The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Who Belongs?"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the New York Times:

A Central Conflict of 21st-Century Politics: Who Belongs?
The Interpreter
By AMANDA TAUB JULY 8, 2016

WASHINGTON — The trend emerged into public consciousness last year with the rise of far-right politics in Europe. It spread with Donald J. Trump’s successful campaign to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee in the United States. And its consequences became unmistakable with Britain’s vote last month to exit the European Union.

What is driving this surge in anti-immigrant populism in Western politics?

Michael Ignatieff has a theory, one rooted in his research as a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and in his experience as former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party.

Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count. His father was Canada’s UN ambassador. (Zbigniew Brzezinski would be a fairly comparable figure in American history.)

The younger Ignatieff, who has lived outside Canada for most of his life in prestigious academic jobs, was an unsurprisingly ineffective politician:

But his explanation is lucid:

According to his argument, what we’re seeing is, in part, an ideological split between cosmopolitan elites who see immigration as a common good based in universal rights

What I call the Zeroth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

, and voters who see it as a gift conferred on certain outsiders deemed worthy of joining the community.

This disagreement, he said in an interview, has animated much of the backlash against immigration that is described as “uncontrolled” and a threat to receiving communities. These disagreements over “who belongs,” he said, will “define the 21st century.” …

Like I’ve said, politics is basically about whose side you are on.

Big names in political history tend to be those who devised relatively lasting arrangements. For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big and, second, in unifying the thirteen states for being too small. Both decisions endure. Not surprisingly, Washington remains famous.

Q. Brexit took a lot of people by surprise as a specific political event, but also as an expression of some larger trends. One of those is rising nationalism despite globalization and the development of cross-border institutions like the European Union. Where are these coming from?

A. One thought that does strike me is: Why should we be surprised?

Globalization and a borderless world have been terrific for the educated, the young, the mobile, the multilingual, the multicultural. But globalization has been really tough for people whose jobs are tied to a community, whose mobility is limited by limited education, and — more positively — whose first allegiance is to their community, their locality, their place of birth.

Cosmopolitans are perpetually surprised that, A, they’re only 1 percent of the population, and, B, most people don’t think like them. …

They feel the global, mobile, cosmopolitan world is simply out of reach. Not only out of reach, but malign, in the sense that the global cosmopolitan elite are the people who are shipping the jobs out. …

This is a story not just about nationalism. It’s also a story about inequality. The division between cosmopolitans and nationalists is going to define the 21st century. Brexit is not just a little hiccup on the path toward a bright cosmopolitan future. Nor is nationalism. Cosmopolitans continually condescend to nationalism, but my patriotic pride is your nationalism, right?

Q. But if nationalism comes from positive feelings of pride and connection to one’s community, why does that often seem to manifest in fears of immigration as a threat to that community, as it did with Brexit?

A. The issue always is: Who belongs?

In many ways, global migration is exacerbating the salience of the division between a citizen and a stranger. Citizens are saying everywhere, “The one thing that political community means to me, the one thing a nation means to me, is control of my borders and the right to define who comes in and who doesn’t.”

Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.” These were citizens saying: “We’ve lost control of our frontiers. Free movement of people is simply incompatible with democracy. It’s incompatible with the self-determination of peoples.”

That’s what nationalism is: “Take back control, control of our borders. Take back control of our economy.”

The problem, in a globalized world, is that all control is relative.

Everything is relative. The problem has become that the Zeroth Amendment is increasingly seen as absolute, ruling over all other.

… Q. Is this, on some level, driven by a conflict between democracy and globalization? If so, can that be solved?

A. I do think that there’s a real disconnect between an international cosmopolitan discourse about rights — the rights of migrants, the rights of refugees — versus the way in which ordinary people in most democracies see this question.

For ordinary people, a citizen’s relation to a stranger is a gift relationship, not a rights relationship.

Hospitality to travelers is a big theme in the Bible and other West Asian religious traditions. But it’s limited in duration and it’s reciprocal.

They think it’s up to the citizen to decide who gets in. It’s up to the citizen who decides what the boundaries of a political community are.

That’s what democracy means to them. That’s what democracy promises them: control of borders and the handing out of discretionary gifts to those they decide belong in the community.

There are a lot of Brexiters who think a decent country is generous to strangers, is compassionate to strangers. But that’s the language of the gift. That’s not a language of rights. This is an emerging theme that a lot of liberal cosmopolitan politicians — and I have been one! — didn’t understand.

This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.

Like I’ve been saying for years, we’ve witnessed an intellectual failure among elites due to censorship of public expression. The wisdom Ignatieff has finally stumbled upon really isn’t that complicated.

 
Hide 178 CommentsLeave a Comment
178 Comments to ""Who Belongs?""
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. According to his argument, what we’re seeing is, in part, an ideological split between cosmopolitan elites who see immigration as a common good based in universal rights.

    A right to commit aggression is, I suppose, universalizable, but it’s utterly nihilistic. It means a permanent war of all against all and ultimately the end of the human race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/who-belongs/#comment-1483873
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. The Conservative party attack ads were true. He was just visiting. https://youtu.be/wcUN4IVVPMo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @SFG
    That was one of the things that annoyed me about Hillary back in the day--she just came to New York because she needed a Senate seat.

    http://www.thejumpingfrog.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=988482
    , @AKAHorace
    If the Tories wanted a really scary attack add they could have used material in "Flashman at the Charge" which describes his evil Czarist ancestor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Grumpy says:

    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    When was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?
     
    I predict Trudeau is going to cause a ruckus this fall when he declares Vermont maple syrup to be the “bomb diggity.” Les Quebecois are gonna be pissed.
    , @PiltdownMan

    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?
     


    You see these sensible articles in the NYT once in a while. They vanish without a trace of a follow-up.
    , @Ttjy
    Too little too late though.

    Our elites the last 50 years or so have been traitorous.

    This idiot is a Canadian but here he was telling us what to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @franktremb
    The Conservative party attack ads were true. He was just visiting. https://youtu.be/wcUN4IVVPMo

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @franktremb
    Sure thing. When I saw that he was back at Harvard, I thought that the theme of the attack ads back then, "Just visiting", were true. They're so much to chose from and it was so effective that it almost destroyed the Liberal party and gave the Conservative party a majority of seats in the House. https://youtu.be/TeSngE_Gg9E
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. AndyBoy says:

    I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.
     
    Why would that be? They seem perfectly loyal to their group to me.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?
     
    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn't help.
    , @AndrewR
    I disagree. None of our elites display the slightest allergy to group loyalty. They simply define their groups differently than you or I might. Obama, for instance, is very loyal to his group. But he, like his mother, doesn't view average white Americans as part of his group, which is in no way surprising given his background. It's worth noting that he doesn't seem to be terribly loyal to his Kenyan kin and coethnics either.

    What our elites universally find baffling is that whites would feel ethnic loyalty to other whites. And that's why they're elites: because they've sold their ethnic kin down the river. In many cases they sell their conventionally-defined kin down the river. I've experienced this first hand with a close relative who was able to attain elite political status.

    , @SFG
    They're loyal to their group--the elite.

    This is not a new thing, BTW. European monarchs were frequently related to each other.
    , @Jack D
    Steve has often mentioned the concept of "leapfrogging loyalties" - the elites feel loyalty toward each other and toward the oppressed and undocumented among us (although they take pains to avoid any actual regular contact with the latter). The only people they DON'T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy and remind them a little too much of the miserably conformist bourgeois place where they grew up and which they got the hell out when they went to college and never looked back.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences - to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash - they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    , @rod1963
    Oh they are sociopaths alright and do have some degree of group loyalty.


    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?
     
    By doing several things:

    1) Crippling public education and turning it into a system that produced factory workers, drones and obedient consumers. You have to understand at the time, the elites needed bodies for their factories, they didn't need critical thinking citizens with a strong bent of individualism as there were no places for such people in society. Those sorts also weren't good fits for the factory. Just obedient drones for their factories, hence they designed schools to produce such products.

    The elites were always quite open about their intentions in this area and even wrote about it. It took almost a century to complete. Common Core will be the finishing move.

    2) Professional sports and TV formed a modern day bread and circus for the masses to keep them further occupied and distracted. Not to mention consumerism which has been turned into way of life in America.

    3) Owning our politicians, that occurred during the era of JP Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller.

    4) Mastery of fiat currency which allowed them to sedate the masses with low cost and free s*** and fake food, which kept them from interfering with the elites or simply eating them.
    , @gokart-mozart
    "I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty."

    Oh, thy have group loyalty, all right. Just not to our group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. asdf says:

    “For ordinary people, a citizen’s relation to a stranger is a gift relationship, not a rights relationship.”

    Whoa!

    1. Very true. Very impressive he’s admitted this.
    2. How long before he’s the worst racist in the world now?

    Still. I’m amazed anyone in this guys demimonde would say this – “This is an emerging theme that a lot of liberal cosmopolitan politicians — and I have been one! — didn’t understand.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Jefferson says:

    “What is driving this surge in anti-immigrant populism in Western politics?”

    Immigrants and their off springs not assimilating into Western culture. Mexicans, Central Americans, and Muslims are not the new Italians, Polacks, and Irishmen.

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

    http://www.news.com.au/travel/australian-holidays/could-pauline-hanson-poison-the-swamp/news-story/db28d437c995c90bb3ac63cc5f682446

    ‘WHAT Australia needs — right now — is to be swamped by Asians.’

    This is what the elite want for the West. They want unending mass immigration of cultural and racial aliens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dirk Diggler
    Anon,

    It's all about cheap labor. It's not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don't fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites.

    Remember that writing laws costs a lot of money. And lobbying does too. Only large corporations have the money for this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Who belongs? Some possibly White Nationalist lyrics from Pat Benatar:

    We belong to the light, we belong to the thunder.
    We belong to the feast and to Valhalla’s chunder!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    You made me watch the video, thinking that I had missed Ms. Benatar's white nationalism.

    Those are evocative new lyrics, especially since Margot Robbie just told me that "chunder" means vomit:

    https://youtu.be/qNZIJmEZ91g?t=0m57s
    , @The most deplorable one

    We belong to the feast and to Valhalla’s chunder!
     
    Those words do not appear in the lyrics or the video you linked.

    If they did it would constitute an egregious example of cultural appropriation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Grumpy
    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    When was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    I predict Trudeau is going to cause a ruckus this fall when he declares Vermont maple syrup to be the “bomb diggity.” Les Quebecois are gonna be pissed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    Sure thing. When I saw that he was back at Harvard, I thought that the theme of the attack ads back then, “Just visiting”, were true. They’re so much to chose from and it was so effective that it almost destroyed the Liberal party and gave the Conservative party a majority of seats in the House. https://youtu.be/TeSngE_Gg9E

    Read More
    • Replies: @johnfrum
    He may have been a visitor, but he would have had to better than Justine Trudeau., the next Liberal leader . He has double the IQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Truth says:
    @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Why would that be? They seem perfectly loyal to their group to me.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn’t help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous


    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?
     
    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn’t help.
     
    Among the elites you mean, right?

    A lot of TV watching is no longer part of the average or below average American's day. It is now much more common for the "elites" to devote a lot time to watching TV. Starting with a couple hours of watching "Morning Joe" on stairclimber, they have the television on CNN and MSNBC throughout the day and pull away to watch when certain people come on. Later they will catch more MSNBC or CNN round table shows and usually the devoted followers of HBO series. Being a writer, commentator, or holding down a political sinecure apparently frees you up to watch a lot TV or to spend a lot of time online or tweeting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Grumpy
    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    You see these sensible articles in the NYT once in a while. They vanish without a trace of a follow-up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. AndrewR says:

    A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers). And since the political left has come to see borders as Racist (even grandpa Bernie got on board the open borders train in the last year), there simply aren’t that many people who can cogently defend the concept of borders, let alone nationalism. A significant chunk of us are regular unz.com commenters (which is not to say all regular unz.com commenters are bright, educated or well-read, but I digress…)

    So many otherwise open-minded leftoids are simply unexposed to well-developed arguments against leftist policies, especially about immigration.

    It doesn’t help that Trump is a mental midget who speaks using third grade vocabulary. His intuition is in the right direction on many issues but he simply lacks the intellectual horsepower to back it up, and he frequently seems to lack the humility to listen to people smarter than he.

    But back to the left: many if not most of them are just so incredibly smug that they simply refuse to think they could be wrong about anything. Obviously this phenomenon exists along the political spectrum but with the left it is a strong feedback loop.

    I’m not optimistic about the future. Demographic change seems very likely to cement our incredibly polarized political discourse. One thing Trump got right, but pathetically refused to thoughtfully defend, was that ethnicity is largely inseperable from politics. Why he didn’t point to Sotomayor during the Curiel thing… well as I said before: Trump is an idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.
    , @avraham
    I have seen this problem and I think I saw it on some blog somewhere. The intellectual sophisticated apparatus is on the left. They hijacked Hegel. And the Nazis did not help much. And the intellectual force on the right is weak. And it also was not very helpful that the Left infiltrated the universities. This is a serious problem Not just for the right but even for people in the middle.
    The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical. I am really not sure.It is certain that Philosophy departments ignore the Kant Friesian School. Surprising enough the only ones that took this school seriously were the Soviets for some reason I still have not figured out.
    , @SFG
    Right-wing bright people tend to disappear into the private sector, for the reasons you state. If in universities they'd probably be in the medical, engineering, or business schools, where they have other concerns besides pontificating on this sort of thing.

    Besides, globalism tends to deliver benefits to the elite and costs to the masses--elites get a variety of ethnic foods and cheap labor, the masses get a variety of ethnic gangs and are the cheap labor.

    You have a good point--Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who studied conservatism to the point he semi-became one, pointed out that conservatives understand liberals much better than vice versa.


    I'm not optimistic either. I wouldn't argue ethnicity is *inseparable* from politics, particularly among better-assimilated groups, but it's a very strong predictor--which is exactly why Democrats are so pro-immigration.

    If you really want to live in a white republic, I'd suggest moving to Idaho and spawning as many as you can afford. If you want to salvage the USA, I'd join the GOP and work to decrease immigration and push assimilation--you want to subvert as many Hispanics as possible, since they don't have the long history of grievance. Someone has to think past November.
    , @Grumpy
    Comments like "Trump is a mental midget" reveal an awful lot of smugness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Jefferson says:

    A Black man was found hanging from a tree in Atlanta. 99.99% of Blacks on social media sites like Twitter believe the KKK did it.

    http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/07/07/piedmont-park-hanging-case-turned-over-to-fbi-atlanta-mayor-promises-robust-investigation/

    Who knew there were so many KKK members in 54 percent Black Atlanta in 2016. How the hell has no physical harm come to these Klan members yet when they reside in a city where Blacks outnumber Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    Like in many other major cities, the black percentage in Atlanta has been falling steadily due to gentrification. After last night's disruptive BLM protests (which blocked a key interstate) and this latest kkkraziness about an obvious suicide, I expect that trend will be reversing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn’t need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trumpenproleteriat
    Easy, the US (as well as UK and AUS to a smaller extent) is a two party system so you need to build enough unity around your positions for one party to adopt them.
    And I don't see why you find Golden Dawn a better model than UKIP. Golden Dawn gets to look cool playing Nazi and gets shut out of having any real influence while UKIP just delivered a major coup.
    But let's blame dajooz instead of thinking clearly
    , @IHTG

    Fpo ... do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews
     
    I have some news for you.
    , @Anonymous
    Why would a uk or a us with the demography of Brazil even be worth saving? If that is their definition of success then it won't matter a jot, let Isis have it for all I care, or have the Russians nuke it
    , @Jack D
    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!
    , @Whiskey
    WN fail, almost every time, in appreciating the reason for the ever driftward left in English speaking countries. They tend to pedestalize, appease, and placate White women, suggesting that feminism is indeed deeply genetically wired among Northwestern European peoples (something that Tacitus obsvered btw).

    The Alt-Right by contrast recognizes that White women are indeed, mostly the enemy of White men. This is because Affirmative Action includes White women as junior partners in the anti-White men spoils party, and White women mostly don't need or want White men. In addition, White men have become spectacularly unsexy to White women as economic dependence upon them has decreased by large measure (unlike Greece or Eastern Europe which require pooling of resources). The US and other English speaking places have large Welfare states, lots of jobs that are exclusively female or nearly so, and higher wealth and standard of living meaning White women there don't need White men like they do in say Hungary or Greece. Additionally White men in English speaking countries are beta males mostly, placating, appeasing, pedestalizing which worked when White women independent of clan and tribe had to choose a dutiful husband who would provide for all his life, and has failed with near total economic and social independence of White women.

    Moreover culturally, English speaking nations are ground zero of mass female-consumption led consumerism societies, pushing things ever more left. Hungary and Greece to name two nations are pretty much newcomers to this phenomena; Japan has deliberately kept its consumerism oriented towards small businesses to keep employment up and the culture the same as it ever was. Supermarkets are fairly rare still in Japan.

    Lastly, Parliamentary Systems in Greece and Hungary allow small parties with fractional membership to exist; which means the Greens, and for a long time Syriza and the Communists could exist as well as Nationalist parties. These places also don't have lots of Black people and Hispanics, so the arguments are among White people about whether to share existing Welfare with the Third World or not; and of course neither have the WASP Ascendancy ruling pretty much intact with some Jewish in-marriage for over 300 years or so.

    Who Belongs works in places like Hungary because it has seen massive turnover in elites, not the same type of Calvinist Utopian Universalist who because they are successful believe they are pre-ordained for salvation and hate hate hate those who are not wealthy and successful as the pre-ordained damned, and thus work with large blocs of existing non-Whites to turn the place into Hawaii or Brazil, perfect for WASP Adventuring the way say Avatar or Dances With Wolves hits emotional buttons (or Pocahantas or Stanley Anne Dunham for that matter) but bad for ordinary White people.

    TL:DR -- not the Jews but WASPs wanting to live like Kevin Costner among the tribes or a James Michener novel about Hawaii that is the root of the problem. What was the last Hungarian film or novel about wanting to live like a tribesman?

    As a very practical matter a long term accomodation must be struck between the large amounts of non-Whites here and soon to come, and the Whites here. In my view, it should be everyone is assigned WHITE status. I.E. Will Smith and Juanita from Juarez are all made "White" and class based (good for Juanita, not Will Smith's kids) AA exists, meaning Juanita and some kid from West Virginia share based on merit. This is the Paul Kagame solution -- no Hutus or Tutsi identity, only Rwandan.
    , @Anonymous
    That's because the European countries have actual ethnic identities. Whereas whites in America are generally deracinated and increasingly a mix of various white ethnicities. Unlike the various European ethnicities, there is not yet a cohesive white nationalist ethnic identity in America. By contrast, there is a relatively cohesive general black nationalist ethnic identity in the US, due to the fact that from the outset when black Africans were brought into the US, blacks of various tribal identities were mixed together. Whites in the US, or at least a proportion of them, are arguably undergoing this process now, which began in earnest in the mid-20th century through the various carrots and sticks of mass media culture, economic growth, and government power and shared war experience, which displaced and replaced older identities and cultures and dispersed and mixed whites together. This is ultimately a "post-American" development and identity, because this emerging identity is incidental to the forces and processes that generated it and that have now moved on to incorporate various others such as non-whites and immigrants. Some American far-right intellectuals, those with "extravagant haircuts", have recognized this and have more or less abandoned traditional American politics and have looked to European far-right and fascist politics as a post-American politics for this post-American identity.
    , @Jefferson
    "I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote?"

    10 percent doesn't win elections. Get back to us when The Golden Dawn runs Greece like The Democratic Party runs The United States.

    Gary Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationwide, but guess what Gary has no chance in hell of becoming the next president of The United States.

    Gary Johnson is just a protest fuck you vote. His supporters are not actually voting for him because they believe he can topple the $2 billion dollar war chest that the Hildabeast campaign will have at their fingertips.

    Hildabeast is Walmart and Gary Johnson is a mom & pop store. She will eat him alive. Gary does not have enough billionaire backers to make him a serious threat to her. Gary is operating on a shoestring budget.

    3rd parties in The U.S never have blank checks and billion dollar donors who serve as unlimited Human ATMs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. iffen says:

    Like I’ve said, politics is basically about whose side you are on.

    Effective political action requires one to choose up sides in a manner that gives your side the best chance to win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Effective political action requires one to choose up sides in a manner that gives your side the best chance to win.
     
    Politics is a team sport.

    More broadly, life is a team sport.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Mr. Blank says:

    Interesting.

    While reading this, it occurred to me that Ignatieff’s distinction between a “rights relationship” and a “gift relationship” might be a useful way to explain to certain Christian religious leaders that the members of their flocks who want tighter immigration aren’t necessarily motivated by un-Christian bigotry. They merely make a sharp distinction between providing food, clothing and shelter for needy people and giving those people the “gift” of citizenship in their political community.

    They do not regard citizenship, with its attendant network of rights and responsibilities, as a charitable good to be handed out like hot meals at a soup kitchen. You can’t eat citizenship, after all, or use it for shelter from cold weather. It’s true that possessing it might entitle you to those things, but it is not a necessary precondition. Last time I checked, there were no laws which forbid illegal immigrants from eating.

    These nice Christian nationalists simply regard citizenship as a privilege which outsiders must earn and even those within the community can have taken away or diminished (prisoners, for example). They are not hard-hearted or uncharitable; they merely put citizenship in an entirely different category from Christian commandments to show compassion and mercy.

    Cosmopolitans have trouble seeing this because they regard “citizenship” as little more than a PIN number to access certain benefits; who cares if we print out more and hand them out like candy? How is it different from handing out prepaid debit cards? For the elites, citizenship as such has little real value, so from their perspective it looks like the nationalists are being deliberately obstinate and mean-spirited over nothing. Hence, they assume their opponents can be motivated by nothing but spite and bigotry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    Now that I think of it, the very phrase "undocumented immigrant" pretty much sums up the cosmopolitan view of citizenship: It's just a stack of documents which entitle you to services. Nothing more. When you see citizenship in such bland, utilitarian terms, it probably does seem incredibly selfish when people insist on guarding it so jealously.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Here is a thought experiment to present to those Christians who feel the need to provide food and winter clothing to the local welfare recipients.

    Picture a family in which the parents use their money to provide healthy food, pay rent, and cover the utility bills and other basic expenses. Now if they were to come to you bemoaning the fact that, after taking care of these things, they no longer had enough money to pay for premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family, would you consider it your Christian duty to pay for them? Since you may not spend money on such things yourself, the answer is probably going to be "No."

    Now suppose that same family decided to forget about food and winter clothing and instead spend their money on premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family. If they then come to you asking for money to help pay for healthy food, rent, utility bills and other basic expenses, would you feel obliged to help them? If so, in what critical way is this situation different from the first?

    Talk to any case worker about the sort of possessions they see in the homes of welfare recipients.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. AndrewR says:
    @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    I disagree. None of our elites display the slightest allergy to group loyalty. They simply define their groups differently than you or I might. Obama, for instance, is very loyal to his group. But he, like his mother, doesn’t view average white Americans as part of his group, which is in no way surprising given his background. It’s worth noting that he doesn’t seem to be terribly loyal to his Kenyan kin and coethnics either.

    What our elites universally find baffling is that whites would feel ethnic loyalty to other whites. And that’s why they’re elites: because they’ve sold their ethnic kin down the river. In many cases they sell their conventionally-defined kin down the river. I’ve experienced this first hand with a close relative who was able to attain elite political status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Same goes for borders.

    They have borders of any kind keeping them clear of the 99,9%, all the time less when posing for media photographers.

    It's new borders, defined by the needs and customs of a new aristocracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Mr. Blank says:
    @Mr. Blank
    Interesting.

    While reading this, it occurred to me that Ignatieff's distinction between a "rights relationship" and a "gift relationship" might be a useful way to explain to certain Christian religious leaders that the members of their flocks who want tighter immigration aren't necessarily motivated by un-Christian bigotry. They merely make a sharp distinction between providing food, clothing and shelter for needy people and giving those people the "gift" of citizenship in their political community.

    They do not regard citizenship, with its attendant network of rights and responsibilities, as a charitable good to be handed out like hot meals at a soup kitchen. You can't eat citizenship, after all, or use it for shelter from cold weather. It's true that possessing it might entitle you to those things, but it is not a necessary precondition. Last time I checked, there were no laws which forbid illegal immigrants from eating.

    These nice Christian nationalists simply regard citizenship as a privilege which outsiders must earn and even those within the community can have taken away or diminished (prisoners, for example). They are not hard-hearted or uncharitable; they merely put citizenship in an entirely different category from Christian commandments to show compassion and mercy.

    Cosmopolitans have trouble seeing this because they regard "citizenship" as little more than a PIN number to access certain benefits; who cares if we print out more and hand them out like candy? How is it different from handing out prepaid debit cards? For the elites, citizenship as such has little real value, so from their perspective it looks like the nationalists are being deliberately obstinate and mean-spirited over nothing. Hence, they assume their opponents can be motivated by nothing but spite and bigotry.

    Now that I think of it, the very phrase “undocumented immigrant” pretty much sums up the cosmopolitan view of citizenship: It’s just a stack of documents which entitle you to services. Nothing more. When you see citizenship in such bland, utilitarian terms, it probably does seem incredibly selfish when people insist on guarding it so jealously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Bill B. says:

    The problem with people like Ignatieff is that if pushed into a corner they are capable of saying sensible things.

    But they will often take care to keep a path open back to their original position by using phrases like “social cohesion” or noting the rapidity of immigration or signally that it is the less successful who suffer.

    Ignatieff appears to have gone beyond that here, although the question then arises: if he is so damned smart why didn’t he think like this before?

    Even so he does not seem to want to come to grips with the notion that many people want to preserve their venerable civilisation that will be wrecked if it is flooded by folks from much different peoples, especially if they come from outside his civilisation entirely.

    In other words he places the issue of ‘home’ and centeredness within the individual and group rather than in a place and a history.

    For a cosmopolitan like Ignatieff then all such mental worries are ultimately solvable; whereas for a conservative they cannot be ‘solved’ because that would entail the destruction of what he loves and needs.

    (I may be doing Ignatieff an injustice if he claims a Damascene conversion, although given his earlier guff I suspect not.)

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

    Cosmopolitan elites versus the pesky peasant masses; if only the former didn’t have to rely on the latter so much for their labor and taxes then life could really be nice. Do these so-called ‘elites’ actually believe in something called ‘universal rights’, that is, for people other than themselves? Their loyalty is to their bank accounts. The aristocrats are mostly parasites that the vast majority of people could get by without.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @anon
    http://www.news.com.au/travel/australian-holidays/could-pauline-hanson-poison-the-swamp/news-story/db28d437c995c90bb3ac63cc5f682446

    'WHAT Australia needs — right now — is to be swamped by Asians.'

    This is what the elite want for the West. They want unending mass immigration of cultural and racial aliens.

    Anon,

    It’s all about cheap labor. It’s not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don’t fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites.

    Remember that writing laws costs a lot of money. And lobbying does too. Only large corporations have the money for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    "It’s all about cheap labor. It’s not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don’t fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites. "

    I don't disagree, but one has to wonder what came over Merkel last summer when she invited in the million middle east mob. There's plenty of cheap labour from east and southern Europe to be had if Germany needed it. Why bring in people that will likely have low employment rates - including future generations - and be overtly hostile to the dominant culture (what remains of it)?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "It’s all about cheap labor."
     
    This is a common opinion on the alt-right, but can't be true, or at least not completely true. If this were true, we'd be seeing more of the productive but low-wage immigrants from E. Europe and Asia and LAtin America, and fewer of the volatileand costly Muslims and Africans. But in fact the PTB expend a lot of political capital (e.g., Obama on Syrians) just to get those last two groups, who are basically useless for driving down wages.

    Until someone comes up with a better theory, it appears that the elites just hate the rest of us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Arclight says:

    The attitude of the elites in Europe and America reminds me of a line in Full Metal Jacket: “inside every gook is an American trying to get out.” No matter how foreign or unlikely to assimilate a group is, they cling to the belief that the hordes of 3rd worlders just want to be part of our beautiful cultural tapestry and the only downside is that we don’t let enough of them in.

    Borders are anachronisms, and our future president proclaimed in Berlin (of all places) in 2008 that he was offering himself up as a “citizen of the world” and that “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

    Europe took that speech to heart – how’s it working out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    Which in part is how the neocon side of the elitist coin thinks the rest of the world is yearning to breathe free. Ergo, invade the world to bring them democracy, or something.

    And clearly it's not working out.

    The reciprocity of generosity gets lost when the illegals start on Day 1 expecting free stuff. It's why giving illegals "free" state college tuition infuriates. I live near the Russian emigre enclave of Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. Occasionally see a Russian immigrants check out enough food for a Red Army regiment at a grocery store with all food stamps and get into their late model German sedan and makes you wonder; are we such fools? How do the elites not see there is a cost to all this. To say nothing of schools, hospitals, social services, crime. The elite get cheap labor and some interesting restaurants and socialize the hard costs to everyone else. And the elite fail to see in their haze of deluded self-righteous stupidity they are being played.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AndrewR
    I disagree. None of our elites display the slightest allergy to group loyalty. They simply define their groups differently than you or I might. Obama, for instance, is very loyal to his group. But he, like his mother, doesn't view average white Americans as part of his group, which is in no way surprising given his background. It's worth noting that he doesn't seem to be terribly loyal to his Kenyan kin and coethnics either.

    What our elites universally find baffling is that whites would feel ethnic loyalty to other whites. And that's why they're elites: because they've sold their ethnic kin down the river. In many cases they sell their conventionally-defined kin down the river. I've experienced this first hand with a close relative who was able to attain elite political status.

    Same goes for borders.

    They have borders of any kind keeping them clear of the 99,9%, all the time less when posing for media photographers.

    It’s new borders, defined by the needs and customs of a new aristocracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @2Mintzin1
    The concept of globalist elites functioning as a "new aristocracy" has bothered me, also.

    Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Ignatieff’s scholarly reputation is based in good part on a readable but bland biography of the readable but bland Isaiah Berlin, the Fox and the Hedgehog guy and a wealthy Russian Empire Jew of Nabokov’s generation who decamped for Oxford after the Bolsheviks started their stuff. He became a perennial prize winner at Oxford, was Churchill’s eyes in Washington during the War, and then became a ubiquitous essayist and scholarly voice on the BBC, radio and TV. The paradigmatic immigrant who becomes more British than the Brits.
    Ignatieff’s book about him has two highlights- in one, Berlin goes back to Soviet Petersburg/Leningrad and meets with Anna Akhmatova, the aging romantic poetess; they talk all night long but apparently don’t do the deed, and she especially seems to have fallen in love with him and written various encomia to their night of talk for years afterwards. The other good part in the biography is when Churchill’s wife invites Irving Berlin, the Brooklyn-born songwriter, to dinner and Churchill thinks he’s sitting with his man in Washington. (“What has your greatest contribution to the war effort been thus far?” “I dunno, White Christmas?”)
    I’m not certain if Ignatieff’s biography is the reason the fox and hedgehog distinction became a big fad a couple years ago (538′s logo is the fox, from it) but the funny thing is that almost everyone wanted to be a fox (“knows many things”) rather than a hedgehog (“knows one big thing.”) This is silly because in practice these would-be foxes know at best one big thing (538′s is supposed to be, “trust the data,” or maybe just “average the polls”) and because in the original fable, knowing many things is how you get caught by the hounds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Cat_(fable) )

    It would be good if Ignatieff decided if the one big thing he knew was that we live in a world of nations with borders, but everything in his own life and in the life of his intellectual subjects has taught him that borders are just there to be crossed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    538 should choose the chicken as its logo, not the fox.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. We have diagnosed the situation well. Now….what is to be done?

    Comes a Trumpening

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

    I think we also need to consider that an unlimited number of Affirmative Action eligible immigrants will push poor White people further down economically so they are unable to form or support families. Americans who are ethnically Irish, Polish, Italian etc.. are affirmatively discriminated against and each new immigrant is a potential weapon against their ability to start a family or earn a living. The avenue the Elites allow is debt slavery for College with Wage slavery to follow, where the Elites hoard all the political and cultural power. Perhaps it was always so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Dirk Diggler
    Anon,

    It's all about cheap labor. It's not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don't fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites.

    Remember that writing laws costs a lot of money. And lobbying does too. Only large corporations have the money for this.

    “It’s all about cheap labor. It’s not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don’t fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites. ”

    I don’t disagree, but one has to wonder what came over Merkel last summer when she invited in the million middle east mob. There’s plenty of cheap labour from east and southern Europe to be had if Germany needed it. Why bring in people that will likely have low employment rates – including future generations – and be overtly hostile to the dominant culture (what remains of it)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    For Merkel it was all about the tingles. Loutish young Muslim men in tracksuits with Iphones with IQs at room temperature who may well have been ISIS killers? If that is not a tingle generator for women particularly post-menopausal childless ones, I don't know what it is.

    Didn't our esteemed host note how Chicks Dig Chechens? Compared to dutiful White men who don't perform "emergency rapes" (one refugee cited not having sex for over a month as justification for an emergency rape) and go to work every day dutifully, without posturing and focusing intently on tasks and abstract things -- they pale in comparison with low IQ louts whose main occupation seems to be MMA training, drug dealing, violence, pimping, and occasional jihad.

    What women want from a society -- something along the lines of Game of Thrones, or Dexter, or Mad Men, or the Sopranos, or Breaking Bad -- a place filled with bad, bad men who do what they want when they want and without adherence to social norms of niceness and consideration -- is completely opposite of what men want: a normal, cooperative society where they are not constantly entering Thunderdome.

    A Margaret Thatcher could be trusted -- she had skin in the game, a son, a beta male husband, coming from a middle class family and proud of it; whereas a Merkel and the like cannot. Sadly Thatchers are rare and Merkels common.

    It will only get worse -- most young women if they marry at all will do so as Alpha Widows, constantly resenting and hating the man they had to settle for instead of "the guy she liked before you" as the Direct TV commercial with Jon Bon Jovi noted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The problem with the altright is that it is full of heresies that must be suppressed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. MQ says:

    Everything Ignatieff says is obvious, it hardly takes a phd to think it up, the only question is why he has chosen to say it in the NYT now. Ignatieff is a huge opportunist and courtier to the powerful classes — look back at his significant role as a cheerleader for the Iraq War, torture, etc back in the day. This must mean that some in the Cambridge/DC axis want the chance to talk about nationalism, this strange beast they thought defeated, seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Luke Lea says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers). And since the political left has come to see borders as Racist (even grandpa Bernie got on board the open borders train in the last year), there simply aren't that many people who can cogently defend the concept of borders, let alone nationalism. A significant chunk of us are regular unz.com commenters (which is not to say all regular unz.com commenters are bright, educated or well-read, but I digress...)

    So many otherwise open-minded leftoids are simply unexposed to well-developed arguments against leftist policies, especially about immigration.

    It doesn't help that Trump is a mental midget who speaks using third grade vocabulary. His intuition is in the right direction on many issues but he simply lacks the intellectual horsepower to back it up, and he frequently seems to lack the humility to listen to people smarter than he.

    But back to the left: many if not most of them are just so incredibly smug that they simply refuse to think they could be wrong about anything. Obviously this phenomenon exists along the political spectrum but with the left it is a strong feedback loop.

    I'm not optimistic about the future. Demographic change seems very likely to cement our incredibly polarized political discourse. One thing Trump got right, but pathetically refused to thoughtfully defend, was that ethnicity is largely inseperable from politics. Why he didn't point to Sotomayor during the Curiel thing... well as I said before: Trump is an idiot.

    “A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers).”

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    That's a major factor too. Obviously many people just go through the motions but I think you underestimate the number of True Believers.
    , @Sam Haysom
    Unfortunately you need a new analogy. As a Catholic I assure you that even outward adherence to orthodox dogma isn't required even of cardinals.
    , @guest
    The Church was infiltrated by political correctness long ago. Its leadership and its supposed dogma are far away from eachother.
    , @ben tillman

    “A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers).”

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement.
     

    Indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization -- all toward the same end.
    , @Area Man

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement.
     
    Charles Péguy would agree with that: "It will never be known what acts of cowardice were motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. 2Mintzin1 says:
    @Anonymous
    Same goes for borders.

    They have borders of any kind keeping them clear of the 99,9%, all the time less when posing for media photographers.

    It's new borders, defined by the needs and customs of a new aristocracy.

    The concept of globalist elites functioning as a “new aristocracy” has bothered me, also.

    Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The old royal elites were related by blood. Our current elites are mostly not. But in a few generations they may be.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Oh, you said "behavior"! Sorry, i missed that word the first time.

    You're right. There is no difference.
    , @Kylie
    "Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?"

    One big difference. Unlike today's elites, the pre-WWI royal families did not reserve their contempt and antipathy for the workers beneath them while favoring the parasites whose net contribution to society was negative.

    I'm no historian but as far as I know, this has no historical precedent
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Jefferson
    A Black man was found hanging from a tree in Atlanta. 99.99% of Blacks on social media sites like Twitter believe the KKK did it.
    http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/07/07/piedmont-park-hanging-case-turned-over-to-fbi-atlanta-mayor-promises-robust-investigation/

    Who knew there were so many KKK members in 54 percent Black Atlanta in 2016. How the hell has no physical harm come to these Klan members yet when they reside in a city where Blacks outnumber Whites.

    Like in many other major cities, the black percentage in Atlanta has been falling steadily due to gentrification. After last night’s disruptive BLM protests (which blocked a key interstate) and this latest kkkraziness about an obvious suicide, I expect that trend will be reversing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. […] Steve Sailer has a post up on a story he found in the NYTimes. Steve does his thing highlighting certain passages and commenting upon them. Both the source and Steve’s post are worth reading. The point of the NYTimes article is an attempt to explain why the Dirt People are so angry over things, particularly immigration. Michael Ignatieff is a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party.Predictably, so it is entirely from the perspective of the Cloud People. […]

    Read More
  36. Q. But if nationalism comes from positive feelings of pride and connection to one’s community, why does that often seem to manifest in fears of immigration as a threat to that community

    Clueless question of the week.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wade
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Well, it wasn't really a question, it was just the knee-jerk virtue-signalling of the interviewer:

    "Uh-oh, 'nationalism' came up in a non-negative way, time to tie it back to 'fear' before the Crimestop breaks loose in any readers."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Svigor says:

    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn’t help.

    Last I heard, blacks watch an average of 7 hours of TV a day. For whites the number was 5 hours. For yellows it was like 2.5 or something. Got an update?

    Effective political action requires one to choose up sides in a manner that gives your side the best chance to win.

    But choosing your side in a way that makes winning worth it is common sense.

    It’s all about cheap labor. It’s not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don’t fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites.

    Diversity and inclusiveness are memes used to ensure that the people being divided and conquered don’t resist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Who belongs? Some possibly White Nationalist lyrics from Pat Benatar:

    We belong to the light, we belong to the thunder.
    We belong to the feast and to Valhalla’s chunder!
     

    You made me watch the video, thinking that I had missed Ms. Benatar’s white nationalism.

    Those are evocative new lyrics, especially since Margot Robbie just told me that “chunder” means vomit:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Men At Work told us that 30-odd years ago:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfR9iY5y94s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. AndrewR says:
    @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    That’s a major factor too. Obviously many people just go through the motions but I think you underestimate the number of True Believers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Interesting article that reminded me of the connection between nationalism (what Steve calls citizenism) and natalism and between globalism and anti-natalism:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/09/finalist-for-british-prime-minister-suggests-motherhood-makes-her-a-better-pick-than-childless-opponent/

    iStevers get the nationalism, but I don’t see the same support here for natalism. It’s in part why I’m so on about SSM–really anything that attacks the family and that is anti-natalist. Perhaps iStevers are just too Spergy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.

    Hasn’t nationalism, as described here, been the default ideology for a couple of hundred years?

    Isn’t the real shock here that the globalists aren’t aware of how novel and out of the mainstream of history their position is?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Isn’t the real shock here that the globalists aren’t aware of how novel and out of the mainstream of history their position is?
     
    The even bigger shock is how this anti-nationalist ideology applies so exclusively to the white majority European+NeoEuropean nations of earth.

    I see this article, widely linked, express absolute horror at the idea of Marine Le Pen or a Donald Trump possibly pumping the brakes on mass immigration in France or US, but talk about Japan as a symbol of globalism as if they haven't fiercely defended their existence as a homogeneous single ethnicity nation state. Japan's leaders are already more extreme than a Marine Le Pen or a Donald Trump on defending national identity.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-backlash-against-globalization-by-harold-james-2016-06
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. avraham says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers). And since the political left has come to see borders as Racist (even grandpa Bernie got on board the open borders train in the last year), there simply aren't that many people who can cogently defend the concept of borders, let alone nationalism. A significant chunk of us are regular unz.com commenters (which is not to say all regular unz.com commenters are bright, educated or well-read, but I digress...)

    So many otherwise open-minded leftoids are simply unexposed to well-developed arguments against leftist policies, especially about immigration.

    It doesn't help that Trump is a mental midget who speaks using third grade vocabulary. His intuition is in the right direction on many issues but he simply lacks the intellectual horsepower to back it up, and he frequently seems to lack the humility to listen to people smarter than he.

    But back to the left: many if not most of them are just so incredibly smug that they simply refuse to think they could be wrong about anything. Obviously this phenomenon exists along the political spectrum but with the left it is a strong feedback loop.

    I'm not optimistic about the future. Demographic change seems very likely to cement our incredibly polarized political discourse. One thing Trump got right, but pathetically refused to thoughtfully defend, was that ethnicity is largely inseperable from politics. Why he didn't point to Sotomayor during the Curiel thing... well as I said before: Trump is an idiot.

    I have seen this problem and I think I saw it on some blog somewhere. The intellectual sophisticated apparatus is on the left. They hijacked Hegel. And the Nazis did not help much. And the intellectual force on the right is weak. And it also was not very helpful that the Left infiltrated the universities. This is a serious problem Not just for the right but even for people in the middle.
    The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical. I am really not sure.It is certain that Philosophy departments ignore the Kant Friesian School. Surprising enough the only ones that took this school seriously were the Soviets for some reason I still have not figured out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James O'Meara
    Love to hear more. Discovered Fries in grad. school but of course no one was ever interested in the Friesian school, as you note. Actually Roderick Chilsolm was, but only to a limited extent. Politically, I would have thought they'd be conventional liberals, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. WhatEvvs [AKA "Mipchunk"] says:

    “Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.” ”

    Maybe Ignatieff was such a crap pol is because he’s kind of loopy. Because that statement is wrong. It wasn’t about Poles, and recent immigrants voted Remain.

    London, which can be reasonably approximated to stand in for the recent immigrant crowd, as well as the 1%, voted Remain. Jews and Sikhs voted Brexit. Yet they live mostly in Remain areas. Jews voted Brexit more than other British whites, and only slightly less than British Christians (54%/58%).

    I guess British Jews and Sikhs don’t relish the prospect of being overwhelmed by Muslim and black immigrants. How strange of them to think that white, Christian Britain is better for them than a mass multicultural stew run by toffs on the top and Muslims on the street.

    PS Just guessing but I think a lot of commenters to websites like this are part of the 10% but retain atavistic feelings of loyalty to their country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually Jews voted 2 to 1 for Remain:

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214511
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. SFG says:
    @franktremb
    The Conservative party attack ads were true. He was just visiting. https://youtu.be/wcUN4IVVPMo

    That was one of the things that annoyed me about Hillary back in the day–she just came to New York because she needed a Senate seat.

    http://www.thejumpingfrog.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=988482

    Read More
    • Replies: @YT Wurlitzer
    And luckily the Kennedy that would have occupied that seat at the good sense to crash his plane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. SFG says:
    @AndrewR
    A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers). And since the political left has come to see borders as Racist (even grandpa Bernie got on board the open borders train in the last year), there simply aren't that many people who can cogently defend the concept of borders, let alone nationalism. A significant chunk of us are regular unz.com commenters (which is not to say all regular unz.com commenters are bright, educated or well-read, but I digress...)

    So many otherwise open-minded leftoids are simply unexposed to well-developed arguments against leftist policies, especially about immigration.

    It doesn't help that Trump is a mental midget who speaks using third grade vocabulary. His intuition is in the right direction on many issues but he simply lacks the intellectual horsepower to back it up, and he frequently seems to lack the humility to listen to people smarter than he.

    But back to the left: many if not most of them are just so incredibly smug that they simply refuse to think they could be wrong about anything. Obviously this phenomenon exists along the political spectrum but with the left it is a strong feedback loop.

    I'm not optimistic about the future. Demographic change seems very likely to cement our incredibly polarized political discourse. One thing Trump got right, but pathetically refused to thoughtfully defend, was that ethnicity is largely inseperable from politics. Why he didn't point to Sotomayor during the Curiel thing... well as I said before: Trump is an idiot.

    Right-wing bright people tend to disappear into the private sector, for the reasons you state. If in universities they’d probably be in the medical, engineering, or business schools, where they have other concerns besides pontificating on this sort of thing.

    Besides, globalism tends to deliver benefits to the elite and costs to the masses–elites get a variety of ethnic foods and cheap labor, the masses get a variety of ethnic gangs and are the cheap labor.

    You have a good point–Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who studied conservatism to the point he semi-became one, pointed out that conservatives understand liberals much better than vice versa.

    I’m not optimistic either. I wouldn’t argue ethnicity is *inseparable* from politics, particularly among better-assimilated groups, but it’s a very strong predictor–which is exactly why Democrats are so pro-immigration.

    If you really want to live in a white republic, I’d suggest moving to Idaho and spawning as many as you can afford. If you want to salvage the USA, I’d join the GOP and work to decrease immigration and push assimilation–you want to subvert as many Hispanics as possible, since they don’t have the long history of grievance. Someone has to think past November.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    True. I didn't mean it was completely inseparable [why do I misspell this word more than any other?] but that there was a high correlation. Between Curiel's political and professional associations (La Raza) and Sotomayor's explicit racism, Trump would have had a pretty easy time defending himself from the leftist and cuckservative [*cough* Paul Ryan *cough*] mobs. But being the incompetent cuck he is, he backed down.
    , @Anonymous
    The us in its current form is not even close to salvageable you fucking moron unless you are willing to entertain population exchange are you guys this really fucking delusional
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    Easy, the US (as well as UK and AUS to a smaller extent) is a two party system so you need to build enough unity around your positions for one party to adopt them.
    And I don’t see why you find Golden Dawn a better model than UKIP. Golden Dawn gets to look cool playing Nazi and gets shut out of having any real influence while UKIP just delivered a major coup.
    But let’s blame dajooz instead of thinking clearly

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. SFG says:
    @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    They’re loyal to their group–the elite.

    This is not a new thing, BTW. European monarchs were frequently related to each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    The British, Russian and German royals were closely related but that didn't prevent WW1. The British and Russian royals were closely related but they didn't save the Tsar in 1918.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    European monarchs were frequently related to each other.
     
    Which did not prevent them from destroying each other in WWI.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. IHTG says:
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    Fpo … do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews

    I have some news for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Rob McX says:

    I don’t for one minute believe Igantieff’s “conversion”. He’s just done a bit of semantic card-switching in the face of more determined opposition to his views, as manifested by Brexit and Trump. If the right to immigrate is indeed a gift, it is entirely at the discretion of the native population to grant it. I bet if you asked Ignatieff if it would be OK to withdraw that gift for the foreseeable future (seeing that we’re fast becoming a minority in our homelands and all that), he’d start to equivocate and you’d find that his “gift” blather is just another way of saying obligation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Certainly, the "nice white lady" contingent of the open borders crowd would be happy to (and probably does, in practice) operate on the basis of "citizenship as gift".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Bugg says:
    @Arclight
    The attitude of the elites in Europe and America reminds me of a line in Full Metal Jacket: "inside every gook is an American trying to get out." No matter how foreign or unlikely to assimilate a group is, they cling to the belief that the hordes of 3rd worlders just want to be part of our beautiful cultural tapestry and the only downside is that we don't let enough of them in.

    Borders are anachronisms, and our future president proclaimed in Berlin (of all places) in 2008 that he was offering himself up as a "citizen of the world" and that "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

    Europe took that speech to heart - how's it working out?

    Which in part is how the neocon side of the elitist coin thinks the rest of the world is yearning to breathe free. Ergo, invade the world to bring them democracy, or something.

    And clearly it’s not working out.

    The reciprocity of generosity gets lost when the illegals start on Day 1 expecting free stuff. It’s why giving illegals “free” state college tuition infuriates. I live near the Russian emigre enclave of Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. Occasionally see a Russian immigrants check out enough food for a Red Army regiment at a grocery store with all food stamps and get into their late model German sedan and makes you wonder; are we such fools? How do the elites not see there is a cost to all this. To say nothing of schools, hospitals, social services, crime. The elite get cheap labor and some interesting restaurants and socialize the hard costs to everyone else. And the elite fail to see in their haze of deluded self-righteous stupidity they are being played.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Brutusale says:
    @Percy Gryce
    You made me watch the video, thinking that I had missed Ms. Benatar's white nationalism.

    Those are evocative new lyrics, especially since Margot Robbie just told me that "chunder" means vomit:

    https://youtu.be/qNZIJmEZ91g?t=0m57s

    Men At Work told us that 30-odd years ago:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. IHTG says:
    @Rob McX
    I don't for one minute believe Igantieff's "conversion". He's just done a bit of semantic card-switching in the face of more determined opposition to his views, as manifested by Brexit and Trump. If the right to immigrate is indeed a gift, it is entirely at the discretion of the native population to grant it. I bet if you asked Ignatieff if it would be OK to withdraw that gift for the foreseeable future (seeing that we're fast becoming a minority in our homelands and all that), he'd start to equivocate and you'd find that his "gift" blather is just another way of saying obligation.

    Certainly, the “nice white lady” contingent of the open borders crowd would be happy to (and probably does, in practice) operate on the basis of “citizenship as gift”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Women's suffrage - great in theory, empirically disastrous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. unit472 says:

    I mentioned that the term ‘cosmopolitan’ was code for Jew before WW2 and for good reason. In the era before cheap air travel only Jews and the idle rich had foreign ties. If an Italian or Swede immigrated to America or Australia it was for keeps. Ties with the old country faded into non existence. If war broke out the French or German ‘twenty something’ got drafted. There was nowhere for them to go to avoid the slaughter on the Somme save prison or a firing squad.

    I recently watched a documentary about how European Jews working in the film and entertainment industry escaped from the clutches of the Gestapo and SS by coming to Hollywood. Hundreds of writers, directors, producers etc arrived where a Polish Army officer or German communist were left to their fates. American communists turned their back on their ideological brothers after the Hitler/Stalin Pact and American industry did not pry open Ellis Island the way that the big film studios did for Jews. To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, ‘nationality was for the little people.”

    Today the situation has deteriorated even more. Nationality is for the middle class. The rich and the poor are free to migrate or ‘offshore’ their wealth but the middle classes must stay and pay the cost for the ‘cosmopolitans’ freedoms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. AndrewR says:
    @SFG
    Right-wing bright people tend to disappear into the private sector, for the reasons you state. If in universities they'd probably be in the medical, engineering, or business schools, where they have other concerns besides pontificating on this sort of thing.

    Besides, globalism tends to deliver benefits to the elite and costs to the masses--elites get a variety of ethnic foods and cheap labor, the masses get a variety of ethnic gangs and are the cheap labor.

    You have a good point--Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who studied conservatism to the point he semi-became one, pointed out that conservatives understand liberals much better than vice versa.


    I'm not optimistic either. I wouldn't argue ethnicity is *inseparable* from politics, particularly among better-assimilated groups, but it's a very strong predictor--which is exactly why Democrats are so pro-immigration.

    If you really want to live in a white republic, I'd suggest moving to Idaho and spawning as many as you can afford. If you want to salvage the USA, I'd join the GOP and work to decrease immigration and push assimilation--you want to subvert as many Hispanics as possible, since they don't have the long history of grievance. Someone has to think past November.

    True. I didn’t mean it was completely inseparable [why do I misspell this word more than any other?] but that there was a high correlation. Between Curiel’s political and professional associations (La Raza) and Sotomayor’s explicit racism, Trump would have had a pretty easy time defending himself from the leftist and cuckservative [*cough* Paul Ryan *cough*] mobs. But being the incompetent cuck he is, he backed down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Right. Bit of a nitpick on my part I have to admit.

    I do kind of feel like a smarter Trump (or at least a Trump more familiar with the sorts of contortions you have to do in politics) could have handled this one easily. "He's been in La Raza, we know where his loyalties lie..."

    But of course such a Trump would never have broken down those walls in the first place. Trump could be Goldwater to Sessions' (?) Nixon...but Clitnon can do a lot of damage in the meantime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SFG
    Right-wing bright people tend to disappear into the private sector, for the reasons you state. If in universities they'd probably be in the medical, engineering, or business schools, where they have other concerns besides pontificating on this sort of thing.

    Besides, globalism tends to deliver benefits to the elite and costs to the masses--elites get a variety of ethnic foods and cheap labor, the masses get a variety of ethnic gangs and are the cheap labor.

    You have a good point--Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who studied conservatism to the point he semi-became one, pointed out that conservatives understand liberals much better than vice versa.


    I'm not optimistic either. I wouldn't argue ethnicity is *inseparable* from politics, particularly among better-assimilated groups, but it's a very strong predictor--which is exactly why Democrats are so pro-immigration.

    If you really want to live in a white republic, I'd suggest moving to Idaho and spawning as many as you can afford. If you want to salvage the USA, I'd join the GOP and work to decrease immigration and push assimilation--you want to subvert as many Hispanics as possible, since they don't have the long history of grievance. Someone has to think past November.

    The us in its current form is not even close to salvageable you fucking moron unless you are willing to entertain population exchange are you guys this really fucking delusional

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Yuck. Now they’re not only elite but cosmopolitan. And of course young and sophisticated whereas the peasants are old and ignorant. (No shadow there!) Their idea of internationalism seems to be based on having a rainbow coalition of servants as well as a cosmopolitan peer group of like-minded each selected to sell out their own nations of the underserving.

    If not nations, what? A supra-nation? Run by ‘cosmopolitan elites’ who have their heads so implanted as to be unable to recognize the destruction THEY are causing, not those less fortunately situated who have lately become more vocal in complaining about it?

    If the Zeroth Amendment is that everyone everywhere has the right to everything they can take (analogous to ending rape by ending the right to say no), then the biggest invasion wins. Invite the entire continent of Africa right on over to Ignatieff’s place. No limits, no borders, no sense.

    These rootless so-called elites are actually vassals (or useful idiots, your pick) in a financial feudalist system. We, the annoying squeakers, are the serfs, the power that rules over us are properly called vassals, and they administer on behalf of the neo-nobility, the financial overlords. Nice system, folks. That education must of cost a fortune.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Who belongs? Some possibly White Nationalist lyrics from Pat Benatar:

    We belong to the light, we belong to the thunder.
    We belong to the feast and to Valhalla’s chunder!
     

    We belong to the feast and to Valhalla’s chunder!

    Those words do not appear in the lyrics or the video you linked.

    If they did it would constitute an egregious example of cultural appropriation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. People always say that elite immigration policies are about importing cheap labor. That is true, but it also overlooks the extent to which it is also about importing consumers. All of those cheap laborers go right on the government dole, and all of that government money issued goes right back into the hands of the capital holders. With deficit spending, it’s basically free money for capital holders. Maybe someone will have to pay off the debt someday, but that’s some way on the horizon, and the plan seems to be to screw over people who actually need their social security.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Which is probably the reason immigrants no longer have to prove they won't become a ward of the state. In the old days if you could not prove that you would be self-sufficient, they probably wouldn't let you in. Today they eagerly sign you up for bennies upon entry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Truth

    I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.
     
    Why would that be? They seem perfectly loyal to their group to me.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?
     
    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn't help.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn’t help.

    Among the elites you mean, right?

    A lot of TV watching is no longer part of the average or below average American’s day. It is now much more common for the “elites” to devote a lot time to watching TV. Starting with a couple hours of watching “Morning Joe” on stairclimber, they have the television on CNN and MSNBC throughout the day and pull away to watch when certain people come on. Later they will catch more MSNBC or CNN round table shows and usually the devoted followers of HBO series. Being a writer, commentator, or holding down a political sinecure apparently frees you up to watch a lot TV or to spend a lot of time online or tweeting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    Being a writer, commentator, or holding down a political sinecure apparently frees you up to watch a lot TV or to spend a lot of time online or tweeting.
     
    It does seem that way. Those within the media/political elite do talk up TV all the time, I cynically assumed they did that since TV tells us what they want us to hear. But I never really considered they themselves were avid consumers. But it makes sense, after all it portrays the world they want us to see so why wouldn't they feel comfortable with it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Mark Blyth on the Brexit vote:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Ha-ha.

    Moneyquote: "The Hamptons is not a defensible position."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. According to his argument, what we’re seeing is, in part, an ideological split between cosmopolitan elites who see immigration as a common good based in universal rights…

    If that is his argument, he is being far too generous. For those in charge, immigration has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with profits. It gets them cheap labor and new consumers. Today, capital no longer goes toward inventing new and better things, it goes toward lobbying and bribery to get a steady stream of immigrants and trade deals so they can sell the same old crap to more and more people. Why sink a billion dollars researching a new medicine that may never pan out? For a fraction of that, you can buy politicians who will give you a steady stream of Central Americans who can only find their place in the US by buying a new Escalade and a closet full of branded clothes.

    This is why immigration itself is not enough. They also have to destroy all traditional belief systems that might offer people a happy life that doesn’t involve working a job they hate so they can buy things they don’t need in order to impress people they don’t know.

    There is nothing wrong with bringing peasants some of the benefits of Western society. The trouble happens when the elites have so much power that they can carry this to extremes. If they could erase all borders with the flip of a switch today, they would do it. They don’t stop to think that it would mean the complete destruction of their (and our) way of life.

    The reporting on Brexit asks the question, was it immigration or the economy that drove Leave? They don’t see that the answer is both, that the two are strongly linked. Nobody spelled it out for the Brits, but God love ‘em, they sniffed it out. Can we do the same?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @SFG
    That was one of the things that annoyed me about Hillary back in the day--she just came to New York because she needed a Senate seat.

    http://www.thejumpingfrog.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=988482

    And luckily the Kennedy that would have occupied that seat at the good sense to crash his plane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Crashing planes is an old Kennedy family tradition. They seem to get into crashes a lot, not just with planes but with bridges, trees, bullets, etc. Things are always crashing into them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count.

    So what?

    Kropotkin was also born into Russian aristocracy.

    (Zbigniew Brzezinski would be a fairly comparable figure in American history.)

    Presumably you became a fan of Brzezinski when he went on record saying America should strengthen China and weaken Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count."

    So what?

    That suggests he is a cosmopolitan elite by background, not just play-acting at one.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Presumably you became a fan of Brzezinski when he went on record saying America should strengthen China and weaken Russia
     
    Brzezinski is a good example of why we should have contempt for the elites. His virtue is consistency in his counter-productivity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. AKAHorace says:
    @franktremb
    The Conservative party attack ads were true. He was just visiting. https://youtu.be/wcUN4IVVPMo

    If the Tories wanted a really scary attack add they could have used material in “Flashman at the Charge” which describes his evil Czarist ancestor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Because nobody in Canada knows that popular fiction and history are different things?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count.

    So what?

    Kropotkin was also born into Russian aristocracy.

    (Zbigniew Brzezinski would be a fairly comparable figure in American history.)

    Presumably you became a fan of Brzezinski when he went on record saying America should strengthen China and weaken Russia.

    “Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count.”

    So what?

    That suggests he is a cosmopolitan elite by background, not just play-acting at one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Ignatyevs are not ancient aristocracy. The family's rise seems to have begun with Captain Pavel Ignatyev. He became a favorite of Tsar Nicholas I by remaining loyal during the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, a military uprising against the accession of Nicholas I in place of his brother Constantine. In Peter the Great's time, the boyars (Russian nobles) were a conservative force that resisted his westernizing innovations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Wade says:

    This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.

    Not a bad write up overall coming from a self-professed globalist. However, it irritates me that he called it a big trend. The distinction between rights and gifts isn’t a trend, that’s the way it’s been for millennia. Zeroth Amendment thinking is the “big trend” that’s been happening recently. Zeroth Amendment is the usurper here thank you very much!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    Unfortunately you need a new analogy. As a Catholic I assure you that even outward adherence to orthodox dogma isn’t required even of cardinals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Good point, and it doesn't help that the current Pope is not Catholic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    As many conservatives have repeatedly pointed out, the real fight is about who owns the meta-level, where the rules of public discourse are set. Liberals have been well entrenched there for decades. The result is that conservatives have to perpetually defend against spurious charges of racism and anti-semitism, which most of the time are just smears used to discredit them and shut them up. Since the meta-level has been in the hands of jewish groups for a long time, who thus far have been liberals, the meta-level citadel was off limits.
    Both campaigns are being supported by jewish groups, Trump with the Adelson gang, and Hillary with JStreet and the corrupt banks. So perhaps we are seeing a war within jewish control groups spreading out into the goyim window dressing.
    Anyway, the fact that Obama had to defend BLM as not being about political correctness, is a sign that the meta-level is coming into play. As long as conservatives fight within the framework set by the left, they are fighting with one hand tied behind ther backs. What’s more important than a Trump presidency, would be to defeat the PC dogma at the meta-level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. guest says:

    It’s not that complicated, no, and it is the default mindset of most citizens of nation states. They have to be vigorously educated to forget that fact. Still, I don’t know why cosmopolitans forget it. It’s like how a certain segment of them pretend to forget there’s a reason most people think of gender binarily. They must pretend normal people, who know the two sex standard is natural, are the weird ones.

    I used to lean towards open borders, in a libertarian way. Assuming we abolish the Welfare State and it’s every man for himself, that is. But I never pretended like borders were mirages, and controlling who gets to be part of the gang wasn’t a prerogative of civilized society. And I n never forgot that most people have an interest in deciding who gets to be part of their gang. It takes something special like modern education, years of exposure to the MSM, and being locked inside the thought prison of PC to forget those facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I used to lean towards open borders, in a libertarian way.
     
    Good of you to repent of your delusional insanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    Why would a uk or a us with the demography of Brazil even be worth saving? If that is their definition of success then it won’t matter a jot, let Isis have it for all I care, or have the Russians nuke it

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    let Isis have it for all I care
     
    Keep your sentiment in mind as the jihadist opens your carotid arteries. The rest of us will die on our feet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. guest says:
    @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    The Church was infiltrated by political correctness long ago. Its leadership and its supposed dogma are far away from eachother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @avraham
    Ayn Rand also thought the Catholics had a kind of kinship with communism. I thought she was exaggerating but today it seems to me she was right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Numinous says:

    The wisdom Ignatieff has finally stumbled upon really isn’t that complicated.

    To understand something is not the same as believing in it. There’s nothing in the interview to suggest that Ignatieff thinks the “ordinary person’s” opinions are wise, just that he realizes how strong (even vehement) the belief in community and controlled borders is. I’m sure he still believes at an intellectual level that globalization and loose borders are good from a utilitarian perspective but are politically untenable now.

    Hospitality to travelers is a big theme in the Bible and other West Asian religious traditions.

    Hospitality is not specific to West Asia or to Abrahamic religions. Every civilized society (and religion) has been practicing it for eons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Jack D says:
    @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    Steve has often mentioned the concept of “leapfrogging loyalties” – the elites feel loyalty toward each other and toward the oppressed and undocumented among us (although they take pains to avoid any actual regular contact with the latter). The only people they DON’T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy and remind them a little too much of the miserably conformist bourgeois place where they grew up and which they got the hell out when they went to college and never looked back.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences – to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash – they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences – to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash – they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.
     
    Likewise I have noticed the intense and nearly all-consuming antipathy of Canadians and Australians towards America & Americans, even though foreigners often have trouble distinguishing them from us. After all, we speak the same language, have almost identical founding stock, and largely share the same popular culture.

    It's one more thing Freud got right.
    , @BB753
    Elitist disdain for the lower classes is nothing new. But our current elites' burning hatred of the middle class is unparalleled except maybe in former communist countries. Make no mistake, they really want to genocide the middle class, Soviet style.
    , @Jefferson
    "The only people they DON’T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy"

    Why do the elites feel loyalty to the hood? Do they see Tray Tray and Sha Nay Nay as classy and the extreme opposite of trashy? They don't exactly speak the queen's English. They butcher the English language. They are basically Negro versions of the White trash people who they hate so much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Jack D says:
    @YT Wurlitzer
    And luckily the Kennedy that would have occupied that seat at the good sense to crash his plane.

    Crashing planes is an old Kennedy family tradition. They seem to get into crashes a lot, not just with planes but with bridges, trees, bullets, etc. Things are always crashing into them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Good one.
    Strictly speaking Joe Jr. didn't crash his plane. He was doing just fine flyin it, but it was a remote controlled bomb, and when he threw the arming switch prior to bailing out, it went off. He wasn't the only one who suffered that fate. John Jr. was the screw- up who was flying in conditions he wasn't qualified for. What they had in common was a feeling of immortality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. avraham says:
    @guest
    The Church was infiltrated by political correctness long ago. Its leadership and its supposed dogma are far away from eachother.

    Ayn Rand also thought the Catholics had a kind of kinship with communism. I thought she was exaggerating but today it seems to me she was right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Rand also thought the Catholics had a kind of kinship with communism
     
    Rand was wrong, just as she was wrong with so many things. Don't let the idiocy of the current Pope obscure the remarkable and enduring value of the Catholic Church.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @iffen
    Like I’ve said, politics is basically about whose side you are on.

    Effective political action requires one to choose up sides in a manner that gives your side the best chance to win.

    Effective political action requires one to choose up sides in a manner that gives your side the best chance to win.

    Politics is a team sport.

    More broadly, life is a team sport.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    I sort of understand the animosity for Jews and the sense that they get to have nationalism for their state, Israel, while simultaneously telling Americans they cannot have a nationalist state. Clearly that is a bit hypocritical.

    But it's silly to hate on Jews. They are not a monolith and many understand the concepts that America needs. They are also not some magical race constraining Gentiles with their control of the media, banks, etc. As it has been pointed out, that is the equivalent of the African Americans accusing whites of consciously and unconsciously banding together to hold down the negro race. It's nonsense and its equivalently stupid.

    Personally, I know many Jews of all stripes and while some are mindlessly
    Liberal and others are shamelessly hypocritical, many are not. Many are Patriots and many agree it's time to ask hard questions about the future of America.
    , @Anonymous
    I know what you fear is the libs destroying you, so maybe the libs can do a better job?
    , @iSteveFan
    I agree most Americans are not anti-semitics. But try telling that to a large swath of American Jews.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    most Americans are not anti-Semitic?
     
    Nope, they are not. But they don't understand why most Jews are still living in the 1930s. E.g. how do you explain Soros? Just in it for the next buck? Or trying to 'leave a legacy'? Or just atoning for his collaboration with the Nazis?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    “A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers).”

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement.

    Indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization — all toward the same end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    all toward the same end.

    Don't leave us hanging, Obi One Kenobi Two.

    Spell it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    WN fail, almost every time, in appreciating the reason for the ever driftward left in English speaking countries. They tend to pedestalize, appease, and placate White women, suggesting that feminism is indeed deeply genetically wired among Northwestern European peoples (something that Tacitus obsvered btw).

    The Alt-Right by contrast recognizes that White women are indeed, mostly the enemy of White men. This is because Affirmative Action includes White women as junior partners in the anti-White men spoils party, and White women mostly don’t need or want White men. In addition, White men have become spectacularly unsexy to White women as economic dependence upon them has decreased by large measure (unlike Greece or Eastern Europe which require pooling of resources). The US and other English speaking places have large Welfare states, lots of jobs that are exclusively female or nearly so, and higher wealth and standard of living meaning White women there don’t need White men like they do in say Hungary or Greece. Additionally White men in English speaking countries are beta males mostly, placating, appeasing, pedestalizing which worked when White women independent of clan and tribe had to choose a dutiful husband who would provide for all his life, and has failed with near total economic and social independence of White women.

    Moreover culturally, English speaking nations are ground zero of mass female-consumption led consumerism societies, pushing things ever more left. Hungary and Greece to name two nations are pretty much newcomers to this phenomena; Japan has deliberately kept its consumerism oriented towards small businesses to keep employment up and the culture the same as it ever was. Supermarkets are fairly rare still in Japan.

    Lastly, Parliamentary Systems in Greece and Hungary allow small parties with fractional membership to exist; which means the Greens, and for a long time Syriza and the Communists could exist as well as Nationalist parties. These places also don’t have lots of Black people and Hispanics, so the arguments are among White people about whether to share existing Welfare with the Third World or not; and of course neither have the WASP Ascendancy ruling pretty much intact with some Jewish in-marriage for over 300 years or so.

    Who Belongs works in places like Hungary because it has seen massive turnover in elites, not the same type of Calvinist Utopian Universalist who because they are successful believe they are pre-ordained for salvation and hate hate hate those who are not wealthy and successful as the pre-ordained damned, and thus work with large blocs of existing non-Whites to turn the place into Hawaii or Brazil, perfect for WASP Adventuring the way say Avatar or Dances With Wolves hits emotional buttons (or Pocahantas or Stanley Anne Dunham for that matter) but bad for ordinary White people.

    TL:DR — not the Jews but WASPs wanting to live like Kevin Costner among the tribes or a James Michener novel about Hawaii that is the root of the problem. What was the last Hungarian film or novel about wanting to live like a tribesman?

    As a very practical matter a long term accomodation must be struck between the large amounts of non-Whites here and soon to come, and the Whites here. In my view, it should be everyone is assigned WHITE status. I.E. Will Smith and Juanita from Juarez are all made “White” and class based (good for Juanita, not Will Smith’s kids) AA exists, meaning Juanita and some kid from West Virginia share based on merit. This is the Paul Kagame solution — no Hutus or Tutsi identity, only Rwandan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. ” For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big….”
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire. The growth of Empire quickly continued unabated. When the 13 former colonies were debating a constitution in 1787, Britain was devising a plan to settle a whole new continent. You may have heard of it, it’s called Australia.
    Whilst fighting a tinpot Latin Dictator called Napoleon, it added to its Empire by grabbing Cape Colony, Ceylon, much of India, Malta, Trinidad. I could go on. It even burnt down much of the city of Washington as a sideshow during the period.
    By the period 1830-40, Britain was the most powerful state that has ever been, as measured by percentage of World GDP ( one of the benefits of inventing the Industrial Revolution ). Much more powerful than the US in 1945.
    Stick to what you know best, Mr Steve

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    ” For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big….”
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire.
     
    MMM, well, he certainly did deprive it of a huge chunk of North America......
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire
     
    Without Washington the USA does not exist. How about Britain? Compare Canada's role in breaching 'Fortress Europe' (Dieppe) with the American version (D-Day). The British Mercantile system would have ensured a fragmented 13 colonies of Crown supplicants bereft of the American 'can-do' attitude needed to win WW2. With a host of colonies instead of the USA Britain becomes depleted, exhausted and not only unable to gain a continental foothold, but unable help the Rus. Instead of being crushed, Hitler stays in power.

    America in 1960 was the most powerful state that has ever been. Now the democrats and libtards like George W. Bush have ensured that a despotic power will rule the world. But it won't be Britain.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire."
     
    The American colonies were a part of the British empire. Washington was certainly instrumental in breaking them apart from the rest. That is not controversial.

    That the British empire did not end then and there does not change the the accuracy of Steve's statement. He didn't say Washington ended the empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. rod1963 says:
    @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    Oh they are sociopaths alright and do have some degree of group loyalty.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    By doing several things:

    1) Crippling public education and turning it into a system that produced factory workers, drones and obedient consumers. You have to understand at the time, the elites needed bodies for their factories, they didn’t need critical thinking citizens with a strong bent of individualism as there were no places for such people in society. Those sorts also weren’t good fits for the factory. Just obedient drones for their factories, hence they designed schools to produce such products.

    The elites were always quite open about their intentions in this area and even wrote about it. It took almost a century to complete. Common Core will be the finishing move.

    2) Professional sports and TV formed a modern day bread and circus for the masses to keep them further occupied and distracted. Not to mention consumerism which has been turned into way of life in America.

    3) Owning our politicians, that occurred during the era of JP Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller.

    4) Mastery of fiat currency which allowed them to sedate the masses with low cost and free s*** and fake food, which kept them from interfering with the elites or simply eating them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Perspective
    "It’s all about cheap labor. It’s not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don’t fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites. "

    I don't disagree, but one has to wonder what came over Merkel last summer when she invited in the million middle east mob. There's plenty of cheap labour from east and southern Europe to be had if Germany needed it. Why bring in people that will likely have low employment rates - including future generations - and be overtly hostile to the dominant culture (what remains of it)?

    For Merkel it was all about the tingles. Loutish young Muslim men in tracksuits with Iphones with IQs at room temperature who may well have been ISIS killers? If that is not a tingle generator for women particularly post-menopausal childless ones, I don’t know what it is.

    Didn’t our esteemed host note how Chicks Dig Chechens? Compared to dutiful White men who don’t perform “emergency rapes” (one refugee cited not having sex for over a month as justification for an emergency rape) and go to work every day dutifully, without posturing and focusing intently on tasks and abstract things — they pale in comparison with low IQ louts whose main occupation seems to be MMA training, drug dealing, violence, pimping, and occasional jihad.

    What women want from a society — something along the lines of Game of Thrones, or Dexter, or Mad Men, or the Sopranos, or Breaking Bad — a place filled with bad, bad men who do what they want when they want and without adherence to social norms of niceness and consideration — is completely opposite of what men want: a normal, cooperative society where they are not constantly entering Thunderdome.

    A Margaret Thatcher could be trusted — she had skin in the game, a son, a beta male husband, coming from a middle class family and proud of it; whereas a Merkel and the like cannot. Sadly Thatchers are rare and Merkels common.

    It will only get worse — most young women if they marry at all will do so as Alpha Widows, constantly resenting and hating the man they had to settle for instead of “the guy she liked before you” as the Direct TV commercial with Jon Bon Jovi noted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. That suggests he is a cosmopolitan elite by background, not just play-acting at one.

    You’d think Russian aristocracy would be more interested in blood and soil ethnocentrism, but it is of course the nature of rootless cosmopolitans, whatever their background, to abandon their ethnic interests completely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Yak-15 says:
    @Jack D
    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!

    I sort of understand the animosity for Jews and the sense that they get to have nationalism for their state, Israel, while simultaneously telling Americans they cannot have a nationalist state. Clearly that is a bit hypocritical.

    But it’s silly to hate on Jews. They are not a monolith and many understand the concepts that America needs. They are also not some magical race constraining Gentiles with their control of the media, banks, etc. As it has been pointed out, that is the equivalent of the African Americans accusing whites of consciously and unconsciously banding together to hold down the negro race. It’s nonsense and its equivalently stupid.

    Personally, I know many Jews of all stripes and while some are mindlessly
    Liberal and others are shamelessly hypocritical, many are not. Many are Patriots and many agree it’s time to ask hard questions about the future of America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melendwyr
    My revelation was that 'Jew' is often used as a label for a type of elite. If you take an anti-Semitic rant and replace all instances of one word with the other, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. Not necessarily in a correct way, the arguments aren't guaranteed to be valid, but it's not insane rambling.

    Basically it's a type of mistaken identity. The predominance of Jews among Western intellectual elites of all types makes it easy for careless people to conflate the two concepts. And then they go about complaining about the elites using an umbrella terminology that includes all Jews. Which is nuts, since there are plenty of Jews who are neither elites nor 'wannabe-master elites'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Maybe it might be better for trump to lose and for Hillary to win, depending on what trump will look like

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @Mr. Blank
    Interesting.

    While reading this, it occurred to me that Ignatieff's distinction between a "rights relationship" and a "gift relationship" might be a useful way to explain to certain Christian religious leaders that the members of their flocks who want tighter immigration aren't necessarily motivated by un-Christian bigotry. They merely make a sharp distinction between providing food, clothing and shelter for needy people and giving those people the "gift" of citizenship in their political community.

    They do not regard citizenship, with its attendant network of rights and responsibilities, as a charitable good to be handed out like hot meals at a soup kitchen. You can't eat citizenship, after all, or use it for shelter from cold weather. It's true that possessing it might entitle you to those things, but it is not a necessary precondition. Last time I checked, there were no laws which forbid illegal immigrants from eating.

    These nice Christian nationalists simply regard citizenship as a privilege which outsiders must earn and even those within the community can have taken away or diminished (prisoners, for example). They are not hard-hearted or uncharitable; they merely put citizenship in an entirely different category from Christian commandments to show compassion and mercy.

    Cosmopolitans have trouble seeing this because they regard "citizenship" as little more than a PIN number to access certain benefits; who cares if we print out more and hand them out like candy? How is it different from handing out prepaid debit cards? For the elites, citizenship as such has little real value, so from their perspective it looks like the nationalists are being deliberately obstinate and mean-spirited over nothing. Hence, they assume their opponents can be motivated by nothing but spite and bigotry.

    Here is a thought experiment to present to those Christians who feel the need to provide food and winter clothing to the local welfare recipients.

    Picture a family in which the parents use their money to provide healthy food, pay rent, and cover the utility bills and other basic expenses. Now if they were to come to you bemoaning the fact that, after taking care of these things, they no longer had enough money to pay for premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family, would you consider it your Christian duty to pay for them? Since you may not spend money on such things yourself, the answer is probably going to be “No.”

    Now suppose that same family decided to forget about food and winter clothing and instead spend their money on premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family. If they then come to you asking for money to help pay for healthy food, rent, utility bills and other basic expenses, would you feel obliged to help them? If so, in what critical way is this situation different from the first?

    Talk to any case worker about the sort of possessions they see in the homes of welfare recipients.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    It's notable that discussions like this have the most ardent liberals sounding like hard-core conservatives - as long as they believe the welfare recipients are white. Of course in their cosy fantasies, bolstered by the MSM 24/7, most welfare recipients are white!

    (There is a whole sub-genre of reality TV in the UK which focuses on people living on welfare, it's barely an exaggeration to say that 100% of them are white. All the black and brown folks presumably being out at work and busy doing rocket surgery, curing cancer. Needless to say numerous boring official statistics tell an entirely different story)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WhatEvvs
    "Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.” "

    Maybe Ignatieff was such a crap pol is because he's kind of loopy. Because that statement is wrong. It wasn't about Poles, and recent immigrants voted Remain.

    London, which can be reasonably approximated to stand in for the recent immigrant crowd, as well as the 1%, voted Remain. Jews and Sikhs voted Brexit. Yet they live mostly in Remain areas. Jews voted Brexit more than other British whites, and only slightly less than British Christians (54%/58%).

    I guess British Jews and Sikhs don't relish the prospect of being overwhelmed by Muslim and black immigrants. How strange of them to think that white, Christian Britain is better for them than a mass multicultural stew run by toffs on the top and Muslims on the street.

    PS Just guessing but I think a lot of commenters to websites like this are part of the 10% but retain atavistic feelings of loyalty to their country.

    Actually Jews voted 2 to 1 for Remain:

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214511

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Not according to these polls

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does?

    The malfunction is that America hasn’t purged anti-semites from the movement yet. A project best left for (((Ivanka))) then?

    Jobbik is antisemitic, but Hungary isn’t a Western nation and they have hardly any Jews left to kill. Jobbik isn’t even the main nationalist party, Viktor Orban is and I don’t see how Jobbik would be an improvement over Orban even if you prefer antisemitic policies (since there are barely Jews left for Jobbik to persecute).

    In Western Europe, the FPO is not antisemitic. They usually don’t comment on Jews pro or con because, again, their Jews were mostly wiped out and the Austrian Socialists abandoned what’s left of Austrian Jewry for the Muslim vote decades ago.

    Marine Le Pen seems indifferent to Jews, and I’d argue her father wasn’t antisemitic. I’d describe Jean Marie Le Pen’s comments about Jews as more gruff and crude, but not obsessed with Jews like the commenters here.

    Italy’s Northern League is not antisemitic. Even Mussolini was not naturally inclined towards antisemitism until Hitler pressured him.

    The nationalist parties of Protestant European nations like those in Scandinavia and the Low Countries are philo-semitic.

    Farage is also philosemitic and he won the referendum without taking shots at Netanyahu, hinting at the dual loyalties of British Jews (who voted to Leave and lean Tory), or delivered apologetics for Hitler.

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

    Citizenists are as much a threat to be existence of white people as liberals, and I find it stupid that WN automatically side with citizenists against liberals, in fact helping the libs in a purely tactical manner from time to time may be helpful since both are thorny problems from time to time, and both ultimately will see white people extinct, it will be helpful if both sides can somehow be played against each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Rob McX says:

    The fact is that man will go on making borders, replacing the ones that are erased if he can. When a country’s external borders are opened up to mass immigration, weaker internal boundaries are formed. If you can afford to move, the Third World will begin at the next suburb or the perimeter wall of your gated community, rather than at the next continent. You’ll still have a border of sorts. You just won’t have a country. The nation state was the most humane and peaceful way of keeping irreconcilable peoples apart. We’re going to miss ours when they’re gone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. avraham says:

    White Christians are altruistic. This comes from a combination of DNA, Bible, and Greek and Roman heritage. This good will can be misdirected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Ignatieff’s analysis is on target, but I always find these sorts of accounts missing a very basic point — though perhaps Ignatieff does hint at it.

    I would call the missing component The Great Constraint.

    The Great Constraint is that no moral or political system is viable or correct if it assumes that individuals must sacrifice their own interests without limit for the interests of others, even if those others may indeed profit from that sacrifice.

    The Great Constraint captures the deepest problem with Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism always assumes that we should make our moral decisions to promote the greatest good to the greatest number. But not a single human being throughout all of time has ever come close to abiding by that principle. Even the most die-hard Utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, don’t adhere to it. He may give away a good portion of his salary, but he also retains a good portion, which portion, further distributed, would bring about greater good to more people.

    It is a simple empirical fact that we can’t get around The Great Constraint. It is inherent to the sort of biological being we are that we can’t do so; if we were bees, we could do so, but we aren’t. Our moral and political systems exhibit a deep and inescapable defect if they don’t reflect that constraint.

    Open Borders is a classic example of an attempt to skirt the constraint. It exalts virtue signalling over rational thinking about the extent of our moral obligations. It is doomed to failure, because it can never be implemented fully without crashing against the real consequences of allowing potentially over a billion people flooding our country.

    Under any moral and political system worthy of the name, we need to be able to say: Yes, we realize that more people would be better off if we gave them the benefits we have here in our home or in our country; but we have no obligation to hand over our home or our country to them; our home and our country is ours to enjoy, and anything we grant to others derives from our generosity, not our obligation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Steve has often mentioned the concept of "leapfrogging loyalties" - the elites feel loyalty toward each other and toward the oppressed and undocumented among us (although they take pains to avoid any actual regular contact with the latter). The only people they DON'T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy and remind them a little too much of the miserably conformist bourgeois place where they grew up and which they got the hell out when they went to college and never looked back.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences - to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash - they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences – to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash – they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    Likewise I have noticed the intense and nearly all-consuming antipathy of Canadians and Australians towards America & Americans, even though foreigners often have trouble distinguishing them from us. After all, we speak the same language, have almost identical founding stock, and largely share the same popular culture.

    It’s one more thing Freud got right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PSR
    Obviously I don't know what you may have experienced but I've spent a good deal of time in Canada - BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes - and I had the feeling people there felt like cousins to Americans. As an American I never picked up on any antipathy, even in Montreal.
    , @5371
    I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Lurker says:
    @SFG
    They're loyal to their group--the elite.

    This is not a new thing, BTW. European monarchs were frequently related to each other.

    The British, Russian and German royals were closely related but that didn’t prevent WW1. The British and Russian royals were closely related but they didn’t save the Tsar in 1918.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    The British and Russian royals were closely related
     
    (First cousins) George V and Nicholas II: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/Tsar_Nicholas_II_%26_King_George_V.JPG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Lurker says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Here is a thought experiment to present to those Christians who feel the need to provide food and winter clothing to the local welfare recipients.

    Picture a family in which the parents use their money to provide healthy food, pay rent, and cover the utility bills and other basic expenses. Now if they were to come to you bemoaning the fact that, after taking care of these things, they no longer had enough money to pay for premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family, would you consider it your Christian duty to pay for them? Since you may not spend money on such things yourself, the answer is probably going to be "No."

    Now suppose that same family decided to forget about food and winter clothing and instead spend their money on premium cable, recreational drugs, fashionable clothing, candy and junk food, and new smart phones for everyone in the family. If they then come to you asking for money to help pay for healthy food, rent, utility bills and other basic expenses, would you feel obliged to help them? If so, in what critical way is this situation different from the first?

    Talk to any case worker about the sort of possessions they see in the homes of welfare recipients.

    It’s notable that discussions like this have the most ardent liberals sounding like hard-core conservatives – as long as they believe the welfare recipients are white. Of course in their cosy fantasies, bolstered by the MSM 24/7, most welfare recipients are white!

    (There is a whole sub-genre of reality TV in the UK which focuses on people living on welfare, it’s barely an exaggeration to say that 100% of them are white. All the black and brown folks presumably being out at work and busy doing rocket surgery, curing cancer. Needless to say numerous boring official statistics tell an entirely different story)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    That’s because the European countries have actual ethnic identities. Whereas whites in America are generally deracinated and increasingly a mix of various white ethnicities. Unlike the various European ethnicities, there is not yet a cohesive white nationalist ethnic identity in America. By contrast, there is a relatively cohesive general black nationalist ethnic identity in the US, due to the fact that from the outset when black Africans were brought into the US, blacks of various tribal identities were mixed together. Whites in the US, or at least a proportion of them, are arguably undergoing this process now, which began in earnest in the mid-20th century through the various carrots and sticks of mass media culture, economic growth, and government power and shared war experience, which displaced and replaced older identities and cultures and dispersed and mixed whites together. This is ultimately a “post-American” development and identity, because this emerging identity is incidental to the forces and processes that generated it and that have now moved on to incorporate various others such as non-whites and immigrants. Some American far-right intellectuals, those with “extravagant haircuts”, have recognized this and have more or less abandoned traditional American politics and have looked to European far-right and fascist politics as a post-American politics for this post-American identity.

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

    I wonder if it is possible to make the altright and liberals destroy each other, like what happened in the western front in ww1

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. SFG says:
    @AndrewR
    True. I didn't mean it was completely inseparable [why do I misspell this word more than any other?] but that there was a high correlation. Between Curiel's political and professional associations (La Raza) and Sotomayor's explicit racism, Trump would have had a pretty easy time defending himself from the leftist and cuckservative [*cough* Paul Ryan *cough*] mobs. But being the incompetent cuck he is, he backed down.

    Right. Bit of a nitpick on my part I have to admit.

    I do kind of feel like a smarter Trump (or at least a Trump more familiar with the sorts of contortions you have to do in politics) could have handled this one easily. “He’s been in La Raza, we know where his loyalties lie…”

    But of course such a Trump would never have broken down those walls in the first place. Trump could be Goldwater to Sessions’ (?) Nixon…but Clitnon can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The idea of Sessions with any more power literally makes me nauseous. Fortunately, he's old like Trump. There will be no President Sessions. Trump's successor will be younger and ideally not a neocon.
    , @iSteveFan
    Trump is now becoming more conservative in his approach because he now is in the finals and has much to lose. A year ago he was one of 17, and he had nothing to lose. He threw some haymakers and steadily climbed in the polls knocking out opponent after opponent. Now he actually has a decent shot of winning and has tightened up. He needs to remember what got him here. But I imagine it's tougher now for him because of the position he now finds himself in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!

    I know what you fear is the libs destroying you, so maybe the libs can do a better job?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Lurker says:
    @Anonymous


    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?
     
    Watching TV 7 hours a day doesn’t help.
     
    Among the elites you mean, right?

    A lot of TV watching is no longer part of the average or below average American's day. It is now much more common for the "elites" to devote a lot time to watching TV. Starting with a couple hours of watching "Morning Joe" on stairclimber, they have the television on CNN and MSNBC throughout the day and pull away to watch when certain people come on. Later they will catch more MSNBC or CNN round table shows and usually the devoted followers of HBO series. Being a writer, commentator, or holding down a political sinecure apparently frees you up to watch a lot TV or to spend a lot of time online or tweeting.

    Being a writer, commentator, or holding down a political sinecure apparently frees you up to watch a lot TV or to spend a lot of time online or tweeting.

    It does seem that way. Those within the media/political elite do talk up TV all the time, I cynically assumed they did that since TV tells us what they want us to hear. But I never really considered they themselves were avid consumers. But it makes sense, after all it portrays the world they want us to see so why wouldn’t they feel comfortable with it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Grumpy says:
    @AndrewR
    A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers). And since the political left has come to see borders as Racist (even grandpa Bernie got on board the open borders train in the last year), there simply aren't that many people who can cogently defend the concept of borders, let alone nationalism. A significant chunk of us are regular unz.com commenters (which is not to say all regular unz.com commenters are bright, educated or well-read, but I digress...)

    So many otherwise open-minded leftoids are simply unexposed to well-developed arguments against leftist policies, especially about immigration.

    It doesn't help that Trump is a mental midget who speaks using third grade vocabulary. His intuition is in the right direction on many issues but he simply lacks the intellectual horsepower to back it up, and he frequently seems to lack the humility to listen to people smarter than he.

    But back to the left: many if not most of them are just so incredibly smug that they simply refuse to think they could be wrong about anything. Obviously this phenomenon exists along the political spectrum but with the left it is a strong feedback loop.

    I'm not optimistic about the future. Demographic change seems very likely to cement our incredibly polarized political discourse. One thing Trump got right, but pathetically refused to thoughtfully defend, was that ethnicity is largely inseperable from politics. Why he didn't point to Sotomayor during the Curiel thing... well as I said before: Trump is an idiot.

    Comments like “Trump is a mental midget” reveal an awful lot of smugness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    He's been called worse and called people worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @avraham
    I have seen this problem and I think I saw it on some blog somewhere. The intellectual sophisticated apparatus is on the left. They hijacked Hegel. And the Nazis did not help much. And the intellectual force on the right is weak. And it also was not very helpful that the Left infiltrated the universities. This is a serious problem Not just for the right but even for people in the middle.
    The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical. I am really not sure.It is certain that Philosophy departments ignore the Kant Friesian School. Surprising enough the only ones that took this school seriously were the Soviets for some reason I still have not figured out.

    Love to hear more. Discovered Fries in grad. school but of course no one was ever interested in the Friesian school, as you note. Actually Roderick Chilsolm was, but only to a limited extent. Politically, I would have thought they’d be conventional liberals, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @avraham
    Fries is mainly important because of immediate non intuitive knowledge. He helps to formulate a Kantian kind of answer to how we know stuff and also to unity of consciousness. By himself he would not be very important but together with Schopenhauer, Jung, Popper it is possible to formulate a sophisticated kind of Kantian system of equal merit and even surpassing Hegel. That is why this ought to be important to the kind of people that comment on Unz. see this web site of Dr Kelley Ross: http://www.friesian.com/school.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. AndrewR says:
    @SFG
    Right. Bit of a nitpick on my part I have to admit.

    I do kind of feel like a smarter Trump (or at least a Trump more familiar with the sorts of contortions you have to do in politics) could have handled this one easily. "He's been in La Raza, we know where his loyalties lie..."

    But of course such a Trump would never have broken down those walls in the first place. Trump could be Goldwater to Sessions' (?) Nixon...but Clitnon can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

    The idea of Sessions with any more power literally makes me nauseous. Fortunately, he’s old like Trump. There will be no President Sessions. Trump’s successor will be younger and ideally not a neocon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Alfa158 says:
    @Jack D
    Crashing planes is an old Kennedy family tradition. They seem to get into crashes a lot, not just with planes but with bridges, trees, bullets, etc. Things are always crashing into them.

    Good one.
    Strictly speaking Joe Jr. didn’t crash his plane. He was doing just fine flyin it, but it was a remote controlled bomb, and when he threw the arming switch prior to bailing out, it went off. He wasn’t the only one who suffered that fate. John Jr. was the screw- up who was flying in conditions he wasn’t qualified for. What they had in common was a feeling of immortality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Agree on JKK Jr. Joe Jr however was a brave man who volunteered for a very dangerous mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite) and died in the service of his country.

    I bow to no one in my dislike of the Kennedy clan, but your slander was out of place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. BB753 says:
    @Jack D
    Steve has often mentioned the concept of "leapfrogging loyalties" - the elites feel loyalty toward each other and toward the oppressed and undocumented among us (although they take pains to avoid any actual regular contact with the latter). The only people they DON'T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy and remind them a little too much of the miserably conformist bourgeois place where they grew up and which they got the hell out when they went to college and never looked back.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences - to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash - they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    Elitist disdain for the lower classes is nothing new. But our current elites’ burning hatred of the middle class is unparalleled except maybe in former communist countries. Make no mistake, they really want to genocide the middle class, Soviet style.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Just a few points about “Megabore” (as the British satirical magazine Private Eye called him after one too many appearances on the BBC) Ignatieff.

    1) He was on the receiving end of — of all things — Canadian nationalism when he was leader of the Canadian Liberal Party running as Prime Minister. The Canadian Conservatives successfully painted him as an interloper who had spent most of his life outside the country, working for foreign organizations. One of the most damning quotes they dug up was when Ignatieff referred to “we” as an apparent reference to the United States.

    Ignatieff, in this case didn’t mean “we” as in “we, Americans” (as the Conservatives claimed) but “we” as in “we, global elites.” Nonetheless the charge stuck.

    I suspect he’s had time to think about this issue as a consequence — this idea of outsider versus insider. Because, in effect, he was metaphorically stripped of his citizenship during that election campaign and rendered ineligible for office.

    2) He’s still dodging the question of what kind of immigrant is desirable. He can spin this yarn of “Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.”” all he wants. Fact is, hostility to immigration in Britain is overwhelmingly towards Muslims, Africans and Asians. Very little is directed at the Poles, none whatsoever towards the 350 000+ French citizens living in London. The immigration debate is fundamentally a racial/ethnic one.

    3) Like it or not, immigration was secondary to the Brexit debate. Polls demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of Leave voters (I was one) voted on the basis of national sovereignty. Immigration came a distant second.

    Obviously, national sovereignty and immigration are related, but in the case of the EU, it was the former that attracted the British public’s hostility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. snorlax says:
    @Lurker
    The British, Russian and German royals were closely related but that didn't prevent WW1. The British and Russian royals were closely related but they didn't save the Tsar in 1918.

    The British and Russian royals were closely related

    (First cousins) George V and Nicholas II:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. iSteveFan says:
    @Andrew Jackson
    People always say that elite immigration policies are about importing cheap labor. That is true, but it also overlooks the extent to which it is also about importing consumers. All of those cheap laborers go right on the government dole, and all of that government money issued goes right back into the hands of the capital holders. With deficit spending, it's basically free money for capital holders. Maybe someone will have to pay off the debt someday, but that's some way on the horizon, and the plan seems to be to screw over people who actually need their social security.

    Which is probably the reason immigrants no longer have to prove they won’t become a ward of the state. In the old days if you could not prove that you would be self-sufficient, they probably wouldn’t let you in. Today they eagerly sign you up for bennies upon entry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. 5371 says:
    @Spotted Toad
    Ignatieff's scholarly reputation is based in good part on a readable but bland biography of the readable but bland Isaiah Berlin, the Fox and the Hedgehog guy and a wealthy Russian Empire Jew of Nabokov's generation who decamped for Oxford after the Bolsheviks started their stuff. He became a perennial prize winner at Oxford, was Churchill's eyes in Washington during the War, and then became a ubiquitous essayist and scholarly voice on the BBC, radio and TV. The paradigmatic immigrant who becomes more British than the Brits.
    Ignatieff's book about him has two highlights- in one, Berlin goes back to Soviet Petersburg/Leningrad and meets with Anna Akhmatova, the aging romantic poetess; they talk all night long but apparently don't do the deed, and she especially seems to have fallen in love with him and written various encomia to their night of talk for years afterwards. The other good part in the biography is when Churchill's wife invites Irving Berlin, the Brooklyn-born songwriter, to dinner and Churchill thinks he's sitting with his man in Washington. ("What has your greatest contribution to the war effort been thus far?" "I dunno, White Christmas?")
    I'm not certain if Ignatieff's biography is the reason the fox and hedgehog distinction became a big fad a couple years ago (538's logo is the fox, from it) but the funny thing is that almost everyone wanted to be a fox ("knows many things") rather than a hedgehog ("knows one big thing.") This is silly because in practice these would-be foxes know at best one big thing (538's is supposed to be, "trust the data," or maybe just "average the polls") and because in the original fable, knowing many things is how you get caught by the hounds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Cat_(fable) )

    It would be good if Ignatieff decided if the one big thing he knew was that we live in a world of nations with borders, but everything in his own life and in the life of his intellectual subjects has taught him that borders are just there to be crossed.

    538 should choose the chicken as its logo, not the fox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @AndyBoy
    I wonder if some of our "elites" are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.

    Ironic that those at the top of a society would have the least devotion to it.

    But we have to ask ourselves, how did we allow those with no loyalty to us to have the ultimate power over us?

    “I wonder if some of our “elites” are like sociopaths with no natural loyalty to anyone. Some seem sincerely puzzled by the concept of group loyalty.”

    Oh, thy have group loyalty, all right. Just not to our group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. iSteveFan says:
    @SFG
    Right. Bit of a nitpick on my part I have to admit.

    I do kind of feel like a smarter Trump (or at least a Trump more familiar with the sorts of contortions you have to do in politics) could have handled this one easily. "He's been in La Raza, we know where his loyalties lie..."

    But of course such a Trump would never have broken down those walls in the first place. Trump could be Goldwater to Sessions' (?) Nixon...but Clitnon can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

    Trump is now becoming more conservative in his approach because he now is in the finals and has much to lose. A year ago he was one of 17, and he had nothing to lose. He threw some haymakers and steadily climbed in the polls knocking out opponent after opponent. Now he actually has a decent shot of winning and has tightened up. He needs to remember what got him here. But I imagine it’s tougher now for him because of the position he now finds himself in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. 5371 says:
    @AKAHorace
    If the Tories wanted a really scary attack add they could have used material in "Flashman at the Charge" which describes his evil Czarist ancestor.

    Because nobody in Canada knows that popular fiction and history are different things?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. iSteveFan says:
    @Jack D
    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!

    I agree most Americans are not anti-semitics. But try telling that to a large swath of American Jews.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I agree most Americans are not anti-semitics. But try telling that to a large swath of American Jews.
     
    Judging by surveys that I have seen, White American Christians seem to be quite Judeophillic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Dirk Diggler
    Anon,

    It's all about cheap labor. It's not necessarily about race. Diversity and inclusiveness is a meme to try and ensure that the slaves (low cost labor) don't fight amongst themselves as they pick up the scraps from the tables of the elites.

    Remember that writing laws costs a lot of money. And lobbying does too. Only large corporations have the money for this.

    “It’s all about cheap labor.”

    This is a common opinion on the alt-right, but can’t be true, or at least not completely true. If this were true, we’d be seeing more of the productive but low-wage immigrants from E. Europe and Asia and LAtin America, and fewer of the volatileand costly Muslims and Africans. But in fact the PTB expend a lot of political capital (e.g., Obama on Syrians) just to get those last two groups, who are basically useless for driving down wages.

    Until someone comes up with a better theory, it appears that the elites just hate the rest of us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @2Mintzin1
    The concept of globalist elites functioning as a "new aristocracy" has bothered me, also.

    Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?

    The old royal elites were related by blood. Our current elites are mostly not. But in a few generations they may be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. The biggest mitake the right made in the US was to make lower tax rates the main point of their domestic policy program. They forgot – or maybe they never knew- that we are a nation, not just a market, not a series of bank accounts. Grover Norquist and the Bushes were, and are, a malign influence on the Republican party. I hope all the Bush voters are happy with their “freedom fries”, their ten year hiatus in inheritance taxes (which made a few children of elderly billionaires very happy), and millions of Latin American, Pakistani and Somali “citizens”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. @2Mintzin1
    The concept of globalist elites functioning as a "new aristocracy" has bothered me, also.

    Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?

    Oh, you said “behavior”! Sorry, i missed that word the first time.

    You’re right. There is no difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Jefferson says:
    @Jack D
    Steve has often mentioned the concept of "leapfrogging loyalties" - the elites feel loyalty toward each other and toward the oppressed and undocumented among us (although they take pains to avoid any actual regular contact with the latter). The only people they DON'T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy and remind them a little too much of the miserably conformist bourgeois place where they grew up and which they got the hell out when they went to college and never looked back.

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences - to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash - they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.

    “The only people they DON’T feel loyalty toward are lower class white Americans who are so trashy”

    Why do the elites feel loyalty to the hood? Do they see Tray Tray and Sha Nay Nay as classy and the extreme opposite of trashy? They don’t exactly speak the queen’s English. They butcher the English language. They are basically Negro versions of the White trash people who they hate so much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @International Jew

    Q. But if nationalism comes from positive feelings of pride and connection to one’s community, why does that often seem to manifest in fears of immigration as a threat to that community
     
    Clueless question of the week.

    Well, it wasn’t really a question, it was just the knee-jerk virtue-signalling of the interviewer:

    “Uh-oh, ‘nationalism’ came up in a non-negative way, time to tie it back to ‘fear’ before the Crimestop breaks loose in any readers.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. iSteveFan says:

    Speaking of cosmopolitans, here is Zero Hedge with a piece on George Soros :

    Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders. This has recently been shown very clearly with his funding of the European refugee crisis.

    The refugee crisis has been blamed on the civil war currently raging in Syria. But did you ever wonder how all these people suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in?

    The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It coincided with OSF donating money to the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, both Soros-sponsored organizations. Both groups advocate the resettlement of third-world Muslims into Europe.

    In 2015, a Sky News reporter found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. It was later revealed that the handbooks, which are written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU.”

    Welcome to the EU is funded by—you guessed it—the Open Society Foundations.

    Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of third-world migrants into Europe, he in fact is the architect of the “Merkel Plan.”

    The Merkel Plan was created by the European Stability Initiative whose chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at none other than the Open Society Foundations.

    The plan proposes that Germany should grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees. It also states that Germany, along with other European nations, should agree to help Turkey, a country that’s 98% Muslim, gain visa-free travel within the EU starting in 2016.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. @anon
    Mark Blyth on the Brexit vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg

    Ha-ha.

    Moneyquote: “The Hamptons is not a defensible position.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. “We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.”

    Self-regarding Cosmos ( Thanks for the riff about HGB’s single gal handbook, Steve) can admit they’re wrong, but only by suggesting “we’ve all” been wrong, but look at what I cleverly figured out. Good thing I’m so open-minded and always challenging my core beliefs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. “who belongs,” he said, will “define the 21st century.”

    Didn’t we already sort that out pretty thoroughly in the 20th century? In fact, wasn’t that pretty much the main event of the 20th century? After centuries of conflict, each ethnicity finally had its own country, more or less.

    Then somebody decided to unpick all that.

    A minor, but strange, aspect of this is that Michael Ignatieff, who is supposed to be very clever and educated, thinks he has come up with the theory of gravity merely by uncovering what was common knowledge a generation ago, which Mr. Ignatieff is surely old enough to remember without any special training or research.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. syonredux says:
    @Verymuchalive
    " For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big...."
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire. The growth of Empire quickly continued unabated. When the 13 former colonies were debating a constitution in 1787, Britain was devising a plan to settle a whole new continent. You may have heard of it, it's called Australia.
    Whilst fighting a tinpot Latin Dictator called Napoleon, it added to its Empire by grabbing Cape Colony, Ceylon, much of India, Malta, Trinidad. I could go on. It even burnt down much of the city of Washington as a sideshow during the period.
    By the period 1830-40, Britain was the most powerful state that has ever been, as measured by percentage of World GDP ( one of the benefits of inventing the Industrial Revolution ). Much more powerful than the US in 1945.
    Stick to what you know best, Mr Steve

    ” For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big….”
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire.

    MMM, well, he certainly did deprive it of a huge chunk of North America……

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    At the time, most people did think the loss of America was a crippling blow to the British Empire. They were surprised by how easily it recovered and continued to expand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. AndrewR says:
    @Grumpy
    Comments like "Trump is a mental midget" reveal an awful lot of smugness.

    He’s been called worse and called people worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. syonredux says:
    @iSteveFan
    I agree most Americans are not anti-semitics. But try telling that to a large swath of American Jews.

    I agree most Americans are not anti-semitics. But try telling that to a large swath of American Jews.

    Judging by surveys that I have seen, White American Christians seem to be quite Judeophillic

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Area Man says:
    @Luke Lea
    "A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers)."

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement. Political correctness is like orthodox dogma in the Catholic church: only those who outwardly conform are accepted into the church hierarchy. Non-conformers are shunned.

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement.

    Charles Péguy would agree with that: “It will never be known what acts of cowardice were motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. syonredux says:

    Something that everyone should be thinking about:

    As far as average IQ scores go, this is what the world looks like. But there are two relevant tests: the Stanford-Binet, and life itself. If a country scored low on IQ but at the same time led the world in Cavorite production, or cured cancer, or built spindizzies, we would say “screw Stanford-Binet”, and we would be right to do so.

    Does that happen? Are there countries with low average scores that tear up the technological track? Mostly not – generally, fairly high average IQ seems to be a prerequisite for creativity in science and mathematics. Necessary, although not sufficient: bad choices (Communism), having the world kick you in the crotch (Mongols), or toxic intellectual fads can all make smart peoples unproductive.

    The exceptions, such as they are, seem to be a result of strong population substructure. India has a low average IQ, but there are distinct subpopulations (castes) that apparently have much higher IQ – although I’d love to see some decent studies on this. With numbers.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/our-dumb-world/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. Sean says:

    Ignatieff is disingenuous. “His documentary series Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism aired on BBC in 1993″, so he has been talking about the same old thing as an alarming development for decades. The EU was about creating a state called the EU, which entailed putting up barriers to the outside world. The rights of EU citizens that exist depend on the political institutions of the EU, it was a empire with a right to move around nations within it in the same way as between Scotland, Wales and England but it certainly gave no universal right to enter it from outside states (unless it was a EU citizen re entering after leaving).

    A right is not universal but a claim against a particular society, whereby it can be enforced or it is not a right. Most people in Britain did not value the worthless-to-them right to go and seek work in Romania, but were impacted by the Romanians’ right to come to Britain and get the non-offshorable (construction, service and agriculture) job that are left in the deindustrialised UK. So the benefits of that right were not available to British people, by and large, and they noticed.

    The Pof should understand Brexit very well as he suggests rights be based on enlightened self interest, as we to be left alone to get on with our lives as we choose, and so we ought to support universal rights as a common good :-

    http://www.jcrt.org/archives/09.1/Smaw.pdf

    Ignatieff’s justification for human rights … relies on the coercive force of possible infringements on our lives in order to prudentially oblige us to create and adhere to the demands of human rights. In this way, whenever the coercive force of possible infringements is in favor of respecting human rights Ignatieff is able to argue that it is in the prudential interest of humans to create and adhere to the demands of human rights .. Unfortunately, however, Ignatieff ignores the fact that coercive force can swing both ways. Therefore, when the coercive force of possible infringements is opposed to respecting human rights he would be obliged to argue that is not in the prudential interest of humans to create or adhere to the demands of human rights

    Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any concrete circumstances. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. Prudence has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise. Without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence#Prudence_as_the_.22mother.22_of_all_virtues

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. avraham says: • Website
    @James O'Meara
    Love to hear more. Discovered Fries in grad. school but of course no one was ever interested in the Friesian school, as you note. Actually Roderick Chilsolm was, but only to a limited extent. Politically, I would have thought they'd be conventional liberals, though.

    Fries is mainly important because of immediate non intuitive knowledge. He helps to formulate a Kantian kind of answer to how we know stuff and also to unity of consciousness. By himself he would not be very important but together with Schopenhauer, Jung, Popper it is possible to formulate a sophisticated kind of Kantian system of equal merit and even surpassing Hegel. That is why this ought to be important to the kind of people that comment on Unz. see this web site of Dr Kelley Ross: http://www.friesian.com/school.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Jefferson says:
    @Anonymous
    What is the major malfunction of the WN is English speaking countries? I mean why is it that far right movements in Europe like the Fpo and jobbik do not have to make a pretense of sucking up to Jews like the American altright does? I mean nobody sure makes the mistake of thinking that Jobbik is friendly to Jews or runs a citizenist platform, I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote? I mean why is it that Jobbik can get 25 percent of the vote, and the Fpo can get 45 of the vote without having to have to marry your children into the Jewish bloodline or surround yourself with Jews like trump does? Even if you are not anti-jewish you have to wonder, I mean American WN always like to brag how much they are better than their European counterparts because they have access to guns? Like that has done them any good, why is that the Jobbik and Fpo doesn't need the right to bear arms to assume the sort of political power that American WN can only dream of. And is it that the American altright is so hostile to white women, are they literally retarded? Why is it the European far right movements are much more friendly to women and yet can capture a large part of the vote, like jobbik, which was formerly headed by a female.

    “I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote?”

    10 percent doesn’t win elections. Get back to us when The Golden Dawn runs Greece like The Democratic Party runs The United States.

    Gary Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationwide, but guess what Gary has no chance in hell of becoming the next president of The United States.

    Gary Johnson is just a protest fuck you vote. His supporters are not actually voting for him because they believe he can topple the $2 billion dollar war chest that the Hildabeast campaign will have at their fingertips.

    Hildabeast is Walmart and Gary Johnson is a mom & pop store. She will eat him alive. Gary does not have enough billionaire backers to make him a serious threat to her. Gary is operating on a shoestring budget.

    3rd parties in The U.S never have blank checks and billion dollar donors who serve as unlimited Human ATMs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "10 percent doesn’t win elections"
     
    In parliamentary systems such as Greece has, your party doesn't need a majority of the electorate to wield influence. You just have to be the crucial swing vote in someone else's majority.

    In parliamentary systems the parties tend to be more ideological since they are usually formalized interest group factions. In the US federal first-past-the-post system,the parties are more agnostic ideologically and interest groups promiscuously oscillate between parties or support both. The parties also tend to last longer as they are not necessarily tied to a founding ideology with a limited shelf-life.
    , @Anonymous
    10 percent in an election where no gets over 35 percent of the vote is a lot
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    "Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count."

    So what?

    That suggests he is a cosmopolitan elite by background, not just play-acting at one.

    The Ignatyevs are not ancient aristocracy. The family’s rise seems to have begun with Captain Pavel Ignatyev. He became a favorite of Tsar Nicholas I by remaining loyal during the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, a military uprising against the accession of Nicholas I in place of his brother Constantine. In Peter the Great’s time, the boyars (Russian nobles) were a conservative force that resisted his westernizing innovations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The Ignatiev (Ignatieff) family traces back to the beginning the Romanov dynasty in 1634. The maternal line, Meshchersky, traces back even farther, to the 1400's and the assimilation of the native Mordvinic tribes. Consult wikipedia.ru and follow the relevant genealogies. All the pages are translatable, if somewhat awkwardly at times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. PSR says:
    @Anonymous

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences – to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash – they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.
     
    Likewise I have noticed the intense and nearly all-consuming antipathy of Canadians and Australians towards America & Americans, even though foreigners often have trouble distinguishing them from us. After all, we speak the same language, have almost identical founding stock, and largely share the same popular culture.

    It's one more thing Freud got right.

    Obviously I don’t know what you may have experienced but I’ve spent a good deal of time in Canada – BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes – and I had the feeling people there felt like cousins to Americans. As an American I never picked up on any antipathy, even in Montreal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @celt darnell
    Maybe Canadians say one thing to Americans' faces another behind their backs.

    I'm British. I lived in Canada for five years. Heard more anti-American comments there than I ever heard even on the BBC or read in the Guardian.

    Montreal -- and Quebec generally -- is French Canada. It's a separate national culture and their views on America and many other topics are very different. Ditto the French-speaking parts of the Maritimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Perhaps Ignatieff is coming to understand what Sarah F. Brosnan and Frans B. M. de Waal told us back in 2003:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6955/abs/nature01963.html

    It seems, however, that the elites are still not understanding it.

    You simply cannot keep saying “Let them eat cake” ad infinitum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. SPMoore8 says:
    @Anonymous
    The Ignatyevs are not ancient aristocracy. The family's rise seems to have begun with Captain Pavel Ignatyev. He became a favorite of Tsar Nicholas I by remaining loyal during the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, a military uprising against the accession of Nicholas I in place of his brother Constantine. In Peter the Great's time, the boyars (Russian nobles) were a conservative force that resisted his westernizing innovations.

    The Ignatiev (Ignatieff) family traces back to the beginning the Romanov dynasty in 1634. The maternal line, Meshchersky, traces back even farther, to the 1400′s and the assimilation of the native Mordvinic tribes. Consult wikipedia.ru and follow the relevant genealogies. All the pages are translatable, if somewhat awkwardly at times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I see you're correct that the Ignatievs go back farther. Russian wikipedia says that they are a branch of the old aristocratic Pleshcheev family descended from the boyar Fedor Byakont who lived in the 14th century. So what turned the Russian nobles from a conservative force in the time of Peter the Great to a cosmopolitan elite? Tsar Peter's and Tsarina Catherine's programs of westernization?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SPMoore8
    The Ignatiev (Ignatieff) family traces back to the beginning the Romanov dynasty in 1634. The maternal line, Meshchersky, traces back even farther, to the 1400's and the assimilation of the native Mordvinic tribes. Consult wikipedia.ru and follow the relevant genealogies. All the pages are translatable, if somewhat awkwardly at times.

    I see you’re correct that the Ignatievs go back farther. Russian wikipedia says that they are a branch of the old aristocratic Pleshcheev family descended from the boyar Fedor Byakont who lived in the 14th century. So what turned the Russian nobles from a conservative force in the time of Peter the Great to a cosmopolitan elite? Tsar Peter’s and Tsarina Catherine’s programs of westernization?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    When they had to flee their native land due to the Bolsheviks?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Anonymous
    I see you're correct that the Ignatievs go back farther. Russian wikipedia says that they are a branch of the old aristocratic Pleshcheev family descended from the boyar Fedor Byakont who lived in the 14th century. So what turned the Russian nobles from a conservative force in the time of Peter the Great to a cosmopolitan elite? Tsar Peter's and Tsarina Catherine's programs of westernization?

    When they had to flee their native land due to the Bolsheviks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Quite possibly, yes, but might the process not have begun earlier? The Romanovs were related to many other European royal families. Might some of the Russian nobles also have had family ties outside of Russia before the Revoluation?
    , @Buddwing
    Come on Steve, Michael Ignatieff may be the grandson of a Tsarist Minister of Education, but he is the great-grandson of Count Nicholas Ignatieff, one of the grand villains of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman series!

    “And as our eyes met through the cigarette smoke I thought, hollo, this is another of those momentous encounters. You didn’t have to look at this chap twice to remember him forever. It was the eyes, as it so often is – I thought in that moment of Bismarck, and Charity Spring, and Akbar Khan; it had been the eyes with them, too. But this fellow’s were different from anything yet: one was blue, but the other had a divided iris, half-blue, half-brown, and the oddly fascinating effect of this was that you didn’t know where to look, but kept shifting from one to the other.

    For the rest, he had a gingerish, curling hair and square, masterful face that was no way impaired by a badly-broken nose. He looked tough, and immensely self-assured; it was in his glance, in the abrupt way he moved, in the slant of the long cigarette between his fingers, in the rakish tilt of his peaked cap, in the immaculate white tunic of the Imperial Guards. He was the kind who knew exactly what was what, where everything was, and precisely who was who – especially himself. He was probably a devil with women, admired by his superiors, hated by his rivals, and abjectly feared by his subordinates. One word summed him up: bastard.”


    Every time I encountered the (non-fictional) name Ignatieff from then on, it sent a chill down my spine. It was he who negotiated the 1860 unequal treaty with Peking that started the Russian annexation of most of Siberia. It was he who was the Russian Ambassador the Ottoman Empire ("the most distrusted man at the Porte") at the start of the Bulgarian crisis in 1878 that started the unravelling of the Ottoman Empire.

    So, cosmopolitan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    When they had to flee their native land due to the Bolsheviks?

    Quite possibly, yes, but might the process not have begun earlier? The Romanovs were related to many other European royal families. Might some of the Russian nobles also have had family ties outside of Russia before the Revoluation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Assuming you are the same Anonymous who asked me, I think it has to do with the fact that from the Time of Troubles forward there was a tendency for the noble elite to marry (or attempt to marry) into Western dynastic nobility. The became especially pronounced in the 18th Century, up to and including Catherine (who was a German princess after all) up through the 19th Century, where IIRC correctly there were numerous exogamous marriages with Western nobility. (Calls to mind the remarkable resemblance of Nicholas II and George V.) Since the nobility was always an elite, their marriage with other European elites made them "cosmopolitan" elites. Also, I think a lot of the old boyar families have died out, I was doing some reading on the Godunovs recently and seem to recall that most of the old "Rurikoid" families are extinct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @SFG
    They're loyal to their group--the elite.

    This is not a new thing, BTW. European monarchs were frequently related to each other.

    European monarchs were frequently related to each other.

    Which did not prevent them from destroying each other in WWI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @IHTG
    Certainly, the "nice white lady" contingent of the open borders crowd would be happy to (and probably does, in practice) operate on the basis of "citizenship as gift".

    Women’s suffrage – great in theory, empirically disastrous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. iffen says:
    @ben tillman

    “A big part of the problem is that intelligent, educated people are overwhelmingly overrepresented on the political left (in large part because universities are left-wing indoctrination centers).”

    I see it more as a problem of peer pressure and professional advancement.
     

    Indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization -- all toward the same end.

    all toward the same end.

    Don’t leave us hanging, Obi One Kenobi Two.

    Spell it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Buddwing says:
    @Steve Sailer
    When they had to flee their native land due to the Bolsheviks?

    Come on Steve, Michael Ignatieff may be the grandson of a Tsarist Minister of Education, but he is the great-grandson of Count Nicholas Ignatieff, one of the grand villains of George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman series!

    “And as our eyes met through the cigarette smoke I thought, hollo, this is another of those momentous encounters. You didn’t have to look at this chap twice to remember him forever. It was the eyes, as it so often is – I thought in that moment of Bismarck, and Charity Spring, and Akbar Khan; it had been the eyes with them, too. But this fellow’s were different from anything yet: one was blue, but the other had a divided iris, half-blue, half-brown, and the oddly fascinating effect of this was that you didn’t know where to look, but kept shifting from one to the other.

    For the rest, he had a gingerish, curling hair and square, masterful face that was no way impaired by a badly-broken nose. He looked tough, and immensely self-assured; it was in his glance, in the abrupt way he moved, in the slant of the long cigarette between his fingers, in the rakish tilt of his peaked cap, in the immaculate white tunic of the Imperial Guards. He was the kind who knew exactly what was what, where everything was, and precisely who was who – especially himself. He was probably a devil with women, admired by his superiors, hated by his rivals, and abjectly feared by his subordinates. One word summed him up: bastard.”

    Every time I encountered the (non-fictional) name Ignatieff from then on, it sent a chill down my spine. It was he who negotiated the 1860 unequal treaty with Peking that started the Russian annexation of most of Siberia. It was he who was the Russian Ambassador the Ottoman Empire (“the most distrusted man at the Porte”) at the start of the Bulgarian crisis in 1878 that started the unravelling of the Ottoman Empire.

    So, cosmopolitan?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. johnfrum says:
    @franktremb
    Sure thing. When I saw that he was back at Harvard, I thought that the theme of the attack ads back then, "Just visiting", were true. They're so much to chose from and it was so effective that it almost destroyed the Liberal party and gave the Conservative party a majority of seats in the House. https://youtu.be/TeSngE_Gg9E

    He may have been a visitor, but he would have had to better than Justine Trudeau., the next Liberal leader . He has double the IQ

    Read More
    • Replies: @franktremb
    I sure won't defend Justin Trudeau, although I think that underestimating him is precisely why he keeps winning, but let's compare Ignatieff to another Liberal leader, Jean Chrétien. If not for the growth of the separatist movement in the 60's and the perceived need for the Federal government to promote anti-separatist French Canadians to counter that movement, Jean Chrétien, the son of a Paper mill machinist and a big traditional catholic family from Shawinigan, would have become only a small town lawyer in rural Quebec, not a Prime Minister. Ignatieff, the son of a diplomat and descendant of aristocrats, was way more intelligent than Chrétien and far more well-groomed. But in 2003, when listening to the evidences and reasons for the Iraq war, Jean Chrétien was opposed and decided not to join and send troops while Ignatieff was wholheartedly for that war. Just to say that Ignatieff's academic knowledge don't impress me and saying "we didn't want Prime Minister Ignatieff so we're stuck with Justin Trudeau" won't make me regret him.

    As columnist Paul Wells wrote in 2007: "At lunch[from an influential U.S. pundits gathering] Conrad [Black] took me aside for a minute to continue berating me good-naturedly for my insufficiently-harsh criticism of Chrétien in the pages of the National Post. "C'mon, Paul," he said. "Look at this room. Can you imagine Jean Chrétien holding his own with this lot?"
    He had a point. I couldn't. Will, Buckley, Kissinger, Volcker, Black? Chrétien wouldn't have made it past the doorman. Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, would have fit right in.

    Which is, still today, his problem."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. SPMoore8 says:
    @Anonymous
    Quite possibly, yes, but might the process not have begun earlier? The Romanovs were related to many other European royal families. Might some of the Russian nobles also have had family ties outside of Russia before the Revoluation?

    Assuming you are the same Anonymous who asked me, I think it has to do with the fact that from the Time of Troubles forward there was a tendency for the noble elite to marry (or attempt to marry) into Western dynastic nobility. The became especially pronounced in the 18th Century, up to and including Catherine (who was a German princess after all) up through the 19th Century, where IIRC correctly there were numerous exogamous marriages with Western nobility. (Calls to mind the remarkable resemblance of Nicholas II and George V.) Since the nobility was always an elite, their marriage with other European elites made them “cosmopolitan” elites. Also, I think a lot of the old boyar families have died out, I was doing some reading on the Godunovs recently and seem to recall that most of the old “Rurikoid” families are extinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Windsors have reversed that cosmopolitan policy over the last two generations, now adopting a policy of marrying attractive English girls. That seems to be paying dividends for them in popularity. It will be especially successful if the new generation of royal infants grow up to be attractive as their mother and paternal grandmother.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @SPMoore8
    Assuming you are the same Anonymous who asked me, I think it has to do with the fact that from the Time of Troubles forward there was a tendency for the noble elite to marry (or attempt to marry) into Western dynastic nobility. The became especially pronounced in the 18th Century, up to and including Catherine (who was a German princess after all) up through the 19th Century, where IIRC correctly there were numerous exogamous marriages with Western nobility. (Calls to mind the remarkable resemblance of Nicholas II and George V.) Since the nobility was always an elite, their marriage with other European elites made them "cosmopolitan" elites. Also, I think a lot of the old boyar families have died out, I was doing some reading on the Godunovs recently and seem to recall that most of the old "Rurikoid" families are extinct.

    The Windsors have reversed that cosmopolitan policy over the last two generations, now adopting a policy of marrying attractive English girls. That seems to be paying dividends for them in popularity. It will be especially successful if the new generation of royal infants grow up to be attractive as their mother and paternal grandmother.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    English author David Icke has written that the British royals and other world leaders (Obama among them) are descended from a long line of Satanic reptilian shapeshifters. They are not human, but can (and must) interbreed with humans in order to look like us. They drink our blood and eat our babies.

    According to Icke, Prince Charles' ugliness is due to his having a less-than-optimal amount of human blood in his system. Charles was forced to marry Diana, a human, so that his children would be able to pass more easily as men.

    I'm not saying I believe it, but if it were true, it would explain a lot.

    (I can easily see Hillary Clinton shape-shifting into a reptilian baby-eater.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @The Undiscovered Jew
    Ignatieff is the grandson of a Tsarist count.

    So what?

    Kropotkin was also born into Russian aristocracy.

    (Zbigniew Brzezinski would be a fairly comparable figure in American history.)

    Presumably you became a fan of Brzezinski when he went on record saying America should strengthen China and weaken Russia.

    Presumably you became a fan of Brzezinski when he went on record saying America should strengthen China and weaken Russia

    Brzezinski is a good example of why we should have contempt for the elites. His virtue is consistency in his counter-productivity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Sam Haysom
    Unfortunately you need a new analogy. As a Catholic I assure you that even outward adherence to orthodox dogma isn't required even of cardinals.

    Good point, and it doesn’t help that the current Pope is not Catholic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @guest
    It's not that complicated, no, and it is the default mindset of most citizens of nation states. They have to be vigorously educated to forget that fact. Still, I don't know why cosmopolitans forget it. It's like how a certain segment of them pretend to forget there's a reason most people think of gender binarily. They must pretend normal people, who know the two sex standard is natural, are the weird ones.

    I used to lean towards open borders, in a libertarian way. Assuming we abolish the Welfare State and it's every man for himself, that is. But I never pretended like borders were mirages, and controlling who gets to be part of the gang wasn't a prerogative of civilized society. And I n never forgot that most people have an interest in deciding who gets to be part of their gang. It takes something special like modern education, years of exposure to the MSM, and being locked inside the thought prison of PC to forget those facts.

    I used to lean towards open borders, in a libertarian way.

    Good of you to repent of your delusional insanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Anonymous
    Why would a uk or a us with the demography of Brazil even be worth saving? If that is their definition of success then it won't matter a jot, let Isis have it for all I care, or have the Russians nuke it

    let Isis have it for all I care

    Keep your sentiment in mind as the jihadist opens your carotid arteries. The rest of us will die on our feet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @avraham
    Ayn Rand also thought the Catholics had a kind of kinship with communism. I thought she was exaggerating but today it seems to me she was right.

    Rand also thought the Catholics had a kind of kinship with communism

    Rand was wrong, just as she was wrong with so many things. Don’t let the idiocy of the current Pope obscure the remarkable and enduring value of the Catholic Church.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Jack D
    Uh, maybe because most Americans are not anti-Semitic? Go ahead, I encourage you to mount a campaign on an explicitly anti-Semitic platform. See how many votes you get. Maybe most Americans have secretly been harboring Jew hatred and you will finally allow them to release their inner Goebbels. Go for it, man!

    most Americans are not anti-Semitic?

    Nope, they are not. But they don’t understand why most Jews are still living in the 1930s. E.g. how do you explain Soros? Just in it for the next buck? Or trying to ‘leave a legacy’? Or just atoning for his collaboration with the Nazis?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Verymuchalive
    " For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big...."
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire. The growth of Empire quickly continued unabated. When the 13 former colonies were debating a constitution in 1787, Britain was devising a plan to settle a whole new continent. You may have heard of it, it's called Australia.
    Whilst fighting a tinpot Latin Dictator called Napoleon, it added to its Empire by grabbing Cape Colony, Ceylon, much of India, Malta, Trinidad. I could go on. It even burnt down much of the city of Washington as a sideshow during the period.
    By the period 1830-40, Britain was the most powerful state that has ever been, as measured by percentage of World GDP ( one of the benefits of inventing the Industrial Revolution ). Much more powerful than the US in 1945.
    Stick to what you know best, Mr Steve

    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire

    Without Washington the USA does not exist. How about Britain? Compare Canada’s role in breaching ‘Fortress Europe’ (Dieppe) with the American version (D-Day). The British Mercantile system would have ensured a fragmented 13 colonies of Crown supplicants bereft of the American ‘can-do’ attitude needed to win WW2. With a host of colonies instead of the USA Britain becomes depleted, exhausted and not only unable to gain a continental foothold, but unable help the Rus. Instead of being crushed, Hitler stays in power.

    America in 1960 was the most powerful state that has ever been. Now the democrats and libtards like George W. Bush have ensured that a despotic power will rule the world. But it won’t be Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @celt darnell
    1) The Soviet Union would have defeated Hitler with or without the United States (or Britain). Over 80% of German soldiers killed fell on the Eastern Front. When Hitler failed to knock out the Soviet Union in his lightening war of 1941, he was stuck in a war of attrition he couldn't win.

    2) Hitler had already failed to conquer Britain and had invaded Russia by the time the US entered World War II.

    3) There were more British subjects than American citizens on the beaches of Normandy. The US didn't have more soldiers in Europe than Britain until the end of 1944 -- when it was obvious Hitler was doomed.

    4) "The British Mercantile system would have ensured a fragmented 13 colonies of Crown supplicants bereft of the American ‘can-do’ attitude needed to win WW2." Counterfactual and probably untrue -- all of the British settler societies, from Canada to Australia unified in their particular geographic area. There is no reason to believe a British North America wouldn't have done the same.

    5) "America in 1960 was the most powerful state that has ever been." Really? Then why was it defeated in the Korean peninsula by what was then a third-rate power, China? Power is relative.

    6) "Without Washington the USA does not exist?" Without France and Spain, the US would not exist either. George Washington won the war against Britain in the same way Churchill won the war against Hitler -- he was only one factor among several.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Jefferson
    "I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote?"

    10 percent doesn't win elections. Get back to us when The Golden Dawn runs Greece like The Democratic Party runs The United States.

    Gary Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationwide, but guess what Gary has no chance in hell of becoming the next president of The United States.

    Gary Johnson is just a protest fuck you vote. His supporters are not actually voting for him because they believe he can topple the $2 billion dollar war chest that the Hildabeast campaign will have at their fingertips.

    Hildabeast is Walmart and Gary Johnson is a mom & pop store. She will eat him alive. Gary does not have enough billionaire backers to make him a serious threat to her. Gary is operating on a shoestring budget.

    3rd parties in The U.S never have blank checks and billion dollar donors who serve as unlimited Human ATMs.

    “10 percent doesn’t win elections”

    In parliamentary systems such as Greece has, your party doesn’t need a majority of the electorate to wield influence. You just have to be the crucial swing vote in someone else’s majority.

    In parliamentary systems the parties tend to be more ideological since they are usually formalized interest group factions. In the US federal first-past-the-post system,the parties are more agnostic ideologically and interest groups promiscuously oscillate between parties or support both. The parties also tend to last longer as they are not necessarily tied to a founding ideology with a limited shelf-life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Steve Sailer
    The Windsors have reversed that cosmopolitan policy over the last two generations, now adopting a policy of marrying attractive English girls. That seems to be paying dividends for them in popularity. It will be especially successful if the new generation of royal infants grow up to be attractive as their mother and paternal grandmother.

    English author David Icke has written that the British royals and other world leaders (Obama among them) are descended from a long line of Satanic reptilian shapeshifters. They are not human, but can (and must) interbreed with humans in order to look like us. They drink our blood and eat our babies.

    According to Icke, Prince Charles’ ugliness is due to his having a less-than-optimal amount of human blood in his system. Charles was forced to marry Diana, a human, so that his children would be able to pass more easily as men.

    I’m not saying I believe it, but if it were true, it would explain a lot.

    (I can easily see Hillary Clinton shape-shifting into a reptilian baby-eater.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical.”

    Is there a case to be made that “conservatism” is what happens when you dispense with all the ideologies, philosophies, and schools and just try to make common-sense decisions about things as they come up? With “common-sense” something that reflects a good bit of experience, both personal and historical? Perhaps the ideologies (and the leftist universities) make these things too complicated. That’s not good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @avraham
    Good point. However common sense often is not so common and needs some kind of background to back it up. I find the school of thought of Kelley Ross does that well.
    , @avraham
    You would probably prefer the intuitionsit school of GE Moore and Dr Michael Huemer because of your wanting a common sense approach. I have reason to think though that Kant and Fries are deeper but not all that different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. WhatEvvs [AKA "Mipchunk"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Actually Jews voted 2 to 1 for Remain:

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214511
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Relevant Spengler:

    In place of a world, there is a city, a point, in which the whole life of broad regions is collecting while the rest dries up. In place of a type-true people, born of and grown on the soil, there is new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman. This is a very great stride towards the inorganic, towards the end–what does it signify?

    The world-city means cosmopolitanism in place of “home” . . . To the world-city belongs not a folk but a mob. Its uncomprehending hostility to all the traditions representative of the culture (nobility, church, privileges, dynasties, convention in art and limits of knowledge in science), the keen and cold intelligence that confounds the wisdom of the peasant, the new- fashioned naturalism that in relation to all matters of sex and society goes back far to quite primitive instincts and conditions, the reappearance of the panem et circenses in the form of wage-disputes and sports stadia–all these things betoken the definite closing down of the Culture and the opening of a quite new phase of human existence–anti-provincial, late, futureless, but quite inevitable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. @Percy Gryce

    This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.
     
    Hasn't nationalism, as described here, been the default ideology for a couple of hundred years?

    Isn't the real shock here that the globalists aren't aware of how novel and out of the mainstream of history their position is?

    Isn’t the real shock here that the globalists aren’t aware of how novel and out of the mainstream of history their position is?

    The even bigger shock is how this anti-nationalist ideology applies so exclusively to the white majority European+NeoEuropean nations of earth.

    I see this article, widely linked, express absolute horror at the idea of Marine Le Pen or a Donald Trump possibly pumping the brakes on mass immigration in France or US, but talk about Japan as a symbol of globalism as if they haven’t fiercely defended their existence as a homogeneous single ethnicity nation state. Japan’s leaders are already more extreme than a Marine Le Pen or a Donald Trump on defending national identity.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-backlash-against-globalization-by-harold-james-2016-06

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Ttjy says:
    @Grumpy
    When was the last time something this sensible appeared in the New York Times? For that matter, when was the last time a Canadian Liberal said something this sensible?

    Too little too late though.

    Our elites the last 50 years or so have been traitorous.

    This idiot is a Canadian but here he was telling us what to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. avraham says: • Website
    @anonymous
    "The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical."

    Is there a case to be made that "conservatism" is what happens when you dispense with all the ideologies, philosophies, and schools and just try to make common-sense decisions about things as they come up? With "common-sense" something that reflects a good bit of experience, both personal and historical? Perhaps the ideologies (and the leftist universities) make these things too complicated. That's not good.

    Good point. However common sense often is not so common and needs some kind of background to back it up. I find the school of thought of Kelley Ross does that well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Lagertha says:

    Ugh! I used to have respect for Michael, but now he just revealed himself to be an utter tool! What a jerk….I can never listen to 99% of the men & very few women discussing world issues ever again. So many of these talking heads lost their sense (or respect) of their homeland centuries (or decades) ago that they just don’t understand or even like people who are comfortable “in their own skin” so to speak – just my late “theory.” I think most people who are baffled by people who don’t like immigration are ashamed of their utter contempt for these same people.

    Anyway, it would be interesting to find out if he is just as chomping-at-the-bit as everyone else in the bogus-Progressive cabal, about wanting to stick it to Putin. I will go for the jugular if any stupid Americans or Europeans call for nuclear war with Russia. Like I said earlier, my little Finland, the Rube country of the world, has decisively played the nicey-nice game with Russia for over 70 years….I think they know more than any PM or P!

    When I am in a better mood, y’all ask me about how Kekkonen’s stupendous physical ability to out drink all the Russians (well, everybody at the table), go full-cray on vodka, won the cold war for Finland. Kekkonen was a Centrist, to the disappointment of my grandfather who was allergic to anyone even slightly socialist, admired Kekkonen’s ability to walk out of the boardroom (everyone else, including the Russians, were conked-out at the table) with no losses…he was said to have a “hollow leg.” Of course, he was a very athletic, fit, very tall man whose wife doted on his health and nutrition – nice!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. @johnfrum
    He may have been a visitor, but he would have had to better than Justine Trudeau., the next Liberal leader . He has double the IQ

    I sure won’t defend Justin Trudeau, although I think that underestimating him is precisely why he keeps winning, but let’s compare Ignatieff to another Liberal leader, Jean Chrétien. If not for the growth of the separatist movement in the 60′s and the perceived need for the Federal government to promote anti-separatist French Canadians to counter that movement, Jean Chrétien, the son of a Paper mill machinist and a big traditional catholic family from Shawinigan, would have become only a small town lawyer in rural Quebec, not a Prime Minister. Ignatieff, the son of a diplomat and descendant of aristocrats, was way more intelligent than Chrétien and far more well-groomed. But in 2003, when listening to the evidences and reasons for the Iraq war, Jean Chrétien was opposed and decided not to join and send troops while Ignatieff was wholheartedly for that war. Just to say that Ignatieff’s academic knowledge don’t impress me and saying “we didn’t want Prime Minister Ignatieff so we’re stuck with Justin Trudeau” won’t make me regret him.

    As columnist Paul Wells wrote in 2007: “At lunch[from an influential U.S. pundits gathering] Conrad [Black] took me aside for a minute to continue berating me good-naturedly for my insufficiently-harsh criticism of Chrétien in the pages of the National Post. “C’mon, Paul,” he said. “Look at this room. Can you imagine Jean Chrétien holding his own with this lot?”
    He had a point. I couldn’t. Will, Buckley, Kissinger, Volcker, Black? Chrétien wouldn’t have made it past the doorman. Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, would have fit right in.

    Which is, still today, his problem.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. 5371 says:
    @Anonymous

    This is related to the tyranny of small differences – to you and me, Serbs and Croatians look and sound about the same, but if you ask one, they will tell you that they are NOTHING like the other, who are smelly, etc. and how dare you mistake me for one. American SWPLs live in dread of being mistaken for American trash – they are better than that. They are not worried about being mistaken for Mexicans.
     
    Likewise I have noticed the intense and nearly all-consuming antipathy of Canadians and Australians towards America & Americans, even though foreigners often have trouble distinguishing them from us. After all, we speak the same language, have almost identical founding stock, and largely share the same popular culture.

    It's one more thing Freud got right.

    I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Mel Gibson?
    , @Jefferson
    "I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American."

    Yeah the accents are quite distinguishable. Mistaking an Australian for an American when it comes to speech is like mistaking an Italian from Long Island for a native of the Appalachian region of Tennessee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @5371
    I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American.

    Mel Gibson?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. 5371 says:
    @syonredux

    ” For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big….”
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire.
     
    MMM, well, he certainly did deprive it of a huge chunk of North America......

    At the time, most people did think the loss of America was a crippling blow to the British Empire. They were surprised by how easily it recovered and continued to expand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Jefferson says:
    @5371
    I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American.

    “I never knew anyone who had trouble distinguishing an Australian from an American.”

    Yeah the accents are quite distinguishable. Mistaking an Australian for an American when it comes to speech is like mistaking an Italian from Long Island for a native of the Appalachian region of Tennessee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jefferson
    "I mean golden dawn get a a consistent 10 percent of the Greek vote, can anybody here imagine a neonazi party or an outright WN party getting 10 percent of the American vote?"

    10 percent doesn't win elections. Get back to us when The Golden Dawn runs Greece like The Democratic Party runs The United States.

    Gary Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationwide, but guess what Gary has no chance in hell of becoming the next president of The United States.

    Gary Johnson is just a protest fuck you vote. His supporters are not actually voting for him because they believe he can topple the $2 billion dollar war chest that the Hildabeast campaign will have at their fingertips.

    Hildabeast is Walmart and Gary Johnson is a mom & pop store. She will eat him alive. Gary does not have enough billionaire backers to make him a serious threat to her. Gary is operating on a shoestring budget.

    3rd parties in The U.S never have blank checks and billion dollar donors who serve as unlimited Human ATMs.

    10 percent in an election where no gets over 35 percent of the vote is a lot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. avraham says:
    @anonymous
    "The best answer to all this for me was simply to point out the school of thought of Kelley Ross based on Kant and Schopenhauer and Fries. But this advice has gone ignored. maybe people think it is too mystical."

    Is there a case to be made that "conservatism" is what happens when you dispense with all the ideologies, philosophies, and schools and just try to make common-sense decisions about things as they come up? With "common-sense" something that reflects a good bit of experience, both personal and historical? Perhaps the ideologies (and the leftist universities) make these things too complicated. That's not good.

    You would probably prefer the intuitionsit school of GE Moore and Dr Michael Huemer because of your wanting a common sense approach. I have reason to think though that Kant and Fries are deeper but not all that different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Verymuchalive
    " For example, George Washington played a major role, first, in breaking apart the British Empire for being too big...."
    I do like you Mr Steve, but you are an MBA with a serious interest in HBD and sport. Your knowledge of matters historical, particularly non-American and over 100 years old can be embarrassing however.
    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire. The growth of Empire quickly continued unabated. When the 13 former colonies were debating a constitution in 1787, Britain was devising a plan to settle a whole new continent. You may have heard of it, it's called Australia.
    Whilst fighting a tinpot Latin Dictator called Napoleon, it added to its Empire by grabbing Cape Colony, Ceylon, much of India, Malta, Trinidad. I could go on. It even burnt down much of the city of Washington as a sideshow during the period.
    By the period 1830-40, Britain was the most powerful state that has ever been, as measured by percentage of World GDP ( one of the benefits of inventing the Industrial Revolution ). Much more powerful than the US in 1945.
    Stick to what you know best, Mr Steve

    “George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire.”

    The American colonies were a part of the British empire. Washington was certainly instrumental in breaking them apart from the rest. That is not controversial.

    That the British empire did not end then and there does not change the the accuracy of Steve’s statement. He didn’t say Washington ended the empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Charles Erwin Wilson

    George Washington DID NOT play a major role in breaking apart the British Empire
     
    Without Washington the USA does not exist. How about Britain? Compare Canada's role in breaching 'Fortress Europe' (Dieppe) with the American version (D-Day). The British Mercantile system would have ensured a fragmented 13 colonies of Crown supplicants bereft of the American 'can-do' attitude needed to win WW2. With a host of colonies instead of the USA Britain becomes depleted, exhausted and not only unable to gain a continental foothold, but unable help the Rus. Instead of being crushed, Hitler stays in power.

    America in 1960 was the most powerful state that has ever been. Now the democrats and libtards like George W. Bush have ensured that a despotic power will rule the world. But it won't be Britain.

    1) The Soviet Union would have defeated Hitler with or without the United States (or Britain). Over 80% of German soldiers killed fell on the Eastern Front. When Hitler failed to knock out the Soviet Union in his lightening war of 1941, he was stuck in a war of attrition he couldn’t win.

    2) Hitler had already failed to conquer Britain and had invaded Russia by the time the US entered World War II.

    3) There were more British subjects than American citizens on the beaches of Normandy. The US didn’t have more soldiers in Europe than Britain until the end of 1944 — when it was obvious Hitler was doomed.

    4) “The British Mercantile system would have ensured a fragmented 13 colonies of Crown supplicants bereft of the American ‘can-do’ attitude needed to win WW2.” Counterfactual and probably untrue — all of the British settler societies, from Canada to Australia unified in their particular geographic area. There is no reason to believe a British North America wouldn’t have done the same.

    5) “America in 1960 was the most powerful state that has ever been.” Really? Then why was it defeated in the Korean peninsula by what was then a third-rate power, China? Power is relative.

    6) “Without Washington the USA does not exist?” Without France and Spain, the US would not exist either. George Washington won the war against Britain in the same way Churchill won the war against Hitler — he was only one factor among several.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @PSR
    Obviously I don't know what you may have experienced but I've spent a good deal of time in Canada - BC, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes - and I had the feeling people there felt like cousins to Americans. As an American I never picked up on any antipathy, even in Montreal.

    Maybe Canadians say one thing to Americans’ faces another behind their backs.

    I’m British. I lived in Canada for five years. Heard more anti-American comments there than I ever heard even on the BBC or read in the Guardian.

    Montreal — and Quebec generally — is French Canada. It’s a separate national culture and their views on America and many other topics are very different. Ditto the French-speaking parts of the Maritimes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Kylie says:
    @2Mintzin1
    The concept of globalist elites functioning as a "new aristocracy" has bothered me, also.

    Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?

    “Question: how does the behavior of our globalist elites differ from that of the intermarrying, power-sharing, royal families of (pre-WWI) Europe?”

    One big difference. Unlike today’s elites, the pre-WWI royal families did not reserve their contempt and antipathy for the workers beneath them while favoring the parasites whose net contribution to society was negative.

    I’m no historian but as far as I know, this has no historical precedent

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Alfa158
    Good one.
    Strictly speaking Joe Jr. didn't crash his plane. He was doing just fine flyin it, but it was a remote controlled bomb, and when he threw the arming switch prior to bailing out, it went off. He wasn't the only one who suffered that fate. John Jr. was the screw- up who was flying in conditions he wasn't qualified for. What they had in common was a feeling of immortality.

    Agree on JKK Jr. Joe Jr however was a brave man who volunteered for a very dangerous mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite) and died in the service of his country.

    I bow to no one in my dislike of the Kennedy clan, but your slander was out of place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Wow, my former MP finally said something smart! He got an earful from me when he knocked on my door and I yelled about Canada’s “Human Rights” Commissions for 10 minutes. “Well Mr. “Human Rights” “expert,” let me tell you…!” :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. melendwyr says: • Website
    @Yak-15
    I sort of understand the animosity for Jews and the sense that they get to have nationalism for their state, Israel, while simultaneously telling Americans they cannot have a nationalist state. Clearly that is a bit hypocritical.

    But it's silly to hate on Jews. They are not a monolith and many understand the concepts that America needs. They are also not some magical race constraining Gentiles with their control of the media, banks, etc. As it has been pointed out, that is the equivalent of the African Americans accusing whites of consciously and unconsciously banding together to hold down the negro race. It's nonsense and its equivalently stupid.

    Personally, I know many Jews of all stripes and while some are mindlessly
    Liberal and others are shamelessly hypocritical, many are not. Many are Patriots and many agree it's time to ask hard questions about the future of America.

    My revelation was that ‘Jew’ is often used as a label for a type of elite. If you take an anti-Semitic rant and replace all instances of one word with the other, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. Not necessarily in a correct way, the arguments aren’t guaranteed to be valid, but it’s not insane rambling.

    Basically it’s a type of mistaken identity. The predominance of Jews among Western intellectual elites of all types makes it easy for careless people to conflate the two concepts. And then they go about complaining about the elites using an umbrella terminology that includes all Jews. Which is nuts, since there are plenty of Jews who are neither elites nor ‘wannabe-master elites’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. […] point. In defense of equilibrium. Free association (or else). Rights, gifts, and migration (via). Rage wave. European attitudes to Muslims […]

    Read More
  177. This defense of travelers in the Bible is in part because travelers were commonly robbed in the ancient world. So what they are saying is let them pass and not bother them. Nowhere does it say you should let masses of people settle in your lands and go on your welfare system.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007