I used to work for a nonprofit that employed many foreigners on a variety of visas. It was a legitimate nonprofit that tried to be upright and follow the law. Most of the foreigners were from the young end of their home countries’ bourgeois class, so, not “huddled masses”. Still, it was hard not to notice certain patterns in nationality and immigration behavior.

Western Europeans almost all returned to their home countries more or less on time before visa expiry. Eastern Europeans, South Americans, Turks and Asians were more mixed. Some returned home, some skipped out and overstayed, some stayed more or less legitimately (marriage, new job with new visa, etc.). As for Africans, I never saw a single one return home once they got here.

Jujitsu-ing immortal bureaucratic boondoggles into being more favorable if they can’t be eliminated is a good idea … in theory. Unfortunately, if by tilting “US demographics more in your direction” you mean more toward the pre-1965 ethnic composition, in this case the immigration pressure is exactly the opposite of what you would want for such jujitsu to work in practice. The people north and west of the Hajnal line have perfectly nice countries to return to and they usually do, even if offered an open invitation here.

The less desirable peoples’ home countries are, the more desirous they are of coming here, and the more motivated they are to walk though any and all loopholes to do it. As long as there are loopholes, those will be the people squeezing through them. See comment above in reply to Hokie (#56?).

Overall, the problem resembles the Douglas Adams/Ann Barnhardt analysis of political power: the more someone wants it, the less fit they are to have it. In immigration, the prospective immigrants we might actually want are the ones with the least incentive to come here. To the extent both problems are solvable, the solution probably involves reducing the attractions to psychopath politicians/scamster immigrants. For political office this means keeping government small, limited, and unremunerative. For immigration this means immigration insurance, desubsidization, disemployment, and speedy deportation. Except for immigration insurance, all of these things existed here in living memory.

Yes, Ann Coulter really is the Queen of walking into the lion’s den of hostile media, defending the truth without a script against well prepped opponents who preemptively claim the high ground, and emerging unbroken and unbowed … and with good humor intact! There is no one better at this difficult and unforgiving game.

That said, she made a misstep in the BBC Newsnight interview posted by Anon. At 1:44, as soon as the words “language” and “tone” came out of Evan Davis’s mouth, she should have cut him off and turned the subject onto him with something like, “Since you’re now asking me about ‘language’ and ‘tone’, I see that you have no quibble with the actual substance of my book.”

Instead, by letting him gas on, she had to walk through the obviously awaiting trap of being called “racist”, which she dealt with creditably, but she burned up valuable interview minutes deflecting the R-word when she could have been showing that Davis and the immigrants are actually the racist and intolerant wreckers. At 5:11 she does finally manage to drive the truck back out of the ditch and does immediately begin rolling over Davis with it. Davis, his “racism” trick is disposed of, immediately begins pleading for mercy, the wanker. Being polite and well bred, Ann grants him clemency. Being a perfidious pansy, Davis immediately uses his breathing room to re-try his only interview technique: character assassination, this time using a “gay marriage” knife. Ann deals with it more efficaciously this time.

I used to work for a nonprofit that employed many foreigners on a variety of visas. It was a legitimate nonprofit that tried to be upright and follow the law. Most of the foreigners were from the young end of their home countries’ bourgeois class, so, not “huddled masses”. Still, it was hard not to notice certain patterns in nationality and immigration behavior.

Western Europeans almost all returned to their home countries more or less on time before visa expiry. Eastern Europeans, South Americans, Turks and Asians were more mixed. Some returned home, some skipped out and overstayed, some stayed more or less legitimately (marriage, new job with new visa, etc.). As for Africans, I never saw a single one return home once they got here.

“We are supposedly not the center of the universe, but someone with a scientific education is able, in five seconds, to name five parameters which, if the universe differed by a percent or two with respect to that parameter, we could not exist. There are, so far, zero convincing arguments supporting the conclusion that, with respect to those parameters, we actually are not at the center of the universe.”

I would like to think that this is true, but I can’t come up with any parameters that if they differed slightly, we would not exist. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is that from Earth, the Moon and Sun appear to be about the same size, which is a heckuva coincidence, but I’m not sure it has life-or-death significance for us, since the only consequences of this that I can see are relatively even eclipses and even but not catastrophic tides.

Did you have five parameters in mind?

“been duly acquitted by an all-male, all white jury”

Actually, Byron de la Beckwith’s first two trials resulted in hung juries, not acquittals. His third trial resulted in a conviction and life sentence, albeit after the time described in the article. Still, one would expect a greater attachment to facts from a Harvard academic who wears his credentials on his sleeve.

I too, whenever I see one of these apples-to-oranges financial comparisons (or maybe stationary-apples-to-moving-apples would be a better metaphor) suspect that the writer doesn’t know the difference between stocks and flows. And with mainstream journalists, this is usually true. Most of them are utterly innumerate.

On the other hand, comparing large economic values, even stock amounts (such as debt), to GDP is, as Steve says, a common rule of thumb, and even in legitimate financial analysis, there are many ratios that combine Balance Sheet (stock) and Income Statement (flow) numbers, such as Inventory Turns, Return on Assets, Asset Turnover, etc. Granted that these ratios apply to a unitary entity where the stocks and flows feed directly into each other, which is not necessarily the case in the large economy comparisons journalists make, but still, the approach is not necessarily invalid on its face, in spite of the suspicions it arouses in me that the author is out of his depth.

In addition to the items ably complied here by Jus’ Sayin’, there is

5.5) Aided and abetted Bill in his sexual abuse and harassment of women, all while loudly pretending with a straight face to be a woman’s champion.

7.1) Her figure as a politician came almost entirely without winning any actual elections. Her only election wins were as the US Senator from NY (where she doesn’t really live anyway), the first election of which she only won only by a few percentage points after her initial marquee opponent (Guliani) dropped out due to marital problems and cancer and the Repubs had to scramble to put a placeholder no-name opponent into the race. The second she won more easily (albeit again against a no-name opponent), but Senatorial re-election rates are approximately the same as for re-election to the Soviet politburo.

13.1) The Benghazi failure/betrayal/cover-up was all the more galling in light of her 2008 campaign ad touting how she would be the experienced and wise one to respond to the national emergency 3AM phone call to the White House. Well, in 2012 that phone call came from Benghazi, and Hillary promptly stabbed the Americans in the back.

Also, she managed to compile this massive record of failure while having the uncritical backing of big media four-square behind her, so contrary to her whiny complaint of being a victim of (fictitious) “the vast right-wing conspiracy”, she was in fact a beneficiary of the actual vast left-wing conspiracy and still manages to work her anti-Midas magic on everything she touches.

Whenever I meet a Hillary supporter (not very often, few citizens want to identify themselves this way), I ask why? What are her accomplishments? An awkward silence always follows.

Hillary is a failure as a person, a politician and a “public” “official”. She may be the person in the US least fit for office. That she is the largest party’s front runner says a lot about the party and the nation.

I (and others) noticed the same thing too, but, as usual, the Chronical of Higher Ed misses the significance of the observation. When a society/economy is pre-industrial, most of socially respectable men are farmers, artisans, merchants, etc. As possibilities for modern industrialism begin to emerge, ambitious families send their sons to engineering/technical schools. If you go to Arab/Muslim societies, you’ll find engineering credentials are very common among what passes for the modern middle class. In as much as isolated goat herders don’t have the resources to launch a terrorism career, the terrorists that reach the West are from the same middlish classes where engineering degrees prevail. The engineering credentials are an effect of their class, not a cause.

Engineering/technical credentials were once very common in the West too among the mover/shaker class starting in the 19th century up to about a generation ago (they are now displaced by the useless legal/financial parasites). The difference is the Western engineering/technicals produced innovations that revolutionized the world. The Arab/Muslim engineering/technicals produced approximately nothing. When the Western e/t’s wanted to step back and to do something of cultural significance, they wrote imaginative science fiction. When the Arab/Muslim e/t’s want to do something significant, they attack infidels.

I’ve seen this here before, but there couldn’t be a more opportune time…

Video Link

Darn, try this link instead:

Video Link

“a campaign of anti-white agitation which appears to have led to a large increase — especially in Baltimore but also nationally — of blacks murdering blacks (the homicide rate in 2015 in the 50 biggest cities was up 16% over 2014, with the worst spikes concentrated in heavily black cities.)”

Is it really the case that the increase is only of blacks murdering other blacks? One would suppose that decreased policing of blacks would lead to an increase of blacks murdering everybody, especially given the documented black talent for ethnic out-murder.

Even if the “blacks murdering blacks” formulation is meant to confound BLM rhetoric, it accepts the BLM assumption that only the lives of blacks matter.

I’d try to answer this myself, but the FBI’s data ends with 2013.

Hate crimes.

The rate is 0%, by definition.

Too bad Obama won’t use that Federal gadgetry to protect any other American daughters from real threats. Just his own daughters from imaginary threats.

I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing, but still it is an interesting detail. He (uncle) was a ravening Commie who sat out the war in the relative ease of Rhodesia (perhaps partly thanks to his green card-ish marriage to Lessing) setting up Communist organizations wherever he went (he appears never to have had a real job). After the war he divorced Lessing and returned to der Vaterland where he promptly was rewarded with a series of prestigious international postings by the DDR. He finally managed to get himself and his latest wife killed in a Ugandan riot.

Gysi’s dad was also a DDR big shot (Minister of Culture), which I suppose would make him akin to the bloated apparatchiks memorably portrayed in the 2006 film The Lives of Others.

“The decent performance of Tats and Azeris suggests that Islamic culture and scientific competence aren’t as inevitably antithetical as you might suspect.”

Welllll … or maybe it suggests that biology matters more than nominal religion. Krymchaks (crypto-Jews) and Tats and Azeris (crypto-Persians) stem from ethnes with well established histories of achievement.

This is like the claims about the oft-cited but barely experienced Islamic Golden Age of Science, in which most of the notable scientists of the Arabo-Islamic “Golden Age” turn out to be Persians, Jews, recycled Greeks or Helleno-Egyptians, plagiarized Indians, etc., and often they are of only recent or dubious Muslim-ness. Islam takes the credit–or such credit as is available–for the work of what were really subject peoples.

Islam was originally a minority religion of a conquering warrior elite who lived parasitically on the fruits–literal and figurative–of the conquered. As in the modern Western welfare states, a parasite class can be supported for time, providing that there are sufficient Jizyah-payers to keep the parasites in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. With time, the Jizyah-payers think “enough of this” and convert (nominally) to Islam to live on someone else’s Jizyah. This works until the increasing parasites swamp the diminishing hosts. Then you end up with … well, the Muslim world of the last few centuries: moribund, jealous, internecinely hostile. The only ways for Muslims out of this dead end are either

1) to abandon Islam, or at least the most civilizationally destructive aspects of it, which had been happening in a mild way as the more intelligent Muslims recognized and emulated Western superiority, or

2) to find new lands of dhimmi jizya-payers to begin the whole destructive cycle over again.

Fortunately, after centuries of negative experiences with Islam, today none of Islam’s neighbors is stupid enough to allow hordes of hostile Muslims colonists into their lands … oh, wait!

“In Michel Houellebecq’s 2015 novel Submission, the new Muslim president of France moves the capital of the E.U. from northerly Brussels to Rome to be closer to the center of a new/old unified realm …”

FWIW, in Vladimir Solovyov’s 1900 novella A Story of Anti-Christ, the new world-leader (antichrist) character moves the capital of the European world from northerly Berlin to Rome and eventually to Jerusalem to be close to the center of a new/old unified realm …

Not that I’m suggesting anything here.

So, let me get this straight. Bacevich (or whoever) thinks that sub-saharan Africans’ fear of drone strikes is causing them to migrate towards the the drone operators? Is that correct?

“Someone in the NYT (I think) declared that islam has always been a part of America and that islam in effect contributed to the Founding of America. ”

I think the “Someone” you refer to was Obama, who has been spouting this “Islam has always been a part of America” hooey for a while. And yes, his NYT courtiers love to reprint it. And yes, it is transparently false. And yes, he is almost certainly saying it to try to normalize Islamic infiltration and occupation. And yes, Kaplan’s also false Islam-is-part-of-Europe meme is probably for the same purpose.

To be fair, the most reductionist interpretation of the Obama/Kaplan Islam-was-always-part-of- thesis is sort of true, … Islam has always been part of America/Europe in the same sense that malaria has always been a part of the tropics, or that gravity has always been part of the space program. You know, “Yes, but not in a good way.”

In the great leftist tradition of being half correct (the useless half), Ehrlich correctly foresaw that the UK (and elsewhere West) was endangered, but got the cause–and therefore the prescription–exactly backwards. The UK wasn’t going to succumb to too many Brits, it was going to succumb to too few Bits and too little Britishness.

Anyhow, as pointed out previously on this page by Jay, the fact that Ehrlich followed The Population Bomb with The Golden Door arguing for unrestricted immigration from environment-ravishing societies pretty well suggests he was arguing in bad faith the entire time anyway.

Heh. I have a Bronx-born Jewish friend who loved to regale me with tales of how horrible the mean, nasty American white people were and are to the innocent, humble black people. I used to try to rebut, temper and contextualize his arguments, but he always had more energy for this kind of thing than I did, so I finally just let him go on uninterrupted until he said everything he had to say and he took my lack of rebuttal for assent. Offhandedly, I said, “And that’s why you just moved to the whitest zip code in the country,” and then changed the subject.

I haven’t heard white supremacy complaint since.

US Africa Command (“AFRICOM”) is based in Germany. Even if it weren’t, by moving towards the West/First World, the migrants would be moving culturally, socially and transportationally towards the drone operators.

Anyway, the drones-are-chasing-the-migrants-here meme is fallacious on its face. According to the HuffPo, drones have killed 2400 people. Given the HuffPo’s orientation, this is probably the highest figure they can justify. But even taking it at face value, and assuming (wrongly) that all of these were killed in subsaharan Africa, that would still only be about one in 30,000 people or about 1/10 of the indigenous/endemic murder rate, if it happened all in one year, which it didn’t, so it’s more like 1/100 of the indigenous/endemic murder rate. In reality of course, most drone strikes are not in Africa, they are in Pakistan, specifically Waziristan, so the actual drone rates in Africa are probably one one-hundredth smaller than even the above figures, and what little there is mainly in Somalia, while the migrants are coming from all over Africa. I think it is fair to say that most traditional village dwellers have a network of familiar acquaintances that is highly local and consists of no more than one or two hundred people. So the odds of anyone in Africa actually knows anyone killed in a drone strike must be something like one in 50,000 or about 0.002%. What is the motive for the other 99.998% who don’t know anyone killed in a drone strike? And if drone strikes really drive migration, why isn’t the whole province of Waziristan already here? The numbers and the psychology just don’t add up.

Professor Bacevich seems to me to be an intelligent, decent and honorable man. It should be noted that his only son was killed in the Iraq occupation. It is just possible that he has a tiny bit of a chip on his shoulder because of this. And I don’t blame him at all. I would too. I even agree with him that the US occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan) has gone on for too long to no clear purpose. But this has nothing to do with migrants.

Well, you’ve read more Bacevich than I have, so I’ll take your word for it. I actually agree that US actions have something to do with causing migration. We toppled Qaddafi and Mubarak, and are trying with Assad. Whatever their faults, these guys were restraining migration. Now they’re gone, thanks to us. Obama gives speeches broadly supportive of Islam, Muslims and migrants, encouraging their consciousness of themselves as a special class that will be protected in the West and vilifying those who oppose their migration. These actions are really helping precipitate the migration tsunami. The odd drone strike, killing fewer than die in a mild Mediterranean squall is irrelevant.

And I agree that US defense and foreign policy is irrational (unless you hate civilization, liberty, religion and America). The Pentagon seems to me to be unfortunately NOT out of control. It does exactly whatever the White House tells it to do no matter how self destructive or irrational. The problem is in the White House and the wider culture/population that puts the White House people into the White House.

It would be interesting to know if that 7% is mainly from women. My impression is that male African slaves in Islam were/are castrated or worked to death without breeding.

These guys make the peninsular Arabs to be 14% African, but they say it is mostly from the prehistorical founding migrations.

http://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59

Nevertheless, they concede some of it is from slavery, one indicator of which is excess female vs. male DNA, as the Arabs typically castrated or worked to death without breeding male African slaves.

Well, I’d like to agree with you but…

Prior to WWII, the US workforce already looked like what you say is optimal: different ethnic groups contributing their comparative advantage. This meant there were a lot of WASP and Jewish professionals and executives, and a lot of black and Irish menial laborers. The later civil rights/affirmative action era wasn’t about making sure blacks were employed, it was about making sure blacks got into the same schools and same jobs as WASPs and Jews. In other words, it created the artificial homogeneity that you say is bad. (It also raised black unemployment rates, but that’s another story.)

“Baghdad went from being a sophisticated modern city to a hell hole with the local “elites” (pronounced “gangsters”) in charge.”

Occam’s Razor says maybe the problem isn’t local control, it’s just that Iraq’s local elites suck. After all, Tel Aviv run by Israelis and Tokyo run by Japanese seem to work well enough.

“Even in Germany where the people are hard working and able to sustain an economy, once they got done making themselves pure their universities went from being of first rank in the world to permanent mediocrity (and the American universities who got all their rejects shot to the top).”

This would be more convincing if Germany’s cities had not been bombed back to the Stone Age, while America had the First World’s only unbombed cities and beaucoup bucks to lavish on universities.

Incidentally, now that US Universities enjoy top reputations, what exactly have they accomplished lately? I mean besides their blatantly false programs of ethnic resentment.

Maybe it had less to do with the Romans and more to do with the barbarians.

I don’t really know the answer either, but I note that the Germans lost a lot of battles against the Romans starting in 102BC at Aquae Sextiae, but somehow always managed to come back for more. They continued this win-some-lose-some back and forth with the Romans for five centuries until they won decisively and sacked Rome.

By comparison, the Celts and Gauls mostly lost, succumbed and were absorbed within a century or two. The Carthaginians mostly won, but not quite, then lost decisively and were absorbed in 120 years. The formerly formidable Macedonians lost and were absorbed in less than a century. The very formidable Persians (Parthians and Sassanids) in seven centuries of desultory (and costly) warfare never managed to upend Rome, and then succumbed to the Arabs.

For whatever reason, the primitive, unglamorous Germans coming out of the forests and marshes around the Baltic turned out to be the long-term winners in the thousand-year slog for European domination. Of course, they immediately took to fighting each other (Franks vs. Saxons vs. Visigoths vs. Ostrogoths vs. etc.), but that doesn’t change the fact that from the fifth century on, most of Europe was recognizably German (“Gothic”).

As I say, I don’t really know the answer, it’s just that we usually ask the question from the Roman point of view because they’re the ones who left all the records, but maybe the German point of view is the question that has an answer, i.e., not “Why did the (western) Romans fall?”, but “Why did the Germans rise?” Every other contender for Europe eventually fell by the wayside, some with glorious ruins, some without. For some reason, the Germans persisted. Until Merkel.

We did. The big media just made sure you didn’t know about it.

http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2011-05-20.html
[scroll down to end of item 06]

Per Derbyshire, we got about 58,000 new “Americans” in the first year and a half after the earthquake, and those are just the ones the semi-competent government knows about. I’m sure there are more by now.

Clearly Maher has been getting a whiff of alt-right Realtalk®, and has decided that it is time to bring his feebleminded followers back to within throwing distance of reality, before they (and he) drift into utter self-parody.

Hmm. Does that mean that Europeans can actually do something about it now that the Magic Negro said it is a major national security issue?

Isn’t the problem with abortion–aside from the whole killing babies aspect–I mean, the social problem with abortion, isn’t it that it is the more cognitively capable who avail themselves of it, leading to their offspring being erased, while the cognitive underclass breeds ever more recklessly?

As I recall, this was the essence of Sailer’s debunking of Levitt’s abortion-reduces-crime meme.

I think you’ve hit on a piece of a more general axiom:

Conservatism at home; Progressiveism for your opponents/competitors.

You know, sort of like the Eskimos do.

Or to put it in Sailer/Derbyshire-speak: Conservatism in one country.

A corollary of the Conservative-at-home-Progressive-abroad axiom is that in reality, everyone is Conservative about themselves. The only difference between Progs and Conservatives is that Conservatives allow others to be Conservatives about themselves as well; Progs insist everyone else be Progressive while they remain self-conservative (usually while trying to camouflage their own conservative actions, as Steve has documented so thoroughly in real estate).

Incidentally, I think this explains the apparent “leapfrogging loyalties” of Liberals/Progressives that has appeared as a baffling theme on this blog and elsewhere. In reality, Libs/Progs don’t have any loyalty at all. Their only “loyalty” is hyper-selfish. Their leapfrogging “concern” for others is just a put-on meant to extort more self-destructively Proggish behavior from their near competitors. As with any game of brinkmanship, occasionally a participant goes too far and falls over the brink, but don’t let that distract you from what is actually going on.

Liberals are notorious back-stabbers.

“Households are often composed of three generations of women living together and visited by their current sexual partners. Women compete for men as sexual partners and dump them as soon as they get bored. Actually it’s a lot like Negro underclass life in the developed world but sans gangs, firearms, and drugs.”

It’s not just the developed world’s Negro underclass life that is like that now. Seen the white underclass lately?

It’s been a while since I was in Africa, but when I was I do recall seeing one woman who lived as you describe, but she was something of an outcast living at the fringe of the village. But as with so many things nowadays, the fringe has become the core, so maybe whole villages are like that now. Well, anyway if this is the new female-empowered/liberated Africa, then for purposes of our discussion, the real question is how does the TFR compare to the old male-empowered/patriarchal Africa?

I do too.

I believe they are usually produced in Chinese-owned factories using Chinese labor. They exploit the tax regime and lower US import tariffs of the host country.

Dambisa Moyo has been saying the same thing for years. Of course it doesn’t fit the Narrative, so she’s not well known.

She also pointed out that if a country’s GDP growth rate is alleged to be say, 4% (not unusual in subsaharan Africa), that is not really “developing” when the population growth rate is say 6% (also not unusual in SSA).

Steve,

Have you tried Square Cash? It makes those other systems look byzantine.

cash.me

Weird, I thought I put this on the fundraising post. Now it is here.

“Obama disdains what he regards as needy, showboating allies”

Yeah, that’s his job!

Admitted, my experience was

1) anecdotal,

2) in East Africa rather than the west African home of so much emigration, voluntary and otherwise, and

3) three decades ago, so the British colonial influence may have still been pervading the countryside. Since everyone agrees that colonialism was the Worst Thing Ever, all “colonial” influences may have been eliminated by now, and the villagers returned to their default lifestyle.

Why should they be under 50? It takes time to develop a serious, stable, comprehensive Weltanschauung. It’s rare in people under 50, and practically nonexistent in people under 40. There’s a reason The Elders are elder.

Even the Left, which idolizes youth, doesn’t really have any young intellectuals. The apparently young, apparently intellectual, e.g., Cenk Uygur, are really neither. Uygur is 46 and is just a loudmouth showman/mountebank yelling very old, brittle and meaningless “ideas”.

By contrast, Steve’s ideas are new, genuine, vital, relevant, and subject to a lot of good faith cross examination. Steve is over 50. So what?

Couple of wrinkles here.

First regarding Hollywood: most movies lose money. You might think that’s the nature of the beast, but occasional movie forays by more hardheaded business types manage to bat way above the Hollywood average. A fairly obvious strategy is to make movies for the underserved G-rated market segment and avoid the over-saturated R-rated market segment. Yet Hollywood prefers to stuff the already overstuffed pipe of R-rated culture-dreck. Why? Draw your own conclusions, but “business acumen” probably won’t be one of them.

Second, yes the university monoculture of coercive prog-obeisance certainly gives the Left volume. But what does the Left do with that volume? To the extent it has ideas, they are just 80-year-old duds repackaged in new SJW wrappers. Empty shells fired from the world’s biggest howitzer are still just empty shells: sound and fury signifying nothing. The only time the Left evinces something resembling thinking is when confronted by a genuine idea from outside their bubble. Then they think how to force the new idea to serve in the slave caravan of their Narrative. Or more usually, they just think how to murder the new idea before anyone hears it freely.

When you have truth, you don’t need volume. One shining truth, curtly presented, slays a million mewling lies.

We mainly agree here.

The original comment (#4) said, “liberals don’t do the business thing very well (except for Hollywood)”, which is true except for the exception. Hollywood doesn’t really “make” money in the productive business sense. Most of Hollywood’s affluence stems from oligopolies, abusive accounting, gullible investors and the tragic willingness of so many star-struck dupes to toss their lives, souls and fortunes into the maw of that pitiless machine. Producing a good and valuable product, not so much.

Who is Whiskey and why do you want to meet him?

“The university would not provide names of the students, citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. … In consultation with the Wicomico County State’s Attorney’s Office, the department has decided to not file criminal charges at this time.”

Is this what they do when the supposed perps are white? I’m just trying to remember.

Also, what’s up with the bizarre verb in the headline?

“Black students connected in SU racist drawing”

“Connected” to each other? Or is it just to avoid writing “implicated”?

The Douther is a real moron.

If people want a king, it’s because a king focuses on the kingdom.

What we have is an empire, and the imperial presidency has turned the president into an emperor(albeit a puppet-emperor) of the GLOB order.

I think it’s better to have a ‘king’ than an ’emperor’.

Emperor is too focused on the world to care about the security and interests of his own kingdom.
Once the rulers become addicted to World Power, that of the empire, then one’ s own kingdom or republic seems so puny and small. Addiction to scale.

So, the paradox of Trump is he wants to be the big man to focus on the little people of his ‘kingdom’. He wants ‘kingdom first’ than ’empire always’.

And that is the good side of Putin. He wants to be the Russian leader of Russia, not the world.

It is the US that is an empire, and it is US presidents who’ve been acting like globo-emperors.

No more emperors trying to rule the world. Better to have kings focusing on the kingdom.

As the Romans found out, when you conquer the world, the world conquers you. All roads that lead out from Rome also lead to Rome.

How many of these were people defending themselves and their property against some form of criminal assault? The criminal would not want to report it for obvious reasons, and the shooter/intended victim may not want to entangle themselves with DC’s notoriously gun-grabbing administration.

I’m inclined to agree with Polly Perkins & 5371. It’s only in the Ukraine where Putin has really annexed territory to Russia, and then only territory underneath ethnic Russians.

Elsewhere in the “near abroad”, e.g., the Baltics, he advocates for the interests of ethnic Russians, sometimes intimidatingly, but does not seek to add territory.

In Chechnya, he restored territory that was part of the original Russian Federation. This may have been unnecessary and/or unwise, but after the military humiliation of the First Chechen War, Putin probably correctly determined that Russian prestige had to be restored even if the military objective was unimportant.

“13. Children are an entirely private affair. Immigration takes care of the labour market and of any other demographic problems.”

Is this really a Principle of Political Correctness? The Left wants children’s’ education and upbringing, right down to their (early and promiscuous) sexual behavior, determined by the regime, not “private” at all.

Maybe he means Political Correctness wants childlessness to be a private, laissez-faire, nothing-can-be-done-about-it matter, thereby justifying mass immigration.

“People in the Congo hacking each other up has been going on since the 1990s at least.”

Um, do you mean the 1990s of the Pleistocene?

Video Link

Isn’t this just the dimwitted liberal’s take on classic Sailer real estate reporting?

http://takimag.com/article/the_san_fran_whitening_plan_steve_sailer/print

http://takimag.com/article/wasted_advantages_steve_sailer/print

Dimwitted LA Times: cities’ puzzling “failure to attract” blacks

Definitive Sailer explanation: savvy cities actively repelling blacks

This is why I hardly bother with reading the liberal prestige press anymore. The effort required to untangle their stupidity is just better used elsewhere.

And yes, Minneapolis is probably “attracting” (i.e., getting dumped with) Somalis, which they will eventually regret.

Yes, the 14th Amendment, despite its dubious enactment history, is the basis of almost all abhorrent SCotUS decisions. Besides what was already mentioned, a slew of decisions came out after the 1964 Civil Rights Act effectively repealing the 1st Amendment by judicial fiat. The Heart of Atlanta Motel case ended your freedom of association by a dubious invocation of the Commerce Clause to trump the 1st Amendment. This is the legal basis of the current homo-jihad against Christian bakers and wedding planners.

Lefty Justice Brennan slipped anchor babies into law on the back of the 14th Amendment in Plyler v. Doe in 1982. Anchor babies could be repealed by an act of Congress, but no doubt the Left will insist that it is a sacred constitutional right that can only be repealed by amendment, even though it was not created by amendment.

At some point, we will probably want to dig up the graves of these “justices” and hang them in chains at Tyburn.

Lower housing prices for houses identical to those of whites should be seen as a feature not a bug. Most young blacks wish to associate and marry other young blacks. When they do marry and settle down they need only take on a mortgage half that of their white peers, allowing them to devote more of their salaries to life’s little luxuries and savings. And with more of this economy going government, salaries between blacks and whites will continue to reach parity.

Young whites are being financially crushed by the need/desire to live amongst other young whites, especially in “hot” urban areas such as New York, San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle. They should envy their black peers.

“Blacks aren’t necessarily getting a “better deal” finding cheaper homes in black neighborhoods.”

Au contraire, blacks have options whites do not have. They can buy into a white neighborhood at the same price as whites. Unlike whites, if they can’t get the sale, they can try to force a favorable sale by alleging discrimination. If they want a real estate bargain and can put up with the neighbors, they can buy into a black neighborhood. Whites would usually not survive the same procedure.

At every step of their lives, the actions of whites are scrutinized for possible signs of racism and consequent asset extraction. The criteria for prosecution and punishment are subtle, trivial and ever-changing. Blacks do not suffer this handicap. Instead, they enjoy affirmative action loans, affirmative action employment, affirmative action law, and affirmative action culture.

Yes, America is structurally racist, just not in the way the Left says.

Yes.

The financial analysis is not quite right. Blacks may or may not get the same home appreciation as whites. A house bought for $75,000 on ML King Drive may appreciate, while a house bought on Shady Maple Lane for $150,000 may depreciate. Obviously, there can be a dramatic depreciation event when a neighborhood “goes black”, but then the depreciation damage falls on the existing homeowners (white), not on the new purchasers (black).

Once the neighborhood is already black, there is not necessarily any more depreciation on the black buyers. Indeed, with the prospect of gentrification, they may sell at a profit. So arguably blacks win two ways, while whites lose two ways. Plus blacks have the option to buy into white neighborhoods at white prices if they don’t like the low prices in black neighborhoods.

I’ve never seen a country-wide survey of this, but my own observations are that most buildings in black neighborhoods are owned by absentee landlords (usually also black), so the benefit of the above-described Black Privilege mostly goes to a narrow circle of black landlords rather than to a wide circle of black tenants. Many buildings are former single family homes segmented into duplexes or even quadruplexes, so the landlords can get more tenants into the same space. Rent defaults and evictions are common. Little love is lost between tenants and landlords. Since this is largely an intra-black phenomenon, the prestige (white) media don’t cover it. Though I do recall “Mr. Landlord” as a recurrent antagonist in Eddie Murphy’s “Mister Robinson’s Neighborhood” sketch series on SNL.

“This is absurd. Sure, low cost housing is a benefit to new buyers, but it’s bad for long time owners and sellers. And blacks aren’t getting the home value appreciation benefits that whites are. That is real.”

No. “Low” prices are relative. What matters for appreciation, i.e., what is “real”, is change in prices. As already mentioned, in a real estate blackening event the downward change in prices falls on the existing white homeowners, not on the black buyers.

Superman, the original commenter, was correct. Real estate is a good game for blacks. Entry prices are lower than for whites. Prices in the ‘hood are usually already at bottom, and so can go up with gentrification or just good old fashioned appreciation. They usually will not go down. For whites, prices can rise or fall. If they fall, it is usually cataclysmic for the homeowner.

In spite of these evident facts, Emily Badger can’t stop publicly whining on behalf of people she likely doesn’t know and never met.

Maybe somebody who knows more about real estate development can explain this to me.

Why is it that when a Large, Well Capitalized Entity wants to do some mass-relocation project (Nickerson building their chicken hacking plant, a city offloading their Section 8 tenants, QUANGOs dumping migrants, etc.), they look for an existing village, town or suburb to crush? In America, there is plenty of open space, and many of these projects obviously require new infrastructure anyway, so they’re not really going to be able to piggyback on what is already there. In Nickerson’s case for example, why not just build a new industrial park on a new road spur? Then you don’t have to fight the locals for planning permissions, you can build it just how you want, and you don’t have to dig up existing streets to lay new sewers and power cables, so it’s probably cheaper than trying to piggyback a 1000-position project on a 400-resident town.

It’s almost like LWCEs take some perverse pleasure in crushing sleepy little Quietsburgs.

Black majority.

Actually, it did mean something: Communists assassinate elected officials.

Which is exactly why the Left has spent every day since then trying to bury it under a lot of vague “gun violence” and “hate” rhetoric, or just denying it by using conspiracy theories.

Well, I think in this case they deemed the race right to be served by the property right, so it was a no-brainer.

“When I had kids, I vowed my kids were going to grow up in a place that looked exactly like Leave it to Beaver Land, no matter what it cost. And that is exactly what I did. Maybe the “no matter what it cost” are what drives up prices.”

Yes, it does. This was explained in detail in this 13-year-old Sailer classic, which oddly has gone referenced on this thread so far, even though it’s pertinent to about half the comments:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/bad-schools-immigration-and-the-great-middle-class-massacre

Hmmm … I’ve never been there, but I always had the impression that Las Vegas is mostly white with a Hispanic service class, not so black.

Sort of. The massive fed subsidy is of college loans, which does make the loans at least appear cheaper, but makes college massively more expensive.

Grock your diversity comment!

Darn, that should say “…has gone unreferenced…”

Thanks for the thoughts/spitballs.

My reactions:

1. From what I’ve seen, federal involvement is usually a result of locals pulling the feds in to be their proxy warrior against the LWCE investor/invader. So this would still be a point in favor of a greenfield project.

2. Could be. This probably has a discernible answer. I just don’t know what it is.

3. Does happen. Yet LWCEs often persevere even without a political ringer.

4. Maybe, but I’m not sure this doesn’t also happen to non-white Sleepyburgs. It’s just that there are relatively few of those in the US. OtOH, LWCEs probably don’t want the adverse publicity of “LWCE Crushes Historic Minority Town!” headlines. So picking on white Sleepyburgs protects them from the media’s well-honed race angle.

On another iSteve thread there was a discussion of the phenomenon of something appearing to be a conspiracy, but really being just the result of everyone pursuing their self-interest in a way that is disadvantageous to a certain group, but happens without central planning or organization. We need a name for that. A “coincidence-spiracy”, “coincispiracy”? I think the thread was on the idea that the drug war might be a master plan against violent black men.

5. Yeah, might overlap with 3.

6. Heh. Yeah, sad but maybe true.

“Research shows that homes in majority black neighborhoods do not appreciate as much as homes in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. This appreciation gap begins whenever a neighborhood is more than 10% black, and it increases right along with the percentage of black homeowners.”

Inasmuch as majority white neighborhoods have pricier houses than majority black neighborhoods, when there is appreciation, more dollars will accrue to the pricier houses. I.e., 10% appreciation on a $200k house is twice as many dollars as 10% appreciation on a $100k house. This is math, not racism.

As for blacks preferring non-stock market investments, whose fault is that supposed to be? When the stock market tanks but real estate holds steady (a common occurrence) does Forbes say this unduly penalizes whites? Thought not.

I read the article at the URL. Almost every paragraph has a logic/statistic/financial/assumption error. Still, thanks for sharing. It’s helpful to know what the big media are up to.

Steve,

Have you seen Aaron Renn’s City Journal article referenced above by Mike Zwick, or the shorter version of it published in the LA Times?

Aaron Renn is a somewhat silly person who grossly misunderstands people’s motives and the purpose and desirability of pursuing certain policy objectives, but his observations of recent US race demographics are clear and consistent. And what he observes seems to have profound implication for the Dirt Gap™ foundation of the Sailer Strategy™.

The Blue state metropolis policies that drive out middle class whites also drive out all classes of blacks. I know you know this already, but where are those blacks going? According to Renn, to the Affordable Family Formation™ towns of the American interior.

Renn’s foremost example is Chicago, which he says has shed more blacks than anywhere else. He puzzles over their migration to colder and whiter Minneapolis and to poorer and rural-er Danville and Carbondale. Renn apparently lives only in white enclaves and he probably doesn’t actually know any black people, so he can only partially answer his own questions. If he had more experience with his article’s subject, he might be able to see that Minnesota’s generous welfare is drawing blacks to the Twin Cities, while an Illinois welfare check is a livable “wage” in low-cost of Danville and Carbondale. (Welfare entrepreneurship is alive and well in the black community.)

Thus the supreme irony would be that while Democrat-friendly policies create coastal Whitopias, Republican-friendly policies create interior Blackhavens.

peaceably to assemble / freely to associate

tomato / tomahto

See Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

How did you become so familiar with McCain’s and Trump’s personal lives?

And yes, McCain does want border jumpers to take his country, so “cuck” is apropos.

Black politics turned into a culture of complaint. Even white Libs got sick of it even as they kept mum. So, Clinton came up with New Democrats. And people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were loathed even by white Libs. White Libs kept up the alliance but never would have supported such people.

Obama’s winning touch in 2008 was he wasn’t part of this Culture of Complaint. Or he kept it under wraps with his bogus charm and smiles. He seemed like a clean-cut Negro who wanted to have a conversation than complain and bitch incessantly.

I think after 8 yrs, people have wised up to the fact that he is just a weasel punk.
In a way, Obama didn’t have to complain much since he could coast on the media promoting him, big money being behind him, and the 2008 financial crisis that, on top of Iraq fiasco, dealt the GOP a bad hand.
No political candidate had it so easy as Obama as in 2008. Crisis, money, media, academia, pop culture, cult of hope, and the world(that was sick of Bush II and uneasy about insane McCain) all on his side.

Anyway, Trump’s appeal is different. He is a white guy who complains. Sometimes, he complains loudly, even lewdly. His is a white culture of complaint.

For the longest time, white guys didn’t complain. It was part of Anglo legacy. It seemed improper or gauche for a white man to complain and bitch. In 1992, the media were totally biased against Bush I, but Bush never complained about the media. It just wasn’t his style. It was beneath him to complain and be seen as a sourpuss.
It was the Anglo-American style of being aloof of petty stuff and maintaining decorum. Nixon was hated because he tended to sometimes complain, mostly famously with ‘you won’t have a nixon to kick around anymore.’.

For the longest time, there was no reason for privileged white males to complain. They had just about everything. Their kind had controlled and dominated US history from the beginning. Both the ‘right’ and ‘left’ were all white males.
They were on the dollar bills. They controlled the military and media and banks and academia and so much more.
They could afford to be dignified, mannered, and magnanimous since they held all the cards of power.

But over the yrs, this outlook and stance got thinner and thinner. It was less andless backed by real power, real influence, real reach, real respect.
The elite institutions increasingly came to be taken over by the GLOB.
MLK and even Tubman came to tower over white males as the real moral founders of America.
The Immigrant Narrative eclipsed the Settler Narrative.
White Bashing, esp white male bashing, became a national sport in media and academia.
White males lost in sports and music. Some even debased themselves via cuck culture.

When white males held all the power, prestige, and privilege, they could be above the culture of complaint. Let those with less fortunes in life complain since they had reasons to. As for whites who dominated much of everything, their role was to lead and inspire, not complain.

But white males no longer have prestige. Some have power and privilege but only condition that they work against the identity and interests of their own race.

So, white dignity and magnanimity are now just a hollow charade.
There are REAL BIG problems confronting the white community. It is now time for white complaint.
And Trump tapped into this.

You can’t act high-born and aloof
when your ass is for the GLOB to boof.

If you’re the bitch, you better bitch.

Kudos, Steve. The commenters who offer special expertise, relevant work or personal experience, or unusual insight underneath your blog posts have helped my understanding of the world.

Yet in spite of the ever increasing laws against rape, the rapes just keep on happening. How can that be? Don’t rapists read law books?

Most Muslims are not terrorists, should we keep bringing in Muslims?

“Just because the founders thought this was a catchy slogan fit for the times…”

It wasn’t a “catchy slogan”. It is the purpose of the enterprise.

Sweden believes the fundamental mission of the country is to fight racism worldwide and 1% of their economic output at least every year should go towards helping mothers in Africa and such. Why not adopt that mission instead?

Well, let’s see … because how is that working out?

In Sweden, the high-cost, low-procreation society is imploding, pulling hostile and unassimilable immigrants into the resulting vacuum.

In Africa, the “helping” of mothers does not result in a higher standard of living, it just results in a higher number of living, whose surplus numbers are even now crossing Europe’s beaches.

So the reason not to adopt that mission is because it’s bad for Sweden, bad for Africa, and bad for everyone getting the surplus population. Like most SJW-inspired missions, it is a triple fail.

Any other questions?

P.S. I doubt “Sweden” actually “believes” in this “mission”. A self-righteous, largely self-appointed claque of conceited elites may, but Sweden not so much.

Yes! This needs to happen yesterday!

Polly, I hope you’re working in politics.

I’ve wondered this too. I think the answer is that Italian culture is very visual/pictoral. Compare the Italian Renaissance to just about any other geo-cultural event. The Italian Renaissance had Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and dozens of others whose names are less well remembered. It was a one-time assemblage of pictorial genius that never happened again. Even their cultural antecedents in classical Greece and Rome included sculptural and pictorial art that is still unparalleled.

The English had the Elizabethans, but they most wrote stuff: poetry and plays. The French and Germans had philosophers, mathematicians and scientists. The Russians had great literature but the pictoral art never really broke free of its religious iconographic roots. The low countries’ “Northern Renaissance” was great, but the calm landscapes and serene interiors just don’t make for action-packed moving pictures. When movies came along, it was natural that the Italians would be all over that.

Heck, even when Italians talk, you need to have a visual to get the full sense of it. With an Englishman, hearing the voice is enough, seeing the speaker doesn’t add much. With an Italian, everything is visible and everything is in motion.

“It’s indefensible on all grounds, not least due to its un-conservative removal of local municiplities to choose their own laws.”

North Carolina IS the local municipality choosing its own law.

Sheesh. This is the so stupid that you have to be too smart to convince yourself of it.

Nobody wants to keep out ideas (“memes”). And no one (except socialists CoughBernieHillaryCough) wants to end competition. The point is to invest. To invest in the social safety net by not letting interlopers exploit it. To invest in human capital by directing resources to citizens. To concentrate capital in a secure, meritocratic environment.

All investment starts with capital concentration, meaning a security, meaning defining a border, building a wall, literally or metaphorically. Does SlateStarCodex keep his valuables in a public pile which anyone can take from? Thought not. Same principle with a country, just larger scale. If you don’t have a border and a wall, you don’t have investment, just a crazy giveaway.

“When I was a kid, every eligible male (and some ineligible ones) would hunt in the fall.”

When America was young (into the 19th century), every eligible male had to have a gun and drill with it in the local militia. “Gun control” meant making sure every house had one and knew how to use it.

It is a masculine accent. But that is the modern urban Scottish accent. The Highlands & Islands have a lovely lilting accent on women and men, if you can still find any Highlanders or Islanders in Scotland. The few Highlanders and Islanders remaining nowadays mostly try to ape the lowbrow modern urban accent. It’s the regional version of the apparently global phenomenon of “talking down”: middle and even upper class imitating lower class speech traits.

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/sellars.htm

Brits talking as if Cockney, American wiggers, Russian riggers, the global adoption of rap culture. It’s a dialectical disaster.

In my estimation, the biggest tragedy of the talking down epidemic is the loss of traditional rural speech. But perhaps that is what drives it: the misguided desire to appear modern.

The states were the original sovereign entities. The thirteen original states predated the federal government by many years.

Local (sub-state) jurisdictions have never been sovereign.

Steve,

and @Cradfurdmuir are correct.

I can’t speak to the motivations of liberals at the level of office-holders, but it is quite clear that for other liberals gun control is social signaling, not about urban safety.

The liberals I know are not just in favor of gun control as a pragmatic solution to mass shootings (which is their given rationale, as points out). They fear and loath actual physical guns in any form (hunting rifles included), turning up their nose at them and the people who have them. Most have no first-hand experience with guns and little first-hand experience of gun owners, who are regarded just as backwards rednecks.

There is a minority of leftists who embrace guns. For example, there is the crew in charge of bOINGbOING.net, some of whom are long-time shooters. Also, you’ve posted before about all the guns floating around Hollywood, and I suspect there are a number of Silicon Valley and SF wealthy who have guns for similar reasons. (As evidence, see episodes 9 and 13 of the Tim Ferriss Experiment, where he embraces shooting and urban evasion basically as preparation for life in a future Brazil North.) But all of these shooters are in a minority.

An angle which you, Steve, unable to vacation internationally, may not be aware of is the extent to which support for gun control connects the American left to membership in the global left. When you travel and meet Europeans and Australians, gun control almost always comes up. They use it as a litmus test to see what kind of American you are. Liberals who live abroad or travel are very aware of this and also critique their fellow countrymen from the perspective of global consensus.

It’s quite interesting, actually, to see how people in other parts of the world react to the idea of “watering the tree of liberty”. Basically, the global consensus is that the world is rightly governed by technocrats, opposition cannot have legitimacy, and there should be no place to escape to as our forefathers did to the New World.

“Municipality” comes from the Latin term for civic offices. In English it refers to the internal affairs of a state as distinct from its foreign relations. States can define municipalities however they like in their laws. Sub-state municipalities cannot define states. That is because states are sovereign and sub-state municipalities are not.

BLM is a gay movement masquerading as a black one.

Due to the endless propagandizing of the “civil rights era”, black gays can get more automatic public acceptance by presenting themselves as black rather than gay.

Maybe blacks want things a lot like they are now. They have a set of perpetual grievances to mobilize their demographic at will. Whenever the leadership is low on funds, they can go and shake this money tree. They also have mostly decent policing, and a government and establishment that are hyper-sensitive to them, their needs, and their complaints (regardless of merit). They have a majority snookered by the delusions of racial equality and white guilt.

What’s not to like? Trouble is, they believe their own BS, and actually seem to think a majority non-white America will be more amenable to their concerns and demands. Which is pretty hilarious, when you think about it. Favelas and shantytowns are in their not-too-distant future, but thinking ahead has never been their forte.

If they had any sense, they’d be protecting the white demographic as their most precious natural resource, because it is.

Don’t forget envy.

“But if there’s no higher journalistic power, how will you know what’s real?”

This is an interesting point. Once “the Sea of Faith” that “round earth’s shore lay” dissipated in a “melancholy long withdrawing roar”, it left an opening for various charlatans to pretend to the throne of “higher power”, journalists making themselves very prominent among those charlatans. As you say, older folks still treat the NY Times as holy writ, not even trusting their own eyes to contradict it.

(This is incidentally why the journalist class jumped so gleefully on the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal: it may or may not have been News, but it was definitely a chance to depose a competitor for the role of Higher Power. That the abuse was almost entirely homo-pedo was softpedaled to spare the new BFFs of the journalist class.)

When our self-styled moral and intellectual superiors in the journo-class are as thoroughly discredited as their victims, then free debate will be possible again. Until Trump, Republicans were content to play defense with the journo-pharisees, hoping for milder treatment and limited damage. Trump has started making media encounters into referendums on the integrity of the journos. This needs to happen from everyone, all the time.

“Government being as decentralized as possible”, i.e., sovereign individuals, has never happened.

Global sovereignty, e.g., the UN should run everything, has also never happened.

That states and nations should be sovereign has happened for hundreds and thousands of years.

So what you call “meaningless” is reality, while what you demand has never happened.

Dreams From My Father puzzles the hell out of me too. The book is largely B.S. — but it contains a lot of anti-white racial hostility, “daddy issues,” admission of felony drug use, left-wing pap, etc.

It was out there for years before Obama ran for national office… and yet nobody — NOBODY — gave a damn about it and used it against him. (Certainly not the Republicans).

For the last eight years, I’ve been asking my students, little Millennial Obamabots, if they’ve ever read it. NONE of them have. None of them are familiar with Rev. Wright, Obama’s “after the election” promise to Dimitri Medvedev, Frank Marshall Davis, his drug use… none of it. They accept the fabricated, Wizard-of-Oz image of the man 100%, hook, line, and sinker.

It’s almost as if Obama could admit to being a serial axe-murderer and the public and the media would simply shrug and say “Eh.. so what?”

Actually, the guy DID say “I’m good at killing people” and everybody shrugged it off… can you imagine if Romney or Trump had said such a thing? It’d be on the front page of the NYT every day for a year straight…

OT:

Facebook has the world’s most valuable square inch of media real estate in its “TRENDING” news feed. It is viewed by hundreds of millions of people daily. Nothing else comes close. Now former curators of the feed are saying that Facebook suppressed conservative news stories and promoted chosen leftist items (e.g., BLM). Which I could have told anyone the first time I saw Facebook’s feed, but nevermind.

Reading the article, much of the bias seems to be down to the common phenomenon of lefties hiring lefties, so of course they think lefty stories are normal. And since most media outlets are leftist themselves, that’s not completely wrong. Like fish don’t know they are wet, most leftists swim in a leftist bog, so they don’t know they are leftist. But as the article points out, Facebook claims the TRENDING feed is set by an objective algorithm, which it is not (neither objective, nor only by an algorithm), so Facebook is lying. Shock and surprise, I know.

Facebook of course denies everything, and will now probably inject a few obvious but tame conservative stories so they have something to point at and while jeering about conservative paranoia, meanwhile quietly hunting down and destroying whoever revealed their hidden machinations.

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

Best line in your cited Daily Mail article:

‘This [mass immigration] is an irreversible social experiment that no wealthy state has ever attempted.”

It may be irreversible, but it is not true that no wealthy state ever attempted it. As Edward Gibbon (and iSteve) readers know, ancient Rome “attempted” it in 376.

“There are almost no ideas or visions over how this can be solved.”

A generation later, Rome fell, the empire was gone and the Dark Ages began. So … there’s that.

Yes, SPLC is essentially a fraud organization run by sociopaths. This needs to be pointed out loudly and consistently.

The SPLC sits on assets worth above a quarter of a billion (yes, with a “b”) dollars, without actually doing much of anything to justify its existence. It pays its executives way above standard nonprofit wages (over $300k/yr, and that’s just the cash). As John Derbyshire remarked, “the Southern Poverty Law Center is a dubious racket dedicated mainly to eradicating poverty among its executives—none of whom, by the way, in all the 42 years the SPLC has been in existence, has ever been black.” So, diversity for thee, white male millionaires’ monopoly for me.

The SPLC is so exploitative and self-serving that the auditor CharityWatch gave it an “F” rating, its lowest. It also flunked an audit of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance.

Speaking of its executives, Morris Dees’s divorce served up some … er, interesting(?) personal details. It was covered by Kathy Shaidle among others some time ago. Some of the papers are online.

And then you can always keep up like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=splc+expose

The SPLC’s name should never appear in print without modifiers such as “charity-scam”, “hypocritical”, “fraudulent”, “exploitative”, “racket”, “scam artist”, “hate group”, “con game”, “witch hunters”, “self-serving”, “discredited”, “organized hate crime”, “racist” and “lying”.

Morris Dees should always be mentioned with the SPLC with the modifiers “wife beater”, “incestuous child molester”, “serial adulterer”, “millionaire”, “well connected to the Democratic establishment” and “con man”. Dees is also a bisexual, mistress-impregnator, and inconvenient-fetus-aborter, but it’s hard to say if those are positives or negatives nowadays.

I’m guessing you live in a non-vibrant school district.

“Nationally, of course, the massive problem is that we’re running out of white kids to use to uplift NAM kids”

Wasn’t there an iSteve post recently to the effect that the “uplift” theory doesn’t really work anyway? So even if we weren’t running out of white kids to do the putative “uplift”, the whole musical-chairs-with-schools program is a waste of lives and resources from the get-go.

“systematically sacrifices your child on the altar of uplifting others”

Except it doesn’t even uplift others.

Thanks. LaGriffeDuLion is even more precise than I recall.

It’s a little out of date but would probably not be much different now. It is striking that the traits that make one a “top journalist” on the left are not objectivity or experience, but rigid dogmatism. The article even chides one of the lower-placing winners for being less “dogmatic”. They are not so much reporters as proselytic apostles of a fake religion. One might wish the 16/25 would go back to their ancestral real religion and leave off the pharisaicly misguided tikkun olam stuff.

Few of these “top journalists” have ever held a real job. They just graduate from college directly into telling other people what to think. The #1 winner does have a sort of real job–he’s a comedian. In fact, he still has this job. He’s not a journalist at all, but journalist impersonating a comedian (his self-description).