The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hillary Schools Trump on the Zeroth Amendment
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

Screenshot 2016-09-21 22.48.41

As we all know, the Zeroth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, as carved on the Statue of Liberty, is that Americans don’t have the right to borders because that would discriminate against the civil rights of foreigners to immigrate here. The Zeroth Amendment precedes the First Amendment, by the way, so you don’t have the right to protest about it either.

 
Hide 172 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @415 reasons

    Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.

    This is typical of a liberals' approach to problem solving in which they create a worse problem by trying to solve one. For example, in the name of helping blacks, they got them hooked on welfare and helped destroy the black family. In the name of alleviating suffering, they helped to create the third world population bomb by supplying food and medicine and little else. And now in the name of the zeroth amendment, they are brain draining the developing world.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Lot, @bomag

    , @Lot
    @415 reasons


    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion?
     
    From Reagan's second gubernatorial inauguration address, 1/4/1971:

    If all 20 million of us wanted to live elsewhere, we would find 100 people willing to trade places with each one of us.
     

    Replies: @gruff

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @415 reasons

    A generous interpretation:

    They took Trump to mean that not one person will be allowed to immigrate here.

    They disagree, and think that some people should be given the right to immigrate here.

    Again, that's being generous. Steve's interpretation is more straightforward.

    Replies: @Federalist

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @415 reasons

    During the IQ2 debate on open borders that Ron Unz won, the number 30 million in the first year was quoted.

    Basically, immigration would continue until the quality of life here and in the shittiest shithole on earth were in equilibrium.

    Replies: @415 reasons

    , @Olorin
    @415 reasons

    It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump”

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @Anonymous

    Wow, snap.

    , @iSteveFan
    @Anonymous

    Whiskey, please reread that comment.

    , @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @TangoMan
    @Anonymous

    Whatever is happening with Jewish donors needs to be looked at from a ecosphere vantage point. Trump is turning off a lot of establishment donors and is pulling in record amounts, for the Republican Party, of small donor donations.

    To put this another way, what are the 2004 Bush donors doing this year? What are the 2008 McCain donors doing this year?

    Secondly, even if Jewish flight is as significant as indicated, this in itself sends a signal to all concerned. If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That's good to know.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    It would be interesting to know the likely percentage of Jewish small donors to Trump. If it was more than 2%, or whatever the figure for US population is, I would publish it. Jewish non-elites support Trump! At least monetarily, I would expect the donations to exceed 2%. This is the sort of thing that Ivanka's husband ought to publicize, if true.

    I made the case on here several years ago that we would start to see the Mischlinge Revolution, as the partial Jews start combining their Jewish abilities in politics, law and the like with a love of their Shiksa heritage and their success in the Western host, in accordance with the massive outmarriage rate. And... rebelling against the establishment. I note that (((Chaffetz) is taking names and kicking ass. And a lot of the iSteve commentariat fit that description.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

    , @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous

    The 5% share of big Jewish donors for Hillary is typical given the industry and geographic distribution of very wealthy Jewish donors, Hillary's unprecedented success in raising large donations from the extremely wealthy, and Trump's smaller than normal haul from those same extremely wealthy donors.

    Trump is doing much better than Romney with small donors to compensate, but Hillary still has a lot more cash to spend.

    Romney's big success with Jewish donors reflects the understanding that Obama is hostile to Israel and sympathetic to Islam. That was unsustainable when Hillary has been licking Likud's boot and promising hot and cold running Arab blood in every street for the past 25 years.

    Of course, she also wants to import as many Arab Moslems as she can get to the USA. Bring them here and they kill their relations abroad. Then bring more of them here so that they don't radicalize. That policy will eventually doom Israel to annihilation, but big donors have never been known for their wisdom.

    , @Forbes
    @Anonymous

    This analysis makes the same (mistake) assumption as that in the Brexit vote bookmaker odds analysis, i.e. money equates with voting popularity. Donors can contribute as much as they like, just as Brexit big money wagers, but they only get one vote. (The big money favoring "stay" set the betting odds, but the outcome was visible by the number of bets on Brexit.)

    This is just more Dem party propaganda, attempting the steamroll voters into believing Hillary has it wrapped up, by suggesting all the smart/big money is going her way. "Undecided" voters, when they actually vote, have a tendency to break toward the presumed winner.

    Silver's 538 project increasingly appears to be a front for his Democratic politics, as he essentially confessed when explaining how he got Trump's nomination bid wrong.

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Anonymous

    The authors conclude:

    "It is possible that the abandonment is about policy — as discussed above, there are policy-oriented reasons why some Jews are not fond of Trump. But policy is not the only factor at work here. This is probably also about culture and social identification. If Jews perceive that the kinds of people who support Republicans are not like themselves, then they will update their identification with the party. To be willing to donate to and affiliate themselves with a party, a person needs to look at the other people supporting that party and think, 'Those are my people.' For Jews, Trump-aligned Republicans appear to be very much not their people."

    Apparently "That's not who we are" is to be evaluated on a micro rather than a macro level.

    Replies: @BB753

  3. Technically, she doesn’t say everyone has the right. She only said not-“no one” has the right. That could mean the entire world has the right, or refugees (“refugees”) have the right, or all Turd Worlders have the right.

    Most likely, she thinks everyone who’d vote Clinton given the chance has the right.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @guest

    As a legal matter, who has a right to immigrate here?

    , @random observer
    @guest

    No one has the right to immigrate to the US [there is nothing in the Constitution saying that, or creating any other rights for foreign nationals on foreign soil] or to any other country in the world whatever [there is no provision of international law in custom or treaty creating such a right, and no country would sign that if it were proposed].

    The only exceptions I can think of are those countries that have racial rights of return. Which are obviously limited to select groups. And even most of those just grant preferential immigration consideration rather than absolute right.

    There is the convention refugee system, under which anyone reaching one's soil and claiming refugee status must be given an assessment of the validity of their claim, and accepted if found valid. But that doesn't create an 'immigrant' for permanent settlement. The assumption is they will one day go home. Countries are within their rights to keep refugees in segregated camps, for example, until that happens.

    Replies: @guest

  4. OT: this is iStevey:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    It’s a strange article because they screwed up all their numbers and had to make a correction, but the argument still stands.
    Short version is that Trump is pitchforks.
    Seeing Hillary’s mini-rebound in recent national polls, as well as in Florida, I would expect some serious Israel love from Trump in the next few weeks.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @G Pinfold

    What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @G Pinfold, @The Alarmist

    , @Maj. Kong
    @G Pinfold

    Any expression of hawkishness from Trump is kryptonite. A Republican isn't going to win the Midwest running on another foreign war.

    Trump must win Florida the same way that Rick Scott did, twice. Mobilize every single Florida Panhandle conservative. Scare the rest with the left's love for crime.

    Replies: @Lot

  5. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    Wow, snap.

  6. @G Pinfold
    OT: this is iStevey:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    It's a strange article because they screwed up all their numbers and had to make a correction, but the argument still stands.
    Short version is that Trump is pitchforks.
    Seeing Hillary's mini-rebound in recent national polls, as well as in Florida, I would expect some serious Israel love from Trump in the next few weeks.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Maj. Kong

    What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @Steve Sailer

    Washington Post at 31 August has Clinton at around 65%.

    , @G Pinfold
    @Steve Sailer

    Ah, Mr Miagi, I did not understand the question at first.
    The figure of 65% was the dollar quantum. How many individual donors? I do not.know.
    Wax on, wax off...

    , @The Alarmist
    @Steve Sailer


    "What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?"
     
    In the "sane" world of yesteryear, where the dollar-weighted share of donations was a proxy for the ultimate influence that would be achieved through traditional media buys, the share of all donations might be important. It still might be, but the absolute count of small donors might now be a proxy for the ultimate popular voter turnout.

    Still, each time I watch my ballot disappear into the Trusty old Diebold, I can only wonder where it will end up and what it will actually report of my choices.
  7. This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve’s questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That’s no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We’re in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn’t being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    • Replies: @anon
    @frizzled

    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?

    Replies: @Darin, @biz

    , @MEH 0910
    @frizzled


    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.
     
    Any homeless person would improve their life by moving into your home. Do you have the right to stop them?

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    , @Desiderius
    @frizzled

    So you'd be cool if they wanted to move into your house? Your bedroom?

    What right have you to deny them?

    Replies: @frizzled

    , @D. K.
    @frizzled

    Please provide us with your home address-- and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Twinkie, @Bill Jones, @ganderson

    , @Randal
    @frizzled


    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve’s questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.
     
    As a matter of interest, if you are leftist and anti-nationalist (and antiracist, judging from your negative description of a "racist system of nation-states"), where do you find yourself actually in line with the Steve crowd?

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.
     
    As others have already pointed out, being against enforcement of national borders makes about as much sense as being against private property, with similarly disastrous consequences.

    No nations or separate states of course does not mean no government. Most likely it means world government, which in practice will be co-opted by wealthy elites as all governments in human history have been, if they have lasted long enough. And world government most likely means an endless universal tyranny with no escape and no "outside" - a "boot stamping on the human face, forever".
    , @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    The 'right' of someone 'to improve their life', whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    , @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    So, basically, you are saying that distinct ethnies, peoples, nationalities, call them what you will, do not have the 'right' to declare themselves as distinct entitities and, furthermore, to defend the integrity of their distinctiveness.

    All well and good, but supposing that white, European colonists reversed the orthodoxies of the past 70 years or so, marched into southern Africa with the overwhelming advantage of force of arms, and deliberately displaced all African groups - this time they mean it for real - such as Matabele, Zulu, Xhosa etc etc from their land and took it all for themselves and kept it for themselves on the justification that it is 'to improve their lives' - then, most assuredly you would be the first to scream their head off at the 'injustice' of it all.

    Replies: @G Pinfold

    , @james wilson
    @frizzled

    "You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life." In that spirit, I claim the right to move you to improve my life. This is one of the things that only war settles.

    , @PiltdownMan
    @frizzled


    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.
     
    Why only Westerners? Japan, China, and many, if not all, modern nation-states, are identifiable by race, or a small group of races and ethnicities particular to a geographic location.

    The benefits that Westerners, Japan and some others enjoy greatly exceed those that of many of those other nations. This is a result, not of exclusion and appropriation, but of the scientific and industrial revolutions. These benefits are not privilege, but what was created within these now wealthy nation-state enclaves. And thus, earned.

    But for those revolutions, we'd still be cooking over open fires at a hearth, and emptying chamber pots onto the street. I doubt many Bangladeshis or Somalis would bestir themselves to invade our borders through immigration had that been the case.

    Merely looking at Japan's exclusionary immigration policy confirms that we in the West, far from failing to share our wealth with other peoples, have been altruistic to a fault by allowing mass immigration.

    But we were under no moral obligation to do so at any point. We have every right to not further grant the very considerable privilege to foreigners of immigrating into the efficient, technological societies that we have created. Indeed, we have always retained the natural rights of saying no to further immigration.

    People have the right to assemble and form groups, i.e. nation-states, and may define who may join the group in the future, at their pleasure. That is natural and just.

    Replies: @guest

    , @ic1000
    @frizzled

    > The right to prevent others from moving [into the United States or any other nation-state] has [no] basis. [This claim is] fictitious, and unjust.

    This seems to mirror Pope Francis' position. At its heart, the Church is concerned with eternal salvation -- the right policies lead to more souls reaching Heaven, and fewer condemned to suffer the fires of Hell.

    Back on this temporal plane, Open Borders is Brazilifying the First World. It's a great life for millionaires and billionaires, secure with their cooks, guards, and nannies behind high, shard-topped walls. For those living near the sprawling slums, not so much. For favela residents, not at all.

    A while back, NumbersUSA crunched the numbers. Mass immigration barely budges the per capita circumstances of the donor countries, even though the effects on recipient countries are sharp.

    So Open Borders isn't a very nice thing for an American to wish upon his or her grandchildren, or on the descendants of his or her fellow citizens. (Unless your personal wealth advisor at Citigroup tells you that your account is well over six figures, and "fellow citizens" translates as "people much like me.")

    Frizzled, are you in the "Let them eat cake" club? A devout Christian with eyes on a different prize? As a leftist and anti-nationalist, do you see justice in giving it to today's kulaks, good and hard? Probably it's something else -- but difficult for me to say what that is.

    , @Paul Mendez
    @frizzled


    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force?
     
    Naked force works for me.
    , @ben tillman
    @frizzled


    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That’s no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road.
     

    The principle is self-ownership or property or non-aggression. The principle is universalizable; it can be asserted and enjoyed by everyone at all times with no conflict of rights.

    You're morally clueless.

    And you ridiculously acknowledge a woman's right not to be forced to wear a hijab while denying her right not to be raped! Yes, by denying the principle that makes intrusion into others' space wrong, you are arguing that rape is morally right!

    You are proposing a state of non-morality -- an eternal war of all against all! Actually, the war would not be eternal; it would quickly end, along with the human race.

    The defense of aggression is misanthropic.

    , @Antonymous
    @frizzled

    Open Borders fails the old leftist litmus in nearly every way:

    1. Over-consumption and carbon usage increase globally as the U.S. takes in highly reproductive people at a projected rate of 30 million/decade.

    2. Environmental protections, open space, biodiversity, habitat preservation, water availability, "sustainability" -- all are in direct conflict with a densely-populated U.S.

    3. Labor protections, unions, and strong minimum wage are undermined by a glutted labor market, particularly one with people working off the books at sub-minimum wage.

    4. Scientific advancement, a strong university system, and pioneering research are undermined in two ways: first, by a race to the bottom wage-wise as excessive H1Bs are brought in and second, by off-shoring key research in search of cheaper production. Dubious H1B credentials and ethnic nepotism, particularly for Indian programmers, is an ongoing issue as well.

    5. First Amendment protections for speech and religion suffer when a large share of the population is ambivalent towards them. Or, in the case of political Islam, has prohibitions against them.

    6. Anti-discrimination statutes are at risk, particularly for women and gays -- such protections are largely unknown outside the West. From experience, the replacement populations from Pakistan and MENA struggle with female eye-contact let alone collaboration or promotion of women and gays.

    American culture is not a downloadable template. We need institutional memory, for example, to counter the assumption that Clintonian corruption was "always a part of national politics." We need cultural transmission through generations. Appreciation for our Constitution and freedoms is imparted, not inborn.

    As the immigrant population increases by 10% every decade, there's little chance to transmit our mores and values. As the historical majority becomes a loathed and marginalized minority, don't expect the Bill of Rights to last longer than the first hate speech supreme court case. To say nothing of gun rights or freedom of association.

    , @Macumazahn
    @frizzled

    Awesome reasoning there, frizzled.
    I'll be pushing my way through your front door and moving into our home later this afternoon.
    Surely you won't attempt to use naked force to stop me, right?

    Replies: @grapesoda

    , @guest
    @frizzled

    What is it that proves I don't have the right to punch you in the face or rape your wife? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    , @guest
    @frizzled

    You don't believe in the right to stop someone from crossing the roads? Goodbye, jaywalking laws.

    , @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    As long as there is welfare, people will continue to come to the west. It is a parasitical relationship. In fact, that's what draws third world people here.

    And people have a right to defend their borders. These immigrants seek a better life living well with their lifestyle provided by white people. That's the reality. As long as a government can forcibly steal your money, then borders must exist. Get rid of all taxes and all social services and let's see if these people continue to pour in.

    People have a right to be tribal. Sorry buddy but that's at the heart of a life well lived. First, you take care of your genetic immediate family. Expand your love to cousins. And then to your tribe. So yes. Borders are a necessity. And humane.

    , @random observer
    @frizzled

    Well I'd be willing to concede that nation-states are socially constructed, with only modest [and often no] connection to kinship or even ethnicity.

    But then, in the absence of a commonly agreed if not actually verified religious authority for a source, all human moral, philosophical, social and political ideas and values are socially constructed.

    Human rights included. Presuming the absence of the essentially religious idea of "natural law", these rights cannot be independently drawn from the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology.

    So if the nation state is artificial, so is the right of all humans to cross its borders.

    Also, nation states are currently in the possession of people of all races, and many individual such states are held by populations comprising multiple races. How can they be a racist concept?

    Replies: @sayless

    , @JohnnyGeo
    @frizzled

    Because we live here

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s a very very simple concept to grasp – but it absurdly strange why vast numbers of people, including the supposedly ‘highly educated’, either cannot grasp it or will not grasp.

    The proposition is this:

    Any nation, any nation at all that accepts the notion of ‘free immigration’ will eventually cease to exist, in the meaningful sense of the word ‘nation’, if ‘free immigration’ is permitted.
    Of course, the greater the differential in living standards between the target nation and the remainder of the world, the greater the speed of extinction of the nation.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    @Anonymous

    Precisely so...As to why so many are unable to comprehend this point, which every primitive hunter/gatherer understands, perhaps the answer lies in our thought (((leaders))) in the schools, universities and on the boob tube....

  9. Where is Obama? A city is in chaos and he seems to be missing. It is really remarkable that our president is so disengaged.

  10. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    Whiskey, please reread that comment.

  11. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?

    • Replies: @Darin
    @anon


    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?
     
    You are not the first who thought about this:

    Open borders: the solution to conflict in the Middle East

    http://openborders.info/blog/open-borders-the-solution-to-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
    , @biz
    @anon

    Why would you assume that commenter would want to preserve Israel? Most leftists hate Israel.

    Replies: @anon

  12. Oh, and THIS is a really interesting article.

    Eitan Hersh and Brian Schaffner discuss how “Jewish donors are abandoning the Republicans.”

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    They gingerly break the biggest taboo in all of US media reporting in these two sentences:

    Jews make up a much larger share of campaign contributors than of voters. A big swing in their donation behavior is probably more consequential than a big shift in their voting behavior.

    Yep, someone finally mentions that there is rather a lot of Jewish money in US politics!

    One might think that there would be some interest in discussing what effect all this disproportionate Jewish money might have on the US democratic process. Could Jewish donors have any particular political issues they are interested in? Do Jews have any interests that are different from the average American? Could there be any particular impact from all this money on US foreign policy?

    However, these ineffable mysteries are simply left by the wayside.

    Israel’s ‘right to exist’ does not exist. On the other hand, neither does a Palestinian nation have a right to exist. Palestinian nationalism seems as questionable and racist as Jewish nationalism, which is something a lot of leftists seem to have a double standard on.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @frizzled

    "Rights" are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence. In the absence of an effective world justice system (which will probably never exist), the "right" to national existence is enforced the same way other "rights" are in places where no justice system exists - by force of arms. National existence can only be obtained and maintained thru superior force. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is as true of Israel as it is of the United States or any other country. Palestine does not exist as a real state because it does not have the military power to make it exist (and the Israelis will do their best to make sure that they never do). In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that "the right to national existence" is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Massimo Heitor, @AnotherDad

    , @anon
    @frizzled


    Israel’s ‘right to exist’ does not exist.
     
    It's good to alt-right trolling over the ethno-state double standard has forced the latent split in the predominantly anti-white and the predominantly pro-Israel factions out into the open.

    This should be very helpful.
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    On this score, as per usual, the Trumpists are correct, and the acolytes of the Hildebeast are wrong.

    The use of the term ‘right’ or even ‘natural right’ in legalistic terms means essentially such protections a judicial system – working in conjunction with an effective administrative state – gives to the citizens of that state regarding the exercise of state power on the day to day lives of the citizens. Over the years, the term has been debased by including such things as ‘racial and sexual discrimination’ as allegedly performed by ‘free’ individual citizens going about their business.

    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.

    Anyway, back to the case in point. Immigration to the USA has never ever been a ‘right’ , as properly understood, of foreigners just to move in on the USA.
    It has always been a licence dependent purely on the whim of government.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Randal
    @Anonymous


    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.
     
    Bentham, of course, was a utilitarian and had the utilitarian's horror of anything that might get in the way of an elite enacting the "greater good".

    I think you'll find this was more to early American tastes:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    But you are correct of course, that such rights were never (outside certain fringe movements) thought to include the right to wander across established borders at will, any more than they were thought to include rights to take other men's goods at will, or trespass on their property.

    Replies: @dearieme, @Jack D, @Tex

    , @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    In our legal system, a "right" is something that is enforceable in a court of law. There are rights that are created by statute (which can disappear if the statute is repealed) and Constitutional rights which can only be taken away by Constitutional amendment. Under current law, certain immigrants have the "right" to immigrate if they meet certain criteria and Trump couldn't bring immigration to zero without changing the law, so in a sense his tweet was wrong. If Trump told the State Dept. to stamp REJECTED on every single immigration application no matter what, he would lose in court (just as Obama lost with his attempts to get around the law the other way.) However, there is no (known) Constitutional right to immigration so if Congress set the immigration quota at zero that would be fine.

    Of course, all of this subtlety is lost in a Tweet.

  14. iSteveFan says:
    @415 reasons
    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Lot, @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Olorin

    Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.

    This is typical of a liberals’ approach to problem solving in which they create a worse problem by trying to solve one. For example, in the name of helping blacks, they got them hooked on welfare and helped destroy the black family. In the name of alleviating suffering, they helped to create the third world population bomb by supplying food and medicine and little else. And now in the name of the zeroth amendment, they are brain draining the developing world.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @iSteveFan

    "Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop."

    Do you think Mainland China would have been closer to 1st World status like Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong if there had not been a mass exodus of their triple digit IQ cream of the crop to North America and Australia?

    , @Lot
    @iSteveFan


    but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted
     
    We already operate something similar to a "skimming the cream" policy with Hindu Indians. I don't really think this has much of anything to do with India's many dysfunctions.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Marcus

    , @bomag
    @iSteveFan

    We also get plenty of the dysfunctional along with the "brains". It is not looking like a net win, since most of the "brains" are pretty average to start with, and their kids + family tail regress to the mean.

  15. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.

    Any homeless person would improve their life by moving into your home. Do you have the right to stop them?

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @MEH 0910


    frizzled says

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.
     
    Any homeless person would improve their life by moving into your home. Do you have the right to stop them?
     
    Exactly! This is the simple common-sensical critique of open borders that Trump tapped in to, and that made his campaign take off. Serious leftists really have to come to grips with this.
  16. “Right… We disagree.”

    The Left in this country, by and large, seems to:

    1. Not feel that the Constitution is the basic, foundational law of this country, the wellspring from which all the other layers of legal framework emerge. Instead, there is some feel-good moral imperative of international brotherly love. Or,

    2. Not understand the meaning of “right” in the constitutional context. Hence keeping and bearing guns is a privilege to be sanctioned by government as the latter sees fit while foreigners have a right to migrate into the country.

    Then there is another option:

    3. They don’t care either way, but simply salivate at being able to overpower the Right by increasing their vote share and tell their perceived moral and intellectual inferiors how to live (which is to say, live beneath them, thank you very much).

  17. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    So you’d be cool if they wanted to move into your house? Your bedroom?

    What right have you to deny them?

    • Replies: @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

  18. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    Please provide us with your home address– and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    • Replies: @Dirk Dagger
    @D. K.

    Why would you eat toast unbuttered? Please reconsider.

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @Twinkie
    @D. K.


    Please provide us with your home address– and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!
     
    Now there you go again - just like Trump demanding Hillary drop her Secret Service protection so that she could be attacked violently by his supporters - advocating home invasion, robbery, and rape of "@frizzled" and his family.






    In case it's not clear, I am being sarcastic.

    Replies: @D. K., @res

    , @Bill Jones
    @D. K.

    When you drop your unbuttered toast how does it know which side to land on?

    Does it just hover above the floor spinning?

    Replies: @D. K.

    , @ganderson
    @D. K.

    Medium well? Barbarian!

    Replies: @D. K.

  19. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Maj. Kong


    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.
     

    Uh minor problem ... there already are Ivy League quotas--the ones the Jews have to keep Asian enrollments down, so their own control is not challenged. You first have to take the Ivy League institutions *back* from the Jews if you want to impose your quotas.

    ~~

    For the record, the Jewish quotas were perfectly reasonable. The Ivies were Protestant institutions--in origin for training churchmen--and there is no particular reason that Protestants should be forced to admit any Jews (tribally non-Protestant to say the least), much less allow Jews to become large pluralities of the students in their institutions. (In fact allowing it was a repudiation of the mission of those institutions.) The Jews could have just gone and built their own universities which is what the Catholics did. That Jews seriously cite "Ivy League quotas" to show how "victimized" they were, actually just shows how completely un-victimized they've been in America. (Not mind you as ridiculous as the Golfocaust.)

    But this is just standard issue stuff. The fundamental Jewish interpretation of history and their victimization is that Jews are perfectly entitled to be a tight endogamous tribe, with in fact religious proscriptions against socializing outside the tribe, but if the host society populations react against our tribalism or even contemplate acting tribally themselves ... anti-semitism!

    It's a very weird sort of sociology--when has any group in all of history treated its neighbors with contempt as the "other" and not gotten back the same? But it serves the interest of the tribe to dish it up.

    In sum: Jews may be (proudly) tribal, host societies must be open and penetrable by Jews.

    And this is what underlies all the Jewish borderline insanity in this election. Trump--however obviously friendly and comfortable with Jews, including his own family--is suggesting that the host society actually gets to decide who is allowed to park their butts here. The horror!

    Replies: @Jack D

  20. @Desiderius
    @frizzled

    So you'd be cool if they wanted to move into your house? Your bedroom?

    What right have you to deny them?

    Replies: @frizzled

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @frizzled

    In a perfect/Aspie world your stuff probably makes sense.

    , @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    See anonymous' comment above at 13 and Piltdown at 41.

    You have unwittingly made their very points. Both Oklahoma and Ohio share a system of Law and Enforcement within which freedom of movement can function. Your problem is that you cannot see the logical fallacy in what you propose.

    If the world were to function as you advocate, then the world would have never have evolved pockets of prosperity to begin with. It is only because groups of people were isolated and able to develop systems of law and economics unique to them that some were able to create high-trust, technologically advanced civilizations. Had they been constantly overrun with alien hordes, then any unique advances would have been washed away and/or diluted. Natural Selection works the same way. An advantageous gene provides advantage to its bearer for local conditions. The Tibetan adaption to high altitude doesn't help an Amazon Basin inhabitant. Resistance to Malaria doesn't benefit an Eskimo. For natural selection to work, for us to evolve, we need to be relatively isolated.

    You liberal reformer people imagine that there exists a Universal Humankind, a sort of Platonic Ideal of personhood, a one size fits all empty, fuzzy hologram into which you project all of your youthful idealistic yearnings. But the concrete world is one of separateness. You are unique, separated from others. You have unique attributes and are right now sitting in a unique environment while facing unique choices.

    If I may give you some advice; stop trying to solve the problems of humankind and get on with the personal choices facing you right now. Pick up the challenge of making your life uniquely yours. Build the project you dream of building. Screw up your courage and resolve to take that first step on the path to individuality. The lesson they don't teach you in school is that becoming a human being is a lot of hard work and calls for all of your resources. Stop smoking pot and drinking to excess and buckle down to working on the most important project in your life--yourself.

    , @carol
    @frizzled

    but...that so-called "right" is only due to "laws" which are enforced by...FORCE!

    It's just all so evil isn't it.

    , @L Woods
    @frizzled

    So foreigners can take the country of Americans but not the houses of Americans. Glad we could get our arbitrary boundaries straight.

    , @Jack D
    @frizzled

    The relationship between Oklahoma and Ohio is symmetrical and not all in the same direction. Some people move from Oklahoma to Ohio and vice versa, so both parties benefit. That's why the people of Ohio and Oklahoma elected to join together in a single political union in the 1st place. No such union exists, or can exist or should exist between say India and the US.

    , @MEH 0910
    @frizzled

    The Okies wouldn't be taking the houses of the Ohioans, they'd just be moving in with them. What are you, a familyist? Bigot.

    , @Alfa158
    @frizzled

    Yes it does give them that right. As long as the house in Ohio is better than their house in Oklahoma they have exercised their right to improve their housing. BTW , please tell your wife I like chocolate chip waffles and applewood smoke bacon for
    breakfast but don't wake me up before 10AM.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman

  21. @G Pinfold
    OT: this is iStevey:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    It's a strange article because they screwed up all their numbers and had to make a correction, but the argument still stands.
    Short version is that Trump is pitchforks.
    Seeing Hillary's mini-rebound in recent national polls, as well as in Florida, I would expect some serious Israel love from Trump in the next few weeks.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Maj. Kong

    Any expression of hawkishness from Trump is kryptonite. A Republican isn’t going to win the Midwest running on another foreign war.

    Trump must win Florida the same way that Rick Scott did, twice. Mobilize every single Florida Panhandle conservative. Scare the rest with the left’s love for crime.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Maj. Kong


    Trump must win Florida the same way that Rick Scott did, twice. Mobilize every single Florida Panhandle conservative. Scare the rest with the left’s love for crime.
     
    Sounds right to me.
  22. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    Whatever is happening with Jewish donors needs to be looked at from a ecosphere vantage point. Trump is turning off a lot of establishment donors and is pulling in record amounts, for the Republican Party, of small donor donations.

    To put this another way, what are the 2004 Bush donors doing this year? What are the 2008 McCain donors doing this year?

    Secondly, even if Jewish flight is as significant as indicated, this in itself sends a signal to all concerned. If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That’s good to know.

    • Agree: Avenge Harambe
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @TangoMan


    If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That’s good to know.
     
    And, presumably, if Hillary prevails, the opposite will be true - your conduct has been noted, Comrade.

    This is the most un-American thing I think has ever been posted on this blog. No donor, Jewish or otherwise, has any obligation to give or not give to any political party (nor are "the Jews" somehow collectively responsible for the actions of any individual Jewish donor). The free exercise of your First Amendment rights (which the Supreme Court has ruled includes the right to spend your own money) is a fundamental cornerstone of our republic. On purely practical grounds, revenge taking has always been limited here because people knew that their party could be voted out of office at the next election and the same done to them.


    If I really thought that Trump was thinking this way, there's no way in hell that I would EVER vote for him or give him a dime, but thank God I don't think this represents his way of thinking at all. But it apparently does represent yours, which is sad.
  23. The world is becoming a strange place, when my morning glance at my country’s premier left-globalist newspaper’s website front page makes me think of Steve Sailer:

    Trump says Syrian refugees aren’t just a terrorist threat, they’d hurt quality of life

    Did Trump actually say: “this is why we can’t have nice things any more”, as well?

  24. Dirk Dagger [AKA "oarsman:regatta"] says: • Website
    @D. K.
    @frizzled

    Please provide us with your home address-- and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Twinkie, @Bill Jones, @ganderson

    Why would you eat toast unbuttered? Please reconsider.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Dirk Dagger

    In middle age, I came to prefer using extra-virgin olive oil as a dip for my bread, biscuits and rolls, rather than using butter on them.

  25. @Anonymous
    On this score, as per usual, the Trumpists are correct, and the acolytes of the Hildebeast are wrong.

    The use of the term 'right' or even 'natural right' in legalistic terms means essentially such protections a judicial system - working in conjunction with an effective administrative state - gives to the citizens of that state regarding the exercise of state power on the day to day lives of the citizens. Over the years, the term has been debased by including such things as 'racial and sexual discrimination' as allegedly performed by 'free' individual citizens going about their business.

    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that 'any notion of 'natural rights' is merely nonsense on stilts' - which is more or less the truth of the matter.

    Anyway, back to the case in point. Immigration to the USA has never ever been a 'right' , as properly understood, of foreigners just to move in on the USA.
    It has always been a licence dependent purely on the whim of government.

    Replies: @Randal, @Jack D

    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.

    Bentham, of course, was a utilitarian and had the utilitarian’s horror of anything that might get in the way of an elite enacting the “greater good”.

    I think you’ll find this was more to early American tastes:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    But you are correct of course, that such rights were never (outside certain fringe movements) thought to include the right to wander across established borders at will, any more than they were thought to include rights to take other men’s goods at will, or trespass on their property.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    @Randal

    "I think you’ll find this was more to early American tastes ...": I'd like to think that many early Americans disliked that sort of empty bombast, the stock-in-trade of the advertising man throughout history.

    , @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    , @Tex
    @Randal

    Rights, natural, human, constitutional, or otherwise are moral precepts, expressions of what is "right" or "wrong". One can appeal to a divine creator for support of why something is right, but failing that the appeal is to cultural values expressed as tradition, shared beliefs, or established law.

    To be effective, a moral precept needs very broad support.

    So if you change the culture, for example by allowing mass numbers of people who do not share your political culture, then pretty soon you won't have a consensus on what is right. And then your constitutional moral precepts are history.

  26. @anon
    @frizzled

    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?

    Replies: @Darin, @biz

    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?

    You are not the first who thought about this:

    Open borders: the solution to conflict in the Middle East

    http://openborders.info/blog/open-borders-the-solution-to-conflict-in-the-middle-east/

  27. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve’s questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    As a matter of interest, if you are leftist and anti-nationalist (and antiracist, judging from your negative description of a “racist system of nation-states”), where do you find yourself actually in line with the Steve crowd?

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    As others have already pointed out, being against enforcement of national borders makes about as much sense as being against private property, with similarly disastrous consequences.

    No nations or separate states of course does not mean no government. Most likely it means world government, which in practice will be co-opted by wealthy elites as all governments in human history have been, if they have lasted long enough. And world government most likely means an endless universal tyranny with no escape and no “outside” – a “boot stamping on the human face, forever”.

  28. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    It would be interesting to know the likely percentage of Jewish small donors to Trump. If it was more than 2%, or whatever the figure for US population is, I would publish it. Jewish non-elites support Trump! At least monetarily, I would expect the donations to exceed 2%. This is the sort of thing that Ivanka’s husband ought to publicize, if true.

    I made the case on here several years ago that we would start to see the Mischlinge Revolution, as the partial Jews start combining their Jewish abilities in politics, law and the like with a love of their Shiksa heritage and their success in the Western host, in accordance with the massive outmarriage rate. And… rebelling against the establishment. I note that (((Chaffetz) is taking names and kicking ass. And a lot of the iSteve commentariat fit that description.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Trump's Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews - Orthodox Jews, most of whom don't personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They're also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Anonym, @D. K., @Lot

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anonym

    Well, Granddad in San Francisco was a Jewish guy who never identified as such and apparently couldn't care less. He married my shiksa grandmother, and I only learned of his ancestry after he had died. (He owned a grocery store in the city, so maybe I should have taken that as a clue...LOL.)

    In other words, my grandfather was an assimilated American. Gee, imagine that.

    He even went "over there" during WW1. I have a photo of him striking a combat pose with a bayoneted rifle in his doughboy uniform. There's a note on the back to my grandmother.

    The point is, there are lots of Americans with whatever in their background, partially, and we really don't care about it. I suppose there are a lot of us here, as you say, and we will vote for Trump.

  29. @D. K.
    @frizzled

    Please provide us with your home address-- and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Twinkie, @Bill Jones, @ganderson

    Please provide us with your home address– and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Now there you go again – just like Trump demanding Hillary drop her Secret Service protection so that she could be attacked violently by his supporters – advocating home invasion, robbery, and rape of “” and his family.

    In case it’s not clear, I am being sarcastic.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Twinkie

    I have no interest in his women-- even assuming, arguendo, that he recognizes the right of women to rebuff more-intimate interlopers, within the personal sphere; I merely am entranced by his first principles of "mi casa, su casa!" The money I might save by availing myself of his righteous idealism could then be used on a woman (or few) of my own choosing.

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Twinkie

    , @res
    @Twinkie


    In case it’s not clear, I am being sarcastic.
     
    It might be more fun to put this after a MORE tag and see how many irate responses you get.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  30. @iSteveFan
    @415 reasons

    Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.

    This is typical of a liberals' approach to problem solving in which they create a worse problem by trying to solve one. For example, in the name of helping blacks, they got them hooked on welfare and helped destroy the black family. In the name of alleviating suffering, they helped to create the third world population bomb by supplying food and medicine and little else. And now in the name of the zeroth amendment, they are brain draining the developing world.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Lot, @bomag

    “Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.”

    Do you think Mainland China would have been closer to 1st World status like Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong if there had not been a mass exodus of their triple digit IQ cream of the crop to North America and Australia?

  31. @Steve Sailer
    @G Pinfold

    What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @G Pinfold, @The Alarmist

    Washington Post at 31 August has Clinton at around 65%.

  32. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Anonymous

    "The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where."

    And yet there's this line about "the pursuit of happiness" at the back of my mind........

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

  33. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    In a perfect/Aspie world your stuff probably makes sense.

  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    So, basically, you are saying that distinct ethnies, peoples, nationalities, call them what you will, do not have the ‘right’ to declare themselves as distinct entitities and, furthermore, to defend the integrity of their distinctiveness.

    All well and good, but supposing that white, European colonists reversed the orthodoxies of the past 70 years or so, marched into southern Africa with the overwhelming advantage of force of arms, and deliberately displaced all African groups – this time they mean it for real – such as Matabele, Zulu, Xhosa etc etc from their land and took it all for themselves and kept it for themselves on the justification that it is ‘to improve their lives’ – then, most assuredly you would be the first to scream their head off at the ‘injustice’ of it all.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    @Anonymous

    Sounds like gotcha trolling to me.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    It would be interesting to know the likely percentage of Jewish small donors to Trump. If it was more than 2%, or whatever the figure for US population is, I would publish it. Jewish non-elites support Trump! At least monetarily, I would expect the donations to exceed 2%. This is the sort of thing that Ivanka's husband ought to publicize, if true.

    I made the case on here several years ago that we would start to see the Mischlinge Revolution, as the partial Jews start combining their Jewish abilities in politics, law and the like with a love of their Shiksa heritage and their success in the Western host, in accordance with the massive outmarriage rate. And... rebelling against the establishment. I note that (((Chaffetz) is taking names and kicking ass. And a lot of the iSteve commentariat fit that description.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

    Trump’s Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews – Orthodox Jews, most of whom don’t personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    I was thinking of examples, and then I thought of Cuckerberg, and then something off topic but interesting. Now he is full jew, from memory, but his wife is Chinese. Is it possible that Cuckerberg's choice of wife is just a cynical exercise in courting the world's equal largest economy?

    , @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Are the Reform still breeding? Maybe in the future there are only Orthodox Jews and Mischlinge. It's kind of unfortunate because the Jewish IQ has bequeathed us a lot of advances in life, and obsessive study of the Talmud is all very well but some of that boiled off talent that obsesses over non-Jewish concerns has been a boon for the world.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @D. K.
    @Anonymous

    As opposed to Clinton's Black-and-Brown base, which reveres the Jewish People as the Chosen People of the One True G-d!

    , @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

  36. @Twinkie
    @D. K.


    Please provide us with your home address– and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!
     
    Now there you go again - just like Trump demanding Hillary drop her Secret Service protection so that she could be attacked violently by his supporters - advocating home invasion, robbery, and rape of "@frizzled" and his family.






    In case it's not clear, I am being sarcastic.

    Replies: @D. K., @res

    I have no interest in his women– even assuming, arguendo, that he recognizes the right of women to rebuff more-intimate interlopers, within the personal sphere; I merely am entranced by his first principles of “mi casa, su casa!” The money I might save by availing myself of his righteous idealism could then be used on a woman (or few) of my own choosing.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    @D. K.


    I merely am entranced by his first principles of “mi casa, su casa!”
     

    I don't know the first thing about Spanish grammar, but maybe the principle he is espousing is better stated as "su casa, mi casa!"

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Jack D

    , @Twinkie
    @D. K.


    I have no interest in his women
     
    It. Was. A. Joke.

    And not at your expense. But at 1) the ridiculous logic of "frizzled" and 2) the willfully obtuse leftists who think Trump advocated Hillary's murder.

    Replies: @D. K.

  37. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    “You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.” In that spirit, I claim the right to move you to improve my life. This is one of the things that only war settles.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
  38. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Trump's Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews - Orthodox Jews, most of whom don't personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They're also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Anonym, @D. K., @Lot

    I was thinking of examples, and then I thought of Cuckerberg, and then something off topic but interesting. Now he is full jew, from memory, but his wife is Chinese. Is it possible that Cuckerberg’s choice of wife is just a cynical exercise in courting the world’s equal largest economy?

  39. @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    So, basically, you are saying that distinct ethnies, peoples, nationalities, call them what you will, do not have the 'right' to declare themselves as distinct entitities and, furthermore, to defend the integrity of their distinctiveness.

    All well and good, but supposing that white, European colonists reversed the orthodoxies of the past 70 years or so, marched into southern Africa with the overwhelming advantage of force of arms, and deliberately displaced all African groups - this time they mean it for real - such as Matabele, Zulu, Xhosa etc etc from their land and took it all for themselves and kept it for themselves on the justification that it is 'to improve their lives' - then, most assuredly you would be the first to scream their head off at the 'injustice' of it all.

    Replies: @G Pinfold

    Sounds like gotcha trolling to me.

  40. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Trump's Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews - Orthodox Jews, most of whom don't personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They're also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Anonym, @D. K., @Lot

    Are the Reform still breeding? Maybe in the future there are only Orthodox Jews and Mischlinge. It’s kind of unfortunate because the Jewish IQ has bequeathed us a lot of advances in life, and obsessive study of the Talmud is all very well but some of that boiled off talent that obsesses over non-Jewish concerns has been a boon for the world.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonym


    Maybe in the future there are only Orthodox Jews and Mischlinge.
     
    This is roughly what is going to happen (what is happening right now). However, from an IQ perspective it's not all bad because the Jews are not marrying randomly. They are marrying a selected group of other Belmont types (most American Jews live and socialize in "Belmont" and not "Fishtown") who are no dummies themselves. Clinton and Trump's Mischlinge grandchildren (whoever wins in November will have Mischlinge grandchildren) are not going to be slouches in the IQ dept. In pre-Hitler Germany, in addition to many brilliant Jews, there were also quite a few brilliant Mischlinge who also made important contributions to society.
  41. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Trump's Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews - Orthodox Jews, most of whom don't personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They're also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Anonym, @D. K., @Lot

    As opposed to Clinton’s Black-and-Brown base, which reveres the Jewish People as the Chosen People of the One True G-d!

  42. @415 reasons
    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Lot, @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Olorin

    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion?

    From Reagan’s second gubernatorial inauguration address, 1/4/1971:

    If all 20 million of us wanted to live elsewhere, we would find 100 people willing to trade places with each one of us.

    • Replies: @gruff
    @Lot

    And they did.

  43. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Why only Westerners? Japan, China, and many, if not all, modern nation-states, are identifiable by race, or a small group of races and ethnicities particular to a geographic location.

    The benefits that Westerners, Japan and some others enjoy greatly exceed those that of many of those other nations. This is a result, not of exclusion and appropriation, but of the scientific and industrial revolutions. These benefits are not privilege, but what was created within these now wealthy nation-state enclaves. And thus, earned.

    But for those revolutions, we’d still be cooking over open fires at a hearth, and emptying chamber pots onto the street. I doubt many Bangladeshis or Somalis would bestir themselves to invade our borders through immigration had that been the case.

    Merely looking at Japan’s exclusionary immigration policy confirms that we in the West, far from failing to share our wealth with other peoples, have been altruistic to a fault by allowing mass immigration.

    But we were under no moral obligation to do so at any point. We have every right to not further grant the very considerable privilege to foreigners of immigrating into the efficient, technological societies that we have created. Indeed, we have always retained the natural rights of saying no to further immigration.

    People have the right to assemble and form groups, i.e. nation-states, and may define who may join the group in the future, at their pleasure. That is natural and just.

    • Replies: @guest
    @PiltdownMan

    "These benefits are not privilege...And thus, earned."

    You're assuming that when they speak of "privilege" they mean unearned privilege. Not so. That's what they want you to think, but in reality they want there to be no such distinction as between earned and unearned privilege. Because all privilege will be emotionally identical to unearned privilege, whether it was earned or not.

  44. @MEH 0910
    @frizzled


    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.
     
    Any homeless person would improve their life by moving into your home. Do you have the right to stop them?

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    frizzled says

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life.

    Any homeless person would improve their life by moving into your home. Do you have the right to stop them?

    Exactly! This is the simple common-sensical critique of open borders that Trump tapped in to, and that made his campaign take off. Serious leftists really have to come to grips with this.

  45. @Anonymous
    @Anonym

    Trump's Jewish support seems highest among the least assimilated, least integrated Jews - Orthodox Jews, most of whom don't personally pay much attention to politics and the wider culture, and whose political support is determined and directed by rabbis and community leaders. They're also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Replies: @Anonym, @Anonym, @D. K., @Lot

    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.

    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Lot

    "Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”

    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Brutusale
    @Lot

    The neo-Nazis being no different than the Left's Black Liberationists, most of whom loathe the Nice White Ladies. You don't get to pick and choose the people moving in the same direction.

    , @Jack D
    @Lot


    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”
     
    Well then, you haven't been looking very hard. Even among the comments on this blog there is a clear undercurrent of anti-Semitism among some. Then again, Hillary has her BLM type supporters who are just as loathsome. Leftists are always trying to get rightists to throw their right fringe overboard but have no inclination to do the same for themselves. This is just a form of concern trolling and an effort to scare nice white ladies and Jews away from Trump. But Trump cannot (and should not) control who supports him. Hillary will take every vote she can get and so should Trump, but this doesn't mean that they agree with the positions of their most extremist supporters.

    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality. It's small and has no influence on the campaign, but it exists.

    Replies: @anon, @Jefferson

    , @Federalist
    @Lot

    In a way, you may both be right. Many anti-Semites support Trump but the vast majority of Trump's supporters are not anti-Semitic (especially if supporters means voters). Very few of the 60-something percent of whites who will vote for Trump are anti-Semitic.

    In a lot of flyover country, the middle class, suburban white voters who support Trump do not have a much direct contact with Jews. And remember most of the middle class whites go out of their way to avoid being seen as racist, prejudiced, etc. For example, Republican voters love to bring up the "MLK was really a Republican and the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow" meme. This is certainly true even in the Deep South where being white and middle class is almost synonymous with being Republican or at least voting Republican in presidential elections. Whites in the Deep South have plenty of negative experience with blacks and still bend over backwards in this way. They are not very anti-black when they have every reason to be. They really don't have any reason to have any issue with the Jews. It is something that just does not even come up for a lot of these people. Even the working class or lower class type of whites who probably are less apt to feel guilty about their "-isms" just don't really have a problem with Jews.

    Often, when people in areas with tiny Jewish populations think of Jews, they think of Israel. And mostly they think highly of Israel. People with a Christian background, especially evangelicals, think of the Jews/Israel as the Old Testament guys in the Bible. They also tend to think of the Jews as having fundamental values in common with Christianity and Western Civilization in general. Think of the term "Judeo-Christian values."

    Some do take the "Our support for Israel gets us sucked into wars and/or brings us terrorism" position. However, most conservatives (the whites who will vote for Trump) perceive Israel as kicking ass fighting the common enemy of radical Islam. For them, Israel is an ally, like Great Britain.

    , @Anonymous
    @Lot

    I did specify that it was a subculture among Trump supporters and does not characterize Trump supporters as a whole or majority.

    The older generations of white voters grew up in a very different media environment which was much more centralized. This particular anti-Semitic subculture isn't comprised of "neo-Nazis", that is the older generation of marginal, underclass types who dress up as Nazis, have tattoos, are affiliated with prison gangs, etc. It's the younger generations that have grown up in a different, internet based media environment. Fervent minorities have disproportionate influence on the wider culture, which is why anti-Semitic memes have managed to surface to mainstream political discourse in this election. Jews, of all people, understand this.

    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they're disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone. At the least, it's hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.

    Replies: @Lot

  46. @D. K.
    @Twinkie

    I have no interest in his women-- even assuming, arguendo, that he recognizes the right of women to rebuff more-intimate interlopers, within the personal sphere; I merely am entranced by his first principles of "mi casa, su casa!" The money I might save by availing myself of his righteous idealism could then be used on a woman (or few) of my own choosing.

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Twinkie

    I merely am entranced by his first principles of “mi casa, su casa!”

    I don’t know the first thing about Spanish grammar, but maybe the principle he is espousing is better stated as “su casa, mi casa!”

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @PiltdownMan

    Mi casa es tu casa.

    Mi país es el país de todo el mundo.

    , @Jack D
    @PiltdownMan

    My mother, who unfortunately had real world experience with these things, used to joke (bitterly) that the Communist maxim was "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine." That's how "open borders" works also - it's a one-way street. The only borders that they want to "open" are the ones leading into the West. If a million Frenchmen decided that they wanted to move to Algeria (while maintaining their religion and culture) they would be evil "colonialists".

    Replies: @ic1000

  47. @Maj. Kong
    @G Pinfold

    Any expression of hawkishness from Trump is kryptonite. A Republican isn't going to win the Midwest running on another foreign war.

    Trump must win Florida the same way that Rick Scott did, twice. Mobilize every single Florida Panhandle conservative. Scare the rest with the left's love for crime.

    Replies: @Lot

    Trump must win Florida the same way that Rick Scott did, twice. Mobilize every single Florida Panhandle conservative. Scare the rest with the left’s love for crime.

    Sounds right to me.

  48. @415 reasons
    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Lot, @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Olorin

    A generous interpretation:

    They took Trump to mean that not one person will be allowed to immigrate here.

    They disagree, and think that some people should be given the right to immigrate here.

    Again, that’s being generous. Steve’s interpretation is more straightforward.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @Dave Pinsen

    In a sane world, saying that no one has the right to immigrate here would be obvious and uncontroversial. Saying that no one has a right to immigrate here doesn't necessarily mean that no one would be allowed to immigrate here. But we should be having a debate about what our immigration policy should be to benefit the United States. Pro-immigration people used to talk about immigrants "doing the work Americans won't do" etc. I don't buy that line of reasoning at all but at least the argument was that it benefits us to have, for instance, fruit pickers that will work for dirt cheap. Sure, they still bolster their arguments with the "crops rotting in the field" crap. But now it's mostly about how we aren't allowed to tell the whole world that they can't just show up here. And don't dare place any restrictions when they get here. Any restriction, no matter how reasonable, is viewed as being no different than open racial discrimination. Immigrants have unlimited rights to come here and be treated no differently than lifelong citizens. We, on the other hand, do not have any right to do anything about it.

  49. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    The 5% share of big Jewish donors for Hillary is typical given the industry and geographic distribution of very wealthy Jewish donors, Hillary’s unprecedented success in raising large donations from the extremely wealthy, and Trump’s smaller than normal haul from those same extremely wealthy donors.

    Trump is doing much better than Romney with small donors to compensate, but Hillary still has a lot more cash to spend.

    Romney’s big success with Jewish donors reflects the understanding that Obama is hostile to Israel and sympathetic to Islam. That was unsustainable when Hillary has been licking Likud’s boot and promising hot and cold running Arab blood in every street for the past 25 years.

    Of course, she also wants to import as many Arab Moslems as she can get to the USA. Bring them here and they kill their relations abroad. Then bring more of them here so that they don’t radicalize. That policy will eventually doom Israel to annihilation, but big donors have never been known for their wisdom.

  50. Amazing that so many white Americans want to commit suicide, but maybe some of them think drinking the open borders kool-aid makes them $$$ or doesn’t harm them.

    The rest are just morons.

  51. @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    It would be interesting to know the likely percentage of Jewish small donors to Trump. If it was more than 2%, or whatever the figure for US population is, I would publish it. Jewish non-elites support Trump! At least monetarily, I would expect the donations to exceed 2%. This is the sort of thing that Ivanka's husband ought to publicize, if true.

    I made the case on here several years ago that we would start to see the Mischlinge Revolution, as the partial Jews start combining their Jewish abilities in politics, law and the like with a love of their Shiksa heritage and their success in the Western host, in accordance with the massive outmarriage rate. And... rebelling against the establishment. I note that (((Chaffetz) is taking names and kicking ass. And a lot of the iSteve commentariat fit that description.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Buzz Mohawk

    Well, Granddad in San Francisco was a Jewish guy who never identified as such and apparently couldn’t care less. He married my shiksa grandmother, and I only learned of his ancestry after he had died. (He owned a grocery store in the city, so maybe I should have taken that as a clue…LOL.)

    In other words, my grandfather was an assimilated American. Gee, imagine that.

    He even went “over there” during WW1. I have a photo of him striking a combat pose with a bayoneted rifle in his doughboy uniform. There’s a note on the back to my grandmother.

    The point is, there are lots of Americans with whatever in their background, partially, and we really don’t care about it. I suppose there are a lot of us here, as you say, and we will vote for Trump.

  52. @Steve Sailer
    @G Pinfold

    What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @G Pinfold, @The Alarmist

    Ah, Mr Miagi, I did not understand the question at first.
    The figure of 65% was the dollar quantum. How many individual donors? I do not.know.
    Wax on, wax off…

  53. @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

    “Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”

    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Jefferson


    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.
     
    If you really want to talk about "average Trump voter" you have to leave political websites entirely and go to super mass market websites and television. Again, 62-65% of white Americans. Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel (and the Anglosphere) is intense.

    Replies: @Jefferson

  54. OT – paging Whiskey and Roissy!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

    “He cited the code of conduct used by UNHCR, which states that sexual relationships between aid staff and beneficiaries are “strongly discouraged” due to “unequal power relationships”.

    The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

    He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks.”

    His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. “

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    @Anonymous Nephew

    Eww! That's just nasty! Do the liberal white women just rut in the mud? Do they go into the weeds and bushes? Do they give their rutting partners candy or sammiches in payment?

    I would never have imagined ageing bleeding heart white women would ever go to Calais for sex tourism with boy-toys. I thought they went to places like Jamaica to get their rocks off a la Terry McMillan in her book "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

  55. @Dirk Dagger
    @D. K.

    Why would you eat toast unbuttered? Please reconsider.

    Replies: @D. K.

    In middle age, I came to prefer using extra-virgin olive oil as a dip for my bread, biscuits and rolls, rather than using butter on them.

  56. @Jefferson
    @Lot

    "Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”

    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.

    Replies: @Lot

    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.

    If you really want to talk about “average Trump voter” you have to leave political websites entirely and go to super mass market websites and television. Again, 62-65% of white Americans. Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel (and the Anglosphere) is intense.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Lot

    "Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel"

    That's the average Trump supporter at Breitbart. I've never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.

    Replies: @Dissident

  57. @iSteveFan
    @415 reasons

    Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.

    This is typical of a liberals' approach to problem solving in which they create a worse problem by trying to solve one. For example, in the name of helping blacks, they got them hooked on welfare and helped destroy the black family. In the name of alleviating suffering, they helped to create the third world population bomb by supplying food and medicine and little else. And now in the name of the zeroth amendment, they are brain draining the developing world.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Lot, @bomag

    but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted

    We already operate something similar to a “skimming the cream” policy with Hindu Indians. I don’t really think this has much of anything to do with India’s many dysfunctions.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Lot


    We already operate something similar to a “skimming the cream” policy with Hindu Indians. I don’t really think this has much of anything to do with India’s many dysfunctions.

     

    India has something on order of 0.7 physicians per capita while the USA, which takes Indian doctors, has over 2.5. Lack of access to doctors is a definite quality of life issue.

    India produces much technical talent that could benefit that nation if it staid behind and created businesses and jobs there.

    Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)

    , @Marcus
    @Lot

    Indeed, I believe they are now the wealthiest ethnic group, maybe Jews were counted as white though.

  58. @Randal
    @Anonymous


    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.
     
    Bentham, of course, was a utilitarian and had the utilitarian's horror of anything that might get in the way of an elite enacting the "greater good".

    I think you'll find this was more to early American tastes:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    But you are correct of course, that such rights were never (outside certain fringe movements) thought to include the right to wander across established borders at will, any more than they were thought to include rights to take other men's goods at will, or trespass on their property.

    Replies: @dearieme, @Jack D, @Tex

    “I think you’ll find this was more to early American tastes …”: I’d like to think that many early Americans disliked that sort of empty bombast, the stock-in-trade of the advertising man throughout history.

  59. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    This analysis makes the same (mistake) assumption as that in the Brexit vote bookmaker odds analysis, i.e. money equates with voting popularity. Donors can contribute as much as they like, just as Brexit big money wagers, but they only get one vote. (The big money favoring “stay” set the betting odds, but the outcome was visible by the number of bets on Brexit.)

    This is just more Dem party propaganda, attempting the steamroll voters into believing Hillary has it wrapped up, by suggesting all the smart/big money is going her way. “Undecided” voters, when they actually vote, have a tendency to break toward the presumed winner.

    Silver’s 538 project increasingly appears to be a front for his Democratic politics, as he essentially confessed when explaining how he got Trump’s nomination bid wrong.

  60. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    > The right to prevent others from moving [into the United States or any other nation-state] has [no] basis. [This claim is] fictitious, and unjust.

    This seems to mirror Pope Francis’ position. At its heart, the Church is concerned with eternal salvation — the right policies lead to more souls reaching Heaven, and fewer condemned to suffer the fires of Hell.

    Back on this temporal plane, Open Borders is Brazilifying the First World. It’s a great life for millionaires and billionaires, secure with their cooks, guards, and nannies behind high, shard-topped walls. For those living near the sprawling slums, not so much. For favela residents, not at all.

    A while back, NumbersUSA crunched the numbers. Mass immigration barely budges the per capita circumstances of the donor countries, even though the effects on recipient countries are sharp.

    So Open Borders isn’t a very nice thing for an American to wish upon his or her grandchildren, or on the descendants of his or her fellow citizens. (Unless your personal wealth advisor at Citigroup tells you that your account is well over six figures, and “fellow citizens” translates as “people much like me.”)

    Frizzled, are you in the “Let them eat cake” club? A devout Christian with eyes on a different prize? As a leftist and anti-nationalist, do you see justice in giving it to today’s kulaks, good and hard? Probably it’s something else — but difficult for me to say what that is.

  61. @Anonymous
    It's a very very simple concept to grasp - but it absurdly strange why vast numbers of people, including the supposedly 'highly educated', either cannot grasp it or will not grasp.

    The proposition is this:

    Any nation, any nation at all that accepts the notion of 'free immigration' will eventually cease to exist, in the meaningful sense of the word 'nation', if 'free immigration' is permitted.
    Of course, the greater the differential in living standards between the target nation and the remainder of the world, the greater the speed of extinction of the nation.

    Replies: @pyrrhus

    Precisely so…As to why so many are unable to comprehend this point, which every primitive hunter/gatherer understands, perhaps the answer lies in our thought (((leaders))) in the schools, universities and on the boob tube….

  62. @anon
    @frizzled

    As a white person do you support open borders for Israel or is that an exception to your nation-wrecking rule?

    Replies: @Darin, @biz

    Why would you assume that commenter would want to preserve Israel? Most leftists hate Israel.

    • Replies: @anon
    @biz

    Jews argue/debate in a distinctive way.

    genetics

  63. @415 reasons
    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Lot, @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Olorin

    During the IQ2 debate on open borders that Ron Unz won, the number 30 million in the first year was quoted.

    Basically, immigration would continue until the quality of life here and in the shittiest shithole on earth were in equilibrium.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @Chrisnonymous

    The scary thing is that there would still probably be a small liveable walled city in the middle of the favelas where the leaders of the Democratic Party would live

  64. @PiltdownMan
    @D. K.


    I merely am entranced by his first principles of “mi casa, su casa!”
     

    I don't know the first thing about Spanish grammar, but maybe the principle he is espousing is better stated as "su casa, mi casa!"

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Jack D

    Mi casa es tu casa.

    Mi país es el país de todo el mundo.

  65. Its not carved. Its just a plaque. You could easily miss it.

    Bronze Plaque of Emma Lazarus' Poem The New Colossus at the Statue of Liberty

    • Replies: @unadorned
    @anony-mouse

    What's your point?

    The Statue of Liberty commemorated a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, we don't call it the Statue of Immigration, we call it the Statue of Liberty.
    The poem was added in 1904, the statue was given to the USA as a centennial gift in 1886, ten years late. Lazarus happened to win a poetry contest to refurbish the base of the statue. Open-border crazies use the poem as "proof" that we are a "proposition nation"; that we are nothing but a huge ATM machine for the world.

    Replies: @anony-mouse

  66. @Anonymous
    "The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump"

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

    In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

    So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

    To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

    In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.
     

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @iSteveFan, @Maj. Kong, @TangoMan, @Anonym, @(((Owen))), @Forbes, @Neil Templeton

    The authors conclude:

    “It is possible that the abandonment is about policy — as discussed above, there are policy-oriented reasons why some Jews are not fond of Trump. But policy is not the only factor at work here. This is probably also about culture and social identification. If Jews perceive that the kinds of people who support Republicans are not like themselves, then they will update their identification with the party. To be willing to donate to and affiliate themselves with a party, a person needs to look at the other people supporting that party and think, ‘Those are my people.’ For Jews, Trump-aligned Republicans appear to be very much not their people.”

    Apparently “That’s not who we are” is to be evaluated on a micro rather than a macro level.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Neil Templeton

    When Jews see populism raising its ugly head, they fear pogroms and pitchforks are just around the corner. They just can't help themselves. You can take the Jew out of the schtetl but you can't take the schtetl mentality out of the Jew.

  67. @guest
    Technically, she doesn't say everyone has the right. She only said not-"no one" has the right. That could mean the entire world has the right, or refugees ("refugees") have the right, or all Turd Worlders have the right.

    Most likely, she thinks everyone who'd vote Clinton given the chance has the right.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @random observer

    As a legal matter, who has a right to immigrate here?

  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    See anonymous’ comment above at 13 and Piltdown at 41.

    You have unwittingly made their very points. Both Oklahoma and Ohio share a system of Law and Enforcement within which freedom of movement can function. Your problem is that you cannot see the logical fallacy in what you propose.

    If the world were to function as you advocate, then the world would have never have evolved pockets of prosperity to begin with. It is only because groups of people were isolated and able to develop systems of law and economics unique to them that some were able to create high-trust, technologically advanced civilizations. Had they been constantly overrun with alien hordes, then any unique advances would have been washed away and/or diluted. Natural Selection works the same way. An advantageous gene provides advantage to its bearer for local conditions. The Tibetan adaption to high altitude doesn’t help an Amazon Basin inhabitant. Resistance to Malaria doesn’t benefit an Eskimo. For natural selection to work, for us to evolve, we need to be relatively isolated.

    You liberal reformer people imagine that there exists a Universal Humankind, a sort of Platonic Ideal of personhood, a one size fits all empty, fuzzy hologram into which you project all of your youthful idealistic yearnings. But the concrete world is one of separateness. You are unique, separated from others. You have unique attributes and are right now sitting in a unique environment while facing unique choices.

    If I may give you some advice; stop trying to solve the problems of humankind and get on with the personal choices facing you right now. Pick up the challenge of making your life uniquely yours. Build the project you dream of building. Screw up your courage and resolve to take that first step on the path to individuality. The lesson they don’t teach you in school is that becoming a human being is a lot of hard work and calls for all of your resources. Stop smoking pot and drinking to excess and buckle down to working on the most important project in your life–yourself.

  69. @Anonymous Nephew
    OT - paging Whiskey and Roissy!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

    "He cited the code of conduct used by UNHCR, which states that sexual relationships between aid staff and beneficiaries are “strongly discouraged” due to “unequal power relationships”.

    The man added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male refugees – which he claimed risked the objectification of women volunteering in the camp.

    He wrote: “Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (that many have) that volunteers are here for sex. This impression objectifies women in the camp and increases the risks."

    His comments prompted accusations of sexism and misogyny from female members of the group. "
     

    Replies: @Big Bill

    Eww! That’s just nasty! Do the liberal white women just rut in the mud? Do they go into the weeds and bushes? Do they give their rutting partners candy or sammiches in payment?

    I would never have imagined ageing bleeding heart white women would ever go to Calais for sex tourism with boy-toys. I thought they went to places like Jamaica to get their rocks off a la Terry McMillan in her book “How Stella Got Her Groove Back”

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    @Big Bill

    My impression is that they're mostly under 30 - a lot of student types being as transgressive as possible rather than EatPrayLove types. You just have to hope your son doesn't marry one.

  70. The Zeroeth Amendment is signified by the Ohio Hillary campaign symbol O–|–|–> (as shown in that tweet), which represents everyOne in the world passing through barriers of racism and religious hatred to reach America where they belong.

  71. iSteveFan says:
    @Lot
    @iSteveFan


    but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted
     
    We already operate something similar to a "skimming the cream" policy with Hindu Indians. I don't really think this has much of anything to do with India's many dysfunctions.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Marcus

    We already operate something similar to a “skimming the cream” policy with Hindu Indians. I don’t really think this has much of anything to do with India’s many dysfunctions.

    India has something on order of 0.7 physicians per capita while the USA, which takes Indian doctors, has over 2.5. Lack of access to doctors is a definite quality of life issue.

    India produces much technical talent that could benefit that nation if it staid behind and created businesses and jobs there.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    @iSteveFan

    Wow! We have 2.5 physicians per capita! Why are there lines in emergency rooms?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  72. @frizzled
    Oh, and THIS is a really interesting article.

    Eitan Hersh and Brian Schaffner discuss how "Jewish donors are abandoning the Republicans."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    They gingerly break the biggest taboo in all of US media reporting in these two sentences:


    Jews make up a much larger share of campaign contributors than of voters. A big swing in their donation behavior is probably more consequential than a big shift in their voting behavior.

     

    Yep, someone finally mentions that there is rather a lot of Jewish money in US politics!

    One might think that there would be some interest in discussing what effect all this disproportionate Jewish money might have on the US democratic process. Could Jewish donors have any particular political issues they are interested in? Do Jews have any interests that are different from the average American? Could there be any particular impact from all this money on US foreign policy?

    However, these ineffable mysteries are simply left by the wayside.

    @anon

    Israel's 'right to exist' does not exist. On the other hand, neither does a Palestinian nation have a right to exist. Palestinian nationalism seems as questionable and racist as Jewish nationalism, which is something a lot of leftists seem to have a double standard on.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon

    “Rights” are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence. In the absence of an effective world justice system (which will probably never exist), the “right” to national existence is enforced the same way other “rights” are in places where no justice system exists – by force of arms. National existence can only be obtained and maintained thru superior force. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is as true of Israel as it is of the United States or any other country. Palestine does not exist as a real state because it does not have the military power to make it exist (and the Israelis will do their best to make sure that they never do). In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that “the right to national existence” is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    For example, the nation state of Poland did not exist for roughly well over 100 years from the 18th century until 1919 - I'm sure some here can fill in the precise dates.

    Nevertheless, the Polish nation - that is the actual people who identified as being ethnically Polish, still continued to exist, despite this nation not having a state or civil government to its name.

    , @Massimo Heitor
    @Jack D


    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism.
     
    This is quite obvious.

    Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

     

    Borders are a form of institutional tribalism and racism. Eliminating them would eliminate that particular form of racism, but people would still be racist and compete at other levels.

    Replies: @random observer

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    “Rights” are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence... In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that “the right to national existence” is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).
     

    Excellent comment Jack, end-to-end. I've never understood why folks have such trouble understanding this stuff.

    My only slight caveat would be to throw some scare quotes around "racism"'--meaning by that that this tedious "racism!" that the left identifies everywhere--everywhere white people roam--which requires neither ill will nor ill action. For multi-ethnic nations like America there isn't even a very distinct racial component. Nationalism is like taking all the employees in your group to lunch and saying ... "we're going to kick ass together!". Which of course is "racist!" because what about all those poor folks not in your workgroup ... they're "excluded"!

    Nationalism is in fact ... awesome. Nationalism is basically what allows *trust at scale*, ergo is the seat of prosperity, rule of law and freedom.

  73. @Lot
    @iSteveFan


    but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted
     
    We already operate something similar to a "skimming the cream" policy with Hindu Indians. I don't really think this has much of anything to do with India's many dysfunctions.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Marcus

    Indeed, I believe they are now the wealthiest ethnic group, maybe Jews were counted as white though.

  74. @Randal
    @Anonymous


    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.
     
    Bentham, of course, was a utilitarian and had the utilitarian's horror of anything that might get in the way of an elite enacting the "greater good".

    I think you'll find this was more to early American tastes:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    But you are correct of course, that such rights were never (outside certain fringe movements) thought to include the right to wander across established borders at will, any more than they were thought to include rights to take other men's goods at will, or trespass on their property.

    Replies: @dearieme, @Jack D, @Tex

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the ’20s, it often wasn’t even clear where it was. And this wasn’t just because everyone was English – in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing – it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth – you didn’t even need a passport, just your driver’s license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    • Replies: @Tex
    @Jack D

    If you read accounts of the Border back to the 1870s-1910s, it was pretty common to bring a bunch of Mexicans across on election day so the county machine would win the election. Guys like Jim Wells, Archie Parr and the like excelled at it.

    , @Randal
    @Jack D

    Just as people in good neighbourhoods remote from bad neighbourhoods often don't bother with strong fences and locks on their doors.

    But that in no way indicates any inability to forbid people from their property at will, and to put up such fences and use such locks when the need arises.

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Jack D

    The stakes are much higher now. Simple neighbors cannot be allowed to associate without interruption, if their association threatens the narrative that nations can and can't be allowed to exist, at the whim of the narrator. Local association is encouraged to the extent that it discourages local identity formation, or encourages the satisfaction of local interests at the expense of the satisfaction of universal interests. Universal association is encouraged to the extent that it enforces universal identity formation, but should be carefully regulated, since over-exposure of locals to non-local groups may encourage local identity formation and discourage universal identity formation. This outcome is to be avoided at all cost. Because the correct interpretation of these rules is not always "intuitive" and fail-safe, all concerns regarding compliance should be directed to the Civil Relations Committee, Archaic Canadian-American Relations Division.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    "I kind of liked it the old way."
     
    I kind of liked the old way too. But once the migration tsunami was unleashed--partly by liberal foolishness, partly by cheap widespread transport and communications--hardening of borders became inevitable ... if not the border at the nation's edge, then at the state's border; if not at the state's border, then the city limit; if not at the city limit, then at the gated community; if not at the gated community, then at the front door; if not at the front door, then at the barrel of a gun; if not at the barrel of a gun, then at the end of your fist, if not at the end of your fist, then I guess you got nuthin'--no home, no house, no community, no city, no state, no country.
    , @random observer
    @Jack D

    So did I. When I was a kid in Toronto, it was easy for our family to drive down to suburban Buffalo for cross-border shopping. It wasn't actually that much cheaper, but it was an outing for a couple of days.

    I remember how easy it was to cross the US borders at Lewiston. Just the routine questions including [laughable even to me as a kid] "are you importing any firearms into the United States?" Presumably they hadn't heard of taking coals to Newcastle. But I presume it was to make sure Canadian hunters had their papers.

    The worst problem was always returning, when Canadian customs would ask my dad to confirm he had the regulation 2 bottles and no more for duty free purposes. Uh huh.

    US customs always seemed more welcoming.

    On the other hand, the border was still being policed by their presence and we didn't look like we'd be trying to stay in the US.

  75. @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

    The neo-Nazis being no different than the Left’s Black Liberationists, most of whom loathe the Nice White Ladies. You don’t get to pick and choose the people moving in the same direction.

  76. @Anonymous
    On this score, as per usual, the Trumpists are correct, and the acolytes of the Hildebeast are wrong.

    The use of the term 'right' or even 'natural right' in legalistic terms means essentially such protections a judicial system - working in conjunction with an effective administrative state - gives to the citizens of that state regarding the exercise of state power on the day to day lives of the citizens. Over the years, the term has been debased by including such things as 'racial and sexual discrimination' as allegedly performed by 'free' individual citizens going about their business.

    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that 'any notion of 'natural rights' is merely nonsense on stilts' - which is more or less the truth of the matter.

    Anyway, back to the case in point. Immigration to the USA has never ever been a 'right' , as properly understood, of foreigners just to move in on the USA.
    It has always been a licence dependent purely on the whim of government.

    Replies: @Randal, @Jack D

    In our legal system, a “right” is something that is enforceable in a court of law. There are rights that are created by statute (which can disappear if the statute is repealed) and Constitutional rights which can only be taken away by Constitutional amendment. Under current law, certain immigrants have the “right” to immigrate if they meet certain criteria and Trump couldn’t bring immigration to zero without changing the law, so in a sense his tweet was wrong. If Trump told the State Dept. to stamp REJECTED on every single immigration application no matter what, he would lose in court (just as Obama lost with his attempts to get around the law the other way.) However, there is no (known) Constitutional right to immigration so if Congress set the immigration quota at zero that would be fine.

    Of course, all of this subtlety is lost in a Tweet.

  77. @TangoMan
    @Anonymous

    Whatever is happening with Jewish donors needs to be looked at from a ecosphere vantage point. Trump is turning off a lot of establishment donors and is pulling in record amounts, for the Republican Party, of small donor donations.

    To put this another way, what are the 2004 Bush donors doing this year? What are the 2008 McCain donors doing this year?

    Secondly, even if Jewish flight is as significant as indicated, this in itself sends a signal to all concerned. If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That's good to know.

    Replies: @Jack D

    If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That’s good to know.

    And, presumably, if Hillary prevails, the opposite will be true – your conduct has been noted, Comrade.

    This is the most un-American thing I think has ever been posted on this blog. No donor, Jewish or otherwise, has any obligation to give or not give to any political party (nor are “the Jews” somehow collectively responsible for the actions of any individual Jewish donor). The free exercise of your First Amendment rights (which the Supreme Court has ruled includes the right to spend your own money) is a fundamental cornerstone of our republic. On purely practical grounds, revenge taking has always been limited here because people knew that their party could be voted out of office at the next election and the same done to them.

    If I really thought that Trump was thinking this way, there’s no way in hell that I would EVER vote for him or give him a dime, but thank God I don’t think this represents his way of thinking at all. But it apparently does represent yours, which is sad.

  78. @Dave Pinsen
    @415 reasons

    A generous interpretation:

    They took Trump to mean that not one person will be allowed to immigrate here.

    They disagree, and think that some people should be given the right to immigrate here.

    Again, that's being generous. Steve's interpretation is more straightforward.

    Replies: @Federalist

    In a sane world, saying that no one has the right to immigrate here would be obvious and uncontroversial. Saying that no one has a right to immigrate here doesn’t necessarily mean that no one would be allowed to immigrate here. But we should be having a debate about what our immigration policy should be to benefit the United States. Pro-immigration people used to talk about immigrants “doing the work Americans won’t do” etc. I don’t buy that line of reasoning at all but at least the argument was that it benefits us to have, for instance, fruit pickers that will work for dirt cheap. Sure, they still bolster their arguments with the “crops rotting in the field” crap. But now it’s mostly about how we aren’t allowed to tell the whole world that they can’t just show up here. And don’t dare place any restrictions when they get here. Any restriction, no matter how reasonable, is viewed as being no different than open racial discrimination. Immigrants have unlimited rights to come here and be treated no differently than lifelong citizens. We, on the other hand, do not have any right to do anything about it.

  79. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    but…that so-called “right” is only due to “laws” which are enforced by…FORCE!

    It’s just all so evil isn’t it.

  80. @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Are the Reform still breeding? Maybe in the future there are only Orthodox Jews and Mischlinge. It's kind of unfortunate because the Jewish IQ has bequeathed us a lot of advances in life, and obsessive study of the Talmud is all very well but some of that boiled off talent that obsesses over non-Jewish concerns has been a boon for the world.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Maybe in the future there are only Orthodox Jews and Mischlinge.

    This is roughly what is going to happen (what is happening right now). However, from an IQ perspective it’s not all bad because the Jews are not marrying randomly. They are marrying a selected group of other Belmont types (most American Jews live and socialize in “Belmont” and not “Fishtown”) who are no dummies themselves. Clinton and Trump’s Mischlinge grandchildren (whoever wins in November will have Mischlinge grandchildren) are not going to be slouches in the IQ dept. In pre-Hitler Germany, in addition to many brilliant Jews, there were also quite a few brilliant Mischlinge who also made important contributions to society.

  81. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    So foreigners can take the country of Americans but not the houses of Americans. Glad we could get our arbitrary boundaries straight.

  82. @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”

    Well then, you haven’t been looking very hard. Even among the comments on this blog there is a clear undercurrent of anti-Semitism among some. Then again, Hillary has her BLM type supporters who are just as loathsome. Leftists are always trying to get rightists to throw their right fringe overboard but have no inclination to do the same for themselves. This is just a form of concern trolling and an effort to scare nice white ladies and Jews away from Trump. But Trump cannot (and should not) control who supports him. Hillary will take every vote she can get and so should Trump, but this doesn’t mean that they agree with the positions of their most extremist supporters.

    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality. It’s small and has no influence on the campaign, but it exists.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D


    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality.
     
    Denying that Jewish money is going overwhelmingly to Hillary because Jews overwhelmingly* support open borders for everywhere except Israel is denying reality.

    (*or did until they realized that Islamizing the West won't be the same as Moorish Spain while Israel exists)
    , @Jefferson
    @Jack D

    "BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality"

    Lot means among Trump supporters who do not post on websites like The Unz.

  83. @PiltdownMan
    @D. K.


    I merely am entranced by his first principles of “mi casa, su casa!”
     

    I don't know the first thing about Spanish grammar, but maybe the principle he is espousing is better stated as "su casa, mi casa!"

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Jack D

    My mother, who unfortunately had real world experience with these things, used to joke (bitterly) that the Communist maxim was “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.” That’s how “open borders” works also – it’s a one-way street. The only borders that they want to “open” are the ones leading into the West. If a million Frenchmen decided that they wanted to move to Algeria (while maintaining their religion and culture) they would be evil “colonialists”.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > If a million Frenchmen decided that they wanted to move to Algeria (while maintaining their religion and culture) they would be evil “colonialists”.

    You are referring to the results of the 1962 Open Borders (or not) experiment, when 1.5 million evil colonialist pieds-noirs fled for their lives from the newly independent Algeria.

  84. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    The relationship between Oklahoma and Ohio is symmetrical and not all in the same direction. Some people move from Oklahoma to Ohio and vice versa, so both parties benefit. That’s why the people of Ohio and Oklahoma elected to join together in a single political union in the 1st place. No such union exists, or can exist or should exist between say India and the US.

  85. No one is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump. He, not Hillary, made a commercial for Bibi Netanyahu’s re-election. And Trump, not Hillary, has the backing of Howard Stern.

    But Jewish donors are more feminized than almost any other donor group. Being concentrated in media, finance, and related fields, they know that any mis-step gets them defenestrated. And culturally, they subscribe to the whole feminism-PC-Multiculti stuff that comes with having Upper Class women in a feral, carousel riding state well into their thirties. Instead of properly being concerned with family and children.

    Self-evidently, mass Third World immigration is bad for most of the lower tier of the Upper Class, as the elites from other countries and sub-elites will compete and crowd out their kids for jobs in media, finance, tec.

    Meanwhile as noted above, Trump does well with small donors. Most Dems loathe and despise Israel’s very existence, and certainly Bibi. Trump and his small donors like both.

    As far as Open Borders goes, it directly contradicts the principle of Self-Determination. But then Whites don’t have the right to that, only non-Whites. Which is function of the White Civil War among Men and Women. Look at Israel — about one third of the Jews there hate hate hate their Bibi like neighbors and want them, not Palestinian terrorists or Muslim jihadis, dead.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Whiskey


    And culturally, they subscribe to the whole feminism-PC-Multiculti stuff that comes with having Upper Class women in a feral, carousel riding state well into their thirties. Instead of properly being concerned with family and children.
     
    You keep getting that whole chick-and-the-egg thing backwards.
  86. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    The Okies wouldn’t be taking the houses of the Ohioans, they’d just be moving in with them. What are you, a familyist? Bigot.

  87. @Randal
    @Anonymous


    Be that as it may, that great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, uttered the famous phrase that ‘any notion of ‘natural rights’ is merely nonsense on stilts’ – which is more or less the truth of the matter.
     
    Bentham, of course, was a utilitarian and had the utilitarian's horror of anything that might get in the way of an elite enacting the "greater good".

    I think you'll find this was more to early American tastes:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    But you are correct of course, that such rights were never (outside certain fringe movements) thought to include the right to wander across established borders at will, any more than they were thought to include rights to take other men's goods at will, or trespass on their property.

    Replies: @dearieme, @Jack D, @Tex

    Rights, natural, human, constitutional, or otherwise are moral precepts, expressions of what is “right” or “wrong”. One can appeal to a divine creator for support of why something is right, but failing that the appeal is to cultural values expressed as tradition, shared beliefs, or established law.

    To be effective, a moral precept needs very broad support.

    So if you change the culture, for example by allowing mass numbers of people who do not share your political culture, then pretty soon you won’t have a consensus on what is right. And then your constitutional moral precepts are history.

  88. @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    If you read accounts of the Border back to the 1870s-1910s, it was pretty common to bring a bunch of Mexicans across on election day so the county machine would win the election. Guys like Jim Wells, Archie Parr and the like excelled at it.

  89. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @frizzled

    "Rights" are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence. In the absence of an effective world justice system (which will probably never exist), the "right" to national existence is enforced the same way other "rights" are in places where no justice system exists - by force of arms. National existence can only be obtained and maintained thru superior force. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is as true of Israel as it is of the United States or any other country. Palestine does not exist as a real state because it does not have the military power to make it exist (and the Israelis will do their best to make sure that they never do). In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that "the right to national existence" is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Massimo Heitor, @AnotherDad

    For example, the nation state of Poland did not exist for roughly well over 100 years from the 18th century until 1919 – I’m sure some here can fill in the precise dates.

    Nevertheless, the Polish nation – that is the actual people who identified as being ethnically Polish, still continued to exist, despite this nation not having a state or civil government to its name.

  90. @frizzled
    @Desiderius

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @Anonymous, @carol, @L Woods, @Jack D, @MEH 0910, @Alfa158

    Yes it does give them that right. As long as the house in Ohio is better than their house in Oklahoma they have exercised their right to improve their housing. BTW , please tell your wife I like chocolate chip waffles and applewood smoke bacon for
    breakfast but don’t wake me up before 10AM.

    • Replies: @Henry Bowman
    @Alfa158


    Yes it does give them that right. As long as the house in Ohio is better than their house in Oklahoma they have exercised their right to improve their housing. BTW , please tell your wife I like chocolate chip waffles and applewood smoke bacon for
    breakfast but don’t wake me up before 10AM.
     
    ....I....I like the cut of your Jib.
  91. @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

    In a way, you may both be right. Many anti-Semites support Trump but the vast majority of Trump’s supporters are not anti-Semitic (especially if supporters means voters). Very few of the 60-something percent of whites who will vote for Trump are anti-Semitic.

    In a lot of flyover country, the middle class, suburban white voters who support Trump do not have a much direct contact with Jews. And remember most of the middle class whites go out of their way to avoid being seen as racist, prejudiced, etc. For example, Republican voters love to bring up the “MLK was really a Republican and the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow” meme. This is certainly true even in the Deep South where being white and middle class is almost synonymous with being Republican or at least voting Republican in presidential elections. Whites in the Deep South have plenty of negative experience with blacks and still bend over backwards in this way. They are not very anti-black when they have every reason to be. They really don’t have any reason to have any issue with the Jews. It is something that just does not even come up for a lot of these people. Even the working class or lower class type of whites who probably are less apt to feel guilty about their “-isms” just don’t really have a problem with Jews.

    Often, when people in areas with tiny Jewish populations think of Jews, they think of Israel. And mostly they think highly of Israel. People with a Christian background, especially evangelicals, think of the Jews/Israel as the Old Testament guys in the Bible. They also tend to think of the Jews as having fundamental values in common with Christianity and Western Civilization in general. Think of the term “Judeo-Christian values.”

    Some do take the “Our support for Israel gets us sucked into wars and/or brings us terrorism” position. However, most conservatives (the whites who will vote for Trump) perceive Israel as kicking ass fighting the common enemy of radical Islam. For them, Israel is an ally, like Great Britain.

  92. @anony-mouse
    Its not carved. Its just a plaque. You could easily miss it.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/shjohns2/3880275184

    Replies: @unadorned

    What’s your point?

    The Statue of Liberty commemorated a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, we don’t call it the Statue of Immigration, we call it the Statue of Liberty.
    The poem was added in 1904, the statue was given to the USA as a centennial gift in 1886, ten years late. Lazarus happened to win a poetry contest to refurbish the base of the statue. Open-border crazies use the poem as “proof” that we are a “proposition nation”; that we are nothing but a huge ATM machine for the world.

    • Replies: @anony-mouse
    @unadorned

    My point as Sailer is wont to do is to challenge the perceived facts with real ones.

    1/ Sailer used the word 'carved'. Its not.

    2/ BTW you referred to Lazarus trying to win a poetry contest. There was no poetry contest. What happened is here:

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

  93. @biz
    @anon

    Why would you assume that commenter would want to preserve Israel? Most leftists hate Israel.

    Replies: @anon

    Jews argue/debate in a distinctive way.

    genetics

  94. @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    Just as people in good neighbourhoods remote from bad neighbourhoods often don’t bother with strong fences and locks on their doors.

    But that in no way indicates any inability to forbid people from their property at will, and to put up such fences and use such locks when the need arises.

  95. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Lot


    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”
     
    Well then, you haven't been looking very hard. Even among the comments on this blog there is a clear undercurrent of anti-Semitism among some. Then again, Hillary has her BLM type supporters who are just as loathsome. Leftists are always trying to get rightists to throw their right fringe overboard but have no inclination to do the same for themselves. This is just a form of concern trolling and an effort to scare nice white ladies and Jews away from Trump. But Trump cannot (and should not) control who supports him. Hillary will take every vote she can get and so should Trump, but this doesn't mean that they agree with the positions of their most extremist supporters.

    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality. It's small and has no influence on the campaign, but it exists.

    Replies: @anon, @Jefferson

    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality.

    Denying that Jewish money is going overwhelmingly to Hillary because Jews overwhelmingly* support open borders for everywhere except Israel is denying reality.

    (*or did until they realized that Islamizing the West won’t be the same as Moorish Spain while Israel exists)

  96. @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.

    Uh minor problem … there already are Ivy League quotas–the ones the Jews have to keep Asian enrollments down, so their own control is not challenged. You first have to take the Ivy League institutions *back* from the Jews if you want to impose your quotas.

    ~~

    For the record, the Jewish quotas were perfectly reasonable. The Ivies were Protestant institutions–in origin for training churchmen–and there is no particular reason that Protestants should be forced to admit any Jews (tribally non-Protestant to say the least), much less allow Jews to become large pluralities of the students in their institutions. (In fact allowing it was a repudiation of the mission of those institutions.) The Jews could have just gone and built their own universities which is what the Catholics did. That Jews seriously cite “Ivy League quotas” to show how “victimized” they were, actually just shows how completely un-victimized they’ve been in America. (Not mind you as ridiculous as the Golfocaust.)

    But this is just standard issue stuff. The fundamental Jewish interpretation of history and their victimization is that Jews are perfectly entitled to be a tight endogamous tribe, with in fact religious proscriptions against socializing outside the tribe, but if the host society populations react against our tribalism or even contemplate acting tribally themselves … anti-semitism!

    It’s a very weird sort of sociology–when has any group in all of history treated its neighbors with contempt as the “other” and not gotten back the same? But it serves the interest of the tribe to dish it up.

    In sum: Jews may be (proudly) tribal, host societies must be open and penetrable by Jews.

    And this is what underlies all the Jewish borderline insanity in this election. Trump–however obviously friendly and comfortable with Jews, including his own family–is suggesting that the host society actually gets to decide who is allowed to park their butts here. The horror!

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right. You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training - only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. However, by then these institutions had been granting degrees in mainly non-religious fields - law, medicine, physics, math, etc. for over a century. They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced. I suspect that if there HAD been explicitly Jewish universities (and there was some trend in that direction - Albert Einstein Medical College was formed because Jews found it so hard to get into other medical schools) and they practiced discrimination against non-Jews, you would have been the first to loudly complain about the clannish Jews.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AnotherDad

  97. @frizzled
    Oh, and THIS is a really interesting article.

    Eitan Hersh and Brian Schaffner discuss how "Jewish donors are abandoning the Republicans."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-jewish-donors-are-abandoning-trump/

    They gingerly break the biggest taboo in all of US media reporting in these two sentences:


    Jews make up a much larger share of campaign contributors than of voters. A big swing in their donation behavior is probably more consequential than a big shift in their voting behavior.

     

    Yep, someone finally mentions that there is rather a lot of Jewish money in US politics!

    One might think that there would be some interest in discussing what effect all this disproportionate Jewish money might have on the US democratic process. Could Jewish donors have any particular political issues they are interested in? Do Jews have any interests that are different from the average American? Could there be any particular impact from all this money on US foreign policy?

    However, these ineffable mysteries are simply left by the wayside.

    @anon

    Israel's 'right to exist' does not exist. On the other hand, neither does a Palestinian nation have a right to exist. Palestinian nationalism seems as questionable and racist as Jewish nationalism, which is something a lot of leftists seem to have a double standard on.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon

    Israel’s ‘right to exist’ does not exist.

    It’s good to alt-right trolling over the ethno-state double standard has forced the latent split in the predominantly anti-white and the predominantly pro-Israel factions out into the open.

    This should be very helpful.

  98. Jews argue/debate in a distinctive way.

    Clarifying – when they are in “war mode” – like they are when debating open borders and immigration.

    (apart from the ones who have realized Israel and mass muslim migration to the West are alternate options)

  99. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force?

    Naked force works for me.

  100. @Lot
    @Jefferson


    The people in the comments section of Jew friendly Breitbart are a more accurate representation of the average Trump voter than the people who comment here on The Unz.
     
    If you really want to talk about "average Trump voter" you have to leave political websites entirely and go to super mass market websites and television. Again, 62-65% of white Americans. Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel (and the Anglosphere) is intense.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel”

    That’s the average Trump supporter at Breitbart. I’ve never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @Jefferson


    I’ve never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.
     
    Let me take this opportunity to note a number of points that are relevant to many of the comments posted but do not seem to be widely acknowledged or appreciated.

    - One need not be pro-Iran to oppose the Neocon saber-rattling against Iran.

    An example that immediately comes to mind is that of Patrick J. Buchanan.

    - One can be less-than pro-(State of) Israel or even downright anti-(State of) Israel and/or anti-Zionist without necessarily being pro-Palestinian (and certainly without being pro-Islamist.)

    - One need not accept the narrative and premise of Palestinian nationalism in order to believe that the Arabs known as "Palestinians" have legitimate grievances against Zionists and the State of Israel.

    What about fully supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against the Zionist State while simultaneously fully recognizing and opposing the threat that Islam and Muslims pose to the West? Can one hold both of those positions simultaneously and be coherent and consistent? I would say yes but I am not certain.

    Then, of course, there is the fact that not all Jews are Zionists (and not all Zionists are Jews.) And, moreover, that in the traditional Orthodox Judaic view, Zionism is actually a heresy (as shocking that may be to many). (That Cultural Marxism is completely antithetical to Judaism should be rather obvious to anyone possessing even the most minimal familiarity with each of the respective ideologies). I address the incompatibility with Judaism of both Zionism as well as Cultural Marxism in this past comment of mine.

  101. @Jack D
    @Lot


    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any “anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.”
     
    Well then, you haven't been looking very hard. Even among the comments on this blog there is a clear undercurrent of anti-Semitism among some. Then again, Hillary has her BLM type supporters who are just as loathsome. Leftists are always trying to get rightists to throw their right fringe overboard but have no inclination to do the same for themselves. This is just a form of concern trolling and an effort to scare nice white ladies and Jews away from Trump. But Trump cannot (and should not) control who supports him. Hillary will take every vote she can get and so should Trump, but this doesn't mean that they agree with the positions of their most extremist supporters.

    BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality. It's small and has no influence on the campaign, but it exists.

    Replies: @anon, @Jefferson

    “BUT, saying that there is no anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Trump supporting alt-right is just denying reality”

    Lot means among Trump supporters who do not post on websites like The Unz.

  102. @Neil Templeton
    @Anonymous

    The authors conclude:

    "It is possible that the abandonment is about policy — as discussed above, there are policy-oriented reasons why some Jews are not fond of Trump. But policy is not the only factor at work here. This is probably also about culture and social identification. If Jews perceive that the kinds of people who support Republicans are not like themselves, then they will update their identification with the party. To be willing to donate to and affiliate themselves with a party, a person needs to look at the other people supporting that party and think, 'Those are my people.' For Jews, Trump-aligned Republicans appear to be very much not their people."

    Apparently "That's not who we are" is to be evaluated on a micro rather than a macro level.

    Replies: @BB753

    When Jews see populism raising its ugly head, they fear pogroms and pitchforks are just around the corner. They just can’t help themselves. You can take the Jew out of the schtetl but you can’t take the schtetl mentality out of the Jew.

  103. Emma Lazarus wrote her famous “The New Colossus” in 1883 which was later mounted on the plaque on the Statue of Liberty. According to Wikipedia:

    She heard of the Russian pogroms that followed the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881. As a result of this anti-Semitic violence, thousands of destitute Ashkenazi Jews emigrated from the Russian Pale of Settlement to New York, leading Lazarus to write articles on the subject as well as the book Songs of a Semite (1882). Lazarus began at this point to advocate on behalf of indigent Jewish refugees. She helped establish the Hebrew Technical Institute in New York to provide vocational training to assist destitute Jewish immigrants to become self-supporting.

    It’s quite clear that “The New Colossus” was in specific reference to Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe. When the poem said, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, it was clearly Jewish masses she had in mind, not needy strangers.

    She is an important forerunner of the Zionist movement. She argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Theodor Herzl began to use the term Zionism

    Obviously her idea of a Jewish homeland excludes non-Jews from entry by definition.

    I love Jews and admire Jews and support Israel. But I do think they are hypocritical in advocating exclusive social programs, an ethnic nation state, and serious birth rate engineering programs for exclusively Jews, but denying the moral freedom for this to other whites. Many Jews, like Alain Finkielkraut or Eric Zemmour or Ilana Mercer and admirably honest in this regard and all around heroes of mine.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Massimo Heitor


    But I do think they are hypocritical in advocating exclusive social programs, an ethnic nation state, and serious birth rate engineering programs for exclusively Jews
     
    You and SS seem to be peeved at this tiny group of "liberal for the USA, conservative for Israel" group of Jews out of reasonable proportion. Left-wing Jews are often bitterly anti-Israel, sometimes explicitly, sometimes claiming not to be while advocating for "right of return" that would quickly destroy Israel.

    Israel is ultimately too important for the future of whites in the the West to care that some of its supporters are hypocrites. Its mere existence refutes the inevitability of the ongoing Brown/Black/Muslim takeover of the West, and the viability of "racist" public policy. That's why the hard core anti-white left focuses so much attention on anti-Israel activism.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  104. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That’s no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road.

    The principle is self-ownership or property or non-aggression. The principle is universalizable; it can be asserted and enjoyed by everyone at all times with no conflict of rights.

    You’re morally clueless.

    And you ridiculously acknowledge a woman’s right not to be forced to wear a hijab while denying her right not to be raped! Yes, by denying the principle that makes intrusion into others’ space wrong, you are arguing that rape is morally right!

    You are proposing a state of non-morality — an eternal war of all against all! Actually, the war would not be eternal; it would quickly end, along with the human race.

    The defense of aggression is misanthropic.

    • Agree: BB753
  105. @415 reasons
    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion? They really all have a right to live here?

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Lot, @Dave Pinsen, @Chrisnonymous, @Olorin

    It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

  106. @AnotherDad
    @Maj. Kong


    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Bring back the Ivy League quotas.
     

    Uh minor problem ... there already are Ivy League quotas--the ones the Jews have to keep Asian enrollments down, so their own control is not challenged. You first have to take the Ivy League institutions *back* from the Jews if you want to impose your quotas.

    ~~

    For the record, the Jewish quotas were perfectly reasonable. The Ivies were Protestant institutions--in origin for training churchmen--and there is no particular reason that Protestants should be forced to admit any Jews (tribally non-Protestant to say the least), much less allow Jews to become large pluralities of the students in their institutions. (In fact allowing it was a repudiation of the mission of those institutions.) The Jews could have just gone and built their own universities which is what the Catholics did. That Jews seriously cite "Ivy League quotas" to show how "victimized" they were, actually just shows how completely un-victimized they've been in America. (Not mind you as ridiculous as the Golfocaust.)

    But this is just standard issue stuff. The fundamental Jewish interpretation of history and their victimization is that Jews are perfectly entitled to be a tight endogamous tribe, with in fact religious proscriptions against socializing outside the tribe, but if the host society populations react against our tribalism or even contemplate acting tribally themselves ... anti-semitism!

    It's a very weird sort of sociology--when has any group in all of history treated its neighbors with contempt as the "other" and not gotten back the same? But it serves the interest of the tribe to dish it up.

    In sum: Jews may be (proudly) tribal, host societies must be open and penetrable by Jews.

    And this is what underlies all the Jewish borderline insanity in this election. Trump--however obviously friendly and comfortable with Jews, including his own family--is suggesting that the host society actually gets to decide who is allowed to park their butts here. The horror!

    Replies: @Jack D

    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right. You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training – only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. However, by then these institutions had been granting degrees in mainly non-religious fields – law, medicine, physics, math, etc. for over a century. They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced. I suspect that if there HAD been explicitly Jewish universities (and there was some trend in that direction – Albert Einstein Medical College was formed because Jews found it so hard to get into other medical schools) and they practiced discrimination against non-Jews, you would have been the first to loudly complain about the clannish Jews.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries...
     
    These were private schools and could have setup any policy they wanted. They could have become military schools, all male, all female, all black etc. As far as the tax policy goes, so long as any group could setup a private school and receive the same tax benefits, I don't see a problem. Now if Jews setup a private school and were not allowed a tax break while Harvard was, then that would be an issue. But it seems that all groups were able to setup their own schools and receive such breaks. I think the Catholics actually opened a university or two and took advantage of this.

    They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions.
     
    If being exempted from the payment of taxes is being indirectly supported by all taxpayers, then would receiving federal government money be considered as being indirectly supported by all taxpayers too?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bill Jones

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right.
     
    Jack, you generally write good stuff--i always read your comments. But you are one of these Jews who just *can not see* (or are in denial) when it comes to his own ethnic group and the gentiles'--very natural--reaction to it. And it drives you to say seriously ridiculous stuff like:


    "You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training – only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. ... They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced."
     
    The idea that private schools need to be theological seminaries to discriminate religiously is ridiculous--even *now* much less the 1920s. I was raised Catholic, went through the Catholic school system. The--very excellent--Jesuit HS i went to (St.Xavier in Cincinnati) had a few non-Catholics but was overwhelmingly Catholic. It was highly selective, the school of choice for the city's elite and could easily have admitted more non-Catholics ... but that wasn't it's mission. It's mission was teaching Catholic young men. Not for the priesthood, but for life. Catholics did this a lot--Notre Dame, Georgetown, Catholic, Fordham, Marquette, St. Johns, Villanova, etc. In part because they felt locked out of Protestant America, in part because they wanted to do it as religious mission. And yes, even when i went to college two generations after the 1920s, these schools, while admitting others, were discriminating in favor of Catholics--they are Catholic schools for God's sake! And yes, nonetheless they had their tax exemptions and were taking government backed student loans and winning government research grants etc. etc. Presumably Baylor, Temple and SMU, the passel of Lutheran colleges across the upper midwest, also gave preference to students who matched their particular sectarian orientation. Most of these institutions are quite a bit more secular now, but the fact remains even now religious based institutions are free to discriminate in the religious orientation of their student bodies. Otherwise they'd be ... secular institutions. In the Bob Jones tax exemption fiasco of a few years back, the issue was not whether Bob Jones could discriminate to require students to be Bible believing Protestants, observe their religious moral code and go to chapel--that was all a given. The issue was that they had an inter-racial dating ban that got them into political hot water.

    I don't know where you got this idea that private universities by virtue of a tax exemption are somehow public utilities that must serve everyone. (Heck even churches and synagogues have tax exemptions.) But even your totalitarian mentally--an assault on basic freedom of association--is a relatively new thing that only started to blossom with the 1965 civil rights act. Prior to that everyone accepted that your private institutions' admissions policy was ... private--its own damn business!

    For the record--not something i've researched or give a crap about--i'd guess that the Ivies admissions policies back in the day were less a religious thing than a class thing. They were universities that had been built, supported and maintained by the WASP elite and quite naturally were run by members of the WASP elite in the interest of the WASP elite, while also seeing their mission as educating the nations' future leaders. It's not like Catholics weren't also aware of this WASP orientation\domination. Joe Kennedy for instance had a chip on his shoulder about being looked down on by the "Boston Brahmins" and made sure all his boys followed him to Harvard. But if you ask some Catholic about this today--if you can find one who even thinks about it at all--he'd probably say "oh the rich WASPs ran everything back then". (A quite reasonable opinion.) Catholics aren't running around yapping about the horrors of "anti-Catholicism", because grandpa wasn't invited to go to school with J. Thurston Howell III. It was a Protestant country and the elite Protestants ran it as if they owned it--because they did. And in my opinion--and even David Brooks pointed this out in column a few years back--the old WASP elite did a *better* job of running the nation in the interests of its actually citizens then the supposedly "open" Jewish heavy American elite does today.

    ~~~

    Again the bottom line(s) here, and my point:
    -- groups being "groupish" is completely normal
    -- the Jews are not an open "everyone's welcome!" group, they themselves are one of, if not *the*, most closed groups with tribal endogamy, and even non-socialization with gentiles enforced by religious strictures; (Flat out: it was the Jews, not the Christians that kept the Jews from integrating into the white population. Say the odd 12th century Jew who was too stupid or uninterested to study the Torah, or who just found it politically or economically advantageous to join the local population--they converted and are one of my ancestors.)
    -- this closed, outsider-hostile nature of Judaism has *naturally* provoked anti-Jewish feeling in gentile host populations; (Generally people are neighborly to those who are neighborly. They eventually integrate with those who allow\accept integration. If you hold yourself separate and aloof ... then people will see and treat you as separate and aloof.)
    -- in contrast with Judaism, white gentile societies, particularly NW European societies are pretty open
    -- few--perhaps no--societies have ever been as welcoming to an outgroup then American Protestants have been to Jews. Yes, they didn't *immediately* turn their universities and country clubs over to the Jews, but in three generations they rather compliantly let the Jews push them out of power or at least push themselves to a dominant position.
    (The Ivies are run in large part by Jews. WASPy country clubs accept Jews. I'm sure there are Jewish members of Augusta, or else the NYT would be whining about it. Augusta looks a good bit more like America, than say Hillcrest or the Century Club.)

    -- the basic Jewish ideology\demand is that host society's majority--their institutions, their networks, their businesses, their politic power and control--must be open and penetrable by Jews, while Jews are free to be ethnocentric and tribal, keep their own ethnic networking. If the host society's majority is not open its ... anti-semitism! In short it's tribalism for me and not for thee.

    And all i'm doing is calling b.s. on this. I think it's a bogus claim, logically and morally. I don't have any problem with Jewish tribalism. They refused integration for 2000 years ... and prospered! Good for them. But i also think other peoples are completely free and justified in answering with tribalism of their own. There is no coherent moral or logical argument for 's tribalism to be good and fair, and 's answering tribalism to be some moral crime.

    Replies: @D. K.

  107. @Twinkie
    @D. K.


    Please provide us with your home address– and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!
     
    Now there you go again - just like Trump demanding Hillary drop her Secret Service protection so that she could be attacked violently by his supporters - advocating home invasion, robbery, and rape of "@frizzled" and his family.






    In case it's not clear, I am being sarcastic.

    Replies: @D. K., @res

    In case it’s not clear, I am being sarcastic.

    It might be more fun to put this after a MORE tag and see how many irate responses you get.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @res


    It might be more fun to put this after a MORE tag and see how many irate responses you get.
     
    Yes, but it would have been a bit sad to see reactions like "See, I knew it, you can't trust these yellows! They pretend to be your friend, but will backstab you!"

    And I did entertain a few statements like that early in my commenting history here.

    It's apparently too difficult for some people to believe that an Asian guy who is married to a white gal with many part-white children (not to forget a large extended clan of white relatives whom he adopted as HIS people) can care about white majority and its vital - and continued - role in preserving the exceptional Anglo-American culture and society that is the United States of America.
  108. The 96% (FIFY – Svi) share of big Jewish donors for Hillary is typical given the industry and geographic distribution of very wealthy Jewish donors, Hillary’s unprecedented success in raising large donations from the extremely wealthy, and Trump’s smaller than normal haul from those same extremely wealthy donors.

    Right. Poverty and white racism make blacks dangerous in dark alleys. Never mind the “dangerous in dark alleys” part, that’s not important.

    The leftism always gets trotted out by the “race realist” Jews at this point.

  109. @Jack D
    @PiltdownMan

    My mother, who unfortunately had real world experience with these things, used to joke (bitterly) that the Communist maxim was "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine." That's how "open borders" works also - it's a one-way street. The only borders that they want to "open" are the ones leading into the West. If a million Frenchmen decided that they wanted to move to Algeria (while maintaining their religion and culture) they would be evil "colonialists".

    Replies: @ic1000

    > If a million Frenchmen decided that they wanted to move to Algeria (while maintaining their religion and culture) they would be evil “colonialists”.

    You are referring to the results of the 1962 Open Borders (or not) experiment, when 1.5 million evil colonialist pieds-noirs fled for their lives from the newly independent Algeria.

  110. iSteveFan says:
    @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right. You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training - only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. However, by then these institutions had been granting degrees in mainly non-religious fields - law, medicine, physics, math, etc. for over a century. They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced. I suspect that if there HAD been explicitly Jewish universities (and there was some trend in that direction - Albert Einstein Medical College was formed because Jews found it so hard to get into other medical schools) and they practiced discrimination against non-Jews, you would have been the first to loudly complain about the clannish Jews.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AnotherDad

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries…

    These were private schools and could have setup any policy they wanted. They could have become military schools, all male, all female, all black etc. As far as the tax policy goes, so long as any group could setup a private school and receive the same tax benefits, I don’t see a problem. Now if Jews setup a private school and were not allowed a tax break while Harvard was, then that would be an issue. But it seems that all groups were able to setup their own schools and receive such breaks. I think the Catholics actually opened a university or two and took advantage of this.

    They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions.

    If being exempted from the payment of taxes is being indirectly supported by all taxpayers, then would receiving federal government money be considered as being indirectly supported by all taxpayers too?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @iSteveFan

    Even in the 1920s you couldn't do what you proposed to do without creating a political shitstorm:

    In June of 1922, Lowell of Harvard release a letter containing the following sentence:

    "It is natural that with a widespread discussion of this sort going on [regarding limiting overall enrollment at Harvard] there should be talk about the proportion of Jews at the college [then 20%]. "


    Elected officials were among the first to react. On the day after the papers reported the news from Harvard a state legislator from Massachusetts proposed a bill for a legislative inquiry. On the next day, President Lowell traveled to the State House where he conferred privately with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker obliged Lowell with a public statement that dismissed the press report as “idle rumor,” adding that “Harvard would remain, as in the past, a great university for all the people. . . .” Nevertheless, the protest in the State Legislature continued unabated. One pending bill proposed to eliminate all reference to Harvard University from the State Constitution, in order to dissociate the State from Harvard’s discriminatory policies. Another proposal called for a review of the tax exemptions that Harvard enjoyed on its property. The Boston City Council passed its own resolution condemning the Harvard administration. Finally, the Governor appointed a committee to investigate possible discrimination at Harvard. "

    In the end, Harvard delayed by kicking the decision to a special faculty committee and when the heat died down, the committee skirted hitting the Jew issue head on and instead instituted quotas anyway under the guise of "geographic diversity" (not many Jews in Iowa). This led to a further problem that there were not really enough qualified Okies to fill the class. But they had a solution (does this sound familiar?) : waive the entrance examination for students in the highest seventh of their graduating class.

    The whole story here,

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-jewish-quotas-began/

    or in even more depth here:


    https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-History-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/061877355X

    , @Bill Jones
    @iSteveFan

    An interesting spin on the church/state issue is that in Germany, the state collects tithes for the church via taxes.

  111. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    @Anonymous


    They’re also the most oblivious to the anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters.
     
    Well I have a partly Jewish family and do not see any "anti-Semitic support and subculture among the Trump supporters."

    Trump is going to get about 63-65% of the white vote, and surveys of American whites show extremely high levels of philo-semitism.

    As for being concerned about the tiny group of neo-nazis, well if they want to elect a guy with a Jewish daughter, favorite son-in-law, and grandchildren, so what? American whites positively loath antisemitism and defeated Hitler at enormous cost.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Brutusale, @Jack D, @Federalist, @Anonymous

    I did specify that it was a subculture among Trump supporters and does not characterize Trump supporters as a whole or majority.

    The older generations of white voters grew up in a very different media environment which was much more centralized. This particular anti-Semitic subculture isn’t comprised of “neo-Nazis”, that is the older generation of marginal, underclass types who dress up as Nazis, have tattoos, are affiliated with prison gangs, etc. It’s the younger generations that have grown up in a different, internet based media environment. Fervent minorities have disproportionate influence on the wider culture, which is why anti-Semitic memes have managed to surface to mainstream political discourse in this election. Jews, of all people, understand this.

    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they’re disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone. At the least, it’s hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Anonymous


    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they’re disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone.
     
    I see what you are saying here, but "internet based right wing culture and discourse" seems to be ambiguous.

    One meaning could be the Internet Troll Community that is fond of anti-Semitic memes and Der Stormer cartoons, but the point of these is not advocacy of sincere anti-semitism, but pushing buttons of PC-enforcers, especially when Jewish, and plain healthy childish nihilism (to the extent they are actually young, which they mostly are). As a semi-Jew who retains some puerile sense of humor, I think there is some great campy humor with all the big-nose Jew memes. Steve posted a clip from Adam Sandler's straight-to-Netflix IDF-hero-becomes-a-hairdresser comedy showing Sandler finds "crooked Jewish merchant" humor funny too.

    "Internet based right wing culture" also can have a more literal meaning of the culture of Internet-using young right wingers, which is much more a normie facebook meme-sharing group of people who are, like older conservatives, highly philosemitic.


    At the least, it’s hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.
     
    Which is a good thing. Jews are awesome. We don't need political correctness to shield us from criticism. Group IQ egalitarianism was perhaps not such a bad thing in 1950's 90% white America. But in fast-browning 2010's America, it can only work against Jews and their natural allies, gentile whites and NE asians. However, at least until after the election, responsible pro-white people on the Internet who have either a sincere or lulzy anti-Jew views really ought to cut it out for the next 6 weeks to avoid playing into the MSM's anti-Trump narrative.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Brutusale

  112. OT (sort-of) : The gypsies are coming:

    http://www.standard.net/National/2016/09/19/As-Europe-turns-more-hostile-Roma-flee-to-California.html

    Now, the Roma are taking their chances in the U.S. Many are ending up in suburban Los Angeles. Some find housing in common apartments, while others simply pitch tents in a public park until they can secure a roof over their heads. They sometimes find work as nighttime janitors or in restaurants, while others resort to begging on the street or receiving assistance from one of two Roma churches in the area.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @penntothal

    Oh no!

  113. @iSteveFan
    @Lot


    We already operate something similar to a “skimming the cream” policy with Hindu Indians. I don’t really think this has much of anything to do with India’s many dysfunctions.

     

    India has something on order of 0.7 physicians per capita while the USA, which takes Indian doctors, has over 2.5. Lack of access to doctors is a definite quality of life issue.

    India produces much technical talent that could benefit that nation if it staid behind and created businesses and jobs there.

    Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)

    Wow! We have 2.5 physicians per capita! Why are there lines in emergency rooms?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    Illegals. They use the ER for primary care.

  114. This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve’s questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That’s no principle at all.

    You should feel right at home then, because leftists have no principles.

    Whiskey, please reread that comment.

    Whiskey: “it was a typo. The article is about white women, ‘Jew’ is a misprint.”

    Someone from Oklahoma has the right to move to Ohio: to travel there and seek work and housing. That in itself does not give them the right to take the houses of Ohioans.

    You guys don’t understand people owning their territories any more than you understand them owning their own homes. Might have something to do with not understanding or having any principles at all; tough to extrapolate a principle when you don’t have any.

    If the Trump revolution holds, we could be in the midst of a realignment. Jews are signaling that they are opposed to the vision of America that Trump voters prefer. That’s good to know.

    Just wanted to echo and amplify “the most un-American thing” Jack D has ever seen on this blog.

    Jews aren’t obligated to give to Trump, and Americans aren’t obligated to respect Jews. Ain’t Freedom grand?

    Why only Westerners? Japan, China, and many, if not all, modern nation-states, are identifiable by race, or a small group of races and ethnicities particular to a geographic location.

    Because only westerners have money AND are falling for the scam. Grifters (by that I mean leftists) go where the loaded suckers be.

  115. @Steve Sailer
    @G Pinfold

    What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?

    Replies: @G Pinfold, @G Pinfold, @The Alarmist

    “What percentage of all donors are for Hillary?”

    In the “sane” world of yesteryear, where the dollar-weighted share of donations was a proxy for the ultimate influence that would be achieved through traditional media buys, the share of all donations might be important. It still might be, but the absolute count of small donors might now be a proxy for the ultimate popular voter turnout.

    Still, each time I watch my ballot disappear into the Trusty old Diebold, I can only wonder where it will end up and what it will actually report of my choices.

  116. @D. K.
    @frizzled

    Please provide us with your home address-- and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Twinkie, @Bill Jones, @ganderson

    When you drop your unbuttered toast how does it know which side to land on?

    Does it just hover above the floor spinning?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Bill Jones

    I usually eat my daily bread in bed, during my lone meal; so whatever I drop winds up on the sheets, rather than on the floor.

  117. @Jack D
    @frizzled

    "Rights" are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence. In the absence of an effective world justice system (which will probably never exist), the "right" to national existence is enforced the same way other "rights" are in places where no justice system exists - by force of arms. National existence can only be obtained and maintained thru superior force. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is as true of Israel as it is of the United States or any other country. Palestine does not exist as a real state because it does not have the military power to make it exist (and the Israelis will do their best to make sure that they never do). In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that "the right to national existence" is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Massimo Heitor, @AnotherDad

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism.

    This is quite obvious.

    Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Borders are a form of institutional tribalism and racism. Eliminating them would eliminate that particular form of racism, but people would still be racist and compete at other levels.

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Massimo Heitor

    Why is it obvious? There are many nations that have competed aggressively against one another based on sub-racial [or if you prefer transracial or orthogonal to race] identity markers despite having been of the same race.

    And I don't just mean if you divide races into big units like "white". Even if one goes multiple levels down for a definition of race, the British, French and Germans, to name only a few, are all the same race of people. Every one of them is a mix of "Celts", "Germans" and "Latins" to pick three not really racial categories, lain on a substrate of prior Europeans. The differences must be quite hard to detect. You could probably incorporate all Celts and Slavs in and still get no real difference not linguistic and cultural.

    SO in Europe nationalism has mostly been sub-racial. Other nations have been, in part, multiracial and yet nationalistic on other grounds. Like the US. It briefly managed it.

    A world divided on racist lines would look different than the world of nation states.

  118. @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries...
     
    These were private schools and could have setup any policy they wanted. They could have become military schools, all male, all female, all black etc. As far as the tax policy goes, so long as any group could setup a private school and receive the same tax benefits, I don't see a problem. Now if Jews setup a private school and were not allowed a tax break while Harvard was, then that would be an issue. But it seems that all groups were able to setup their own schools and receive such breaks. I think the Catholics actually opened a university or two and took advantage of this.

    They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions.
     
    If being exempted from the payment of taxes is being indirectly supported by all taxpayers, then would receiving federal government money be considered as being indirectly supported by all taxpayers too?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bill Jones

    Even in the 1920s you couldn’t do what you proposed to do without creating a political shitstorm:

    In June of 1922, Lowell of Harvard release a letter containing the following sentence:

    “It is natural that with a widespread discussion of this sort going on [regarding limiting overall enrollment at Harvard] there should be talk about the proportion of Jews at the college [then 20%]. ”

    Elected officials were among the first to react. On the day after the papers reported the news from Harvard a state legislator from Massachusetts proposed a bill for a legislative inquiry. On the next day, President Lowell traveled to the State House where he conferred privately with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker obliged Lowell with a public statement that dismissed the press report as “idle rumor,” adding that “Harvard would remain, as in the past, a great university for all the people. . . .” Nevertheless, the protest in the State Legislature continued unabated. One pending bill proposed to eliminate all reference to Harvard University from the State Constitution, in order to dissociate the State from Harvard’s discriminatory policies. Another proposal called for a review of the tax exemptions that Harvard enjoyed on its property. The Boston City Council passed its own resolution condemning the Harvard administration. Finally, the Governor appointed a committee to investigate possible discrimination at Harvard. ”

    In the end, Harvard delayed by kicking the decision to a special faculty committee and when the heat died down, the committee skirted hitting the Jew issue head on and instead instituted quotas anyway under the guise of “geographic diversity” (not many Jews in Iowa). This led to a further problem that there were not really enough qualified Okies to fill the class. But they had a solution (does this sound familiar?) : waive the entrance examination for students in the highest seventh of their graduating class.

    The whole story here,

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-jewish-quotas-began/

    or in even more depth here:

  119. @Anonymous
    @frizzled

    The 'right' of someone 'to improve their life', whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    “The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where.”

    And yet there’s this line about “the pursuit of happiness” at the back of my mind……..

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Bill Jones

    What exactly does 'improve one's life' mean?
    How does a court enforce it?

    Right now, this moment, I can think of many things that could 'improve my life', but, alas, no court will order a grant of the that particular desideratum to me.

    , @Anonymous
    @Bill Jones

    To a man with severely decayed teeth, nothing would 'improve his life' more than modern dentistry.
    But, supposing he cannot and will not ever afford the cost of the dental work needed due his low earning power - caused not by any 'moral defect', but by disability, physical weakness, low IQ etc (yes, yes, I know you will go on about 'medicaid', but 'medicaid' is purely a charitable grant in nature), to this man, the 'right' to 'improve his life' simply does not exist. It really is as simple and as blunt as that.

    There are a myriad of other examples.

    , @Brutusale
    @Bill Jones

    Exactly! Pursue away...but pursue like the guys who signed the document you quoted and revolt against YOUR OWN corrupt government that you feel is keeping you from the pursuit.

  120. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    Open Borders fails the old leftist litmus in nearly every way:

    1. Over-consumption and carbon usage increase globally as the U.S. takes in highly reproductive people at a projected rate of 30 million/decade.

    2. Environmental protections, open space, biodiversity, habitat preservation, water availability, “sustainability” — all are in direct conflict with a densely-populated U.S.

    3. Labor protections, unions, and strong minimum wage are undermined by a glutted labor market, particularly one with people working off the books at sub-minimum wage.

    4. Scientific advancement, a strong university system, and pioneering research are undermined in two ways: first, by a race to the bottom wage-wise as excessive H1Bs are brought in and second, by off-shoring key research in search of cheaper production. Dubious H1B credentials and ethnic nepotism, particularly for Indian programmers, is an ongoing issue as well.

    5. First Amendment protections for speech and religion suffer when a large share of the population is ambivalent towards them. Or, in the case of political Islam, has prohibitions against them.

    6. Anti-discrimination statutes are at risk, particularly for women and gays — such protections are largely unknown outside the West. From experience, the replacement populations from Pakistan and MENA struggle with female eye-contact let alone collaboration or promotion of women and gays.

    American culture is not a downloadable template. We need institutional memory, for example, to counter the assumption that Clintonian corruption was “always a part of national politics.” We need cultural transmission through generations. Appreciation for our Constitution and freedoms is imparted, not inborn.

    As the immigrant population increases by 10% every decade, there’s little chance to transmit our mores and values. As the historical majority becomes a loathed and marginalized minority, don’t expect the Bill of Rights to last longer than the first hate speech supreme court case. To say nothing of gun rights or freedom of association.

    • Agree: ic1000
  121. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    @iSteveFan

    Wow! We have 2.5 physicians per capita! Why are there lines in emergency rooms?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Illegals. They use the ER for primary care.

  122. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    Awesome reasoning there, frizzled.
    I’ll be pushing my way through your front door and moving into our home later this afternoon.
    Surely you won’t attempt to use naked force to stop me, right?

    • Replies: @grapesoda
    @Macumazahn

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

    If a country and a private home are the same then if I'm allowed in the country I'm also allowed in your house right?

    Obviously a country and a private home are vastly different entities so different standards apply HURR DURR

    Replies: @ben tillman

  123. @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries...
     
    These were private schools and could have setup any policy they wanted. They could have become military schools, all male, all female, all black etc. As far as the tax policy goes, so long as any group could setup a private school and receive the same tax benefits, I don't see a problem. Now if Jews setup a private school and were not allowed a tax break while Harvard was, then that would be an issue. But it seems that all groups were able to setup their own schools and receive such breaks. I think the Catholics actually opened a university or two and took advantage of this.

    They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions.
     
    If being exempted from the payment of taxes is being indirectly supported by all taxpayers, then would receiving federal government money be considered as being indirectly supported by all taxpayers too?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bill Jones

    An interesting spin on the church/state issue is that in Germany, the state collects tithes for the church via taxes.

  124. @PiltdownMan
    @frizzled


    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.
     
    Why only Westerners? Japan, China, and many, if not all, modern nation-states, are identifiable by race, or a small group of races and ethnicities particular to a geographic location.

    The benefits that Westerners, Japan and some others enjoy greatly exceed those that of many of those other nations. This is a result, not of exclusion and appropriation, but of the scientific and industrial revolutions. These benefits are not privilege, but what was created within these now wealthy nation-state enclaves. And thus, earned.

    But for those revolutions, we'd still be cooking over open fires at a hearth, and emptying chamber pots onto the street. I doubt many Bangladeshis or Somalis would bestir themselves to invade our borders through immigration had that been the case.

    Merely looking at Japan's exclusionary immigration policy confirms that we in the West, far from failing to share our wealth with other peoples, have been altruistic to a fault by allowing mass immigration.

    But we were under no moral obligation to do so at any point. We have every right to not further grant the very considerable privilege to foreigners of immigrating into the efficient, technological societies that we have created. Indeed, we have always retained the natural rights of saying no to further immigration.

    People have the right to assemble and form groups, i.e. nation-states, and may define who may join the group in the future, at their pleasure. That is natural and just.

    Replies: @guest

    “These benefits are not privilege…And thus, earned.”

    You’re assuming that when they speak of “privilege” they mean unearned privilege. Not so. That’s what they want you to think, but in reality they want there to be no such distinction as between earned and unearned privilege. Because all privilege will be emotionally identical to unearned privilege, whether it was earned or not.

    • Agree: Antonymous
  125. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    What is it that proves I don’t have the right to punch you in the face or rape your wife? Naked force? That’s no principle at all.

  126. Hey, Steve, Jorge Castañeda just dropped some bombs exploding some myths out there in the MSM about Mexican immigration.

    1. Trump can get Mexico to pay for The Wall. There are many ways to do it:

    Donald Trump could quite easily “make Mexico pay” for a border wall—a claim that has been widely ridiculed by our betters in the media.

    “If [Trump] really wants Mexico to pay for the wall, he has many ways of getting many Mexicans to pay for the wall,” Castañeda said in an auditorium sitting directly across the street from Trump’s newly opened Pennsylvania Avenue hotel.

    He could “increase the fee for visas, which is a decision made by the State Department, not by Congress,” Castañeda continued. He could “increase the toll on the bridges [between the two countries] . . . again, not done by Congress.”

    Castañeda also suggested that Trump could tax remittances from the U.S. to Mexico: “There are ways of doing it,” he said, “transaction fees, commissions, special fees etc.”

    2. The Pew Research meme about “net-zero” Mexican migration to the US is a bunch of crap:

    “There’s a fallacy involving the [Mexican immigration] situation . . . that well-intentioned American experts have sold people on,” he said. “This is this famous ‘net zero immigration from Mexico’ thing: [The notion that] all of the sudden a few years ago all of the Mexicans in the United States started going home, and Mexicans in Mexico stopped coming here, so now we have net-zero.

    “Well, you have net-zero if you consider President Obama’s 1.5 million Mexican deportees as voluntary returnees,” he continued, “Yes, then you have net-zero . . .If you had not deported those million and a half . . . then you would have roughly a million and half more Mexicans here.”

    “I’ve been writing around and asking and stuff, maybe I’ll take out an ad in the Spanish papers and Univision. If somebody can find me a single Mexican in the U.S. who has a job, doesn’t want to retire, and who wants to go back to Mexico, I’ll build a monument or statue in his honor.”

    Why? Basic economics.

    “You’d have to be absolutely nuts, if you’re already here and making 10, 12, 15 bucks an hour to go back to Mexico to make . . . if you’re well-paid, maybe $300 a month. Seventy percent of all Mexicans make less than $300 a month . . . This nonsense I hear from so many people, even serious people, saying ‘Mexicans are returning to Mexico because the U.S. economy is doing terribly and the Mexican economy is booming so they all want to go back.’ Where do they live? The U.S. economy will grow 50 percent more than the Mexican economy! The Mexican economy has been stagnant for the last fifteen years.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/former-mexican-secretary-of-foreign-affairs-trump-could-easily-make-mexico-pay-for-the-wall/article/2004471

    Good stuff!!

    • Replies: @guest
    @Pepe

    Our MSM hears "Mexico will pay for the wall" and thinks Trump is saying we'll get a check in the mail for the exact wall amount, signed by the president of Mexico, with "for your wall" written in the memo section. That's the level they're operating on.

  127. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    You don’t believe in the right to stop someone from crossing the roads? Goodbye, jaywalking laws.

  128. @Pepe
    Hey, Steve, Jorge Castañeda just dropped some bombs exploding some myths out there in the MSM about Mexican immigration.

    1. Trump can get Mexico to pay for The Wall. There are many ways to do it:

    Donald Trump could quite easily "make Mexico pay" for a border wall—a claim that has been widely ridiculed by our betters in the media.

    "If [Trump] really wants Mexico to pay for the wall, he has many ways of getting many Mexicans to pay for the wall," Castañeda said in an auditorium sitting directly across the street from Trump's newly opened Pennsylvania Avenue hotel.

    He could "increase the fee for visas, which is a decision made by the State Department, not by Congress," Castañeda continued. He could "increase the toll on the bridges [between the two countries] . . . again, not done by Congress."

    Castañeda also suggested that Trump could tax remittances from the U.S. to Mexico: "There are ways of doing it," he said, "transaction fees, commissions, special fees etc."
     
    2. The Pew Research meme about "net-zero" Mexican migration to the US is a bunch of crap:

    "There's a fallacy involving the [Mexican immigration] situation . . . that well-intentioned American experts have sold people on," he said. "This is this famous 'net zero immigration from Mexico' thing: [The notion that] all of the sudden a few years ago all of the Mexicans in the United States started going home, and Mexicans in Mexico stopped coming here, so now we have net-zero.

    "Well, you have net-zero if you consider President Obama's 1.5 million Mexican deportees as voluntary returnees," he continued, "Yes, then you have net-zero . . .If you had not deported those million and a half . . . then you would have roughly a million and half more Mexicans here."

    "I've been writing around and asking and stuff, maybe I'll take out an ad in the Spanish papers and Univision. If somebody can find me a single Mexican in the U.S. who has a job, doesn't want to retire, and who wants to go back to Mexico, I'll build a monument or statue in his honor."

    Why? Basic economics.

    "You'd have to be absolutely nuts, if you're already here and making 10, 12, 15 bucks an hour to go back to Mexico to make . . . if you're well-paid, maybe $300 a month. Seventy percent of all Mexicans make less than $300 a month . . . This nonsense I hear from so many people, even serious people, saying 'Mexicans are returning to Mexico because the U.S. economy is doing terribly and the Mexican economy is booming so they all want to go back.' Where do they live? The U.S. economy will grow 50 percent more than the Mexican economy! The Mexican economy has been stagnant for the last fifteen years."
     
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/former-mexican-secretary-of-foreign-affairs-trump-could-easily-make-mexico-pay-for-the-wall/article/2004471

    Good stuff!!

    Replies: @guest

    Our MSM hears “Mexico will pay for the wall” and thinks Trump is saying we’ll get a check in the mail for the exact wall amount, signed by the president of Mexico, with “for your wall” written in the memo section. That’s the level they’re operating on.

  129. @D. K.
    @frizzled

    Please provide us with your home address-- and tell your wife, girlfriend or paid help that I like my steak done medium-well, my eggs over medium, and my bread lightly toasted, sans butter. Thanks, and pleasant dreams!

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Twinkie, @Bill Jones, @ganderson

    Medium well? Barbarian!

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @ganderson

    I know! "It is what it is," as Roger Clemens' erstwhile trainer once noted.

  130. @Chrisnonymous
    @415 reasons

    During the IQ2 debate on open borders that Ron Unz won, the number 30 million in the first year was quoted.

    Basically, immigration would continue until the quality of life here and in the shittiest shithole on earth were in equilibrium.

    Replies: @415 reasons

    The scary thing is that there would still probably be a small liveable walled city in the middle of the favelas where the leaders of the Democratic Party would live

  131. Whiskey: “white wymminz corrupted teh Jooz, because Jewish Hollywood bosses worked within constraints of common sense, and slowly boiled the frog.”

    Genius, Whis. Don’t change a thing.

  132. @unadorned
    @anony-mouse

    What's your point?

    The Statue of Liberty commemorated a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, we don't call it the Statue of Immigration, we call it the Statue of Liberty.
    The poem was added in 1904, the statue was given to the USA as a centennial gift in 1886, ten years late. Lazarus happened to win a poetry contest to refurbish the base of the statue. Open-border crazies use the poem as "proof" that we are a "proposition nation"; that we are nothing but a huge ATM machine for the world.

    Replies: @anony-mouse

    My point as Sailer is wont to do is to challenge the perceived facts with real ones.

    1/ Sailer used the word ‘carved’. Its not.

    2/ BTW you referred to Lazarus trying to win a poetry contest. There was no poetry contest. What happened is here:

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

  133. Jews don’t donate overwhelmingly to D’s because they’re afraid of Rs, they do so because they despise them. You might as well wonder why an abusive husband doesn’t shower his wife with gifts – he doesn’t have to.

  134. @Anonymous
    @Lot

    I did specify that it was a subculture among Trump supporters and does not characterize Trump supporters as a whole or majority.

    The older generations of white voters grew up in a very different media environment which was much more centralized. This particular anti-Semitic subculture isn't comprised of "neo-Nazis", that is the older generation of marginal, underclass types who dress up as Nazis, have tattoos, are affiliated with prison gangs, etc. It's the younger generations that have grown up in a different, internet based media environment. Fervent minorities have disproportionate influence on the wider culture, which is why anti-Semitic memes have managed to surface to mainstream political discourse in this election. Jews, of all people, understand this.

    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they're disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone. At the least, it's hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.

    Replies: @Lot

    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they’re disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone.

    I see what you are saying here, but “internet based right wing culture and discourse” seems to be ambiguous.

    One meaning could be the Internet Troll Community that is fond of anti-Semitic memes and Der Stormer cartoons, but the point of these is not advocacy of sincere anti-semitism, but pushing buttons of PC-enforcers, especially when Jewish, and plain healthy childish nihilism (to the extent they are actually young, which they mostly are). As a semi-Jew who retains some puerile sense of humor, I think there is some great campy humor with all the big-nose Jew memes. Steve posted a clip from Adam Sandler’s straight-to-Netflix IDF-hero-becomes-a-hairdresser comedy showing Sandler finds “crooked Jewish merchant” humor funny too.

    “Internet based right wing culture” also can have a more literal meaning of the culture of Internet-using young right wingers, which is much more a normie facebook meme-sharing group of people who are, like older conservatives, highly philosemitic.

    At the least, it’s hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.

    Which is a good thing. Jews are awesome. We don’t need political correctness to shield us from criticism. Group IQ egalitarianism was perhaps not such a bad thing in 1950’s 90% white America. But in fast-browning 2010’s America, it can only work against Jews and their natural allies, gentile whites and NE asians. However, at least until after the election, responsible pro-white people on the Internet who have either a sincere or lulzy anti-Jew views really ought to cut it out for the next 6 weeks to avoid playing into the MSM’s anti-Trump narrative.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Lot

    I think you're deluding yourself, for completely understandable reasons, into thinking that it's just good natured ethnic humor. It's not, and you're ignoring the significant malice that's present. It's not that ambiguous. The small number of people who develop and drive the subculture and discourse are anti-Semitic. The others might not be or might not have strong feelings on the matter, but they will be under increasing of influence of the fervent minority, especially as the influence of traditional centralized media declines.

    , @Brutusale
    @Lot

    "Straight-to-Netflix"?!

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=youdontmesswiththezohan.htm

    But don't worry, Woody Allen has made one film that's grossed more than that.

    This was Sandler's love interest in this film. He had THAT going for him

    http://projectshanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/emmanuelle-chriqui-5.jpg

  135. @ganderson
    @D. K.

    Medium well? Barbarian!

    Replies: @D. K.

    I know! “It is what it is,” as Roger Clemens’ erstwhile trainer once noted.

  136. @Bill Jones
    @D. K.

    When you drop your unbuttered toast how does it know which side to land on?

    Does it just hover above the floor spinning?

    Replies: @D. K.

    I usually eat my daily bread in bed, during my lone meal; so whatever I drop winds up on the sheets, rather than on the floor.

  137. @Whiskey
    No one is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump. He, not Hillary, made a commercial for Bibi Netanyahu's re-election. And Trump, not Hillary, has the backing of Howard Stern.

    But Jewish donors are more feminized than almost any other donor group. Being concentrated in media, finance, and related fields, they know that any mis-step gets them defenestrated. And culturally, they subscribe to the whole feminism-PC-Multiculti stuff that comes with having Upper Class women in a feral, carousel riding state well into their thirties. Instead of properly being concerned with family and children.

    Self-evidently, mass Third World immigration is bad for most of the lower tier of the Upper Class, as the elites from other countries and sub-elites will compete and crowd out their kids for jobs in media, finance, tec.

    Meanwhile as noted above, Trump does well with small donors. Most Dems loathe and despise Israel's very existence, and certainly Bibi. Trump and his small donors like both.

    As far as Open Borders goes, it directly contradicts the principle of Self-Determination. But then Whites don't have the right to that, only non-Whites. Which is function of the White Civil War among Men and Women. Look at Israel -- about one third of the Jews there hate hate hate their Bibi like neighbors and want them, not Palestinian terrorists or Muslim jihadis, dead.

    Replies: @iSteveFan

    And culturally, they subscribe to the whole feminism-PC-Multiculti stuff that comes with having Upper Class women in a feral, carousel riding state well into their thirties. Instead of properly being concerned with family and children.

    You keep getting that whole chick-and-the-egg thing backwards.

  138. @Massimo Heitor
    Emma Lazarus wrote her famous "The New Colossus" in 1883 which was later mounted on the plaque on the Statue of Liberty. According to Wikipedia:

    She heard of the Russian pogroms that followed the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881. As a result of this anti-Semitic violence, thousands of destitute Ashkenazi Jews emigrated from the Russian Pale of Settlement to New York, leading Lazarus to write articles on the subject as well as the book Songs of a Semite (1882). Lazarus began at this point to advocate on behalf of indigent Jewish refugees. She helped establish the Hebrew Technical Institute in New York to provide vocational training to assist destitute Jewish immigrants to become self-supporting.

     

    It's quite clear that "The New Colossus" was in specific reference to Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe. When the poem said, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", it was clearly Jewish masses she had in mind, not needy strangers.

    She is an important forerunner of the Zionist movement. She argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Theodor Herzl began to use the term Zionism

     

    Obviously her idea of a Jewish homeland excludes non-Jews from entry by definition.

    I love Jews and admire Jews and support Israel. But I do think they are hypocritical in advocating exclusive social programs, an ethnic nation state, and serious birth rate engineering programs for exclusively Jews, but denying the moral freedom for this to other whites. Many Jews, like Alain Finkielkraut or Eric Zemmour or Ilana Mercer and admirably honest in this regard and all around heroes of mine.

    Replies: @Lot

    But I do think they are hypocritical in advocating exclusive social programs, an ethnic nation state, and serious birth rate engineering programs for exclusively Jews

    You and SS seem to be peeved at this tiny group of “liberal for the USA, conservative for Israel” group of Jews out of reasonable proportion. Left-wing Jews are often bitterly anti-Israel, sometimes explicitly, sometimes claiming not to be while advocating for “right of return” that would quickly destroy Israel.

    Israel is ultimately too important for the future of whites in the the West to care that some of its supporters are hypocrites. Its mere existence refutes the inevitability of the ongoing Brown/Black/Muslim takeover of the West, and the viability of “racist” public policy. That’s why the hard core anti-white left focuses so much attention on anti-Israel activism.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Lot


    You and SS seem to be peeved at this tiny group of “liberal for the USA, conservative for Israel” group of Jews out of reasonable proportion. Left-wing Jews are often bitterly anti-Israel . . . .
     
    In word, maybe, but not in deed. If they were really anti-Israel, they would be in Israel deconstructing it.

    But they're here, deconstructing us.

    So you're full of it.
  139. Anonymous [AKA "Good golly"] says:
    @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    As long as there is welfare, people will continue to come to the west. It is a parasitical relationship. In fact, that’s what draws third world people here.

    And people have a right to defend their borders. These immigrants seek a better life living well with their lifestyle provided by white people. That’s the reality. As long as a government can forcibly steal your money, then borders must exist. Get rid of all taxes and all social services and let’s see if these people continue to pour in.

    People have a right to be tribal. Sorry buddy but that’s at the heart of a life well lived. First, you take care of your genetic immediate family. Expand your love to cousins. And then to your tribe. So yes. Borders are a necessity. And humane.

  140. @Alfa158
    @frizzled

    Yes it does give them that right. As long as the house in Ohio is better than their house in Oklahoma they have exercised their right to improve their housing. BTW , please tell your wife I like chocolate chip waffles and applewood smoke bacon for
    breakfast but don't wake me up before 10AM.

    Replies: @Henry Bowman

    Yes it does give them that right. As long as the house in Ohio is better than their house in Oklahoma they have exercised their right to improve their housing. BTW , please tell your wife I like chocolate chip waffles and applewood smoke bacon for
    breakfast but don’t wake me up before 10AM.

    ….I….I like the cut of your Jib.

  141. @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    The stakes are much higher now. Simple neighbors cannot be allowed to associate without interruption, if their association threatens the narrative that nations can and can’t be allowed to exist, at the whim of the narrator. Local association is encouraged to the extent that it discourages local identity formation, or encourages the satisfaction of local interests at the expense of the satisfaction of universal interests. Universal association is encouraged to the extent that it enforces universal identity formation, but should be carefully regulated, since over-exposure of locals to non-local groups may encourage local identity formation and discourage universal identity formation. This outcome is to be avoided at all cost. Because the correct interpretation of these rules is not always “intuitive” and fail-safe, all concerns regarding compliance should be directed to the Civil Relations Committee, Archaic Canadian-American Relations Division.

  142. Israel is ultimately too important for the future of whites in the the West to care that some of its supporters are hypocrites. Its mere existence refutes the inevitability of the ongoing Brown/Black/Muslim takeover of the West, and the viability of “racist” public policy. That’s why the hard core anti-white left focuses so much attention on anti-Israel activism.

    Self-serving BS.

  143. @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    “I kind of liked it the old way.”

    I kind of liked the old way too. But once the migration tsunami was unleashed–partly by liberal foolishness, partly by cheap widespread transport and communications–hardening of borders became inevitable … if not the border at the nation’s edge, then at the state’s border; if not at the state’s border, then the city limit; if not at the city limit, then at the gated community; if not at the gated community, then at the front door; if not at the front door, then at the barrel of a gun; if not at the barrel of a gun, then at the end of your fist, if not at the end of your fist, then I guess you got nuthin’–no home, no house, no community, no city, no state, no country.

  144. @penntothal
    OT (sort-of) : The gypsies are coming:

    http://www.standard.net/National/2016/09/19/As-Europe-turns-more-hostile-Roma-flee-to-California.html

    Now, the Roma are taking their chances in the U.S. Many are ending up in suburban Los Angeles. Some find housing in common apartments, while others simply pitch tents in a public park until they can secure a roof over their heads. They sometimes find work as nighttime janitors or in restaurants, while others resort to begging on the street or receiving assistance from one of two Roma churches in the area.
     

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Oh no!

  145. @Lot
    @Massimo Heitor


    But I do think they are hypocritical in advocating exclusive social programs, an ethnic nation state, and serious birth rate engineering programs for exclusively Jews
     
    You and SS seem to be peeved at this tiny group of "liberal for the USA, conservative for Israel" group of Jews out of reasonable proportion. Left-wing Jews are often bitterly anti-Israel, sometimes explicitly, sometimes claiming not to be while advocating for "right of return" that would quickly destroy Israel.

    Israel is ultimately too important for the future of whites in the the West to care that some of its supporters are hypocrites. Its mere existence refutes the inevitability of the ongoing Brown/Black/Muslim takeover of the West, and the viability of "racist" public policy. That's why the hard core anti-white left focuses so much attention on anti-Israel activism.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    You and SS seem to be peeved at this tiny group of “liberal for the USA, conservative for Israel” group of Jews out of reasonable proportion. Left-wing Jews are often bitterly anti-Israel . . . .

    In word, maybe, but not in deed. If they were really anti-Israel, they would be in Israel deconstructing it.

    But they’re here, deconstructing us.

    So you’re full of it.

  146. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    @Anonymous


    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they’re disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone.
     
    I see what you are saying here, but "internet based right wing culture and discourse" seems to be ambiguous.

    One meaning could be the Internet Troll Community that is fond of anti-Semitic memes and Der Stormer cartoons, but the point of these is not advocacy of sincere anti-semitism, but pushing buttons of PC-enforcers, especially when Jewish, and plain healthy childish nihilism (to the extent they are actually young, which they mostly are). As a semi-Jew who retains some puerile sense of humor, I think there is some great campy humor with all the big-nose Jew memes. Steve posted a clip from Adam Sandler's straight-to-Netflix IDF-hero-becomes-a-hairdresser comedy showing Sandler finds "crooked Jewish merchant" humor funny too.

    "Internet based right wing culture" also can have a more literal meaning of the culture of Internet-using young right wingers, which is much more a normie facebook meme-sharing group of people who are, like older conservatives, highly philosemitic.


    At the least, it’s hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.
     
    Which is a good thing. Jews are awesome. We don't need political correctness to shield us from criticism. Group IQ egalitarianism was perhaps not such a bad thing in 1950's 90% white America. But in fast-browning 2010's America, it can only work against Jews and their natural allies, gentile whites and NE asians. However, at least until after the election, responsible pro-white people on the Internet who have either a sincere or lulzy anti-Jew views really ought to cut it out for the next 6 weeks to avoid playing into the MSM's anti-Trump narrative.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    I think you’re deluding yourself, for completely understandable reasons, into thinking that it’s just good natured ethnic humor. It’s not, and you’re ignoring the significant malice that’s present. It’s not that ambiguous. The small number of people who develop and drive the subculture and discourse are anti-Semitic. The others might not be or might not have strong feelings on the matter, but they will be under increasing of influence of the fervent minority, especially as the influence of traditional centralized media declines.

  147. The small number of people who develop and drive the subculture and discourse are anti-Semitic.

    Is there a meaningful distinction between anti-semitic and counter-semitic? Would you characterize your comment to Lot as anti-White or just anti-the people you’re worried about and their influence? Can you see where there could be legitimate concerns about the influence of certain people on the welfare of this country, many of whom are in fact Jewish?

  148. @Bill Jones
    @Anonymous

    "The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where."

    And yet there's this line about "the pursuit of happiness" at the back of my mind........

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    What exactly does ‘improve one’s life’ mean?
    How does a court enforce it?

    Right now, this moment, I can think of many things that could ‘improve my life’, but, alas, no court will order a grant of the that particular desideratum to me.

  149. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill Jones
    @Anonymous

    "The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where."

    And yet there's this line about "the pursuit of happiness" at the back of my mind........

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    To a man with severely decayed teeth, nothing would ‘improve his life’ more than modern dentistry.
    But, supposing he cannot and will not ever afford the cost of the dental work needed due his low earning power – caused not by any ‘moral defect’, but by disability, physical weakness, low IQ etc (yes, yes, I know you will go on about ‘medicaid’, but ‘medicaid’ is purely a charitable grant in nature), to this man, the ‘right’ to ‘improve his life’ simply does not exist. It really is as simple and as blunt as that.

    There are a myriad of other examples.

  150. @Big Bill
    @Anonymous Nephew

    Eww! That's just nasty! Do the liberal white women just rut in the mud? Do they go into the weeds and bushes? Do they give their rutting partners candy or sammiches in payment?

    I would never have imagined ageing bleeding heart white women would ever go to Calais for sex tourism with boy-toys. I thought they went to places like Jamaica to get their rocks off a la Terry McMillan in her book "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

    My impression is that they’re mostly under 30 – a lot of student types being as transgressive as possible rather than EatPrayLove types. You just have to hope your son doesn’t marry one.

  151. @Bill Jones
    @Anonymous

    "The ‘right’ of someone ‘to improve their life’, whatever that might mean, is not recognised by any judicial authority any where."

    And yet there's this line about "the pursuit of happiness" at the back of my mind........

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    Exactly! Pursue away…but pursue like the guys who signed the document you quoted and revolt against YOUR OWN corrupt government that you feel is keeping you from the pursuit.

  152. @guest
    Technically, she doesn't say everyone has the right. She only said not-"no one" has the right. That could mean the entire world has the right, or refugees ("refugees") have the right, or all Turd Worlders have the right.

    Most likely, she thinks everyone who'd vote Clinton given the chance has the right.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @random observer

    No one has the right to immigrate to the US [there is nothing in the Constitution saying that, or creating any other rights for foreign nationals on foreign soil] or to any other country in the world whatever [there is no provision of international law in custom or treaty creating such a right, and no country would sign that if it were proposed].

    The only exceptions I can think of are those countries that have racial rights of return. Which are obviously limited to select groups. And even most of those just grant preferential immigration consideration rather than absolute right.

    There is the convention refugee system, under which anyone reaching one’s soil and claiming refugee status must be given an assessment of the validity of their claim, and accepted if found valid. But that doesn’t create an ‘immigrant’ for permanent settlement. The assumption is they will one day go home. Countries are within their rights to keep refugees in segregated camps, for example, until that happens.

    • Replies: @guest
    @random observer

    "No one has the right to immigrate to the U.S."

    I agree.

  153. @Macumazahn
    @frizzled

    Awesome reasoning there, frizzled.
    I'll be pushing my way through your front door and moving into our home later this afternoon.
    Surely you won't attempt to use naked force to stop me, right?

    Replies: @grapesoda

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

    If a country and a private home are the same then if I’m allowed in the country I’m also allowed in your house right?

    Obviously a country and a private home are vastly different entities so different standards apply HURR DURR

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @grapesoda


    If a country and a private home are the same then if I’m allowed in the country I’m also allowed in your house right?

    Obviously a country and a private home are vastly different entities so different standards apply HURR DURR
     
    Property is property. There is no relevant difference whatsoever.
  154. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    Well I’d be willing to concede that nation-states are socially constructed, with only modest [and often no] connection to kinship or even ethnicity.

    But then, in the absence of a commonly agreed if not actually verified religious authority for a source, all human moral, philosophical, social and political ideas and values are socially constructed.

    Human rights included. Presuming the absence of the essentially religious idea of “natural law”, these rights cannot be independently drawn from the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology.

    So if the nation state is artificial, so is the right of all humans to cross its borders.

    Also, nation states are currently in the possession of people of all races, and many individual such states are held by populations comprising multiple races. How can they be a racist concept?

    • Replies: @sayless
    @random observer

    "... nation-states are socially constructed, with only modest [and often no] connection to kinship or even ethnicity.

    "But then, in the absence of a commonly agreed if not actually verified religious authority for a source, all human moral, philosophical, social and political ideas and values are socially constructed.

    "Human rights included. Presuming the absence of the essentially religious idea of “natural law”, these rights cannot be independently drawn from the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology.

    "So if the nation state is artificial, so is the right of all humans to cross its borders."

    The problem in a nutshell, random observer, well done.

  155. @Massimo Heitor
    @Jack D


    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism.
     
    This is quite obvious.

    Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

     

    Borders are a form of institutional tribalism and racism. Eliminating them would eliminate that particular form of racism, but people would still be racist and compete at other levels.

    Replies: @random observer

    Why is it obvious? There are many nations that have competed aggressively against one another based on sub-racial [or if you prefer transracial or orthogonal to race] identity markers despite having been of the same race.

    And I don’t just mean if you divide races into big units like “white”. Even if one goes multiple levels down for a definition of race, the British, French and Germans, to name only a few, are all the same race of people. Every one of them is a mix of “Celts”, “Germans” and “Latins” to pick three not really racial categories, lain on a substrate of prior Europeans. The differences must be quite hard to detect. You could probably incorporate all Celts and Slavs in and still get no real difference not linguistic and cultural.

    SO in Europe nationalism has mostly been sub-racial. Other nations have been, in part, multiracial and yet nationalistic on other grounds. Like the US. It briefly managed it.

    A world divided on racist lines would look different than the world of nation states.

  156. @frizzled
    This is where this leftist and anti-nationalist has to sharply diverge from the Steve crowd. Much as I appreciate Steve's questioning of many other accepted liberal truths.

    What is it that proves inhabitants of a place have a right to veto migration by others? Naked force? That's no principle at all.

    You do not have the right to stop someone else moving to improve their own life. Nobody does. I feel conservatives very rarely get to a point where they ever question that assumption.

    The right to prevent others from moving has no more basis than the right to force women to wear hijabs, or the right to stop someone crossing the road. These claims are fictitious, and unjust. We're in an era where national privilege, citizenship privilege, passport privilege, still isn't being questioned.

    In reality every Westerner benefits from a racist system of nation-states. However, just as with slavery, the fact nation-states are rarely questioned does not mean they are just, or that they should continue.

    Open borders probably will happen. The experience of integrating Eastern Europe shows a few percent of poor nations would move if given the chance, absent massive movement from global warming and war.

    Replies: @anon, @MEH 0910, @Desiderius, @D. K., @Randal, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @james wilson, @PiltdownMan, @ic1000, @Paul Mendez, @ben tillman, @Antonymous, @Macumazahn, @guest, @guest, @Anonymous, @random observer, @JohnnyGeo

    Because we live here

  157. @Jack D
    @Randal

    And yet, in the past the US was much more relaxed about borders. People would go back and forth from Canada (and yes Mexico) at will and in some small towns on the Vermont/Quebec border the borders ran right thru the middle of town and sometimes thru the middle of buildings. Until the border was monumented in the '20s, it often wasn't even clear where it was. And this wasn't just because everyone was English - in parts of New England, French-Canadian names are very common.

    And not just in the distant past. Pre-9/11 the border check was not some hours long thing - it was as fast as going thru a tollbooth - you didn't even need a passport, just your driver's license. You could stay in Canada and have dinner in the US and then go back after dinner. I kind of liked it the old way.

    Replies: @Tex, @Randal, @Neil Templeton, @Almost Missouri, @random observer

    So did I. When I was a kid in Toronto, it was easy for our family to drive down to suburban Buffalo for cross-border shopping. It wasn’t actually that much cheaper, but it was an outing for a couple of days.

    I remember how easy it was to cross the US borders at Lewiston. Just the routine questions including [laughable even to me as a kid] “are you importing any firearms into the United States?” Presumably they hadn’t heard of taking coals to Newcastle. But I presume it was to make sure Canadian hunters had their papers.

    The worst problem was always returning, when Canadian customs would ask my dad to confirm he had the regulation 2 bottles and no more for duty free purposes. Uh huh.

    US customs always seemed more welcoming.

    On the other hand, the border was still being policed by their presence and we didn’t look like we’d be trying to stay in the US.

  158. @iSteveFan
    @415 reasons

    Not only do they not realize how many people could potentially move here, but by skimming the cream of the crop, which open borders supporters are wont to do, they are condemning billions of people to perpetual poverty since their best human capital will be extracted, thus leaving them with limited means to ever develop.

    This is typical of a liberals' approach to problem solving in which they create a worse problem by trying to solve one. For example, in the name of helping blacks, they got them hooked on welfare and helped destroy the black family. In the name of alleviating suffering, they helped to create the third world population bomb by supplying food and medicine and little else. And now in the name of the zeroth amendment, they are brain draining the developing world.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Lot, @bomag

    We also get plenty of the dysfunctional along with the “brains”. It is not looking like a net win, since most of the “brains” are pretty average to start with, and their kids + family tail regress to the mean.

  159. @Jefferson
    @Lot

    "Among them, vigerous philo-semitism and support for our special relationships with Israel"

    That's the average Trump supporter at Breitbart. I've never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.

    Replies: @Dissident

    I’ve never seen a pro-Iran and pro-Palestine article at Breitbart.

    Let me take this opportunity to note a number of points that are relevant to many of the comments posted but do not seem to be widely acknowledged or appreciated.

    – One need not be pro-Iran to oppose the Neocon saber-rattling against Iran.

    An example that immediately comes to mind is that of Patrick J. Buchanan.

    – One can be less-than pro-(State of) Israel or even downright anti-(State of) Israel and/or anti-Zionist without necessarily being pro-Palestinian (and certainly without being pro-Islamist.)

    – One need not accept the narrative and premise of Palestinian nationalism in order to believe that the Arabs known as “Palestinians” have legitimate grievances against Zionists and the State of Israel.

    What about fully supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against the Zionist State while simultaneously fully recognizing and opposing the threat that Islam and Muslims pose to the West? Can one hold both of those positions simultaneously and be coherent and consistent? I would say yes but I am not certain.

    Then, of course, there is the fact that not all Jews are Zionists (and not all Zionists are Jews.) And, moreover, that in the traditional Orthodox Judaic view, Zionism is actually a heresy (as shocking that may be to many). (That Cultural Marxism is completely antithetical to Judaism should be rather obvious to anyone possessing even the most minimal familiarity with each of the respective ideologies). I address the incompatibility with Judaism of both Zionism as well as Cultural Marxism in this past comment of mine.

  160. I’ve got to say, i love Steve’s reference here to Asimov and the First and Zeroeth laws of robotics. Robots like politicians are supposed to be controlled by the people and their laws, but it seems like ours have found a way to justify their depredations by appealing to a heretofore unkown higher law: the right of all 7 billion people to move here

  161. @random observer
    @frizzled

    Well I'd be willing to concede that nation-states are socially constructed, with only modest [and often no] connection to kinship or even ethnicity.

    But then, in the absence of a commonly agreed if not actually verified religious authority for a source, all human moral, philosophical, social and political ideas and values are socially constructed.

    Human rights included. Presuming the absence of the essentially religious idea of "natural law", these rights cannot be independently drawn from the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology.

    So if the nation state is artificial, so is the right of all humans to cross its borders.

    Also, nation states are currently in the possession of people of all races, and many individual such states are held by populations comprising multiple races. How can they be a racist concept?

    Replies: @sayless

    “… nation-states are socially constructed, with only modest [and often no] connection to kinship or even ethnicity.

    “But then, in the absence of a commonly agreed if not actually verified religious authority for a source, all human moral, philosophical, social and political ideas and values are socially constructed.

    “Human rights included. Presuming the absence of the essentially religious idea of “natural law”, these rights cannot be independently drawn from the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology.

    “So if the nation state is artificial, so is the right of all humans to cross its borders.”

    The problem in a nutshell, random observer, well done.

  162. @random observer
    @guest

    No one has the right to immigrate to the US [there is nothing in the Constitution saying that, or creating any other rights for foreign nationals on foreign soil] or to any other country in the world whatever [there is no provision of international law in custom or treaty creating such a right, and no country would sign that if it were proposed].

    The only exceptions I can think of are those countries that have racial rights of return. Which are obviously limited to select groups. And even most of those just grant preferential immigration consideration rather than absolute right.

    There is the convention refugee system, under which anyone reaching one's soil and claiming refugee status must be given an assessment of the validity of their claim, and accepted if found valid. But that doesn't create an 'immigrant' for permanent settlement. The assumption is they will one day go home. Countries are within their rights to keep refugees in segregated camps, for example, until that happens.

    Replies: @guest

    “No one has the right to immigrate to the U.S.”

    I agree.

  163. @Jack D
    @frizzled

    "Rights" are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence. In the absence of an effective world justice system (which will probably never exist), the "right" to national existence is enforced the same way other "rights" are in places where no justice system exists - by force of arms. National existence can only be obtained and maintained thru superior force. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is as true of Israel as it is of the United States or any other country. Palestine does not exist as a real state because it does not have the military power to make it exist (and the Israelis will do their best to make sure that they never do). In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that "the right to national existence" is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Massimo Heitor, @AnotherDad

    “Rights” are meaningful only insofar as they can be enforced in a court of law. There is no (effective) court of law for adjudicating national existence… In places like post WWII Western Europe where it appears that these timeless rules no longer apply and that “the right to national existence” is something that exists independent of military power, this is merely a delusion stemming from being within the protective folds of Uncle Sam.

    If you think about it, ALL nationalism is a form of racism. Until world borders are abolished (which will be never) EVERYONE is a racist (so no one is).

    Excellent comment Jack, end-to-end. I’ve never understood why folks have such trouble understanding this stuff.

    My only slight caveat would be to throw some scare quotes around “racism”‘–meaning by that that this tedious “racism!” that the left identifies everywhere–everywhere white people roam–which requires neither ill will nor ill action. For multi-ethnic nations like America there isn’t even a very distinct racial component. Nationalism is like taking all the employees in your group to lunch and saying … “we’re going to kick ass together!”. Which of course is “racist!” because what about all those poor folks not in your workgroup … they’re “excluded”!

    Nationalism is in fact … awesome. Nationalism is basically what allows *trust at scale*, ergo is the seat of prosperity, rule of law and freedom.

    • Agree: BB753
  164. @Lot
    @415 reasons


    Do they really disagree? I mean how many of the worlds 7 billion would live here rather than where they live if they could? Three billion?
     
    From Reagan's second gubernatorial inauguration address, 1/4/1971:

    If all 20 million of us wanted to live elsewhere, we would find 100 people willing to trade places with each one of us.
     

    Replies: @gruff

    And they did.

  165. @res
    @Twinkie


    In case it’s not clear, I am being sarcastic.
     
    It might be more fun to put this after a MORE tag and see how many irate responses you get.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It might be more fun to put this after a MORE tag and see how many irate responses you get.

    Yes, but it would have been a bit sad to see reactions like “See, I knew it, you can’t trust these yellows! They pretend to be your friend, but will backstab you!”

    And I did entertain a few statements like that early in my commenting history here.

    It’s apparently too difficult for some people to believe that an Asian guy who is married to a white gal with many part-white children (not to forget a large extended clan of white relatives whom he adopted as HIS people) can care about white majority and its vital – and continued – role in preserving the exceptional Anglo-American culture and society that is the United States of America.

  166. @D. K.
    @Twinkie

    I have no interest in his women-- even assuming, arguendo, that he recognizes the right of women to rebuff more-intimate interlopers, within the personal sphere; I merely am entranced by his first principles of "mi casa, su casa!" The money I might save by availing myself of his righteous idealism could then be used on a woman (or few) of my own choosing.

    Replies: @PiltdownMan, @Twinkie

    I have no interest in his women

    It. Was. A. Joke.

    And not at your expense. But at 1) the ridiculous logic of “frizzled” and 2) the willfully obtuse leftists who think Trump advocated Hillary’s murder.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    @Twinkie

    I know that it was a joke, Twinkie; I knew it from the proverbial get-go. I simply was expounding upon the fact that my entire interest in his home life was solely pecuniary in nature.

  167. @grapesoda
    @Macumazahn

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

    If a country and a private home are the same then if I'm allowed in the country I'm also allowed in your house right?

    Obviously a country and a private home are vastly different entities so different standards apply HURR DURR

    Replies: @ben tillman

    If a country and a private home are the same then if I’m allowed in the country I’m also allowed in your house right?

    Obviously a country and a private home are vastly different entities so different standards apply HURR DURR

    Property is property. There is no relevant difference whatsoever.

  168. @Twinkie
    @D. K.


    I have no interest in his women
     
    It. Was. A. Joke.

    And not at your expense. But at 1) the ridiculous logic of "frizzled" and 2) the willfully obtuse leftists who think Trump advocated Hillary's murder.

    Replies: @D. K.

    I know that it was a joke, Twinkie; I knew it from the proverbial get-go. I simply was expounding upon the fact that my entire interest in his home life was solely pecuniary in nature.

  169. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right. You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training - only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. However, by then these institutions had been granting degrees in mainly non-religious fields - law, medicine, physics, math, etc. for over a century. They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced. I suspect that if there HAD been explicitly Jewish universities (and there was some trend in that direction - Albert Einstein Medical College was formed because Jews found it so hard to get into other medical schools) and they practiced discrimination against non-Jews, you would have been the first to loudly complain about the clannish Jews.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @AnotherDad

    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right.

    Jack, you generally write good stuff–i always read your comments. But you are one of these Jews who just *can not see* (or are in denial) when it comes to his own ethnic group and the gentiles’–very natural–reaction to it. And it drives you to say seriously ridiculous stuff like:

    “You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training – only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. … They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced.”

    The idea that private schools need to be theological seminaries to discriminate religiously is ridiculous–even *now* much less the 1920s. I was raised Catholic, went through the Catholic school system. The–very excellent–Jesuit HS i went to (St.Xavier in Cincinnati) had a few non-Catholics but was overwhelmingly Catholic. It was highly selective, the school of choice for the city’s elite and could easily have admitted more non-Catholics … but that wasn’t it’s mission. It’s mission was teaching Catholic young men. Not for the priesthood, but for life. Catholics did this a lot–Notre Dame, Georgetown, Catholic, Fordham, Marquette, St. Johns, Villanova, etc. In part because they felt locked out of Protestant America, in part because they wanted to do it as religious mission. And yes, even when i went to college two generations after the 1920s, these schools, while admitting others, were discriminating in favor of Catholics–they are Catholic schools for God’s sake! And yes, nonetheless they had their tax exemptions and were taking government backed student loans and winning government research grants etc. etc. Presumably Baylor, Temple and SMU, the passel of Lutheran colleges across the upper midwest, also gave preference to students who matched their particular sectarian orientation. Most of these institutions are quite a bit more secular now, but the fact remains even now religious based institutions are free to discriminate in the religious orientation of their student bodies. Otherwise they’d be … secular institutions. In the Bob Jones tax exemption fiasco of a few years back, the issue was not whether Bob Jones could discriminate to require students to be Bible believing Protestants, observe their religious moral code and go to chapel–that was all a given. The issue was that they had an inter-racial dating ban that got them into political hot water.

    I don’t know where you got this idea that private universities by virtue of a tax exemption are somehow public utilities that must serve everyone. (Heck even churches and synagogues have tax exemptions.) But even your totalitarian mentally–an assault on basic freedom of association–is a relatively new thing that only started to blossom with the 1965 civil rights act. Prior to that everyone accepted that your private institutions’ admissions policy was … private–its own damn business!

    For the record–not something i’ve researched or give a crap about–i’d guess that the Ivies admissions policies back in the day were less a religious thing than a class thing. They were universities that had been built, supported and maintained by the WASP elite and quite naturally were run by members of the WASP elite in the interest of the WASP elite, while also seeing their mission as educating the nations’ future leaders. It’s not like Catholics weren’t also aware of this WASP orientation\domination. Joe Kennedy for instance had a chip on his shoulder about being looked down on by the “Boston Brahmins” and made sure all his boys followed him to Harvard. But if you ask some Catholic about this today–if you can find one who even thinks about it at all–he’d probably say “oh the rich WASPs ran everything back then”. (A quite reasonable opinion.) Catholics aren’t running around yapping about the horrors of “anti-Catholicism”, because grandpa wasn’t invited to go to school with J. Thurston Howell III. It was a Protestant country and the elite Protestants ran it as if they owned it–because they did. And in my opinion–and even David Brooks pointed this out in column a few years back–the old WASP elite did a *better* job of running the nation in the interests of its actually citizens then the supposedly “open” Jewish heavy American elite does today.

    ~~~

    Again the bottom line(s) here, and my point:
    — groups being “groupish” is completely normal
    — the Jews are not an open “everyone’s welcome!” group, they themselves are one of, if not *the*, most closed groups with tribal endogamy, and even non-socialization with gentiles enforced by religious strictures; (Flat out: it was the Jews, not the Christians that kept the Jews from integrating into the white population. Say the odd 12th century Jew who was too stupid or uninterested to study the Torah, or who just found it politically or economically advantageous to join the local population–they converted and are one of my ancestors.)
    — this closed, outsider-hostile nature of Judaism has *naturally* provoked anti-Jewish feeling in gentile host populations; (Generally people are neighborly to those who are neighborly. They eventually integrate with those who allow\accept integration. If you hold yourself separate and aloof … then people will see and treat you as separate and aloof.)
    — in contrast with Judaism, white gentile societies, particularly NW European societies are pretty open
    — few–perhaps no–societies have ever been as welcoming to an outgroup then American Protestants have been to Jews. Yes, they didn’t *immediately* turn their universities and country clubs over to the Jews, but in three generations they rather compliantly let the Jews push them out of power or at least push themselves to a dominant position.
    (The Ivies are run in large part by Jews. WASPy country clubs accept Jews. I’m sure there are Jewish members of Augusta, or else the NYT would be whining about it. Augusta looks a good bit more like America, than say Hillcrest or the Century Club.)

    — the basic Jewish ideology\demand is that host society’s majority–their institutions, their networks, their businesses, their politic power and control–must be open and penetrable by Jews, while Jews are free to be ethnocentric and tribal, keep their own ethnic networking. If the host society’s majority is not open its … anti-semitism! In short it’s tribalism for me and not for thee.

    And all i’m doing is calling b.s. on this. I think it’s a bogus claim, logically and morally. I don’t have any problem with Jewish tribalism. They refused integration for 2000 years … and prospered! Good for them. But i also think other peoples are completely free and justified in answering with tribalism of their own. There is no coherent moral or logical argument for ‘s tribalism to be good and fair, and ‘s answering tribalism to be some moral crime.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @D. K.
    @AnotherDad

    The Jewish dominance of Hollywood, and related industries, of course, is based wholly on talent, meritocracy, hard work, and their mothers' insistence on their all getting a good education. A Jew would never even consider breaking federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws in the hiring, promotion and retention of employees, in those and other industries.

  170. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    For those who say there is no anti-Semitism on the American right, here ya go.

    If Harvard, Yale, etc. still advertised themselves as theological seminaries in the 1920s, then you would have been right.
     
    Jack, you generally write good stuff--i always read your comments. But you are one of these Jews who just *can not see* (or are in denial) when it comes to his own ethnic group and the gentiles'--very natural--reaction to it. And it drives you to say seriously ridiculous stuff like:


    "You can set up religious tests for admission to religious training – only professed Catholics may train for the priesthood, etc. ... They were exempted from the payment of taxes on the basis of being educational institutions and thus (indirectly) supported by the taxpayers of all religions. Even in the 1920s, Jewish quotas were illegal which is why they were accomplished in a sub rosa manner and never explicitly announced."
     
    The idea that private schools need to be theological seminaries to discriminate religiously is ridiculous--even *now* much less the 1920s. I was raised Catholic, went through the Catholic school system. The--very excellent--Jesuit HS i went to (St.Xavier in Cincinnati) had a few non-Catholics but was overwhelmingly Catholic. It was highly selective, the school of choice for the city's elite and could easily have admitted more non-Catholics ... but that wasn't it's mission. It's mission was teaching Catholic young men. Not for the priesthood, but for life. Catholics did this a lot--Notre Dame, Georgetown, Catholic, Fordham, Marquette, St. Johns, Villanova, etc. In part because they felt locked out of Protestant America, in part because they wanted to do it as religious mission. And yes, even when i went to college two generations after the 1920s, these schools, while admitting others, were discriminating in favor of Catholics--they are Catholic schools for God's sake! And yes, nonetheless they had their tax exemptions and were taking government backed student loans and winning government research grants etc. etc. Presumably Baylor, Temple and SMU, the passel of Lutheran colleges across the upper midwest, also gave preference to students who matched their particular sectarian orientation. Most of these institutions are quite a bit more secular now, but the fact remains even now religious based institutions are free to discriminate in the religious orientation of their student bodies. Otherwise they'd be ... secular institutions. In the Bob Jones tax exemption fiasco of a few years back, the issue was not whether Bob Jones could discriminate to require students to be Bible believing Protestants, observe their religious moral code and go to chapel--that was all a given. The issue was that they had an inter-racial dating ban that got them into political hot water.

    I don't know where you got this idea that private universities by virtue of a tax exemption are somehow public utilities that must serve everyone. (Heck even churches and synagogues have tax exemptions.) But even your totalitarian mentally--an assault on basic freedom of association--is a relatively new thing that only started to blossom with the 1965 civil rights act. Prior to that everyone accepted that your private institutions' admissions policy was ... private--its own damn business!

    For the record--not something i've researched or give a crap about--i'd guess that the Ivies admissions policies back in the day were less a religious thing than a class thing. They were universities that had been built, supported and maintained by the WASP elite and quite naturally were run by members of the WASP elite in the interest of the WASP elite, while also seeing their mission as educating the nations' future leaders. It's not like Catholics weren't also aware of this WASP orientation\domination. Joe Kennedy for instance had a chip on his shoulder about being looked down on by the "Boston Brahmins" and made sure all his boys followed him to Harvard. But if you ask some Catholic about this today--if you can find one who even thinks about it at all--he'd probably say "oh the rich WASPs ran everything back then". (A quite reasonable opinion.) Catholics aren't running around yapping about the horrors of "anti-Catholicism", because grandpa wasn't invited to go to school with J. Thurston Howell III. It was a Protestant country and the elite Protestants ran it as if they owned it--because they did. And in my opinion--and even David Brooks pointed this out in column a few years back--the old WASP elite did a *better* job of running the nation in the interests of its actually citizens then the supposedly "open" Jewish heavy American elite does today.

    ~~~

    Again the bottom line(s) here, and my point:
    -- groups being "groupish" is completely normal
    -- the Jews are not an open "everyone's welcome!" group, they themselves are one of, if not *the*, most closed groups with tribal endogamy, and even non-socialization with gentiles enforced by religious strictures; (Flat out: it was the Jews, not the Christians that kept the Jews from integrating into the white population. Say the odd 12th century Jew who was too stupid or uninterested to study the Torah, or who just found it politically or economically advantageous to join the local population--they converted and are one of my ancestors.)
    -- this closed, outsider-hostile nature of Judaism has *naturally* provoked anti-Jewish feeling in gentile host populations; (Generally people are neighborly to those who are neighborly. They eventually integrate with those who allow\accept integration. If you hold yourself separate and aloof ... then people will see and treat you as separate and aloof.)
    -- in contrast with Judaism, white gentile societies, particularly NW European societies are pretty open
    -- few--perhaps no--societies have ever been as welcoming to an outgroup then American Protestants have been to Jews. Yes, they didn't *immediately* turn their universities and country clubs over to the Jews, but in three generations they rather compliantly let the Jews push them out of power or at least push themselves to a dominant position.
    (The Ivies are run in large part by Jews. WASPy country clubs accept Jews. I'm sure there are Jewish members of Augusta, or else the NYT would be whining about it. Augusta looks a good bit more like America, than say Hillcrest or the Century Club.)

    -- the basic Jewish ideology\demand is that host society's majority--their institutions, their networks, their businesses, their politic power and control--must be open and penetrable by Jews, while Jews are free to be ethnocentric and tribal, keep their own ethnic networking. If the host society's majority is not open its ... anti-semitism! In short it's tribalism for me and not for thee.

    And all i'm doing is calling b.s. on this. I think it's a bogus claim, logically and morally. I don't have any problem with Jewish tribalism. They refused integration for 2000 years ... and prospered! Good for them. But i also think other peoples are completely free and justified in answering with tribalism of their own. There is no coherent moral or logical argument for 's tribalism to be good and fair, and 's answering tribalism to be some moral crime.

    Replies: @D. K.

    The Jewish dominance of Hollywood, and related industries, of course, is based wholly on talent, meritocracy, hard work, and their mothers’ insistence on their all getting a good education. A Jew would never even consider breaking federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws in the hiring, promotion and retention of employees, in those and other industries.

  171. @Lot
    @Anonymous


    This subculture is a minority among overall Trump support, but they’re disproportionately young, and disproportionately fervent and influential in shaping the internet based right wing culture and discourse, which means they will have a greater impact on shaping the future of the right than is apparent by their numbers alone.
     
    I see what you are saying here, but "internet based right wing culture and discourse" seems to be ambiguous.

    One meaning could be the Internet Troll Community that is fond of anti-Semitic memes and Der Stormer cartoons, but the point of these is not advocacy of sincere anti-semitism, but pushing buttons of PC-enforcers, especially when Jewish, and plain healthy childish nihilism (to the extent they are actually young, which they mostly are). As a semi-Jew who retains some puerile sense of humor, I think there is some great campy humor with all the big-nose Jew memes. Steve posted a clip from Adam Sandler's straight-to-Netflix IDF-hero-becomes-a-hairdresser comedy showing Sandler finds "crooked Jewish merchant" humor funny too.

    "Internet based right wing culture" also can have a more literal meaning of the culture of Internet-using young right wingers, which is much more a normie facebook meme-sharing group of people who are, like older conservatives, highly philosemitic.


    At the least, it’s hard to see how the sort of casual anti-Semitism that has been suppressed on the right for the past couple generations will remain so.
     
    Which is a good thing. Jews are awesome. We don't need political correctness to shield us from criticism. Group IQ egalitarianism was perhaps not such a bad thing in 1950's 90% white America. But in fast-browning 2010's America, it can only work against Jews and their natural allies, gentile whites and NE asians. However, at least until after the election, responsible pro-white people on the Internet who have either a sincere or lulzy anti-Jew views really ought to cut it out for the next 6 weeks to avoid playing into the MSM's anti-Trump narrative.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    “Straight-to-Netflix”?!

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=youdontmesswiththezohan.htm

    But don’t worry, Woody Allen has made one film that’s grossed more than that.

    This was Sandler’s love interest in this film. He had THAT going for him

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS