The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
If the Census Adds a MENA Category, That Will Facilitate White Identity Politics
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

People like to obfuscate that race is incredibly complicated and who can say etc etc … But in my experience, having followed public discourse on race fairly carefully since 1972, whatever the government says typically wins out. If the government gives out money and prizes for identifying as X but not for identifying as Y, then over time more people will identify as X even if, deep down, they feel like they are Z.

This suggests that federal guidelines on racial boundaries are extremely important, but nobody seems interested in the subject other than special interests.

Up into the early 1980s, virtually all Muslims in the United States were official categorized by the government as white or Caucasian. But South Asian immigrant businessmen were irate about missing out on special minority preferences on government contracting and low interest loans that East Asian immigrant businessmen were entitled to. So South Asians were moved from the white category to the Oriental or, now, Asian category.

Similarly, in the 1940s and 1950s, the League of United Latin American Citizens had gotten the Census Bureau to drop counting of Latin Americans as in any way different from whites.

By the 1970 Census, however, the Flight from White had begun. The Nixon Administration had begun giving affirmative action preferences to nonwhites, so Hispanics/Latinos were split out and carefully counted.

The Obama Administration is likely to soon announce that another sizable group has been granted the privilege of Nonwhiteness.

From NPR:

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

The U.S. Census is poised to add a new ethnic category to its 2020 survey. And it’s a big one. It’s for people of Middle Eastern or North African descent. In the past, if your family roots were in Egypt, say, or Iran, it wasn’t clear which box you checked. As Kat Chow of NPR’s Code Switch team reports, the census is heeding the calls of thousands of Americans who want to check a box that describes them.

KAT CHOW, BYLINE: On past census forms, this is how people with roots in the Middle East or North Africa answered.

WASSIM HASSAN: I consider myself an African Arab Muslim. I’ve always checked off African-American.

YASMEEN RAMAHI: I personally identify as a Palestinian-Jordanian-American. On the last – for former census forms, I actually identified as white or Caucasian.

DORNA MOHAGHEGH: I usually have identified as other and then written either Iranian or Iranian-American.

CHOW: That was Wassim Hassan, Yasmeen Ramahi. And that last voice you heard – that’s Dorna Mohaghegh. She lives in New York City.

MOHAGHEGH: It’s frustrating because it feels like my identity isn’t being reflected – that I have to kind of take an extra step to advocate and say, I’m here. And this is you know where I’m from and how I feel about who I am.

CHOW: For Mohaghegh and millions of other Americans, here were the options she saw on the 2010 census. She could’ve checked off boxes for white, black, Hispanic or a variety of Asian ethnicities like Chinese, Samoan, Guamanian. But there was no box for Iranian-Americans. Not surprisingly, the Census Bureau has gotten complaints about this for decades. Nicholas Jones is director of the division of the Census Bureau that’s looking at this category.

NICHOLAS JONES: Groups such as Middle Eastern, Arab, North African populations are saying, I’m not seeing myself on the 2010 census. And I’m interested in finding ways in which I can self-identify.

CHOW: So right now and for the rest of the month, the bureau is gathering public feedback on whether or not people will actually check these boxes.

If the Obama Administration goes through with this, virtually every Muslim in the United States (except for that poor guy from Bosnia who got hammered to death in St. Louis by a NAM mob in revenge for Michael Brown) will be officially nonwhite.

One side effect will be to make white identity politics more feasible. In the past, white identity politics has been not very practical due to “whites” being defined as a big tent category left over from the past age of white privilege. But if the Obama Administration pares down whiteness to just Europeaness by moving almost all the Muslims into a privileged MENA racial category, suddenly white identity politics looks much doable.

I don’t think anybody has thought about this.

 
Hide 139 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If the Obama Administration goes through with this, virtually every Muslim in the United States (except for that poor guy from Bosnia who got hammered to death in St. Louis by a NAM mob in revenge for Michael Brown) will be officially nonwhite.

    Nonwhite, but not honorary nonwhite…

  2. Part of the thing is that there actually is a lot of bad blood toward Muslims in this country. (9/11, shooters, etc.) This will probably help them advocate for their interests…and make sure they don’t assimilate toward the white norm. As you’ve pointed out, nobody wants to join the discriminated-against legacy group. Whoever’s behind this is trying to make sure there’s another angry outgroup they can use in their coalition of the fringes.

  3. I don’t think anybody has thought about this.

    I think you just summed up the political discourse of the Western World for at least the last 30 years.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Altai

    I think you just summed up the political discourse of the Western World for at least the last 30 years.

    No. People have thought about it. But they haven't thought it through (mostly). They certainly haven't been careful about what they've wished for.

  4. I split this off from the other comment because I want there to be a place for people to talk about the stuff in that one. This one is going to get all the attention. (Or someone else’s post with the same theme.)

    Obviously Israel is in the Middle East. So (A) Israelis are going to start claiming to be MENA to get affirmative action bennies and (B) social-justice types at Brown whose parents have been in the country since 1905 are suddenly going to be able to claim they’re not white.

    (A) raises the possibility of Israelis trying to take over the MENA group (similar to what happens with Ashkenazim as ‘white’ under college admissions). After all they’ll qualify for government diversity purposes. However, this isn’t going to be taken nicely by the Muslims, who, as everyone has noticed, really don’t like Jews. So there’s going to be a big fight over this, with the media wanting to side with the Israelis but not being able to do so without looking, uh, racist.

    (B) means enough of these people will be able to convince the larger white gentile population that the alt-right project of a purely goyish white movement will start to have legs. Right now this whole ‘Jews aren’t white’ thing sounds kind of like ‘Polish people aren’t white’–a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s. (Cultural Marxism, I know, most people aren’t up on this stuff.) But once the government agrees with them, the whole thing is going to sound a lot less like your uncle who watches too many WW2 movies and more like common sense. Well, hey, it’s a census category, right?

    (Also every Jew who thinks he’s white but can’t say it because that’s racist is going to have a much harder time. Before Trump came out you can find videos of Ben Shapiro talking to college students about what a silly idea white privilege is. For real.)

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @SFG

    Being split out, even in a low performing group, is bad for Jews. Right now Jews often occupy 15-20% of the top spots in meritocratic fields like top schools, government leadership posts, corporate executive jobs, and university tenured professorships. That's for a group that's 2% of the population. But if the MENA group is 5% and Jews are included, then it will be obvious to everyone that the group is exceeding its share and the more numerous Moslems are going to be shouting constantly that the Jews should be restricted to half the MENA slots.

    So joining the MENA group will be bad for the Jews.

    And it's even worse for white people. Without Jews in the group, the whites don't have the organization and brainpower to remain atop a mixed multicultural society with emerging white ethnic politics. It's not the 2% in numbers, though that helps. Jews' 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence. And if the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers take over by sheer weight of population to exercise old grievances, America is not going to be a nice place for all its citizens. The best hope is to keep the core American groups, including Jews, together.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Federalist

    , @Federalist
    @SFG

    "Right now this whole ‘Jews aren’t white’ thing sounds kind of like ‘Polish people aren’t white’–a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s."

    Good point. The average iSteve reader/commenter, even if he doesn't agree, at least understands and is familiar with the "Jews aren't white" argument. Most people would think that this idea is utterly preposterous. They see Jews who look white (not black, brown, or yellow) and who are almost visually indistinguishable from other white people. Sure, there are certain Jewish surnames but there are people with German names, Italian names, French names, etc. They're still white. Also, Jewishness is associated with Judaism. Many people don't care much about any religion. Religious people are Christian for the most part. In America, Christians tend to see Judaism as closely related to Christianity. The Jews have the Old Testament stuff and believe in the same God but they just don't accept Jesus. So, the Jews are a small number of white people with a religion that is sort of odd but still closely related to normal white religion. It's not like they are brown people that pray to a god with an elephant head.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Lot
    @SFG

    There is no reason to think universities and big employers will follow the census. For instance, none of them ask you if you are "hispanic origin" then separately ask for race.


    After all they’ll qualify for government diversity purposes.
     
    Federal contract "diversity" programs are minor and not well enforced. I am not aware of a single instance of the feds telling someone "Sorry, we reject your racial self-identification."

    But once the government agrees with them
     
    The US government is going to give an official opinion on whether Jews who have no connection to the middle east aside from partial ancestry from there 1000+ years ago are "MENA" or not. I assume they would count Israel as MENA.

    If we do want to go with one-drop and count Jews as MENA, then you are talking about a solid 1/3 of upper and upper middle class kids around the NE and California.
  5. Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies’ “diversity problem” ?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @jimmyriddle

    That's a pretty big question.

    Replies: @syonredux

    , @Fredrik
    @jimmyriddle

    I don't think that's likely. Moving them out of the White category would make it obvious how over represented they are.

    , @Frau Katze
    @jimmyriddle

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There's no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don't understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @Njguy73, @Federalist

    , @syonredux
    @jimmyriddle


    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies’ “diversity problem” ?
     
    Seeing as how large numbers of East Asians haven't solved it, my bet is no.
    , @BB753
    @jimmyriddle

    The way I see it, it's a win-win situation for Jews. They get to claim minority and pepetual victim status, plus all the AA goodies, privileges and set-asides.
    On the down-side, it will make even more obvious how White Christian males are getting the short stick.

  6. @jimmyriddle
    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies' "diversity problem" ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Fredrik, @Frau Katze, @syonredux, @BB753

    That’s a pretty big question.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer

    If Ashkenazi Jews do get classified as "MENA," I look forward to pundits explaining why the half-Danish, half-Ashkenazi Scarlett Johansson is actually a Woman of Color.....

    Replies: @patrick, @Santoculto, @Anonymous

  7. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I’m not sure how much this will change. I think few MENAs would consider themselves to be white anyway. That’s true even for the whiter ones. They tend to lump themselves into a broad category much like people descended from East Asia or Latin America do.

    I spent Labor Day with a friend and his Chaldean friends at a lake cottage. For those who don’t know, they are a Christian (mostly Catholic) people, mostly from northern Iraq, who speak an Aramaic language.

    Anyway, below us were staying a Lebanese (Christian family). All were significantly whiter looking than the relatively-white Chaldeans I was with. I honestly thought they were Russian until I listened closely to their language.

    We were grilling and had no cooking spray. The Chaldean guy drove to Walmart to buy some, despite it being rather far away and despite the Lebs grilling outside.

    I said, “why didn’t you ask them?” He said “if they were white I would but my people talk. You’re supposed to always come prepared.”

    I mean yes they were all Christians from a relatively limited region of the world who spoke Semitic languages, but I feel quite certain that his grandparents wouldn’t have considered the Lebs to be “my people.”

    It’s just one anecdote and admittedly I have had less exposure to MENA people than some folks have, but I think it’s illuminating. I imagine Muslims are even less likely to identify or be identified as white.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    @Anon

    Who do you think lived in Iraq before the Arab conquests?

  8. Kat Chow?

    Some people are just culturally tone deaf.

    • Replies: @Another Canadian
    @Anonymous


    Some people are just culturally tone deaf.
     
    No kidding. Who in their right mind would ditch the name Katelin Chow for "Kat Chow?"
  9. “thousands of Americans who want to check a box that describes them.”

    Not millions? They dont deserve a box unless they are millions. How come Eastern Europeans dont get a box? And Mediterranean Americans? Is Greece in the Middle East, Alexander thought so?

  10. @SFG
    I split this off from the other comment because I want there to be a place for people to talk about the stuff in that one. This one is going to get all the attention. (Or someone else's post with the same theme.)

    Obviously Israel is in the Middle East. So (A) Israelis are going to start claiming to be MENA to get affirmative action bennies and (B) social-justice types at Brown whose parents have been in the country since 1905 are suddenly going to be able to claim they're not white.

    (A) raises the possibility of Israelis trying to take over the MENA group (similar to what happens with Ashkenazim as 'white' under college admissions). After all they'll qualify for government diversity purposes. However, this isn't going to be taken nicely by the Muslims, who, as everyone has noticed, really don't like Jews. So there's going to be a big fight over this, with the media wanting to side with the Israelis but not being able to do so without looking, uh, racist.

    (B) means enough of these people will be able to convince the larger white gentile population that the alt-right project of a purely goyish white movement will start to have legs. Right now this whole 'Jews aren't white' thing sounds kind of like 'Polish people aren't white'--a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s. (Cultural Marxism, I know, most people aren't up on this stuff.) But once the government agrees with them, the whole thing is going to sound a lot less like your uncle who watches too many WW2 movies and more like common sense. Well, hey, it's a census category, right?

    (Also every Jew who thinks he's white but can't say it because that's racist is going to have a much harder time. Before Trump came out you can find videos of Ben Shapiro talking to college students about what a silly idea white privilege is. For real.)

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Federalist, @Lot

    Being split out, even in a low performing group, is bad for Jews. Right now Jews often occupy 15-20% of the top spots in meritocratic fields like top schools, government leadership posts, corporate executive jobs, and university tenured professorships. That’s for a group that’s 2% of the population. But if the MENA group is 5% and Jews are included, then it will be obvious to everyone that the group is exceeding its share and the more numerous Moslems are going to be shouting constantly that the Jews should be restricted to half the MENA slots.

    So joining the MENA group will be bad for the Jews.

    And it’s even worse for white people. Without Jews in the group, the whites don’t have the organization and brainpower to remain atop a mixed multicultural society with emerging white ethnic politics. It’s not the 2% in numbers, though that helps. Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence. And if the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers take over by sheer weight of population to exercise old grievances, America is not going to be a nice place for all its citizens. The best hope is to keep the core American groups, including Jews, together.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @(((Owen)))

    Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence.

    Whites can run their countries just fine without jews. Ample track record.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    , @Federalist
    @(((Owen)))

    "...the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers..."
    What about the Democrats?

    Can we really "keep the core American groups, including Jews, together"? It seems that Jews are already not part of the "core American group" (depending on how the term is defined). I think that Jews are white (at least the Ashkenazim). But the coalition of the fringes includes not just minority groups but also the leftist, mostly white elites. With their high I.Q.'s and success out of proportion to their numbers, Jews tend to be part of the elite. Jews are white but not part of the core American group. Of course, their are white gentiles who are part of the elite as well. (Throughout, I am speaking of American Jews generally, of course. There are plenty of exceptions).

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

  11. Speaking of white identity, the High Court in Britain just ruled that Parliament must vote on Brexit. Who brought the case?

    “Ms Miller is the investment manager and philanthropist who is leading the so-called “People’s Challenge” against Brexit.

    Born in Guyana…..”

    Oh.

    But don’t worry, she brought the case in conjunction with an “ordinary hairdresser”, a real salt of the earth guy by the name of ….. Deir Dos Santos.

    Of the myriad reasons why Democracy is a terrible idea, the most blindingly obvious is perhaps the fact that it creates a massive incentive for politicians to replace the very demos who is supposed to have the cracy.”

    • Agree: Federalist
    • Replies: @bomag
    @Gabriel M

    Someone was telling me about a Heinlein story where the SJW talks the squabbling planetary tribes into installing democracy, and the tribes promptly starts killing off each other in an attempt to gain a majority.

    , @No_0ne
    @Gabriel M

    Might want to take a look at the ethnicity of Mrs. Miller's husband, and 2 of the 3 judges deciding the case...

  12. A guy like Haim Saban who was born in Egypt would be hard pressed not to check the MENA box.

  13. Then PLEASE create a new category for them as soon as possible!

  14. If they wanted to make it less obvious that this thing was a modern day spoils system, they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    “South Asian” has absolutely nothing to do with, well, East Asian whether you go by race, culture, language, or whatever. However, the continent is populated by a mixture of whites (Iranian types) and descendants of what was probably the original population of the area, who don’t fit into any American racial categories but who are not white anyway. And India and the Middle East have interacted closely going back to the Harrapans and the Sumerians.

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding (Levantine Arabs less so), and Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial. Note that Indian whites are to a large degree of Iranian and Turkish descent.

    The point is that both regions are multi-racial regions that don’t really mesh well with American racial categories. So just combine them. But continue counting Turks as white, and as for Jews, maybe the Solomonic solution is to put the Shephardin only in the new category.

    • Troll: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @eD

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white

    Um, no they aren't.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @eD

    I agree that this is an efficient way for optimal precision, if we are going to take (i.e., be forced to take) these racial categories seriously.

    A couple of notes:


    "Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding"
     
    The admixture is partly due to interbreeding with slaves (with the females slaves, as the male slaves were generally castrated and/or worked to death) and partly due to the founding migration. See, e.g., http://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59 .

    "Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial"
     
    Maybe, but my impression (not from genetics studies but from Egyptian history) is that the multi-racialism started in earnest in the early first millennium BC. The doddering Egyptian state recruited foreign (mainly Nubian) soldiers to bolster its ranks, many of whom became inadvertent immigrants and child sires in Egypt (sound familiar?). The Egyptian polity collapsed completely in the eighth century BC and the Nubians took over formally as the 25th Dynasty. So there was a period where the elites were darker skinned than the commoners. This lasted a few generations until the Assyrians invaded, conquered and established their own rule (and, one presumes, genetic imprint). Then came the Greeks/Macedonians, but they seem to have had not such great numbers. (Their descendants may be disproportionately the Copts, who are currently being exterminated in their homeland.) Then came the Romans (not so keen on interbreeding, Marc Antony aside--and even then, that was with Greco-Macedonian Cleopatra), then the Arabs who were in larger numbers and more keen on Arabizing Egypt. Genetically, the Arabs may not have differed that much from the Assyrians before them.

    You may say that being multi-racial since the eighth century BC versus "always" being multi-racial is a distinction without a difference, but when your history goes back to at least the fourth millennium BC, then "since the eighth century BC" is actually kind of recent--not even the last half of your history.

    Replies: @eD

    , @Karl
    @eD

    > they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    Maybe so, if you choose the "paper bag test"

    But if you choose the "body hairiness of the womenfolk" test, they ain't in the same tribe.

  15. … suddenly white identity politics looks much [more] doable.

    I don’t think anybody has thought about this.

    LOL. So Steve, is “citizenism” finally dead or what? Is Jared Taylor’s view the inevitable logical path for non-cucked, realist whites who aren’t afraid to fight?

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I'm sure that Steve didn't mean it this way (he's far too earnest), but Citizenism was always a backdoor way for whites to keep control of the country. One of those triple bank shots that Steve talks about.

    Not surprisingly Citizenism never caught on. It's too bad, but, in the end, ethnicity/race trump everything, just as my family's welfare trumps everything. Proposition nations are proving to be an abject failure. When you think about it, basing inclusion in your group - and access to all the benefits from your group's past hard work - on someone's willingness to say a few words is asinine. People that stupid should be taken to the cleaners.

    My belief is that the stupidity and naivete of whites comes from having been so successful for 500 years. We're like a bunch of trust fund kids who have never had to scratch and fight for anything. Hopefully, being pushed back to competing against other groups wakes us up. If not, do we even deserve to stick around?

  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue. Without that then no one would care and things would actually be clarified more than they are now. Those of MENA origin aren’t white anyway so there’s no point in trying to shoehorn them into that category. Identity politics being played as a racket is the problem.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @anonymous


    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue.
     
    This really is the bottom line.

    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle. Clearly Obama is worse because he is more capable. She could do little damage on her own because she is too incompetent and the daughters may well be also.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @PiltdownMan

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @anonymous



    Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily.
     
    Are they forbidden to emmigrate to Africa? They have a whole continent set aside as a blacks-only homeland. They voluntarily choose to remain here rather than return to the black ruled country of their ancestors.


    When Israel Was in Egypt’s Land By: African American spiritual
    ...
    When they had reached the other shore, Let My people go;
    They dang the song of triumph over, Let My people go.
    Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt’s land,
    Tell old Pharaoh: Let My people go.

     

  17. I’m never quite sure if the globalist left is stupid, arrogant or simply getting high off its own supply. It’s probably some combination of the three. Regardless, from a strategic standpoint, they are are dangerously foolish.

    “When you surround the enemy
    Always allow them an escape route.
    They must see that there is
    An alternative to death.”
    —Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    They’re not just making white identity politics “feasible”. They’re making white identity politics inevitable and mandatory for survival.

    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    I am a whole hearted enthusiast for the "build golden bridges for your enemy" idea. I like the idea of people knowing that you can beat them, forgive them, and move forward. (Pay no attention to Qaddafi, please to be moving along.)

    , @Neoconned
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    You have a clear but fascinating way of putting it.

  18. @Altai

    I don’t think anybody has thought about this.
     
    I think you just summed up the political discourse of the Western World for at least the last 30 years.

    Replies: @Anonym

    I think you just summed up the political discourse of the Western World for at least the last 30 years.

    No. People have thought about it. But they haven’t thought it through (mostly). They certainly haven’t been careful about what they’ve wished for.

  19. Eventually, when they’ve divided up the Privilege to microscopic proportions, when there’s no more privilege left to steal (One of these days, the Minorities are going to discover White Women of Gargantuan Privilege and cut that up, too, heh, just desserts) isn’t that the end of it?

    When the people that legislated away all their privilege die and there are none left, don’t the minority-majorities then have to decide who they’re going to rob of privilege going forward? Or does affirmative action and designated privilege then die of it’s own weight? The new meritocracy? Or back to nepotism?

    I think it dies when there are sufficient numbers of high-volume breeders of one race who aren’t sensitive to the needs of “others”. Think Muslims and consider, in their countries only the top have “privilege” and dole out only to those who are a violent threat. Political correctness isn’t on the menu. Same when they own the U.S.. Women, Blacks and Hispanics are playing a dangerous game allowing these Muslims in. Setting them up and paying for the breeding factories is asking for big trouble. When the Whites are toast, Muslims will be going after the resources and privilege oof those who were “Here First”.

    Screw em. They stole it from me, the Muslims can steal it from them. Just desserts, as I said. If I come back a man, I get MY privilege back! Ha!

  20. Since the Islamic expansion from the Arabian Peninsula began around the seventh century, it seems the genetic lineages that are typical of the (darker-skinned) Muslim Arabs differ very significantly from Arab Christians who benefited from Crusader activity in the 11th–13th centuries. The Crusaders’ introduction of European lineages into the genetic structure accounts for a lot, I would presume.

    As with any government intervention on the race issue, as America is devolves into Brazil and we get used to this type of thing, it should behoove all bureaucratic officials to read up on HBD and note that someone like myself (blonde-haired, blue-eyed) will actually qualify for affirmative action and gov’t goodies under their new policy because I’m half Lebanese. But Phoenician, not Arab.

    But hey, I’ll let the mulatto ruling elite in D.C. and the Jewish Ivy League admissions people just *think* I look like Tashfeen Malik. After all, they thought Barry was born in Kenya, and no harm done…

  21. Actually, I think the left has thought about this quite a bit and any white person who is not a so-called ally of people of color will be assumed to be a privileged racist that needs to be put in their place through policies that elevate everyone else’s rights and preferences above this group. After all, you can’t have a coalition of the fringes without an enemy to unite against.

  22. “Kat Chow.” Seriously?

  23. @eD
    If they wanted to make it less obvious that this thing was a modern day spoils system, they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    "South Asian" has absolutely nothing to do with, well, East Asian whether you go by race, culture, language, or whatever. However, the continent is populated by a mixture of whites (Iranian types) and descendants of what was probably the original population of the area, who don't fit into any American racial categories but who are not white anyway. And India and the Middle East have interacted closely going back to the Harrapans and the Sumerians.

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding (Levantine Arabs less so), and Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial. Note that Indian whites are to a large degree of Iranian and Turkish descent.

    The point is that both regions are multi-racial regions that don't really mesh well with American racial categories. So just combine them. But continue counting Turks as white, and as for Jews, maybe the Solomonic solution is to put the Shephardin only in the new category.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri, @Karl

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white

    Um, no they aren’t.

  24. Fortunately, Trump is going to win and we’re not going to have to worry about any of this nonsense any longer.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    @peterike

    Hear! Hear!

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps, Steve, perhaps.

    But never but never forget the unique propensity that ‘whites’ (Europeans or what have you) have for selling each other out for the kudos and ‘ecstasy of disavowal’ incumbent with siding with the ‘virtuous’ side.
    As I said, it’s a unique characteristic never found amongst other ethnicities.

  26. Tony Rezco and the Devon avenue types who were bribing Blago to install Jesse Jackson jr tick the same diversity box as black dudes under Chicago and Illinois’s racial spoils system.

  27. Because I think Census has cast a far too wide of a net in classifying “white,” anything which dices out the marginal “whites” into their own category can only be good for real white people. Not for the least of which it will show us how slim our national demographic majority is.

    I have also thought for a long time that blacks are undercounted because blacks make it hard to get official counts of them. Transiency, refusal to fill out census forms, dodging census takers as if they’re cops or process servers. How can they dominate most major cities and only be 13% nationally?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @countenance

    Please tell us who the "real white people" are. Bonus points if you refrain from copypasting from Mein Kampf.

  28. OT

    Ricky Vaughn didn’t last long in his new Twitter incarnation, I think tweets encouraging Hillary voters to text in their votes (not possible IMHO) rather than going to a polling station may have been the reason.

    Pity you have to register with Gab, one of the pluses of Twitter is that you can browse without signing in.

    On the other side, I see Hillary supporters wrote ‘Trump’ on a black church then set light to it. Even the Guardian’s not pushing it, although the “13 year old rape victim” story is still running.

    They sent people to start fights at Trump rallies, now they’re setting fire to churches. What next as they get more desperate? I hope Trump’s secret service guys are good, and there are enough poll and count monitors.

    • Replies: @Zach
    @Anonymous Nephew

    You see pro-Hillary commenters pushing the 13-year-old rape victim but I haven't seen much about it in the MSN. Maybe the Times and Post are saving it up for the very last moment.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @res
    @Anonymous Nephew


    there are enough poll and count monitors
     
    What do people here think about the spin being applied that poll monitoring is voter intimidation? For example, see this Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/poll-monitoring-voter-intimidation-lawsuits/506078/

    Replies: @bomag

  29. “I don’t think anybody has thought about this.” They don’t, usually; that’s why we come here, Mr iSteve.

  30. @SFG
    I split this off from the other comment because I want there to be a place for people to talk about the stuff in that one. This one is going to get all the attention. (Or someone else's post with the same theme.)

    Obviously Israel is in the Middle East. So (A) Israelis are going to start claiming to be MENA to get affirmative action bennies and (B) social-justice types at Brown whose parents have been in the country since 1905 are suddenly going to be able to claim they're not white.

    (A) raises the possibility of Israelis trying to take over the MENA group (similar to what happens with Ashkenazim as 'white' under college admissions). After all they'll qualify for government diversity purposes. However, this isn't going to be taken nicely by the Muslims, who, as everyone has noticed, really don't like Jews. So there's going to be a big fight over this, with the media wanting to side with the Israelis but not being able to do so without looking, uh, racist.

    (B) means enough of these people will be able to convince the larger white gentile population that the alt-right project of a purely goyish white movement will start to have legs. Right now this whole 'Jews aren't white' thing sounds kind of like 'Polish people aren't white'--a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s. (Cultural Marxism, I know, most people aren't up on this stuff.) But once the government agrees with them, the whole thing is going to sound a lot less like your uncle who watches too many WW2 movies and more like common sense. Well, hey, it's a census category, right?

    (Also every Jew who thinks he's white but can't say it because that's racist is going to have a much harder time. Before Trump came out you can find videos of Ben Shapiro talking to college students about what a silly idea white privilege is. For real.)

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Federalist, @Lot

    “Right now this whole ‘Jews aren’t white’ thing sounds kind of like ‘Polish people aren’t white’–a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s.”

    Good point. The average iSteve reader/commenter, even if he doesn’t agree, at least understands and is familiar with the “Jews aren’t white” argument. Most people would think that this idea is utterly preposterous. They see Jews who look white (not black, brown, or yellow) and who are almost visually indistinguishable from other white people. Sure, there are certain Jewish surnames but there are people with German names, Italian names, French names, etc. They’re still white. Also, Jewishness is associated with Judaism. Many people don’t care much about any religion. Religious people are Christian for the most part. In America, Christians tend to see Judaism as closely related to Christianity. The Jews have the Old Testament stuff and believe in the same God but they just don’t accept Jesus. So, the Jews are a small number of white people with a religion that is sort of odd but still closely related to normal white religion. It’s not like they are brown people that pray to a god with an elephant head.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Federalist

    Will this make the idea of Judeo-Christianity seem quaint?

  31. The state’s reliance on the race question/category encourages people to make the mental effort to identify with a race as a “primary” matter. Otherwise, I believe most people would think in terms of concentric circles of relatedness, where “white” or “Asian” identification would be more remote from the center than more “local” considerations, like national or ethnic ancestry.

    The U.S. Census did ask an Ancestry question in 1990 and 2000, where respondents were asked to write down (not choose from a list) as many “ancestries” as they felt applicable. The first two items on any given list were used for statistical purposes (to calculate, e.g., how many “Catalonians” lived in the U.S.). The multitude of possible ancestries, as opposed to the limited number of prescribed races, makes it more difficult for the state to reserve preferences for some groups at the expense of others. (For the latter purpose, presumably, the 1990/2000 Census also asked a Race question.)

    The Ancestry question was discontinued in the 2010 Census in favor of a multiple-choice Race question (with a write-in blank if you felt none of the prescribed choices applied). That represented the Obama policy of herding people towards one of a few limited grievance categories, instead of accepting their idiosyncratic self-identifications.

    Abolishing the state’s race-consciousness–by abolishing the Race question on the Census, and the preferences associated with it–would be a big step towards defusing race-consciousness among most people.

  32. Anonymous [AKA "carly"] says:

    At what point after whites become a minority do the court cases granting whites favored minority status begin?

  33. anon • Disclaimer says:

    They blew up the victim thing when women organized as minorities.

    Granted, only a minority of women organized as minorities. But years ago, an HR guy said everyone is in a protected class. Effectively. Therefore there hasn’t been employment at will for large companies for decades. Once women and age were considered, there was no place to hide.

    A lot of Jews desperately want to be people of color. Time to start acting white and STFU. They are stuck with Goldman Sachs.

    But what do I know. They ruined ‘Catholic’ as a brand. White has a lot going for it, however.

  34. King’s Dream was idiotic even then; assuming Whites would adopt Lennonism of “no countries” and “one people” while others got their thumb on the scale forever, to their benefit and others detriment.

    Now, I’d say White identity is driven primarily by the housing market. No more easy credit and being hunkered in place plus mass non-White identity means the primary wealth building asset of the White middle class is made … worthless.

    What did Machiavelli say? Better to kill people than make them poor and leave them alive. White Identity is nothing more than your new neighbors are vatos and low riders, or hood rats, and you can’t move. Ever.

    White flight into White fight.

  35. @eD
    If they wanted to make it less obvious that this thing was a modern day spoils system, they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    "South Asian" has absolutely nothing to do with, well, East Asian whether you go by race, culture, language, or whatever. However, the continent is populated by a mixture of whites (Iranian types) and descendants of what was probably the original population of the area, who don't fit into any American racial categories but who are not white anyway. And India and the Middle East have interacted closely going back to the Harrapans and the Sumerians.

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding (Levantine Arabs less so), and Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial. Note that Indian whites are to a large degree of Iranian and Turkish descent.

    The point is that both regions are multi-racial regions that don't really mesh well with American racial categories. So just combine them. But continue counting Turks as white, and as for Jews, maybe the Solomonic solution is to put the Shephardin only in the new category.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri, @Karl

    I agree that this is an efficient way for optimal precision, if we are going to take (i.e., be forced to take) these racial categories seriously.

    A couple of notes:

    “Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding”

    The admixture is partly due to interbreeding with slaves (with the females slaves, as the male slaves were generally castrated and/or worked to death) and partly due to the founding migration. See, e.g., http://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59 .

    “Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial”

    Maybe, but my impression (not from genetics studies but from Egyptian history) is that the multi-racialism started in earnest in the early first millennium BC. The doddering Egyptian state recruited foreign (mainly Nubian) soldiers to bolster its ranks, many of whom became inadvertent immigrants and child sires in Egypt (sound familiar?). The Egyptian polity collapsed completely in the eighth century BC and the Nubians took over formally as the 25th Dynasty. So there was a period where the elites were darker skinned than the commoners. This lasted a few generations until the Assyrians invaded, conquered and established their own rule (and, one presumes, genetic imprint). Then came the Greeks/Macedonians, but they seem to have had not such great numbers. (Their descendants may be disproportionately the Copts, who are currently being exterminated in their homeland.) Then came the Romans (not so keen on interbreeding, Marc Antony aside–and even then, that was with Greco-Macedonian Cleopatra), then the Arabs who were in larger numbers and more keen on Arabizing Egypt. Genetically, the Arabs may not have differed that much from the Assyrians before them.

    You may say that being multi-racial since the eighth century BC versus “always” being multi-racial is a distinction without a difference, but when your history goes back to at least the fourth millennium BC, then “since the eighth century BC” is actually kind of recent–not even the last half of your history.

    • Replies: @eD
    @Almost Missouri

    Almost Missouri, that was a thoughtful and informed response.

    However, I disagree on the racial makeup of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt. My impression is that we really don't know what the racial, or for that matter the ethnic makeup of post-Neolithic Egypt, or for that matter the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations. They didn't do realistic portraits so surviving portraiture on temples doesn't help much.

    The people living in these civilizations simply didn't care about race and ethnicity as much as we do, and didn't have something like the US Census Bureau on the job putting people in categories to help with diversity programs. And there was alot of movement of peoples into and out of these areas in subsequent centuries. So what you see in history book on their racial and ethnic composition are just guesses, and not even particularly informed guesses.

    But go get back on topic, the Middle East and South Asia is enough of a mixture that if you need a category, its probably just best to lump everyone from these regions into one category.

    The ridiculous "Hispanic" or "Latino" category, on the other hand, should go, but doing that raises the issue of whether you want Mestizo and Mulatto categories and if you want to apply them to Americans whose ancestors have been here for generations, which people are probably not ready for despite the President being a Mulatto. Actually I like Another Dad's suggestions in a later comment.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hippopotamusdrome

  36. “The Jewish Question” is certainly interesting. Hard to launch another “under privileged” affirmative action category that ends up with Jews in it 😉

    Maybe that could prompt the long overdue discussion about affirmative action and any privileges around race\ethnicity in our new wonderful multi-ethnic America. At least get people to consider whether such privileges should only vest in actual *American* groups–native American Indians and blacks–and not in anyone with an immigrant background. (That would be my way of putting it on a path to extinction.)

    I sort of like the side effect of squaring off white to imply “European origin”. That will sort of be a prompt for whites to gain some racial\ethnic consciousness–“hey we’re not the ‘default’ or the ‘norm’ we’re a special group that ought to protect itself and its interests.”

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @AnotherDad

    Subcons, the wealthiest racial group in the United States per capita, are eligible for affirmative action

    , @Opinionator
    @AnotherDad

    “The Jewish Question” is certainly interesting. Hard to launch another “under privileged” affirmative action category that ends up with Jews in it ;-)

    Right. They already fill up the Hispanic and African (via South Africa) quotas.

  37. Steve is making an important point here. And all I can do is giggle over the name of correspondent Kat Chow.

  38. @AnotherDad
    "The Jewish Question" is certainly interesting. Hard to launch another "under privileged" affirmative action category that ends up with Jews in it ;-)

    Maybe that could prompt the long overdue discussion about affirmative action and any privileges around race\ethnicity in our new wonderful multi-ethnic America. At least get people to consider whether such privileges should only vest in actual *American* groups--native American Indians and blacks--and not in anyone with an immigrant background. (That would be my way of putting it on a path to extinction.)

    I sort of like the side effect of squaring off white to imply "European origin". That will sort of be a prompt for whites to gain some racial\ethnic consciousness--"hey we're not the 'default' or the 'norm' we're a special group that ought to protect itself and its interests."

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator

    Subcons, the wealthiest racial group in the United States per capita, are eligible for affirmative action

  39. @AnotherDad
    "The Jewish Question" is certainly interesting. Hard to launch another "under privileged" affirmative action category that ends up with Jews in it ;-)

    Maybe that could prompt the long overdue discussion about affirmative action and any privileges around race\ethnicity in our new wonderful multi-ethnic America. At least get people to consider whether such privileges should only vest in actual *American* groups--native American Indians and blacks--and not in anyone with an immigrant background. (That would be my way of putting it on a path to extinction.)

    I sort of like the side effect of squaring off white to imply "European origin". That will sort of be a prompt for whites to gain some racial\ethnic consciousness--"hey we're not the 'default' or the 'norm' we're a special group that ought to protect itself and its interests."

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator

    “The Jewish Question” is certainly interesting. Hard to launch another “under privileged” affirmative action category that ends up with Jews in it 😉

    Right. They already fill up the Hispanic and African (via South Africa) quotas.

  40. My overall take here is the census is long overdue for rationalization on the race\ethnicity. Hispanic as the only ethnicity is the glaring bogosity–white gentiles? Jews? Arabs? C’mon.

    Have a broad “race” category–the obvious stuff, plus mulatto and mestizo. Have some broade “ethnic” categories–not just Hispanic. Have national origin list. For all these, have the mixed option where you can check multiple boxes and give rough percentage–1/2, 1/4, 1/8. Add the religion category that the Jews blocked back in the day.

    So someone could indicate that they are “white” (or Caucasian), Arab, from Egypt and a Muslim. Or someone could indicate that they are “white”, Jewish, from Russia and agnostic. Or “white”, European Christian, from Ireland, England and Germany, and non-practicing.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @AnotherDad

    The UK census is much more rational and accurate. Maybe we should just copy them?
    And ditch affirmative action altogether. Fot the life of me, I can't understand why any sane conservative would possibly support AA. It could have made sense only for actual emancipated slaves after the Civil War. In what sense has any living American been hurt by slavery?

  41. @countenance
    Because I think Census has cast a far too wide of a net in classifying "white," anything which dices out the marginal "whites" into their own category can only be good for real white people. Not for the least of which it will show us how slim our national demographic majority is.

    I have also thought for a long time that blacks are undercounted because blacks make it hard to get official counts of them. Transiency, refusal to fill out census forms, dodging census takers as if they're cops or process servers. How can they dominate most major cities and only be 13% nationally?

    Replies: @Anon

    Please tell us who the “real white people” are. Bonus points if you refrain from copypasting from Mein Kampf.

  42. @Anonymous Nephew
    OT

    Ricky Vaughn didn't last long in his new Twitter incarnation, I think tweets encouraging Hillary voters to text in their votes (not possible IMHO) rather than going to a polling station may have been the reason.

    Pity you have to register with Gab, one of the pluses of Twitter is that you can browse without signing in.

    On the other side, I see Hillary supporters wrote 'Trump' on a black church then set light to it. Even the Guardian's not pushing it, although the "13 year old rape victim" story is still running.

    They sent people to start fights at Trump rallies, now they're setting fire to churches. What next as they get more desperate? I hope Trump's secret service guys are good, and there are enough poll and count monitors.

    Replies: @Zach, @res

    You see pro-Hillary commenters pushing the 13-year-old rape victim but I haven’t seen much about it in the MSN. Maybe the Times and Post are saving it up for the very last moment.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Zach

    Jezebel of all places shows how weak the case is.

    http://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

    twitter.com/annamerlan/status/793894845706272768

  43. Maybe we need some more demographic categories altogether such as

    Weight: Overweight, obese, morbidly obese.

    America of the future!

  44. @Anonymous Nephew
    OT

    Ricky Vaughn didn't last long in his new Twitter incarnation, I think tweets encouraging Hillary voters to text in their votes (not possible IMHO) rather than going to a polling station may have been the reason.

    Pity you have to register with Gab, one of the pluses of Twitter is that you can browse without signing in.

    On the other side, I see Hillary supporters wrote 'Trump' on a black church then set light to it. Even the Guardian's not pushing it, although the "13 year old rape victim" story is still running.

    They sent people to start fights at Trump rallies, now they're setting fire to churches. What next as they get more desperate? I hope Trump's secret service guys are good, and there are enough poll and count monitors.

    Replies: @Zach, @res

    there are enough poll and count monitors

    What do people here think about the spin being applied that poll monitoring is voter intimidation? For example, see this Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/poll-monitoring-voter-intimidation-lawsuits/506078/

    • Replies: @bomag
    @res


    poll monitoring is voter intimidation
     
    Pure Democrat party politics. Challenging people in a public setting weeds out a lot of crooks, but the Dems can't stand too much scrutiny. They really do protest too much about this stuff.
  45. @Almost Missouri
    @eD

    I agree that this is an efficient way for optimal precision, if we are going to take (i.e., be forced to take) these racial categories seriously.

    A couple of notes:


    "Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding"
     
    The admixture is partly due to interbreeding with slaves (with the females slaves, as the male slaves were generally castrated and/or worked to death) and partly due to the founding migration. See, e.g., http://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59 .

    "Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial"
     
    Maybe, but my impression (not from genetics studies but from Egyptian history) is that the multi-racialism started in earnest in the early first millennium BC. The doddering Egyptian state recruited foreign (mainly Nubian) soldiers to bolster its ranks, many of whom became inadvertent immigrants and child sires in Egypt (sound familiar?). The Egyptian polity collapsed completely in the eighth century BC and the Nubians took over formally as the 25th Dynasty. So there was a period where the elites were darker skinned than the commoners. This lasted a few generations until the Assyrians invaded, conquered and established their own rule (and, one presumes, genetic imprint). Then came the Greeks/Macedonians, but they seem to have had not such great numbers. (Their descendants may be disproportionately the Copts, who are currently being exterminated in their homeland.) Then came the Romans (not so keen on interbreeding, Marc Antony aside--and even then, that was with Greco-Macedonian Cleopatra), then the Arabs who were in larger numbers and more keen on Arabizing Egypt. Genetically, the Arabs may not have differed that much from the Assyrians before them.

    You may say that being multi-racial since the eighth century BC versus "always" being multi-racial is a distinction without a difference, but when your history goes back to at least the fourth millennium BC, then "since the eighth century BC" is actually kind of recent--not even the last half of your history.

    Replies: @eD

    Almost Missouri, that was a thoughtful and informed response.

    However, I disagree on the racial makeup of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt. My impression is that we really don’t know what the racial, or for that matter the ethnic makeup of post-Neolithic Egypt, or for that matter the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations. They didn’t do realistic portraits so surviving portraiture on temples doesn’t help much.

    The people living in these civilizations simply didn’t care about race and ethnicity as much as we do, and didn’t have something like the US Census Bureau on the job putting people in categories to help with diversity programs. And there was alot of movement of peoples into and out of these areas in subsequent centuries. So what you see in history book on their racial and ethnic composition are just guesses, and not even particularly informed guesses.

    But go get back on topic, the Middle East and South Asia is enough of a mixture that if you need a category, its probably just best to lump everyone from these regions into one category.

    The ridiculous “Hispanic” or “Latino” category, on the other hand, should go, but doing that raises the issue of whether you want Mestizo and Mulatto categories and if you want to apply them to Americans whose ancestors have been here for generations, which people are probably not ready for despite the President being a Mulatto. Actually I like Another Dad’s suggestions in a later comment.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @eD


    "The people living in these civilizations simply didn’t care about race and ethnicity as much as we do"
     
    Well ... I think they did care, though they didn't talk about it in the same terms as we do, obviously. Most commonly, they spoke in terms of something like "family", or when royal, "dynasty", but would be much more "extended-" than our nuclear-ish concept of family.

    Another piece of indirect evidence for an original Egyptian "breed" is that for most of Egypt's history, it was the world's preeminent civilization, and for thousands of years it defined as its enemies pretty much all of its immediate neighbors, as commemorated on many walls and tombs along the Nile. These people were not multiculturalists.

    It's also not completely true that their portraiture was not realistic. It may not have been photo-realistic in our modern sense, but they did not shy away from depicting ethnic and cultural differences between themselves (the good people) and their neighbors (the enemies). Unlike the later Romans, nothing in ancient Egyptian art and culture indicates sympathy for or a desire to embrace other cultures or peoples. The ancient Egyptians were unabashed Egypto-Supremacists.

    Regarding the main subject, I do agree that Hispanic & Latino are peculiar designations that hide as much as they reveal. But then the whole federal race racket is cooked up by politicians for political purposes, so whaddya expect?
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @eD



    The people living in these civilizations simply didn’t care about race and ethnicity as much as we do

     

    There was an Egyptian Donald Trump who wanted to guard the southern border to keep out black immigrants:


    The Semna Stelae of Senusret III [1870 B.C.]
    ... Southern boundary, made in the year 8, ... in order to prevent that any Negro should cross it, by water or by land, with a ship, (or) any herds of the Negroes ...
    ... Every good thing shall be done with them, but without allowing a ship of the Negroes to pass Heh, going downstream, forever.
    ... Now, as for every son of mine who shall maintain this boundary, he is my son ... . Now, as for him who shall relax it, and shall not fight for it; he is not born to me.

     

  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t think this will matter much, as white identity politics is facilitated by demographic changes. The US has a Northern European-centric conception of whiteness that extends to the rest of Europe at most. Ordinary white Americans generally don’t regard Middle Easterners as white. If you told them that the Iraq war was against a white country, or that the Al Qaeda and ISIS members we’re fighting are white, they would think you’re stupid or crazy.

  47. “The Nixon Administration had begun giving affirmative action preferences to nonwhites, so Hispanics/Latinos were split out and carefully counted.”

    Nixon gave affirmative action to blacks and Hispanics. Reagan extended set asides to Indians and Hasidic Jews, then passed a massive amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens. Bush I gutted the enforcement provisions in the amnesty bill then expanded legal immigration from 500,000 to 700,000 (and it is now over 1.1 million). Bush II further gutted immigration enforcement as ~6 million illegal aliens entered the country in his watch and gave birth to several million anchor babies, then he twice tried to give them amnesty.

    I can’t imagine why Republicans would be fed up with our party’s leadership…

  48. @jimmyriddle
    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies' "diversity problem" ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Fredrik, @Frau Katze, @syonredux, @BB753

    I don’t think that’s likely. Moving them out of the White category would make it obvious how over represented they are.

  49. 23andme offers a better taxonomy of human ethnicity than the census. Just use that. Or hire a team to develop an even better one. The one currently used by the census is really driven by politics and legacy not science.

    A 23andme ethnic taxonomy would work even with highly flawed self-categorization. DNA analysis is better of course, but even with self-categorization and all the inaccuracy that brings, 23andme would be better.

  50. If they pare down “white” enough, who will pay for all those set-asides?

    Can there ever be a point where people like me (ostensibly WASP) can use the tweezers to remove all the blood-sucking parasites fastening to my back?

    I’m a one-note wonder: I “wonder” what happens when this 50 year trip into Post-Scarcity-via-IOU-issuance ends, and so-called white people no longer feel wealthy enough to carry a black, a Mestizo, a South Asian, an East Asian and a Martian parasite, each, on his back?

    I imagine being told to be “tolerant” could some day be treated as fighting words.

  51. The MENA category could spell the end of affirmative action. If it starts showing up on college admission forms, government contracting forms, etc., white people should check MENA as an act of civil disobedience.

    If anyone gets suspicious, claim Jewish ancestry.

    In fact, if someone with a name like Jennifer Connelly (to pick a not entirely random example) checks MENA on her college application, she could get affirmative action. And considering her non-Middle Eastern sounding name, the folks in admissions would assume that she’s Jewish, which could have advantages as well (ask Ron Unz about this).

    The elite might think that MENA is a brilliant move; but it’s a blunder.

  52. @(((Owen)))
    @SFG

    Being split out, even in a low performing group, is bad for Jews. Right now Jews often occupy 15-20% of the top spots in meritocratic fields like top schools, government leadership posts, corporate executive jobs, and university tenured professorships. That's for a group that's 2% of the population. But if the MENA group is 5% and Jews are included, then it will be obvious to everyone that the group is exceeding its share and the more numerous Moslems are going to be shouting constantly that the Jews should be restricted to half the MENA slots.

    So joining the MENA group will be bad for the Jews.

    And it's even worse for white people. Without Jews in the group, the whites don't have the organization and brainpower to remain atop a mixed multicultural society with emerging white ethnic politics. It's not the 2% in numbers, though that helps. Jews' 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence. And if the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers take over by sheer weight of population to exercise old grievances, America is not going to be a nice place for all its citizens. The best hope is to keep the core American groups, including Jews, together.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Federalist

    Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence.

    Whites can run their countries just fine without jews. Ample track record.

    • Agree: No_0ne
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @Opinionator

    Yeah, Mutti Merkel is doing brilliantly.

  53. I don’t think the Obama administration, or whoever it is advocating for this update, has considered the fact that lumping MENA groups in with whites is a very effective way of watering down crime stats, as they do in Sweden.

  54. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    … suddenly white identity politics looks much [more] doable.

    I don’t think anybody has thought about this.
     
    LOL. So Steve, is “citizenism” finally dead or what? Is Jared Taylor’s view the inevitable logical path for non-cucked, realist whites who aren’t afraid to fight?

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I’m sure that Steve didn’t mean it this way (he’s far too earnest), but Citizenism was always a backdoor way for whites to keep control of the country. One of those triple bank shots that Steve talks about.

    Not surprisingly Citizenism never caught on. It’s too bad, but, in the end, ethnicity/race trump everything, just as my family’s welfare trumps everything. Proposition nations are proving to be an abject failure. When you think about it, basing inclusion in your group – and access to all the benefits from your group’s past hard work – on someone’s willingness to say a few words is asinine. People that stupid should be taken to the cleaners.

    My belief is that the stupidity and naivete of whites comes from having been so successful for 500 years. We’re like a bunch of trust fund kids who have never had to scratch and fight for anything. Hopefully, being pushed back to competing against other groups wakes us up. If not, do we even deserve to stick around?

  55. @eD
    @Almost Missouri

    Almost Missouri, that was a thoughtful and informed response.

    However, I disagree on the racial makeup of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt. My impression is that we really don't know what the racial, or for that matter the ethnic makeup of post-Neolithic Egypt, or for that matter the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations. They didn't do realistic portraits so surviving portraiture on temples doesn't help much.

    The people living in these civilizations simply didn't care about race and ethnicity as much as we do, and didn't have something like the US Census Bureau on the job putting people in categories to help with diversity programs. And there was alot of movement of peoples into and out of these areas in subsequent centuries. So what you see in history book on their racial and ethnic composition are just guesses, and not even particularly informed guesses.

    But go get back on topic, the Middle East and South Asia is enough of a mixture that if you need a category, its probably just best to lump everyone from these regions into one category.

    The ridiculous "Hispanic" or "Latino" category, on the other hand, should go, but doing that raises the issue of whether you want Mestizo and Mulatto categories and if you want to apply them to Americans whose ancestors have been here for generations, which people are probably not ready for despite the President being a Mulatto. Actually I like Another Dad's suggestions in a later comment.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hippopotamusdrome

    “The people living in these civilizations simply didn’t care about race and ethnicity as much as we do”

    Well … I think they did care, though they didn’t talk about it in the same terms as we do, obviously. Most commonly, they spoke in terms of something like “family”, or when royal, “dynasty”, but would be much more “extended-” than our nuclear-ish concept of family.

    Another piece of indirect evidence for an original Egyptian “breed” is that for most of Egypt’s history, it was the world’s preeminent civilization, and for thousands of years it defined as its enemies pretty much all of its immediate neighbors, as commemorated on many walls and tombs along the Nile. These people were not multiculturalists.

    It’s also not completely true that their portraiture was not realistic. It may not have been photo-realistic in our modern sense, but they did not shy away from depicting ethnic and cultural differences between themselves (the good people) and their neighbors (the enemies). Unlike the later Romans, nothing in ancient Egyptian art and culture indicates sympathy for or a desire to embrace other cultures or peoples. The ancient Egyptians were unabashed Egypto-Supremacists.

    Regarding the main subject, I do agree that Hispanic & Latino are peculiar designations that hide as much as they reveal. But then the whole federal race racket is cooked up by politicians for political purposes, so whaddya expect?

  56. @Federalist
    @SFG

    "Right now this whole ‘Jews aren’t white’ thing sounds kind of like ‘Polish people aren’t white’–a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s."

    Good point. The average iSteve reader/commenter, even if he doesn't agree, at least understands and is familiar with the "Jews aren't white" argument. Most people would think that this idea is utterly preposterous. They see Jews who look white (not black, brown, or yellow) and who are almost visually indistinguishable from other white people. Sure, there are certain Jewish surnames but there are people with German names, Italian names, French names, etc. They're still white. Also, Jewishness is associated with Judaism. Many people don't care much about any religion. Religious people are Christian for the most part. In America, Christians tend to see Judaism as closely related to Christianity. The Jews have the Old Testament stuff and believe in the same God but they just don't accept Jesus. So, the Jews are a small number of white people with a religion that is sort of odd but still closely related to normal white religion. It's not like they are brown people that pray to a god with an elephant head.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Will this make the idea of Judeo-Christianity seem quaint?

  57. Steve,

    The Supreme Court actually decided back in 1923 that even light skinned south asians were legally non-white and ineligible for naturalization.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

  58. I think this only holds true if there is an economic advantage or social advantage from being white. I don’t see that happening, at least out in the open. I could see groups still privately selecting for whiteness but it won’t happen publically. It will just force whites to compete harder against each other.

  59. @Anon
    I'm not sure how much this will change. I think few MENAs would consider themselves to be white anyway. That's true even for the whiter ones. They tend to lump themselves into a broad category much like people descended from East Asia or Latin America do.

    I spent Labor Day with a friend and his Chaldean friends at a lake cottage. For those who don't know, they are a Christian (mostly Catholic) people, mostly from northern Iraq, who speak an Aramaic language.

    Anyway, below us were staying a Lebanese (Christian family). All were significantly whiter looking than the relatively-white Chaldeans I was with. I honestly thought they were Russian until I listened closely to their language.

    We were grilling and had no cooking spray. The Chaldean guy drove to Walmart to buy some, despite it being rather far away and despite the Lebs grilling outside.

    I said, "why didn't you ask them?" He said "if they were white I would but my people talk. You're supposed to always come prepared."

    I mean yes they were all Christians from a relatively limited region of the world who spoke Semitic languages, but I feel quite certain that his grandparents wouldn't have considered the Lebs to be "my people."

    It's just one anecdote and admittedly I have had less exposure to MENA people than some folks have, but I think it's illuminating. I imagine Muslims are even less likely to identify or be identified as white.

    Replies: @Kyle

    Who do you think lived in Iraq before the Arab conquests?

  60. One side effect will be to make white identity politics more feasible. In the past, white identity politics has been not very practical due to “whites” being defined as a big tent category left over from the past age of white privilege. But if the Obama Administration pares down whiteness to just Europeaness by moving almost all the Muslims into a privileged MENA racial category, suddenly white identity politics looks much doable.

    I don’t think anybody has thought about this.

    In pre-’60s America, any group with a plausible claim to Whiteness demanded that they be counted as White by the government.Why? Because being non-White was not a good thing.

    In post ’60s America, any group with a semi-plausible claim to non-Whiteness, wants to be officially declared POC. Why? Because being non-White is a good thing.

  61. @Gabriel M
    Speaking of white identity, the High Court in Britain just ruled that Parliament must vote on Brexit. Who brought the case?

    "Ms Miller is the investment manager and philanthropist who is leading the so-called “People’s Challenge” against Brexit.

    Born in Guyana....."

    Oh.

    But don't worry, she brought the case in conjunction with an "ordinary hairdresser", a real salt of the earth guy by the name of ..... Deir Dos Santos.

    Of the myriad reasons why Democracy is a terrible idea, the most blindingly obvious is perhaps the fact that it creates a massive incentive for politicians to replace the very demos who is supposed to have the cracy."

    Replies: @bomag, @No_0ne

    Someone was telling me about a Heinlein story where the SJW talks the squabbling planetary tribes into installing democracy, and the tribes promptly starts killing off each other in an attempt to gain a majority.

  62. @(((Owen)))
    @SFG

    Being split out, even in a low performing group, is bad for Jews. Right now Jews often occupy 15-20% of the top spots in meritocratic fields like top schools, government leadership posts, corporate executive jobs, and university tenured professorships. That's for a group that's 2% of the population. But if the MENA group is 5% and Jews are included, then it will be obvious to everyone that the group is exceeding its share and the more numerous Moslems are going to be shouting constantly that the Jews should be restricted to half the MENA slots.

    So joining the MENA group will be bad for the Jews.

    And it's even worse for white people. Without Jews in the group, the whites don't have the organization and brainpower to remain atop a mixed multicultural society with emerging white ethnic politics. It's not the 2% in numbers, though that helps. Jews' 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence. And if the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers take over by sheer weight of population to exercise old grievances, America is not going to be a nice place for all its citizens. The best hope is to keep the core American groups, including Jews, together.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Federalist

    “…the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers…”
    What about the Democrats?

    Can we really “keep the core American groups, including Jews, together”? It seems that Jews are already not part of the “core American group” (depending on how the term is defined). I think that Jews are white (at least the Ashkenazim). But the coalition of the fringes includes not just minority groups but also the leftist, mostly white elites. With their high I.Q.’s and success out of proportion to their numbers, Jews tend to be part of the elite. Jews are white but not part of the core American group. Of course, their are white gentiles who are part of the elite as well. (Throughout, I am speaking of American Jews generally, of course. There are plenty of exceptions).

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @Federalist


    What about the Democrats?
     
    See Wilkey's comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration and Obama has been much less bad than Dubya was.

    ---

    Unless you want a country of morons, there are going to be some intellectual elites. Compared to other big city well educated American coastal professionals, Jews are already slightly more nationalist and conservative. The problem is to get the whole big city professional class to be more patriotic.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Wilkey

  63. @anonymous
    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue. Without that then no one would care and things would actually be clarified more than they are now. Those of MENA origin aren't white anyway so there's no point in trying to shoehorn them into that category. Identity politics being played as a racket is the problem.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe, @Hippopotamusdrome

    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue.

    This really is the bottom line.

    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle. Clearly Obama is worse because he is more capable. She could do little damage on her own because she is too incompetent and the daughters may well be also.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Joe Schmoe

    No native born American is here voluntarily. Only immigrants are.

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Joe Schmoe


    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle.
     
    It shouldn't privilege Michelle Obama's daughters. To qualify for affirmative action, there could be a maximum family income test as well. In an article (I think in the New York Times) that I read about affirmative action in India which seems to have ballooned to include 50% of the sub-ethnicities and castes, the term "creamy layer" is used. It refers to those who have benefited already from affirmative action, and like cream in unhomogenized milk, have floated to the top.

    It's a useful concept.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creamy_layer
  64. @res
    @Anonymous Nephew


    there are enough poll and count monitors
     
    What do people here think about the spin being applied that poll monitoring is voter intimidation? For example, see this Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/poll-monitoring-voter-intimidation-lawsuits/506078/

    Replies: @bomag

    poll monitoring is voter intimidation

    Pure Democrat party politics. Challenging people in a public setting weeds out a lot of crooks, but the Dems can’t stand too much scrutiny. They really do protest too much about this stuff.

  65. How do you classify massively screwed-up whites, like Obama’s relatives and university colleagues, and those who work for or voted for him? Or worse, his chosen successor?

    We don’t want SWPLs any more than they want us!

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Reg Cæsar


    How do you classify massively screwed-up whites
     
    I suppose we could have a category for "Honorary Other", or "Sympathetic to the Plight of People Who Have a Special Census Category That I Would Like to Aid, Though I Can't Technically Check It."
    , @BucephalusXYZ
    @Reg Cæsar

    I can't speak for others, but I want SWPL's, even if I would like for them to drop some of their SWPLism. Not everything about it is wrong. I used to aspire to SWPLism myself. I voted for Obama twice (but not with any enthusiasm). Now I read iSteve pretty much every day and plan to vote for Trump (even if I think he is most definitely not a good role model for children).

  66. I don’t think anybody has thought about this.

    No, nobody has spoken up about it.

  67. What the government is doing seems completely consistent with Steve’s definition of race as extended kinship.

    Any group which is more or less endogamous, and has been for a while, seems like a valid category for government classification. The point is to target communities which need help, people’s own sense of identity is irrelevant.

    There’s no reason this can’t change over time e.g. Jews may be considered white today. Perhaps Japanese Americans too. Also no reason why white subgroups can’t be identified as distinct disadvantaged communities.

    As for perverse incentives, I’ll assume people won’t change their mating habits based on some stupid government category.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Vinay

    As for perverse incentives, I’ll assume people won’t change their mating habits based on some stupid government category.

    "Stupid" government racial categorizations confer disparate status and income opportunities as well as access to potential mates and other power. (These things overlap obviously.)

    On what basis do people, especially women, select mates?

  68. @eD
    @Almost Missouri

    Almost Missouri, that was a thoughtful and informed response.

    However, I disagree on the racial makeup of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt. My impression is that we really don't know what the racial, or for that matter the ethnic makeup of post-Neolithic Egypt, or for that matter the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations. They didn't do realistic portraits so surviving portraiture on temples doesn't help much.

    The people living in these civilizations simply didn't care about race and ethnicity as much as we do, and didn't have something like the US Census Bureau on the job putting people in categories to help with diversity programs. And there was alot of movement of peoples into and out of these areas in subsequent centuries. So what you see in history book on their racial and ethnic composition are just guesses, and not even particularly informed guesses.

    But go get back on topic, the Middle East and South Asia is enough of a mixture that if you need a category, its probably just best to lump everyone from these regions into one category.

    The ridiculous "Hispanic" or "Latino" category, on the other hand, should go, but doing that raises the issue of whether you want Mestizo and Mulatto categories and if you want to apply them to Americans whose ancestors have been here for generations, which people are probably not ready for despite the President being a Mulatto. Actually I like Another Dad's suggestions in a later comment.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Hippopotamusdrome

    The people living in these civilizations simply didn’t care about race and ethnicity as much as we do

    There was an Egyptian Donald Trump who wanted to guard the southern border to keep out black immigrants:

    The Semna Stelae of Senusret III [1870 B.C.]
    … Southern boundary, made in the year 8, … in order to prevent that any Negro should cross it, by water or by land, with a ship, (or) any herds of the Negroes …
    … Every good thing shall be done with them, but without allowing a ship of the Negroes to pass Heh, going downstream, forever.
    … Now, as for every son of mine who shall maintain this boundary, he is my son … . Now, as for him who shall relax it, and shall not fight for it; he is not born to me.

  69. Maybe our host will pick up on this.

    In the past, the US census did not have boxes to check off. Rather, there was a blank to fill in. The column simply queried “Color or Race” of the person. Notice the “or” in that question. If American, the person would put in their color, if not, then their group which could be anything.

    Here is a page from the 1920 Census and you can see that the census taker has filled in “Mex. and had it overwritten with “W.”

    https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GR6H-PYW?i=5&wc=QZJP-9KB%3A1036469101%2C1036671101%2C1036740301%2C1589332288%3Fcc%3D1488411&cc=1488411

    Now, I know some of the people listed on that sheet, and I can tell you that they did not qualify as white by color. They had a white parent and/or step parent, but no way were they visibly white which is probably why the census taker put them down as they were seen. Others were indeed Mexican by birth because they were born in Mexico, or half Mexican because their white parent was born in Mexico, but were actually white, as in blue/green eyed folks with light hair. Also, from further research I found that even though their birth certificates list a parent as Mexican in the “color or race” field, the child is listed as white.

  70. @Anonymous
    Kat Chow?

    https://youtu.be/hS5QzGIVa7I

    Some people are just culturally tone deaf.

    Replies: @Another Canadian

    Some people are just culturally tone deaf.

    No kidding. Who in their right mind would ditch the name Katelin Chow for “Kat Chow?”

  71. What nonsense. Why should a white Iranian worry that her ethnicity is not reflected on the census form? I’m a white Czech/German and my husband is a white Iranian-American. No one cares about our ethnicity when it comes to filling out the census forms. If the government is going to keep a record of ethnicity – which was done in the past rather religiously for all whites and it is helpful for historians interested in social history – then it should include all of us – not just particular sub-sets of newer immigrants.

  72. @peterike
    Fortunately, Trump is going to win and we're not going to have to worry about any of this nonsense any longer.

    Replies: @Old fogey

    Hear! Hear!

  73. @AnotherDad
    My overall take here is the census is long overdue for rationalization on the race\ethnicity. Hispanic as the only ethnicity is the glaring bogosity--white gentiles? Jews? Arabs? C'mon.

    Have a broad "race" category--the obvious stuff, plus mulatto and mestizo. Have some broade "ethnic" categories--not just Hispanic. Have national origin list. For all these, have the mixed option where you can check multiple boxes and give rough percentage--1/2, 1/4, 1/8. Add the religion category that the Jews blocked back in the day.

    So someone could indicate that they are "white" (or Caucasian), Arab, from Egypt and a Muslim. Or someone could indicate that they are "white", Jewish, from Russia and agnostic. Or "white", European Christian, from Ireland, England and Germany, and non-practicing.

    Replies: @BB753

    The UK census is much more rational and accurate. Maybe we should just copy them?
    And ditch affirmative action altogether. Fot the life of me, I can’t understand why any sane conservative would possibly support AA. It could have made sense only for actual emancipated slaves after the Civil War. In what sense has any living American been hurt by slavery?

  74. @anonymous
    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue. Without that then no one would care and things would actually be clarified more than they are now. Those of MENA origin aren't white anyway so there's no point in trying to shoehorn them into that category. Identity politics being played as a racket is the problem.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily.

    Are they forbidden to emmigrate to Africa? They have a whole continent set aside as a blacks-only homeland. They voluntarily choose to remain here rather than return to the black ruled country of their ancestors.

    When Israel Was in Egypt’s Land By: African American spiritual

    When they had reached the other shore, Let My people go;
    They dang the song of triumph over, Let My people go.
    Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt’s land,
    Tell old Pharaoh: Let My people go.

  75. @Reg Cæsar
    How do you classify massively screwed-up whites, like Obama's relatives and university colleagues, and those who work for or voted for him? Or worse, his chosen successor?

    We don't want SWPLs any more than they want us!

    Replies: @bomag, @BucephalusXYZ

    How do you classify massively screwed-up whites

    I suppose we could have a category for “Honorary Other”, or “Sympathetic to the Plight of People Who Have a Special Census Category That I Would Like to Aid, Though I Can’t Technically Check It.”

  76. Are Mideast Christians going to be completely excluded? Most of the old school ME Christian immigrants were successful, assimilation minded, and have intermarried by now, so they probably wouldn’t want to claim this category.

  77. @Zach
    @Anonymous Nephew

    You see pro-Hillary commenters pushing the 13-year-old rape victim but I haven't seen much about it in the MSN. Maybe the Times and Post are saving it up for the very last moment.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Jezebel of all places shows how weak the case is.

    http://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

    twitter.com/annamerlan/status/793894845706272768

  78. But if the Obama Administration pares down whiteness to just Europeaness by moving almost all the Muslims into a privileged MENA racial category, suddenly white identity politics looks much doable.

    There was some discussion a while ago about the the remarkably small number of students at elite universities who identify as the supposedly dominant strain of whiteness (standard WASP). The smart money is getting out.

  79. So would Jewish people and/or Israelis qualify? Copts and Arab Christians? Greeks with roots in what is now Turkey?

    • Replies: @patrick
    @AP

    Maybe Israelis, but if American-born Ashkenazi Jews qualify, then why not Greek, Spanish, or Sicilian Americans? (After all, ancient Greece and Byzantium included much of modern-day Turkey, and all three groups lived under Islamic rule, so their claim to the category is at least as strong).
    I very much doubt that Arab or Muslim advocates would want to include Jews (certainly not European Jews) in the MENA category.

    Replies: @AP, @Anonymous

  80. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Last month I decided to self identify as a woman. And I’ve now decided to self identify as a Dindu woman. Authorities have a problem with this, I will see ’em in court.

    I think, next, I will self identify as a 9 ft Dindu woman. Still weighing the pros and cons of this, though. Clothing costs are already through the roof.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @anon

    What's funny to me is that I had already constructed a new self-identity way back in the early 2000's. I decided I was a 22 year old, 6'8" black man with a 140 IQ. NBA, PhD, $$, the whole works. Now I realize that I'm a marine veteran too, with a background in farming.

    It turns out that I was just ahead of my time with my make-believe self. And, interestingly, I'm still 22 yo. But I may actually be female and only 6'2". Not sure yet.

  81. Drudge:

    Hillary: Trump supporters are ‘negative, dark, divisive and dangerous’…

    As a Trump supporter, I endorse this message. It’s all true.

  82. @Gabriel M
    Speaking of white identity, the High Court in Britain just ruled that Parliament must vote on Brexit. Who brought the case?

    "Ms Miller is the investment manager and philanthropist who is leading the so-called “People’s Challenge” against Brexit.

    Born in Guyana....."

    Oh.

    But don't worry, she brought the case in conjunction with an "ordinary hairdresser", a real salt of the earth guy by the name of ..... Deir Dos Santos.

    Of the myriad reasons why Democracy is a terrible idea, the most blindingly obvious is perhaps the fact that it creates a massive incentive for politicians to replace the very demos who is supposed to have the cracy."

    Replies: @bomag, @No_0ne

    Might want to take a look at the ethnicity of Mrs. Miller’s husband, and 2 of the 3 judges deciding the case…

  83. @SFG
    I split this off from the other comment because I want there to be a place for people to talk about the stuff in that one. This one is going to get all the attention. (Or someone else's post with the same theme.)

    Obviously Israel is in the Middle East. So (A) Israelis are going to start claiming to be MENA to get affirmative action bennies and (B) social-justice types at Brown whose parents have been in the country since 1905 are suddenly going to be able to claim they're not white.

    (A) raises the possibility of Israelis trying to take over the MENA group (similar to what happens with Ashkenazim as 'white' under college admissions). After all they'll qualify for government diversity purposes. However, this isn't going to be taken nicely by the Muslims, who, as everyone has noticed, really don't like Jews. So there's going to be a big fight over this, with the media wanting to side with the Israelis but not being able to do so without looking, uh, racist.

    (B) means enough of these people will be able to convince the larger white gentile population that the alt-right project of a purely goyish white movement will start to have legs. Right now this whole 'Jews aren't white' thing sounds kind of like 'Polish people aren't white'--a random animus against a random group dredged up from the 1940s. (Cultural Marxism, I know, most people aren't up on this stuff.) But once the government agrees with them, the whole thing is going to sound a lot less like your uncle who watches too many WW2 movies and more like common sense. Well, hey, it's a census category, right?

    (Also every Jew who thinks he's white but can't say it because that's racist is going to have a much harder time. Before Trump came out you can find videos of Ben Shapiro talking to college students about what a silly idea white privilege is. For real.)

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Federalist, @Lot

    There is no reason to think universities and big employers will follow the census. For instance, none of them ask you if you are “hispanic origin” then separately ask for race.

    After all they’ll qualify for government diversity purposes.

    Federal contract “diversity” programs are minor and not well enforced. I am not aware of a single instance of the feds telling someone “Sorry, we reject your racial self-identification.”

    But once the government agrees with them

    The US government is going to give an official opinion on whether Jews who have no connection to the middle east aside from partial ancestry from there 1000+ years ago are “MENA” or not. I assume they would count Israel as MENA.

    If we do want to go with one-drop and count Jews as MENA, then you are talking about a solid 1/3 of upper and upper middle class kids around the NE and California.

  84. @Joe Schmoe
    @anonymous


    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue.
     
    This really is the bottom line.

    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle. Clearly Obama is worse because he is more capable. She could do little damage on her own because she is too incompetent and the daughters may well be also.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @PiltdownMan

    No native born American is here voluntarily. Only immigrants are.

  85. Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are

    Roughly half imaginary. Well, more than that, if “Jews” actually means “Jews,” and not “American Ashkenazim.”

    P.S., a looot of Jewish achievement is bad achievement.

    “Kat Chow.” Seriously?

    Yeah, I got a real kick out of that. Kat is very likely short for something (assuming non-retarded parents), but, nope, not gonna use the full given, because…

    In America, Christians tend to see Judaism as closely related to Christianity.

    That’s a lot like seeing the Confederacy as closely related to the Union. True, but…

    Please tell us who the “real white people” are. Bonus points if you refrain from copypasting from Mein Kampf.

    Descendants of European Christendom.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @Svigor

    Well, not to leave anyone in the dark, Kat Chow is Katelin Chow, half Oriental, and half Occidental. Which reminds me of an old joke:

    Mr and Mrs Wong rushed to the hospital after her water broke. A few hours later she delivered a beautiful baby, except that its skin was pale, and its eyes were blue. Mr. Wong looked at his wife and said,"My dear, two Wongs don't make a white." She replied: "I'm sorry, dear, but it was purely occidental."

    Of course, that joke can land you in prison now, even Kat Chow has managed to write extensively on the O word. But it still makes me laugh.

  86. @Vinay
    What the government is doing seems completely consistent with Steve's definition of race as extended kinship.

    Any group which is more or less endogamous, and has been for a while, seems like a valid category for government classification. The point is to target communities which need help, people's own sense of identity is irrelevant.

    There's no reason this can't change over time e.g. Jews may be considered white today. Perhaps Japanese Americans too. Also no reason why white subgroups can't be identified as distinct disadvantaged communities.

    As for perverse incentives, I'll assume people won't change their mating habits based on some stupid government category.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    As for perverse incentives, I’ll assume people won’t change their mating habits based on some stupid government category.

    “Stupid” government racial categorizations confer disparate status and income opportunities as well as access to potential mates and other power. (These things overlap obviously.)

    On what basis do people, especially women, select mates?

  87. Pretty obvious what’s going on here. Obama has always, deep down, identified with his white mother who raised him and loathed the black father who abandoned him. He outwardly embraced his blackness to rise to the highest level of power… where he could more effectively enable his white brethren. He’s adjusting the census to facilitate white identitarianism while egging on BLM thugs to force white America’s eyes open to the reality of what needs to be done.

    Heroically, he knew all along he’d be a pariah in the eyes of proud whites for appearing to be an affirmative action president biased against white people but he made the sacrifice anyway. He’s placing his legacy in the hands of historians, faithful that a century from now the United White Ethnostates of America will recognize his importance and restore him to his rightful place in the pantheon, alongside Trump, Taylor, Brimelow, and Sailer.

    Alternatively, it’s possible that all involved are confident that Hillary will win and on Nov. 9th we can all go back to the way things are supposed to be, where whites know their damn place.

  88. @jimmyriddle
    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies' "diversity problem" ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Fredrik, @Frau Katze, @syonredux, @BB753

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There’s no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don’t understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Frau Katze

    Right. Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Wilkey

    , @Anonymous
    @Frau Katze

    "I don’t understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups."

    The Democrats needed to build their coalition of the fringes. Ironically, they were the ones who were demonizing non-whites until mid-Century, then they turned into their bestest buddies when they realized it could be to their advantage.

    You're right though- as Ann Coulter says about Hispanic immigrants, they have no history with the US. It's obscene that the US government puts a Guatemalan or Pakistani FOB in line ahead of a middle class white kid from Kansas whose ancestors bled at Bunker Hill and Normandy.

    Of course, one could go even further and question why any minority should get any privileged treatment at all. Supposedly the arrangement that Americans agreed to a half century ago which led up to all of this, was that everyone was supposed to be treated equally. Get the same public schools, get judged by their actions, not their skin color, etc. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome. Nor does unequal outcome mean discrimination occurred.

    , @Njguy73
    @Frau Katze


    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.
     
    You Canadians got rid of the slavery issue the easy way. You were under British rule and Parliament abolished slavery throughout the Empire.

    We Yanks had to go through the bloodiest civil war the world had ever seen plus a century of segregation in order to sort out the mess. In my country, racial and ethnic matters are warped in a way that no other Western nation can understand.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    , @Federalist
    @Frau Katze

    "The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them [Far East Asians], but they got there fair and square."

    I know what you mean but if I may quibble, it seems like Asians should be attending universities in Asia rather than taking over universities created by the people we usually think of as Canadians, i.e., European descended people who like hockey. I don't want to sound too critical of Canada, though. In America, we don't just passively allow all kinds of foreign peoples and cultures to take over and/or destroy the institutions built by our ancestors, we give them a hand in doing so in the form of affirmative action.

    Replies: @Frau Katze

  89. Actually, misremembered my stats there. Delete “more than that” and it reads correctly. Oh, and Jews wouldn’t get “16 extra IQ points,” even if their mean was 116. That’s innumerate, bell curve doesn’t work that way. If their mean was 116 (it isn’t), that would mean the average Jew got 16 extra points, but 116 is nothing to write home about. Average poster here probably craps bigger than 116. We’re talking sub-dentist IQ here.

  90. @Frau Katze
    @jimmyriddle

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There's no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don't understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @Njguy73, @Federalist

    Right. Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Opinionator

    Because White Privilege.

    , @Wilkey
    @Opinionator

    "Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?"

    Because Ronald Reagan said so.

    Yes, Ronald Reagan. Not Jimmy Carter. Not Bill Clinton. Not Barack Obama.

    And people wonder why middle class whites are so pissed at establishment Republicans. They haven't done a god-damned thing to fight back against the constant, neverending push to the left, and in many cases they have enabled it.

  91. @Svigor

    Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are
     
    Roughly half imaginary. Well, more than that, if "Jews" actually means "Jews," and not "American Ashkenazim."

    P.S., a looot of Jewish achievement is bad achievement.

    “Kat Chow.” Seriously?
     
    Yeah, I got a real kick out of that. Kat is very likely short for something (assuming non-retarded parents), but, nope, not gonna use the full given, because...

    In America, Christians tend to see Judaism as closely related to Christianity.
     
    That's a lot like seeing the Confederacy as closely related to the Union. True, but...

    Please tell us who the “real white people” are. Bonus points if you refrain from copypasting from Mein Kampf.
     
    Descendants of European Christendom.

    Replies: @SPMoore8

    Well, not to leave anyone in the dark, Kat Chow is Katelin Chow, half Oriental, and half Occidental. Which reminds me of an old joke:

    Mr and Mrs Wong rushed to the hospital after her water broke. A few hours later she delivered a beautiful baby, except that its skin was pale, and its eyes were blue. Mr. Wong looked at his wife and said,”My dear, two Wongs don’t make a white.” She replied: “I’m sorry, dear, but it was purely occidental.”

    Of course, that joke can land you in prison now, even Kat Chow has managed to write extensively on the O word. But it still makes me laugh.

  92. @Joe Schmoe
    @anonymous


    There should be a move towards wrapping up all the bennies for being non-white and eliminating them. Everybody except the American blacks are here voluntarily. This is way overdue.
     
    This really is the bottom line.

    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle. Clearly Obama is worse because he is more capable. She could do little damage on her own because she is too incompetent and the daughters may well be also.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @PiltdownMan

    Blacks and American Indians who can prove their ancestors were here before say, 1950, are the only ones who should get jack in terms of benefits. I use 1950 because it is easy to establish and going earlier gets complicated, but before 1950, there was hardly any immigration from Africa anyway, so that tiny tiny fraction gets a pass. Nothing is perfect. It certainly would not privilege someone like Obama. His daughters, yes, but because of Michelle.

    It shouldn’t privilege Michelle Obama’s daughters. To qualify for affirmative action, there could be a maximum family income test as well. In an article (I think in the New York Times) that I read about affirmative action in India which seems to have ballooned to include 50% of the sub-ethnicities and castes, the term “creamy layer” is used. It refers to those who have benefited already from affirmative action, and like cream in unhomogenized milk, have floated to the top.

    It’s a useful concept.

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

  93. @Opinionator
    @Frau Katze

    Right. Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Wilkey

    Because White Privilege.

  94. @AP
    So would Jewish people and/or Israelis qualify? Copts and Arab Christians? Greeks with roots in what is now Turkey?

    Replies: @patrick

    Maybe Israelis, but if American-born Ashkenazi Jews qualify, then why not Greek, Spanish, or Sicilian Americans? (After all, ancient Greece and Byzantium included much of modern-day Turkey, and all three groups lived under Islamic rule, so their claim to the category is at least as strong).
    I very much doubt that Arab or Muslim advocates would want to include Jews (certainly not European Jews) in the MENA category.

    • Replies: @AP
    @patrick

    Well, genetically, European Jews are of about 50% middle eastern descent. Their ancestors just left about 2,000 years ago...

    , @Anonymous
    @patrick

    Maybe because Ashkenazis are actually genetically MENA (50% MENA if you consider the European part to be south European, and 70% MENA if you consider the European part to be more northern like Hungarian or Brit), unlike the other people you mentioned, and that's what race is all about you dumb ass..?

    Replies: @patrick

  95. @Opinionator
    @Frau Katze

    Right. Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Wilkey

    “Why do immigrants from India and Pakistan get priority over Whites in obtaining U.S. government contracts and why do they receive subsidized loans while Whites do not?”

    Because Ronald Reagan said so.

    Yes, Ronald Reagan. Not Jimmy Carter. Not Bill Clinton. Not Barack Obama.

    And people wonder why middle class whites are so pissed at establishment Republicans. They haven’t done a god-damned thing to fight back against the constant, neverending push to the left, and in many cases they have enabled it.

    • Agree: BB753
  96. FYI Bosnian muslims don’t identify as White. They see themselves as Turkic people, inheritors of the Ottoman Empire. I worked with a woman from there and she referred to herself as a minority. In fact she really hated White people. She would say things like “the Dutch are so ugly. Their faces are really red” and “the Swedish are the most racist people on the planet” (I’m not kidding) and “the English enslaved the world!”

    They see themselves as part of the Islamic Umma and they are firmly entrenched in the anti-White coalition. I didn’t understand the dynamic myself until it was too late– she got me fired for “racist” “harassment.”

    • Replies: @bored identity
    @Amasius

    Bonus I:

    As an indirect result of Slick Willy's wag-dogging, the Guberment has conveniently dumped some 70.000 of Bosnian fugazzis in St. Louis, mostly in prevalently black neighborhoods.

    Potentially it's an explosive concoction, because you put a new group of war-hardened bottom fringe-feeders in the environment where the scarcity of resources are to be permanently shared with We-Git-First-Dibs-On-Gibs community

    The vast majority of them are Balkan-rednecks whose ethnic-religious allegiance towards failed mother-state counter intuitively trumps their natural, long-term interests in the new country.


    Bonus II:

    All the narratives that will eventually get America into WWIII were corner-stoned in Balkan Wars of 1990's:

    - MSM optics of mono-ethnic atrocities with an emphasis on industrial scale rapes - allegedly used as a war strategy.

    - R2P playground for skirt wearing Powerite structure to manufacture consent of Wimmin Voters for a bomb,bomb,bomb you name it country of choice.

    - After the Vietnam war, United States' first massive use of invade and invite imbecility: more than 200,000 Bosnians were given a chance to tip the scale by voting for a Moar Muzzies /Moar Bombing candidate in this elections.

    - Five years before the Twin Towers flying accidents, and some twenty years before caliphate's Iphone selfies with heads rolling in the background desert, there were VHS 'home-tent videos' showing beheadings of Croat and Serbian Christians committed by ZZ Top looking volunteers from the Clinton's Foundation’s top ten list of country donors.

    https://youtu.be/XR9VH4kgty0


    Bonus III:

    Steve's favorite Muhammer guy got muhammered not because he didn't share trigger happy temperament with dindu -perps - the poor thing just forgot that you don't bring fists into hammer fight.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

  97. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Frau Katze
    @jimmyriddle

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There's no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don't understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @Njguy73, @Federalist

    “I don’t understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.”

    The Democrats needed to build their coalition of the fringes. Ironically, they were the ones who were demonizing non-whites until mid-Century, then they turned into their bestest buddies when they realized it could be to their advantage.

    You’re right though- as Ann Coulter says about Hispanic immigrants, they have no history with the US. It’s obscene that the US government puts a Guatemalan or Pakistani FOB in line ahead of a middle class white kid from Kansas whose ancestors bled at Bunker Hill and Normandy.

    Of course, one could go even further and question why any minority should get any privileged treatment at all. Supposedly the arrangement that Americans agreed to a half century ago which led up to all of this, was that everyone was supposed to be treated equally. Get the same public schools, get judged by their actions, not their skin color, etc. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome. Nor does unequal outcome mean discrimination occurred.

  98. O/T: Supplemental information to ponder for your Africa graph. Many counter-currents in US and Europe among interested parties.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/what-world-looks-ex-africa

  99. @Frau Katze
    @jimmyriddle

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There's no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don't understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @Njguy73, @Federalist

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    You Canadians got rid of the slavery issue the easy way. You were under British rule and Parliament abolished slavery throughout the Empire.

    We Yanks had to go through the bloodiest civil war the world had ever seen plus a century of segregation in order to sort out the mess. In my country, racial and ethnic matters are warped in a way that no other Western nation can understand.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Were slaveholders compensated?

    Replies: @Njguy73

  100. @Njguy73
    @Frau Katze


    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.
     
    You Canadians got rid of the slavery issue the easy way. You were under British rule and Parliament abolished slavery throughout the Empire.

    We Yanks had to go through the bloodiest civil war the world had ever seen plus a century of segregation in order to sort out the mess. In my country, racial and ethnic matters are warped in a way that no other Western nation can understand.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Were slaveholders compensated?

    • Replies: @Njguy73
    @Opinionator


    Were slaveholders compensated?
     
    Yes. The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", the "Island of Ceylon" and "the Island of Saint Helena"...provided for compensation for slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling". Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£2.020 billion in 2016 pounds) to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833#The_Act

    The U.S., on the other hand, reduced the defeated CSA to peonage and our nation has still not gotten over it.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  101. @Opinionator
    @(((Owen)))

    Jews’ 16 extra IQ points are essential to any group that wants to punch above its weight in achievement, power, wealth, and influence.

    Whites can run their countries just fine without jews. Ample track record.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    Yeah, Mutti Merkel is doing brilliantly.

  102. @Federalist
    @(((Owen)))

    "...the mutually hostile minority groups the Republicans have been importing in vast numbers..."
    What about the Democrats?

    Can we really "keep the core American groups, including Jews, together"? It seems that Jews are already not part of the "core American group" (depending on how the term is defined). I think that Jews are white (at least the Ashkenazim). But the coalition of the fringes includes not just minority groups but also the leftist, mostly white elites. With their high I.Q.'s and success out of proportion to their numbers, Jews tend to be part of the elite. Jews are white but not part of the core American group. Of course, their are white gentiles who are part of the elite as well. (Throughout, I am speaking of American Jews generally, of course. There are plenty of exceptions).

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    What about the Democrats?

    See Wilkey’s comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration and Obama has been much less bad than Dubya was.

    Unless you want a country of morons, there are going to be some intellectual elites. Compared to other big city well educated American coastal professionals, Jews are already slightly more nationalist and conservative. The problem is to get the whole big city professional class to be more patriotic.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @(((Owen)))

    Yes. The Republicans have been terrible on immigration. It's particularly annoying because of the stupidity involved. Republican votes come overwhelmingly from whites. Immigration is the surest way to ensure Republican defeat. My point was that the Republicans aren't exclusively to blame. Obama has been terrible and Hillary will be too if she is elected. Obama couldn't get "comprehensive immigration reform" so he just does whatever the hell he wants. It will be no different with Hillary. That is why if there is any hope, it lies in a Trump victory. No matter how much Hillary is weakened by scandal(s), she can simply refuse to enforce immigration laws and continue to allow immigrants to continue to pour in. For me, a big part of the rationale behind supporting Trump in the primaries was that most or all of the other Republican candidates would have been just as bad as Hillary on immigration.


    I agree that there have to be some intellectual elites, if by intellectual elites you mean people who are well above average in intelligence. For instance, the heart surgeon will be much smarter than the average blue collar worker in town. But by "elite" I am talking about the leftist elite that dominates academia, the MSM, entertainment, large corporations, etc. These are the people that promote open borders, white privilege, electing a new people, invade the world/invite the world, etc. This is the elite that has come to dominate respectable discourse in society. They openly cheer the extinction of white people. They excoriate Christians but accommodate every Muslim outrage because to do otherwise would be Islamophobic. They celebrate the nearly non-existent accomplishments of third world cultures but denigrate the glories of Western Civilization because they were brought about by old white men. This sort of elite despises the wrong kind of white people, a/k/a the American core.

    , @Wilkey
    @(((Owen)))

    "See Wilkey’s comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration"

    It's more complicated than that. Democrats have undeniably been leading the drive to overrun the country with immigrants, but some Republicans have been happy to help. The 1990 law signed by George H.W. Bush that increased legal immigration by 40% passed the House thanks mostly thanks to Democrats. 127 of the 192 votes against the bill came from Republicans.

    My point isn't that Republicans are worse on immigration than Democrats, just that certain Republicans (esp. the Bush family) have repeatedly betrayed us on this and so many other issues.

    After winning the presidency in 1988 all George H. W. Bush had to do was enforce the immigration law and not sign the massive 1990 expansion of legal immigration, and we'd be in a much happier place right now.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  103. @eD
    If they wanted to make it less obvious that this thing was a modern day spoils system, they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    "South Asian" has absolutely nothing to do with, well, East Asian whether you go by race, culture, language, or whatever. However, the continent is populated by a mixture of whites (Iranian types) and descendants of what was probably the original population of the area, who don't fit into any American racial categories but who are not white anyway. And India and the Middle East have interacted closely going back to the Harrapans and the Sumerians.

    In the Middle East itself, Turks are as white as as Hungarians, Iranians are obviously white, and Arabs are mostly white, but lots of slaves were imported from Africa so Arabs contain a large black mixture due to interbreeding (Levantine Arabs less so), and Egypt always seems to have been multi-racial. Note that Indian whites are to a large degree of Iranian and Turkish descent.

    The point is that both regions are multi-racial regions that don't really mesh well with American racial categories. So just combine them. But continue counting Turks as white, and as for Jews, maybe the Solomonic solution is to put the Shephardin only in the new category.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Almost Missouri, @Karl

    > they would combine the Middle Eastern and South Asian categories.

    Maybe so, if you choose the “paper bag test”

    But if you choose the “body hairiness of the womenfolk” test, they ain’t in the same tribe.

  104. @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Were slaveholders compensated?

    Replies: @Njguy73

    Were slaveholders compensated?

    Yes. The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions “of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company”, the “Island of Ceylon” and “the Island of Saint Helena”…provided for compensation for slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at “the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling”. Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£2.020 billion in 2016 pounds) to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833#The_Act

    The U.S., on the other hand, reduced the defeated CSA to peonage and our nation has still not gotten over it.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Thanks. Sad and puzzling that such an arrangement wasn't made in the United States. Tragic.

    Replies: @Njguy73, @Njguy73

  105. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I'm never quite sure if the globalist left is stupid, arrogant or simply getting high off its own supply. It's probably some combination of the three. Regardless, from a strategic standpoint, they are are dangerously foolish.

    "When you surround the enemy
    Always allow them an escape route.
    They must see that there is
    An alternative to death."
    —Sun Tzu, The Art of War
     
    They're not just making white identity politics "feasible". They're making white identity politics inevitable and mandatory for survival.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Neoconned

    I am a whole hearted enthusiast for the “build golden bridges for your enemy” idea. I like the idea of people knowing that you can beat them, forgive them, and move forward. (Pay no attention to Qaddafi, please to be moving along.)

  106. @Njguy73
    @Opinionator


    Were slaveholders compensated?
     
    Yes. The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", the "Island of Ceylon" and "the Island of Saint Helena"...provided for compensation for slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling". Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£2.020 billion in 2016 pounds) to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833#The_Act

    The U.S., on the other hand, reduced the defeated CSA to peonage and our nation has still not gotten over it.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Thanks. Sad and puzzling that such an arrangement wasn’t made in the United States. Tragic.

    • Replies: @Njguy73
    @Opinionator

    Lincoln made numerous proposals for "compensated emancipation" in the loyal border states whereby the federal government would purchase all of the slaves and free them. Each state government refused to act.

    President Lincoln advocated that slave owners be compensated for emancipated slaves. On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress; however, the Southern States refused to comply. On July 12, 1862 President Lincoln in a conference with Congressmen from Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri encouraged their respective states to adopt emancipation legislation that gave compensation to the slave owners. On July 14, 1862 President Lincoln sent a bill to Congress that allowed the Treasury to issue bonds at 6% interest to states for slave emancipation compensation to the slave owners. The bill was never voted on by Congress.

    As late as the Hampton Roads Conference in 1865, Lincoln met with Confederate leaders and proposed a "fair indemnity", possibly $500,000,000, in compensation for emancipated slaves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Compensated_emancipation:_buy_out_the_slave_owners

    That didn't happen. See my next post.

    , @Njguy73
    @Opinionator

    American historian R.R. Palmer opined that the abolition of slavery in the United States without compensation to the former slave owners was an "annihilation of individual property rights without parallel...in the history of the Western world". Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War. Another economic historian, Roger Ransom, writes about how Gerald Gunderson compared compensated emancipation to the cost of the war and "notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars". Ransom also writes that compensated emancipation would have tripled federal outlays if paid over the period of 25 years and was a program that had no political support within the United States during the 1860s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Joe Schmoe

  107. @Frau Katze
    @jimmyriddle

    As a Canadian, I want to know why you Americans need all these categories at all.

    In Canada, natives can get special privileges. No one else can.

    This benefits, say, Far East Asians who want to go to university. There's no effective quota, as there is in the US. The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them, but they got there fair and square.

    In the US, I can see special privileges for natives and descendents of slaves.

    I don't understand why it ever expanded past those 2 groups.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @Njguy73, @Federalist

    “The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them [Far East Asians], but they got there fair and square.”

    I know what you mean but if I may quibble, it seems like Asians should be attending universities in Asia rather than taking over universities created by the people we usually think of as Canadians, i.e., European descended people who like hockey. I don’t want to sound too critical of Canada, though. In America, we don’t just passively allow all kinds of foreign peoples and cultures to take over and/or destroy the institutions built by our ancestors, we give them a hand in doing so in the form of affirmative action.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    @Federalist

    I know what you mean,.

    But the stories from Europe about Muslims (I've been following this for years) are so bad I am of two minds about the Chinese. On the one hand, why did this whole invite-the-world thing ever have to happen?

    On the other hand, the Chinese (many very wealthy) have pushed housing prices so high that it would be hard for poor Muslims to try to fight for a piece of the city. And the Chinese aren't like Muslims, who are just awful (not all of them, of course)

    Mind you, that idiot Boy Trudeau might just give it to them (a piece of the city).

    Finally, while the Chinese are over represented at universities, Europe's Muslims are over represented in prisons and on welfare.

  108. @patrick
    @AP

    Maybe Israelis, but if American-born Ashkenazi Jews qualify, then why not Greek, Spanish, or Sicilian Americans? (After all, ancient Greece and Byzantium included much of modern-day Turkey, and all three groups lived under Islamic rule, so their claim to the category is at least as strong).
    I very much doubt that Arab or Muslim advocates would want to include Jews (certainly not European Jews) in the MENA category.

    Replies: @AP, @Anonymous

    Well, genetically, European Jews are of about 50% middle eastern descent. Their ancestors just left about 2,000 years ago…

  109. @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Thanks. Sad and puzzling that such an arrangement wasn't made in the United States. Tragic.

    Replies: @Njguy73, @Njguy73

    Lincoln made numerous proposals for “compensated emancipation” in the loyal border states whereby the federal government would purchase all of the slaves and free them. Each state government refused to act.

    President Lincoln advocated that slave owners be compensated for emancipated slaves. On March 6, 1862 President Lincoln in a message to the U.S. Congress stated that emancipating slaves would create economic “inconveniences” and justified compensation to the slave owners. The resolution was adopted by Congress; however, the Southern States refused to comply. On July 12, 1862 President Lincoln in a conference with Congressmen from Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri encouraged their respective states to adopt emancipation legislation that gave compensation to the slave owners. On July 14, 1862 President Lincoln sent a bill to Congress that allowed the Treasury to issue bonds at 6% interest to states for slave emancipation compensation to the slave owners. The bill was never voted on by Congress.

    As late as the Hampton Roads Conference in 1865, Lincoln met with Confederate leaders and proposed a “fair indemnity”, possibly $500,000,000, in compensation for emancipated slaves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Compensated_emancipation:_buy_out_the_slave_owners

    That didn’t happen. See my next post.

  110. @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Thanks. Sad and puzzling that such an arrangement wasn't made in the United States. Tragic.

    Replies: @Njguy73, @Njguy73

    American historian R.R. Palmer opined that the abolition of slavery in the United States without compensation to the former slave owners was an “annihilation of individual property rights without parallel…in the history of the Western world”. Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War. Another economic historian, Roger Ransom, writes about how Gerald Gunderson compared compensated emancipation to the cost of the war and “notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars”. Ransom also writes that compensated emancipation would have tripled federal outlays if paid over the period of 25 years and was a program that had no political support within the United States during the 1860s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Njguy73

    Thanks for the info

    , @Joe Schmoe
    @Njguy73


    Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War.
     
    As noted, having the federal gov't pay slave owners for the slaves was unworkable. They should have just emancipated the all of those born after say, 1860. That is how they did it in the north. So, the older people were still slaves, but their children were not. The slave owners would have to pay them wages if they wanted them to work. There was no minimum wage, so it would not have been so hard. Also, some of the children would leave and take some of their elderly parents off the owners' hands.

    Of course, the best idea would have been for folks to promote the most humanitarian thing, back to Africa into Liberia. If they had all gone en masse, they might have had a significant advantage over the locals.

  111. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I'm never quite sure if the globalist left is stupid, arrogant or simply getting high off its own supply. It's probably some combination of the three. Regardless, from a strategic standpoint, they are are dangerously foolish.

    "When you surround the enemy
    Always allow them an escape route.
    They must see that there is
    An alternative to death."
    —Sun Tzu, The Art of War
     
    They're not just making white identity politics "feasible". They're making white identity politics inevitable and mandatory for survival.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Neoconned

    You have a clear but fascinating way of putting it.

  112. @(((Owen)))
    @Federalist


    What about the Democrats?
     
    See Wilkey's comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration and Obama has been much less bad than Dubya was.

    ---

    Unless you want a country of morons, there are going to be some intellectual elites. Compared to other big city well educated American coastal professionals, Jews are already slightly more nationalist and conservative. The problem is to get the whole big city professional class to be more patriotic.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Wilkey

    Yes. The Republicans have been terrible on immigration. It’s particularly annoying because of the stupidity involved. Republican votes come overwhelmingly from whites. Immigration is the surest way to ensure Republican defeat. My point was that the Republicans aren’t exclusively to blame. Obama has been terrible and Hillary will be too if she is elected. Obama couldn’t get “comprehensive immigration reform” so he just does whatever the hell he wants. It will be no different with Hillary. That is why if there is any hope, it lies in a Trump victory. No matter how much Hillary is weakened by scandal(s), she can simply refuse to enforce immigration laws and continue to allow immigrants to continue to pour in. For me, a big part of the rationale behind supporting Trump in the primaries was that most or all of the other Republican candidates would have been just as bad as Hillary on immigration.

    I agree that there have to be some intellectual elites, if by intellectual elites you mean people who are well above average in intelligence. For instance, the heart surgeon will be much smarter than the average blue collar worker in town. But by “elite” I am talking about the leftist elite that dominates academia, the MSM, entertainment, large corporations, etc. These are the people that promote open borders, white privilege, electing a new people, invade the world/invite the world, etc. This is the elite that has come to dominate respectable discourse in society. They openly cheer the extinction of white people. They excoriate Christians but accommodate every Muslim outrage because to do otherwise would be Islamophobic. They celebrate the nearly non-existent accomplishments of third world cultures but denigrate the glories of Western Civilization because they were brought about by old white men. This sort of elite despises the wrong kind of white people, a/k/a the American core.

  113. @(((Owen)))
    @Federalist


    What about the Democrats?
     
    See Wilkey's comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration and Obama has been much less bad than Dubya was.

    ---

    Unless you want a country of morons, there are going to be some intellectual elites. Compared to other big city well educated American coastal professionals, Jews are already slightly more nationalist and conservative. The problem is to get the whole big city professional class to be more patriotic.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Wilkey

    “See Wilkey’s comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration”

    It’s more complicated than that. Democrats have undeniably been leading the drive to overrun the country with immigrants, but some Republicans have been happy to help. The 1990 law signed by George H.W. Bush that increased legal immigration by 40% passed the House thanks mostly thanks to Democrats. 127 of the 192 votes against the bill came from Republicans.

    My point isn’t that Republicans are worse on immigration than Democrats, just that certain Republicans (esp. the Bush family) have repeatedly betrayed us on this and so many other issues.

    After winning the presidency in 1988 all George H. W. Bush had to do was enforce the immigration law and not sign the massive 1990 expansion of legal immigration, and we’d be in a much happier place right now.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Wilkey

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Wilkey

  114. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @patrick
    @AP

    Maybe Israelis, but if American-born Ashkenazi Jews qualify, then why not Greek, Spanish, or Sicilian Americans? (After all, ancient Greece and Byzantium included much of modern-day Turkey, and all three groups lived under Islamic rule, so their claim to the category is at least as strong).
    I very much doubt that Arab or Muslim advocates would want to include Jews (certainly not European Jews) in the MENA category.

    Replies: @AP, @Anonymous

    Maybe because Ashkenazis are actually genetically MENA (50% MENA if you consider the European part to be south European, and 70% MENA if you consider the European part to be more northern like Hungarian or Brit), unlike the other people you mentioned, and that’s what race is all about you dumb ass..?

    • Replies: @patrick
    @Anonymous

    Take a deep breath there buddy...

    Maybe race is about genetics, but Census categories aren't. Why does "Hispanic" include German-descended Argentines, African-descended Dominicans, and Central American Indians who don't even speak Spanish?

  115. @Federalist
    @Frau Katze

    "The University of BC (in Vancouver) has a huge number of them [Far East Asians], but they got there fair and square."

    I know what you mean but if I may quibble, it seems like Asians should be attending universities in Asia rather than taking over universities created by the people we usually think of as Canadians, i.e., European descended people who like hockey. I don't want to sound too critical of Canada, though. In America, we don't just passively allow all kinds of foreign peoples and cultures to take over and/or destroy the institutions built by our ancestors, we give them a hand in doing so in the form of affirmative action.

    Replies: @Frau Katze

    I know what you mean,.

    But the stories from Europe about Muslims (I’ve been following this for years) are so bad I am of two minds about the Chinese. On the one hand, why did this whole invite-the-world thing ever have to happen?

    On the other hand, the Chinese (many very wealthy) have pushed housing prices so high that it would be hard for poor Muslims to try to fight for a piece of the city. And the Chinese aren’t like Muslims, who are just awful (not all of them, of course)

    Mind you, that idiot Boy Trudeau might just give it to them (a piece of the city).

    Finally, while the Chinese are over represented at universities, Europe’s Muslims are over represented in prisons and on welfare.

  116. @Reg Cæsar
    How do you classify massively screwed-up whites, like Obama's relatives and university colleagues, and those who work for or voted for him? Or worse, his chosen successor?

    We don't want SWPLs any more than they want us!

    Replies: @bomag, @BucephalusXYZ

    I can’t speak for others, but I want SWPL’s, even if I would like for them to drop some of their SWPLism. Not everything about it is wrong. I used to aspire to SWPLism myself. I voted for Obama twice (but not with any enthusiasm). Now I read iSteve pretty much every day and plan to vote for Trump (even if I think he is most definitely not a good role model for children).

  117. @Wilkey
    @(((Owen)))

    "See Wilkey’s comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration"

    It's more complicated than that. Democrats have undeniably been leading the drive to overrun the country with immigrants, but some Republicans have been happy to help. The 1990 law signed by George H.W. Bush that increased legal immigration by 40% passed the House thanks mostly thanks to Democrats. 127 of the 192 votes against the bill came from Republicans.

    My point isn't that Republicans are worse on immigration than Democrats, just that certain Republicans (esp. the Bush family) have repeatedly betrayed us on this and so many other issues.

    After winning the presidency in 1988 all George H. W. Bush had to do was enforce the immigration law and not sign the massive 1990 expansion of legal immigration, and we'd be in a much happier place right now.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous


    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?
     
    Because of patriotic Democrats like Barbara Jordan, of course.

    The current ruined state of Democratic immigration policy was forced on the party by Republicans. Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive. That pulled the rug out from under traditional core American working class support for Democrats and allowed Republicans to use those votes to open up free trade treaties and cut taxes on billionaires.

    Trump is the first Republican in forty years that isn't just trying to destroy America for profit. Democrats fought their agenda for most of those years, for as long as they still could, anyway.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Wilkey
    @Anonymous

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    That's a good question, and the only answer is I don't know. But, iirc, around 1996 Republicans passed a fairly tough immigration law that was signed by Clinton. However, it was fairly well reported that prior to the 1996 election Clinton was rushing to naturalize as many immigrants as possible, knowing full well their ideological preference for Democrats. I remember reading Peter Brimelow's book around that time, my freshman or sophomore year of college, and that was sort of my first big eye opener into how mass immigration was reshaping the country.

  118. @Anonymous
    @Wilkey

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Wilkey

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    Because of patriotic Democrats like Barbara Jordan, of course.

    The current ruined state of Democratic immigration policy was forced on the party by Republicans. Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive. That pulled the rug out from under traditional core American working class support for Democrats and allowed Republicans to use those votes to open up free trade treaties and cut taxes on billionaires.

    Trump is the first Republican in forty years that isn’t just trying to destroy America for profit. Democrats fought their agenda for most of those years, for as long as they still could, anyway.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @(((Owen)))


    Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive.
     
    Those immigrants would have supported the Dems anyway. The Dems were, then as now, the Robin Hood Party, and that'll always appeal to net consumers of government benefits. In fact, the Dems' evolution since then, toward gay "marriage" and accomodation with black lawlessness, should have made them less congenial to the immigrants from traditional societies — which describes most of our immigrants.

    So it seems to me that the Dems' descent into cultural craziness reflected forces within the white SWPL class, and not any calculated strategy to capture the 3rd World immigrant vote.

    Replies: @International Jew

  119. @Anonymous
    @Wilkey

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    Replies: @(((Owen))), @Wilkey

    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?

    That’s a good question, and the only answer is I don’t know. But, iirc, around 1996 Republicans passed a fairly tough immigration law that was signed by Clinton. However, it was fairly well reported that prior to the 1996 election Clinton was rushing to naturalize as many immigrants as possible, knowing full well their ideological preference for Democrats. I remember reading Peter Brimelow’s book around that time, my freshman or sophomore year of college, and that was sort of my first big eye opener into how mass immigration was reshaping the country.

  120. @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous


    Why was the 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform so tough on illegal immigration?
     
    Because of patriotic Democrats like Barbara Jordan, of course.

    The current ruined state of Democratic immigration policy was forced on the party by Republicans. Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive. That pulled the rug out from under traditional core American working class support for Democrats and allowed Republicans to use those votes to open up free trade treaties and cut taxes on billionaires.

    Trump is the first Republican in forty years that isn't just trying to destroy America for profit. Democrats fought their agenda for most of those years, for as long as they still could, anyway.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive.

    Those immigrants would have supported the Dems anyway. The Dems were, then as now, the Robin Hood Party, and that’ll always appeal to net consumers of government benefits. In fact, the Dems’ evolution since then, toward gay “marriage” and accomodation with black lawlessness, should have made them less congenial to the immigrants from traditional societies — which describes most of our immigrants.

    So it seems to me that the Dems’ descent into cultural craziness reflected forces within the white SWPL class, and not any calculated strategy to capture the 3rd World immigrant vote.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @International Jew

    In fact, if the Dems had stayed as they were in, oh, 1985 — socialist-lite, uninterested in fighting foreign crusades, protectionist on trade — they would have been even stronger today than they are. Hey, they'd have been like Donald Trump with the mass media working for him!

    They'd have picked up the Latino and Somali vote anyway, but not lost the white working class.

  121. @International Jew
    @(((Owen)))


    Reagan and the Bushes imported so many cheap labor underclass foreigners that Democrats were forced to appeal to them to remain competitive.
     
    Those immigrants would have supported the Dems anyway. The Dems were, then as now, the Robin Hood Party, and that'll always appeal to net consumers of government benefits. In fact, the Dems' evolution since then, toward gay "marriage" and accomodation with black lawlessness, should have made them less congenial to the immigrants from traditional societies — which describes most of our immigrants.

    So it seems to me that the Dems' descent into cultural craziness reflected forces within the white SWPL class, and not any calculated strategy to capture the 3rd World immigrant vote.

    Replies: @International Jew

    In fact, if the Dems had stayed as they were in, oh, 1985 — socialist-lite, uninterested in fighting foreign crusades, protectionist on trade — they would have been even stronger today than they are. Hey, they’d have been like Donald Trump with the mass media working for him!

    They’d have picked up the Latino and Somali vote anyway, but not lost the white working class.

  122. @anon
    Last month I decided to self identify as a woman. And I've now decided to self identify as a Dindu woman. Authorities have a problem with this, I will see 'em in court.

    I think, next, I will self identify as a 9 ft Dindu woman. Still weighing the pros and cons of this, though. Clothing costs are already through the roof.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    What’s funny to me is that I had already constructed a new self-identity way back in the early 2000’s. I decided I was a 22 year old, 6’8″ black man with a 140 IQ. NBA, PhD, $$, the whole works. Now I realize that I’m a marine veteran too, with a background in farming.

    It turns out that I was just ahead of my time with my make-believe self. And, interestingly, I’m still 22 yo. But I may actually be female and only 6’2″. Not sure yet.

  123. @Njguy73
    @Opinionator

    American historian R.R. Palmer opined that the abolition of slavery in the United States without compensation to the former slave owners was an "annihilation of individual property rights without parallel...in the history of the Western world". Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War. Another economic historian, Roger Ransom, writes about how Gerald Gunderson compared compensated emancipation to the cost of the war and "notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars". Ransom also writes that compensated emancipation would have tripled federal outlays if paid over the period of 25 years and was a program that had no political support within the United States during the 1860s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Joe Schmoe

    Thanks for the info

  124. @Anonymous
    @patrick

    Maybe because Ashkenazis are actually genetically MENA (50% MENA if you consider the European part to be south European, and 70% MENA if you consider the European part to be more northern like Hungarian or Brit), unlike the other people you mentioned, and that's what race is all about you dumb ass..?

    Replies: @patrick

    Take a deep breath there buddy…

    Maybe race is about genetics, but Census categories aren’t. Why does “Hispanic” include German-descended Argentines, African-descended Dominicans, and Central American Indians who don’t even speak Spanish?

  125. @Amasius
    FYI Bosnian muslims don't identify as White. They see themselves as Turkic people, inheritors of the Ottoman Empire. I worked with a woman from there and she referred to herself as a minority. In fact she really hated White people. She would say things like "the Dutch are so ugly. Their faces are really red" and "the Swedish are the most racist people on the planet" (I'm not kidding) and "the English enslaved the world!"

    They see themselves as part of the Islamic Umma and they are firmly entrenched in the anti-White coalition. I didn't understand the dynamic myself until it was too late-- she got me fired for "racist" "harassment."

    Replies: @bored identity

    Bonus I:

    As an indirect result of Slick Willy’s wag-dogging, the Guberment has conveniently dumped some 70.000 of Bosnian fugazzis in St. Louis, mostly in prevalently black neighborhoods.

    Potentially it’s an explosive concoction, because you put a new group of war-hardened bottom fringe-feeders in the environment where the scarcity of resources are to be permanently shared with We-Git-First-Dibs-On-Gibs community

    The vast majority of them are Balkan-rednecks whose ethnic-religious allegiance towards failed mother-state counter intuitively trumps their natural, long-term interests in the new country.

    Bonus II:

    All the narratives that will eventually get America into WWIII were corner-stoned in Balkan Wars of 1990’s:

    – MSM optics of mono-ethnic atrocities with an emphasis on industrial scale rapes – allegedly used as a war strategy.

    – R2P playground for skirt wearing Powerite structure to manufacture consent of Wimmin Voters for a bomb,bomb,bomb you name it country of choice.

    – After the Vietnam war, United States’ first massive use of invade and invite imbecility: more than 200,000 Bosnians were given a chance to tip the scale by voting for a Moar Muzzies /Moar Bombing candidate in this elections.

    – Five years before the Twin Towers flying accidents, and some twenty years before caliphate’s Iphone selfies with heads rolling in the background desert, there were VHS ‘home-tent videos’ showing beheadings of Croat and Serbian Christians committed by ZZ Top looking volunteers from the Clinton’s Foundation’s top ten list of country donors.

    Bonus III:

    Steve’s favorite Muhammer guy got muhammered not because he didn’t share trigger happy temperament with dindu -perps – the poor thing just forgot that you don’t bring fists into hammer fight.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe
    @bored identity




    The vast majority of them are Balkan-rednecks whose ethnic-religious allegiance towards failed mother-state counter intuitively trumps their natural, long-term interests in the new country.
     
    Personally acquainted with Bosnians rednecks and others, and I can tell you they are about as violent as US rednecks aka not very. Sure they are more violent than SWPL's but they are pretty much run of the mill whites or any other slavs. They are not Chechens, not by a long shot. They dump them here in the poor areas, too. However in Texas being dumped in a poor area means you end up all too often in the top 5-10% of your low performing NAM high school and voila, University of Texas is forced to auto accept you as is every other state funded school. That combined with parents with low income equals nearly free ride. Lots of Bosnians are fast tracked to the best state schools this way because out performing NAM's just isn't that hard.
  126. @jimmyriddle
    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies' "diversity problem" ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Fredrik, @Frau Katze, @syonredux, @BB753

    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies’ “diversity problem” ?

    Seeing as how large numbers of East Asians haven’t solved it, my bet is no.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    @jimmyriddle

    That's a pretty big question.

    Replies: @syonredux

    If Ashkenazi Jews do get classified as “MENA,” I look forward to pundits explaining why the half-Danish, half-Ashkenazi Scarlett Johansson is actually a Woman of Color…..

    • Replies: @patrick
    @syonredux

    LOL. Good one- I can't see anyone doing that with a straight face. That's one reason among many I doubt that Ashkenazi Jews would be included in this category.

    , @Santoculto
    @syonredux

    MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, many of them are non-european caucasians, mixed race, etc

    MENA is similar with Hispanics (geographical and cultural... and secondarily speaking racial/ethnic).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    , @Anonymous
    @syonredux

    Will the pundits be also struggling to explain why the half Jordanian half white American Justin Abdelkader is blonde blue eyed? Or the equally white looking half Algerian half white American Yasmine Bleeth?

    Oh... wait. Maybe race isn't just about the amount of melanin your body produces, and you should stop being retarded with your equally retarded "gotchas"?

  128. @bored identity
    @Amasius

    Bonus I:

    As an indirect result of Slick Willy's wag-dogging, the Guberment has conveniently dumped some 70.000 of Bosnian fugazzis in St. Louis, mostly in prevalently black neighborhoods.

    Potentially it's an explosive concoction, because you put a new group of war-hardened bottom fringe-feeders in the environment where the scarcity of resources are to be permanently shared with We-Git-First-Dibs-On-Gibs community

    The vast majority of them are Balkan-rednecks whose ethnic-religious allegiance towards failed mother-state counter intuitively trumps their natural, long-term interests in the new country.


    Bonus II:

    All the narratives that will eventually get America into WWIII were corner-stoned in Balkan Wars of 1990's:

    - MSM optics of mono-ethnic atrocities with an emphasis on industrial scale rapes - allegedly used as a war strategy.

    - R2P playground for skirt wearing Powerite structure to manufacture consent of Wimmin Voters for a bomb,bomb,bomb you name it country of choice.

    - After the Vietnam war, United States' first massive use of invade and invite imbecility: more than 200,000 Bosnians were given a chance to tip the scale by voting for a Moar Muzzies /Moar Bombing candidate in this elections.

    - Five years before the Twin Towers flying accidents, and some twenty years before caliphate's Iphone selfies with heads rolling in the background desert, there were VHS 'home-tent videos' showing beheadings of Croat and Serbian Christians committed by ZZ Top looking volunteers from the Clinton's Foundation’s top ten list of country donors.

    https://youtu.be/XR9VH4kgty0


    Bonus III:

    Steve's favorite Muhammer guy got muhammered not because he didn't share trigger happy temperament with dindu -perps - the poor thing just forgot that you don't bring fists into hammer fight.

    Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    The vast majority of them are Balkan-rednecks whose ethnic-religious allegiance towards failed mother-state counter intuitively trumps their natural, long-term interests in the new country.

    Personally acquainted with Bosnians rednecks and others, and I can tell you they are about as violent as US rednecks aka not very. Sure they are more violent than SWPL’s but they are pretty much run of the mill whites or any other slavs. They are not Chechens, not by a long shot. They dump them here in the poor areas, too. However in Texas being dumped in a poor area means you end up all too often in the top 5-10% of your low performing NAM high school and voila, University of Texas is forced to auto accept you as is every other state funded school. That combined with parents with low income equals nearly free ride. Lots of Bosnians are fast tracked to the best state schools this way because out performing NAM’s just isn’t that hard.

  129. @Njguy73
    @Opinionator

    American historian R.R. Palmer opined that the abolition of slavery in the United States without compensation to the former slave owners was an "annihilation of individual property rights without parallel...in the history of the Western world". Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War. Another economic historian, Roger Ransom, writes about how Gerald Gunderson compared compensated emancipation to the cost of the war and "notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars". Ransom also writes that compensated emancipation would have tripled federal outlays if paid over the period of 25 years and was a program that had no political support within the United States during the 1860s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Joe Schmoe

    Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War.

    As noted, having the federal gov’t pay slave owners for the slaves was unworkable. They should have just emancipated the all of those born after say, 1860. That is how they did it in the north. So, the older people were still slaves, but their children were not. The slave owners would have to pay them wages if they wanted them to work. There was no minimum wage, so it would not have been so hard. Also, some of the children would leave and take some of their elderly parents off the owners’ hands.

    Of course, the best idea would have been for folks to promote the most humanitarian thing, back to Africa into Liberia. If they had all gone en masse, they might have had a significant advantage over the locals.

  130. @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer

    If Ashkenazi Jews do get classified as "MENA," I look forward to pundits explaining why the half-Danish, half-Ashkenazi Scarlett Johansson is actually a Woman of Color.....

    Replies: @patrick, @Santoculto, @Anonymous

    LOL. Good one- I can’t see anyone doing that with a straight face. That’s one reason among many I doubt that Ashkenazi Jews would be included in this category.

  131. @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer

    If Ashkenazi Jews do get classified as "MENA," I look forward to pundits explaining why the half-Danish, half-Ashkenazi Scarlett Johansson is actually a Woman of Color.....

    Replies: @patrick, @Santoculto, @Anonymous

    MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, many of them are non-european caucasians, mixed race, etc

    MENA is similar with Hispanics (geographical and cultural… and secondarily speaking racial/ethnic).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Santoculto

    It's just as much a racial category as "white", or "east Asian", or "African American" is. In fact, more so than the latter two.

    , @Jefferson
    @Santoculto

    "MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, ?"

    Most people in North Africa have Sub Saharan African admixture. I have read about how common it is for Triracial Brazilians living in France to be mistaken for North Africans.

  132. Yeah, Mutti Merkel is doing brilliantly.

    Sans some kind of psychotic compulsion, Jews should never want to live in Germany again, much less run the place. Just the optics of a Jew moving to Germany, after all the wailing their tribe has done, is illustrative. In a bad way.

    See Wilkey’s comment above. The immvasion is largely the work of Reagan, Bush, Dubya, and congressional Republicans. Democrats have mostly opposed it until the Obama administration and Obama has been much less bad than Dubya was.

    Puff puff give. Is it laced?

    Njguy73, Lincoln promised everybody the Moon.

  133. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer

    If Ashkenazi Jews do get classified as "MENA," I look forward to pundits explaining why the half-Danish, half-Ashkenazi Scarlett Johansson is actually a Woman of Color.....

    Replies: @patrick, @Santoculto, @Anonymous

    Will the pundits be also struggling to explain why the half Jordanian half white American Justin Abdelkader is blonde blue eyed? Or the equally white looking half Algerian half white American Yasmine Bleeth?

    Oh… wait. Maybe race isn’t just about the amount of melanin your body produces, and you should stop being retarded with your equally retarded “gotchas”?

  134. @Santoculto
    @syonredux

    MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, many of them are non-european caucasians, mixed race, etc

    MENA is similar with Hispanics (geographical and cultural... and secondarily speaking racial/ethnic).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    It’s just as much a racial category as “white”, or “east Asian”, or “African American” is. In fact, more so than the latter two.

  135. @jimmyriddle
    Which box will European Jews tick?

    If they reclassify themselves as MENA would that solve the Ivies' "diversity problem" ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Fredrik, @Frau Katze, @syonredux, @BB753

    The way I see it, it’s a win-win situation for Jews. They get to claim minority and pepetual victim status, plus all the AA goodies, privileges and set-asides.
    On the down-side, it will make even more obvious how White Christian males are getting the short stick.

  136. With Moslems being 1% of US population thats a bone being thrown. Nothing else.
    Like Trump. Only offers bones but no meat.

  137. @Santoculto
    @syonredux

    MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, many of them are non-european caucasians, mixed race, etc

    MENA is similar with Hispanics (geographical and cultural... and secondarily speaking racial/ethnic).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    “MENA is not essentially a racial category because most of people in the Middle East and North Africa are not black, ?”

    Most people in North Africa have Sub Saharan African admixture. I have read about how common it is for Triracial Brazilians living in France to be mistaken for North Africans.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS