The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Beinart: to Keep Muslims Already Here from Wanting to Kill Us, We Must Import Lots More Muslims
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 The Atlantic:

What Trump and Cruz Should Learn From Belgium
In calling for policies that alienate Muslims, the Republican candidates are trying to make America more like Europe.

Right after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, Donald Trump did something bizarre. He spoke the truth. Appearing on Fox and Friends, the GOP presidential frontrunner declared that, “This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation.”

… Which is why the proposals that he and Ted Cruz offered in response to it are so idiotic. Soon after decrying Belgium’s lack of “assimilation,” Trump reiterated his call for temporarily banning Muslims from entering the United States. It’s hard to think of a proposal more likely to push America in Belgium’s direction. Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” … Compared to countries like Belgium, the degree of acceptance that American Muslims enjoy represents a form of American exceptionalism.

Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this. A 2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims and learn English. Trump’s demonization of Muslims has already fostered more of these anti-Muslim attacks, and were he to try to implement his ban on Muslim immigration, Islamophobia would likely spike even higher, undermining the very integration of American Muslims that helps keep America safe.

This is the kind of logic that gets 2nd graders beat up by bullies. You’re getting punched by a bully, and it occurs to you to strike back, but then you worry that that would make your tormenter really mad.

Eventually, most schoolchildren grow out of this conceptual trap, but not the American establishment when it comes to immigration policy.

 
Hide 168 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This 2nd grader response has been the prevailing mode for some time now.

    In this respect, the cliche that ‘this is what the terrorists want’ is actually true.

    • Replies: @Hubbub
    @G Pinfold


    Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe.
     
    Does one laugh or cry at this naivete? Why is it necessary to have any Muslim immigration into this country? In fact, we have more people in this country than we need, now. We don't need any Mexicans, Hondurans, Peruvians, Muslims, Sub-Saharan Africans, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Lapplanders, Inuits, Nauru-ans, or any other race, breed, ethnicity, or otherwise.

    We are a borderline third-world country as it is.

    Replies: @Sean the Neon Caucasian

  2. This is why any ban on immigration of a group must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren and the peace of the realm will never be secured.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Diamed

    where have we seen that before?

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Diamed


    must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren
     
    You want to deport Beinart? I am with you!
    , @AndrewR
    @Diamed

    Most of "said group" are already citizens. Many if not most lack dual citizenship. Where would they be deported to?

    I'd like to think we could find a happy medium between open borders and complete ethnoreligious cleansing.

    , @athEIst
    @Diamed

    Byzantium fell three times. Each occasioned the opening of a gate by a traitor.

  3. Just what we need: Hair of the dog that bit our face off.

  4. OK, so follow the example of the “most Islamic ” country in Europe, who have imported these guys for decades. And have reaped the whirlwind. Oh, yeah, that’s an informed strategy.

  5. That kind of logic is going to create a lot more guys like this:

    THIRD brush with terror: American Mormon, 19, left with burns and shrapnel injuries in Brussels attack also survived Boston and Paris bombings

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    @TangoMan


    THIRD brush with terror: American Mormon, 19, left with burns and shrapnel injuries in Brussels attack also survived Boston and Paris bombings.
     
    Am I the only one who thinks that guy should be investigated for possible terrorist links? His circumstances seem astronomically unlikely, like those of that math teacher who won the Texas lottery four times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
  6. European countries are not New World nations of immigrants, they’re aboriginal homelands. Europeans see their countries as such and should not be expected to do otherwise. They can accept some foreigners if, like Dieudonné, they act like cousins in the extended national family but if they refuse to join the national family then the national family shuns them. It’s not the task of European countries to “do a better job of assimilating Muslims”, it’s the job of the unassimilated Muslims to leave. It’s the job of European governments to make this happen as smoothly and painlessly as possible. That’s how a kind of order can be restored.

    • Replies: @Hubbub
    @Cagey Beast

    I suggest it's the Muslims who have not made an effort to assimilate, not the Europeans. Why does anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islam expect that Muslims, a select nation among nations, would assimilate given that their philosophy is exclusiveness? I know this, you know this; why can't Merkel, Obama, Kerry, Hollande, Clinton, etc., understand this simple principle? It must be malicious ignorance, a profound will to disbelieve.

    Replies: @gda

    , @Tex
    @Cagey Beast

    The Anglophone "immigrant" nations were created pretty much entirely by Europeans, English, Irish, French, Dutch, etc. The idea that location confers identity is one of the more pernicious lies the open borders clique spreads.

    Immigrants can become American, if they are already part of European culture, or from a culture that is readily shed in favor of the new identity. Englishmen landing in America may have become "Americans", but only by geography. They absolutely, positively did not become Pequots, Cherokee, or Comanches. Irishmen did not become Australian Aborigines, Scots did not become Maoris, Alsatians did not become Kabyles, Dutch did not become Xhosa, Russians did not become Kazakhs.

    Moslems don't readily become anything other than Moslems. It's a strongly cohesive world-view that does not yield to much, except maybe Arab nationalism. Yes, there's a lot of variation in Moslem cultures, but the pervasive wahabbist movement consistently demands conformity to Arab cultural norms, as expressed in the Koran. Wahabbism is pretty much Arab nationalism by other means. Every impulse in Moslem idenity, pushes the Moslem into being more Moslem, and more Arab, if only by imitation. Trying to assimilate Moslems on any scale above the merest handful is futile.

  7. I think this pretty much nails their mindset:

    Conservative Pundit
    ‏@DemsRRealRacist

    The lesson of #Brussels is clear. If we don’t want our own peaceful Muslims blowing up airports, we must rein in Trump’s divisive rhetoric.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Trumpenprole

    I love that account. I like to fantasize that on trying to pass the Pearly Gates, an archangel told Buckley he really f---ed up by appointing Lowry, and Buckley is now Tweeting from Purgatory.

  8. If you’re in a hole, you better keep digging, because if you don’t, the hole will start digging itself, and even faster.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @candid_observer

    Hole diggers need a break for some self-licking ice cream cones, and then they drink each other's milkshakes.

  9. Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @BostonTea

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    Replies: @Broski, @NOTA, @Clyde, @Corvinus

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @BostonTea

    Whale Oil Beef Hooked! Apparently Jack Ryan crushed the remaining IRA and the various Red Army factions are now the Establishment of Europe.

    Replies: @fnn

    , @fnn
    @BostonTea

    That chart looks a lot different from this one (same source):

    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=98

    Replies: @fnn

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @BostonTea

    Of course! Those who were killed, maimed, or family members of the same, ought to just suck it up! Just because you are dead or irreparably harmed is nothing compared to when lots more people were killed and irreparably harmed by stupid Leftists!

    Because Diversity!

    , @Name Withheld
    @BostonTea

    This is a strange meme going around the left. That the current fear about terrorism is irrational because 30 years ago there was more terrorism in Europe. A few points.

    1) This ignores that muslims commit regular ordinary vanilla crimes at a much higher rate than 30 years ago because of immigration. So Europe's streets are less safe than 30 years ago.

    2) The terrorists back then were mostly Soviet backed (something that a good book needs to be written about).

    Replies: @random observer

    , @Erik Sieven
    @BostonTea

    there surely was somebody in Syria in 2009 who pointed out: don´t panic, there is no danger of an islamist uprising, what shall they do anyway? blow up one or two bus stations per year? some years later people something has developed which the US no officially calls suicide

    , @bomag
    @BostonTea

    And yet in all other areas of life, just one death elicits calls for the application of maximum safety measures. Does the airline industry get away with pointing to past fatalities as justification of not adopting updated safety measures? But with Islamic terror we are supposed to take safety measures off the table in service to political ends.

    , @backup
    @BostonTea

    Good to show that graph. It clearly shows Europe almost had its own problems fixed.

    , @Tex
    @BostonTea

    Where's the Brigatti Rossi when need 'em? Europe had a better class of terrorist in those days. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, easy on the eyes and handy with an AK-47.

    Incidentally, a certain percentage of those deaths in the '70s and '80s were inflicted by Palestinian radicals, who also provided support to many of the leftist groups. Anybody remember Entebbe? Mogadishu? Carlos the Jackal? Gunned up leftists loved to jump on the Arab bandwagon in those days. Maybe it's too hard to find a Wilfried Bose among all the pajama boys swarming these days.

    , @AndrewR
    @BostonTea

    Say what you want about the IRA, they're not invaders and colonizers.

    Replies: @Brutusale

  10. I read that excerpt three times and for the life of me I still do not understand this man’s reasoning.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    @Connecticut Famer

    That's because you're reading it the wrong way. Start with the conclusion: "We must bring in lots and lots more Muslims." Then work backward from that conclusion with the aim of using the latest Muslim atrocity to "prove" this sacred dogma.

    , @AndrewR
    @Connecticut Famer

    Because it's not actually meant to convince the skeptical. It's a rallying call to rouse the faithful against Trump.

  11. This is like when from the 1960s-1990s the Left was strident in saying that punishing (black and minority) criminals with longer sentences and harassing minor offenders only made things worse. Then Giuliani and Bratton and tough-on-crime legislators got in and implemented the opposite policy and, suddenly, cities saw drops in crime, raised real estate values, and improved quality of life—and the Left’s bitching quieted down on the issue. It took about 25 years before the Left starting bitching about high incarceration and police harassment again (and for people to take it seriously).

    I think that if Trump and Sessions and like-minded folks got the immigration policy through, the bitching from the Left would cease to be heard for about 25 years. Of course, Trump would have to deport, deport, deport o make sure it stuck.

  12. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    • Replies: @Broski
    @This Is Our Home

    I agree with your main point: diversity is war. That was the working title of a book I'm writing, but the current title is Humans: A Taboo.

    , @NOTA
    @This Is Our Home

    Surveillance of everyone all the time will end democracy a hell of a lot faster than demographic change will.

    , @Clyde
    @This Is Our Home


    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.
     
    Muslims have already been elected to high office in Europe. They run within the established socialist parties. Rotterdam or some other large Dutch city had a Muslim mayor.
    When they get more numerous they will establish their own Muslim political parties.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

    , @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

  13. @Diamed
    This is why any ban on immigration of a group must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren and the peace of the realm will never be secured.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR, @athEIst

    where have we seen that before?

  14. “2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims”

    Why is it a bad thing that Muslims are less likely to intermarry with Non Muslims? Such marriages only creates more Muslims and less cultural Westerners because the Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam and than are forced to start wearing burkas, niqabs, or hijabs.

    As an Italian I would never force my future wife to convert to Catholicism, if she is not Catholic.

    • Replies: @Karl
    @Jefferson

    Jefferson >> he Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam

    Appreciate your sensibilities, but that's exactly backwards.

    It's MEN who must become Muslim if they want to marry a Muslima.

    Muslim guys are allowed to have Abrahamic-religion wives.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Tex

    , @montezuma
    @Jefferson

    It's especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany. Germans are, on average, technically gifted, most muslims not so much. The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87. Apart from high IQ iranians, I don't see how your kid is going to turn out well if you race-mix with muslims. They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational.

    It's a stupid idea. For sure, if Germans would mix with those muslims we have in our country -- mean IQ of turks living in Germany is 21 points below that of Germans -- then we can say good-bye to our book culture as well as to our engineering efforts. Most mixed-race muslim/germans are hot-headed, aggressive proles, with average to low intelligence.

    With dysgenics, race-mixing and low IQ immigration, Germany -- and most western countries -- will surely change for the worse, and we can forget people still reading Stefan George or Ernst Jünger in 100 years, or understanding to write clean, simple and efficient code based on the Unix philosophy, which was invented mostly by white Americans. Take the magnificent suckless project: lots of Germans and whites there, no black or muslim dudes.

    All the great science, literature, philosophy and engineering was for naught. A shame!

    Replies: @Corvinus

  15. Only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adapt American customs”. Loosely translated.. Two in ten you pass want to cut your effing head off.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Kyle a

    "Only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adapt American customs”. Loosely translated.. Two in ten you pass want to cut your effing head off."

    If a study came out saying 20 percent of American Christians surveyed want to bring back the Crusades, that would be the front cover headline in highlighted dark black letters on The New York Daily News, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, etc.

    , @Hubbub
    @Kyle a

    The larger Muslim community may not be 'terrorist-bent', but its ready acquiescence to terrorist assaults gives the thousands of Muslims who are terror prone a safe haven, as it were.

  16. There is something that even kindergarteners know. When you are in a hole, you do keep digging until you pop out in China. That is the best and coolest way to get out of a hole. It worked for Bugs Bunny.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Cwhatfuture

    But Bugs always took the wrong turn in Albuquerque!

  17. @candid_observer
    If you're in a hole, you better keep digging, because if you don't, the hole will start digging itself, and even faster.

    Replies: @Ivy

    Hole diggers need a break for some self-licking ice cream cones, and then they drink each other’s milkshakes.

  18. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    Whale Oil Beef Hooked! Apparently Jack Ryan crushed the remaining IRA and the various Red Army factions are now the Establishment of Europe.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Of course you know it was the IRA/Sinn Fein that was brought into the govt in NI. It's the Irish Way-eventually.

  19. @Kyle a
    Only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to "be distinct" than to "adapt American customs". Loosely translated.. Two in ten you pass want to cut your effing head off.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Hubbub

    “Only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adapt American customs”. Loosely translated.. Two in ten you pass want to cut your effing head off.”

    If a study came out saying 20 percent of American Christians surveyed want to bring back the Crusades, that would be the front cover headline in highlighted dark black letters on The New York Daily News, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, etc.

  20. No problem with this, the atonement for the genocide of the Crusades still needs to be done.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Bryant Gummel

    What about the genocide that occurred when Islam first forced itself on the people of the ME and north Africa?

    Replies: @bomag

  21. A 2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims and learn English.

    As usual, a media numbskull confuses cause and effect.

  22. Our elites are either 1) irreparably stupid; 2) criminally insane; or 3) evil geniuses intent on our destruction.

    I don’t tend towards conspiracy theories, but my gut tells me it’s neither 1 nor 2.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Matthew Kelly

    The same elites that backed Jeb and then Rubio as the establishment candidate this year? The same elites whose deep machiavellian scheming is behind the amazing economic stability of the last decade, and our unending string of foreign-policy successes in the last couple decades?

    Evil is a definite possibility, but incompetence is a given.

  23. @This Is Our Home
    @BostonTea

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    Replies: @Broski, @NOTA, @Clyde, @Corvinus

    I agree with your main point: diversity is war. That was the working title of a book I’m writing, but the current title is Humans: A Taboo.

  24. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    • Replies: @fnn
    @fnn

    Sorry, this is the right one:
    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?start_yearonly=&end_yearonly=&start_year=&start_month=&start_day=&end_year=&end_month=&end_day=&region=8&asmSelect0=&asmSelect1=&dtp2=all&success=yes&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=

    Replies: @International Jew

  25. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @BostonTea

    Whale Oil Beef Hooked! Apparently Jack Ryan crushed the remaining IRA and the various Red Army factions are now the Establishment of Europe.

    Replies: @fnn

    Of course you know it was the IRA/Sinn Fein that was brought into the govt in NI. It’s the Irish Way-eventually.

  26. @Bryant Gummel
    No problem with this, the atonement for the genocide of the Crusades still needs to be done.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    What about the genocide that occurred when Islam first forced itself on the people of the ME and north Africa?

    • Replies: @bomag
    @MarkinLA

    You haven't gotten the memo.

    Only non-Muslims need to atone.

    Muslims and their apologists just need to double down.

    (How this came to be policy, I'm not sure. Something about keeping the most people happy.)

  27. @This Is Our Home
    @BostonTea

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    Replies: @Broski, @NOTA, @Clyde, @Corvinus

    Surveillance of everyone all the time will end democracy a hell of a lot faster than demographic change will.

  28. @fnn
    @BostonTea

    That chart looks a lot different from this one (same source):

    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=98

    Replies: @fnn

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @fnn

    I still don't see your point.

  29. @G Pinfold
    This 2nd grader response has been the prevailing mode for some time now.

    In this respect, the cliche that 'this is what the terrorists want' is actually true.

    Replies: @Hubbub

    Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe.

    Does one laugh or cry at this naivete? Why is it necessary to have any Muslim immigration into this country? In fact, we have more people in this country than we need, now. We don’t need any Mexicans, Hondurans, Peruvians, Muslims, Sub-Saharan Africans, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Lapplanders, Inuits, Nauru-ans, or any other race, breed, ethnicity, or otherwise.

    We are a borderline third-world country as it is.

    • Replies: @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    @Hubbub

    "Does one laugh or cry at this naivete?"

    In your particular case, laugh, because like it or not ceasing all immigration anywhere is nigh impossible. Nor is it really desirable. Hell, I want the best and brightest to come to America and assimilate.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  30. @Matthew Kelly
    Our elites are either 1) irreparably stupid; 2) criminally insane; or 3) evil geniuses intent on our destruction.

    I don't tend towards conspiracy theories, but my gut tells me it's neither 1 nor 2.

    Replies: @NOTA

    The same elites that backed Jeb and then Rubio as the establishment candidate this year? The same elites whose deep machiavellian scheming is behind the amazing economic stability of the last decade, and our unending string of foreign-policy successes in the last couple decades?

    Evil is a definite possibility, but incompetence is a given.

  31. What does “assimilation” mean when applied to non-white immigrants in a white country?

    It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population.

    Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives.

    If the immigrants are a small fraction of the population, it probably doesn’t matter too much if they have a way of life that would be incompatible with that of the natives (that was probably the situation in most white countries until the last quarter of the twentieth century).

    Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population. Don’t import millions of aliens and then start wondering how you’ll “assimilate” them.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population."

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can't be stopped.

    "Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives."

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840's and 1850's, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800's/early 1900's, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    "Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population."

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    Replies: @Romanian, @random observer, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

  32. @Cagey Beast
    European countries are not New World nations of immigrants, they're aboriginal homelands. Europeans see their countries as such and should not be expected to do otherwise. They can accept some foreigners if, like Dieudonné, they act like cousins in the extended national family but if they refuse to join the national family then the national family shuns them. It's not the task of European countries to "do a better job of assimilating Muslims", it's the job of the unassimilated Muslims to leave. It's the job of European governments to make this happen as smoothly and painlessly as possible. That's how a kind of order can be restored.

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Tex

    I suggest it’s the Muslims who have not made an effort to assimilate, not the Europeans. Why does anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islam expect that Muslims, a select nation among nations, would assimilate given that their philosophy is exclusiveness? I know this, you know this; why can’t Merkel, Obama, Kerry, Hollande, Clinton, etc., understand this simple principle? It must be malicious ignorance, a profound will to disbelieve.

    • Replies: @gda
    @Hubbub

    It's merely blind obedience to the Standard Social Science Model, the Bible of clear-seeing progressive leaders (and followers) the world over.

    Because it emanates from the Bible, such wisdom CANNOT be questioned, on pain of being ostracized.

    So yeah, profound will to disbelieve. Actually, profound will to skirt the issue entirely and just stick with the literal Bible text.

    Sort of like the Muslims with the Koran.

  33. “Anti-Muslim hate crimes”, forsooth.

    Given that to a first approximation, all “hate crimes” are hoaxes put on by histrionic publicity-seeking “victims”, I don’t think that means what they want us to think it means.

  34. @Kyle a
    Only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to "be distinct" than to "adapt American customs". Loosely translated.. Two in ten you pass want to cut your effing head off.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Hubbub

    The larger Muslim community may not be ‘terrorist-bent’, but its ready acquiescence to terrorist assaults gives the thousands of Muslims who are terror prone a safe haven, as it were.

  35. To me it’s really simple. Quran explicitly calls all non-Muslims “infidels”, and calls for Muslims to wage a war on them, conquer them, convert them, and if conversion is resisted, then enslave them, tax them into oblivion, or simply kill them. From a Muslim POV, all of these “solutions” are not only permissible, they are actually a requirement for any pious follower of Islam.
    How in the sane world would any non-Muslim country allow these agents of subversion and violence in, and not expect horrible things to happen in the aftermath, is beyond me.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

    And it goes without saying – the more of them will come, the more violence there will be, until all other faiths are extinguished.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @attonn

    Islamic Globalism...a clever poster, posts past, coined that term. Funny, on NPR yesterday, they were gleefully discussing the fading of traditional Christian religiosity/church affiliation. It's so maudlin how many liberals in this country condescend to Christians (won't dare ridicule/criticize Jews), but fawn over Islam, and feel that every accommodation must be made to Muslims; for their practices, mosques, women's fashion choices (which must be approved by men), awful animal-torture (halal)...so yucky. This last reason alone, is why I don't like Islam. God does not care what you eat or wear, after all.

    But you're right, eventually, it may come down to Islam against Russia (there will be some isolated whitetopias scattered somewhere- Mars?), China (they'll destroy everybody; East Asian violence is something else all together, and, THEY, truly don't care about a god - and think you're an idiot for believing in one) and Mormons! Haha!

  36. There is talk in the media about policing Muslim neighborhoods. How the the heck do Muslims get their own neighborhoods but white people can’t have their own neighborhoods?

  37. @Connecticut Famer
    I read that excerpt three times and for the life of me I still do not understand this man's reasoning.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank, @AndrewR

    That’s because you’re reading it the wrong way. Start with the conclusion: “We must bring in lots and lots more Muslims.” Then work backward from that conclusion with the aim of using the latest Muslim atrocity to “prove” this sacred dogma.

  38. OT, but I decided to check out Cracked.com today to see if they’ve fully transformed into an SJW hellhole. Found this, which richly deserves the iSteve treatment:

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-you-cant-convince-anyone-that-theyre-racist/

    It’s a perfect summary of the kind of “heads I win, tails you lose” crap that is driving people in droves toward Trump.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Mr. Blank

    This articles prose is one step away from being a children's book, and that's probably the next stage of anti-racism... Richard Scarey's "How to Avoid Crimethink" etc.

  39. Wait a minute. This article was written by *Peter Beinart*? *The* Peter Beinart? The man who invented the slogan “Make American Great Again”? Ten years ago he wrote “The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again”. See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beinart

    • Replies: @ATate
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Hmmm...one of those really smart (smarter than you and I) Jews who believes that ..."by abetting Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, American Jewish leaders risk alienating generations of younger American Jews who find the occupation to be morally wrong and incompatible with their liberal politics...

    Also from his Wikipedia.

  40. This is also an example of another kind of logical fallacy blabbed at us all the time in media.

    “A 2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims and learn English.”

    Sure, but might not the causation (if any exists) go in the other direction, e.g. might not the hate be the result of said Muslims refusing to assimilate?

    (Don’t similar cases exist down through European history, in which so-called “ghettoes” were actually exclusive communities deliberately shut off from outsiders, thus building resentment from the surrounding communities?)

    Causation can go in either direction, or not exist at all, but they don’t (want to) see that.

    In places like Molenbeek, the severity of the problem correlates with the size of the Muslim community. That would seem to be a more likely causal factor in all this, especially since we have a natural experiment, yielding this result, in which the variable exists in one place (Europe) and not in another (America).

  41. Got to hand it to the elites; they keep their eyes on the prize. Once they’ve taken down the white man from any possible power or influence, then then can turn on all the morons they’ve let into the country and it’ll make Stalin’s rule look like the good old times. Lots easier to control morons, and the elites know revolutions happen from the top to the bottom.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Dee

    "Got to hand it to the elites; they keep their eyes on the prize. Once they’ve taken down the white man from any possible power or influence, then then can turn on all the morons they’ve let into the country and it’ll make Stalin’s rule look like the good old times."

    So, really, you, as a white man, are unable to do anything about this situation??? Is it that bleak that you are willing to roll over and be stepped on?

  42. @This Is Our Home
    @BostonTea

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    Replies: @Broski, @NOTA, @Clyde, @Corvinus

    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Muslims have already been elected to high office in Europe. They run within the established socialist parties. Rotterdam or some other large Dutch city had a Muslim mayor.
    When they get more numerous they will establish their own Muslim political parties.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @Clyde

    That is what I implied by Muslims running 'as Muslims.' when that starts to happen European democracy will transparently become more and more an ethnic spoils system, and I really don't see how it can survive such a thing. European democracy will die with the death of the European majority demos.

    Replies: @Clyde

  43. Why all this hand-wringing over Muslim assimilation in Europe? It won’t be a problem once everyone in Europe converts to Islam.

  44. Trump reiterated his call for temporarily banning Muslims from entering the United States. It’s hard to think of a proposal more likely to push America in Belgium’s direction.

    I think we should run with this… US immigration policy needs to do 2 things: (1) take a rest so Muslims can assimilate and (2) not piss off Muslims already here, so the obvious answer is…

    A complete 100% moratorium on all immigration!!

    I want to see Trump double-down on his immigration rhetoric. Time to move the Overton Window even further. Let’s have a discussion not just on Muslims but on how the US should conduct its total immigration policy.

  45. @Mr. Blank
    OT, but I decided to check out Cracked.com today to see if they've fully transformed into an SJW hellhole. Found this, which richly deserves the iSteve treatment:

    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-you-cant-convince-anyone-that-theyre-racist/

    It's a perfect summary of the kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" crap that is driving people in droves toward Trump.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    This articles prose is one step away from being a children’s book, and that’s probably the next stage of anti-racism… Richard Scarey’s “How to Avoid Crimethink” etc.

  46. @Trumpenprole
    I think this pretty much nails their mindset:

    Conservative Pundit
    ‏@DemsRRealRacist

    The lesson of #Brussels is clear. If we don't want our own peaceful Muslims blowing up airports, we must rein in Trump's divisive rhetoric.
     

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I love that account. I like to fantasize that on trying to pass the Pearly Gates, an archangel told Buckley he really f—ed up by appointing Lowry, and Buckley is now Tweeting from Purgatory.

  47. @Diamed
    This is why any ban on immigration of a group must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren and the peace of the realm will never be secured.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR, @athEIst

    must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren

    You want to deport Beinart? I am with you!

  48. @attonn
    To me it's really simple. Quran explicitly calls all non-Muslims "infidels", and calls for Muslims to wage a war on them, conquer them, convert them, and if conversion is resisted, then enslave them, tax them into oblivion, or simply kill them. From a Muslim POV, all of these "solutions" are not only permissible, they are actually a requirement for any pious follower of Islam.
    How in the sane world would any non-Muslim country allow these agents of subversion and violence in, and not expect horrible things to happen in the aftermath, is beyond me.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

    And it goes without saying - the more of them will come, the more violence there will be, until all other faiths are extinguished.

    Replies: @Lagertha

    Islamic Globalism…a clever poster, posts past, coined that term. Funny, on NPR yesterday, they were gleefully discussing the fading of traditional Christian religiosity/church affiliation. It’s so maudlin how many liberals in this country condescend to Christians (won’t dare ridicule/criticize Jews), but fawn over Islam, and feel that every accommodation must be made to Muslims; for their practices, mosques, women’s fashion choices (which must be approved by men), awful animal-torture (halal)…so yucky. This last reason alone, is why I don’t like Islam. God does not care what you eat or wear, after all.

    But you’re right, eventually, it may come down to Islam against Russia (there will be some isolated whitetopias scattered somewhere- Mars?), China (they’ll destroy everybody; East Asian violence is something else all together, and, THEY, truly don’t care about a god – and think you’re an idiot for believing in one) and Mormons! Haha!

  49. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    Of course! Those who were killed, maimed, or family members of the same, ought to just suck it up! Just because you are dead or irreparably harmed is nothing compared to when lots more people were killed and irreparably harmed by stupid Leftists!

    Because Diversity!

  50. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    This is a strange meme going around the left. That the current fear about terrorism is irrational because 30 years ago there was more terrorism in Europe. A few points.

    1) This ignores that muslims commit regular ordinary vanilla crimes at a much higher rate than 30 years ago because of immigration. So Europe’s streets are less safe than 30 years ago.

    2) The terrorists back then were mostly Soviet backed (something that a good book needs to be written about).

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Name Withheld

    There were a few serious attacks back then comparable to what ISIS wannabes or AQ have done, but not too many that were specifically designed for mass killing of civilians in large venues.

    The IRA in Britain used to phone in warnings before everything and that reduced both death and injuries. There were still a lot of the latter, but death counts were especially limited. Muslims don't warn kufar.

    Red brigades/RAF etc were extremely dangerous psychos but they weren't overly interested in making mass random civilians the casualties.

    Even now you can get sources to confirm there is more non-Moslem terror in Europe than Moslem- it usually cites things like Corsican separatist attacks, in Corsica, against police, and usually quite small bombs in garbage cans or targeted shootings.

    Yeah, because that's going to cause the same kind of harm, panic, or threat to the state as an attack on a Paris football match or a Brussels train station.

  51. @TangoMan
    That kind of logic is going to create a lot more guys like this:

    THIRD brush with terror: American Mormon, 19, left with burns and shrapnel injuries in Brussels attack also survived Boston and Paris bombings
     

    Replies: @Daniel Williams

    THIRD brush with terror: American Mormon, 19, left with burns and shrapnel injuries in Brussels attack also survived Boston and Paris bombings.

    Am I the only one who thinks that guy should be investigated for possible terrorist links? His circumstances seem astronomically unlikely, like those of that math teacher who won the Texas lottery four times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html

  52. @Jefferson
    "2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims"

    Why is it a bad thing that Muslims are less likely to intermarry with Non Muslims? Such marriages only creates more Muslims and less cultural Westerners because the Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam and than are forced to start wearing burkas, niqabs, or hijabs.

    As an Italian I would never force my future wife to convert to Catholicism, if she is not Catholic.

    Replies: @Karl, @montezuma

    Jefferson >> he Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam

    Appreciate your sensibilities, but that’s exactly backwards.

    It’s MEN who must become Muslim if they want to marry a Muslima.

    Muslim guys are allowed to have Abrahamic-religion wives.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Karl

    But the children have to be Muslims in both cases.

    Replies: @Karl

    , @Tex
    @Karl

    Having observed a few mixed marriages, whatever mohammedan males are allowed, in practice they push the wives into converting. Maybe my data sample is too small, but I'd be surprised if musulmen are paragons of tolerance with the wimmins & chilluns.

    Replies: @Jefferson

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, it was the shitheads who run Sweden who first pioneered ‘Merkel’s Boner’ policy, in that, about a year ago, the Swedish government pompously and smugly announced that all Syrian ‘refugees’ would get asylum in Sweden, no questions asked and with no limit.
    Senior Swedish politicians when questioned on Swedish immigration policy loved to quote this following remark.

    ‘We have to treat them well now that we are in the majority so that they will treat us well when we are in the minority’.

    Apart from the unbelievable craven cowardliness of the saying, it has always struck me as by far the stupidest remark I’ve ever heard uttered by any politician anywhere.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous

    ‘We have to treat them well now that we are in the majority so that they will treat us well when we are in the minority’.

    He doesn't understand that leapfrogged loyalty is not reciprocal. The Other does not even understand the concept. He regards the liberal as a patsy to be taken advantage of and then discarded.

  54. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The open borders lobby want open borders.

    For them the main problem with jihadism isn’t the bodies but the increased political pressure to close borders.

    Their arguments are all nonsensical because of this; they’re clutching at straw men.

    #

    Taking it at face value he implicitly accepts that there is a variable rate of radicalization by saying it would increase if the numbers were curtailed so

    jihadists = number of muslims x individual risk of radicalization

    so
    – if the numbers were zero or the risk of radicalization was zero then there’d be no jihadists
    – if the radicalization risk was 1% then then there’d be 10,000 jihadists per million muslims.

    So he’s effectively saying Trump’s policy would increase the risk of radicalization by more than the decrease in total numbers leading to a greater total number of jihadists.

    Maybe he’s right but if he is he’s implying that muslims already in the US must be appeased or they’ll start killing ppl – so why would you want ppl who are like that anyway?

    Seems to me the only muslims you’d want are the ones who want to get away from all that.

  55. A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won’t report on Islamic terrorism in Asia. It would be hard to blame Shia mosques getting blown up in Pakistan on US policy (if it was reported).

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    @anon

    also it is hard to explain dozens of people chopped to death in chinese train stations by marginalization of muslims in the banlieus of Paris

    , @biz
    @anon

    Yes!

    There is footage on Youtube of one sect / tribe in Yemen chanting "Death to America" in their Mosque at the very moment that another sect / tribe blows the mosque up.

    Clearly what makes Muslims blow stuff up is unrelated to their assimilation or lack thereof in Europe or America.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    , @Corvinus
    @anon

    "A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won’t report on Islamic terrorism in Asia."

    Won't, huh. Then I have no idea how this story found its way onto the WWW.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/paris-attacks-malaysian-killing-puts-focus-on-southeast-asian-terror-groups.html

  56. @Clyde
    @This Is Our Home


    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.
     
    Muslims have already been elected to high office in Europe. They run within the established socialist parties. Rotterdam or some other large Dutch city had a Muslim mayor.
    When they get more numerous they will establish their own Muslim political parties.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

    That is what I implied by Muslims running ‘as Muslims.’ when that starts to happen European democracy will transparently become more and more an ethnic spoils system, and I really don’t see how it can survive such a thing. European democracy will die with the death of the European majority demos.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @This Is Our Home

    You are correct insofar as European Muslims who have run for political office and won have come off as sane Muslims and even a bit secular. They spout none of this ummah this and ummah that jive. They want non-Muslim votes. When Muslims numbers increase you will get Muslims running as Muslims who are complaining about racism and being oppressed.

  57. Second grade logic re: bullies is somewhat correct. There are bullies who really hit hard to teach their mark a lesson if they fight back. There are some cowardly bullies who don’t. But in many cases it is the former. This is the same logic that dogs operate under. They would rather submit and cop a small punishment to indicate they know their place, than be killed. Humans, especially the more base kind, operate under a similar sort of logic.

    However, the logic for the world’s superpower or even the EU to kowtow to Muslims is absurd. Any of those countries could easily have their military go house to house, herd these people onto ships or airplanes, and drop them off in a random North African country.

  58. @Karl
    @Jefferson

    Jefferson >> he Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam

    Appreciate your sensibilities, but that's exactly backwards.

    It's MEN who must become Muslim if they want to marry a Muslima.

    Muslim guys are allowed to have Abrahamic-religion wives.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Tex

    But the children have to be Muslims in both cases.

    • Replies: @Karl
    @reiner Tor

    reiner Tor >>> But the children have to be Muslims in both cases


    Now let a muslim guy marry a jewish woman.

    The rabbis will recognize the children as Jews; AND the imams will recognize the children as Muslims.

    Choose your poison, reiner.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  59. I’m reposting this comment because I’m the only commentator that gets it…

    I have the answer!!!

    I was in Copenhagen standing in line behind a European Muslim who was one step away from having her head rotate and start hissing in Latin Poltergeist style….She was talking to an American Muslim who was totally chill…

    The difference is that American Muslims live in areas that are already Brown (Mexicans). Like Irvine California. Whites are Already a Minority to American Muslims. They rarely run into Blonde People.

    To an American Muslim we’re already dead.

    But there are still far too many blondes in Europe for the European Muslims to deal with…especially the females.

    How shit would life be if you’re some Arab chick with a big nose and thick black hair surrounded every waking moment by 6′ Blonde Scandinavian Supermodels?

    Compare that to Muslims in SoCal being surrounded by 4’8 Aztecs.

    There just aren’t enough Nordic Americans left to give Muslims serious psychological problems.

  60. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    there surely was somebody in Syria in 2009 who pointed out: don´t panic, there is no danger of an islamist uprising, what shall they do anyway? blow up one or two bus stations per year? some years later people something has developed which the US no officially calls suicide

  61. @anon
    A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won't report on Islamic terrorism in Asia. It would be hard to blame Shia mosques getting blown up in Pakistan on US policy (if it was reported).

    Replies: @Erik Sieven, @biz, @Corvinus

    also it is hard to explain dozens of people chopped to death in chinese train stations by marginalization of muslims in the banlieus of Paris

  62. @Hubbub
    @G Pinfold


    Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe.
     
    Does one laugh or cry at this naivete? Why is it necessary to have any Muslim immigration into this country? In fact, we have more people in this country than we need, now. We don't need any Mexicans, Hondurans, Peruvians, Muslims, Sub-Saharan Africans, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Lapplanders, Inuits, Nauru-ans, or any other race, breed, ethnicity, or otherwise.

    We are a borderline third-world country as it is.

    Replies: @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    “Does one laugh or cry at this naivete?”

    In your particular case, laugh, because like it or not ceasing all immigration anywhere is nigh impossible. Nor is it really desirable. Hell, I want the best and brightest to come to America and assimilate.

    • Disagree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Hell, I want the best and brightest to come to America and assimilate.

    Define "the best and the brightest". You mean like our H-1B visas that let in run of the mill code monkeys?

  63. @fnn
    @fnn

    Sorry, this is the right one:
    https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?start_yearonly=&end_yearonly=&start_year=&start_month=&start_day=&end_year=&end_month=&end_day=&region=8&asmSelect0=&asmSelect1=&dtp2=all&success=yes&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=

    Replies: @International Jew

    I still don’t see your point.

  64. @anon
    A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won't report on Islamic terrorism in Asia. It would be hard to blame Shia mosques getting blown up in Pakistan on US policy (if it was reported).

    Replies: @Erik Sieven, @biz, @Corvinus

    Yes!

    There is footage on Youtube of one sect / tribe in Yemen chanting “Death to America” in their Mosque at the very moment that another sect / tribe blows the mosque up.

    Clearly what makes Muslims blow stuff up is unrelated to their assimilation or lack thereof in Europe or America.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @biz

    I had to Google and view...priceless. Like the first comment said, it's like watching cancer cure itself!

  65. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    And yet in all other areas of life, just one death elicits calls for the application of maximum safety measures. Does the airline industry get away with pointing to past fatalities as justification of not adopting updated safety measures? But with Islamic terror we are supposed to take safety measures off the table in service to political ends.

  66. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    Good to show that graph. It clearly shows Europe almost had its own problems fixed.

  67. @This Is Our Home
    @BostonTea

    The modern surveillance (police) state is truly amazing. Modern trauma surgery is equally fantastic. The problem is though that this just keeps a cork on the problems. Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.

    Basically modern society has institualised conflict so well into the rigours of democracy that everything keeps going, but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority. At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.

    Replies: @Broski, @NOTA, @Clyde, @Corvinus

    “At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war.”

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep “white America” from being colorized?

    “but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority.”

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    “Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.”

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @Corvinus


    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep “white America” from being colorized
     
    Democracy becomes an ethnic spoils system if there is no majority demos to hold it together and vote on ideological lines. I don't know how it will turn out exactly but I do know that once this happens democracy stops dampening conflict and instead ratchets it up.

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.
     
    Who did you think you are kidding with your semantic twaddle?

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    Yes, so continued mass Muslim immigration equals the political dispossession of native Europeans.
    , @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    “Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.”

    If it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    Just wanted to add that, according to Mark Steyn, the in Brussels, 10 out of 17 of the ruling party's councilmen on the city board were Muslim back in 20o7. You see it with the Sikhs in Canada as well. For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics - in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population.

    In the US, Blacks punch above their weight in politics, especially local, as well. Moreso than Hispanics, despite being the largest minority. But Blacks are the sacralized minority, so it figures.

    While White people tut tut around thinking that a minority is a minority, the truth is that, for some reason or another (from competence and IQ to sheer ethnocentricity or social status), some minorities will always be more influential and better represented than others.

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    I don't want it to get that far.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Alec Leamas
    @Corvinus


    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

     

    And if you're cuckolded, another man's son will bear your name, but your line dies with you.

    Tell me - for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background
     
    Then you must have been born in a stable, because you're being a jackass, regardless of species.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus



    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the box.”
     
    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we'll have the Corvini of the West to thank.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

  68. “This is the kind of logic that gets 2nd graders beat up by bullies. You’re getting punched by a bully, and it occurs to you to strike back, but then you worry that that would make your tormenter really mad.”

    Assuming that immigrants, in general, are bullies, and that nativists are repeatedly and perpetually being bullied by them.

    “Eventually, most schoolchildren grow out of this conceptual trap, but not the American establishment when it comes to immigration policy.”

    Ah, yes, the old “I’m the only adult in the room” strategy. Well played, sir.

  69. @anon
    A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won't report on Islamic terrorism in Asia. It would be hard to blame Shia mosques getting blown up in Pakistan on US policy (if it was reported).

    Replies: @Erik Sieven, @biz, @Corvinus

    “A lot of the SJW nonsense on this is because the media won’t report on Islamic terrorism in Asia.”

    Won’t, huh. Then I have no idea how this story found its way onto the WWW.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19/paris-attacks-malaysian-killing-puts-focus-on-southeast-asian-terror-groups.html

  70. @MarkinLA
    @Bryant Gummel

    What about the genocide that occurred when Islam first forced itself on the people of the ME and north Africa?

    Replies: @bomag

    You haven’t gotten the memo.

    Only non-Muslims need to atone.

    Muslims and their apologists just need to double down.

    (How this came to be policy, I’m not sure. Something about keeping the most people happy.)

  71. @Dee
    Got to hand it to the elites; they keep their eyes on the prize. Once they've taken down the white man from any possible power or influence, then then can turn on all the morons they've let into the country and it'll make Stalin's rule look like the good old times. Lots easier to control morons, and the elites know revolutions happen from the top to the bottom.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Got to hand it to the elites; they keep their eyes on the prize. Once they’ve taken down the white man from any possible power or influence, then then can turn on all the morons they’ve let into the country and it’ll make Stalin’s rule look like the good old times.”

    So, really, you, as a white man, are unable to do anything about this situation??? Is it that bleak that you are willing to roll over and be stepped on?

  72. @Rob McX
    What does "assimilation" mean when applied to non-white immigrants in a white country?

    It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population.

    Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives.

    If the immigrants are a small fraction of the population, it probably doesn't matter too much if they have a way of life that would be incompatible with that of the natives (that was probably the situation in most white countries until the last quarter of the twentieth century).

    Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population. Don't import millions of aliens and then start wondering how you'll "assimilate" them.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population.”

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can’t be stopped.

    “Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives.”

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    “Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population.”

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840′s and 1850′s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?
     
    You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans. Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today's Americans feel that it has turned out. It's natural to look towards something in the recognizable past and idealize it and want to maintain it. The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets. Just because you think you did alright, does not mean that it did or that i couldn't turn out better, or that those nativists could not have been right.

    Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today's Italians? My people hold that they are descended from Dacians colonized by Romans, which, for the Dacians, meant utter cultural obliteration (with just a few words and symbols left) and probably mixed marriages between native women and Romans. The usual. And the Dacians weren't exactly happy about it (of our two ancient national heroes, Trajan and Decebal, one beat the crap out of the other, who then committed suicide by falling on his sword to avoid the humiliation of being paraded through Rome like Vercingetorix). Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?

    So, my point is, whatever belle or mauvais melange results out of the current and future upheavals in Europe, if things settle down around new identities, it's very likely that they will think of themselves as being awesome and proudly descended from those haute Euros who had become stagnant and were enriched by new blood bla bla. And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we'd probably disinherit the lot of them. Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today's Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @random observer
    @Corvinus

    Your point on blending of races is reasonable, thought it is a process that has ebbed and flowed depending on how much contact there has been across continents and oceans in various eras. But I think that actually supports Rob McX's point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.

    From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population it was probably over the top to consider the Germans all that obnoxious, except politically to the extent they were at first all fleeing revolutionaries. Of course, the revolution they wanted looked a lot like America and they assimilated more thoroughly than any group since. Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.

    But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.

    And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows, and excluded these groups from entry, they would have been within their rights. Any nation gets to determine who comes in and why. They'd have sacrificed some future gain for America, but that too would have been within their rights.

    The immigration of the 19-20th century was certainly crafted to meet the needs of some Americans, the assimilation process ultimately worked albeit over generations and with some pretty big hurdles, and ultimately probably was a net gain. Doesn't mean it was a gain America had to pursue, or that it could not legitimately foregone if the politics had gone another way.

    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Corvinus

    , @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    There's an old saying that sums up the British (unwritten) constitution, and it is this - 'no parliament can bind a successor'. The meaning being that every freshly elected new government is perfectly at liberty to tear up anything and everything ever formulated by all previous governments, and to start afresh, applying its agenda as it sees fit and, indeed, on which the people elected it.

    My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe.

    That was then. This is now.

    That was over 100 years ago, affected generations past, it is been and gone, no one living today has any memory of it, in short it means jacksh*t, and has no bearing on the policy dilemmas facing those of us now living.
    Bringing it up is just desperate straw man tactics.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @ben tillman
    @Corvinus


    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous?
     
    Immigration.
  73. @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep “white America” from being colorized

    Democracy becomes an ethnic spoils system if there is no majority demos to hold it together and vote on ideological lines. I don’t know how it will turn out exactly but I do know that once this happens democracy stops dampening conflict and instead ratchets it up.

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    Who did you think you are kidding with your semantic twaddle?

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.

    Yes, so continued mass Muslim immigration equals the political dispossession of native Europeans.

  74. @Cagey Beast
    European countries are not New World nations of immigrants, they're aboriginal homelands. Europeans see their countries as such and should not be expected to do otherwise. They can accept some foreigners if, like Dieudonné, they act like cousins in the extended national family but if they refuse to join the national family then the national family shuns them. It's not the task of European countries to "do a better job of assimilating Muslims", it's the job of the unassimilated Muslims to leave. It's the job of European governments to make this happen as smoothly and painlessly as possible. That's how a kind of order can be restored.

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Tex

    The Anglophone “immigrant” nations were created pretty much entirely by Europeans, English, Irish, French, Dutch, etc. The idea that location confers identity is one of the more pernicious lies the open borders clique spreads.

    Immigrants can become American, if they are already part of European culture, or from a culture that is readily shed in favor of the new identity. Englishmen landing in America may have become “Americans”, but only by geography. They absolutely, positively did not become Pequots, Cherokee, or Comanches. Irishmen did not become Australian Aborigines, Scots did not become Maoris, Alsatians did not become Kabyles, Dutch did not become Xhosa, Russians did not become Kazakhs.

    Moslems don’t readily become anything other than Moslems. It’s a strongly cohesive world-view that does not yield to much, except maybe Arab nationalism. Yes, there’s a lot of variation in Moslem cultures, but the pervasive wahabbist movement consistently demands conformity to Arab cultural norms, as expressed in the Koran. Wahabbism is pretty much Arab nationalism by other means. Every impulse in Moslem idenity, pushes the Moslem into being more Moslem, and more Arab, if only by imitation. Trying to assimilate Moslems on any scale above the merest handful is futile.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  75. @Diamed
    This is why any ban on immigration of a group must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren and the peace of the realm will never be secured.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR, @athEIst

    Most of “said group” are already citizens. Many if not most lack dual citizenship. Where would they be deported to?

    I’d like to think we could find a happy medium between open borders and complete ethnoreligious cleansing.

  76. @Anonymous
    Actually, it was the shitheads who run Sweden who first pioneered 'Merkel's Boner' policy, in that, about a year ago, the Swedish government pompously and smugly announced that all Syrian 'refugees' would get asylum in Sweden, no questions asked and with no limit.
    Senior Swedish politicians when questioned on Swedish immigration policy loved to quote this following remark.

    'We have to treat them well now that we are in the majority so that they will treat us well when we are in the minority'.

    Apart from the unbelievable craven cowardliness of the saying, it has always struck me as by far the stupidest remark I've ever heard uttered by any politician anywhere.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    ‘We have to treat them well now that we are in the majority so that they will treat us well when we are in the minority’.

    He doesn’t understand that leapfrogged loyalty is not reciprocal. The Other does not even understand the concept. He regards the liberal as a patsy to be taken advantage of and then discarded.

  77. @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    “Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.”

    If it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.

    Just wanted to add that, according to Mark Steyn, the in Brussels, 10 out of 17 of the ruling party’s councilmen on the city board were Muslim back in 20o7. You see it with the Sikhs in Canada as well. For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics – in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population.

    In the US, Blacks punch above their weight in politics, especially local, as well. Moreso than Hispanics, despite being the largest minority. But Blacks are the sacralized minority, so it figures.

    While White people tut tut around thinking that a minority is a minority, the truth is that, for some reason or another (from competence and IQ to sheer ethnocentricity or social status), some minorities will always be more influential and better represented than others.

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.

    I don’t want it to get that far.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    "For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics – in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population."

    It would appear that this group is assimilating well and securing white votes. Imagine that...

    Replies: @Romanian

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Romanian

    In one sense I agree with the minority politicians: It is ridiculous for us to impose our laws on them.

    But that should work in our favor. We have no right to tell them how to run their lives. Thus, they have no right to be here.

    Replies: @Romanian

  78. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    Where’s the Brigatti Rossi when need ’em? Europe had a better class of terrorist in those days. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, easy on the eyes and handy with an AK-47.

    Incidentally, a certain percentage of those deaths in the ’70s and ’80s were inflicted by Palestinian radicals, who also provided support to many of the leftist groups. Anybody remember Entebbe? Mogadishu? Carlos the Jackal? Gunned up leftists loved to jump on the Arab bandwagon in those days. Maybe it’s too hard to find a Wilfried Bose among all the pajama boys swarming these days.

  79. @BostonTea
    Deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe, 1970-2015

    http://i.imgur.com/HJedQXZ.jpg

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @fnn, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Name Withheld, @Erik Sieven, @bomag, @backup, @Tex, @AndrewR

    Say what you want about the IRA, they’re not invaders and colonizers.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @AndrewR

    They contracted out their bomb making services, though, especially to the Basques.

  80. @Connecticut Famer
    I read that excerpt three times and for the life of me I still do not understand this man's reasoning.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank, @AndrewR

    Because it’s not actually meant to convince the skeptical. It’s a rallying call to rouse the faithful against Trump.

  81. @Karl
    @Jefferson

    Jefferson >> he Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam

    Appreciate your sensibilities, but that's exactly backwards.

    It's MEN who must become Muslim if they want to marry a Muslima.

    Muslim guys are allowed to have Abrahamic-religion wives.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Tex

    Having observed a few mixed marriages, whatever mohammedan males are allowed, in practice they push the wives into converting. Maybe my data sample is too small, but I’d be surprised if musulmen are paragons of tolerance with the wimmins & chilluns.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Tex

    "Having observed a few mixed marriages, whatever mohammedan males are allowed, in practice they push the wives into converting. Maybe my data sample is too small, but I’d be surprised if musulmen are paragons of tolerance with the wimmins & chilluns."

    The cases I have seen of White Western women marrying Muslim men, they all end up dressing like females in Yemen and Egypt for example.

  82. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population."

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can't be stopped.

    "Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives."

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840's and 1850's, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800's/early 1900's, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    "Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population."

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    Replies: @Romanian, @random observer, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840′s and 1850′s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans. Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today’s Americans feel that it has turned out. It’s natural to look towards something in the recognizable past and idealize it and want to maintain it. The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets. Just because you think you did alright, does not mean that it did or that i couldn’t turn out better, or that those nativists could not have been right.

    Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today’s Italians? My people hold that they are descended from Dacians colonized by Romans, which, for the Dacians, meant utter cultural obliteration (with just a few words and symbols left) and probably mixed marriages between native women and Romans. The usual. And the Dacians weren’t exactly happy about it (of our two ancient national heroes, Trajan and Decebal, one beat the crap out of the other, who then committed suicide by falling on his sword to avoid the humiliation of being paraded through Rome like Vercingetorix). Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?

    So, my point is, whatever belle or mauvais melange results out of the current and future upheavals in Europe, if things settle down around new identities, it’s very likely that they will think of themselves as being awesome and proudly descended from those haute Euros who had become stagnant and were enriched by new blood bla bla. And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we’d probably disinherit the lot of them. Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today’s Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    “You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans.”

    White nativists, those stout Anglo-Saxon Protestants, assuredly would be upset that the inferior Irish and Germans and Italians were allowed to run roughshod over “their” country. Interesting, how nativists shunned their fellow whites. Alas, the United States was not founded exclusively by the English—the French, the Dutch, the Finns, all played a role in settling here, all became “established Americans” by 1776.

    “Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today’s Americans feel that it has turned out.”

    You’re going to have to clarify what you mean that “their country does not exist anymore”. In any event, nations are not static—they change and reinvent themselves. Moreover, Constitutions are always subject to interpretation, given advances in technology, or political upheaval, or shifts in economic thought.

    “The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets.”


    Thoughtful governance is more preferable.

    
“Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today’s Italians?”

    

Great philosophical questions.

    “Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?”



    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, "inferior" ones in particular, get replaced.

    “And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we’d probably disinherit the lot of them.”

    Maybe. Or perhaps we would reflect and say we are better off for it.

    “Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today’s Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.”



    We can speculate that the Conquistadors would be disappointed with their “creations”, or maybe they would be proud of their accomplishments. At the time, the Conquistadors, and Europeans, felt justified to invade the world and impress their stamp of civilization. After all, Western Civilization is the standard bearer, right. Would they dare admit that their worldview and their behaviors resulting from that worldview were destructive in nature?

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

  83. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Wait a minute. This article was written by *Peter Beinart*? *The* Peter Beinart? The man who invented the slogan "Make American Great Again"? Ten years ago he wrote "The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again". See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beinart

    Replies: @ATate

    Hmmm…one of those really smart (smarter than you and I) Jews who believes that …”by abetting Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, American Jewish leaders risk alienating generations of younger American Jews who find the occupation to be morally wrong and incompatible with their liberal politics…

    Also from his Wikipedia.

  84. @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    @Hubbub

    "Does one laugh or cry at this naivete?"

    In your particular case, laugh, because like it or not ceasing all immigration anywhere is nigh impossible. Nor is it really desirable. Hell, I want the best and brightest to come to America and assimilate.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    Hell, I want the best and brightest to come to America and assimilate.

    Define “the best and the brightest”. You mean like our H-1B visas that let in run of the mill code monkeys?

  85. what people like Beinart imply is that despite all the talking about the danger of a backlash against muslims (which never happens) muslims are actually capable of committing backlashes. Everybody knows that European muslims would not react as peaceful as native Europeans when terror acts would not be committed by but against muslims in Europe

  86. @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840′s and 1850′s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?
     
    You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans. Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today's Americans feel that it has turned out. It's natural to look towards something in the recognizable past and idealize it and want to maintain it. The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets. Just because you think you did alright, does not mean that it did or that i couldn't turn out better, or that those nativists could not have been right.

    Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today's Italians? My people hold that they are descended from Dacians colonized by Romans, which, for the Dacians, meant utter cultural obliteration (with just a few words and symbols left) and probably mixed marriages between native women and Romans. The usual. And the Dacians weren't exactly happy about it (of our two ancient national heroes, Trajan and Decebal, one beat the crap out of the other, who then committed suicide by falling on his sword to avoid the humiliation of being paraded through Rome like Vercingetorix). Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?

    So, my point is, whatever belle or mauvais melange results out of the current and future upheavals in Europe, if things settle down around new identities, it's very likely that they will think of themselves as being awesome and proudly descended from those haute Euros who had become stagnant and were enriched by new blood bla bla. And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we'd probably disinherit the lot of them. Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today's Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans.”

    White nativists, those stout Anglo-Saxon Protestants, assuredly would be upset that the inferior Irish and Germans and Italians were allowed to run roughshod over “their” country. Interesting, how nativists shunned their fellow whites. Alas, the United States was not founded exclusively by the English—the French, the Dutch, the Finns, all played a role in settling here, all became “established Americans” by 1776.

    “Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today’s Americans feel that it has turned out.”

    You’re going to have to clarify what you mean that “their country does not exist anymore”. In any event, nations are not static—they change and reinvent themselves. Moreover, Constitutions are always subject to interpretation, given advances in technology, or political upheaval, or shifts in economic thought.

    “The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets.”


    Thoughtful governance is more preferable.

    
“Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today’s Italians?”

    

Great philosophical questions.

    “Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?”



    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, “inferior” ones in particular, get replaced.

    “And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we’d probably disinherit the lot of them.”

    Maybe. Or perhaps we would reflect and say we are better off for it.

    “Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today’s Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.”



    We can speculate that the Conquistadors would be disappointed with their “creations”, or maybe they would be proud of their accomplishments. At the time, the Conquistadors, and Europeans, felt justified to invade the world and impress their stamp of civilization. After all, Western Civilization is the standard bearer, right. Would they dare admit that their worldview and their behaviors resulting from that worldview were destructive in nature?

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, “inferior” ones in particular, get replaced.
     
    Good to know you're on the same page as us "fascists". But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures? At least don't gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders.

    I like to root for the people who sustain industry, innovate, think about stuff (even to the point of self-destruction), cure diseases and send stuff to space. I'm partial to the West, since it was a sort of prime mover for modernity, but the East Asians are admirable sorts in many ways. I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds.

    Moreso because I'm not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Corvinus

    , @Romanian
    @Corvinus

    Sorry to come back with an extra comment, but I wanted to add that thoughtful governance is inherently conservative and cautious. Not too much so, but certainly not willing to fritter its society and wealth away for some utopian ideals that have rarely ever worked without much time sorrow and bloodshed.

    Nations generally have a static core that changes very slowly, so long as the nation stays as an extended family, because it reflects shared genetic heritage. The French can look back on a millennium of being French, the Germans even longer. Americans are a younger people, but they had a core rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture that had already been changed by the 1900s. Communities that started out English turned German and then Polish and now as Black ghettos or immigrant ghettos. Things worked out pretty well, overall, for the European migrants, but it must have been a traumatic process at the time, taking place much more quickly than what natural growth and cultural drift would have achieved. Even though it's dwarfed by what has been happening since 1965. When Zangwill put into his Jewish Moldavian character's mouth the whole "melting pot" thing, the crucible for Europeans, another character remarked that God had already made the American, and 70 million of him.

  87. @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    “Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.”

    If it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    Just wanted to add that, according to Mark Steyn, the in Brussels, 10 out of 17 of the ruling party's councilmen on the city board were Muslim back in 20o7. You see it with the Sikhs in Canada as well. For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics - in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population.

    In the US, Blacks punch above their weight in politics, especially local, as well. Moreso than Hispanics, despite being the largest minority. But Blacks are the sacralized minority, so it figures.

    While White people tut tut around thinking that a minority is a minority, the truth is that, for some reason or another (from competence and IQ to sheer ethnocentricity or social status), some minorities will always be more influential and better represented than others.

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    I don't want it to get that far.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar

    “For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics – in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population.”

    It would appear that this group is assimilating well and securing white votes. Imagine that…

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Corvinus

    I believe in most places, Cabinet members are designated and the entire cabinet then approved by the legislature. Nobody elected those particular Sikhs. I have no statistics on their proportionality in elected office. People elected Trudeau, who then made a 15 men, 15 women cabinet with "looking like Canada does" as a guideline, instead of particular skills and merit. When asked why, he said "because it's 2015".

    But it is obvious that some populations have a better attitude towards learning, work, achievement and so on. The Sikhs appear to generally make model and desirable citizens, when they're not assassinating the people they took an oath to protect because of their ethnic loyalty. I can also respect their martial prowess.

    But sarcastic comment aside, you did not address the point of my comment - that nobody harps about how Sikhs and others are overrepresented, except maybe the underrepresented minorities.

    Replies: @random observer

  88. I remember back when Peter Beinart was actually relevant.

  89. @Name Withheld
    @BostonTea

    This is a strange meme going around the left. That the current fear about terrorism is irrational because 30 years ago there was more terrorism in Europe. A few points.

    1) This ignores that muslims commit regular ordinary vanilla crimes at a much higher rate than 30 years ago because of immigration. So Europe's streets are less safe than 30 years ago.

    2) The terrorists back then were mostly Soviet backed (something that a good book needs to be written about).

    Replies: @random observer

    There were a few serious attacks back then comparable to what ISIS wannabes or AQ have done, but not too many that were specifically designed for mass killing of civilians in large venues.

    The IRA in Britain used to phone in warnings before everything and that reduced both death and injuries. There were still a lot of the latter, but death counts were especially limited. Muslims don’t warn kufar.

    Red brigades/RAF etc were extremely dangerous psychos but they weren’t overly interested in making mass random civilians the casualties.

    Even now you can get sources to confirm there is more non-Moslem terror in Europe than Moslem- it usually cites things like Corsican separatist attacks, in Corsica, against police, and usually quite small bombs in garbage cans or targeted shootings.

    Yeah, because that’s going to cause the same kind of harm, panic, or threat to the state as an attack on a Paris football match or a Brussels train station.

  90. There is optimism among some westerners that pederasty will be more accepted once the caliphates are established in Europe and North America.

  91. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population."

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can't be stopped.

    "Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives."

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840's and 1850's, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800's/early 1900's, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    "Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population."

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    Replies: @Romanian, @random observer, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    Your point on blending of races is reasonable, thought it is a process that has ebbed and flowed depending on how much contact there has been across continents and oceans in various eras. But I think that actually supports Rob McX’s point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.

    From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population it was probably over the top to consider the Germans all that obnoxious, except politically to the extent they were at first all fleeing revolutionaries. Of course, the revolution they wanted looked a lot like America and they assimilated more thoroughly than any group since. Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.

    But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.

    And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows, and excluded these groups from entry, they would have been within their rights. Any nation gets to determine who comes in and why. They’d have sacrificed some future gain for America, but that too would have been within their rights.

    The immigration of the 19-20th century was certainly crafted to meet the needs of some Americans, the assimilation process ultimately worked albeit over generations and with some pretty big hurdles, and ultimately probably was a net gain. Doesn’t mean it was a gain America had to pursue, or that it could not legitimately foregone if the politics had gone another way.

    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @random observer


    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.
     
    Actually, there were specific assurances that Hart-Cellar would not change the demographic balance of the nation - seen in retrospect an obvious act of fraud.

    Furthermore, even the awful Post-1965 immigration law isn't being enforced in order to do violence to the native population and accelerate the demographic displacement of native whites.

    Replies: @random observer

    , @Corvinus
    @random observer

    “But I think that actually supports Rob McX’s point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.”

    American society has generally been “on board” with mixing with one another, considering that Europeans who settled here engaged in that action quite frequently compared to their relatives and friends back home.

    “From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population…”

    
You can call it “Anglo-American”, but what you mean is white. Who even uses that term "Anglo-American"?

    “Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.”



    Examples?

    “But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.”

    What were these actions YOU consider “exceptionally obnoxious” and “deleterious”? I thought whites are on the same side!

    “And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows…”

    The Irish indeed “politically won” their fellows; they helped to build powerful political machines.

    “Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only.”

    It’s not as obvious as you believe. That law maintained the per-country limits and created preference visa categories, with a limit of 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota.
    At that time, it was widely supported—Lyndon B. Johnson stated, ”This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.”

    Now, do I take umbrage if citizens of my country decide to cap or eliminate immigration through the legislative process? No.

    “It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.”

    It was crafted to accentuate American demographics, and there were positions offered by supporters of the bill as to why citizens should rally behind it. When you say "no argument advanced", you sound amateurish.

    Replies: @random observer

  92. Trump’s demonization of Muslims has already fostered more of these anti-Muslim attacks, and were he to try to implement his ban on Muslim immigration, Islamophobia would likely spike even higher, undermining the very integration of American Muslims that helps keep America safe.

    I’d imagine that more and more spectacular terrorist attacks by Muslims, either directly by new immigrants or refugees or in concert with them would be much more likely to spike “Islamophobia.” Thus, not importing more Muslims makes the current Muslims less likely to suffer acts of Islamophobia, which we all know is far worse than deaths and maiming.

  93. @random observer
    @Corvinus

    Your point on blending of races is reasonable, thought it is a process that has ebbed and flowed depending on how much contact there has been across continents and oceans in various eras. But I think that actually supports Rob McX's point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.

    From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population it was probably over the top to consider the Germans all that obnoxious, except politically to the extent they were at first all fleeing revolutionaries. Of course, the revolution they wanted looked a lot like America and they assimilated more thoroughly than any group since. Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.

    But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.

    And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows, and excluded these groups from entry, they would have been within their rights. Any nation gets to determine who comes in and why. They'd have sacrificed some future gain for America, but that too would have been within their rights.

    The immigration of the 19-20th century was certainly crafted to meet the needs of some Americans, the assimilation process ultimately worked albeit over generations and with some pretty big hurdles, and ultimately probably was a net gain. Doesn't mean it was a gain America had to pursue, or that it could not legitimately foregone if the politics had gone another way.

    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Corvinus

    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.

    Actually, there were specific assurances that Hart-Cellar would not change the demographic balance of the nation – seen in retrospect an obvious act of fraud.

    Furthermore, even the awful Post-1965 immigration law isn’t being enforced in order to do violence to the native population and accelerate the demographic displacement of native whites.

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Alec Leamas

    I appreciate your point, and am aware that such assurances were given. But I didn't say that the fathers of the bill admitted that the bill would change the demographic balance of the nation- I agree they claimed it would not. What they did was craft a bill that could have had no other impact, and, as you say, their statements otherwise were obvious fraud.

    Unless they were lunatics, I must assume from the immigration policy that they created that they knew it would have the demographic impact it has had.

  94. @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    And if you’re cuckolded, another man’s son will bear your name, but your line dies with you.

    Tell me – for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Alec Leamas

    "And if you’re cuckolded, another man’s son will bear your name, but your line dies with you."

    I've planted my seed in the right belly, and have two sons to carry on my name. Have you done your due diligence, or are you cuckolded?

    "Tell me – for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?"

    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase. I prefer people being able to move to places where they are welcomed, siring offspring, and living in a society with like-minded folks, regardless of their background.

    Replies: @anon

  95. @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background

    Then you must have been born in a stable, because you’re being a jackass, regardless of species.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Then you must have been born in a stable, because you’re being a jackass, regardless of species."

    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.

    "And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we’ll have the Corvini of the West to thank."

    [Laughs] you have such an imagination. Here, let me add to your misery--wait until they impose Sharia law on your women folk. Then the domination of the West will be complete!

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar

  96. @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    “Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box.”

    If it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    Just wanted to add that, according to Mark Steyn, the in Brussels, 10 out of 17 of the ruling party's councilmen on the city board were Muslim back in 20o7. You see it with the Sikhs in Canada as well. For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics - in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population.

    In the US, Blacks punch above their weight in politics, especially local, as well. Moreso than Hispanics, despite being the largest minority. But Blacks are the sacralized minority, so it figures.

    While White people tut tut around thinking that a minority is a minority, the truth is that, for some reason or another (from competence and IQ to sheer ethnocentricity or social status), some minorities will always be more influential and better represented than others.

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    I don't want it to get that far.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar

    In one sense I agree with the minority politicians: It is ridiculous for us to impose our laws on them.

    But that should work in our favor. We have no right to tell them how to run their lives. Thus, they have no right to be here.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Reg Cæsar

    The moment you emigrate to some place, you are automatically assenting to being governed by their laws. If you go to a place looking specifically to change it to suit yourself or to carve out exemptions for your sensibilities and proclivities, then you are a conqueror. And must be dealt with as such.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  97. @Corvinus
    @This Is Our Home

    "At that point democracy becomes an existential struggle and that means war."

    War for whom? Who are the combatants? Are current white Americans, for example, prepared to do whatever it takes to keep "white America" from being colorized?

    "but in twenty years the results of democracy will no longer be anchored in the native majority."

    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

    "Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the ballot box."

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that's their liberty as citizens.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home, @Romanian, @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the box.”

    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.

    And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we’ll have the Corvini of the West to thank.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Reg Cæsar

    But he'll have the following wonderful epitaph:


    Here lies Corvinus.

    At least he wasn't racist.
     
  98. So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840′s and 1850′s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    As a matter of fact, I’m beginning more and more to think that the “Know Nothing” Party was correct to be skeptical of the Irish, although not so much of the Germans. Arguably, the Irish haven’t fully assimilated even today. The Germans did better (as did Scandinavians, for the most part), although there was a lot of tension in World War I. The immigration in the 1840s and 1850s had the effect of changing the essential “Englishness/Scots-Irishness” of the U.S. population and culture, and that was not a change for the better.

    The agitation against Italian and Slavic immigration was based on the fear that they were disproportionately communist, among other things. It led to the highly desirable immigration limitations of 1924. So I think that the history of immigration into the U.S. is by the no means the unqualified success that has been portrayed, and immigration opponents often had considerable justification for their position.

    Even if the immigration policies of the 19th and early 20th Centuries were successful, the conditions that made them so are not longer present and the U.S. should adopt an immigration policy along the lines of Japan.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    @Diversity Heretic

    The nativists were right: mass immigration up to the 1920s did change things for the worse and the plutocrats who employed those immigrants were forebears of Walmart, Tyson's, Koch Industries, etc.

  99. @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus



    Just wait until the Muslims in Belgium have enough in numbers to compete as Muslims at the box.”
     
    IF it even gets that far. And even if it does, that’s their liberty as citizens.
     
    And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we'll have the Corvini of the West to thank.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    But he’ll have the following wonderful epitaph:

    Here lies Corvinus.

    At least he wasn’t racist.

  100. but not the American establishment when it comes to immigration policy.

    To immigration policy only?

  101. @Hubbub
    @Cagey Beast

    I suggest it's the Muslims who have not made an effort to assimilate, not the Europeans. Why does anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islam expect that Muslims, a select nation among nations, would assimilate given that their philosophy is exclusiveness? I know this, you know this; why can't Merkel, Obama, Kerry, Hollande, Clinton, etc., understand this simple principle? It must be malicious ignorance, a profound will to disbelieve.

    Replies: @gda

    It’s merely blind obedience to the Standard Social Science Model, the Bible of clear-seeing progressive leaders (and followers) the world over.

    Because it emanates from the Bible, such wisdom CANNOT be questioned, on pain of being ostracized.

    So yeah, profound will to disbelieve. Actually, profound will to skirt the issue entirely and just stick with the literal Bible text.

    Sort of like the Muslims with the Koran.

  102. @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    "For more than a decade, they have been punching above their weight in politics – in the Trudeau cabinet, they are 10% of the members, despite being only 2% of the population."

    It would appear that this group is assimilating well and securing white votes. Imagine that...

    Replies: @Romanian

    I believe in most places, Cabinet members are designated and the entire cabinet then approved by the legislature. Nobody elected those particular Sikhs. I have no statistics on their proportionality in elected office. People elected Trudeau, who then made a 15 men, 15 women cabinet with “looking like Canada does” as a guideline, instead of particular skills and merit. When asked why, he said “because it’s 2015”.

    But it is obvious that some populations have a better attitude towards learning, work, achievement and so on. The Sikhs appear to generally make model and desirable citizens, when they’re not assassinating the people they took an oath to protect because of their ethnic loyalty. I can also respect their martial prowess.

    But sarcastic comment aside, you did not address the point of my comment – that nobody harps about how Sikhs and others are overrepresented, except maybe the underrepresented minorities.

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Romanian

    In the Canadian system, a more or less identical version of the Westminster system, the Prime Minister or provincial Premier is the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House of Commons/Legislature, and himself an elected member with a seat in it under almost all circumstances [if he loses his seat, he must quickly find another]. He will pick ministers from his caucus, so also members of the House/Legislature who have been elected to represent electoral districts.

    Analogy- imagine the President of the US is a figurehead, the Speaker of the House is purely a house management job, and the Majority Leader in the House is Prime Minister and head of the executive branch, and chooses all cabinet ministers from his party conference mainly in the House, with a couple of senators maybe. Something like that.

    So if nothing else, all those Sikh ministers have been elected as Members of Parliament.

    Now, the Sikhs tend to have districts in which they form large minorities and concentrate in one party [usually the Liberals] so they can often get their man or woman elected as the Liberal candidate quite easily, or by sleazy intraparty gaming, but that was never unknown in Canada. Most of the sleazy political tactics used to be attributed to the French. [Partisan election officials snapping pencil leads under their fingernails to surreptitiously spoil ballots was in some circles known as the "Quebec fingertip".]

    But still- all those Sikh ministers got elected to the proper office by the accustomed methods. If Justin Trudeau went and cherry-picked as many as he could for them to be wildly overrepresented in cabinet, that's how it goes. Our Prime Ministers get to pick the rest of the Queen's Ministers however they want, including to pay off party favours. This is just an accretion of the ancient ways of our country- do we have enough English and enough French, enough east, centre and west, do we have a couple of women. In the past there was also, do we have the right Protestant/Catholic balance. For the Liberals, there also used to be "do we have enough Italians from Toronto?" It's not overly different from American presidents paying off factions of their party, important states, industrial sectors, major donors, and so on.

    None of which means Justin's diversity obsessions aren't stupid. He is stupid. But he's cunning, and he has held close to the normal ways of politics in this way at least.

    Replies: @Romanian

  103. @random observer
    @Corvinus

    Your point on blending of races is reasonable, thought it is a process that has ebbed and flowed depending on how much contact there has been across continents and oceans in various eras. But I think that actually supports Rob McX's point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.

    From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population it was probably over the top to consider the Germans all that obnoxious, except politically to the extent they were at first all fleeing revolutionaries. Of course, the revolution they wanted looked a lot like America and they assimilated more thoroughly than any group since. Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.

    But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.

    And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows, and excluded these groups from entry, they would have been within their rights. Any nation gets to determine who comes in and why. They'd have sacrificed some future gain for America, but that too would have been within their rights.

    The immigration of the 19-20th century was certainly crafted to meet the needs of some Americans, the assimilation process ultimately worked albeit over generations and with some pretty big hurdles, and ultimately probably was a net gain. Doesn't mean it was a gain America had to pursue, or that it could not legitimately foregone if the politics had gone another way.

    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Corvinus

    “But I think that actually supports Rob McX’s point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.”

    American society has generally been “on board” with mixing with one another, considering that Europeans who settled here engaged in that action quite frequently compared to their relatives and friends back home.

    “From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population…”

    
You can call it “Anglo-American”, but what you mean is white. Who even uses that term “Anglo-American”?

    “Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.”



    Examples?

    “But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.”

    What were these actions YOU consider “exceptionally obnoxious” and “deleterious”? I thought whites are on the same side!

    “And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows…”

    The Irish indeed “politically won” their fellows; they helped to build powerful political machines.

    “Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only.”

    It’s not as obvious as you believe. That law maintained the per-country limits and created preference visa categories, with a limit of 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota.
    At that time, it was widely supported—Lyndon B. Johnson stated, ”This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.”

    Now, do I take umbrage if citizens of my country decide to cap or eliminate immigration through the legislative process? No.

    “It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.”

    It was crafted to accentuate American demographics, and there were positions offered by supporters of the bill as to why citizens should rally behind it. When you say “no argument advanced”, you sound amateurish.

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Corvinus

    "American society has generally been “on board” with mixing with one another, considering that Europeans who settled here engaged in that action quite frequently compared to their relatives and friends back home."

    They had more opportunity than people in their old homelands, for one thing. But they also tended to exclude many of the races present, except very marginal numbers, until recently. There has been far more inter-European American than European-Indian or European-black or European-anyone else in any given generation even if European-Indian was present often enough on the frontier and European-black has started to appear more frequently.

    But I don't see your point. Where in my earlier post did I suggest that Americans had not been interested in such mixing? There had to be some reason for all those people who are 1/64th Cherokee.

    "You can call it “Anglo-American”, but what you mean is white. Who even uses that term “Anglo-American”?"

    A ridiculous criticism. I took the overwhelming majority of the white American population of that day and gave it a quite common standard appellation, to distinguish it from German, Irish, Italian and Slav American white populations that arrived somewhat later, rather than using "white", because you yourself raised the issue of the established American population having many nativists who wanted to exclude other whites.

    Also, what would you have me call Americans of the 1840s who had mainly British ancestry and who overwhelmingly had always spoke English as their native language? I could have just said "Americans", but that might have been considered an even more tendentious choice under the circumstances. "Brito-Americans" would have been a neologism, "Anglo-Saxon-Americans" a redundancy unless they had emerged fully formed from the 10th century. I could have said Anglo-Celtic Americans but that would have been special pleading from someone of Scots descent.

    I could have used unadorned "Americans" both to emphasize the point and to capture the sense of "overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Americans using English as a native language with a smattering of pretty seriously assimilated German-Americans and Dutch-Americans and some similar groups operating within a political and legal culture that operated in English and by British norms even if they hated the British, and none of whom had any reason to want to bring in the Irish", and perhaps I should have been more clear.

    "Examples?"

    Since I was making a suggestion from the perspective of those 1840s Americans, I have an idea the majority of them didn't really envision their country's future along the lines of the Progressivism that is so commonly attributed to the Midwestern Germano/Scandinavian subculture that had gelled by the early 20th century.

    Then again, to be fair, the other main contributor to modern American Progressivism has been undeniably super-WASP New England, so one never knows.

    And I admittedly did say that the Germans assimilated more and better than anyone else. So there's that.

    "What were these actions YOU consider “exceptionally obnoxious” and “deleterious”? I thought whites are on the same side!"

    The discussion was not previously about me, it was about the nativist Americans of the 1840s and what THEY might have considered obnoxious and deleterious trends in the potential future of THEIR country, and whether they had any business objecting to that future. Which I say they did- at the time, it was THEIR country and the Irish, Germans, Italians, Slavs you cite were foreigners asking to be admitted.

    With that in mind, I merely note that the Irish and Italians were much better than natives at street thuggery and organized crime and eventually largely populated those sectors for generations, along with the Jews of Eastern Europe. Not immediately aware of any significant problems caused by Slavs, at least not in any numbers. That doesn't mean the "Americans" had some kind of obligation to admit them.

    Nor does it matter that countless members of every one of those groups just showed up and tried to get on with their lives. True enough, but so what? The point is that they did not have some automatic right to be admitted, and that America was under no duty to admit them, that the nativists had every right to oppose this for any reason and no reason, just as the population of any country at any time.

    Not sure what your comments about whites being on the same side means. I'm not sure that's true now, though the internal divisions are ideological not ethnic. The assumption that all whites are the same is usually more a progressive one, and it means "badwhites" by definition. I might think all whites should be on the same side, but then that is obviously a product of the conditions of now, not 1840. The original question was about 1840, and it was not even about whether or not "whites" should be on the same side, it was about whether or not the native American population had any business objecting to the demographic alteration of their country. I contend they of course had that right, as any country does. Any people that wants to change the composition of a selected country ought, at minimum, to do the work of bringing an army.

    Now, to the extent that those nativists objected because they thought the political culture and overall culture of their country would change in ways they did not like, and the decision to do this was based on the interests of their own elites in cheap foreign labour, they were obviously right on both counts.

    "The Irish indeed “politically won” their fellows; they helped to build powerful political machines."

    I was referring to the nativists' ultimate failure to win a majority for their cause. My point being, as stated, that had they managed that and the US had adopted a no-immigration policy in general or toward these particular aspirant immigrants, they would have been within their rights as the existing population and the US within its rights as a sovereign nation.

    On your point on the Irish political machines, no question they did that.


    I'm not sure how to parse that LBJ quote. His comment about the basic principle of American democracy kind of assumes the idea that the rights guaranteed to Americans by the constitution, including but not limited to the 14th amendment, magically apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil applying to come to America. Why on earth would anyone assume that? And if Americans writ large did assume that at the time, was that an innovation in American collective thinking? Was this merely an example of Americans' growing tendency to assume the whole world is America?

    Or was that just one of those things LBJ said for effect, like those readings he delivered in the famous "Daisy" ad in which he concluded that people must find a way to live together or die, as he was sending 58,000 Americans to die in Asia and preparing to kill a million or so Asians?

    Now, your points on the 1965 law are very interesting. I learned another way of looking at it. So I must ask how did the US so quickly arrive at the point at which the law did not have the effect you describe, but the opposite one of massive demographic change. Was it because it maintained per country limits but altered what they were for given countries? Or some other process?

    I concede your final point on my lack of detailed awareness. For my part, I am mainly reacting to all the complaints alleging that at the time sponsors of the bill argued that it would not alter the demographic balance of the country, a notion mentioned often enough and not only here. Did they not say that? What arguments were offered either saying that it would maintain the existing balance, or would change it and that Americans should rally behind this change? And what does "accentuate American demographics" mean? Were Americans actually told that the demographic balance of the country would change as it has done, and supported this?

  104. @Alec Leamas
    @Corvinus


    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background.

     

    And if you're cuckolded, another man's son will bear your name, but your line dies with you.

    Tell me - for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “And if you’re cuckolded, another man’s son will bear your name, but your line dies with you.”

    I’ve planted my seed in the right belly, and have two sons to carry on my name. Have you done your due diligence, or are you cuckolded?

    “Tell me – for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?”

    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase. I prefer people being able to move to places where they are welcomed, siring offspring, and living in a society with like-minded folks, regardless of their background.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    So the honest answer to the guy's question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear.


    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase.
     
    Just the phrase?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  105. @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    “You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans.”

    White nativists, those stout Anglo-Saxon Protestants, assuredly would be upset that the inferior Irish and Germans and Italians were allowed to run roughshod over “their” country. Interesting, how nativists shunned their fellow whites. Alas, the United States was not founded exclusively by the English—the French, the Dutch, the Finns, all played a role in settling here, all became “established Americans” by 1776.

    “Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today’s Americans feel that it has turned out.”

    You’re going to have to clarify what you mean that “their country does not exist anymore”. In any event, nations are not static—they change and reinvent themselves. Moreover, Constitutions are always subject to interpretation, given advances in technology, or political upheaval, or shifts in economic thought.

    “The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets.”


    Thoughtful governance is more preferable.

    
“Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today’s Italians?”

    

Great philosophical questions.

    “Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?”



    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, "inferior" ones in particular, get replaced.

    “And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we’d probably disinherit the lot of them.”

    Maybe. Or perhaps we would reflect and say we are better off for it.

    “Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today’s Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.”



    We can speculate that the Conquistadors would be disappointed with their “creations”, or maybe they would be proud of their accomplishments. At the time, the Conquistadors, and Europeans, felt justified to invade the world and impress their stamp of civilization. After all, Western Civilization is the standard bearer, right. Would they dare admit that their worldview and their behaviors resulting from that worldview were destructive in nature?

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, “inferior” ones in particular, get replaced.

    Good to know you’re on the same page as us “fascists”. But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures? At least don’t gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders.

    I like to root for the people who sustain industry, innovate, think about stuff (even to the point of self-destruction), cure diseases and send stuff to space. I’m partial to the West, since it was a sort of prime mover for modernity, but the East Asians are admirable sorts in many ways. I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds.

    Moreso because I’m not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Romanian

    "Moreso because I’m not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws."

    Do you consider Romania to be more Mediterranean or more Slavic from a phenotype and cultural viewpoint?

    Replies: @Romanian

    , @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    "But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures?"

    There is no disapproval of "Western displacement" on my part. "Inferior" cultures was made in jest. It's easy for humans to denigrate the customs and traditions of cultures other than their own out of fear or ignorance.

    "At least don’t gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders."

    I would say that the average American white person does not view it as "Western cultures being displaced". I find it fascinating that a subgroup of people label it in those terms.

    "I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds."

    Is there anything that YOU can do about it physically or legally other than lament about it on a blog?

    "Americans are a younger people, but they had a core rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture that had already been changed by the 1900s."

    That is where you are in error. The core culture of the Thirteen Colonies was European--English, Dutch, German, French, Finnish--mixed in with African and Native American. European ethnic groups were separated by their ethnicity, and further separated by their religion and social standing. The cultural shift from European identity to American identity was ongoing, a slow trickle at first, then a torrent rush.

    "Communities that started out English turned German and then Polish and now as Black ghettos or immigrant ghettos."

    That's par for the course in America.

    "but I wanted to add that thoughtful governance is inherently conservative and cautious."

    Thoughtful governance may be conservative and cautious, or liberal and transformative.

    "Things worked out pretty well, overall, for the European migrants, but it must have been a traumatic process at the time, taking place much more quickly than what natural growth and cultural drift would have achieved."

    Traumatic I would imagine also for African slaves and tribal groups as well.

  106. @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    The native majority in Europe are Europeans regardless of their background
     
    Then you must have been born in a stable, because you're being a jackass, regardless of species.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Then you must have been born in a stable, because you’re being a jackass, regardless of species.”

    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.

    “And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we’ll have the Corvini of the West to thank.”

    [Laughs] you have such an imagination. Here, let me add to your misery–wait until they impose Sharia law on your women folk. Then the domination of the West will be complete!

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Corvinus

    The School Board in Kent County, Washington took pork off the menu. Similar edicts have been given in government funded British Schools.

    This is, of course, how these things start. The camel's nose under the tent, as it were.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.
     
    Nah. It's a twist on a much older line. As was Kinison's.
  107. @Reg Cæsar
    @Romanian

    In one sense I agree with the minority politicians: It is ridiculous for us to impose our laws on them.

    But that should work in our favor. We have no right to tell them how to run their lives. Thus, they have no right to be here.

    Replies: @Romanian

    The moment you emigrate to some place, you are automatically assenting to being governed by their laws. If you go to a place looking specifically to change it to suit yourself or to carve out exemptions for your sensibilities and proclivities, then you are a conqueror. And must be dealt with as such.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Romanian

    Exactly. The problem isn't their behavior, it's their address.

  108. @Diversity Heretic

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840′s and 1850′s, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?
     
    As a matter of fact, I'm beginning more and more to think that the "Know Nothing" Party was correct to be skeptical of the Irish, although not so much of the Germans. Arguably, the Irish haven't fully assimilated even today. The Germans did better (as did Scandinavians, for the most part), although there was a lot of tension in World War I. The immigration in the 1840s and 1850s had the effect of changing the essential "Englishness/Scots-Irishness" of the U.S. population and culture, and that was not a change for the better.

    The agitation against Italian and Slavic immigration was based on the fear that they were disproportionately communist, among other things. It led to the highly desirable immigration limitations of 1924. So I think that the history of immigration into the U.S. is by the no means the unqualified success that has been portrayed, and immigration opponents often had considerable justification for their position.

    Even if the immigration policies of the 19th and early 20th Centuries were successful, the conditions that made them so are not longer present and the U.S. should adopt an immigration policy along the lines of Japan.

    Replies: @Marcus

    The nativists were right: mass immigration up to the 1920s did change things for the worse and the plutocrats who employed those immigrants were forebears of Walmart, Tyson’s, Koch Industries, etc.

  109. @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    “You know, I think that, had those people been around today, they would not have approved of how things turned out, even if it involves hurting the feelings of already established Americans.”

    White nativists, those stout Anglo-Saxon Protestants, assuredly would be upset that the inferior Irish and Germans and Italians were allowed to run roughshod over “their” country. Interesting, how nativists shunned their fellow whites. Alas, the United States was not founded exclusively by the English—the French, the Dutch, the Finns, all played a role in settling here, all became “established Americans” by 1776.

    “Because their country does not exist anymore, their Constitution is greatly altered in practice, their relationship to the government is beyond anything they thought possible, regardless of how good today’s Americans feel that it has turned out.”

    You’re going to have to clarify what you mean that “their country does not exist anymore”. In any event, nations are not static—they change and reinvent themselves. Moreover, Constitutions are always subject to interpretation, given advances in technology, or political upheaval, or shifts in economic thought.

    “The future is unknowable, so a policy of thoughtful conservatism is a good way to hedge your bets.”


    Thoughtful governance is more preferable.

    
“Would the Ancient Greeks approve of their descendants? Would the Romans, especially the martial ones of the early Republic, have approved of their imperial descendants and of today’s Italians?”

    

Great philosophical questions.

    “Would they have been happy looking through a crystal ball to see their descendants, with countless admixtures of invaders, speaking a Latin language and keeping foreign gods, with nary a trace of them remaining except in the genes and as a composite identity?”



    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, "inferior" ones in particular, get replaced.

    “And, if we had a crystal ball to look into the future, we’d probably disinherit the lot of them.”

    Maybe. Or perhaps we would reflect and say we are better off for it.

    “Kind of like how I imagine the Conquistadors that spawned today’s Mestizos would view their descendants and their affectations as the bronze race and la raza cosmica.”



    We can speculate that the Conquistadors would be disappointed with their “creations”, or maybe they would be proud of their accomplishments. At the time, the Conquistadors, and Europeans, felt justified to invade the world and impress their stamp of civilization. After all, Western Civilization is the standard bearer, right. Would they dare admit that their worldview and their behaviors resulting from that worldview were destructive in nature?

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

    Sorry to come back with an extra comment, but I wanted to add that thoughtful governance is inherently conservative and cautious. Not too much so, but certainly not willing to fritter its society and wealth away for some utopian ideals that have rarely ever worked without much time sorrow and bloodshed.

    Nations generally have a static core that changes very slowly, so long as the nation stays as an extended family, because it reflects shared genetic heritage. The French can look back on a millennium of being French, the Germans even longer. Americans are a younger people, but they had a core rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture that had already been changed by the 1900s. Communities that started out English turned German and then Polish and now as Black ghettos or immigrant ghettos. Things worked out pretty well, overall, for the European migrants, but it must have been a traumatic process at the time, taking place much more quickly than what natural growth and cultural drift would have achieved. Even though it’s dwarfed by what has been happening since 1965. When Zangwill put into his Jewish Moldavian character’s mouth the whole “melting pot” thing, the crucible for Europeans, another character remarked that God had already made the American, and 70 million of him.

  110. @Alec Leamas
    @random observer


    Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only. It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.
     
    Actually, there were specific assurances that Hart-Cellar would not change the demographic balance of the nation - seen in retrospect an obvious act of fraud.

    Furthermore, even the awful Post-1965 immigration law isn't being enforced in order to do violence to the native population and accelerate the demographic displacement of native whites.

    Replies: @random observer

    I appreciate your point, and am aware that such assurances were given. But I didn’t say that the fathers of the bill admitted that the bill would change the demographic balance of the nation- I agree they claimed it would not. What they did was craft a bill that could have had no other impact, and, as you say, their statements otherwise were obvious fraud.

    Unless they were lunatics, I must assume from the immigration policy that they created that they knew it would have the demographic impact it has had.

  111. @Romanian
    @Corvinus

    I believe in most places, Cabinet members are designated and the entire cabinet then approved by the legislature. Nobody elected those particular Sikhs. I have no statistics on their proportionality in elected office. People elected Trudeau, who then made a 15 men, 15 women cabinet with "looking like Canada does" as a guideline, instead of particular skills and merit. When asked why, he said "because it's 2015".

    But it is obvious that some populations have a better attitude towards learning, work, achievement and so on. The Sikhs appear to generally make model and desirable citizens, when they're not assassinating the people they took an oath to protect because of their ethnic loyalty. I can also respect their martial prowess.

    But sarcastic comment aside, you did not address the point of my comment - that nobody harps about how Sikhs and others are overrepresented, except maybe the underrepresented minorities.

    Replies: @random observer

    In the Canadian system, a more or less identical version of the Westminster system, the Prime Minister or provincial Premier is the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House of Commons/Legislature, and himself an elected member with a seat in it under almost all circumstances [if he loses his seat, he must quickly find another]. He will pick ministers from his caucus, so also members of the House/Legislature who have been elected to represent electoral districts.

    Analogy- imagine the President of the US is a figurehead, the Speaker of the House is purely a house management job, and the Majority Leader in the House is Prime Minister and head of the executive branch, and chooses all cabinet ministers from his party conference mainly in the House, with a couple of senators maybe. Something like that.

    So if nothing else, all those Sikh ministers have been elected as Members of Parliament.

    Now, the Sikhs tend to have districts in which they form large minorities and concentrate in one party [usually the Liberals] so they can often get their man or woman elected as the Liberal candidate quite easily, or by sleazy intraparty gaming, but that was never unknown in Canada. Most of the sleazy political tactics used to be attributed to the French. [Partisan election officials snapping pencil leads under their fingernails to surreptitiously spoil ballots was in some circles known as the “Quebec fingertip”.]

    But still- all those Sikh ministers got elected to the proper office by the accustomed methods. If Justin Trudeau went and cherry-picked as many as he could for them to be wildly overrepresented in cabinet, that’s how it goes. Our Prime Ministers get to pick the rest of the Queen’s Ministers however they want, including to pay off party favours. This is just an accretion of the ancient ways of our country- do we have enough English and enough French, enough east, centre and west, do we have a couple of women. In the past there was also, do we have the right Protestant/Catholic balance. For the Liberals, there also used to be “do we have enough Italians from Toronto?” It’s not overly different from American presidents paying off factions of their party, important states, industrial sectors, major donors, and so on.

    None of which means Justin’s diversity obsessions aren’t stupid. He is stupid. But he’s cunning, and he has held close to the normal ways of politics in this way at least.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @random observer

    Thank you very much for the clarifications. I did not know that they were parliamentarians.

  112. @Corvinus
    @random observer

    “But I think that actually supports Rob McX’s point- that would actually be an excellent vehicle of assimilation if enough people were on board within an already-mixed society.”

    American society has generally been “on board” with mixing with one another, considering that Europeans who settled here engaged in that action quite frequently compared to their relatives and friends back home.

    “From the perspective of the existing Anglo-American population…”

    
You can call it “Anglo-American”, but what you mean is white. Who even uses that term "Anglo-American"?

    “Perhaps they brought a little too much communalism to the Midwest, with deleterious downstream effects on politics right down to today.”



    Examples?

    “But the Irish, Italians, Slavs WERE exceptionally obnoxious to previous American norms for a very long time, and their assimilation was hardly without challenges or long-term changes to American society that the nativists of the 1840s would likely consider to have been deleterious.”

    What were these actions YOU consider “exceptionally obnoxious” and “deleterious”? I thought whites are on the same side!

    “And if they had politically won over a majority of their fellows…”

    The Irish indeed “politically won” their fellows; they helped to build powerful political machines.

    “Post-1965 immigration was not obviously crafted to meet the needs of the native population, unless of an even narrower employer-sector subset only.”

    It’s not as obvious as you believe. That law maintained the per-country limits and created preference visa categories, with a limit of 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota.
    At that time, it was widely supported—Lyndon B. Johnson stated, ”This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.”

    Now, do I take umbrage if citizens of my country decide to cap or eliminate immigration through the legislative process? No.

    “It was specifically crafted to alter the demographic balance of the native population, with no argument advanced as to why this would benefit that native population, and it included many elements [family class] that had nothing to do with the needs of the native population.”

    It was crafted to accentuate American demographics, and there were positions offered by supporters of the bill as to why citizens should rally behind it. When you say "no argument advanced", you sound amateurish.

    Replies: @random observer

    “American society has generally been “on board” with mixing with one another, considering that Europeans who settled here engaged in that action quite frequently compared to their relatives and friends back home.”

    They had more opportunity than people in their old homelands, for one thing. But they also tended to exclude many of the races present, except very marginal numbers, until recently. There has been far more inter-European American than European-Indian or European-black or European-anyone else in any given generation even if European-Indian was present often enough on the frontier and European-black has started to appear more frequently.

    But I don’t see your point. Where in my earlier post did I suggest that Americans had not been interested in such mixing? There had to be some reason for all those people who are 1/64th Cherokee.

    “You can call it “Anglo-American”, but what you mean is white. Who even uses that term “Anglo-American”?”

    A ridiculous criticism. I took the overwhelming majority of the white American population of that day and gave it a quite common standard appellation, to distinguish it from German, Irish, Italian and Slav American white populations that arrived somewhat later, rather than using “white”, because you yourself raised the issue of the established American population having many nativists who wanted to exclude other whites.

    Also, what would you have me call Americans of the 1840s who had mainly British ancestry and who overwhelmingly had always spoke English as their native language? I could have just said “Americans”, but that might have been considered an even more tendentious choice under the circumstances. “Brito-Americans” would have been a neologism, “Anglo-Saxon-Americans” a redundancy unless they had emerged fully formed from the 10th century. I could have said Anglo-Celtic Americans but that would have been special pleading from someone of Scots descent.

    I could have used unadorned “Americans” both to emphasize the point and to capture the sense of “overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Americans using English as a native language with a smattering of pretty seriously assimilated German-Americans and Dutch-Americans and some similar groups operating within a political and legal culture that operated in English and by British norms even if they hated the British, and none of whom had any reason to want to bring in the Irish”, and perhaps I should have been more clear.

    “Examples?”

    Since I was making a suggestion from the perspective of those 1840s Americans, I have an idea the majority of them didn’t really envision their country’s future along the lines of the Progressivism that is so commonly attributed to the Midwestern Germano/Scandinavian subculture that had gelled by the early 20th century.

    Then again, to be fair, the other main contributor to modern American Progressivism has been undeniably super-WASP New England, so one never knows.

    And I admittedly did say that the Germans assimilated more and better than anyone else. So there’s that.

    “What were these actions YOU consider “exceptionally obnoxious” and “deleterious”? I thought whites are on the same side!”

    The discussion was not previously about me, it was about the nativist Americans of the 1840s and what THEY might have considered obnoxious and deleterious trends in the potential future of THEIR country, and whether they had any business objecting to that future. Which I say they did- at the time, it was THEIR country and the Irish, Germans, Italians, Slavs you cite were foreigners asking to be admitted.

    With that in mind, I merely note that the Irish and Italians were much better than natives at street thuggery and organized crime and eventually largely populated those sectors for generations, along with the Jews of Eastern Europe. Not immediately aware of any significant problems caused by Slavs, at least not in any numbers. That doesn’t mean the “Americans” had some kind of obligation to admit them.

    Nor does it matter that countless members of every one of those groups just showed up and tried to get on with their lives. True enough, but so what? The point is that they did not have some automatic right to be admitted, and that America was under no duty to admit them, that the nativists had every right to oppose this for any reason and no reason, just as the population of any country at any time.

    Not sure what your comments about whites being on the same side means. I’m not sure that’s true now, though the internal divisions are ideological not ethnic. The assumption that all whites are the same is usually more a progressive one, and it means “badwhites” by definition. I might think all whites should be on the same side, but then that is obviously a product of the conditions of now, not 1840. The original question was about 1840, and it was not even about whether or not “whites” should be on the same side, it was about whether or not the native American population had any business objecting to the demographic alteration of their country. I contend they of course had that right, as any country does. Any people that wants to change the composition of a selected country ought, at minimum, to do the work of bringing an army.

    Now, to the extent that those nativists objected because they thought the political culture and overall culture of their country would change in ways they did not like, and the decision to do this was based on the interests of their own elites in cheap foreign labour, they were obviously right on both counts.

    “The Irish indeed “politically won” their fellows; they helped to build powerful political machines.”

    I was referring to the nativists’ ultimate failure to win a majority for their cause. My point being, as stated, that had they managed that and the US had adopted a no-immigration policy in general or toward these particular aspirant immigrants, they would have been within their rights as the existing population and the US within its rights as a sovereign nation.

    On your point on the Irish political machines, no question they did that.

    I’m not sure how to parse that LBJ quote. His comment about the basic principle of American democracy kind of assumes the idea that the rights guaranteed to Americans by the constitution, including but not limited to the 14th amendment, magically apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil applying to come to America. Why on earth would anyone assume that? And if Americans writ large did assume that at the time, was that an innovation in American collective thinking? Was this merely an example of Americans’ growing tendency to assume the whole world is America?

    Or was that just one of those things LBJ said for effect, like those readings he delivered in the famous “Daisy” ad in which he concluded that people must find a way to live together or die, as he was sending 58,000 Americans to die in Asia and preparing to kill a million or so Asians?

    Now, your points on the 1965 law are very interesting. I learned another way of looking at it. So I must ask how did the US so quickly arrive at the point at which the law did not have the effect you describe, but the opposite one of massive demographic change. Was it because it maintained per country limits but altered what they were for given countries? Or some other process?

    I concede your final point on my lack of detailed awareness. For my part, I am mainly reacting to all the complaints alleging that at the time sponsors of the bill argued that it would not alter the demographic balance of the country, a notion mentioned often enough and not only here. Did they not say that? What arguments were offered either saying that it would maintain the existing balance, or would change it and that Americans should rally behind this change? And what does “accentuate American demographics” mean? Were Americans actually told that the demographic balance of the country would change as it has done, and supported this?

  113. @random observer
    @Romanian

    In the Canadian system, a more or less identical version of the Westminster system, the Prime Minister or provincial Premier is the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House of Commons/Legislature, and himself an elected member with a seat in it under almost all circumstances [if he loses his seat, he must quickly find another]. He will pick ministers from his caucus, so also members of the House/Legislature who have been elected to represent electoral districts.

    Analogy- imagine the President of the US is a figurehead, the Speaker of the House is purely a house management job, and the Majority Leader in the House is Prime Minister and head of the executive branch, and chooses all cabinet ministers from his party conference mainly in the House, with a couple of senators maybe. Something like that.

    So if nothing else, all those Sikh ministers have been elected as Members of Parliament.

    Now, the Sikhs tend to have districts in which they form large minorities and concentrate in one party [usually the Liberals] so they can often get their man or woman elected as the Liberal candidate quite easily, or by sleazy intraparty gaming, but that was never unknown in Canada. Most of the sleazy political tactics used to be attributed to the French. [Partisan election officials snapping pencil leads under their fingernails to surreptitiously spoil ballots was in some circles known as the "Quebec fingertip".]

    But still- all those Sikh ministers got elected to the proper office by the accustomed methods. If Justin Trudeau went and cherry-picked as many as he could for them to be wildly overrepresented in cabinet, that's how it goes. Our Prime Ministers get to pick the rest of the Queen's Ministers however they want, including to pay off party favours. This is just an accretion of the ancient ways of our country- do we have enough English and enough French, enough east, centre and west, do we have a couple of women. In the past there was also, do we have the right Protestant/Catholic balance. For the Liberals, there also used to be "do we have enough Italians from Toronto?" It's not overly different from American presidents paying off factions of their party, important states, industrial sectors, major donors, and so on.

    None of which means Justin's diversity obsessions aren't stupid. He is stupid. But he's cunning, and he has held close to the normal ways of politics in this way at least.

    Replies: @Romanian

    Thank you very much for the clarifications. I did not know that they were parliamentarians.

  114. @Romanian
    @Reg Cæsar

    The moment you emigrate to some place, you are automatically assenting to being governed by their laws. If you go to a place looking specifically to change it to suit yourself or to carve out exemptions for your sensibilities and proclivities, then you are a conqueror. And must be dealt with as such.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Exactly. The problem isn’t their behavior, it’s their address.

  115. @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Then you must have been born in a stable, because you’re being a jackass, regardless of species."

    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.

    "And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we’ll have the Corvini of the West to thank."

    [Laughs] you have such an imagination. Here, let me add to your misery--wait until they impose Sharia law on your women folk. Then the domination of the West will be complete!

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar

    The School Board in Kent County, Washington took pork off the menu. Similar edicts have been given in government funded British Schools.

    This is, of course, how these things start. The camel’s nose under the tent, as it were.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Alec Leamas

    Do you have a source? The only Internet web "story" on this matter comes from Bare Naked Islam. I would prefer something a wee bit more conventional than a blog totally devoted to "outing the truths of Muslims".

  116. @Alec Leamas
    @Corvinus

    The School Board in Kent County, Washington took pork off the menu. Similar edicts have been given in government funded British Schools.

    This is, of course, how these things start. The camel's nose under the tent, as it were.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Do you have a source? The only Internet web “story” on this matter comes from Bare Naked Islam. I would prefer something a wee bit more conventional than a blog totally devoted to “outing the truths of Muslims”.

  117. @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Then you must have been born in a stable, because you’re being a jackass, regardless of species."

    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.

    "And when we lose our liberty to enjoy pork with wine, and they gain the liberty to amass multiple child brides, we’ll have the Corvini of the West to thank."

    [Laughs] you have such an imagination. Here, let me add to your misery--wait until they impose Sharia law on your women folk. Then the domination of the West will be complete!

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Reg Cæsar

    You stole that line from Sam Kinison.

    Nah. It’s a twist on a much older line. As was Kinison’s.

  118. @Tex
    @Karl

    Having observed a few mixed marriages, whatever mohammedan males are allowed, in practice they push the wives into converting. Maybe my data sample is too small, but I'd be surprised if musulmen are paragons of tolerance with the wimmins & chilluns.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “Having observed a few mixed marriages, whatever mohammedan males are allowed, in practice they push the wives into converting. Maybe my data sample is too small, but I’d be surprised if musulmen are paragons of tolerance with the wimmins & chilluns.”

    The cases I have seen of White Western women marrying Muslim men, they all end up dressing like females in Yemen and Egypt for example.

  119. @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, “inferior” ones in particular, get replaced.
     
    Good to know you're on the same page as us "fascists". But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures? At least don't gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders.

    I like to root for the people who sustain industry, innovate, think about stuff (even to the point of self-destruction), cure diseases and send stuff to space. I'm partial to the West, since it was a sort of prime mover for modernity, but the East Asians are admirable sorts in many ways. I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds.

    Moreso because I'm not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Corvinus

    “Moreso because I’m not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws.”

    Do you consider Romania to be more Mediterranean or more Slavic from a phenotype and cultural viewpoint?

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Jefferson

    We vary a lot. Facial features, height, body type. You name it, we have it. Though I'd think that a rounder face with a straight nose, brown hair and a hint of a square jaw is what I would call typical.

    In my experience, we all think of ourselves as White, even the more swarthy ones, who might have a bit of Gypsy in them, or some Turkish genes. Racism isn't really racism in our little ethnic microcosm, it's about visibly belonging to an ethnicity, you know which one, and all that it entails (dress, language, mannerisms, morality towards in-group and out-group). So I have a few friends who look like Swedes and one who almost looks like Raj from The Big Bang Theory, despite his aunt being blonde with blue eyes and his brothers being just a bit tanned. Now, there's probably a Gypsy or a Turk or two somewhere in that family tree, but the dude is a respectable corporate type who cooks as a hobby. No one would think he is anything other than Romanian, because it's the socio-economic status that gives it away.

    Culturally, we consider ourselves a Latin island in a sea of Slavs, with a Romance language that's very similar to Spanish and Italian only it has harsher consonants so people have compared me to a Russian speaking the Italian language. We're very Mediterranean in our flaws, and we like to blame our Ottoman suzerains for it, who left us a very rich vocabulary to describe the act of bribing. There are regional differences in stereotypical temperament and behavior, correlating with the different empires the regions were in and what cultures were there to influence them, also genetically maybe. The Moldovans were closer to Russia, they got more loan words (and the Bessarabians really do sound a lot like Russians in accent) and a reputation for laziness, fecundity and bravura. The Transylvanians and Ardeleans were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and are considered more civilized and hard working, but also ponderous in speech and thought (not stupid, just ruminant). My own Southerners, who were so long under the Ottoman heel, are shifty and fast talking, but stupid. Legend says we were offered as spoils of war to the Porte and they refused, preferring to keep us at arms' length.

    So, we're like a sort of Northern Mediterranean. Only we're Orthodox by dint of proximity to Constantinople, while the Poles are Catholic Slavs. That doesn't mean all that much genetically. We're probably very similar to our neighbors, especially the Southern and Western ones, meaning Bulgarians and Serbs. In the looks department, we are all over the place, since we've really had a lot of people moving through. The overwhelming majority is the standard European White, with a fairly large minority of blondes, some redheads, and plenty of blue and green eyes. You'll occasionally see a more Swarthy type, but he could just as easily be from a mixed family dating back to Ceausescu's policy of having thousands of MENA students in Romania (Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans) of whom a few stayed and assimilated quite well, pork and all. The founder of our elite civil rescue unit and still its leader is a Palestinian who studied medicine here.

    I'm, of course, a handsome rugged type with brown hair and hazel eyes. I have a slightly rakish widow's peak and stronger eyebrows, which is fairly common (not a unibrow, thank God), though not quite like the car wash owner in Breaking Bad, the Romanian Bogdan. Think Zachary Quinto in The Slap. I have a friend who looks like Dan Bilzerian without the money and with just one good woman.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Romanian

  120. @This Is Our Home
    @Clyde

    That is what I implied by Muslims running 'as Muslims.' when that starts to happen European democracy will transparently become more and more an ethnic spoils system, and I really don't see how it can survive such a thing. European democracy will die with the death of the European majority demos.

    Replies: @Clyde

    You are correct insofar as European Muslims who have run for political office and won have come off as sane Muslims and even a bit secular. They spout none of this ummah this and ummah that jive. They want non-Muslim votes. When Muslims numbers increase you will get Muslims running as Muslims who are complaining about racism and being oppressed.

  121. Islam is no more assimilated in America than it is in Europe. Islam is an alien cult that wants to colonize America and Europe, install shariah law and rule the land. Why would they assimilate given this drive for global domination? Islam views capitalism and communism (socialism) as an abomination and have no desire to live in this downtrodden “man-made” system.

    If you think that Islam has any intention of assimilating, you need to go back to Islamic school and learn what it is all about.

  122. @Jefferson
    @Romanian

    "Moreso because I’m not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws."

    Do you consider Romania to be more Mediterranean or more Slavic from a phenotype and cultural viewpoint?

    Replies: @Romanian

    We vary a lot. Facial features, height, body type. You name it, we have it. Though I’d think that a rounder face with a straight nose, brown hair and a hint of a square jaw is what I would call typical.

    [MORE]

    In my experience, we all think of ourselves as White, even the more swarthy ones, who might have a bit of Gypsy in them, or some Turkish genes. Racism isn’t really racism in our little ethnic microcosm, it’s about visibly belonging to an ethnicity, you know which one, and all that it entails (dress, language, mannerisms, morality towards in-group and out-group). So I have a few friends who look like Swedes and one who almost looks like Raj from The Big Bang Theory, despite his aunt being blonde with blue eyes and his brothers being just a bit tanned. Now, there’s probably a Gypsy or a Turk or two somewhere in that family tree, but the dude is a respectable corporate type who cooks as a hobby. No one would think he is anything other than Romanian, because it’s the socio-economic status that gives it away.

    Culturally, we consider ourselves a Latin island in a sea of Slavs, with a Romance language that’s very similar to Spanish and Italian only it has harsher consonants so people have compared me to a Russian speaking the Italian language. We’re very Mediterranean in our flaws, and we like to blame our Ottoman suzerains for it, who left us a very rich vocabulary to describe the act of bribing. There are regional differences in stereotypical temperament and behavior, correlating with the different empires the regions were in and what cultures were there to influence them, also genetically maybe. The Moldovans were closer to Russia, they got more loan words (and the Bessarabians really do sound a lot like Russians in accent) and a reputation for laziness, fecundity and bravura. The Transylvanians and Ardeleans were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and are considered more civilized and hard working, but also ponderous in speech and thought (not stupid, just ruminant). My own Southerners, who were so long under the Ottoman heel, are shifty and fast talking, but stupid. Legend says we were offered as spoils of war to the Porte and they refused, preferring to keep us at arms’ length.

    So, we’re like a sort of Northern Mediterranean. Only we’re Orthodox by dint of proximity to Constantinople, while the Poles are Catholic Slavs. That doesn’t mean all that much genetically. We’re probably very similar to our neighbors, especially the Southern and Western ones, meaning Bulgarians and Serbs. In the looks department, we are all over the place, since we’ve really had a lot of people moving through. The overwhelming majority is the standard European White, with a fairly large minority of blondes, some redheads, and plenty of blue and green eyes. You’ll occasionally see a more Swarthy type, but he could just as easily be from a mixed family dating back to Ceausescu’s policy of having thousands of MENA students in Romania (Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans) of whom a few stayed and assimilated quite well, pork and all. The founder of our elite civil rescue unit and still its leader is a Palestinian who studied medicine here.

    I’m, of course, a handsome rugged type with brown hair and hazel eyes. I have a slightly rakish widow’s peak and stronger eyebrows, which is fairly common (not a unibrow, thank God), though not quite like the car wash owner in Breaking Bad, the Romanian Bogdan. Think Zachary Quinto in The Slap. I have a friend who looks like Dan Bilzerian without the money and with just one good woman.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Romanian

    There is a Romanian actor here in The U.S named Adrian Zmed who starred in Grease 2 and TJ Hooker, who looks closer to a Sicilian in phenotype than he does to a Slavic like Vladimir Putin.

    Wikipedia does not mention anything about him being a Gypsy or Romanian Jew, so that is not where he got his dark looks from.

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

    , @Romanian
    @Romanian

    The famous gold frame. It's like gold piping to a military uniform. Must.... not.... squeal with delight.

  123. @Corvinus
    @Alec Leamas

    "And if you’re cuckolded, another man’s son will bear your name, but your line dies with you."

    I've planted my seed in the right belly, and have two sons to carry on my name. Have you done your due diligence, or are you cuckolded?

    "Tell me – for which nations other than European ones and the United States do you favor demographic displacement of the extant population?"

    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase. I prefer people being able to move to places where they are welcomed, siring offspring, and living in a society with like-minded folks, regardless of their background.

    Replies: @anon

    So the honest answer to the guy’s question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear.

    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase.

    Just the phrase?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So the honest answer to the guy’s question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear."

    People of white European ancestry aren't disappearing. They're alive and well. Why are you so melodramatic?

    Replies: @Romanian

  124. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population."

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can't be stopped.

    "Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives."

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840's and 1850's, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800's/early 1900's, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    "Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population."

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    Replies: @Romanian, @random observer, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    There’s an old saying that sums up the British (unwritten) constitution, and it is this – ‘no parliament can bind a successor’. The meaning being that every freshly elected new government is perfectly at liberty to tear up anything and everything ever formulated by all previous governments, and to start afresh, applying its agenda as it sees fit and, indeed, on which the people elected it.

    My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe.

    That was then. This is now.

    That was over 100 years ago, affected generations past, it is been and gone, no one living today has any memory of it, in short it means jacksh*t, and has no bearing on the policy dilemmas facing those of us now living.
    Bringing it up is just desperate straw man tactics.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe."

    Actually, past history has significant relevance. For every wave of immigration, there were supporters and detractors. The arguments proffered then are similar to now, whether it be concerns about changing national character or regards to economic considerations. As a result, there were policies implemented that reflected the beliefs of the citizen majority.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  125. @Jefferson
    "2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims"

    Why is it a bad thing that Muslims are less likely to intermarry with Non Muslims? Such marriages only creates more Muslims and less cultural Westerners because the Non Muslim women in these types of marriages are forced to convert to Islam and than are forced to start wearing burkas, niqabs, or hijabs.

    As an Italian I would never force my future wife to convert to Catholicism, if she is not Catholic.

    Replies: @Karl, @montezuma

    It’s especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany. Germans are, on average, technically gifted, most muslims not so much. The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87. Apart from high IQ iranians, I don’t see how your kid is going to turn out well if you race-mix with muslims. They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational.

    It’s a stupid idea. For sure, if Germans would mix with those muslims we have in our country — mean IQ of turks living in Germany is 21 points below that of Germans — then we can say good-bye to our book culture as well as to our engineering efforts. Most mixed-race muslim/germans are hot-headed, aggressive proles, with average to low intelligence.

    With dysgenics, race-mixing and low IQ immigration, Germany — and most western countries — will surely change for the worse, and we can forget people still reading Stefan George or Ernst Jünger in 100 years, or understanding to write clean, simple and efficient code based on the Unix philosophy, which was invented mostly by white Americans. Take the magnificent suckless project: lots of Germans and whites there, no black or muslim dudes.

    All the great science, literature, philosophy and engineering was for naught. A shame!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @montezuma

    It’s especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany."

    Actually, it's smart to race mix.

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/03/mixed-race-people-taller-and-smarter-study-says-5277767/

    "The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87."

    You fail to consider other important variables--educational systems and social class standing.

    "They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational."

    Do you have any scientific evidence that definitively compares Germans and Muslims in these specific areas?

    Replies: @Bill B.

  126. @reiner Tor
    @Karl

    But the children have to be Muslims in both cases.

    Replies: @Karl

    reiner Tor >>> But the children have to be Muslims in both cases

    Now let a muslim guy marry a jewish woman.

    The rabbis will recognize the children as Jews; AND the imams will recognize the children as Muslims.

    Choose your poison, reiner.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Karl

    Religiously speaking, the child will be Muslim. If he later in life decided to become an observant Jew, in the eyes of Muslims he'd become an apostate, and therefore, according to sharia law, could be put to death. If he stayed Muslim, after a few generations the part-Jewish ancestry would most likely be forgotten.

    Otherwise I couldn't care less.

  127. @Karl
    @reiner Tor

    reiner Tor >>> But the children have to be Muslims in both cases


    Now let a muslim guy marry a jewish woman.

    The rabbis will recognize the children as Jews; AND the imams will recognize the children as Muslims.

    Choose your poison, reiner.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Religiously speaking, the child will be Muslim. If he later in life decided to become an observant Jew, in the eyes of Muslims he’d become an apostate, and therefore, according to sharia law, could be put to death. If he stayed Muslim, after a few generations the part-Jewish ancestry would most likely be forgotten.

    Otherwise I couldn’t care less.

  128. @montezuma
    @Jefferson

    It's especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany. Germans are, on average, technically gifted, most muslims not so much. The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87. Apart from high IQ iranians, I don't see how your kid is going to turn out well if you race-mix with muslims. They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational.

    It's a stupid idea. For sure, if Germans would mix with those muslims we have in our country -- mean IQ of turks living in Germany is 21 points below that of Germans -- then we can say good-bye to our book culture as well as to our engineering efforts. Most mixed-race muslim/germans are hot-headed, aggressive proles, with average to low intelligence.

    With dysgenics, race-mixing and low IQ immigration, Germany -- and most western countries -- will surely change for the worse, and we can forget people still reading Stefan George or Ernst Jünger in 100 years, or understanding to write clean, simple and efficient code based on the Unix philosophy, which was invented mostly by white Americans. Take the magnificent suckless project: lots of Germans and whites there, no black or muslim dudes.

    All the great science, literature, philosophy and engineering was for naught. A shame!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    It’s especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany.”

    Actually, it’s smart to race mix.

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/03/mixed-race-people-taller-and-smarter-study-says-5277767/

    “The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87.”

    You fail to consider other important variables–educational systems and social class standing.

    “They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational.”

    Do you have any scientific evidence that definitively compares Germans and Muslims in these specific areas?

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Corvinus

    The race-mixing research was meretricious academic clickbait.

    Note this from the comments in that newspaper report:

    "James Lucas · Works at Hendrix College:
    Load of crap right here. Look at the Minnesota transracial adoption study, the gold standard of IQ adoption studies. Children of different races were adopted by White middle class parents. White children had a mean IQ 101.5, children with one black and one whie parent had a mean IQ of 93.5, children with two black parents had a mean IQ of 83.5

    http://frihetspartiet.net/.../minnesota-transracial...

    The average White IQ is 100. The average black IQ is 85. If you're White, racemixing is a bad idea."

    There are a great number of studies on the mental peculiarities of the Arabs. See particularly the famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity.

    David Gutmann has also written incisively on the peculiarities of the Arab psyche. Eg this in 2005:

    "It is often asserted that the changes set in train by modernization are particularly toxic to the Arabs. No doubt this is true. But if we are going to be therapeutic, our diagnoses need to be more specific; we need to identify the particular pathogens that are released by modernization. Besides sharpening their sense of inferiority relative to the West, modernization threatens to bring about the liberation of women (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). I say "threatens," because the self-esteem of Arab males is in large part predicated on the inferior position of their women. The Arab nations have for the most part lost their slaves and dhimmis, the subject peoples onto whose persons the stigmata of shame could be downloaded. But anyone who has spent time among them knows that Arab males have not lost their psychological need for social and sexual inferiors. In the absence of slaves and captive peoples, Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man."

    Replies: @Corvinus

  129. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    There's an old saying that sums up the British (unwritten) constitution, and it is this - 'no parliament can bind a successor'. The meaning being that every freshly elected new government is perfectly at liberty to tear up anything and everything ever formulated by all previous governments, and to start afresh, applying its agenda as it sees fit and, indeed, on which the people elected it.

    My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe.

    That was then. This is now.

    That was over 100 years ago, affected generations past, it is been and gone, no one living today has any memory of it, in short it means jacksh*t, and has no bearing on the policy dilemmas facing those of us now living.
    Bringing it up is just desperate straw man tactics.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe.”

    Actually, past history has significant relevance. For every wave of immigration, there were supporters and detractors. The arguments proffered then are similar to now, whether it be concerns about changing national character or regards to economic considerations. As a result, there were policies implemented that reflected the beliefs of the citizen majority.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    No, it doesn't.

    We are living in the here and now.
    We are fighting the battles of the here and now.
    I simply could not care less about past historic battles fought on the issue of immigration.
    All I care about is the present and the future ( '....it is the supreme function of statesmanship to provide against preventable dangers....').
    Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis - or they shouldn't.

    The crises and issues facing this present generation need to be solved by this present generation - the people who actually live in it - with the all the options and resources available to them. The passed are past.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  130. @anon
    @Corvinus

    So the honest answer to the guy's question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear.


    Demographic displacement is such a filthy phrase.
     
    Just the phrase?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So the honest answer to the guy’s question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear.”

    People of white European ancestry aren’t disappearing. They’re alive and well. Why are you so melodramatic?

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Corvinus

    They're not exactly thriving as a population. They've adopted third worlders as a pereptual tax on personal holiness (expressed as squandered money, opportunities and lives) and in place of the children they never had. Their numbers are dwindling. Their cultures and vital space are slowly being eroded and their morale is quite down, even though they kid themselves that it isn't. Worst of all, a lot of them are slaves to a death cult preaching an original sin and they vote in accordance with their tenets of trying to cleanse that sin.

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/MuggeridgeLiberal.php

    Replies: @Corvinus

  131. @Cwhatfuture
    There is something that even kindergarteners know. When you are in a hole, you do keep digging until you pop out in China. That is the best and coolest way to get out of a hole. It worked for Bugs Bunny.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    But Bugs always took the wrong turn in Albuquerque!

  132. @Romanian
    @Corvinus


    Assuredly they would not be happy with the result of being displaced. But humanity progresses. Cultures, “inferior” ones in particular, get replaced.
     
    Good to know you're on the same page as us "fascists". But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures? At least don't gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders.

    I like to root for the people who sustain industry, innovate, think about stuff (even to the point of self-destruction), cure diseases and send stuff to space. I'm partial to the West, since it was a sort of prime mover for modernity, but the East Asians are admirable sorts in many ways. I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds.

    Moreso because I'm not a Westerner except in the vulgar sense of being designated as a White Male by liberal taxonomists. I am keenly aware of the merits of the West, and also its flaws.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Corvinus

    “But how does this jive with your last paragraph, wherein you indirectly express disapproval at Western displacement of other cultures?”

    There is no disapproval of “Western displacement” on my part. “Inferior” cultures was made in jest. It’s easy for humans to denigrate the customs and traditions of cultures other than their own out of fear or ignorance.

    “At least don’t gloat now that the individual Western cultures are being displaced by the global McCulture and various third worlders.”

    I would say that the average American white person does not view it as “Western cultures being displaced”. I find it fascinating that a subgroup of people label it in those terms.

    “I do however have a bone to pick with the idea of the West falling to a Volkenwanderung of flightless cuckoo birds.”

    Is there anything that YOU can do about it physically or legally other than lament about it on a blog?

    “Americans are a younger people, but they had a core rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture that had already been changed by the 1900s.”

    That is where you are in error. The core culture of the Thirteen Colonies was European–English, Dutch, German, French, Finnish–mixed in with African and Native American. European ethnic groups were separated by their ethnicity, and further separated by their religion and social standing. The cultural shift from European identity to American identity was ongoing, a slow trickle at first, then a torrent rush.

    “Communities that started out English turned German and then Polish and now as Black ghettos or immigrant ghettos.”

    That’s par for the course in America.

    “but I wanted to add that thoughtful governance is inherently conservative and cautious.”

    Thoughtful governance may be conservative and cautious, or liberal and transformative.

    “Things worked out pretty well, overall, for the European migrants, but it must have been a traumatic process at the time, taking place much more quickly than what natural growth and cultural drift would have achieved.”

    Traumatic I would imagine also for African slaves and tribal groups as well.

  133. @biz
    @anon

    Yes!

    There is footage on Youtube of one sect / tribe in Yemen chanting "Death to America" in their Mosque at the very moment that another sect / tribe blows the mosque up.

    Clearly what makes Muslims blow stuff up is unrelated to their assimilation or lack thereof in Europe or America.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    I had to Google and view…priceless. Like the first comment said, it’s like watching cancer cure itself!

  134. @AndrewR
    @BostonTea

    Say what you want about the IRA, they're not invaders and colonizers.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    They contracted out their bomb making services, though, especially to the Basques.

  135. @Diamed
    This is why any ban on immigration of a group must be coupled with deportation of said group that already lives here, or the traitors inside the gates will continuously seek to open the gates to their foreign brethren and the peace of the realm will never be secured.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @AndrewR, @athEIst

    Byzantium fell three times. Each occasioned the opening of a gate by a traitor.

  136. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "It can mean miscegenation and their gradual blending into the host population."

    The mixing of races and ethnic groups has been going on since God created man. It can't be stopped.

    "Or it could mean the immigrants remaining separate, but stopping those practices that make them dangerous or obnoxious to the natives."

    So, I imagine that you would have supported the white nativists in the 1840's and 1850's, for example, who thought he Irish and Germans, their fellow whites, were dangerous, or in the late 1800's/early 1900's, when white nativists believed the Italians and the Slavs, their fellow whites (albeit swarthy), were also obnoxious, right?

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous? obnoxious? To whom?

    "Either way, immigration policy needs to be decided entirely on the needs of the native population."

    Did you even read your American history book? Immigration policy WAS crafted by the native population to meet their needs and took into consideration how to assimilate them.

    Replies: @Romanian, @random observer, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    Praytell, what immigrant practices today are dangerous?

    Immigration.

  137. It’s funny how whenever Trump or anyone else says No more Muslims the response is always, “If we do that they’ll kill us!”

    Doesn’t that prove Trump’s point?

  138. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "My point is that I could not give an absolute damn about 19th century American attitudes to European immigrants and I cannot see the damndest slightest relevance to the current immigration disaster facing Europe."

    Actually, past history has significant relevance. For every wave of immigration, there were supporters and detractors. The arguments proffered then are similar to now, whether it be concerns about changing national character or regards to economic considerations. As a result, there were policies implemented that reflected the beliefs of the citizen majority.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    No, it doesn’t.

    We are living in the here and now.
    We are fighting the battles of the here and now.
    I simply could not care less about past historic battles fought on the issue of immigration.
    All I care about is the present and the future ( ‘….it is the supreme function of statesmanship to provide against preventable dangers….’).
    Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis – or they shouldn’t.

    The crises and issues facing this present generation need to be solved by this present generation – the people who actually live in it – with the all the options and resources available to them. The passed are past.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis – or they shouldn’t."

    Why do you think the Know-Nothings came into power in the 1850's? Why do you think the quota acts of the 1920's came into existence?

    Because past concerns about immigration became part of the current discussion. The same pros and cons brought up then are brought up now. As it should.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  139. @Romanian
    @Jefferson

    We vary a lot. Facial features, height, body type. You name it, we have it. Though I'd think that a rounder face with a straight nose, brown hair and a hint of a square jaw is what I would call typical.

    In my experience, we all think of ourselves as White, even the more swarthy ones, who might have a bit of Gypsy in them, or some Turkish genes. Racism isn't really racism in our little ethnic microcosm, it's about visibly belonging to an ethnicity, you know which one, and all that it entails (dress, language, mannerisms, morality towards in-group and out-group). So I have a few friends who look like Swedes and one who almost looks like Raj from The Big Bang Theory, despite his aunt being blonde with blue eyes and his brothers being just a bit tanned. Now, there's probably a Gypsy or a Turk or two somewhere in that family tree, but the dude is a respectable corporate type who cooks as a hobby. No one would think he is anything other than Romanian, because it's the socio-economic status that gives it away.

    Culturally, we consider ourselves a Latin island in a sea of Slavs, with a Romance language that's very similar to Spanish and Italian only it has harsher consonants so people have compared me to a Russian speaking the Italian language. We're very Mediterranean in our flaws, and we like to blame our Ottoman suzerains for it, who left us a very rich vocabulary to describe the act of bribing. There are regional differences in stereotypical temperament and behavior, correlating with the different empires the regions were in and what cultures were there to influence them, also genetically maybe. The Moldovans were closer to Russia, they got more loan words (and the Bessarabians really do sound a lot like Russians in accent) and a reputation for laziness, fecundity and bravura. The Transylvanians and Ardeleans were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and are considered more civilized and hard working, but also ponderous in speech and thought (not stupid, just ruminant). My own Southerners, who were so long under the Ottoman heel, are shifty and fast talking, but stupid. Legend says we were offered as spoils of war to the Porte and they refused, preferring to keep us at arms' length.

    So, we're like a sort of Northern Mediterranean. Only we're Orthodox by dint of proximity to Constantinople, while the Poles are Catholic Slavs. That doesn't mean all that much genetically. We're probably very similar to our neighbors, especially the Southern and Western ones, meaning Bulgarians and Serbs. In the looks department, we are all over the place, since we've really had a lot of people moving through. The overwhelming majority is the standard European White, with a fairly large minority of blondes, some redheads, and plenty of blue and green eyes. You'll occasionally see a more Swarthy type, but he could just as easily be from a mixed family dating back to Ceausescu's policy of having thousands of MENA students in Romania (Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans) of whom a few stayed and assimilated quite well, pork and all. The founder of our elite civil rescue unit and still its leader is a Palestinian who studied medicine here.

    I'm, of course, a handsome rugged type with brown hair and hazel eyes. I have a slightly rakish widow's peak and stronger eyebrows, which is fairly common (not a unibrow, thank God), though not quite like the car wash owner in Breaking Bad, the Romanian Bogdan. Think Zachary Quinto in The Slap. I have a friend who looks like Dan Bilzerian without the money and with just one good woman.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Romanian

    There is a Romanian actor here in The U.S named Adrian Zmed who starred in Grease 2 and TJ Hooker, who looks closer to a Sicilian in phenotype than he does to a Slavic like Vladimir Putin.

    Wikipedia does not mention anything about him being a Gypsy or Romanian Jew, so that is not where he got his dark looks from.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Jefferson

    I had never heard of him, though I've seen Grease 2 (Michelle Pfeiffer was so hot). His is a common enough look around here but, as I told you guys, we vary a lot. Plenty of all types, with regards to physiognomy, though a more Balkans-Med look is more typical. Again, the Latin tradition of ethnogenesis. Though I wouldn't exactly call him Sicilian or having dark looks, aside from the hair. Maybe this is one instance where our aesthetic standards are not aligned. There are people who look darker around here, without crossing into the punjabivalley. And all the Jews I've ever met here were very White, though with softer features. Would you call the Romanian actor from Captain America (who played Bucky) dark? Maybe I'm just not good at this paper bag test stuff.

    , @Romanian
    @Jefferson

    Now that you mention it, maybe I am subconsciously bleaching myself, not in terms of skin color (I'm a very pasty white male), but in physiognomy. And maybe there is a touch of what Westerners would call the exotic in me, though we don't recognize it among ourselves. I mention this because now I remembered how, during one of my work trips to Iran, people kept speaking Farsi to me until I could set them straight, and then complimented me as looking very handsomely Iranian and how they always notice the resemblance with Romanians they previously met. Men were doing that, of course, not the women. Worst place to flirt I've been to yet. I was rocking a stellar beard at the time and, with my eyebrows, I really could see the resemblance, though the typical urban Iranian I passed on the street seemed much swarthier than the typical Romanian. Even there, the cognitive elites look whiter than the general population.

  140. @Corvinus
    @montezuma

    It’s especially dumb to marry muslims if you are from a country with highly able native people, like Germany."

    Actually, it's smart to race mix.

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/03/mixed-race-people-taller-and-smarter-study-says-5277767/

    "The highest muslim country mean IQ is 90, I think (Turkey), but recent PISA test scores hint at a score of 86-87."

    You fail to consider other important variables--educational systems and social class standing.

    "They are also hot-headed, the complete opposite of the average german, who is meek and calm, rational."

    Do you have any scientific evidence that definitively compares Germans and Muslims in these specific areas?

    Replies: @Bill B.

    The race-mixing research was meretricious academic clickbait.

    Note this from the comments in that newspaper report:

    “James Lucas · Works at Hendrix College:
    Load of crap right here. Look at the Minnesota transracial adoption study, the gold standard of IQ adoption studies. Children of different races were adopted by White middle class parents. White children had a mean IQ 101.5, children with one black and one whie parent had a mean IQ of 93.5, children with two black parents had a mean IQ of 83.5

    http://frihetspartiet.net/…/minnesota-transracial…

    The average White IQ is 100. The average black IQ is 85. If you’re White, racemixing is a bad idea.”

    There are a great number of studies on the mental peculiarities of the Arabs. See particularly the famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity.

    David Gutmann has also written incisively on the peculiarities of the Arab psyche. Eg this in 2005:

    “It is often asserted that the changes set in train by modernization are particularly toxic to the Arabs. No doubt this is true. But if we are going to be therapeutic, our diagnoses need to be more specific; we need to identify the particular pathogens that are released by modernization. Besides sharpening their sense of inferiority relative to the West, modernization threatens to bring about the liberation of women (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). I say “threatens,” because the self-esteem of Arab males is in large part predicated on the inferior position of their women. The Arab nations have for the most part lost their slaves and dhimmis, the subject peoples onto whose persons the stigmata of shame could be downloaded. But anyone who has spent time among them knows that Arab males have not lost their psychological need for social and sexual inferiors. In the absence of slaves and captive peoples, Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man.”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Bill B.

    The study linked is from 1992. Moreover, the commenter failed to address the specifics of the study.

    “…famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on **Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity**.”

    **You made up this part. The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.

    “David Gutmann has also written incisively…”

    Interesting that a Jew has a unique perspective on Muslims. He wrote that Islam by itself is not the prime mover of Arab violence. Moreover, his entire argument rests on the pseudo-psychological argument that Muslims suffer from a crisis of humiliation.

    http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/09/17/are-islamic-cultures-really-shame-based-part-1/

    Replies: @Nico, @Bill B.

  141. A modest plea: could folks please stop feeding the Corvinus troll on Steve Sailer threads? A devil’s advocate or a useful dissenter is one thing, but Corvinus’s history contains nothing beyond stream-of-consciousness plastic-polished suburbanite moralizing. Yes, I realize this is a Free Speech Zone, and of course (and more importantly) Steve Sailer is free to approve whomever he likes, but for the rest of us: now that Marco Rubio’s campaign is off the trail, no need to beat that dead horse (even if his nerves still give off twitches now and then as Corvinus demonstrates).

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  142. @Jefferson
    @Romanian

    There is a Romanian actor here in The U.S named Adrian Zmed who starred in Grease 2 and TJ Hooker, who looks closer to a Sicilian in phenotype than he does to a Slavic like Vladimir Putin.

    Wikipedia does not mention anything about him being a Gypsy or Romanian Jew, so that is not where he got his dark looks from.

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

    I had never heard of him, though I’ve seen Grease 2 (Michelle Pfeiffer was so hot). His is a common enough look around here but, as I told you guys, we vary a lot. Plenty of all types, with regards to physiognomy, though a more Balkans-Med look is more typical. Again, the Latin tradition of ethnogenesis. Though I wouldn’t exactly call him Sicilian or having dark looks, aside from the hair. Maybe this is one instance where our aesthetic standards are not aligned. There are people who look darker around here, without crossing into the punjabivalley. And all the Jews I’ve ever met here were very White, though with softer features. Would you call the Romanian actor from Captain America (who played Bucky) dark? Maybe I’m just not good at this paper bag test stuff.

  143. @Corvinus
    @anon

    "So the honest answer to the guy’s question is you want ppl of white european descent to disappear."

    People of white European ancestry aren't disappearing. They're alive and well. Why are you so melodramatic?

    Replies: @Romanian

    They’re not exactly thriving as a population. They’ve adopted third worlders as a pereptual tax on personal holiness (expressed as squandered money, opportunities and lives) and in place of the children they never had. Their numbers are dwindling. Their cultures and vital space are slowly being eroded and their morale is quite down, even though they kid themselves that it isn’t. Worst of all, a lot of them are slaves to a death cult preaching an original sin and they vote in accordance with their tenets of trying to cleanse that sin.

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/MuggeridgeLiberal.php

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Romanian

    "They’re not exactly thriving as a population."

    Whites have the best civilization in the world. I would call that thriving.

    "They’ve adopted third worlders as a pereptual tax on personal holiness (expressed as squandered money, opportunities and lives) and in place of the children they never had."

    Some whites who cannot have offspring or have chosen to add to their families have taken in non-whites into their homes. Perfectly well within their liberty.

    "Their cultures and vital space are slowly being eroded..."

    A number of whites would vehemently disagree.

    "and their morale is quite down, even though they kid themselves that it isn’t."

    I think you are projecting.

    "Worst of all, a lot of them are slaves to a death cult preaching an original sin and they vote in accordance with their tenets of trying to cleanse that sin."

    So you know better than those whites who are making catastrophic decisions, huh.

  144. @Romanian
    @Jefferson

    We vary a lot. Facial features, height, body type. You name it, we have it. Though I'd think that a rounder face with a straight nose, brown hair and a hint of a square jaw is what I would call typical.

    In my experience, we all think of ourselves as White, even the more swarthy ones, who might have a bit of Gypsy in them, or some Turkish genes. Racism isn't really racism in our little ethnic microcosm, it's about visibly belonging to an ethnicity, you know which one, and all that it entails (dress, language, mannerisms, morality towards in-group and out-group). So I have a few friends who look like Swedes and one who almost looks like Raj from The Big Bang Theory, despite his aunt being blonde with blue eyes and his brothers being just a bit tanned. Now, there's probably a Gypsy or a Turk or two somewhere in that family tree, but the dude is a respectable corporate type who cooks as a hobby. No one would think he is anything other than Romanian, because it's the socio-economic status that gives it away.

    Culturally, we consider ourselves a Latin island in a sea of Slavs, with a Romance language that's very similar to Spanish and Italian only it has harsher consonants so people have compared me to a Russian speaking the Italian language. We're very Mediterranean in our flaws, and we like to blame our Ottoman suzerains for it, who left us a very rich vocabulary to describe the act of bribing. There are regional differences in stereotypical temperament and behavior, correlating with the different empires the regions were in and what cultures were there to influence them, also genetically maybe. The Moldovans were closer to Russia, they got more loan words (and the Bessarabians really do sound a lot like Russians in accent) and a reputation for laziness, fecundity and bravura. The Transylvanians and Ardeleans were in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and are considered more civilized and hard working, but also ponderous in speech and thought (not stupid, just ruminant). My own Southerners, who were so long under the Ottoman heel, are shifty and fast talking, but stupid. Legend says we were offered as spoils of war to the Porte and they refused, preferring to keep us at arms' length.

    So, we're like a sort of Northern Mediterranean. Only we're Orthodox by dint of proximity to Constantinople, while the Poles are Catholic Slavs. That doesn't mean all that much genetically. We're probably very similar to our neighbors, especially the Southern and Western ones, meaning Bulgarians and Serbs. In the looks department, we are all over the place, since we've really had a lot of people moving through. The overwhelming majority is the standard European White, with a fairly large minority of blondes, some redheads, and plenty of blue and green eyes. You'll occasionally see a more Swarthy type, but he could just as easily be from a mixed family dating back to Ceausescu's policy of having thousands of MENA students in Romania (Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans) of whom a few stayed and assimilated quite well, pork and all. The founder of our elite civil rescue unit and still its leader is a Palestinian who studied medicine here.

    I'm, of course, a handsome rugged type with brown hair and hazel eyes. I have a slightly rakish widow's peak and stronger eyebrows, which is fairly common (not a unibrow, thank God), though not quite like the car wash owner in Breaking Bad, the Romanian Bogdan. Think Zachary Quinto in The Slap. I have a friend who looks like Dan Bilzerian without the money and with just one good woman.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Romanian

    The famous gold frame. It’s like gold piping to a military uniform. Must…. not…. squeal with delight.

  145. @Jefferson
    @Romanian

    There is a Romanian actor here in The U.S named Adrian Zmed who starred in Grease 2 and TJ Hooker, who looks closer to a Sicilian in phenotype than he does to a Slavic like Vladimir Putin.

    Wikipedia does not mention anything about him being a Gypsy or Romanian Jew, so that is not where he got his dark looks from.

    Replies: @Romanian, @Romanian

    Now that you mention it, maybe I am subconsciously bleaching myself, not in terms of skin color (I’m a very pasty white male), but in physiognomy. And maybe there is a touch of what Westerners would call the exotic in me, though we don’t recognize it among ourselves. I mention this because now I remembered how, during one of my work trips to Iran, people kept speaking Farsi to me until I could set them straight, and then complimented me as looking very handsomely Iranian and how they always notice the resemblance with Romanians they previously met. Men were doing that, of course, not the women. Worst place to flirt I’ve been to yet. I was rocking a stellar beard at the time and, with my eyebrows, I really could see the resemblance, though the typical urban Iranian I passed on the street seemed much swarthier than the typical Romanian. Even there, the cognitive elites look whiter than the general population.

  146. @Bill B.
    @Corvinus

    The race-mixing research was meretricious academic clickbait.

    Note this from the comments in that newspaper report:

    "James Lucas · Works at Hendrix College:
    Load of crap right here. Look at the Minnesota transracial adoption study, the gold standard of IQ adoption studies. Children of different races were adopted by White middle class parents. White children had a mean IQ 101.5, children with one black and one whie parent had a mean IQ of 93.5, children with two black parents had a mean IQ of 83.5

    http://frihetspartiet.net/.../minnesota-transracial...

    The average White IQ is 100. The average black IQ is 85. If you're White, racemixing is a bad idea."

    There are a great number of studies on the mental peculiarities of the Arabs. See particularly the famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity.

    David Gutmann has also written incisively on the peculiarities of the Arab psyche. Eg this in 2005:

    "It is often asserted that the changes set in train by modernization are particularly toxic to the Arabs. No doubt this is true. But if we are going to be therapeutic, our diagnoses need to be more specific; we need to identify the particular pathogens that are released by modernization. Besides sharpening their sense of inferiority relative to the West, modernization threatens to bring about the liberation of women (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). I say "threatens," because the self-esteem of Arab males is in large part predicated on the inferior position of their women. The Arab nations have for the most part lost their slaves and dhimmis, the subject peoples onto whose persons the stigmata of shame could be downloaded. But anyone who has spent time among them knows that Arab males have not lost their psychological need for social and sexual inferiors. In the absence of slaves and captive peoples, Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man."

    Replies: @Corvinus

    The study linked is from 1992. Moreover, the commenter failed to address the specifics of the study.

    “…famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on **Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity**.”

    **You made up this part. The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.

    “David Gutmann has also written incisively…”

    Interesting that a Jew has a unique perspective on Muslims. He wrote that Islam by itself is not the prime mover of Arab violence. Moreover, his entire argument rests on the pseudo-psychological argument that Muslims suffer from a crisis of humiliation.

    http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/09/17/are-islamic-cultures-really-shame-based-part-1/

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Corvinus


    The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.
     
    I didn't read the report myself, but if an Arab or frankly anyone else actually wrote that and believed what he wrote, that would be at the very least proof of his own intellectual mediocrity and lack of inquisitiveness.

    You're out of your league, troll.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Bill B.
    @Corvinus

    I was paraphrasing the UNDP report hotshot.

    Inter alia it famously noted that Spain translates more books in one year than the entire Arab world ever has.

  147. @Romanian
    @Corvinus

    They're not exactly thriving as a population. They've adopted third worlders as a pereptual tax on personal holiness (expressed as squandered money, opportunities and lives) and in place of the children they never had. Their numbers are dwindling. Their cultures and vital space are slowly being eroded and their morale is quite down, even though they kid themselves that it isn't. Worst of all, a lot of them are slaves to a death cult preaching an original sin and they vote in accordance with their tenets of trying to cleanse that sin.

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/MuggeridgeLiberal.php

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “They’re not exactly thriving as a population.”

    Whites have the best civilization in the world. I would call that thriving.

    “They’ve adopted third worlders as a pereptual tax on personal holiness (expressed as squandered money, opportunities and lives) and in place of the children they never had.”

    Some whites who cannot have offspring or have chosen to add to their families have taken in non-whites into their homes. Perfectly well within their liberty.

    “Their cultures and vital space are slowly being eroded…”

    A number of whites would vehemently disagree.

    “and their morale is quite down, even though they kid themselves that it isn’t.”

    I think you are projecting.

    “Worst of all, a lot of them are slaves to a death cult preaching an original sin and they vote in accordance with their tenets of trying to cleanse that sin.”

    So you know better than those whites who are making catastrophic decisions, huh.

  148. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    No, it doesn't.

    We are living in the here and now.
    We are fighting the battles of the here and now.
    I simply could not care less about past historic battles fought on the issue of immigration.
    All I care about is the present and the future ( '....it is the supreme function of statesmanship to provide against preventable dangers....').
    Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis - or they shouldn't.

    The crises and issues facing this present generation need to be solved by this present generation - the people who actually live in it - with the all the options and resources available to them. The passed are past.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis – or they shouldn’t.”

    Why do you think the Know-Nothings came into power in the 1850’s? Why do you think the quota acts of the 1920’s came into existence?

    Because past concerns about immigration became part of the current discussion. The same pros and cons brought up then are brought up now. As it should.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Look.

    If the Muslims had actually won the Battle of Tours way back in the day, then the world as we live in it now would be very very different. So different that it is beyond our powers of conception.

    Well they didn't. And we live the life we are now living.

    I realise to all of us who are enthralled by the grand pageant of history, the Battle of Tours, and the events leading up to it are a most thrilling and enlightening story.
    But the point is that it is the story of yesterday. Perhaps the 'right' side won - though I'm sure you would dispute that - the effects of Tours cannot be reversed and have no bearing on the policy dilemmas of today. Tours like the 'no nothings' is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  149. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Past battles over immigration neither morally, legally or intellectual bind, influence or inform the present-day crisis – or they shouldn’t."

    Why do you think the Know-Nothings came into power in the 1850's? Why do you think the quota acts of the 1920's came into existence?

    Because past concerns about immigration became part of the current discussion. The same pros and cons brought up then are brought up now. As it should.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Look.

    If the Muslims had actually won the Battle of Tours way back in the day, then the world as we live in it now would be very very different. So different that it is beyond our powers of conception.

    Well they didn’t. And we live the life we are now living.

    I realise to all of us who are enthralled by the grand pageant of history, the Battle of Tours, and the events leading up to it are a most thrilling and enlightening story.
    But the point is that it is the story of yesterday. Perhaps the ‘right’ side won – though I’m sure you would dispute that – the effects of Tours cannot be reversed and have no bearing on the policy dilemmas of today. Tours like the ‘no nothings’ is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Tours like the ‘no nothings’ is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically."

    Except the Battle of Tours was a singular, monumental event, unlike immigration policies of the past, which directly influence today's debates. Moreover, the Battle of Tours was a definitive turning point in world history in and of itself; American immigration history is intertwined and interrelated. The impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, for example, has a direct bearing on today's policy dilemmas--numerous opponents cite the bill sponsors insistence that the American character would not be altered as evidence of their lack of foresight.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  150. @Corvinus
    @Bill B.

    The study linked is from 1992. Moreover, the commenter failed to address the specifics of the study.

    “…famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on **Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity**.”

    **You made up this part. The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.

    “David Gutmann has also written incisively…”

    Interesting that a Jew has a unique perspective on Muslims. He wrote that Islam by itself is not the prime mover of Arab violence. Moreover, his entire argument rests on the pseudo-psychological argument that Muslims suffer from a crisis of humiliation.

    http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/09/17/are-islamic-cultures-really-shame-based-part-1/

    Replies: @Nico, @Bill B.

    The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.

    I didn’t read the report myself, but if an Arab or frankly anyone else actually wrote that and believed what he wrote, that would be at the very least proof of his own intellectual mediocrity and lack of inquisitiveness.

    You’re out of your league, troll.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Nico

    "I didn’t read the report myself"

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity. While I appreciate your SJW tenacity to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?

    Replies: @Nico

  151. @Nico
    @Corvinus


    The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.
     
    I didn't read the report myself, but if an Arab or frankly anyone else actually wrote that and believed what he wrote, that would be at the very least proof of his own intellectual mediocrity and lack of inquisitiveness.

    You're out of your league, troll.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I didn’t read the report myself”

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity. While I appreciate your SJW tenacity to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Corvinus

    Do you ever get dizzy hopping around so many topics and mixing up so many buzzwords?

    Nice try. Not biting.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  152. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Look.

    If the Muslims had actually won the Battle of Tours way back in the day, then the world as we live in it now would be very very different. So different that it is beyond our powers of conception.

    Well they didn't. And we live the life we are now living.

    I realise to all of us who are enthralled by the grand pageant of history, the Battle of Tours, and the events leading up to it are a most thrilling and enlightening story.
    But the point is that it is the story of yesterday. Perhaps the 'right' side won - though I'm sure you would dispute that - the effects of Tours cannot be reversed and have no bearing on the policy dilemmas of today. Tours like the 'no nothings' is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Tours like the ‘no nothings’ is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically.”

    Except the Battle of Tours was a singular, monumental event, unlike immigration policies of the past, which directly influence today’s debates. Moreover, the Battle of Tours was a definitive turning point in world history in and of itself; American immigration history is intertwined and interrelated. The impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, for example, has a direct bearing on today’s policy dilemmas–numerous opponents cite the bill sponsors insistence that the American character would not be altered as evidence of their lack of foresight.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    But my point is that if the 'other' side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm.
    The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc. Therefore, today's decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else.
    Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  153. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Tours like the ‘no nothings’ is what it is, and is no more, both literally and metaphorically."

    Except the Battle of Tours was a singular, monumental event, unlike immigration policies of the past, which directly influence today's debates. Moreover, the Battle of Tours was a definitive turning point in world history in and of itself; American immigration history is intertwined and interrelated. The impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, for example, has a direct bearing on today's policy dilemmas--numerous opponents cite the bill sponsors insistence that the American character would not be altered as evidence of their lack of foresight.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    But my point is that if the ‘other’ side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm.
    The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc. Therefore, today’s decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else.
    Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "But my point is that if the ‘other’ side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm."

    "The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc."

    The actions of today are the result of decisions from the past.

    "Therefore, today’s decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else."

    Why do you think immigration policies are crafted? Based on what previously occurred.

    "Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous."

    Based on the assumption that past immigration has had adverse consequences.

    Why do you insist on being obtuse?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  154. @Corvinus
    @Bill B.

    The study linked is from 1992. Moreover, the commenter failed to address the specifics of the study.

    “…famous 2002 UNDP report (written by Arab economists) how on **Arabs lack inqusitiveness and wallow in mediocrity**.”

    **You made up this part. The report stated that Arab nations as a whole have been seeking to confront a wide range of problems in light of working toward full respect for human rights and freedoms, the empowerment of Arab women, and the consolidation and transformation of knowledge.

    “David Gutmann has also written incisively…”

    Interesting that a Jew has a unique perspective on Muslims. He wrote that Islam by itself is not the prime mover of Arab violence. Moreover, his entire argument rests on the pseudo-psychological argument that Muslims suffer from a crisis of humiliation.

    http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/09/17/are-islamic-cultures-really-shame-based-part-1/

    Replies: @Nico, @Bill B.

    I was paraphrasing the UNDP report hotshot.

    Inter alia it famously noted that Spain translates more books in one year than the entire Arab world ever has.

  155. @Corvinus
    @Nico

    "I didn’t read the report myself"

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity. While I appreciate your SJW tenacity to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?

    Replies: @Nico

    Do you ever get dizzy hopping around so many topics and mixing up so many buzzwords?

    Nice try. Not biting.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Nico

    "Nice try. Not biting."

    [Laughs] You tell people here "don't feed Corvinus" and yet, here you are, "feeding Corvinus".

    Replies: @Nico

  156. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    But my point is that if the 'other' side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm.
    The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc. Therefore, today's decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else.
    Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “But my point is that if the ‘other’ side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm.”

    “The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc.”

    The actions of today are the result of decisions from the past.

    “Therefore, today’s decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else.”

    Why do you think immigration policies are crafted? Based on what previously occurred.

    “Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous.”

    Based on the assumption that past immigration has had adverse consequences.

    Why do you insist on being obtuse?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Of course, it depends on who's doing the immigrating.

    But the upshot is that the mass importation of the third world into previously western territories is disastrous, has always been disastrous and always will be disastrous.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  157. @Nico
    @Corvinus

    Do you ever get dizzy hopping around so many topics and mixing up so many buzzwords?

    Nice try. Not biting.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Nice try. Not biting.”

    [Laughs] You tell people here “don’t feed Corvinus” and yet, here you are, “feeding Corvinus”.

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Corvinus

    You're still exercising the same bad faith as before. Only, you don't seem to realize that we're catching on. Keep trying.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  158. @Corvinus
    @Nico

    "Nice try. Not biting."

    [Laughs] You tell people here "don't feed Corvinus" and yet, here you are, "feeding Corvinus".

    Replies: @Nico

    You’re still exercising the same bad faith as before. Only, you don’t seem to realize that we’re catching on. Keep trying.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Nico

    There is nothing "bad faith" about the things that I say. You may disagree with my position, which is fine. So, what specifically do you have complaints about? Don't be vague, point out one of my arguments and dissect it. Are you able to do even that?

    Replies: @Nico

  159. @Nico
    @Corvinus

    You're still exercising the same bad faith as before. Only, you don't seem to realize that we're catching on. Keep trying.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    There is nothing “bad faith” about the things that I say. You may disagree with my position, which is fine. So, what specifically do you have complaints about? Don’t be vague, point out one of my arguments and dissect it. Are you able to do even that?

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Corvinus


    There is nothing “bad faith” about the things that I say. You may disagree with my position, which is fine. So, what specifically do you have complaints about? Don’t be vague, point out one of my arguments and dissect it. Are you able to do even that?
     
    AHH!! I thought you'd never ask! Let me pick apart this little gem for starters:

    “I didn’t read the report myself”

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity. While I appreciate your SJW tenacity to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?
     

    One by one:

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity.
     
    My comment obviously did not refer to the report itself, but to what I could extrapolate from the mighty hilarious summary you offered. As I acknowledged this fact quite clearly from the start, the only way anyone could legitimately reproach my not having read the article would be for reading it to be some moral obligation that would reveal some definitive truth.

    While I appreciate your SJW tenacity
     
    Interspersed in your subtle or not-so-subtle attempts to troll, mock and/or shame HBDers, White Nationalists and other anti-P.C. folk on this forum, you drop an accusation of one of our own dreaded buzzwords. If saying it could making it so, then I could say I am Napoleon Bonaparte and I would be conquering Europe.

    to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?
     
    I asked people not to feed you, not necessarily to ignore you per se. Ignoring might have been great. Several posts later they were still attempting to argue with the completely non sequitur "substance" of your arguments. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Trolling to spread FUD may be in service of a good cause, but as far as your interlocutors are concerned, it is what it is: bad faith.

  160. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "But my point is that if the ‘other’ side had won at Tours, we would be living in an alternate reality in which an alternative narrative would be given, and would be the norm."

    "The point it is the actions of today which influence the future and the future narrative, reality etc."

    The actions of today are the result of decisions from the past.

    "Therefore, today’s decisions must be taken with regards to the issues and dilemmas of today and to absolutely nothing else."

    Why do you think immigration policies are crafted? Based on what previously occurred.

    "Many of us would argue that the future impact of massive third world immigration on the west can only be described as diasterous."

    Based on the assumption that past immigration has had adverse consequences.

    Why do you insist on being obtuse?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Of course, it depends on who’s doing the immigrating.

    But the upshot is that the mass importation of the third world into previously western territories is disastrous, has always been disastrous and always will be disastrous.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "But the upshot is that the mass importation of the third world into previously western territories is disastrous, has always been disastrous and always will be disastrous."

    Maybe.

  161. One thing I remember about grade school and bullies:

    The thing that worried me most was not making the bully angrier, but what the grown-ups would do to me afterwards. The bullied kid fighting back got punished worse than what the bullies received. I know this.. I experienced this in 7th grade when I put my tormentor (I was really small for my age and he was big for his) in a tracheal choke (those Judo lessons came in handy), rendering him into the fetal position gasping in pain. I nearly got suspended with a number of phone calls to my parents (I had a mortal fear of my Dad at the time.. who wasn’t the most understanding type).

    Now as an adult, my fear is that we might have our own leftist ‘bullies’ intimidating us on the right at the polling station. The authorities will give them a pass but bring the full force of “the law” down on the rest of us should we meet force with greater force.

  162. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Of course, it depends on who's doing the immigrating.

    But the upshot is that the mass importation of the third world into previously western territories is disastrous, has always been disastrous and always will be disastrous.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “But the upshot is that the mass importation of the third world into previously western territories is disastrous, has always been disastrous and always will be disastrous.”

    Maybe.

  163. @Corvinus
    @Nico

    There is nothing "bad faith" about the things that I say. You may disagree with my position, which is fine. So, what specifically do you have complaints about? Don't be vague, point out one of my arguments and dissect it. Are you able to do even that?

    Replies: @Nico

    There is nothing “bad faith” about the things that I say. You may disagree with my position, which is fine. So, what specifically do you have complaints about? Don’t be vague, point out one of my arguments and dissect it. Are you able to do even that?

    AHH!! I thought you’d never ask! Let me pick apart this little gem for starters:

    “I didn’t read the report myself”

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity. While I appreciate your SJW tenacity to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?

    One by one:

    And yet you have the audacity to state that Arabs are mired in intellectual mediocrity.

    My comment obviously did not refer to the report itself, but to what I could extrapolate from the mighty hilarious summary you offered. As I acknowledged this fact quite clearly from the start, the only way anyone could legitimately reproach my not having read the article would be for reading it to be some moral obligation that would reveal some definitive truth.

    While I appreciate your SJW tenacity

    Interspersed in your subtle or not-so-subtle attempts to troll, mock and/or shame HBDers, White Nationalists and other anti-P.C. folk on this forum, you drop an accusation of one of our own dreaded buzzwords. If saying it could making it so, then I could say I am Napoleon Bonaparte and I would be conquering Europe.

    to get other posters here to ignore me, are you not failing to follow your own advice?

    I asked people not to feed you, not necessarily to ignore you per se. Ignoring might have been great. Several posts later they were still attempting to argue with the completely non sequitur “substance” of your arguments. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Trolling to spread FUD may be in service of a good cause, but as far as your interlocutors are concerned, it is what it is: bad faith.

  164. “My comment obviously did not refer to the report itself…”

    Nico, you specified that you didn’t read the report. You then proceed to criticize my summary and label it as “mighty hilarious”. You cannot possibly make that assumption without actually having read it. That is YOUR moral and intellectual obligation. If you are going to take me to task, you best be educated about the topic before bloviating.

    “Interspersed in your subtle or not-so-subtle attempts to troll, mock and/or shame HBDers, White Nationalists and other anti-P.C. folk on this forum…”

    If I am “shaming” you by invading your safe space, I suggest you learn how to deal with your own feelings of inadequacy.

    “Trolling to spread FUD may be in service of a good cause, but as far as your interlocutors are concerned, it is what it is: bad faith.”

    I’ve been making regular comments here, so there is no bad faith nor trolling involved.

    “I asked people not to feed you, not necessarily to ignore you per se.”

    Who made you the SJW blog policewoman? I’m not going anywhere, so either ignore me or debate me on actual merits, rather than engaging in your shaming mission.

    • Replies: @Nico
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus having just replicated just about everything I had called him on in this last post, I rest my case.

  165. @Corvinus
    “My comment obviously did not refer to the report itself...”

    Nico, you specified that you didn’t read the report. You then proceed to criticize my summary and label it as “mighty hilarious”. You cannot possibly make that assumption without actually having read it. That is YOUR moral and intellectual obligation. If you are going to take me to task, you best be educated about the topic before bloviating.

    “Interspersed in your subtle or not-so-subtle attempts to troll, mock and/or shame HBDers, White Nationalists and other anti-P.C. folk on this forum...”

    If I am “shaming” you by invading your safe space, I suggest you learn how to deal with your own feelings of inadequacy.

    “Trolling to spread FUD may be in service of a good cause, but as far as your interlocutors are concerned, it is what it is: bad faith.”

    I’ve been making regular comments here, so there is no bad faith nor trolling involved.

    “I asked people not to feed you, not necessarily to ignore you per se.”

    Who made you the SJW blog policewoman? I’m not going anywhere, so either ignore me or debate me on actual merits, rather than engaging in your shaming mission.

    Replies: @Nico

    Corvinus having just replicated just about everything I had called him on in this last post, I rest my case.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS