The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Douthat: "Cracks in the Liberal Order"
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

Ross Douthat writes in the NYT:

Cracks in the Liberal Order
Ross Douthat DEC. 26, 2015

… Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience. 2015 was a memento mori moment for our institutions — a year of cracks in the system, of crumbling firewalls, of reminders that all orders pass away. …

Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers. But it also pushed a fast-forward button on long-term trends threatening the liberal project in Europe — the challenge of Islam, the pressure of migration from Africa, the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

In the process, Merkel handed ammunition to the argument, expressed in artistic form in Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Submission,” that late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide.

The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority.

It’s hardly surprising that that strategy is finally generating strong opposition.

 
Hide 215 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Ross still says Trump won’t be the GOP nominee.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Dave Pinsen

    Yes, but he also hasn't yet committed to saying who he believes will be the nominee. In short, Ross is in the dark on that one just like the rest of the elite media.

    Also well to bear in mind that he thought Romney would win in a squeaker in the '12 Election.

    , @Tipo 61
    @Dave Pinsen

    At this rate, Trump probably will be the nominee.

    , @Jefferson
    @Dave Pinsen

    "Ross still says Trump won’t be the GOP nominee."

    So who does Ross see winning the GOP nomination? Single digit Jeb Bush? Jeb is going to need some magic from David Copperfield to pull that off.

    In late December of 2011, Mitt Romney was doing way better in the polls than Jeb Bush is in late December of 2015. Mitt Romney was not polling in at 5th or 6th place like Jeb Bush is now.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    , @Curle
    @Dave Pinsen

    Maybe it was a device that would permit his establishment readers to feel comfortable forwarding his article to others. Kind of opening a book about evolved differences among different races with a long paean to multiculturalism. It helps hide the thought crime.

  2. Interesting: he thinks that “liberalism” is “order” (why not “disorder”?), and also that “liberalism” is the one and only order (he can’t see a possible conservative alternative “order”). Seems stupid to me.

  3. “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too”

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can’t eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can’t have it after you have eaten it. That’s why the correct expression is “wanting to eat your cake and have it too.” The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that’s what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
    • Replies: @Matthew Kelly
    @tbraton

    Holy pedantry. Not my area of expertise, by any means, but "to have your cake and eat it too" is an idiom if nothing else, and therefore excused from standard grammatical conventions, no? All in good fun; by no means do I wish to detract further from topic.

    Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    , @V Vega
    @tbraton

    I'll bet you're a real joy to have around at the family xmas gatherings.

    Replies: @tbraton

    , @Anonymous
    @tbraton


    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can’t eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can’t have it after you have eaten it. That’s why the correct expression is “wanting to eat your cake and have it too.” The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not.
     
    Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don't think it's that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber.

    Replies: @tbraton, @SEATAF

    , @grey enlightenment2
    @tbraton

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too”

    maybe steve should have written:

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to keep its cake and eat it too”

    Part of the confusion is with the word 'have' which can mean both possession and consumption

    'I have a cake' a piece of uneaten cake

    'I want to have cake' I want to eat the cake

    Replies: @tbraton

    , @CK
    @tbraton

    The original was, you can't eat your cake and still have it. As always progressive bastardization slipped in like a rapist in the night and changed the order. You cannot still have your cake after you have eaten it; unless you can find some other cake owner and tax him out of his.
    You can however have squirrel pot pie.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonym

    , @carol
    @tbraton

    Huh. I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical. Why on earth would Steve want to write something as hackneyed as "have their cake and eat it too" with no irony?

    Replies: @vinteuil, @TheJester

    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @tbraton

    Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?

    Replies: @tbraton

    , @V. Uil
    @tbraton

    As you say - nitpick. What you left out was 'and irrelevant' to the thrust of Douthat's argument.

    , @Anon
    @tbraton

    You really are a dammy.

    "You can't have your cake and eat it too" makes perfect sense.

    After all, a cake isn't just food but like a work of art, a culinary sculpture. Something to show off, a feast for the eyes before a feast for the mouth.

    So, when you present it, you don't want to take a knife to it.

    You spent so much time and effort to make it so gorgeous and fancy. You wanna show it off like a trophy. That is 'having the cake'.

    To eat it, you must cut it up and destroy it.

    So, you can't have the cake as both trophy and food. To 'have' it, you must not eat it. To 'eat' it,you can't have it.

    It's like you can't have both a virgin and a whore.

    Consider the song McCarthur's Park. Why is the guy so upset? Cuz his gorgeous cake has been destroyed by the rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6a_KFJ5Ksc

    Replies: @tbraton

    , @Randal
    @tbraton

    Fwiw, I don't share your position on this. I like the original usage, and it doesn't grate on me at all, as it clearly does on you (and I defer to few men in my capacity to be a grumpy old git about minor grammatical irritants in general).

    Old idioms often rely on old fashioned or idiosyncratic usages, as this one does on the usage of "have" in a continuing possession sense. That's part of their charm. This is not a case of an obvious transmission error, such as replacing "homing in" with "honing in", nor of a simply lazy error in comprehension such as "I could care less".

    So my recommendation is to change your response to this particular one. As in all such matters, though, de gustibus non est disputandum, in the end.

    Replies: @tbraton

  4. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    These modern global Liberals are the equivalent of segregationists standing in the doorways. Their time has passed. Their ideas are really out-of-wack with the times; they seem to be stuck mentally in the 60s or some earlier lost time that never existed and in which maybe their ideas made sense.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @anonymous

    These modern global Liberals are the equivalent of segregationists standing in the doorways. Their time has passed. Their ideas are really out-of-wack with the times;

    Not if they're black college students standing in the doorway of the African American Cultural Center and telling white students they're not welcome at the Black Lives Matter meeting.

  5. Dear Ross, I Dou(b)t-that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Hubbub

    More like Ross Doughfat.

  6. Let’s say Trump wins. Does that reverse the “dispriveleged Legacy Minority” trend or merely kick the can down the road?

    Can this still be done by winning a federal election?

    • Replies: @Bill
    @BenKenobi

    Exactly. The IRA were "strong opposition." Voting for Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump isn't.

  7. Douthat uses the world liberal in a different sense that you do. To him, this is the description of the brave new world order that emerged post Berlin Wall. His point is that this order is being challenged from the outside (by the likes of ISIS and Putin) as well as from the inside. I am a little stumped though why he thinks that the cracks in that order only started to appear in 2015. More likely, the cracks have now become extensive enough to finally reach his glass bubble.

    • Agree: Matthew Kelly
    • Replies: @Name Withheld
    @inertial

    @inertial

    Agreed.
    We have gone way beyond cracks in the system.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    …hardly surprising that that strategy is finally generating strong opposition.

    ‘Murica freaked out after San Bernadino and the actual death toll was relatively very low compared to say 9/11.

    I think very few people understand what a new large casualty attack will do to our society. The Perception of Affordability is vanishing from large swaths of the country.

    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    • Replies: @Matthew Kelly
    @Anonymous


    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    Anonymous

     

    I don't think he's the only one clued into it; I think he's the only one with the cajones to use it as a power source to tap into, rather than something to suppress with all levers of power. That's why the elite hate him--not because he is "fomenting" this "populist", "nativist", "xenophobic", "racist" white rage, but because he is not playing along with the The Powers That Be in quashing it.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    You're very correct there. Not many know but "active shooter" type psycho mass shooter incidents were actually much more prevalent in the 80s and 90s than they are now. They actually went down in the 2000s from the 90s and even now are about flat. The media just plays with them and talks about them with the 24/7 coverage to make you think "its a thing" when its not.

    The bigger issue is 1 I discussed with a coworker @ a restaurant I work at....

    McDonald's we were discussing -- raised their burger prices depending on the restaurant 25-50% jut in the last few years. Even in 2013 I could still buy a double-cheese burger there for a dollar. Now? 1.50....and I live in the deep south where they have a lot of cattle farmers and where everything is cheaper.

    We were also discussing how as recently as 2012 and 2013 Subway still highly publicized its "5 dollar footlong" meal deals? Now? You can't even get anything there for below 7 dollars, and that's the cheapo sandwich with no drink & no chips on the side....

    The problem is food and utility and rent price inflation. And the problem that you caan't even afford a car that runs unless you make @ least 30k dollars /year....

  9. mass assimilation? What the hell is that??? Who is this guy Ghengis Khan?

    • Replies: @Trelane
    @Trelane

    Genghis

    “The Greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who live him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

    AKA "mass assimilation"

    , @ben tillman
    @Trelane


    mass assimilation? What the hell is that??? Who is this guy Ghengis Khan?
     
    And what the hell is with the spelling? "Gh"? It's not a hard "g" sound; it's a "ch" or "j".
  10. In the new Liberal/Fascist America only the top 10% can afford the social and economic costs of the policies of the regime.

    Making the USA majority non-white is going to inflict massive pain on the bottom 90%.

    They want another India covering North America.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous

    "In the new Liberal/Fascist America only the top 10% can afford the social and economic costs of the policies of the regime."

    Stop misusing 'fascist'.

    I'm the only true fascist.

  11. Did you see the story of Corsicans vandalizing a muslim prayer room ? There are other stories of traditional minorities in conflict with immigrant minorities, blacks in LA vs latinos, Inuit (Eskimos) in Denmark vs Muslims. The stories may be under reported and they back your argument.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @AKAHorace

    "Did you see the story of Corsicans vandalizing a muslim prayer room ? There are other stories of traditional minorities in conflict with immigrant minorities, blacks in LA vs latinos, Inuit (Eskimos) in Denmark vs Muslims. The stories may be under reported and they back your argument."

    Here is another example of cracks popping up in The KKK Crazy Glue Of The Democratic Party Fringes, the Left Wing Black Lives Matter Astro Turf group want the Left Wing Rahm Emanuel to step down as mayor of Chicago. I love it when the Left stab each other in the back and eat their own.

    I hope more NAM groups demand that White Democrats step down from their position of power and hand over their jobs to People Of Color. Chicago needs a Black Democrat for mayor.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  12. @Trelane
    mass assimilation? What the hell is that??? Who is this guy Ghengis Khan?

    Replies: @Trelane, @ben tillman

    Genghis

    “The Greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who live him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

    AKA “mass assimilation”

  13. The opposition to the EU establishment, as the full article points out, is not just coming from the anti-immigration right but from the pro-immigration left.

    Anybody who thinks that the Corbynites & friends wouldn’t open the gates even wider (turning the “Legacy Majority’ into a minority) is dreaming.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-says-should-celebrate-6331301

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-would-support-failed-asylum-seekers-with-cash-1-3860376

    http://www.thelocal.es/20150917/foreigners-turn-catalan-nationalists-in-spain

    http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/11/24/inenglish/1448363831_978855.html

    When you add the supporters of the pro-immigration EU establishment to the pro-immigration anti-establishment you likely get a European majority (excepting a few countries where the migrants don’t want to go anyways)

  14. iSteveFan says:

    …backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe’s problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we’ve had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe’s immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who’ve been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @iSteveFan

    "But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today. "

    You've touched on half of the explanation (probably the more important half), but the other half of the explanation is that from 1924 to 1965 we basically capped the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. So it is not just that we changed the kind of immigrant we allowed into our country but greatly increased the numbers. If the numbers had not been drastically reduced during that 40-year period, I don't think we would witnessed the assimilation we did.

    , @Anon
    @iSteveFan

    "But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures."

    They also ignore that Americanism demands amnesia and pop culture as identity.
    Americanism has become very shallow.

    The more 'inclusive' and 'diverse' a nation, more shallow must its identity be for everyone to get along. After all, deeper one digs into history, more unique and specific it is.

    Is new age Oprah-ism sufficient for national identity?

    , @International Jew
    @iSteveFan


    they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans
     
    And how's our assimilation of Africans -- here for 10+ generations -- working out?

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Curle
    @iSteveFan


    Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks
     
    We haven't. We made them dependents.
    , @scoops
    @iSteveFan

    you also have to remember white euros are lazier than hell! they will never do the work! they wont even defend their homelands anymore!

    , @Former Darfur
    @iSteveFan

    Much of the drive behind multiculturalism was the realization, I think, that the left (Jewish and otherwise) finally had at some specific point that biculturalism -that is blacks and whites- was never going to be a reality: that left to their own devices, blacks and whites would, either by state or voluntary action, separate themselves from one another and stay separate, blacks having their own media, entertainment, churches, doctors, barbers, funeral parlors, the whole gamut of things one could imagine.

    I was witness to a recent discussion between some fortysomething white trendy college educated people about how "rap has gotten so shitty lately". I am old enough now to know when to just stay silent and listen even though the ostensible premise of discussion is obvious horseshit, so as to hear the implicit assumptions. The discussion exactly echoed discussions I had had, in my blues guitar loving racially anticonscious days, about the black popular music that is now, itself, exactly the stuff these guys think is the benchmark of quality. We couldn't understand why the young blacks had no use for or had never heard of the old blacks we thought were-as they say now-"the shit". (I guess even that is passe' now. Well, as they said fifteen years ago.) It is now understood that whites tend to approve of the black music of decades past while detesting that which is current, for two reasons. One is that blacks continually seek to differentiate their culture from white culture and so make it "more black", and the other is this implicit feeling on our (the whites') part that blacks at present must be specially decadent because they weren't always this f***ed up.

    Well, the answer is, most of them always were and always will be, short of a eugenic event of massive proportions. Multiculturalism-creating a continuum rather than a line of color-requires a number of different people to inhabit a space. So, they made it so.

    The results are repellent to regular people, but someone must have seen the results in Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica and other places and said, gee, that's for us!

    Who that someone is is obvious to all, and therefore the natural feelings this induces in everyone else have to be suppressed. But such suppression only works for so long. The Catholic Church suppressed the heresies that Protestantism represented for a while, but the invention of Gutenberg made it untenable in the end.

    The liberal order is scared and vulnerable. Its opponents, though, are divided and often dysfunctional. We live in interesting times indeed.

    Replies: @tbraton

  15. @anonymous
    These modern global Liberals are the equivalent of segregationists standing in the doorways. Their time has passed. Their ideas are really out-of-wack with the times; they seem to be stuck mentally in the 60s or some earlier lost time that never existed and in which maybe their ideas made sense.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    These modern global Liberals are the equivalent of segregationists standing in the doorways. Their time has passed. Their ideas are really out-of-wack with the times;

    Not if they’re black college students standing in the doorway of the African American Cultural Center and telling white students they’re not welcome at the Black Lives Matter meeting.

  16. @Anonymous
    ...hardly surprising that that strategy is finally generating strong opposition.

    'Murica freaked out after San Bernadino and the actual death toll was relatively very low compared to say 9/11.

    I think very few people understand what a new large casualty attack will do to our society. The Perception of Affordability is vanishing from large swaths of the country.

    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @Anonymous

    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    Anonymous

    I don’t think he’s the only one clued into it; I think he’s the only one with the cajones to use it as a power source to tap into, rather than something to suppress with all levers of power. That’s why the elite hate him–not because he is “fomenting” this “populist”, “nativist”, “xenophobic”, “racist” white rage, but because he is not playing along with the The Powers That Be in quashing it.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Matthew Kelly


    the only one with the cajones
     
    I'm only going to say this once.
    cajon = box, drawer
    cojon = testicle
  17. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    Holy pedantry. Not my area of expertise, by any means, but “to have your cake and eat it too” is an idiom if nothing else, and therefore excused from standard grammatical conventions, no? All in good fun; by no means do I wish to detract further from topic.

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

    There's a way to find out which version is more widespread:
    http://www.googlefight.com/have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too-vs-eat+your+cake+and+have+it+too.php
    This says that the relative frequencies of the two expressions is 206 for "have-and-eat" and 100 for "eat-and-have". As these comparisons go, a 1/3 minority is pretty big. And the version that makes the most sense is "Eat your cake and have it too", meaning to (impossibly) have a cake stashed in your pantry even after you've eaten it.
    -- Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us

    Replies: @tbraton, @AndrewR, @Anonym

  18. @Dave Pinsen
    Ross still says Trump won't be the GOP nominee.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Tipo 61, @Jefferson, @Curle

    Yes, but he also hasn’t yet committed to saying who he believes will be the nominee. In short, Ross is in the dark on that one just like the rest of the elite media.

    Also well to bear in mind that he thought Romney would win in a squeaker in the ’12 Election.

  19. Liberalism is so dull.
    There should be all new thoughts every five years or so. Liberalism is like an old rubber band that has been sitting on the back shelf of the car window baking for decades, its every very conventional piety now lacking its spring and transformed into some unsuitable problematic residue.
    So much of what gets sold as “the right side of history” is just the tide-going-in-and-out, (installing the next big thing until it is fully that unbearable old nuisance), lather, rinse, repeat.
    Liberalism is just about due to get washed right out of our hair.

  20. @inertial
    Douthat uses the world liberal in a different sense that you do. To him, this is the description of the brave new world order that emerged post Berlin Wall. His point is that this order is being challenged from the outside (by the likes of ISIS and Putin) as well as from the inside. I am a little stumped though why he thinks that the cracks in that order only started to appear in 2015. More likely, the cracks have now become extensive enough to finally reach his glass bubble.

    Replies: @Name Withheld

    Agreed.
    We have gone way beyond cracks in the system.

  21. Cracks in the Liberal Order

    I don’t see the cracks. Seems like things are moving alone just fine, from the “liberal” point of view.

    A few bumps on the road. But like the Arabs say – “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.”

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @oh its just me
    @Rifleman

    I agree- if you're on the left/globalist- if there is more crime, more chaos, less affordability/ more dependency then all the better- all of that plays into their hands.

    There is no chance of democracy working anymore - the globalist elite are too entrenched, there's too much corruption- even if someone like Le Pen or Trump were elected, the elite would sabatage them at every turn - if Trump would enforce the border, the elite will find a judge to nullify it.
    then Trump would have to do what liberals have been doing all along - ignore the 'law' in this case a fatwah from a judge- then things would descend into chaos- and i think the globalists are ready and want this - so they can crack down on the nation states.

  22. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    I’ll bet you’re a real joy to have around at the family xmas gatherings.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @V Vega

    "I’ll bet you’re a real joy to have around at the family xmas gatherings."

    So says "Haysus" in his first and only post on unz.com---and probably his last. If I had so little to say and were so limited in my wit, I guess I would only post once too. BTW his reference to "xmas" indicates that he is clearly not Christian or an out of work Christmas tree salesman. If I had to guess, I would say it's Wizard of Ooze pulling another of his endless pseudonyms out of his large bag to take a potshot at me since he clearly lacks the balls to do so in his own name. Fuck off, "Haysus."

  23. @Trelane
    mass assimilation? What the hell is that??? Who is this guy Ghengis Khan?

    Replies: @Trelane, @ben tillman

    mass assimilation? What the hell is that??? Who is this guy Ghengis Khan?

    And what the hell is with the spelling? “Gh”? It’s not a hard “g” sound; it’s a “ch” or “j”.

  24. Europe’s extremes gained, in part

    No they didn’t. Losing an election by fewer percentage points than last time isn’t a gain. The powers that be gained by importing more “refugees” – that was a real-world gain for them.

    Even winning a presidential election in a major country wouldn’t be a win for the right in itself. Only reversing the demographic tide would be a win. As long as the tide is flowing in its current direction, globalism, the left, the powers that be are winning.

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    @Glossy

    We are in an age of pure capitalism. No one in the Western ruling elites opposes the free flow of capital and people across borders. The last time we went through such a period was the run up to the Great War(s).

    Replies: @Bill

    , @anon
    @Glossy


    As long as the tide is flowing in its current direction, globalism, the left, the powers that be are winning.
     
    They are killing the golden goose. TPTB can't win - it's just a question of whether they lose 1st or 2nd.
  25. No, Steve.

    ‘The fundament problem with liberalism is that it is a brainless pile of shit’.

  26. The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    “Racism” and all that other quaint, nice to have, affluenza type moral posturing is a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae for more prosperous, fat and happy times. Today, the issue is slavery for White men or freedom by any and all means necessary.

    Since the slavery will not be the relatively benign Big Brother type but the extremely ugly, burned alive in cages or beheaded on the beach ISIS type of slavery, there is little doubt that even the mildest of men will fight, the only question being on what terms, with what resources, and how desperate the measures will be.

    Winston Smith merely had to go along with monstrous lies. ISIS brooks not even that, merely being a non-Muslim five minutes ago qualifies anyone and everyone for beheading, burning alive in cages, and worse. There is always worse. ISIS thrives on its brutality, it attracts young Muslim men precisely because it offers an orgy of sadistic violence on other men. And ISIS is the true, authentic face of Islam with PC pieties and platitudes peeled away by what Muslims actually do in real not imaginary PC life.

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    But yes, by all means let us make most White men into brutalized slaves for a Third World rabble and then look at horror as they do anything to avoid being burned alive in a cage.

    • Replies: @Threecranes
    @Whiskey

    You're right.

    A liberal believes--hopes--that Islamic and black men will be tender and merciful when they become the majority. He hopes by his preemptive groveling display of appeasement and submission to forestall retaliation for all of the (largely imagined) sins committed by his forefathers to which he is heir. In an effort to exonerate himself he repudiates his history--but it won't work. In the eyes of blacks and Islam, he is condemned by his color and religion, ironically, mirroring the very intolerance for which he condemns his Father.

    Too late he will realize that solidarity was his spear and shield and that his adversary intends to show no mercy. Without his cultural milieu, a human being is as naked and vulnerable as a solitary baboon without his troop. He is doomed to be the leopard's next meal.

    , @Bill
    @Whiskey


    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.
     
    Yes, indeed. The only problem with liberalism is that we didn't try it hard enough! If only we could elect enough True Conservatives (TM), they could do that Classical Liberalism thing really, really hard!
    , @Bill
    @Whiskey


    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.
     
    Funny how liberal democracy seems to bring out the murderous sociopaths, isn't it? It's almost as if there is something about that system that kind of destroys communal bonds, turning people into atomized, anhedonic, narcissistic psychopaths.
    , @jackson
    @Whiskey


    designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men
     
    lol. ANY DAY we're going to see engineered viruses that specifically kill members of particular racial or ethnic groups while sparing everyone else. What a goony and dimwitted statement.
  27. Western Europe might eventually discover the secrets of our immigration “success.”
    Prisons, bars, gates, and private gun ownership. By “success,” I mean not yet being overrun by the relatively primitive third world hordes.

    It may take a village to raise a fatherless kid of third world origin, but in reality, it takes a prison to hide the repeated failure of the liberal fantasy village:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-youtube-star-arrested-sexually-exploiting-girl-12-article-1.2469158

    • Agree: International Jew
  28. @Hubbub
    Dear Ross, I Dou(b)t-that.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    More like Ross Doughfat.

  29. Disprivileged as the legacy majority? Whites will never be regarded as disprivileged. You don’t need to be much of a student of history to recognize that small minorities can be held responsible for society’s ills, or to know the fate that awaits them.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Tom Regan

    You have missed the point. Steve is saying that even if whites become a minority, they will still be treated as "privileged" and thus subject to all manner of oppression in order to make up for the "privilege" they will be said to have as long as the left exists.

  30. @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    “But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today. ”

    You’ve touched on half of the explanation (probably the more important half), but the other half of the explanation is that from 1924 to 1965 we basically capped the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. So it is not just that we changed the kind of immigrant we allowed into our country but greatly increased the numbers. If the numbers had not been drastically reduced during that 40-year period, I don’t think we would witnessed the assimilation we did.

  31. Europe went through a lot before they established the sane, humane orderly society they eventually became (at least the western part). They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria. These are not the primitive rural villages from Algeria or Turkey that had previously migrated to Europe in the aftermath of WWII.

    America terrorized Syria and Iraq -two very dysfunctional states- for decades for religious reasons i.e. Israel, without quite understanding the blow back that will eventually come.

    When Osama mass murdered 3000 civilians on 9/11, he provoked America into action and set off a chain of events that led to the disintegration of the middle east as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now there are 1 million Arab Muslim refugees smack in the ancestral homelands of Americans. I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can’t get over it. It’s not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.

    The loss of a liberal Europe would be a blow to human progress.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Merema

    Europe was at its best when it was choc-full of some rather tough, unsavory and decidedly 'illiberal' regimes.
    Think of the Romans. Think of how Britain rose to greatness at the same time as the 'autocratic' King George.
    The softness and flabbiness, if not downright stupidity of modern Europe - as typified by that stinking pile of blow-fly infested shit, the EU-, is of the distinctively recent vintage.
    As recently as the 1960s the French army and security forces had the cojones to routinely apply handheld electrical generators to the couillons of Magrehbi rebels.
    Guillotining only stopped in France in 1977. The last public guillotining was as recent as 1936. In the early 60s, the French police - in the heart of Paris - literally massacred scores of north African protestors and tossed their bodies into the Seine. And the got clean away with it.
    Virtually all the European nations were just as tough and ruthless right up to the 1970s when a certain shittiness - perhaps American 'civil rights' crap or Swedish style insanity crept in. For example the UK waged its last colonial wars in Aden and Malaya with ruthlessness.

    So, sorry the 'liberal' craziness that you laud in Europe is really only a very recent - and decadent - phenomenon.
    The corollary is that the 'old beast' is still there, waiting to be awakened.

    , @tbraton
    @Merema

    "I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can’t get over it. It’s not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people."

    You are not alone. I still shake my head in complete disbelief whenever I see pictures and videos of the invading hordes. Back in August, when I saw the first picture of the ferry discharging that small army of "Syrian refugees" at Athens, all I could say was "Insanity."

    , @anon
    @Merema

    They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria.

    What are you talking about? A lot of them don't seem to be educated at all. A lot of them don't even seem to be Syrian at all. This is because they're not Syrian. Once they opened up the borders, a lot of those rural, unassimilable people you mentioned wandered in too.

    , @Anonymous
    @Merema

    Very soon after victory in WW2, Britain executed 'Lord Haw-Haw'.

    Who is or was Lord Haw-Haw?, you may ask.

    Well, 'Lord Haw-Haw' was the pejorative name given by the British press to one William Joyce, an Irishman, citizen of Eire, who took residence in pre 1939 Germany, and took employment with the German government as a radio announcer. He was labelled 'Haw-Haw' because of his overblown, pompous attempt at an upper class English accent.
    Joyce's job was to broadcast nightly warning to the British public highlighting cities to be bombed - together with a judicious bit of blood-curdling German propaganda.

    Well, after the war, Joyce fell into the hands of British authorities and was taken to Britain.
    Such was the thirst for the British public - including apparently senior politicians and judiciary - for vengeance that Joyce was put on trial for treason. Joyce argued that as an Irishman he could not commit treason against a state to which he had no loyalty. To no avail. Legal manouverings by the British judiciary put the kibosh on that.

    Anyway, Joyce was killed for the crime of merely uttering words. No more no less. Words written by someone else. The 'liberal' Britain of the 1940s killed him with a great sense of pleasure and happiness.
    If a similar case was to occur today then Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, the EU courts etc, would 'do their absolute bollocks' - to use my favorite Cockneyism.

  32. NYT should just hire you at this point. This game of telephone has become unusually sharp, and redundant.

  33. There may be a few “cracks” in the order of liberalism, but I wouldn’t count on the structure collapsing any time soon. Its ideology infects every institution in Western societies, and the people who run the show look unlikely to abandon their crazy world view in the foreseeable future.

    Also, there’s a great deal of ruin in a nation before its finally destroyed.

  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can’t eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can’t have it after you have eaten it. That’s why the correct expression is “wanting to eat your cake and have it too.” The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not.

    Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don’t think it’s that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Anonymous

    "Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don’t think it’s that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber. "

    Yeah, that Ted Kaczynski connection (which I was unaware of before today) took me by surprise. Before you posted, I decided to do a little research a la Mr. Google and came across a piece which mentioned Kaczynski and completely startled me. I was going to post a message citing Ted Kaczynski as authority (with my tongue planted firmly in cheek), but you beat me to it.

    BTW here's the link I found, which states that the original usage back in the 16th century was actually the grammatically incorrect form, then pendants like Jonathan Swift came along setting it right, and the battle waged back and forth until the 1930's when the improper usage became the form most commonly used, in spite of the best efforts of FDR (who had a stable of exceptional speech writers working for him). http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/ ("But according to Google Ngram Viewer (a handy tracker of usage of phrases in published works over time), somewhere between 1938 and 1939, the percentages switch and “You can’t HAVE your cake and EAT it too” became more prevalent. Right around this time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the now less common version of the proverb in his 1940 State of the Union address when referring to the need to increase spending for national defense:
    'As will appear in the annual budget tomorrow, the only important increase in any part of the budget is the estimate for national defense. Practically all other important items show a reduction. But you know, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.'
    As alluded too above, some linguists have insisted that “Have…Eat” iteration is not correct due to the actual plausibility of the statement. You, in fact, can have your cake and then eat it. That isn’t impossible, therefore it negates what the actual idiom stands for, not unlike the common error of saying, “I could care less!” when one means “could not care less.” ")

    It's amazing how idiomatic expressions change unthinkingly over time, usually by misusage of them by people having little understanding of the phrase they are using. For example, the idiom cited above about "could care less/could not care less." More often than not, I find myself using the improper form when speaking (not in writing, where you have the luxury of editing your words). The one idiom which appears to have taken hold is "that point in time." Every time I hear it, my teeth grit, just as they did when I first heard it during the Nixon Administration. That gross misusage of English now appears to be firmly established. When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an "ignorant person" and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was "irregardless," which I rarely hear nowadays. I also have a strong aversion to the improper usage of "gender" (a strictly grammatical term) which has replaced "sex" for the most part.

    Replies: @Seamus Padraig, @TangoMan

    , @SEATAF
    @Anonymous

    The commenters here are pretty amazing.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  35. @Matthew Kelly
    @tbraton

    Holy pedantry. Not my area of expertise, by any means, but "to have your cake and eat it too" is an idiom if nothing else, and therefore excused from standard grammatical conventions, no? All in good fun; by no means do I wish to detract further from topic.

    Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    There’s a way to find out which version is more widespread:
    http://www.googlefight.com/have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too-vs-eat+your+cake+and+have+it+too.php
    This says that the relative frequencies of the two expressions is 206 for “have-and-eat” and 100 for “eat-and-have”. As these comparisons go, a 1/3 minority is pretty big. And the version that makes the most sense is “Eat your cake and have it too”, meaning to (impossibly) have a cake stashed in your pantry even after you’ve eaten it.
    — Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us

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

    "Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us"

    Is there room in your organization for a second member? I would be interested in joining as long as it doesn't cost anything.

    , @AndrewR
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    One can obviously have one's cake after eating it. It just won't be nearly as appetizing as it was prior to ingestion.

    , @Anonym
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Meh. I'm from the more popular "have your cake and eat it too" school. To me, the way I am accustomed to hearing it makes as much sense if not more, for the following reasons.

    The first is that at the point of having acquired the cake, a plan of both having and eating the cake is not completely ludicrous. It's only a little more ludicrous at the point where you start nibbling away at the cake and wishing all of it were still there, while telling yourself that most of it still is. Certainly either course of action is not completely ludicrous as at the point of having just eaten the cake, trying to have the same cake again. Clearly that is impossible, no one would try such a thing.

    But many situations in life where people want to "have their cake and eat it too" start out as not obviously (to them at least) a choice between two mutually exclusive goals. For example, 1960s liberalism's achievement of setting up wealth transfer from whites to non-whites, and increasing immigration and fecundity of non-whites. Probably for a lot of useful idiot liberal whites, the logical endpoint didn't concern them as they weren't capable of thinking that far ahead. For the brains among the communists, that was all part of a plan that sounded nice but in the end was about dispossessing the white society and establishment of their stuff.

    The second reason is that like many idioms, it's a joke. It's not funny because as part of an idiom it gets repeated until it is no longer funny except in relation to something. But as the setup of the joke, "have your cake" works better "and eat it too" works as the punchline. I would argue that "eat your cake and have it too" doesn't work as well if at all, because it doesn't set up that dawn of realization that hey, this whole having and eating thing is going to be impossible. Only a lunatic would believe that one could have a cake after eating it, so this form cannot build that lull before the audience of the joke "gets it".

    Steve, as a national merit scholar you're better than this. You failed tbraton's s*** test and should have kept it phrased the way it was. And tbraton and co, if you are going to be pedantic go the whole hog.

  36. @Whiskey
    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    "Racism" and all that other quaint, nice to have, affluenza type moral posturing is a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae for more prosperous, fat and happy times. Today, the issue is slavery for White men or freedom by any and all means necessary.

    Since the slavery will not be the relatively benign Big Brother type but the extremely ugly, burned alive in cages or beheaded on the beach ISIS type of slavery, there is little doubt that even the mildest of men will fight, the only question being on what terms, with what resources, and how desperate the measures will be.

    Winston Smith merely had to go along with monstrous lies. ISIS brooks not even that, merely being a non-Muslim five minutes ago qualifies anyone and everyone for beheading, burning alive in cages, and worse. There is always worse. ISIS thrives on its brutality, it attracts young Muslim men precisely because it offers an orgy of sadistic violence on other men. And ISIS is the true, authentic face of Islam with PC pieties and platitudes peeled away by what Muslims actually do in real not imaginary PC life.

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    But yes, by all means let us make most White men into brutalized slaves for a Third World rabble and then look at horror as they do anything to avoid being burned alive in a cage.

    Replies: @Threecranes, @Bill, @Bill, @jackson

    You’re right.

    A liberal believes–hopes–that Islamic and black men will be tender and merciful when they become the majority. He hopes by his preemptive groveling display of appeasement and submission to forestall retaliation for all of the (largely imagined) sins committed by his forefathers to which he is heir. In an effort to exonerate himself he repudiates his history–but it won’t work. In the eyes of blacks and Islam, he is condemned by his color and religion, ironically, mirroring the very intolerance for which he condemns his Father.

    Too late he will realize that solidarity was his spear and shield and that his adversary intends to show no mercy. Without his cultural milieu, a human being is as naked and vulnerable as a solitary baboon without his troop. He is doomed to be the leopard’s next meal.

  37. This is what happens when retards read Machiavelli and believe they can do it better. Divide and conquer only works if you have an army of police jackboots to take and control a divided populace. Where is this coming from exactly? The old dried up prunes like Hanoi Jane and Granny Badness Hillary are way past their Che Guevara days. Sanders may only have support if he pretends to be Colonel Sanders and offers a chicken for every pothead. There is a time for everything, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the catastrophic rampage of Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar wanna-be Hugo Chavez, that whole Marxist thing is just smelling like old fish. Socialism is apparently so bad, it can bankrupt an oil company. Look at all the crap in your house made from plastic made from oil, and the tiny percentage of electric vehicles on the roads, and that’s when the reality hits you. Cheech and Chong now run the Gubmint. Call 911 and get some men with big boy pants in there, stat.

  38. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too”

    maybe steve should have written:

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to keep its cake and eat it too”

    Part of the confusion is with the word ‘have’ which can mean both possession and consumption

    ‘I have a cake’ a piece of uneaten cake

    ‘I want to have cake’ I want to eat the cake

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @tbraton
    @grey enlightenment2

    While I appreciate your technical analysis of a grammatical dispute, I don't think anyone is confused about the meaning of the expression, whichever form he prefers to use. The problem is a fussiness about what words and phrases actually mean and how they should be expressed. In the same way, I don't think too many people are confused about what you mean to say when you choose to say "I could care less" rather than the more correct "I could not care less." In spoken English, I probably use the first form more often than the correct form. It's just a bad habit I picked along the way. Here is what the link I posted in another message says in part:

    "Linguists have debated for years over the proper order of the verb phrases. Up until the 19th and 20th centuries, more often than not, the proverb would read in some variation of “You can’t EAT your cake and HAVE it too,” which of course makes a tad more sense than the modern version; though in the end, the basic sentiment is the same- once you eat your cake, no more cake!"

    As I said in my original post to Steve Sailer, "Sorry for the grammatical nitpick." So right off the bat, I recognized the insignificance of the matter I was raising and apologized for raising it. I am somewhat surprised by the reaction that my post got, most in good humor and a few much too serious for my taste.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

  39. … Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience. 2015 was a memento mori moment for our institutions — a year of cracks in the system, of crumbling firewalls, of reminders that all orders pass away. …

    hmm did he forget 2001 and 911? Unless a generation is only 10-14 years

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    @grey enlightenment2

    we doubled immigration from muslim countries after 9/11 and not a peep was heard about it. what was heard you may ask: islam is a religion of peace.

  40. Blogger Charles Hugh Smith notes that the ‘tech’ billionaires’ interests are diverging from those of the Democrat establishment. Wall St. was tolerated when it was a source of cheap funding but the strain between those whose wealth is built on innovation and producing real products and those who engage in financial speculation and influence peddling will grow.

    There is also the problem of IQ. The tech economy requires more intelligent people. The H-1b visa issue highlights this issue. Silicon Valley imports people from India and China not Central America or Africa. Whatever the Bill Gate’s and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can’t find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    • Replies: @Henry Bowman
    @unit472

    Link to that article? Can not find it. I think it is great the tech billionaires are pulling their support from the dems, if the Alt Right will give them tax breaks for hiring Americans it would do a great deal to earn their support as well as the support of the STEM workers who are very much in need to being brought into the Alt Right.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @unit472


    Whatever the Bill Gate’s and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can’t find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.
     
    Nor from the millions of unemployed American techies? That part still smells funny.
    , @TangoMan
    @unit472

    Whatever the Bill Gate’s and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can’t find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    The operative rule for this pleading is to omit the following phrase - " . . at the pay levels that they want to offer."

    There are plenty of "quant jocks" working on Wall Street. If Tim Cook and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg want to hire Americans with high IQ, then they need to cast a wider net and open their check books. Why not raid Wall Street for talent - offer a Ph.D in physics who is working at a hedge fund a $1,000,000 per year salary to write code for Facebook? I'm sure that there'll be a lot of takers.

    Look, if septic tank pumping was a career which paid $500,000 per year, there'd be no shortage of guys fighting to be operating trucks which slurped up decayed crap out of septic tanks but most guys aren't interested in this work if it pays only $20,000 per year.

  41. @Glossy
    Europe's extremes gained, in part

    No they didn't. Losing an election by fewer percentage points than last time isn't a gain. The powers that be gained by importing more "refugees" - that was a real-world gain for them.

    Even winning a presidential election in a major country wouldn't be a win for the right in itself. Only reversing the demographic tide would be a win. As long as the tide is flowing in its current direction, globalism, the left, the powers that be are winning.

    Replies: @The Z Blog, @anon

    We are in an age of pure capitalism. No one in the Western ruling elites opposes the free flow of capital and people across borders. The last time we went through such a period was the run up to the Great War(s).

    • Replies: @Bill
    @The Z Blog

    Come now. No True Scotsman believes the contemporary US is the logos of libertarianism.

  42. I have to disagree that the problem is ‘the progressive project,’ or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion – hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! – it’s because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the ‘far right’ is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern ‘liberalism’ stand for? It’s not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds – not for ‘social expenditures’, but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @TG

    Sorry, the 'cheap labor' explanation to explain Merkel's madness simply doesn't wash.

    Look. When the eastern bloc - choc-full of dirt cheap, hard working, well qualified, well motivated, assimilable surplus labor - joined the EU, Germany kept 'transitional controls' on immigration from those nations for as long as legally possible.

    , @AndrewR
    @TG

    The ringleaders certainly have bad intentions. But their millions of useful idiot minions have no idea what they are really supporting.

    , @ben tillman
    @TG


    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom.
     
    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate. Government by the best -- who could object to that?

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Mr. Anon, @andy russia

    , @rod1963
    @TG

    I have to agree with all you wrote.

    Merkel and the corporate/political class are not doing this out of some mindless feel good liberalism but from a cold blooded position where they aim to cement their power and wealth. And they see feudalism as a path for this.

    , @AnAnon
    @TG

    they aren't stupid, they aren't misinformed, they are evil.

  43. “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority”

    Putting it this way raises the question – why? What’s their motivation?

    For example, a caricature of the rightwing as lapdogs of the rich or hating black people or hating the poor may be unfair but the motivations are clear and you can explain how it can lead to an enduring political movement which can win elections. Coalition of the fringes, on the other hand, is problematic to explain since the largest component, by far, is whites — successful whites, at that.

    Rather than liberalism, “increasing wealth” seems like a more compelling explanation of demographic changes and poorer minorities getting more free stuff. The highly illiberal Middle East also underwent huge demographic changes and massive welfare spending when they became rich. True, the demographic changes were through natural increase and temporary migrant workers but that’s a different matter. “Increasing wealth” explains why a conservative anti-multicultural German Chancellor can suddenly turn into Mama Merkel, patron saint of refugees, while still retaining broad political support. It explains why Japan can reject immigration but still can’t avoid massive demographic change. It also explain why even authoritarian China seems to be “disprivileging” the majority by shoving massive amounts of money to poorer minorities. It explains why conservative Alaska has essentially implemented guaranteed income — money for doing nothing at all.

    Having said all that, there’s something which differentiates liberalism from things which are fairly common to wealthy societies and I’m hoping you can articulate that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Simple answer, 'liberalism' = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of.

    "We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation".

    "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".


    Enoch Powell, Birmingham, England, 1968.

    Replies: @Vinay

    , @AndrewR
    @Vinay


    It explains why conservative Alaska has essentially implemented guaranteed income — money for doing nothing at all.
     
    That's an ugly way to spin it.

    Putting it this way raises the question – why? What’s their motivation?
    For example, a caricature of the rightwing as lapdogs of the rich or hating black people or hating the poor may be unfair but the motivations are clear and you can explain how it can lead to an enduring political movement which can win elections. Coalition of the fringes, on the other hand, is problematic to explain since the largest component, by far, is whites — successful whites, at that.
     
    In large part it's because success in today's society is largely contingent on pledging fealty to the supposed virtues of Diversity and Equality. There are many carrots given out in exchange for Goodthinking and many sticks used to beat Badthinkers into submission.

    Beyond that, neoleftists signal to other neoleftists that they're not like those awful Badthinkers who care about tacky things like preserving their heritage, culture and gene pool.
  44. The world is burning down, but the best parts are still around.

  45. Steve Sailer wrote:

    The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority.

    I respond:

    Another fundamental problem with modern liberalism is that it both desires and is predicated upon intra-Hajnal Line northwestern European social altruism, but wants it to apply to and be relevant to the entire world, and in fact, modern liberals think that everyone is a socially altruistic northwestern European, only external and supposedly easily removable factors prevent them from actually being such.

    • Replies: @Spotted Toad
    @countenance

    I think that's why we get an increasingly religious tone in left-liberal rhetoric, drawing from a specific Northwest-European religious tradition.

    Consider these two examples of a tradition in American prose:
    2015:
    "If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don’t run to seek shelter from your own racism. Don’t hide from your responsibility. Rather, begin, right now, to practice being vulnerable. Being neither a “good” white person nor a liberal white person will get you off the proverbial hook. I consider myself to be a decent human being. Yet, I’m sexist. Take another deep breath. I ask that you try to be “un-sutured.” If that term brings to mind a state of pain, open flesh, it is meant to do so. After all, it is painful to let go of your “white innocence,” to use this letter as a mirror, one that refuses to show you what you want to see, one that demands that you look at the lies that you tell yourself so that you don’t feel the weight of responsibility for those who live under the yoke of whiteness, your whiteness."
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/?referer=https://www.google.com/

    1741:
    "They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God’s using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?” Luke xiii. 7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and ’tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back."

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34632/34632-h/34632-h.htm#V

    (As John McWhorter put it- anti-racism, our flawed new religion

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion.html
    )

    , @Anonym
    @countenance

    Liberalism conceives of non-whites as unenlightened European-minded people of different form factors. Perhaps where Islam also gets it wrong is that it conceives of Kaffirs as unenlightened Arab-minded people of different form factors. Maybe it worked in Turkey to some extent but it is definitely different culturally.

    I know someone else alluded to this earlier but it is interesting to compare and contrast the two universalist ideologies.

  46. I agree with other posters, the cracks in the Liberal edifice have been there since the beginning. The cracks may be more egregious today, but that’s only because the political elite has really over extended it self in the last two years especially. The BLM and the migrant situation in Europe in particular, caused much of the low level grumblings to become, at times, unabashed opposition to “Liberal” policies. Liberals have so far been very good at clamping down and destroying any legitimate nascent resistance though, so look for interesting times ahead as they become more brazen.

  47. The suicidal stage of modern liberalism seems to be (at least) its second phase. One that precedes it is a complacent conceit. It’s the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Darwin's Sh-tlist


    the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is
     
    Christopher Caldwell (_Reflections on the Revolution in Europe_) makes the same observation. To Europeans of the 40s, 50s and 60s it seemed self-evidently obvious that the North Africans coming in to staff the factories would discard their own customs once they encountered the grandeur of Europe.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @tbraton

  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Merema
    Europe went through a lot before they established the sane, humane orderly society they eventually became (at least the western part). They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria. These are not the primitive rural villages from Algeria or Turkey that had previously migrated to Europe in the aftermath of WWII.



    America terrorized Syria and Iraq -two very dysfunctional states- for decades for religious reasons i.e. Israel, without quite understanding the blow back that will eventually come.

    When Osama mass murdered 3000 civilians on 9/11, he provoked America into action and set off a chain of events that led to the disintegration of the middle east as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now there are 1 million Arab Muslim refugees smack in the ancestral homelands of Americans. I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can't get over it. It's not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.

    The loss of a liberal Europe would be a blow to human progress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @tbraton, @anon, @Anonymous

    Europe was at its best when it was choc-full of some rather tough, unsavory and decidedly ‘illiberal’ regimes.
    Think of the Romans. Think of how Britain rose to greatness at the same time as the ‘autocratic’ King George.
    The softness and flabbiness, if not downright stupidity of modern Europe – as typified by that stinking pile of blow-fly infested shit, the EU-, is of the distinctively recent vintage.
    As recently as the 1960s the French army and security forces had the cojones to routinely apply handheld electrical generators to the couillons of Magrehbi rebels.
    Guillotining only stopped in France in 1977. The last public guillotining was as recent as 1936. In the early 60s, the French police – in the heart of Paris – literally massacred scores of north African protestors and tossed their bodies into the Seine. And the got clean away with it.
    Virtually all the European nations were just as tough and ruthless right up to the 1970s when a certain shittiness – perhaps American ‘civil rights’ crap or Swedish style insanity crept in. For example the UK waged its last colonial wars in Aden and Malaya with ruthlessness.

    So, sorry the ‘liberal’ craziness that you laud in Europe is really only a very recent – and decadent – phenomenon.
    The corollary is that the ‘old beast’ is still there, waiting to be awakened.

  49. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    The original was, you can’t eat your cake and still have it. As always progressive bastardization slipped in like a rapist in the night and changed the order. You cannot still have your cake after you have eaten it; unless you can find some other cake owner and tax him out of his.
    You can however have squirrel pot pie.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @CK

    "The original was, you can’t eat your cake and still have it. "

    Not according to the link I posted:

    "The phrase was actually used as early as 1538 in a letter from Thomas Howard, the third Duke of Norfolk, to Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to King Henry VIII. In the letter, found and archived by British History Online, Duke of Norfolk writes:


    I require you to send me, by this bearer, my will, which ye have sealed in a box. I must alter things therein, for my substance in money and plate is not so good now by 2,000l., “a man can not have his cake and eat his cake.”

     

    The idiom was later published in A Dialogue Conteynyng Prouerbes and Epigrammes by John Heywood in 1562. Heywood switches the clauses so it reads, “Wolde ye bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?” (Several other well-known phrases or “figures of speech” have been attributed to Heywood, including “two heads are better than one” and “Rome was not built in a day.”)"
    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/
    , @Anonym
    @CK

    First recorded use does not support your contention.

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/

  50. @V Vega
    @tbraton

    I'll bet you're a real joy to have around at the family xmas gatherings.

    Replies: @tbraton

    “I’ll bet you’re a real joy to have around at the family xmas gatherings.”

    So says “Haysus” in his first and only post on unz.com—and probably his last. If I had so little to say and were so limited in my wit, I guess I would only post once too. BTW his reference to “xmas” indicates that he is clearly not Christian or an out of work Christmas tree salesman. If I had to guess, I would say it’s Wizard of Ooze pulling another of his endless pseudonyms out of his large bag to take a potshot at me since he clearly lacks the balls to do so in his own name. Fuck off, “Haysus.”

  51. “the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.”

    Hardly any countries have experience with mass assimilation, perhaps because it doesn’t happen…

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @TG
    I have to disagree that the problem is 'the progressive project,' or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion - hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! - it's because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the 'far right' is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern 'liberalism' stand for? It's not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds - not for 'social expenditures', but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately 'liberals' want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @ben tillman, @rod1963, @AnAnon

    Sorry, the ‘cheap labor’ explanation to explain Merkel’s madness simply doesn’t wash.

    Look. When the eastern bloc – choc-full of dirt cheap, hard working, well qualified, well motivated, assimilable surplus labor – joined the EU, Germany kept ‘transitional controls’ on immigration from those nations for as long as legally possible.

  53. @Vinay
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority"

    Putting it this way raises the question - why? What's their motivation?

    For example, a caricature of the rightwing as lapdogs of the rich or hating black people or hating the poor may be unfair but the motivations are clear and you can explain how it can lead to an enduring political movement which can win elections. Coalition of the fringes, on the other hand, is problematic to explain since the largest component, by far, is whites -- successful whites, at that.

    Rather than liberalism, "increasing wealth" seems like a more compelling explanation of demographic changes and poorer minorities getting more free stuff. The highly illiberal Middle East also underwent huge demographic changes and massive welfare spending when they became rich. True, the demographic changes were through natural increase and temporary migrant workers but that's a different matter. "Increasing wealth" explains why a conservative anti-multicultural German Chancellor can suddenly turn into Mama Merkel, patron saint of refugees, while still retaining broad political support. It explains why Japan can reject immigration but still can't avoid massive demographic change. It also explain why even authoritarian China seems to be "disprivileging" the majority by shoving massive amounts of money to poorer minorities. It explains why conservative Alaska has essentially implemented guaranteed income -- money for doing nothing at all.

    Having said all that, there's something which differentiates liberalism from things which are fairly common to wealthy societies and I'm hoping you can articulate that.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR

    Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of.

    “We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation”.

    “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”.

    Enoch Powell, Birmingham, England, 1968.

    • Replies: @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

  54. Leftism is treason writ large. Leftism must be destroyed for our civilization to survive.

  55. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    Huh. I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical. Why on earth would Steve want to write something as hackneyed as “have their cake and eat it too” with no irony?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @carol

    "I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical."

    Precisely so.

    You can't have your cake, & eat it, too.

    You can't eat your cake, & have it, too.

    Take your pick - it's purely a matter of taste.

    , @TheJester
    @carol

    Enough, Enough! "You can't have your cake and eat it, too ...." is an idiomatic way of talking about holding two logically inconsistent or practically incompatible positions at the same time and thinking nothing of it, i.e. having "possesion of" and "not having possession of" your cake at the same time.

    I have been hearing that expression with the idiomatic use of the word "have = possession" since I was in college in the 1960s.

  56. Lawyers, guns and money. Stock up…

  57. @Vinay
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority"

    Putting it this way raises the question - why? What's their motivation?

    For example, a caricature of the rightwing as lapdogs of the rich or hating black people or hating the poor may be unfair but the motivations are clear and you can explain how it can lead to an enduring political movement which can win elections. Coalition of the fringes, on the other hand, is problematic to explain since the largest component, by far, is whites -- successful whites, at that.

    Rather than liberalism, "increasing wealth" seems like a more compelling explanation of demographic changes and poorer minorities getting more free stuff. The highly illiberal Middle East also underwent huge demographic changes and massive welfare spending when they became rich. True, the demographic changes were through natural increase and temporary migrant workers but that's a different matter. "Increasing wealth" explains why a conservative anti-multicultural German Chancellor can suddenly turn into Mama Merkel, patron saint of refugees, while still retaining broad political support. It explains why Japan can reject immigration but still can't avoid massive demographic change. It also explain why even authoritarian China seems to be "disprivileging" the majority by shoving massive amounts of money to poorer minorities. It explains why conservative Alaska has essentially implemented guaranteed income -- money for doing nothing at all.

    Having said all that, there's something which differentiates liberalism from things which are fairly common to wealthy societies and I'm hoping you can articulate that.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR

    It explains why conservative Alaska has essentially implemented guaranteed income — money for doing nothing at all.

    That’s an ugly way to spin it.

    Putting it this way raises the question – why? What’s their motivation?
    For example, a caricature of the rightwing as lapdogs of the rich or hating black people or hating the poor may be unfair but the motivations are clear and you can explain how it can lead to an enduring political movement which can win elections. Coalition of the fringes, on the other hand, is problematic to explain since the largest component, by far, is whites — successful whites, at that.

    In large part it’s because success in today’s society is largely contingent on pledging fealty to the supposed virtues of Diversity and Equality. There are many carrots given out in exchange for Goodthinking and many sticks used to beat Badthinkers into submission.

    Beyond that, neoleftists signal to other neoleftists that they’re not like those awful Badthinkers who care about tacky things like preserving their heritage, culture and gene pool.

  58. @TG
    I have to disagree that the problem is 'the progressive project,' or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion - hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! - it's because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the 'far right' is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern 'liberalism' stand for? It's not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds - not for 'social expenditures', but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately 'liberals' want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @ben tillman, @rod1963, @AnAnon

    The ringleaders certainly have bad intentions. But their millions of useful idiot minions have no idea what they are really supporting.

  59. @Anonymous
    @tbraton


    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can’t eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can’t have it after you have eaten it. That’s why the correct expression is “wanting to eat your cake and have it too.” The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not.
     
    Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don't think it's that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber.

    Replies: @tbraton, @SEATAF

    “Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don’t think it’s that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber. ”

    Yeah, that Ted Kaczynski connection (which I was unaware of before today) took me by surprise. Before you posted, I decided to do a little research a la Mr. Google and came across a piece which mentioned Kaczynski and completely startled me. I was going to post a message citing Ted Kaczynski as authority (with my tongue planted firmly in cheek), but you beat me to it.

    BTW here’s the link I found, which states that the original usage back in the 16th century was actually the grammatically incorrect form, then pendants like Jonathan Swift came along setting it right, and the battle waged back and forth until the 1930’s when the improper usage became the form most commonly used, in spite of the best efforts of FDR (who had a stable of exceptional speech writers working for him). http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/ (“But according to Google Ngram Viewer (a handy tracker of usage of phrases in published works over time), somewhere between 1938 and 1939, the percentages switch and “You can’t HAVE your cake and EAT it too” became more prevalent. Right around this time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the now less common version of the proverb in his 1940 State of the Union address when referring to the need to increase spending for national defense:
    ‘As will appear in the annual budget tomorrow, the only important increase in any part of the budget is the estimate for national defense. Practically all other important items show a reduction. But you know, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.’
    As alluded too above, some linguists have insisted that “Have…Eat” iteration is not correct due to the actual plausibility of the statement. You, in fact, can have your cake and then eat it. That isn’t impossible, therefore it negates what the actual idiom stands for, not unlike the common error of saying, “I could care less!” when one means “could not care less.” “)

    It’s amazing how idiomatic expressions change unthinkingly over time, usually by misusage of them by people having little understanding of the phrase they are using. For example, the idiom cited above about “could care less/could not care less.” More often than not, I find myself using the improper form when speaking (not in writing, where you have the luxury of editing your words). The one idiom which appears to have taken hold is “that point in time.” Every time I hear it, my teeth grit, just as they did when I first heard it during the Nixon Administration. That gross misusage of English now appears to be firmly established. When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an “ignorant person” and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was “irregardless,” which I rarely hear nowadays. I also have a strong aversion to the improper usage of “gender” (a strictly grammatical term) which has replaced “sex” for the most part.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    @tbraton

    Thanks, tbraton. I always thought that 'have your cake and eat it too' was a ridiculous statement. I never knew it started out as 'eat your cake and have it too'. That makes just a tad more sense.

    The things you don't learn at unz.com!

    Replies: @Anonym

    , @TangoMan
    @tbraton

    When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an “ignorant person” and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was “irregardless,” which I rarely hear nowadays.

    The term "irregardless" was used to subtle effect in an episode of "Band of Brothers" uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character.

    Replies: @tbraton

  60. @carol
    @tbraton

    Huh. I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical. Why on earth would Steve want to write something as hackneyed as "have their cake and eat it too" with no irony?

    Replies: @vinteuil, @TheJester

    “I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical.”

    Precisely so.

    You can’t have your cake, & eat it, too.

    You can’t eat your cake, & have it, too.

    Take your pick – it’s purely a matter of taste.

  61. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Matthew Kelly

    There's a way to find out which version is more widespread:
    http://www.googlefight.com/have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too-vs-eat+your+cake+and+have+it+too.php
    This says that the relative frequencies of the two expressions is 206 for "have-and-eat" and 100 for "eat-and-have". As these comparisons go, a 1/3 minority is pretty big. And the version that makes the most sense is "Eat your cake and have it too", meaning to (impossibly) have a cake stashed in your pantry even after you've eaten it.
    -- Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us

    Replies: @tbraton, @AndrewR, @Anonym

    “Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us”

    Is there room in your organization for a second member? I would be interested in joining as long as it doesn’t cost anything.

  62. @Tom Regan
    Disprivileged as the legacy majority? Whites will never be regarded as disprivileged. You don't need to be much of a student of history to recognize that small minorities can be held responsible for society's ills, or to know the fate that awaits them.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    You have missed the point. Steve is saying that even if whites become a minority, they will still be treated as “privileged” and thus subject to all manner of oppression in order to make up for the “privilege” they will be said to have as long as the left exists.

  63. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Matthew Kelly

    There's a way to find out which version is more widespread:
    http://www.googlefight.com/have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too-vs-eat+your+cake+and+have+it+too.php
    This says that the relative frequencies of the two expressions is 206 for "have-and-eat" and 100 for "eat-and-have". As these comparisons go, a 1/3 minority is pretty big. And the version that makes the most sense is "Eat your cake and have it too", meaning to (impossibly) have a cake stashed in your pantry even after you've eaten it.
    -- Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us

    Replies: @tbraton, @AndrewR, @Anonym

    One can obviously have one’s cake after eating it. It just won’t be nearly as appetizing as it was prior to ingestion.

  64. @Anonymous
    @tbraton


    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can’t eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can’t have it after you have eaten it. That’s why the correct expression is “wanting to eat your cake and have it too.” The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not.
     
    Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don't think it's that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber.

    Replies: @tbraton, @SEATAF

    The commenters here are pretty amazing.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @SEATAF

    True dat. Stick around. Join in. Happy New Year.

  65. Liberalism seems to bear a lot of resemblance to the idea that “we” are infinitely rich and don’t have to worry about demeaning things like consequences. It seems fundamentally juvenile. It’s the “yes, dear, of course we can” ism.

  66. Multiculturalism has immobilized our society. There are many things we know need to be done such as tightening up immigration but because there is now a built in opposition to every sensible idea we need to go through this vetting process where everybody’s feelings get heard. We will never have 100% consensus on any topic ever again.

    In 2015, I think the Japanese would have to bomb Pearl Harbor twice before America would go to war.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Prof. Woland

    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, "Shinto is a peaceful religion."

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Henry Bowman
    @Prof. Woland

    You do not need a majority consensus on anything to achieve something great, case in point look what the Cultural Marxist have done.

    WE have the net and we are winning on the issue of immigration and with that we will win on all other issues, Americans are ready and demanding immigration reduction.

  67. @TG
    I have to disagree that the problem is 'the progressive project,' or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion - hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! - it's because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the 'far right' is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern 'liberalism' stand for? It's not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds - not for 'social expenditures', but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately 'liberals' want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @ben tillman, @rod1963, @AnAnon

    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom.

    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate. Government by the best — who could object to that?

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    • Replies: @Spotted Toad
    @ben tillman

    Yeah, my sense is that today's superrich live perfectly nice lives but are not especially empowered- they're going to Davos to get their marching orders, just like we're getting them from the media. I think it's a mistake to see them as "in control": it is the ideology itself that is in control, and if any of the elite steps outside the bounds or is unwanted- think of Dennis Sterling- they can be chucked out of the circle of light without a second thought.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Mr. Anon
    @ben tillman

    "This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate."

    I think it is a useful formulation. What globalists seem to ardently desire is a kind of globalist, corporate feudalism. That it is different than the medieval variety does not make it any less a kind of feudalism.

    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored. The feudal contract generally went only one-way; the nobility preyed upon their own people and yet still expected them to deliver food and sword-fodder when required. Towards the middle-classes, the nobility could not be quite so cavalier, but it took a lot of hard warring for the middle classes to finally assert thier rights.

    Replies: @Tlotsi, @ben tillman

    , @andy russia
    @ben tillman


    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations,
     
    it is useful insofar as feudalism is taken to mean "the thing we had before nation states." these are the features of that system anyone can recognize in today's world:

    1) obscurantism and anti-intellectualism
    2) rule by a small globalist minority who owe more allegiance to one another than to "the people"
    3) dismantling of the national public sphere and of the civil society. extreme corporatism. nation states ceasing core things like infrastructure, security, education, even the dispensing of justice, to private actors who can make their own laws.
    4) (re-)proletarization of the middle class.


    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.
     
    political centralization is not "necessarily something to be avoided." those who had failed to centralize by the 19th century, well, today they have straightline borders made by someone else.

    the forces that brought about the emancipation of the middle class from the nobility were left-wing.

    Replies: @andy russia

  68. Douthat never mention’s the kenyan bastard’s role in the destruction of the American liberal order through his attack on the constitution and lawlessness.

    Except insofar as they take up the issue of immigration, Republican candidates haven’t made a theme of Obama’s lawlessness or the restoration of the rule of law. (Ted Cruz, incidentally, contributed the foreword to Bernstein’s book.) I think the theme badly needs a spokesman in the campaign. Bernstein himself shows what a useful tool it was in Obama’s hands in the 2008 campaign.

    Obama’s promotion of illegal immigration, Obama’s rule by executive decree, Obama’s disparagement of law enforcement in the service of the racial hustle, Obama’s assault on the rule of law — there seems to be a method to this madness. They all take us closer to the status of a Third World country.

    In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon promised the restoration of law and order in response to the riot culture that has seen its return over the closing years of the Age of Obama. Nixon smartly called out LBJ Attorney General Ramsey Clark as a conscientious objector in the war against crime.

    Obama is something worse than a conscientious objector; he is more of an agitator-in-chief. If updated with the necessary changes and elaborated properly, it is a theme that would make an important contribution to the campaign.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/the-schlong-also-rises.php

  69. @carol
    @tbraton

    Huh. I thought it was supposed to be nonsensical. Why on earth would Steve want to write something as hackneyed as "have their cake and eat it too" with no irony?

    Replies: @vinteuil, @TheJester

    Enough, Enough! “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too ….” is an idiomatic way of talking about holding two logically inconsistent or practically incompatible positions at the same time and thinking nothing of it, i.e. having “possesion of” and “not having possession of” your cake at the same time.

    I have been hearing that expression with the idiomatic use of the word “have = possession” since I was in college in the 1960s.

  70. @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Simple answer, 'liberalism' = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of.

    "We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation".

    "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".


    Enoch Powell, Birmingham, England, 1968.

    Replies: @Vinay

    “Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of.”

    Yes, it’s a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell’s speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That’s not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don’t like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I’m hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    • Replies: @Divine Right
    @Vinay

    "Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968."

    A Roman Emperor might have once made the same argument to his subjects, "sure the Republic is gone, but we're stronger now than ever and all those immigrants will assimilate just fine like always." How did that turn out?

    "Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968."

    I'm not an expert on Britain, but that doesn't seem as ironclad as you might think. Sure, we have Facebook and mobile phones now, but tuition costs are way up and housing affordability is way down. What kind of trade is that?

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/for-1-in-8-americans-a-dollar100k-income-is-required-to-buy-a-median-priced-home/ar-BB7ee1c

    Replies: @Curle

    , @22pp22
    @Vinay

    Do you live in Britain?

    Everywhere is richer today, but that is thanks to technology. Korea is barely a democracy and China isn't one at all. Singapore has chosen a fairly authoritarian path.

    Leaving aside improvements in technology, we live in smaller and more expensive houses and cannot afford replacement levels of children unless we are welfare scum and producing bastards is our paid profession.

    , @ben tillman
    @Vinay


    Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.
     
    Homo economicus FTW!!!!

    Wrong.

    Today's Brits are worse off by any measure that takes into account their sense that they have no future. In 1968, Brits had no idea that their government was going to go all in on a program of their destruction.
    , @ben tillman
    @Vinay


    Yes, it’s a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell’s speech.
     
    First, prove your figures.

    Second, here's a simple answer that does not fail to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries: Liberal states are parasites grafted onto the backs of the world's most productive peoples. The "success" is in spite of, not due to, the liberal states. This is elementary.
    , @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    The increase in wealth has got everything to do with scientists and engineers - and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'liberalism'.

    Anyway, just in case you haven't noticed, wages in the USA have stagnated for high in fifty years.
    In 'illiberal' China, wages double every five years.

    , @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Anyway, in the Britain of 1968 there was never the engrained joblessness and state dependency - which effects an enormous slice of society - which we see today.
    Housing was affordable.
    The murder rate and violent crime was much lower.
    It was a much better, happier cohesive society.

    , @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Anyhow, Britain's typical economic growth rates in the decades prior to 1968 - and, incidentally, this was a time prior to EU membership which was touted at the time as an 'economic panacea' - were substantially more consistent and stronger than what we see today.
    The whole period from 1968 to present has been one of more or less economic stagnation, interspersed by a few pockets of erratic, sporadic growth swiftly followed by bust.
    If we look at the period since 2008 - the 'Great Recession' as it is termed, you'll find growth rates barely bumping along the bottom. The worst, in fact, since economic statistics were ever gathered in Britain, which was a very, very long time ago.

    The Britain of 1968 was an industrial superpower, perhaps second only to the USA. It led the world in terms of ships, cars, heavy machinery, coal, steel, electrical gear and even in such fields as electronics, textiles, footwear and toys.
    Now all of that is gone - replaced by a truly enormous and persistent trade deficit that immigration has done nothing to alleviate.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Hibernian

  71. How is “Douthat” pronounced?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @MG

    Douche. ;-)

    He is the NYT's young conservative. David Brooks is their old conservative. George Will is too much of a lefty for them.

    , @tbraton
    @MG

    "How is “Douthat” pronounced?"

    DOW-thet

    Listen here: http://forvo.com/word/ross_douthat/

  72. @countenance
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority.
     
    I respond:

    Another fundamental problem with modern liberalism is that it both desires and is predicated upon intra-Hajnal Line northwestern European social altruism, but wants it to apply to and be relevant to the entire world, and in fact, modern liberals think that everyone is a socially altruistic northwestern European, only external and supposedly easily removable factors prevent them from actually being such.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Anonym

    I think that’s why we get an increasingly religious tone in left-liberal rhetoric, drawing from a specific Northwest-European religious tradition.

    Consider these two examples of a tradition in American prose:
    2015:
    “If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don’t run to seek shelter from your own racism. Don’t hide from your responsibility. Rather, begin, right now, to practice being vulnerable. Being neither a “good” white person nor a liberal white person will get you off the proverbial hook. I consider myself to be a decent human being. Yet, I’m sexist. Take another deep breath. I ask that you try to be “un-sutured.” If that term brings to mind a state of pain, open flesh, it is meant to do so. After all, it is painful to let go of your “white innocence,” to use this letter as a mirror, one that refuses to show you what you want to see, one that demands that you look at the lies that you tell yourself so that you don’t feel the weight of responsibility for those who live under the yoke of whiteness, your whiteness.”
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/?referer=https://www.google.com/

    1741:
    “They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God’s using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?” Luke xiii. 7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and ’tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back.”

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34632/34632-h/34632-h.htm#V

    (As John McWhorter put it- anti-racism, our flawed new religion

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion.html
    )

  73. @ben tillman
    @TG


    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom.
     
    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate. Government by the best -- who could object to that?

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Mr. Anon, @andy russia

    Yeah, my sense is that today’s superrich live perfectly nice lives but are not especially empowered- they’re going to Davos to get their marching orders, just like we’re getting them from the media. I think it’s a mistake to see them as “in control”: it is the ideology itself that is in control, and if any of the elite steps outside the bounds or is unwanted- think of Dennis Sterling- they can be chucked out of the circle of light without a second thought.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Spotted Toad

    I think you meant Donald Sterling.

  74. • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @Talpiot

    Why should Israel accept any of them? Aren't there any Arab or Muslim countries where the Syrians might go?

    The Israelis in the video are so dumb. Their comparison of the Syrians to Jews in WWII is inept. Israel was founded because there was no Jewish state for Jews to run to. there are plenty of Arab and Muslim ones however. There is even an Islamic State lol.

  75. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    Indeed. When you have such centralization there are enormous opportunities for graft and corruption and installing your lineage hereditary rulers of some satrapy for a long time.

    Read Kratman’s Carrera series for one view of this:

    That one is free on Kindle, but you have to get further in to see more of his vision of the arc of the Internation Coalition of the Ever So Caring.

    The Earl of Care is an amusing title from the series.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

    There are two interpretations of this idiom as in its presented phrasing above. Both interpretations are elliptically constructed, and one of them is consistent with the idiom’s intended point.

    “You can’t have your cake and (THEN) eat it too.”

    That meaning would be nonsensical, and contrary to the idiom’s intended meaning – because clearly you can have your cake, and then eat it. This was the objection that was first made, upthread.

    However, another elliptical construction would go,

    “You can’t have your cake and (AT THE SAME TIME) eat it too.”

    Considering the final word “too”, in my reading that implies the second semantic interpretation, and therefore, the idiom in its phrasing.

    Also, in this sense, and as was pointed out upthread, the idiom depends on the meaning of “have” as in “to possess” and not “to eat or enjoy, as in sex.” That distinction in the meaning of “to have” is not the cause of any confusion. The confusion is caused by whether the two things having to do with the cake, are meant to be considered as simultaneous or sequential.

    Interestingly though, those two meanings of “to have” are the perfect example of the essence of it. We have something in one way, by keeping it in possession – and we have something in the other way, by using it up. And that is its central point, and it gets right down to the very nature of life and how it is perceived and experienced. On the one hand we perceive it, it is held in mind – and on the other it is engaged in, or used up. Synchronizing those two states, one of mind and one of being – is a sort of philosopher’s stone – and it is generally not easily done, which is why the idiom is so cutting.

  77. @Rifleman

    Cracks in the Liberal Order
     
    I don't see the cracks. Seems like things are moving alone just fine, from the "liberal" point of view.

    A few bumps on the road. But like the Arabs say - "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."

    Replies: @oh its just me

    I agree- if you’re on the left/globalist- if there is more crime, more chaos, less affordability/ more dependency then all the better- all of that plays into their hands.

    There is no chance of democracy working anymore – the globalist elite are too entrenched, there’s too much corruption- even if someone like Le Pen or Trump were elected, the elite would sabatage them at every turn – if Trump would enforce the border, the elite will find a judge to nullify it.
    then Trump would have to do what liberals have been doing all along – ignore the ‘law’ in this case a fatwah from a judge- then things would descend into chaos- and i think the globalists are ready and want this – so they can crack down on the nation states.

  78. Liberalism’s inherent destructiveness and failure lie in its pitiless “no omelette without breaking eggs” utopianism which liberals mistake to be conscience and to yield Progress.

    So blinded are liberals by their juvenile “Imagine” utopian false conscience-ness that they cannot begin to see that they’re nothing but useful idiots who enable plutocrat GATT-Globalists’ untrammeled gratification of GATT-Globalist greed. For their mere thirty pieces of silver sinecures in the liberal order, liberals serve enthusiastically, even rabidly, as Volunteer Gestapo enforcers of GATT-Globalist depredations upon ordinary people here at home as well as upon foreign ordinary people in foreign lands.

    The most loathsome trait of liberals – of all utopians – is their “We Have All The Answers!” smugness.

    • Replies: @oh its just me
    @Auntie Analogue


    Liberalism’s inherent destructiveness and failure lie in its pitiless “no omelette without breaking eggs” utopianism which liberals mistake to be conscience and to yield Progres

     

    Ever since the French Revolution/Rosseua-the idea is if we could just get rid of all the rules of civilization & Christianity and return to our 'natural' state, we'd return to a (secular) Eden.

    This of course, means whenever their agenda is not working, they can always blame it on us.


    they cannot begin to see that they’re nothing but useful idiots who enable plutocrat GATT-Globalists’ untrammeled gratification of GATT-Globalist greed.
     
    Yeah, this is what always gets me - are they this stupid, or just afraid and acting like good party members.
  79. IMHO, the left/liberalism/progressive-ism is about power.

    They used to talk endlessly about the poor. We need to improve the lot of the poor. Now, there is not enough grinding poverty in America to be a voting block. They care nothing about the remaining poor.

    The new dissatisfied are racial groups, women (gender), idealistic young (capitalism is evil because there are rich people), inequality (envy).

    They hope to ride to power, preferably absolute power, by playing the dissatisfied against whatever resists their power now. And they are willing to fan the flames of dissatisfaction.

    Since money is power, progressives naturally favor a centrally planned, managed economy.

    They got it in health care, where everything is dictated by Washington, including what procedures are done (by being covered, everything else is prohibited), prices, compensation, business success or failure (guaranteed existence to health care companies with a profit and loss limits imposed by law), etc.

    They took over the bank capital markets – merely the threat of an indictment is the death of any bank and there are many lesser tools used to tell banks exactly what to do. The banks are wards of the state with free returns on excessive reserves which are in turn borrowed from the fed.

    Federal subsidies allow them to dictate to any college or university that takes federal money; same for the states. They favor a 55 MPH speed limit but have no authority to impose such a thing – states adopt it or lose fed highway money.

    Things other than the economy they want to dictate by edict: character of neighborhoods (covered extensively here), sex breakdown of occupations, the definition of marriage, ability to purchase or carry guns, weight and efficiency of your car, source of your electric power (expensive solar instead of inexpensive coal) content of your children’s education (home schooling discouraged), whom you associate with, political donations, change of citizenship (exit taxes and rules prohibiting corporations to reincorporate abroad), movement of money ($10,000 limit on cash carried out of the country, reporting of cash withdrawals of your money from your bank account), and many more too numerous to name.

    They want power, and also they hate the society they live under, see blog Dissecting the Left

  80. IN the twenty-five years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the architecture of liberal modernity has looked relatively stable.

    There have always been cracks in the Liberal order, they are called states. States are survival machines organised to fight or prepare for conflict with other states. Preserving the indigenous population (the nation) of a nation state is a means not an end for the state, and short of a requirement to resist military pressure, or exert it, maintaining a cohesive indigenous population will always come a poor second What we have now is the post Cold war liberal order, which is more and more looking like a capitalist conspiracy with anti nation animus.

    The reason Cameron is threatening Britain will leave the EU is their plans to tame the UK’s precious City banks, hated by the countries that do not have the advantage of London, whose leveraging threatens EU economic stability. Mercantilism is increasingly in the driving seat, but each state’s elite has different interests, so it looks like nationalism.

    I live in Scotland and the SNP are in no sense a threat to the liberal order they are 100% pro immigrant and pro EU, and desirous of being subsidised (like the population of Greece). I don’t know that much about France but no one needed Houellebecq to tell them that the FN would be kept from winning any more than their current 2% of national representation by the main parties, as this happened repeatedly to Marine’s father when he ran for president. Nothing new about the FN candidate getting past the first round and then being trounced. The other parties are not that different.

    The end of the cold war enabled national governments to throw off the legacy of an obsolete Anti Soviet alliance, and go wild with immigration as the Labour Blair government did Underneath the rhetoric, the liberal order parties are indistinguishable from mercantilism

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6eea332e-a1ce-11e2-8971-00144feabdc0.htmlBritain has undergone a demographic revolution, Goodhart shows. More immigrants now come each year than arrived in all the nine centuries between 1066 and 1950. Most of the postwar influx dates only from the last decade and a half. It began as soon as Tony Blair came to power. Net immigration nearly tripled, from 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 the following year, and kept rising. “In 30 years’ time,” Goodhart writes, “New Labour’s immigration policy will almost certainly be seen as its primary legacy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729 That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron’s approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.
    They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.

    The Labour party under Corbyn would be vastly more pro immigration in power that even Bliar was.

    Ross says

    Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers. But it also pushed a fast-forward button on long-term trends threatening the liberal project in Europe — the challenge of Islam, the pressure of migration from Africa, the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

    In the process, Merkel handed ammunition to the argument, expressed in artistic form in Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Submission,” that late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide. And she did so at a moment when both the Islamic State and Vladimir Putin’s Russia were supplying evidence that the liberal project can be at least temporarily defied.

    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it’s a PR coup which German traction gains from. The leaders of states have to act to their states advantage because this world was organised into the state system long before the liberal order was thought of and will be long after that order is forgotten. States are here to stay but nations are at bay.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29951222 In boardrooms, banks and governments the belief has taken root that the advance of capitalism is irreversible. The market-based system that developed in the West has spread to nearly every country in the world. Central economic planning of the sort that existed in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China no longer exists as a separate economic system. An outpost may linger on in North Korea, but there is really only one kind of economy left in the world. […]
    Equally, there’s no reason to suppose capitalism is going to resume its advance. To my mind the most likely upshot is that the future will be like the past, with the world containing a variety of economic systems. Whatever happens, it won’t be determined by some imaginary process of social evolution. It will be human decisions, interacting with the uncontrollable flow of events, which lead the world into an unknown future.

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/europe-the-struggle-for-supremacy-1453-to-the-present-by-brendan-simms/2004835.article

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France. Simms even argues, plausibly, that Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was motivated largely by Richard Cobden’s “foreign policy” aim of making states more interdependent and thus less prone to conflict.

    Nation states lack an essential purpose for the political class now. They seem to be harking back to Cobden’s ideas. The old function of nation states was simply survival, which meant the support of the common people (who might be called on to fight and die in wars) was required. Post cold war the West is secure against external rival state threats and nuclear weapons have made conventional war against a great power doubly unlikely. The opposition of the people has become irrelevant. Yet we still hear talk of how the population must increase to keep the country important internationally and strong in relation to other supposedly friendly countries. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population exceeding Germany’s in the future.

    This gives the lie to a assertions of a stable liberal order, because a globalist ste leadership would not be worried about national influence and potential power against supposedly friendly countries. The globalist business elite could be made to alter course if there was a geopolitical threat, because the national governments will act for national cohesion not diversity in circumstances where their state is in real peril.

    There seems to have been a considerable exaggeration of Western peoples’ non materialistic inclination to sacrifice for the group, and when they do have such, their inclination and ability to organise to be effective against the well funded and self righteous mercantile-displacement lobby. Immigration is long term and unstoppable because of the powerful economic interests in favour of it.

    One more generation and I think European countries (Europeans are Sitting Bull there remember) will have a third of those under 30 wholly or part non European by race with a very slow nationalist declension . Demoralisation not representation. The population of EU countries is growing through immigration which has to be considered unstoppably continuing at the present level. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population being the biggest in Europe on current trends.

    I have read that many, many occupations will be disappearing shortly.so what are all the extra young people going to be doing a generation hence? The liberal order will create an unsustainable society, or maybe the state will keep a lid on with a security police and surveillance but that won’t be anything recognisable as a continuation of the liberal order. We will still have the state, but lose the nation. “The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic” as Jean Raspail was sued by International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism for writing.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Sean

    So, state v. nation.

    , @ben tillman
    @Sean


    Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.
     
    That is utterly ridiculous.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Sean

    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it’s a PR coup which German traction gains from.

    Destroying yourself demographically to win flowery speeches in forums....um, yeah.

    I've noticed how people tend to use the word "traction" -often unconsciously- to signal progress that isn't.

  81. @Auntie Analogue
    Liberalism's inherent destructiveness and failure lie in its pitiless "no omelette without breaking eggs" utopianism which liberals mistake to be conscience and to yield Progress.

    So blinded are liberals by their juvenile "Imagine" utopian false conscience-ness that they cannot begin to see that they're nothing but useful idiots who enable plutocrat GATT-Globalists' untrammeled gratification of GATT-Globalist greed. For their mere thirty pieces of silver sinecures in the liberal order, liberals serve enthusiastically, even rabidly, as Volunteer Gestapo enforcers of GATT-Globalist depredations upon ordinary people here at home as well as upon foreign ordinary people in foreign lands.

    The most loathsome trait of liberals - of all utopians - is their "We Have All The Answers!" smugness.

    Replies: @oh its just me

    Liberalism’s inherent destructiveness and failure lie in its pitiless “no omelette without breaking eggs” utopianism which liberals mistake to be conscience and to yield Progres

    Ever since the French Revolution/Rosseua-the idea is if we could just get rid of all the rules of civilization & Christianity and return to our ‘natural’ state, we’d return to a (secular) Eden.

    This of course, means whenever their agenda is not working, they can always blame it on us.

    they cannot begin to see that they’re nothing but useful idiots who enable plutocrat GATT-Globalists’ untrammeled gratification of GATT-Globalist greed.

    Yeah, this is what always gets me – are they this stupid, or just afraid and acting like good party members.

  82. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The most loathsome trait of liberals – of all utopians – is their “We Have All The Answers!” smugness.”

    I think some of that liberal smugness is due to terror at facing the prospect that we might not have all the answers; that not everything might be possible; that the universe might not give the proverbial tinker’s damn about them… It takes some getting used to, in particular if you’ve been told all your life that mommy will take care of it and there’s nothing to worry about. Better to have Kindergarten Forever, aka, Liberalism.

  83. In the NYT article, Douthat says:

    Except that Trump is the big story, and deservedly. His mix of reality-TV shamelessness, European-style nationalism and boastful authoritarianism might be a genuinely new thing in U.S. politics.

    Wrong, at a couple of levels. There won’t be many Trump clones in the future, I think. He can sort of get away with the boastfulness because people sense that’s a genuine reflection of what he is – a self promoting extrovert – and people are tired of the endless stream of politicians who try to project an image that’s not what (or who) they really are. Yes there are many prideful politicians out there, but their desire to manipulate others won’t let that prideful-ness become too public or visible.

    And what’s with this “authoritarianism” label? As opposed, to what exactly? Are we supposed to believe that Obama, who ignored the law and wishes of the American people with regards to immigration and purposefully lied to the public about major points of his health care reform is somehow less authoritarian? Or that Graham, Hillary, Jeb or whoever are less authoritarian? Trump is what he is on his shirtsleeves. He’s not as good at deception as most of those people are.

  84. The liberal cast of mind is preoccupied with the rescue of ‘victims’ in ‘suffering situations’. New groups of victims are discovered in the social fabric on a continuous basis: there’s no end of them. A liberal’s work is never done.

    Kenneth Minogue wrote a very good book which explains why intellectuals are attracted to liberal ideas and why their vicarious worries have become fashionable.

  85. @TG
    I have to disagree that the problem is 'the progressive project,' or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion - hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! - it's because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the 'far right' is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern 'liberalism' stand for? It's not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds - not for 'social expenditures', but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately 'liberals' want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @ben tillman, @rod1963, @AnAnon

    I have to agree with all you wrote.

    Merkel and the corporate/political class are not doing this out of some mindless feel good liberalism but from a cold blooded position where they aim to cement their power and wealth. And they see feudalism as a path for this.

  86. The progressives or whatever you want to call them need to be schlonged to save our kids.

  87. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    "Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?"

    I would love to answer your question, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your pretentious, overwrought and not entirely correct prose makes me think you must teach at one of our so-called "institutions of higher learning," where the goal seems to be to write in the most obscure and confusing manner as possible in order to gull innocents into thinking that you are brighter than you are.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

  88. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    As you say – nitpick. What you left out was ‘and irrelevant’ to the thrust of Douthat’s argument.

  89. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    You really are a dammy.

    “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” makes perfect sense.

    After all, a cake isn’t just food but like a work of art, a culinary sculpture. Something to show off, a feast for the eyes before a feast for the mouth.

    So, when you present it, you don’t want to take a knife to it.

    You spent so much time and effort to make it so gorgeous and fancy. You wanna show it off like a trophy. That is ‘having the cake’.

    To eat it, you must cut it up and destroy it.

    So, you can’t have the cake as both trophy and food. To ‘have’ it, you must not eat it. To ‘eat’ it,you can’t have it.

    It’s like you can’t have both a virgin and a whore.

    Consider the song McCarthur’s Park. Why is the guy so upset? Cuz his gorgeous cake has been destroyed by the rain.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Anon

    Ah, anon, you come across as a real poet. A brainless and ignorant one, but a poet nonetheless.

  90. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is not really a conservative. How do I know this? Because he is a columnist for the New York Times. He is a pet they cultivate to maintain the illusion (for themselves, I suppose) that they are neutral.

    He is entirely a creature of the “liberal order”, as evidenced by this sentence:

    “Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless.”

    What, exactly, is extreme in not wanting your nation invaded by hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of ungrateful aliens who are, and traditionally have been, hostile to your entire civilization. The extreme position is the one adopted by Merkel and the globalist elites.

  91. @Anonymous
    In the new Liberal/Fascist America only the top 10% can afford the social and economic costs of the policies of the regime.

    Making the USA majority non-white is going to inflict massive pain on the bottom 90%.

    They want another India covering North America.

    Replies: @Anon

    “In the new Liberal/Fascist America only the top 10% can afford the social and economic costs of the policies of the regime.”

    Stop misusing ‘fascist’.

    I’m the only true fascist.

  92. @ben tillman
    @TG


    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom.
     
    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate. Government by the best -- who could object to that?

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Mr. Anon, @andy russia

    “This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate.”

    I think it is a useful formulation. What globalists seem to ardently desire is a kind of globalist, corporate feudalism. That it is different than the medieval variety does not make it any less a kind of feudalism.

    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored. The feudal contract generally went only one-way; the nobility preyed upon their own people and yet still expected them to deliver food and sword-fodder when required. Towards the middle-classes, the nobility could not be quite so cavalier, but it took a lot of hard warring for the middle classes to finally assert thier rights.

    • Replies: @Tlotsi
    @Mr. Anon

    I don't think Feudalism is the right way to think about it, for the simple reason that Feudalism was a system dominated by the warrior caste. Modern liberals are about as far from that as it is possible to be. What they are closer to are witch doctors. If you look at a lot of Bronze Age societies, they are dominated by priest-kings whose authority rests on the religious bs they feed to the gullible lower orders. That seems much closer to the society that liberals are working towards.

    , @ben tillman
    @Mr. Anon


    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored.
     
    True, but we’re shooting for something that resembles feudalism (in its idealized form) in the crucial respect of reciprocal obligations (or “bidirectional control”). The problem isn't feudalism; it's that the Left -- the force of motion. aggression, entropy, "creative destruction" (in Ledeen's words) -- tears down anything we build up.

    The larger a society, the more difficult it is to maintain stability and cohesion. We need to build something that features Kevin MacDonald’s “hierarchic harmony” and “muted individualism”; T.D. Seeley’s “stratified stability”; Christopher Boehm’s “muted egalitarianism”. And the key is to devise structures that facilitate "bidirectional control" (D.S. Wilson) between and among social strata. Don't conflate the theoretical soundness of feudalism with the empirical failures.

    If you have rich people oppressing (or seeking to oppress) everyone else, call it a plutocracy, which is as bad in theory as it is in practice.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  93. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    “But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures.”

    They also ignore that Americanism demands amnesia and pop culture as identity.
    Americanism has become very shallow.

    The more ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ a nation, more shallow must its identity be for everyone to get along. After all, deeper one digs into history, more unique and specific it is.

    Is new age Oprah-ism sufficient for national identity?

  94. “There is a crack, a crack in everything
    That’s how the light gets in.”

    Leonard Cohen “Anthem”

  95. @Matthew Kelly
    @Anonymous


    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    Anonymous

     

    I don't think he's the only one clued into it; I think he's the only one with the cajones to use it as a power source to tap into, rather than something to suppress with all levers of power. That's why the elite hate him--not because he is "fomenting" this "populist", "nativist", "xenophobic", "racist" white rage, but because he is not playing along with the The Powers That Be in quashing it.

    Replies: @International Jew

    the only one with the cajones

    I’m only going to say this once.
    cajon = box, drawer
    cojon = testicle

  96. @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans

    And how’s our assimilation of Africans — here for 10+ generations — working out?

    • Replies: @Sean
    @International Jew

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Douthat Note he is the author of Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class (2005).


    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/ross-douthat-new-york-times-conservatism He'd been hired the previous month to succeed William Kristol, whose tenure as resident hard-right pundit had lasted barely a year. Douthat had written two books, but his only regular gig outside of The Atlantic had been reviewing movies for National Review. He had never been a beat reporter, nor worked in politics, nor been employed anywhere outside Washington. And he was the youngest op-ed columnist the paper had ever hired. He's still a bit stunned, in fact. "My worries tend to revolve around getting a dream job so young and then falling flat on my face," he admits. The opportunity was "enormously terrifying."
     
    Catholic so the neocons like him.

    Ross is equalitarian and you might as well talk genetic race as "nazis on the moon , what one would expect given his parents unorthodox personalities. Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school. His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).

    Replies: @Desiderius

  97. @Darwin's Sh-tlist
    The suicidal stage of modern liberalism seems to be (at least) its second phase. One that precedes it is a complacent conceit. It's the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is.

    Replies: @International Jew

    the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is

    Christopher Caldwell (_Reflections on the Revolution in Europe_) makes the same observation. To Europeans of the 40s, 50s and 60s it seemed self-evidently obvious that the North Africans coming in to staff the factories would discard their own customs once they encountered the grandeur of Europe.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @International Jew

    No, I think the vast majority of Europeans assumed the North African coming in to staff the factories would save up some money and then go back to their families in North Africa. The immigration of the families of foreign workers only became policy in the mid-1970s. That was when France, West Germany and others switched over to the American model.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @tbraton
    @International Jew

    Back in the 90's, I read a travel book by the late M.F.K. Fisher, the preeminent food writer who died in 1992. I have tried to find my copy, but have been unable to find it. The book was entitled "Two Towns in Provence," a paperback comprising two separate books, "Map of Another Town" [dealing with Aix-en-Provence] and "A Considerable Town" [dealing with Marseilles], published in 1978 but relating her experiences living in and near Marseilles during the year 1972 (as I recall). Even back in the early 70's, she expressed her disapproval of the deleterious impact that Muslim refugees from Algeria were having on Marseilles. Since she was an acknowledged Francophile, you could tell she didn't like the change she was witnessing as a result of this foreign element in France. So, observant, intelligent people were aware of the change from the beginning. After all, Enoch Powell, the prominent English politician, voiced his warnings about the approaching flood of African and Asian immigrants back in 1968 and got read out of the Conservative Party as a result.

  98. The fundamental problem with liberalism is its inherent dishonesty.

  99. @grey enlightenment2
    @tbraton

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too”

    maybe steve should have written:

    “The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to keep its cake and eat it too”

    Part of the confusion is with the word 'have' which can mean both possession and consumption

    'I have a cake' a piece of uneaten cake

    'I want to have cake' I want to eat the cake

    Replies: @tbraton

    While I appreciate your technical analysis of a grammatical dispute, I don’t think anyone is confused about the meaning of the expression, whichever form he prefers to use. The problem is a fussiness about what words and phrases actually mean and how they should be expressed. In the same way, I don’t think too many people are confused about what you mean to say when you choose to say “I could care less” rather than the more correct “I could not care less.” In spoken English, I probably use the first form more often than the correct form. It’s just a bad habit I picked along the way. Here is what the link I posted in another message says in part:

    “Linguists have debated for years over the proper order of the verb phrases. Up until the 19th and 20th centuries, more often than not, the proverb would read in some variation of “You can’t EAT your cake and HAVE it too,” which of course makes a tad more sense than the modern version; though in the end, the basic sentiment is the same- once you eat your cake, no more cake!”

    As I said in my original post to Steve Sailer, “Sorry for the grammatical nitpick.” So right off the bat, I recognized the insignificance of the matter I was raising and apologized for raising it. I am somewhat surprised by the reaction that my post got, most in good humor and a few much too serious for my taste.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @tbraton

    Irregardless of our pissing contest, my guess is that you are really a fairly decent sort.

    Sincerely, one asshole to another asshole.

  100. Speaking of cake, I’m about to have a slice of delicious chocolate cake.

  101. OT:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/technology/when-a-unicorn-start-up-stumbles-its-employees-get-hurt.html

    When a Unicorn Start-Up Stumbles, Its Employees Get Hurt

    On Sept. 4, employees of Good Technology, a mobile security start-up in Sunnyvale, Calif., awoke to discover that their company was being sold to BlackBerry […] for some employees, it meant that their shares were practically worthless. Even worse, they had paid taxes on the stock based on the higher value. […] “We listened to these executives and, in the end, incurred huge tax bills because we trusted them,” Mr. Parks said. “Employees essentially ended up paying to work for the company.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @theo the kraut

    This is how capitalism works - you win some and you lose some. In our society now, everyone's goal is to take the gain for themselves and shift the losses onto someone else - the government, the other investors in the deal, any deep pocket you can find to sue.

    Apparently some of the employees paid taxes because they had received stock at what was then believed to be below market value and they made an optional tax election whereby you pay taxes on the value of the stock at the time it is granted to you, but any future gains are taxed at favorable capital gains rates. Possibly they can still amend their returns and get a refund, or else they will have a loss carry forward which they can offset against future capital gains. If they have no capital gains they can only offset $3,000/year of ordinary income so it may take them a long time to offset their losses, but them's the breaks.

    The article makes a big deal of the fact that the preferred stock investors got their money back while the employees made little. That was the deal the company made with the investors - without that deal they never would have gotten ANY money from the investors. Note that the employees were granted this stock for free - the only thing they paid were the taxes on it, while the investors put up real money.

    Replies: @theo the kraut

  102. @Dave Pinsen
    Ross still says Trump won't be the GOP nominee.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Tipo 61, @Jefferson, @Curle

    At this rate, Trump probably will be the nominee.

  103. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    ...hardly surprising that that strategy is finally generating strong opposition.

    'Murica freaked out after San Bernadino and the actual death toll was relatively very low compared to say 9/11.

    I think very few people understand what a new large casualty attack will do to our society. The Perception of Affordability is vanishing from large swaths of the country.

    Trump seems to be the only politician who is clued into the street level anger out there.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @Anonymous

    You’re very correct there. Not many know but “active shooter” type psycho mass shooter incidents were actually much more prevalent in the 80s and 90s than they are now. They actually went down in the 2000s from the 90s and even now are about flat. The media just plays with them and talks about them with the 24/7 coverage to make you think “its a thing” when its not.

    The bigger issue is 1 I discussed with a coworker @ a restaurant I work at….

    McDonald’s we were discussing — raised their burger prices depending on the restaurant 25-50% jut in the last few years. Even in 2013 I could still buy a double-cheese burger there for a dollar. Now? 1.50….and I live in the deep south where they have a lot of cattle farmers and where everything is cheaper.

    We were also discussing how as recently as 2012 and 2013 Subway still highly publicized its “5 dollar footlong” meal deals? Now? You can’t even get anything there for below 7 dollars, and that’s the cheapo sandwich with no drink & no chips on the side….

    The problem is food and utility and rent price inflation. And the problem that you caan’t even afford a car that runs unless you make @ least 30k dollars /year….

  104. @International Jew
    @iSteveFan


    they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans
     
    And how's our assimilation of Africans -- here for 10+ generations -- working out?

    Replies: @Sean

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Douthat Note he is the author of Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class (2005).

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/ross-douthat-new-york-times-conservatism He’d been hired the previous month to succeed William Kristol, whose tenure as resident hard-right pundit had lasted barely a year. Douthat had written two books, but his only regular gig outside of The Atlantic had been reviewing movies for National Review. He had never been a beat reporter, nor worked in politics, nor been employed anywhere outside Washington. And he was the youngest op-ed columnist the paper had ever hired. He’s still a bit stunned, in fact. “My worries tend to revolve around getting a dream job so young and then falling flat on my face,” he admits. The opportunity was “enormously terrifying.”

    Catholic so the neocons like him.

    Ross is equalitarian and you might as well talk genetic race as “nazis on the moon , what one would expect given his parents unorthodox personalities. Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school. His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Sean


    Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school.
     
    You obviously haven't read Privilege.

    His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).
     
    It's ironic that you would choose this medium to advertise your ignorance of where Douthat made his name. It was in the outstanding American Scene blog he created with Reihan Salam where his work was not unlike Sailer's.

    Replies: @Sean

  105. How come people who bash Ethan Edwards(of THE SEARCHERS) for ‘racist hatred’ are far less judgmental of Lawrence who mows down a bunch of Turks to avenge what they did to him.
    His hatred is such that he wants to kill every Turk. This scene is like the Armenian genocide(which goes to show that Turks were killed in huge numbers too in campaigns of extermination).

  106. @Merema
    Europe went through a lot before they established the sane, humane orderly society they eventually became (at least the western part). They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria. These are not the primitive rural villages from Algeria or Turkey that had previously migrated to Europe in the aftermath of WWII.



    America terrorized Syria and Iraq -two very dysfunctional states- for decades for religious reasons i.e. Israel, without quite understanding the blow back that will eventually come.

    When Osama mass murdered 3000 civilians on 9/11, he provoked America into action and set off a chain of events that led to the disintegration of the middle east as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now there are 1 million Arab Muslim refugees smack in the ancestral homelands of Americans. I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can't get over it. It's not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.

    The loss of a liberal Europe would be a blow to human progress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @tbraton, @anon, @Anonymous

    “I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can’t get over it. It’s not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.”

    You are not alone. I still shake my head in complete disbelief whenever I see pictures and videos of the invading hordes. Back in August, when I saw the first picture of the ferry discharging that small army of “Syrian refugees” at Athens, all I could say was “Insanity.”

  107. @International Jew
    @Darwin's Sh-tlist


    the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is
     
    Christopher Caldwell (_Reflections on the Revolution in Europe_) makes the same observation. To Europeans of the 40s, 50s and 60s it seemed self-evidently obvious that the North Africans coming in to staff the factories would discard their own customs once they encountered the grandeur of Europe.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @tbraton

    No, I think the vast majority of Europeans assumed the North African coming in to staff the factories would save up some money and then go back to their families in North Africa. The immigration of the families of foreign workers only became policy in the mid-1970s. That was when France, West Germany and others switched over to the American model.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Cagey Beast

    Unlike Italian and Spanish immigrants, Africans of all stripes had no First World home country to go back to. So they stayed and brought their extended family to France. President Giscard d'Estaing is the culprit by allowing family reunification.
    That's an important point I always make when discussing immigration: are the people coming in going to stay or are they going back? If they're not going back they're settlers or invaders, not immigrants.

  108. On a side note, I have to mention the top-rated reader’s comment for that New York Times story. He doesn’t seem to understand what liberalism is, even though we all live in liberal regimes and have for quite a while:

    Why doesn’t this conservative write about conservative ideas and options? Has he anything to suggest? Anything to support?

    Instead, he constantly writes about liberals, and does so by mis-characterizing liberal ideas. Here, he suggests the Iraq War and financial crisis of the Bush Admin were the “liberal order” in action.

    “Through the dot-com bust, 9/11, the Iraq war, and the financial crisis, it was striking how consensus held, how elites kept circulating, how quickly populist movements collapsed or were co-opted . . . Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience.”

    We have not gotten back to a liberal order in decades. It has been conservatives, austerity, wars, regime changes, and enriching the rich for near forty years that has gotten us to this mess.

    Seven-hundred and forty-seven super smart NYT readers don’t seem to know what liberalism is either. Counting the author of the comment, that makes 748 liberal-progressive fish who don’t know they’re swimming in a liberal ocean and have been for their entire lives. Funny.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Cagey Beast

    Not that I was aware of Ross Douthat back in 2002-03, but I recall reading later, around the time he was named as the NYTimes' youngest columnist in history, that he was not only a strong supporter of the Iraq War but, in the style of the times, was actively criticizing anybody who was expressing opposition or reservations about the war. I don't think he has ever admitted that his support of the Iraq War was wrong. I do remember when the Libyan War came up in 2011 that he wrote a column expressing reservations to the Libyan War based on "conclusions we learned from our involvement in Iraq," or something to that effect. Not one word about how he supported the Iraq War and now thought it was a wrong decision.

    In that way, Douthat is a lot like George Will, another prominent "conservative" columnist. Back in 2002-03, I was a regular viewer of ABC's This Week, where George Will was a regular panelist at the time. I can remember him strongly supporting the Iraq War before it started and berating anybody who dared utter a word of opposition. A favorite target of his was Mohammed El Baredei of Egypt who was head of the international agency overseeing nuclear matters. Well, a few years later, around 2005, Will suddenly announced on This Week that the Iraq War violated every conservative principle in his body. As far as I know, Will never admitted that he had made a wrong decision about Iraq. I thought his admission that the Iraq War violated all his "conservative principles" was strange. I thought "principles" were deeply held beliefs that are arrived at through education and experience and were designed to guide your actions through life. I couldn't understand what those "conservative principles" were that could be so easily discarded in the excitement of the moment.

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Cagey Beast

    So you are familiar with the origins of Liberalism? Excellent. We'll make sure you have a seat on the No Fly List.

  109. @grey enlightenment2

    … Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience. 2015 was a memento mori moment for our institutions — a year of cracks in the system, of crumbling firewalls, of reminders that all orders pass away. …

    hmm did he forget 2001 and 911? Unless a generation is only 10-14 years

    Replies: @AnAnon

    we doubled immigration from muslim countries after 9/11 and not a peep was heard about it. what was heard you may ask: islam is a religion of peace.

  110. There’s certainly millions of Americans who believe in the kind of stereotypical elite “liberalism” that’s being described here.

    But there’s many, many more Americans who mostly disagree with today’s very conservative Republicans and also disagree with a lot of today’s elite liberal agenda.

    “An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

    The vast middle is growing and right now, nobody is representing their interests.

    Donald Trump has a mix of views — some conservative, some not. I think part of his popularity is due to that; I do not think it’s all from unhappy Republicans.

    If you ask me, both parties are steering themselves on suicidal paths: the Republicans by demonizing people who are not financially secure and being hostile to people in need, the Democrats by putting the needs and desires of their special interests groups (unionized workers and recent and future immigrants) ahead of their old stock nonunionized American voters.

    I look out at the political landscape and I see cracks everywhere.

    Everywhere.

    • Replies: @Boogerbently
    @notsaying

    Wait till all the unionized workers get the word that all of their health care plans qualify as Cadillac plans under Obamacare.

  111. @TG
    I have to disagree that the problem is 'the progressive project,' or liberalism as such.

    Angela Merkel is not letting in all these muslim refugees because of misguided compassion - hey, she was willing to let the Greek people starve to subsidize the central banks! - it's because of the easy profits that come from cheap labor. It is Merkel et al. that are extremist, the 'far right' is actually the moderate center.

    What does modern 'liberalism' stand for? It's not FDR or Samuel Gompers. They want:

    1. To flood the labor market through mass immigration to drive wages down to third world levels (being able to play divide-and-conquer with an in homogenous population is a bonus)

    2. To tax the hell out of wages and small and medium productive enterprises, and use the proceeds - not for 'social expenditures', but to subsidize the super-rich and the big banks.

    3. To drive into chaos all foreign nations that might oppose them.

    4. To eliminate democracy in all but name, cementing rule by an unelected oligarchy.

    Ultimately 'liberals' want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom. This is not about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. These people have bad intentions, up front.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @AndrewR, @ben tillman, @rod1963, @AnAnon

    they aren’t stupid, they aren’t misinformed, they are evil.

  112. @theo the kraut
    OT:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/technology/when-a-unicorn-start-up-stumbles-its-employees-get-hurt.html

    When a Unicorn Start-Up Stumbles, Its Employees Get Hurt

    On Sept. 4, employees of Good Technology, a mobile security start-up in Sunnyvale, Calif., awoke to discover that their company was being sold to BlackBerry [...] for some employees, it meant that their shares were practically worthless. Even worse, they had paid taxes on the stock based on the higher value. [...] “We listened to these executives and, in the end, incurred huge tax bills because we trusted them,” Mr. Parks said. “Employees essentially ended up paying to work for the company.”

    Replies: @Jack D

    This is how capitalism works – you win some and you lose some. In our society now, everyone’s goal is to take the gain for themselves and shift the losses onto someone else – the government, the other investors in the deal, any deep pocket you can find to sue.

    Apparently some of the employees paid taxes because they had received stock at what was then believed to be below market value and they made an optional tax election whereby you pay taxes on the value of the stock at the time it is granted to you, but any future gains are taxed at favorable capital gains rates. Possibly they can still amend their returns and get a refund, or else they will have a loss carry forward which they can offset against future capital gains. If they have no capital gains they can only offset $3,000/year of ordinary income so it may take them a long time to offset their losses, but them’s the breaks.

    The article makes a big deal of the fact that the preferred stock investors got their money back while the employees made little. That was the deal the company made with the investors – without that deal they never would have gotten ANY money from the investors. Note that the employees were granted this stock for free – the only thing they paid were the taxes on it, while the investors put up real money.

    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    @Jack D

    thanks, didn't think about that.

  113. “Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers.”

    The New York Times considers Angela Merkel to be a political Centrist because she is pro-invite the world open borders. Apparently invite the world is not a Left Wing political view.

    What the hell does a politician have to do in order to be considered a Left Winger in the eyes of The New York Times?

  114. @Dave Pinsen
    Ross still says Trump won't be the GOP nominee.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Tipo 61, @Jefferson, @Curle

    “Ross still says Trump won’t be the GOP nominee.”

    So who does Ross see winning the GOP nomination? Single digit Jeb Bush? Jeb is going to need some magic from David Copperfield to pull that off.

    In late December of 2011, Mitt Romney was doing way better in the polls than Jeb Bush is in late December of 2015. Mitt Romney was not polling in at 5th or 6th place like Jeb Bush is now.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Jefferson

    "In late December of 2011, Mitt Romney was doing way better in the polls than Jeb Bush is in late December of 2015. Mitt Romney was not polling in at 5th or 6th place like Jeb Bush is now."

    In late December of 2007, as Romney was about to go on to lose the nomination to John McCain, he was still polling much more strongly than Jeb is today. Romney won several primaries in 2008. Jeb won't finish even 2nd place in a single one.

  115. @Sean

    IN the twenty-five years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the architecture of liberal modernity has looked relatively stable.
     
    There have always been cracks in the Liberal order, they are called states. States are survival machines organised to fight or prepare for conflict with other states. Preserving the indigenous population (the nation) of a nation state is a means not an end for the state, and short of a requirement to resist military pressure, or exert it, maintaining a cohesive indigenous population will always come a poor second What we have now is the post Cold war liberal order, which is more and more looking like a capitalist conspiracy with anti nation animus.

    The reason Cameron is threatening Britain will leave the EU is their plans to tame the UK's precious City banks, hated by the countries that do not have the advantage of London, whose leveraging threatens EU economic stability. Mercantilism is increasingly in the driving seat, but each state's elite has different interests, so it looks like nationalism.

    I live in Scotland and the SNP are in no sense a threat to the liberal order they are 100% pro immigrant and pro EU, and desirous of being subsidised (like the population of Greece). I don't know that much about France but no one needed Houellebecq to tell them that the FN would be kept from winning any more than their current 2% of national representation by the main parties, as this happened repeatedly to Marine's father when he ran for president. Nothing new about the FN candidate getting past the first round and then being trounced. The other parties are not that different.

    The end of the cold war enabled national governments to throw off the legacy of an obsolete Anti Soviet alliance, and go wild with immigration as the Labour Blair government did Underneath the rhetoric, the liberal order parties are indistinguishable from mercantilism

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6eea332e-a1ce-11e2-8971-00144feabdc0.htmlBritain has undergone a demographic revolution, Goodhart shows. More immigrants now come each year than arrived in all the nine centuries between 1066 and 1950. Most of the postwar influx dates only from the last decade and a half. It began as soon as Tony Blair came to power. Net immigration nearly tripled, from 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 the following year, and kept rising. “In 30 years’ time,” Goodhart writes, “New Labour’s immigration policy will almost certainly be seen as its primary legacy
     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729 That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron's approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.
    They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.
     
    The Labour party under Corbyn would be vastly more pro immigration in power that even Bliar was.

    Ross says

    Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers. But it also pushed a fast-forward button on long-term trends threatening the liberal project in Europe — the challenge of Islam, the pressure of migration from Africa, the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

    In the process, Merkel handed ammunition to the argument, expressed in artistic form in Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Submission,” that late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide. And she did so at a moment when both the Islamic State and Vladimir Putin’s Russia were supplying evidence that the liberal project can be at least temporarily defied.
     
    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it's a PR coup which German traction gains from. The leaders of states have to act to their states advantage because this world was organised into the state system long before the liberal order was thought of and will be long after that order is forgotten. States are here to stay but nations are at bay.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29951222 In boardrooms, banks and governments the belief has taken root that the advance of capitalism is irreversible. The market-based system that developed in the West has spread to nearly every country in the world. Central economic planning of the sort that existed in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China no longer exists as a separate economic system. An outpost may linger on in North Korea, but there is really only one kind of economy left in the world. [...]
    Equally, there’s no reason to suppose capitalism is going to resume its advance. To my mind the most likely upshot is that the future will be like the past, with the world containing a variety of economic systems. Whatever happens, it won’t be determined by some imaginary process of social evolution. It will be human decisions, interacting with the uncontrollable flow of events, which lead the world into an unknown future.
     

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/europe-the-struggle-for-supremacy-1453-to-the-present-by-brendan-simms/2004835.article

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France. Simms even argues, plausibly, that Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was motivated largely by Richard Cobden’s “foreign policy” aim of making states more interdependent and thus less prone to conflict.
     
    Nation states lack an essential purpose for the political class now. They seem to be harking back to Cobden’s ideas. The old function of nation states was simply survival, which meant the support of the common people (who might be called on to fight and die in wars) was required. Post cold war the West is secure against external rival state threats and nuclear weapons have made conventional war against a great power doubly unlikely. The opposition of the people has become irrelevant. Yet we still hear talk of how the population must increase to keep the country important internationally and strong in relation to other supposedly friendly countries. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population exceeding Germany’s in the future.

    This gives the lie to a assertions of a stable liberal order, because a globalist ste leadership would not be worried about national influence and potential power against supposedly friendly countries. The globalist business elite could be made to alter course if there was a geopolitical threat, because the national governments will act for national cohesion not diversity in circumstances where their state is in real peril.

    There seems to have been a considerable exaggeration of Western peoples’ non materialistic inclination to sacrifice for the group, and when they do have such, their inclination and ability to organise to be effective against the well funded and self righteous mercantile-displacement lobby. Immigration is long term and unstoppable because of the powerful economic interests in favour of it.

    One more generation and I think European countries (Europeans are Sitting Bull there remember) will have a third of those under 30 wholly or part non European by race with a very slow nationalist declension . Demoralisation not representation. The population of EU countries is growing through immigration which has to be considered unstoppably continuing at the present level. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population being the biggest in Europe on current trends.

    I have read that many, many occupations will be disappearing shortly.so what are all the extra young people going to be doing a generation hence? The liberal order will create an unsustainable society, or maybe the state will keep a lid on with a security police and surveillance but that won't be anything recognisable as a continuation of the liberal order. We will still have the state, but lose the nation. "The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic" as Jean Raspail was sued by International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism for writing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @ben tillman, @yaqub the mad scientist

    So, state v. nation.

  116. @AKAHorace
    Did you see the story of Corsicans vandalizing a muslim prayer room ? There are other stories of traditional minorities in conflict with immigrant minorities, blacks in LA vs latinos, Inuit (Eskimos) in Denmark vs Muslims. The stories may be under reported and they back your argument.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “Did you see the story of Corsicans vandalizing a muslim prayer room ? There are other stories of traditional minorities in conflict with immigrant minorities, blacks in LA vs latinos, Inuit (Eskimos) in Denmark vs Muslims. The stories may be under reported and they back your argument.”

    Here is another example of cracks popping up in The KKK Crazy Glue Of The Democratic Party Fringes, the Left Wing Black Lives Matter Astro Turf group want the Left Wing Rahm Emanuel to step down as mayor of Chicago. I love it when the Left stab each other in the back and eat their own.

    I hope more NAM groups demand that White Democrats step down from their position of power and hand over their jobs to People Of Color. Chicago needs a Black Democrat for mayor.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Jefferson

    We've already had 2 Black Dem. mayors, the celebrated Harold Washington and the nonentity Eugene Sawyer. Toni Preckwinkle may be next.

  117. @International Jew
    @Darwin's Sh-tlist


    the belief that everyone would want to be just like them if they could only be made to understand how awesome being a modern liberal is
     
    Christopher Caldwell (_Reflections on the Revolution in Europe_) makes the same observation. To Europeans of the 40s, 50s and 60s it seemed self-evidently obvious that the North Africans coming in to staff the factories would discard their own customs once they encountered the grandeur of Europe.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @tbraton

    Back in the 90’s, I read a travel book by the late M.F.K. Fisher, the preeminent food writer who died in 1992. I have tried to find my copy, but have been unable to find it. The book was entitled “Two Towns in Provence,” a paperback comprising two separate books, “Map of Another Town” [dealing with Aix-en-Provence] and “A Considerable Town” [dealing with Marseilles], published in 1978 but relating her experiences living in and near Marseilles during the year 1972 (as I recall). Even back in the early 70’s, she expressed her disapproval of the deleterious impact that Muslim refugees from Algeria were having on Marseilles. Since she was an acknowledged Francophile, you could tell she didn’t like the change she was witnessing as a result of this foreign element in France. So, observant, intelligent people were aware of the change from the beginning. After all, Enoch Powell, the prominent English politician, voiced his warnings about the approaching flood of African and Asian immigrants back in 1968 and got read out of the Conservative Party as a result.

  118. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Matthew Kelly

    There's a way to find out which version is more widespread:
    http://www.googlefight.com/have+your+cake+and+eat+it+too-vs-eat+your+cake+and+have+it+too.php
    This says that the relative frequencies of the two expressions is 206 for "have-and-eat" and 100 for "eat-and-have". As these comparisons go, a 1/3 minority is pretty big. And the version that makes the most sense is "Eat your cake and have it too", meaning to (impossibly) have a cake stashed in your pantry even after you've eaten it.
    -- Mark Spahn, Member, Pedants-R-Us

    Replies: @tbraton, @AndrewR, @Anonym

    Meh. I’m from the more popular “have your cake and eat it too” school. To me, the way I am accustomed to hearing it makes as much sense if not more, for the following reasons.

    The first is that at the point of having acquired the cake, a plan of both having and eating the cake is not completely ludicrous. It’s only a little more ludicrous at the point where you start nibbling away at the cake and wishing all of it were still there, while telling yourself that most of it still is. Certainly either course of action is not completely ludicrous as at the point of having just eaten the cake, trying to have the same cake again. Clearly that is impossible, no one would try such a thing.

    But many situations in life where people want to “have their cake and eat it too” start out as not obviously (to them at least) a choice between two mutually exclusive goals. For example, 1960s liberalism’s achievement of setting up wealth transfer from whites to non-whites, and increasing immigration and fecundity of non-whites. Probably for a lot of useful idiot liberal whites, the logical endpoint didn’t concern them as they weren’t capable of thinking that far ahead. For the brains among the communists, that was all part of a plan that sounded nice but in the end was about dispossessing the white society and establishment of their stuff.

    The second reason is that like many idioms, it’s a joke. It’s not funny because as part of an idiom it gets repeated until it is no longer funny except in relation to something. But as the setup of the joke, “have your cake” works better “and eat it too” works as the punchline. I would argue that “eat your cake and have it too” doesn’t work as well if at all, because it doesn’t set up that dawn of realization that hey, this whole having and eating thing is going to be impossible. Only a lunatic would believe that one could have a cake after eating it, so this form cannot build that lull before the audience of the joke “gets it”.

    Steve, as a national merit scholar you’re better than this. You failed tbraton’s s*** test and should have kept it phrased the way it was. And tbraton and co, if you are going to be pedantic go the whole hog.

  119. @CK
    @tbraton

    The original was, you can't eat your cake and still have it. As always progressive bastardization slipped in like a rapist in the night and changed the order. You cannot still have your cake after you have eaten it; unless you can find some other cake owner and tax him out of his.
    You can however have squirrel pot pie.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonym

    “The original was, you can’t eat your cake and still have it. ”

    Not according to the link I posted:

    “The phrase was actually used as early as 1538 in a letter from Thomas Howard, the third Duke of Norfolk, to Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to King Henry VIII. In the letter, found and archived by British History Online, Duke of Norfolk writes:

    I require you to send me, by this bearer, my will, which ye have sealed in a box. I must alter things therein, for my substance in money and plate is not so good now by 2,000l., “a man can not have his cake and eat his cake.”

    The idiom was later published in A Dialogue Conteynyng Prouerbes and Epigrammes by John Heywood in 1562. Heywood switches the clauses so it reads, “Wolde ye bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?” (Several other well-known phrases or “figures of speech” have been attributed to Heywood, including “two heads are better than one” and “Rome was not built in a day.”)”
    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/

  120. @countenance
    Steve Sailer wrote:

    The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to eat its cake and have it too: to privilege traditional minorities, while at the same time demographically reducing through immigration the traditional majority to a minority, who will be disprivileged as the Legacy Majority.
     
    I respond:

    Another fundamental problem with modern liberalism is that it both desires and is predicated upon intra-Hajnal Line northwestern European social altruism, but wants it to apply to and be relevant to the entire world, and in fact, modern liberals think that everyone is a socially altruistic northwestern European, only external and supposedly easily removable factors prevent them from actually being such.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Anonym

    Liberalism conceives of non-whites as unenlightened European-minded people of different form factors. Perhaps where Islam also gets it wrong is that it conceives of Kaffirs as unenlightened Arab-minded people of different form factors. Maybe it worked in Turkey to some extent but it is definitely different culturally.

    I know someone else alluded to this earlier but it is interesting to compare and contrast the two universalist ideologies.

    • Agree: This Is Our Home
  121. @CK
    @tbraton

    The original was, you can't eat your cake and still have it. As always progressive bastardization slipped in like a rapist in the night and changed the order. You cannot still have your cake after you have eaten it; unless you can find some other cake owner and tax him out of his.
    You can however have squirrel pot pie.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anonym

    First recorded use does not support your contention.

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/

    • Agree: tbraton
  122. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The vast middle is growing and right now, nobody is representing their interests.

    You have to suspect that in a nation functioning along the lines of what the founders expected, both of the current major parties would have been put out of their misery long ago. But there’s a lot of momentum in “faction”, it would appear…

  123. @Cagey Beast
    @International Jew

    No, I think the vast majority of Europeans assumed the North African coming in to staff the factories would save up some money and then go back to their families in North Africa. The immigration of the families of foreign workers only became policy in the mid-1970s. That was when France, West Germany and others switched over to the American model.

    Replies: @BB753

    Unlike Italian and Spanish immigrants, Africans of all stripes had no First World home country to go back to. So they stayed and brought their extended family to France. President Giscard d’Estaing is the culprit by allowing family reunification.
    That’s an important point I always make when discussing immigration: are the people coming in going to stay or are they going back? If they’re not going back they’re settlers or invaders, not immigrants.

  124. @notsaying
    There's certainly millions of Americans who believe in the kind of stereotypical elite "liberalism" that's being described here.

    But there's many, many more Americans who mostly disagree with today's very conservative Republicans and also disagree with a lot of today's elite liberal agenda.

    "An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%."

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

    The vast middle is growing and right now, nobody is representing their interests.

    Donald Trump has a mix of views -- some conservative, some not. I think part of his popularity is due to that; I do not think it's all from unhappy Republicans.

    If you ask me, both parties are steering themselves on suicidal paths: the Republicans by demonizing people who are not financially secure and being hostile to people in need, the Democrats by putting the needs and desires of their special interests groups (unionized workers and recent and future immigrants) ahead of their old stock nonunionized American voters.

    I look out at the political landscape and I see cracks everywhere.

    Everywhere.

    Replies: @Boogerbently

    Wait till all the unionized workers get the word that all of their health care plans qualify as Cadillac plans under Obamacare.

  125. @Anon
    @tbraton

    You really are a dammy.

    "You can't have your cake and eat it too" makes perfect sense.

    After all, a cake isn't just food but like a work of art, a culinary sculpture. Something to show off, a feast for the eyes before a feast for the mouth.

    So, when you present it, you don't want to take a knife to it.

    You spent so much time and effort to make it so gorgeous and fancy. You wanna show it off like a trophy. That is 'having the cake'.

    To eat it, you must cut it up and destroy it.

    So, you can't have the cake as both trophy and food. To 'have' it, you must not eat it. To 'eat' it,you can't have it.

    It's like you can't have both a virgin and a whore.

    Consider the song McCarthur's Park. Why is the guy so upset? Cuz his gorgeous cake has been destroyed by the rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6a_KFJ5Ksc

    Replies: @tbraton

    Ah, anon, you come across as a real poet. A brainless and ignorant one, but a poet nonetheless.

  126. @Dave Pinsen
    Ross still says Trump won't be the GOP nominee.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Tipo 61, @Jefferson, @Curle

    Maybe it was a device that would permit his establishment readers to feel comfortable forwarding his article to others. Kind of opening a book about evolved differences among different races with a long paean to multiculturalism. It helps hide the thought crime.

  127. @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks

    We haven’t. We made them dependents.

  128. @tbraton
    @Anonymous

    "Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don’t think it’s that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber. "

    Yeah, that Ted Kaczynski connection (which I was unaware of before today) took me by surprise. Before you posted, I decided to do a little research a la Mr. Google and came across a piece which mentioned Kaczynski and completely startled me. I was going to post a message citing Ted Kaczynski as authority (with my tongue planted firmly in cheek), but you beat me to it.

    BTW here's the link I found, which states that the original usage back in the 16th century was actually the grammatically incorrect form, then pendants like Jonathan Swift came along setting it right, and the battle waged back and forth until the 1930's when the improper usage became the form most commonly used, in spite of the best efforts of FDR (who had a stable of exceptional speech writers working for him). http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/ ("But according to Google Ngram Viewer (a handy tracker of usage of phrases in published works over time), somewhere between 1938 and 1939, the percentages switch and “You can’t HAVE your cake and EAT it too” became more prevalent. Right around this time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the now less common version of the proverb in his 1940 State of the Union address when referring to the need to increase spending for national defense:
    'As will appear in the annual budget tomorrow, the only important increase in any part of the budget is the estimate for national defense. Practically all other important items show a reduction. But you know, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.'
    As alluded too above, some linguists have insisted that “Have…Eat” iteration is not correct due to the actual plausibility of the statement. You, in fact, can have your cake and then eat it. That isn’t impossible, therefore it negates what the actual idiom stands for, not unlike the common error of saying, “I could care less!” when one means “could not care less.” ")

    It's amazing how idiomatic expressions change unthinkingly over time, usually by misusage of them by people having little understanding of the phrase they are using. For example, the idiom cited above about "could care less/could not care less." More often than not, I find myself using the improper form when speaking (not in writing, where you have the luxury of editing your words). The one idiom which appears to have taken hold is "that point in time." Every time I hear it, my teeth grit, just as they did when I first heard it during the Nixon Administration. That gross misusage of English now appears to be firmly established. When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an "ignorant person" and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was "irregardless," which I rarely hear nowadays. I also have a strong aversion to the improper usage of "gender" (a strictly grammatical term) which has replaced "sex" for the most part.

    Replies: @Seamus Padraig, @TangoMan

    Thanks, tbraton. I always thought that ‘have your cake and eat it too’ was a ridiculous statement. I never knew it started out as ‘eat your cake and have it too’. That makes just a tad more sense.

    The things you don’t learn at unz.com!

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Seamus Padraig

    It didn't start out that way. The earliest form was from 1538 as "A man can not have his cake and eat his cake."

  129. I just saw the film The Hateful Eight. There are 4 Black characters, which is a lot for a movie that is suppose to be set in freaking Wyoming. There are more Non Hispanic Native Americans in Wyoming than there are Blacks, yet there were zero Natives in the film. So The Hateful Eight had an over representation of Blacks and an under representation of Non Hispanic Native Americans when you factor in that the setting is Wyoming.

    The N Word was a said A LOT in the film, although surprisingly most of it was said by White people and not Samuel L. Jackson.

    In the 21st Century only in a Quentin Tarantino film can White people get away with saying the N word that many times, LOL.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Jefferson

    Whiskey tango foxtrot--??

    You went to see Jackson in a Tarantino film? Where I come from that's tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And no, the excuse "know the enemy" won't fly. We already know.

    Replies: @Jefferson

  130. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    “Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.”

    A Roman Emperor might have once made the same argument to his subjects, “sure the Republic is gone, but we’re stronger now than ever and all those immigrants will assimilate just fine like always.” How did that turn out?

    “Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.”

    I’m not an expert on Britain, but that doesn’t seem as ironclad as you might think. Sure, we have Facebook and mobile phones now, but tuition costs are way up and housing affordability is way down. What kind of trade is that?

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/for-1-in-8-americans-a-dollar100k-income-is-required-to-buy-a-median-priced-home/ar-BB7ee1c

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Divine Right

    Sean Gabb of the British Libertarian Alliance makes the same point (he's an anti-immigration libertarian), that a bus driver in London in the 60s could afford to own a home, his wife could stay home with the children, the children would get a decent education, you rarely worried about walking the streets at night, you weren't constantly provoked into defending the legitimacy of your culture or heritage and you weren't living in fear of some bureaucrat overlord bringing chaos to your family. All that has changed for the worse but now people have laptops and iphones, raising the question whether we account for the correct things when looking at economic well being? In other words, things are unquestionably worse for the lower middle class.

  131. @Seamus Padraig
    @tbraton

    Thanks, tbraton. I always thought that 'have your cake and eat it too' was a ridiculous statement. I never knew it started out as 'eat your cake and have it too'. That makes just a tad more sense.

    The things you don't learn at unz.com!

    Replies: @Anonym

    It didn’t start out that way. The earliest form was from 1538 as “A man can not have his cake and eat his cake.”

  132. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Merema
    Europe went through a lot before they established the sane, humane orderly society they eventually became (at least the western part). They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria. These are not the primitive rural villages from Algeria or Turkey that had previously migrated to Europe in the aftermath of WWII.



    America terrorized Syria and Iraq -two very dysfunctional states- for decades for religious reasons i.e. Israel, without quite understanding the blow back that will eventually come.

    When Osama mass murdered 3000 civilians on 9/11, he provoked America into action and set off a chain of events that led to the disintegration of the middle east as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now there are 1 million Arab Muslim refugees smack in the ancestral homelands of Americans. I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can't get over it. It's not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.

    The loss of a liberal Europe would be a blow to human progress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @tbraton, @anon, @Anonymous

    They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria.

    What are you talking about? A lot of them don’t seem to be educated at all. A lot of them don’t even seem to be Syrian at all. This is because they’re not Syrian. Once they opened up the borders, a lot of those rural, unassimilable people you mentioned wandered in too.

  133. @Talpiot
    https://youtu.be/pg47QkaUL_U

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Why should Israel accept any of them? Aren’t there any Arab or Muslim countries where the Syrians might go?

    The Israelis in the video are so dumb. Their comparison of the Syrians to Jews in WWII is inept. Israel was founded because there was no Jewish state for Jews to run to. there are plenty of Arab and Muslim ones however. There is even an Islamic State lol.

  134. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell’s speech. …

    …Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I’m hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.”

    I think Steve has been doing a good job and is spot on. The problem is the GDP is a poor metric that doesn’t automatically reflect the well-being of the population it applies to (think of a hell-hole oil state). It’s a single number. It doesn’t encapsulate “the whole package”. As a single number, it just can’t. Many kids today are not as well off as kids when Powell made his speech in a number of important ways, such as cost of family formation, cost to buy a house, etc.. GDP doesn’t reflect things like opportunity. GDP doesn’t capture “quality of life”.

    A hallmark of liberalism is that it blinds itself to common sense and what people’s “lying eyes” see right in front of them. Considering a metric like GDP equivalent to the well-being of a population is a typical liberal just-so story.

  135. @Jefferson
    I just saw the film The Hateful Eight. There are 4 Black characters, which is a lot for a movie that is suppose to be set in freaking Wyoming. There are more Non Hispanic Native Americans in Wyoming than there are Blacks, yet there were zero Natives in the film. So The Hateful Eight had an over representation of Blacks and an under representation of Non Hispanic Native Americans when you factor in that the setting is Wyoming.

    The N Word was a said A LOT in the film, although surprisingly most of it was said by White people and not Samuel L. Jackson.

    In the 21st Century only in a Quentin Tarantino film can White people get away with saying the N word that many times, LOL.

    Replies: @Kylie

    Whiskey tango foxtrot–??

    You went to see Jackson in a Tarantino film? Where I come from that’s tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And no, the excuse “know the enemy” won’t fly. We already know.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Kylie

    "Whiskey tango foxtrot–??

    You went to see Jackson in a Tarantino film? Where I come from that’s tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And no, the excuse “know the enemy” won’t fly. We already know."

    It is a racist film, not a PC film especially since all of the Black characters in the movie die. This is not like Django Unchained where the Black man lives happily ever after and rides off into the sunset. I am sure people on Stormfront for example, would enjoy the racist dialogue used in The Hateful Eight to demean Samuel L. Jackson's character. I can see The Hateful Eight developing a cult following among Stormfront White Nationalists the same way American History X did.

  136. OT

    We need more H-1B visas, because source code is rotting in the fields.

  137. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Do you live in Britain?

    Everywhere is richer today, but that is thanks to technology. Korea is barely a democracy and China isn’t one at all. Singapore has chosen a fairly authoritarian path.

    Leaving aside improvements in technology, we live in smaller and more expensive houses and cannot afford replacement levels of children unless we are welfare scum and producing bastards is our paid profession.

  138. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @tbraton

    Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?

    Replies: @tbraton

    “Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?”

    I would love to answer your question, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your pretentious, overwrought and not entirely correct prose makes me think you must teach at one of our so-called “institutions of higher learning,” where the goal seems to be to write in the most obscure and confusing manner as possible in order to gull innocents into thinking that you are brighter than you are.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @tbraton

    10-4 good buddy.

  139. @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    you also have to remember white euros are lazier than hell! they will never do the work! they wont even defend their homelands anymore!

  140. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:
  141. @unit472
    Blogger Charles Hugh Smith notes that the 'tech' billionaires' interests are diverging from those of the Democrat establishment. Wall St. was tolerated when it was a source of cheap funding but the strain between those whose wealth is built on innovation and producing real products and those who engage in financial speculation and influence peddling will grow.

    There is also the problem of IQ. The tech economy requires more intelligent people. The H-1b visa issue highlights this issue. Silicon Valley imports people from India and China not Central America or Africa. Whatever the Bill Gate's and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can't find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman, @Reg Cæsar, @TangoMan

    Link to that article? Can not find it. I think it is great the tech billionaires are pulling their support from the dems, if the Alt Right will give them tax breaks for hiring Americans it would do a great deal to earn their support as well as the support of the STEM workers who are very much in need to being brought into the Alt Right.

  142. @Prof. Woland
    Multiculturalism has immobilized our society. There are many things we know need to be done such as tightening up immigration but because there is now a built in opposition to every sensible idea we need to go through this vetting process where everybody's feelings get heard. We will never have 100% consensus on any topic ever again.

    In 2015, I think the Japanese would have to bomb Pearl Harbor twice before America would go to war.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Henry Bowman

    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, “Shinto is a peaceful religion.”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Harry Baldwin


    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, “Shinto is a peaceful religion.”
     
    Hey Uncle Miltie, quit stealing my lines!

    Replies: @tbraton

  143. @Cagey Beast
    On a side note, I have to mention the top-rated reader's comment for that New York Times story. He doesn't seem to understand what liberalism is, even though we all live in liberal regimes and have for quite a while:



    Why doesn't this conservative write about conservative ideas and options? Has he anything to suggest? Anything to support?

    Instead, he constantly writes about liberals, and does so by mis-characterizing liberal ideas. Here, he suggests the Iraq War and financial crisis of the Bush Admin were the "liberal order" in action.

    "Through the dot-com bust, 9/11, the Iraq war, and the financial crisis, it was striking how consensus held, how elites kept circulating, how quickly populist movements collapsed or were co-opted . . . Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience."

    We have not gotten back to a liberal order in decades. It has been conservatives, austerity, wars, regime changes, and enriching the rich for near forty years that has gotten us to this mess.
     
    Seven-hundred and forty-seven super smart NYT readers don't seem to know what liberalism is either. Counting the author of the comment, that makes 748 liberal-progressive fish who don't know they're swimming in a liberal ocean and have been for their entire lives. Funny.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Neil Templeton

    Not that I was aware of Ross Douthat back in 2002-03, but I recall reading later, around the time he was named as the NYTimes’ youngest columnist in history, that he was not only a strong supporter of the Iraq War but, in the style of the times, was actively criticizing anybody who was expressing opposition or reservations about the war. I don’t think he has ever admitted that his support of the Iraq War was wrong. I do remember when the Libyan War came up in 2011 that he wrote a column expressing reservations to the Libyan War based on “conclusions we learned from our involvement in Iraq,” or something to that effect. Not one word about how he supported the Iraq War and now thought it was a wrong decision.

    In that way, Douthat is a lot like George Will, another prominent “conservative” columnist. Back in 2002-03, I was a regular viewer of ABC’s This Week, where George Will was a regular panelist at the time. I can remember him strongly supporting the Iraq War before it started and berating anybody who dared utter a word of opposition. A favorite target of his was Mohammed El Baredei of Egypt who was head of the international agency overseeing nuclear matters. Well, a few years later, around 2005, Will suddenly announced on This Week that the Iraq War violated every conservative principle in his body. As far as I know, Will never admitted that he had made a wrong decision about Iraq. I thought his admission that the Iraq War violated all his “conservative principles” was strange. I thought “principles” were deeply held beliefs that are arrived at through education and experience and were designed to guide your actions through life. I couldn’t understand what those “conservative principles” were that could be so easily discarded in the excitement of the moment.

  144. @Prof. Woland
    Multiculturalism has immobilized our society. There are many things we know need to be done such as tightening up immigration but because there is now a built in opposition to every sensible idea we need to go through this vetting process where everybody's feelings get heard. We will never have 100% consensus on any topic ever again.

    In 2015, I think the Japanese would have to bomb Pearl Harbor twice before America would go to war.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @Henry Bowman

    You do not need a majority consensus on anything to achieve something great, case in point look what the Cultural Marxist have done.

    WE have the net and we are winning on the issue of immigration and with that we will win on all other issues, Americans are ready and demanding immigration reduction.

  145. @iSteveFan

    ...backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.
     
    I hear this a lot from the MSM in relation to Europe's problems with immigration. They keep saying that the USA has an advantage because we've had a history of assimilating immigrants and Europe has not. But they fail to acknowledge that our so called success with assimilating immigrants was largely in the realm of assimilating fellow Europeans, albeit with different languages and cultures. But they were still more similar to the existing Americans than what is coming today.

    Therefore they blame Europe's immigration ills to its lack of history of assimilating immigrants rather than the fact that the immigrants coming are so dissimilar. Even the USA has had a heck of a time assimilating blacks who've been in this nation for 400 years! Yet it is blacks and other non-Europeans who are being brought into the First World in record numbers, not similar fellow Europeans. Is it any wonder that they (we) are going to have problems?

    Replies: @tbraton, @Anon, @International Jew, @Curle, @scoops, @Former Darfur

    Much of the drive behind multiculturalism was the realization, I think, that the left (Jewish and otherwise) finally had at some specific point that biculturalism -that is blacks and whites- was never going to be a reality: that left to their own devices, blacks and whites would, either by state or voluntary action, separate themselves from one another and stay separate, blacks having their own media, entertainment, churches, doctors, barbers, funeral parlors, the whole gamut of things one could imagine.

    I was witness to a recent discussion between some fortysomething white trendy college educated people about how “rap has gotten so shitty lately”. I am old enough now to know when to just stay silent and listen even though the ostensible premise of discussion is obvious horseshit, so as to hear the implicit assumptions. The discussion exactly echoed discussions I had had, in my blues guitar loving racially anticonscious days, about the black popular music that is now, itself, exactly the stuff these guys think is the benchmark of quality. We couldn’t understand why the young blacks had no use for or had never heard of the old blacks we thought were-as they say now-“the shit”. (I guess even that is passe’ now. Well, as they said fifteen years ago.) It is now understood that whites tend to approve of the black music of decades past while detesting that which is current, for two reasons. One is that blacks continually seek to differentiate their culture from white culture and so make it “more black”, and the other is this implicit feeling on our (the whites’) part that blacks at present must be specially decadent because they weren’t always this f***ed up.

    Well, the answer is, most of them always were and always will be, short of a eugenic event of massive proportions. Multiculturalism-creating a continuum rather than a line of color-requires a number of different people to inhabit a space. So, they made it so.

    The results are repellent to regular people, but someone must have seen the results in Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica and other places and said, gee, that’s for us!

    Who that someone is is obvious to all, and therefore the natural feelings this induces in everyone else have to be suppressed. But such suppression only works for so long. The Catholic Church suppressed the heresies that Protestantism represented for a while, but the invention of Gutenberg made it untenable in the end.

    The liberal order is scared and vulnerable. Its opponents, though, are divided and often dysfunctional. We live in interesting times indeed.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Former Darfur

    "It is now understood that whites tend to approve of the black music of decades past while detesting that which is current, for two reasons."

    Well, I grew up in a white neighborhood in Washington, D.C. in the 50's. I and my white friends listened to "white" radio stations playing Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, the Coasters, Ray Charles, as well as Elvis Presley. We thought the contemporary black music was great. Apparently, four white guys in Britain who would eventually call themselves "The Beatles" thought the same way. When I first heard The Beatles in college, I wasn't impressed since much of their early music was remakes of songs originally sung by black American artists, and I preferred the originals. There is a prolific crime novelist in D.C. named George Pelacanos, who has written a series of crime novels set in Washington, D.C. He's pretty good, imo, based on the handful of novels I have read. One of his themes is that back in the 60's and 70's (when he grew up--he was born in 1957), music was unifying, whereas the later black music such as rap was divisive. I remember hearing an interview with Ray Charles before he died. Most people don't realize this, but this great musical talent was a very successful Country and Western singer. I believe his recording of "I Can't Stop Loving You" is still the biggest selling record in Country and Western music. In his interview, Charles was asked about his reaction to rap. With great hesitation, he admitted he didn't like it. He was more of a traditionalist who preferred rhythm and melody. Rap had nothing to say to him.

  146. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.

    Homo economicus FTW!!!!

    Wrong.

    Today’s Brits are worse off by any measure that takes into account their sense that they have no future. In 1968, Brits had no idea that their government was going to go all in on a program of their destruction.

  147. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Yes, it’s a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell’s speech.

    First, prove your figures.

    Second, here’s a simple answer that does not fail to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries: Liberal states are parasites grafted onto the backs of the world’s most productive peoples. The “success” is in spite of, not due to, the liberal states. This is elementary.

  148. @SEATAF
    @Anonymous

    The commenters here are pretty amazing.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    True dat. Stick around. Join in. Happy New Year.

  149. @Harry Baldwin
    @Prof. Woland

    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, "Shinto is a peaceful religion."

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, “Shinto is a peaceful religion.”

    Hey Uncle Miltie, quit stealing my lines!

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Hey Uncle Miltie, quit stealing my lines!"

    Funny, but I hope you realize that few commenters here have any idea who "Uncle Miltie" was.

  150. What people don’t understand about Douthat is that he is not a conservative, but rather a moderate liberal. Moderate in the sense that he realizes it is dangerous to push changes too fast, although there’s little doubt that for the most part he supports the liberal view of what society should be and believes it inevitable.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Bill P

    I doubt it.

    The Sexual Revolution is at the heart of whatever it is that now calls itself liberalism. Douthat, as a casualty of the culture of casual divorce, is strongly against it.

    Replies: @HA

  151. @unit472
    Blogger Charles Hugh Smith notes that the 'tech' billionaires' interests are diverging from those of the Democrat establishment. Wall St. was tolerated when it was a source of cheap funding but the strain between those whose wealth is built on innovation and producing real products and those who engage in financial speculation and influence peddling will grow.

    There is also the problem of IQ. The tech economy requires more intelligent people. The H-1b visa issue highlights this issue. Silicon Valley imports people from India and China not Central America or Africa. Whatever the Bill Gate's and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can't find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman, @Reg Cæsar, @TangoMan

    Whatever the Bill Gate’s and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can’t find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    Nor from the millions of unemployed American techies? That part still smells funny.

  152. @MG
    How is "Douthat" pronounced?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @tbraton

    Douche. 😉

    He is the NYT’s young conservative. David Brooks is their old conservative. George Will is too much of a lefty for them.

  153. @Mr. Anon
    @ben tillman

    "This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate."

    I think it is a useful formulation. What globalists seem to ardently desire is a kind of globalist, corporate feudalism. That it is different than the medieval variety does not make it any less a kind of feudalism.

    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored. The feudal contract generally went only one-way; the nobility preyed upon their own people and yet still expected them to deliver food and sword-fodder when required. Towards the middle-classes, the nobility could not be quite so cavalier, but it took a lot of hard warring for the middle classes to finally assert thier rights.

    Replies: @Tlotsi, @ben tillman

    I don’t think Feudalism is the right way to think about it, for the simple reason that Feudalism was a system dominated by the warrior caste. Modern liberals are about as far from that as it is possible to be. What they are closer to are witch doctors. If you look at a lot of Bronze Age societies, they are dominated by priest-kings whose authority rests on the religious bs they feed to the gullible lower orders. That seems much closer to the society that liberals are working towards.

  154. @tbraton
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    "Did it ever occur to your that the absurdity of the syntax is part of the sum whole of the literary device to begin with?"

    I would love to answer your question, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your pretentious, overwrought and not entirely correct prose makes me think you must teach at one of our so-called "institutions of higher learning," where the goal seems to be to write in the most obscure and confusing manner as possible in order to gull innocents into thinking that you are brighter than you are.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

    10-4 good buddy.

  155. @Cagey Beast
    On a side note, I have to mention the top-rated reader's comment for that New York Times story. He doesn't seem to understand what liberalism is, even though we all live in liberal regimes and have for quite a while:



    Why doesn't this conservative write about conservative ideas and options? Has he anything to suggest? Anything to support?

    Instead, he constantly writes about liberals, and does so by mis-characterizing liberal ideas. Here, he suggests the Iraq War and financial crisis of the Bush Admin were the "liberal order" in action.

    "Through the dot-com bust, 9/11, the Iraq war, and the financial crisis, it was striking how consensus held, how elites kept circulating, how quickly populist movements collapsed or were co-opted . . . Here in the dying days of 2015, though, something seems to have shifted. For the first time in a generation, the theme of this year was the liberal order’s vulnerability, not its resilience."

    We have not gotten back to a liberal order in decades. It has been conservatives, austerity, wars, regime changes, and enriching the rich for near forty years that has gotten us to this mess.
     
    Seven-hundred and forty-seven super smart NYT readers don't seem to know what liberalism is either. Counting the author of the comment, that makes 748 liberal-progressive fish who don't know they're swimming in a liberal ocean and have been for their entire lives. Funny.

    Replies: @tbraton, @Neil Templeton

    So you are familiar with the origins of Liberalism? Excellent. We’ll make sure you have a seat on the No Fly List.

  156. @tbraton
    @grey enlightenment2

    While I appreciate your technical analysis of a grammatical dispute, I don't think anyone is confused about the meaning of the expression, whichever form he prefers to use. The problem is a fussiness about what words and phrases actually mean and how they should be expressed. In the same way, I don't think too many people are confused about what you mean to say when you choose to say "I could care less" rather than the more correct "I could not care less." In spoken English, I probably use the first form more often than the correct form. It's just a bad habit I picked along the way. Here is what the link I posted in another message says in part:

    "Linguists have debated for years over the proper order of the verb phrases. Up until the 19th and 20th centuries, more often than not, the proverb would read in some variation of “You can’t EAT your cake and HAVE it too,” which of course makes a tad more sense than the modern version; though in the end, the basic sentiment is the same- once you eat your cake, no more cake!"

    As I said in my original post to Steve Sailer, "Sorry for the grammatical nitpick." So right off the bat, I recognized the insignificance of the matter I was raising and apologized for raising it. I am somewhat surprised by the reaction that my post got, most in good humor and a few much too serious for my taste.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Irregardless of our pissing contest, my guess is that you are really a fairly decent sort.

    Sincerely, one asshole to another asshole.

  157. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “I think, that the left (Jewish and otherwise) finally had at some specific point that biculturalism -that is blacks and whites- was never going to be a reality: that left to their own devices, blacks and whites would, either by state or voluntary action, separate themselves from one another and stay separate…”

    Liberalism couldn’t possibly admit that their ideas about blacks being just white people who looked different were wrong (and that blacks had their own ideas about who and what they wanted to be and it didn’t necessarily amount to letting white liberals tell them that). After all the effort and attention liberals had put into the big lie they couldn’t admit defeat.

    So instead they obfusicated with multi-cult and PC.

    Liberalism was very lucky that the Cold War was on and the Western elites at the time apparently thought the West was on the short end of the stick. “Yeah, that Communism is going to get everybody all organized and take over the world anytime now, you know it’s irresistible to third-world peasants.” So Western governments pushed multi-cult and PC (an ultimate form of Welfare State—we even make you feel safe from microaggression, isn’t that just swell?) as the answer to communist propaganda. They seem to be still pushing. And now maybe they believe their own propaganda. Hey! I know how to grow our GDP 6%! All we need is more consumers! Who cares if they are on welfare?

  158. @Sean

    IN the twenty-five years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the architecture of liberal modernity has looked relatively stable.
     
    There have always been cracks in the Liberal order, they are called states. States are survival machines organised to fight or prepare for conflict with other states. Preserving the indigenous population (the nation) of a nation state is a means not an end for the state, and short of a requirement to resist military pressure, or exert it, maintaining a cohesive indigenous population will always come a poor second What we have now is the post Cold war liberal order, which is more and more looking like a capitalist conspiracy with anti nation animus.

    The reason Cameron is threatening Britain will leave the EU is their plans to tame the UK's precious City banks, hated by the countries that do not have the advantage of London, whose leveraging threatens EU economic stability. Mercantilism is increasingly in the driving seat, but each state's elite has different interests, so it looks like nationalism.

    I live in Scotland and the SNP are in no sense a threat to the liberal order they are 100% pro immigrant and pro EU, and desirous of being subsidised (like the population of Greece). I don't know that much about France but no one needed Houellebecq to tell them that the FN would be kept from winning any more than their current 2% of national representation by the main parties, as this happened repeatedly to Marine's father when he ran for president. Nothing new about the FN candidate getting past the first round and then being trounced. The other parties are not that different.

    The end of the cold war enabled national governments to throw off the legacy of an obsolete Anti Soviet alliance, and go wild with immigration as the Labour Blair government did Underneath the rhetoric, the liberal order parties are indistinguishable from mercantilism

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6eea332e-a1ce-11e2-8971-00144feabdc0.htmlBritain has undergone a demographic revolution, Goodhart shows. More immigrants now come each year than arrived in all the nine centuries between 1066 and 1950. Most of the postwar influx dates only from the last decade and a half. It began as soon as Tony Blair came to power. Net immigration nearly tripled, from 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 the following year, and kept rising. “In 30 years’ time,” Goodhart writes, “New Labour’s immigration policy will almost certainly be seen as its primary legacy
     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729 That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron's approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.
    They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.
     
    The Labour party under Corbyn would be vastly more pro immigration in power that even Bliar was.

    Ross says

    Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers. But it also pushed a fast-forward button on long-term trends threatening the liberal project in Europe — the challenge of Islam, the pressure of migration from Africa, the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

    In the process, Merkel handed ammunition to the argument, expressed in artistic form in Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Submission,” that late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide. And she did so at a moment when both the Islamic State and Vladimir Putin’s Russia were supplying evidence that the liberal project can be at least temporarily defied.
     
    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it's a PR coup which German traction gains from. The leaders of states have to act to their states advantage because this world was organised into the state system long before the liberal order was thought of and will be long after that order is forgotten. States are here to stay but nations are at bay.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29951222 In boardrooms, banks and governments the belief has taken root that the advance of capitalism is irreversible. The market-based system that developed in the West has spread to nearly every country in the world. Central economic planning of the sort that existed in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China no longer exists as a separate economic system. An outpost may linger on in North Korea, but there is really only one kind of economy left in the world. [...]
    Equally, there’s no reason to suppose capitalism is going to resume its advance. To my mind the most likely upshot is that the future will be like the past, with the world containing a variety of economic systems. Whatever happens, it won’t be determined by some imaginary process of social evolution. It will be human decisions, interacting with the uncontrollable flow of events, which lead the world into an unknown future.
     

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/europe-the-struggle-for-supremacy-1453-to-the-present-by-brendan-simms/2004835.article

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France. Simms even argues, plausibly, that Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was motivated largely by Richard Cobden’s “foreign policy” aim of making states more interdependent and thus less prone to conflict.
     
    Nation states lack an essential purpose for the political class now. They seem to be harking back to Cobden’s ideas. The old function of nation states was simply survival, which meant the support of the common people (who might be called on to fight and die in wars) was required. Post cold war the West is secure against external rival state threats and nuclear weapons have made conventional war against a great power doubly unlikely. The opposition of the people has become irrelevant. Yet we still hear talk of how the population must increase to keep the country important internationally and strong in relation to other supposedly friendly countries. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population exceeding Germany’s in the future.

    This gives the lie to a assertions of a stable liberal order, because a globalist ste leadership would not be worried about national influence and potential power against supposedly friendly countries. The globalist business elite could be made to alter course if there was a geopolitical threat, because the national governments will act for national cohesion not diversity in circumstances where their state is in real peril.

    There seems to have been a considerable exaggeration of Western peoples’ non materialistic inclination to sacrifice for the group, and when they do have such, their inclination and ability to organise to be effective against the well funded and self righteous mercantile-displacement lobby. Immigration is long term and unstoppable because of the powerful economic interests in favour of it.

    One more generation and I think European countries (Europeans are Sitting Bull there remember) will have a third of those under 30 wholly or part non European by race with a very slow nationalist declension . Demoralisation not representation. The population of EU countries is growing through immigration which has to be considered unstoppably continuing at the present level. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population being the biggest in Europe on current trends.

    I have read that many, many occupations will be disappearing shortly.so what are all the extra young people going to be doing a generation hence? The liberal order will create an unsustainable society, or maybe the state will keep a lid on with a security police and surveillance but that won't be anything recognisable as a continuation of the liberal order. We will still have the state, but lose the nation. "The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic" as Jean Raspail was sued by International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism for writing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @ben tillman, @yaqub the mad scientist

    Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.

    That is utterly ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @ben tillman


    Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.
     


    That is utterly ridiculous.That is utterly ridiculous.
     
    Perhaps the want was stronger than the need, but anti-French feeling was the only reliable way to unite Whig and Tory, especially against James II, who was in the employ of the Sun King.
  159. @Mr. Anon
    @ben tillman

    "This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate."

    I think it is a useful formulation. What globalists seem to ardently desire is a kind of globalist, corporate feudalism. That it is different than the medieval variety does not make it any less a kind of feudalism.

    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored. The feudal contract generally went only one-way; the nobility preyed upon their own people and yet still expected them to deliver food and sword-fodder when required. Towards the middle-classes, the nobility could not be quite so cavalier, but it took a lot of hard warring for the middle classes to finally assert thier rights.

    Replies: @Tlotsi, @ben tillman

    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored.

    True, but we’re shooting for something that resembles feudalism (in its idealized form) in the crucial respect of reciprocal obligations (or “bidirectional control”). The problem isn’t feudalism; it’s that the Left — the force of motion. aggression, entropy, “creative destruction” (in Ledeen’s words) — tears down anything we build up.

    The larger a society, the more difficult it is to maintain stability and cohesion. We need to build something that features Kevin MacDonald’s “hierarchic harmony” and “muted individualism”; T.D. Seeley’s “stratified stability”; Christopher Boehm’s “muted egalitarianism”. And the key is to devise structures that facilitate “bidirectional control” (D.S. Wilson) between and among social strata. Don’t conflate the theoretical soundness of feudalism with the empirical failures.

    If you have rich people oppressing (or seeking to oppress) everyone else, call it a plutocracy, which is as bad in theory as it is in practice.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @ben tillman

    "Don’t conflate the theoretical soundness of feudalism with the empirical failures."

    I have often heard the same thing said about socialism.

    What you say is not without truth or without merit. But I find it difficult to welcome a pre-1500 system of social organization as desirable.

  160. @unit472
    Blogger Charles Hugh Smith notes that the 'tech' billionaires' interests are diverging from those of the Democrat establishment. Wall St. was tolerated when it was a source of cheap funding but the strain between those whose wealth is built on innovation and producing real products and those who engage in financial speculation and influence peddling will grow.

    There is also the problem of IQ. The tech economy requires more intelligent people. The H-1b visa issue highlights this issue. Silicon Valley imports people from India and China not Central America or Africa. Whatever the Bill Gate's and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can't find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman, @Reg Cæsar, @TangoMan

    Whatever the Bill Gate’s and Tim Cooks may say publicly, for their own firms they just can’t find the sort of people they need amongst the intellectually benighted populations the left champions.

    The operative rule for this pleading is to omit the following phrase – ” . . at the pay levels that they want to offer.”

    There are plenty of “quant jocks” working on Wall Street. If Tim Cook and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg want to hire Americans with high IQ, then they need to cast a wider net and open their check books. Why not raid Wall Street for talent – offer a Ph.D in physics who is working at a hedge fund a $1,000,000 per year salary to write code for Facebook? I’m sure that there’ll be a lot of takers.

    Look, if septic tank pumping was a career which paid $500,000 per year, there’d be no shortage of guys fighting to be operating trucks which slurped up decayed crap out of septic tanks but most guys aren’t interested in this work if it pays only $20,000 per year.

  161. @ben tillman
    @Sean


    Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.
     
    That is utterly ridiculous.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.

    That is utterly ridiculous.That is utterly ridiculous.

    Perhaps the want was stronger than the need, but anti-French feeling was the only reliable way to unite Whig and Tory, especially against James II, who was in the employ of the Sun King.

  162. @Bill P
    What people don't understand about Douthat is that he is not a conservative, but rather a moderate liberal. Moderate in the sense that he realizes it is dangerous to push changes too fast, although there's little doubt that for the most part he supports the liberal view of what society should be and believes it inevitable.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I doubt it.

    The Sexual Revolution is at the heart of whatever it is that now calls itself liberalism. Douthat, as a casualty of the culture of casual divorce, is strongly against it.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Desiderius

    "Douthat, as a casualty of the culture of casual divorce,..."

    Casualty? If anything, he is a beneficiary. First of all, I don't think his parents divorced, but perhaps you know better.

    In any case, one of his most defining observations has been that those like him who make it to Harvard (not to mention graduating magna cum laude) are far more likely to come from intact families. In other words, he acknowledges that divorce helped weed out the competition.

    But yes, he is strongly against the divorce culture, which is yet another reason why liberals hate him. Anyone who doubts that needs to read the comment section of his columns once in a while.

  163. @Sean
    @International Jew

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Douthat Note he is the author of Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class (2005).


    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/ross-douthat-new-york-times-conservatism He'd been hired the previous month to succeed William Kristol, whose tenure as resident hard-right pundit had lasted barely a year. Douthat had written two books, but his only regular gig outside of The Atlantic had been reviewing movies for National Review. He had never been a beat reporter, nor worked in politics, nor been employed anywhere outside Washington. And he was the youngest op-ed columnist the paper had ever hired. He's still a bit stunned, in fact. "My worries tend to revolve around getting a dream job so young and then falling flat on my face," he admits. The opportunity was "enormously terrifying."
     
    Catholic so the neocons like him.

    Ross is equalitarian and you might as well talk genetic race as "nazis on the moon , what one would expect given his parents unorthodox personalities. Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school. His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school.

    You obviously haven’t read Privilege.

    His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).

    It’s ironic that you would choose this medium to advertise your ignorance of where Douthat made his name. It was in the outstanding American Scene blog he created with Reihan Salam where his work was not unlike Sailer’s.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Desiderius


    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/the-uses-and-abuses-of-taboos/

    And the left’s justification for imposing stronger cultural taboos in this area isn’t that the Muslim experience is exactly like the Jewish experience in 1930s Germany or the black experience in Dixie; rather, it’s that there’s a continuum of victimhood and exclusion, and that while events and institutions like the Holocaust and slavery occupy a distinctive place on that continuum, other forms of oppression imposed by the West, from our colonial past to its still-exclusionary present, deserve a cultural response today as well. [...] This perspective has a logic to it, and there are modest applications that don’t strike me as particularly troubling.

     

    HBD is anathematised by Douthat, which means he is nothing like Steve Sailer in putting it all on the line to say what others won't. Douthat has led a sheltered and charmed existence and he could no more become wunderkind top banana columnist at the NYT while saying HBD has explicatory power than he could levitate.
  164. @tbraton
    @Anonymous

    "Yeah, this is a screw up of an idiom, and I don’t think it’s that common. Ted Kaczynski made the same mistake and it was part of the reason his brother and the FBI analysts were able to determine the author of the manifesto was the unabomber. "

    Yeah, that Ted Kaczynski connection (which I was unaware of before today) took me by surprise. Before you posted, I decided to do a little research a la Mr. Google and came across a piece which mentioned Kaczynski and completely startled me. I was going to post a message citing Ted Kaczynski as authority (with my tongue planted firmly in cheek), but you beat me to it.

    BTW here's the link I found, which states that the original usage back in the 16th century was actually the grammatically incorrect form, then pendants like Jonathan Swift came along setting it right, and the battle waged back and forth until the 1930's when the improper usage became the form most commonly used, in spite of the best efforts of FDR (who had a stable of exceptional speech writers working for him). http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/cake-eat/ ("But according to Google Ngram Viewer (a handy tracker of usage of phrases in published works over time), somewhere between 1938 and 1939, the percentages switch and “You can’t HAVE your cake and EAT it too” became more prevalent. Right around this time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the now less common version of the proverb in his 1940 State of the Union address when referring to the need to increase spending for national defense:
    'As will appear in the annual budget tomorrow, the only important increase in any part of the budget is the estimate for national defense. Practically all other important items show a reduction. But you know, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.'
    As alluded too above, some linguists have insisted that “Have…Eat” iteration is not correct due to the actual plausibility of the statement. You, in fact, can have your cake and then eat it. That isn’t impossible, therefore it negates what the actual idiom stands for, not unlike the common error of saying, “I could care less!” when one means “could not care less.” ")

    It's amazing how idiomatic expressions change unthinkingly over time, usually by misusage of them by people having little understanding of the phrase they are using. For example, the idiom cited above about "could care less/could not care less." More often than not, I find myself using the improper form when speaking (not in writing, where you have the luxury of editing your words). The one idiom which appears to have taken hold is "that point in time." Every time I hear it, my teeth grit, just as they did when I first heard it during the Nixon Administration. That gross misusage of English now appears to be firmly established. When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an "ignorant person" and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was "irregardless," which I rarely hear nowadays. I also have a strong aversion to the improper usage of "gender" (a strictly grammatical term) which has replaced "sex" for the most part.

    Replies: @Seamus Padraig, @TangoMan

    When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an “ignorant person” and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was “irregardless,” which I rarely hear nowadays.

    The term “irregardless” was used to subtle effect in an episode of “Band of Brothers” uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @TangoMan

    "The term “irregardless” was used to subtle effect in an episode of “Band of Brothers” uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character."

    I wonder how many viewers picked up that subtlety.

    Replies: @TangoMan

  165. “A hallmark of liberalism is that it blinds itself to common sense and what people’s “lying eyes” see right in front of them”

    This hilariously misunderstands the situation. I’m not trying to defend the liberal order against the People’s Revolution. The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution. GDP may not be a perfect explanation but it’s better than “the people are mad (going on 50 years)” or “the people were tricked (decades ago, and still don’t seem to care)”.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Vinay


    I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution
     
    $20 trillion of other people's money buys a lot of people.

    We'll see how many stay bought when it runs out.
    , @anon
    @Vinay


    Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.
     
    I'd say the descendants of the bottom 1/3 of the population in 1968 are immeasurably worse off but yes if you define your "average" as the middle 1/3 then that is probably true or at least was true until recently - they are on the edge of falling into the pit now due to stagnating incomes and ever increasing housing costs.

    The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution.
     
    The bottom 1/3 of the population were targeted first and not all at once - one neighborhood was cleansed at a time.

    So
    1) media censorship of what was really happening in the poorer areas
    2) the media's use of negative class stereotypes to neutralise concern from the upper 2/3
    3) white flight
    meant the bottom 1/3 of the white population could be cleansed quietly.

    White flight was the critical relief valve here - white people just kept moving away.

    Now we're moving into the second phase where the middle 1/3 of the white population is being targeted for eradication and moving away is becoming impossible.

  166. @ben tillman
    @Mr. Anon


    And anway, the (in theory) reciprocal obligations upon which medieval feudalism was built were often thrown by the way-side. Towards the poor, they were almost never truly honored.
     
    True, but we’re shooting for something that resembles feudalism (in its idealized form) in the crucial respect of reciprocal obligations (or “bidirectional control”). The problem isn't feudalism; it's that the Left -- the force of motion. aggression, entropy, "creative destruction" (in Ledeen's words) -- tears down anything we build up.

    The larger a society, the more difficult it is to maintain stability and cohesion. We need to build something that features Kevin MacDonald’s “hierarchic harmony” and “muted individualism”; T.D. Seeley’s “stratified stability”; Christopher Boehm’s “muted egalitarianism”. And the key is to devise structures that facilitate "bidirectional control" (D.S. Wilson) between and among social strata. Don't conflate the theoretical soundness of feudalism with the empirical failures.

    If you have rich people oppressing (or seeking to oppress) everyone else, call it a plutocracy, which is as bad in theory as it is in practice.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Don’t conflate the theoretical soundness of feudalism with the empirical failures.”

    I have often heard the same thing said about socialism.

    What you say is not without truth or without merit. But I find it difficult to welcome a pre-1500 system of social organization as desirable.

  167. @Vinay
    "A hallmark of liberalism is that it blinds itself to common sense and what people’s “lying eyes” see right in front of them"

    This hilariously misunderstands the situation. I'm not trying to defend the liberal order against the People's Revolution. The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I'm trying to understand why there *is* no People's Revolution. GDP may not be a perfect explanation but it's better than "the people are mad (going on 50 years)" or "the people were tricked (decades ago, and still don't seem to care)".

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution

    $20 trillion of other people’s money buys a lot of people.

    We’ll see how many stay bought when it runs out.

  168. @ben tillman
    @TG


    Ultimately ‘liberals’ want to bring back feudalism. They want a small number of aristocrats living in splendor while the bulk of the population is reduced to serfdom.
     
    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations, and the notion that there is something wrong with aristocracy is illiterate. Government by the best -- who could object to that?

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    Replies: @Spotted Toad, @Mr. Anon, @andy russia

    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations,

    it is useful insofar as feudalism is taken to mean “the thing we had before nation states.” these are the features of that system anyone can recognize in today’s world:

    1) obscurantism and anti-intellectualism
    2) rule by a small globalist minority who owe more allegiance to one another than to “the people”
    3) dismantling of the national public sphere and of the civil society. extreme corporatism. nation states ceasing core things like infrastructure, security, education, even the dispensing of justice, to private actors who can make their own laws.
    4) (re-)proletarization of the middle class.

    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.

    political centralization is not “necessarily something to be avoided.” those who had failed to centralize by the 19th century, well, today they have straightline borders made by someone else.

    the forces that brought about the emancipation of the middle class from the nobility were left-wing.

    • Replies: @andy russia
    @andy russia


    private actors who can make their own laws.
     
    I'll say it again: when a country imprisons dissidents, it's a dystopian rogue state with no regard for human rights. If Zuck deleted all posts containing the word "duck" he would merely be exercising his property rights, like a pre-modern feudal princeling. This is a problem.
  169. @andy russia
    @ben tillman


    This is not a useful formulation. The notion that feudalism is necessarily something to be avoided ignores the reciprocal obligations inherent in feudal relations,
     
    it is useful insofar as feudalism is taken to mean "the thing we had before nation states." these are the features of that system anyone can recognize in today's world:

    1) obscurantism and anti-intellectualism
    2) rule by a small globalist minority who owe more allegiance to one another than to "the people"
    3) dismantling of the national public sphere and of the civil society. extreme corporatism. nation states ceasing core things like infrastructure, security, education, even the dispensing of justice, to private actors who can make their own laws.
    4) (re-)proletarization of the middle class.


    What Leftists (not liberals) want is centralization of wealth and power. Feudalism, is actually inconsistent with the centralization of power.
     
    political centralization is not "necessarily something to be avoided." those who had failed to centralize by the 19th century, well, today they have straightline borders made by someone else.

    the forces that brought about the emancipation of the middle class from the nobility were left-wing.

    Replies: @andy russia

    private actors who can make their own laws.

    I’ll say it again: when a country imprisons dissidents, it’s a dystopian rogue state with no regard for human rights. If Zuck deleted all posts containing the word “duck” he would merely be exercising his property rights, like a pre-modern feudal princeling. This is a problem.

  170. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    The increase in wealth has got everything to do with scientists and engineers – and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberalism’.

    Anyway, just in case you haven’t noticed, wages in the USA have stagnated for high in fifty years.
    In ‘illiberal’ China, wages double every five years.

  171. @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Anyway, in the Britain of 1968 there was never the engrained joblessness and state dependency – which effects an enormous slice of society – which we see today.
    Housing was affordable.
    The murder rate and violent crime was much lower.
    It was a much better, happier cohesive society.

  172. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinay
    @Anonymous

    "Simple answer, ‘liberalism’ = stupidity that an IQ 60 cretin would be ashamed of."

    Yes, it's a simple answer which utterly fails to account for the continued success of liberal states and countries, stretching back decades. Note that real per-capita GDP has increased around 2.5x since Powell's speech. Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968. That's not what you expect to see from a nation gone mad. If you don't like GDP, you can look at some other quantifiable measure like life expectancy or crime rate.

    Steve is pretty good about using statistics to poke holes in a narrative. So I'm hoping he can come up with a critique of liberalism which aligns with the data.

    Replies: @Divine Right, @22pp22, @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Anyhow, Britain’s typical economic growth rates in the decades prior to 1968 – and, incidentally, this was a time prior to EU membership which was touted at the time as an ‘economic panacea’ – were substantially more consistent and stronger than what we see today.
    The whole period from 1968 to present has been one of more or less economic stagnation, interspersed by a few pockets of erratic, sporadic growth swiftly followed by bust.
    If we look at the period since 2008 – the ‘Great Recession’ as it is termed, you’ll find growth rates barely bumping along the bottom. The worst, in fact, since economic statistics were ever gathered in Britain, which was a very, very long time ago.

    The Britain of 1968 was an industrial superpower, perhaps second only to the USA. It led the world in terms of ships, cars, heavy machinery, coal, steel, electrical gear and even in such fields as electronics, textiles, footwear and toys.
    Now all of that is gone – replaced by a truly enormous and persistent trade deficit that immigration has done nothing to alleviate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    Just in case he hadn't noticed, Powell's great and superlative speech way back in '68 - which surely must rank as the greatest British political speech in the venture post 1945 period, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'liberalism' - in fact Powell kept the torch burning for 'liberal' 19th century economics in an era when it was decide,y non-trendy, or even 'economics'.
    Powell was warning - I call it prophesying, because I honestly do think that that speech was 'inspired' about the terrible, bloody, catastrophic and ultimately apocalyptic results of massive, uncontrolled, third world immigration into Britain.
    To pontificate about claims about 'economic growth' in Britain since 1968, claims which I quite frankly disbelieve, is just erecting a straw man for the sake of obfuscation.
    Powell's speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death.

    As a backdrop, Powell had been an officer in the British Indian army prior to independence and partition. With his own eyes he witnessed the slaughter and passions aroused by sectarianism. He was also inspired by the wave of black riots that hit America in 1968.

    , @Hibernian
    @Anonymous

    I think you have to go back before 1945 to find Britain as an industrial superpower.

  173. @Reg Cæsar
    @Harry Baldwin


    Yes, as President George W. Bush would remind us, “Shinto is a peaceful religion.”
     
    Hey Uncle Miltie, quit stealing my lines!

    Replies: @tbraton

    “Hey Uncle Miltie, quit stealing my lines!”

    Funny, but I hope you realize that few commenters here have any idea who “Uncle Miltie” was.

  174. @MG
    How is "Douthat" pronounced?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @tbraton

    “How is “Douthat” pronounced?”

    DOW-thet

    Listen here: http://forvo.com/word/ross_douthat/

  175. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Anyhow, Britain's typical economic growth rates in the decades prior to 1968 - and, incidentally, this was a time prior to EU membership which was touted at the time as an 'economic panacea' - were substantially more consistent and stronger than what we see today.
    The whole period from 1968 to present has been one of more or less economic stagnation, interspersed by a few pockets of erratic, sporadic growth swiftly followed by bust.
    If we look at the period since 2008 - the 'Great Recession' as it is termed, you'll find growth rates barely bumping along the bottom. The worst, in fact, since economic statistics were ever gathered in Britain, which was a very, very long time ago.

    The Britain of 1968 was an industrial superpower, perhaps second only to the USA. It led the world in terms of ships, cars, heavy machinery, coal, steel, electrical gear and even in such fields as electronics, textiles, footwear and toys.
    Now all of that is gone - replaced by a truly enormous and persistent trade deficit that immigration has done nothing to alleviate.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Hibernian

    Just in case he hadn’t noticed, Powell’s great and superlative speech way back in ’68 – which surely must rank as the greatest British political speech in the venture post 1945 period, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberalism’ – in fact Powell kept the torch burning for ‘liberal’ 19th century economics in an era when it was decide,y non-trendy, or even ‘economics’.
    Powell was warning – I call it prophesying, because I honestly do think that that speech was ‘inspired’ about the terrible, bloody, catastrophic and ultimately apocalyptic results of massive, uncontrolled, third world immigration into Britain.
    To pontificate about claims about ‘economic growth’ in Britain since 1968, claims which I quite frankly disbelieve, is just erecting a straw man for the sake of obfuscation.
    Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death.

    As a backdrop, Powell had been an officer in the British Indian army prior to independence and partition. With his own eyes he witnessed the slaughter and passions aroused by sectarianism. He was also inspired by the wave of black riots that hit America in 1968.

  176. @Glossy
    Europe's extremes gained, in part

    No they didn't. Losing an election by fewer percentage points than last time isn't a gain. The powers that be gained by importing more "refugees" - that was a real-world gain for them.

    Even winning a presidential election in a major country wouldn't be a win for the right in itself. Only reversing the demographic tide would be a win. As long as the tide is flowing in its current direction, globalism, the left, the powers that be are winning.

    Replies: @The Z Blog, @anon

    As long as the tide is flowing in its current direction, globalism, the left, the powers that be are winning.

    They are killing the golden goose. TPTB can’t win – it’s just a question of whether they lose 1st or 2nd.

  177. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinay
    "A hallmark of liberalism is that it blinds itself to common sense and what people’s “lying eyes” see right in front of them"

    This hilariously misunderstands the situation. I'm not trying to defend the liberal order against the People's Revolution. The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I'm trying to understand why there *is* no People's Revolution. GDP may not be a perfect explanation but it's better than "the people are mad (going on 50 years)" or "the people were tricked (decades ago, and still don't seem to care)".

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968.

    I’d say the descendants of the bottom 1/3 of the population in 1968 are immeasurably worse off but yes if you define your “average” as the middle 1/3 then that is probably true or at least was true until recently – they are on the edge of falling into the pit now due to stagnating incomes and ever increasing housing costs.

    The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution.

    The bottom 1/3 of the population were targeted first and not all at once – one neighborhood was cleansed at a time.

    So
    1) media censorship of what was really happening in the poorer areas
    2) the media’s use of negative class stereotypes to neutralise concern from the upper 2/3
    3) white flight
    meant the bottom 1/3 of the white population could be cleansed quietly.

    White flight was the critical relief valve here – white people just kept moving away.

    Now we’re moving into the second phase where the middle 1/3 of the white population is being targeted for eradication and moving away is becoming impossible.

  178. anon • Disclaimer says:

    My gran’s version was

    can’t have your cake and eat it

    which we understood easily enough. The sparseness reminds me of the way they talk in westerns – minimum number of words necessary.

    I wonder if ethnic background is a factor here – do people used to stricter languages find it difficult while people used to fuzzy languages don’t?

  179. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Merema
    Europe went through a lot before they established the sane, humane orderly society they eventually became (at least the western part). They might still be able to absorb and integrate the million muslim mass migration if they can integrate the latter economically as the refugees seem to be the more educated/modern segment of Syria. These are not the primitive rural villages from Algeria or Turkey that had previously migrated to Europe in the aftermath of WWII.



    America terrorized Syria and Iraq -two very dysfunctional states- for decades for religious reasons i.e. Israel, without quite understanding the blow back that will eventually come.

    When Osama mass murdered 3000 civilians on 9/11, he provoked America into action and set off a chain of events that led to the disintegration of the middle east as a result of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now there are 1 million Arab Muslim refugees smack in the ancestral homelands of Americans. I find it shocking that all one million of them practically walked in mass to old Europe. I can't get over it. It's not so much that these refugees are bad people per se, but no country should have to be invaded by a mass illegal migration of an alien people.

    The loss of a liberal Europe would be a blow to human progress.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @tbraton, @anon, @Anonymous

    Very soon after victory in WW2, Britain executed ‘Lord Haw-Haw’.

    Who is or was Lord Haw-Haw?, you may ask.

    Well, ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ was the pejorative name given by the British press to one William Joyce, an Irishman, citizen of Eire, who took residence in pre 1939 Germany, and took employment with the German government as a radio announcer. He was labelled ‘Haw-Haw’ because of his overblown, pompous attempt at an upper class English accent.
    Joyce’s job was to broadcast nightly warning to the British public highlighting cities to be bombed – together with a judicious bit of blood-curdling German propaganda.

    Well, after the war, Joyce fell into the hands of British authorities and was taken to Britain.
    Such was the thirst for the British public – including apparently senior politicians and judiciary – for vengeance that Joyce was put on trial for treason. Joyce argued that as an Irishman he could not commit treason against a state to which he had no loyalty. To no avail. Legal manouverings by the British judiciary put the kibosh on that.

    Anyway, Joyce was killed for the crime of merely uttering words. No more no less. Words written by someone else. The ‘liberal’ Britain of the 1940s killed him with a great sense of pleasure and happiness.
    If a similar case was to occur today then Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, the EU courts etc, would ‘do their absolute bollocks’ – to use my favorite Cockneyism.

  180. @Sean

    IN the twenty-five years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the architecture of liberal modernity has looked relatively stable.
     
    There have always been cracks in the Liberal order, they are called states. States are survival machines organised to fight or prepare for conflict with other states. Preserving the indigenous population (the nation) of a nation state is a means not an end for the state, and short of a requirement to resist military pressure, or exert it, maintaining a cohesive indigenous population will always come a poor second What we have now is the post Cold war liberal order, which is more and more looking like a capitalist conspiracy with anti nation animus.

    The reason Cameron is threatening Britain will leave the EU is their plans to tame the UK's precious City banks, hated by the countries that do not have the advantage of London, whose leveraging threatens EU economic stability. Mercantilism is increasingly in the driving seat, but each state's elite has different interests, so it looks like nationalism.

    I live in Scotland and the SNP are in no sense a threat to the liberal order they are 100% pro immigrant and pro EU, and desirous of being subsidised (like the population of Greece). I don't know that much about France but no one needed Houellebecq to tell them that the FN would be kept from winning any more than their current 2% of national representation by the main parties, as this happened repeatedly to Marine's father when he ran for president. Nothing new about the FN candidate getting past the first round and then being trounced. The other parties are not that different.

    The end of the cold war enabled national governments to throw off the legacy of an obsolete Anti Soviet alliance, and go wild with immigration as the Labour Blair government did Underneath the rhetoric, the liberal order parties are indistinguishable from mercantilism

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6eea332e-a1ce-11e2-8971-00144feabdc0.htmlBritain has undergone a demographic revolution, Goodhart shows. More immigrants now come each year than arrived in all the nine centuries between 1066 and 1950. Most of the postwar influx dates only from the last decade and a half. It began as soon as Tony Blair came to power. Net immigration nearly tripled, from 48,000 in 1997 to 140,000 the following year, and kept rising. “In 30 years’ time,” Goodhart writes, “New Labour’s immigration policy will almost certainly be seen as its primary legacy
     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729 That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron's approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.
    They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.
     
    The Labour party under Corbyn would be vastly more pro immigration in power that even Bliar was.

    Ross says

    Europe’s extremes gained, in part, because in 2015 the center was unusually feckless. Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to a million Middle Eastern refugees earned her the praise of her globalist peers. But it also pushed a fast-forward button on long-term trends threatening the liberal project in Europe — the challenge of Islam, the pressure of migration from Africa, the danger of backlash in countries with little experience of mass assimilation.

    In the process, Merkel handed ammunition to the argument, expressed in artistic form in Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Submission,” that late-modern liberalism might have a certain tendency toward suicide. And she did so at a moment when both the Islamic State and Vladimir Putin’s Russia were supplying evidence that the liberal project can be at least temporarily defied.
     
    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it's a PR coup which German traction gains from. The leaders of states have to act to their states advantage because this world was organised into the state system long before the liberal order was thought of and will be long after that order is forgotten. States are here to stay but nations are at bay.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29951222 In boardrooms, banks and governments the belief has taken root that the advance of capitalism is irreversible. The market-based system that developed in the West has spread to nearly every country in the world. Central economic planning of the sort that existed in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China no longer exists as a separate economic system. An outpost may linger on in North Korea, but there is really only one kind of economy left in the world. [...]
    Equally, there’s no reason to suppose capitalism is going to resume its advance. To my mind the most likely upshot is that the future will be like the past, with the world containing a variety of economic systems. Whatever happens, it won’t be determined by some imaginary process of social evolution. It will be human decisions, interacting with the uncontrollable flow of events, which lead the world into an unknown future.
     

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/europe-the-struggle-for-supremacy-1453-to-the-present-by-brendan-simms/2004835.article

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France. Simms even argues, plausibly, that Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was motivated largely by Richard Cobden’s “foreign policy” aim of making states more interdependent and thus less prone to conflict.
     
    Nation states lack an essential purpose for the political class now. They seem to be harking back to Cobden’s ideas. The old function of nation states was simply survival, which meant the support of the common people (who might be called on to fight and die in wars) was required. Post cold war the West is secure against external rival state threats and nuclear weapons have made conventional war against a great power doubly unlikely. The opposition of the people has become irrelevant. Yet we still hear talk of how the population must increase to keep the country important internationally and strong in relation to other supposedly friendly countries. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population exceeding Germany’s in the future.

    This gives the lie to a assertions of a stable liberal order, because a globalist ste leadership would not be worried about national influence and potential power against supposedly friendly countries. The globalist business elite could be made to alter course if there was a geopolitical threat, because the national governments will act for national cohesion not diversity in circumstances where their state is in real peril.

    There seems to have been a considerable exaggeration of Western peoples’ non materialistic inclination to sacrifice for the group, and when they do have such, their inclination and ability to organise to be effective against the well funded and self righteous mercantile-displacement lobby. Immigration is long term and unstoppable because of the powerful economic interests in favour of it.

    One more generation and I think European countries (Europeans are Sitting Bull there remember) will have a third of those under 30 wholly or part non European by race with a very slow nationalist declension . Demoralisation not representation. The population of EU countries is growing through immigration which has to be considered unstoppably continuing at the present level. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population being the biggest in Europe on current trends.

    I have read that many, many occupations will be disappearing shortly.so what are all the extra young people going to be doing a generation hence? The liberal order will create an unsustainable society, or maybe the state will keep a lid on with a security police and surveillance but that won't be anything recognisable as a continuation of the liberal order. We will still have the state, but lose the nation. "The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic" as Jean Raspail was sued by International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism for writing.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @ben tillman, @yaqub the mad scientist

    Merkel mounted a soft power offensive against the complaint that Germany was bullying other countries, it’s a PR coup which German traction gains from.

    Destroying yourself demographically to win flowery speeches in forums….um, yeah.

    I’ve noticed how people tend to use the word “traction” -often unconsciously- to signal progress that isn’t.

  181. @Kylie
    @Jefferson

    Whiskey tango foxtrot--??

    You went to see Jackson in a Tarantino film? Where I come from that's tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And no, the excuse "know the enemy" won't fly. We already know.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “Whiskey tango foxtrot–??

    You went to see Jackson in a Tarantino film? Where I come from that’s tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And no, the excuse “know the enemy” won’t fly. We already know.”

    It is a racist film, not a PC film especially since all of the Black characters in the movie die. This is not like Django Unchained where the Black man lives happily ever after and rides off into the sunset. I am sure people on Stormfront for example, would enjoy the racist dialogue used in The Hateful Eight to demean Samuel L. Jackson’s character. I can see The Hateful Eight developing a cult following among Stormfront White Nationalists the same way American History X did.

  182. @tbraton
    "The fundamental problem with liberalism is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too"

    Sorry for the grammatical nitpick, Steve, but you can't eat your cake unless you have it first. On the other hand, you can't have it after you have eaten it. That's why the correct expression is "wanting to eat your cake and have it too." The other way around is nonsensical, even though you hear it that way more often that not. Repent, you sinner, for the day of atonement is near. At least that's what it said on that fortune cookie I had the other day.

    Replies: @Matthew Kelly, @V Vega, @Anonymous, @grey enlightenment2, @CK, @carol, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @V. Uil, @Anon, @Randal

    Fwiw, I don’t share your position on this. I like the original usage, and it doesn’t grate on me at all, as it clearly does on you (and I defer to few men in my capacity to be a grumpy old git about minor grammatical irritants in general).

    Old idioms often rely on old fashioned or idiosyncratic usages, as this one does on the usage of “have” in a continuing possession sense. That’s part of their charm. This is not a case of an obvious transmission error, such as replacing “homing in” with “honing in”, nor of a simply lazy error in comprehension such as “I could care less”.

    So my recommendation is to change your response to this particular one. As in all such matters, though, de gustibus non est disputandum, in the end.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @Randal

    "Fwiw, I don’t share your position on this. I like the original usage, and it doesn’t grate on me at all, as it clearly does on you (and I defer to few men in my capacity to be a grumpy old git about minor grammatical irritants in general). . .So my recommendation is to change your response to this particular one."

    Well, Randall, I think you are wrong to accept the "original" (first recorded instance, as far we know--I am sure that wasn't the first time the phrase was used) usage of the phrase in 1538 by Thomas Howard, the infamous Duke of Norfolk, who seemed more interested in military affairs and political intrigue (he was the uncle of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII) than proper English usage. It was changed to the more sensible form 24 years later by John Heywood, who was probably better educated and more attuned to proper English language usage than Thomas Howard. Heywood, after all, was the accomplished wordsmith who came up with the phrases "two heads are better than one" and "Rome was not built in a day," useful phrases that have stood the test of time. And then we have the nearly 200 year history when "to eat. . .and have" was considered the preferable form by intelligent English speakers and writers before popular taste reversed in the late 1930's. As to your "recommendation" that I change my preference to suit your corrupted taste, I feel that is highly presumptuous on your part. For my part, I could not care less which form you choose to use. That is entirely up to you. If you choose to use the more nonsensical form of the phrase, that is entirely your choice and just reflects your level of taste. I will continue to use the phrase in its proper, more intelligent form: "to eat your cake and have it too." BTW I will also continue to say "graduate from college" rather than succumb to the more fashionable corrupted form "graduate college," which I hear and read more and more these days. I was properly taught that intransitive verbs are always followed by a preposition. What is gained from converting an intransitive verb form to a transitive verb form is beyond my comprehension other than showing the ignorance of the writer or speaker. I can see how a school (college or high school) "graduates" students, but how does a student "graduate" a school?

  183. Why should Israel accept any of them? Aren’t there any Arab or Muslim countries where the Syrians might go?

    Because the Jewish diaspora is the foremost cheerleader for open borders and mass immigration, and Israeli Jewry are their BFFs? Because making someone lie down in the bed they’ve made for you is poetic justice?

    There’s an explicitly Jewish Reich, and no explicitly White states, yet Jews still feel entitled to free access to all of the latter (and to barring non-Jewish Whites from the former), and go ape if you suggest Whites have the right to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel.

    What people don’t understand about Douthat is that he is not a conservative, but rather a moderate liberal.

    Funny, that’s pretty much how I define “conservative.”

    This hilariously misunderstands the situation. I’m not trying to defend the liberal order against the People’s Revolution. The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution. GDP may not be a perfect explanation but it’s better than “the people are mad (going on 50 years)” or “the people were tricked (decades ago, and still don’t seem to care)”.

    Yes, obviously the masses aren’t poor or oppressed enough, yet, for revolution to take hold. This isn’t much to brag about.

    Hijacking of the masses’ central nervous system (hostile media) is a huge factor, too. A friendly media could have fomented revolution long ago.

  184. “Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,…Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death”

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn’t possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned (“Great Disappointment”) and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today’s UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Vinay


    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn’t possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!
     
    1) It can be measured in those things if you look at the descendants of the bottom 1/3 of the white population that existed in 1968.

    2) Powell's prophecy was based on the immigration rate at the time which he succeeded in reducing.

    3) Forcing the govt of the day to slow mass immigration down for a few years is why France will enter the civil war phase before Britain and not at the same time. This may turn out to be very significant - or not.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Vinay



    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn’t possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

     

    One common way measure of life and death is to count injuries and deaths.

    1981 Toxteth riots (UK)
    the rioting lasted nine days during which 468 police officers were injured ... 70 buildings were damaged so severely by fire that they had to be demolished. Around 100 cars were destroyed, and there was extensive looting of shops.
     

    1981 Brixton riot (UK)
    280* injuries to police and 45* injuries to members of the public; over a hundred vehicles were burned, including 56 police vehicles; and almost 150 buildings were damaged, with thirty burned.
     


    2011 England riots
    ... August 2011 ...
    Along with the five deaths, at least 16 others were injured ... An estimated £200 million worth of property damage was incurred

     

    Google Images: london riot


    7 July 2005 London bombings
    ...
    Fifty-two civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured in the attacks

     

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Vinay



    today’s UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland

     

    Do Britons want to live in immigrant neighbourhoods, or is there "white-flight". If people flee these areas, you might say they consider these immigrant-occupied areas apocalyptic wastelands.

    600,000 move out in decade of 'white flight' from London

    How rise of 'white flight' is creating a segregated UK: Study reveals white Britons are 'retreating' from areas dominated by ethnic minorities
    , @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Powell's sheer power of intellect is enough to blow you away.

    Another example - he predicted the rotten end of the EU a good 45 years ago.

    , @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Powell never but never recanted a single word he said throughout his long life.

  185. “The increase in wealth has got everything to do with scientists and engineers – and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberalism’.”

    I’m not claiming that it does. But saying liberal policies didn’t cause the increase in British prosperity is pretty weak sauce compared to predictions that it’d cause rivers of blood.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Remember the Mark Duggan riots?

    That was a mere dream premonition precursor of what is to befall England.

    Also, I'm pretty sure that the race war in England will be fought out between blacks - both Carribean and African - and subcons.
    In fact, Birmingham got previously close to that scenario back in 2011.

  186. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinay
    "Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,...Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death"

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn't possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned ("Great Disappointment") and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today's UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Replies: @anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn’t possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    1) It can be measured in those things if you look at the descendants of the bottom 1/3 of the white population that existed in 1968.

    2) Powell’s prophecy was based on the immigration rate at the time which he succeeded in reducing.

    3) Forcing the govt of the day to slow mass immigration down for a few years is why France will enter the civil war phase before Britain and not at the same time. This may turn out to be very significant – or not.

  187. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today’s UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Unless you are a young, working-class white girl living in some place like Rotherham, but who cares about young, working-class white girls?

    It certainly seems that the Church of England doesn’t.

  188. @Vinay
    "Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,...Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death"

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn't possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned ("Great Disappointment") and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today's UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Replies: @anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn’t possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    One common way measure of life and death is to count injuries and deaths.

    1981 Toxteth riots (UK)
    the rioting lasted nine days during which 468 police officers were injured … 70 buildings were damaged so severely by fire that they had to be demolished. Around 100 cars were destroyed, and there was extensive looting of shops.

    1981 Brixton riot (UK)
    280* injuries to police and 45* injuries to members of the public; over a hundred vehicles were burned, including 56 police vehicles; and almost 150 buildings were damaged, with thirty burned.

    2011 England riots
    … August 2011 …
    Along with the five deaths, at least 16 others were injured … An estimated £200 million worth of property damage was incurred

    Google Images: london riot

    7 July 2005 London bombings

    Fifty-two civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured in the attacks

  189. @Vinay
    "Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,...Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death"

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn't possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned ("Great Disappointment") and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today's UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Replies: @anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    today’s UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland

    Do Britons want to live in immigrant neighbourhoods, or is there “white-flight”. If people flee these areas, you might say they consider these immigrant-occupied areas apocalyptic wastelands.

    600,000 move out in decade of ‘white flight’ from London

    How rise of ‘white flight’ is creating a segregated UK: Study reveals white Britons are ‘retreating’ from areas dominated by ethnic minorities

  190. @Divine Right
    @Vinay

    "Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968."

    A Roman Emperor might have once made the same argument to his subjects, "sure the Republic is gone, but we're stronger now than ever and all those immigrants will assimilate just fine like always." How did that turn out?

    "Even with increased inequality, the average Brit today is better off by any measure than the Brit of 1968."

    I'm not an expert on Britain, but that doesn't seem as ironclad as you might think. Sure, we have Facebook and mobile phones now, but tuition costs are way up and housing affordability is way down. What kind of trade is that?

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/for-1-in-8-americans-a-dollar100k-income-is-required-to-buy-a-median-priced-home/ar-BB7ee1c

    Replies: @Curle

    Sean Gabb of the British Libertarian Alliance makes the same point (he’s an anti-immigration libertarian), that a bus driver in London in the 60s could afford to own a home, his wife could stay home with the children, the children would get a decent education, you rarely worried about walking the streets at night, you weren’t constantly provoked into defending the legitimacy of your culture or heritage and you weren’t living in fear of some bureaucrat overlord bringing chaos to your family. All that has changed for the worse but now people have laptops and iphones, raising the question whether we account for the correct things when looking at economic well being? In other words, things are unquestionably worse for the lower middle class.

  191. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinay
    "The increase in wealth has got everything to do with scientists and engineers – and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘liberalism’."

    I'm not claiming that it does. But saying liberal policies didn't cause the increase in British prosperity is pretty weak sauce compared to predictions that it'd cause rivers of blood.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Remember the Mark Duggan riots?

    That was a mere dream premonition precursor of what is to befall England.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that the race war in England will be fought out between blacks – both Carribean and African – and subcons.
    In fact, Birmingham got previously close to that scenario back in 2011.

  192. @Vinay
    "Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,...Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death"

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn't possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned ("Great Disappointment") and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today's UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Replies: @anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Powell’s sheer power of intellect is enough to blow you away.

    Another example – he predicted the rotten end of the EU a good 45 years ago.

  193. @Vinay
    "Powell was warning – I call it prophesying,...Powell’s speech was above and beyond economics. It was, literally, a matter of life and death"

    Oh, of course. A matter of life and death which couldn't possibly be measured in any of the common measures of life and death, like wealth, health, longevity, homicide rate etc!

    Powell was a prophet in the mold of William Miller who prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and the failure of that prophesy led to the Seventh Day Adventists. Except that the Millerites actually had to admit that Jesus has not, in fact, returned ("Great Disappointment") and re-interpret the prophesy.

    Fortunately for me, Steve seems to deal less in mysticism and more in actual, measurable consequences of policy. For that matter, Powell himself would likely have had no trouble recognizing that today's UK is nowhere close to an apocalyptic wasteland.

    Replies: @anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    Powell never but never recanted a single word he said throughout his long life.

  194. @Desiderius
    @Sean


    Like most of those with faith in human nature with an ethereal basis, he has led a sheltered life, and probably thinks everyone can do anything if they get sent to the right school.
     
    You obviously haven't read Privilege.

    His enviable success in the most competitive occupation there is of course due to him choosing his parents wisely (mother being a writer and his father a poet/ partner in a law firm).
     
    It's ironic that you would choose this medium to advertise your ignorance of where Douthat made his name. It was in the outstanding American Scene blog he created with Reihan Salam where his work was not unlike Sailer's.

    Replies: @Sean

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/the-uses-and-abuses-of-taboos/

    And the left’s justification for imposing stronger cultural taboos in this area isn’t that the Muslim experience is exactly like the Jewish experience in 1930s Germany or the black experience in Dixie; rather, it’s that there’s a continuum of victimhood and exclusion, and that while events and institutions like the Holocaust and slavery occupy a distinctive place on that continuum, other forms of oppression imposed by the West, from our colonial past to its still-exclusionary present, deserve a cultural response today as well. […] This perspective has a logic to it, and there are modest applications that don’t strike me as particularly troubling.

    HBD is anathematised by Douthat, which means he is nothing like Steve Sailer in putting it all on the line to say what others won’t. Douthat has led a sheltered and charmed existence and he could no more become wunderkind top banana columnist at the NYT while saying HBD has explicatory power than he could levitate.

  195. @Jack D
    @theo the kraut

    This is how capitalism works - you win some and you lose some. In our society now, everyone's goal is to take the gain for themselves and shift the losses onto someone else - the government, the other investors in the deal, any deep pocket you can find to sue.

    Apparently some of the employees paid taxes because they had received stock at what was then believed to be below market value and they made an optional tax election whereby you pay taxes on the value of the stock at the time it is granted to you, but any future gains are taxed at favorable capital gains rates. Possibly they can still amend their returns and get a refund, or else they will have a loss carry forward which they can offset against future capital gains. If they have no capital gains they can only offset $3,000/year of ordinary income so it may take them a long time to offset their losses, but them's the breaks.

    The article makes a big deal of the fact that the preferred stock investors got their money back while the employees made little. That was the deal the company made with the investors - without that deal they never would have gotten ANY money from the investors. Note that the employees were granted this stock for free - the only thing they paid were the taxes on it, while the investors put up real money.

    Replies: @theo the kraut

    thanks, didn’t think about that.

  196. @BenKenobi
    Let's say Trump wins. Does that reverse the "dispriveleged Legacy Minority" trend or merely kick the can down the road?

    Can this still be done by winning a federal election?

    Replies: @Bill

    Exactly. The IRA were “strong opposition.” Voting for Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump isn’t.

  197. “Do Britons want to live in immigrant neighbourhoods, or is there “white-flight”. If people flee these areas, you might say they consider these immigrant-occupied areas apocalyptic wastelands.”

    But a country is not one giant neighborhood! People have vastly different criteria for who’s acceptable as a fellow citizen vs who’s acceptable as a neighbor. And this has been true forever, long before any kind of immigration.

    Undesirable neighborhoods or even neighborhoods which go for desirable to undesirable over time are hardly novelties in a great metropolis. However, it’s quite possible that immigration has changed the character of smaller towns and villages in unprecedented ways.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @Vinay


    Undesirable neighborhoods or even neighborhoods which go for desirable to undesirable over time are hardly novelties in a great metropolis. However, it’s quite possible that immigration has changed the character of smaller towns and villages in unprecedented ways.
     
    While people can accept being cleansed from their neighbourhoods by loose borders and while they can isolate themselves from society and each other to escape its effects, at some point demographics will break democracy.

    This is beyond obvious. The previous points are small tragedies, the latter will be a catastrophe.

    Political parties become more and more stratified along ethnic lines as the indigenous majority shrinks as a percentage of the population. This means that ethnic conflict starts defining the political system and is essentially nationalised.

    When all Whites are voting Republican and all others are voting Democrat, there will be no ideology. And this is happening. The elites' answer seems to be crossing their fingers and hoping but it is unavoidably happening and happening all over the West.
  198. @The Z Blog
    @Glossy

    We are in an age of pure capitalism. No one in the Western ruling elites opposes the free flow of capital and people across borders. The last time we went through such a period was the run up to the Great War(s).

    Replies: @Bill

    Come now. No True Scotsman believes the contemporary US is the logos of libertarianism.

  199. @Former Darfur
    @iSteveFan

    Much of the drive behind multiculturalism was the realization, I think, that the left (Jewish and otherwise) finally had at some specific point that biculturalism -that is blacks and whites- was never going to be a reality: that left to their own devices, blacks and whites would, either by state or voluntary action, separate themselves from one another and stay separate, blacks having their own media, entertainment, churches, doctors, barbers, funeral parlors, the whole gamut of things one could imagine.

    I was witness to a recent discussion between some fortysomething white trendy college educated people about how "rap has gotten so shitty lately". I am old enough now to know when to just stay silent and listen even though the ostensible premise of discussion is obvious horseshit, so as to hear the implicit assumptions. The discussion exactly echoed discussions I had had, in my blues guitar loving racially anticonscious days, about the black popular music that is now, itself, exactly the stuff these guys think is the benchmark of quality. We couldn't understand why the young blacks had no use for or had never heard of the old blacks we thought were-as they say now-"the shit". (I guess even that is passe' now. Well, as they said fifteen years ago.) It is now understood that whites tend to approve of the black music of decades past while detesting that which is current, for two reasons. One is that blacks continually seek to differentiate their culture from white culture and so make it "more black", and the other is this implicit feeling on our (the whites') part that blacks at present must be specially decadent because they weren't always this f***ed up.

    Well, the answer is, most of them always were and always will be, short of a eugenic event of massive proportions. Multiculturalism-creating a continuum rather than a line of color-requires a number of different people to inhabit a space. So, they made it so.

    The results are repellent to regular people, but someone must have seen the results in Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica and other places and said, gee, that's for us!

    Who that someone is is obvious to all, and therefore the natural feelings this induces in everyone else have to be suppressed. But such suppression only works for so long. The Catholic Church suppressed the heresies that Protestantism represented for a while, but the invention of Gutenberg made it untenable in the end.

    The liberal order is scared and vulnerable. Its opponents, though, are divided and often dysfunctional. We live in interesting times indeed.

    Replies: @tbraton

    “It is now understood that whites tend to approve of the black music of decades past while detesting that which is current, for two reasons.”

    Well, I grew up in a white neighborhood in Washington, D.C. in the 50’s. I and my white friends listened to “white” radio stations playing Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, the Coasters, Ray Charles, as well as Elvis Presley. We thought the contemporary black music was great. Apparently, four white guys in Britain who would eventually call themselves “The Beatles” thought the same way. When I first heard The Beatles in college, I wasn’t impressed since much of their early music was remakes of songs originally sung by black American artists, and I preferred the originals. There is a prolific crime novelist in D.C. named George Pelacanos, who has written a series of crime novels set in Washington, D.C. He’s pretty good, imo, based on the handful of novels I have read. One of his themes is that back in the 60’s and 70’s (when he grew up–he was born in 1957), music was unifying, whereas the later black music such as rap was divisive. I remember hearing an interview with Ray Charles before he died. Most people don’t realize this, but this great musical talent was a very successful Country and Western singer. I believe his recording of “I Can’t Stop Loving You” is still the biggest selling record in Country and Western music. In his interview, Charles was asked about his reaction to rap. With great hesitation, he admitted he didn’t like it. He was more of a traditionalist who preferred rhythm and melody. Rap had nothing to say to him.

  200. @Whiskey
    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    "Racism" and all that other quaint, nice to have, affluenza type moral posturing is a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae for more prosperous, fat and happy times. Today, the issue is slavery for White men or freedom by any and all means necessary.

    Since the slavery will not be the relatively benign Big Brother type but the extremely ugly, burned alive in cages or beheaded on the beach ISIS type of slavery, there is little doubt that even the mildest of men will fight, the only question being on what terms, with what resources, and how desperate the measures will be.

    Winston Smith merely had to go along with monstrous lies. ISIS brooks not even that, merely being a non-Muslim five minutes ago qualifies anyone and everyone for beheading, burning alive in cages, and worse. There is always worse. ISIS thrives on its brutality, it attracts young Muslim men precisely because it offers an orgy of sadistic violence on other men. And ISIS is the true, authentic face of Islam with PC pieties and platitudes peeled away by what Muslims actually do in real not imaginary PC life.

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    But yes, by all means let us make most White men into brutalized slaves for a Third World rabble and then look at horror as they do anything to avoid being burned alive in a cage.

    Replies: @Threecranes, @Bill, @Bill, @jackson

    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    Yes, indeed. The only problem with liberalism is that we didn’t try it hard enough! If only we could elect enough True Conservatives (TM), they could do that Classical Liberalism thing really, really hard!

  201. @Whiskey
    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    "Racism" and all that other quaint, nice to have, affluenza type moral posturing is a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae for more prosperous, fat and happy times. Today, the issue is slavery for White men or freedom by any and all means necessary.

    Since the slavery will not be the relatively benign Big Brother type but the extremely ugly, burned alive in cages or beheaded on the beach ISIS type of slavery, there is little doubt that even the mildest of men will fight, the only question being on what terms, with what resources, and how desperate the measures will be.

    Winston Smith merely had to go along with monstrous lies. ISIS brooks not even that, merely being a non-Muslim five minutes ago qualifies anyone and everyone for beheading, burning alive in cages, and worse. There is always worse. ISIS thrives on its brutality, it attracts young Muslim men precisely because it offers an orgy of sadistic violence on other men. And ISIS is the true, authentic face of Islam with PC pieties and platitudes peeled away by what Muslims actually do in real not imaginary PC life.

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    But yes, by all means let us make most White men into brutalized slaves for a Third World rabble and then look at horror as they do anything to avoid being burned alive in a cage.

    Replies: @Threecranes, @Bill, @Bill, @jackson

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    Funny how liberal democracy seems to bring out the murderous sociopaths, isn’t it? It’s almost as if there is something about that system that kind of destroys communal bonds, turning people into atomized, anhedonic, narcissistic psychopaths.

  202. @Desiderius
    @Bill P

    I doubt it.

    The Sexual Revolution is at the heart of whatever it is that now calls itself liberalism. Douthat, as a casualty of the culture of casual divorce, is strongly against it.

    Replies: @HA

    “Douthat, as a casualty of the culture of casual divorce,…”

    Casualty? If anything, he is a beneficiary. First of all, I don’t think his parents divorced, but perhaps you know better.

    In any case, one of his most defining observations has been that those like him who make it to Harvard (not to mention graduating magna cum laude) are far more likely to come from intact families. In other words, he acknowledges that divorce helped weed out the competition.

    But yes, he is strongly against the divorce culture, which is yet another reason why liberals hate him. Anyone who doubts that needs to read the comment section of his columns once in a while.

  203. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The liberal order holds everywhere in the West, with broad popular support, and I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution. GDP may not be a perfect explanation but it’s better than…”

    In the US, at least, it seems unlikely that it’s due to GDP because real wages have not really increased since maybe the mid-60s.

    “For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades”, Drew DeSilver, October 9, 2014, Pew Research Center:

    “…Bigger Paychecks, but little change in purchasing power…

    …several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth… Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way. …

    …But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

    …after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today. …

    …A similar measure, “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time, wage and salary workers, tells much the same story… in real terms, the median has barely budged over that period. …

    What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.

    Wage stagnation has been a staple of economic analysis and commentary for a while now… predictably there’s little agreement about what’s driving it. …

    …Other factors that have been suggested include continued labor-market slack; lagging educational attainment relative to other countries; and a broad decline in better-paying jobs and consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries.

    In a Pew Research Center survey from August, 56% of Americans said their family’s income was falling behind the cost of living, up from 44% in September 2007…

    See also this graph, “Average hourly wages, seasonally adjusted.

    “I’m trying to understand why there *is* no People’s Revolution…”

    Perhaps because People’s Revolution has the wiff of illiterate Third-world Marxist peasant about it. (And revolution against a modern computerized state with complete records on its citizens is very hard.) Educated people in the West probably believe in what they consider their own institutions and forms of government, perhaps more than their leaders and elites. They go to the ballot and vote. When given the choice, they have repeatedly voted against things like open immigration; they’d probably vote against flooding the countries with H1-b visa holders; they voted for a “conservative” House the last two times around, didn’t they? And just who is supporting Trump? Liberal Western governments have proved pretty adept at ignoring or overturning the will of the voters or never bringing issues openly to the voters. So people in the West are working through the system. But, yeah, if that doesn’t work ultimately you will have to worry about it in one form or another. Interestingly, revolution in a modern state may have little need for violence or even political activity. A modern techno-state is probably quite vulnerable to the passive-aggressive fall-of-the-Soviets approach. “The hell you say. I think I’ll just sit here and watch.” The machine stops.

  204. @Vinay
    "Do Britons want to live in immigrant neighbourhoods, or is there “white-flight”. If people flee these areas, you might say they consider these immigrant-occupied areas apocalyptic wastelands."

    But a country is not one giant neighborhood! People have vastly different criteria for who's acceptable as a fellow citizen vs who's acceptable as a neighbor. And this has been true forever, long before any kind of immigration.

    Undesirable neighborhoods or even neighborhoods which go for desirable to undesirable over time are hardly novelties in a great metropolis. However, it's quite possible that immigration has changed the character of smaller towns and villages in unprecedented ways.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Undesirable neighborhoods or even neighborhoods which go for desirable to undesirable over time are hardly novelties in a great metropolis. However, it’s quite possible that immigration has changed the character of smaller towns and villages in unprecedented ways.

    While people can accept being cleansed from their neighbourhoods by loose borders and while they can isolate themselves from society and each other to escape its effects, at some point demographics will break democracy.

    This is beyond obvious. The previous points are small tragedies, the latter will be a catastrophe.

    Political parties become more and more stratified along ethnic lines as the indigenous majority shrinks as a percentage of the population. This means that ethnic conflict starts defining the political system and is essentially nationalised.

    When all Whites are voting Republican and all others are voting Democrat, there will be no ideology. And this is happening. The elites’ answer seems to be crossing their fingers and hoping but it is unavoidably happening and happening all over the West.

  205. @TangoMan
    @tbraton

    When I was growing up, the one misuse of proper English which marked one as an “ignorant person” and thus I was highly sensitive about avoiding was “irregardless,” which I rarely hear nowadays.

    The term "irregardless" was used to subtle effect in an episode of "Band of Brothers" uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character.

    Replies: @tbraton

    “The term “irregardless” was used to subtle effect in an episode of “Band of Brothers” uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character.”

    I wonder how many viewers picked up that subtlety.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    @tbraton

    Here's the scene from BOB.

    https://youtu.be/IMoFlaEcKoM?t=1m06s

  206. @Randal
    @tbraton

    Fwiw, I don't share your position on this. I like the original usage, and it doesn't grate on me at all, as it clearly does on you (and I defer to few men in my capacity to be a grumpy old git about minor grammatical irritants in general).

    Old idioms often rely on old fashioned or idiosyncratic usages, as this one does on the usage of "have" in a continuing possession sense. That's part of their charm. This is not a case of an obvious transmission error, such as replacing "homing in" with "honing in", nor of a simply lazy error in comprehension such as "I could care less".

    So my recommendation is to change your response to this particular one. As in all such matters, though, de gustibus non est disputandum, in the end.

    Replies: @tbraton

    “Fwiw, I don’t share your position on this. I like the original usage, and it doesn’t grate on me at all, as it clearly does on you (and I defer to few men in my capacity to be a grumpy old git about minor grammatical irritants in general). . .So my recommendation is to change your response to this particular one.”

    Well, Randall, I think you are wrong to accept the “original” (first recorded instance, as far we know–I am sure that wasn’t the first time the phrase was used) usage of the phrase in 1538 by Thomas Howard, the infamous Duke of Norfolk, who seemed more interested in military affairs and political intrigue (he was the uncle of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII) than proper English usage. It was changed to the more sensible form 24 years later by John Heywood, who was probably better educated and more attuned to proper English language usage than Thomas Howard. Heywood, after all, was the accomplished wordsmith who came up with the phrases “two heads are better than one” and “Rome was not built in a day,” useful phrases that have stood the test of time. And then we have the nearly 200 year history when “to eat. . .and have” was considered the preferable form by intelligent English speakers and writers before popular taste reversed in the late 1930’s. As to your “recommendation” that I change my preference to suit your corrupted taste, I feel that is highly presumptuous on your part. For my part, I could not care less which form you choose to use. That is entirely up to you. If you choose to use the more nonsensical form of the phrase, that is entirely your choice and just reflects your level of taste. I will continue to use the phrase in its proper, more intelligent form: “to eat your cake and have it too.” BTW I will also continue to say “graduate from college” rather than succumb to the more fashionable corrupted form “graduate college,” which I hear and read more and more these days. I was properly taught that intransitive verbs are always followed by a preposition. What is gained from converting an intransitive verb form to a transitive verb form is beyond my comprehension other than showing the ignorance of the writer or speaker. I can see how a school (college or high school) “graduates” students, but how does a student “graduate” a school?

  207. @Jefferson
    @Dave Pinsen

    "Ross still says Trump won’t be the GOP nominee."

    So who does Ross see winning the GOP nomination? Single digit Jeb Bush? Jeb is going to need some magic from David Copperfield to pull that off.

    In late December of 2011, Mitt Romney was doing way better in the polls than Jeb Bush is in late December of 2015. Mitt Romney was not polling in at 5th or 6th place like Jeb Bush is now.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    In late December of 2011, Mitt Romney was doing way better in the polls than Jeb Bush is in late December of 2015. Mitt Romney was not polling in at 5th or 6th place like Jeb Bush is now.

    In late December of 2007, as Romney was about to go on to lose the nomination to John McCain, he was still polling much more strongly than Jeb is today. Romney won several primaries in 2008. Jeb won’t finish even 2nd place in a single one.

  208. @tbraton
    @TangoMan

    "The term “irregardless” was used to subtle effect in an episode of “Band of Brothers” uttered by David Schwimmer who played the part of the Capt. Sobel. It added just the right touch of polish to his character."

    I wonder how many viewers picked up that subtlety.

    Replies: @TangoMan

    Here’s the scene from BOB.

  209. What exactly is wrong with the common phrasing “you cannot have your cake and eat it too”?

    If I reworded it as “You cannot retain or continue to possess your cake if you want to consume it” would that make the reason for the order clearer?

    Or to generalize, “you cannot continue to enjoy an asset if you insist on using it all up”.

    The normal order makes perfect sense.

    • Disagree: Stephen R. Diamond
  210. I assume Douthat uses the term ‘liberal order’ the way it has been widely used by historians, political scientists and the occasional academically minded statesman for generations, to describe the international system characterized by;

    1. Sovereign states

    2. Interacting with one another within a system of international law [mixture of written agreements and customs]

    3. making use of international institutions for part of that interaction

    4. the contents of that law at least drawing on post-enlightenment ideas of what is meant by “law”, “sovereign”, etc.

    5. Fairly open trading relationships with an eye to overall prosperity

    6. war to be conducted within limits of that law, whether wrt the origin and legitimacy of the war itself, or the methods used to conduct it.

    That liberal order has had its phases, but it has been emerging since the Congress of Vienna, and had assumed much of its ‘liberal’ quality in the Victorian era. Since then, the main changes have been- greater emphasis on formal as opposed to informal institutions, greater emphasis on written multilateral agreements and institutions to back them up, formal diplomatic equality of nations, emphasis on the virtues of liberal democracy within nations, and the triumph of economic globalism [although see British free traders for the early version of this back in the day].

    The next change seems to be the emphasis on open borders and global monoculture with universal moral responsibility. But it’s an evolutionary change as much as a revolutionary one.

    The last attempt at a “conservative order” was probably Metternich, and it was a tad particularist and limited to specific circumstances. The previous international order might be considered the one formed at Westphalia and destroyed by the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. But even that is widely regarded as the early form of the order we still have.

    I actually don’t know what a “conservative order” would look like, save as a reversion to a previous state of the liberal order, or a redirection of it from its current state down some alternative course of reform than the one it is on.

    Douthat, at least, shows signs of observing that the present course may lead to destruction rather than to a new and even better version of the liberal order.

    Observe that the Roman Empire was an empire in the purest sense- it moved from being a collection of territories assembled and ruled by Rome to the ‘universal state’ of the Euro-Mediterranean international and cultural system. That’s the privilege of endurance.

    By the time of Caracalla, it was possible to proclaim all its subjects to be citizens, and the entire shebang to be one constitutional entity. That ‘order’ proved unsustainable when overwhelmed by large numbers of people who either did not want to be part of it, or who wanted to be part of it while also retaining their own institutions, or indeed who wanted to be part of an ‘order’ that had faded so far they had to build a simulacrum on its corpse.

    Douthat may at least realize that the present order is running its course, and that there are plenty who want no part of it.

    I doubt that last includes many Americans, even on this site. The ideal Jeffersonian republic is itself a notion of state and society that is part and parcel of a liberal order, and can only exist within a liberal international order. If that order does not exist, a peaceful, decentralized, demilitarized America is called “prey”.

  211. @Spotted Toad
    @ben tillman

    Yeah, my sense is that today's superrich live perfectly nice lives but are not especially empowered- they're going to Davos to get their marching orders, just like we're getting them from the media. I think it's a mistake to see them as "in control": it is the ideology itself that is in control, and if any of the elite steps outside the bounds or is unwanted- think of Dennis Sterling- they can be chucked out of the circle of light without a second thought.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    I think you meant Donald Sterling.

  212. @Jefferson
    @AKAHorace

    "Did you see the story of Corsicans vandalizing a muslim prayer room ? There are other stories of traditional minorities in conflict with immigrant minorities, blacks in LA vs latinos, Inuit (Eskimos) in Denmark vs Muslims. The stories may be under reported and they back your argument."

    Here is another example of cracks popping up in The KKK Crazy Glue Of The Democratic Party Fringes, the Left Wing Black Lives Matter Astro Turf group want the Left Wing Rahm Emanuel to step down as mayor of Chicago. I love it when the Left stab each other in the back and eat their own.

    I hope more NAM groups demand that White Democrats step down from their position of power and hand over their jobs to People Of Color. Chicago needs a Black Democrat for mayor.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    We’ve already had 2 Black Dem. mayors, the celebrated Harold Washington and the nonentity Eugene Sawyer. Toni Preckwinkle may be next.

  213. @Anonymous
    @Vinay

    Anyhow, Britain's typical economic growth rates in the decades prior to 1968 - and, incidentally, this was a time prior to EU membership which was touted at the time as an 'economic panacea' - were substantially more consistent and stronger than what we see today.
    The whole period from 1968 to present has been one of more or less economic stagnation, interspersed by a few pockets of erratic, sporadic growth swiftly followed by bust.
    If we look at the period since 2008 - the 'Great Recession' as it is termed, you'll find growth rates barely bumping along the bottom. The worst, in fact, since economic statistics were ever gathered in Britain, which was a very, very long time ago.

    The Britain of 1968 was an industrial superpower, perhaps second only to the USA. It led the world in terms of ships, cars, heavy machinery, coal, steel, electrical gear and even in such fields as electronics, textiles, footwear and toys.
    Now all of that is gone - replaced by a truly enormous and persistent trade deficit that immigration has done nothing to alleviate.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Hibernian

    I think you have to go back before 1945 to find Britain as an industrial superpower.

  214. @Whiskey
    The issue is slavery. Pure and simple. Will most average White men be nothing more than slaves to new, mostly Muslim and/or African immigrants? Or free men? That is the question, and the only question, awaiting us.

    "Racism" and all that other quaint, nice to have, affluenza type moral posturing is a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae for more prosperous, fat and happy times. Today, the issue is slavery for White men or freedom by any and all means necessary.

    Since the slavery will not be the relatively benign Big Brother type but the extremely ugly, burned alive in cages or beheaded on the beach ISIS type of slavery, there is little doubt that even the mildest of men will fight, the only question being on what terms, with what resources, and how desperate the measures will be.

    Winston Smith merely had to go along with monstrous lies. ISIS brooks not even that, merely being a non-Muslim five minutes ago qualifies anyone and everyone for beheading, burning alive in cages, and worse. There is always worse. ISIS thrives on its brutality, it attracts young Muslim men precisely because it offers an orgy of sadistic violence on other men. And ISIS is the true, authentic face of Islam with PC pieties and platitudes peeled away by what Muslims actually do in real not imaginary PC life.

    IMHO, the brutality of WWI will seem quaint and old fashioned compared to designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men, and autonomous killer drone robots that seem destined to appear very, very soon.

    Consider this: if Anders Breivik had wished to REALLY kill lots of Muslims, he merely needed his own DNA sequencer and designer viruses. Forget Audie Murphy, and John Basilone. The most deadly man in WWII was Robert Oppenheimer, followed by Paul Tibbets who named his airplane after his MOTHER.

    But yes, by all means let us make most White men into brutalized slaves for a Third World rabble and then look at horror as they do anything to avoid being burned alive in a cage.

    Replies: @Threecranes, @Bill, @Bill, @jackson

    designer death-dealing viruses aimed at ME and African men

    lol. ANY DAY we’re going to see engineered viruses that specifically kill members of particular racial or ethnic groups while sparing everyone else. What a goony and dimwitted statement.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS