The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How to Rig Elections
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From my new Wednesday column in Taki’s Magazine:

Rigging Elections
by Steve Sailer
October 19, 2016

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 182 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The classic response is “But we are a nation of immigrants aren’t we?”

    Of course we or our ancestors came from elsewhere. But once we are here we certainly have the right to determine who follows us.

    The home each of us lives in in could be hundreds of years old, but during that time, each family living there could determine who they invited into their home as guests.

    “We are a nation of immigrants.” cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    , @jim jones
    @Robert Hume

    America is a British colony, Anglo-Saxons are the largest ethnic group

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @celt darnell

    , @bomag
    @Robert Hume


    “We are a nation of immigrants.” cannot be allowed to end a conversation.
     
    When approached with this, I'm starting to respond, "immigration is analogous to sex: we are all here because of it, but we don't just let anyone join with us in the franchise."
    , @Stan Adams
    @Robert Hume

    The folks who came over here in the 1800s weren't given free welfare goodies. They came here to work their asses off helping to build the country. But we now have all the human capital we need.

    Lars and Ursula had to chop down the trees and build their own log cabin. They had to grow and/or kill their own food and sew their own clothes. They weren't given vouchers or EBT cards to buy free shit at Wal-Mart.

  2. @Robert Hume
    The classic response is "But we are a nation of immigrants aren't we?"

    Of course we or our ancestors came from elsewhere. But once we are here we certainly have the right to determine who follows us.

    The home each of us lives in in could be hundreds of years old, but during that time, each family living there could determine who they invited into their home as guests.

    "We are a nation of immigrants." cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    Replies: @Ram, @jim jones, @bomag, @Stan Adams

    Sadly, the Native “Redskins” did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Ram

    Actually, the "Redskins", who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary "Redskin" entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    On the other hand, they were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, rights equal or superior to their own citizens, and even a cultural admiration.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed--and that's after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn't worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    Replies: @Wally, @Mack Bolan, @Ivan K.

    , @L Woods
    @Ram

    That inane platitude is another thing the left constantly repeats without considering the implications. If immigration is the equivalant of European displacement of the Indian, it would very obviously be the height of madness to replicate their downfall. Not to mention that "Native Americans" were by and large not really any more "native" than the Europeans that succeeded them.

    , @Wally
    @Ram

    Facts for the indoctrinated:

    They were not "wiped out", not even close.

    So then, American Indians were racist / xenophobic for resisting European migrants.

    https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html
    "The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths"

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Ram

    Ram, On a continent teaming with game, wild fowl, water fowl, abundant fresh water, lakes, streams and seacoasts brimming with fish and shell fish, vast herds of bison, unlimited woodlands and grasslands, the "natives" spent a lot of time and energy wiping each other out, and usually over tribal territory. In some cases rival tribes united against the Europeans, in other cases they allied with the Europeans to eliminate their rivals. Passenger pigeons were wiped out, "Redskins" not so much.

    , @Olorin
    @Ram

    Moosedung from an historical ignoramus.

    The million or more Americans who have ancestors who arrived in 1656 on a little ship called Mercurius are here because the Lenni Lenape WANTED them here--more Swedes and Finns, rather than the British and Dutch, whom they loathed for their hostility and lack of understanding of forest life and people.

    In fact Lenape people boarded that ship with arms and took it upriver in defiance of the Dutch who had seized New Sweden while the ship was in transit from Sweden.

    The Lenni Lenape/people of the turtle didn't get "wiped out." They run strong and true to this day. You prefer to think of them as erased it seems.

  3. Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.

    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn’t been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn’t have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus… the world.

    • Replies: @Nnz
    @Altai

    It's funny that Steve is crying over his ideology of assimilation of nonwhites that led to this problem in the first place, do you think the US would even have this problem if it reserved political rights only for white people and only allowed white people to immigrate, instead of allowing people of all races to immigrate, at least in theory thus leaving ideological wiggle room for what happened in 1965. Really the blood is all over Sailers and his assimilations inks hands, it his fault why the US is 50 percent nonwhite, and that antiwhite SOB actually wants to integrate those people so the average "white" will look like George zimmerman.

    Replies: @Altai, @ATX Hipster

    , @Jack D
    @Altai

    That couldn't have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn't need more Irish in Mass - his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It's hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women - who knows.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @D. K., @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    , @Thea
    @Altai

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind. I find it hard to believe a large number of people could be that coldly cynical but maybe I am naive.

    The Clintons on the other hand....

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @ben tillman, @Brutusale

    , @Coemgen
    @Altai

    If you subscribe to the theory that the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" then look no further than to his son Patrick "Patches" Kennedy to support the position that, yes, he really was that stupid.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Altai

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    The 1965 Immigration Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was pretty much the baby of Congressman Emanual Celler, who had his own, racial/ethnic reasons for doing what he did to our country. He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Altai

    I find it more likely that Kennedy thought it would get him campaign support and contributions for the Kennedy family (both himself and his brother) from those people who wanted Hart-Cellar passed.

    , @Marie
    @Altai

    Never discount the vise-like grip of the cultish Open Borders/Egalitarian mentality.

    Howie Carr has written extensively and hilariously about Ted, and the Michael Kelly piece on him should be read by every schoolchild in America...

    , @Lucas McCrudy
    @Altai

    I'm pretty sure the immigration legislation passed in 1924 and then jettisoned by the 1965 Act had basically given top preference to three European nationalities over all others: The British, The Germans and... The IRISH.
    It would have been one thing if the Kennedy clan were of Italian, Polish or Jewish extraction; they would have had a personal, vested interest in overturning the system established back in 1924 . But their forbearers came from Northwestern Europe- the very region given the highest quotas for sending immigrants under the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act.

  4. This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It’s not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next…nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we’re ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Rob McX

    Yep. Brazil and Mexico are simply too fractured and disorganized to have gas chambers.

    It always comes back to lowering the odds of gas chambers. It's how Jewish elites measure risk and make plans.

    God, we whites are truly stupid.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Rob McX

    Agreed.

    , @Whiskey
    @Rob McX

    This is because a majority of White people hate hate hate the compromises, the culture, the needs of prosperity and modernity coupled with the Third World being well aware that their people and cultures are miserable failures and there will be no improvement ever in the lives of ordinary people.

    ONLY non-feminized White nations resist mass Third World immigration -- Switzerland that gave women the right to vote in 1971, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. Sweden, Feminist Ground Zero, is also the Ground Zero of Mass Third World Immigration.

    For White Women, mass third world immigration is only a plus. They get Islam, which they love (Alpha males shared, no body competition i.e. burquas for fatties which most are). They get to drown Beta White Males in a sea of low IQ, high aggression non-White males, getting rid of the endless technology upgrades which they loathe like Donald Trump. They get to ride the gravy train of Affirmative Action, and see themselves as Emma Stone in "the Help" as noble SJW types.

    Modern, prosperous Western life requires male cooperation, constant advances in productivity which means massive technological change driving social change, and above all making ordinary smart White guys the center of society not its margins. Which women HATE HATE HATE like baseball statistics, the Linux Operating System, and HBD.

    There is no chance, zero zilch nada, of turning that back until the role of White women is addressed. The fundamental problem is that the pill, condom, anonymous urban living to quote Roissy, has led women to have little to no genetic investment (early childbearing and marriage) in society and little self-interest aligned with their male peers. That is unlikely to change so the only solution is to make women afraid of crossing White male interests, more afraid than of crossing Muslim, Black, Hispanic interests etc. As a general rule anyway it is far better to be feared than loved.

    Replies: @Harold

    , @Mack Bolan
    @Rob McX

    It is my contention that this traitorous implementation of mass immigration of third world populations into the wealthy western European countries and America by their own leaders is being done for the simplest of reasons "money". The money that comes from massive unfettered consumerism. Many people from, say the poor countries in Africa don't have the purchasing power that we in the first world have.
    Bring those folks here and even if they don't go to work , our generous welfare programs will still allow the to purchase everyday items that they couldn't before. Imagine a company being able to sell one billion more rolls of toilet paper a year, 400 million more tubes of toothpaste, millions more light bulbs, the list is as endless as the possible corporate profits. Even if we are the ones ultimately paying for these goods, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. This sort of profiteering can only continue if the immigrants eventually get jobs and pay taxes to keep the social programs from collapsing. Unfortunately the Muslims flooding into Europe show no interest in working for a living. Unless you consider crime a legitimate job.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so."

    So, how should you rig elections to make sure only "good whites"--the race realists, the Alt Right--emerges victorious?

    "What it comes down to is that we’re ruled by people who hate us..."

    Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by "importing" non-whites?

    Wow, just wow.

    "and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own."

    You mean just the "good whites" having a country to call their own, not "bad whites". Because whites in general, do they not possess the liberty to make their own racial decisions?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Second, the GOP put up such little resistance to more immigration that liberals had to move left to protect their standing. For example, when George W. Bush got to the left of the NYT editorial board in 2001 on immigration, they finally flipped toward favoring amnesty.

    If in the 90’s opposition to amnesty was the Democrat position and open borders was the WSJ position, why wouldn’t Bush being pro-amnesty be perceived as a pro-business move to the right? And push the Times further towards an anti-amnesty position, which would continue to be perceived as left?

    In the 2000 anti-amnesty editorial they’re taking the opposite position of the AFL-CIO union. What’s up with that?

    • Replies: @cynthia curran
    @Anonymous

    Steve ideas explains Texas or Arizona but not North Carolina which has had more blacks come to the state in the past 10 years. This also explains Georgia, with illegal immigrants mainly in Atlanta or Gwinitt County. Blacks not immigrants explains changes in the South where Latinos are usually less than 10 percent. As for unions changing their view on illegal immigration and the Democratic Party, the Service Union has a lot of members here illegality which explains why the other unions changed their mind.

  6. Anonymous [AKA "Mandinka"] says:

    Apparently, Donald Trump will bring back slavery:

    http://time.com/4535292/donald-trump-black-slaves/

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    @Anonymous

    Yet again we are reminded of the fact that peak value for black lives was when they were bought and sold at auction. To be worth something again!

    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    @Anonymous

    We should arrange an airlift or something to help them all escape before it's too late!

  7. @Robert Hume
    The classic response is "But we are a nation of immigrants aren't we?"

    Of course we or our ancestors came from elsewhere. But once we are here we certainly have the right to determine who follows us.

    The home each of us lives in in could be hundreds of years old, but during that time, each family living there could determine who they invited into their home as guests.

    "We are a nation of immigrants." cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    Replies: @Ram, @jim jones, @bomag, @Stan Adams

    America is a British colony, Anglo-Saxons are the largest ethnic group

    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    @jim jones

    America *was* a British colony and I'm Anglo Saxon and agree with you, but sorry, I don't get your point.

    I support Steve's citizenist approach. The democratically determined will of the present citizenry should control immigration. Recent Hispanic citizens should have equal per capita weight as those of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    But, "We are a nation of immigrants." does not mean that regardless of what current citizens want immigrants should be allowed to continue to flow in.

    , @celt darnell
    @jim jones

    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).

    That said, as the Saxons originated from what is now Germany, one could argue America just went full circle....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

  8. @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    Actually, the “Redskins”, who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary “Redskin” entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    On the other hand, they were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, rights equal or superior to their own citizens, and even a cultural admiration.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    • Replies: @Wally
    @Almost Missouri

    Not to mention the Indian diseases which killed Euro-whites.
    I know, no one mentions that.

    , @Mack Bolan
    @Almost Missouri

    Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood.
    We had a local tribal chief who was blond haired and blue eyed. Looked more Scandinavian than Native American. I think identifying as Indian and being one is a different thing. Many of these identifiers wouldn't feel comfortable living on a reservation.

    Replies: @Marie, @Almost Missouri

    , @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Actually, the “Redskins”, who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary “Redskin” entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    Correct.


    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic.

     

    "While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

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

    Today: One race: 2,932,248 are registered; In combination with one or more of the other races listed: 2,288,331; Total: 5,220,579

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


    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

     

    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rwanda+keith+harmon+snow
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-886-keith-harmon-snow-reveals-the-truth-about-the-rwandan-genocide/

    On the other hand, [the Redskins] were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, ........
     
    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : "State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. ." (Madley, 2016))

    Granting as such means little, because any laws anywhere in the world are broken when there is sufficient will + force for doing so.
    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    "People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White"

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri

  9. @Anonymous
    Apparently, Donald Trump will bring back slavery:

    http://time.com/4535292/donald-trump-black-slaves/

    Replies: @Yak-15, @Je Suis Charlie Martel

    Yet again we are reminded of the fact that peak value for black lives was when they were bought and sold at auction. To be worth something again!

  10. There is of course, here, the lack of a conscious End Game. The Perpetual Motion Machine comes to a shuttering halt when the tax-eaters (Third-Worlders) utterly overwhelm the tax-payers and the many and varied governmental social-services bureaus burn up the last printed farthing.

    BREXIT was the first instance in the West when the tax-eaters (English on the permanent dole) formed a temporary coalition with the tax-payers (English holding a mortgage). No small wonder then that Teresa May and her merry band of hateful Tory and CONservative pranksters want to delay the implementation of BREXIT for as long as possible. Perhaps those on the dole and those who hold mortgages will forget they actually voted to leave the EU. After all, aren’t the Poles very nice people and aren’t they very hard workers? – – – and they’re very White, too!’

    Meanwhile, more and more “Syrian Refugees” fly into the UK from The Back of Beyond. The latest “Syrian Refugee” to take the cake, as they say in Manchester, claimed to be all of sixteen years of age – – – even though he was aggressively balding and had a noticeable five o’clock shadow! He was waived right through customs – – – fancy that!

  11. So what have you morons done other than cut off the only source white immigration to the UK (Poland) which means that the only immigrants the UK will be getting are blacks from Africa and the Carribean and subcontinental Muslims and Indians? Stupid pieces of shit. On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    @Nnz

    Lord, I just love to hear from pontificators who know nothing.

    On immigration and Brexit, try looking up the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. Please don't pretend they are independent of the EU merely because they predate it and don't deny that to rid ourselves of this lunacy we had to leave the EU first.

    Poles will still be able to come to the UK and nothing is going to be done about the quarter of a million and more French citizens living in London. Have a look at the poster Nigel Farage stood in front of which spoke about a "breaking point." Do you see any white faces there?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants

    EU membership means that free movement "European citizens" can't be stopped by member states. As you might have noticed, "European" no longer means "white." So, when those 1 000 000+ Syrians, Africans and God-knows-what-else that Angela Merkel invited into Europe get their German citizenship (as they will) there'd be no stopping their entry into the UK. None. We needed to regain control of our national borders.

    Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was also a supporter of the Third World invasion of the UK. Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was a supporter of multiculturalism. The number of exceptions is statistically insignificant.

    By contrast, anyone who opposed the Third World invasion and multiculturalism voted Brexit. Again, the exceptions are statistically insignificant.

    And of the Third World invaders themselves? With the sole exception of the Sikhs, they voted "remain" by large majorities -- 70% in the case of the Muslims. The only reason London voted overwhelmingly for remain is because it's population is only 45% white British (or what we would have simply called "British" a mere two decades ago).

    Goodness, you might think that both the darkies and the British recognize something about the EU you don't.

    Re: "On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU."

    Er, no. Less than half our exports go to the EU. Not only that, we run a trade deficit with Europe. We run a surplus with the rest of the world.

    We Brexiteers have been discussing immigration and like issues before you were born, sunshine. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly hope you're better informed about your own country than you are about the UK.

    In any case, please move out of your parents' house, get a job, get a girlfriend and get a life.

    And please don't waste everyone's time by blathering about things you don't understand.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @Nnz

    Calm down.

    I doubt if you actually live here, or know anything about Britain or British history.
    The main point is that the EU will almost certainly be the force pushing for more third world immigration into Europe - including Poland - in the near future.
    Anyhow, the present Conservative government has put some rather formidable barriers up to 'primary' third world immigration, including income thresholds exceeding £30,000 per annum, and these barriers will only rise in the future.

  12. @jim jones
    @Robert Hume

    America is a British colony, Anglo-Saxons are the largest ethnic group

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @celt darnell

    America *was* a British colony and I’m Anglo Saxon and agree with you, but sorry, I don’t get your point.

    I support Steve’s citizenist approach. The democratically determined will of the present citizenry should control immigration. Recent Hispanic citizens should have equal per capita weight as those of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    But, “We are a nation of immigrants.” does not mean that regardless of what current citizens want immigrants should be allowed to continue to flow in.

  13. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    It’s funny that Steve is crying over his ideology of assimilation of nonwhites that led to this problem in the first place, do you think the US would even have this problem if it reserved political rights only for white people and only allowed white people to immigrate, instead of allowing people of all races to immigrate, at least in theory thus leaving ideological wiggle room for what happened in 1965. Really the blood is all over Sailers and his assimilations inks hands, it his fault why the US is 50 percent nonwhite, and that antiwhite SOB actually wants to integrate those people so the average “white” will look like George zimmerman.

    • Replies: @Altai
    @Nnz

    When I look at the US I see the political echo of the displacement of the old stock Anglo-Saxons. It isn't only Jewish influence, the narrative of the US being a 'nation of immigrants' comes from the 19th century to early 20th century surge. The descendants of those people were the sea into which this ideology can swim, can inhabit in a way which inhibits others criticism.

    Assimilation of whites didn't make them forget their origins in the US even if there is little antipathy for WASPs from non-Jewish whites today. That was their ancestral narrative and connection the US. For those people it is easy and comforting to think that 'that is who we are'. I'd be curious to see what generational attitudes are like for those populations.

    Replies: @Robert Hume

    , @ATX Hipster
    @Nnz

    We stopped actually assimilating immigrants a long time ago. How is that Sailer's fault?

    The problem we have that's more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don't want them to assimilate. If the rich, cool, and powerful in our society stopped using the Megaphone to call citizens racist for suggesting immigrants assimilate, then our immigrants might actually feel pressure to, you know, assimilate.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  14. @Rob McX
    This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It's not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next...nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we're ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Mr. Anon, @Whiskey, @Mack Bolan, @Corvinus

    Yep. Brazil and Mexico are simply too fractured and disorganized to have gas chambers.

    It always comes back to lowering the odds of gas chambers. It’s how Jewish elites measure risk and make plans.

    God, we whites are truly stupid.

  15. Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    Having more people now than 300 years ago isn’t much to be positive about. In the same period of time, for example, the population of French Canadians increased from 60,00o to about 3 million. If not for the arrival of Europeans there might have been 200 million or more Indians, rather than a slightly larger number than prior to the European arrival.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @AP

    "...there might have been 200 million or more Indians".

    Evidence?

    Replies: @guest, @AP

  16. Now, NBC/Comcast has a story out this morning stating that the elections can’t be rigged. They even have a professor who was a former Chicago Alderman telling us why.

    To steal a line from Derb, We Are DOOOMED.

  17. Lots of good stuff in the NY Times today:

    1. Yes, Ford Is Building Plants in Mexico. No, It’s Not Cutting U.S. Jobs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/yes-ford-is-building-plants-in-mexico-no-its-not-cutting-us-jobs.html?

    Ford is moving all its small car production to Mexico. Mexican per capita auto industry employment is much higher than the US – 675,000 auto workers in Mexico (pop 120M), 900,000 in the US, (pop 320M). Nine of the last 11 auto factories built in North America have been in Mexico. But this is a good thing (somehow).

    Rather than a frenzied Nafta-driven flight to the bottom of the labor market, in other words, Ford’s retooling of its Wayne factory is more a nuanced reflection of the industry’s desire to keep pace with growing demand for high-profit trucks and S.U.V.s, while continuing to produce less expensive car models at lower costs with the cheaper wages paid in Mexico.

    Ford’s Wayne factory signifies the reality of the marketplace. Simply put, Detroit cannot make money producing small cars in the United States, where an established union worker — not counting entry-level employees — might earn about $29 an hour, more than triple the wages of a Mexican employee.

    The above was in the official NYT reportorial voice – not “Ford spokesman says”. I don’t recall the NYTimes being so sympathetic to the profit needs of Fortune 500 companies in the past. I thought it was Democrat dogma that American workers were underpaid, not overpaid.
    DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG. That’s the actual subtext of the story.

    2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/18/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html?

    See the graph – immigrants AS A PERCENTAGE heading for highs never before seen in all of US history. This is bad enough, but if they showed raw numbers instead of percentages, it would be much, much worse.

    3. Lots of other stuff – “Trump’s Call to Monitor Polls Raises Fears of Intimidation”, “Ex-General, Guiding Trump, Offers Angry Voice of Authority”, Ecuador cuts Assange’s internet so he can’t interfere in the coronation of Hillary, 5th generation of Sulzberger named deputy publisher, lots of good stuff today.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years...it's hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? - the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need.... was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America...and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @ATate, @Ivy

    , @res
    @Jack D


    I don’t recall the NYTimes being so sympathetic to the profit needs of Fortune 500 companies in the past. ...
    DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG. That’s the actual subtext of the story.
     
    One of the most interesting parts of this election cycle has been watching the strange new respect/publicity so many are getting from the MSM by virtue of their position regarding Trump. All in service of promoting (as you said): "DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG" (or evil, or both).

    On a related note, check out this NYT oped spin of wikileaks: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/wikihillary-for-president.html
  18. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    That couldn’t have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn’t need more Irish in Mass – his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It’s hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women – who knows.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Jack D

    Do not underestimate the power of schmaltz.

    , @D. K.
    @Jack D

    Did Emanuel Celler draft and introduce the 1965 act so that he could get more broads, Jack? Did Organized Jewry push for two generations to get just such an act passed so that poor schlubs like you could get all the swarthy Third World babes that you desired, instead of having to put up with all of those mouthy Jewish feminists?

    The notion that the 1965 act was the handiwork of the junior senator from Massachusetts, with less than half a term of seniority (or of his older brother, the carpetbagging junior senator from New York, with only several months in elected office), is a laughable canard. Ted Kennedy merely served as the bill's floor manager, in the Senate, and made an infamous statement in support of the bill that proved infuriatingly inapt. The bill was pushed as a part of the Cold War, to ward off Soviet propaganda that the United States, as the leader of the self-styled Free World, was actually a racist dystopia with which no self-respecting Third World country ought to align itself. In the end, Congressional Republicans voted for it at an even higher rate than the Democratic majority!

    The notion that it was passed to assure the Democratic Party of ultimate one-party dominance, three generations down the road, is ludicrous. In 1965, the Democrats were overwhelmingly dominant, already. They had controlled both houses of Congress for over a decade, and would not lose either for many more years to come, with mass immigration having little to do with that domination (aside from the previous Great Wave, from the 1890s through the mid-1920s, playing out in clear favor of the Democrats, and career legislators like Emanuel Celler-- who only lost his House seat when a mouthy feminist, Elizabeth Holtzman, took it away from him, through a 1972 primary challenge). They had controlled the Executive Branch for all but eight years, since March 4, 1933-- and even the previously apolitical war hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been offered the Democratic nomination, as early as 1948, if he had wanted it! Through that dominance, they also had dominated appointments to the Judicial Branch, resulting in the groundbreaking decisions of the Warren Court.

    What no one probably could have foreseen, in 1965-- including the monomaniacal Representative Emanuel Celler (let alone the dimmest bulb turned out by old Joe Kennedy!)-- was that future Congresses would do practically nothing to ameliorate the ongoing political and social changes wrought by Emanuel Celler's handiwork, and that future presidents-- of both parties!-- would reach a point of essentially refusing even to enforce immigration law, as written, allowing millions of illegal aliens from the Third World, especially Latin America, to join the tens of millions of legal immigrants pouring into the United State, for the past half century, also mostly from the Third World. In three years of law school, and fifteen years as an attorney, I never discovered a legal provision, let alone a Constitutional Amendment, making it illegal for Congress to correct for the Universal Law of Unintended Consequences!?!

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    When I think about the 60's and immigration, there wasn't much thought given to South America/Africa/Middle East & India as far as immigration of ordinary & illiterate people to USA/EU. Europe and the USA did not want to "appear" chauvinistic in the 60's/even 70's by implying that leaders of African, Latino, Mid-East, Asian nations were horribly inept and corrupt. In the 60's Indians came, but they were largely middle class and educated; and we loved our local Indian restaurant in the states.

    In my history/sociology books in school, there was still the "Noble Savage" description of people whose fledgling "democracies"/theocracies/dictatorships in these regions, were still emerging, and, we, good people of the Western World had to be patient and cheer on their noble journey into civil society with rule-of-law. There was a subtle push to not criticize these societies for their lack of technological advancement in something as crucial as roads/sewage treatment/clean water/really basic stuff I took for granted.

    I remember hearing about the wonderful missionaries going off to all kinds of regions that had no toilets. I was sort of freaked-out looking at National Geographic with images of naked people, people with bad teeth, the casual slaughter of animals (my early awakening to my obsession with animals suffering at the hands of humans).

    Then, with the information age, decades later, suddenly things like the Rwandan hacking to death of people from a different tribe, the torture of villagers/barbaric practices of the drug buiz in S. America, the ongoing battles-to-the-death of the Shiite and Sunni tribes, the murderous rivalry between India & Pakistan, became reality... left out East Asia...oh, yeah, Tianenman Square, and stuff like that.

    So, now, the irony is, many of the refugees from A & ME/Migrants in EU/illegal aliens, are coming from countries and cultures that have improved very little since I was a kid in school. And, my fear: they are like the Iraqi men who showed up in Finland last year and said, in broken Finnish, "give us the money."

    The Roman Empire fell apart because outsiders just overwhelmed the Ruling Class. This is why I am so mystified over this obsession to bring in tons of low/no skilled people: sooner or later they realize who controls the country, and they will destroy the elite. By then, the middle class/upper middle will be so cratered that the elite are going to get the Darwinian outcome they hadn't thought about. It's unbelievable that "controllers of the narrative" think that low-wage peasants will provide food and water for nothing; by then, I'll be long gone, as will my children. OK, enough of my apocalyptic, bizarro thoughts!

    I will add: Trump needs to hammer how Immigration (his main platform that sprung him to victory over the others) is the root of the decline of the USA; at least, the British ushered in Brexit. Immigration/Migrants are causing an existential crisis in EU; and, it is trickling-down to the USA (in addition to things like Unaccompanied Minors & Illegals from South of the Border).

    The festering wars between Sunni & Shia lead to the Migrant Crisis; to the jihadis in our midst/bombings and kills by Muslims here; to the quality of life being destroyed for the Middle Class in USA by capital chasing the cheapest labor. Illiterate/marginally educated immigrants, illegal or not, bring down the wages of our poorest people. So, Immigration, Immigration, Immigration, is at the root of all the problems the American people face today.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid, all sex talk/women talk/accusations. Pivot. Nobody, especially me, wants to hear that crap anymore. International and National issues must be the priority.

    This is not a time, anymore, to talk about "deals; personal accomplishments." This debate can not be about wounded pride and retaliation. Even the "rigged election message" may be turned against Trump using tricky semantics. It is about Immigration: it has degraded the economies of EU & USA; tax burden is huge for ordinary people; stupid unwinnable wars have created refugees by the millions; and, taunting Putin is a lost cause....China is loving the stupidity and craven self-absorption of DC...it just is only about money, isn't it? The "what in it for me and mine?"

    People want prosperity, safety, purpose and peace. Sometimes, you just can't help everyone who does not take personal responsibility for themselves and their children. Life has become expensive, anxiety-filled, and exhausting for ordinary folks in this country. In my opinion, this has lead to the staggering deaths from heroin use by young people, primarily. It is indeed, an ominous time in this country's history if young people know that life is not worth it.

    Replies: @Lagertha, @Swing stater

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    It’s hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women – who knows.
     
    And all he asked for in return was a glass-bottomed boat.
    So he could see his old girlfriends.
  19. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind. I find it hard to believe a large number of people could be that coldly cynical but maybe I am naive.

    The Clintons on the other hand….

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Thea

    Thea, I believe they work for the benefit of themselves, and if there is any residual good , they claim that to be their original purpose.

    , @ben tillman
    @Thea


    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind.
     
    Was John Kennedy a leftist? Why did things change so radically only after he was assassinated?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Brutusale
    @Thea

    The Kennedys worked only for themselves.

  20. Mike Enoch over at The Daily Shoah argues that the importation of millions of bloc-voting foreigners against the wishes of a nation’s citizens is election-rigging writ large, and that elections conducted under these circumstances are de facto illegitimate.

    This is a powerful rhetorical argument: What is the democratic rationale for allowing one party to goose its constituency by importing mass numbers of ringers? How is this not a subversion of popular government?

  21. Demographic changes brought on by unchecked mass immigration has the biggest effect on the electorate because it is literally changing the electorate, but recent events show there are other ways one can say the system is “rigged.” From Wikileaks we have multiple instances of proof that there is wide scale collusion between mainstream media outlets and Democrat campaigns. From O’Keefe we have proof the DNC and White House are closely aligned with left wing groups who are quite familiar with how to commit voter fraud and rationalize sending mentally ill liberals to stir up Trump supporters because to them winning this election is more important than adhering to any transcendent legal or ethical principles. From recent investigations of state voter rolls, dead and ineligible voters have not been removed (and many have been discovered to have votes posthumously). The felon vote in MN was enough to give the Senate seat to Franken over Coleman.

    The problem with speaking about things being “rigged” or about “corruption” is that these words are too vague. We have specific instances now of a corrupt, rigged system. They need to be cited.

  22. Of course, I made that last comment before reading Steve’s article at Taki’s, which makes the exact same point as Enoch.

  23. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    If you subscribe to the theory that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” then look no further than to his son Patrick “Patches” Kennedy to support the position that, yes, he really was that stupid.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Coemgen

    I knew a guy who went to prep school with Patrick Kennedy. He said that he was "dumber than a box of rocks". This guy was a super-liberal Democrat too.

  24. “Is *America* to be a colony of the world?”

    Apparently the whole of the West – Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – are to be colonies of the world.

    The fact is that California has proved in rather dramatic fashion that you can’t have conservatism in a state where whites have been overwhelmed by immigration, yet the Bush family and their allies go on pushing for mass immigration. Which just goes to show you that a conservative country is in no way part of their agenda.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wilkey


    The fact is that California has proved in rather dramatic fashion that you can’t have conservatism in a state where whites have been overwhelmed by immigration, yet the Bush family and their allies go on pushing for mass immigration. Which just goes to show you that a conservative country is in no way part of their agenda.
     
    You're making the mistake of thinking that the Republican Party has some connection with conservatism. A common error.

    Replies: @cynthia curran

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Britain’s New Labour administration of 1997-2010 attempted the same ‘demographic coup’, only they got too cocky and arrogant, overplayed their hand, and as ever, hubris got the better of them.
    Basically, their whole notion of importing political dominance involved the assumption that the ‘working-class’ English would stay on board, because as that arch-serpent, Peter Mandelson, put it in, in classical Marie Antoinette terms ‘…they’ve got no where else to go’.
    The model, of course, rested on the assumption that a viable insurgency party lead by a charismatic and commanding leader could never emerge under the two-party dissent stifling stitch-up that is British politics.
    But, alas, UKIP only won one single seat, but like the fabled butterfly’s wing, they injected chaos into a dynamically stable system, causing UK parliamentary representation to be leveraged toward the UKIP point of view.

  26. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    The 1965 Immigration Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was pretty much the baby of Congressman Emanual Celler, who had his own, racial/ethnic reasons for doing what he did to our country. He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause."

    From that point of view, there are no side-effects.

    , @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That couldn't have been the reason. By the time the Act was passed, most of the Jews of Europe had been reduced to ashes and were no longer in need of immigration. By the time he opened the barn door, the horses were not only gone, they were dead.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.
     
    It's because Sailer's a Jewish ass-kisser.
  27. @Jack D
    @Altai

    That couldn't have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn't need more Irish in Mass - his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It's hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women - who knows.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @D. K., @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    Do not underestimate the power of schmaltz.

  28. @Jack D
    Lots of good stuff in the NY Times today:

    1. Yes, Ford Is Building Plants in Mexico. No, It’s Not Cutting U.S. Jobs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/yes-ford-is-building-plants-in-mexico-no-its-not-cutting-us-jobs.html?

    Ford is moving all its small car production to Mexico. Mexican per capita auto industry employment is much higher than the US - 675,000 auto workers in Mexico (pop 120M), 900,000 in the US, (pop 320M). Nine of the last 11 auto factories built in North America have been in Mexico. But this is a good thing (somehow).


    Rather than a frenzied Nafta-driven flight to the bottom of the labor market, in other words, Ford’s retooling of its Wayne factory is more a nuanced reflection of the industry’s desire to keep pace with growing demand for high-profit trucks and S.U.V.s, while continuing to produce less expensive car models at lower costs with the cheaper wages paid in Mexico.

    Ford’s Wayne factory signifies the reality of the marketplace. Simply put, Detroit cannot make money producing small cars in the United States, where an established union worker — not counting entry-level employees — might earn about $29 an hour, more than triple the wages of a Mexican employee.
     

    The above was in the official NYT reportorial voice - not "Ford spokesman says". I don't recall the NYTimes being so sympathetic to the profit needs of Fortune 500 companies in the past. I thought it was Democrat dogma that American workers were underpaid, not overpaid.
    DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG. That's the actual subtext of the story.

    2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/18/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html?

    See the graph - immigrants AS A PERCENTAGE heading for highs never before seen in all of US history. This is bad enough, but if they showed raw numbers instead of percentages, it would be much, much worse.

    3. Lots of other stuff - "Trump's Call to Monitor Polls Raises Fears of Intimidation", "Ex-General, Guiding Trump, Offers Angry Voice of Authority", Ecuador cuts Assange's internet so he can't interfere in the coronation of Hillary, 5th generation of Sulzberger named deputy publisher, lots of good stuff today.

    Replies: @Lagertha, @res

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years…it’s hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? – the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need…. was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America…and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Lagertha

    If you want a good made-in-America car, buy a Honda or a Toyota (you can check whether its made in America or overseas from the VIN). Japanese car companies seem to have more faith in and loyalty to the American worker than any of the American manufacturers do.

    , @Jack D
    @Lagertha

    I have seen Japanese cars with 99% Japanese content (not sure what the 1% is) but I think modern American cars peak out at around 75% - some of the parts suppliers have completely moved their operations to Mexico or China and you couldn't buy a US part even if you wanted to.

    http://www.motortrend.com/news/15-trucks-suvs-vans-with-most-north-american-made-parts/

    Some of the highest US content vehicles are by Honda and Toyota.

    Keep in mind that Jeep is owned by Fiat now, so there's not much difference between buying a Jeep and buying a Honda Pilot - the manufacturing is done (mostly) here but the profits get sent overseas. I think the quality on the Japanese marques (even from their US factories) is much higher than Jeep.

    , @ATate
    @Lagertha

    Here's a good analysis of vehicle production: 2016 Kogod Made in America Auto Index

    http://kogodbusiness.com/reports/auto-index/

    You can see that the highest domestic content for many vehicles tops out at 90%. Interesting to note that both the Camry and Accord are ranked higher than the Tesla.

    , @Ivy
    @Lagertha

    If you buy a Jeep, be sure to have a spare vehicle to use when the Jeep is in the shop. They continue to rank toward the bottom in reliability.

    Replies: @Lagertha

  29. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    I find it more likely that Kennedy thought it would get him campaign support and contributions for the Kennedy family (both himself and his brother) from those people who wanted Hart-Cellar passed.

  30. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years...it's hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? - the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need.... was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America...and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @ATate, @Ivy

    If you want a good made-in-America car, buy a Honda or a Toyota (you can check whether its made in America or overseas from the VIN). Japanese car companies seem to have more faith in and loyalty to the American worker than any of the American manufacturers do.

  31. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Altai

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    The 1965 Immigration Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was pretty much the baby of Congressman Emanual Celler, who had his own, racial/ethnic reasons for doing what he did to our country. He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    “He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.”

    From that point of view, there are no side-effects.

  32. L Woods says:
    @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    That inane platitude is another thing the left constantly repeats without considering the implications. If immigration is the equivalant of European displacement of the Indian, it would very obviously be the height of madness to replicate their downfall. Not to mention that “Native Americans” were by and large not really any more “native” than the Europeans that succeeded them.

  33. @Rob McX
    This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It's not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next...nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we're ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Mr. Anon, @Whiskey, @Mack Bolan, @Corvinus

    Agreed.

  34. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Altai

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    The 1965 Immigration Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was pretty much the baby of Congressman Emanual Celler, who had his own, racial/ethnic reasons for doing what he did to our country. He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    That couldn’t have been the reason. By the time the Act was passed, most of the Jews of Europe had been reduced to ashes and were no longer in need of immigration. By the time he opened the barn door, the horses were not only gone, they were dead.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    You're thinking too narrowly.

    First of all, Celler began his quest before what you say happened. Most of us know what it's like to finish a project only too long after its original purpose has faded away.

    Second, it is too narrow to think only that a man like Celler would see only one group as his preferential alternative to the majority for which he, perhaps, had little fondness. It's either that or a misguided idealism like the one that drives today's SJWs to ruin our country.

    Whatever! The result is a disaster, and he is its father.

    BTW, I've known a hell of a lot of Jewish Americans who came over after 1965. Good people, but their presence kind of makes your point moot.

    Replies: @Jack D

  35. Steve has a talent for dry humor, and I think he must be joking here when he writes this:

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.

    He knows this was the Hart-Celler Act, the lifetime achievement of Congressman Emanuel Celler, its father. Our changing demographics since, from two-hundred million mostly white, Christian Americans to the present polyglot flush of over THREE-HUNDRED MILLION “diverse” identity voting blocks, are Celler’s legacy.

    He also knows that Ted Kennedy cared more about how much Whiskey came over from Ireland than anything else. Ted’s Irish-American votes were already legion and assured.

  36. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That couldn't have been the reason. By the time the Act was passed, most of the Jews of Europe had been reduced to ashes and were no longer in need of immigration. By the time he opened the barn door, the horses were not only gone, they were dead.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    You’re thinking too narrowly.

    First of all, Celler began his quest before what you say happened. Most of us know what it’s like to finish a project only too long after its original purpose has faded away.

    Second, it is too narrow to think only that a man like Celler would see only one group as his preferential alternative to the majority for which he, perhaps, had little fondness. It’s either that or a misguided idealism like the one that drives today’s SJWs to ruin our country.

    Whatever! The result is a disaster, and he is its father.

    BTW, I’ve known a hell of a lot of Jewish Americans who came over after 1965. Good people, but their presence kind of makes your point moot.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

  37. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years...it's hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? - the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need.... was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America...and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @ATate, @Ivy

    I have seen Japanese cars with 99% Japanese content (not sure what the 1% is) but I think modern American cars peak out at around 75% – some of the parts suppliers have completely moved their operations to Mexico or China and you couldn’t buy a US part even if you wanted to.

    http://www.motortrend.com/news/15-trucks-suvs-vans-with-most-north-american-made-parts/

    Some of the highest US content vehicles are by Honda and Toyota.

    Keep in mind that Jeep is owned by Fiat now, so there’s not much difference between buying a Jeep and buying a Honda Pilot – the manufacturing is done (mostly) here but the profits get sent overseas. I think the quality on the Japanese marques (even from their US factories) is much higher than Jeep.

  38. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years...it's hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? - the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need.... was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America...and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @ATate, @Ivy

    Here’s a good analysis of vehicle production: 2016 Kogod Made in America Auto Index

    http://kogodbusiness.com/reports/auto-index/

    You can see that the highest domestic content for many vehicles tops out at 90%. Interesting to note that both the Camry and Accord are ranked higher than the Tesla.

  39. @Rob McX
    This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It's not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next...nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we're ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Mr. Anon, @Whiskey, @Mack Bolan, @Corvinus

    This is because a majority of White people hate hate hate the compromises, the culture, the needs of prosperity and modernity coupled with the Third World being well aware that their people and cultures are miserable failures and there will be no improvement ever in the lives of ordinary people.

    ONLY non-feminized White nations resist mass Third World immigration — Switzerland that gave women the right to vote in 1971, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. Sweden, Feminist Ground Zero, is also the Ground Zero of Mass Third World Immigration.

    For White Women, mass third world immigration is only a plus. They get Islam, which they love (Alpha males shared, no body competition i.e. burquas for fatties which most are). They get to drown Beta White Males in a sea of low IQ, high aggression non-White males, getting rid of the endless technology upgrades which they loathe like Donald Trump. They get to ride the gravy train of Affirmative Action, and see themselves as Emma Stone in “the Help” as noble SJW types.

    Modern, prosperous Western life requires male cooperation, constant advances in productivity which means massive technological change driving social change, and above all making ordinary smart White guys the center of society not its margins. Which women HATE HATE HATE like baseball statistics, the Linux Operating System, and HBD.

    There is no chance, zero zilch nada, of turning that back until the role of White women is addressed. The fundamental problem is that the pill, condom, anonymous urban living to quote Roissy, has led women to have little to no genetic investment (early childbearing and marriage) in society and little self-interest aligned with their male peers. That is unlikely to change so the only solution is to make women afraid of crossing White male interests, more afraid than of crossing Muslim, Black, Hispanic interests etc. As a general rule anyway it is far better to be feared than loved.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @Whiskey

    Mass third world immigration will make ‘ordinary smart White guys’ the top of society.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @L Woods

  40. @Jack D
    @Altai

    That couldn't have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn't need more Irish in Mass - his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It's hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women - who knows.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @D. K., @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    Did Emanuel Celler draft and introduce the 1965 act so that he could get more broads, Jack? Did Organized Jewry push for two generations to get just such an act passed so that poor schlubs like you could get all the swarthy Third World babes that you desired, instead of having to put up with all of those mouthy Jewish feminists?

    The notion that the 1965 act was the handiwork of the junior senator from Massachusetts, with less than half a term of seniority (or of his older brother, the carpetbagging junior senator from New York, with only several months in elected office), is a laughable canard. Ted Kennedy merely served as the bill’s floor manager, in the Senate, and made an infamous statement in support of the bill that proved infuriatingly inapt. The bill was pushed as a part of the Cold War, to ward off Soviet propaganda that the United States, as the leader of the self-styled Free World, was actually a racist dystopia with which no self-respecting Third World country ought to align itself. In the end, Congressional Republicans voted for it at an even higher rate than the Democratic majority!

    The notion that it was passed to assure the Democratic Party of ultimate one-party dominance, three generations down the road, is ludicrous. In 1965, the Democrats were overwhelmingly dominant, already. They had controlled both houses of Congress for over a decade, and would not lose either for many more years to come, with mass immigration having little to do with that domination (aside from the previous Great Wave, from the 1890s through the mid-1920s, playing out in clear favor of the Democrats, and career legislators like Emanuel Celler– who only lost his House seat when a mouthy feminist, Elizabeth Holtzman, took it away from him, through a 1972 primary challenge). They had controlled the Executive Branch for all but eight years, since March 4, 1933– and even the previously apolitical war hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been offered the Democratic nomination, as early as 1948, if he had wanted it! Through that dominance, they also had dominated appointments to the Judicial Branch, resulting in the groundbreaking decisions of the Warren Court.

    What no one probably could have foreseen, in 1965– including the monomaniacal Representative Emanuel Celler (let alone the dimmest bulb turned out by old Joe Kennedy!)– was that future Congresses would do practically nothing to ameliorate the ongoing political and social changes wrought by Emanuel Celler’s handiwork, and that future presidents– of both parties!– would reach a point of essentially refusing even to enforce immigration law, as written, allowing millions of illegal aliens from the Third World, especially Latin America, to join the tens of millions of legal immigrants pouring into the United State, for the past half century, also mostly from the Third World. In three years of law school, and fifteen years as an attorney, I never discovered a legal provision, let alone a Constitutional Amendment, making it illegal for Congress to correct for the Universal Law of Unintended Consequences!?!

    • Agree: Coemgen, Coemgen, Clyde, Clyde
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @D. K.

    Did Emanuel Celler draft and introduce the 1965 act so that he could get more broads?

    Celler was born in 1888 so by '65 his broad chasing days were probably over. Even Bill Clinton doesn't get around as much as he used to anymore.

    You are right that it had nothing to do with skirt chasing by either Ted or Celler and a lot to do with the climate of the Cold War. From the perspective of 2016, we forget how much the Cold War colored most of our actions in those days.

  41. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D

    You're thinking too narrowly.

    First of all, Celler began his quest before what you say happened. Most of us know what it's like to finish a project only too long after its original purpose has faded away.

    Second, it is too narrow to think only that a man like Celler would see only one group as his preferential alternative to the majority for which he, perhaps, had little fondness. It's either that or a misguided idealism like the one that drives today's SJWs to ruin our country.

    Whatever! The result is a disaster, and he is its father.

    BTW, I've known a hell of a lot of Jewish Americans who came over after 1965. Good people, but their presence kind of makes your point moot.

    Replies: @Jack D

    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America’s best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post ’65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US – better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the ’70s – in ’65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D


    ...American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America...
     
    I agree with you there.

    My grandfather from San Francisco was an Ashkenazi who fought in WWI.

    But he didn't open the doors to a world of people who do not belong in America.

    , @D. K.
    @Jack D

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/was-the-1924-immigration-cut-off-racist

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/norbert-schlei-guilty-of-malice-aforethought-in-americas-immigration-disaster

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @peterike
    @Jack D


    American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America,

     

    This was certainly true for a segment of the Jewish population in America. But it's hardly a true blanket statement. If this were the case, then why was the Communist movement in America all along a hotbed of Jews? Were the Rosenbergs "patriotic Americans"? Why were academic Jews spreading Frankfurt School poison? Why were Hollywood Jews pushing depravity from the moment the Hayes Code ended?

    Hell, you could go back to the creation of the Federal Reserve to see high-level Jewish machinations in American politics, along with being largely responsible for getting America into WWI. On and on it goes.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Jack D



    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans.

     

    He didn't seem to be very fond of Republican anti-communists, whom he called "reactionaries". He also really didn't like McCarthyism.

    Edward Celler, speech at the Democratic National Convention (1952):


    ... We pledge to fight the dark and reactionary forces high in the counsels of the Republican Party which have made political capital out of the techniques of character assassination by innuendo and who have adopted the dishonoring and dishonorable concept of guilt by association.
    ...
    Let's name the evil which has called this plank forth, an evil recognizable to every mature mind. It has a name - McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate the width and the depth of the fear blanketing this country because of McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate how many people, both within the Democratic and Republican Parties and the 'independents,' are crying out for leadership to cut out this cancer. Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government. It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend, and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack. I have no wish to indulge in histrionics, but I do know that McCarthyism represents a danger in this country we dare not ignore. I say it is a cold hand creeping over our vitals. The fact that the author of McCarthyism was given the distinction of addressing the Republican National Convention strikes terror in the hearts of honest men. Many who have flirted with the idea of voting the Republican ticket have turned away from that ticket because of the acceptance by the Republican Party of McCarthy and McCarthyism.

     

    Replies: @guest, @Jack D

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Jack D

    "It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans."

    So? I want to insult his memory. Let his memory be insulted. He didn't do me or my kind any good. He had the arrogance to presume that the historical majority of my country - my people - had no right to be a majority in the country they had founded. And he labored unceasingly for forty years to make it happen. I really don't care what motivated him.

    He also authored the bill that became the 1968 federal gun control act. Another patriotic deed?

    His legislative career seemed to consist mostly of transforming the country into some other kind of country, more to his liking and that of his group. Why should I find that in any way laudable?

    Your arguments on this matter are transparently informed by ethnic self-interest. You're not fooling anyone, youself included, I suspect.

  42. @Jack D
    @Altai

    That couldn't have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn't need more Irish in Mass - his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It's hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women - who knows.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @D. K., @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    When I think about the 60’s and immigration, there wasn’t much thought given to South America/Africa/Middle East & India as far as immigration of ordinary & illiterate people to USA/EU. Europe and the USA did not want to “appear” chauvinistic in the 60’s/even 70’s by implying that leaders of African, Latino, Mid-East, Asian nations were horribly inept and corrupt. In the 60’s Indians came, but they were largely middle class and educated; and we loved our local Indian restaurant in the states.

    In my history/sociology books in school, there was still the “Noble Savage” description of people whose fledgling “democracies”/theocracies/dictatorships in these regions, were still emerging, and, we, good people of the Western World had to be patient and cheer on their noble journey into civil society with rule-of-law. There was a subtle push to not criticize these societies for their lack of technological advancement in something as crucial as roads/sewage treatment/clean water/really basic stuff I took for granted.

    I remember hearing about the wonderful missionaries going off to all kinds of regions that had no toilets. I was sort of freaked-out looking at National Geographic with images of naked people, people with bad teeth, the casual slaughter of animals (my early awakening to my obsession with animals suffering at the hands of humans).

    Then, with the information age, decades later, suddenly things like the Rwandan hacking to death of people from a different tribe, the torture of villagers/barbaric practices of the drug buiz in S. America, the ongoing battles-to-the-death of the Shiite and Sunni tribes, the murderous rivalry between India & Pakistan, became reality… left out East Asia…oh, yeah, Tianenman Square, and stuff like that.

    So, now, the irony is, many of the refugees from A & ME/Migrants in EU/illegal aliens, are coming from countries and cultures that have improved very little since I was a kid in school. And, my fear: they are like the Iraqi men who showed up in Finland last year and said, in broken Finnish, “give us the money.”

    The Roman Empire fell apart because outsiders just overwhelmed the Ruling Class. This is why I am so mystified over this obsession to bring in tons of low/no skilled people: sooner or later they realize who controls the country, and they will destroy the elite. By then, the middle class/upper middle will be so cratered that the elite are going to get the Darwinian outcome they hadn’t thought about. It’s unbelievable that “controllers of the narrative” think that low-wage peasants will provide food and water for nothing; by then, I’ll be long gone, as will my children. OK, enough of my apocalyptic, bizarro thoughts!

    I will add: Trump needs to hammer how Immigration (his main platform that sprung him to victory over the others) is the root of the decline of the USA; at least, the British ushered in Brexit. Immigration/Migrants are causing an existential crisis in EU; and, it is trickling-down to the USA (in addition to things like Unaccompanied Minors & Illegals from South of the Border).

    The festering wars between Sunni & Shia lead to the Migrant Crisis; to the jihadis in our midst/bombings and kills by Muslims here; to the quality of life being destroyed for the Middle Class in USA by capital chasing the cheapest labor. Illiterate/marginally educated immigrants, illegal or not, bring down the wages of our poorest people. So, Immigration, Immigration, Immigration, is at the root of all the problems the American people face today.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid, all sex talk/women talk/accusations. Pivot. Nobody, especially me, wants to hear that crap anymore. International and National issues must be the priority.

    This is not a time, anymore, to talk about “deals; personal accomplishments.” This debate can not be about wounded pride and retaliation. Even the “rigged election message” may be turned against Trump using tricky semantics. It is about Immigration: it has degraded the economies of EU & USA; tax burden is huge for ordinary people; stupid unwinnable wars have created refugees by the millions; and, taunting Putin is a lost cause….China is loving the stupidity and craven self-absorption of DC…it just is only about money, isn’t it? The “what in it for me and mine?”

    People want prosperity, safety, purpose and peace. Sometimes, you just can’t help everyone who does not take personal responsibility for themselves and their children. Life has become expensive, anxiety-filled, and exhausting for ordinary folks in this country. In my opinion, this has lead to the staggering deaths from heroin use by young people, primarily. It is indeed, an ominous time in this country’s history if young people know that life is not worth it.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Lagertha

    Oh, needed to add that in the early 70' ( when Israeli athletes were killed and thrown over the balcony at the Olympic Village in Munich) I first realized that Israel has been in this conflict with Muslims, and continues to be, with no end in sight. And, as much as everyone hopes there is a solution, I don't see one. All they can really do is: hunker down, keep their "great wall," technology, and nukes. Irony: the US taxpayers are funding a "beautiful, great wall," at the border of Jordan to keep ISIS out!

    But, the never-ending tension of Israel's situation is troubling. And, if the US electorate becomes made-up of 80% minorities of disparate cultures/tribal inclinations/religions, at some tipping point, they will not want the US Govt to support Israel anymore. The tipping point may come with immigrants who feel no connection to Israel, and say, "no. you, American government, give us the money, no more to other countries." I know, sounds crazy, but I ruminate about a lot of stuff since I spend a lot of time alone.

    , @Swing stater
    @Lagertha

    I disagree. Trump supporters already agree that immigration is THE issue. More immigration talk will only help mobilize the anti-Trump voters.

    I don't think he can get any more PRO-TRUMP votes. Instead he should focus on getting more ANTI-HILLARY votes by convincing people that Hillary is the GREATER of the 2 evils. Even if they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump maybe they'll refrain from voting for Hillary (stay home? vote 3rd party?)

    Focus on what Wikileaks has on her...

    Hillary "foundation" accepting $$$$$ from foreign governments/banks WHILE serving as Secretary of State??? Bill's $1M birthday present from Qatar while it funds ISIS?

    Replies: @Lagertha

  43. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Altai

    That couldn't have been it. The 65 Act ended the bias toward Euro immigrants so if anything fewer Irish (as a % of total immigration) would come in. He didn't need more Irish in Mass - his seat was safe. If he was looking toward the Presidency, this would have been a very long game and even if the entire population of Ireland moved to the US (which was never in the cards) it would not have been enough to change the outcome of national elections.

    It's hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women - who knows.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @D. K., @Lagertha, @Anonymous

    It’s hard to attribute grand motives to someone with a pea-sized, alcohol fogged brain like Teddy. Maybe he thought more immigrants would give him more opportunities to hit on women – who knows.

    And all he asked for in return was a glass-bottomed boat.
    So he could see his old girlfriends.

    • LOL: Jim Don Bob
  44. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Altai

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    The 1965 Immigration Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was pretty much the baby of Congressman Emanual Celler, who had his own, racial/ethnic reasons for doing what he did to our country. He fought for decades to open our immigration to the people HE cared about, regardless of the side effects it might cause.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    Agreed.

    I am surprised Steve would throw this canard into his article.

    It’s because Sailer’s a Jewish ass-kisser.

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hey Steve get off your ass and get a real job. Here’s a new Fed job that might interest you:

    https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/449204300/

    Voting Rights Observer

    Job Overview
    Summary
    The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, ensures that no citizen’s right to vote is abridged or denied due to race, color, or language minority group status. The Act gives the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) responsibility for providing Federal Observers to monitor the election process in areas designated by the U.S. Attorney General.

    For additional information, please see
    http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/oversight-activities/voting-rights/
    and
    http://http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/examine/activ_exam.php

    OPM particularly needs observers who can speak, understand, and translate the minority languages covered under the Voting Rights Act (i.e., the languages of persons who are Asian American, Native American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage), with strong writing skills (in English).

    We are looking for applicants who can speak, read, understand, and translate into English, one of the following languages:

    Cantonese Chinese
    Mandarin Chinese
    Spanish
    Tagalog
    Vietnamese
    Yup’ik
    Gwich’in
    Applicants will be required to undergo a separate language assessment interview.

    Please note: Any applicant appointed as a Federal Voting Rights Observer does not acquire personal competitive status on the basis of this appointment.

    Duties
    As a Voting Rights Observer, you will be responsible for monitoring and accurately reporting all election activities in polling places, which include poll procedures, voter assistance, and vote tallying. Other duties include, but are not limited to, conducting interviews to gather information, documenting observations, writing and editing detailed reports of daily events, and maintaining impartiality during elections.

    View Occupational Questionnaire
    Travel Required
    75% or Greater
    Travel to various polling sites
    Relocation Authorized
    No

  46. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    …American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America…

    I agree with you there.

    My grandfather from San Francisco was an Ashkenazi who fought in WWI.

    But he didn’t open the doors to a world of people who do not belong in America.

  47. @D. K.
    @Jack D

    Did Emanuel Celler draft and introduce the 1965 act so that he could get more broads, Jack? Did Organized Jewry push for two generations to get just such an act passed so that poor schlubs like you could get all the swarthy Third World babes that you desired, instead of having to put up with all of those mouthy Jewish feminists?

    The notion that the 1965 act was the handiwork of the junior senator from Massachusetts, with less than half a term of seniority (or of his older brother, the carpetbagging junior senator from New York, with only several months in elected office), is a laughable canard. Ted Kennedy merely served as the bill's floor manager, in the Senate, and made an infamous statement in support of the bill that proved infuriatingly inapt. The bill was pushed as a part of the Cold War, to ward off Soviet propaganda that the United States, as the leader of the self-styled Free World, was actually a racist dystopia with which no self-respecting Third World country ought to align itself. In the end, Congressional Republicans voted for it at an even higher rate than the Democratic majority!

    The notion that it was passed to assure the Democratic Party of ultimate one-party dominance, three generations down the road, is ludicrous. In 1965, the Democrats were overwhelmingly dominant, already. They had controlled both houses of Congress for over a decade, and would not lose either for many more years to come, with mass immigration having little to do with that domination (aside from the previous Great Wave, from the 1890s through the mid-1920s, playing out in clear favor of the Democrats, and career legislators like Emanuel Celler-- who only lost his House seat when a mouthy feminist, Elizabeth Holtzman, took it away from him, through a 1972 primary challenge). They had controlled the Executive Branch for all but eight years, since March 4, 1933-- and even the previously apolitical war hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been offered the Democratic nomination, as early as 1948, if he had wanted it! Through that dominance, they also had dominated appointments to the Judicial Branch, resulting in the groundbreaking decisions of the Warren Court.

    What no one probably could have foreseen, in 1965-- including the monomaniacal Representative Emanuel Celler (let alone the dimmest bulb turned out by old Joe Kennedy!)-- was that future Congresses would do practically nothing to ameliorate the ongoing political and social changes wrought by Emanuel Celler's handiwork, and that future presidents-- of both parties!-- would reach a point of essentially refusing even to enforce immigration law, as written, allowing millions of illegal aliens from the Third World, especially Latin America, to join the tens of millions of legal immigrants pouring into the United State, for the past half century, also mostly from the Third World. In three years of law school, and fifteen years as an attorney, I never discovered a legal provision, let alone a Constitutional Amendment, making it illegal for Congress to correct for the Universal Law of Unintended Consequences!?!

    Replies: @Jack D

    Did Emanuel Celler draft and introduce the 1965 act so that he could get more broads?

    Celler was born in 1888 so by ’65 his broad chasing days were probably over. Even Bill Clinton doesn’t get around as much as he used to anymore.

    You are right that it had nothing to do with skirt chasing by either Ted or Celler and a lot to do with the climate of the Cold War. From the perspective of 2016, we forget how much the Cold War colored most of our actions in those days.

  48. I have a friend who is down in Mexico right now working on the construction of an auto parts plant. He was back for Canadian Thanksgiving and came by the house to share stories. He thinks it is difficult for Trump to gain traction criticizing NAFTA because manufacturing is so far off the radar screen for most Americans. If Americans could see the quality and quantity of new plant and equipment in Mexico they would realize the extent to which their dear leaders have sold them out to corporate donor interests and their heads would explode.

  49. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    When I think about the 60's and immigration, there wasn't much thought given to South America/Africa/Middle East & India as far as immigration of ordinary & illiterate people to USA/EU. Europe and the USA did not want to "appear" chauvinistic in the 60's/even 70's by implying that leaders of African, Latino, Mid-East, Asian nations were horribly inept and corrupt. In the 60's Indians came, but they were largely middle class and educated; and we loved our local Indian restaurant in the states.

    In my history/sociology books in school, there was still the "Noble Savage" description of people whose fledgling "democracies"/theocracies/dictatorships in these regions, were still emerging, and, we, good people of the Western World had to be patient and cheer on their noble journey into civil society with rule-of-law. There was a subtle push to not criticize these societies for their lack of technological advancement in something as crucial as roads/sewage treatment/clean water/really basic stuff I took for granted.

    I remember hearing about the wonderful missionaries going off to all kinds of regions that had no toilets. I was sort of freaked-out looking at National Geographic with images of naked people, people with bad teeth, the casual slaughter of animals (my early awakening to my obsession with animals suffering at the hands of humans).

    Then, with the information age, decades later, suddenly things like the Rwandan hacking to death of people from a different tribe, the torture of villagers/barbaric practices of the drug buiz in S. America, the ongoing battles-to-the-death of the Shiite and Sunni tribes, the murderous rivalry between India & Pakistan, became reality... left out East Asia...oh, yeah, Tianenman Square, and stuff like that.

    So, now, the irony is, many of the refugees from A & ME/Migrants in EU/illegal aliens, are coming from countries and cultures that have improved very little since I was a kid in school. And, my fear: they are like the Iraqi men who showed up in Finland last year and said, in broken Finnish, "give us the money."

    The Roman Empire fell apart because outsiders just overwhelmed the Ruling Class. This is why I am so mystified over this obsession to bring in tons of low/no skilled people: sooner or later they realize who controls the country, and they will destroy the elite. By then, the middle class/upper middle will be so cratered that the elite are going to get the Darwinian outcome they hadn't thought about. It's unbelievable that "controllers of the narrative" think that low-wage peasants will provide food and water for nothing; by then, I'll be long gone, as will my children. OK, enough of my apocalyptic, bizarro thoughts!

    I will add: Trump needs to hammer how Immigration (his main platform that sprung him to victory over the others) is the root of the decline of the USA; at least, the British ushered in Brexit. Immigration/Migrants are causing an existential crisis in EU; and, it is trickling-down to the USA (in addition to things like Unaccompanied Minors & Illegals from South of the Border).

    The festering wars between Sunni & Shia lead to the Migrant Crisis; to the jihadis in our midst/bombings and kills by Muslims here; to the quality of life being destroyed for the Middle Class in USA by capital chasing the cheapest labor. Illiterate/marginally educated immigrants, illegal or not, bring down the wages of our poorest people. So, Immigration, Immigration, Immigration, is at the root of all the problems the American people face today.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid, all sex talk/women talk/accusations. Pivot. Nobody, especially me, wants to hear that crap anymore. International and National issues must be the priority.

    This is not a time, anymore, to talk about "deals; personal accomplishments." This debate can not be about wounded pride and retaliation. Even the "rigged election message" may be turned against Trump using tricky semantics. It is about Immigration: it has degraded the economies of EU & USA; tax burden is huge for ordinary people; stupid unwinnable wars have created refugees by the millions; and, taunting Putin is a lost cause....China is loving the stupidity and craven self-absorption of DC...it just is only about money, isn't it? The "what in it for me and mine?"

    People want prosperity, safety, purpose and peace. Sometimes, you just can't help everyone who does not take personal responsibility for themselves and their children. Life has become expensive, anxiety-filled, and exhausting for ordinary folks in this country. In my opinion, this has lead to the staggering deaths from heroin use by young people, primarily. It is indeed, an ominous time in this country's history if young people know that life is not worth it.

    Replies: @Lagertha, @Swing stater

    Oh, needed to add that in the early 70′ ( when Israeli athletes were killed and thrown over the balcony at the Olympic Village in Munich) I first realized that Israel has been in this conflict with Muslims, and continues to be, with no end in sight. And, as much as everyone hopes there is a solution, I don’t see one. All they can really do is: hunker down, keep their “great wall,” technology, and nukes. Irony: the US taxpayers are funding a “beautiful, great wall,” at the border of Jordan to keep ISIS out!

    But, the never-ending tension of Israel’s situation is troubling. And, if the US electorate becomes made-up of 80% minorities of disparate cultures/tribal inclinations/religions, at some tipping point, they will not want the US Govt to support Israel anymore. The tipping point may come with immigrants who feel no connection to Israel, and say, “no. you, American government, give us the money, no more to other countries.” I know, sounds crazy, but I ruminate about a lot of stuff since I spend a lot of time alone.

  50. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @D. K.

    There is no doubt that when Jewish organizations opposed the immigration cutoff in 1924, they had in mind that it would cut off further Jewish immigration. But by '65, this could not have been their motive.

    In '24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased, would never integrate into American society, etc. and they turned out to be mostly wrong. Now today, when they say the same thing about Mexicans, Africans, Muslims, etc. they are probably right but their ancestor's disproven arguments are used to discredit them - you guys were wrong the last time, so you're wrong now, the immigration advocates say. Which is ridiculous because the same (Jewish) immigrant rich schools in Brooklyn which were churning out future Nobel Prize winners are now churning out (Mexican) short order cooks, but all racial arguments are by definition inadmissible. I should add however, that Asian immigrants are slotting fairly well into the old immigrant Jewish roles.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous Nephew

  51. @Jack D
    Lots of good stuff in the NY Times today:

    1. Yes, Ford Is Building Plants in Mexico. No, It’s Not Cutting U.S. Jobs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/yes-ford-is-building-plants-in-mexico-no-its-not-cutting-us-jobs.html?

    Ford is moving all its small car production to Mexico. Mexican per capita auto industry employment is much higher than the US - 675,000 auto workers in Mexico (pop 120M), 900,000 in the US, (pop 320M). Nine of the last 11 auto factories built in North America have been in Mexico. But this is a good thing (somehow).


    Rather than a frenzied Nafta-driven flight to the bottom of the labor market, in other words, Ford’s retooling of its Wayne factory is more a nuanced reflection of the industry’s desire to keep pace with growing demand for high-profit trucks and S.U.V.s, while continuing to produce less expensive car models at lower costs with the cheaper wages paid in Mexico.

    Ford’s Wayne factory signifies the reality of the marketplace. Simply put, Detroit cannot make money producing small cars in the United States, where an established union worker — not counting entry-level employees — might earn about $29 an hour, more than triple the wages of a Mexican employee.
     

    The above was in the official NYT reportorial voice - not "Ford spokesman says". I don't recall the NYTimes being so sympathetic to the profit needs of Fortune 500 companies in the past. I thought it was Democrat dogma that American workers were underpaid, not overpaid.
    DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG. That's the actual subtext of the story.

    2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/18/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html?

    See the graph - immigrants AS A PERCENTAGE heading for highs never before seen in all of US history. This is bad enough, but if they showed raw numbers instead of percentages, it would be much, much worse.

    3. Lots of other stuff - "Trump's Call to Monitor Polls Raises Fears of Intimidation", "Ex-General, Guiding Trump, Offers Angry Voice of Authority", Ecuador cuts Assange's internet so he can't interfere in the coronation of Hillary, 5th generation of Sulzberger named deputy publisher, lots of good stuff today.

    Replies: @Lagertha, @res

    I don’t recall the NYTimes being so sympathetic to the profit needs of Fortune 500 companies in the past. …
    DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG. That’s the actual subtext of the story.

    One of the most interesting parts of this election cycle has been watching the strange new respect/publicity so many are getting from the MSM by virtue of their position regarding Trump. All in service of promoting (as you said): “DONALD TRUMP IS WRONG” (or evil, or both).

    On a related note, check out this NYT oped spin of wikileaks: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/wikihillary-for-president.html

  52. (my comnent has for some reason been stuck in moderation for hours so I am trying again)

    Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

    Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

    This is because the issue goes even beyond that of some long-term strategy of native replacement and reflects much deeper cultural/ideological values and assumptions of how the world works and ought to be – the rejection of all vestiges of “tribalism” and taking for granted some sort of universalist idea of all people being the same or at least becoming the same if given access to our wonderful modern educational system and cultural milieu. Invite everyone in, and they’ll all eventually become good progressive, secular, socially liberal shoppers.

    Operating under this almost religious sort of assumption, the leftist elites naturally don’t have a problem with increasing the population through immigration. It isn’t seen as replacement – because in the end, we’re all the same, we just have different colors, different foods and different religions none of us take too seriously. It’s a Star Trek world.

    Voting for Democrats vs. Republicans is probably not thought about much, it being merely a side effect of this positive inevitable progressive historical process.

  53. So if I understand this correctly, in a spasm of liberal guilt Congress decided that we had somehow been mistreating complete strangers in countries thousands of miles away, and to atone for that we had to let said strangers and their families into our country.

  54. Too narrow. The salient problem isn’t that immigrants (or their anchor babies) develop a sudden partisan lust for voting. It’s

  55. @Almost Missouri
    @Ram

    Actually, the "Redskins", who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary "Redskin" entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    On the other hand, they were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, rights equal or superior to their own citizens, and even a cultural admiration.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed--and that's after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn't worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    Replies: @Wally, @Mack Bolan, @Ivan K.

    Not to mention the Indian diseases which killed Euro-whites.
    I know, no one mentions that.

  56. …Quantity has a quality all its own: merely by firing up the huddled-masses tractor beam you grow the pro-Democratic bureaucracy. More clerks, social workers, assistant Twitter outreach coordinators with jobs-for-life, sapping the real economy dry.

    This is where Spencer Abraham, CATO, WSJ are complete idiots. The make-work cushy immigration-correlated Dreamenklatura will always pose a greater threat to commercial interests outweighing whatever desperate foreign strivers do to increase the bottom line profits. At this point it no longer makes even financial sense for the Slave Power– it’s more of an aristocratic tic than anything; i.e.”I’m not one of those rednecks who has to fight with immigrant scabs for a paycheck”

  57. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    NYT is a freak show of evil people who have no integrity. OT: I have been buying only Made in America stuff for years...it's hard, but not impossible. And, guess what? - the quality is better when it comes to many of the things I need.... was going to buy a Ford; forget it now. Please tell me Jeeps are still Made in America...and, like completely, no outsourcing of any parts?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Jack D, @ATate, @Ivy

    If you buy a Jeep, be sure to have a spare vehicle to use when the Jeep is in the shop. They continue to rank toward the bottom in reliability.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Ivy

    I have an old mini-van and an oldish SUV ( GMC) that I love. It was a great model year ... many still on the road. I'm looking for a new 4-wheel drive that can handle blizzards and have towing ability to replace the mini-van - on its' last years. The van was the perfect vehicle for kids, XL dogs, senior citizens, schlepping my art work, camping. In the future, I don't have to transport so many people. Hmmm? I wonder if Corvettes are still Made in the USA :)? serious latent mid-life crisis?

  58. Anonymous [AKA "Confessional Quarterly"] says:

    Celler was really old by 1965. Like, Strom Thurmond or John Conyers old. His salad days of immigration propagandizing were during the Coolidge Administration. But I think he still would have had a lot of sweatshops and chicken plucking facilities in his district even in the 60s. Foreign illiterate peasant labor is “good for bidness”

    • Replies: @Detective Club
    @Anonymous

    Cellar was defeated in the Democrat primary of June 1972 by Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian. Holtzman won by running against Cellar's vociferous opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. The long history of Socialism is dotted with the bodies of old "true believers" who became stuck in old ways and habits and who forgot to go even further to the Left when new Lefty ideas of radical deportment appeared. It is said that if a shark stops moving forward it dies. The Left can never be at complete rest - - - to tear down and to destroy is to flourish!

    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Schmoe

  59. @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    Facts for the indoctrinated:

    They were not “wiped out”, not even close.

    So then, American Indians were racist / xenophobic for resisting European migrants.

    https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html
    “The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths”

  60. @Lagertha
    @Jack D

    When I think about the 60's and immigration, there wasn't much thought given to South America/Africa/Middle East & India as far as immigration of ordinary & illiterate people to USA/EU. Europe and the USA did not want to "appear" chauvinistic in the 60's/even 70's by implying that leaders of African, Latino, Mid-East, Asian nations were horribly inept and corrupt. In the 60's Indians came, but they were largely middle class and educated; and we loved our local Indian restaurant in the states.

    In my history/sociology books in school, there was still the "Noble Savage" description of people whose fledgling "democracies"/theocracies/dictatorships in these regions, were still emerging, and, we, good people of the Western World had to be patient and cheer on their noble journey into civil society with rule-of-law. There was a subtle push to not criticize these societies for their lack of technological advancement in something as crucial as roads/sewage treatment/clean water/really basic stuff I took for granted.

    I remember hearing about the wonderful missionaries going off to all kinds of regions that had no toilets. I was sort of freaked-out looking at National Geographic with images of naked people, people with bad teeth, the casual slaughter of animals (my early awakening to my obsession with animals suffering at the hands of humans).

    Then, with the information age, decades later, suddenly things like the Rwandan hacking to death of people from a different tribe, the torture of villagers/barbaric practices of the drug buiz in S. America, the ongoing battles-to-the-death of the Shiite and Sunni tribes, the murderous rivalry between India & Pakistan, became reality... left out East Asia...oh, yeah, Tianenman Square, and stuff like that.

    So, now, the irony is, many of the refugees from A & ME/Migrants in EU/illegal aliens, are coming from countries and cultures that have improved very little since I was a kid in school. And, my fear: they are like the Iraqi men who showed up in Finland last year and said, in broken Finnish, "give us the money."

    The Roman Empire fell apart because outsiders just overwhelmed the Ruling Class. This is why I am so mystified over this obsession to bring in tons of low/no skilled people: sooner or later they realize who controls the country, and they will destroy the elite. By then, the middle class/upper middle will be so cratered that the elite are going to get the Darwinian outcome they hadn't thought about. It's unbelievable that "controllers of the narrative" think that low-wage peasants will provide food and water for nothing; by then, I'll be long gone, as will my children. OK, enough of my apocalyptic, bizarro thoughts!

    I will add: Trump needs to hammer how Immigration (his main platform that sprung him to victory over the others) is the root of the decline of the USA; at least, the British ushered in Brexit. Immigration/Migrants are causing an existential crisis in EU; and, it is trickling-down to the USA (in addition to things like Unaccompanied Minors & Illegals from South of the Border).

    The festering wars between Sunni & Shia lead to the Migrant Crisis; to the jihadis in our midst/bombings and kills by Muslims here; to the quality of life being destroyed for the Middle Class in USA by capital chasing the cheapest labor. Illiterate/marginally educated immigrants, illegal or not, bring down the wages of our poorest people. So, Immigration, Immigration, Immigration, is at the root of all the problems the American people face today.

    Avoid, avoid, avoid, all sex talk/women talk/accusations. Pivot. Nobody, especially me, wants to hear that crap anymore. International and National issues must be the priority.

    This is not a time, anymore, to talk about "deals; personal accomplishments." This debate can not be about wounded pride and retaliation. Even the "rigged election message" may be turned against Trump using tricky semantics. It is about Immigration: it has degraded the economies of EU & USA; tax burden is huge for ordinary people; stupid unwinnable wars have created refugees by the millions; and, taunting Putin is a lost cause....China is loving the stupidity and craven self-absorption of DC...it just is only about money, isn't it? The "what in it for me and mine?"

    People want prosperity, safety, purpose and peace. Sometimes, you just can't help everyone who does not take personal responsibility for themselves and their children. Life has become expensive, anxiety-filled, and exhausting for ordinary folks in this country. In my opinion, this has lead to the staggering deaths from heroin use by young people, primarily. It is indeed, an ominous time in this country's history if young people know that life is not worth it.

    Replies: @Lagertha, @Swing stater

    I disagree. Trump supporters already agree that immigration is THE issue. More immigration talk will only help mobilize the anti-Trump voters.

    I don’t think he can get any more PRO-TRUMP votes. Instead he should focus on getting more ANTI-HILLARY votes by convincing people that Hillary is the GREATER of the 2 evils. Even if they can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump maybe they’ll refrain from voting for Hillary (stay home? vote 3rd party?)

    Focus on what Wikileaks has on her…

    Hillary “foundation” accepting $$$$$ from foreign governments/banks WHILE serving as Secretary of State??? Bill’s $1M birthday present from Qatar while it funds ISIS?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    @Swing stater

    Yes. You are absolutely right! I just read some more harrowing details on Wikileaks and Reddit. I felt like I had to take a shower after reading all the corruption and nefarious actions of Hillary, DNC, Dem operatives, overlords, Saudis & Qataris, threatening nuclear with Iran. It is frightening.

    However, Trump needs to make a cogent argument/make rational points, so, the people to scare off of Hillary don't get thwarted by Hillary or the moderator, as they ambush Trump to come across as a wild, conspiracy theory nut-bag. O is already using the: stop whining/stop arguing with the refs mantra. - he will be attacked for being the petulant, fiery person he can be when taunted and ambushed. They want him to come across as an unhinged crazy person, which I know he is not. American people are still very dumb about trusting her, O, Bush, anyone. People actually fear being skeptics; that they are being duped....they just don't want to believe in bad people...don't think it is possible. Here's what I mean:
    https://youtu.be/TcrA8ehw2e4

    But, there must be no time given to "Trump is a scoundrel," moments. No sexy time talk, no body parts or looks talks. No race/chick baiting; pivot, so Trump is not roadkill tonight. All, like all good con artists like HRC, deny, deny, deny...and move on.

  61. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America,

    This was certainly true for a segment of the Jewish population in America. But it’s hardly a true blanket statement. If this were the case, then why was the Communist movement in America all along a hotbed of Jews? Were the Rosenbergs “patriotic Americans”? Why were academic Jews spreading Frankfurt School poison? Why were Hollywood Jews pushing depravity from the moment the Hayes Code ended?

    Hell, you could go back to the creation of the Federal Reserve to see high-level Jewish machinations in American politics, along with being largely responsible for getting America into WWI. On and on it goes.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @peterike

    Why yes, you could go back to the Elders of Zion ....

    It was my understanding that most Jews in America at the time of WWI were either of German origin (and at that pre-Hitler time still felt warmly about Germany) or else Russian (and not well disposed to the Czarist side). And in any event not that influential either way . So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.

    Replies: @guest, @Opinionator, @Mr. Anon

  62. @Anonymous
    Apparently, Donald Trump will bring back slavery:

    http://time.com/4535292/donald-trump-black-slaves/

    Replies: @Yak-15, @Je Suis Charlie Martel

    We should arrange an airlift or something to help them all escape before it’s too late!

  63. As the Democrats point out, the only way Republicans can prove to the onrushing millions of foreigners that Republicans aren’t irredeemable, racist haters on the wrong side of history is by helping the Democrats bring in even more future Democrats.

    Great scam!

    The phrase “great scam” has become more and more useful. So much so that I have to stop myself from using it all the time.

    Promote open borders and race mixing everywhere but your own closed monoracial country? Great scam!

    Create a system of minimum wages, then invite millions who it doesn’t apply to? Great scam!

    Sex and race don’t exist but sexuality is hewn in stone? Great scam!

    Etc, etc, etc. This could go on for pages.

  64. Anonymous [AKA "Pericleanup"] says:

    Isn’t the pre-WWI wave of southern/eastern Europe dreamers the reason why House seats are frozen at 435? I think this ironically increases the chance of immigration class war. If the number of districts were doubled or quintupled, the power of each member would be reduced accordingly, and thus the influence of amnesty-addicted hidalgos and CEOs. Sure, you’d also have more Congressmen from rotten boroughs like Santa Ana or whatever, but they’d be canceled out by the more middle-class districts.

    Of course, the simpler thing to do would be reforming birthright citizenship– if only the 9-member branch of gov’t weren’t the most corrupt and treasonous.

  65. OT: what did Ben Franklin ever do for America anyway, compared to Anna Pauline Murray? Apparently, stale pale male Charles Johnson, who wrote the $250mm check, can be blamed for the inexplicable decision to honor Franklin. (Actually, what’s really inexplicable is why any white male would give a single penny to an institution like this.)

    Not the Onion: Yale Students Triggered By Prospect of Living in College Named for Ben Franklin

    When its name was announced last April, Pauli Murray College — which honors civil rights activist and 20th century intellectual Anna Pauline Murray LAW ’65 — became the first residential college named after a woman or a person of color. Under the shadow of a yearlong debate over the name of Calhoun College, the decision to pair Murray with Benjamin Franklin drew condemnation from students who were both confused by the choice to recognize an individual who did not attend the University and disappointed by the Yale Corporation’s decision to honor another slave-owning white male.

    Similarly, the single student interviewed who said he would prefer to be placed in Benjamin Franklin cited the Founding Father as a role model.

    “I personally regard Franklin as one of my role models in many ways, [as] he is a historical figure that I really respect, and, to be honest, I don’t know that much about Murray,” the student, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “I don’t know too much about the controversy. I wasn’t here last year. I was in the military and I just came back, so I’m one of the unusual cases.”
    Current students said they would rather be in Murray to avoid the emotionally taxing dialogue about slavery, racism and naming they expect will happen regularly in Benjamin Franklin.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @benjaminl

    One of the staples of Franklin's newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, was runaway slave (and indentured servant) ads. Also slaves for sale ads. This was considered completely normal at the time (40 years before the revolution). Pennsylvania did take an early lead in abolishing slavery - by the time Washington became President he had to keep rotating his household slaves back to Mt. Vernon because if they stayed too long in PA they would gain PA residency and could declare themselves free. Some of them ran away when it was time to go back.

    However, liberals specialize in retroactively applying modern standards to historical figures. It would be evil to own slaves today, so if Franklin owned slaves in 1738, he is evil too. And sexist, and racist, etc. Even normal humans from the '60s, '70 and '80s are evil if their behavior does not meet current year standards.

  66. [quote]
    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America’s best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post ’65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US
    [/quote]

    I agree that Jewish men of that era were typically very patriotic Americans, Celler seems that way, and todays Jews are generally ambivalent about Jewish immigration to the US.

    Celler did seem particularly concerned with the plight of Jews fleeing the Holocaust and anti-semitism in Europe, which is quite understandable.

    I’d also cite Emma Lazarus, the poet behind the famous sonnet, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” as being specifically motivated to help Jews and establish a Jewish nation state that obviously excludes non-Jews. I don’t think that is wrong, but I think Jews should be honest that they have some normal levels of self-preference, which is arguably nationalistic and xenophobic and completely normal part of being human. I don’t have anti-Jewish sentiment, quite the opposite, but I do think Jews should be sympathetic and even advocate for non-Jewish whites who are the central target of the global anti-racism movement.

  67. Completely O/T: just happened to click on a list of executions by the state of Missouri since 2000. 29/46 white/black.

  68. I just can’t believe that *everyone* on the GOP payroll is so cucked and retarded in regards to the ‘progressive’ community’s so-called community organizing strategies, which are the brutal, quite open and oft-basic ways they generally manage to Alinsky their way to victory. They regularly publish books, training manuals and various other propaganda literature explaining in great detail their Communist tactics (see: Lisa Fithian, the Midwest Academy, and countless other ‘social justice’ orgs connected to various American churches and synagogues – David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks does excellent and essential work in documenting what these people do).

    Republicans are just too nice and naïve. Whoever coined the term cuckservative should be given executor status on whatever remains of Bill Buckley’s estate so NRO money will finally fund something worthwhile.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Marie


    Republicans are just too nice and naïve.
     
    Or they're just too cynical and vicious, caring only about the interests of bankers and global capitalism and not giving a damn about ordinary people.
  69. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    Never discount the vise-like grip of the cultish Open Borders/Egalitarian mentality.

    Howie Carr has written extensively and hilariously about Ted, and the Michael Kelly piece on him should be read by every schoolchild in America…

  70. You folks realize when the crooks are this brazen about stealing votes and gaslighting the opposition via thuggery it pretty much means they run the system and have no fear of retribution. And worse, it’s just a matter of time before they turn that system lose on Americans they don’t like. After all, it’s not like they have fear being arrested by the FBI when the FBI is controlled by them.

    And if she gets in, the country is dead, finished as there is nothing that is legal or illegal for those in power. And in such a system, you better watch yourself because if you get out of line, you may end up dead.

    • Agree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @rod1963


    And in such a system, you better watch yourself because if you get out of line, you may end up dead.
     
    Not dead, just permanently unemployed. Totalitarianism has become a little bit more subtle (and a lot more efficient) than it was in Stalin's day. There's no need to kill the kulaks these days. That creates bad publicity.
  71. New York Times posts an opinion piece today that advocates military officers refrain from voting.

    http://nyti.ms/2ekDYW5

    This is exactly 2 weeks after the New York Times editorial board advocates giving felons the right to vote. “Felon disenfranchisement” is racist.

    http://nyti.ms/2dDQyRR

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jimi

    The NY Times Editorial page is so transparently partisan that it's not even funny. If felons leaned Republican and officers Dem they would be arguing the exact opposite.

    During the periods when Democrats control the Senate, the NYT writes editorials about how the filibuster is evil and unconstitutional and should be abolished. During periods of Republican control, they write editorials on how the filibuster is a valuable feature of our democracy which protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, etc. They have now flip flopped several times on this, every time control of the Senate has shifted. Each time they don't mention that their position is purely partisan and is 180 degrees opposite their position from 4 years ago - they only site high minded arguments about how good/bad the filibuster is for our country as if we were idiots and had no ability to look up their positions from the past.

    Liberals operate this way in general - when Bill Clinton was getting BJ's in the Oval Office, Gloria Steinem wrote to explain why that was really OK. “We’re not against sex; we’re against the use of sex to cajole, humiliate, coerce,” says Gloria Steinem. “But, according to what Lewinsky says, this was not the case with her…. We need to trust the women here. If we say a 21-to-24-year-old has no sexual will, we’re going against the whole struggle for self-determination and taking responsibility for our own lives.”

    But if Trump ever did such a thing, the screams of the left would be so loud that they would be heard on other planets. As between an older man, the most powerful man on earth, and a 24 year old underling, we know that consent is COMPLETELY impossible due to the difference in power, etc. Why a 24 year old female grad student can't even have a relationship with a 29 year old male assistant professor because of these unequal power relationships, let alone the POTUS. (BTW, this contributes to the cat lady epidemic. In the old days, the older professors would always try to fix up their female grad students, who tended not to be very appealing because they didn't spend a lot of time on looking good, with the younger unmarried professors out of pity for them. )

  72. @Almost Missouri
    @Ram

    Actually, the "Redskins", who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary "Redskin" entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    On the other hand, they were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, rights equal or superior to their own citizens, and even a cultural admiration.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed--and that's after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn't worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    Replies: @Wally, @Mack Bolan, @Ivan K.

    Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood.
    We had a local tribal chief who was blond haired and blue eyed. Looked more Scandinavian than Native American. I think identifying as Indian and being one is a different thing. Many of these identifiers wouldn’t feel comfortable living on a reservation.

    • Replies: @Marie
    @Mack Bolan

    I think citizenship in the various tribes nowadays is granted on the basis of one's ancestors being listed on the Dawes Rolls (a federal census taken around the turn of the century). Membership was determined by blood quantum, and as there has been significant intermarriage with other races since then, that's probably where you get the Ward Churchill/Granny Warren tribal chiefs (assuming they're actually Indian and not faking it). There are HUGE benefits to being a registered Indian - endless free stuff, tons of set-asides and affirmative action on steroids. The reservations are socialist hellholes of despair, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Darwin Award winners (I read somewhere that there's a tribal rez where something like 80% of the inhabitants are addicted to meth) - but hey, there's always the career opportunity of Professional Indian (e.g., Dennis Banks and Russell Means) for those not as fortunate on the IQ spectrum as, say, David Yeagley.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Mack Bolan


    "Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood."
     
    Yes. But by the same token, the existing Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste "Indians" from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  73. @Ivy
    @Lagertha

    If you buy a Jeep, be sure to have a spare vehicle to use when the Jeep is in the shop. They continue to rank toward the bottom in reliability.

    Replies: @Lagertha

    I have an old mini-van and an oldish SUV ( GMC) that I love. It was a great model year … many still on the road. I’m looking for a new 4-wheel drive that can handle blizzards and have towing ability to replace the mini-van – on its’ last years. The van was the perfect vehicle for kids, XL dogs, senior citizens, schlepping my art work, camping. In the future, I don’t have to transport so many people. Hmmm? I wonder if Corvettes are still Made in the USA :)? serious latent mid-life crisis?

  74. @Almost Missouri
    @Ram

    Actually, the "Redskins", who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary "Redskin" entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    On the other hand, they were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, rights equal or superior to their own citizens, and even a cultural admiration.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed--and that's after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn't worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    Replies: @Wally, @Mack Bolan, @Ivan K.

    Actually, the “Redskins”, who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary “Redskin” entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    Correct.

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic.

    “While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).”

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

    Today: One race: 2,932,248 are registered; In combination with one or more of the other races listed: 2,288,331; Total: 5,220,579

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

    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rwanda+keith+harmon+snow
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-886-keith-harmon-snow-reveals-the-truth-about-the-rwandan-genocide/

    On the other hand, [the Redskins] were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, ……..

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : “State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. .” (Madley, 2016))

    Granting as such means little, because any laws anywhere in the world are broken when there is sufficient will + force for doing so.
    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    “People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    • Disagree: TWS
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Ivan K.

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : “State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. .” (Madley, 2016))


    All was from disease.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Ivan K.

    Thanks for your reply Ivan. I do have to differ on some points though.


    “While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).”
     
    I'm familiar with the politically correct attempts to show that a large and advanced civilization existed in North America before European settlement. Prior to the PC sweepstakes however, most estimates were about one or two million, such as Dee Brown, the grandfather of Native American studies. Central America, which arguably did have a large civilization (I hesitate to say "advanced" because they lacked things like the wheel and draft animals), is supposed to have numbered in the low double-digit millions. Other regions with more reliable demographic data (Europe, China, Near and Middle East), when they had populations in the double-digit millions also had extensive buildings, artifacts and agricultural terra-forming (e.g., irrigation). No such remains exist in North America, so anything approaching those figures for the Stone Age North Americans is delusional.


    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.
     
    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
     
    That the Mongols did not slaughter everyone does not mean they did not slaughter anyone. Most estimates (and for these, some actual census data exist) of the Mongol invasions put the population loss in the mid- to high-double digit millions, or more than the entire New World population. And keep in mind, there was no bow-wave of epidemics doing the heavy lifting. The Mongol accomplishment was good old fashioned manual labor. And this is to say nothing of the moral dimension. The New World deaths were mostly inadvertent (e.g., disease) or conducted by radical elements at the frontier who embarrassed the larger civilization. By contrast, the Mongols excelled in killing qua killing. It is uncontroversial that in the conquest of Bagdhad, for example, the Mongols killed 90,000 prisoners just to build a pyramid out of their heads. Or since you mention Russia, the Mongols typically celebrated their conquests, e.g. Kiev, with a victory banquet atop the living bodies of the defeated, gradually crushing them to death. No such equivalent exists in New World history (unless one looks in the pre-Columbian times of the Aztecs and their ritual massacres).

    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm
     
    I am perfectly prepared to believe that the MSM have been lying about how the Rwandan massacres occurred; unfortunately Mr. Snow is heavy on bluster and light on evidence. But it doesn't really matter. No one disputes that Africans killed millions in short order, even if they dispute precisely which Africans did it and how.

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination.
     
    Uh, yeah, you can't grant things to people who are not alive. Seems kind of obvious.

    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    “People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White”
     

    If this is the indictment of peaceful coexistence, it proves the Indians live in a golden age of interracial comity. This statistic makes the same error as BLM. Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites. Given the endless incitements to race-hatred and grievance propaganda, that's remarkably even-handed.

    Anyway, God bless the Indians. I'd just like to get the same treatment myself: full rights of US citizens along with semi-sovereign independence in my own lands and exemptions from some of the regulation ... pretty sweet deal, where can I sign up for that?

    Replies: @Ivan K.

  75. @D. K.
    @Jack D

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/was-the-1924-immigration-cut-off-racist

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/norbert-schlei-guilty-of-malice-aforethought-in-americas-immigration-disaster

    Replies: @Jack D

    There is no doubt that when Jewish organizations opposed the immigration cutoff in 1924, they had in mind that it would cut off further Jewish immigration. But by ’65, this could not have been their motive.

    In ’24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased, would never integrate into American society, etc. and they turned out to be mostly wrong. Now today, when they say the same thing about Mexicans, Africans, Muslims, etc. they are probably right but their ancestor’s disproven arguments are used to discredit them – you guys were wrong the last time, so you’re wrong now, the immigration advocates say. Which is ridiculous because the same (Jewish) immigrant rich schools in Brooklyn which were churning out future Nobel Prize winners are now churning out (Mexican) short order cooks, but all racial arguments are by definition inadmissible. I should add however, that Asian immigrants are slotting fairly well into the old immigrant Jewish roles.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Jack D

    In ’24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased

    False. Congressional hearings and speeches show a respect for these foreign nations, but an awareness that they were foreign.

    , @Anonymous Nephew
    @Jack D

    "In ’24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence"

    Any evidence for that? Sure you're not recycling the Gould/Kamin misrepresentations of Henry Goddard's work (Goddard gave IQ tests in 1917 to people suspected of being retarded and found some Jews with low IQs - Kamin wrote IIRC that Goddard had reported that 'Jews have low IQs')?

  76. The reason the Democrats were able to go all open borders without losing blacks is because most black voters would rather rail against Whitey than keep Juan from taking his job.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @William Zane

    Directionally true. Hollywood teaches Blacks that Whites are a greater physical threat to them than anything else. Meanwhile, racial preferences and welfare cushion the blow landed by Hispanics to their material wellbeing.

  77. The greatest Steve column ever.

  78. @Rob McX
    This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It's not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next...nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we're ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Mr. Anon, @Whiskey, @Mack Bolan, @Corvinus

    It is my contention that this traitorous implementation of mass immigration of third world populations into the wealthy western European countries and America by their own leaders is being done for the simplest of reasons “money”. The money that comes from massive unfettered consumerism. Many people from, say the poor countries in Africa don’t have the purchasing power that we in the first world have.
    Bring those folks here and even if they don’t go to work , our generous welfare programs will still allow the to purchase everyday items that they couldn’t before. Imagine a company being able to sell one billion more rolls of toilet paper a year, 400 million more tubes of toothpaste, millions more light bulbs, the list is as endless as the possible corporate profits. Even if we are the ones ultimately paying for these goods, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. This sort of profiteering can only continue if the immigrants eventually get jobs and pay taxes to keep the social programs from collapsing. Unfortunately the Muslims flooding into Europe show no interest in working for a living. Unless you consider crime a legitimate job.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Mack Bolan


    Unfortunately the Muslims flooding into Europe show no interest in working for a living. Unless you consider crime a legitimate job.
     
    The muslims flooding Europe are mostly unemployable because their language skills and job skills are so poor. On average their children who can speak the language aren't bright enough to compete with natives and are only marginally employable in their ethnic enclaves. When Germany was employing Turks some of which even commuted back to Turkey, they only got the ones who were actually employable. Now they just get folks who sit and suck on the public tit.
  79. @Mack Bolan
    @Almost Missouri

    Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood.
    We had a local tribal chief who was blond haired and blue eyed. Looked more Scandinavian than Native American. I think identifying as Indian and being one is a different thing. Many of these identifiers wouldn't feel comfortable living on a reservation.

    Replies: @Marie, @Almost Missouri

    I think citizenship in the various tribes nowadays is granted on the basis of one’s ancestors being listed on the Dawes Rolls (a federal census taken around the turn of the century). Membership was determined by blood quantum, and as there has been significant intermarriage with other races since then, that’s probably where you get the Ward Churchill/Granny Warren tribal chiefs (assuming they’re actually Indian and not faking it). There are HUGE benefits to being a registered Indian – endless free stuff, tons of set-asides and affirmative action on steroids. The reservations are socialist hellholes of despair, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Darwin Award winners (I read somewhere that there’s a tribal rez where something like 80% of the inhabitants are addicted to meth) – but hey, there’s always the career opportunity of Professional Indian (e.g., Dennis Banks and Russell Means) for those not as fortunate on the IQ spectrum as, say, David Yeagley.

  80. @Swing stater
    @Lagertha

    I disagree. Trump supporters already agree that immigration is THE issue. More immigration talk will only help mobilize the anti-Trump voters.

    I don't think he can get any more PRO-TRUMP votes. Instead he should focus on getting more ANTI-HILLARY votes by convincing people that Hillary is the GREATER of the 2 evils. Even if they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump maybe they'll refrain from voting for Hillary (stay home? vote 3rd party?)

    Focus on what Wikileaks has on her...

    Hillary "foundation" accepting $$$$$ from foreign governments/banks WHILE serving as Secretary of State??? Bill's $1M birthday present from Qatar while it funds ISIS?

    Replies: @Lagertha

    Yes. You are absolutely right! I just read some more harrowing details on Wikileaks and Reddit. I felt like I had to take a shower after reading all the corruption and nefarious actions of Hillary, DNC, Dem operatives, overlords, Saudis & Qataris, threatening nuclear with Iran. It is frightening.

    However, Trump needs to make a cogent argument/make rational points, so, the people to scare off of Hillary don’t get thwarted by Hillary or the moderator, as they ambush Trump to come across as a wild, conspiracy theory nut-bag. O is already using the: stop whining/stop arguing with the refs mantra. – he will be attacked for being the petulant, fiery person he can be when taunted and ambushed. They want him to come across as an unhinged crazy person, which I know he is not. American people are still very dumb about trusting her, O, Bush, anyone. People actually fear being skeptics; that they are being duped….they just don’t want to believe in bad people…don’t think it is possible. Here’s what I mean:

    But, there must be no time given to “Trump is a scoundrel,” moments. No sexy time talk, no body parts or looks talks. No race/chick baiting; pivot, so Trump is not roadkill tonight. All, like all good con artists like HRC, deny, deny, deny…and move on.

  81. @Jimi
    New York Times posts an opinion piece today that advocates military officers refrain from voting.

    http://nyti.ms/2ekDYW5

    This is exactly 2 weeks after the New York Times editorial board advocates giving felons the right to vote. "Felon disenfranchisement" is racist.

    http://nyti.ms/2dDQyRR

    Replies: @Jack D

    The NY Times Editorial page is so transparently partisan that it’s not even funny. If felons leaned Republican and officers Dem they would be arguing the exact opposite.

    During the periods when Democrats control the Senate, the NYT writes editorials about how the filibuster is evil and unconstitutional and should be abolished. During periods of Republican control, they write editorials on how the filibuster is a valuable feature of our democracy which protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, etc. They have now flip flopped several times on this, every time control of the Senate has shifted. Each time they don’t mention that their position is purely partisan and is 180 degrees opposite their position from 4 years ago – they only site high minded arguments about how good/bad the filibuster is for our country as if we were idiots and had no ability to look up their positions from the past.

    Liberals operate this way in general – when Bill Clinton was getting BJ’s in the Oval Office, Gloria Steinem wrote to explain why that was really OK. “We’re not against sex; we’re against the use of sex to cajole, humiliate, coerce,” says Gloria Steinem. “But, according to what Lewinsky says, this was not the case with her…. We need to trust the women here. If we say a 21-to-24-year-old has no sexual will, we’re going against the whole struggle for self-determination and taking responsibility for our own lives.”

    But if Trump ever did such a thing, the screams of the left would be so loud that they would be heard on other planets. As between an older man, the most powerful man on earth, and a 24 year old underling, we know that consent is COMPLETELY impossible due to the difference in power, etc. Why a 24 year old female grad student can’t even have a relationship with a 29 year old male assistant professor because of these unequal power relationships, let alone the POTUS. (BTW, this contributes to the cat lady epidemic. In the old days, the older professors would always try to fix up their female grad students, who tended not to be very appealing because they didn’t spend a lot of time on looking good, with the younger unmarried professors out of pity for them. )

  82. If this is true what is the reason the GOP supports mass migration and their own extinction?

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    @Anon

    As Sam Francis had it, it's the stupid party versus the evil party. Frankly, I've seen very little to prove him wrong....

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  83. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans.

    He didn’t seem to be very fond of Republican anti-communists, whom he called “reactionaries”. He also really didn’t like McCarthyism.

    Edward Celler, speech at the Democratic National Convention (1952):

    … We pledge to fight the dark and reactionary forces high in the counsels of the Republican Party which have made political capital out of the techniques of character assassination by innuendo and who have adopted the dishonoring and dishonorable concept of guilt by association.

    Let’s name the evil which has called this plank forth, an evil recognizable to every mature mind. It has a name – McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate the width and the depth of the fear blanketing this country because of McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate how many people, both within the Democratic and Republican Parties and the ‘independents,’ are crying out for leadership to cut out this cancer. Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government. It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend, and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack. I have no wish to indulge in histrionics, but I do know that McCarthyism represents a danger in this country we dare not ignore. I say it is a cold hand creeping over our vitals. The fact that the author of McCarthyism was given the distinction of addressing the Republican National Convention strikes terror in the hearts of honest men. Many who have flirted with the idea of voting the Republican ticket have turned away from that ticket because of the acceptance by the Republican Party of McCarthy and McCarthyism.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    I mean, he wanted to deprive State Department employees of their jobs! He denigrated the august reputation of the man who handed China over to Mao. The sheer terror!

    , @Jack D
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    We now feel the McCarthyism of the left, where having the "wrong" views or saying the "wrong" thing, or even (like Billy Bush) being in the presence of people who do so and not denouncing them can lead to your losing your job. I think that all of the adjectives that Celler used to describe McCarthyism (evil, dishonorable, etc.) hold true today as well. McCarthyism of any kind (including the orginal McCarthy kind) is to me contrary to American customs of free thinking. McCarthy also did what leftists do today - apply today's standards to past conduct. Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.

    I understand that McCarthy (rightly) felt that we were deeply threatened by Communism, who tactics made what McCarthyism look like child's play (in Russia being purged didn't mean losing your job, it meant losing your life). Nevertheless, we didn't win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy's level.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @guest, @guest

  84. @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    Ram, On a continent teaming with game, wild fowl, water fowl, abundant fresh water, lakes, streams and seacoasts brimming with fish and shell fish, vast herds of bison, unlimited woodlands and grasslands, the “natives” spent a lot of time and energy wiping each other out, and usually over tribal territory. In some cases rival tribes united against the Europeans, in other cases they allied with the Europeans to eliminate their rivals. Passenger pigeons were wiped out, “Redskins” not so much.

  85. @benjaminl
    OT: what did Ben Franklin ever do for America anyway, compared to Anna Pauline Murray? Apparently, stale pale male Charles Johnson, who wrote the $250mm check, can be blamed for the inexplicable decision to honor Franklin. (Actually, what's really inexplicable is why any white male would give a single penny to an institution like this.)

    Not the Onion: Yale Students Triggered By Prospect of Living in College Named for Ben Franklin

    When its name was announced last April, Pauli Murray College — which honors civil rights activist and 20th century intellectual Anna Pauline Murray LAW ’65 — became the first residential college named after a woman or a person of color. Under the shadow of a yearlong debate over the name of Calhoun College, the decision to pair Murray with Benjamin Franklin drew condemnation from students who were both confused by the choice to recognize an individual who did not attend the University and disappointed by the Yale Corporation’s decision to honor another slave-owning white male.

    Similarly, the single student interviewed who said he would prefer to be placed in Benjamin Franklin cited the Founding Father as a role model.

    “I personally regard Franklin as one of my role models in many ways, [as] he is a historical figure that I really respect, and, to be honest, I don’t know that much about Murray,” the student, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “I don’t know too much about the controversy. I wasn’t here last year. I was in the military and I just came back, so I’m one of the unusual cases.”
    Current students said they would rather be in Murray to avoid the emotionally taxing dialogue about slavery, racism and naming they expect will happen regularly in Benjamin Franklin.

    Replies: @Jack D

    One of the staples of Franklin’s newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, was runaway slave (and indentured servant) ads. Also slaves for sale ads. This was considered completely normal at the time (40 years before the revolution). Pennsylvania did take an early lead in abolishing slavery – by the time Washington became President he had to keep rotating his household slaves back to Mt. Vernon because if they stayed too long in PA they would gain PA residency and could declare themselves free. Some of them ran away when it was time to go back.

    However, liberals specialize in retroactively applying modern standards to historical figures. It would be evil to own slaves today, so if Franklin owned slaves in 1738, he is evil too. And sexist, and racist, etc. Even normal humans from the ’60s, ’70 and ’80s are evil if their behavior does not meet current year standards.

  86. @Thea
    @Altai

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind. I find it hard to believe a large number of people could be that coldly cynical but maybe I am naive.

    The Clintons on the other hand....

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @ben tillman, @Brutusale

    Thea, I believe they work for the benefit of themselves, and if there is any residual good , they claim that to be their original purpose.

  87. @peterike
    @Jack D


    American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America,

     

    This was certainly true for a segment of the Jewish population in America. But it's hardly a true blanket statement. If this were the case, then why was the Communist movement in America all along a hotbed of Jews? Were the Rosenbergs "patriotic Americans"? Why were academic Jews spreading Frankfurt School poison? Why were Hollywood Jews pushing depravity from the moment the Hayes Code ended?

    Hell, you could go back to the creation of the Federal Reserve to see high-level Jewish machinations in American politics, along with being largely responsible for getting America into WWI. On and on it goes.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Why yes, you could go back to the Elders of Zion ….

    It was my understanding that most Jews in America at the time of WWI were either of German origin (and at that pre-Hitler time still felt warmly about Germany) or else Russian (and not well disposed to the Czarist side). And in any event not that influential either way . So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Jack D

    Yeah, I don't even think there was a Balfour Declaration by the time the U.S. jumped in.

    Then again, what I don't know about WWI could and does fill libraries.

    , @Opinionator
    @Jack D

    Plenty of Sephardic jews here before WWI.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Jack D

    "So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed."

    Just as people who think that anyone who questions the actions of certain members of what is per capita the richest and most influential ethnic group in America are the kind of people who see an anti-semite under every bed.

  88. @Anonymous
    Celler was really old by 1965. Like, Strom Thurmond or John Conyers old. His salad days of immigration propagandizing were during the Coolidge Administration. But I think he still would have had a lot of sweatshops and chicken plucking facilities in his district even in the 60s. Foreign illiterate peasant labor is "good for bidness"

    Replies: @Detective Club

    Cellar was defeated in the Democrat primary of June 1972 by Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian. Holtzman won by running against Cellar’s vociferous opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. The long history of Socialism is dotted with the bodies of old “true believers” who became stuck in old ways and habits and who forgot to go even further to the Left when new Lefty ideas of radical deportment appeared. It is said that if a shark stops moving forward it dies. The Left can never be at complete rest – – – to tear down and to destroy is to flourish!

    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Detective Club

    Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian.

    I disagree. She was more of a lipstick Lesbian. Sort of like Ed Koch - she "never married" but she never paraded her sexuality. In 1972 you couldn't be openly Lesbian and win office. It was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing. She used to wear her hair long and wear feminine clothes so you really couldn't tell just by her appearance (unless you had good gaydar) but nowadays she doesn't try to hide it anymore - she wears her fairly hair short, mannish suits, little makeup, etc. Even now though you could mistake her for say a nun rather than a cross dresser - her generation does not rub its gayness in your face (ewww).

    Replies: @Detective Club

    , @Joe Schmoe
    @Detective Club


    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

     

    Conservatives need to embrace a desperate desire to crush those who hate them.
  89. @Robert Hume
    The classic response is "But we are a nation of immigrants aren't we?"

    Of course we or our ancestors came from elsewhere. But once we are here we certainly have the right to determine who follows us.

    The home each of us lives in in could be hundreds of years old, but during that time, each family living there could determine who they invited into their home as guests.

    "We are a nation of immigrants." cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    Replies: @Ram, @jim jones, @bomag, @Stan Adams

    “We are a nation of immigrants.” cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    When approached with this, I’m starting to respond, “immigration is analogous to sex: we are all here because of it, but we don’t just let anyone join with us in the franchise.”

  90. @Nnz
    @Altai

    It's funny that Steve is crying over his ideology of assimilation of nonwhites that led to this problem in the first place, do you think the US would even have this problem if it reserved political rights only for white people and only allowed white people to immigrate, instead of allowing people of all races to immigrate, at least in theory thus leaving ideological wiggle room for what happened in 1965. Really the blood is all over Sailers and his assimilations inks hands, it his fault why the US is 50 percent nonwhite, and that antiwhite SOB actually wants to integrate those people so the average "white" will look like George zimmerman.

    Replies: @Altai, @ATX Hipster

    When I look at the US I see the political echo of the displacement of the old stock Anglo-Saxons. It isn’t only Jewish influence, the narrative of the US being a ‘nation of immigrants’ comes from the 19th century to early 20th century surge. The descendants of those people were the sea into which this ideology can swim, can inhabit in a way which inhibits others criticism.

    Assimilation of whites didn’t make them forget their origins in the US even if there is little antipathy for WASPs from non-Jewish whites today. That was their ancestral narrative and connection the US. For those people it is easy and comforting to think that ‘that is who we are’. I’d be curious to see what generational attitudes are like for those populations.

    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    @Altai

    This seems to be a good time to bring back Ron Guhname's 2006 analysis of GSS data showing that WASPS were the best citizens. It would be good if someone could repeat that analysis and add the categories of Asians and Middle Easterners, and legal and illegal recent immigrants.

    --------------------------
    I posted in 2015:
    OT In her new book, “Adios America” Ann Coulter has lots of good things to say about WASPS. That brought to mind again Ron Guhname’s conclusion, based on GSS data relevant to good citizenship, that “WASPS Rule”! He concluded that there’s been a steady decline of good citizenship in successive waves of immigration.

    Inductivist.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

    near bottom

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26188478&postID=2489087754197860379

    “WASPs rule! I wrote in a recent post that I was getting the sense that Americans with Protestant European backgrounds were the best behaved. So I decided to sum all my prior post numbers that dealt with ethnicity and moral behavior to assess this idea systematically. I followed the simple strategy of assigning a rank for each behavior for each of the 8 ethnic groups with sufficiently large sample sizes. Jews were often ignored in previous posts since one must turn to the religion rather than the ethnicity variable to get estimates, but I wanted to include them, so I calculated numbers and then ranks for them.

    I included all variables that I have posted on–here’s a list of them: okay to cheat on taxes; drinks too much; ethnocentric; dirty house; frequents prostitutes; promiscuous men over 30; feel that infidelity is not wrong; gay; lesbian; husbands and wives who cheat; fathers divorcing mom; women arrested; and promiscuity for men and women and under. I realized that I had not posted on drug abuse so I added that to the rest. I ranked group so high numbers indicate more bad behavior, then I simply summed the 16 rankings for each ethnic group. Here are the totals:

    Bad Behavior Index

    Blacks 106
    Mexicans 85
    American Indians 85
    Italians 70
    Irish 67
    Jews 64
    Germans 56
    English/Welsh 47

    My hunch was correct. This pattern coincides with that feeling that goes way back among nativists that the moral quality of the country was slipping with the mass immigration from Catholic, southern and eastern European countries, and more recently in concern over immigration from Mexico.
    Posted by Ron Guhname"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  91. @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Jack D



    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans.

     

    He didn't seem to be very fond of Republican anti-communists, whom he called "reactionaries". He also really didn't like McCarthyism.

    Edward Celler, speech at the Democratic National Convention (1952):


    ... We pledge to fight the dark and reactionary forces high in the counsels of the Republican Party which have made political capital out of the techniques of character assassination by innuendo and who have adopted the dishonoring and dishonorable concept of guilt by association.
    ...
    Let's name the evil which has called this plank forth, an evil recognizable to every mature mind. It has a name - McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate the width and the depth of the fear blanketing this country because of McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate how many people, both within the Democratic and Republican Parties and the 'independents,' are crying out for leadership to cut out this cancer. Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government. It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend, and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack. I have no wish to indulge in histrionics, but I do know that McCarthyism represents a danger in this country we dare not ignore. I say it is a cold hand creeping over our vitals. The fact that the author of McCarthyism was given the distinction of addressing the Republican National Convention strikes terror in the hearts of honest men. Many who have flirted with the idea of voting the Republican ticket have turned away from that ticket because of the acceptance by the Republican Party of McCarthy and McCarthyism.

     

    Replies: @guest, @Jack D

    I mean, he wanted to deprive State Department employees of their jobs! He denigrated the august reputation of the man who handed China over to Mao. The sheer terror!

  92. @Jack D
    @peterike

    Why yes, you could go back to the Elders of Zion ....

    It was my understanding that most Jews in America at the time of WWI were either of German origin (and at that pre-Hitler time still felt warmly about Germany) or else Russian (and not well disposed to the Czarist side). And in any event not that influential either way . So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.

    Replies: @guest, @Opinionator, @Mr. Anon

    Yeah, I don’t even think there was a Balfour Declaration by the time the U.S. jumped in.

    Then again, what I don’t know about WWI could and does fill libraries.

  93. @AP

    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic. So it hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.
     
    Having more people now than 300 years ago isn't much to be positive about. In the same period of time, for example, the population of French Canadians increased from 60,00o to about 3 million. If not for the arrival of Europeans there might have been 200 million or more Indians, rather than a slightly larger number than prior to the European arrival.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    “…there might have been 200 million or more Indians”.

    Evidence?

    • Replies: @guest
    @Jim Don Bob

    "Evidence?"

    Consult the official white paper issued by the Department of Wishful Thinking, entitled "When We Wuz Red Kangz."

    , @AP
    @Jim Don Bob

    I wrote, "might have been."

    The reason is that populations tend to increase with time and to increase more, the larger they are. So 60,000 French-Canadians became 3 million after 300 or so years. The 3 million or so Indians would surely have become much more had they not been nearly wiped out by diseases and displacement.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

  94. @Jim Don Bob
    @AP

    "...there might have been 200 million or more Indians".

    Evidence?

    Replies: @guest, @AP

    “Evidence?”

    Consult the official white paper issued by the Department of Wishful Thinking, entitled “When We Wuz Red Kangz.”

    • LOL: Jim Don Bob
  95. @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Jack D



    It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans.

     

    He didn't seem to be very fond of Republican anti-communists, whom he called "reactionaries". He also really didn't like McCarthyism.

    Edward Celler, speech at the Democratic National Convention (1952):


    ... We pledge to fight the dark and reactionary forces high in the counsels of the Republican Party which have made political capital out of the techniques of character assassination by innuendo and who have adopted the dishonoring and dishonorable concept of guilt by association.
    ...
    Let's name the evil which has called this plank forth, an evil recognizable to every mature mind. It has a name - McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate the width and the depth of the fear blanketing this country because of McCarthyism. Let us not underestimate how many people, both within the Democratic and Republican Parties and the 'independents,' are crying out for leadership to cut out this cancer. Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government. It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend, and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack. I have no wish to indulge in histrionics, but I do know that McCarthyism represents a danger in this country we dare not ignore. I say it is a cold hand creeping over our vitals. The fact that the author of McCarthyism was given the distinction of addressing the Republican National Convention strikes terror in the hearts of honest men. Many who have flirted with the idea of voting the Republican ticket have turned away from that ticket because of the acceptance by the Republican Party of McCarthy and McCarthyism.

     

    Replies: @guest, @Jack D

    We now feel the McCarthyism of the left, where having the “wrong” views or saying the “wrong” thing, or even (like Billy Bush) being in the presence of people who do so and not denouncing them can lead to your losing your job. I think that all of the adjectives that Celler used to describe McCarthyism (evil, dishonorable, etc.) hold true today as well. McCarthyism of any kind (including the orginal McCarthy kind) is to me contrary to American customs of free thinking. McCarthy also did what leftists do today – apply today’s standards to past conduct. Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.

    I understand that McCarthy (rightly) felt that we were deeply threatened by Communism, who tactics made what McCarthyism look like child’s play (in Russia being purged didn’t mean losing your job, it meant losing your life). Nevertheless, we didn’t win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy’s level.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Jack D

    "Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler."

    That's disingenuous. Many of his victims were stalinist agents, who consciously and unrepentantly worked to further communist and soviet aims. And their own ethnic ones, as it happened too.

    , @guest
    @Jack D

    What do you mean, "now?" You know who was actually in power before, during, and after the McCarthy era? Leftists. The Brown Scare was always more fervent than the Red Scare, except for a short window, and it never ended!

    , @guest
    @Jack D

    "we didn't win the Cold War by sinking to the enemy's level"

    Thank God upright citizens badmouthed McCarthy before he could arrange the Katyn Massacres, Holodomors, and Great Terrors he had planned, using all the power he never had.

    Grow up.

  96. @Nnz
    @Altai

    It's funny that Steve is crying over his ideology of assimilation of nonwhites that led to this problem in the first place, do you think the US would even have this problem if it reserved political rights only for white people and only allowed white people to immigrate, instead of allowing people of all races to immigrate, at least in theory thus leaving ideological wiggle room for what happened in 1965. Really the blood is all over Sailers and his assimilations inks hands, it his fault why the US is 50 percent nonwhite, and that antiwhite SOB actually wants to integrate those people so the average "white" will look like George zimmerman.

    Replies: @Altai, @ATX Hipster

    We stopped actually assimilating immigrants a long time ago. How is that Sailer’s fault?

    The problem we have that’s more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don’t want them to assimilate. If the rich, cool, and powerful in our society stopped using the Megaphone to call citizens racist for suggesting immigrants assimilate, then our immigrants might actually feel pressure to, you know, assimilate.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @ATX Hipster

    "The problem we have that’s more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don’t want them to assimilate."

    That is patently false. There are a wide range of groups in the States who seek to incorporate the newcomers into our society.

    www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/assimilating_the_new_american_immigrant

    Replies: @ATX Hipster

  97. @jim jones
    @Robert Hume

    America is a British colony, Anglo-Saxons are the largest ethnic group

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @celt darnell

    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).

    That said, as the Saxons originated from what is now Germany, one could argue America just went full circle….

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @celt darnell

    Ben Franklin once said something like England is the United States of Germany.

    Replies: @celt darnell

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @celt darnell


    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).
     
    No, more Americans are part-English than part-anything else. One figure I've seen, by a genealogist, is that over 80% of Americans have at least one English line. But most are less than half, or even a quarter, English.

    Germans came later, and the newest would be closer to the old country, and still of purer stock.

    Purely post-colonial Brits are not that numerous; most intermarried with local Anglo-Saxons and are thus colonials too. But one notable exception-- Hillary Rodham.

    Replies: @celt darnell

  98. @Anon
    If this is true what is the reason the GOP supports mass migration and their own extinction?

    Replies: @celt darnell

    As Sam Francis had it, it’s the stupid party versus the evil party. Frankly, I’ve seen very little to prove him wrong….

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @celt darnell

    Yeah, I miss Sam's writing. He was always willing to call a spade a spade. IFYNWIMAIKTYD.

  99. Nevertheless, we didn’t win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy’s level.

    Did we?

  100. @celt darnell
    @jim jones

    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).

    That said, as the Saxons originated from what is now Germany, one could argue America just went full circle....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

    Ben Franklin once said something like England is the United States of Germany.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    @Steve Sailer

    Won't argue with the Benjamin...

    I knew we should never have given up Hanover...

  101. @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Actually, the “Redskins”, who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary “Redskin” entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    Correct.


    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic.

     

    "While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

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

    Today: One race: 2,932,248 are registered; In combination with one or more of the other races listed: 2,288,331; Total: 5,220,579

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


    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

     

    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rwanda+keith+harmon+snow
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-886-keith-harmon-snow-reveals-the-truth-about-the-rwandan-genocide/

    On the other hand, [the Redskins] were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, ........
     
    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : "State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. ." (Madley, 2016))

    Granting as such means little, because any laws anywhere in the world are broken when there is sufficient will + force for doing so.
    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    "People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White"

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : “State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. .” (Madley, 2016))

    All was from disease.

  102. @Jack D
    @D. K.

    There is no doubt that when Jewish organizations opposed the immigration cutoff in 1924, they had in mind that it would cut off further Jewish immigration. But by '65, this could not have been their motive.

    In '24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased, would never integrate into American society, etc. and they turned out to be mostly wrong. Now today, when they say the same thing about Mexicans, Africans, Muslims, etc. they are probably right but their ancestor's disproven arguments are used to discredit them - you guys were wrong the last time, so you're wrong now, the immigration advocates say. Which is ridiculous because the same (Jewish) immigrant rich schools in Brooklyn which were churning out future Nobel Prize winners are now churning out (Mexican) short order cooks, but all racial arguments are by definition inadmissible. I should add however, that Asian immigrants are slotting fairly well into the old immigrant Jewish roles.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous Nephew

    In ’24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased

    False. Congressional hearings and speeches show a respect for these foreign nations, but an awareness that they were foreign.

  103. @William Zane
    The reason the Democrats were able to go all open borders without losing blacks is because most black voters would rather rail against Whitey than keep Juan from taking his job.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Directionally true. Hollywood teaches Blacks that Whites are a greater physical threat to them than anything else. Meanwhile, racial preferences and welfare cushion the blow landed by Hispanics to their material wellbeing.

  104. @Jack D
    @peterike

    Why yes, you could go back to the Elders of Zion ....

    It was my understanding that most Jews in America at the time of WWI were either of German origin (and at that pre-Hitler time still felt warmly about Germany) or else Russian (and not well disposed to the Czarist side). And in any event not that influential either way . So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.

    Replies: @guest, @Opinionator, @Mr. Anon

    Plenty of Sephardic jews here before WWI.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Opinionator

    Depends what you mean by plenty. In 1840, before the German Jews started showing up, the entire (then mostly Sephardic) Jewish population of the US was 15,000. Sephardi Jews were an old community and well integrated into American life, but they weren't the huge hordes that later started showing up from E. Europe.

  105. @Opinionator
    @Jack D

    Plenty of Sephardic jews here before WWI.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Depends what you mean by plenty. In 1840, before the German Jews started showing up, the entire (then mostly Sephardic) Jewish population of the US was 15,000. Sephardi Jews were an old community and well integrated into American life, but they weren’t the huge hordes that later started showing up from E. Europe.

  106. @Jack D
    @D. K.

    There is no doubt that when Jewish organizations opposed the immigration cutoff in 1924, they had in mind that it would cut off further Jewish immigration. But by '65, this could not have been their motive.

    In '24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence, violent, diseased, would never integrate into American society, etc. and they turned out to be mostly wrong. Now today, when they say the same thing about Mexicans, Africans, Muslims, etc. they are probably right but their ancestor's disproven arguments are used to discredit them - you guys were wrong the last time, so you're wrong now, the immigration advocates say. Which is ridiculous because the same (Jewish) immigrant rich schools in Brooklyn which were churning out future Nobel Prize winners are now churning out (Mexican) short order cooks, but all racial arguments are by definition inadmissible. I should add however, that Asian immigrants are slotting fairly well into the old immigrant Jewish roles.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous Nephew

    “In ’24, the immigration opponents claimed that Jews and Italians were of low intelligence”

    Any evidence for that? Sure you’re not recycling the Gould/Kamin misrepresentations of Henry Goddard’s work (Goddard gave IQ tests in 1917 to people suspected of being retarded and found some Jews with low IQs – Kamin wrote IIRC that Goddard had reported that ‘Jews have low IQs’)?

  107. What is the end game here? I can see the appeal of cheap labor in the near term, but for the long game don’t the capitalists and elites worry about winding up with Hugo Chavez type leaders? Are they just short-sighted? Or are they just confident they will have total control of government so the votes won’t really matter? I would think they would push for a Saudi Arabia style system where you have a large foreign workforce, but no one is granted citizenship.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @gregor

    The endgame is to pulverize the European genome.

  108. @Nnz
    So what have you morons done other than cut off the only source white immigration to the UK (Poland) which means that the only immigrants the UK will be getting are blacks from Africa and the Carribean and subcontinental Muslims and Indians? Stupid pieces of shit. On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU.

    Replies: @celt darnell, @Anonymous

    Lord, I just love to hear from pontificators who know nothing.

    On immigration and Brexit, try looking up the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. Please don’t pretend they are independent of the EU merely because they predate it and don’t deny that to rid ourselves of this lunacy we had to leave the EU first.

    Poles will still be able to come to the UK and nothing is going to be done about the quarter of a million and more French citizens living in London. Have a look at the poster Nigel Farage stood in front of which spoke about a “breaking point.” Do you see any white faces there?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants

    EU membership means that free movement “European citizens” can’t be stopped by member states. As you might have noticed, “European” no longer means “white.” So, when those 1 000 000+ Syrians, Africans and God-knows-what-else that Angela Merkel invited into Europe get their German citizenship (as they will) there’d be no stopping their entry into the UK. None. We needed to regain control of our national borders.

    Everyone who supported the “Remain” side was also a supporter of the Third World invasion of the UK. Everyone who supported the “Remain” side was a supporter of multiculturalism. The number of exceptions is statistically insignificant.

    By contrast, anyone who opposed the Third World invasion and multiculturalism voted Brexit. Again, the exceptions are statistically insignificant.

    And of the Third World invaders themselves? With the sole exception of the Sikhs, they voted “remain” by large majorities — 70% in the case of the Muslims. The only reason London voted overwhelmingly for remain is because it’s population is only 45% white British (or what we would have simply called “British” a mere two decades ago).

    Goodness, you might think that both the darkies and the British recognize something about the EU you don’t.

    Re: “On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU.”

    Er, no. Less than half our exports go to the EU. Not only that, we run a trade deficit with Europe. We run a surplus with the rest of the world.

    We Brexiteers have been discussing immigration and like issues before you were born, sunshine. I don’t know where you’re from, but I certainly hope you’re better informed about your own country than you are about the UK.

    In any case, please move out of your parents’ house, get a job, get a girlfriend and get a life.

    And please don’t waste everyone’s time by blathering about things you don’t understand.

    • Replies: @Nnz
    @celt darnell

    You know that pretty much the main source of what white immigrations the UK is getting is from Poland right? Plus considering the way things are going demographically in the UK at the moment. Eastern and central Europe may just be needed as a lifeboat, so that free movement inside the EU may just come in handy someday.

    Replies: @celt darnell, @Anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @celt darnell

    Yes, I was intrigued by the fact that the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth - both massively non-white - both put in the biggest 'remain' votes in the nation.
    Lambeth, as anyone who knows it can attest, is generally speaking, one of the most run-down, deprived toilets in Britain, so much for the notion that the 'poor and uneducated' voted to leave.
    What is perplexing is former 'Commonwealth citizens' voted heavily to remain whilst it is perfectly obvious that the EU is a replacement for the Commonwealth.
    In my own mind, I'm certain that Britain's 'minorities' plumped for the EU knowing full well that the super state's 'equality laws and articles' provide indelible protection for them, that the EU courts will always 'find' for them - and the relations they want to pull in - and that the EU gives them and their relations 'at home' the opportunity of cherry-picking European states, and that the EU provides a 'bolt-hole' in the remote circumstances of a nationalist victory in the UK.

  109. @Detective Club
    @Anonymous

    Cellar was defeated in the Democrat primary of June 1972 by Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian. Holtzman won by running against Cellar's vociferous opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. The long history of Socialism is dotted with the bodies of old "true believers" who became stuck in old ways and habits and who forgot to go even further to the Left when new Lefty ideas of radical deportment appeared. It is said that if a shark stops moving forward it dies. The Left can never be at complete rest - - - to tear down and to destroy is to flourish!

    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Schmoe

    Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian.

    I disagree. She was more of a lipstick Lesbian. Sort of like Ed Koch – she “never married” but she never paraded her sexuality. In 1972 you couldn’t be openly Lesbian and win office. It was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing. She used to wear her hair long and wear feminine clothes so you really couldn’t tell just by her appearance (unless you had good gaydar) but nowadays she doesn’t try to hide it anymore – she wears her fairly hair short, mannish suits, little makeup, etc. Even now though you could mistake her for say a nun rather than a cross dresser – her generation does not rub its gayness in your face (ewww).

    • Replies: @Detective Club
    @Jack D

    She had a head start. In 1972 she earned the nickname "Lizard" as in "Lizard" Holtzman. No "Lipstick" Lesbian, she!

    The 1977 Cuomo for Mayor campaign workers went to Koch rallies and shouted "Don't vote for The Homo, vote for Cuomo!"

    Yes, in '72 Holtzman dared not come out as a Lesbian and yes, in '77 Ed Koch hinted that he and the first Jewish Miss America would tie the knot after he won the election in November. The Seventies were such that voters who wanted to believe in these facades managed to continue to live in a world of candy canes and purple ponies and shut their eyes to the flaming obvious.

  110. @Altai

    Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career.
     
    Did Ted Kennedy really think this? Granted there hadn't been mass migration in the era of jet aircraft yet for him to appreciate the likely consequences, but I have to think he couldn't have been so stupid. There are only so many Irishmen in the world versus... the world.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Jack D, @Thea, @Coemgen, @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Marie, @Lucas McCrudy

    I’m pretty sure the immigration legislation passed in 1924 and then jettisoned by the 1965 Act had basically given top preference to three European nationalities over all others: The British, The Germans and… The IRISH.
    It would have been one thing if the Kennedy clan were of Italian, Polish or Jewish extraction; they would have had a personal, vested interest in overturning the system established back in 1924 . But their forbearers came from Northwestern Europe- the very region given the highest quotas for sending immigrants under the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act.

  111. @Steve Sailer
    @celt darnell

    Ben Franklin once said something like England is the United States of Germany.

    Replies: @celt darnell

    Won’t argue with the Benjamin…

    I knew we should never have given up Hanover…

  112. @Robert Hume
    The classic response is "But we are a nation of immigrants aren't we?"

    Of course we or our ancestors came from elsewhere. But once we are here we certainly have the right to determine who follows us.

    The home each of us lives in in could be hundreds of years old, but during that time, each family living there could determine who they invited into their home as guests.

    "We are a nation of immigrants." cannot be allowed to end a conversation.

    Replies: @Ram, @jim jones, @bomag, @Stan Adams

    The folks who came over here in the 1800s weren’t given free welfare goodies. They came here to work their asses off helping to build the country. But we now have all the human capital we need.

    Lars and Ursula had to chop down the trees and build their own log cabin. They had to grow and/or kill their own food and sew their own clothes. They weren’t given vouchers or EBT cards to buy free shit at Wal-Mart.

  113. @gregor
    What is the end game here? I can see the appeal of cheap labor in the near term, but for the long game don't the capitalists and elites worry about winding up with Hugo Chavez type leaders? Are they just short-sighted? Or are they just confident they will have total control of government so the votes won't really matter? I would think they would push for a Saudi Arabia style system where you have a large foreign workforce, but no one is granted citizenship.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    The endgame is to pulverize the European genome.

  114. @Jim Don Bob
    @AP

    "...there might have been 200 million or more Indians".

    Evidence?

    Replies: @guest, @AP

    I wrote, “might have been.”

    The reason is that populations tend to increase with time and to increase more, the larger they are. So 60,000 French-Canadians became 3 million after 300 or so years. The 3 million or so Indians would surely have become much more had they not been nearly wiped out by diseases and displacement.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @AP


    I wrote, “might have been.”

    The reason is that populations tend to increase with time and to increase more, the larger they are. So 60,000 French-Canadians became 3 million after 300 or so years. The 3 million or so Indians would surely have become much more had they not been nearly wiped out by diseases and displacement.
     
    The American Indians had not become "much more" in the thousands of years they had been here. There is no reason to believe they were standing on the precipice of a population explosion like Europeans were. The Indians had achieved no technological or institutional advances that would suggest that real soon they were going have a massive growth phase. They were not French Canadians who possessed the ability for rapid growth and expansion at that time.
  115. OT The booming economy and labor shortage in Poland
    are attracting not only Ukrainians and Belarussians ( over
    one million) but also increasingly Slovaks and Czechs, all
    from countries whose languages are fairly close to Polish.
    Poland is taking advantage of its central location to develop
    many logistical centers for companies like Amazon, etc, and
    consequently is needing a lot of IT people. The same holds for
    the Google campus in Warsaw as well as the video game
    industry in Krakow. Open Borders but only for the IT people.
    That’s how immigration ought to be

  116. @celt darnell
    @Anon

    As Sam Francis had it, it's the stupid party versus the evil party. Frankly, I've seen very little to prove him wrong....

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Yeah, I miss Sam’s writing. He was always willing to call a spade a spade. IFYNWIMAIKTYD.

    • Agree: celt darnell
  117. @Altai
    @Nnz

    When I look at the US I see the political echo of the displacement of the old stock Anglo-Saxons. It isn't only Jewish influence, the narrative of the US being a 'nation of immigrants' comes from the 19th century to early 20th century surge. The descendants of those people were the sea into which this ideology can swim, can inhabit in a way which inhibits others criticism.

    Assimilation of whites didn't make them forget their origins in the US even if there is little antipathy for WASPs from non-Jewish whites today. That was their ancestral narrative and connection the US. For those people it is easy and comforting to think that 'that is who we are'. I'd be curious to see what generational attitudes are like for those populations.

    Replies: @Robert Hume

    This seems to be a good time to bring back Ron Guhname’s 2006 analysis of GSS data showing that WASPS were the best citizens. It would be good if someone could repeat that analysis and add the categories of Asians and Middle Easterners, and legal and illegal recent immigrants.

    ————————–
    I posted in 2015:
    OT In her new book, “Adios America” Ann Coulter has lots of good things to say about WASPS. That brought to mind again Ron Guhname’s conclusion, based on GSS data relevant to good citizenship, that “WASPS Rule”! He concluded that there’s been a steady decline of good citizenship in successive waves of immigration.

    Inductivist.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

    near bottom

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26188478&postID=2489087754197860379

    “WASPs rule! I wrote in a recent post that I was getting the sense that Americans with Protestant European backgrounds were the best behaved. So I decided to sum all my prior post numbers that dealt with ethnicity and moral behavior to assess this idea systematically. I followed the simple strategy of assigning a rank for each behavior for each of the 8 ethnic groups with sufficiently large sample sizes. Jews were often ignored in previous posts since one must turn to the religion rather than the ethnicity variable to get estimates, but I wanted to include them, so I calculated numbers and then ranks for them.

    I included all variables that I have posted on–here’s a list of them: okay to cheat on taxes; drinks too much; ethnocentric; dirty house; frequents prostitutes; promiscuous men over 30; feel that infidelity is not wrong; gay; lesbian; husbands and wives who cheat; fathers divorcing mom; women arrested; and promiscuity for men and women and under. I realized that I had not posted on drug abuse so I added that to the rest. I ranked group so high numbers indicate more bad behavior, then I simply summed the 16 rankings for each ethnic group. Here are the totals:

    Bad Behavior Index

    Blacks 106
    Mexicans 85
    American Indians 85
    Italians 70
    Irish 67
    Jews 64
    Germans 56
    English/Welsh 47

    My hunch was correct. This pattern coincides with that feeling that goes way back among nativists that the moral quality of the country was slipping with the mass immigration from Catholic, southern and eastern European countries, and more recently in concern over immigration from Mexico.
    Posted by Ron Guhname”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Robert Hume


    Irish 67
    English/Welsh 47
     
    The violent crime rate among the Celtic fringe is consistently about 50% higher than in England, so this mirrors that. The two mass murderers who inspired the pistol ban were Celts, Ryan and Hamilton.

    Note, too, that England has more Commonwealth immigrants, which could inflate their crime rate. That would narrow the regional differences.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  118. @celt darnell
    @jim jones

    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).

    That said, as the Saxons originated from what is now Germany, one could argue America just went full circle....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).

    No, more Americans are part-English than part-anything else. One figure I’ve seen, by a genealogist, is that over 80% of Americans have at least one English line. But most are less than half, or even a quarter, English.

    Germans came later, and the newest would be closer to the old country, and still of purer stock.

    Purely post-colonial Brits are not that numerous; most intermarried with local Anglo-Saxons and are thus colonials too. But one notable exception– Hillary Rodham.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    @Reg Cæsar

    Interesting. I was always told the British had been overtaken as the largest white ethnicity by the Germans in the mid-nineteenth century, but that information may have been debunked by genetics.

    I'll take your word for it, although I admit to finding the 80% a little high. My understanding was at the time of independence, the white population was around 60% English.

    Shrillary Rotten, meantime, is a pod person.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  119. @Robert Hume
    @Altai

    This seems to be a good time to bring back Ron Guhname's 2006 analysis of GSS data showing that WASPS were the best citizens. It would be good if someone could repeat that analysis and add the categories of Asians and Middle Easterners, and legal and illegal recent immigrants.

    --------------------------
    I posted in 2015:
    OT In her new book, “Adios America” Ann Coulter has lots of good things to say about WASPS. That brought to mind again Ron Guhname’s conclusion, based on GSS data relevant to good citizenship, that “WASPS Rule”! He concluded that there’s been a steady decline of good citizenship in successive waves of immigration.

    Inductivist.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

    near bottom

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26188478&postID=2489087754197860379

    “WASPs rule! I wrote in a recent post that I was getting the sense that Americans with Protestant European backgrounds were the best behaved. So I decided to sum all my prior post numbers that dealt with ethnicity and moral behavior to assess this idea systematically. I followed the simple strategy of assigning a rank for each behavior for each of the 8 ethnic groups with sufficiently large sample sizes. Jews were often ignored in previous posts since one must turn to the religion rather than the ethnicity variable to get estimates, but I wanted to include them, so I calculated numbers and then ranks for them.

    I included all variables that I have posted on–here’s a list of them: okay to cheat on taxes; drinks too much; ethnocentric; dirty house; frequents prostitutes; promiscuous men over 30; feel that infidelity is not wrong; gay; lesbian; husbands and wives who cheat; fathers divorcing mom; women arrested; and promiscuity for men and women and under. I realized that I had not posted on drug abuse so I added that to the rest. I ranked group so high numbers indicate more bad behavior, then I simply summed the 16 rankings for each ethnic group. Here are the totals:

    Bad Behavior Index

    Blacks 106
    Mexicans 85
    American Indians 85
    Italians 70
    Irish 67
    Jews 64
    Germans 56
    English/Welsh 47

    My hunch was correct. This pattern coincides with that feeling that goes way back among nativists that the moral quality of the country was slipping with the mass immigration from Catholic, southern and eastern European countries, and more recently in concern over immigration from Mexico.
    Posted by Ron Guhname"

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Irish 67
    English/Welsh 47

    The violent crime rate among the Celtic fringe is consistently about 50% higher than in England, so this mirrors that. The two mass murderers who inspired the pistol ban were Celts, Ryan and Hamilton.

    Note, too, that England has more Commonwealth immigrants, which could inflate their crime rate. That would narrow the regional differences.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yet by some strange alchemy, Northern Ireland ends up with less gun control than anywhere else in the British Isles. The Hamiltons and the Ryans know they need to be armed against each other.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  120. @Reg Cæsar
    @celt darnell


    Actually, most white Americans are of German and not British descent (the Germans overtook the British during the 19th century).
     
    No, more Americans are part-English than part-anything else. One figure I've seen, by a genealogist, is that over 80% of Americans have at least one English line. But most are less than half, or even a quarter, English.

    Germans came later, and the newest would be closer to the old country, and still of purer stock.

    Purely post-colonial Brits are not that numerous; most intermarried with local Anglo-Saxons and are thus colonials too. But one notable exception-- Hillary Rodham.

    Replies: @celt darnell

    Interesting. I was always told the British had been overtaken as the largest white ethnicity by the Germans in the mid-nineteenth century, but that information may have been debunked by genetics.

    I’ll take your word for it, although I admit to finding the 80% a little high. My understanding was at the time of independence, the white population was around 60% English.

    Shrillary Rotten, meantime, is a pod person.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @celt darnell

    Virtually all black and Indian natives in the US have English ancestry. So there's almost 15% right off the top.

    As for whites, I know a man with an unusual Polish surname. Three grandparents were immigrants, but the fourth was a Mayflower descendent. The man's WASP wife, a relative of mine, is a relative of him as well, ninth cousin or something. That sort of thing is not uncommon.

  121. @Ram
    @Robert Hume

    Sadly, the Native "Redskins" did not have that choice and got wiped out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @L Woods, @Wally, @Buffalo Joe, @Olorin

    Moosedung from an historical ignoramus.

    The million or more Americans who have ancestors who arrived in 1656 on a little ship called Mercurius are here because the Lenni Lenape WANTED them here–more Swedes and Finns, rather than the British and Dutch, whom they loathed for their hostility and lack of understanding of forest life and people.

    In fact Lenape people boarded that ship with arms and took it upriver in defiance of the Dutch who had seized New Sweden while the ship was in transit from Sweden.

    The Lenni Lenape/people of the turtle didn’t get “wiped out.” They run strong and true to this day. You prefer to think of them as erased it seems.

  122. @Reg Cæsar
    @Robert Hume


    Irish 67
    English/Welsh 47
     
    The violent crime rate among the Celtic fringe is consistently about 50% higher than in England, so this mirrors that. The two mass murderers who inspired the pistol ban were Celts, Ryan and Hamilton.

    Note, too, that England has more Commonwealth immigrants, which could inflate their crime rate. That would narrow the regional differences.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Yet by some strange alchemy, Northern Ireland ends up with less gun control than anywhere else in the British Isles. The Hamiltons and the Ryans know they need to be armed against each other.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Rob McX

    In fact, Michael Ryan was a native of Hungerford, Berkshire - very home counties England - who back in '87 took an AK 47 to his neighbors.
    He had an Irish surname, so presumably he was of Irish descent.
    Hamilton, I forget his first name, was a Scot from Dunblane, Stirlingshire, he massacred a roomful of very young school kids due his annoyance at paedophilia allegations.

  123. @Wilkey
    "Is *America* to be a colony of the world?"

    Apparently the whole of the West - Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - are to be colonies of the world.

    The fact is that California has proved in rather dramatic fashion that you can't have conservatism in a state where whites have been overwhelmed by immigration, yet the Bush family and their allies go on pushing for mass immigration. Which just goes to show you that a conservative country is in no way part of their agenda.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The fact is that California has proved in rather dramatic fashion that you can’t have conservatism in a state where whites have been overwhelmed by immigration, yet the Bush family and their allies go on pushing for mass immigration. Which just goes to show you that a conservative country is in no way part of their agenda.

    You’re making the mistake of thinking that the Republican Party has some connection with conservatism. A common error.

    • Replies: @cynthia curran
    @dfordoom

    California is not that simple. Kern County which has a lot of illegal immigrants because of farming still votes more Republican while the Bay Area which has the Latino population under 30 percent votes the most Democratic. LA and now OC is where immigration had a factor but there are other factors like the Bay Area whites tend to be liberal Dems for years.

  124. Hilary may dream of a one party state, but her Wall Street backers probably have other ideas. If America became a one party state the anti-business liberal left could take over the Democrat Party.

    Better for the economic elites to have two parties so they change sides if the party in power gets too socialist or nationalist.

  125. @Jack D
    @Detective Club

    Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian.

    I disagree. She was more of a lipstick Lesbian. Sort of like Ed Koch - she "never married" but she never paraded her sexuality. In 1972 you couldn't be openly Lesbian and win office. It was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing. She used to wear her hair long and wear feminine clothes so you really couldn't tell just by her appearance (unless you had good gaydar) but nowadays she doesn't try to hide it anymore - she wears her fairly hair short, mannish suits, little makeup, etc. Even now though you could mistake her for say a nun rather than a cross dresser - her generation does not rub its gayness in your face (ewww).

    Replies: @Detective Club

    She had a head start. In 1972 she earned the nickname “Lizard” as in “Lizard” Holtzman. No “Lipstick” Lesbian, she!

    The 1977 Cuomo for Mayor campaign workers went to Koch rallies and shouted “Don’t vote for The Homo, vote for Cuomo!”

    Yes, in ’72 Holtzman dared not come out as a Lesbian and yes, in ’77 Ed Koch hinted that he and the first Jewish Miss America would tie the knot after he won the election in November. The Seventies were such that voters who wanted to believe in these facades managed to continue to live in a world of candy canes and purple ponies and shut their eyes to the flaming obvious.

  126. @ATX Hipster
    @Nnz

    We stopped actually assimilating immigrants a long time ago. How is that Sailer's fault?

    The problem we have that's more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don't want them to assimilate. If the rich, cool, and powerful in our society stopped using the Megaphone to call citizens racist for suggesting immigrants assimilate, then our immigrants might actually feel pressure to, you know, assimilate.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The problem we have that’s more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don’t want them to assimilate.”

    That is patently false. There are a wide range of groups in the States who seek to incorporate the newcomers into our society.

    http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/assimilating_the_new_american_immigrant

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    @Corvinus

    So some citizens do want immigrants to assimilate. How does that disprove what I said?

    The broader culture puts no pressure on immigrants to assimilate and decries as racists citizens that do expect assimilation. A change in the zeitgeist could go a long way to fixing that issue.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  127. @celt darnell
    @Nnz

    Lord, I just love to hear from pontificators who know nothing.

    On immigration and Brexit, try looking up the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. Please don't pretend they are independent of the EU merely because they predate it and don't deny that to rid ourselves of this lunacy we had to leave the EU first.

    Poles will still be able to come to the UK and nothing is going to be done about the quarter of a million and more French citizens living in London. Have a look at the poster Nigel Farage stood in front of which spoke about a "breaking point." Do you see any white faces there?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants

    EU membership means that free movement "European citizens" can't be stopped by member states. As you might have noticed, "European" no longer means "white." So, when those 1 000 000+ Syrians, Africans and God-knows-what-else that Angela Merkel invited into Europe get their German citizenship (as they will) there'd be no stopping their entry into the UK. None. We needed to regain control of our national borders.

    Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was also a supporter of the Third World invasion of the UK. Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was a supporter of multiculturalism. The number of exceptions is statistically insignificant.

    By contrast, anyone who opposed the Third World invasion and multiculturalism voted Brexit. Again, the exceptions are statistically insignificant.

    And of the Third World invaders themselves? With the sole exception of the Sikhs, they voted "remain" by large majorities -- 70% in the case of the Muslims. The only reason London voted overwhelmingly for remain is because it's population is only 45% white British (or what we would have simply called "British" a mere two decades ago).

    Goodness, you might think that both the darkies and the British recognize something about the EU you don't.

    Re: "On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU."

    Er, no. Less than half our exports go to the EU. Not only that, we run a trade deficit with Europe. We run a surplus with the rest of the world.

    We Brexiteers have been discussing immigration and like issues before you were born, sunshine. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly hope you're better informed about your own country than you are about the UK.

    In any case, please move out of your parents' house, get a job, get a girlfriend and get a life.

    And please don't waste everyone's time by blathering about things you don't understand.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Anonymous

    You know that pretty much the main source of what white immigrations the UK is getting is from Poland right? Plus considering the way things are going demographically in the UK at the moment. Eastern and central Europe may just be needed as a lifeboat, so that free movement inside the EU may just come in handy someday.

    • Replies: @celt darnell
    @Nnz

    Free movement inside the EU may just come in handy one day?

    Not if it's Muslims and/or Africans masquerading as Germans, French or whatever, sunshine.

    If and when we want foreigners in the UK, we'll let them in -- but on our terms, not on Brussels'.

    A nation state controls its borders. End of story.

    , @Anonymous
    @Nnz

    I'm sorry, but as much as I like the Poles, and believe in a 'brotherhood' of European peoples, Poland has *never* been an outer province of England throughout history. England and Poland have always been separate, self-contained states.
    This mass immigration thing of Poles into England, if we ignore the last war, only dates from the year 2003. It's of very recent vintage.

  128. @Marie
    I just can't believe that *everyone* on the GOP payroll is so cucked and retarded in regards to the 'progressive' community's so-called community organizing strategies, which are the brutal, quite open and oft-basic ways they generally manage to Alinsky their way to victory. They regularly publish books, training manuals and various other propaganda literature explaining in great detail their Communist tactics (see: Lisa Fithian, the Midwest Academy, and countless other 'social justice' orgs connected to various American churches and synagogues - David Horowitz's Discover the Networks does excellent and essential work in documenting what these people do).

    Republicans are just too nice and naïve. Whoever coined the term cuckservative should be given executor status on whatever remains of Bill Buckley's estate so NRO money will finally fund something worthwhile.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Republicans are just too nice and naïve.

    Or they’re just too cynical and vicious, caring only about the interests of bankers and global capitalism and not giving a damn about ordinary people.

  129. @rod1963
    You folks realize when the crooks are this brazen about stealing votes and gaslighting the opposition via thuggery it pretty much means they run the system and have no fear of retribution. And worse, it's just a matter of time before they turn that system lose on Americans they don't like. After all, it's not like they have fear being arrested by the FBI when the FBI is controlled by them.

    And if she gets in, the country is dead, finished as there is nothing that is legal or illegal for those in power. And in such a system, you better watch yourself because if you get out of line, you may end up dead.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    And in such a system, you better watch yourself because if you get out of line, you may end up dead.

    Not dead, just permanently unemployed. Totalitarianism has become a little bit more subtle (and a lot more efficient) than it was in Stalin’s day. There’s no need to kill the kulaks these days. That creates bad publicity.

  130. Steve’s posting is classic Coalition Of The Right Fringe Group fare…painting Democrats are THE front and center group, via deals by Jewish power brokers, in smoke filled rooms, of a systematic plan to depopulate “native” Americans, in particular those current whites whose ancestors came from the bastion of western civilization–Northern and Western Europe.

    Dare I say a mirror image of this plan has also been hatched by Steve’s fellow elitists–drown SJW’s and their liberal acolytes through the power of pasty whites goodness. Would not removing this supposed perpetual energizing force of vibrants from the body politic best serve the interests of race realists and white nationalists, of Alt-Righters and their post-apocalyptic soothsayers to push their own agenda? Ah, yes, but that’s not propagandizing, that’s just telling the unvarnished truth about race and culture, about First World and Third World, about Christianity and Islam.

    Steve’s fellow compatriots Brimlow and Rubenstein (good Jew?) clearly showed their hand, lamenting how anti-white immigration acts by “bad whites” (the current ruling class) dilute the power of “good whites” (the displaced ruling class). In the middle of this pissing match are those whites who seek to make their own decisions regarding race, but are labeled “cucks” and “traitors” merely for exercising their freedom of association. In other words, Steve’s team is also part of this “vast conspiracy of displacement” phenomenon, but it’s more fun to paint the other team as being the exclusive conveyor of pure evil.

    “The questions today are similar to those in Ben Franklin’s time: Do American voters have the right to independence and self-rule, to determine who is let in and who is not, to have borders?”

    They haven’t lost that liberty, they have been exercising it, much to everyone’s chagrin.

    “Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.”

    Corrected for accuracy–Certain hard-line conservatives who shall remain nameless complain bitterly that the opposing side is apparently gaming the system by using immigration laws to gain political strength, even though the ancestors of these same hard-line conservatives engaged in similar actions when the tables were turned to maintain their own dominance.

    Let us assume that “bringing in foreign ringers” is indeed the end goal of Democrats/liberals. The counter by “true conservatives” is to have their intellectual zealots label other whites as being “on the right side” or on the side of “non-whites”.

    “To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.”

    If foreigners go through the legal means to become a citizen as determined by the criteria established by Congress, there is no “adulteration” of the any vote. It just means there are more citizens who are eligible to vote for whomever candidate they are most aligned with ideologically.

    The train is fine, Steve, the train is fine.

  131. @Thea
    @Altai

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind. I find it hard to believe a large number of people could be that coldly cynical but maybe I am naive.

    The Clintons on the other hand....

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @ben tillman, @Brutusale

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind.

    Was John Kennedy a leftist? Why did things change so radically only after he was assassinated?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @ben tillman

    "Was John Kennedy a leftist?"

    JFK certainly wasn't a leftist. Bobby eventually started to lean that way, and Teddy leaned all the way in.

  132. @Nnz
    @celt darnell

    You know that pretty much the main source of what white immigrations the UK is getting is from Poland right? Plus considering the way things are going demographically in the UK at the moment. Eastern and central Europe may just be needed as a lifeboat, so that free movement inside the EU may just come in handy someday.

    Replies: @celt darnell, @Anonymous

    Free movement inside the EU may just come in handy one day?

    Not if it’s Muslims and/or Africans masquerading as Germans, French or whatever, sunshine.

    If and when we want foreigners in the UK, we’ll let them in — but on our terms, not on Brussels’.

    A nation state controls its borders. End of story.

  133. @Anonymous

    Second, the GOP put up such little resistance to more immigration that liberals had to move left to protect their standing. For example, when George W. Bush got to the left of the NYT editorial board in 2001 on immigration, they finally flipped toward favoring amnesty.
     
    If in the 90's opposition to amnesty was the Democrat position and open borders was the WSJ position, why wouldn't Bush being pro-amnesty be perceived as a pro-business move to the right? And push the Times further towards an anti-amnesty position, which would continue to be perceived as left?

    In the 2000 anti-amnesty editorial they're taking the opposite position of the AFL-CIO union. What's up with that?

    Replies: @cynthia curran

    Steve ideas explains Texas or Arizona but not North Carolina which has had more blacks come to the state in the past 10 years. This also explains Georgia, with illegal immigrants mainly in Atlanta or Gwinitt County. Blacks not immigrants explains changes in the South where Latinos are usually less than 10 percent. As for unions changing their view on illegal immigration and the Democratic Party, the Service Union has a lot of members here illegality which explains why the other unions changed their mind.

  134. @dfordoom
    @Wilkey


    The fact is that California has proved in rather dramatic fashion that you can’t have conservatism in a state where whites have been overwhelmed by immigration, yet the Bush family and their allies go on pushing for mass immigration. Which just goes to show you that a conservative country is in no way part of their agenda.
     
    You're making the mistake of thinking that the Republican Party has some connection with conservatism. A common error.

    Replies: @cynthia curran

    California is not that simple. Kern County which has a lot of illegal immigrants because of farming still votes more Republican while the Bay Area which has the Latino population under 30 percent votes the most Democratic. LA and now OC is where immigration had a factor but there are other factors like the Bay Area whites tend to be liberal Dems for years.

  135. @Jack D
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    We now feel the McCarthyism of the left, where having the "wrong" views or saying the "wrong" thing, or even (like Billy Bush) being in the presence of people who do so and not denouncing them can lead to your losing your job. I think that all of the adjectives that Celler used to describe McCarthyism (evil, dishonorable, etc.) hold true today as well. McCarthyism of any kind (including the orginal McCarthy kind) is to me contrary to American customs of free thinking. McCarthy also did what leftists do today - apply today's standards to past conduct. Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.

    I understand that McCarthy (rightly) felt that we were deeply threatened by Communism, who tactics made what McCarthyism look like child's play (in Russia being purged didn't mean losing your job, it meant losing your life). Nevertheless, we didn't win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy's level.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @guest, @guest

    “Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.”

    That’s disingenuous. Many of his victims were stalinist agents, who consciously and unrepentantly worked to further communist and soviet aims. And their own ethnic ones, as it happened too.

  136. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It's an insult to Celler's memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans. Maybe Hillary thinks that way, but American Jewish men of his generation were patriotic Americans who would have given their lives for America, which had given everything to them. He was misguided in retrospect but he thought that what he was doing was in America's best interest and not that of the Jewish people specifically, who as I said had little left to gain at that point.

    Most of the post '65 American Jewish immigrants that I know are Israelis who came for economic reasons. To be honest, most American Jews are a little ambivalent about Israelis moving to the US - better that they should stay home and work on strengthening Israel. I doubt that Celler was aiming at increasing Israeli immigration to the US. The push to get the Soviet Jews out came later, in the '70s - in '65 it was still inconceivable that the Soviets were going to let anyone leave, Jewish or not.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @D. K., @peterike, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    “It’s an insult to Celler’s memory to think that he had little fondness for Americans.”

    So? I want to insult his memory. Let his memory be insulted. He didn’t do me or my kind any good. He had the arrogance to presume that the historical majority of my country – my people – had no right to be a majority in the country they had founded. And he labored unceasingly for forty years to make it happen. I really don’t care what motivated him.

    He also authored the bill that became the 1968 federal gun control act. Another patriotic deed?

    His legislative career seemed to consist mostly of transforming the country into some other kind of country, more to his liking and that of his group. Why should I find that in any way laudable?

    Your arguments on this matter are transparently informed by ethnic self-interest. You’re not fooling anyone, youself included, I suspect.

  137. @ben tillman
    @Thea


    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind.
     
    Was John Kennedy a leftist? Why did things change so radically only after he was assassinated?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Was John Kennedy a leftist?”

    JFK certainly wasn’t a leftist. Bobby eventually started to lean that way, and Teddy leaned all the way in.

  138. @Jack D
    @peterike

    Why yes, you could go back to the Elders of Zion ....

    It was my understanding that most Jews in America at the time of WWI were either of German origin (and at that pre-Hitler time still felt warmly about Germany) or else Russian (and not well disposed to the Czarist side). And in any event not that influential either way . So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.

    Replies: @guest, @Opinionator, @Mr. Anon

    “So the only people who think that the Jooz got us into WWI are the kind of people who see a Joo under every bed.”

    Just as people who think that anyone who questions the actions of certain members of what is per capita the richest and most influential ethnic group in America are the kind of people who see an anti-semite under every bed.

  139. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Nnz
    So what have you morons done other than cut off the only source white immigration to the UK (Poland) which means that the only immigrants the UK will be getting are blacks from Africa and the Carribean and subcontinental Muslims and Indians? Stupid pieces of shit. On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU.

    Replies: @celt darnell, @Anonymous

    Calm down.

    I doubt if you actually live here, or know anything about Britain or British history.
    The main point is that the EU will almost certainly be the force pushing for more third world immigration into Europe – including Poland – in the near future.
    Anyhow, the present Conservative government has put some rather formidable barriers up to ‘primary’ third world immigration, including income thresholds exceeding £30,000 per annum, and these barriers will only rise in the future.

  140. @Coemgen
    @Altai

    If you subscribe to the theory that the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" then look no further than to his son Patrick "Patches" Kennedy to support the position that, yes, he really was that stupid.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I knew a guy who went to prep school with Patrick Kennedy. He said that he was “dumber than a box of rocks”. This guy was a super-liberal Democrat too.

  141. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Nnz
    @celt darnell

    You know that pretty much the main source of what white immigrations the UK is getting is from Poland right? Plus considering the way things are going demographically in the UK at the moment. Eastern and central Europe may just be needed as a lifeboat, so that free movement inside the EU may just come in handy someday.

    Replies: @celt darnell, @Anonymous

    I’m sorry, but as much as I like the Poles, and believe in a ‘brotherhood’ of European peoples, Poland has *never* been an outer province of England throughout history. England and Poland have always been separate, self-contained states.
    This mass immigration thing of Poles into England, if we ignore the last war, only dates from the year 2003. It’s of very recent vintage.

  142. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob McX
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yet by some strange alchemy, Northern Ireland ends up with less gun control than anywhere else in the British Isles. The Hamiltons and the Ryans know they need to be armed against each other.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    In fact, Michael Ryan was a native of Hungerford, Berkshire – very home counties England – who back in ’87 took an AK 47 to his neighbors.
    He had an Irish surname, so presumably he was of Irish descent.
    Hamilton, I forget his first name, was a Scot from Dunblane, Stirlingshire, he massacred a roomful of very young school kids due his annoyance at paedophilia allegations.

  143. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @celt darnell
    @Nnz

    Lord, I just love to hear from pontificators who know nothing.

    On immigration and Brexit, try looking up the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. Please don't pretend they are independent of the EU merely because they predate it and don't deny that to rid ourselves of this lunacy we had to leave the EU first.

    Poles will still be able to come to the UK and nothing is going to be done about the quarter of a million and more French citizens living in London. Have a look at the poster Nigel Farage stood in front of which spoke about a "breaking point." Do you see any white faces there?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants

    EU membership means that free movement "European citizens" can't be stopped by member states. As you might have noticed, "European" no longer means "white." So, when those 1 000 000+ Syrians, Africans and God-knows-what-else that Angela Merkel invited into Europe get their German citizenship (as they will) there'd be no stopping their entry into the UK. None. We needed to regain control of our national borders.

    Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was also a supporter of the Third World invasion of the UK. Everyone who supported the "Remain" side was a supporter of multiculturalism. The number of exceptions is statistically insignificant.

    By contrast, anyone who opposed the Third World invasion and multiculturalism voted Brexit. Again, the exceptions are statistically insignificant.

    And of the Third World invaders themselves? With the sole exception of the Sikhs, they voted "remain" by large majorities -- 70% in the case of the Muslims. The only reason London voted overwhelmingly for remain is because it's population is only 45% white British (or what we would have simply called "British" a mere two decades ago).

    Goodness, you might think that both the darkies and the British recognize something about the EU you don't.

    Re: "On top of that you are cut off from pretty much the only market that buys British goods now the EU."

    Er, no. Less than half our exports go to the EU. Not only that, we run a trade deficit with Europe. We run a surplus with the rest of the world.

    We Brexiteers have been discussing immigration and like issues before you were born, sunshine. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly hope you're better informed about your own country than you are about the UK.

    In any case, please move out of your parents' house, get a job, get a girlfriend and get a life.

    And please don't waste everyone's time by blathering about things you don't understand.

    Replies: @Nnz, @Anonymous

    Yes, I was intrigued by the fact that the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth – both massively non-white – both put in the biggest ‘remain’ votes in the nation.
    Lambeth, as anyone who knows it can attest, is generally speaking, one of the most run-down, deprived toilets in Britain, so much for the notion that the ‘poor and uneducated’ voted to leave.
    What is perplexing is former ‘Commonwealth citizens’ voted heavily to remain whilst it is perfectly obvious that the EU is a replacement for the Commonwealth.
    In my own mind, I’m certain that Britain’s ‘minorities’ plumped for the EU knowing full well that the super state’s ‘equality laws and articles’ provide indelible protection for them, that the EU courts will always ‘find’ for them – and the relations they want to pull in – and that the EU gives them and their relations ‘at home’ the opportunity of cherry-picking European states, and that the EU provides a ‘bolt-hole’ in the remote circumstances of a nationalist victory in the UK.

    • Agree: celt darnell
  144. @Jack D
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    We now feel the McCarthyism of the left, where having the "wrong" views or saying the "wrong" thing, or even (like Billy Bush) being in the presence of people who do so and not denouncing them can lead to your losing your job. I think that all of the adjectives that Celler used to describe McCarthyism (evil, dishonorable, etc.) hold true today as well. McCarthyism of any kind (including the orginal McCarthy kind) is to me contrary to American customs of free thinking. McCarthy also did what leftists do today - apply today's standards to past conduct. Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.

    I understand that McCarthy (rightly) felt that we were deeply threatened by Communism, who tactics made what McCarthyism look like child's play (in Russia being purged didn't mean losing your job, it meant losing your life). Nevertheless, we didn't win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy's level.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @guest, @guest

    What do you mean, “now?” You know who was actually in power before, during, and after the McCarthy era? Leftists. The Brown Scare was always more fervent than the Red Scare, except for a short window, and it never ended!

  145. @Jack D
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    We now feel the McCarthyism of the left, where having the "wrong" views or saying the "wrong" thing, or even (like Billy Bush) being in the presence of people who do so and not denouncing them can lead to your losing your job. I think that all of the adjectives that Celler used to describe McCarthyism (evil, dishonorable, etc.) hold true today as well. McCarthyism of any kind (including the orginal McCarthy kind) is to me contrary to American customs of free thinking. McCarthy also did what leftists do today - apply today's standards to past conduct. Many of his victims said kind things about the Russians at a time when we were their official allies against Hitler.

    I understand that McCarthy (rightly) felt that we were deeply threatened by Communism, who tactics made what McCarthyism look like child's play (in Russia being purged didn't mean losing your job, it meant losing your life). Nevertheless, we didn't win the Cold War by sinking to our enemy's level.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @guest, @guest

    “we didn’t win the Cold War by sinking to the enemy’s level”

    Thank God upright citizens badmouthed McCarthy before he could arrange the Katyn Massacres, Holodomors, and Great Terrors he had planned, using all the power he never had.

    Grow up.

  146. @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Actually, the “Redskins”, who saw themselves as individual tribes rather than as a unitary “Redskin” entity, often did resist the encroachment of European settlers. Unfortunately for them, being from the Stone Age has certain drawbacks.

    Correct.


    Indian tribal rolls today show more Indians than were here when Columbus landed–and that’s after the effect of pent-up disease pathogens crossing the Atlantic.

     

    "While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

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

    Today: One race: 2,932,248 are registered; In combination with one or more of the other races listed: 2,288,331; Total: 5,220,579

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


    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

     

    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rwanda+keith+harmon+snow
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-886-keith-harmon-snow-reveals-the-truth-about-the-rwandan-genocide/

    On the other hand, [the Redskins] were fortunate that the settler people, mainly NW Euros, ultimately granted to them peaceful coexistence, semi-sovereign lands, ........
     
    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination. (California had the lowest percentage of survivors : "State and federal policies, in combination with vigilante violence, played major roles in the near-annihilation of California Indians during the first twenty-seven years of U.S. rule. . . . [reducing] California Indian numbers by at least 80 percent, from perhaps 150,000 to some 30,000. ." (Madley, 2016))

    Granting as such means little, because any laws anywhere in the world are broken when there is sufficient will + force for doing so.
    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    "People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White"

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri

    Thanks for your reply Ivan. I do have to differ on some points though.

    “While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).”

    I’m familiar with the politically correct attempts to show that a large and advanced civilization existed in North America before European settlement. Prior to the PC sweepstakes however, most estimates were about one or two million, such as Dee Brown, the grandfather of Native American studies. Central America, which arguably did have a large civilization (I hesitate to say “advanced” because they lacked things like the wheel and draft animals), is supposed to have numbered in the low double-digit millions. Other regions with more reliable demographic data (Europe, China, Near and Middle East), when they had populations in the double-digit millions also had extensive buildings, artifacts and agricultural terra-forming (e.g., irrigation). No such remains exist in North America, so anything approaching those figures for the Stone Age North Americans is delusional.

    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.

    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.

    That the Mongols did not slaughter everyone does not mean they did not slaughter anyone. Most estimates (and for these, some actual census data exist) of the Mongol invasions put the population loss in the mid- to high-double digit millions, or more than the entire New World population. And keep in mind, there was no bow-wave of epidemics doing the heavy lifting. The Mongol accomplishment was good old fashioned manual labor. And this is to say nothing of the moral dimension. The New World deaths were mostly inadvertent (e.g., disease) or conducted by radical elements at the frontier who embarrassed the larger civilization. By contrast, the Mongols excelled in killing qua killing. It is uncontroversial that in the conquest of Bagdhad, for example, the Mongols killed 90,000 prisoners just to build a pyramid out of their heads. Or since you mention Russia, the Mongols typically celebrated their conquests, e.g. Kiev, with a victory banquet atop the living bodies of the defeated, gradually crushing them to death. No such equivalent exists in New World history (unless one looks in the pre-Columbian times of the Aztecs and their ritual massacres).

    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm

    I am perfectly prepared to believe that the MSM have been lying about how the Rwandan massacres occurred; unfortunately Mr. Snow is heavy on bluster and light on evidence. But it doesn’t really matter. No one disputes that Africans killed millions in short order, even if they dispute precisely which Africans did it and how.

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination.

    Uh, yeah, you can’t grant things to people who are not alive. Seems kind of obvious.

    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    “People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White”

    If this is the indictment of peaceful coexistence, it proves the Indians live in a golden age of interracial comity. This statistic makes the same error as BLM. Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites. Given the endless incitements to race-hatred and grievance propaganda, that’s remarkably even-handed.

    Anyway, God bless the Indians. I’d just like to get the same treatment myself: full rights of US citizens along with semi-sovereign independence in my own lands and exemptions from some of the regulation … pretty sweet deal, where can I sign up for that?

    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks for the fair points you made.

    I take a dim view on this:

    Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites.

    The correlation only indicates causation, and what I just wrote is not to bullshit, but having this finding in mind:

    "There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

    By the way, I absolutely share your sentiment regarding the Native Indians legal status. But what happens is embedded in historical context, and I wouldn't quite like to have been born as a Native American.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri

  147. @Mack Bolan
    @Almost Missouri

    Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood.
    We had a local tribal chief who was blond haired and blue eyed. Looked more Scandinavian than Native American. I think identifying as Indian and being one is a different thing. Many of these identifiers wouldn't feel comfortable living on a reservation.

    Replies: @Marie, @Almost Missouri

    “Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood.”

    Yes. But by the same token, the existing Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Almost Missouri

    Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    What benefits specifically would be diluted?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Almost Missouri

  148. Is this the “smoking gun” with respect to the Hildebeast and her team rigging the election?

    John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated. On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

    From the Internet:

    As of this writing in 2016, a total of 12 states plus the District of Columbia allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver’s license. These 12 states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

    http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/can-undocumented-immigrants-get-drivers-licenses.html

    Sixteen states require no ID to vote. Many of these are the so-called Blue States. Add these to the states that issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants … and you might have the election with a little encouragement to the demographic.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

    Would not encouraging undocumented immigrants to take advantage of these loopholes to vote be considered criminal racketeering?

  149. @Almost Missouri
    @Mack Bolan


    "Could it be there are so many people who identify as Native American because of the lucrative payouts from tribal casinos to people with Indian blood."
     
    Yes. But by the same token, the existing Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste "Indians" from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    What benefits specifically would be diluted?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Opinionator

    Some tribes own casinos.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Opinionator

    Thanks Jim Don Bob.

    Also land and other forms of capital.

  150. “Yes. But by the same token, the existing Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.”

    Now, now……….acting like a native American…………..that’s not who we are.

    Remember when liberals pretended to care about American Indians? Now they are just a line item in a list of white male atrocities.

  151. @Almost Missouri
    @Ivan K.

    Thanks for your reply Ivan. I do have to differ on some points though.


    “While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).”
     
    I'm familiar with the politically correct attempts to show that a large and advanced civilization existed in North America before European settlement. Prior to the PC sweepstakes however, most estimates were about one or two million, such as Dee Brown, the grandfather of Native American studies. Central America, which arguably did have a large civilization (I hesitate to say "advanced" because they lacked things like the wheel and draft animals), is supposed to have numbered in the low double-digit millions. Other regions with more reliable demographic data (Europe, China, Near and Middle East), when they had populations in the double-digit millions also had extensive buildings, artifacts and agricultural terra-forming (e.g., irrigation). No such remains exist in North America, so anything approaching those figures for the Stone Age North Americans is delusional.


    It hasn’t worked out that badly for the Indians compared to those who lost to the Mongols, the Hutus, or the Israelites.
     
    The Chinese, among others, lost to the Mongols. The Russians, too.
     
    That the Mongols did not slaughter everyone does not mean they did not slaughter anyone. Most estimates (and for these, some actual census data exist) of the Mongol invasions put the population loss in the mid- to high-double digit millions, or more than the entire New World population. And keep in mind, there was no bow-wave of epidemics doing the heavy lifting. The Mongol accomplishment was good old fashioned manual labor. And this is to say nothing of the moral dimension. The New World deaths were mostly inadvertent (e.g., disease) or conducted by radical elements at the frontier who embarrassed the larger civilization. By contrast, the Mongols excelled in killing qua killing. It is uncontroversial that in the conquest of Bagdhad, for example, the Mongols killed 90,000 prisoners just to build a pyramid out of their heads. Or since you mention Russia, the Mongols typically celebrated their conquests, e.g. Kiev, with a victory banquet atop the living bodies of the defeated, gradually crushing them to death. No such equivalent exists in New World history (unless one looks in the pre-Columbian times of the Aztecs and their ritual massacres).

    The Hutus reference leads our thoughts to the Rwandan war, the reality of which was inverted by the msm
     
    I am perfectly prepared to believe that the MSM have been lying about how the Rwandan massacres occurred; unfortunately Mr. Snow is heavy on bluster and light on evidence. But it doesn't really matter. No one disputes that Africans killed millions in short order, even if they dispute precisely which Africans did it and how.

    More precisely, things were granted to the survivors of the systemic extermination.
     
    Uh, yeah, you can't grant things to people who are not alive. Seems kind of obvious.

    The peaceful coexistence is somewhat dented by this statistic:

    “People killed by the police in the US, per million:
    5.49 Native American ,,, 2.11 White”
     

    If this is the indictment of peaceful coexistence, it proves the Indians live in a golden age of interracial comity. This statistic makes the same error as BLM. Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites. Given the endless incitements to race-hatred and grievance propaganda, that's remarkably even-handed.

    Anyway, God bless the Indians. I'd just like to get the same treatment myself: full rights of US citizens along with semi-sovereign independence in my own lands and exemptions from some of the regulation ... pretty sweet deal, where can I sign up for that?

    Replies: @Ivan K.

    Thanks for the fair points you made.

    I take a dim view on this:

    Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites.

    The correlation only indicates causation, and what I just wrote is not to bullshit, but having this finding in mind:

    “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

    By the way, I absolutely share your sentiment regarding the Native Indians legal status. But what happens is embedded in historical context, and I wouldn’t quite like to have been born as a Native American.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Ivan K.


    "I wouldn’t quite like to have been born as a Native American."
     
    I dunno. I know some Native Americans who are doing pretty well for themselves, even better, on account of their Native American-ness, than they would have otherwise.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Ivan K.


    having this finding in mind:

    “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854
     
    I've commented on this deeply defective study before, so I'll try to be brief.

    Leaving aside the study's problems with spotty source data and heedlessness of the law of small numbers, the main problem with the "no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates" claim is 1) it ignores the aggregate effect of higher black crime rates, 2) their proxies for crime rates are inconsistent, and 3) some counties are more tolerant of those higher crime rates than others, which if a sign of bias, is the kind of bias the authors would welcome if they were honest.

    The authors pretend to address the higher black crime rate by addressing correlations with “race-specific crime proxies”, but their proxies are weapons and assault charges, the definitions and enforcement of which vary wildly across jurisdictions, so it is not describing the same thing in different places. And even if it were, all that a non-correlation of police over-tolerance of black criminals versus white criminals with crime rates would show is just that police over-tolerance varies between jurisdictions, which should surprise no one and no one is disputing.

    Assuming their procedural errors have not totally nullified their analysis, their maps show some areas being much less tolerant of black misbehavior than other areas. These are mainly three areas: the Southwest, Florida and the Acela corridor in the Northeast. The Southwest and Florida are where non-whites (mainly Hispanics) have assumed the reins of law enforcement in numbers, so blacks are coming into contact with people who don’t hew to the white tradition of over-tolerance of black misbehavior. The Acela corridor is of course the homeland of Left-Liberalism, so they really need rough men to do violence on their behalf so that they can continue to live the limousine liberal lifestyle to which they are accustomed. So, if the map is correct, it does not show that "that the racial bias* observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates". Instead it shows that it is explainable as a response to local-level crime rates and local demographic circumstances.

    * Keep in mind that when this study says the word "bias", what they are referring to is that some areas have very high degree of over-tolerance for black crime while other areas have only a modest over-tolerance for black crime. This is "bias" in The Current Year: you are not discriminating sufficiently in favor of the preferred group.
  152. @Opinionator
    @Almost Missouri

    Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    What benefits specifically would be diluted?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Almost Missouri

    Some tribes own casinos.

  153. @Rob McX
    This explanation regarding Democrats and Republicans is hardly adequate. It's not just in America that this is happening. Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so. Our countries were marked out for destruction at least fifty years ago. The excuses change from one decade to the next...nation of immigrants, atoning for an imperialist past, borders impossible to police, free market in labour, etc. What it comes down to is that we're ruled by people who hate us and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Mr. Anon, @Whiskey, @Mack Bolan, @Corvinus

    “Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so.”

    So, how should you rig elections to make sure only “good whites”–the race realists, the Alt Right–emerges victorious?

    “What it comes down to is that we’re ruled by people who hate us…”

    Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?

    Wow, just wow.

    “and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own.”

    You mean just the “good whites” having a country to call their own, not “bad whites”. Because whites in general, do they not possess the liberty to make their own racial decisions?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?

    Wow, just wow."

    You don't? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid.

    You actually said "Wow, just wow"? You truly are a walking, talking caricature of an SJW. But then, they are all caricatures.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  154. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so."

    So, how should you rig elections to make sure only "good whites"--the race realists, the Alt Right--emerges victorious?

    "What it comes down to is that we’re ruled by people who hate us..."

    Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by "importing" non-whites?

    Wow, just wow.

    "and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own."

    You mean just the "good whites" having a country to call their own, not "bad whites". Because whites in general, do they not possess the liberty to make their own racial decisions?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

    Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative.

    • Agree: Harold
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative."

    I posed three different ones. Which are you specifically referring to?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  155. @Whiskey
    @Rob McX

    This is because a majority of White people hate hate hate the compromises, the culture, the needs of prosperity and modernity coupled with the Third World being well aware that their people and cultures are miserable failures and there will be no improvement ever in the lives of ordinary people.

    ONLY non-feminized White nations resist mass Third World immigration -- Switzerland that gave women the right to vote in 1971, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. Sweden, Feminist Ground Zero, is also the Ground Zero of Mass Third World Immigration.

    For White Women, mass third world immigration is only a plus. They get Islam, which they love (Alpha males shared, no body competition i.e. burquas for fatties which most are). They get to drown Beta White Males in a sea of low IQ, high aggression non-White males, getting rid of the endless technology upgrades which they loathe like Donald Trump. They get to ride the gravy train of Affirmative Action, and see themselves as Emma Stone in "the Help" as noble SJW types.

    Modern, prosperous Western life requires male cooperation, constant advances in productivity which means massive technological change driving social change, and above all making ordinary smart White guys the center of society not its margins. Which women HATE HATE HATE like baseball statistics, the Linux Operating System, and HBD.

    There is no chance, zero zilch nada, of turning that back until the role of White women is addressed. The fundamental problem is that the pill, condom, anonymous urban living to quote Roissy, has led women to have little to no genetic investment (early childbearing and marriage) in society and little self-interest aligned with their male peers. That is unlikely to change so the only solution is to make women afraid of crossing White male interests, more afraid than of crossing Muslim, Black, Hispanic interests etc. As a general rule anyway it is far better to be feared than loved.

    Replies: @Harold

    Mass third world immigration will make ‘ordinary smart White guys’ the top of society.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Harold

    Not when we are taking the top 2% of China, India, Korea, Pakistan, and Israel

    , @L Woods
    @Harold

    Um, not coupled with left wing politics it won't. Affirmative action will prevent their superior merit from manifesting itself as superior status, while relentless propaganda via the media and education system will preclude white solidarity even in the face of demographic oblivion.

    I actually sort of agree with your sentiment -- I wouldn't be so vociferously anti-immigration if it weren't for the egregiously iniquitous paradigm that mandates that the arrivistes be vaulted by government fiat and ideological imperative over the founding population. As it is, the idea that non-elite white guys will be the top of anything other than per capita net tax contribution is exceedingly wishful thinking.

  156. @Harold
    @Whiskey

    Mass third world immigration will make ‘ordinary smart White guys’ the top of society.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @L Woods

    Not when we are taking the top 2% of China, India, Korea, Pakistan, and Israel

  157. L Woods says:
    @Harold
    @Whiskey

    Mass third world immigration will make ‘ordinary smart White guys’ the top of society.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @L Woods

    Um, not coupled with left wing politics it won’t. Affirmative action will prevent their superior merit from manifesting itself as superior status, while relentless propaganda via the media and education system will preclude white solidarity even in the face of demographic oblivion.

    I actually sort of agree with your sentiment — I wouldn’t be so vociferously anti-immigration if it weren’t for the egregiously iniquitous paradigm that mandates that the arrivistes be vaulted by government fiat and ideological imperative over the founding population. As it is, the idea that non-elite white guys will be the top of anything other than per capita net tax contribution is exceedingly wishful thinking.

  158. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative.”

    I posed three different ones. Which are you specifically referring to?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    The middle one.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Corvinus

  159. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Actually, the answer to the rhetorical question that you posed is an emphatic and unqualified affirmative."

    I posed three different ones. Which are you specifically referring to?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The middle one.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Anonymous

    "The middle one."

    Funny, that is also the answer to the question "What finger am I displaying to Corvinus?"

    , @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    I posed this question..."Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?"

    You reply, "yes". Fine. Prove it. What specific evidence lends you to think this way?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous

  160. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    The middle one.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Corvinus

    “The middle one.”

    Funny, that is also the answer to the question “What finger am I displaying to Corvinus?”

  161. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "Every white country in the world is either replacing its population or coming under extreme pressure to do so."

    So, how should you rig elections to make sure only "good whites"--the race realists, the Alt Right--emerges victorious?

    "What it comes down to is that we’re ruled by people who hate us..."

    Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by "importing" non-whites?

    Wow, just wow.

    "and are determined that we shall have no country we can call our own."

    You mean just the "good whites" having a country to call their own, not "bad whites". Because whites in general, do they not possess the liberty to make their own racial decisions?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

    “Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?

    Wow, just wow.”

    You don’t? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid.

    You actually said “Wow, just wow”? You truly are a walking, talking caricature of an SJW. But then, they are all caricatures.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "You don’t? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid."

    The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites.

    What is the percentage of this group? What are their characteristics? How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

  162. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    The middle one.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Corvinus

    I posed this question…”Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?”

    You reply, “yes”. Fine. Prove it. What specific evidence lends you to think this way?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus

    As James Fulford explains it, these people don't hate themselves, they hate us. We're "deplorable". Somehow they're not.

    Card-carrying members of the Projectionists Union!

    , @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Just read 'The Economist' magazine to see the way the elite thinks.

  163. @celt darnell
    @Reg Cæsar

    Interesting. I was always told the British had been overtaken as the largest white ethnicity by the Germans in the mid-nineteenth century, but that information may have been debunked by genetics.

    I'll take your word for it, although I admit to finding the 80% a little high. My understanding was at the time of independence, the white population was around 60% English.

    Shrillary Rotten, meantime, is a pod person.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Virtually all black and Indian natives in the US have English ancestry. So there’s almost 15% right off the top.

    As for whites, I know a man with an unusual Polish surname. Three grandparents were immigrants, but the fourth was a Mayflower descendent. The man’s WASP wife, a relative of mine, is a relative of him as well, ninth cousin or something. That sort of thing is not uncommon.

    • Agree: celt darnell
  164. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    I posed this question..."Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?"

    You reply, "yes". Fine. Prove it. What specific evidence lends you to think this way?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous

    As James Fulford explains it, these people don’t hate themselves, they hate us. We’re “deplorable”. Somehow they’re not.

    Card-carrying members of the Projectionists Union!

  165. @Corvinus
    @ATX Hipster

    "The problem we have that’s more serious than immigrants not assimilating is natural-born citizens that don’t want them to assimilate."

    That is patently false. There are a wide range of groups in the States who seek to incorporate the newcomers into our society.

    www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/assimilating_the_new_american_immigrant

    Replies: @ATX Hipster

    So some citizens do want immigrants to assimilate. How does that disprove what I said?

    The broader culture puts no pressure on immigrants to assimilate and decries as racists citizens that do expect assimilation. A change in the zeitgeist could go a long way to fixing that issue.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @ATX Hipster

    "The broader culture puts no pressure on immigrants to assimilate and decries as racists citizens that do expect assimilation."

    That would patently false. Americans in general, from individual citizens to federal and state institutions, puts pressure on newcomers to learn our language and customs.

  166. “As James Fulford explains it, these people don’t hate themselves, they hate us. We’re “deplorable”. Somehow they’re not.”

    Few white Americans know, nor care, about an Austrian politician.

    Now, are you essentially saying “bad whites” (other than you) hate “good whites” (you)? Because you are purposely vague, yet again, as far as “these people” and “us”.

    “Card-carrying members of the Projectionists Union!”

    That would be you, or us, or “good whites”. It all gets really confusing.

  167. @ATX Hipster
    @Corvinus

    So some citizens do want immigrants to assimilate. How does that disprove what I said?

    The broader culture puts no pressure on immigrants to assimilate and decries as racists citizens that do expect assimilation. A change in the zeitgeist could go a long way to fixing that issue.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The broader culture puts no pressure on immigrants to assimilate and decries as racists citizens that do expect assimilation.”

    That would patently false. Americans in general, from individual citizens to federal and state institutions, puts pressure on newcomers to learn our language and customs.

  168. @Opinionator
    @Almost Missouri

    Indians have an incentive to police the tribal rolls and keep out arriviste “Indians” from diluting the benefits of tribal membership, a lesson that US citizens might do well to examine.

    What benefits specifically would be diluted?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Almost Missouri

    Thanks Jim Don Bob.

    Also land and other forms of capital.

  169. @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?

    Wow, just wow."

    You don't? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid.

    You actually said "Wow, just wow"? You truly are a walking, talking caricature of an SJW. But then, they are all caricatures.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “You don’t? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid.”

    The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites.

    What is the percentage of this group? What are their characteristics? How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    The hard left and the hard free market left are united on this point.

    If you really, truly, honestly cannot see or understand this, then you must be going through life wearing blinkers.

    Anyhow, I'm a strong subscriber to Australian political scientist Frank Salter's 'ethnic genetic interest' theory.
    Put bluntly, mass immigration of the third world into (previously) white lands is a zero game in which the white 'receiving' nation *always* loses in terms of 'genetic interest', which, more or less, is equivalent to 'destroying' white people.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites."

    Okay then, that explains that. You are willfully stupid. It is quite evidently happening.

    "What is the percentage of this group?"

    Far too large.

    "What are their characteristics?"

    They are like you.

    "How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?"

    I have observed it.

    Nitwit.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  170. @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks for the fair points you made.

    I take a dim view on this:

    Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites.

    The correlation only indicates causation, and what I just wrote is not to bullshit, but having this finding in mind:

    "There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

    By the way, I absolutely share your sentiment regarding the Native Indians legal status. But what happens is embedded in historical context, and I wouldn't quite like to have been born as a Native American.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri

    “I wouldn’t quite like to have been born as a Native American.”

    I dunno. I know some Native Americans who are doing pretty well for themselves, even better, on account of their Native American-ness, than they would have otherwise.

  171. @Ivan K.
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks for the fair points you made.

    I take a dim view on this:

    Native American violent crime rates are about double that of US whites. So police killings of Native Americans are about double the rate of police killings of whites.

    The correlation only indicates causation, and what I just wrote is not to bullshit, but having this finding in mind:

    "There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

    By the way, I absolutely share your sentiment regarding the Native Indians legal status. But what happens is embedded in historical context, and I wouldn't quite like to have been born as a Native American.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri

    having this finding in mind:

    “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854

    I’ve commented on this deeply defective study before, so I’ll try to be brief.

    Leaving aside the study’s problems with spotty source data and heedlessness of the law of small numbers, the main problem with the “no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates” claim is 1) it ignores the aggregate effect of higher black crime rates, 2) their proxies for crime rates are inconsistent, and 3) some counties are more tolerant of those higher crime rates than others, which if a sign of bias, is the kind of bias the authors would welcome if they were honest.

    The authors pretend to address the higher black crime rate by addressing correlations with “race-specific crime proxies”, but their proxies are weapons and assault charges, the definitions and enforcement of which vary wildly across jurisdictions, so it is not describing the same thing in different places. And even if it were, all that a non-correlation of police over-tolerance of black criminals versus white criminals with crime rates would show is just that police over-tolerance varies between jurisdictions, which should surprise no one and no one is disputing.

    Assuming their procedural errors have not totally nullified their analysis, their maps show some areas being much less tolerant of black misbehavior than other areas. These are mainly three areas: the Southwest, Florida and the Acela corridor in the Northeast. The Southwest and Florida are where non-whites (mainly Hispanics) have assumed the reins of law enforcement in numbers, so blacks are coming into contact with people who don’t hew to the white tradition of over-tolerance of black misbehavior. The Acela corridor is of course the homeland of Left-Liberalism, so they really need rough men to do violence on their behalf so that they can continue to live the limousine liberal lifestyle to which they are accustomed. So, if the map is correct, it does not show that “that the racial bias* observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates”. Instead it shows that it is explainable as a response to local-level crime rates and local demographic circumstances.

    * Keep in mind that when this study says the word “bias”, what they are referring to is that some areas have very high degree of over-tolerance for black crime while other areas have only a modest over-tolerance for black crime. This is “bias” in The Current Year: you are not discriminating sufficiently in favor of the preferred group.

  172. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    I posed this question..."Do you honestly believe there are whites in America who hate themselves for their whiteness, hate their fellow whites to the point they would replace themselves and other whites by “importing” non-whites?"

    You reply, "yes". Fine. Prove it. What specific evidence lends you to think this way?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous

    Just read ‘The Economist’ magazine to see the way the elite thinks.

  173. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "You don’t? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid."

    The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites.

    What is the percentage of this group? What are their characteristics? How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

    The hard left and the hard free market left are united on this point.

    If you really, truly, honestly cannot see or understand this, then you must be going through life wearing blinkers.

    Anyhow, I’m a strong subscriber to Australian political scientist Frank Salter’s ‘ethnic genetic interest’ theory.
    Put bluntly, mass immigration of the third world into (previously) white lands is a zero game in which the white ‘receiving’ nation *always* loses in terms of ‘genetic interest’, which, more or less, is equivalent to ‘destroying’ white people.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "The hard left and the hard free market left are united on this point."

    With the Alt Right and the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups on the same page. Your point?

    "Put bluntly, mass immigration of the third world into (previously) white lands is a zero game in which the white ‘receiving’ nation *always* loses in terms of ‘genetic interest’, which, more or less, is equivalent to ‘destroying’ white people.""

    First, Middle Easterners are white. Second, you neglect to take into account environmental factors when immigrants move into a "receiving nation". Third, you ASSUME that this white people are destroyed genetically when 3rd Worlders enter the counter. Fourth, amazingly, Jay-Man disagrees.

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-interests-do-not-exist-neither-does-group-selection/

  174. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Mack Bolan
    @Rob McX

    It is my contention that this traitorous implementation of mass immigration of third world populations into the wealthy western European countries and America by their own leaders is being done for the simplest of reasons "money". The money that comes from massive unfettered consumerism. Many people from, say the poor countries in Africa don't have the purchasing power that we in the first world have.
    Bring those folks here and even if they don't go to work , our generous welfare programs will still allow the to purchase everyday items that they couldn't before. Imagine a company being able to sell one billion more rolls of toilet paper a year, 400 million more tubes of toothpaste, millions more light bulbs, the list is as endless as the possible corporate profits. Even if we are the ones ultimately paying for these goods, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. This sort of profiteering can only continue if the immigrants eventually get jobs and pay taxes to keep the social programs from collapsing. Unfortunately the Muslims flooding into Europe show no interest in working for a living. Unless you consider crime a legitimate job.

    Replies: @anon

    Unfortunately the Muslims flooding into Europe show no interest in working for a living. Unless you consider crime a legitimate job.

    The muslims flooding Europe are mostly unemployable because their language skills and job skills are so poor. On average their children who can speak the language aren’t bright enough to compete with natives and are only marginally employable in their ethnic enclaves. When Germany was employing Turks some of which even commuted back to Turkey, they only got the ones who were actually employable. Now they just get folks who sit and suck on the public tit.

  175. @Detective Club
    @Anonymous

    Cellar was defeated in the Democrat primary of June 1972 by Elizabeth Holtzman, a nails-for-breakfast Lesbian. Holtzman won by running against Cellar's vociferous opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. The long history of Socialism is dotted with the bodies of old "true believers" who became stuck in old ways and habits and who forgot to go even further to the Left when new Lefty ideas of radical deportment appeared. It is said that if a shark stops moving forward it dies. The Left can never be at complete rest - - - to tear down and to destroy is to flourish!

    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Schmoe

    Joe Sobran was right when he said that Leftist thinking and belief is just the newest trendy fad succeeding a recently fossilized fad, which hopelessly confused conservatives have come to embrace out of a desperate desire to be loved by those who hate them.

    Conservatives need to embrace a desperate desire to crush those who hate them.

  176. @AP
    @Jim Don Bob

    I wrote, "might have been."

    The reason is that populations tend to increase with time and to increase more, the larger they are. So 60,000 French-Canadians became 3 million after 300 or so years. The 3 million or so Indians would surely have become much more had they not been nearly wiped out by diseases and displacement.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    I wrote, “might have been.”

    The reason is that populations tend to increase with time and to increase more, the larger they are. So 60,000 French-Canadians became 3 million after 300 or so years. The 3 million or so Indians would surely have become much more had they not been nearly wiped out by diseases and displacement.

    The American Indians had not become “much more” in the thousands of years they had been here. There is no reason to believe they were standing on the precipice of a population explosion like Europeans were. The Indians had achieved no technological or institutional advances that would suggest that real soon they were going have a massive growth phase. They were not French Canadians who possessed the ability for rapid growth and expansion at that time.

  177. @Thea
    @Altai

    I sense the Kennedys and other leftists strongly and sincerely believe they work for the good of mankind. I find it hard to believe a large number of people could be that coldly cynical but maybe I am naive.

    The Clintons on the other hand....

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @ben tillman, @Brutusale

    The Kennedys worked only for themselves.

  178. @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "You don’t? Then you inattentive and/or willfully stupid."

    The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites.

    What is the percentage of this group? What are their characteristics? How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon

    “The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites.”

    Okay then, that explains that. You are willfully stupid. It is quite evidently happening.

    “What is the percentage of this group?”

    Far too large.

    “What are their characteristics?”

    They are like you.

    “How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?”

    I have observed it.

    Nitwit.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "Okay then, that explains that. You are willfully stupid. It is quite evidently happening."

    You have to offer evidence that white Americans absolutely hate themselves that they seek to commit genocide on their own kind. You can say it is "evidently happening" until you are blue in the face. The fact of the matter is you are required to give hard-core proof.

    "Far too large."

    What exact percentage? You are being vague yet again.

    "They are like you."

    You don't know me, never saw me, never met me. So you are clueless.

    "I have observed it."

    Anecdotal evidence is rife with confirmation bias. We need more than just what you allegedly see.

  179. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    The hard left and the hard free market left are united on this point.

    If you really, truly, honestly cannot see or understand this, then you must be going through life wearing blinkers.

    Anyhow, I'm a strong subscriber to Australian political scientist Frank Salter's 'ethnic genetic interest' theory.
    Put bluntly, mass immigration of the third world into (previously) white lands is a zero game in which the white 'receiving' nation *always* loses in terms of 'genetic interest', which, more or less, is equivalent to 'destroying' white people.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The hard left and the hard free market left are united on this point.”

    With the Alt Right and the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups on the same page. Your point?

    “Put bluntly, mass immigration of the third world into (previously) white lands is a zero game in which the white ‘receiving’ nation *always* loses in terms of ‘genetic interest’, which, more or less, is equivalent to ‘destroying’ white people.””

    First, Middle Easterners are white. Second, you neglect to take into account environmental factors when immigrants move into a “receiving nation”. Third, you ASSUME that this white people are destroyed genetically when 3rd Worlders enter the counter. Fourth, amazingly, Jay-Man disagrees.

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/ethnic-genetic-interests-do-not-exist-neither-does-group-selection/

  180. @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "The only willfully stupid thing is you and your kind believing that a number of white Americans despise their own skin so much that they would destroy their country by merely opening the doors to non-whites."

    Okay then, that explains that. You are willfully stupid. It is quite evidently happening.

    "What is the percentage of this group?"

    Far too large.

    "What are their characteristics?"

    They are like you.

    "How do YOU know they hate their own racial make-up?"

    I have observed it.

    Nitwit.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Okay then, that explains that. You are willfully stupid. It is quite evidently happening.”

    You have to offer evidence that white Americans absolutely hate themselves that they seek to commit genocide on their own kind. You can say it is “evidently happening” until you are blue in the face. The fact of the matter is you are required to give hard-core proof.

    “Far too large.”

    What exact percentage? You are being vague yet again.

    “They are like you.”

    You don’t know me, never saw me, never met me. So you are clueless.

    “I have observed it.”

    Anecdotal evidence is rife with confirmation bias. We need more than just what you allegedly see.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS