The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Andrew Sullivan: "Democrats Increasingly Seem to Suggest That Any Kind of Distinction Between Citizens and Noncitizens Is Somehow Racist"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From New York Mag:

Andrew Sullivan: The Issue That Could Lose the Next Election for Democrats

By Andrew Sullivan, October 20, 2017 9:21 am

I don’t believe it’s disputable at this point that the most potent issue behind the rise of the far right in America and Europe is mass immigration. It’s a core reason that Trump is now president; it’s why the AfD is now the third-biggest party in the German, yes, German, parliament; it’s why Austria’s new chancellor won by co-opting much of the far right’s agenda on immigration; it’s why Britain is attempting (and currently failing) to leave the EU; it’s why Marine Le Pen won a record number of votes for her party in France this spring. A critical moment, in retrospect, came with Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to import over a million Syrian refugees into the heart of Europe. I’ve no doubt her heart was in the right place, but the political naïveté was stunning. How distant from the lives and views of most people does an elite have to be to see nothing to worry about from such drastic social and cultural change? Michael Brendan Dougherty elegantly explains here the dynamic that followed. There are now new borders and fences going up all over Europe, as a response to Merkel’s blithe misjudgment.

You would think that parties of the center-left would grapple with this existential threat to their political viability. And some have. One reason Britain’s Labour Party has done well in the last couple of years is that it has recognized the legitimacy of the issue. During the Brexit referendum, their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, expressed ambivalence toward remaining in the EU, careful not to lose his working-class base to the Europhobic right, recognizing the fears so many of his own supporters had about the impact of mass immigration on their lives, jobs, and culture. Even someone as leftist as Corbyn chose to be a pragmatist, trying to gain power, rather than a purist who might otherwise condemn his own voters as deplorable.

And this is one reason why I have dwindling hopes that the Democratic Party will be able to defeat Trump in 2020. Instead of adjusting to this new reality, and listening to the electorate, the Dems have moved ever farther to the left, and are controlled by ever-radicalizing activists. … Lind spells out the state of play:

Democrats in 2017, in general, tend to criticize the use of immigration enforcement, and tend to side with those accused of violating immigration law, as a broad matter of principle beyond opposing the particular actions of the administration … Democrats are no longer as willing to attack “illegal immigration” as a fundamental problem anymore.

This is, to be blunt, political suicide. The Democrats’ current position seems to be that the Dreamer parents who broke the law are near heroes, indistinguishable from the children they brought with them; and their rhetoric is very hard to distinguish, certainly for most swing voters, from a belief in open borders. In fact, the Democrats increasingly seem to suggest that any kind of distinction between citizens and noncitizens is somehow racist. You could see this at the last convention, when an entire evening was dedicated to Latinos, illegal and legal, as if the rule of law were largely irrelevant. Hence the euphemism “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” So the stage was built, lit, and set for Trump.

He still tragically owns that stage. What Merkel did for the AfD, the Democrats are in danger of doing for the Trump wing of the GOP. The most powerful thing Trump said in the campaign, I’d argue, was: “If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.” And the Democrats had no answer, something that millions of Americans immediately saw. They still formally favor enforcement of immigration laws, but rhetorically, they keep signaling the opposite. Here is Dylan Matthews, also in Vox, expressing the emerging liberal consensus: “Personally, I think any center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone … It means treating people born outside the U.S. as equals … And it means a strong presumption in favor of open immigration.” Here’s Zack Beauchamp, a liberal friend of mine: “What if I told you that immigration restrictionism is and always has been racist?” Borders themselves are racist? Seriously?

The entire concept of a nation whose citizens solely determine its future — the core foundation for any viable democracy at all — is now deemed by many left-liberals to be a function of bigotry. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.

 
Hide 95 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Is Andrew Sullivan back on the Juice? Is he going to gradually shift back to the right until by 2020 he’ll be writing for National Review and nobody will notice?

  2. My goodness, is Brainless Andy falling out of love with Obama’s politics? I mean, he will likely never put the finger of blame on Obama for it—he takes up part of the article repeating the lie that Obama “got tough” with illegals and was a “big deporter”—-but for him to swerve in this direction bespeaks something.

    Andy’s got his finger in the wind again, and this time instead of moving to fall in love with W., and then fall in love with Obama, he’s falling in love with Trumpism/Nationalism. He’ll never love Trump—reminds him too much of those horrid straight men who don’t sleep with him and prefer, egads, women—but likely some handsome, boyish, non-boisterous Trump acolyte will one day be crowned by Andy as an acceptable leader that Andy will have mysterious “respect” for that Andy will write hundreds of words about.

  3. Sullivan to his credit was good on this even before the election: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/14/andrew-sullivan-desire-to-have-a-real-firm-border-an-essential-part-of-being-a-country-dems-have-been-indifferent-to-that/

    • Replies: @Anonym
    At least Sullivan understands the reasons and motivations for Trump voting. I remember reading him a lot back before one of the Bush 43 elections. Back then at least he came across as fairly libertarianish. I haven't followed him since that time.

    The left has basically gone insane. Sooner or later that sort of insanity has to wear off. It would be very, very unlikely that a race of people as successful as Europeans would just decide to permanently adopt a Moriori philosophy. No, group racial and ethnic interests are going to start asserting themselves.

    Not everyone on the left has gone insane either, and it seems like Sullivan is trying to coax them back into reality, or at least enough of a reality that might win an election with a bait and switch.
  4. I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn’t.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    It's a curse to the billionaires and their various shills and race hustler crackpots they finance who suddenly will have higherwage costs and unionization issues to deal with and the race hustlers will have fewer foreigners to parasite off of.....
    , @Cagey Beast
    Exactly. The fact that the American Republic was able to get a radical reform candidate into the White House is a sign of its vitality, not its sickness. They did almost everything they could over the last four decades to rig the system against the Silent Majority but Trump's MAGA gang managed to break through. It's like people complaining because the fusebox just tripped and not realizing an electrical fire was just prevented. Unfortunately, the "meritocratic elite" are dumb enough to now mess around to make sure the fusebox won't trip again. Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.
    , @Guy de Champlagne

    I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

     

    Because he is an incredibly flawed person and barely any good even on his good issues (immigration, trade, and all around opposing the cultural elite) and downright terrible on everything else (taxes, healthcare, the environment, and all around opposing the economic elite).
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Agree. Well said
    , @oddsbodkins
    Because if things keep going as they have for the past nine months, he will be remembered primarily as a squanderer of great opportunity.
    , @AndrewR
    He said refreshing things that no one else was saying but he's a trainwreck of a person and of a president. He has long since served his purpose.
  5. We need to start calling the Democrats what they are: Open Borders Party.

    • Replies: @NoWeltschmerz
    I don't think we need to calling them that for the simple reason that they aren't open borders in any respect. They are no more open borders than they are anti-war. For the life of me, I don't understand why people continue to use this label. The Democrats aren't open borders; they believe in borders. In fact, it's probably safe to say that they believe in keeping large swaths of people out.

    To understand what they are after, you have to first understand who they want out and who they want in. Obviously, they would like more people from south of the border, especially Mexico. If you understand that, you might want to ask yourself why. If you answer that it's to garner more votes, you would be correct, but that's only part of the story. If their sole desire was to win a particular election or two, they might, for instance, be more truly open borders and permit people from other parts of the world to enter the country illegally and yet, they don't. Their goals are much longer term. Much of the world are more politically liberal than the U.S. How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies immigrate at will? Why wouldn't the Democrats get behind that? Sure, there are fewer people from those countries that would come to the U.S., but still, every little bit helps, right? If you think of why the Democrats wouldn't support such a policy, you'll begin to understand why certain groups of people are preferred relative to others.

    I just don't understand why people like Andrew Sullivan don't grok this. Is he stupid? Has he changed his mind (aka, seen the light), but refuses to admit it? Are there really cold war, Kennedy-era liberals whose minds are frozen in amber? It's just baffling that only now, with the rise of Trump, that people so allegedly plugged into the political scene can be so blind to the obvious truth.

  6. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/asia-argento-harvey-weinstein-italian-backlash/amp

    The Italians are attacking one of Weinstein’s accusers. With 1 of her former partners publicly questioning her account.

    I wonder what the Italians see that we don’t…..

    I’m still surprised nobody has pointed out the job and insurance slash liability issues at stake here.

    Sure Weinstein was a fatcat big shot but what about all the peon security guards, secretaries, assistants etc who work for his very successful company?

    And what about all the liability lawsuit issue?

    What insurance company will touch a production company associated with these women again? What production company? If you’re a niche or small to even medium sized firm you’re already counting nickels and haggling over nitpick shit to keep your films profitable.

    And here you have what is arguably the most known and accomplished producer in the business going up in flames in a matter of weeks…

    This would be the political equivalent of a coup.

    What insurance company will back up a picture now w these litigious and slanderous women?

    You’re begging your company to go into bankruptcy…..

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    "I wonder what the Italians see that we don’t"
     
    I think in Italy Asia Argento has had for years a reputation as a "troia" (slut) and attention-whore. So people are not very sympathetic.
    , @Langley
    This is a bad thing?
  7. Either Michelle Obama is taking her performance art to the next level or this was Photoshopped. My guess is the latter. Either way, this is what she and her crowd say every day, in every way:

    https://twitter.com/BillJoh04002367/status/921828867169427457

  8. This is not complicated.

    In the 60’s it was determined that “skin color” i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.

    If that is so, then there is no reason for disparate treatment based on place of birth either. If it’s wrong to exclude outgroups to protect your identity, it’s even more wrong to exclude them to prop up your own wages.

    If White folks can’t have our own schools, why would anyone expect us to be allowed our own countries?

    The left is consistent. Civic nationalism is an ultimately untenable attempt at compromise.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    In the 60′s it was determined that “skin color” i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.
     
    Not so fast.

    An interpretation of civil rights history more consistent with the spirit of the times was that race/ethnicity is not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment of Americans. (Personally, I utterly reject that notion; I think it's a perfectly legitimate basis.)

    Under this interpretation, Americans still retain the right to decide which foreigners to allow in and which to keep out.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Sadly, you are correct. Once the Leftist camel got its nose in the national tent in the 1960s by saying "public accommodations" must not be allowed to discriminate based on race, it was just a matter of time before everyone was not allowed to discriminate based on anything. And that time is now.

    Unfortunately, the basis of all rational thought is comparison and resulting discrimination based on the result of that comparison. If you can't discriminate, you can't think. Once the (false) proposition that discrimination is invalid became accepted as valid, rational thought in public was doomed. The results are all around us.
  9. “This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.”

    Good. Stay mad my friends.

  10. Sullivan neglected to mention New Zealand and the Czech Republic. Centre-left New Zealand Labour Party has gone into coalition with populist NZ First Party on the back of a promise to reduce immigration and make housing more affordable, while anti-EU businessman comes out on top in Czech elections.

    2017 may well go down as the year the Empire stuck back, but there does appear to be a silver lining.

    • Replies: @anon
    The new N.Z. Gov't has pledged to increase Refugee Resettlement from 10,000 to 50,000 p/a.
    That's the same number Trump has reduced to, the problem for New Zealand is that there are only 3.8 million people there.
    Of course, knowing the scabby kiwis, they'll probably be encouraging the new arrivals to move to the West Island [Australia].
  11. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    It’s a curse to the billionaires and their various shills and race hustler crackpots they finance who suddenly will have higherwage costs and unionization issues to deal with and the race hustlers will have fewer foreigners to parasite off of…..

  12. Though he doesn’t mention him, could this be a sign that Andrew Sullivan has a secret crush on Stephen Miller like so many female lefties?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Stephen Miller, sexiest man alive?

    I think not...
    , @AndrewR
    Miller's baldness aside, his baby face and frail, meatless body could possibly appeal to a gay lover of twinks. But I'm not sure any significant number of women would be attracted to him for any reason other than his status as top adviser to the US president.
  13. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    Exactly. The fact that the American Republic was able to get a radical reform candidate into the White House is a sign of its vitality, not its sickness. They did almost everything they could over the last four decades to rig the system against the Silent Majority but Trump’s MAGA gang managed to break through. It’s like people complaining because the fusebox just tripped and not realizing an electrical fire was just prevented. Unfortunately, the “meritocratic elite” are dumb enough to now mess around to make sure the fusebox won’t trip again. Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak."

    LOL Great metaphor. (or simile, whatever)
    , @slumber_j
    Very well put.
    , @Lagertha
    so good.
  14. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    Because he is an incredibly flawed person and barely any good even on his good issues (immigration, trade, and all around opposing the cultural elite) and downright terrible on everything else (taxes, healthcare, the environment, and all around opposing the economic elite).

    • Agree: (((Owen))), AndrewR
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Trump isn't the hero we want, he's the hero we need.
    , @slumber_j
    Right: he could be way better. Then again, what's he replacing?

    The question in any outcome must always be: Compared to what?

    No?
    , @dr kill
    Trump was the closest weapon at hand to murder the GOPe. If he only does that I feel it will have been a worthwhile 8 years.
  15. They also think criticizing Islam is racist. They think opposition to Muslims is because of their race and not because of their beliefs and culture.

    And, they think criticizing nonwhite Democrats is racist. For that matter they think criticizing white Democrats is racist.

    And, they think lower taxes are racist.

    And, they think the American flag is racist.

    And, they think credit scores are racist.

    They used to be a party if ideas, but they’re down to just one idea, and it’s getting boring.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  16. “A critical moment, in retrospect, came with Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to import over a million Syrian refugees into the heart of Europe. I’ve no doubt her heart was in the right place…”

    I have some doubt.

    • Agree: JerryC
    • Replies: @George
    Merkel was peripheral to the decision to light Syria on fire. The conduct of the wars in Iraq and Syria are the cause of the refugee crisis, not Merkel accepting that once the refugee columns crossed into the Balkans, she had to house them.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    It has been shown that Merkel acted as she did out of pure cowardice: she and her ministers were terrified at the thought of the media showing pictures of German troops on the border, defending the Heimat and its Volk.
    So she ditched them both. Is there any better definition of a traitor?
  17. @IHTG
    Sullivan to his credit was good on this even before the election: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/14/andrew-sullivan-desire-to-have-a-real-firm-border-an-essential-part-of-being-a-country-dems-have-been-indifferent-to-that/

    https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/787424207210635264

    At least Sullivan understands the reasons and motivations for Trump voting. I remember reading him a lot back before one of the Bush 43 elections. Back then at least he came across as fairly libertarianish. I haven’t followed him since that time.

    The left has basically gone insane. Sooner or later that sort of insanity has to wear off. It would be very, very unlikely that a race of people as successful as Europeans would just decide to permanently adopt a Moriori philosophy. No, group racial and ethnic interests are going to start asserting themselves.

    Not everyone on the left has gone insane either, and it seems like Sullivan is trying to coax them back into reality, or at least enough of a reality that might win an election with a bait and switch.

    • Replies: @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    , @roberone
    nice Moriori reference!
  18. @Neoconned
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/asia-argento-harvey-weinstein-italian-backlash/amp

    The Italians are attacking one of Weinstein's accusers. With 1 of her former partners publicly questioning her account.

    I wonder what the Italians see that we don't.....

    I'm still surprised nobody has pointed out the job and insurance slash liability issues at stake here.

    Sure Weinstein was a fatcat big shot but what about all the peon security guards, secretaries, assistants etc who work for his very successful company?

    And what about all the liability lawsuit issue?

    What insurance company will touch a production company associated with these women again? What production company? If you're a niche or small to even medium sized firm you're already counting nickels and haggling over nitpick shit to keep your films profitable.

    And here you have what is arguably the most known and accomplished producer in the business going up in flames in a matter of weeks...

    This would be the political equivalent of a coup.

    What insurance company will back up a picture now w these litigious and slanderous women?

    You're begging your company to go into bankruptcy.....

    “I wonder what the Italians see that we don’t”

    I think in Italy Asia Argento has had for years a reputation as a “troia” (slut) and attention-whore. So people are not very sympathetic.

  19. …” as if the rule of law were largely irrelevant. ”

    Well, isn’t that how you felt about Prop. 8, Andrew?

  20. @Jimi
    We need to start calling the Democrats what they are: Open Borders Party.

    I don’t think we need to calling them that for the simple reason that they aren’t open borders in any respect. They are no more open borders than they are anti-war. For the life of me, I don’t understand why people continue to use this label. The Democrats aren’t open borders; they believe in borders. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that they believe in keeping large swaths of people out.

    To understand what they are after, you have to first understand who they want out and who they want in. Obviously, they would like more people from south of the border, especially Mexico. If you understand that, you might want to ask yourself why. If you answer that it’s to garner more votes, you would be correct, but that’s only part of the story. If their sole desire was to win a particular election or two, they might, for instance, be more truly open borders and permit people from other parts of the world to enter the country illegally and yet, they don’t. Their goals are much longer term. Much of the world are more politically liberal than the U.S. How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies immigrate at will? Why wouldn’t the Democrats get behind that? Sure, there are fewer people from those countries that would come to the U.S., but still, every little bit helps, right? If you think of why the Democrats wouldn’t support such a policy, you’ll begin to understand why certain groups of people are preferred relative to others.

    I just don’t understand why people like Andrew Sullivan don’t grok this. Is he stupid? Has he changed his mind (aka, seen the light), but refuses to admit it? Are there really cold war, Kennedy-era liberals whose minds are frozen in amber? It’s just baffling that only now, with the rise of Trump, that people so allegedly plugged into the political scene can be so blind to the obvious truth.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Andrew Sullivan has no achievements to his name beyond convincing a publisher to let him speak for the brand. Charles Murray is one of the more truly accomplished people in the national conversation. I am unperplexed by Sully's religious spitting (which I expect to reverse on a dime, given the right number of dimes) but continually confused by Murray's reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters, most of all since Murray is the author of three different books about hostile elites fragmenting a once-unified society. I tell myself that a published political scientist and policy critic who loves in the DMV area and regularly lunches with journos just has to do this as a cost of doing business.
    , @dr kill
    300 words and no conclusion. Come on, Man.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies [to] immigrate at will? Why wouldn’t the Democrats get behind that?"
     
    As far as I am aware, the Democrats are behind that. There just aren't that many people from nice, first world countries who want to emigrate. And on the rare occasions they do, they usually do it legally, so there is no dramatic story for the Dem propaganda machine.
  21. @Guy de Champlagne

    I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

     

    Because he is an incredibly flawed person and barely any good even on his good issues (immigration, trade, and all around opposing the cultural elite) and downright terrible on everything else (taxes, healthcare, the environment, and all around opposing the economic elite).

    Trump isn’t the hero we want, he’s the hero we need.

  22. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    Agree. Well said

  23. The Left has little reason to worry. There won’t be any electoral backlash once the chemical treatment for ‘xenophobia’ is perfected and applied to the entire population:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9314.full.pdf

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Chilling.

    The Academy is already planning how to force our consensus onto the Narrative chemically.
  24. @Neoconned
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/asia-argento-harvey-weinstein-italian-backlash/amp

    The Italians are attacking one of Weinstein's accusers. With 1 of her former partners publicly questioning her account.

    I wonder what the Italians see that we don't.....

    I'm still surprised nobody has pointed out the job and insurance slash liability issues at stake here.

    Sure Weinstein was a fatcat big shot but what about all the peon security guards, secretaries, assistants etc who work for his very successful company?

    And what about all the liability lawsuit issue?

    What insurance company will touch a production company associated with these women again? What production company? If you're a niche or small to even medium sized firm you're already counting nickels and haggling over nitpick shit to keep your films profitable.

    And here you have what is arguably the most known and accomplished producer in the business going up in flames in a matter of weeks...

    This would be the political equivalent of a coup.

    What insurance company will back up a picture now w these litigious and slanderous women?

    You're begging your company to go into bankruptcy.....

    This is a bad thing?

  25. It’s just strange that Sullivan and others think that the Democrats and the media have some chance to pull down Trump by changing their approach — which is almost certainly not going to happen anyway.

    The basic facts of Presidential politics remain the same with Trump as with anybody: an incumbent has a very large edge in any re-election bid. Only something distinctly negative while they are President — a bad economy, a bad war — has any likelihood of bringing them down.

    I’d say that Trump has a slight additional edge: he was regarded as so risky by so many voters that if he performs without some genuine debacle, he will be seen as having improved on their very low expectations.

    Bad things might happen under Trump that will doom him — but they will have to be genuinely bad, not Fake News bad.

    Which means that the media/progressive hysteria is both ridiculous and pointless.

    • Replies: @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    "Only something distinctly negative while they are President — a bad economy, a bad war — has any likelihood of bringing them down."
    And it doesn't look likely to you that while Trump is on his way to succeed on immigration/crime/culture wars (NFL, transgender, statues etc.), he seems pretty much certain to fail on the economy and at least somewhat probable to miscalculate on foreign policy issues?
    Pre-election Trump rightly pointed out the overvaluation of the stock market. Now he crows about it, in effect taking ownership of the next massive downturn. The only question is whether it happens pre- or post-midterms. What either case would entail is something I can't possibly figure out as well as the best American analysts. I would love to see What-if-scenarios addressing this.
  26. Sorry, I couldn’t make it past the unforgivably bad first sentence, which has so much wrong with it that it forces me back into viewing membership in the Professional Journalist’s club as proof that you are incapable of writing, but not above other ways of getting a job. That’s not sour grapes in a world where Malcolm Gladwell, Kurt “Earthquake” Eichenwald and David Brooks are respected commentators.
    It’s clear he intends this sentence to be the thin end of a wedge before spelling out that such things are beyond dispute. But it’s well worth disputing since the image of our time is a man punched in the face, who is then told that he has not been punched in the face. All current political identity is controlled by admitting or denying the injury. Andrew sullied the last thing I ready by him in the same way, trying to sneak in unacceptable nonsense as an initial article of faith. I think it was the same thing, in fact: “people who failed to recognize that it was Her Turn are evil, but also stupid.”
    All these words and inappropriate personalizations amount to the seven hundred thousandth re-attempt to dismiss “failure of revolutionary consciousness” as Klan membership. That has not worked for years, it has been especially and frequently ineffective in the current season, and it would make an excellent starting point for lefty (and “reasonable centrist”) self-examination. I doubt we will see that from Sullivan [given horrifying gossip, omitted].
    To dispute this indisuptable initial idea, would anyone have any problem with controlled immigration, with rigid criteria and merciless enforcement, with the exclusion of violent criminals and unqualified iliterates, which insisted on a loving awareness of the uniqueness of the Constitution, and which occurred in a genuinely and not just supposedly booming economy? Or do I need to sign up for gun-walking, MSF ferrying terrorists, the enslavement of Mexican women, and Somalifying Minnesota as an indisputable part of the deal?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    To dispute this indisuptable initial idea, would anyone have any problem with controlled immigration, with rigid criteria and merciless enforcement, with the exclusion of violent criminals and unqualified iliterates, which insisted on a loving awareness of the uniqueness of the Constitution, and which occurred in a genuinely and not just supposedly booming economy? Or do I need to sign up for gun-walking, MSF ferrying terrorists, the enslavement of Mexican women, and Somalifying Minnesota as an indisputable part of the deal?
     
    An enormous part of the reason underlying our unprecedented immigration is that our government and business elites are addicted to GDP growth and unable to conceive another way to achieve it without population growth. Having permitted and encouraged our manufacturing base to move offshore, they had to pump up the only economic sectors remaining. Construction booms when immigration is high, services boom, and of course government is always booming. And all this makes finance boom. Essentially our entire economy, not just Social Security but the entire debt-based government/service economy, is a giant Ponzi scheme dependent on massive population growth.
  27. @NoWeltschmerz
    I don't think we need to calling them that for the simple reason that they aren't open borders in any respect. They are no more open borders than they are anti-war. For the life of me, I don't understand why people continue to use this label. The Democrats aren't open borders; they believe in borders. In fact, it's probably safe to say that they believe in keeping large swaths of people out.

    To understand what they are after, you have to first understand who they want out and who they want in. Obviously, they would like more people from south of the border, especially Mexico. If you understand that, you might want to ask yourself why. If you answer that it's to garner more votes, you would be correct, but that's only part of the story. If their sole desire was to win a particular election or two, they might, for instance, be more truly open borders and permit people from other parts of the world to enter the country illegally and yet, they don't. Their goals are much longer term. Much of the world are more politically liberal than the U.S. How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies immigrate at will? Why wouldn't the Democrats get behind that? Sure, there are fewer people from those countries that would come to the U.S., but still, every little bit helps, right? If you think of why the Democrats wouldn't support such a policy, you'll begin to understand why certain groups of people are preferred relative to others.

    I just don't understand why people like Andrew Sullivan don't grok this. Is he stupid? Has he changed his mind (aka, seen the light), but refuses to admit it? Are there really cold war, Kennedy-era liberals whose minds are frozen in amber? It's just baffling that only now, with the rise of Trump, that people so allegedly plugged into the political scene can be so blind to the obvious truth.

    Andrew Sullivan has no achievements to his name beyond convincing a publisher to let him speak for the brand. Charles Murray is one of the more truly accomplished people in the national conversation. I am unperplexed by Sully’s religious spitting (which I expect to reverse on a dime, given the right number of dimes) but continually confused by Murray’s reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters, most of all since Murray is the author of three different books about hostile elites fragmenting a once-unified society. I tell myself that a published political scientist and policy critic who loves in the DMV area and regularly lunches with journos just has to do this as a cost of doing business.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    continually confused by Murray’s reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters
     
    Mostly to stay on good terms with his son. It also doesn't hurt to keep those university invites coming. Makes sure admin knows he's the safe alternative.
  28. If the Second Amendment shouldn’t apply to 21st century “arms” (like the gun control crowd says), why should the First Amendment apply to 21st Century “press”?

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Just so. Just as there were no automatic rifles in 1789, there was no Internet to put your message out where everyone in the world can see it. Banning the first and not the second only makes sense if you think guns are inherently bad.

    I for one am glad that if the day comes when I see a mob burning down houses on the next block, I won't have to wait until they're at the foot of my driveway and be limited to one shot per minute with my musket.

  29. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    "A critical moment, in retrospect, came with Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to import over a million Syrian refugees into the heart of Europe. I’ve no doubt her heart was in the right place..."

    I have some doubt.

    Merkel was peripheral to the decision to light Syria on fire. The conduct of the wars in Iraq and Syria are the cause of the refugee crisis, not Merkel accepting that once the refugee columns crossed into the Balkans, she had to house them.

    • Disagree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Most of the migrant/invaders were not refugees, nor were they even Syrian or Iraqi. Nor was Merkel without alternatives. Somehow every other of the five countries between Syrian and Germany had other options, but Germany alone didn't?

    Your entire point is false and tendentious.
  30. @Cagey Beast
    Exactly. The fact that the American Republic was able to get a radical reform candidate into the White House is a sign of its vitality, not its sickness. They did almost everything they could over the last four decades to rig the system against the Silent Majority but Trump's MAGA gang managed to break through. It's like people complaining because the fusebox just tripped and not realizing an electrical fire was just prevented. Unfortunately, the "meritocratic elite" are dumb enough to now mess around to make sure the fusebox won't trip again. Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.

    “Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.”

    LOL Great metaphor. (or simile, whatever)

  31. @J.Ross
    Andrew Sullivan has no achievements to his name beyond convincing a publisher to let him speak for the brand. Charles Murray is one of the more truly accomplished people in the national conversation. I am unperplexed by Sully's religious spitting (which I expect to reverse on a dime, given the right number of dimes) but continually confused by Murray's reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters, most of all since Murray is the author of three different books about hostile elites fragmenting a once-unified society. I tell myself that a published political scientist and policy critic who loves in the DMV area and regularly lunches with journos just has to do this as a cost of doing business.

    continually confused by Murray’s reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters

    Mostly to stay on good terms with his son. It also doesn’t hurt to keep those university invites coming. Makes sure admin knows he’s the safe alternative.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is very possibly true, but I'm tempted to recognize sarcasm, since Murray's university appearances tend to be over-celebrated by howling maenads who think he is The Devil.
  32. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to import over a million Syrian refugees into the heart of Europe.

    Wasn’t one of the problems the fact that the million refugees were mostly not Syrian? It seemed like many were North Africans, SSAs and Afghans.

    Wasn’t another problem the fact that they were mostly military-aged men? Which means they really weren’t refugees.

    • Agree: Thea
  33. Corbyn is a lifelong Eurosceptic. I’m pretty sure he voted for Brexit; he was certainly AWOL during the campaign.

    This was the default position of the Labour left. In the 1975 referendum the left of the party – Tony Benn, Peter Shore etc – were all on the anti-EEC side. The Labour manifesto in the 1983 election pledged withdrawal from the EEC.

    But that doesn’t mean Corbyn is against open borders. He wants free movement to continue, and wants more immigration from outside the EU.

  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The entire concept of a nation whose citizens solely determine its future — the core foundation for any viable democracy at all — is now deemed by many left-liberals to be a function of bigotry. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.”

    Let’s hope so. Let’s hope they double down even further on sheer idiocy and declare undocumented transsexuals to be the sole category of people who deserve the right to exist in this country. And dare I hope they’ll piss away a few billion more of Soros’ bucks in the process.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    The policy of the EU is to destroy national identity:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
  35. This is good, but if you truly believe Merkel’s “heart was in the right place” you really don’t get it. He’s lamenting it’s a political disaster for Merkel and our Democrats! What sane person gives a rat’s ass about either? These people!

    And isn’t this its own genre now–pointing out the common sense behind Trump’s policies and appeal, and then lamenting it’s costing Democrats and delivering Trump! The policy is an afterthought, the bitter medicine they need to swallow!
    The dogma is strong in them.

  36. Yes, and Canada has a man-child uber-liberal as PM and yet, I have to show a passport and make a declaration of intent when I cross their border, or what ever splits the Niagara under the Peace Bridge.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    In 2009 or 2010 I drove through Canada as a shortcut. Entering Canada, the border guard waved me through without even looking at my passport. I was shocked.
  37. @Anonymous
    "The entire concept of a nation whose citizens solely determine its future — the core foundation for any viable democracy at all — is now deemed by many left-liberals to be a function of bigotry. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely."

    Let's hope so. Let's hope they double down even further on sheer idiocy and declare undocumented transsexuals to be the sole category of people who deserve the right to exist in this country. And dare I hope they'll piss away a few billion more of Soros' bucks in the process.

    The policy of the EU is to destroy national identity:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

  38. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym
    At least Sullivan understands the reasons and motivations for Trump voting. I remember reading him a lot back before one of the Bush 43 elections. Back then at least he came across as fairly libertarianish. I haven't followed him since that time.

    The left has basically gone insane. Sooner or later that sort of insanity has to wear off. It would be very, very unlikely that a race of people as successful as Europeans would just decide to permanently adopt a Moriori philosophy. No, group racial and ethnic interests are going to start asserting themselves.

    Not everyone on the left has gone insane either, and it seems like Sullivan is trying to coax them back into reality, or at least enough of a reality that might win an election with a bait and switch.

    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I’ve got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I’ve seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It’s like having an hour of ‘let’s hate conservatives’ propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can’t tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It’s as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates–vastly underestimates–the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we’re going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They’re like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @ChrisJ
    You make a good point about liberals being driven by conformity. A great stumbling block to rational thinking is that it often requires you to be a lone voice in a hostile room. I come from a liberal family and now live in uber left Seattle. I've managed to move right in my thinking in part because the life I live is fairly unsociable. I just don't care what people around me think of me. If I was worried about "fitting in", I'd be wearing a Hillary campaign button.
    , @Lagertha
    I hate the left...and I voted for Democrats for a long time, like an idiot, ugh. But, now, my friends who are Bolsheviks, are afraid of me ( we won ), and, embarrassed, but, they are also, Bullshit Bolsheviks not to give in so easily...unless it affects their adult children. The Achilles' Heel is always the same: money. So, without funding, you've got nothin'. Your money is still important for your child to survive. I hate the dishonesty of those bad American people who hate the American youth who are fighting these stupid, so stupid wars. I hate the elite...and about 80 million hate the elite...they don't check to see if you are a democrat, btw, shit happens.

    , @Anonym
    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can’t tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    I think there is this. Everyone getting along was a big, intoxicating dream of the left, of the baby boomers and a lot of the 1968 society who were older than the baby boomer cohort.

    I was watching the final Cosmos segment the other day. Carl Sagan was a great popularizer of science, perhaps the great popularizer. He begins with a discussion on nuclear war and the potential for world destruction. This is a fairly easy sell. We should cooperate on a global scale to eliminate this risk. I've managed to find the video. And then he segues to the aims of political correctness. "The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, and to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz6a4WkKJn0

    I think this kind of encapsulates a lot of the appeal of PC ideals to the boomer set. It was in part a product of its time and I suppose it seemed reasonable in a world before mass immigration into white countries. But now it is either naive or malicious. These ideals were only applied to white people and non-whites were excluded from the message. Only white people and white actions were horrible. We were to give up the protections of association and preference for our own, and our gender roles and division of labor, while non-whites were to continue on as is, fully intact. If religion was attacked, it was Christianity. Islam, Judaism or Buddhism were not mentioned. In this instance, the pretext is nuclear war prevention.

    The baby boomers who embraced this and promoted this have preferred to wallow in nostalgia than confront the ugly reality of what is happening today. When Sagan later lambastes slavery, he does not mention that while it has been eliminated from white countries, it is still very much present in non-white countries (and there are white victims of slavery) - this is glossed over.

    One might think at first that dealing with such ideas as mathematics, physics and astronomy, that politics and particularly, the leftist Jewish perspective on politics and its ever-present criticism of European nations would be absent. But no, Sagan can't help himself.

    He laments Hypatia, as a representative of Science and the library of Alexandria who was murdered as a preliminary to the burning of the library of Alexandria. He blames this on the Christians, especially Cyril. Of course, he neglects to disclose that he is not an impartial observer, or tell us of the Jewish side of this story. e.g.

    Socrates of Constantinople's account says that the Jews had plotted to flush out the Christians at night by running through the streets claiming that the Church of Alexander was on fire. Christians had then responded to what they believed was their church burning down, and "the Jews immediately fell upon and slew them," using rings to recognize one another in the dark and killing everyone else in sight. According to the accusation, the Jews of Alexandria could not hide their guilt when the morning came, and Cyril, along with many of his followers, took to the city's synagogues in search of the perpetrators of the massacre.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Death

    The are other examples I can't help but notice as I have watched the series. One thinks of Sagan as a kind of Man of Science without race, ethnicity or religious but he certainly has a distinctly Jewish perspective as you watch his series. Anyway, I digress. Why did PC have such appeal in the first place? Was there an appeal? Yes, I suppose there was and this is something the boomers have given their lives to (mostly for worse IMO).
    , @Anonym
    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It’s as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates–vastly underestimates–the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I know the task is enormous, but I think we are fighting back quite effectively given the means at our disposal. The war is asymmetrical. The tactics must be different. We have come a long way in 10 years, IMO.
    , @Tyrion
    Agreed. The task is enormous. It really is a 1984 situation complete with the propoganda getting louder the further you are from the proles and the closer to the inner party.

    Almost every institution of society pushes whatever the most recent 'progressive' position is all of the time.

    I find that many younger and well educated people can no longer even conceive that someone would not hold the latest position while still looking somewhat human. Even when almost no one held that position a couple of years ago. They either look blankly back, assume I'm joking or start pleading for me to recant.

    It is the pleading that is the creepiest. It is a sort of weird begging whereby they clearly cannot accept that anyone they consider like them might disagree, and this isn't about topics that have long been controversial. This can be about simple observations that they could easily make in their own lives. Like men being genetically physically stronger on average than women, or gay men being highly promiscuous or that 1 in 4 women at university are not raped!

    How does a society get deprogrammed? That it is racist genocidal type behaviour to treat your citizens any better than those who never came to your country is all but the latest dogma. It gets harder and harder to question every day.

    At that point, it will only take the wrong people to get power again and no borders no country end of the whole thing. Unless the progressive left is replaced with an economic left or whatever they can never be trusted with power again.

  39. @Cagey Beast
    Exactly. The fact that the American Republic was able to get a radical reform candidate into the White House is a sign of its vitality, not its sickness. They did almost everything they could over the last four decades to rig the system against the Silent Majority but Trump's MAGA gang managed to break through. It's like people complaining because the fusebox just tripped and not realizing an electrical fire was just prevented. Unfortunately, the "meritocratic elite" are dumb enough to now mess around to make sure the fusebox won't trip again. Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.

    Very well put.

  40. @Guy de Champlagne

    I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

     

    Because he is an incredibly flawed person and barely any good even on his good issues (immigration, trade, and all around opposing the cultural elite) and downright terrible on everything else (taxes, healthcare, the environment, and all around opposing the economic elite).

    Right: he could be way better. Then again, what’s he replacing?

    The question in any outcome must always be: Compared to what?

    No?

  41. @Desiderius

    continually confused by Murray’s reflexive and substanceless daily two minutes hate of Trump and Trump voters
     
    Mostly to stay on good terms with his son. It also doesn't hurt to keep those university invites coming. Makes sure admin knows he's the safe alternative.

    This is very possibly true, but I’m tempted to recognize sarcasm, since Murray’s university appearances tend to be over-celebrated by howling maenads who think he is The Devil.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    But not the ones who like to destroy property like Milo does.
  42. @Rosie
    This is not complicated.

    In the 60's it was determined that "skin color" i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.

    If that is so, then there is no reason for disparate treatment based on place of birth either. If it's wrong to exclude outgroups to protect your identity, it's even more wrong to exclude them to prop up your own wages.

    If White folks can't have our own schools, why would anyone expect us to be allowed our own countries?

    The left is consistent. Civic nationalism is an ultimately untenable attempt at compromise.

    In the 60′s it was determined that “skin color” i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.

    Not so fast.

    An interpretation of civil rights history more consistent with the spirit of the times was that race/ethnicity is not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment of Americans. (Personally, I utterly reject that notion; I think it’s a perfectly legitimate basis.)

    Under this interpretation, Americans still retain the right to decide which foreigners to allow in and which to keep out.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    That was the deal as Americans understood it at the time, but it was untenable from the very start. Because once you have conceded the Civil Rights premise of color-blindness and anti-racism, you don't have any sound basis to oppose non-White immigration.

    Any time you oppose immigration, you're going to be accused of secretly trying to keep the country white, which you have already conceded is evil. The result is a painful spectacle of abject grovelling as you insist you're not racist without any success whatsoever.

    Even if they do believe you, at best you're greedy and you heartlessly deny others "a better life" to prop up your own wages. The left seized the moral high ground in the CRM, and it would have taken extraordinary will and solidarity on the part of White America to hold the line at equal rights for all citizens. If we had such will and solidarity, there never would have been a CRM to begin with.

    The Civil Rights bargain has failed.
  43. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    Because if things keep going as they have for the past nine months, he will be remembered primarily as a squanderer of great opportunity.

  44. @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    You make a good point about liberals being driven by conformity. A great stumbling block to rational thinking is that it often requires you to be a lone voice in a hostile room. I come from a liberal family and now live in uber left Seattle. I’ve managed to move right in my thinking in part because the life I live is fairly unsociable. I just don’t care what people around me think of me. If I was worried about “fitting in”, I’d be wearing a Hillary campaign button.

  45. Feh, it’s a hot button/wedge issue created and promoted by the elites to keep folks from looking what the left hand is doing. Namely economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites.

    Given that the Democratic party is owned by mega money donors. Schumer for example is owned outright by K street. They don’t make a move unless their paymasters say so.

    When Trump and Bannon got the ball rolling on economic populism/nationalism. It presented a big problem for the elites. First they shut up Bernie and his anti-corporate diatribe and started pushing the borderless nation idiocy via Baba yaga(Hillary) and her legion of minions.

    Why? Because economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables and destroy the political Potemkin Village set up by the ruling class.

    Hence all the thunder and lightening about racial identity, borderless societies, etc. If the elites have to wreck the Democratic party for good they will.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    But isn't mass third-world immigration not one of the key ways that "economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites." is accomplished?

    economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables
     
    Certainly in the area of trade, that is true. On others as well, at least to varying degrees. But what about taxes, for example? Is Sanders' position on taxes not anathema to a considerable segment of Trump supporters?
    , @Dissident

    Because economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables and destroy the political Potemkin Village set up by the ruling class.
     
    What about foreign policy?

    Aren't most Sanders supporters opposed to "Invade the World" insanity?

  46. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.

    The scary thing is what they’ll do when they do return to power. And inevitably they will.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Tear each other limb from limb.
  47. @J.Ross
    This is very possibly true, but I'm tempted to recognize sarcasm, since Murray's university appearances tend to be over-celebrated by howling maenads who think he is The Devil.

    But not the ones who like to destroy property like Milo does.

  48. @International Jew

    This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.
     
    The scary thing is what they'll do when they do return to power. And inevitably they will.

    Tear each other limb from limb.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    You wish. They'll open the borders, empty the prisons, and shut down any web sites that report the truth.

    What they learned from Trump's 11/8/16 upset win is that democracy is too dangerous to tolerate. They'll go full Bolshevik.

  49. @Gunner
    If the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to 21st century "arms" (like the gun control crowd says), why should the First Amendment apply to 21st Century "press"?

    Just so. Just as there were no automatic rifles in 1789, there was no Internet to put your message out where everyone in the world can see it. Banning the first and not the second only makes sense if you think guns are inherently bad.

    I for one am glad that if the day comes when I see a mob burning down houses on the next block, I won’t have to wait until they’re at the foot of my driveway and be limited to one shot per minute with my musket.

  50. they all sold out so, now, we have to endure their excuses…typical & tiresome thru the centuries.

  51. @Desiderius
    Tear each other limb from limb.

    You wish. They’ll open the borders, empty the prisons, and shut down any web sites that report the truth.

    What they learned from Trump’s 11/8/16 upset win is that democracy is too dangerous to tolerate. They’ll go full Bolshevik.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They’ll do both, as did the Bolsheviks.
    , @DJohn1
    Civil War.

    Been done twice before in NorAm. It can and will be done again. Such is human nature.

    If in the near to medium term, so be it.
  52. @Cagey Beast
    Exactly. The fact that the American Republic was able to get a radical reform candidate into the White House is a sign of its vitality, not its sickness. They did almost everything they could over the last four decades to rig the system against the Silent Majority but Trump's MAGA gang managed to break through. It's like people complaining because the fusebox just tripped and not realizing an electrical fire was just prevented. Unfortunately, the "meritocratic elite" are dumb enough to now mess around to make sure the fusebox won't trip again. Hillary Clinton is down there with a flash light replacing the fuses with copper pennies as we speak.

    so good.

  53. @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    I hate the left…and I voted for Democrats for a long time, like an idiot, ugh. But, now, my friends who are Bolsheviks, are afraid of me ( we won ), and, embarrassed, but, they are also, Bullshit Bolsheviks not to give in so easily…unless it affects their adult children. The Achilles’ Heel is always the same: money. So, without funding, you’ve got nothin’. Your money is still important for your child to survive. I hate the dishonesty of those bad American people who hate the American youth who are fighting these stupid, so stupid wars. I hate the elite…and about 80 million hate the elite…they don’t check to see if you are a democrat, btw, shit happens.

    • Agree: dwb
  54. @International Jew
    You wish. They'll open the borders, empty the prisons, and shut down any web sites that report the truth.

    What they learned from Trump's 11/8/16 upset win is that democracy is too dangerous to tolerate. They'll go full Bolshevik.

    They’ll do both, as did the Bolsheviks.

  55. @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can’t tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    I think there is this. Everyone getting along was a big, intoxicating dream of the left, of the baby boomers and a lot of the 1968 society who were older than the baby boomer cohort.

    I was watching the final Cosmos segment the other day. Carl Sagan was a great popularizer of science, perhaps the great popularizer. He begins with a discussion on nuclear war and the potential for world destruction. This is a fairly easy sell. We should cooperate on a global scale to eliminate this risk. I’ve managed to find the video. And then he segues to the aims of political correctness. “The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, and to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work.”

    I think this kind of encapsulates a lot of the appeal of PC ideals to the boomer set. It was in part a product of its time and I suppose it seemed reasonable in a world before mass immigration into white countries. But now it is either naive or malicious. These ideals were only applied to white people and non-whites were excluded from the message. Only white people and white actions were horrible. We were to give up the protections of association and preference for our own, and our gender roles and division of labor, while non-whites were to continue on as is, fully intact. If religion was attacked, it was Christianity. Islam, Judaism or Buddhism were not mentioned. In this instance, the pretext is nuclear war prevention.

    The baby boomers who embraced this and promoted this have preferred to wallow in nostalgia than confront the ugly reality of what is happening today. When Sagan later lambastes slavery, he does not mention that while it has been eliminated from white countries, it is still very much present in non-white countries (and there are white victims of slavery) – this is glossed over.

    One might think at first that dealing with such ideas as mathematics, physics and astronomy, that politics and particularly, the leftist Jewish perspective on politics and its ever-present criticism of European nations would be absent. But no, Sagan can’t help himself.

    He laments Hypatia, as a representative of Science and the library of Alexandria who was murdered as a preliminary to the burning of the library of Alexandria. He blames this on the Christians, especially Cyril. Of course, he neglects to disclose that he is not an impartial observer, or tell us of the Jewish side of this story. e.g.

    Socrates of Constantinople’s account says that the Jews had plotted to flush out the Christians at night by running through the streets claiming that the Church of Alexander was on fire. Christians had then responded to what they believed was their church burning down, and “the Jews immediately fell upon and slew them,” using rings to recognize one another in the dark and killing everyone else in sight. According to the accusation, the Jews of Alexandria could not hide their guilt when the morning came, and Cyril, along with many of his followers, took to the city’s synagogues in search of the perpetrators of the massacre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Death

    The are other examples I can’t help but notice as I have watched the series. One thinks of Sagan as a kind of Man of Science without race, ethnicity or religious but he certainly has a distinctly Jewish perspective as you watch his series. Anyway, I digress. Why did PC have such appeal in the first place? Was there an appeal? Yes, I suppose there was and this is something the boomers have given their lives to (mostly for worse IMO).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews, living crowded together in big cities, especially New York, had particular reason to oppose nuclear war, and nuclear weapons generally, during the Cold War. Such a war wouldn't have been the 'end of the world' but it would indeed have been the end of them.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Agree, and you didn't even mention that the blood libel that Christians-destroyed-the-Library-of-Alexandria-and-deprived-us-all-of-centuries-of-scientific-advancement is extremely common on the Left and has become an informal conventional wisdom. Like all such leftist conventional wisdom, it is false.

    Even lefty-run Wikipedia acknowledges that the Libraries of Alexandria were probably destroyed over the course of centuries by a combination of pagan wars and Muslim invasion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction

    Not to mention that a library does no good if no one reads and understands it. So the decay of human capital precedes and exceeds the loss of intellectual capital like libraries.
  56. @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It’s as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates–vastly underestimates–the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I know the task is enormous, but I think we are fighting back quite effectively given the means at our disposal. The war is asymmetrical. The tactics must be different. We have come a long way in 10 years, IMO.

  57. “I’ve no doubt [that Angela Merkel’s] heart was in the right place…”

    In all seriousness, I’m more confident that Steve Sailer’s heart is in the right place, or Ann Coulter, or Donald J Trump, or Mickey Kaus. I don’t think these are evil people who want to restrict immigration out of hatred for immigrants. They correctly see a win-lose transaction and they have the heart to support citizens in having control over their own nations.

    “What if I told you that immigration restrictionism is and always has been racist?” Borders themselves are racist? Seriously?

    The entire concept of a nation whose citizens solely determine its future — the core foundation for any viable democracy at all — is now deemed by many left-liberals to be a function of bigotry. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.

    Borders are racist. They are nationalistic and tribal, and these nation states have ethnic/racial affiliations, so they are racist and bigoted. But it’s not a murderous or hateful racism and tribalism, it’s a reasonable self-love and actualization kind of tribalism. The basic notion of family; loving your children or ancestors more so than complete strangers is also racist and tribal.

    If the liberal viewpoint is complete insanity, and the most controversial piece of Trump’s policy is reasonable common sense, it should be a very good thing that the liberals are kept out of power indefinitely.

    • Agree: ic1000
  58. @Anonym
    At least Sullivan understands the reasons and motivations for Trump voting. I remember reading him a lot back before one of the Bush 43 elections. Back then at least he came across as fairly libertarianish. I haven't followed him since that time.

    The left has basically gone insane. Sooner or later that sort of insanity has to wear off. It would be very, very unlikely that a race of people as successful as Europeans would just decide to permanently adopt a Moriori philosophy. No, group racial and ethnic interests are going to start asserting themselves.

    Not everyone on the left has gone insane either, and it seems like Sullivan is trying to coax them back into reality, or at least enough of a reality that might win an election with a bait and switch.

    nice Moriori reference!

  59. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @unpc downunder
    Sullivan neglected to mention New Zealand and the Czech Republic. Centre-left New Zealand Labour Party has gone into coalition with populist NZ First Party on the back of a promise to reduce immigration and make housing more affordable, while anti-EU businessman comes out on top in Czech elections.

    2017 may well go down as the year the Empire stuck back, but there does appear to be a silver lining.

    The new N.Z. Gov’t has pledged to increase Refugee Resettlement from 10,000 to 50,000 p/a.
    That’s the same number Trump has reduced to, the problem for New Zealand is that there are only 3.8 million people there.
    Of course, knowing the scabby kiwis, they’ll probably be encouraging the new arrivals to move to the West Island [Australia].

  60. Sullivan has always been above average in self awareness for a gay man. His citations to the European experience suggest he may be thinking about Muslims. Since the Pulse nightclub massacre last year, gays have had obvious good reason — as long as they aren’t muzzled by crimestop and in-group thinking, at least — to be skeptical of how well an increasingly Islamic population is likely to work out for them.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Really?

    "In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event."

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
    , @Dissident
    "Sullivan has always been above average in self awareness for a gay man."

    https://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com/2009/08/face-of-gay-aids-industry.html

    Although many HIV+ individuals have testified that being infected is not the end of the world -- it's an evergreen topic in gay media -- Sullivan goes way, way beyond that, and in my view takes it all the way to glamorizing his "poz" status. There's a lot of self-justifying ridiculousness, but what truly earns Sullivan a special place in Hell is this:
     
    The inordinately disease-spreading, gruesome act of buggery (anal penetration) that brazen Sodomite degnerates such as Andrew Sullivan wantonly indulge-in and promote has killed far more people than Islamic terrorism. (To say nothing of squandering billions of public, taxpayer dollars.)
  61. @Anon
    The left has become a cult with an extremely self-destructive radical ideology. I've got a lot of liberals in my family who believe every bit of it, and frankly, from what I've seen, they will not leave it. Cults have specialized weapons to keep their members in line, and these are being used all over our society on a level conservatives do not understand.

    People underestimate how radical and biased the media is. My parents happily listen to radical left TV every day, and the channels are plastered with this stuff. It's like having an hour of 'let's hate conservatives' propaganda straight out of George Orwell. Until liberal media is shut up entirely and the center reasserts itself (forget the right-leftists will never go that far), radical liberalism will not let go of its grip.

    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can't tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    The left is trying to make all conservatives outcasts or scapegoats, and the right is terrible at combating this. It's as if we live in a society in which the madness of the Salem Witches has taken over. The young of our society have to be deprogrammed en masse, and the right underestimates--vastly underestimates--the enormity of the task. The US has long been a society that prides itself on its live and let live attitude, but this mindset is no long adaptive when our entire society is under assault by crazed leftists who are about half the population.

    I think we're going to drift into a crisis that rivals the Civil War, and I think it will come to blows and the breakup of our society. Conservatives just want to get along, but the left refuses to get along with the right. They're like Palestinians who base their whole ideology on the destruction of Israel. The entire ideology of the left is based on the notion of the destruction of conservatism. There is no getting along anymore with the left because of the refusal of the left to cooperate.

    Agreed. The task is enormous. It really is a 1984 situation complete with the propoganda getting louder the further you are from the proles and the closer to the inner party.

    Almost every institution of society pushes whatever the most recent ‘progressive’ position is all of the time.

    I find that many younger and well educated people can no longer even conceive that someone would not hold the latest position while still looking somewhat human. Even when almost no one held that position a couple of years ago. They either look blankly back, assume I’m joking or start pleading for me to recant.

    It is the pleading that is the creepiest. It is a sort of weird begging whereby they clearly cannot accept that anyone they consider like them might disagree, and this isn’t about topics that have long been controversial. This can be about simple observations that they could easily make in their own lives. Like men being genetically physically stronger on average than women, or gay men being highly promiscuous or that 1 in 4 women at university are not raped!

    How does a society get deprogrammed? That it is racist genocidal type behaviour to treat your citizens any better than those who never came to your country is all but the latest dogma. It gets harder and harder to question every day.

    At that point, it will only take the wrong people to get power again and no borders no country end of the whole thing. Unless the progressive left is replaced with an economic left or whatever they can never be trusted with power again.

    • Replies: @DJohn1
    Two observations.

    1) Academe has produced one of the finest generations of natural slaves ever created. This will not be undone, but they can serve.

    2) The Economic Left always wins. The Social Left always loses.
  62. @candid_observer
    It's just strange that Sullivan and others think that the Democrats and the media have some chance to pull down Trump by changing their approach -- which is almost certainly not going to happen anyway.

    The basic facts of Presidential politics remain the same with Trump as with anybody: an incumbent has a very large edge in any re-election bid. Only something distinctly negative while they are President -- a bad economy, a bad war -- has any likelihood of bringing them down.

    I'd say that Trump has a slight additional edge: he was regarded as so risky by so many voters that if he performs without some genuine debacle, he will be seen as having improved on their very low expectations.

    Bad things might happen under Trump that will doom him -- but they will have to be genuinely bad, not Fake News bad.

    Which means that the media/progressive hysteria is both ridiculous and pointless.

    “Only something distinctly negative while they are President — a bad economy, a bad war — has any likelihood of bringing them down.”
    And it doesn’t look likely to you that while Trump is on his way to succeed on immigration/crime/culture wars (NFL, transgender, statues etc.), he seems pretty much certain to fail on the economy and at least somewhat probable to miscalculate on foreign policy issues?
    Pre-election Trump rightly pointed out the overvaluation of the stock market. Now he crows about it, in effect taking ownership of the next massive downturn. The only question is whether it happens pre- or post-midterms. What either case would entail is something I can’t possibly figure out as well as the best American analysts. I would love to see What-if-scenarios addressing this.

  63. @Anonym
    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can’t tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    I think there is this. Everyone getting along was a big, intoxicating dream of the left, of the baby boomers and a lot of the 1968 society who were older than the baby boomer cohort.

    I was watching the final Cosmos segment the other day. Carl Sagan was a great popularizer of science, perhaps the great popularizer. He begins with a discussion on nuclear war and the potential for world destruction. This is a fairly easy sell. We should cooperate on a global scale to eliminate this risk. I've managed to find the video. And then he segues to the aims of political correctness. "The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, and to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz6a4WkKJn0

    I think this kind of encapsulates a lot of the appeal of PC ideals to the boomer set. It was in part a product of its time and I suppose it seemed reasonable in a world before mass immigration into white countries. But now it is either naive or malicious. These ideals were only applied to white people and non-whites were excluded from the message. Only white people and white actions were horrible. We were to give up the protections of association and preference for our own, and our gender roles and division of labor, while non-whites were to continue on as is, fully intact. If religion was attacked, it was Christianity. Islam, Judaism or Buddhism were not mentioned. In this instance, the pretext is nuclear war prevention.

    The baby boomers who embraced this and promoted this have preferred to wallow in nostalgia than confront the ugly reality of what is happening today. When Sagan later lambastes slavery, he does not mention that while it has been eliminated from white countries, it is still very much present in non-white countries (and there are white victims of slavery) - this is glossed over.

    One might think at first that dealing with such ideas as mathematics, physics and astronomy, that politics and particularly, the leftist Jewish perspective on politics and its ever-present criticism of European nations would be absent. But no, Sagan can't help himself.

    He laments Hypatia, as a representative of Science and the library of Alexandria who was murdered as a preliminary to the burning of the library of Alexandria. He blames this on the Christians, especially Cyril. Of course, he neglects to disclose that he is not an impartial observer, or tell us of the Jewish side of this story. e.g.

    Socrates of Constantinople's account says that the Jews had plotted to flush out the Christians at night by running through the streets claiming that the Church of Alexander was on fire. Christians had then responded to what they believed was their church burning down, and "the Jews immediately fell upon and slew them," using rings to recognize one another in the dark and killing everyone else in sight. According to the accusation, the Jews of Alexandria could not hide their guilt when the morning came, and Cyril, along with many of his followers, took to the city's synagogues in search of the perpetrators of the massacre.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Death

    The are other examples I can't help but notice as I have watched the series. One thinks of Sagan as a kind of Man of Science without race, ethnicity or religious but he certainly has a distinctly Jewish perspective as you watch his series. Anyway, I digress. Why did PC have such appeal in the first place? Was there an appeal? Yes, I suppose there was and this is something the boomers have given their lives to (mostly for worse IMO).

    Jews, living crowded together in big cities, especially New York, had particular reason to oppose nuclear war, and nuclear weapons generally, during the Cold War. Such a war wouldn’t have been the ‘end of the world’ but it would indeed have been the end of them.

  64. @Y.
    The Left has little reason to worry. There won't be any electoral backlash once the chemical treatment for 'xenophobia' is perfected and applied to the entire population:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9314.full.pdf

    Chilling.

    The Academy is already planning how to force our consensus onto the Narrative chemically.

    • Replies: @DJohn1
    The drug "Prozium" in the movie "Equilibrium" was apparently inspirational.

    Other movies are also inspirational for contesting purposes.
  65. @Anonym
    The main problem is that my parents, like most liberals, are conformists. They dare not think anything out of line or bad, because being the social people they are, they want to be able to get along with practically everyone they meet. The basis of conformism is fear of social isolation or becoming outcast, and they can’t tolerate that. Therefore, they dare not risk the Orwellian Thoughtcrime of pondering conservative ideology. This is the main weapon of the left.

    I think there is this. Everyone getting along was a big, intoxicating dream of the left, of the baby boomers and a lot of the 1968 society who were older than the baby boomer cohort.

    I was watching the final Cosmos segment the other day. Carl Sagan was a great popularizer of science, perhaps the great popularizer. He begins with a discussion on nuclear war and the potential for world destruction. This is a fairly easy sell. We should cooperate on a global scale to eliminate this risk. I've managed to find the video. And then he segues to the aims of political correctness. "The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, and to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz6a4WkKJn0

    I think this kind of encapsulates a lot of the appeal of PC ideals to the boomer set. It was in part a product of its time and I suppose it seemed reasonable in a world before mass immigration into white countries. But now it is either naive or malicious. These ideals were only applied to white people and non-whites were excluded from the message. Only white people and white actions were horrible. We were to give up the protections of association and preference for our own, and our gender roles and division of labor, while non-whites were to continue on as is, fully intact. If religion was attacked, it was Christianity. Islam, Judaism or Buddhism were not mentioned. In this instance, the pretext is nuclear war prevention.

    The baby boomers who embraced this and promoted this have preferred to wallow in nostalgia than confront the ugly reality of what is happening today. When Sagan later lambastes slavery, he does not mention that while it has been eliminated from white countries, it is still very much present in non-white countries (and there are white victims of slavery) - this is glossed over.

    One might think at first that dealing with such ideas as mathematics, physics and astronomy, that politics and particularly, the leftist Jewish perspective on politics and its ever-present criticism of European nations would be absent. But no, Sagan can't help himself.

    He laments Hypatia, as a representative of Science and the library of Alexandria who was murdered as a preliminary to the burning of the library of Alexandria. He blames this on the Christians, especially Cyril. Of course, he neglects to disclose that he is not an impartial observer, or tell us of the Jewish side of this story. e.g.

    Socrates of Constantinople's account says that the Jews had plotted to flush out the Christians at night by running through the streets claiming that the Church of Alexander was on fire. Christians had then responded to what they believed was their church burning down, and "the Jews immediately fell upon and slew them," using rings to recognize one another in the dark and killing everyone else in sight. According to the accusation, the Jews of Alexandria could not hide their guilt when the morning came, and Cyril, along with many of his followers, took to the city's synagogues in search of the perpetrators of the massacre.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Death

    The are other examples I can't help but notice as I have watched the series. One thinks of Sagan as a kind of Man of Science without race, ethnicity or religious but he certainly has a distinctly Jewish perspective as you watch his series. Anyway, I digress. Why did PC have such appeal in the first place? Was there an appeal? Yes, I suppose there was and this is something the boomers have given their lives to (mostly for worse IMO).

    Agree, and you didn’t even mention that the blood libel that Christians-destroyed-the-Library-of-Alexandria-and-deprived-us-all-of-centuries-of-scientific-advancement is extremely common on the Left and has become an informal conventional wisdom. Like all such leftist conventional wisdom, it is false.

    Even lefty-run Wikipedia acknowledges that the Libraries of Alexandria were probably destroyed over the course of centuries by a combination of pagan wars and Muslim invasion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction

    Not to mention that a library does no good if no one reads and understands it. So the decay of human capital precedes and exceeds the loss of intellectual capital like libraries.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Thanks for mentioning that. I originally was going to include that and lost the train of thought. Sagan blames the destruction on the Christians.
  66. @silviosilver

    In the 60′s it was determined that “skin color” i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.
     
    Not so fast.

    An interpretation of civil rights history more consistent with the spirit of the times was that race/ethnicity is not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment of Americans. (Personally, I utterly reject that notion; I think it's a perfectly legitimate basis.)

    Under this interpretation, Americans still retain the right to decide which foreigners to allow in and which to keep out.

    That was the deal as Americans understood it at the time, but it was untenable from the very start. Because once you have conceded the Civil Rights premise of color-blindness and anti-racism, you don’t have any sound basis to oppose non-White immigration.

    Any time you oppose immigration, you’re going to be accused of secretly trying to keep the country white, which you have already conceded is evil. The result is a painful spectacle of abject grovelling as you insist you’re not racist without any success whatsoever.

    Even if they do believe you, at best you’re greedy and you heartlessly deny others “a better life” to prop up your own wages. The left seized the moral high ground in the CRM, and it would have taken extraordinary will and solidarity on the part of White America to hold the line at equal rights for all citizens. If we had such will and solidarity, there never would have been a CRM to begin with.

    The Civil Rights bargain has failed.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    That was the deal as Americans understood it at the time, but it was untenable from the very start. Because once you have conceded the Civil Rights premise of color-blindness and anti-racism, you don’t have any sound basis to oppose non-White immigration.
     
    Race-denial opened the door to enormous, enormous amounts of social stupidity, without a doubt. I'm not convinced that opening the borders to endless amounts of non-white immigration was an inevitable result of that, however. There were still very sound cultural reasons to oppose immigration. Unfortunately, the shysters with media access were able to present immigration as some priceless to boon to the country, while successfully depicting opposition to it as rooted in "racism."

    Anti-racism to me ranks as the greatest idiocy of human history. Racism should have been accepted as natural to humankind and the only dispute should have been about fair forms of racism and unfair forms, good racism and evil racism. Blanket race-denial should never, ever have even been contemplated, much less made the law of the land.
  67. @Guy de Champlagne

    I can’t fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

     

    Because he is an incredibly flawed person and barely any good even on his good issues (immigration, trade, and all around opposing the cultural elite) and downright terrible on everything else (taxes, healthcare, the environment, and all around opposing the economic elite).

    Trump was the closest weapon at hand to murder the GOPe. If he only does that I feel it will have been a worthwhile 8 years.

  68. @NoWeltschmerz
    I don't think we need to calling them that for the simple reason that they aren't open borders in any respect. They are no more open borders than they are anti-war. For the life of me, I don't understand why people continue to use this label. The Democrats aren't open borders; they believe in borders. In fact, it's probably safe to say that they believe in keeping large swaths of people out.

    To understand what they are after, you have to first understand who they want out and who they want in. Obviously, they would like more people from south of the border, especially Mexico. If you understand that, you might want to ask yourself why. If you answer that it's to garner more votes, you would be correct, but that's only part of the story. If their sole desire was to win a particular election or two, they might, for instance, be more truly open borders and permit people from other parts of the world to enter the country illegally and yet, they don't. Their goals are much longer term. Much of the world are more politically liberal than the U.S. How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies immigrate at will? Why wouldn't the Democrats get behind that? Sure, there are fewer people from those countries that would come to the U.S., but still, every little bit helps, right? If you think of why the Democrats wouldn't support such a policy, you'll begin to understand why certain groups of people are preferred relative to others.

    I just don't understand why people like Andrew Sullivan don't grok this. Is he stupid? Has he changed his mind (aka, seen the light), but refuses to admit it? Are there really cold war, Kennedy-era liberals whose minds are frozen in amber? It's just baffling that only now, with the rise of Trump, that people so allegedly plugged into the political scene can be so blind to the obvious truth.

    300 words and no conclusion. Come on, Man.

  69. @George
    Merkel was peripheral to the decision to light Syria on fire. The conduct of the wars in Iraq and Syria are the cause of the refugee crisis, not Merkel accepting that once the refugee columns crossed into the Balkans, she had to house them.

    Most of the migrant/invaders were not refugees, nor were they even Syrian or Iraqi. Nor was Merkel without alternatives. Somehow every other of the five countries between Syrian and Germany had other options, but Germany alone didn’t?

    Your entire point is false and tendentious.

  70. @NoWeltschmerz
    I don't think we need to calling them that for the simple reason that they aren't open borders in any respect. They are no more open borders than they are anti-war. For the life of me, I don't understand why people continue to use this label. The Democrats aren't open borders; they believe in borders. In fact, it's probably safe to say that they believe in keeping large swaths of people out.

    To understand what they are after, you have to first understand who they want out and who they want in. Obviously, they would like more people from south of the border, especially Mexico. If you understand that, you might want to ask yourself why. If you answer that it's to garner more votes, you would be correct, but that's only part of the story. If their sole desire was to win a particular election or two, they might, for instance, be more truly open borders and permit people from other parts of the world to enter the country illegally and yet, they don't. Their goals are much longer term. Much of the world are more politically liberal than the U.S. How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies immigrate at will? Why wouldn't the Democrats get behind that? Sure, there are fewer people from those countries that would come to the U.S., but still, every little bit helps, right? If you think of why the Democrats wouldn't support such a policy, you'll begin to understand why certain groups of people are preferred relative to others.

    I just don't understand why people like Andrew Sullivan don't grok this. Is he stupid? Has he changed his mind (aka, seen the light), but refuses to admit it? Are there really cold war, Kennedy-era liberals whose minds are frozen in amber? It's just baffling that only now, with the rise of Trump, that people so allegedly plugged into the political scene can be so blind to the obvious truth.

    “How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies [to] immigrate at will? Why wouldn’t the Democrats get behind that?”

    As far as I am aware, the Democrats are behind that. There just aren’t that many people from nice, first world countries who want to emigrate. And on the rare occasions they do, they usually do it legally, so there is no dramatic story for the Dem propaganda machine.

    • Replies: @NoWeltschmerz
    Then I'm afraid your awareness doesn't go far enough. I'm not aware of any Democrat calling for the elimination of passports, visas, all immigration officers and the like. Maybe I missed that story, though. As I pointed out in my comment with respect to the Nordic social democracies, there aren't a lot of people; nevertheless, they don't want them. Why not? Why can't people from the first world illegally enter the U.S.? They aren't allowed to, right?

    Perhaps some hints are in order. What happens when you take in people who have average or above average IQs, expose them to a wider range of viewpoints than they have access to in their home countries and also provide a more entrepreneurial environment in which there is, even now, a greater degree of personal freedom and autonomy than exists in other countries in the first world? The results aren't always perfectly predictable, but you can be quite confident that they and, very importantly, their progeny won't reflexively and consistently vote for Democrats. As Ann Coulter has pointed out, when you bring in low skilled Mexicans, you get bloc voters for the foreseeable future. Democrats understand this and Republicans don't. This is why the latter are called the Stupid Party: they support policies which will result in their own extinction.

    It makes sense why neo-conservatives support this policy. After all, neo-cons are simply liberals whose "foreign-policy" views happened to align to those of the Republican party for a few years during the cold war. What makes no sense is why so many are so myopic not to see that there is literally no long-term future for any kind of real conservatism with the open door policy with respect to Mexico. In the short-term, you can get funding for Republican candidates, but in the long run, everyone will have to be a gun control, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, welfare statist, anti-meritocratic, Christian-bashing "moderate." Liberals will then become conservative in the sense of wanting to maintain the status quo and enforcing laws (including immigration laws) that keep out those deplorables who don't embrace the "American" way of "inclusion" and "tolerance" even if it means exclusion and not tolerating those who disagree. This doesn't seem like an unimaginable future, does it? Look at California, college campuses, the entertainment industry, the media and other places where liberalism runs amok.

    So, tell me again about how Democrats are all about open borders. I'm sure when non-elite Europeans start fleeing the Muslim onslaught Democrats will embrace them....won't they? I mean, after all, Democrats are for the children and love Hispanics and that's why the led the charge to keep Elian Gonzalez in the U.S. As Dean Wormer said, "fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." We need to wake up soon if there's to be any chance for the success and survival for the historic American nation and its principles to survive.

  71. @Almost Missouri
    Agree, and you didn't even mention that the blood libel that Christians-destroyed-the-Library-of-Alexandria-and-deprived-us-all-of-centuries-of-scientific-advancement is extremely common on the Left and has become an informal conventional wisdom. Like all such leftist conventional wisdom, it is false.

    Even lefty-run Wikipedia acknowledges that the Libraries of Alexandria were probably destroyed over the course of centuries by a combination of pagan wars and Muslim invasion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction

    Not to mention that a library does no good if no one reads and understands it. So the decay of human capital precedes and exceeds the loss of intellectual capital like libraries.

    Thanks for mentioning that. I originally was going to include that and lost the train of thought. Sagan blames the destruction on the Christians.

  72. @Rosie
    This is not complicated.

    In the 60's it was determined that "skin color" i.e. race\ethnicity are not a legitimate basis for disparate treatment.

    If that is so, then there is no reason for disparate treatment based on place of birth either. If it's wrong to exclude outgroups to protect your identity, it's even more wrong to exclude them to prop up your own wages.

    If White folks can't have our own schools, why would anyone expect us to be allowed our own countries?

    The left is consistent. Civic nationalism is an ultimately untenable attempt at compromise.

    Sadly, you are correct. Once the Leftist camel got its nose in the national tent in the 1960s by saying “public accommodations” must not be allowed to discriminate based on race, it was just a matter of time before everyone was not allowed to discriminate based on anything. And that time is now.

    Unfortunately, the basis of all rational thought is comparison and resulting discrimination based on the result of that comparison. If you can’t discriminate, you can’t think. Once the (false) proposition that discrimination is invalid became accepted as valid, rational thought in public was doomed. The results are all around us.

  73. Anonymous [AKA "Cyclinginhollywood"] says:
    @BB753
    Though he doesn't mention him, could this be a sign that Andrew Sullivan has a secret crush on Stephen Miller like so many female lefties?

    Stephen Miller, sexiest man alive?

    I think not…

  74. I’ve no doubt her heart was in the right place

    Lol. Is this line trying to soften up his leftist reader or is he really this naïve? Merkel is a sociopath.

  75. Mass immigration splits politics into two camps: 1) No Borders Globalizers and 2) Sovereignty and Borders Patriots. Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer and Ann Coulter have been fighting the good fight on nation-wrecking mass immigration — both legal and illegal.

    Now it is time for Republican Party primary political leaders to defeat the mass immigration boosters in the GOP ruling class.

    Andrew Sullivan sneakily calls immigration restrictionists “far right” instead of “patriotic sovereignty supporters” but so be it. “Right” vs “Left” is being replaced by “Globalization” vs “Patriotism.”

    Ann Coulter:

  76. @Almost Missouri

    "How about a program to allow people from the Nordic social democracies [to] immigrate at will? Why wouldn’t the Democrats get behind that?"
     
    As far as I am aware, the Democrats are behind that. There just aren't that many people from nice, first world countries who want to emigrate. And on the rare occasions they do, they usually do it legally, so there is no dramatic story for the Dem propaganda machine.

    Then I’m afraid your awareness doesn’t go far enough. I’m not aware of any Democrat calling for the elimination of passports, visas, all immigration officers and the like. Maybe I missed that story, though. As I pointed out in my comment with respect to the Nordic social democracies, there aren’t a lot of people; nevertheless, they don’t want them. Why not? Why can’t people from the first world illegally enter the U.S.? They aren’t allowed to, right?

    Perhaps some hints are in order. What happens when you take in people who have average or above average IQs, expose them to a wider range of viewpoints than they have access to in their home countries and also provide a more entrepreneurial environment in which there is, even now, a greater degree of personal freedom and autonomy than exists in other countries in the first world? The results aren’t always perfectly predictable, but you can be quite confident that they and, very importantly, their progeny won’t reflexively and consistently vote for Democrats. As Ann Coulter has pointed out, when you bring in low skilled Mexicans, you get bloc voters for the foreseeable future. Democrats understand this and Republicans don’t. This is why the latter are called the Stupid Party: they support policies which will result in their own extinction.

    It makes sense why neo-conservatives support this policy. After all, neo-cons are simply liberals whose “foreign-policy” views happened to align to those of the Republican party for a few years during the cold war. What makes no sense is why so many are so myopic not to see that there is literally no long-term future for any kind of real conservatism with the open door policy with respect to Mexico. In the short-term, you can get funding for Republican candidates, but in the long run, everyone will have to be a gun control, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, welfare statist, anti-meritocratic, Christian-bashing “moderate.” Liberals will then become conservative in the sense of wanting to maintain the status quo and enforcing laws (including immigration laws) that keep out those deplorables who don’t embrace the “American” way of “inclusion” and “tolerance” even if it means exclusion and not tolerating those who disagree. This doesn’t seem like an unimaginable future, does it? Look at California, college campuses, the entertainment industry, the media and other places where liberalism runs amok.

    So, tell me again about how Democrats are all about open borders. I’m sure when non-elite Europeans start fleeing the Muslim onslaught Democrats will embrace them….won’t they? I mean, after all, Democrats are for the children and love Hispanics and that’s why the led the charge to keep Elian Gonzalez in the U.S. As Dean Wormer said, “fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” We need to wake up soon if there’s to be any chance for the success and survival for the historic American nation and its principles to survive.

  77. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is just like the madness that took place at Masada. There is an unwillingness to compromise and come to an agreement in order to get out of a very difficult situation. I doubt the Leftist/liberals/Democrats/Jews will ever come to see the light and would rather die than compromise on their beliefs.

  78. George W. Bush, John McCain and the Republican Party ruling class are collaborating with the Democrat Party on nation-wrecking mass immigration. President Trump must make it clear that he stands with the American people on the protection of United States national sovereignty.

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS

    BUILD THE WALL

    KILL NAFTA NOW!

  79. @J.Ross
    Sorry, I couldn't make it past the unforgivably bad first sentence, which has so much wrong with it that it forces me back into viewing membership in the Professional Journalist's club as proof that you are incapable of writing, but not above other ways of getting a job. That's not sour grapes in a world where Malcolm Gladwell, Kurt "Earthquake" Eichenwald and David Brooks are respected commentators.
    It's clear he intends this sentence to be the thin end of a wedge before spelling out that such things are beyond dispute. But it's well worth disputing since the image of our time is a man punched in the face, who is then told that he has not been punched in the face. All current political identity is controlled by admitting or denying the injury. Andrew sullied the last thing I ready by him in the same way, trying to sneak in unacceptable nonsense as an initial article of faith. I think it was the same thing, in fact: "people who failed to recognize that it was Her Turn are evil, but also stupid."
    All these words and inappropriate personalizations amount to the seven hundred thousandth re-attempt to dismiss "failure of revolutionary consciousness" as Klan membership. That has not worked for years, it has been especially and frequently ineffective in the current season, and it would make an excellent starting point for lefty (and "reasonable centrist") self-examination. I doubt we will see that from Sullivan [given horrifying gossip, omitted].
    To dispute this indisuptable initial idea, would anyone have any problem with controlled immigration, with rigid criteria and merciless enforcement, with the exclusion of violent criminals and unqualified iliterates, which insisted on a loving awareness of the uniqueness of the Constitution, and which occurred in a genuinely and not just supposedly booming economy? Or do I need to sign up for gun-walking, MSF ferrying terrorists, the enslavement of Mexican women, and Somalifying Minnesota as an indisputable part of the deal?

    To dispute this indisuptable initial idea, would anyone have any problem with controlled immigration, with rigid criteria and merciless enforcement, with the exclusion of violent criminals and unqualified iliterates, which insisted on a loving awareness of the uniqueness of the Constitution, and which occurred in a genuinely and not just supposedly booming economy? Or do I need to sign up for gun-walking, MSF ferrying terrorists, the enslavement of Mexican women, and Somalifying Minnesota as an indisputable part of the deal?

    An enormous part of the reason underlying our unprecedented immigration is that our government and business elites are addicted to GDP growth and unable to conceive another way to achieve it without population growth. Having permitted and encouraged our manufacturing base to move offshore, they had to pump up the only economic sectors remaining. Construction booms when immigration is high, services boom, and of course government is always booming. And all this makes finance boom. Essentially our entire economy, not just Social Security but the entire debt-based government/service economy, is a giant Ponzi scheme dependent on massive population growth.

  80. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    "A critical moment, in retrospect, came with Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to import over a million Syrian refugees into the heart of Europe. I’ve no doubt her heart was in the right place..."

    I have some doubt.

    It has been shown that Merkel acted as she did out of pure cowardice: she and her ministers were terrified at the thought of the media showing pictures of German troops on the border, defending the Heimat and its Volk.
    So she ditched them both. Is there any better definition of a traitor?

  81. @Thomas
    Sullivan has always been above average in self awareness for a gay man. His citations to the European experience suggest he may be thinking about Muslims. Since the Pulse nightclub massacre last year, gays have had obvious good reason — as long as they aren't muzzled by crimestop and in-group thinking, at least — to be skeptical of how well an increasingly Islamic population is likely to work out for them.

    Really?

    “In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

  82. @Tyrion
    Agreed. The task is enormous. It really is a 1984 situation complete with the propoganda getting louder the further you are from the proles and the closer to the inner party.

    Almost every institution of society pushes whatever the most recent 'progressive' position is all of the time.

    I find that many younger and well educated people can no longer even conceive that someone would not hold the latest position while still looking somewhat human. Even when almost no one held that position a couple of years ago. They either look blankly back, assume I'm joking or start pleading for me to recant.

    It is the pleading that is the creepiest. It is a sort of weird begging whereby they clearly cannot accept that anyone they consider like them might disagree, and this isn't about topics that have long been controversial. This can be about simple observations that they could easily make in their own lives. Like men being genetically physically stronger on average than women, or gay men being highly promiscuous or that 1 in 4 women at university are not raped!

    How does a society get deprogrammed? That it is racist genocidal type behaviour to treat your citizens any better than those who never came to your country is all but the latest dogma. It gets harder and harder to question every day.

    At that point, it will only take the wrong people to get power again and no borders no country end of the whole thing. Unless the progressive left is replaced with an economic left or whatever they can never be trusted with power again.

    Two observations.

    1) Academe has produced one of the finest generations of natural slaves ever created. This will not be undone, but they can serve.

    2) The Economic Left always wins. The Social Left always loses.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    What? You have that completely backwards.
  83. @Rosie
    That was the deal as Americans understood it at the time, but it was untenable from the very start. Because once you have conceded the Civil Rights premise of color-blindness and anti-racism, you don't have any sound basis to oppose non-White immigration.

    Any time you oppose immigration, you're going to be accused of secretly trying to keep the country white, which you have already conceded is evil. The result is a painful spectacle of abject grovelling as you insist you're not racist without any success whatsoever.

    Even if they do believe you, at best you're greedy and you heartlessly deny others "a better life" to prop up your own wages. The left seized the moral high ground in the CRM, and it would have taken extraordinary will and solidarity on the part of White America to hold the line at equal rights for all citizens. If we had such will and solidarity, there never would have been a CRM to begin with.

    The Civil Rights bargain has failed.

    That was the deal as Americans understood it at the time, but it was untenable from the very start. Because once you have conceded the Civil Rights premise of color-blindness and anti-racism, you don’t have any sound basis to oppose non-White immigration.

    Race-denial opened the door to enormous, enormous amounts of social stupidity, without a doubt. I’m not convinced that opening the borders to endless amounts of non-white immigration was an inevitable result of that, however. There were still very sound cultural reasons to oppose immigration. Unfortunately, the shysters with media access were able to present immigration as some priceless to boon to the country, while successfully depicting opposition to it as rooted in “racism.”

    Anti-racism to me ranks as the greatest idiocy of human history. Racism should have been accepted as natural to humankind and the only dispute should have been about fair forms of racism and unfair forms, good racism and evil racism. Blanket race-denial should never, ever have even been contemplated, much less made the law of the land.

  84. @International Jew
    You wish. They'll open the borders, empty the prisons, and shut down any web sites that report the truth.

    What they learned from Trump's 11/8/16 upset win is that democracy is too dangerous to tolerate. They'll go full Bolshevik.

    Civil War.

    Been done twice before in NorAm. It can and will be done again. Such is human nature.

    If in the near to medium term, so be it.

  85. @Almost Missouri
    Chilling.

    The Academy is already planning how to force our consensus onto the Narrative chemically.

    The drug “Prozium” in the movie “Equilibrium” was apparently inspirational.

    Other movies are also inspirational for contesting purposes.

  86. @Shouting Thomas
    I can't fathom why the emergence of Trump is always presented as an unfortunate tragedy.

    It isn't.

    His emergence is a blessing.

    He said refreshing things that no one else was saying but he’s a trainwreck of a person and of a president. He has long since served his purpose.

  87. @BB753
    Though he doesn't mention him, could this be a sign that Andrew Sullivan has a secret crush on Stephen Miller like so many female lefties?

    Miller’s baldness aside, his baby face and frail, meatless body could possibly appeal to a gay lover of twinks. But I’m not sure any significant number of women would be attracted to him for any reason other than his status as top adviser to the US president.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Power makes a man sexier.
  88. @Buffalo Joe
    Yes, and Canada has a man-child uber-liberal as PM and yet, I have to show a passport and make a declaration of intent when I cross their border, or what ever splits the Niagara under the Peace Bridge.

    In 2009 or 2010 I drove through Canada as a shortcut. Entering Canada, the border guard waved me through without even looking at my passport. I was shocked.

  89. @Thomas
    Sullivan has always been above average in self awareness for a gay man. His citations to the European experience suggest he may be thinking about Muslims. Since the Pulse nightclub massacre last year, gays have had obvious good reason — as long as they aren't muzzled by crimestop and in-group thinking, at least — to be skeptical of how well an increasingly Islamic population is likely to work out for them.

    “Sullivan has always been above average in self awareness for a gay man.”

    https://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com/2009/08/face-of-gay-aids-industry.html

    Although many HIV+ individuals have testified that being infected is not the end of the world — it’s an evergreen topic in gay media — Sullivan goes way, way beyond that, and in my view takes it all the way to glamorizing his “poz” status. There’s a lot of self-justifying ridiculousness, but what truly earns Sullivan a special place in Hell is this:

    The inordinately disease-spreading, gruesome act of buggery (anal penetration) that brazen Sodomite degnerates such as Andrew Sullivan wantonly indulge-in and promote has killed far more people than Islamic terrorism. (To say nothing of squandering billions of public, taxpayer dollars.)

  90. @Rod1963
    Feh, it's a hot button/wedge issue created and promoted by the elites to keep folks from looking what the left hand is doing. Namely economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites.

    Given that the Democratic party is owned by mega money donors. Schumer for example is owned outright by K street. They don't make a move unless their paymasters say so.

    When Trump and Bannon got the ball rolling on economic populism/nationalism. It presented a big problem for the elites. First they shut up Bernie and his anti-corporate diatribe and started pushing the borderless nation idiocy via Baba yaga(Hillary) and her legion of minions.

    Why? Because economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables and destroy the political Potemkin Village set up by the ruling class.

    Hence all the thunder and lightening about racial identity, borderless societies, etc. If the elites have to wreck the Democratic party for good they will.

    But isn’t mass third-world immigration not one of the key ways that “economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites.” is accomplished?

    economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables

    Certainly in the area of trade, that is true. On others as well, at least to varying degrees. But what about taxes, for example? Is Sanders’ position on taxes not anathema to a considerable segment of Trump supporters?

    • Replies: @Dissident
    But isn’t mass third-world immigration not

    Unintended double-negative there; scratch either the "isn't" or the "not" from the above-referenced sentence in my previous post.
  91. @Dissident
    But isn't mass third-world immigration not one of the key ways that "economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites." is accomplished?

    economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables
     
    Certainly in the area of trade, that is true. On others as well, at least to varying degrees. But what about taxes, for example? Is Sanders' position on taxes not anathema to a considerable segment of Trump supporters?

    But isn’t mass third-world immigration not

    Unintended double-negative there; scratch either the “isn’t” or the “not” from the above-referenced sentence in my previous post.

  92. @Rod1963
    Feh, it's a hot button/wedge issue created and promoted by the elites to keep folks from looking what the left hand is doing. Namely economic rapine in order to enrich a handful of elites.

    Given that the Democratic party is owned by mega money donors. Schumer for example is owned outright by K street. They don't make a move unless their paymasters say so.

    When Trump and Bannon got the ball rolling on economic populism/nationalism. It presented a big problem for the elites. First they shut up Bernie and his anti-corporate diatribe and started pushing the borderless nation idiocy via Baba yaga(Hillary) and her legion of minions.

    Why? Because economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables and destroy the political Potemkin Village set up by the ruling class.

    Hence all the thunder and lightening about racial identity, borderless societies, etc. If the elites have to wreck the Democratic party for good they will.

    Because economic populism is the issue that can unify the Bernie Bro set with the Deplorables and destroy the political Potemkin Village set up by the ruling class.

    What about foreign policy?

    Aren’t most Sanders supporters opposed to “Invade the World” insanity?

  93. @DJohn1
    Two observations.

    1) Academe has produced one of the finest generations of natural slaves ever created. This will not be undone, but they can serve.

    2) The Economic Left always wins. The Social Left always loses.

    What? You have that completely backwards.

  94. @AndrewR
    Miller's baldness aside, his baby face and frail, meatless body could possibly appeal to a gay lover of twinks. But I'm not sure any significant number of women would be attracted to him for any reason other than his status as top adviser to the US president.

    Power makes a man sexier.

  95. johnd [AKA "jlee0"] says:

    is there, really, any sane reason to allow ANY further immigration into the US?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/26/bail-hearing-for-honduran-charged-in-florida-mall-bomb-plot.html

    here is a Latino-Islamic terrorist; previously we had Kyrgyz terrorists, “gay”(?) Muslim terrorists, Korean mass murder, trigger happy Somali “cop”. Is someone going to wake up from this nightmare?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2