The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
David Brooks: Ann Coulter Is Betraying the American Dream (Which Is, as We All Know, Invade-the-World / Invite-the-World)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

In the late 2000s, it was pretty obvious that David Brooks of the New York Times was reading my blog and then sometimes writing columns as if I defined the conventional wisdom and he was the brave heretic. It was certainly more interesting and intellectually challenging for him than reading New York Times editorials. Since then, however, Brooks has run into some personal problems and has shifted toward more Dr. Phil-type personal stuff; but today’s he’s back in old form:

The American Idea and Today’s G.O.P.
SEPT. 25, 2015

David Brooks

America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional. Other nations were defined by their history, but America was defined by its future, by the people who weren’t yet here and by the greatness that hadn’t yet been achieved.

American founders like Alexander Hamilton were aware that once the vast continent was settled the United States would be one of the dominant powers of the globe.

A Puerto Rican fellow is putting on a Hamilton musical on Broadway all about how Hamilton was some sort of Caribbean from the islands (his grandfather was Scottish Laird), but Brooks’ reference is likely a backhanded gesture to my Ben Franklin worship.

Herman Melville summarized this version of American exceptionalism in his novel “White Jacket”: “The future is endowed with such a life that it lives to us even in anticipation. … The future [is] the Bible of the free. … God has predestined, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls.”

The key term in the Melville quote is “our race.”

Today there are some conservative commentators and Republican politicians who talk a lot about American exceptionalism. But when they use the phrase they mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. In fact, they are effectively destroying American exceptionalism.

These commentators and candidates look backward to an America that is being lost. Ann Coulter encapsulated this attitude perfectly in her latest book title, “Adios, America.” This is the philosophy of the receding roar, the mourning for an America that once was and is now being destroyed by foreign people and ideas.

Out of this backward- and inward-looking mentality comes a desire to exclude. Donald Trump talks falsely and harshly about Hispanic immigrants. Ben Carson says he couldn’t advocate putting “a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

During George W. Bush’s first term there wasn’t much difference between how Democrats and Republicans viewed the overall immigration levels.

How’d Bush’s open door for immigrants work out for Republicans, anyway?

Republicans were about eight percentage points more likely to be dissatisfied with the contemporary immigration flows. But now the gap is an astounding 40 percentage points. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with the current immigration level, according to Gallup surveys.

As Peter Wehner, a longtime conservative writer who served in the Bush administration, wrote in the magazine Commentary: “The message being sent to voters is this: The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation. The G.O.P. is longing to return to the past and is fearful of the future. It is a party that is characterized by resentments and grievances, by distress and dismay, by the belief that America is irredeemably corrupt and past the point of no return. ‘The American dream is dead,’ in the emphatic words of Mr. Trump.”

It’s almost like Americans believe in the Preamble to the Constitution more than Emma Lazarus’s “huddled masses” poem:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

David continues;

But it’s also bad for the spirit of conservatism. American conservatism has always been different than the conservatism found on continental Europe and elsewhere. There it was based on blood and soil, here on promise.

Funny how they wrote blood into the Preamble.

American free market and religious conservatives have traditionally embraced a style of nationalism that is hopeful and future minded. From Lincoln to Reagan to Bush, the market has been embraced for being dynamic and progressive. The major faiths uplift in part because they are eschatological — they look forward to a glorious future. They preach an ethos of generosity and welcome. As the researcher Benjamin Knoll has found, religious parishioners of all political stripes are more likely to support more open immigration policies than others.

The duty of us more cynical Republicans is to protect our fellow party members from their flights of fancy.

But this hopeful nationalism is being supplanted in the G.O.P. by an anguished cry for a receding America.

This pessimism isn’t justified by the facts. As a definitive report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recently found, today’s immigrants are assimilating as fast as previous ones.

Which wasn’t so hot either when they did their previous report in 1997.

They are learning English. They are healthier than native-born Americans. Immigrant men age 18 to 39 are incarcerated at roughly one-fourth the rate of American men.

And their sons? The newcomers are useful in shoving violent African Americans out of prize urban turf. The children of the immigrants, however, get acclimated and are a handful, but they can still be used to dump blacks on the exurbs.

Instead the pessimism grows from a sour, overgeneralized and intellectually sloppy sense of alienation. It is one thing to think Democratic policies are wrong. It is another to betray the essential American faith and take a reactionary attitude toward life. This is an attitude that sours the tongue, offends the eye and freezes the heart.

On the other hand, it is liberating to realize that you’ve been scammed, but now you know better.

 
Hide 205 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT,

    Mr.Sailer,your old website,isteve.com,has apparently been hacked.I tried visiting there several minutes ago,only to be met with the following:

    http://servingnotice.com/Lmf4ry-Kxd6us/intermediary.html?champlung-sari.com

    Just thought you might want to know.

    • Agree: Thomas O. Meehan
    • Replies: @Thomas O. Meehan
    SoCal Patriot. There is a striking similarity between the "possible sale of counterfeit products" on Steve's old site and David Brooks writings in the New York Times. It's a pity that such a warning does not appear on Brooks work, since it is a counterfeit of conservative thought.
  2. “How’d Bush’s open door for immigrants work out for Republicans, anyway?”

    Gold.

  3. I saw Brooks walking through Penn Station in NYC just this week. His very small stature took me by surprise; he looks taller on TV.

    • Replies: @Marty
    What would David Brooks and Robert Reich disagree on?
    , @Lot
    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.
    , @Thomas O. Meehan
    Same with David Frum. He is quite dwarf-like.
  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    O.T.

    All over yesterday’s UK papers.

    Apparently, Barack Obama has yet another cousin living – inevitably – in the UK.
    She is or was employed by London’s Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard as a ‘call handler’.
    She is now claiming compensation for harassment at work. Basically the grounds of her complaint are that two white English police officers engaged in that ancient and time honored English tradition of ‘breaking wind’ loudly at work. She claims, that as a ‘prank’ which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.

    Whether they knew she was Obama’s cousin is unclear.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Then surely she must know how certain of us Americans feel about her cousin, Barack Hussein Obama, who has been doing the same thing right in our faces for the last seven years.
    , @Alice in Wanderland

    She claims, that as a ‘prank’ which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.
     
    Hilarious!

    Anyway.

    The guys probably didn't target her so much as they were just trying not to fart near people they actually liked.
    , @Clyde
    So they farted in her general direction and she is going to sue for racism and get them fired or disciplined....
  5. I read her latest book. It was marvelous. I don’t really find her to be that eloquent when speaking, though. She gets sidetracked by details like establishing the credentials of her info.

    Off-topic:

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-sdgs

    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Wow, thanks for the heads-up. This part tells you all you need to know about the author:

    How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
     
  6. What a loathsome nerd, people pay for this drivel?

    • Agree: Kylie
  7. The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    Note the choice of words there. This is intellectual dishonesty and media manipulation.

    Demographic change is not “inevitable.” It’s not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is “inevitable” it means there is a reason they’re allowing it to happen but not telling us.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Fortunately for Brooks, it isn't "inevitable" in his Jewish homeland. Hell, Brooks sent his own son back home to Israel, the eternal god-given motherland, to stave off the "inevitability" of Arab invasion, migration and domination.
    , @AndrewR
    Let's be honest. At this point it is inevitable. The elites may support it wholeheartedly, and it certainly wasn't inevitable 50 years ago, but today the demographic change couldn't be stopped even if the elites wanted to stop it. The vast majority of ethnic minorities, as well as a very large number of whites, want demographic change. It's very difficult to see an end to the change without a massive civil war, honestly.
  8. Since then, however, Brooks has run into some personal problems and has shifted toward more Dr. Phil-type personal stuff; but today’s he’s back in old form:

    I don’t know… this sounds kinda personal-problemmy to me.

    Did the Brookses put little David in a box outside the window, like the Simons did with Julian?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    You have to realize that David Brooks was a Socialist into his early 20's, and it was supposedly a short encounter with Milton Friedman who devastated his carefully thought out philosophical beliefs and turned him into a "conservative Republican." (Sort of reminds me of George Will, who actively supported the Iraq War and demonized anyone who opposed that misguided war, but who a few years later proclaimed on ABC's This Week with a straight face that the Iraq War violated virtually "every conservative principle" he believed in. I thought "principles" were deeply held beliefs upon which you base your judgments.) Although I would note that earlier in the year, Brooks admitted at the end of a review of Thomas Piketty's book that he was "a quasi Marxist." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html
    Before he was hired by the Times, Brooks wrote for the Weekly Standard, where he could be characterized as a "neoconservative." Thus, he satisfied all the requirements for a conservative columnist for the New York Times: he was Jewish (Jews comprise 2% of the U.S. population but vote overwhelmingly (70-80%) for Democrats), had been a Socialist in his early 20's, was still a "quasi Marxist," and had been a "neoconservative" writing for a "neoconservative publication," the Weekly Standard. I can't imagine a better columnist to express the conservative point of view in what is still considered the leading newspaper in the U.S. He clearly represents all the conservative Republicans who consider themselves "quasi Marxists."
  9. A good example of the dominance of Yankeedom over the rest of America is this sentence from Brooks: “America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional.”

    Children have been taught this since as long as anyone here has been alive. Politicians recite it like a prayer. It’s the abracadabra phrase of modern political discourse. If you don’t like some bit of reality, start talking about the city on the hill or righting the wrongs of the past, because, well, we’re special!

    This is pure Yankee nonsense that springs from Public Protestantism. Their part of America was founded by lunatics trying to create heaven on earth. The rest of the colonies had more sensible motivations.

    • Replies: @FUBAR007
    David Brooks is Jewish, not Yankee Protestant.
    , @Anonymous

    Children have been taught this since as long as anyone here has been alive. Politicians recite it like a prayer. It’s the abracadabra phrase of modern political discourse. If you don’t like some bit of reality, start talking about the city on the hill or righting the wrongs of the past, because, well, we’re special!
     
    I remember being taught that America was trying to do something different and better than other countries, but I really don't remember the use of the irksome term "American exceptionalism" in our lessons. I think I remember learning something more along the lines of "American greatness", "American ingenuity", or "American rugged individualism", not some smushy, ambiguous "American exceptionalism".
  10. Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a lot of info on the Communist origins of the term “American exceptionalism”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

    The exact term “American exceptionalism” has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin allegedly chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history “thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions”. However, this story has been challenged because the expression “American exceptionalism” was already used by Brouder & Zack in Daily Worker (N.Y.) on the 29th of January 1929, before Lovestone’s visit to Moscow. In addition, Fred Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, has noted that “exceptionalism” was used to refer to the United States and its self-image during the Civil War by The Times on August 20, 1861.[8]

    However, American Communists started using the English term “American exceptionalism” in factional fights. It then moved into general use among intellectuals.[9][10

    • Replies: @5371
    Because, as we all know, the term "intellectual" is synonymous with "neocon ex-Trotskyite".
  11. Brooks gave an interesting interview on NPR a few months ago:

    “I was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,” he tells NPR’s Audie Cornish. “They weren’t super proud of themselves; they were deeply humble. And I found that so beautiful and so moving. And I thought there’s really something to admire in that public culture.”

    So what do you think he says next? Does he examine the narcissism of “national greatness conservatism”? Does he examine his own chest-beating after the cold war? “It occurred to me that I’d seen more self-puffing victory dances after a two yard gain than after World War II.” So there you go. Not much self-awareness.

    By the way, WIkipedia has a good article on American exceptionalism. It’s basically a Marxist idea (US rejection of socialism makes it exceptional) retooled after the cold war to promote foreign wars.

    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,”
     
    That's probably because the War - for most Americans any way - didn't end till *VJ* Day. Due to the relentless obsession with the European war since about 1970 - people seem to forget that during WW 2 most Americans viewed Japan as the "real" enemy and the two theaters got equal amounts of news coverage. And during WW 2 and many years after Hollywood made more movies about the Pacific War than the War against Germany.

    Off topic - but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here's an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific - JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe - Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA - Carter, Reagan

  12. Brooks’s basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it’s trickier now: many to the new immigrants don’t fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it’s a close call.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Brooks’s basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else
     
    Steve, in recent years, has tried consistently to convince this sort of Jew to...rethink the matter. In principle a good idea, but I haven't seen any evidence it'll work.
    , @shrinker
    ...The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people...

    Got a source there? Cuz from a neutral point of view, it seemed more like it was actually negotiated by European conglomerates eager to do bidness there. But on the paleo sites I'm seeing these dark hints to the mysterious vanguard-in-exile of the Iranian astrophysicist/chessmaster diaspora. One can only assume that, like like the media-hyped Iraqi expatriates of 2003, some will now come home to Tehran and lend a hand. I hear their economy is having trouble.
    , @Big Bill
    "Canon fodder". I like that. Unintentional, but nice. College students in the West are "leftist canon fodder".
    , @AndrewR
    Cannon fodder for wars in Iran? Pardon? The neocon desire to go to war with Iran is abundantly clear but I have never heard anyone talk about invading Iran. Given its population and geography an invasion would be impossible without a massive draft on par with the second world war. Any war the US is led into with Iran will not involve boots on the ground other than possibly some elite forces.

    That's part of the appeal for the warmongers. It would be a relatively bloodfree war for the US side.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars

    Immigrants are cannon fodder for America's wars and canon fodder for David Brooks' editorials.
    , @Bad memories

    On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc.
     
    American weapons (systems) tend to be too complicated for (that sort of) canon fodder.
  13. Did I mention that his kid is in the Israeli army?

  14. It’s frustratingly obvious that Brooks is neither conservative or pro-American, yet he has a mantle in America’s limelight. Does he even reach flyover conservatives? I doubt it. This main audience is Jewish republicans and Big Money RINOs that snub the worker bee for Pedro.

    In other words, he’s following Kevin MacDonald’s playbook.

  15. “It is a party that is characterized by resentments and grievances, by distress and dismay, by the belief that America is irredeemably corrupt…”

    I dunno, sounds like the Democrats to me.

    • Agree: Kylie
  16. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    That Hamilton musical is beyond awful. First, it’s not a true musical, but a new genre of rap-opera. Its historical presentation is overtly simplistic, and the cast of white historical figures is played by a mostly minority cast. It is President Camacho level retarded. Complete scheiße . And Hamilton is absolutely the worst founding father anyway. Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist. And a lousy shot. So, if *Hamilton* is a rap musical does that mean the duel with Burr is gonna be done with trousers halfway down and are they going to hold their pistols sideways? (I'm sure some Hamiltonians will turn up here, outraged.)
    , @Danindc
    God bless you for sitting through it. Id rather go to a freestyle rap battle or a spoken word poetry reading.
    , @oh its just me
    he went into the breach at yorktown and didn't have to -General Washington pulled him from th field years before but he insisted on going; at the very least, he's no neocon.

    He set up nationlist encouragement of manufacturing and industry - in other words, i would take him over any modern politician.
  17. Yesterday JewOrNotAJew.com added an Emma Lazarus entry, the timing not being coincidental and their write-up being an absolute embarrassment — scolding, smarmy, and not that funny either. Since one of the two countries in the world most famous for ignoring the Lazarus Doctrine is Israel (with Japan) I can only assume that this cornball doggerel exerts a mighty psychic hold over suburban Jewish nebbish types in contests of holier-than-thou one-upmanship. They don’t seem to mind how it makes them look demented to everyone else, advertising their own utter thralldom to the cyanide-sweet syrup of Ellis Island nostalgia, the way sensitive baby-boom liberals can’t stop wailing about the JFK assassination and blacks ululate over the 2Pac-Biggie feud (indeed, similar to the way the world’s finest artists and intellectuals have not yet recovered from the death of Paul Walker). On a side note I’d add that Brooks at least apparently has way better literary taste than you, presenting as someone who started w/ the 1st volume of the Modern Library on Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and has now worked his way about half-through (to “Daisy Miller” or “Best Stories of John Cheever”); nice for a change to see some literary references that don’t come from either Golden Age YA sci-fi or droll interwar Oxbridge satires about homo affairs in the diplomatic corps.

  18. Since when is conservatism “future-minded”?

    Do Brooks and others realize they are contradicting themselves and using the term conservative for policies and worldviews that are liberal, if not leftist? Or do they not care, and cynically accept their part in the Chamber of Commerce produced kabuki theater that is centrist politics?

  19. “Nothing is written.” Lawrence of Arabia

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Nothing *true* is written :P
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Well, then it was written." - Auda Abu Tayi
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "So let it be written, so let it be done."

    "So it was written, so it shall be done."

    Both from The Ten Commandments
  20. @Hunsdon
    "Nothing is written." Lawrence of Arabia

    Nothing *true* is written 😛

  21. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    Brooks’s basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else

    Steve, in recent years, has tried consistently to convince this sort of Jew to…rethink the matter. In principle a good idea, but I haven’t seen any evidence it’ll work.

    • Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit

    I haven’t seen any evidence it’ll work.
     
    Then you haven't been looking all that hard. Steve's not alone in his efforts. Jews aren't stupid or insensible to threats to the way of life that suits them. They, too, have begun noticing things.
  22. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    …The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people…

    Got a source there? Cuz from a neutral point of view, it seemed more like it was actually negotiated by European conglomerates eager to do bidness there. But on the paleo sites I’m seeing these dark hints to the mysterious vanguard-in-exile of the Iranian astrophysicist/chessmaster diaspora. One can only assume that, like like the media-hyped Iraqi expatriates of 2003, some will now come home to Tehran and lend a hand. I hear their economy is having trouble.

    • Replies: @nglaer
    https://www.hudson.org/research/11641-meet-the-iran-lobby

    Here's a neocon view, Weekly Standard editor Lee Smith, who really doesn't like these people. . .

    As someone who favors detente with Iran, I like and admire Trita, and know several smart young people associated with his organization. My rough sense is that most of these young people are the children of refugees from the revolution, are upper class and educated, and would be on the other side (i.e. not protecting a regime they know to be brutal) were it not for the bellicosity of the neocons.

    I don't want to exaggerate their influence, but without them--without eloquent young Iranian-Americans walking the halls of Congress, Obama's diplomacy couldn't have prevailed. European conglomerates are important too, of course.
  23. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Funny how Brooks equates free markets with nationalism. It precisely the disdain of nationalism by the elites which has been the betrayal of the American Dream.

    For Brooks, the outsourcing of jobs and the insourcing of cheap labor is optimistic nationalism because it serves the market, as if blue collar white men are going to vote for Republicans based on capital gains tax cuts.

    The elites are apoplectic about Trump because he opened the discussion on the fate of the American people, a discussion which is supposed to be moot because of “inevitable” demographic change.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @jacobsson
    Well I do think they did a good job of convincing the blue collar types that the tax cuts will benefit them indirectly. Rising tide and all of that.

    But most people are waking up to the fact that a fatter wallet for a rich guy is just a fatter wallet for the rich guy.
  24. “Nothing is written.” Lawrence of Arabia

    No, not if

    a) you’re a Bedouin

    b) you don’t want it known how you spend your desert evenings

  25. Philosophies of the receding roar, eschatologies, glorious futures, desires to exclude, attitudes that sour the tongue, offend the eye, and freeze the heart.

    What does any of this mean, with regard to thinking clearly about immigration policies that benefit American citizens and their descendants?

    Mr. Brooks is using Ingsoc to paint pictures, rather than writing in English.

    If I had a glut of shoddy timeshares to unload to gullible retirees, I’d hire him to inspire my sales team.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Philosophies of the receding roar, eschatologies, glorious futures, desires to exclude, attitudes that sour the tongue, offend the eye, and freeze the heart.

    Apparently Brooks is still honoring his obligation is to sit with the writing of Ta Nehisi Coates, to make sure the testimony is respected and sinks in. It may have sunk in a little too deeply.
  26. I’ve been really surprised at the nature of the war the Republicans have fought against Trump. Rich Lowry said Fiorina sliced his balls off, and then spent a day or so pretending to be butch in a Twitter “war” with Trump and his followers, cackling that this was the way to get Trump. It was weird. They don’t seem to realize Trump’s partly playing a game.

    And then big talk now is that Trump is stalling. Really? Meanwhile, four days of excoriating Carson for his comment on Muslims didn’t seem to hurt his numbers.

    It’s a weird, exciting, cycle.

    As I wrote in my education policy series, I find it very revealing that the rest of the GOP candidates don’t–can’t, presumably–jump on the Trump bandwagon. They can’t adopt his message, because the elites won’t have it. I remain concerned that he’s going to be shut down, and all this talk will go away. But the really interesting thing, to me, is why. Why is there absolutely no real interest in shutting the borders?

    These are rhetorical, existential questions, commentariat, so please don’t annoy me with answers. I understand the usual suspects, and worry about them myself. The real question is how long the American people will tolerate it.

    • Agree: Alfa158, Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Why is there absolutely no real interest in shutting the borders?"

    Because the other candidates - apparently ALL of them - are entirely bought-and-paid-for stooges for the donor-class.
  27. The real question is how long the American people will tolerate it.

    As long as the benefits checks keep coming in. That’s what they’re for.

    • Replies: @coyote
    "freedom is just another word- for nothin' left to lose".
  28. Brooks ignores the disastrous effects of immigration on African-Americans. David Frum wrote:

    Despite three years of supposed economic recovery, black children were as likely to be poor in 2013 as in 2010 — and more likely than at any time since the early 1990s. Almost four out of 10 black children are now growing up in poverty, as against one in nine white children. More than 25 percent of the black poor now live in areas of concentrated poverty, triple the rate for poor white people.

    “The uniquely harsh African American economic experience since 2007 has divided black opinion further from that of other elements of the Obama coalition. Only 29 percent of Latinos under age 30 think illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans — but 48 percent of African Americans under 30 think so. No wonder.

    “African Americans have been very much bypassed in the recovery, as employers substituted immigrant for native-born labor. As of mid-2015 all of the net new job growth from the previous employment peak in 2007 has gone to foreign-born workers. The black unemployment rate — although declining — in summer 2015 still hovered well above the rate in December 2007. Among younger black people, 16-24, the unemployment rate is a Greek-like 20 percent. Nearly half of black youth aren’t in the workforce at all.

    ….

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:

    “You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”

    ….

    Harvard’s George Borjas found:

    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in employment and incarceration. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points.

    ….

    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission:

    According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

    Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose.

    I doubt that black men who end up doing time for dealing, robbing, assaulting, murdering, and the like took up to crime only after an unsuccessful search for an honest job.
    , @Jonathan Silber
    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate...

    It's not so much the rate of incarceration that matters as the rate of at which crime is committed, which latter rate is even higher, since not every crime, even serious crime, is punished by incarceration.

    Is it not more to the point, that every single illegal immigrant, by virtue of entering the country and remaining in it in violation of our laws, has committed a crime?

    This being so, while the rate of incarceration of illegals may be higher or lower than the rate of incarceration of this or that or the other group, the rate of lawbreaking among illegal immigrants is, by the mere fact of their presence on our soil, 100%.

    , @Dave Pinsen

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:
     
    Is he? Or has he flip flopped again?
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/647545890379436032
  29. Since then, however, Brooks has run into some personal problems and has shifted toward more Dr. Phil-type personal stuff…

    Do you know something you’re not telling us?

  30. In politics, when 44% of the other guys’ party agrees with 84% of your party on an issue, that’s an opportunity. That Brooks then goes one to repeat this quote from Cuckservative Wehner is astounding: ““The message being sent to voters is this: The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.”

    No, dummy, the GOP leadership is more than comfortable with the supposedly “inevitable” demographic change, it’s their voters who aren’t–along with just shy of half of the other guys’ voters, too.

    It’s funny when we hearken back to all the high-fiving the Rovians gave themselves for winning “44%” of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (yes, that number was debunked), but here you have an issue that will let you gain not 44% of 12% of the vote, but 44% of somewhere between 2/5 and 1/2 of the voters from the other side, and the GOP turns up its nose, says “No, thank you”, and then shuffles off to pay court to the Kochs or Adelson.

    • Replies: @CJ
    Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with the current immigration level, according to Gallup surveys.

    I did not know that. I like it. I was not expecting to learn any important facts from David Brooks. What was expected was the rest of the piece, stuff like the GOP being led by people who want to return to an idyllic past, as opposed to the truth that it's led by people who have completely sold out to the campaign donor class. While we're there, the Boehner resignation is also unexpected good news, although sad for Orange Americans who will no longer have one of their own in Congress.
  31. America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our ” exceptionalism ” that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama’s election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama’s election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950’s. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    • Disagree: SPMoore8, TWS, Auntie Analogue
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our ” exceptionalism ” that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    Yeah. Your view is a bit simplistic, but close enough. Steve and his core audience, who tend to read and think about stuff, are aware of these issues.

    You sound as though you might be sympathetic to the SJW movement. If you call yourself a white body, you may feel guilty about the acts of your figurative forebears. If you don't think of yourself as white, you might be wrathfully indignant.

    Whatever the case may be, have you thought about the likely effects of Open Borders and unrestricted immigration on your fellow citizens? Your fellow-citizens-of-color, if that's the subset that you care about.

    Do you believe that immigration policy should be set with U.S. citizens and their descendants in mind? If your answer is "No" -- then who should the policy benefit?

    , @shk12344
    Salon is that way, amigo.
    , @SPMoore8
    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans.

    This is just pious leftoid nonsense.

    There is vitriol directed towards Latin immigrants because large numbers of them are here illegally, and feel that they are entitled to be here. There are some people who dislike Latins as such but most people are fine with Latins, as long as they speak English. (A bi-lingual and bi-cultural America would be as much a disaster for the US as for any European precedents.)

    Hostility towards Muslims is two part: (a) Because they engage in cultural practices that are incompatible with life in the West (honor killings, FGM), and (b) because in virtually every culture they go into, they demonstrate a refusal to assimilate, thus creating alien ghettoes, and second, when they aren't not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture (a la Charlie Hebdo) for refusing to police itself in accordance with their religious laws.

    all people other than White America Who are we talking about here? Rachel Dolezal? Caitlyn Jenner? Bill Cosby?
    , @WGG
    This ain't "your America," sweetie pie. And you have absolutely no clue what is going on. Don't feel bad, a lot of hate-filled leftists like yourself don't understand and have no idea what's coming. But I'll clue you in a bit.

    Your interpretation of the founding of the United States is revisionist hogwash. It was part of the 3rd wave of propaganda from the people who brought you the idea of "civil rights". Originally, civil rights and equality under the law was sold to a Christian America under the guise of fairness and meritocratic ideals, very Christian indeed. Once majority America capitulated to that first violation of A)freedom of association and B) self interest, the assaults just kept coming. We were ordered to condemn our history, then our own families and grandparents, then our Christian Faith, and finally we have been asked to condemn ourselves. We won't do it. You say our whiteness is part of a mark against us for supposed injuries of generations past.

    Do African-Americans have to apologize for their ancestors' cannibalism or part in the slave trade (selling)? No. Do Jews have to apologize for their ancestors part in the slave trade (middle men)? No. Do whites have to apologize? Yes, and we have. But there is no forgiveness given. Those original ideas of supposed belief in meritocracy have been shown to be a lie simply to gain power.

    The media, the universities, and yes, the Obama Justice Department have been waging a war to frame whites as evil-doers in hundreds of situations. The idea of "white privilege" as some sort of call to action is communism at best, blood libel and genocide at worst. Your type has smeared us as a race, and we are finally ready to give back in kind.

    We are done apologizing for things we didn't do. We are ready to demand apologies from blacks for their asymmetrical warfare waged as violent crimes against us- and poverty is no excuse particularly not for rapes or homicides. We are ready to demand apologies from Jewish-owned media for their part in smearing us over the last fifty years. We are ready to demand apologies from illegal invaders who have trespassed on sovereign ground and forged their way into unearned benefits. And we are ready to tell leftists of all stripes to sit the hell down; their reign of terror is over. This includes the type of leftists that run NRO and the Weekly Standard. We are no longer fooled. We don't care one bit about the childish names they will call us, anymore.

    This is a rightwing movement that is growing exponentially. The comments sections of every online newspaper have become extremely rightwing, so much so that they are removing them in a hasty panic. Every day a new right wing website pops up. Every year the Amren and NPI conferences get bigger and younger. We are winning the war of ideas and we are winning the youth. Our movement is even more advanced in Europe. If you are frightened as a leftist, you should be.

    If Trump can be our strong man, so be it. If not, there will be another to come along. Our movement will not die.
    , @Big Bill
    Don't be a silly goose, Hugh.

    There IS no other way to take over land and dominate another people other than killing them, driving them off, or (at least culturally) genociding them. And sometimes all three at once!

    Conversely (and as all right-thinking Indians knew), the only way you stop being invaded is by killing, driving off and/or genociding the invaders.

    The Lion, Hugh, has never lain down with the Lamb.

    In other shocking news, America was not founded to promote Freedom of Religion, Universal Suffrage, or Separate Church from State.
    , @Anonymous
    "A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans."

    You're basically describing the Democrats' playbook to generate the allegiance of disaffected groups, other than White Americans, and build support for Democratic candidates and policies.

    , @bomag
    Obama’s election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed.

    Change for the better?

    It looks to me like more of the same. But if you want to brag about it, I guess you like the astronomical budget deficits; drone strikes; loss/retreat on the world stage; increased racial animosity; demographic changing immigration; monarch-like costs in presidential travel; etc,etc.
    , @TWalsh2
    For the most part self righteous jackasses aren't amusing. I counted you as part of that majority until I read your final sentence.
  32. If I didn’t know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like “American exceptionalism,” “American dream” and “conservatism” are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "If I didn’t know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like “American exceptionalism,” “American dream” and “conservatism” are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned."

    But, if we did away with "conservatism," we would be left with the prospect of having to refer to Brooks as simply "neo." That would be unacceptable to the NY Times. That would amount to cruel and unusual punishment imo.
  33. About the only thing worse than that Brook’s column are the comments to it at the NYT.

  34. religious parishioners of all political stripes are more likely to support more open immigration policies than others

    Religious parishioners see that every year their church’s membership is declining. They see that the median age of the people who attend their church every Sunday is about 65.

    These parishioners’ own children and grandchildren do not attend church, except maybe on Easter and Christmas, when they toss $5 into the collection plate for the musical entertainment.

    When a young immigrant family with two young children shows up on some Sunday, the entire congregation notices. When the service ends, the family is welcomed heartily. This new, immigrant family provides the only glimmer of hope that the congregation might continue to exist for another generation.

    That’s the religious parishioners’ perspective on the political issue of illegal immigration. That is the perspective of Scott Walker’s church-attending family.

  35. @Reg Cæsar

    The real question is how long the American people will tolerate it.
     
    As long as the benefits checks keep coming in. That's what they're for.

    “freedom is just another word- for nothin’ left to lose”.

  36. I’ll never understand Steve’s obsession with David Brooks.

    • Agree: Kyle McKenna
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    And I'll never understand why people bother to write comments like this.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    Agreed. Brooks is a low-life slime, beneath contempt.

    Why am I even reading this thread?!
    , @Maj. Kong
    Nicolas Kristof is covered at the same level, more or less.

    The NYT is the guide to ruling class opinions.
  37. The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    Anti-whites always makes the inevitability argument, as if it would be physically impossible for our formidable military to stop border crossings. If the changes were really inevitable, why would they be so concerned about our feeble efforts to stop them?

    And once again, I’m dumbfounded at the level of intellectual dishonesty on display when discussing the founding Fathers. It’s like no one has read even the most basic history books on the subject.

    Or even leaving aside the founding Fathers, take any American generation prior to the jazz age; they were so far to the right on most issues, they would make most of today’s self proclaimed fascists look like lefties.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    Agreed.

    Brooks is nothing but as you say a anti-white/Western Civ sort of guy and all around professional propagandist. Facts, history mean nothing to him.

    In regards to intellectual dishonesty that's all the establishment types have going for them. Just make s**t up and throw it out there in the hopes that the rubes buy it. From supporting the Iraq war to open borders and promoting the demographic, economic and cultural destruction of a nation. That's all Brooksie has going for him.
  38. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    yes, we were scammed, and by both sides. But just realizing that the scam happened is not enough. You have to understand why we were being scammed. But you cannot or will not even explore the ideas behind the scam–why they scammed us. Why? Because you play to a specific audience, and exploration of why the scam happened would offend deeply held principles of your audience. Let me restate that–exploration of the scam would trigger responses from your audiences, and those responses were put in place by propaganda campaigns by the overclass that took place decades ago. And that campaign was part of a scam, too. One propaganda campaign depends on a previous propaganda campaign….and so on down the road.

  39. The open borders bloc usually loves to remind Old Stock Americans of their racist and xenophobic past as a way of guilting them toward accepting more huddling masses, but now Brooks is reminding Old Stock Americans of their open, idealistic, pro-immigrant past as a way of inspiring them to be exceptional Americans like Hamilton and Lincoln.

    It’s time to use our past as our weapon. America has always been xenophobic and will apparently continue being so. The best thing for would-be immigrants is to stay home to avoid immigrating into white privilege, patriarchy, and other distinctly bigoted Old Stock American values.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "The open borders bloc usually loves to remind Old Stock Americans of their racist and xenophobic past as a way of guilting them toward accepting more huddling masses, but now Brooks is reminding Old Stock Americans of their open, idealistic, pro-immigrant past..."

    Yes. The nature of America's past changes from day-to-day based on the argument the issue the Leftist is trying to push. Today it's Emma Lazarus, the wretched refuse and "all men are created equal." Tomorrow it' Trail of Tears, slavery, genocide, and "they wouldn't let my Granpda Moishe into Harvard."

    Just depends on the cause they're pushing. I'm sure if you were trying to talk about the need to reduce immigration, even a guy like the late, unlamented Howard Zinn would get all teary-eyed and explain to us that open borders were part of "the American ideal."

    The same sort of two-faced behavior occurs with religion. What's that, David Brooks says? Religious people are more inclined to believe in open borders? Ok. Tomorrow he'll be bashing them for not believing in evolution.
  40. I think the United States should get a Muslim leader the day after Israel does.

  41. Brooks: nationalism for me, anti-nationalism for everyone else.

  42. iSteveFan says:

    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    No it is not. The GOP is led by people who welcome the changing demographic nature of our nation. That is why there is such a disconnect between them and their base. It is also partly why you will see Boehner crying on Drudge today. BTW, there they go again with that ‘inevitable’ stuff.

    American founders like Alexander Hamilton were aware that once the vast continent was settled the United States would be one of the dominant powers of the globe.

    But only if America’s sons served in the American army. How dominant would America have become if her sons chose to serve in other armies?

    • Replies: @al gore rhythms
    'But only if America’s sons served in the American army. How dominant would America have become if her sons chose to serve in other armies?'


    This is a really good point. Everything about the success of a nation depends on those inhabitants having a history of showing it loyalty. Why not fight for invading armies? Why not sell them military/economic secrets?

    Why not? Group loyalty. Posterity.

    But if the message you receive from your leaders is 'screw you and your group' then where's the incentives?
  43. Last month, Brooks was praising Ta-Naheisi Coates and claiming his black racist fantasies need to be read, understood and accepted. But Ann Coulter noticing is the height of racism.

  44. “The duty of we …”: oh Mr iSteve, that is most unlike you.

  45. David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve’s comment on Brooks “personal problems” prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn’t do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That’s the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one’s own selfhood.

    • Replies: @Rotten
    Judiasm never really completely accepts non Jewish women into Jewish society (or their children)

    Because of this, one phenomenon that you will see is female converts to Judiasm becoming super Jewish. Becoming super religios, super ethnocentric, super Zionist, and super all-sort of positive and negative stereotypes about Jewish people. The biggest JAP I know is a woman who was born Catholic and converted for her husband. (Her husband now regrets asking her to convert!)

    In a way, this is a very similar phenomenon to Steve's observation that some of the lightest skinned blacks are the biggest black power race hustlers out there.
    , @Anonymous
    All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren't expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don't (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don't like their given secular name.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that's pretty weird. By the way, "Brooks" doesn't sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O'Laughlin reports that "some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word 'Brook' or Brooks." The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning "blessed".
     
    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn't he change his last name back to "Boruch," on principle?
    , @kaganovitch
    Nah, it's done by converts to take an additional hebrew name. Most religious jews in the USA have a legal name by which they go in general (David, Matthew, Steven etc.) and a hebrew name by which they are called to the torah , write halachic documents (ketuba etc) . Sometimes the names are very close matches (e.g. david) It is conventional for converts to choose Abraham and Sarah respectively as they are considered the first jews in the tradition. Ultraorthodox jews often only have a hebrew name and transliterate that as their legal name.
    , @tbraton
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”


    What makes the story even more unusual is this statement from Wikipedia: "Brooks is Jewish, but has not been particularly observant.[6][7][8]" If Wikipedia is correct, that takes the story beyond unusual to weird.
  46. @education realist
    I've been really surprised at the nature of the war the Republicans have fought against Trump. Rich Lowry said Fiorina sliced his balls off, and then spent a day or so pretending to be butch in a Twitter "war" with Trump and his followers, cackling that this was the way to get Trump. It was weird. They don't seem to realize Trump's partly playing a game.

    And then big talk now is that Trump is stalling. Really? Meanwhile, four days of excoriating Carson for his comment on Muslims didn't seem to hurt his numbers.

    It's a weird, exciting, cycle.

    As I wrote in my education policy series, I find it very revealing that the rest of the GOP candidates don't--can't, presumably--jump on the Trump bandwagon. They can't adopt his message, because the elites won't have it. I remain concerned that he's going to be shut down, and all this talk will go away. But the really interesting thing, to me, is why. Why is there absolutely no real interest in shutting the borders?

    These are rhetorical, existential questions, commentariat, so please don't annoy me with answers. I understand the usual suspects, and worry about them myself. The real question is how long the American people will tolerate it.

    “Why is there absolutely no real interest in shutting the borders?”

    Because the other candidates – apparently ALL of them – are entirely bought-and-paid-for stooges for the donor-class.

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Other nations were defined by their history, but America was defined by its future, by the people who weren’t yet here and by the greatness that hadn’t yet been achieved”

    What an idiot. Has David Brooks ever read a book about any other country?

    A couple examples: 16th Century Muscovites saw their city as the Third Rome, with a holy, world-historical mission to spread Christianity and save humanity. Similar exceptionalist ideologies reigned in Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Spain etc etc etc

    The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs saw themselves as successors of God’s final Prophet. It was their duty to spread the true faith to all peoples of the Earth, by whatever means.

    I’m sure we could all come up with dozens of other examples. Brooks’ point is almost cuckservatism in reverse. He, as a liberal, is trying to co-opt the GOP’s ownership of American Exceptionalism. “The Republicans aren’t REAL american exceptionalists. They don’t understand just how special we are.”

  48. @Hunsdon
    "Nothing is written." Lawrence of Arabia

    “Well, then it was written.” – Auda Abu Tayi

  49. The assertion that immigrants are learning English and assimilating is an outright lie – just ask anybody who works in healthcare, especially an ER. I’m partial to Mark Steyn’s line that “culture trumps economics” but the problem is “culture” is less easily quantified.

    I’ve started thinking about what data could be used to develop a “Cultural Confidence Index” that measures a group’s propensity to assimilate. For example, western whites would be very low, as shown by our culture’s eagerness to assimilate ourselves to the cultures of illegals from peasant cultures. Arab Muslims, on the other hand, would score very high, as evidenced by their willingness to push for separate Sharia courts, honor killings, etc.

    I know we have a bunch of statistics geeks hanging out here. Any thoughts?

    OT – more Arabs behaving badly in your neck of the woods, Steve:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/saudi-prince-arrested-in-la-over-alleged-sexual-assault

  50. @Mr. Anon
    David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve's comment on Brooks "personal problems" prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    ""Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah."

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That's the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one's own selfhood.

    Judiasm never really completely accepts non Jewish women into Jewish society (or their children)

    Because of this, one phenomenon that you will see is female converts to Judiasm becoming super Jewish. Becoming super religios, super ethnocentric, super Zionist, and super all-sort of positive and negative stereotypes about Jewish people. The biggest JAP I know is a woman who was born Catholic and converted for her husband. (Her husband now regrets asking her to convert!)

    In a way, this is a very similar phenomenon to Steve’s observation that some of the lightest skinned blacks are the biggest black power race hustlers out there.

  51. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    > America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our ” exceptionalism ” that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    Yeah. Your view is a bit simplistic, but close enough. Steve and his core audience, who tend to read and think about stuff, are aware of these issues.

    You sound as though you might be sympathetic to the SJW movement. If you call yourself a white body, you may feel guilty about the acts of your figurative forebears. If you don’t think of yourself as white, you might be wrathfully indignant.

    Whatever the case may be, have you thought about the likely effects of Open Borders and unrestricted immigration on your fellow citizens? Your fellow-citizens-of-color, if that’s the subset that you care about.

    Do you believe that immigration policy should be set with U.S. citizens and their descendants in mind? If your answer is “No” — then who should the policy benefit?

  52. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    Salon is that way, amigo.

  53. @WGG
    That Hamilton musical is beyond awful. First, it's not a true musical, but a new genre of rap-opera. Its historical presentation is overtly simplistic, and the cast of white historical figures is played by a mostly minority cast. It is President Camacho level retarded. Complete scheiße . And Hamilton is absolutely the worst founding father anyway. Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist.

    Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist. And a lousy shot. So, if *Hamilton* is a rap musical does that mean the duel with Burr is gonna be done with trousers halfway down and are they going to hold their pistols sideways? (I’m sure some Hamiltonians will turn up here, outraged.)

  54. I think it may be David Brooks who’s wishfully looking towards the past…in this case, the good old days of GW Bush, with his “preemptive strikes” that put the US in the orbit of Israel. That’s the past that Brooks longs for. Truth is, GW couldn’t get elected dog catcher today.

    There’s a rising tide in conservatism that actually reflects a genuine conservatism, not the New York Times/PBS acquiescent “conservatism” that Brooks represents. This rising tide is the reason Boehner had to step down from his leadership position just a few hours ago…

    …and it’s the reason Ann Coulter is selling so many books.

  55. As is typical of the dewey-eyed* Emma Lazarus genre, the only quantification Brooks bothers to supply in this column comes from an opinion survey (that fraction posing as an arrest statistic at the end is laughable, as everyone here recognizes).

    But numbers are of the essence when it comes to immigration, and the question, “How many?” is the proper (and effective) reply to anyone who spouts the tired “nation of immigrants” line as an excuse from argumentation.

    “So why don’t we let in a billion immigrants?” is the question to ask Brooks. No “sane” person would agree to that (although people with academic credentials have proposed it), but having established that there might be an upper limit, the discussion turns to “What’s the right number?” and its corollaries, “How do we choose?”, “Whom do we admit?”, and “How do we make sure?”

    Maybe it won’t amount to anything in practice, but I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened. I take Brooks’ column as evidence of the panic that’s set in on open borders side.

    [*A nod to education realist.]

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    ...I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened.

    And it was Trump—that "clown"— and no one else who had the guts to open it.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    As is typical of the dewey-eyed* Emma Lazarus genre, the only quantification Brooks bothers to supply in this column comes from an opinion survey (that fraction posing as an arrest statistic at the end is laughable, as everyone here recognizes).

    But numbers are of the essence when it comes to immigration, and the question, “How many?” is the proper (and effective) reply to anyone who spouts the tired “nation of immigrants” line as an excuse from argumentation.
     

    Good comment. I've noted before how many arguments of the left resemble weather reports, e.g. the descriptions of urban crime 'engulfing' cities, much like a hurricane or line of severe thunderstorms. The point is to eliminate the agency and accountability of those who are responsible for committing such crimes.

    Other commenters here have noted how this mode of thinking also dominates discussion of immigration. One aspect is the 'inevitability' argument, which reduces the rational choices of millions of enthusiastic prospective Germans, Swedes, and Americans to 'waves' of immigration, i.e. another uncontrollable geological/meteorological phenomenon.

    Your discussion of numbers reveals another facet of this illusion: i.e. the goodthinkers' assumption that these 'waves' of immigrants are essentially predictable, i.e. there will always be just about the right number of strawberry pickers, drywall experts, and vibrant restaurant entrepreneurs.

    It's similar, in a way, to the base assumption amongst the climate change crazies that the earth has a stable, identifiable, 'ideal' state of balance. There's no way, you see, that smart, open-minded, NPR-listening people like us could ever be wrong in fully grasping simple issues such as the decision-making processes of Guatemalans and Eritreans and Pakistanis eyeing a new life as asylum seekers -- it's just as easy as nailing down the obviously correct levels for global temperatures, precipitation, wind patterns, ocean temperatures and currents, cloud formation, sea ice extent, glaciation . . . and on and on and on.

  56. The desire of old stock Americans to minimize immigration of ethnically different individuals reflects the deep instincts, probably going back to Paleolithic days that were discovered by Harvard’s Robert Putnam: diversity creates anomie and the loss of social capital.

    Who would want to create such a situation in their own society? One might imagine that enemies of that society might want to create it.

    It was America’s high level of social capital that enabled to create a great industrial system and to win two world wars. It was a similar high level of social capital that enabled England to initiate the Industrial Revolution and to create the greatest empire the world is ever seen.

  57. @anonymous
    Funny how Brooks equates free markets with nationalism. It precisely the disdain of nationalism by the elites which has been the betrayal of the American Dream.

    For Brooks, the outsourcing of jobs and the insourcing of cheap labor is optimistic nationalism because it serves the market, as if blue collar white men are going to vote for Republicans based on capital gains tax cuts.

    The elites are apoplectic about Trump because he opened the discussion on the fate of the American people, a discussion which is supposed to be moot because of "inevitable" demographic change.

    Well I do think they did a good job of convincing the blue collar types that the tax cuts will benefit them indirectly. Rising tide and all of that.

    But most people are waking up to the fact that a fatter wallet for a rich guy is just a fatter wallet for the rich guy.

  58. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans.

    This is just pious leftoid nonsense.

    There is vitriol directed towards Latin immigrants because large numbers of them are here illegally, and feel that they are entitled to be here. There are some people who dislike Latins as such but most people are fine with Latins, as long as they speak English. (A bi-lingual and bi-cultural America would be as much a disaster for the US as for any European precedents.)

    Hostility towards Muslims is two part: (a) Because they engage in cultural practices that are incompatible with life in the West (honor killings, FGM), and (b) because in virtually every culture they go into, they demonstrate a refusal to assimilate, thus creating alien ghettoes, and second, when they aren’t not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture (a la Charlie Hebdo) for refusing to police itself in accordance with their religious laws.

    all people other than White America Who are we talking about here? Rachel Dolezal? Caitlyn Jenner? Bill Cosby?

  59. @Clement Pulaski

    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.
     
    Anti-whites always makes the inevitability argument, as if it would be physically impossible for our formidable military to stop border crossings. If the changes were really inevitable, why would they be so concerned about our feeble efforts to stop them?

    And once again, I'm dumbfounded at the level of intellectual dishonesty on display when discussing the founding Fathers. It's like no one has read even the most basic history books on the subject.

    Or even leaving aside the founding Fathers, take any American generation prior to the jazz age; they were so far to the right on most issues, they would make most of today's self proclaimed fascists look like lefties.

    Agreed.

    Brooks is nothing but as you say a anti-white/Western Civ sort of guy and all around professional propagandist. Facts, history mean nothing to him.

    In regards to intellectual dishonesty that’s all the establishment types have going for them. Just make s**t up and throw it out there in the hopes that the rubes buy it. From supporting the Iraq war to open borders and promoting the demographic, economic and cultural destruction of a nation. That’s all Brooksie has going for him.

  60. @Hunsdon
    "Nothing is written." Lawrence of Arabia

    “So let it be written, so let it be done.”

    “So it was written, so it shall be done.”

    Both from The Ten Commandments

  61. @WGG
    That Hamilton musical is beyond awful. First, it's not a true musical, but a new genre of rap-opera. Its historical presentation is overtly simplistic, and the cast of white historical figures is played by a mostly minority cast. It is President Camacho level retarded. Complete scheiße . And Hamilton is absolutely the worst founding father anyway. Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist.

    God bless you for sitting through it. Id rather go to a freestyle rap battle or a spoken word poetry reading.

  62. @Black Death
    Brooks ignores the disastrous effects of immigration on African-Americans. David Frum wrote:

    Despite three years of supposed economic recovery, black children were as likely to be poor in 2013 as in 2010 -- and more likely than at any time since the early 1990s. Almost four out of 10 black children are now growing up in poverty, as against one in nine white children. More than 25 percent of the black poor now live in areas of concentrated poverty, triple the rate for poor white people.

    "The uniquely harsh African American economic experience since 2007 has divided black opinion further from that of other elements of the Obama coalition. Only 29 percent of Latinos under age 30 think illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans -- but 48 percent of African Americans under 30 think so. No wonder.

    "African Americans have been very much bypassed in the recovery, as employers substituted immigrant for native-born labor. As of mid-2015 all of the net new job growth from the previous employment peak in 2007 has gone to foreign-born workers. The black unemployment rate -- although declining -- in summer 2015 still hovered well above the rate in December 2007. Among younger black people, 16-24, the unemployment rate is a Greek-like 20 percent. Nearly half of black youth aren't in the workforce at all.

    ....

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:

    "You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?"

    ....

    Harvard's George Borjas found:

    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in employment and incarceration. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points.

    ....

    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission:

    According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

    Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose.

    I doubt that black men who end up doing time for dealing, robbing, assaulting, murdering, and the like took up to crime only after an unsuccessful search for an honest job.

  63. The self righteous preening of a member of the gated community.

  64. Brooks reads like some kind of neocon porn. His “American greatness” nonsense helped Bush Jr. tell us all everyone yearns to breathe free, all of humanity is the same, discounting culture, history, ethnicity,religion. If only we could beat some sense into them. How dare any American think perhaps their country really should be separate and apart, and perhaps we’ve had enough of trying to lead the rabble to the light. Which really is a complete contradiction. We are in fact very different, and it’s pointless to pretend otherwise.

    And as to the sacrifice involved in blood and treasure, no mention.There is a cost, which is how you get $19 trillion in debt and have thousands of great men and women killed and damaged for…what. And after all his own son serves in the military of a foreign country, so doesn’t seem Brooks handed down these bedrock beliefs to his children.

  65. “They are learning English. They are healthier than native-born Americans. Immigrant men age 18 to 39 are incarcerated at roughly one-fourth the rate of American men.” – They are spending a few weeks in an english class when required to do so by law, diseases once eradicated are returning to America, and they commit less crime only when compared to a specialized subset of the American people.

  66. Shocked SHOCKED that an NYT columnist is conflating legal and illegal immigration yet again.

  67. @The Z Blog
    A good example of the dominance of Yankeedom over the rest of America is this sentence from Brooks: "America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional."

    Children have been taught this since as long as anyone here has been alive. Politicians recite it like a prayer. It's the abracadabra phrase of modern political discourse. If you don't like some bit of reality, start talking about the city on the hill or righting the wrongs of the past, because, well, we're special!

    This is pure Yankee nonsense that springs from Public Protestantism. Their part of America was founded by lunatics trying to create heaven on earth. The rest of the colonies had more sensible motivations.

    David Brooks is Jewish, not Yankee Protestant.

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It's not blood. It's culture.
  68. @Black Death
    Brooks ignores the disastrous effects of immigration on African-Americans. David Frum wrote:

    Despite three years of supposed economic recovery, black children were as likely to be poor in 2013 as in 2010 -- and more likely than at any time since the early 1990s. Almost four out of 10 black children are now growing up in poverty, as against one in nine white children. More than 25 percent of the black poor now live in areas of concentrated poverty, triple the rate for poor white people.

    "The uniquely harsh African American economic experience since 2007 has divided black opinion further from that of other elements of the Obama coalition. Only 29 percent of Latinos under age 30 think illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans -- but 48 percent of African Americans under 30 think so. No wonder.

    "African Americans have been very much bypassed in the recovery, as employers substituted immigrant for native-born labor. As of mid-2015 all of the net new job growth from the previous employment peak in 2007 has gone to foreign-born workers. The black unemployment rate -- although declining -- in summer 2015 still hovered well above the rate in December 2007. Among younger black people, 16-24, the unemployment rate is a Greek-like 20 percent. Nearly half of black youth aren't in the workforce at all.

    ....

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:

    "You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?"

    ....

    Harvard's George Borjas found:

    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in employment and incarceration. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points.

    ....

    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission:

    According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

    Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate…

    It’s not so much the rate of incarceration that matters as the rate of at which crime is committed, which latter rate is even higher, since not every crime, even serious crime, is punished by incarceration.

    Is it not more to the point, that every single illegal immigrant, by virtue of entering the country and remaining in it in violation of our laws, has committed a crime?

    This being so, while the rate of incarceration of illegals may be higher or lower than the rate of incarceration of this or that or the other group, the rate of lawbreaking among illegal immigrants is, by the mere fact of their presence on our soil, 100%.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Visa overstay is not a crime, it is a civil offense only.
  69. It is the hostile elite which is betraying the American dream. It is the elites immigration policies foreign policies and trade policies which is robbing middle class Americans and working class Americans of the American dream.

  70. @Days of Broken Arrows
    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    Note the choice of words there. This is intellectual dishonesty and media manipulation.

    Demographic change is not "inevitable." It's not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is "inevitable" it means there is a reason they're allowing it to happen but not telling us.

    Fortunately for Brooks, it isn’t “inevitable” in his Jewish homeland. Hell, Brooks sent his own son back home to Israel, the eternal god-given motherland, to stave off the “inevitability” of Arab invasion, migration and domination.

  71. We will change the nation around you, but don’t you change

  72. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    “Canon fodder”. I like that. Unintentional, but nice. College students in the West are “leftist canon fodder”.

  73. @Days of Broken Arrows
    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    Note the choice of words there. This is intellectual dishonesty and media manipulation.

    Demographic change is not "inevitable." It's not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is "inevitable" it means there is a reason they're allowing it to happen but not telling us.

    Let’s be honest. At this point it is inevitable. The elites may support it wholeheartedly, and it certainly wasn’t inevitable 50 years ago, but today the demographic change couldn’t be stopped even if the elites wanted to stop it. The vast majority of ethnic minorities, as well as a very large number of whites, want demographic change. It’s very difficult to see an end to the change without a massive civil war, honestly.

  74. Herman Melville to David Brooks:

    There is a wisdom that is woe, but there is a woe that is madness.
    There is something wrong about the man who wants to help.
    There is somewhere a deep defect, a want, a brief, a need, a crying need, some where about the man.

  75. @ChrisZ
    I saw Brooks walking through Penn Station in NYC just this week. His very small stature took me by surprise; he looks taller on TV.

    What would David Brooks and Robert Reich disagree on?

  76. @ChrisZ
    I saw Brooks walking through Penn Station in NYC just this week. His very small stature took me by surprise; he looks taller on TV.

    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.
     
    Then he should return them to the fellow's survivors!

    Mark Steyn says he has a Japanese import CD of Cole Porter tunes, including "I've Got You Under My Sink", a perfect title for a serial killer. That's a typo, but I'm sure Porter himself, wherever he be, kicked himself for not thinking of it first.
  77. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    Cannon fodder for wars in Iran? Pardon? The neocon desire to go to war with Iran is abundantly clear but I have never heard anyone talk about invading Iran. Given its population and geography an invasion would be impossible without a massive draft on par with the second world war. Any war the US is led into with Iran will not involve boots on the ground other than possibly some elite forces.

    That’s part of the appeal for the warmongers. It would be a relatively bloodfree war for the US side.

  78. @Anonymous
    O.T.

    All over yesterday's UK papers.

    Apparently, Barack Obama has yet another cousin living - inevitably - in the UK.
    She is or was employed by London's Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard as a 'call handler'.
    She is now claiming compensation for harassment at work. Basically the grounds of her complaint are that two white English police officers engaged in that ancient and time honored English tradition of 'breaking wind' loudly at work. She claims, that as a 'prank' which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.

    Whether they knew she was Obama's cousin is unclear.

    Then surely she must know how certain of us Americans feel about her cousin, Barack Hussein Obama, who has been doing the same thing right in our faces for the last seven years.

  79. Vox Day does a nice job of looking at one of those studies that purport to show immigrants helping grow the economy and demonstrates how they play with numbers:

    http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2015/09/immigration-and-new-job-creation.html

    Worth a look!

  80. Today there are some conservative commentators and Republican politicians who talk a lot about American exceptionalism. But when they use the phrase they mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. In fact, they are effectively destroying American exceptionalism.

    This is akin to saying the family members who have for years been telling a morbidly obese man, presently in the hospital after a stroke, that he needs to stop what he is doing, now, are the ones killing him.

    This is the philosophy of the receding roar, the mourning for an America that once was and is now being destroyed by foreign people and ideas.

    This is deeply disingenuous. The argument, whether Brooks or anyone else likes it or not, is that America has and continues to be destroyed through unending mass immigration and serial amnesties. Brooks is a little confused about who these and all other critics hold accountable, and reveals his fundamentally anti-democratic impulses. It is apparent that Brooks definition of American Exceptionalism includes something he won’t reveal to his readers. In other words, America in the instant context is an exception to his Israel/Palestinians rule.

    As Peter Wehner, a longtime conservative writer who served in the Bush administration, wrote in the magazine Commentary: “The message being sent to voters is this: The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    Odd, Wehner is another smart person who gets the obvious backwards. The voters have been sending the candidates — and the entirety of the establishment — a clear message, notably not the other way around. No doubt it confuses and agitates some that representative government, generally, and our election process, specifically, are and are supposed to be a two-way communication. Would that it be so that the following was anything within a mile of the truth:

    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.

    That is not only risibly false, it makes Brooks argument embarrassingly incoherent. After all, if the party establishment and Republican voters are simpatico on Immigration what explains the open warfare between the two?

    Speaking of which:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html?_r=0

    It’s fitting that the Whigs superseding Republican Party is at the center of the Immigration Question storm.

    Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held ‘conviction’ for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery.

    http://www.history.com/topics/whig-party

  81. Brooks really isn’t “ethnocentrism for me but not thee” — rather he’s edging towards the logical and emotional demands of his religion. Which is not really Judaism but PC/Diversity/Multiculturalism. Israel is filled with people, just like Brooks, who live in Tel Aviv and other “bubble” cities, highly educated, upper class, involved in “respectable” clergy-like services, law, media, “activism” etc. who argue that ISRAEL should have Open Borders, “we are a nation of immigrants” and “we must accept Israel will be non Jewish majority” etc.

    It is good to beat up Brooks for his hypocrisy, but sooner or later all Upper Class Jews of his ilk will simply abandon Israel for their real religon — PC.

    There is an article in today’s LAT about Volkswagen owners of “clean diesel” vehicles feeling “betrayed”:

    “I loved mine!” said Amy Grey, a film and TV publicist who had been driving Sportwagen TDIs for the last six years and was thinking of buying another one. “But my feelings have changed. I feel betrayed by the brand. I’m not going to support a company that is deceptive.”

    Some of those owners now believe that they’re stuck with polluting cars they dislike — cars they bought specifically to avoid polluting.

    Conchita Lozano-Batista, a San Francisco labor lawyer and mother of two, said she and her husband liked their Golf diesel so much that they bought a 2009 Sportwagen as soon as it hit the market. She liked it so much that she declined her employer’s offer to buy her a company car, preferring to drive her own “clean” diesel.

    Lozano-Batista now takes quite a different view.

    “It’s like an albatross around my neck, and frankly I hate driving the damn thing,” she said. “We put our kids in it yesterday. It was a bitter moment. ‘Let’s go pollute in our falsely advertised vehicle.’ I’ll never buy a VW again.”
    —————————
    Its a religion, with worship of Gaia, penance for “polluting,” and penalties for sins: “polluting” (which is why Clean Diesel owners are so angry, they are now “sinners”) and worship of the divine Other who will redeem BadWhiteness.

    Brooks, Lord Sutherland, the same difference. Its the PC worship, as part of an organic, Upper Class Volk Religion to replace that inconvenient Jesus Christ with his demands for sexual abstinence outside marriage, that leads to a status-whoring race to the bottom.

    And as a practical matter the religion faces outright rejection from the middle classes being purged into the lower classes. What does Brooks offer the unemployed or underemployed “gig economy” formerly middle class person now constantly temping and uber-ing to make ends meet as H1-Bs and immigrant welfare costs skyrocket leaving no welfare state for them?

    Yes the John Stewart Upper Class Sneer. VERY effective among the Upper Classes, but not so much for those knowing they have no chance to even enter that class.

  82. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:
    @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    This ain’t “your America,” sweetie pie. And you have absolutely no clue what is going on. Don’t feel bad, a lot of hate-filled leftists like yourself don’t understand and have no idea what’s coming. But I’ll clue you in a bit.

    Your interpretation of the founding of the United States is revisionist hogwash. It was part of the 3rd wave of propaganda from the people who brought you the idea of “civil rights”. Originally, civil rights and equality under the law was sold to a Christian America under the guise of fairness and meritocratic ideals, very Christian indeed. Once majority America capitulated to that first violation of A)freedom of association and B) self interest, the assaults just kept coming. We were ordered to condemn our history, then our own families and grandparents, then our Christian Faith, and finally we have been asked to condemn ourselves. We won’t do it. You say our whiteness is part of a mark against us for supposed injuries of generations past.

    Do African-Americans have to apologize for their ancestors’ cannibalism or part in the slave trade (selling)? No. Do Jews have to apologize for their ancestors part in the slave trade (middle men)? No. Do whites have to apologize? Yes, and we have. But there is no forgiveness given. Those original ideas of supposed belief in meritocracy have been shown to be a lie simply to gain power.

    The media, the universities, and yes, the Obama Justice Department have been waging a war to frame whites as evil-doers in hundreds of situations. The idea of “white privilege” as some sort of call to action is communism at best, blood libel and genocide at worst. Your type has smeared us as a race, and we are finally ready to give back in kind.

    We are done apologizing for things we didn’t do. We are ready to demand apologies from blacks for their asymmetrical warfare waged as violent crimes against us- and poverty is no excuse particularly not for rapes or homicides. We are ready to demand apologies from Jewish-owned media for their part in smearing us over the last fifty years. We are ready to demand apologies from illegal invaders who have trespassed on sovereign ground and forged their way into unearned benefits. And we are ready to tell leftists of all stripes to sit the hell down; their reign of terror is over. This includes the type of leftists that run NRO and the Weekly Standard. We are no longer fooled. We don’t care one bit about the childish names they will call us, anymore.

    This is a rightwing movement that is growing exponentially. The comments sections of every online newspaper have become extremely rightwing, so much so that they are removing them in a hasty panic. Every day a new right wing website pops up. Every year the Amren and NPI conferences get bigger and younger. We are winning the war of ideas and we are winning the youth. Our movement is even more advanced in Europe. If you are frightened as a leftist, you should be.

    If Trump can be our strong man, so be it. If not, there will be another to come along. Our movement will not die.

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/23/church-with-no-salvation/

    For whites, leftism means you must constantly atone, with no chance of salvation. What do they offer?

    Article written on a site by and for young (average age would be early 20s) racially aware whites.
  83. Following the Obergefell ruling, Brooks urged social conservatives to abandon the culture war to focus on serving the vibrantly diverse populations:

    The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other.

    If you’re wondering why that isn’t the defining face of neoconservatism, it’s because neoconservatives are busy doing important things.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "If you’re wondering why that isn’t the defining face of neoconservatism, it’s because neoconservatives are busy doing important things."

    Yep. If anyone didn't read Van Carter's comment, they should. David Brooks (not a social conservative) is busy telling social conservatives what they should believe - just like David Brooks the Jewish, Israeli nationalist is busy telling non-Jewish Americans they should not be nationalists.
  84. Sort of O/T, but not that O/T, considering Brooks’ son, an American citizen born in America, is currently doing his patriotic duty as a soldier in the IDF (some quotes):

    “Israel’s soaring population: Promised Land running out of room?”

    Excluding the nearly empty Negev desert, which occupies more than half of Israel, population density jumps to 980 people per sq km, just a little below Bangladesh.

    The number of Jews in the Holy Land is now roughly equal to the number of Palestinians – each around 6.3 million.

    Palestinian population growth easily outpaces Israel’s, with the average woman in the Palestinian territories having four children.

    To alleviate a water crisis Israel has invested billions of dollars in desalination plants, but they consume large amounts of energy and land.

    To cope with a housing shortage, the government wants to create fast-track approval for building permits that critics say will put aside environmental concerns without considering infrastructure and public space needs.

    The authorities have given the go-ahead for 20,000 Chinese workers to be brought to Israel to speed up construction. While that may help house Israelis, it may not help employ them.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/israels-soaring-population-promised-land-running-room-115832401–business.html

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Darn it! Israel is following the same path the South Africans did and the Arabs do: nice jobs for us, scut jobs for the Other.

    They are in danger of recreating the same unstable ethnic/status/work hierarchy in Israel in which they lived in Christendom.

    I guess the blut und boden kibbutznik man-of-the-soil values are gone for good.

    Inevitable, I guess. What Jewish mama ever kvelled, "My son, the drywaller"?
    , @Old Jew
    In 1970 I was taken by the "Club of Rome". (zero population growth and predecessors to Environmentalism).

    Their prediction of imminent collapse did not materialize.

    Looking at the authorities cited in the Haaretz article: they are professors of Environmental Science Israeli version of "Sierra Club" types, etc.

    They could be right. But I am skeptical.

    sf
  85. @fnn
    Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a lot of info on the Communist origins of the term "American exceptionalism":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

    The exact term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin allegedly chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions". However, this story has been challenged because the expression "American exceptionalism" was already used by Brouder & Zack in Daily Worker (N.Y.) on the 29th of January 1929, before Lovestone's visit to Moscow. In addition, Fred Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, has noted that "exceptionalism" was used to refer to the United States and its self-image during the Civil War by The Times on August 20, 1861.[8]

    However, American Communists started using the English term "American exceptionalism" in factional fights. It then moved into general use among intellectuals.[9][10
     

    Because, as we all know, the term “intellectual” is synonymous with “neocon ex-Trotskyite”.

  86. @Reg Cæsar

    Since then, however, Brooks has run into some personal problems and has shifted toward more Dr. Phil-type personal stuff; but today’s he’s back in old form:
     
    I don't know… this sounds kinda personal-problemmy to me.

    Did the Brookses put little David in a box outside the window, like the Simons did with Julian?

    You have to realize that David Brooks was a Socialist into his early 20’s, and it was supposedly a short encounter with Milton Friedman who devastated his carefully thought out philosophical beliefs and turned him into a “conservative Republican.” (Sort of reminds me of George Will, who actively supported the Iraq War and demonized anyone who opposed that misguided war, but who a few years later proclaimed on ABC’s This Week with a straight face that the Iraq War violated virtually “every conservative principle” he believed in. I thought “principles” were deeply held beliefs upon which you base your judgments.) Although I would note that earlier in the year, Brooks admitted at the end of a review of Thomas Piketty’s book that he was “a quasi Marxist.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html
    Before he was hired by the Times, Brooks wrote for the Weekly Standard, where he could be characterized as a “neoconservative.” Thus, he satisfied all the requirements for a conservative columnist for the New York Times: he was Jewish (Jews comprise 2% of the U.S. population but vote overwhelmingly (70-80%) for Democrats), had been a Socialist in his early 20’s, was still a “quasi Marxist,” and had been a “neoconservative” writing for a “neoconservative publication,” the Weekly Standard. I can’t imagine a better columnist to express the conservative point of view in what is still considered the leading newspaper in the U.S. He clearly represents all the conservative Republicans who consider themselves “quasi Marxists.”

    • Replies: @PSV
    Ross Douthat is the conservative writer at the Times. He's Catholic & was never a leftist.
  87. @Lot
    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.

    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.

    Then he should return them to the fellow’s survivors!

    Mark Steyn says he has a Japanese import CD of Cole Porter tunes, including “I’ve Got You Under My Sink”, a perfect title for a serial killer. That’s a typo, but I’m sure Porter himself, wherever he be, kicked himself for not thinking of it first.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    including “I’ve Got You Under My Sink”, a perfect title for a serial killer.

    Also perfect for the reveal in "Where's Charlie?", as long as it's about the Manson family ......
    , @Bill Jones
    And there's a Japanese translation of Marlon Brandon's movie "On the Waterfront" where Brandon laments

    " I could have been someone, I could have been a bartender."
  88. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars

    Immigrants are cannon fodder for America’s wars and canon fodder for David Brooks’ editorials.

  89. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    Don’t be a silly goose, Hugh.

    There IS no other way to take over land and dominate another people other than killing them, driving them off, or (at least culturally) genociding them. And sometimes all three at once!

    Conversely (and as all right-thinking Indians knew), the only way you stop being invaded is by killing, driving off and/or genociding the invaders.

    The Lion, Hugh, has never lain down with the Lamb.

    In other shocking news, America was not founded to promote Freedom of Religion, Universal Suffrage, or Separate Church from State.

  90. @SPMoore8
    Sort of O/T, but not that O/T, considering Brooks' son, an American citizen born in America, is currently doing his patriotic duty as a soldier in the IDF (some quotes):

    "Israel's soaring population: Promised Land running out of room?"


    Excluding the nearly empty Negev desert, which occupies more than half of Israel, population density jumps to 980 people per sq km, just a little below Bangladesh.
     

    The number of Jews in the Holy Land is now roughly equal to the number of Palestinians - each around 6.3 million.
     

    Palestinian population growth easily outpaces Israel's, with the average woman in the Palestinian territories having four children.
     

    To alleviate a water crisis Israel has invested billions of dollars in desalination plants, but they consume large amounts of energy and land.
     

    To cope with a housing shortage, the government wants to create fast-track approval for building permits that critics say will put aside environmental concerns without considering infrastructure and public space needs.
     

    The authorities have given the go-ahead for 20,000 Chinese workers to be brought to Israel to speed up construction. While that may help house Israelis, it may not help employ them.
     
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/israels-soaring-population-promised-land-running-room-115832401--business.html

    Darn it! Israel is following the same path the South Africans did and the Arabs do: nice jobs for us, scut jobs for the Other.

    They are in danger of recreating the same unstable ethnic/status/work hierarchy in Israel in which they lived in Christendom.

    I guess the blut und boden kibbutznik man-of-the-soil values are gone for good.

    Inevitable, I guess. What Jewish mama ever kvelled, “My son, the drywaller”?

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You haven't been to Tel Aviv recently if you think this is new. Whole neighborhoods have been taken over by sub-Saharan Africans.
  91. @ic1000
    Philosophies of the receding roar, eschatologies, glorious futures, desires to exclude, attitudes that sour the tongue, offend the eye, and freeze the heart.

    What does any of this mean, with regard to thinking clearly about immigration policies that benefit American citizens and their descendants?

    Mr. Brooks is using Ingsoc to paint pictures, rather than writing in English.

    If I had a glut of shoddy timeshares to unload to gullible retirees, I'd hire him to inspire my sales team.

    Philosophies of the receding roar, eschatologies, glorious futures, desires to exclude, attitudes that sour the tongue, offend the eye, and freeze the heart.

    Apparently Brooks is still honoring his obligation is to sit with the writing of Ta Nehisi Coates, to make sure the testimony is respected and sinks in. It may have sunk in a little too deeply.

  92. @Reg Cæsar

    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.
     
    Then he should return them to the fellow's survivors!

    Mark Steyn says he has a Japanese import CD of Cole Porter tunes, including "I've Got You Under My Sink", a perfect title for a serial killer. That's a typo, but I'm sure Porter himself, wherever he be, kicked himself for not thinking of it first.

    including “I’ve Got You Under My Sink”, a perfect title for a serial killer.

    Also perfect for the reveal in “Where’s Charlie?”, as long as it’s about the Manson family ……

  93. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon
    David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve's comment on Brooks "personal problems" prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    ""Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah."

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That's the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one's own selfhood.

    All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don’t like their given secular name.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Ivanka Trump is pretty hardcore -- she keeps kosher and did an orthodox conversion, which means she probably knows more Hebrew than her husband -- but she didn't change her name from Ivanka.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don’t like their given secular name."

    "All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name."

    And why is that? It strikes me as being somewhat two-faced.

    "Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t"

    The wikipedia entry I was referring to did not say that Brooks wife took a Hebrew name which she did not use. It said that she changed her name. And that is indeed a a slap in the face of her parents.

    You are saying these are just cultural customs. Yes, and cultural customs have underlying meanings.

  94. @Bert
    I'll never understand Steve's obsession with David Brooks.

    And I’ll never understand why people bother to write comments like this.

    • Agree: EriK
    • Replies: @Bert
    Did I trigger you?
  95. @nglaer
    Brooks's basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else. More immigrants for the US helps break down the WASP establishment, which long ago was kind of skeptical about what Israel would do for American national interests. But it's trickier now: many to the new immigrants don't fall into line behind Jewish leadership either. The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people. Pro-Palestinian activism on campus has the kids of refugees at its core. On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc. I think that overall, continued mass immigration will lead to a foreign policy less pleasing to Brooks, but it's a close call.

    On the other hand, more immigrants means more canon fodder for American wars in Iraq, Iran, etc.

    American weapons (systems) tend to be too complicated for (that sort of) canon fodder.

  96. @Mr. Anon
    David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve's comment on Brooks "personal problems" prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    ""Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah."

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That's the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one's own selfhood.

    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that’s pretty weird. By the way, “Brooks” doesn’t sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O’Laughlin reports that “some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word ‘Brook’ or Brooks.” The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning “blessed”.

    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn’t he change his last name back to “Boruch,” on principle?

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Elements of Turbulence in the life of David Brooks after a cursory Google:

    #1 - His son left the USA and is in the IDF
    #2 - Brooks is divorced from his Christian wife who converted to Judaism
    #3 - Or maybe not
    #4 - Brooks is in the process of converting to Catholicism
    #5 - Or maybe not

    Mid Life Crises -- Ain't it Wonderful?
    , @Anonymous
    David Brooks is half-Jewish. He may not have been behind his wife changing her name. For all you know, she didn't like her given first name and took the opportunity to change it. Jewish conversion doesn't require a person to change his or her secular name.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    Brooks? Popular, though. Albert Brooks, Mel Brooks, etc.

    It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one’s own selfhood.
     
    Remember, she was marrying David Brooks...
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Baruch (the more common transliteration) to Brooks seems odd, when there's already a Western translation used as a given name: Benedict (e.g., Baruch/Benedict Spinoza).
  97. The term American exceptionalism (along with the term proposition nation) gets under my skin so much. Do these terms bother anyone else or is my reaction to them unusual?

  98. @Harry Baldwin
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that's pretty weird. By the way, "Brooks" doesn't sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O'Laughlin reports that "some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word 'Brook' or Brooks." The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning "blessed".
     
    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn't he change his last name back to "Boruch," on principle?

    Elements of Turbulence in the life of David Brooks after a cursory Google:

    #1 – His son left the USA and is in the IDF
    #2 – Brooks is divorced from his Christian wife who converted to Judaism
    #3 – Or maybe not
    #4 – Brooks is in the process of converting to Catholicism
    #5 – Or maybe not

    Mid Life Crises — Ain’t it Wonderful?

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Brooks may subscribe to the credo Boruch, a Thai, I don't know?
  99. The Eurajj.

    Migrants cram into trains for Europe

    Crowds of migrants and refugees were desperately trying to board a train in Tovarnik – believing it to be travelling to Croatia's border with Hungary.Police struggled to control the crowds in rainy conditions in the Croatian town, with groups of people climbing onto the train through the windows.Watch more on the refugee crisis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2M-C0PJlCYg

    Posted by Channel 4 News on Sunday, September 20, 2015

  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    “A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.”

    You’re basically describing the Democrats’ playbook to generate the allegiance of disaffected groups, other than White Americans, and build support for Democratic candidates and policies.

  101. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    Obama’s election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed.

    Change for the better?

    It looks to me like more of the same. But if you want to brag about it, I guess you like the astronomical budget deficits; drone strikes; loss/retreat on the world stage; increased racial animosity; demographic changing immigration; monarch-like costs in presidential travel; etc,etc.

  102. @iSteveFan

    The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation.
     
    No it is not. The GOP is led by people who welcome the changing demographic nature of our nation. That is why there is such a disconnect between them and their base. It is also partly why you will see Boehner crying on Drudge today. BTW, there they go again with that 'inevitable' stuff.

    American founders like Alexander Hamilton were aware that once the vast continent was settled the United States would be one of the dominant powers of the globe.
     
    But only if America's sons served in the American army. How dominant would America have become if her sons chose to serve in other armies?

    ‘But only if America’s sons served in the American army. How dominant would America have become if her sons chose to serve in other armies?’

    This is a really good point. Everything about the success of a nation depends on those inhabitants having a history of showing it loyalty. Why not fight for invading armies? Why not sell them military/economic secrets?

    Why not? Group loyalty. Posterity.

    But if the message you receive from your leaders is ‘screw you and your group’ then where’s the incentives?

  103. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Z Blog
    A good example of the dominance of Yankeedom over the rest of America is this sentence from Brooks: "America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional."

    Children have been taught this since as long as anyone here has been alive. Politicians recite it like a prayer. It's the abracadabra phrase of modern political discourse. If you don't like some bit of reality, start talking about the city on the hill or righting the wrongs of the past, because, well, we're special!

    This is pure Yankee nonsense that springs from Public Protestantism. Their part of America was founded by lunatics trying to create heaven on earth. The rest of the colonies had more sensible motivations.

    Children have been taught this since as long as anyone here has been alive. Politicians recite it like a prayer. It’s the abracadabra phrase of modern political discourse. If you don’t like some bit of reality, start talking about the city on the hill or righting the wrongs of the past, because, well, we’re special!

    I remember being taught that America was trying to do something different and better than other countries, but I really don’t remember the use of the irksome term “American exceptionalism” in our lessons. I think I remember learning something more along the lines of “American greatness”, “American ingenuity”, or “American rugged individualism”, not some smushy, ambiguous “American exceptionalism”.

  104. @Reg Cæsar

    Brooks has the head and neck of a moderately tall man.
     
    Then he should return them to the fellow's survivors!

    Mark Steyn says he has a Japanese import CD of Cole Porter tunes, including "I've Got You Under My Sink", a perfect title for a serial killer. That's a typo, but I'm sure Porter himself, wherever he be, kicked himself for not thinking of it first.

    And there’s a Japanese translation of Marlon Brandon’s movie “On the Waterfront” where Brandon laments

    ” I could have been someone, I could have been a bartender.”

    • Replies: @tbraton
    " I could have been someone, I could have been a bartender.”

    I thought that line was from "The Marco Rubio Story," which was produced by Norman Braman Enterprises, Ltd.
  105. @Polichinello
    In politics, when 44% of the other guys' party agrees with 84% of your party on an issue, that's an opportunity. That Brooks then goes one to repeat this quote from Cuckservative Wehner is astounding: "“The message being sent to voters is this: The Republican Party is led by people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the changing (and inevitable) demographic nature of our nation."

    No, dummy, the GOP leadership is more than comfortable with the supposedly "inevitable" demographic change, it's their voters who aren't--along with just shy of half of the other guys' voters, too.

    It's funny when we hearken back to all the high-fiving the Rovians gave themselves for winning "44%" of the Hispanic vote in 2004 (yes, that number was debunked), but here you have an issue that will let you gain not 44% of 12% of the vote, but 44% of somewhere between 2/5 and 1/2 of the voters from the other side, and the GOP turns up its nose, says "No, thank you", and then shuffles off to pay court to the Kochs or Adelson.

    Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with the current immigration level, according to Gallup surveys.

    I did not know that. I like it. I was not expecting to learn any important facts from David Brooks. What was expected was the rest of the piece, stuff like the GOP being led by people who want to return to an idyllic past, as opposed to the truth that it’s led by people who have completely sold out to the campaign donor class. While we’re there, the Boehner resignation is also unexpected good news, although sad for Orange Americans who will no longer have one of their own in Congress.

  106. @Tiny Duck
    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off the indigenous population and then imported slaves from Africa. Part of our " exceptionalism " that Mr. Brooks forgot to mention.

    The vitriol toward immigrants, Muslims, and all people other than White America coming from the candidates should frighten all Americans. It is no surprise that there are bigots in our country, or that there are simple people looking for a scape goat to solve their problems. Usually these are bigots to a minor role in our political life; ie., KKK or John Birchers. The election of Barack Obama turned that on its head.

    Until Obama's election, White Americans could pretend that they were in charge, no matter their lot in life. Even out there in the trailer parks and poor rural communities, no matter what else was true, it was White English speaking people who ran an exceptional America. All of those minorities were just that; lesser people with less power.

    Obama's election revealed the a truth that could not be denied. America had changed. We are now living in the political aftermath. A large group of angry White people is being harnessed by the Republican Party to bring its leaders into power. Many of the candidates for president seem to be willing to say most anything negative about Hispanic immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and any other non-White, non-English speaking group to generate the allegiance of disaffected White Americans.

    We have seen it before with the Japanese interment during WWII, and the Red Scare tactics of McCarthy in the 1950's. Bigotry will not win out, but it sure is ugly to witness in my America.

    For the most part self righteous jackasses aren’t amusing. I counted you as part of that majority until I read your final sentence.

  107. It is a party that is characterized by resentments and grievances, by distress and dismay, by the belief that America is irredeemably corrupt and past the point of no return.

    Black Lives Matter resentment and grievance is, apparently, not a problem.

    Writers like Brooks never realize that they betray their own prejudices through their editorials. What white people do is the only thing that matters; therefore, they must be relentlessly analyzed and pc policed by the great and the good (like Brooks.)

  108. @Harry Baldwin
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that's pretty weird. By the way, "Brooks" doesn't sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O'Laughlin reports that "some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word 'Brook' or Brooks." The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning "blessed".
     
    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn't he change his last name back to "Boruch," on principle?

    David Brooks is half-Jewish. He may not have been behind his wife changing her name. For all you know, she didn’t like her given first name and took the opportunity to change it. Jewish conversion doesn’t require a person to change his or her secular name.

  109. @SoCal Patriot
    OT,


    Mr.Sailer,your old website,isteve.com,has apparently been hacked.I tried visiting there several minutes ago,only to be met with the following:

    http://servingnotice.com/Lmf4ry-Kxd6us/intermediary.html?champlung-sari.com

    Just thought you might want to know.

    SoCal Patriot. There is a striking similarity between the “possible sale of counterfeit products” on Steve’s old site and David Brooks writings in the New York Times. It’s a pity that such a warning does not appear on Brooks work, since it is a counterfeit of conservative thought.

  110. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    If US is indeed all about ‘diversity’ and ‘multi-culti’ stuff, then there is no single Americanism. So, it is wrong for Brooks to talk as if he represents the only American Dream.

    It may well be that the Jewish-American Dream is to increase diversity to play divide-and-rule among goyim.

    But white-American Dream is to maintain some degree of white dominance because, from its very beginning, America began as an extension of European civilization.

    As for Palestinian-Americans, their dream could be the hope that US stop supporting the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Palestinian-American Dream differs from Jewish-American Dream.

    From now on, there is no more American Dream. There is only the
    Hyphenated-American Dream, and Brooks should know that it’s wrong and arrogant for him to claim that the dream of his ethnic group is THE American Dream. No, it is merely one among many that differ and are in conflict.

  111. @ChrisZ
    I saw Brooks walking through Penn Station in NYC just this week. His very small stature took me by surprise; he looks taller on TV.

    Same with David Frum. He is quite dwarf-like.

    • Replies: @Bugg
    To his credit, Frum at least has reconsidered a great deal of his previous positions,and is now closer to our genial host's views on immigration. Once had an email exchange with him in which he readily acknowledged Bush Jr's tax cuts were mostly an empty gesture due to AMT not being indexed for inflation. Despite having coined "axis of evil" to sell the Iraq war, you have to give credit to anyone who takes a look at a new set of outcomes and reconsiders he may have been involved in a serious mistake. Brooks, by contrast, bumbles on oblivious to anything. But what can you expect from the guy who coined the term "Bobo" and went on at book length about a nonexistent class of SWPL ?
  112. @Anonymous
    O.T.

    All over yesterday's UK papers.

    Apparently, Barack Obama has yet another cousin living - inevitably - in the UK.
    She is or was employed by London's Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard as a 'call handler'.
    She is now claiming compensation for harassment at work. Basically the grounds of her complaint are that two white English police officers engaged in that ancient and time honored English tradition of 'breaking wind' loudly at work. She claims, that as a 'prank' which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.

    Whether they knew she was Obama's cousin is unclear.

    She claims, that as a ‘prank’ which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.

    Hilarious!

    Anyway.

    The guys probably didn’t target her so much as they were just trying not to fart near people they actually liked.

  113. I just don’t get writers like Brooks.

    What makes him a conservative– or anything, for that matter?

    I genuinely just don’t see an underlying theory of the world or of value that makes his views — which seem to hit the public arena in one incoherent splat after another — stand for anything in particular.

    Statistics and evidence don’t seem to be his thing. An overarching moral system doesn’t seem to be his thing. He has no thing except for one word after another, as best I can make out.

    Why does he exist?

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Lack of a coherent worldview, no particular inherent thing or theme in his writings and above all a prose that is characterized by excessive wordiness...are you referring to David Brooks or George Will? Or any of the Neocons for that matter?
    , @MarkinLA
    There is no rhyme or reason to the type of trash Brooks is writing. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be put out there in an endless stream of drivel about what the "right" way of thinking is. He is part of the big lie campaign to make conservatives think there is something wrong with them. There is no real logical thinking that can do it so there is just an endless stream of pseudo-intellectual babble with the idea that quantity will eventually overwhelm any quality.

    Brooks has a job to do and that is to help remove any obstacles to the government screwing the American people.
  114. One Reason Women Aren’t Getting the Promotion: They Don’t Want It
    New research from Harvard finds that women associate power with stress, burden, and conflicts.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/women-don-t-want-promotions-as-much-as-men-do

  115. @GW
    The open borders bloc usually loves to remind Old Stock Americans of their racist and xenophobic past as a way of guilting them toward accepting more huddling masses, but now Brooks is reminding Old Stock Americans of their open, idealistic, pro-immigrant past as a way of inspiring them to be exceptional Americans like Hamilton and Lincoln.

    It's time to use our past as our weapon. America has always been xenophobic and will apparently continue being so. The best thing for would-be immigrants is to stay home to avoid immigrating into white privilege, patriarchy, and other distinctly bigoted Old Stock American values.

    “The open borders bloc usually loves to remind Old Stock Americans of their racist and xenophobic past as a way of guilting them toward accepting more huddling masses, but now Brooks is reminding Old Stock Americans of their open, idealistic, pro-immigrant past…”

    Yes. The nature of America’s past changes from day-to-day based on the argument the issue the Leftist is trying to push. Today it’s Emma Lazarus, the wretched refuse and “all men are created equal.” Tomorrow it’ Trail of Tears, slavery, genocide, and “they wouldn’t let my Granpda Moishe into Harvard.”

    Just depends on the cause they’re pushing. I’m sure if you were trying to talk about the need to reduce immigration, even a guy like the late, unlamented Howard Zinn would get all teary-eyed and explain to us that open borders were part of “the American ideal.”

    The same sort of two-faced behavior occurs with religion. What’s that, David Brooks says? Religious people are more inclined to believe in open borders? Ok. Tomorrow he’ll be bashing them for not believing in evolution.

  116. @C. Van Carter
    Following the Obergefell ruling, Brooks urged social conservatives to abandon the culture war to focus on serving the vibrantly diverse populations:

    The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other.
     
    If you're wondering why that isn't the defining face of neoconservatism, it's because neoconservatives are busy doing important things.

    “If you’re wondering why that isn’t the defining face of neoconservatism, it’s because neoconservatives are busy doing important things.”

    Yep. If anyone didn’t read Van Carter’s comment, they should. David Brooks (not a social conservative) is busy telling social conservatives what they should believe – just like David Brooks the Jewish, Israeli nationalist is busy telling non-Jewish Americans they should not be nationalists.

  117. @Harry Baldwin
    And I'll never understand why people bother to write comments like this.

    Did I trigger you?

  118. @Romanian
    I read her latest book. It was marvelous. I don't really find her to be that eloquent when speaking, though. She gets sidetracked by details like establishing the credentials of her info.

    Off-topic:

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-sdgs

    A friend sent this to me. It's time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.

    Wow, thanks for the heads-up. This part tells you all you need to know about the author:

    How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Scary. Is the author connected in global development economics circles or is he just a delusional bloviator? Regardless, this is why I'm scared to see the Republican party disintegrate. They are useless on immigration, but they might stall implementation of the Obama affirmative housing rules or hinder green/socialist de-development initiatives. As bad as establishment Republicans are, the hardcore left wing is much worse.
    , @Romanian
    People forget how the US and the West, in general, are indirectly subsidizing the living standards of low GDP countries or of low income people by having simply existed and developing things on their own - medicine, tech etc.

    The more ambitious nations, like Japan, S. Korea and China, industrialized rapidly by simply adopting and adapting the technology, modes of organization and knowledge that the West had already run through numerous iterations, absorbing the costs of the initial research, the initial failures and the repeated upgrades. They also find export markets ready made, as well as abundant willing capital if they can ensure low wages or other favorable terms. Of course, there's nothing simple about it, as HBDers, culturalists and institutionalists know, the world being strewn with failures to catch up or to even take off.

    Cuba has its life expectancy partially because it can tap into capitalist advances in dentistry, pharmacology, surgery etc without paying the usual costs or having to absorb some of the sunk costs of R&D.

    The best example I can think of are the Amish and other low-tech, low GDP groups that people like to praise for their wholesome simplicity and other qualities. By living in the US, or in the proximity of nations beholden to Mammon:

    - They get to live in a place where their security is subsidized by an advanced power, protecting them from invading armies, rape, plunder etc.
    - Their property rights are secure.
    - If they deign to make their own horseshoes or other implements, the steel they can buy is of much higher quality and lower cost in real terms than 150 years ago.
    - If they make overpriced handmade furniture or bric-a-brac, then they are bought because their customers enjoy disposable incomes and their creations are given value by the contrast with the cheap, mass produced stuff that every pleb has.
    - Their economic activities invariably rely on continental transport systems or information systems underlying banking, weather forecasts etc.
    - Their crops might be specially developed, if not GMO. Let's remember who started the Green Revolution in Africa that primed the population growth since the 1960s.
    - They have access to insurance, medical services, emergency services etc.
    - I read an article about an Amish community tolerating a high tech gene sequencing center among them to study and find solutions to the problems posed by inbreeding.

    All of those benefits might be reduced by the rich countries de-developing themselves, or they may stagnate. Stagnation might not sound that bad for GDP-fatigued people, but it's hard philosophically to consciously put a lid on innovation or development (do you do it before or after the Salk vaccine, or some theoretical cure for cancers? What about space?). That saying about tipping over the ladder behind you is also applicable. I kind of want to develop in my own land properly and, for most small nations, that involves piggybacking on foreign markets, tech and capital. If that stagnates, can I edge out the other dude? If I can't, then what's left for the economically ambitious if not to change their country of residence and skip 20 years of development that are not going to happen and get the best buck for your bang straight away? We know where that leads. The high-IQ prevalence or the advanced PISA score proportions may differ, but I hardly doubt my Romanian trucker or hair dresser is in some personal way the lesser of an American one, yet the income differences are staggering. This can be put down to the value of the cargo, the profitability of the market, the better infrastructure, the lower equipment wear and tear, the lower transport times on good infrastructure, the amortization of prior costs, the lower capital costs of the firm etc etc but not on IQ or some specialized knowledge of the driver.

    Meanwhile, the Africans are sitting on some major resources (that haven't even been exhausted at the surface the way Europe's have been) and a huge continent that's just a killer jungle or a dustbowl to them.
  119. @Mr. Anon
    David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve's comment on Brooks "personal problems" prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    ""Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah."

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That's the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one's own selfhood.

    Nah, it’s done by converts to take an additional hebrew name. Most religious jews in the USA have a legal name by which they go in general (David, Matthew, Steven etc.) and a hebrew name by which they are called to the torah , write halachic documents (ketuba etc) . Sometimes the names are very close matches (e.g. david) It is conventional for converts to choose Abraham and Sarah respectively as they are considered the first jews in the tradition. Ultraorthodox jews often only have a hebrew name and transliterate that as their legal name.

  120. No, it’s not common for Jewish converts to change their first name. And Brooks is a fairly common Jewish name, could have been changed from Bernstein or Berkowitz.

  121. @SPMoore8
    Elements of Turbulence in the life of David Brooks after a cursory Google:

    #1 - His son left the USA and is in the IDF
    #2 - Brooks is divorced from his Christian wife who converted to Judaism
    #3 - Or maybe not
    #4 - Brooks is in the process of converting to Catholicism
    #5 - Or maybe not

    Mid Life Crises -- Ain't it Wonderful?

    Brooks may subscribe to the credo Boruch, a Thai, I don’t know?

  122. Urban whites eat this shut up. Those horrible, nasty bigots who want to shut the gate! Throw it open! The enrichment will be grand. You definitely don’t need a Jewish hypocrite like Brooks to get this kind of idiocy and straight out, purposeful ignorance and whitewash. As Toronto has gone from a middle-class Anglo city to a polarized Islamo-Asian one in 30 yeas, the downtown WASPs haven’t changed a bit from the posturing and fantasy of their Boomer heyday. All the gritty, fluffy Victorian neighbourhoods have got homes bedecked with electoral signs that glow orange, the colour of Canada’s socialist party, whose leader recently decried the Prime Minister’s Islamophobia and, yes, anti-feminism in opposing the ‘freedom’ to wear the burqa. Such exotic women! The dainty Protestants at the Globe and Mail warbled. One wonders when people might get a clue, but I’ve concluded that never is probably the answer — unless, maybe, the milk runs dry at the public teat. Who knows what Boomer bureaucrats will do if their public sector pensions reduce to a trickle, or even something less than a torrent? That could get really, really messy.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    About 15-20 years ago, I was friendly with an older woman who had just visited Toronto, and she was marveling about the wonderful mosaic of diverse peoples that made up Toronto. She thought it was the greatest thing. Recent events shed new light on that conversation, the memory of which your reference to Toronto triggered. My former friend, who moved a few years later to Portland, Oregon, was a German who had immigrated to the U.S. when she was in her 20's-30's and still spoke with an easily detectable German accent. There must be something ingrained in the German character which makes them unhappy living with folk who look just like them. But then, I guess you could say the same thing about the Swedes, the Finns, the Norwegians, the Icelanders, etc.
    , @anon
    50 years of media brain washing and lies.
  123. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    Wow, thanks for the heads-up. This part tells you all you need to know about the author:

    How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
     

    Scary. Is the author connected in global development economics circles or is he just a delusional bloviator? Regardless, this is why I’m scared to see the Republican party disintegrate. They are useless on immigration, but they might stall implementation of the Obama affirmative housing rules or hinder green/socialist de-development initiatives. As bad as establishment Republicans are, the hardcore left wing is much worse.

  124. @Bert
    I'll never understand Steve's obsession with David Brooks.

    Agreed. Brooks is a low-life slime, beneath contempt.

    Why am I even reading this thread?!

  125. @Harry Baldwin
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that's pretty weird. By the way, "Brooks" doesn't sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O'Laughlin reports that "some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word 'Brook' or Brooks." The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning "blessed".
     
    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn't he change his last name back to "Boruch," on principle?

    Brooks? Popular, though. Albert Brooks, Mel Brooks, etc.

    It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one’s own selfhood.

    Remember, she was marrying David Brooks…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Albert Brooks' real name is Albert Einstein.
  126. @Bert
    I'll never understand Steve's obsession with David Brooks.

    Nicolas Kristof is covered at the same level, more or less.

    The NYT is the guide to ruling class opinions.

  127. But this hopeful nationalism is being supplanted in the G.O.P. by an anguished cry for a receding America.

    Brooks values American nationalism for one reason and one reason alone: it convinces gullible young Americans to enlist in the military and die fighting the enemies of Israel.

    • Agree: Kyle McKenna
  128. @International Jew
    Wow, thanks for the heads-up. This part tells you all you need to know about the author:

    How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
     

    People forget how the US and the West, in general, are indirectly subsidizing the living standards of low GDP countries or of low income people by having simply existed and developing things on their own – medicine, tech etc.

    The more ambitious nations, like Japan, S. Korea and China, industrialized rapidly by simply adopting and adapting the technology, modes of organization and knowledge that the West had already run through numerous iterations, absorbing the costs of the initial research, the initial failures and the repeated upgrades. They also find export markets ready made, as well as abundant willing capital if they can ensure low wages or other favorable terms. Of course, there’s nothing simple about it, as HBDers, culturalists and institutionalists know, the world being strewn with failures to catch up or to even take off.

    Cuba has its life expectancy partially because it can tap into capitalist advances in dentistry, pharmacology, surgery etc without paying the usual costs or having to absorb some of the sunk costs of R&D.

    The best example I can think of are the Amish and other low-tech, low GDP groups that people like to praise for their wholesome simplicity and other qualities. By living in the US, or in the proximity of nations beholden to Mammon:

    – They get to live in a place where their security is subsidized by an advanced power, protecting them from invading armies, rape, plunder etc.
    – Their property rights are secure.
    – If they deign to make their own horseshoes or other implements, the steel they can buy is of much higher quality and lower cost in real terms than 150 years ago.
    – If they make overpriced handmade furniture or bric-a-brac, then they are bought because their customers enjoy disposable incomes and their creations are given value by the contrast with the cheap, mass produced stuff that every pleb has.
    – Their economic activities invariably rely on continental transport systems or information systems underlying banking, weather forecasts etc.
    – Their crops might be specially developed, if not GMO. Let’s remember who started the Green Revolution in Africa that primed the population growth since the 1960s.
    – They have access to insurance, medical services, emergency services etc.
    – I read an article about an Amish community tolerating a high tech gene sequencing center among them to study and find solutions to the problems posed by inbreeding.

    All of those benefits might be reduced by the rich countries de-developing themselves, or they may stagnate. Stagnation might not sound that bad for GDP-fatigued people, but it’s hard philosophically to consciously put a lid on innovation or development (do you do it before or after the Salk vaccine, or some theoretical cure for cancers? What about space?). That saying about tipping over the ladder behind you is also applicable. I kind of want to develop in my own land properly and, for most small nations, that involves piggybacking on foreign markets, tech and capital. If that stagnates, can I edge out the other dude? If I can’t, then what’s left for the economically ambitious if not to change their country of residence and skip 20 years of development that are not going to happen and get the best buck for your bang straight away? We know where that leads. The high-IQ prevalence or the advanced PISA score proportions may differ, but I hardly doubt my Romanian trucker or hair dresser is in some personal way the lesser of an American one, yet the income differences are staggering. This can be put down to the value of the cargo, the profitability of the market, the better infrastructure, the lower equipment wear and tear, the lower transport times on good infrastructure, the amortization of prior costs, the lower capital costs of the firm etc etc but not on IQ or some specialized knowledge of the driver.

    Meanwhile, the Africans are sitting on some major resources (that haven’t even been exhausted at the surface the way Europe’s have been) and a huge continent that’s just a killer jungle or a dustbowl to them.

    • Agree: International Jew
  129. @Kyle McKenna
    Brooks? Popular, though. Albert Brooks, Mel Brooks, etc.

    It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one’s own selfhood.
     
    Remember, she was marrying David Brooks...

    Albert Brooks’ real name is Albert Einstein.

    • Replies: @middle aged vet
    For those who are interested in this sort of thing, there is a list of every single person who played for the Mets easily available on the internet. Most people have next to no understanding of foreign languages, so let me help (corrections and constructive criticisms welcome, this is hard work!) Of the 100 or so Irish last names, with a few exceptions, all but two or three of the simplest ones have been Anglicized to some degree. Of the English names, about twenty percent have gone through Norman changes or anti-dialectical changes at one point, usually sometime (with respect to the anti-dialectical changes) after 1750 or so. Of the Jewish names, about half have been Anglicized more than was necessary for the change from Hebrew lettering to English lettering. Also of interest are the Spanish first names - Guillermos who presented themselves as Willies, that sort of thing: my favorite example is how Roberto Clemente's (not a Met) very expensive vintage cards have an unfortunate tendency to spell his first name as "Bob". Or look at the last twenty or so Presidents - "Harry" is not a self-respecting Christian name - as far as I know (there may be some weird family tradition there), nor is "Jimmy"; and where for the love of God were the decent relatives who failed to discourage heathen middle names like "S" and the Anglo-Irish "Fitzgerald" (of course, maybe the poor fellow's last name was Fitzgerald Kennedy, but it is not as if he showed pride in it...) Not to mention the cross-pond cringe-worthy adoption of Mountbatten. So while maybe it is not anti-Semitic to mock Jews for modifying last names when they move from one continent to another, then again it probably is. God knows, and, eventually, God is not mocked.
  130. ” Immigrant men age 18 to 39 are incarcerated at roughly one-fourth the rate of American men.”

    He has to be making that up, or getting it from an iffy source. In any event, we can see how deep is his family’s connection to our ancestral soil by the fact that his son joined the IDF rather than our armed forces. In any event, I’m not interested in being preached to by suchlike as this fair-weather semi-American.

  131. @Anonymous
    O.T.

    All over yesterday's UK papers.

    Apparently, Barack Obama has yet another cousin living - inevitably - in the UK.
    She is or was employed by London's Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard as a 'call handler'.
    She is now claiming compensation for harassment at work. Basically the grounds of her complaint are that two white English police officers engaged in that ancient and time honored English tradition of 'breaking wind' loudly at work. She claims, that as a 'prank' which she did not appreciate, the policemen would stand with their backs to her desk and deliberately and loudly break wind in the direction of her face.

    Whether they knew she was Obama's cousin is unclear.

    So they farted in her general direction and she is going to sue for racism and get them fired or disciplined….

  132. “Hostility towards Muslims is two part: (a) Because they engage in cultural practices that are incompatible with life in the West (honor killings, FGM)”

    These cultural practices are not part and parcel to the general Muslim population who are American citizens.

    “and (b) because in virtually every culture they go into, they demonstrate a refusal to assimilate,”

    That’s observably false. Muslims, like any ethnic group who came to America, sets up shop in a designated area, yet become immersed into our society several generations in.

    “and second, when they aren’t not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture (a la Charlie Hebdo) for refusing to police itself in accordance with their religious laws.”

    I’m sure you can cite evidence in which these events occur on a daily basis in the United States.

    “It’s time to use our past as our weapon. America has always been xenophobic and will apparently continue being so…”

    PARTS of America have been xenophobic, yes.

    “even a guy like the late, unlamented Howard Zinn would get all teary-eyed and explain to us that open borders were part of “the American ideal.”

    Open borders as in controlled immigration, i.e. quotas, that offers equal opportunity for all groups to come in. Now, do I think immigration to America ought to be stifled? Yes. That illegals should NOT receive amnesty? Yes. That non-European immigrants, i.e. “vibrants”, are a decided threat to American society? No.

    “A good example of the dominance of Yankeedom over the rest of America is this sentence from Brooks: “America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional.”

    This is NOT Yankeedom. Brooks’ observance is clearly accurate. Do you even understand American history?

    “If I didn’t know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like “American exceptionalism,” “American dream” and “conservatism” are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned.”

    Well, there is nothing anti-white here with these concepts. It’s a figment of your imagination.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    These cultural practices are not part and parcel to the general Muslim population who are American citizens.

    Evidence? Both honor killings and FGM are sufficiently common that I read about them in the media about as often as I read about 6th grade teachers banging their students. Which is 2-3 times a year.

    That’s observably false. Muslims, like any ethnic group who came to America, sets up shop in a designated area, yet become immersed into our society several generations in.

    Evidence? Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are "immersed in our society several generations in."

    I’m sure you can cite evidence in which these events [terrorizing dominant culture] occur on a daily basis in the United States.

    The way you phrase your comments here suggests that you think that it does happen in the US, just not on a daily basis. Personally, I have no idea.

    The charge was "bigotry" against Muslims. My response was meant to show why that "bigotry" exists; it exists because a random consultation of the media on any given day has stories about Muslims (either in the US, or not) subjecting their daughters to FGM or honor killings, living in squalid welfare slums in Europe, and complaining about freedom of speech in the dominant culture around them, usually but not always in Europe. These are the reasons why many Americans do not want a lot of Muslims coming to this country. And I haven't even mentioned elephants in the room like Rotherham, and Terrorism.

    I can well believe that there are many Muslims who are not like the above. But the horror stories about (some) Muslims and especially Muslims in Europe, assuming they are true -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- is the reason people are skittish. There's no reason to hate Muslims for "racial" reasons. There's also no reason to hate Muslims for religious reasons. There are legitimate empirical reasons to prejudge them. If/when they establish, or publicize the establishment, of broad assimilation in the US and particularly Europe, then minds will change. But they won't change by calling people names.
  133. @Bill Jones
    And there's a Japanese translation of Marlon Brandon's movie "On the Waterfront" where Brandon laments

    " I could have been someone, I could have been a bartender."

    ” I could have been someone, I could have been a bartender.”

    I thought that line was from “The Marco Rubio Story,” which was produced by Norman Braman Enterprises, Ltd.

  134. @Mr. Anon
    David Brooks: the super-duper American patriot, whose son serves in a foreign military (the IDF).

    Steve's comment on Brooks "personal problems" prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry about him. Apparently, he is gettin divorced. However, I noticed this:

    ""Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah."

    I can understand converting to a different faith when getting married. (I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it). But giving up your own given name? The name your own mother and father gave to you? Is that common among people who convert to Judaism? That's the kind of thing I expect of people who join a religious cult. It is a disgusting, almost totalitarian denial of one's own selfhood.

    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    What makes the story even more unusual is this statement from Wikipedia: “Brooks is Jewish, but has not been particularly observant.[6][7][8]” If Wikipedia is correct, that takes the story beyond unusual to weird.

  135. @candid_observer
    I just don't get writers like Brooks.

    What makes him a conservative-- or anything, for that matter?

    I genuinely just don't see an underlying theory of the world or of value that makes his views -- which seem to hit the public arena in one incoherent splat after another -- stand for anything in particular.

    Statistics and evidence don't seem to be his thing. An overarching moral system doesn't seem to be his thing. He has no thing except for one word after another, as best I can make out.

    Why does he exist?

    Lack of a coherent worldview, no particular inherent thing or theme in his writings and above all a prose that is characterized by excessive wordiness…are you referring to David Brooks or George Will? Or any of the Neocons for that matter?

  136. @shrinker
    ...The Iran deal was facilitated by a new Iranian-American group full of smart, politically engaged, young people...

    Got a source there? Cuz from a neutral point of view, it seemed more like it was actually negotiated by European conglomerates eager to do bidness there. But on the paleo sites I'm seeing these dark hints to the mysterious vanguard-in-exile of the Iranian astrophysicist/chessmaster diaspora. One can only assume that, like like the media-hyped Iraqi expatriates of 2003, some will now come home to Tehran and lend a hand. I hear their economy is having trouble.

    https://www.hudson.org/research/11641-meet-the-iran-lobby

    Here’s a neocon view, Weekly Standard editor Lee Smith, who really doesn’t like these people. . .

    As someone who favors detente with Iran, I like and admire Trita, and know several smart young people associated with his organization. My rough sense is that most of these young people are the children of refugees from the revolution, are upper class and educated, and would be on the other side (i.e. not protecting a regime they know to be brutal) were it not for the bellicosity of the neocons.

    I don’t want to exaggerate their influence, but without them–without eloquent young Iranian-Americans walking the halls of Congress, Obama’s diplomacy couldn’t have prevailed. European conglomerates are important too, of course.

  137. @Corvinus
    "Hostility towards Muslims is two part: (a) Because they engage in cultural practices that are incompatible with life in the West (honor killings, FGM)"

    These cultural practices are not part and parcel to the general Muslim population who are American citizens.

    "and (b) because in virtually every culture they go into, they demonstrate a refusal to assimilate,"

    That's observably false. Muslims, like any ethnic group who came to America, sets up shop in a designated area, yet become immersed into our society several generations in.

    "and second, when they aren’t not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture (a la Charlie Hebdo) for refusing to police itself in accordance with their religious laws."

    I'm sure you can cite evidence in which these events occur on a daily basis in the United States.

    "It’s time to use our past as our weapon. America has always been xenophobic and will apparently continue being so..."

    PARTS of America have been xenophobic, yes.

    "even a guy like the late, unlamented Howard Zinn would get all teary-eyed and explain to us that open borders were part of “the American ideal.”

    Open borders as in controlled immigration, i.e. quotas, that offers equal opportunity for all groups to come in. Now, do I think immigration to America ought to be stifled? Yes. That illegals should NOT receive amnesty? Yes. That non-European immigrants, i.e. "vibrants", are a decided threat to American society? No.

    "A good example of the dominance of Yankeedom over the rest of America is this sentence from Brooks: “America was settled, founded and built by people who believed they were doing something exceptional."

    This is NOT Yankeedom. Brooks' observance is clearly accurate. Do you even understand American history?

    "If I didn’t know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like “American exceptionalism,” “American dream” and “conservatism” are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned."

    Well, there is nothing anti-white here with these concepts. It's a figment of your imagination.

    These cultural practices are not part and parcel to the general Muslim population who are American citizens.

    Evidence? Both honor killings and FGM are sufficiently common that I read about them in the media about as often as I read about 6th grade teachers banging their students. Which is 2-3 times a year.

    That’s observably false. Muslims, like any ethnic group who came to America, sets up shop in a designated area, yet become immersed into our society several generations in.

    Evidence? Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.”

    I’m sure you can cite evidence in which these events [terrorizing dominant culture] occur on a daily basis in the United States.

    The way you phrase your comments here suggests that you think that it does happen in the US, just not on a daily basis. Personally, I have no idea.

    The charge was “bigotry” against Muslims. My response was meant to show why that “bigotry” exists; it exists because a random consultation of the media on any given day has stories about Muslims (either in the US, or not) subjecting their daughters to FGM or honor killings, living in squalid welfare slums in Europe, and complaining about freedom of speech in the dominant culture around them, usually but not always in Europe. These are the reasons why many Americans do not want a lot of Muslims coming to this country. And I haven’t even mentioned elephants in the room like Rotherham, and Terrorism.

    I can well believe that there are many Muslims who are not like the above. But the horror stories about (some) Muslims and especially Muslims in Europe, assuming they are true — and I have no reason to doubt them — is the reason people are skittish. There’s no reason to hate Muslims for “racial” reasons. There’s also no reason to hate Muslims for religious reasons. There are legitimate empirical reasons to prejudge them. If/when they establish, or publicize the establishment, of broad assimilation in the US and particularly Europe, then minds will change. But they won’t change by calling people names.

  138. @tbraton
    You have to realize that David Brooks was a Socialist into his early 20's, and it was supposedly a short encounter with Milton Friedman who devastated his carefully thought out philosophical beliefs and turned him into a "conservative Republican." (Sort of reminds me of George Will, who actively supported the Iraq War and demonized anyone who opposed that misguided war, but who a few years later proclaimed on ABC's This Week with a straight face that the Iraq War violated virtually "every conservative principle" he believed in. I thought "principles" were deeply held beliefs upon which you base your judgments.) Although I would note that earlier in the year, Brooks admitted at the end of a review of Thomas Piketty's book that he was "a quasi Marxist." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html
    Before he was hired by the Times, Brooks wrote for the Weekly Standard, where he could be characterized as a "neoconservative." Thus, he satisfied all the requirements for a conservative columnist for the New York Times: he was Jewish (Jews comprise 2% of the U.S. population but vote overwhelmingly (70-80%) for Democrats), had been a Socialist in his early 20's, was still a "quasi Marxist," and had been a "neoconservative" writing for a "neoconservative publication," the Weekly Standard. I can't imagine a better columnist to express the conservative point of view in what is still considered the leading newspaper in the U.S. He clearly represents all the conservative Republicans who consider themselves "quasi Marxists."

    Ross Douthat is the conservative writer at the Times. He’s Catholic & was never a leftist.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Ross Douthat is the conservative writer at the Times. He’s Catholic & was never a leftist."

    I see you have honored me with your second post on Sailer's blog. I wonder if, by any chance you posted previously under a different screen name, such as "Deduction."

    This is what Wikipedia says about Brooks:

    "According to a 2010 article in New York Magazine written by Christopher Beam, New York Times editorial-page editor Gail Collins called Brooks in 2003 and invited him to lunch.
    Collins was looking for a conservative to replace outgoing columnist William Safire, but one who understood how liberals think. “I was looking for the kind of conservative writer that wouldn’t make our readers shriek and throw the paper out the window,” says Collins. “He was perfect.” Brooks started writing in September 2003. “The first six months were miserable,” Brooks says. “I’d never been hated on a mass scale before.”[13] "

    I realize that you are not especially bright, but please note that Brooks became the "conservative" columnist who replaced William Safire in 2003. Douthat was appointed columnist in 2009, replacing the "other conservative columnist" (sort of like "the other white meat"), William Kristol. I guess the Times woke up to the fact that writing for The Weekly Standard, that neoconservative rag, was not a certain credential that the writer was "conservative," even if he satisfied the Times' Jewish requirement, like Kristol. I also think that the NY Times is so in to conservatism that they figure they can't have too many "conservative" columnists. I guess they finally figured out that nothing says "conservative" as much as "Roman Catholic" (Douthat's 3rd religion, btw), as attested by the fact of Pope Francis' recent visit to the U.S., where he spoke out on a number of "conservative" issues, such as immigration, "climate change," and government gridlock. Francis is so conservative that maybe the Times should offer him a column as the third "conservative" columnist for the paper.
  139. @km
    Urban whites eat this shut up. Those horrible, nasty bigots who want to shut the gate! Throw it open! The enrichment will be grand. You definitely don't need a Jewish hypocrite like Brooks to get this kind of idiocy and straight out, purposeful ignorance and whitewash. As Toronto has gone from a middle-class Anglo city to a polarized Islamo-Asian one in 30 yeas, the downtown WASPs haven't changed a bit from the posturing and fantasy of their Boomer heyday. All the gritty, fluffy Victorian neighbourhoods have got homes bedecked with electoral signs that glow orange, the colour of Canada's socialist party, whose leader recently decried the Prime Minister's Islamophobia and, yes, anti-feminism in opposing the 'freedom' to wear the burqa. Such exotic women! The dainty Protestants at the Globe and Mail warbled. One wonders when people might get a clue, but I've concluded that never is probably the answer -- unless, maybe, the milk runs dry at the public teat. Who knows what Boomer bureaucrats will do if their public sector pensions reduce to a trickle, or even something less than a torrent? That could get really, really messy.

    About 15-20 years ago, I was friendly with an older woman who had just visited Toronto, and she was marveling about the wonderful mosaic of diverse peoples that made up Toronto. She thought it was the greatest thing. Recent events shed new light on that conversation, the memory of which your reference to Toronto triggered. My former friend, who moved a few years later to Portland, Oregon, was a German who had immigrated to the U.S. when she was in her 20’s-30’s and still spoke with an easily detectable German accent. There must be something ingrained in the German character which makes them unhappy living with folk who look just like them. But then, I guess you could say the same thing about the Swedes, the Finns, the Norwegians, the Icelanders, etc.

  140. This formula that says everything in the M.E. is done for Israel is incredibly weak. How did the Iraq or Libyan interventions help them exactly?

    The obsession with the whole claimed hypocrisy angle when it comes to Jewish opinions on immigration is really strange. It isn’t the argument-ender you guys seem to think it is.

  141. @Jonathan Silber
    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate...

    It's not so much the rate of incarceration that matters as the rate of at which crime is committed, which latter rate is even higher, since not every crime, even serious crime, is punished by incarceration.

    Is it not more to the point, that every single illegal immigrant, by virtue of entering the country and remaining in it in violation of our laws, has committed a crime?

    This being so, while the rate of incarceration of illegals may be higher or lower than the rate of incarceration of this or that or the other group, the rate of lawbreaking among illegal immigrants is, by the mere fact of their presence on our soil, 100%.

    Visa overstay is not a crime, it is a civil offense only.

  142. This is completely Off Topic but I’d be interested to see just how many people here can read this without laughing.
    http://www.inquisitr.com/2442019/transgender-woman-detained-by-t-s-a-because-her-penis-was-identified-as-an-anomaly-shadi-petosky-searched-for-explosives-after-male-organ-misidentified/

    Ah, I recall the days when my dick was a weapon of mass destruction, or at least, desecration.

  143. @FUBAR007
    David Brooks is Jewish, not Yankee Protestant.

    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It’s not blood. It’s culture.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "It’s not blood. It’s culture."

    And presumably Brooks is steeped in jewish culture, is he not?

    Anyway, you are the guy "not understanding the material"

    Culture and blood are not seperable.
  144. @Black Death
    Brooks ignores the disastrous effects of immigration on African-Americans. David Frum wrote:

    Despite three years of supposed economic recovery, black children were as likely to be poor in 2013 as in 2010 -- and more likely than at any time since the early 1990s. Almost four out of 10 black children are now growing up in poverty, as against one in nine white children. More than 25 percent of the black poor now live in areas of concentrated poverty, triple the rate for poor white people.

    "The uniquely harsh African American economic experience since 2007 has divided black opinion further from that of other elements of the Obama coalition. Only 29 percent of Latinos under age 30 think illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans -- but 48 percent of African Americans under 30 think so. No wonder.

    "African Americans have been very much bypassed in the recovery, as employers substituted immigrant for native-born labor. As of mid-2015 all of the net new job growth from the previous employment peak in 2007 has gone to foreign-born workers. The black unemployment rate -- although declining -- in summer 2015 still hovered well above the rate in December 2007. Among younger black people, 16-24, the unemployment rate is a Greek-like 20 percent. Nearly half of black youth aren't in the workforce at all.

    ....

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:

    "You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?"

    ....

    Harvard's George Borjas found:

    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skilled black men, fell precipitously between 1960 and 2000. At the same time, their incarceration rate rose. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in employment and incarceration. Using data from the 1960–2000 US censuses, we find that a 10% immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5%, lowered the employment rate by 5.9 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate by 1.3 percentage points.

    ....

    And while Brooks correctly points out that legal immigrants have a lower incarceration rate than the general population, he conveniently ignores the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are locked up at a far higher rate, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission:

    According to FY 2014 USSC data, of 74,911 sentencing cases, citizens accounted for 43,479 (or 58.0 percent), illegal immigrants accounted for 27,505 (or 36.7 percent), legal immigrants made up 3,017 (or 4.0 percent), and the remainder (about 1 percent) were cases in which the offender was either extradited or had an unknown status.

    Broken down by some of the primary offenses, illegal immigrants represented 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases, 20.0 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1 percent of drug possession, 12.3 percent of money laundering, and 12.0 percent of murder convictions.

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:

    Is he? Or has he flip flopped again?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Old Bernie knows the truth, but then was reminded that you have to pretend you don't knowit if you want to represent your party. Reminds me of the old video showing Harry Reid talk about how stupid birthright citizenship is.
    , @tbraton
    I have been arguing since the 80's that not only did supply-and-demand explain the depressing effect of immigration on wages but that blacks were generally the hardest hit group since they are generally at the bottom of the income ladder and most affected by the large influx of competing labor. And yet very few black political leaders have stood up and made an issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. So I attribute the problem to the failure of black leaders to do what it right for their people. But the same can be said about the white political leaders. That largely explains the rise in the polls of Donald Trump, and why he is almost uniformly opposed across the political spectrum.
  145. @Big Bill
    Darn it! Israel is following the same path the South Africans did and the Arabs do: nice jobs for us, scut jobs for the Other.

    They are in danger of recreating the same unstable ethnic/status/work hierarchy in Israel in which they lived in Christendom.

    I guess the blut und boden kibbutznik man-of-the-soil values are gone for good.

    Inevitable, I guess. What Jewish mama ever kvelled, "My son, the drywaller"?

    You haven’t been to Tel Aviv recently if you think this is new. Whole neighborhoods have been taken over by sub-Saharan Africans.

  146. @ChrisZ
    As is typical of the dewey-eyed* Emma Lazarus genre, the only quantification Brooks bothers to supply in this column comes from an opinion survey (that fraction posing as an arrest statistic at the end is laughable, as everyone here recognizes).

    But numbers are of the essence when it comes to immigration, and the question, "How many?" is the proper (and effective) reply to anyone who spouts the tired "nation of immigrants" line as an excuse from argumentation.

    "So why don't we let in a billion immigrants?" is the question to ask Brooks. No "sane" person would agree to that (although people with academic credentials have proposed it), but having established that there might be an upper limit, the discussion turns to "What's the right number?" and its corollaries, "How do we choose?", "Whom do we admit?", and "How do we make sure?"

    Maybe it won't amount to anything in practice, but I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened. I take Brooks' column as evidence of the panic that's set in on open borders side.

    [*A nod to education realist.]

    …I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened.

    And it was Trump—that “clown”— and no one else who had the guts to open it.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ

    And it was Trump—that “clown”— and no one else who had the guts to open it.

     

    Yes, unquestionably. I left it unsaid, but I'm glad you made it explicit. I would add the qualification that Trump is the break-out public expression of ideas and concerns that Sailer, Krikorian, and Coulter have been developing for some time. Trump's success is not that he's come up with something nobody's ever thought before, but that he's given robust voice to things a lot of serious people have concluded privately.

    My one concern about Trump as the standard bearer on the immigration issue is that his defeat or diminishment would be characterized as a public rejection of his stance on that issue. That's the trouble with having only one political voice speaking on behalf of a rational, unsentimental immigration policy. I still hold out hope that other candidates will show the courage, independence, or simple self-interest to seize on the issue; but so far Trump has been the lone voice.
  147. @bjdubbs
    Brooks gave an interesting interview on NPR a few months ago:

    "I was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren't beating their chests," he tells NPR's Audie Cornish. "They weren't super proud of themselves; they were deeply humble. And I found that so beautiful and so moving. And I thought there's really something to admire in that public culture."

    So what do you think he says next? Does he examine the narcissism of "national greatness conservatism"? Does he examine his own chest-beating after the cold war? "It occurred to me that I'd seen more self-puffing victory dances after a two yard gain than after World War II." So there you go. Not much self-awareness.

    By the way, WIkipedia has a good article on American exceptionalism. It's basically a Marxist idea (US rejection of socialism makes it exceptional) retooled after the cold war to promote foreign wars.

    was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,”

    That’s probably because the War – for most Americans any way – didn’t end till *VJ* Day. Due to the relentless obsession with the European war since about 1970 – people seem to forget that during WW 2 most Americans viewed Japan as the “real” enemy and the two theaters got equal amounts of news coverage. And during WW 2 and many years after Hollywood made more movies about the Pacific War than the War against Germany.

    Off topic – but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here’s an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific – JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe – Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA – Carter, Reagan

    • Replies: @Jose Habib
    That's a little unfair to Carter - he graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 after the war was over.
    , @flyover hick
    Off topic – but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here’s an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific – JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe – Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA – Carter, Reagan

    George McGovern fought in Europe. He flew B-24's.
    , @snorlax
    George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA.
  148. @WGG
    That Hamilton musical is beyond awful. First, it's not a true musical, but a new genre of rap-opera. Its historical presentation is overtly simplistic, and the cast of white historical figures is played by a mostly minority cast. It is President Camacho level retarded. Complete scheiße . And Hamilton is absolutely the worst founding father anyway. Power-grabbing federalist bankster cronyist.

    he went into the breach at yorktown and didn’t have to -General Washington pulled him from th field years before but he insisted on going; at the very least, he’s no neocon.

    He set up nationlist encouragement of manufacturing and industry – in other words, i would take him over any modern politician.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I would take him over any modern politician.

    A man like Alexander Hamilton is morally superior to almost any modern politician. Whatever anyone might think of his views, he held them sincerely and openly espoused them. When today's politicians campaign for office, they will espouse a set of beliefs they have no intention of honoring should they be elected. That makes a mockery of democracy.
  149. @candid_observer
    I just don't get writers like Brooks.

    What makes him a conservative-- or anything, for that matter?

    I genuinely just don't see an underlying theory of the world or of value that makes his views -- which seem to hit the public arena in one incoherent splat after another -- stand for anything in particular.

    Statistics and evidence don't seem to be his thing. An overarching moral system doesn't seem to be his thing. He has no thing except for one word after another, as best I can make out.

    Why does he exist?

    There is no rhyme or reason to the type of trash Brooks is writing. It doesn’t have to make sense. It just has to be put out there in an endless stream of drivel about what the “right” way of thinking is. He is part of the big lie campaign to make conservatives think there is something wrong with them. There is no real logical thinking that can do it so there is just an endless stream of pseudo-intellectual babble with the idea that quantity will eventually overwhelm any quality.

    Brooks has a job to do and that is to help remove any obstacles to the government screwing the American people.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Brooks has a job to do and that is to help remove any obstacles to the government screwing the American people."

    He is a liberal's fantasy version of what a "good conservative" is or should be. Look at his other gigs on NPR's "All Things Considered" and PBS's "Newshour." But they each flow from the fact that he has that privileged perch as the "conservative" columnist for the NY Times. Having a principled conservative occupy that valuable slot is considered too dangerous to the status quo. And Douthat, the "youngest columnist in the history of the NY Times," is not much better. Before getting his Times' position, he was an avid cheerleader for the Iraq War and, as far as I am aware, has never openly acknowledged he was wrong, even though eight years later (during the Libyan "nonwar") he was framing the issue as "what we learned from Iraq" (which amounted to a concession that Iraq was not a good idea, something that should have been obvious in 2003, but, then, he was "so young" at the time).
  150. @ChrisZ
    As is typical of the dewey-eyed* Emma Lazarus genre, the only quantification Brooks bothers to supply in this column comes from an opinion survey (that fraction posing as an arrest statistic at the end is laughable, as everyone here recognizes).

    But numbers are of the essence when it comes to immigration, and the question, "How many?" is the proper (and effective) reply to anyone who spouts the tired "nation of immigrants" line as an excuse from argumentation.

    "So why don't we let in a billion immigrants?" is the question to ask Brooks. No "sane" person would agree to that (although people with academic credentials have proposed it), but having established that there might be an upper limit, the discussion turns to "What's the right number?" and its corollaries, "How do we choose?", "Whom do we admit?", and "How do we make sure?"

    Maybe it won't amount to anything in practice, but I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened. I take Brooks' column as evidence of the panic that's set in on open borders side.

    [*A nod to education realist.]

    As is typical of the dewey-eyed* Emma Lazarus genre, the only quantification Brooks bothers to supply in this column comes from an opinion survey (that fraction posing as an arrest statistic at the end is laughable, as everyone here recognizes).

    But numbers are of the essence when it comes to immigration, and the question, “How many?” is the proper (and effective) reply to anyone who spouts the tired “nation of immigrants” line as an excuse from argumentation.

    Good comment. I’ve noted before how many arguments of the left resemble weather reports, e.g. the descriptions of urban crime ‘engulfing’ cities, much like a hurricane or line of severe thunderstorms. The point is to eliminate the agency and accountability of those who are responsible for committing such crimes.

    Other commenters here have noted how this mode of thinking also dominates discussion of immigration. One aspect is the ‘inevitability’ argument, which reduces the rational choices of millions of enthusiastic prospective Germans, Swedes, and Americans to ‘waves’ of immigration, i.e. another uncontrollable geological/meteorological phenomenon.

    Your discussion of numbers reveals another facet of this illusion: i.e. the goodthinkers’ assumption that these ‘waves’ of immigrants are essentially predictable, i.e. there will always be just about the right number of strawberry pickers, drywall experts, and vibrant restaurant entrepreneurs.

    It’s similar, in a way, to the base assumption amongst the climate change crazies that the earth has a stable, identifiable, ‘ideal’ state of balance. There’s no way, you see, that smart, open-minded, NPR-listening people like us could ever be wrong in fully grasping simple issues such as the decision-making processes of Guatemalans and Eritreans and Pakistanis eyeing a new life as asylum seekers — it’s just as easy as nailing down the obviously correct levels for global temperatures, precipitation, wind patterns, ocean temperatures and currents, cloud formation, sea ice extent, glaciation . . . and on and on and on.

  151. SPMoore8

    “Evidence? Both honor killings and FGM are sufficiently common that I read about them in the media about as often as I read about 6th grade teachers banging their students. Which is 2-3 times a year.”

    So your metric as to what constitutes “sufficiently common” is 2-3 times a year? Let’s define common–occurring, found, or done often; prevalent. Example–“Salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings”.

    Son, you’re going to have to rethink your position in light of this definition/example. You are better than this, right?

    “Evidence? Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Modern_Muslims

    “The way you phrase your comments here suggests that you think that it does happen in the US, just not on a daily basis. Personally, I have no idea.”

    Exactly, you have no idea. Now, of course radical Muslim extremists have committed heinous acts in our midst. But your statement “when they aren’t not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture” clearly suggested that Muslims are prone to regularly engaging in such actions, which is not the case in the United States.

    “it exists because a random consultation of the media on any given day has stories about Muslims (either in the US, or not) subjecting their daughters to FGM or honor killings, living in squalid welfare slums in Europe, and complaining about freedom of speech in the dominant culture around them, usually but not always in Europe.”

    So, now you’re referencing Europe and Muslims allegedly partaking in daily occurrences of three distinct, disparate events. You’re going to have to do more than make grandiose claims.

    “These are the reasons why many Americans do not want a lot of Muslims coming to this country. And I haven’t even mentioned elephants in the room like Rotherham, and Terrorism.”

    SOME Americans, yes. Rotherham, while absolutely disgusting, you’re going to have to do more than merely trot out one such occurrence as being a feature of Muslims. Regarding terrorism, I guess I will have to report my neighbor down the street for suspicious activity everything he gets out his power tools. One never knows when he is going to go full jihad. Although, the way he attacks his lawn, maybe he is preparing to firebomb our entire block….

    “But the horror stories about (some) Muslims and especially Muslims in Europe, assuming they are true — and I have no reason to doubt them — is the reason people are skittish.”

    Exactly, assuming they are true. Apparently, Chicken Little is your idol.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Son, you’re going to have to rethink your position in light of this

    In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country, and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced. Dad, I am disappoint.

    Look, my son was delivered by a Palestinian OB, and my teeth were saved by a Gazan dentist who worked in the projects in Harlem. So this is not personal. But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture, and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe -- against all of my preferences, I might add -- indicates a largely unassimilated and sullen welfare underclass that resents the social and political norms, including freedom of speech, that exist in the West. That, and Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis, is the reason for American hostility towards Muslims.

    One can always point to individual exceptions -- e.g., Salman Rushdie who, pointedly, is no longer a Shia Muslim -- but the task here is to explain American enmity towards Muslims. And you have done nothing to dispel the reasons for that enmity.

    Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?
  152. @Steve Sailer
    Albert Brooks' real name is Albert Einstein.

    For those who are interested in this sort of thing, there is a list of every single person who played for the Mets easily available on the internet. Most people have next to no understanding of foreign languages, so let me help (corrections and constructive criticisms welcome, this is hard work!) Of the 100 or so Irish last names, with a few exceptions, all but two or three of the simplest ones have been Anglicized to some degree. Of the English names, about twenty percent have gone through Norman changes or anti-dialectical changes at one point, usually sometime (with respect to the anti-dialectical changes) after 1750 or so. Of the Jewish names, about half have been Anglicized more than was necessary for the change from Hebrew lettering to English lettering. Also of interest are the Spanish first names – Guillermos who presented themselves as Willies, that sort of thing: my favorite example is how Roberto Clemente’s (not a Met) very expensive vintage cards have an unfortunate tendency to spell his first name as “Bob”. Or look at the last twenty or so Presidents – “Harry” is not a self-respecting Christian name – as far as I know (there may be some weird family tradition there), nor is “Jimmy”; and where for the love of God were the decent relatives who failed to discourage heathen middle names like “S” and the Anglo-Irish “Fitzgerald” (of course, maybe the poor fellow’s last name was Fitzgerald Kennedy, but it is not as if he showed pride in it…) Not to mention the cross-pond cringe-worthy adoption of Mountbatten. So while maybe it is not anti-Semitic to mock Jews for modifying last names when they move from one continent to another, then again it probably is. God knows, and, eventually, God is not mocked.

  153. @Hail

    Brooks’s basic template is always ethnonationism for Israel, multi-culti for everyone else
     
    Steve, in recent years, has tried consistently to convince this sort of Jew to...rethink the matter. In principle a good idea, but I haven't seen any evidence it'll work.

    I haven’t seen any evidence it’ll work.

    Then you haven’t been looking all that hard. Steve’s not alone in his efforts. Jews aren’t stupid or insensible to threats to the way of life that suits them. They, too, have begun noticing things.

  154. @Corvinus
    SPMoore8

    “Evidence? Both honor killings and FGM are sufficiently common that I read about them in the media about as often as I read about 6th grade teachers banging their students. Which is 2-3 times a year.”

    So your metric as to what constitutes “sufficiently common” is 2-3 times a year? Let’s define common--occurring, found, or done often; prevalent. Example--"Salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings".

    Son, you’re going to have to rethink your position in light of this definition/example. You are better than this, right?

    “Evidence? Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Modern_Muslims

    “The way you phrase your comments here suggests that you think that it does happen in the US, just not on a daily basis. Personally, I have no idea.”

    Exactly, you have no idea. Now, of course radical Muslim extremists have committed heinous acts in our midst. But your statement “when they aren’t not assimilating they are terrorizing the dominant culture” clearly suggested that Muslims are prone to regularly engaging in such actions, which is not the case in the United States.

    “it exists because a random consultation of the media on any given day has stories about Muslims (either in the US, or not) subjecting their daughters to FGM or honor killings, living in squalid welfare slums in Europe, and complaining about freedom of speech in the dominant culture around them, usually but not always in Europe.”

    So, now you’re referencing Europe and Muslims allegedly partaking in daily occurrences of three distinct, disparate events. You’re going to have to do more than make grandiose claims.

    “These are the reasons why many Americans do not want a lot of Muslims coming to this country. And I haven’t even mentioned elephants in the room like Rotherham, and Terrorism.”

    SOME Americans, yes. Rotherham, while absolutely disgusting, you’re going to have to do more than merely trot out one such occurrence as being a feature of Muslims. Regarding terrorism, I guess I will have to report my neighbor down the street for suspicious activity everything he gets out his power tools. One never knows when he is going to go full jihad. Although, the way he attacks his lawn, maybe he is preparing to firebomb our entire block....

    “But the horror stories about (some) Muslims and especially Muslims in Europe, assuming they are true — and I have no reason to doubt them — is the reason people are skittish.”

    Exactly, assuming they are true. Apparently, Chicken Little is your idol.

    Son, you’re going to have to rethink your position in light of this

    In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country, and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced. Dad, I am disappoint.

    Look, my son was delivered by a Palestinian OB, and my teeth were saved by a Gazan dentist who worked in the projects in Harlem. So this is not personal. But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture, and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe — against all of my preferences, I might add — indicates a largely unassimilated and sullen welfare underclass that resents the social and political norms, including freedom of speech, that exist in the West. That, and Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis, is the reason for American hostility towards Muslims.

    One can always point to individual exceptions — e.g., Salman Rushdie who, pointedly, is no longer a Shia Muslim — but the task here is to explain American enmity towards Muslims. And you have done nothing to dispel the reasons for that enmity.

    Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture, and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims...
     
    Excerpted for emphasis.
    Keep thinking about this.
  155. @Dave Pinsen

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:
     
    Is he? Or has he flip flopped again?
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/647545890379436032

    Old Bernie knows the truth, but then was reminded that you have to pretend you don’t knowit if you want to represent your party. Reminds me of the old video showing Harry Reid talk about how stupid birthright citizenship is.

  156. @oh its just me
    he went into the breach at yorktown and didn't have to -General Washington pulled him from th field years before but he insisted on going; at the very least, he's no neocon.

    He set up nationlist encouragement of manufacturing and industry - in other words, i would take him over any modern politician.

    I would take him over any modern politician.

    A man like Alexander Hamilton is morally superior to almost any modern politician. Whatever anyone might think of his views, he held them sincerely and openly espoused them. When today’s politicians campaign for office, they will espouse a set of beliefs they have no intention of honoring should they be elected. That makes a mockery of democracy.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  157. @Honesthughgrant

    was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,”
     
    That's probably because the War - for most Americans any way - didn't end till *VJ* Day. Due to the relentless obsession with the European war since about 1970 - people seem to forget that during WW 2 most Americans viewed Japan as the "real" enemy and the two theaters got equal amounts of news coverage. And during WW 2 and many years after Hollywood made more movies about the Pacific War than the War against Germany.

    Off topic - but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here's an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific - JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe - Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA - Carter, Reagan

    That’s a little unfair to Carter – he graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 after the war was over.

  158. @Honesthughgrant

    was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,”
     
    That's probably because the War - for most Americans any way - didn't end till *VJ* Day. Due to the relentless obsession with the European war since about 1970 - people seem to forget that during WW 2 most Americans viewed Japan as the "real" enemy and the two theaters got equal amounts of news coverage. And during WW 2 and many years after Hollywood made more movies about the Pacific War than the War against Germany.

    Off topic - but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here's an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific - JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe - Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA - Carter, Reagan

    Off topic – but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here’s an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific – JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe – Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA – Carter, Reagan

    George McGovern fought in Europe. He flew B-24’s.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'd add that the public tended to like Navy officers more than Army officers. The Navy experience in WWII was more of a we're-all-in-this-together thing, while the Army experience had some unpleasant class distinctions. (The Army Air Corp was different.)

    In general, the WWII Army had the highest % of draftees, and Army officers tended to treat their men like rabble. The other services had a higher percentage of volunteers and more espirit de corps.

  159. In the late 2000s, it was pretty obvious that David Brooks of the New York Times was reading my blog and then sometimes writing columns as if I defined the conventional wisdom and he was the brave heretic.

    Funny shit, on several levels.

    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.

    What happens after that? I mean after the spitting on your hands part. I forget.

    Demographic change is not “inevitable.” It’s not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.

    Nobody advocates for the inevitable. It would be pointless. Nobody tries to stop people from stopping the inevitable. It would be a waste of time.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is “inevitable” it means there is a reason they’re allowing it to happen but not telling us.

    It’s their motives spilling out. What they mean is, “we will inevitably try to destroy you. Nothing you can do will dissuade us. We’re playing for keeps.”

    It’s frustratingly obvious that Brooks is neither conservative or pro-American, so he has a mantle in America’s limelight.

    FIFY.

    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off

    Horseshit. You could finish off the sentence any way you like, and it would still be a lie.

    Thanks for starting with a lie; I wish more of you scum would do that, lets me TL;DR-scroll past that much sooner.

    I’ll never understand Steve’s obsession with David Brooks.

    Probably follows on from the NYT/PBS obsession.

    Last month, Brooks was praising Ta-Naheisi Coates and claiming his black racist fantasies need to be read, understood and accepted. But Ann Coulter noticing is the height of racism.

    White goyim are a threat, black goyim, a tool.

    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It’s not blood. It’s culture.

    It’s not real, it’s phony. Real leftists would’ve cut Israel off long ago, at the very least.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    It’s not real, it’s phony. Real leftists would’ve cut Israel off long ago, at the very least.
     
    Much of the left did, starting in the late '60s.
    , @Romanian


    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.
     
    What happens after that? I mean after the spitting on your hands part. I forget.
     
    Form an exploratory committee to publish and publicize a report debunking the underlying assumptions of this movement?

    Going to a pub frequented by former IRA types might also yield dividends.

    The new trend is asymmetric and hybrid warfare, gentlemen, even in public policy discussions.
  160. Their obsession with Brooks, I mean.

  161. @SPMoore8
    Son, you’re going to have to rethink your position in light of this

    In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country, and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced. Dad, I am disappoint.

    Look, my son was delivered by a Palestinian OB, and my teeth were saved by a Gazan dentist who worked in the projects in Harlem. So this is not personal. But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture, and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe -- against all of my preferences, I might add -- indicates a largely unassimilated and sullen welfare underclass that resents the social and political norms, including freedom of speech, that exist in the West. That, and Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis, is the reason for American hostility towards Muslims.

    One can always point to individual exceptions -- e.g., Salman Rushdie who, pointedly, is no longer a Shia Muslim -- but the task here is to explain American enmity towards Muslims. And you have done nothing to dispel the reasons for that enmity.

    Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?

    Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture, and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims…

    Excerpted for emphasis.
    Keep thinking about this.

  162. @flyover hick
    Off topic – but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here’s an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific – JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe – Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA – Carter, Reagan

    George McGovern fought in Europe. He flew B-24's.

    I’d add that the public tended to like Navy officers more than Army officers. The Navy experience in WWII was more of a we’re-all-in-this-together thing, while the Army experience had some unpleasant class distinctions. (The Army Air Corp was different.)

    In general, the WWII Army had the highest % of draftees, and Army officers tended to treat their men like rabble. The other services had a higher percentage of volunteers and more espirit de corps.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That's interesting. In The Caine Mutiny, Herman Wouk writes about how, in some ways, the officers were treated worse than enlisted men in the Navy.

    Maybe it changed since then, because my impression from when I was in the Army Reserve ~25 years ago and mixed with some ex-Marines and ex-Air Force troops was that the Navy had the most rigid class structure, and the Air Force the least. As for enlisted Marines, they might have been treated better than enlisted Army, but not as good as enlisted Air Force. I had an ex-Marine in my platoon during infantry training at Fort Benning, GA, and he felt the Army treated us "like dogs". But that might just have been an Army infantry training thing. Everyone went from basic training to some form of "advanced individual training" (AIT, as they called it) where they learned some specialized stuff, but the AIT for infantry was essentially just a double helping of basic training, with the same sort of hazing.
    , @oh its just me
    we've also also slowly forgot that a lot of our anger was at the Japs (pearl harbor, the Batton death march, shooting US prisoners, etc)

    In fact these days we're guilt tripped about nuking the japs who were just trying to liberate Asia from European imperialists

    and of course the pacific was much more a navy war- as were many of our big victories- midway, the Marianas turkey shoot, etc.

    Meanwhile, the germans have become more and more evil.

    Look at a movie like Guns of Navarone or the great escape- there are 'nice' germans- do you see tht in modern wwii movies/?

  163. @Anonymous
    All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren't expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don't (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don't like their given secular name.

    Ivanka Trump is pretty hardcore — she keeps kosher and did an orthodox conversion, which means she probably knows more Hebrew than her husband — but she didn’t change her name from Ivanka.

  164. @Harry Baldwin
    “”Brooks met his ex-wife, the former Jane Hughes, while both were students at the University of Chicago. She converted to Judaism [27] and changed her given name to Sarah.”

    Yeah, that's pretty weird. By the way, "Brooks" doesn't sound like a Jewish name. This is from the Wikipedia entry:

    The surname arrived in North America from England in the mid-seventeenth century. The surname is recorded in Ireland from the 1600s. O'Laughlin reports that "some of the name could stem from Irish origins, the name being changed into the English word 'Brook' or Brooks." The surname is also found among English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, deriving from the male Hebrew given name Boruch, meaning "blessed".
     
    So, if Brooks is so Judeocentric that his ex-wife had to change her first name, shouldn't he change his last name back to "Boruch," on principle?

    Baruch (the more common transliteration) to Brooks seems odd, when there’s already a Western translation used as a given name: Benedict (e.g., Baruch/Benedict Spinoza).

  165. @WGG
    This ain't "your America," sweetie pie. And you have absolutely no clue what is going on. Don't feel bad, a lot of hate-filled leftists like yourself don't understand and have no idea what's coming. But I'll clue you in a bit.

    Your interpretation of the founding of the United States is revisionist hogwash. It was part of the 3rd wave of propaganda from the people who brought you the idea of "civil rights". Originally, civil rights and equality under the law was sold to a Christian America under the guise of fairness and meritocratic ideals, very Christian indeed. Once majority America capitulated to that first violation of A)freedom of association and B) self interest, the assaults just kept coming. We were ordered to condemn our history, then our own families and grandparents, then our Christian Faith, and finally we have been asked to condemn ourselves. We won't do it. You say our whiteness is part of a mark against us for supposed injuries of generations past.

    Do African-Americans have to apologize for their ancestors' cannibalism or part in the slave trade (selling)? No. Do Jews have to apologize for their ancestors part in the slave trade (middle men)? No. Do whites have to apologize? Yes, and we have. But there is no forgiveness given. Those original ideas of supposed belief in meritocracy have been shown to be a lie simply to gain power.

    The media, the universities, and yes, the Obama Justice Department have been waging a war to frame whites as evil-doers in hundreds of situations. The idea of "white privilege" as some sort of call to action is communism at best, blood libel and genocide at worst. Your type has smeared us as a race, and we are finally ready to give back in kind.

    We are done apologizing for things we didn't do. We are ready to demand apologies from blacks for their asymmetrical warfare waged as violent crimes against us- and poverty is no excuse particularly not for rapes or homicides. We are ready to demand apologies from Jewish-owned media for their part in smearing us over the last fifty years. We are ready to demand apologies from illegal invaders who have trespassed on sovereign ground and forged their way into unearned benefits. And we are ready to tell leftists of all stripes to sit the hell down; their reign of terror is over. This includes the type of leftists that run NRO and the Weekly Standard. We are no longer fooled. We don't care one bit about the childish names they will call us, anymore.

    This is a rightwing movement that is growing exponentially. The comments sections of every online newspaper have become extremely rightwing, so much so that they are removing them in a hasty panic. Every day a new right wing website pops up. Every year the Amren and NPI conferences get bigger and younger. We are winning the war of ideas and we are winning the youth. Our movement is even more advanced in Europe. If you are frightened as a leftist, you should be.

    If Trump can be our strong man, so be it. If not, there will be another to come along. Our movement will not die.

    http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/23/church-with-no-salvation/

    For whites, leftism means you must constantly atone, with no chance of salvation. What do they offer?

    Article written on a site by and for young (average age would be early 20s) racially aware whites.

  166. @Dave Pinsen

    Even Bernie Sanders is on board:
     
    Is he? Or has he flip flopped again?
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/647545890379436032

    I have been arguing since the 80’s that not only did supply-and-demand explain the depressing effect of immigration on wages but that blacks were generally the hardest hit group since they are generally at the bottom of the income ladder and most affected by the large influx of competing labor. And yet very few black political leaders have stood up and made an issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. So I attribute the problem to the failure of black leaders to do what it right for their people. But the same can be said about the white political leaders. That largely explains the rise in the polls of Donald Trump, and why he is almost uniformly opposed across the political spectrum.

    • Replies: @anon
    they're all bought
  167. @MarkinLA
    There is no rhyme or reason to the type of trash Brooks is writing. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be put out there in an endless stream of drivel about what the "right" way of thinking is. He is part of the big lie campaign to make conservatives think there is something wrong with them. There is no real logical thinking that can do it so there is just an endless stream of pseudo-intellectual babble with the idea that quantity will eventually overwhelm any quality.

    Brooks has a job to do and that is to help remove any obstacles to the government screwing the American people.

    “Brooks has a job to do and that is to help remove any obstacles to the government screwing the American people.”

    He is a liberal’s fantasy version of what a “good conservative” is or should be. Look at his other gigs on NPR’s “All Things Considered” and PBS’s “Newshour.” But they each flow from the fact that he has that privileged perch as the “conservative” columnist for the NY Times. Having a principled conservative occupy that valuable slot is considered too dangerous to the status quo. And Douthat, the “youngest columnist in the history of the NY Times,” is not much better. Before getting his Times’ position, he was an avid cheerleader for the Iraq War and, as far as I am aware, has never openly acknowledged he was wrong, even though eight years later (during the Libyan “nonwar”) he was framing the issue as “what we learned from Iraq” (which amounted to a concession that Iraq was not a good idea, something that should have been obvious in 2003, but, then, he was “so young” at the time).

  168. @km
    Urban whites eat this shut up. Those horrible, nasty bigots who want to shut the gate! Throw it open! The enrichment will be grand. You definitely don't need a Jewish hypocrite like Brooks to get this kind of idiocy and straight out, purposeful ignorance and whitewash. As Toronto has gone from a middle-class Anglo city to a polarized Islamo-Asian one in 30 yeas, the downtown WASPs haven't changed a bit from the posturing and fantasy of their Boomer heyday. All the gritty, fluffy Victorian neighbourhoods have got homes bedecked with electoral signs that glow orange, the colour of Canada's socialist party, whose leader recently decried the Prime Minister's Islamophobia and, yes, anti-feminism in opposing the 'freedom' to wear the burqa. Such exotic women! The dainty Protestants at the Globe and Mail warbled. One wonders when people might get a clue, but I've concluded that never is probably the answer -- unless, maybe, the milk runs dry at the public teat. Who knows what Boomer bureaucrats will do if their public sector pensions reduce to a trickle, or even something less than a torrent? That could get really, really messy.

    50 years of media brain washing and lies.

  169. @tbraton
    I have been arguing since the 80's that not only did supply-and-demand explain the depressing effect of immigration on wages but that blacks were generally the hardest hit group since they are generally at the bottom of the income ladder and most affected by the large influx of competing labor. And yet very few black political leaders have stood up and made an issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. So I attribute the problem to the failure of black leaders to do what it right for their people. But the same can be said about the white political leaders. That largely explains the rise in the polls of Donald Trump, and why he is almost uniformly opposed across the political spectrum.

    they’re all bought

  170. @PSV
    Ross Douthat is the conservative writer at the Times. He's Catholic & was never a leftist.

    “Ross Douthat is the conservative writer at the Times. He’s Catholic & was never a leftist.”

    I see you have honored me with your second post on Sailer’s blog. I wonder if, by any chance you posted previously under a different screen name, such as “Deduction.”

    This is what Wikipedia says about Brooks:

    “According to a 2010 article in New York Magazine written by Christopher Beam, New York Times editorial-page editor Gail Collins called Brooks in 2003 and invited him to lunch.
    Collins was looking for a conservative to replace outgoing columnist William Safire, but one who understood how liberals think. “I was looking for the kind of conservative writer that wouldn’t make our readers shriek and throw the paper out the window,” says Collins. “He was perfect.” Brooks started writing in September 2003. “The first six months were miserable,” Brooks says. “I’d never been hated on a mass scale before.”[13] ”

    I realize that you are not especially bright, but please note that Brooks became the “conservative” columnist who replaced William Safire in 2003. Douthat was appointed columnist in 2009, replacing the “other conservative columnist” (sort of like “the other white meat”), William Kristol. I guess the Times woke up to the fact that writing for The Weekly Standard, that neoconservative rag, was not a certain credential that the writer was “conservative,” even if he satisfied the Times’ Jewish requirement, like Kristol. I also think that the NY Times is so in to conservatism that they figure they can’t have too many “conservative” columnists. I guess they finally figured out that nothing says “conservative” as much as “Roman Catholic” (Douthat’s 3rd religion, btw), as attested by the fact of Pope Francis’ recent visit to the U.S., where he spoke out on a number of “conservative” issues, such as immigration, “climate change,” and government gridlock. Francis is so conservative that maybe the Times should offer him a column as the third “conservative” columnist for the paper.

  171. @Honesthughgrant

    was really struck at this supreme moment of American triumph [VE day] that they weren’t beating their chests,”
     
    That's probably because the War - for most Americans any way - didn't end till *VJ* Day. Due to the relentless obsession with the European war since about 1970 - people seem to forget that during WW 2 most Americans viewed Japan as the "real" enemy and the two theaters got equal amounts of news coverage. And during WW 2 and many years after Hollywood made more movies about the Pacific War than the War against Germany.

    Off topic - but it provides an insight into David Brooks mind. Here's an interesting stat about POTUS candidates who fought in WW2;

    Served in the Pacific - JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Wallace, Bush, Goldwater.
    Served in Europe - Dole, IKE
    Never Left USA - Carter, Reagan

    George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Oh and Bob Dole fought in Europe. Forgot about him.
    , @Honesthughgrant
    "George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA."

    Yeah, I forgot about McGovern. Funny that given how smart and elite the bomber pilots were not many became politicians. I suppose its because the death rate was so high, and you had more opportunities in the growing airline industry after the war.

    BTW, Perot was a naval academy graduate as was McCain. And Bush was NG Air force pilot. Dukais and Mondale were army draftees. Clinton was a draft dodger.

    Since Ike, I don't think a single West point grad has run for president on a major party ticket.
  172. @Svigor

    In the late 2000s, it was pretty obvious that David Brooks of the New York Times was reading my blog and then sometimes writing columns as if I defined the conventional wisdom and he was the brave heretic.
     
    Funny shit, on several levels.

    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.
     
    What happens after that? I mean after the spitting on your hands part. I forget.

    Demographic change is not “inevitable.” It’s not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.
     
    Nobody advocates for the inevitable. It would be pointless. Nobody tries to stop people from stopping the inevitable. It would be a waste of time.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is “inevitable” it means there is a reason they’re allowing it to happen but not telling us.
     
    It's their motives spilling out. What they mean is, "we will inevitably try to destroy you. Nothing you can do will dissuade us. We're playing for keeps."

    It’s frustratingly obvious that Brooks is neither conservative or pro-American, so he has a mantle in America’s limelight.
     
    FIFY.

    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off
     
    Horseshit. You could finish off the sentence any way you like, and it would still be a lie.

    Thanks for starting with a lie; I wish more of you scum would do that, lets me TL;DR-scroll past that much sooner.

    I’ll never understand Steve’s obsession with David Brooks.
     
    Probably follows on from the NYT/PBS obsession.

    Last month, Brooks was praising Ta-Naheisi Coates and claiming his black racist fantasies need to be read, understood and accepted. But Ann Coulter noticing is the height of racism.
     
    White goyim are a threat, black goyim, a tool.

    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It’s not blood. It’s culture.
     
    It's not real, it's phony. Real leftists would've cut Israel off long ago, at the very least.

    It’s not real, it’s phony. Real leftists would’ve cut Israel off long ago, at the very least.

    Much of the left did, starting in the late ’60s.

  173. @Steve Sailer
    I'd add that the public tended to like Navy officers more than Army officers. The Navy experience in WWII was more of a we're-all-in-this-together thing, while the Army experience had some unpleasant class distinctions. (The Army Air Corp was different.)

    In general, the WWII Army had the highest % of draftees, and Army officers tended to treat their men like rabble. The other services had a higher percentage of volunteers and more espirit de corps.

    That’s interesting. In The Caine Mutiny, Herman Wouk writes about how, in some ways, the officers were treated worse than enlisted men in the Navy.

    Maybe it changed since then, because my impression from when I was in the Army Reserve ~25 years ago and mixed with some ex-Marines and ex-Air Force troops was that the Navy had the most rigid class structure, and the Air Force the least. As for enlisted Marines, they might have been treated better than enlisted Army, but not as good as enlisted Air Force. I had an ex-Marine in my platoon during infantry training at Fort Benning, GA, and he felt the Army treated us “like dogs”. But that might just have been an Army infantry training thing. Everyone went from basic training to some form of “advanced individual training” (AIT, as they called it) where they learned some specialized stuff, but the AIT for infantry was essentially just a double helping of basic training, with the same sort of hazing.

  174. @snorlax
    George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA.

    Oh and Bob Dole fought in Europe. Forgot about him.

  175. @Steve Sailer
    I'd add that the public tended to like Navy officers more than Army officers. The Navy experience in WWII was more of a we're-all-in-this-together thing, while the Army experience had some unpleasant class distinctions. (The Army Air Corp was different.)

    In general, the WWII Army had the highest % of draftees, and Army officers tended to treat their men like rabble. The other services had a higher percentage of volunteers and more espirit de corps.

    we’ve also also slowly forgot that a lot of our anger was at the Japs (pearl harbor, the Batton death march, shooting US prisoners, etc)

    In fact these days we’re guilt tripped about nuking the japs who were just trying to liberate Asia from European imperialists

    and of course the pacific was much more a navy war- as were many of our big victories- midway, the Marianas turkey shoot, etc.

    Meanwhile, the germans have become more and more evil.

    Look at a movie like Guns of Navarone or the great escape- there are ‘nice’ germans- do you see tht in modern wwii movies/?

    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    Meanwhile, the germans have become more and more evil. Look at a movie like Guns of Navarone or the great escape- there are ‘nice’ germans- do you see tht in modern wwii movies/?
     
    Again, if you look at Hollywood movies made during and after the war, the Japanese are treated as quite evil and quite accurately shooting american prisoners, playing dirty tricks and being "sneaky" etc. Meanwhile, the Germans were usually portrayed as either "good Germans" kinda people just like us but on the wrong side, or as Monocle wearing sneering Nazi's.

    This more or less reflected the GI experience where most GI's in Europe had a certain respect/sympathy for the Germans while the GI's in the pacific hated fighting the Japanese, because it was a no-quarter kill or be killed fight.

  176. @Svigor

    In the late 2000s, it was pretty obvious that David Brooks of the New York Times was reading my blog and then sometimes writing columns as if I defined the conventional wisdom and he was the brave heretic.
     
    Funny shit, on several levels.

    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.
     
    What happens after that? I mean after the spitting on your hands part. I forget.

    Demographic change is not “inevitable.” It’s not like a hurricane or winter storm that no one can stop. The rulers of this country can, in fact, control who enters it. They choose not to.
     
    Nobody advocates for the inevitable. It would be pointless. Nobody tries to stop people from stopping the inevitable. It would be a waste of time.

    The fact that Brooks and the Times choose to purposely cloud this issue with Newspeak should set off alarm bells. Anytime the elites claim something under their control is “inevitable” it means there is a reason they’re allowing it to happen but not telling us.
     
    It's their motives spilling out. What they mean is, "we will inevitably try to destroy you. Nothing you can do will dissuade us. We're playing for keeps."

    It’s frustratingly obvious that Brooks is neither conservative or pro-American, so he has a mantle in America’s limelight.
     
    FIFY.

    America was found, built and settled by people who killed off
     
    Horseshit. You could finish off the sentence any way you like, and it would still be a lie.

    Thanks for starting with a lie; I wish more of you scum would do that, lets me TL;DR-scroll past that much sooner.

    I’ll never understand Steve’s obsession with David Brooks.
     
    Probably follows on from the NYT/PBS obsession.

    Last month, Brooks was praising Ta-Naheisi Coates and claiming his black racist fantasies need to be read, understood and accepted. But Ann Coulter noticing is the height of racism.
     
    White goyim are a threat, black goyim, a tool.

    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It’s not blood. It’s culture.
     
    It's not real, it's phony. Real leftists would've cut Israel off long ago, at the very least.

    A friend sent this to me. It’s time to hoist the black flag, gentlemen.

    What happens after that? I mean after the spitting on your hands part. I forget.

    Form an exploratory committee to publish and publicize a report debunking the underlying assumptions of this movement?

    Going to a pub frequented by former IRA types might also yield dividends.

    The new trend is asymmetric and hybrid warfare, gentlemen, even in public policy discussions.

  177. “In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country.”**

    That wasn’t your initial point. You asked for information regarding “American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.” OUR SOCIETY, meaning the United States. I gave you the relevant statistics indicating that there have been several groups of Muslims who have been here in America since the early 1900’s.

    This statement** is completely different than the original claim you made. Care to dig yourself more into the hole you created, son?

    “and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced.”

    Which is entirely irrelevant regarding the extent of how a group of people assimilates into the dominant culture.

    “But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture…”

    OUR culture, meaning American, correct? I would say SOME Muslims, yes.

    “and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe…”

    Yes, the stories you care to read about this subject.

    “Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis…”
    
I look forward then to you providing the evidence that these actions occur regularly in America and/or Europe. I’ll even provide the definition for you, compliments of the FBI.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

    “but the task here is to explain American enmity towards Muslims.”

    Of course there is American enmity towards Muslims. Who is disputing that point? And the task here, my friend, is actually for you to start being intellectually forthright.

    “Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?”

    Nice way to end your comment with a strawman. The media deliberately targets any group and all groups—whites, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims.

  178. @Jonathan Silber
    ...I feel that the doorway to discussing these questions publicly has been decisively opened.

    And it was Trump—that "clown"— and no one else who had the guts to open it.

    And it was Trump—that “clown”— and no one else who had the guts to open it.

    Yes, unquestionably. I left it unsaid, but I’m glad you made it explicit. I would add the qualification that Trump is the break-out public expression of ideas and concerns that Sailer, Krikorian, and Coulter have been developing for some time. Trump’s success is not that he’s come up with something nobody’s ever thought before, but that he’s given robust voice to things a lot of serious people have concluded privately.

    My one concern about Trump as the standard bearer on the immigration issue is that his defeat or diminishment would be characterized as a public rejection of his stance on that issue. That’s the trouble with having only one political voice speaking on behalf of a rational, unsentimental immigration policy. I still hold out hope that other candidates will show the courage, independence, or simple self-interest to seize on the issue; but so far Trump has been the lone voice.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn't have a great track record for truthfulness.
  179. Out of this backward- and inward-looking mentality comes a desire to exclude.

    This is moral relativism. The few white nations on Earth of US and Europe must be deeply inclusive of others, the unique identities of the nations of Europe should be actively undermined, but the non whites can fiercely proudly keep their distinct separate identities, and are free to exclude.

    An non-white immigrants are encouraged to keep their distinct separate identities. When Muslims are pushing for Sharia Law in Irving, TX, are they trying to include Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists in that process? Of course not!

    If America can’t exclude anyone, that is logically equivalent to considering every human on earth as American?

    Ultimately: which groups are granted the moral authority to exclude and keep their identities and which are not?

  180. @Thomas O. Meehan
    Same with David Frum. He is quite dwarf-like.

    To his credit, Frum at least has reconsidered a great deal of his previous positions,and is now closer to our genial host’s views on immigration. Once had an email exchange with him in which he readily acknowledged Bush Jr’s tax cuts were mostly an empty gesture due to AMT not being indexed for inflation. Despite having coined “axis of evil” to sell the Iraq war, you have to give credit to anyone who takes a look at a new set of outcomes and reconsiders he may have been involved in a serious mistake. Brooks, by contrast, bumbles on oblivious to anything. But what can you expect from the guy who coined the term “Bobo” and went on at book length about a nonexistent class of SWPL ?

  181. @The Z Blog
    And you are a guy not understanding the material.

    It's not blood. It's culture.

    “It’s not blood. It’s culture.”

    And presumably Brooks is steeped in jewish culture, is he not?

    Anyway, you are the guy “not understanding the material”

    Culture and blood are not seperable.

  182. @Anonymous
    All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren't expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don't (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don't like their given secular name.

    “All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don’t like their given secular name.”

    “All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name.”

    And why is that? It strikes me as being somewhat two-faced.

    “Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t”

    The wikipedia entry I was referring to did not say that Brooks wife took a Hebrew name which she did not use. It said that she changed her name. And that is indeed a a slap in the face of her parents.

    You are saying these are just cultural customs. Yes, and cultural customs have underlying meanings.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It is traditional to be called to read the Torah with a Hebrew name. The Hebrew name would also be used on religious documents written in Hebrew. I've only ever used my Hebrew name when it was given to me (at my bris) and to be called to the Torah at my Bar Mitzvah. If I were to marry someone Jewish, it would show up on the ketubah and be used during the wedding service. If my family were to provide a traditional Jewish tombstone, both my secular and Hebrew names would likely appear. For pretty much everyone but the Orthodox, those few instances are the only times that the Hebrew name is used. When I was growing up, no one in my family or at the Reform synagogue to which my family belonged called me by my Hebrew name.
  183. Can’t emphasize that enough: Jewish leftists are phony, ethnic leftists, like black leftists, Arab leftists, and all the other ethnic opportunist leftists. As profound a difference as that between Socialism and National Socialism.

  184. @oh its just me
    we've also also slowly forgot that a lot of our anger was at the Japs (pearl harbor, the Batton death march, shooting US prisoners, etc)

    In fact these days we're guilt tripped about nuking the japs who were just trying to liberate Asia from European imperialists

    and of course the pacific was much more a navy war- as were many of our big victories- midway, the Marianas turkey shoot, etc.

    Meanwhile, the germans have become more and more evil.

    Look at a movie like Guns of Navarone or the great escape- there are 'nice' germans- do you see tht in modern wwii movies/?

    Meanwhile, the germans have become more and more evil. Look at a movie like Guns of Navarone or the great escape- there are ‘nice’ germans- do you see tht in modern wwii movies/?

    Again, if you look at Hollywood movies made during and after the war, the Japanese are treated as quite evil and quite accurately shooting american prisoners, playing dirty tricks and being “sneaky” etc. Meanwhile, the Germans were usually portrayed as either “good Germans” kinda people just like us but on the wrong side, or as Monocle wearing sneering Nazi’s.

    This more or less reflected the GI experience where most GI’s in Europe had a certain respect/sympathy for the Germans while the GI’s in the pacific hated fighting the Japanese, because it was a no-quarter kill or be killed fight.

  185. @snorlax
    George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA.

    “George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA.”

    Yeah, I forgot about McGovern. Funny that given how smart and elite the bomber pilots were not many became politicians. I suppose its because the death rate was so high, and you had more opportunities in the growing airline industry after the war.

    BTW, Perot was a naval academy graduate as was McCain. And Bush was NG Air force pilot. Dukais and Mondale were army draftees. Clinton was a draft dodger.

    Since Ike, I don’t think a single West point grad has run for president on a major party ticket.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Since Ike, I don’t think a single West point grad has run for president on a major party ticket."

    If you are merely talking about nominees of the two major parties, then you are correct. But retired General Wesley Clark (West Point) ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and retired Vice Adm. James Stockdale ( Naval Academy) was Perot's running mate in 1992.
  186. @SPMoore8
    Sort of O/T, but not that O/T, considering Brooks' son, an American citizen born in America, is currently doing his patriotic duty as a soldier in the IDF (some quotes):

    "Israel's soaring population: Promised Land running out of room?"


    Excluding the nearly empty Negev desert, which occupies more than half of Israel, population density jumps to 980 people per sq km, just a little below Bangladesh.
     

    The number of Jews in the Holy Land is now roughly equal to the number of Palestinians - each around 6.3 million.
     

    Palestinian population growth easily outpaces Israel's, with the average woman in the Palestinian territories having four children.
     

    To alleviate a water crisis Israel has invested billions of dollars in desalination plants, but they consume large amounts of energy and land.
     

    To cope with a housing shortage, the government wants to create fast-track approval for building permits that critics say will put aside environmental concerns without considering infrastructure and public space needs.
     

    The authorities have given the go-ahead for 20,000 Chinese workers to be brought to Israel to speed up construction. While that may help house Israelis, it may not help employ them.
     
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/israels-soaring-population-promised-land-running-room-115832401--business.html

    In 1970 I was taken by the “Club of Rome”. (zero population growth and predecessors to Environmentalism).

    Their prediction of imminent collapse did not materialize.

    Looking at the authorities cited in the Haaretz article: they are professors of Environmental Science Israeli version of “Sierra Club” types, etc.

    They could be right. But I am skeptical.

    sf

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    “Club of Rome”. (zero population growth

     

    "Zero population growth", what were they thinking? It's a demographic catastrophe. Who will pay for social security? Housing costs will plummet. Wages will go up. Nature will reclaim edges of cities. It's horrible!
  187. Form an exploratory committee

    On…lamppost site choice? Knot tying?

    Much of the left did, starting in the late ’60s.

    Right; the real left. Not the phony, Jewish left.

    The real left act like they know the Jewish left is as phony as the rest of the phony ethnic left. They know better than to try to force diaspora Jews to act like real leftists, or choose between leftism and the Levantine Reich.

    To his credit, Frum at least has reconsidered a great deal of his previous positions,and is now closer to our genial host’s views on immigration.

    Indeed, to his credit. Frum’s the most unexpected addition to my list of Righteous Jews.

    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    ndeed, to his credit. Frum’s the most unexpected addition to my list of Righteous Jews.
     
    LoL - there's a sucker born every minute. Frum has constantly flipped and flopped on Illegal immigration for almost 20 years. His shtick is to pretend to be a "reasonable" immigration restrictionist when enough people want to close the border. Y'know someone "reasonable" enough to be against open borders but not "unreasonable" enough to back any measure that would actually close the border. Then, when the restrictionist fever dies down, Frum goes back to not caring about illegal immigration.

    Now that Trump has popped up, so has Frum.

  188. “In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country, and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced. Dad, I am disappoint.”

    You changed the goalposts. You had stated “Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.” I gave you the relevant information, and now you make a claim distinct from your original one.

    “But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture”

    According to who?

    “and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe”

    
Only the stories that you care to read, yes.

    “That, and Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis”

    Where, in America? Again, you made the claim, now offer evidence.

    “And you have done nothing to dispel the reasons for that enmity.”

    Some Americans have enmity towards Muslims.

    “Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?”



    Way to end your post with a strawman. The media deliberately targets everyone.

    “Can’t emphasize that enough: Jewish leftists are phony, ethnic leftists, like black leftists, Arab leftists, and all the other ethnic opportunist leftists.”



    Corrected for accuracy—People are phony, including whites, blacks, Arabs, and other ethnic groups.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Corrected for accuracy—People are phony, including whites, blacks, Arabs, and other ethnic groups."

    Corrected for accuracy, muslims are more phony than most. So are you.

    Islam is incompatible with western ways. Muslims don't belong here, in anything other than token numbers. If you are a muslim who thinks they do, then you don't belong here either. The west is our land, not yours. You have your own countries. Go back to them.
  189. @Svigor

    Form an exploratory committee
     
    On...lamppost site choice? Knot tying?

    Much of the left did, starting in the late ’60s.
     
    Right; the real left. Not the phony, Jewish left.

    The real left act like they know the Jewish left is as phony as the rest of the phony ethnic left. They know better than to try to force diaspora Jews to act like real leftists, or choose between leftism and the Levantine Reich.


    To his credit, Frum at least has reconsidered a great deal of his previous positions,and is now closer to our genial host’s views on immigration.
     
    Indeed, to his credit. Frum's the most unexpected addition to my list of Righteous Jews.

    ndeed, to his credit. Frum’s the most unexpected addition to my list of Righteous Jews.

    LoL – there’s a sucker born every minute. Frum has constantly flipped and flopped on Illegal immigration for almost 20 years. His shtick is to pretend to be a “reasonable” immigration restrictionist when enough people want to close the border. Y’know someone “reasonable” enough to be against open borders but not “unreasonable” enough to back any measure that would actually close the border. Then, when the restrictionist fever dies down, Frum goes back to not caring about illegal immigration.

    Now that Trump has popped up, so has Frum.

  190. @Corvinus
    “In light of what? You provided no evidence for the broad assimilation of any large number of Muslims in any European country, and your discussion of the US omits the fact that there are very few Muslims in the US, according to the very vaguely worded wiki you referenced. Dad, I am disappoint.”

    You changed the goalposts. You had stated “Point me to some American Muslim communities (not counting Black Muslims) who are “immersed in our society several generations in.” I gave you the relevant information, and now you make a claim distinct from your original one.


    “But Muslims have a bad reputation for conduct that does not fit into our culture”

    According to who?

    “and all media coverage I have ever read about Muslims in Europe”

    
Only the stories that you care to read, yes.

    “That, and Muslim inspired terrorism, which really does seem to take place on a daily basis”

    Where, in America? Again, you made the claim, now offer evidence.

    “And you have done nothing to dispel the reasons for that enmity.”

    Some Americans have enmity towards Muslims.

    “Or perhaps you would prefer to follow through on your insinuation that the media is deliberately targeting Muslims?”



    Way to end your post with a strawman. The media deliberately targets everyone.

    “Can’t emphasize that enough: Jewish leftists are phony, ethnic leftists, like black leftists, Arab leftists, and all the other ethnic opportunist leftists.”



    Corrected for accuracy—People are phony, including whites, blacks, Arabs, and other ethnic groups.

    “Corrected for accuracy—People are phony, including whites, blacks, Arabs, and other ethnic groups.”

    Corrected for accuracy, muslims are more phony than most. So are you.

    Islam is incompatible with western ways. Muslims don’t belong here, in anything other than token numbers. If you are a muslim who thinks they do, then you don’t belong here either. The west is our land, not yours. You have your own countries. Go back to them.

    • Agree: Kylie
  191. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name. Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t (e.g. people who married into my family). However, a person might choose to do it for a number of reasons, including that they don’t like their given secular name."

    "All diaspora Jews have a Hebrew name and a secular name."

    And why is that? It strikes me as being somewhat two-faced.

    "Converts receive a Hebrew name at conversion. They aren’t expected to use it in non-religious settings, and most don’t"

    The wikipedia entry I was referring to did not say that Brooks wife took a Hebrew name which she did not use. It said that she changed her name. And that is indeed a a slap in the face of her parents.

    You are saying these are just cultural customs. Yes, and cultural customs have underlying meanings.

    It is traditional to be called to read the Torah with a Hebrew name. The Hebrew name would also be used on religious documents written in Hebrew. I’ve only ever used my Hebrew name when it was given to me (at my bris) and to be called to the Torah at my Bar Mitzvah. If I were to marry someone Jewish, it would show up on the ketubah and be used during the wedding service. If my family were to provide a traditional Jewish tombstone, both my secular and Hebrew names would likely appear. For pretty much everyone but the Orthodox, those few instances are the only times that the Hebrew name is used. When I was growing up, no one in my family or at the Reform synagogue to which my family belonged called me by my Hebrew name.

  192. @ChrisZ

    And it was Trump—that “clown”— and no one else who had the guts to open it.

     

    Yes, unquestionably. I left it unsaid, but I'm glad you made it explicit. I would add the qualification that Trump is the break-out public expression of ideas and concerns that Sailer, Krikorian, and Coulter have been developing for some time. Trump's success is not that he's come up with something nobody's ever thought before, but that he's given robust voice to things a lot of serious people have concluded privately.

    My one concern about Trump as the standard bearer on the immigration issue is that his defeat or diminishment would be characterized as a public rejection of his stance on that issue. That's the trouble with having only one political voice speaking on behalf of a rational, unsentimental immigration policy. I still hold out hope that other candidates will show the courage, independence, or simple self-interest to seize on the issue; but so far Trump has been the lone voice.

    Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn’t have a great track record for truthfulness.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn’t have a great track record for truthfulness."

    On the other hand, we can vote for one of the other fellows (now down to 14 after Perry's and Walker's withdrawals) who are espousing the opposite position and hope they are lying. Sounds like a real winning bet to me. Do you recommend any of the other clowns, by any chance? Of course, you have the model of Barack Hussein Obama!!!, who stated in a published interview back in September 2004, that he would launch a missile attack against Iran if economic sanctions failed to persuade the "radical, irrational mullahs" to abandon their nuclear enrichment program. Sort of like Bernie Madoff, he succeeded in suckering a number of prominent Jews, like real estate magnate Mort Zuckerman and others of his ilk. (BTW he also stated he was opposed to gay marriage on "religious grounds," since he firmly believed that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman.)
  193. @Old Jew
    In 1970 I was taken by the "Club of Rome". (zero population growth and predecessors to Environmentalism).

    Their prediction of imminent collapse did not materialize.

    Looking at the authorities cited in the Haaretz article: they are professors of Environmental Science Israeli version of "Sierra Club" types, etc.

    They could be right. But I am skeptical.

    sf

    “Club of Rome”. (zero population growth

    “Zero population growth”, what were they thinking? It’s a demographic catastrophe. Who will pay for social security? Housing costs will plummet. Wages will go up. Nature will reclaim edges of cities. It’s horrible!

    • Replies: @Old Jew
    You are right!.

    But

    1970: I was young, there was a bright future for mankind (me included).

    and I was enthralled with computing.

    Dennis Meadows' "Limits to Growth" with its very long range simulations, exemplified its power.

    The hobby horse of those early environmentalists was "pollution". They had not discovered yet "global warming".

    Donella Meadows (his spouse) has a relatively recent book "Thirty Years Later" updating those doomsday predictions that failed to come true.

    So when Israeli environmentalists cry wolf [The danger of Israel overpopulation] I remain skeptical.

    sf
  194. @countenance
    If I didn't know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like "American exceptionalism," "American dream" and "conservatism" are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned.

    “If I didn’t know any better, just from reading this Brooks column, I would walk away from it thinking that concepts like “American exceptionalism,” “American dream” and “conservatism” are meaningless trope at best and anti-white universalist weapons at worst, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that these concepts should be jettisoned.”

    But, if we did away with “conservatism,” we would be left with the prospect of having to refer to Brooks as simply “neo.” That would be unacceptable to the NY Times. That would amount to cruel and unusual punishment imo.

  195. @Honesthughgrant
    "George McGovern and John Anderson fought in Europe, LBJ earned the least deserved Silver Star in US history in the Pacific, Hubert Humphrey never left the USA."

    Yeah, I forgot about McGovern. Funny that given how smart and elite the bomber pilots were not many became politicians. I suppose its because the death rate was so high, and you had more opportunities in the growing airline industry after the war.

    BTW, Perot was a naval academy graduate as was McCain. And Bush was NG Air force pilot. Dukais and Mondale were army draftees. Clinton was a draft dodger.

    Since Ike, I don't think a single West point grad has run for president on a major party ticket.

    “Since Ike, I don’t think a single West point grad has run for president on a major party ticket.”

    If you are merely talking about nominees of the two major parties, then you are correct. But retired General Wesley Clark (West Point) ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and retired Vice Adm. James Stockdale ( Naval Academy) was Perot’s running mate in 1992.

  196. @Anonymous
    Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn't have a great track record for truthfulness.

    “Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn’t have a great track record for truthfulness.”

    On the other hand, we can vote for one of the other fellows (now down to 14 after Perry’s and Walker’s withdrawals) who are espousing the opposite position and hope they are lying. Sounds like a real winning bet to me. Do you recommend any of the other clowns, by any chance? Of course, you have the model of Barack Hussein Obama!!!, who stated in a published interview back in September 2004, that he would launch a missile attack against Iran if economic sanctions failed to persuade the “radical, irrational mullahs” to abandon their nuclear enrichment program. Sort of like Bernie Madoff, he succeeded in suckering a number of prominent Jews, like real estate magnate Mort Zuckerman and others of his ilk. (BTW he also stated he was opposed to gay marriage on “religious grounds,” since he firmly believed that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I agree that all of the other choices are terrible, but I'm just reminding people that Trump has lied about so much in the past that he can't be trusted either. Maybe he's turned over a new leaf, but I'm deeply skeptical.
  197. Mr. Anon

    “Corrected for accuracy, muslims are more phony than most. So are you.”

    As a human being, I am the genuine article. Furthermore, in what way are Muslims “phony”? Leave it to you and some of your ilk to make these statements without the appropriate context.

    “Islam is incompatible with western ways.”

    Radical Islam, yes.

    “Muslims don’t belong here, in anything other than token numbers.”

    If Muslims are citizens of America, they do belong here. Were you asleep in civics class?

    “If you are a muslim who thinks they do, then you don’t belong here either.”

    No, I’m not Muslim. I’m Christian.

    “The west is our land, not yours.”

    Who is this “our” you refer to? Whites? Ok, define “whites”. Who is “white” from your perspective?

    “You have your own countries. Go back to them.”

    Using your logic, you should go back to the country of your ancestors.

  198. “Furthermore, in what way are Muslims “phony”?”

    That whole “religion of peace” bullshit. That’s pretty phony. Wouldn’t you say, blackbird?

    ““Islam is incompatible with western ways.””

    “Radical Islam, yes.”

    No, ordinary Islam. Soon after the subway and bus attacks in London in 2007, a public opinion poll of muslims in Britain revelated that 25% of the respondents said that those attacks were justfied. 25% of them said that it was fitting and proper for thier muslim brothers to murder Britons, among whom those muslims live and circulate, in their own cities. If 25% were willing to admit that to a perfect stranger over the phone, how many more actually thought it? A recent poll conducted in this country concluded that a majority of muslims would prefer sharia to the US Constitution.

    “If Muslims are citizens of America, they do belong here.”

    They should never have been allowed to become citizens. As far as I am concerned they are not.

    “Who is this “our” you refer to? Whites? Ok, define “whites”. Who is “white” from your perspective?”

    White people are white. You are evidently an idiot.

    “Using your logic, you should go back to the country of your ancestors.”

    And you undoubtedly think that country deserves to be inundated by muslims as well.

  199. @tbraton
    "Another concern you might have about Trump as the standard bearer for immigration restriction is that he might be lying to garner votes and choose to back down on this issue once elected. New Yorkers know that he doesn’t have a great track record for truthfulness."

    On the other hand, we can vote for one of the other fellows (now down to 14 after Perry's and Walker's withdrawals) who are espousing the opposite position and hope they are lying. Sounds like a real winning bet to me. Do you recommend any of the other clowns, by any chance? Of course, you have the model of Barack Hussein Obama!!!, who stated in a published interview back in September 2004, that he would launch a missile attack against Iran if economic sanctions failed to persuade the "radical, irrational mullahs" to abandon their nuclear enrichment program. Sort of like Bernie Madoff, he succeeded in suckering a number of prominent Jews, like real estate magnate Mort Zuckerman and others of his ilk. (BTW he also stated he was opposed to gay marriage on "religious grounds," since he firmly believed that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman.)

    I agree that all of the other choices are terrible, but I’m just reminding people that Trump has lied about so much in the past that he can’t be trusted either. Maybe he’s turned over a new leaf, but I’m deeply skeptical.

  200. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    when this country was founded we didn’t have a welfare system like now. you had to be known. you put in more than you took out. most citizens were christian’ they learned the language and didn’t make demand of a government that they just got there. they didn’t insist that things should be granted to them if they weren’t entitled nor insist everyone change their ways so muslims wont cry about or kill someone. they were grateful. wanted to be American not take from americans. they didn’t try to shame us and call all of us names outloud. we all wante to be 1 country. now we are allowing groups hell bent on dividing us and carve a piece of land for them. nor the ones who come like locust bitching about us stealing mexico and want it back. repeal dual citizenship and anchor babies

  201. @Hippopotamusdrome


    “Club of Rome”. (zero population growth

     

    "Zero population growth", what were they thinking? It's a demographic catastrophe. Who will pay for social security? Housing costs will plummet. Wages will go up. Nature will reclaim edges of cities. It's horrible!

    You are right!.

    But

    1970: I was young, there was a bright future for mankind (me included).

    and I was enthralled with computing.

    Dennis Meadows’ “Limits to Growth” with its very long range simulations, exemplified its power.

    The hobby horse of those early environmentalists was “pollution”. They had not discovered yet “global warming”.

    Donella Meadows (his spouse) has a relatively recent book “Thirty Years Later” updating those doomsday predictions that failed to come true.

    So when Israeli environmentalists cry wolf [The danger of Israel overpopulation] I remain skeptical.

    sf

Comments are closed.

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