merkel. She's taken so many decisions that were detrimental to genuine German interests, that I think that there's something we don't know about her, some dark secret only she and the CIA/Mossad know.

    The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants.

    I’ve thought that the academic intellectuals have much more actual control over this and over society in general than the media.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don’t toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite

    Piketty believes what he is saying, but the university system selects for him and shuns this crowd’s mindset.

    • Replies: @Horzabky
    I’ve thought that the academic intellectuals have much more actual control over this and over society in general than the media.

    The French media belong to a handful of billionaires such as Arnaud Lagardère (a very good friend of Sarkozy) and Israeli citizen Patrick Drahi, and a few others. The billionaires have actual control over the media, intellectuals don't. Nicolas Sarkozy used to boast to journalists that he was chummy with all their bosses (he also managed to have a few of them fired).

    Bernard-Henri Lévy is one of the biggest shareholders of multimedia groups, he belongs to the boards of directors of Le Monde and French-German TV channel Arte, and he has key postions in publishing (Grasset Editions) and the French movie-making industry as well. He is one of the 200 richest French citizens. Which gives him access to prime time TV whenever he wants. Conversely, his books sell poorly and all his movies are flops.

    The intellectuals you can see all the time on French TV toe the line defined by people like Lagardère, Drahi and Lévy. Otherwise, they lose their access to the media. Éric Zemmour doesn't exactly toe the line, but he's got many fans, and as a Sephardic Jew he's immune to accusations of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, he has been sued several times over allegations of racism, and fired from at least one channel.

    Thomas Piketty cohabited with Aurélie Filippetti, who is a socialist member of parliament and who was the Minister of Culture until last year. He is no stranger to the corridors of power.
  107. @Harry Baldwin
    All conspires to that end: our self-destructive aging imposes it. . .

    Indeed, every day I curse my self-destructive aging. But what can you do?

    “Indeed, every day I curse my self-destructive aging. But what can you do?”

    Curl up and die, and be replaced by someone who will work for a lot less. At least that’s what you’d do if you weren’t such a damned racist.

  108. @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    “The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.”

    You had better hope that the population you are cuckolding is too stupid to notice what you’re up to. Because if they do notice, they may be a little resentful. If I were you, I’d do a little research on the Jewish role in the Weimar republic before you fully embrace this ideology.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/the-german-jewish-kulturkampf-in-the-weimar-republic/

    http://www.geni.com/projects/German-Jewry-in-the-Weimar-Republic-1918-1933/17042

    TL:DR version: It doesn’t work out that well.

  109. @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    Are you really unable to see that importing millions of Arabs or millions of mestizos would be far worse for the Jews than to be another religious sect in an all white (or white & African) society? Who is committing violence against Jews in Europe – skinheads or Arabs? Who is committing violence against Jews in America – baptists or Africans?

    The Jewish idea of importing more visible “others” so they will disappear into the scenery could only work if those “others” are as tolerant of the Jews as the native white population. In America particularly, the nation which has done more for Jews than any other in history, Jewish agitation in favor of immigration is Treason pure and simple. We should tolerate *no* dual loyalty and expel anyone holding a second passport. I don’t know how to weed out those with dual loyalties who don’t have a second passport, but I’m willing to explore any ideas. At very least they must be disenfranchised and barred from any political activity like Mexico does.

  110. @Massimo Heitor

    The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants.
     
    I've thought that the academic intellectuals have much more actual control over this and over society in general than the media.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don’t toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite
     
    Piketty believes what he is saying, but the university system selects for him and shuns this crowd's mindset.

    I’ve thought that the academic intellectuals have much more actual control over this and over society in general than the media.

    The French media belong to a handful of billionaires such as Arnaud Lagardère (a very good friend of Sarkozy) and Israeli citizen Patrick Drahi, and a few others. The billionaires have actual control over the media, intellectuals don’t. Nicolas Sarkozy used to boast to journalists that he was chummy with all their bosses (he also managed to have a few of them fired).

    Bernard-Henri Lévy is one of the biggest shareholders of multimedia groups, he belongs to the boards of directors of Le Monde and French-German TV channel Arte, and he has key postions in publishing (Grasset Editions) and the French movie-making industry as well. He is one of the 200 richest French citizens. Which gives him access to prime time TV whenever he wants. Conversely, his books sell poorly and all his movies are flops.

    The intellectuals you can see all the time on French TV toe the line defined by people like Lagardère, Drahi and Lévy. Otherwise, they lose their access to the media. Éric Zemmour doesn’t exactly toe the line, but he’s got many fans, and as a Sephardic Jew he’s immune to accusations of anti-semitism. Nevertheless, he has been sued several times over allegations of racism, and fired from at least one channel.

    Thomas Piketty cohabited with Aurélie Filippetti, who is a socialist member of parliament and who was the Minister of Culture until last year. He is no stranger to the corridors of power.

  111. @SPMoore8
    Looking up on Piketty's background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.

    Looking up on Piketty’s background, it appears his parents were basically hippies with trust funds. Also Trotskyites. That pedigree tends to create a certain type of person.

    And what’s insane is that instead of forcing him to work a thousand times harder and be a million times smarter to overcome such a legacy, it instead elevates his status!

  112. @Horzabky
    Piketty is of Italian descent, presumably catholic. I know: one of his relatives married a niece of a friend of mine. The name used be "Pichetti", but they changed their surname to "Piketty" because that's how their name was pronounced in Italian, whereas the French pronounce "ch" as "sh".

    Piketty's op-ed reminds me of 2005, when 90% of pundits and politicians supported the "oui" to the referendum on the EU constitution. The supporters of the "non" were called xenophobes, racists, bigots, ignorants, etc. Eventually, the "non" won at the polls with 55% of the votes.

    What happened later? The EU constitution project came back in 2008 through the Lisbon treaty, which was approved by the parliament. No referendum this time. To eurocrats, "non" isn't an answer.

    In my humble opinion, we are in a similar situation nowadays, about immigration. The French mainstream media are making a massive effort to push for open doors to migrants. Since a 2 year old Kurd drowned in Turkey, opponents are called insensitive xenophobes. The mainstream magazine "Le Point" has Merkel on its cover this week, with the caption: "Si seulement elle était française..." (If only she were French...). The article was very laudative, with pictures of Merkel when she was a promising, dynamic teenager. I decided never to buy that rag again. Besides, Bernard-Henri Lévy writes op-eds in it.

    Public intellectuals like Piketty know very well that if they don't toe the line, they will be sidelined in the small world of the French elite. No more TV shows for them. No more well-paid conferences. No more invitations to dinner with the cream of the elite. Their books will be ignored.

    This being said, I'm not convinced that the "elites" are fully in control now. They wouldn't need such a big media campaign and intellectual intimidation of the people if they were. It's rather something like "Puisque ces mystères nous dépassent, feignons d'en être les organisateurs" (Since these mysteries escape us, let's pretend to be their organizers), to quote a line from a dead French author.

    People like Merkel and Piketty are traitors, complicit in the destruction of their nations. It's rather clear why Piketty toes the line, less so about Merkel. She's taken so many decisions that were detrimental to genuine German interests, that I think that there's something we don't know about her, some dark secret only she and the CIA/Mossad know.

    If there is a dark secret, that sort of thing runs in the family; her grandfather betrayed first Germany and then Poland.

  113. @eah
    The plight of the refugees is an opportunity for Europeans to jump-start the continent’s economy. Germany’s attitude is a model to follow.

    Denmark's refugee integration has 'failed'

    Three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later...

    Every year, German media is full of stories about 'Bildungsbenachteiligung' -- if anything, the hand-wringing discussions about the poor performance of "Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund" is even more realitätsfremd than in the US.

    These people cannot be serious -- all of this must some kind of inside joke.

    Yeah, it’s kind of hard to experience Fahrvergnügen when you’re importing tons of folks who are too dumb and dysfunctional even to build Trabants.

  114. It’s a bit simplistic to say that the wealthy want to swamp the West with third world workers, and they aren’t the main ones pushing for more refugees. Humanitarian immigration is mainly pushed by the left.

    The wealthy want docile labourers (preferably non-Muslim) and high IQ immigrants for economic reasons and they have their pet groups such as East Asian graduates, South-Asian IT workers and South-East Asian females for nursing and elderly care. If the can get their useful economic migrants they will put with the refugee parasites (whose cost can be partially passed onto to the general taxpayer) to appease the politically vocal left.

    The drive for more refugee immigration comes from the liberal left – green parties, Amnesty International, the UN, liberal church leaders etc.

    The Trump revolt indicates that the native working class are waking up to the fact that they are being shafted by both the economic migrant-loving liberal right and the refugee-loving liberal left. Hence, their only option is to support populist/nationalist candidates that can stand up to both types of ultra-liberal.

    • Replies: @anon
    The minority economic right and cultural left are allied together against everybody else.
  115. @Ron Unz

    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he’s not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't be too sure about that...

    When Piketty's big book came out a year or so ago and was getting rave reviews everywhere, I bought a copy and was thinking of trying to read it. But when I mentioned this to a smart liberal friend of mine who knows that subject very well, he said the book was total junk and I shouldn't bother.

    Piketty's main theoretical argument was that since the rate of return on invested wealth tends to be greater than the general economic growth rate these days, an increasing concentration of wealth at the top is inevitable. But the moment I read that in the newspaper reviews, I thought Huh? Piketty's analysis relies on the assumption that the rich are immortal and never die. After all, if a rich person has two or three (or more) surviving heirs, the resulting division of wealth (even leaving aside inheritance taxes) would easily be enough to destroy Piketty's analysis. The reason that was so obvious to me was that was exactly the factor that prevented concentration of wealth in traditional rural China.

    Now the flaw was so obvious I assumed I must be wrong. But when I asked that liberal friend of mine (who knows Piketty's work backwards and forwards), he said I was exactly correct.

    Please note that the economist-hirelings at the big conservative thinktanks who were endlessly attacking Piketty's book were apparently all too stupid to consider that simple point.

    The quality of the elite American media and intelligentsia is just a total joke...

    I saw a simple and compelling analysis of Piketty’s nonsense when it was first being lauded: the central premise, remember, was that an increasing percentage of economic growth was being channeled (not created by) fewer and fewer people.

    His data was bullshit (There must be a better word than Bullshit for being wrong by nine orders of magnitude.)

    https://mises.org/library/thomas-piketty%E2%80%99s-improbable-data

    “This chart is astonishing for many reasons. First of all, it suggests that capital earned a 4.5 percent or higher return for the years 0-1800 C.E. This is a crazy number. If the human race had started out with only $10 in year 1 and compounded it at 4.5 percent a year for any series of 1,800 years, by now we would have much, much more than a trillion times the entire world’s wealth today, which is estimated at $241 trillion by Credit Suisse.

    The 4.5 percent or higher number is also crazy because Piketty is right that there was negligible economic growth prior to the industrial revolution, and such high returns for the rich are just not consistent with so little growth. The truth is that rich people for most of those years were interested in spending or hiding their wealth, not in investing it, because wealth out in the open was likely to be stolen, if not by bandits, then by government.”

  116. @unpc downunder
    It's a bit simplistic to say that the wealthy want to swamp the West with third world workers, and they aren't the main ones pushing for more refugees. Humanitarian immigration is mainly pushed by the left.

    The wealthy want docile labourers (preferably non-Muslim) and high IQ immigrants for economic reasons and they have their pet groups such as East Asian graduates, South-Asian IT workers and South-East Asian females for nursing and elderly care. If the can get their useful economic migrants they will put with the refugee parasites (whose cost can be partially passed onto to the general taxpayer) to appease the politically vocal left.

    The drive for more refugee immigration comes from the liberal left - green parties, Amnesty International, the UN, liberal church leaders etc.

    The Trump revolt indicates that the native working class are waking up to the fact that they are being shafted by both the economic migrant-loving liberal right and the refugee-loving liberal left. Hence, their only option is to support populist/nationalist candidates that can stand up to both types of ultra-liberal.

    The minority economic right and cultural left are allied together against everybody else.

  117. @Ron Unz

    To actually, really and truly, believe in what he has written, Piketty must either be a fool or a liar.
    Now, Piketty is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, so he’s not a fool.

    Therefore, we must conclude that he is a liar.
     
    Actually, I wouldn't be too sure about that...

    When Piketty's big book came out a year or so ago and was getting rave reviews everywhere, I bought a copy and was thinking of trying to read it. But when I mentioned this to a smart liberal friend of mine who knows that subject very well, he said the book was total junk and I shouldn't bother.

    Piketty's main theoretical argument was that since the rate of return on invested wealth tends to be greater than the general economic growth rate these days, an increasing concentration of wealth at the top is inevitable. But the moment I read that in the newspaper reviews, I thought Huh? Piketty's analysis relies on the assumption that the rich are immortal and never die. After all, if a rich person has two or three (or more) surviving heirs, the resulting division of wealth (even leaving aside inheritance taxes) would easily be enough to destroy Piketty's analysis. The reason that was so obvious to me was that was exactly the factor that prevented concentration of wealth in traditional rural China.

    Now the flaw was so obvious I assumed I must be wrong. But when I asked that liberal friend of mine (who knows Piketty's work backwards and forwards), he said I was exactly correct.

    Please note that the economist-hirelings at the big conservative thinktanks who were endlessly attacking Piketty's book were apparently all too stupid to consider that simple point.

    The quality of the elite American media and intelligentsia is just a total joke...

    Perhaps Piketty’s implicit assumption is that the children of the wealthy marry partners who also come from wealthy backgrounds. For example, Ivanka Trump married the son of a real estate tycoon. He’s also assuming that the wealthy have a TFR of =<2.0. I wonder how true these assumptions are.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Perhaps Piketty’s implicit assumption is that the children of the wealthy marry partners who also come from wealthy backgrounds. For example, Ivanka Trump married the son of a real estate tycoon. He’s also assuming that the wealthy have a TFR of =<2.0. I wonder how true these assumptions are.
     
    Maybe, but I doubt it. Remember, Piketty's theory would require that all very wealthy people only married other very wealthy people and *also* had a TFR of 2 or less (or they married ordinary people and had a TFR of just 1). This seems very inconsistent with all the cases that come to mind. But I can't be sure because after that liberal friend of mine told me Piketty's book was pure junk, I never bothered opening the 600pp doorstop. He also said that lots of Piketty's historical estimates and charts were total garbage. When a von Mises guy says that the Piketty book is junk, well maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but when a liberal expert says it's junk, that persuades me.

    Incidentally, a few weeks ago Krugman had a review in the NYT, in which he said Piketty's newest book was junk, but seemed to be saying very nice things about the big Capital book. That confused me, so I asked that friend of mine (who's a good friend of Krugman). He pointed out that Krugman was deliberately using careful phrases that might sound laudatory to the casual reader, but really weren't, an old trick that academics have developed in reviewing bad books written by their ideological allies.
  118. Really quite amazing that a guy who wrote a 1,000 page book on inequality is in favor of Africanizing Europe.

  119. @JohnnyWalker123
    Perhaps Piketty's implicit assumption is that the children of the wealthy marry partners who also come from wealthy backgrounds. For example, Ivanka Trump married the son of a real estate tycoon. He's also assuming that the wealthy have a TFR of =<2.0. I wonder how true these assumptions are.

    Perhaps Piketty’s implicit assumption is that the children of the wealthy marry partners who also come from wealthy backgrounds. For example, Ivanka Trump married the son of a real estate tycoon. He’s also assuming that the wealthy have a TFR of =<2.0. I wonder how true these assumptions are.

    Maybe, but I doubt it. Remember, Piketty’s theory would require that all very wealthy people only married other very wealthy people and *also* had a TFR of 2 or less (or they married ordinary people and had a TFR of just 1). This seems very inconsistent with all the cases that come to mind. But I can’t be sure because after that liberal friend of mine told me Piketty’s book was pure junk, I never bothered opening the 600pp doorstop. He also said that lots of Piketty’s historical estimates and charts were total garbage. When a von Mises guy says that the Piketty book is junk, well maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but when a liberal expert says it’s junk, that persuades me.

    Incidentally, a few weeks ago Krugman had a review in the NYT, in which he said Piketty’s newest book was junk, but seemed to be saying very nice things about the big Capital book. That confused me, so I asked that friend of mine (who’s a good friend of Krugman). He pointed out that Krugman was deliberately using careful phrases that might sound laudatory to the casual reader, but really weren’t, an old trick that academics have developed in reviewing bad books written by their ideological allies.

  120. Yes but this can turn out well. It will simply mean that nationalists will begin to be elected to deal with the problems of assimilation by these migrants. Nationalism is probably what these globalist billionaires are hoping for with these open door policies right? Just think of all those Napoleons, Hitlers, Mussolinis and Francos that will rise to the top thanks to the help of these thoughtful billionaires.
    In the meantime, we get to see a real life game of Aliens vs. Predators. Those next elections should be fun as guys like Hollande and Cameron push more gay onto these black and Muslim voters. That vibrant new voter class will probably enjoy those magical rainbows, burning auto shows, and 100% off sales at the stores.

  121. @jackmcg
    The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and "Othered" where they're a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    “The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.

    Yes, I understand that. But then you also have to consider that the new cultural and racial groups — from Latin America and Asia — that are being admitted into the country may be more prone to anti-Semitism and less sympathetic to the plight of the state of Israel. In other words these new groups could undermine American popular support for the state of Israel, which is anchored in anglo-Protestantism, Protestant Americans being the least anti-Semitic people in the history of the world.

    Whatever the calculus may have been in the past, I believe the better strategy for organized American Jewry going forward would be to ally themselves very clearly and publically with the economic interests of middle- and working-class Americans of all races, even if this means new restrictions on Third World trade and immigration. To be seen as the friend of the American people will be worth more than trying to not stick out in an ever increasingly multi-cultural, multi-racial milieu. After all the Austro-Hungarian empire was highly multi-ethnic, and that didn’t stop if from becoming a seedbed for anti-Semitism.

    • Replies: @Horzabky
    the new cultural and racial groups — from Latin America and Asia — that are being admitted into the country may be more prone to anti-Semitism and less sympathetic to the plight of the state of Israel.

    I don't know much about American Jews, but about French Jews, it seems to me that there are two groups in the community, or rather two ends of a continuum:

    1. Elite Jews. They are the wealthy, educated, influential advisers to the rulers of the country, the pundits and intellectuals, or the wealthy bankers and businessmen. They hate White Christians for their latent anti-semitism, and they think that it is good for the Elite Jews if the White Christians are diluted in a sea of low IQ, mutually hostile communities. Divide et impera, divide and rule, as the Romans said. They are largely insulated by their wealth from the unpleasantness of Muslim and Black anti-semitism.

    2. Ordinary Jews. Like, say, your doctor, accountant or filling station attendant. They are the Jews who leave France to settle in Israel, because Muslim and Black anti-semitism is much more dangerous to them than the watered down native version they grew up with. According to a poll I read one or two years ago, 13% of French Jews vote for Marine Le Pen's Front National. The interests of Ordinary Jews and those of the Elite Jews are not the same, obviously.
  122. […] chaos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). An AoS round-up. “Among them actually there were no women, no children – the vast […]

  123. @Luke Lea
    "The common argument is that the unconscious Jewish motivation to promote multiculturalism is that a culture that is race blind and full of others will keep Jews themselves from being identified and “Othered” where they’re a minority. Its an argument I happen to agree with.
    "

    Yes, I understand that. But then you also have to consider that the new cultural and racial groups -- from Latin America and Asia -- that are being admitted into the country may be more prone to anti-Semitism and less sympathetic to the plight of the state of Israel. In other words these new groups could undermine American popular support for the state of Israel, which is anchored in anglo-Protestantism, Protestant Americans being the least anti-Semitic people in the history of the world.

    Whatever the calculus may have been in the past, I believe the better strategy for organized American Jewry going forward would be to ally themselves very clearly and publically with the economic interests of middle- and working-class Americans of all races, even if this means new restrictions on Third World trade and immigration. To be seen as the friend of the American people will be worth more than trying to not stick out in an ever increasingly multi-cultural, multi-racial milieu. After all the Austro-Hungarian empire was highly multi-ethnic, and that didn't stop if from becoming a seedbed for anti-Semitism.

    the new cultural and racial groups — from Latin America and Asia — that are being admitted into the country may be more prone to anti-Semitism and less sympathetic to the plight of the state of Israel.

    I don’t know much about American Jews, but about French Jews, it seems to me that there are two groups in the community, or rather two ends of a continuum:

    1. Elite Jews. They are the wealthy, educated, influential advisers to the rulers of the country, the pundits and intellectuals, or the wealthy bankers and businessmen. They hate White Christians for their latent anti-semitism, and they think that it is good for the Elite Jews if the White Christians are diluted in a sea of low IQ, mutually hostile communities. Divide et impera, divide and rule, as the Romans said. They are largely insulated by their wealth from the unpleasantness of Muslim and Black anti-semitism.

    2. Ordinary Jews. Like, say, your doctor, accountant or filling station attendant. They are the Jews who leave France to settle in Israel, because Muslim and Black anti-semitism is much more dangerous to them than the watered down native version they grew up with. According to a poll I read one or two years ago, 13% of French Jews vote for Marine Le Pen’s Front National. The interests of Ordinary Jews and those of the Elite Jews are not the same, obviously.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS