The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Josh Marshall: "Trump's Blood Libel"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From Talking Points Memo:

Trump’s Blood Libel & Press Failure

By JOSH MARSHALL

Published SEPTEMBER 2, 2016, 12:07 AM EDT

Even now, after all that’s happened, most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. … This is hate speech.

We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’. Most often we assume that it’s a matter of using particular words … Hate speech is rants meant to inflame, inspire fear or rage or violence against a particular class of people. The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. There’s no question that what Trump’s Wednesday night speech was was hate speech, a tirade filled with yelling, a snarling voice, air chopped to bits with slashing hands and through it all a story of American victims helpless before a looming threat from dangerous, predatory outsiders.

I’ve discussed the matter a few times in these pages. But I’m stunned at how little reaction or discussion we see of how sick and dangerous it is to parade these victimized families around like props.

It’s striking how blatant double-standards are.

Mothers of the Movement at the DNC

It doesn’t seem to occur to Josh Marshall that Hillary trots out her black “Mothers of the Movement” all the time, putting nine on stage at the Democratic convention, even after the Black Lives Matter-inspired murders of eight cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And Hillary doesn’t seem to show much judgment in whom she selects to feature, such as the mother of attempted cop killer Michael Brown of Ferguson. From STLToday.com:

Michael Brown’s mother appears at Democratic National Convention, prompting police ire

By Chuck Raasch and Christine Byers St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jul 27, 2016 (775)

Lezley McSpadden, the mother of slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, appeared at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday as part of the group “Mothers of the Movement” — women who have lost their children in encounters with police or to gun violence.

On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense. The mother of Eric Garner, the fat guy who died of a heart attack after a jerk NYPD cop choked him, for example, is a pretty articulate individual and it’s worthwhile to hear her perspective on an unfortunate incident.

Similarly, it’s useful to put a human face on the toll from immigration policy.

Back to Josh Marshall:

These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.

Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.

If we went out and found victims who’d suffered grievously at the hands of Jews or blacks and paraded them around the country before angry crowds the wrongness and danger of doing so would be obvious.

In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation. But seven of the eight dead cops were white, so that’s okay.

Now, you might say, that’s not fair. American Jews and African-Americans are citizens, with as much right to be here as anyone else. But that’s just a dodge. There’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.

Actually there is. Legal immigrants who got in because they married a GI or have a graduate degree or whatever don’t commit a lot of homicides and rapes. As they should. Why let in drunk drivers? Does Harvard let in a lot of criminals? Why not have high standards for immigrants?

Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.

What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior. According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that.

Marshall puts up this graph to prove his point:

Swell.

The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?

Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.

On the other hand, if you live in one of the loser cities where the African-Americans will move to, too bad. Moreover, people in the media will call you a racist for not wanting to take their surplus African-Americans off their hands. You do not get a say in this matter. Your betters have decided that you deserve some Diversity, good and hard. They’ve had enough Diversity, so they’ve decided to share the Diversity with you, you racists.

… This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear and hatred. …It is simply blood libel and incitement.

Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it will tell you that the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression. … The valorization of victims was and is a way of provoking vicarious horror, rage, hate and finally violence whether specific individuals were guilty or not.

You know, “the celebration and valorization of victims” is not wholly a sin of Republicans …

… But there’s no excuse for those who have themselves suffered nothing but exploit this suffering to propagate hate. That fact that we’ve become inured to this, that we now find it normal to see these cattle calls of grief and incitement as part of a political campaign is shocking and sickening. There’s no other word for this but incitement and blood libel.

Another term for it is “Who? Whom?”

Watch Trump’s speeches, with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance and you see there’s little to distinguish them from what we see at Aryan Nations or other white hate rallies that we all immediately recognize as reprehensible, wrong and frankly terrifying. This isn’t ‘rough’ language or ‘hard edged’ rhetoric. It’s hate speech. Precisely what policy solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point. Indeed, it wouldn’t be hate speech any less if Trump specified no policy solution at all.

This isn’t normal. It was normal in the Jim Crow South, as it was in Eastern Europe for centuries.

Nothing has gotten me in more trouble over the years than pointing out that many Jews in the media are not very self-aware of their own prejudices. Josh Marshall, for example, is a 47 year old with a Ph.D. in history who simply doesn’t notice his own bigotry and ethnic animus.

Because we’re the world’s greatest victims, we can denounce anybody else for appealing to victimist thinking with a straight face.

And why should Marshall self-aware? Who would dare point it out to him?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration 
Hide 302 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Did Josh have a problem with the valorization of Khizr Khan?

    This pointing and sputtering is less about prejudice and more about the anger of seeing someone use Dems’ methods to counter the Dem/GOPe worldview. Josh is working from the axiom that to consider the interests of Americans over immigrants is anti-American.

    Though he does have a point about the potential of publicizing victims. Imagine what policies someone could sell by highlighting the loved ones of victims of black-on-white crime.

    As for the “shouting” and the “red faces” at Trump’s speeches: a lot of the shouting is to drown out protestors attempting to disrupt the speech. And Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    As for the “red faces” (...) Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.

     

    Right.

    I grew up near Kallstadt, where the "Drumps" come from - there's quite a few men, who's faces look like his all the time.

    In one of Le Maittre's Saga-novels you can find the remark: They were not red faced - therefor they were no Palatinates. - See: Kallstadt is situated in Palatinate.

    PS - Dave Pinsen: I've answered your Jonathan Franzen comment.

  2. My jaw dropped when you said he was 47. He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    • LOL: ben tillman
    • Replies: @jon

    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47.
     
    Me too. We are practically the same age, but looking at his picture at the link (one assumes that's actually a "good" picture), it would seem that the cog-dis of holding onto his double standards has taken its toll.
    , @Desiderius

    He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.
     
    Girls mature earlier, but also consequently top out lower. Judging by the writing of the likes of Josh Marshall, the same is true of emasculated males.
    , @Neil Templeton
    May have something to do with the shaming rhetoric. I think younger people are more sensitive to shaming, and more likely to find it attractive in argument. Very old people are difficult or impossible to shame. They don't care what others think of them.

    Who knows why Mr. Marshall is so fond of the hate shaming rhetoric. Pity that it doesn't seem to work like it used to. The general public seems to require more and stronger infusions of shame to get to the desired "fall in line" point. And for an increasing number of individuals, even younger ones, hate shaming appears to have no effect at all.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Most lefty writing sounds like it is coming from 17 year old girls. I'm surprised you're not inured to it by now.
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve says “Another term for it is “Who? Whom?”

    Indeed.

    While reading the above quotes my attention was distracted and when I came back to reading the quote it took me a moment to realize that he was referring to Trump and his supporters. I really thought that he was talking about Hillary and had a moment of real cognitive confusion when he said this, “That fact that we’ve become inured to this, that we now find it normal to see these cattle calls of grief and incitement as part of a political campaign is shocking and sickening. There’s no other word for this but incitement and blood libel.” All I could see in my mind’s eye was Hillary with those black mother’s during the Democratic convention.

    He thinks that he is looking through a window, but it’s a mirror. A half-silvered pane of glass shows us a view through to the other side with a palimpist-like reflection of ourselves superimposed over it.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    He thinks that he is looking through a window, but it’s a mirror.
     
    That's a good line.
  4. Okay, let me explain why anyone thinks it’s a good thing. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.

    Why Richard Daley II was an early and giddily enthusiastic supporter of illegal immigration. Well, it helped for a while.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yep.

    A ‘blood libel’. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Funny when any senior Democrats were challenged to use the formula ‘all lives matter’ rather than ‘black lives matter’ – the obvious implication being human life of one particular ethnicity is more valuable than that of another ethnicity, the said Democrats were widely reviled and shunned, or, more likely cravenly were seen to affirm the racial hierarchy of human worth.

    • Replies: @Mack Bolan
    What is really astounding, is the rejection of the phrase "all lives matter" goes against their supposed core belief that all races are equal and should be treated as such.
    , @Mack Bolan
    What is really astounding, is the rejection of the phrase "all lives matter" goes against their supposed core belief that all races are equal and should be treated as such.
  6. “Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It’s normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    also it is a quite recent invention. Leftist love to portray themselves as guardians of concepts deeply ingrained in (western) civilization, yet all they do is pushing their agenda farther every 5 years or so
    , @Anonymous
    Only Whites can make hate speech.

    Hate speech = persuasion + privilege
    , @John Derbyshire
    "After the Olympians merged in the men's company, strong Hatred, defender of peoples, burst out"—Iliad 20
    , @Days of Broken Arrows
    I totally agree with this. To me, hate speech = astrology.

    Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don't believe it's real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.

    It bothers me, though, that we let believers in "hate speech" frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.

    And I'm saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called "Wop" and "Dago." Did I like to hear that? No, I didn't. But I also don't believe in outlawing it.

    There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don't think should be outlawed. That's what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of "hate speech" because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society...which is much worse than annoying words.

    , @Corvinus
    "“Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/hate-crime-america-numbers-n81521

    "Race has generally fallen as a percentage of hate crimes (from about 60 percent to the high 40s), while sexual orientation has generally risen in share (from the low teens to about 20 percent).
    Over the entire period, these were the average number of incidents reported per year, by type: race, 3,979; religion, 1,382; sexual orientation, 1,210; ethnicity/national origin, 951; disability, 52; multiple-bias, 5."
  7. “…the yelling …. the demand for vengeance…” Hey Josh, you are describing the other candidate running for the presidency.

  8. @Amasius
    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47. He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47.

    Me too. We are practically the same age, but looking at his picture at the link (one assumes that’s actually a “good” picture), it would seem that the cog-dis of holding onto his double standards has taken its toll.

  9. @Rob McX
    "Hate speech" is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It's normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    also it is a quite recent invention. Leftist love to portray themselves as guardians of concepts deeply ingrained in (western) civilization, yet all they do is pushing their agenda farther every 5 years or so

    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    Yes indeed ... Just check the dismal life and thought trajectory of the ghastly Eric Hobsbawm ... His hate still kills as it is nurtured and handed on ...
  10. We have really reached an age where truth and facts don’t matter at all. It’s who/whom 24/7. Trump using the family members of victims of illegals doesn’t sit entirely well with me but it’s infinitely more acceptable than parading around the mothers of St. Skittles and the Gentle Giant as if those two were victims.

  11. The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white “founding stock” in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
    Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It's not true.
    , @StAugustine
    This is not correct. I read "Distant Shore" and it left several impressions on me. One of these is that the stock of convicts, in the time that they were being transported, only accounted for 10% of the "founding stock". I'm not sure how much the convict legacy is represented in the following generations either. I would expect not much, as there just weren't that many women to go around. 15% of the convicts were women -

    More info is here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Convicts_and_colonial_society

    Between 1788 and 1868, approximately 161,700 convicts (of whom 25,000 were women) were transported to the Australian colonies of New South Wales, Van Diemen's land and Western Australia.
     
    The discovery of gold in the 1850s and the push for colonialists led to a huge explosion in population, from around 400,000 in 1850 to 1.1 million in 1860. In 1868, the year that convict transportation ended, the population was 1.5 million.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/eoo


    Sheep farming became really big in Australia during the convict era, from about the 1820s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merino#Australian_Merinos

    I found this note in the History of Australia:

    Between 1788 and 1792, convicts and their gaolers [British military] made up the majority of the population—but after this, a population of emancipated convicts began to grow who could be granted land and these people pioneered a non-government private sector economy and were later joined by soldiers whose military service had expired—and finally, free settlers who began arriving from Britain. Governor Phillip departed the colony for England on 11 December 1792, with the new settlement having survived near starvation and immense isolation for four years.[132] On 16 February 1793 the first free settlers arrived. The settlers: Thomas Rose, with his wife and four children, Edward Powell, Thomas Webb, Joseph Webb, and Frederick Meredith.[134]
     
    So there were colonists arriving almost from the very beginning.

    To address the indentured servants in North America, I found that the estimates are between 50,000 and 120,000 people were transported to NA between 1610 and 1776. Estimated population in 1776: 2.4 million. I'm a little foggy on how many of these went to Canada and the British Indies, but if we just ignore them, you're looking at about 5% of the total population.
    , @anon

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons.
     
    You only think that because of the media's censorship.

    Illegal immigration is mostly young male and is responsible for ***vast*** amounts of violent crime, particularly sexual violence and violence related to access to females.

    90% of the victims are in the 11-18 age group and what little gets reported gets censored by the media.

    Rotherham is not an aberration; it's the norm.

    The media has been lying about it for decades.

    .

    Other situations where legal mass immigration has the same end result - excessive males - has the same effect.

    For example:

    - equal numbers of Group A and Group B but group B keep their young females at home so the males from both both A and B chase the girls from group A.

    or

    - equal numbers of group A and group B but group A are more monogamous so males from group B carry on chasing after they have a kid with one female

    .

    Merkel's insanity in importing this problem en masse should force the truth out after 60 years of media lies and cover up.
    , @vinteuil
    "The 'immigrants will commit lots of crimes!' argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger."

    Well, yes and no. I agree that the economic, cultural & environmental arguments are the strongest we've got.

    But they're kind of wonky.

    Trump's emphasis on the victims of crime committed by illegals effectively dramatizes the sheer lunacy of our current policy, which protects the supposed rights of repeat criminal offenders who have no business being here in the first place at the expense of innocent U.S. citizens.

    , @Bill Jones
    One more time

    Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
    Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.
    , @ben tillman

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.
     
    On the other hand, look at Georgia.
    , @dahoit
    Wouldn't the willingness of the illegals to break the law just by entering lead to the conclusion that they might be inclined to breaking laws?
    Of course there are no absolutes in anything except mathematics or science?,but sounds logical to me.
    And their very visible and mostly localized,Ca. and AZ anti -American attitudes and demonstrative tendency to flout the law by violent disruptions leads some to some of us questioning the importation of more America haters,to go with all the illiberal scum who support this criminal behavior.
    This illegal support,as all their propaganda,is MSM divide and conquer,here and Australia btw.
    And their loyalty,to Israel,means closed borders for that nation.
  12. Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.

    There he is slipping the rabbit into the hat to arrive at his false statistic – lumping illegals in with legal immigrants and then comparing against the general population. IIRC, this stat on immigrant crime vs. native crime relies on data all the way back to the 1960s in order to obscure the lower quality immigrant the U.S. has been importing as of late via chain migration and the like.

    There’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.

    To the extent that there’s “no evidence*” it is because people in league with Josh Marshall don’t want there to be any. “Sanctuary cities” have been a feature of places where illegals are thick on the ground for some time, both as official policy and as an unofficial policy to appeal to (or, at least, not offend) ethnic constituencies. Local police and prosecutors simply don’t keep records on immigration status of offenders and in fact some are prohibited from doing so even if they had a means to verify immigration status. For example, 15 cities in Los Angeles County (including Los Angeles) are “Sanctuary Cities” which prohibit local police from cooperating with the Feds in spite of Federal law. Local police participate in the overwhelming majority of criminal interventions from which accurate statistics would be derived.

    *The do this with regard to voter fraud as well, ensuring that any measures which would make incidents of fraudulent voting provable (or even investigations of irregularities themselves) are categorically excluded as “voter suppression” or “voter intimidation” and then claim that “there is no evidence of vote fraud.”

  13. This is the last gasp of the white make. After Ms. Clinton or whoever wins we will enact laws that hold treason talkers like at Trump and the altright accountable.

    The west WILL be diverse. It is inevitable. No longer will white males be able to spew hate in the name of free speech. Things will be equal.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    Things will be equal.
     
    Ball-peen hammer to the head.
  14. They’ve had enough Diversity, so they’ve decided to share the Diversity with you, you racists.

    Well done, Steve.

  15. To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.

    Sorry, you are incorrect.

    The “original stock” of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the “original stock”.

    If complete race replacement and genocide of us Americans in our own country (as happened to “original stock” Australians) is not a “bad turn out” I expect you are either African Negro, Muslim, Galut Jew, or Mestizo.

    In any case, what on earth are you doing at iSteve?

    • Replies: @Ed
    The original stock of what is today Australia couldn't develop a nation state in the entirety of their 70,000 years of existence. That's on them but they aren't the original stock of Australia because Australia, the country, never existed until the British settler and convicts came to the continent.
    , @Jack D
    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America's original stock also, so their only claim is on a "might makes right" basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.
    , @Lurker

    The “original stock” of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the “original stock”.
     
    The nation of Australia is the place modern immigrants want to settle in. A nation created by British settlers.

    Much the same as the US in fact.
  16. Many good points. But this claim doesn’t work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.

    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    • Replies: @Langley
    "If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often."


    SteveM
    Please edit the above sentence for clarity.
    Thank you.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities."

    No, it does not mean that. It does not mean that any particular black has a tendency toward "gangsta behavior". It means that blacks - as a group - have such a tendency.
    , @guest
    "Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal tendencies"

    Oh, please.

    First of all, he says they are famous for such tendencies. Secondly, he says that the group is famous for them, not that each individual member of the group actually has them. No such implication as you detect is present.

    I suppose you're looking for him to say something like, "40 million African-Americans, who are famous for having a tendency as a group toward statistically significantly higher propensity for crime over comparable groups (though that is not to say as individuals African-Americans are any different from any other law-abiding homo-sapien).

    Like I said: oh, please.

    , @anon
    You know what an average is right?
    , @Chrisnonymous
    No. It doesn't imply that. Steve doesn't need to include a penumbra of asterisks and explanations around every statement he writes. Only the dimwitted think as you suggest.
  17. The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Those are the cardinal sins but hardly the only ones.
    , @ben tillman

    The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.
     
    The Left asserts that the White race is innately different from other races -- i.e., the White race is innately evil. So it seems that your assessment is wrong.
    , @guest
    If leftism is a religion its god is Hitler. Religions have evil gods. Hitler rules over them and dictates their every thought and action.
  18. I give you hell Steve, but I think you’re dead on when you say that this is a full blown meltdown on the part of the media.

    This looks like Trump has struck their amygdala dead center and we are watching a collective freak out as they realise Hillary can’t deliver this thing.

    There’s no logic, no reasoning, just the kind of full bore emoting and (awful) rhetoric you get from someone who’s about to announce they’re having a panic attack.

  19. This isn’t normal. It was normal in the Jim Crow South, as it was in Eastern Europe for centuries.

    This is what I find most interesting with Ashkenazi Jews in the US. Despite all the wealth and distance from it they react hysterically to Eastern Europe though they know nothing about it or it’s history. (Except maybe Fiddler, which is, of course, a realistic documentary…)

    In 2016 would a prominent Irish American intellectual harp about what England did to Ireland for centuries used it to attack domestic political opponents be taken seriously? What if most of them did it from time to time and made a whole sub-genre of film dedicated to the famine? Every year there’d be at least one film on the topic. Would they be taken as anything but gauche and hysterical? (To be fair, the likes of Family Guy, with it’s writers mostly Gen-X/Gen-Y Jews do mock this, but it’s still regarded as a kind of taboo shock comedy when they do.)

    It’s like what is always said about irreligious Jews, their religion is anti-Semitism. It’s a dark and foreboding narrative of the world. In an individual it’s clinically diagnosed as pathological paranoia, but when Josh Marshall substitutes ‘Josh Marshall’ with ‘Jews’ it’s okay. Similar to how whites have a deeply depressed collective self-esteem that if it manifested in an individual would be termed severe low self-esteem or depression.

    As Steve said, he acts out like this, like many Ashkenazi in America because nobody counters them. On the contrary, the likes of Goldstone even with his report full of false-equivalences, get ostracised hard and no liberal Jews seemed to be able to save him for some reason.

  20. I’ve been reading a bio of Robert Penn Warren, which got me interested in Huey Long. The wiki for him says he inspired Sinclair Lewis to write It Can’t Happen Here, but he made the demogogue character racist!! of course. But race baiting wasn’t Long’s schtick. His “hate speech” was directed at the ruling class. And he did a lot of good things in La that progressives would normally applaud, like build roads and bridges and beef up LSU and protect teachers’ salaries during the depression…but no matter. Sinclair just knew the type.

    History really does rhyme.

    • Replies: @John Brown
    Read the T. Harry Williams bio on Long.
    , @art guerrilla
    "his story really does rhyme"
    mystery ?
    here is the thing, if we apply the ultra-uber-pc purity test to ANYONE in his story, NONE would 'pass'...
    if we do the same today -as appears to be the trend-, only a few rabid ultra-uber-pc libtards would 'qualify'...
    this retarded idea that any/all politicians or leaders of ANY gruppe, HAVE TO pass some bullshit ultra-uber-pc litmus test is INSANE...
    our pluralistic small-dee democracy is NOT INTENDED to homogenize and align everyone's views and philosophy to be THE SAME, all mao-like...
    but to ALLOW -if not promote- the free and varied expression of ALL peoples and views, AND TO provide legal protections to do the same, NOT TO ENFORCE AN ORTHODOXY...
    dog damn, i hates me some authoritarians (not you, carol, just to be clear) whether of the libtard or conservatard flavor...
    uh oh, now i am a self-admitted hate-crimer...
    Pre-Crime Unit, cleanup on aisle 3 ! ! !
  21. @Dave Pinsen
    Did Josh have a problem with the valorization of Khizr Khan?

    This pointing and sputtering is less about prejudice and more about the anger of seeing someone use Dems' methods to counter the Dem/GOPe worldview. Josh is working from the axiom that to consider the interests of Americans over immigrants is anti-American.

    Though he does have a point about the potential of publicizing victims. Imagine what policies someone could sell by highlighting the loved ones of victims of black-on-white crime.

    As for the "shouting" and the "red faces" at Trump's speeches: a lot of the shouting is to drown out protestors attempting to disrupt the speech. And Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It's not a sign of anger.

    As for the “red faces” (…) Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.

    Right.

    I grew up near Kallstadt, where the “Drumps” come from – there’s quite a few men, who’s faces look like his all the time.

    In one of Le Maittre’s Saga-novels you can find the remark: They were not red faced – therefor they were no Palatinates. – See: Kallstadt is situated in Palatinate.

    PS – Dave Pinsen: I’ve answered your Jonathan Franzen comment.

    • Replies: @Perplexed
    Fot the record: Several years ago I was passing Trump Tower as Trump was getting out of his car. He had the pinkest skin I'd ever seen--even pinker than mine.
    , @John Derbyshire
    Leaving his club one day, Evelyn Waugh went to the hat check to get his hat, but the club servant who usually manned the post was absent. Waugh let himself in behind the counter and found his hat. It was in a niche with the label RUBICUND.
  22. @Amasius
    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47. He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    Girls mature earlier, but also consequently top out lower. Judging by the writing of the likes of Josh Marshall, the same is true of emasculated males.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    Someone really should ask him why he felt the need to adopt the name "Josh Marshall", which is as much of a pseudonym as Leibowitz' "Jon Stewart". Wasn't his birth name "American" enough?
  23. @Rob McX
    "Hate speech" is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It's normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    Only Whites can make hate speech.

    Hate speech = persuasion + privilege

  24. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
    Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It’s not true.

    • Replies: @Altai
    They were also concentrated in specific locations. Tasmania in particular took a lot.

    It also shouldn't be overstated that a mostly male population will not tend to have much influence on future generations.
    , @Lurker
    I was going to chime in on that as well - it was never all convicts. Also we should note that some people having served their term of transportation returned home to Britain, thus whittling down the Australian convict population even further.
    , @Alden
    Thanks I was going to repudiate the old Australia was founded mostly by convicts.
  25. We are hitting chutzpah levels that shouldn’t be possible.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Right. Only someone like (((Josh Marshall))) could write such over the top insanity and get it published....because who owns the publisher(s)?
  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If we went out and found victims who’d suffered grievously at the hands of Jews or blacks and paraded them around the country before angry crowds the wrongness and danger of doing so would be obvious.

    What about jewish Hollywood’s incessant production, for large audiences, of movies portraying jews and Blacks suffering grievously at the hands of Whites?

    Wrong and dangerous?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It's one-way, goy.
  27. @Amasius
    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47. He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    May have something to do with the shaming rhetoric. I think younger people are more sensitive to shaming, and more likely to find it attractive in argument. Very old people are difficult or impossible to shame. They don’t care what others think of them.

    Who knows why Mr. Marshall is so fond of the hate shaming rhetoric. Pity that it doesn’t seem to work like it used to. The general public seems to require more and stronger infusions of shame to get to the desired “fall in line” point. And for an increasing number of individuals, even younger ones, hate shaming appears to have no effect at all.

  28. “Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It’s better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. “Cui bono” is related, but not hte same— it refers to the “follow the money” idea that some action has a hidden motive. “But will it hurt the Jews?” is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I actually feel kind of stupid when "Who? Whom?" and "Invade the world, invite the world" get dropped in there because the penny doesn't always drop for me. I loved seeing the bipartisan support of Khan get summed up as: we need more Muslims over here to get killed killing Muslims over there because Muslims killed us over here, because we killed Muslims over there. But I can never get the hang of this "I- the world" thing. Does it only ever signify an absurdity? Or sometimes one hand not knowing what the other is doing? Or perhaps even a conscious policy? Is there an article I'm missing?
    , @PiltdownMan

    “Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say...
     
    As hard to say as "Kto Kogo?"
    , @Hhsiii
    Subject/object.

    Actor/acted upon
    , @John Cunningham
    "Which side are you on?" seems clearer to me.
    , @Anonymous
    "Outcome-determined" might be more accurate.

    "Who-whom" isn't really being used in those Bolshevik/Soviet quotes the way Steve uses it.
    , @guest
    It's not an entry-level catchphrase. You have to know it to know it, if you know what I mean. But once you do know it writing it out longhand as "Who rules whom" or "who shall rule whom" is tedious. People like less obvious catchphrases, by the way. It makes them feel like insiders for knowing them.

    I don't have a better phrase, but "whose side are you on" works okay. Maybe we could just flash gang signs at each other.

    , @Che Guava
    I think that 'Who? Whom?' is a great formulation.

    Nothing could be more concise.

    Subject form, object form.

    I gather English-speaking countries in general have policies where grammar is only taught to a very small minority of students, some elite high schools. At tertiary level, teachers of English, students of grammar or language.

    It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking.
     
    It's not surprisimg that you say its meaning isn't obvious, since you clearly don't know the difference between 'it's and 'its'.

    The first point is because too many fools, even many who are paid to write, have an asinine concept that 'whom' is simply a grand way to say 'who', so they write or say 'whom' when 'who' is correct. They imagine it shows off their superior educations.

    The opposite error, 'who' where 'whom' is correct, generally arises from a similar misconception, but with the converse aim.

    As for sounding like an owl, I can only imagine it happening through certain types of old lady's voice or female impersonator's voices being combined with certain thick accents.

    Good article by Mr. Sailer.
  29. The valorization of victims was and is a way of provoking vicarious horror, rage, hate and finally violence whether specific individuals were guilty or not

    Is this in fact the purpose behind the deluge of holocaust and slavery films that come out of Hollywood? Is Josh Marshall “projecting”?

  30. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals.

    Weren’t a lot of these people, like in the US, from debtor’s prisons?

    “…Through the mid 19th century, debtors’ prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe…

    …In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person’s debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released…

    …the inmates were forced to pay for their keep…

    …James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors’ prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court…

    …disfavor over debtors’ prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts…

    …The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833…”

    Penal colony:

    “…The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies….

    …Georgia… was first founded… by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors’ prison… largely failed…

    …The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland…

    …after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements.”

    • Replies: @Ivy
    For reference re Oz colonization

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Shore
    , @Thea
    I understand that at some point the British were round up London's poorer citizens, labeling them as criminals then shipping them down under.
    , @Elbin
    One historically important aspect of our winning the revolutionary war was th immediate drying up of indentured servants, courtesy of England, which made importing defeated tribesmen, rapists, and muderers from Africa an option.

    As opposed to the notion that "only the strongest of the Africans made it here," it was actually were the weaker, and the feeble-minded who tended to be sent to America via the judgement of their peers in Africa. Remember very few Africans set foot on a slave ship without local native approval.

    Put another way, how much of an shithead do you have to be for your family, friends, and community collectively saying, "Get on that boat, asshole. You're not coming back."

    The slave ship passengers will tend to not be "the best of Africa" by a long shot, and their offspring will tend to be the same quality as the parentage.

    So, here we are. Dealing with, and attempting to foist equality on the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of Frankenstein's monster.

    Hardly a promising social strategy, in my opinion.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    Rootling about in the registries for years doing family history led the wife (a Scouser, therefore has a rich vein of felonry to excavate) to eventually remark "You know the Victorians weren't that bad, the juries wouldn't go along with it unless you'd really been annoying". She meant from about 1830, can't say what went on earlier.
    It seems that it was a sort of rudimentary "three strikes and you're out" policy; persistent thieving, soliciting, long-term anti-social behaviour in general. Which is why there wasn't a revolution as a result. The later (English, I know, I know) convicts had pretty much pissed everyone off, including their relatives, by the time they got Botany Bayed.
    If they'd been hung, Bloody Code style, I suspect the reaction would have been a real threat to the near-military dictatorship of the early nineteenth century which lurked below the illusion of Monarchy.
  31. JS Mill:

    “…if the test [for intemperate speech] be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.”

    and

    “In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.”

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    … This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear and hatred. …It is simply blood libel and incitement.

    Steve,

    There was a post on rhetoric in a recent thread. Compare “grievances” or “fear and loathing” to Marshall’s “whipping up irrational fear and hatred,” ” fear and hatred” itself, and “simply blood libel and incitement.”

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    I actually feel kind of stupid when “Who? Whom?” and “Invade the world, invite the world” get dropped in there because the penny doesn’t always drop for me. I loved seeing the bipartisan support of Khan get summed up as: we need more Muslims over here to get killed killing Muslims over there because Muslims killed us over here, because we killed Muslims over there. But I can never get the hang of this “I- the world” thing. Does it only ever signify an absurdity? Or sometimes one hand not knowing what the other is doing? Or perhaps even a conscious policy? Is there an article I’m missing?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    OK, looks like it's supposed to refer to a "perpetual motion money machine" the military-industrial complex have, thanks to empire.

    Too bad so many are OK with the "invite" part though.

  34. anon • Disclaimer says:

    little to distinguish them from what we see at Aryan Nations or other white hate rallies that we all immediately recognize as reprehensible

    This guy watches a lot of Aryan Nations rallies, does he?

    That’s weird, because I’m pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang. I don’t imagine the guards actually let them have rallies, do they?

    So what he actually means is something like “Trump rallies look just like the way movies and TV portray hate rallies!”.

    He’s got a PhD in history, and that’s the kind of stuff he talks about.

    Not that it really matters. But still.

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    That’s weird, because I’m pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang.
     
    It's a white nationalist organisation. You're confusing them with the Aryan Brotherhood.
  35. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ““Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough…”

    Who, whom?:

    “…a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in 1921…
    2nd All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments…

    …”The whole question is — who will overtake whom?”

    …Trotsky used the shortened “who whom” formulation in his 1925 article, “Towards Capitalism or Towards Socialism?”…

    …invoked by Joseph Stalin in 1929… gave the formula its “aura of hard-line coercion”…

    “The fact is, we live according to Lenin’s formula: Kto-Kovo?: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat? “.

    …Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.”

    Who wins, who dies?

    Who gets to do what, to whom?

    Who’s the horse, who’s the rider?

  36. I’m pretty sure there is also an Agenda™ element to his use of the graph. We’re supposed to look at that and think of ‘native born’ as meaning white American and ‘first generation’ as humble, hard working PoC. And look who commits more crime?!

  37. Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.

    • Agree: gruff
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Agree.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Further inquiries regarding rectitude should be directed to:

    Moral Guidance Authority - Sons of Levi Division.

    Also see MGA - Subcontinent Division - Pakistani Bureau - Office of Khizr Khan.
  38. Sort of OT:

    Article comparing Muslims in Europe with Haredim in Israel.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/frances-multicultural-dystopia/

    “If you think this is a farfetched nightmare scenario concocted by an Islamophobic mind, consider the way that members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community or Haredi in Israel have been winning the demographic wars, strengthening their political power, and gradually transforming their secular country.
    The ultra-Orthodox Jews, who still dress like it’s 1815 in Eastern Europe, adhere to rigorous religious laws, including strict separation between men and women, and shun any form of modern education, including basic prerequisites of math, science, and language.
    They constituted a tiny minority of 30,000 when Israel was established in 1948, residing in a few small neighborhoods in Jerusalem and near Tel Aviv, with many refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the new state. But Israel’s secular founders, including the first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, agreed to exempt the young Haredi studying in religious schools from mandatory military service, to provide them with government subsidies to study, and to support their expanding families of five to ten children (compared to secular Jewish families with two to three children).
    A vicious cycle developed. With the number of the ultra-Orthodox Jews growing dramatically, the community was able to increase its political influence, with its parties joining coalition governments and acquiring new financial and other benefits for its members and allowing them to grow their families—which continued to live on government subsidies, becoming a drag on the economy.
    Today the ultra-Orthodox Jews number around 800,000 and constitute 11 percent of the Israeli population. With a growth rate of 5 percent, one of the highest of the world, they could increase to 20 percent of the population by 2030.
    While much of the public rhetoric in Israel has been about multiculturalism and coexistence between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews, in reality the Haredi resist embracing the liberal and secular values of Israeli society. They not only maintain their separate religious and cultural identity, but also are gradually able to force their norms on the secular Jewish majority.
    Hence their political parties ensure that, despite growing pressure from the younger, secular Israeli Jews who reside in advanced modern urban centers in and around Tel Aviv, no attempt will be made to separate religion and state in Israel. The Orthodox-controlled rabbinate continues to maintain jurisdiction over personal-status issues such as Jewish marriages and Jewish divorce, as well as Jewish burials, conversion to Judaism, and kosher laws, while rabbis representing the Reform and Conservative branches of American Judaism continue to fight for state recognition.
    In addition to new towns established by the government to accommodate the growing Haredi population, many ultra-Orthodox Jews are also trying to establish a presence in other areas of the country. And the storyline is familiar: several Haredi families move to a mostly secular neighborhood, where they demand that their “religious rights” be protected by, for example, banning traffic and forcing stores to close down during the Sabbath. More Orthodox Jews then join the first group, and before you know it, the entire neighborhood becomes another Haredi outpost. Most recently, under pressure of the religious parties, stores in the Tel Aviv area have lost their permits to open during the Sabbath.”

  39. unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. … This is hate speech.

    Yup, with Josh Marshall, I’m feeling the projected serenity and equanimity of a great Bodhisattva…..NOT!

    Anyway, I googled the geezer and found a link from ‘why I am a Zionist‘ an anthology gathered from ‘American Jews about their Zionist adherences that indicate the nature or intensity of those commitments’.

    In it we find a Josh Marshall entry, presumably the same bloke, writing about his newborn son:

    This is a picture of him two or three minutes after he was born but, as you can probably tell, before I told him that the Democrats had won the election.His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew. And it was also the name of Yigal Allon, after whom he is also named, who was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.

    Josh Marshall clearly has ‘intense’ Jewish tribal loyalty and ‘commitment’, that’s why his piece was picked for inclusion into the anthology. Now I don’t begrudge him, or any Jews that, though it’s clear that his heartfelt tribal loyalties lie outside the US.

    What I do begrudge, is the rank hypocrisy, the double standard. This is not by any means universal amongst Jews. But it is common enough that it is glaringly noticeable, especially given the disproportionately prominence of Jews as commentators and in journalism. But then given the war on noticing that is PeeCee, I guess noticing this sort of thing, is itself anti-Semitic. I’m beyond giving a flying-fornication.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew.

    Why didn't they give him the name "Alan" then?
  40. I think it’s time for me to convert. One of my sisters has flat-out told me that she must support high immigration, cause Jewish. Maybe it’s because I’ve always identified more with mainstream American culture, but I’ve never realized before just how strongly ‘being Jewish’ informs the thoughts of so many. Of course, I’m sure that’s true of every group, but it’s still startling to me.

    • Replies: @anon
    evolved paranoia is a useful survival trait for a weak minority

    but it becomes dangerous to everyone when the powerful have it

    .

    the banking mafia are a crime problem

    general Jewish paranoia is a medical problem
    , @AnotherDad

    I think it’s time for me to convert.
     
    C'mon on in the water's fine!

    ... except truth be told these are pretty depressing times in the gentile pool, for exactly the reason cited--we're an occupied people.
    , @Anonymous
    Did you at least try to argue your position and get them to see reality?
  41. @Rob McX
    "Hate speech" is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It's normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    “After the Olympians merged in the men’s company, strong Hatred, defender of peoples, burst out”—Iliad 20

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    That Richmond Lattimore translation is a modern delight, but earlier versions did mostly have it as "strife, the driver of armies" or "strife, the goader of fighting men" or some such, rather than "hatred."

    I'll go with Lattimore, though. He's wonderful.

    Thanks, Derb.

    , @Dieter Kief
    I was delighted, when I read your Homer-quote - in this very translation.

    Usually, there's way too little traffic at this junction.

    In the US, I see Tom Wolfe, Jonathan Franzen, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx writing fiction, that's up to the knack and the grit of your quote.
    They all are at the crossroads where anthropology, social psychology, and literary science (ought to) meet - and where they really start working - together with all the other humanities.

    Maybe I could add Updike, Selby and Henry Roth (The Call it Sleep Roth). Jared Diamonds The World Until Yesterday brings a lot of brilliant stuff about hunters and gatherers and especially: Early peasants. Could well be, that Diamond doesn't quite get, what he is really up to. Anyway: This would be a minor fault. His descriptions of those foreign worlds I like a lot; in his other books too. And then there's Erich Fromm, whom I miss. He abhorred the strategic use of wrong and right in the intellectual public shpere. And he found ways, to get poeple to listen to what he had to say.
    Plus, he abhorred the strategic use of feelings in the public sphere. That once was the Freudian rule: The voice of reason was expected to be quiet but firm.
    In France, they sense, that arguing refers to sword-fighting - and therefor works best, if all participants have not only an eye on the own argument, but also on the common ground, that is needed for any argument to be examined. If not, the intense interaction that's called the public discourse will fall pray to the very aggressions, that initiated it in the beginning.
    Those are middle-agean French mindsets, that are still working today - because - and only if! - the public cares for them... - just like Steve Sailer does, or doesn't he? From what I've seen the last few months, I'd conclude: He does.

    It is a little bit uneducated it seems to me to think, that those things mark only a gradual diffrence: Wether you argue decently and honestly and - in a somewhat quiet voice, or wether you start yelling at the public.

    The realms where questions of conduct, style, pros a n d cons, aesthetics a n d ethics meet, are a very important place. That's why your quote is so strong.

    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    "Menin" hatred, anger, strife... The first word of the Iliad
  42. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    “Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say…

    As hard to say as “Kto Kogo?”

  43. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    This is not correct. I read “Distant Shore” and it left several impressions on me. One of these is that the stock of convicts, in the time that they were being transported, only accounted for 10% of the “founding stock”. I’m not sure how much the convict legacy is represented in the following generations either. I would expect not much, as there just weren’t that many women to go around. 15% of the convicts were women –

    More info is here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Convicts_and_colonial_society

    Between 1788 and 1868, approximately 161,700 convicts (of whom 25,000 were women) were transported to the Australian colonies of New South Wales, Van Diemen’s land and Western Australia.

    The discovery of gold in the 1850s and the push for colonialists led to a huge explosion in population, from around 400,000 in 1850 to 1.1 million in 1860. In 1868, the year that convict transportation ended, the population was 1.5 million.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/eoo

    Sheep farming became really big in Australia during the convict era, from about the 1820s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merino#Australian_Merinos

    I found this note in the History of Australia:

    Between 1788 and 1792, convicts and their gaolers [British military] made up the majority of the population—but after this, a population of emancipated convicts began to grow who could be granted land and these people pioneered a non-government private sector economy and were later joined by soldiers whose military service had expired—and finally, free settlers who began arriving from Britain. Governor Phillip departed the colony for England on 11 December 1792, with the new settlement having survived near starvation and immense isolation for four years.[132] On 16 February 1793 the first free settlers arrived. The settlers: Thomas Rose, with his wife and four children, Edward Powell, Thomas Webb, Joseph Webb, and Frederick Meredith.[134]

    So there were colonists arriving almost from the very beginning.

    To address the indentured servants in North America, I found that the estimates are between 50,000 and 120,000 people were transported to NA between 1610 and 1776. Estimated population in 1776: 2.4 million. I’m a little foggy on how many of these went to Canada and the British Indies, but if we just ignore them, you’re looking at about 5% of the total population.

    • Replies: @Stealth
    **Humor Warning**

    I'm no expert on Eighteenth Century British law, but maybe some of those "criminals" weren't so bad. I'm sure a good portion of them really were vicious or mischievous deviants, but others probably just got reported for having sex in front of a cat or something.

  44. @John Derbyshire
    "After the Olympians merged in the men's company, strong Hatred, defender of peoples, burst out"—Iliad 20

    That Richmond Lattimore translation is a modern delight, but earlier versions did mostly have it as “strife, the driver of armies” or “strife, the goader of fighting men” or some such, rather than “hatred.”

    I’ll go with Lattimore, though. He’s wonderful.

    Thanks, Derb.

    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    Eris, Spirit of Discord.

    Uncertain etymology - if PIE *ere- to separate, then English 'strife' makes more sense; if PIE *ares for anger, then English 'hatred' becomes a contender.

    What did ancient Aeolians mean by it? What Mycenaeans?

    Judging by the gleeful spite we sense in her from examining the legends today, hate seems strong. On the other hand, she did move men to kill each other. Either way, she naturally was female.

    BTW, so many basic words have these overlapping semantic and phonic etymological possibilities when you trace them back to PIE that I am starting to think this is yet another way language is a para-biological process: etymological collapse is parallel to pedigree collapse.
  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’.”

    No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.

    “The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. “

    Always very convenient when you get to define the heart of the matter.

    “Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it.”

    Simple logic can famously be wrong, in particular if underlying assumptions are wrong. What are the facts? What is the actual evidence, the data? Logic always sounds so pretty. I tell you, I always knew it was 12 angels on that pin.

    “This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear…”

    When precisely does fear become rational versus irrational? Is it always irrational if it appears to be a motive?

    “…the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression…”

    I’ll say. There is a full-time professional Holocaust industry celebrating and valorizing victims, showing us all how it’s really done. It’s working hard to sustain bigotry, fear, and oppression.

    “…the intense desire to find a scapegoat or someone to blame.”

    Sometimes things are due to a human cause and are not just random items that fall from the sky.

    “…Watch Trump’s speeches… with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance… It’s hate speech.”

    Read Trump’s immigration speech. Does that also seem like hate speech?

    “Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”,
    New York Times, SEPT. 1, 2016.

    “Trump Immigration Speech: Transcript and Video”, Frontpage, August 31, 2016, Daniel Greenfield.

    “This isn’t normal.”

    Probably not if you are mentally still in the radical 60s (hey, those immigrants won’t change anything, right, isn’t that what the man really said?), but times change. You can’t be a square mentally stuck in one place in a groovy universe full of rolling stones.

    “And yet it’s become normalized.”

    Ah, what’s going wrong with the Brave New Utopian world? It’s tragically starting to look so like the old, cold, real world? The citizens must have failed!

    “It’s a mammoth failure of our political press.”

    Sure, but are the points in Trump’s speech, for instance, correct? Is it a mammoth failure that our political press can presume to be the unchallenged gatekeepers of our political process? Who made them god? And why do they think they are right?

    “By any reasonable standard, Donald Trump’s speech on Wednesday night should have ended the campaign…”

    Does this make sense? Is the author serious or just trying to write the required number of words to fill the article? “Ended the campaign” only in some complete fantasy-land about as rooted in reality as Symbionese Liberation Army political theory. Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    In Josh Marshall's world, the only "reasonable" standard for a politician is that he has to be at least as leftist as a liberal Democrat. Anyone to the right of Hillary's position this week is not reasonable. In such a world, Trump's speech would have been automatically disqualifying. Too bad Marshall's world exists only inside his head. Even this was disingenuous because there was no way Marshall was voting for Trump even before this speech, so in fact he was already disqualified in his view and the speech changed nothing.
    , @Mack Bolan
    "Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus are more careful to avoid it."

    This explains why they feel free to protest by the hundreds outside a Trump rally, assaulting Trump supporter and throwing rocks and bottles at police who try to maintain order
    This explains why thousands of " illegals " marched on Washington a year or so ago to demand their civil rights, you know, the civil rights that OUR constitution gives to all AMERICAN CITIZENS.
    , @guest
    "Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet"

    Maybe if it was an article about BLM. But no, they're the ones doing the locking. That's what PC is: locking us inside a mental SLA closet. Everything outside the closet is "hate speech."
  46. “We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’. Most often we assume that it’s a matter of using particular words … Hate speech is rants meant to inflame, inspire fear or rage or violence against a particular class of people. The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. ”

    So now Marshall is calling for reading into the thoughts of people in order to find motives for possible thought crimes that they may not even be consciously aware of committing. Actual words spoken are no longer enough to try and convict a person for thought crimes, motives must be read into what a person thinks and/or is about to say and obviously people such as Marshall are needed to help correctly interpret whether or not such things are in fact hate speech.

    • Replies: @guest
    They don't need to read into the thoughts of a person like Trump. I mean, just look at him. Hate!
  47. @Anonymous
    I actually feel kind of stupid when "Who? Whom?" and "Invade the world, invite the world" get dropped in there because the penny doesn't always drop for me. I loved seeing the bipartisan support of Khan get summed up as: we need more Muslims over here to get killed killing Muslims over there because Muslims killed us over here, because we killed Muslims over there. But I can never get the hang of this "I- the world" thing. Does it only ever signify an absurdity? Or sometimes one hand not knowing what the other is doing? Or perhaps even a conscious policy? Is there an article I'm missing?

    OK, looks like it’s supposed to refer to a “perpetual motion money machine” the military-industrial complex have, thanks to empire.

    Too bad so many are OK with the “invite” part though.

  48. These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.

    Well didn’t Mothers Against Drunk Drivers get started by the mother of a child killed by a drunk driver? Is MADD an example of a blood libel against people who happen to drink too much and then drive?

  49. Neoconned [AKA "trumped"] says:

    http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2015/05/26/this-is-so-great-tpm-progs-of-pallor-concerned-about-whiteness-of-new-yorker-cartoons-photo/

    Typical hypocrite leftist who complains about racism and diversity, yet has an all white/Jewish staff as seen in the above link. How does that staff photo look any different from a white nationalist website staff photo, apart from being less racially diverse?

    He is upset over trump using the video and images of victims of illegal immigration because:

    1. It is the truth
    2. it is effective
    3. Normally the GOP cedes this emotional PR ground to the dems

    What issue do leftists like marshall NOT use victim families to promote their lies? It certainly isn’t gun control, where emotional appeals using families of victims are literally their entire argument. Marshall has done this very thing on the issue of guns, among many others. He just hates having these tactics used against his cultural marxist side, and is not used to being put on the defensive. His specific use of “hate speech” is because he wants america to join europe in banning political speech he does not like – he is tired of having kids on the internet destroying his hysterical ranting and raving.

    By the way, this extremely effeminate left wing nut is also a conspiracy advocate – he stated that bush used voting machines in ohio to steal the 2004 election.

    http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/10/marshall_sugges.html

    He refused to accept the fact that kerry was an unlikeable goofball, and instead insisted on a vast right conspiracy as the answer back then – while these days pushing the idea of trump being an agent of putin in another crazy conspiracy theory. John Marshall is like an effeminate Rusty Shackleford without the entertainment value.

  50. I would like to just laugh at Josh Marshall’s silly screed, but I can see Sonya Sotomayor citing Marshall’s work in a future Supreme Court case about hate speech laws.

  51. @anon

    little to distinguish them from what we see at Aryan Nations or other white hate rallies that we all immediately recognize as reprehensible
     
    This guy watches a lot of Aryan Nations rallies, does he?

    That's weird, because I'm pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang. I don't imagine the guards actually let them have rallies, do they?

    So what he actually means is something like "Trump rallies look just like the way movies and TV portray hate rallies!".

    He's got a PhD in history, and that's the kind of stuff he talks about.

    Not that it really matters. But still.

    That’s weird, because I’m pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang.

    It’s a white nationalist organisation. You’re confusing them with the Aryan Brotherhood.

    • Replies: @anon
    Fair enough. I still don't believe for a second that he's ever seen one of their rallies, unedited by some form of media.
  52. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Don’t try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather’s house tonight for “shabbat”. My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother’s t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. ‘How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!’, he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today. I really didn’t want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good on you mate. Welcome aboard.
    , @Altai
    It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is totally ignored until there is a war. Then there is hand-wringing for a while and we all just forget again. It's impressive how easily they neutered the BDS movement. I hardly ever hear about them in the news.

    Every ethnocentric, discriminatory thing you could imagine is done by Israel including ones I couldn't even imagine, everything short of actually just killing the Palestinians and yet nobody cares despite Israel being nominally a member of the Western World.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It's just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet... nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship ('Israeli Arab', I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!
    , @biz

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won't die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don't allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing - it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that "People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel." But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu's son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    , @SFG
    I'm sure it's over 9000.

    (While I believe your story, did you conflate Austria and Australia, BTW? I don't remember Australia killing any Jews in WW2...)

    , @ScarletNumber

    My twin sister, who is a millennial
     
    Wouldn't that make you one as well? #confused
  53. @Desiderius

    He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.
     
    Girls mature earlier, but also consequently top out lower. Judging by the writing of the likes of Josh Marshall, the same is true of emasculated males.

    Someone really should ask him why he felt the need to adopt the name “Josh Marshall”, which is as much of a pseudonym as Leibowitz’ “Jon Stewart”. Wasn’t his birth name “American” enough?

  54. The graph above shows second generation “immigrants” beginning to commit crimes at the rate of “native born” Americans.
    My guess would be that it is not NE Asian or White native born who are committing those crimes. Does this suggest that second generation illegal immigrants are committing crimes close to the same rate as Blacks?

  55. @NickG

    unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. … This is hate speech.
     
    Yup, with Josh Marshall, I'm feeling the projected serenity and equanimity of a great Bodhisattva.....NOT!

    Anyway, I googled the geezer and found a link from 'why I am a Zionist' an anthology gathered from 'American Jews about their Zionist adherences that indicate the nature or intensity of those commitments'.

    In it we find a Josh Marshall entry, presumably the same bloke, writing about his newborn son:


    This is a picture of him two or three minutes after he was born but, as you can probably tell, before I told him that the Democrats had won the election.His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means 'Oak' in Hebrew. And it was also the name of Yigal Allon, after whom he is also named, who was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.
     
    Josh Marshall clearly has 'intense' Jewish tribal loyalty and 'commitment', that's why his piece was picked for inclusion into the anthology. Now I don't begrudge him, or any Jews that, though it's clear that his heartfelt tribal loyalties lie outside the US.

    What I do begrudge, is the rank hypocrisy, the double standard. This is not by any means universal amongst Jews. But it is common enough that it is glaringly noticeable, especially given the disproportionately prominence of Jews as commentators and in journalism. But then given the war on noticing that is PeeCee, I guess noticing this sort of thing, is itself anti-Semitic. I'm beyond giving a flying-fornication.

    His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew.

    Why didn’t they give him the name “Alan” then?

  56. Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.

    Perhaps if Marshall had called them “illegal immigrants” he might have understood how their crime rates might be much higher than that of immigrants who abide by the law.

    And of course he completely ignores the fact that in most of these cases Trump has highlighted — maybe all — the most perverse aspect is that the killers had already been convicted of criminal activity, but were released instead of deported. Is it Hate to have a problem with that? I suppose so.

    But Marshall is on a mission of holiness, denouncing the Huge Satan, and can’t be bothered to attend to such details.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "...[Marshall] completely ignores the fact that in most of these cases Trump has highlighted — maybe all — the most perverse aspect is that the killers had already been convicted of criminal activity, but were released instead of deported."

    Exactly.

    Trump's point in highlighting these victims is not that Latino immigrants in general ought to be excluded from the U.S. because they're too criminally inclined.

    That's debatable.

    His point is that our current system of enforcing our immigration laws is broken, and being run by total fanatics - idealogues who are so besotted by "undocumented workers"/"illegal infiltrators" (take your pick) that they can't even bring themselves to deport the serial criminals amongst them! With predictable and tragic results.

    That isn't debatable.

    , @guest
    You can't expect him to parse Trump's arguments. You just end up with smaller units of Hate Speech.
  57. @anon
    Don't try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather's house tonight for "shabbat". My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother's t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. 'How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!', he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people 'genocided' Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. "Did you know that black people couldn't marry white people 40 years ago!", she said. I muttered that non-jews still can't marry jews in Israel today. I really didn't want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    Good on you mate. Welcome aboard.

  58. @SteveM
    Many good points. But this claim doesn't work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.
     
    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    “If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.”

    SteveM
    Please edit the above sentence for clarity.
    Thank you.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    I understood it just fine.
  59. @Dieter Kief

    As for the “red faces” (...) Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.

     

    Right.

    I grew up near Kallstadt, where the "Drumps" come from - there's quite a few men, who's faces look like his all the time.

    In one of Le Maittre's Saga-novels you can find the remark: They were not red faced - therefor they were no Palatinates. - See: Kallstadt is situated in Palatinate.

    PS - Dave Pinsen: I've answered your Jonathan Franzen comment.

    Fot the record: Several years ago I was passing Trump Tower as Trump was getting out of his car. He had the pinkest skin I’d ever seen–even pinker than mine.

  60. @Rob McX

    That’s weird, because I’m pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang.
     
    It's a white nationalist organisation. You're confusing them with the Aryan Brotherhood.

    Fair enough. I still don’t believe for a second that he’s ever seen one of their rallies, unedited by some form of media.

  61. @Verymuchalive
    Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
    Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It's not true.

    They were also concentrated in specific locations. Tasmania in particular took a lot.

    It also shouldn’t be overstated that a mostly male population will not tend to have much influence on future generations.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    This is certainly true. Also, it must be noted that few served their terms in actual prisons, the vast majority were in penal settlements, not unlike 19th Century penal settlements in Siberia.
    Very violent offenders were a distinctive minority and not typical.
  62. @Rob McX
    "Hate speech" is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It's normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    I totally agree with this. To me, hate speech = astrology.

    Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don’t believe it’s real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.

    It bothers me, though, that we let believers in “hate speech” frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.

    And I’m saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called “Wop” and “Dago.” Did I like to hear that? No, I didn’t. But I also don’t believe in outlawing it.

    There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don’t think should be outlawed. That’s what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.
     
    The war on "hate speech" has two purposes. First and most importantly, it's an effort to criminalize political thought one dislikes. If you can label your opponent's speech as "hate" then you needn't debate him on the facts and logical merits of the issue. Secondly, it keeps a large segment of the population perpetually in a childish tantrum state. Generally those whose brains have fully developed are unconcerned about "bad words" (see the late George Carlin's many rants on this subject) and instead focus on bad behaviors. By labeling most of western civilization's core tenets as "hate," the leftists may excuse and justify the rampant race-based criminal violence of their African clients. Most leftists couldn't care less about your choice of words except in how they might be used as a weapon against you and/or serve as justification for when their African clients gang rape then set fire to your 93 year old grandmother ("she said the word 'boy' in their presence").
  63. “These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.”

    This is a common argument from the invite-the-world crowd: So what if some immigrants steal, rape, and murder? Americans commit those crimes too.

    In answer to that, I say: Sure, there are Americans who are criminals. So why should we want to bring in more criminals – especially when we’re talking about populations who disproportionately commit crimes, compared to white Americans.

    If you accidently smash your thumb with a hammer, do you then say to yourself – why Hell, I’ve already smashed one finger, why not smash some more? Or do you become more careful with that hammer?

    • Replies: @guest
    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? "Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans." Well, yeah, but eventually we're going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.
  64. @anon
    Don't try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather's house tonight for "shabbat". My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother's t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. 'How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!', he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people 'genocided' Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. "Did you know that black people couldn't marry white people 40 years ago!", she said. I muttered that non-jews still can't marry jews in Israel today. I really didn't want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is totally ignored until there is a war. Then there is hand-wringing for a while and we all just forget again. It’s impressive how easily they neutered the BDS movement. I hardly ever hear about them in the news.

    Every ethnocentric, discriminatory thing you could imagine is done by Israel including ones I couldn’t even imagine, everything short of actually just killing the Palestinians and yet nobody cares despite Israel being nominally a member of the Western World.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It’s just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet… nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Not only was he charged, he was convicted.

    By the way, I know you used "Israeli Arab" here to illustrate usage, but in general endeavor to employ "Arab Israeli" and "Jewish Israeli", in order to take back the discourse. You'll notice that they never use those formulations.
    , @guest
    Why would that be rape? What's the term we use for obtaining sex fraudulently (besides "fraud")? "Seduction?"
    , @biz

    Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!
     
    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.
  65. The hate is coming from the left, which runs our world — and it is directed at us. Pieces like this are double-standard attacks on our right to stand up for ourselves.

    A little off topic, but…

    To those who think Donald Trump is too gauche to be our president:

    In case you haven’t noticed, politics is very gauche. It is real estate sales multiplied by magnitudes. I personally know two real estate agents who are elected to my state legislature — and this is typical.

    No disrespect to real estate agents. (At least one of those two is a good guy.) They have a job to do (even though it is essentially rent-seeking). I’m just telling everyone who doesn’t realize it that politicians are far more tasteless and irresponsible than you imagine Donald Trump to be. They are in the business of selling themselves to the highest bidders. They are walking, talking hucksters and prostitutes.

    And the Clintons are that plus grifters, fraudsters and skimmers and sleezeballs — and have been for their entire careers! This had to be what they saw in each other at Yale Law School.

    And you think Trump is unworthy? Far from it. He has actually built things and made far more money doing it than the pathetic sap who sold you your house. He is a god compared to politicians.

    And yet you give politicians your respect and think of them as some kind of experts. Even worse, you give credence to those losers who spend their careers writing and talking about them!

    Politicians and their cadre are among the most tasteless, manipulative blank slates in the world. They stand for nothing but selling to you. In light of this, how can anyone say Trump is anywhere near as crass and pointless at they are?

  66. I don’t think it would make a difference if you pointed out his own hatred and bigotry to him. His side can’t be hateful by definition, just like non-whites can’t be racist by definition. They write the political dictionaries, and they get to decide the definitions. So shut up.

    Ever heard of “repressive tolerance?” Their side gets tolerated. We don’t. Because we’re not on their side. That’s how it works. You’re right, it’s who/whom. I believe him when he says Trump is frightening. The prospect of his gang, which has been on top for so long, finally losing significantly is genuinely frightening. Because he knows what might become of him if suddenly he were in the gang that isn’t tolerated.

    I don’t mean he thinks he’d be the victim of a pogrom or anything like that. He fears a more mundane possibility, like losing his paycheck. There’s a lot of paycheck fear going around.

  67. @Hunsdon
    Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.

    Agree.

  68. @SteveM
    Many good points. But this claim doesn't work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.
     
    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    “Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.”

    No, it does not mean that. It does not mean that any particular black has a tendency toward “gangsta behavior”. It means that blacks – as a group – have such a tendency.

  69. what is josh marshall complaining about? those mothers were victims of criminal illegal aliens.

    and what is trump’s deportation target priority? removing all illegal aliens who commited heinous crimes!

  70. What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior. According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that.

    Yeah. Fred Reed and Ron Unz’ chief talking point in favor of Hispanic Mestizos and Amerinds: they’re better than Blacks. Low bar.

    Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it will tell you that the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression. … The valorization of victims was and is a way of provoking vicarious horror, rage, hate and finally violence whether specific individuals were guilty or not.

    So, I take it that this Marshall fellow is opposed to the upcoming flotilla of Emmet Till biopics?

  71. @anonymous
    Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals.

    Weren't a lot of these people, like in the US, from debtor's prisons?


    "...Through the mid 19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe...

    ...In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person's debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released...

    ...the inmates were forced to pay for their keep...

    ...James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors' prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court...

    ...disfavor over debtors' prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts...

    ...The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833..."

     

    Penal colony:


    "...The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies....

    ...Georgia... was first founded... by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison... largely failed...

    ...The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland...

    ...after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements."

     

    For reference re Oz colonization

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

  72. @SteveM
    Many good points. But this claim doesn't work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.
     
    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    “Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal tendencies”

    Oh, please.

    First of all, he says they are famous for such tendencies. Secondly, he says that the group is famous for them, not that each individual member of the group actually has them. No such implication as you detect is present.

    I suppose you’re looking for him to say something like, “40 million African-Americans, who are famous for having a tendency as a group toward statistically significantly higher propensity for crime over comparable groups (though that is not to say as individuals African-Americans are any different from any other law-abiding homo-sapien).

    Like I said: oh, please.

    • LOL: vinteuil
  73. @anon
    Don't try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather's house tonight for "shabbat". My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother's t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. 'How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!', he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people 'genocided' Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. "Did you know that black people couldn't marry white people 40 years ago!", she said. I muttered that non-jews still can't marry jews in Israel today. I really didn't want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.

    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won’t die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that “People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel.” But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu’s son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    I don't have a big dog in this fight. I'm all for nationalism for everyone including Jews. Israel can do whatever it wants re marriage. Saying "if you don't want to marry among our ethnicity ... go elsewhere!" is perfectly ok.

    But i will point out you threw up five paragraphs and didn't actually contradict what he said:

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    In fact, you more or less confirmed it. (The key words *in Israel*.) There's no civil marriage, hence no inter-religious marriage. (Don't know if this is true, but you seem to be confirming it.)

    That many Jews are massive practitioners of who?\whom? when it comes to all these questions of identity--discrimination, separatism, nationalism, endogamy, identity politics, immigration--and that this is obvious to even fair minded Jews like himself was his point.
    , @iSteveFan

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc).
     
    But are those groups pressured to change? Do the editorials and opinion pieces chide them to get with the times? Are they portrayed as bigots?
    , @pseudo
    So what he said was 100% true. In the Jewish state, inhabited mostly by Jews, non-Jews can't marry Jews in Israel. They can go to Norway or Cyrpus. But they can't do it in Israel. That's the claim. Because you don't like it, it's a lie?
    , @bored identity
    If the only democracy in the Middle East was able to think of some novel, secular concept such as the establishment of the state sanctioned matrimonial office, then Jasser and Golda could have stayed home to tie the knot, instead taking that trip from Haifa to Cyprus.

    In 1871, Bismarck enacted the "Civil Marriage Law" which enabled interfaith marriages as well as marriages between spouses of different Christian denominations.

    Since Germany of the late 19th century was packed with Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Sikhs, Taoists, Druze, Zoroastrians, and Jain, it's not too difficult to figure out which religious group had benefited the most from the Europeans' decision to permit a non-Christians to intermarry the Christians.

    So,why not try some of that good old kulturkampf in Israel?

    Some snarly atheist-libtard would claim that it's not happening just because the majority of the religious Jewish-Israelis belong to some kooky, pioneering stock that acts solely on the ancient Torah! Torah! Torah! based principals.

    Apparently, that's the only logical explanation why Gretna Green is nowhere to be found in Israel.

    So far away from the truth.

    The real reason is that Israeli theocratic-heavy neighborhood is just not ready for such a change.

    How can you impose a sanctity of the state matrimony in Israel when everybody around you- Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon , Saudi Arabia, and even libertarian Qatar-are also rejecting the concept of civil marriage?

    You just can't!

    Because the last thing Jewish-Israelis want to do is to piss-off their neighbors.
    Because the expression of the religious freedom of their own Muslim-Israeli community is paramount to Jewish-Israelis.
    And because the Jewish-Israelis also have to deal with you snooze- you lose from a Druze mentality of those, by sheer power of numbers, crucial constituents.

    One way to resolve this would be to directly address this whole marriage-apartheid to the UN.
    But do you really want to snitch internationally on your own citizenry (Druze and Muslims,that is), regardless of how repulsive their religious traditions are for 21st century standards?

    Can ADL, AIPAC, and J-Street pull a few remaining strings in the White House and Congress to pressure Druze-Israelis and Muslim-Israelis to accept mixed-marriages, so the Jewish-Israeli religious community can be also finally allowed to be not what they are right now, but, instead, what they really always wanted to be ?

    Until that happens, my prayers are certainly with the underprivileged community of the Israeli Jews.
  74. This is the first time I’ve seen “blood libel” appear in American politics since Sarah Palin used it to describe the absurd and partisan-motivated scapegoating of her as the person who inspired the Tucson attack, in which Gabrielle Giffords was wounded and several other people killed by an incoherent lunatic. At the time Palin was roundly condemned for using such language in her pushback, her words being noted as an example of the low demagoguery to which “conservative media figures” were prone:

    http://www.salon.com/2011/01/12/palin_statement_arizona/
    (Josh Marshall is one of the pundits quoted in this Salon round-up)

  75. @Verymuchalive
    Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
    Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It's not true.

    I was going to chime in on that as well – it was never all convicts. Also we should note that some people having served their term of transportation returned home to Britain, thus whittling down the Australian convict population even further.

  76. Josh from Talking Points said:

    …most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. But they fit the textbook definition…

    The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter.

    LOL! I’d like to see that “textbook definition,” the one where, “….precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter.”

    Hate is an emotion, one of our most intense emotions. Not surprisingly, discussions about it are (as Josh’s fearfully irrational article demonstrates) intensely emotional. His “definitions” seem to be clouded in subjectivity and arbitrariness. He projects his own highly emotional failings onto Trump. Worst of all, he adopts the persistent argument that comes from the left: Hearing opinions and political views that are challenging to the left shouldn’t have to be tolerated. It’s the RIGHT’S job to be more tolerant, not the left’s.

    I asked a few days ago if anyone else noticed the media backing off of it’s anti-Trunp tirades. Apparently Josh noticed. I think some ion the media were actually starting to notice their own bias. Josh didn’t like that.

  77. Josh Marshall, for example, is a 47 year old with a Ph.D. in history who simply doesn’t notice his own bigotry and ethnic animus.

    Yeah, I wondered about that. So, GOOGLE search “Josh Marshall Jewish” and the result is:

    Josh MarshallVerified account
    ‏@joshtpm Josh Marshall Retweeted Progressives Today
    Brilliant research since I’m Jewish d’oh

    Yep, he’s Jewish

  78. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons.

    You only think that because of the media’s censorship.

    Illegal immigration is mostly young male and is responsible for ***vast*** amounts of violent crime, particularly sexual violence and violence related to access to females.

    90% of the victims are in the 11-18 age group and what little gets reported gets censored by the media.

    Rotherham is not an aberration; it’s the norm.

    The media has been lying about it for decades.

    .

    Other situations where legal mass immigration has the same end result – excessive males – has the same effect.

    For example:

    – equal numbers of Group A and Group B but group B keep their young females at home so the males from both both A and B chase the girls from group A.

    or

    – equal numbers of group A and group B but group A are more monogamous so males from group B carry on chasing after they have a kid with one female

    .

    Merkel’s insanity in importing this problem en masse should force the truth out after 60 years of media lies and cover up.

  79. @Big Bill

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.
     
    Sorry, you are incorrect.

    The "original stock" of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the "original stock".

    If complete race replacement and genocide of us Americans in our own country (as happened to "original stock" Australians) is not a "bad turn out" I expect you are either African Negro, Muslim, Galut Jew, or Mestizo.

    In any case, what on earth are you doing at iSteve?

    The original stock of what is today Australia couldn’t develop a nation state in the entirety of their 70,000 years of existence. That’s on them but they aren’t the original stock of Australia because Australia, the country, never existed until the British settler and convicts came to the continent.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  80. @SteveM
    Many good points. But this claim doesn't work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.
     
    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    You know what an average is right?

  81. @anonymous
    Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals.

    Weren't a lot of these people, like in the US, from debtor's prisons?


    "...Through the mid 19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe...

    ...In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person's debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released...

    ...the inmates were forced to pay for their keep...

    ...James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors' prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court...

    ...disfavor over debtors' prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts...

    ...The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833..."

     

    Penal colony:


    "...The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies....

    ...Georgia... was first founded... by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison... largely failed...

    ...The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland...

    ...after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements."

     

    I understand that at some point the British were round up London’s poorer citizens, labeling them as criminals then shipping them down under.

  82. We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.

  83. @Jean Cocteausten
    The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.

    Those are the cardinal sins but hardly the only ones.

  84. @Joshua
    I think it's time for me to convert. One of my sisters has flat-out told me that she must support high immigration, cause Jewish. Maybe it's because I've always identified more with mainstream American culture, but I've never realized before just how strongly 'being Jewish' informs the thoughts of so many. Of course, I'm sure that's true of every group, but it's still startling to me.

    evolved paranoia is a useful survival trait for a weak minority

    but it becomes dangerous to everyone when the powerful have it

    .

    the banking mafia are a crime problem

    general Jewish paranoia is a medical problem

  85. @Dieter Kief

    As for the “red faces” (...) Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.

     

    Right.

    I grew up near Kallstadt, where the "Drumps" come from - there's quite a few men, who's faces look like his all the time.

    In one of Le Maittre's Saga-novels you can find the remark: They were not red faced - therefor they were no Palatinates. - See: Kallstadt is situated in Palatinate.

    PS - Dave Pinsen: I've answered your Jonathan Franzen comment.

    Leaving his club one day, Evelyn Waugh went to the hat check to get his hat, but the club servant who usually manned the post was absent. Waugh let himself in behind the counter and found his hat. It was in a niche with the label RUBICUND.

  86. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “This is the last gasp of the white make.”

    I think I used to catch some of those when I went fishing as a kid. They would also flop around a lot. I knew Steve was into golf, but fishing? Though when you think about it, it is kind of an odd pasttime that probably deserves some attention. Not quite sport, not quite exercise. Sort of a mental health exercise thing, I guess, if you are male. “Sorry, I can’t do anything, I’m fishing.”

    It would be interesting to see a world-wide plot of hours spent recreational fishing vs where.

  87. @anon
    Don't try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather's house tonight for "shabbat". My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother's t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. 'How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!', he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people 'genocided' Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. "Did you know that black people couldn't marry white people 40 years ago!", she said. I muttered that non-jews still can't marry jews in Israel today. I really didn't want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    I’m sure it’s over 9000.

    (While I believe your story, did you conflate Austria and Australia, BTW? I don’t remember Australia killing any Jews in WW2…)

  88. @Anonymous
    Yep.

    A 'blood libel'. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Funny when any senior Democrats were challenged to use the formula 'all lives matter' rather than 'black lives matter' - the obvious implication being human life of one particular ethnicity is more valuable than that of another ethnicity, the said Democrats were widely reviled and shunned, or, more likely cravenly were seen to affirm the racial hierarchy of human worth.

    What is really astounding, is the rejection of the phrase “all lives matter” goes against their supposed core belief that all races are equal and should be treated as such.

  89. @Anonymous
    If we went out and found victims who’d suffered grievously at the hands of Jews or blacks and paraded them around the country before angry crowds the wrongness and danger of doing so would be obvious.

    What about jewish Hollywood's incessant production, for large audiences, of movies portraying jews and Blacks suffering grievously at the hands of Whites?

    Wrong and dangerous?

    It’s one-way, goy.

  90. @anon
    Don't try to reason with these people. They are incapable of it.

    I was at my Jewish grandfather's house tonight for "shabbat". My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother's t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. 'How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!', he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people 'genocided' Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. "Did you know that black people couldn't marry white people 40 years ago!", she said. I muttered that non-jews still can't marry jews in Israel today. I really didn't want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    My twin sister, who is a millennial

    Wouldn’t that make you one as well? #confused

  91. @candid_observer

    Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.
     
    Perhaps if Marshall had called them "illegal immigrants" he might have understood how their crime rates might be much higher than that of immigrants who abide by the law.

    And of course he completely ignores the fact that in most of these cases Trump has highlighted -- maybe all -- the most perverse aspect is that the killers had already been convicted of criminal activity, but were released instead of deported. Is it Hate to have a problem with that? I suppose so.

    But Marshall is on a mission of holiness, denouncing the Huge Satan, and can't be bothered to attend to such details.

    “…[Marshall] completely ignores the fact that in most of these cases Trump has highlighted — maybe all — the most perverse aspect is that the killers had already been convicted of criminal activity, but were released instead of deported.”

    Exactly.

    Trump’s point in highlighting these victims is not that Latino immigrants in general ought to be excluded from the U.S. because they’re too criminally inclined.

    That’s debatable.

    His point is that our current system of enforcing our immigration laws is broken, and being run by total fanatics – idealogues who are so besotted by “undocumented workers”/”illegal infiltrators” (take your pick) that they can’t even bring themselves to deport the serial criminals amongst them! With predictable and tragic results.

    That isn’t debatable.

  92. @Joshua
    I think it's time for me to convert. One of my sisters has flat-out told me that she must support high immigration, cause Jewish. Maybe it's because I've always identified more with mainstream American culture, but I've never realized before just how strongly 'being Jewish' informs the thoughts of so many. Of course, I'm sure that's true of every group, but it's still startling to me.

    I think it’s time for me to convert.

    C’mon on in the water’s fine!

    … except truth be told these are pretty depressing times in the gentile pool, for exactly the reason cited–we’re an occupied people.

  93. @Anonymous
    Yep.

    A 'blood libel'. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Funny when any senior Democrats were challenged to use the formula 'all lives matter' rather than 'black lives matter' - the obvious implication being human life of one particular ethnicity is more valuable than that of another ethnicity, the said Democrats were widely reviled and shunned, or, more likely cravenly were seen to affirm the racial hierarchy of human worth.

    What is really astounding, is the rejection of the phrase “all lives matter” goes against their supposed core belief that all races are equal and should be treated as such.

  94. Thing is, I sort of agree with what he’s saying, but he hasn’t left me with much of a choice. More reasonable fellows (like Sailer, for instance) were driven out of the public square long ago.

    Also: I’m convinced that one of the great failures of the ruling class over the past 25 years is their complete and utter inability to understand or deal effectively with the notion that Things Change. Returns diminish. The risk curve for Policy X rises and eventually outstrips benefits. Maybe it’s because I was raised by an engineer, but this has always just seemed intuitive to me — just because a little bit of X is powerful and effective in response to Y, it does not follow that a lot more X is better, or that it’s a good idea in response to Z.

    To put it in more concrete terms: A strong dose of white ethnomasochism and black ethnocentrism might have been a good prescription for America in 1966. It might not be such a great idea in 2016, and might end up having the opposite of the intended effect. I don’t mean this in the crude, white nationalist sense of saying “whites are now an oppressed minority!”, though that’s how guys like Josh Marshall will twist my argument. I’m saying that telling the public “we don’t want to go back to the Bad Old Days” is only useful as an argument as long as people feel on an instinctual level that the Bad Old Days were, in fact, worse than the present.

    In short: I don’t think guys like Josh Marshall grasp that screaming “Trump wants to drag America back to the era of ‘Mad Men’!” might have sounded one way in 1976, but in 2016 it sounds veeeeeery different.

    • Replies: @guest
    You're right. When white people hear "Jim Crow" they may not automatically think of innocent blacks hanging from trees. Maybe they think of blacks raping innocent white women now, and wonder, "Hey, maybe there was something to this Crow fellow."

    Writers like this don't take that into account. They assume everyone thinks the same way about settled issues like the evil of Jim Crow. But those issues aren't settled, and never will be.

    , @guest
    Also, it's not so much that they don't get that things change. They tell their opposition that all the time. It's that they don't notice when things have changed, because they're locked inside mind prisons. Victory has defeated them. They think, since they are the ruling class, that the virtue of their arguments got them there, or something.

    They don't read the alt-right, for instance, because that's full of racist racists. The racists lost because they were wrong, and why would I have to listen to wrong people? So they don't know the opposition, or only know them in caricature. And the circle of ideas they're conversant in gets narrower and narrower.
    , @Mr. Blank
    Or to put it more succinctly: The phrase "Don Draper's America" means one thing to Don Draper, another thing to Don Draper's son, something else to his grandson, and something else again to his great-grandson.

    People who base policy on poetry should keep this sort of thing in mind.
  95. @Mr. Blank
    Thing is, I sort of agree with what he's saying, but he hasn't left me with much of a choice. More reasonable fellows (like Sailer, for instance) were driven out of the public square long ago.

    Also: I'm convinced that one of the great failures of the ruling class over the past 25 years is their complete and utter inability to understand or deal effectively with the notion that Things Change. Returns diminish. The risk curve for Policy X rises and eventually outstrips benefits. Maybe it's because I was raised by an engineer, but this has always just seemed intuitive to me -- just because a little bit of X is powerful and effective in response to Y, it does not follow that a lot more X is better, or that it's a good idea in response to Z.

    To put it in more concrete terms: A strong dose of white ethnomasochism and black ethnocentrism might have been a good prescription for America in 1966. It might not be such a great idea in 2016, and might end up having the opposite of the intended effect. I don't mean this in the crude, white nationalist sense of saying "whites are now an oppressed minority!", though that's how guys like Josh Marshall will twist my argument. I'm saying that telling the public "we don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days" is only useful as an argument as long as people feel on an instinctual level that the Bad Old Days were, in fact, worse than the present.

    In short: I don't think guys like Josh Marshall grasp that screaming "Trump wants to drag America back to the era of 'Mad Men'!" might have sounded one way in 1976, but in 2016 it sounds veeeeeery different.

    You’re right. When white people hear “Jim Crow” they may not automatically think of innocent blacks hanging from trees. Maybe they think of blacks raping innocent white women now, and wonder, “Hey, maybe there was something to this Crow fellow.”

    Writers like this don’t take that into account. They assume everyone thinks the same way about settled issues like the evil of Jim Crow. But those issues aren’t settled, and never will be.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Agree. School segregation, with black-majority schools getting slightly higher levels of funding than white schools so they can't complain, sounds better and better lately.
    , @The Penguin
    Yes, it's something the folks who were comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till a few years back don't seem to have realized. The effect wasn't to sanctify Martin but to raise doubts about the innocence of Till.
  96. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    “The ‘immigrants will commit lots of crimes!’ argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.”

    Well, yes and no. I agree that the economic, cultural & environmental arguments are the strongest we’ve got.

    But they’re kind of wonky.

    Trump’s emphasis on the victims of crime committed by illegals effectively dramatizes the sheer lunacy of our current policy, which protects the supposed rights of repeat criminal offenders who have no business being here in the first place at the expense of innocent U.S. citizens.

  97. Anonymous [AKA "Zorg the Mighty"] says:

    When idiots trot out the old “illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born” trope (presumably ignoring that they are all criminals for being here), why are they not countered with the news that, were they not here (illegally), they would be committing crimes elsewhere?

  98. Jewish friends here, please help us out with an important question:

    Are Jews capable of coexisting in the same country with another capable group without trying to destroy that group? I’m really beginning to wonder…

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    I am not aware of examples of white cohesion and Jewish strength growing together in the diaspora. Normally, in the West, the stronger Jews get, the more divided whites get, as Jews, like all minorities, tend to side with other minorities against the majority. You won't find many Jews in any movement maximizing majority rights at the expense of minority rights though you will find many Jews in movements to boost minority rights, which always come at the expense of majority rights.

    Possible exceptions:

    * The American South prior to the 1890s (or perhaps the 1960s).
    * America prior to the 1960s
    * England, Canada and Australia prior to the 1970s.

    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them. Similarly, the stronger Jews get in their Jewish identity, the more likely they will have negative views of gentiles.

    , @Luke Ford
    Different groups will always have different interests and the more diversity you have in a country, the more conflict and disharmony.
  99. Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.

    Ha, ha, ha…

    Based on some of Steve’s other recent posts, I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "...I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…"

    Why pay for what you can get free?
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    Based on some of Steve’s other recent posts, I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…
     
    Well, the people running things for all of us are essentially doing just that, wouldn't you agree?

    Except that they are facilitating migration into all nations of European peoples everywhere. Their motives may be cheap labor, more voters, or whatever, but the result is the same. You can't deny they are doing their damnedest to keep it going.

    It is a one-way effort fueled by a double standard, and you know it.
    , @syonredux

    Ha, ha, ha…

    Based on some of Steve’s other recent posts, I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…
     
    Well, that's White elite policy Ron. They like having docile servants around:

    “From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ”Mexican immigrants are making a reconquest of the Southwest

    Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction
    also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction League put it, “racial zealots … of Hebrew origin” whose “racial interests and prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest.” But unlike in 1924, the Jews were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers, livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests, who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that the Mexicans were “timid” workers who always “knew their place” and were willing to work “all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick.” Certainly the “wetbacks” were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American Cattle Raiser’s Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were “just as safe as if they had been with me…. Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We would never think of such a thing.”

     

    Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
    by
    Jonathan Peter Spiro


    Ordinary Anglo-Americans, in contrast, feel somewhat differently on the matter. See, we like living around other Anglo-Americans and not around Hispanics.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I don't know which one of you conjured up this "liberals are the real racists" argument about urban replacement, but it is one of the least persuasive ideas pedaled on iSteve.

    It violates Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are all part one big beautiful leftist family that all thinks the same way. But Australia and Europe don't have urban crime issues with large black populations. Why do leftists from Sydney and Melbourne want to fill up their cities with Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders? Did Merkel invite in Syrians to push out the children of black American GIs stationed in Germany?

    Moreover, what was American urbanites' response to the African boat people? Was there a lot of hand-wringing from Americans and whispered warnings to their Italians co-ideologues? Not that I'm aware of.

    I'm not surprised to read this theory in your writing because of your penchant for highly speculative conspiracy theories based on chains of logically but tenuously connected ideas without evidence, but Steve usually does better at grounding things in reality.

    Liberals are not all equally smart and identical enough to spontaneously think of the same ideas on their own, which is why things like Journolist exist. When they do exist, we get evidence of the source of their group-think. What is the origin of the urban replacement plan, and where do we see evidence of its dissemination?

    Maybe Steve has written about this before, but he usually says so when he's repeating himself or wants to reference his previous writing.
    , @Mike Zwick
    Why would they have to recruit anybody? Chicago's Mexican and Central American population is larger than its black population. I doubt that all of these people are legal! Also, there are many undocumented immigrants from the world over in Chicago. The Sears Tower was once raided by INS agents and about 1/3 of its workforce was undocumented. These were people from Mexico, Poland, Pakistan, and even Ireland.
    , @Brutusale
    How do you explain the levels of Hispanic murder and violent crime in Massachusetts? Too many "black" Hispanics and not enough George Zimmermans and Lin-Manuel Mirandas?
  100. @Mr. Blank
    Thing is, I sort of agree with what he's saying, but he hasn't left me with much of a choice. More reasonable fellows (like Sailer, for instance) were driven out of the public square long ago.

    Also: I'm convinced that one of the great failures of the ruling class over the past 25 years is their complete and utter inability to understand or deal effectively with the notion that Things Change. Returns diminish. The risk curve for Policy X rises and eventually outstrips benefits. Maybe it's because I was raised by an engineer, but this has always just seemed intuitive to me -- just because a little bit of X is powerful and effective in response to Y, it does not follow that a lot more X is better, or that it's a good idea in response to Z.

    To put it in more concrete terms: A strong dose of white ethnomasochism and black ethnocentrism might have been a good prescription for America in 1966. It might not be such a great idea in 2016, and might end up having the opposite of the intended effect. I don't mean this in the crude, white nationalist sense of saying "whites are now an oppressed minority!", though that's how guys like Josh Marshall will twist my argument. I'm saying that telling the public "we don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days" is only useful as an argument as long as people feel on an instinctual level that the Bad Old Days were, in fact, worse than the present.

    In short: I don't think guys like Josh Marshall grasp that screaming "Trump wants to drag America back to the era of 'Mad Men'!" might have sounded one way in 1976, but in 2016 it sounds veeeeeery different.

    Also, it’s not so much that they don’t get that things change. They tell their opposition that all the time. It’s that they don’t notice when things have changed, because they’re locked inside mind prisons. Victory has defeated them. They think, since they are the ruling class, that the virtue of their arguments got them there, or something.

    They don’t read the alt-right, for instance, because that’s full of racist racists. The racists lost because they were wrong, and why would I have to listen to wrong people? So they don’t know the opposition, or only know them in caricature. And the circle of ideas they’re conversant in gets narrower and narrower.

  101. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:

    But, Racist Donald Trump eats black babies, so there:

    https://twitter.com/bardam00/status/772108114501988353

  102. @Hunsdon
    Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.

    Further inquiries regarding rectitude should be directed to:

    Moral Guidance Authority – Sons of Levi Division.

    Also see MGA – Subcontinent Division – Pakistani Bureau – Office of Khizr Khan.

  103. @Amasius
    My jaw dropped when you said he was 47. He writes like a 17-year-old, and a girl at that.

    Most lefty writing sounds like it is coming from 17 year old girls. I’m surprised you’re not inured to it by now.

  104. @Mr. Blank
    Thing is, I sort of agree with what he's saying, but he hasn't left me with much of a choice. More reasonable fellows (like Sailer, for instance) were driven out of the public square long ago.

    Also: I'm convinced that one of the great failures of the ruling class over the past 25 years is their complete and utter inability to understand or deal effectively with the notion that Things Change. Returns diminish. The risk curve for Policy X rises and eventually outstrips benefits. Maybe it's because I was raised by an engineer, but this has always just seemed intuitive to me -- just because a little bit of X is powerful and effective in response to Y, it does not follow that a lot more X is better, or that it's a good idea in response to Z.

    To put it in more concrete terms: A strong dose of white ethnomasochism and black ethnocentrism might have been a good prescription for America in 1966. It might not be such a great idea in 2016, and might end up having the opposite of the intended effect. I don't mean this in the crude, white nationalist sense of saying "whites are now an oppressed minority!", though that's how guys like Josh Marshall will twist my argument. I'm saying that telling the public "we don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days" is only useful as an argument as long as people feel on an instinctual level that the Bad Old Days were, in fact, worse than the present.

    In short: I don't think guys like Josh Marshall grasp that screaming "Trump wants to drag America back to the era of 'Mad Men'!" might have sounded one way in 1976, but in 2016 it sounds veeeeeery different.

    Or to put it more succinctly: The phrase “Don Draper’s America” means one thing to Don Draper, another thing to Don Draper’s son, something else to his grandson, and something else again to his great-grandson.

    People who base policy on poetry should keep this sort of thing in mind.

    • Replies: @guest
    Don Draper's America sounds okay to me. I know to some it means racism and housewives (the very idea!). But to me it means decent manners and sharp grooming.

    All the things I hate about Mad Men are things that're a-okay with the NY-DC-LA intelligentsia, like chemical abuse and sexual incontinence.
  105. It’s really easy to understand Leftard clowns like Marshall. If they don’t like someone(usually white, straight and conservative) they label whatever they do as “racist”, “Nazi like”, “xenophobic” or “nativist”.

    And in Marshall’s case he also labeled Trump supporters as Neo-Nazis.

    But lets get down to basics. Josh like the rest of Left, hates whites and it upsets them greatly when they protest their degraded position and thus we get rants like Josh’s.

  106. Also this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/the-immigrants-turned-away.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

    Under Trump’s “extreme vetting” plan, Einstein and Carnegie would have been turned away (doubtful premise to begin with), ergo, it’s wrong to turn away Mixtecs and Somalis. Are these people really that stupid , or do they think that we are, or that we are too cowed to point out the obvious differences between Albert E. and Clock Boy?

    • Replies: @Glaivester
    A point that needs to keep being made is that Ted Cruz's father, both of Rubio's parents, and Steve Jobs' dad all came to the United States prior to the 1965 Immigration Act and prior to special treatment for Cubans. That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.
  107. This one is even more over the top:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/putting-lives-in-danger-trumps-vile-phoenix-speech-was-terrifying-and-the-result-could-be-tragic/

    “Several hours after returning from Mexico to a rabid crowd of supporters in Phoenix, he would give one of the most violent, vicious, vile and repugnant speeches in modern American political history. It was the political equivalent of watching a toilet or cesspool overflow, where instead of running away in disgust, Trump’s supplicants enthusiastically wallowed and frolicked in the waste.”

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    Also note the double standard: if a white person kills someone of color Trump and his supporters will have blood on their hands because of his racist rhetoric. But DeVega would never acknowledge that the dead cops in Dallas, NYC etc were killed because they were incited by BLM rhetoric.
  108. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “But I can never get the hang of this “I- the world” thing. Does it only ever signify an absurdity? Or sometimes one hand not knowing what the other is doing? Or perhaps even a conscious policy? Is there an article I’m missing?”

    and

    “OK, looks like it’s supposed to refer to a “perpetual motion money machine” the military-industrial complex have, thanks to empire.”

    My sense has always been that it’s more general than that. It refers to the grand neocon strategy of the US (sometime the West), in particular as it seemed at the height of neocon success.

    It was no longer cool to outright conquer the world or colonize the world. So the elite couldn’t set the world up as one big market to enrich themselves. But invasions to “make the world safe for democracy”, to provide “regime change”, to “free the people from the tyrant” or from “backwardness”, invasions to “protect us from those who hate our freedoms”, to “install women’s rights”, this was all okay. We had to “fight them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here”. Thus, “invade the world.”

    Meanwhile, because the ‘elites’ (an ambiguous term roughly accurate to a first degree) could not literally rule all the people in the world (probably for purposes involving the elite’s own economic interest), instead of extending direct political power over non-US or Western parts of the world, as was possible in the past, they achieved direct rule over the individual people of the world by importing them. Thus “invite the world.”

    The contrast was particularly glaring when the US military was spending fortunes and immense effort (and lives) often literally protecting the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq, while the US government was consistently finding more ways why it was impossible to defend the borders of the US, why a military with the power of the US could not actually, you know, provide any ability to defend it’s own nation, to protect it’s own borders. Instead of using the Department of Defense to defend the US, we heard endlessly why walls, border, and the concept of the nation state could just never, never, be made to work.

    Steve, who goes by “iSteve” blog-wise, had a large number of articles on the topic, often with “invade the world, invite the world” in the title. He has played around with other versions, “invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, incite the losers…”

    I get over 2500 hits Googling on: “Invade the world, Invite the world” iSteve

    Wikipedia claims Ilana Mercer first articulated the idea that Steve (a marketer by profession) turned into a slogan:

    “…Mercer has argued that “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin;” traditionalist Lawrence Auster noted that this concept was “first articulated by Ilana Mercer and then turned into a neat slogan by Steve Sailer.”…

    …Mercer has consistently expressed criticism of U.S. adventurism abroad. She called the intervention in Libya, “A product of the romantic minds of women—Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice—who fantasize about an Arab awakening… estrogen-driven paternalism on steroids.” …”

    Mercer is a Jew originally from South Africa and a staunch critic of the neocons and their philosophy.

    Even so, I’m not so sure Mercer was first. It was a meme in the air that it didn’t make sense to have a great military that you couldn’t use to defend yourself or your laws, but could use endlessly to attack others. Even if ‘offense is the best defense’ it can just run out of gas; it works both ways and bin Laden had flat-out said his grand strategy was to make us go broke attacking all over the planet in response to the much cheaper attacks of his.

  109. @anonymous
    "We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about 'hate speech'."

    No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.


    "The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. "

    Always very convenient when you get to define the heart of the matter.


    "Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it."

    Simple logic can famously be wrong, in particular if underlying assumptions are wrong. What are the facts? What is the actual evidence, the data? Logic always sounds so pretty. I tell you, I always knew it was 12 angels on that pin.

    "This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear..."

    When precisely does fear become rational versus irrational? Is it always irrational if it appears to be a motive?

    "...the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression..."

    I'll say. There is a full-time professional Holocaust industry celebrating and valorizing victims, showing us all how it's really done. It's working hard to sustain bigotry, fear, and oppression.

    "...the intense desire to find a scapegoat or someone to blame."

    Sometimes things are due to a human cause and are not just random items that fall from the sky.


    "...Watch Trump's speeches... with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance... It's hate speech."

    Read Trump's immigration speech. Does that also seem like hate speech?

    "Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech",
    New York Times, SEPT. 1, 2016.

    "Trump Immigration Speech: Transcript and Video", Frontpage, August 31, 2016, Daniel Greenfield.


    "This isn't normal."

    Probably not if you are mentally still in the radical 60s (hey, those immigrants won't change anything, right, isn't that what the man really said?), but times change. You can't be a square mentally stuck in one place in a groovy universe full of rolling stones.


    "And yet it's become normalized."

    Ah, what's going wrong with the Brave New Utopian world? It's tragically starting to look so like the old, cold, real world? The citizens must have failed!


    "It's a mammoth failure of our political press."

    Sure, but are the points in Trump's speech, for instance, correct? Is it a mammoth failure that our political press can presume to be the unchallenged gatekeepers of our political process? Who made them god? And why do they think they are right?

    "By any reasonable standard, Donald Trump's speech on Wednesday night should have ended the campaign..."

    Does this make sense? Is the author serious or just trying to write the required number of words to fill the article? "Ended the campaign" only in some complete fantasy-land about as rooted in reality as Symbionese Liberation Army political theory. Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet.

    In Josh Marshall’s world, the only “reasonable” standard for a politician is that he has to be at least as leftist as a liberal Democrat. Anyone to the right of Hillary’s position this week is not reasonable. In such a world, Trump’s speech would have been automatically disqualifying. Too bad Marshall’s world exists only inside his head. Even this was disingenuous because there was no way Marshall was voting for Trump even before this speech, so in fact he was already disqualified in his view and the speech changed nothing.

  110. Confess i’m not a big fan of Trump spending too many cycles on the crime stuff. It’s the economic stuff–jobs, unemployment, wage suppression, income inequality–that’s a winner. Of course, the overwhelming long term cost of mass immigration, and particular these illegals will be the HBD one–importing a lower IQ, less conscientious population (while China with a high IQ, highly conscientious population rises)–but if Trump went full HBD heads would be exploding left and right and the white moms Trump needs would be out of reach.

    But let me take a poke at Marshall’s “argument”–such as it is–before the lunatic atmospherics:

    There’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.

    Actually there is. We know that illegal entrants skew overwhelmingly young and male. (The women tend to come later once there is some sort of “home” to go to.) Young transient males are a crime prone population. There is zero doubt they commit more crime than people who get in on family reunification or H1Bs.

    A crime like drunk driving–they may not knock out of the park per capita for lack of autos by many but–is exactly the sort of thing young men away from home do. And if there’s an accident, it will be hit and run. If merely arrested–bail out and run. Young men, transient, outside the law is precisely what you want to avoid.

    But the fact that some of them commit crimes is not relevant to the discussion.

    The dumbest statement in the piece. Crime is precisely a public policy matter. Actually handling crime–essentially “justice” or keeping harmony within the community or tribe–is one of only two traditional\legitimate jobs of government\the state. The other being defending the community\tribe from invasion. (Believe it or not, it used not to be a core job of government to tell people who to hire or promote correct attitudes to buggery or cross dressing.)

    From Marshall’s–broken–Pew graph, there would be a good argument to be made for excluding young men from immigration–even if you want immigration. Let them do their crime in their home nations, then if they have something useful to contribute.

    … MADD spent decades demonizing drunk drivers. But of course this is demonizing a specific activity which has caused thousands of deaths. The action itself is the cause of death and suffering. There is no comparable argument to be made about immigration status. It is simply blood libel and incitement.

    Again … false. Immigration status is clearly not a “blood” thing, but a behavioral thing. It’s much closer in character to something like the MADD\drunk driving analogy than “blood”. These are folks who have already chosen to break our immigration law to sneak in. They are not “rooted”. They do not necessarily have family and relations providing a steadying influence. They don’t necessarily have homes. They are harder for law enforcement to locate, apprehend and track. They are much more likely to be young men, transient, not rooted by either wives or family.

    No it is obviously not as direct a connection as “drunk driver”. But there are a bunch of very clear reasons why you would not want to have a bunch of illegal aliens in your community and why you would consider them a greater crime risk simply because of their illegal alien status.

    ~~
    Marshall’s frothing at the mouth is the interesting thing here. But even taking his argument at face value it’s … ridiculous. Trump “raving” about illegals and crime is not “blood libel”. Illegal immigration is precisely a public policy issue. And there are a raft of reasonable arguments for why illegal immigration is likely associated with crime–from its selection by transient young men, to being people who are already “outside the law” and hard for the police to track and apprehend.

    • Replies: @Glaivester
    I think the crime stuff is important for "establishing a floor." It's like Obama not saying "radical Islamic terrorism." It's not that saying the word would change much of anything, but that if he won't even call it out as that, he's not going to do anything effective to stop it.

    I think concentrating on the criminals is probably good, as long as he keeps making the other arguments as well and doesn't give the impression that he only cares about the criminals.
    , @Anonymous
    It’s the economic stuff–jobs, unemployment, wage suppression, income inequality–that’s a winner.

    The quickest and easiest way to create jobs for American workers will be to reclaim the jobs that have been stolen by illegal aliens.
  111. @Big Bill

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.
     
    Sorry, you are incorrect.

    The "original stock" of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the "original stock".

    If complete race replacement and genocide of us Americans in our own country (as happened to "original stock" Australians) is not a "bad turn out" I expect you are either African Negro, Muslim, Galut Jew, or Mestizo.

    In any case, what on earth are you doing at iSteve?

    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America’s original stock also, so their only claim is on a “might makes right” basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.

    • Replies: @Broski
    Plus the principle of adverse possession. Even if your ancestors took something from somebody else, if that happened before the living memory of anyone who ever lived or their parents, the return of that something loses its moral immediacy. Wrongs of 50 years are more redressable than wrongs of 150 years. Thus whites have a greater claim to the US territory than Israelis to their territory, who in turn have a greater claim than the Merkel youth or America's illegals have to their current environs.
    , @AnotherDad

    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America’s original stock also, so their only claim is on a “might makes right” basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.
     
    Agree with the thrust here, but a couple caveats:

    --> The claims is quite a bit more than "might makes right" it's "settlement", "civilization", "modernity" or ... "what we've done with it." The native Americans could have not been here at all and America would look very much the same.

    --> In contrast immigrants are not coming to "settle" America--for example, Mexico is a pretty nice patch of the earth, for that matter Syria is perfectly fine piece of real estate (yeah a chunk of desert in the South and East and into Iraq, but some nice arable land as well and some Mediterranean coast). No the folks are coming precisely to glom onto a white created, white run nation and enjoy the prosperity, freedom and rule of law that come with that.

    They aren't coming to displace us so much as glom onto us and our creation and suck. They are coming because white Americans do nation and civilization better than they do.

    ~

    This is the crux of all these battles. Do whites have the right to create stuff and enjoy it themselves .... or are other people always entitled to push into our communities and nations and "share" what we create. I say ... no. No such right exists. Every people are entitled to live in their own territory, keep the fruits of their labor to themselves and exclude others.

  112. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    Subject/object.

    Actor/acted upon

  113. @Jack D
    Also this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/the-immigrants-turned-away.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

    Under Trump's "extreme vetting" plan, Einstein and Carnegie would have been turned away (doubtful premise to begin with), ergo, it's wrong to turn away Mixtecs and Somalis. Are these people really that stupid , or do they think that we are, or that we are too cowed to point out the obvious differences between Albert E. and Clock Boy?

    A point that needs to keep being made is that Ted Cruz’s father, both of Rubio’s parents, and Steve Jobs’ dad all came to the United States prior to the 1965 Immigration Act and prior to special treatment for Cubans. That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.

    I don't give a damn if we don't get "the best and brightest" immigrants. Let other countries benefit from them. Our people are capable of the job.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Neither Marco Rubio, nor his parents are "the best and brightest". Same goes for Ted Cruz.
  114. @Mr. Blank
    Or to put it more succinctly: The phrase "Don Draper's America" means one thing to Don Draper, another thing to Don Draper's son, something else to his grandson, and something else again to his great-grandson.

    People who base policy on poetry should keep this sort of thing in mind.

    Don Draper’s America sounds okay to me. I know to some it means racism and housewives (the very idea!). But to me it means decent manners and sharp grooming.

    All the things I hate about Mad Men are things that’re a-okay with the NY-DC-LA intelligentsia, like chemical abuse and sexual incontinence.

  115. @AnotherDad
    Confess i'm not a big fan of Trump spending too many cycles on the crime stuff. It's the economic stuff--jobs, unemployment, wage suppression, income inequality--that's a winner. Of course, the overwhelming long term cost of mass immigration, and particular these illegals will be the HBD one--importing a lower IQ, less conscientious population (while China with a high IQ, highly conscientious population rises)--but if Trump went full HBD heads would be exploding left and right and the white moms Trump needs would be out of reach.

    But let me take a poke at Marshall's "argument"--such as it is--before the lunatic atmospherics:

    There's no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.
     
    Actually there is. We know that illegal entrants skew overwhelmingly young and male. (The women tend to come later once there is some sort of "home" to go to.) Young transient males are a crime prone population. There is zero doubt they commit more crime than people who get in on family reunification or H1Bs.

    A crime like drunk driving--they may not knock out of the park per capita for lack of autos by many but--is exactly the sort of thing young men away from home do. And if there's an accident, it will be hit and run. If merely arrested--bail out and run. Young men, transient, outside the law is precisely what you want to avoid.

    But the fact that some of them commit crimes is not relevant to the discussion.
     
    The dumbest statement in the piece. Crime is precisely a public policy matter. Actually handling crime--essentially "justice" or keeping harmony within the community or tribe--is one of only two traditional\legitimate jobs of government\the state. The other being defending the community\tribe from invasion. (Believe it or not, it used not to be a core job of government to tell people who to hire or promote correct attitudes to buggery or cross dressing.)

    From Marshall's--broken--Pew graph, there would be a good argument to be made for excluding young men from immigration--even if you want immigration. Let them do their crime in their home nations, then if they have something useful to contribute.


    ... MADD spent decades demonizing drunk drivers. But of course this is demonizing a specific activity which has caused thousands of deaths. The action itself is the cause of death and suffering. There is no comparable argument to be made about immigration status. It is simply blood libel and incitement.
     
    Again ... false. Immigration status is clearly not a "blood" thing, but a behavioral thing. It's much closer in character to something like the MADD\drunk driving analogy than "blood". These are folks who have already chosen to break our immigration law to sneak in. They are not "rooted". They do not necessarily have family and relations providing a steadying influence. They don't necessarily have homes. They are harder for law enforcement to locate, apprehend and track. They are much more likely to be young men, transient, not rooted by either wives or family.

    No it is obviously not as direct a connection as "drunk driver". But there are a bunch of very clear reasons why you would not want to have a bunch of illegal aliens in your community and why you would consider them a greater crime risk simply because of their illegal alien status.

    ~~
    Marshall's frothing at the mouth is the interesting thing here. But even taking his argument at face value it's ... ridiculous. Trump "raving" about illegals and crime is not "blood libel". Illegal immigration is precisely a public policy issue. And there are a raft of reasonable arguments for why illegal immigration is likely associated with crime--from its selection by transient young men, to being people who are already "outside the law" and hard for the police to track and apprehend.

    I think the crime stuff is important for “establishing a floor.” It’s like Obama not saying “radical Islamic terrorism.” It’s not that saying the word would change much of anything, but that if he won’t even call it out as that, he’s not going to do anything effective to stop it.

    I think concentrating on the criminals is probably good, as long as he keeps making the other arguments as well and doesn’t give the impression that he only cares about the criminals.

  116. @AnotherDad
    Confess i'm not a big fan of Trump spending too many cycles on the crime stuff. It's the economic stuff--jobs, unemployment, wage suppression, income inequality--that's a winner. Of course, the overwhelming long term cost of mass immigration, and particular these illegals will be the HBD one--importing a lower IQ, less conscientious population (while China with a high IQ, highly conscientious population rises)--but if Trump went full HBD heads would be exploding left and right and the white moms Trump needs would be out of reach.

    But let me take a poke at Marshall's "argument"--such as it is--before the lunatic atmospherics:

    There's no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.
     
    Actually there is. We know that illegal entrants skew overwhelmingly young and male. (The women tend to come later once there is some sort of "home" to go to.) Young transient males are a crime prone population. There is zero doubt they commit more crime than people who get in on family reunification or H1Bs.

    A crime like drunk driving--they may not knock out of the park per capita for lack of autos by many but--is exactly the sort of thing young men away from home do. And if there's an accident, it will be hit and run. If merely arrested--bail out and run. Young men, transient, outside the law is precisely what you want to avoid.

    But the fact that some of them commit crimes is not relevant to the discussion.
     
    The dumbest statement in the piece. Crime is precisely a public policy matter. Actually handling crime--essentially "justice" or keeping harmony within the community or tribe--is one of only two traditional\legitimate jobs of government\the state. The other being defending the community\tribe from invasion. (Believe it or not, it used not to be a core job of government to tell people who to hire or promote correct attitudes to buggery or cross dressing.)

    From Marshall's--broken--Pew graph, there would be a good argument to be made for excluding young men from immigration--even if you want immigration. Let them do their crime in their home nations, then if they have something useful to contribute.


    ... MADD spent decades demonizing drunk drivers. But of course this is demonizing a specific activity which has caused thousands of deaths. The action itself is the cause of death and suffering. There is no comparable argument to be made about immigration status. It is simply blood libel and incitement.
     
    Again ... false. Immigration status is clearly not a "blood" thing, but a behavioral thing. It's much closer in character to something like the MADD\drunk driving analogy than "blood". These are folks who have already chosen to break our immigration law to sneak in. They are not "rooted". They do not necessarily have family and relations providing a steadying influence. They don't necessarily have homes. They are harder for law enforcement to locate, apprehend and track. They are much more likely to be young men, transient, not rooted by either wives or family.

    No it is obviously not as direct a connection as "drunk driver". But there are a bunch of very clear reasons why you would not want to have a bunch of illegal aliens in your community and why you would consider them a greater crime risk simply because of their illegal alien status.

    ~~
    Marshall's frothing at the mouth is the interesting thing here. But even taking his argument at face value it's ... ridiculous. Trump "raving" about illegals and crime is not "blood libel". Illegal immigration is precisely a public policy issue. And there are a raft of reasonable arguments for why illegal immigration is likely associated with crime--from its selection by transient young men, to being people who are already "outside the law" and hard for the police to track and apprehend.

    It’s the economic stuff–jobs, unemployment, wage suppression, income inequality–that’s a winner.

    The quickest and easiest way to create jobs for American workers will be to reclaim the jobs that have been stolen by illegal aliens.

  117. @Glaivester
    A point that needs to keep being made is that Ted Cruz's father, both of Rubio's parents, and Steve Jobs' dad all came to the United States prior to the 1965 Immigration Act and prior to special treatment for Cubans. That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.

    That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.

    I don’t give a damn if we don’t get “the best and brightest” immigrants. Let other countries benefit from them. Our people are capable of the job.

  118. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    “…I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…”

    Why pay for what you can get free?

  119. Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I’d say it defies simple explanation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Mostly West Africans ended up in the Americas. And the ones that did come over were a selected group that may not have been representative of the population at origin.
    , @skinnyhoops

    murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa
     
    I am guessing the murder rate is under-reported in many African countries.

    On the other hand there are plenty of African descendants in Brazil and Aztecs were well-known for blood lust.

    http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-sacrifice.html

    , @anon
    simple explanation is farmer vs forager

    forager homicide rate > farmer rate

    slavery was farmer on forager

    so
    - African rate is average of African farmer and forager rates
    - central american rate is African forager rate
    , @L Woods
    Crime statistics from sub-Saharan Africa are probably something less than reliable. And they don't have a class of white status signaling do-gooders impeding the local security forces and/or vengeful relatives.
  120. Don’t know if it whacked other folks on the head the same way, but that graph from Pew that Marshall included is … just crap.

    Yes, 16-17 year old boys are nightmare, but there’s no way in hell that the crime rate–or crime involvement per year–for 23 year olds drops to 1% a year (a 25th of 17 year olds) and drops to essentially zero for 24 year olds.

    Marshall didn’t mess it up. This does appear on the Pew site itself:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

    But for this guy who styles himself as so darn interesting\important\intelligent that folks should come to his personal site–to get the same tedious schlock all the other Jewish liberal boys dish out!–you’d think the fact that the graph can’t possibly be correct, at least at the extremes, would be worth a mention.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    That crime graph--granted, i'm sure not completely accurate--with it's peak at 16, makes me think that in a more "communitarian" polity there would be a good argument for sending *all* young men off to live apart from the community for a few years.

    I've read that among some of the Massachusetts tribes the Pilgrims encountered, it was typical for a young man of 15 to be sent out to winter with just his bow and at hatchet. If they survived they would come back to the tribe in the summer and be full members adult male members of the tribe, fit for marriage and the like. (Of course, there's a huge selection benefit going on here too.)

    Young men today lack enough strong male activity ... and feminization creeps in relentlessly. The result seems to be a population of either thugs or whimps.

    Sending all the young men off separately for hard male challenges--say living in the wilderness, or army boot camp or doing CCC style physical work--perhaps alternated with academic study, learning a trade, would be goodness. Have the men self-organize to at least some extent. When they show sufficient self-discipline, hard-headedness and skill development to support themselves in "the world", they could come back and enjoy the company of women.

    Those who lacked the discipline, shirked work, continued to cause trouble--would be sent progressively out to more remote\primitive destinations and challenges until they started getting it together. Ultimately just expelled from the community--maybe some island in the Aleutians--and out of the gene pool.

    Crime in the community would be chopped down by at least an order of magnitude. And the men would be tougher, smarter, harder-headed. Ideally--in my little utopia--they would also be the only ones who voted, after marriage+children and proven self-support.

    Of course, it's pretty easy to come up with social systems superior to the feminized bureaucratic dystopia we have today.
  121. @Big Bill

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.
     
    Sorry, you are incorrect.

    The "original stock" of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the "original stock".

    If complete race replacement and genocide of us Americans in our own country (as happened to "original stock" Australians) is not a "bad turn out" I expect you are either African Negro, Muslim, Galut Jew, or Mestizo.

    In any case, what on earth are you doing at iSteve?

    The “original stock” of Australia arrived there 50-70,000 years ago. The criminal immigrants who appeared 250 years ago took the entire country from the “original stock”.

    The nation of Australia is the place modern immigrants want to settle in. A nation created by British settlers.

    Much the same as the US in fact.

  122. @Anonymous
    We are hitting chutzpah levels that shouldn't be possible.

    Right. Only someone like (((Josh Marshall))) could write such over the top insanity and get it published….because who owns the publisher(s)?

  123. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    Based on some of Steve’s other recent posts, I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…

    Well, the people running things for all of us are essentially doing just that, wouldn’t you agree?

    Except that they are facilitating migration into all nations of European peoples everywhere. Their motives may be cheap labor, more voters, or whatever, but the result is the same. You can’t deny they are doing their damnedest to keep it going.

    It is a one-way effort fueled by a double standard, and you know it.

  124. @AnotherDad
    Don't know if it whacked other folks on the head the same way, but that graph from Pew that Marshall included is ... just crap.

    Yes, 16-17 year old boys are nightmare, but there's no way in hell that the crime rate--or crime involvement per year--for 23 year olds drops to 1% a year (a 25th of 17 year olds) and drops to essentially zero for 24 year olds.

    Marshall didn't mess it up. This does appear on the Pew site itself:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

    But for this guy who styles himself as so darn interesting\important\intelligent that folks should come to his personal site--to get the same tedious schlock all the other Jewish liberal boys dish out!--you'd think the fact that the graph can't possibly be correct, at least at the extremes, would be worth a mention.

    That crime graph–granted, i’m sure not completely accurate–with it’s peak at 16, makes me think that in a more “communitarian” polity there would be a good argument for sending *all* young men off to live apart from the community for a few years.

    I’ve read that among some of the Massachusetts tribes the Pilgrims encountered, it was typical for a young man of 15 to be sent out to winter with just his bow and at hatchet. If they survived they would come back to the tribe in the summer and be full members adult male members of the tribe, fit for marriage and the like. (Of course, there’s a huge selection benefit going on here too.)

    Young men today lack enough strong male activity … and feminization creeps in relentlessly. The result seems to be a population of either thugs or whimps.

    Sending all the young men off separately for hard male challenges–say living in the wilderness, or army boot camp or doing CCC style physical work–perhaps alternated with academic study, learning a trade, would be goodness. Have the men self-organize to at least some extent. When they show sufficient self-discipline, hard-headedness and skill development to support themselves in “the world”, they could come back and enjoy the company of women.

    Those who lacked the discipline, shirked work, continued to cause trouble–would be sent progressively out to more remote\primitive destinations and challenges until they started getting it together. Ultimately just expelled from the community–maybe some island in the Aleutians–and out of the gene pool.

    Crime in the community would be chopped down by at least an order of magnitude. And the men would be tougher, smarter, harder-headed. Ideally–in my little utopia–they would also be the only ones who voted, after marriage+children and proven self-support.

    Of course, it’s pretty easy to come up with social systems superior to the feminized bureaucratic dystopia we have today.

  125. @Jack D
    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America's original stock also, so their only claim is on a "might makes right" basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.

    Plus the principle of adverse possession. Even if your ancestors took something from somebody else, if that happened before the living memory of anyone who ever lived or their parents, the return of that something loses its moral immediacy. Wrongs of 50 years are more redressable than wrongs of 150 years. Thus whites have a greater claim to the US territory than Israelis to their territory, who in turn have a greater claim than the Merkel youth or America’s illegals have to their current environs.

  126. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    Ha, ha, ha…

    Based on some of Steve’s other recent posts, I’m surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven’t already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city…

    Well, that’s White elite policy Ron. They like having docile servants around:

    “From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ”Mexican immigrants are making a reconquest of the Southwest

    Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction
    also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction League put it, “racial zealots … of Hebrew origin” whose “racial interests and prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest.” But unlike in 1924, the Jews were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers, livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests, who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that the Mexicans were “timid” workers who always “knew their place” and were willing to work “all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick.” Certainly the “wetbacks” were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American Cattle Raiser’s Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were “just as safe as if they had been with me…. Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We would never think of such a thing.”

    Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
    by
    Jonathan Peter Spiro

    Ordinary Anglo-Americans, in contrast, feel somewhat differently on the matter. See, we like living around other Anglo-Americans and not around Hispanics.

  127. Anonymous [AKA "Doctor Frankenomics"] says:

    Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.

    That kind of marginal-benefit-to-cost thinking is *so* 1995

  128. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    “Which side are you on?” seems clearer to me.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    It is much broader than that. I am sure that Lenin intended it in a very broad sense.

    Who gains from whom?

    Who defeats whom?

    Who did what to whom?

    Who chooses to be with, support, favour or join whom?

    I am quite sure Mr. Sailer understands the full breadth, as did Lenin.

    It goes well beyond the above, although with brief thought, those were the main points Lenin was making.

    Mr. Sailer uses it in (roughly) the sense 'Who is guilty of bad behaviour against whom?', as far as I can see.

    Always depends on context.
  129. “There’s no question that what Trump’s Wednesday night speech was was hate speech, a tirade filled with yelling, a snarling voice, air chopped to bits with slashing hands and through it all a story of American victims helpless before a looming threat from dangerous, predatory outsiders.”

    Well, American citizens (along with many in the Western world) do seem quite helpless against elites who are set on open borders and globalization.

    “Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.”

    Yes, but why bring in the second lowest common denominator? Is it because Hispanics/others are the only groups willing to settle in African American neighbourhoods? Wouldn’t it be better for the elites to bring in Europeans and some Asians that will assimilate better and help property values even more?

  130. This sort of hyperventilating is the reason that the epithets of the left are losing their currency. Marshall is tossing out the terms “blood libel” and “hate speech” without provocation. In aggregate along with “racist” and “anti-Semite” these terms are thrown around like Weimar printed money. They now need to use figurative wheelbarrow loads to have some effect.

  131. @Jack D
    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America's original stock also, so their only claim is on a "might makes right" basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.

    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America’s original stock also, so their only claim is on a “might makes right” basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.

    Agree with the thrust here, but a couple caveats:

    –> The claims is quite a bit more than “might makes right” it’s “settlement”, “civilization”, “modernity” or … “what we’ve done with it.” The native Americans could have not been here at all and America would look very much the same.

    –> In contrast immigrants are not coming to “settle” America–for example, Mexico is a pretty nice patch of the earth, for that matter Syria is perfectly fine piece of real estate (yeah a chunk of desert in the South and East and into Iraq, but some nice arable land as well and some Mediterranean coast). No the folks are coming precisely to glom onto a white created, white run nation and enjoy the prosperity, freedom and rule of law that come with that.

    They aren’t coming to displace us so much as glom onto us and our creation and suck. They are coming because white Americans do nation and civilization better than they do.

    ~

    This is the crux of all these battles. Do whites have the right to create stuff and enjoy it themselves …. or are other people always entitled to push into our communities and nations and “share” what we create. I say … no. No such right exists. Every people are entitled to live in their own territory, keep the fruits of their labor to themselves and exclude others.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.

    I don't see why the immigrants would not have come before any settlement or civilization like the Amerindians did, since the land is economically valuable for any form of economic organization, from hunting, gathering, and agriculture.
  132. @anonymous
    "We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about 'hate speech'."

    No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.


    "The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. "

    Always very convenient when you get to define the heart of the matter.


    "Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it."

    Simple logic can famously be wrong, in particular if underlying assumptions are wrong. What are the facts? What is the actual evidence, the data? Logic always sounds so pretty. I tell you, I always knew it was 12 angels on that pin.

    "This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear..."

    When precisely does fear become rational versus irrational? Is it always irrational if it appears to be a motive?

    "...the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression..."

    I'll say. There is a full-time professional Holocaust industry celebrating and valorizing victims, showing us all how it's really done. It's working hard to sustain bigotry, fear, and oppression.

    "...the intense desire to find a scapegoat or someone to blame."

    Sometimes things are due to a human cause and are not just random items that fall from the sky.


    "...Watch Trump's speeches... with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance... It's hate speech."

    Read Trump's immigration speech. Does that also seem like hate speech?

    "Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech",
    New York Times, SEPT. 1, 2016.

    "Trump Immigration Speech: Transcript and Video", Frontpage, August 31, 2016, Daniel Greenfield.


    "This isn't normal."

    Probably not if you are mentally still in the radical 60s (hey, those immigrants won't change anything, right, isn't that what the man really said?), but times change. You can't be a square mentally stuck in one place in a groovy universe full of rolling stones.


    "And yet it's become normalized."

    Ah, what's going wrong with the Brave New Utopian world? It's tragically starting to look so like the old, cold, real world? The citizens must have failed!


    "It's a mammoth failure of our political press."

    Sure, but are the points in Trump's speech, for instance, correct? Is it a mammoth failure that our political press can presume to be the unchallenged gatekeepers of our political process? Who made them god? And why do they think they are right?

    "By any reasonable standard, Donald Trump's speech on Wednesday night should have ended the campaign..."

    Does this make sense? Is the author serious or just trying to write the required number of words to fill the article? "Ended the campaign" only in some complete fantasy-land about as rooted in reality as Symbionese Liberation Army political theory. Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet.

    “Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus are more careful to avoid it.”

    This explains why they feel free to protest by the hundreds outside a Trump rally, assaulting Trump supporter and throwing rocks and bottles at police who try to maintain order
    This explains why thousands of ” illegals ” marched on Washington a year or so ago to demand their civil rights, you know, the civil rights that OUR constitution gives to all AMERICAN CITIZENS.

  133. They raise your kids with the notion that serving summers in Burning Man Desert environment is the coolest way to kill free time and stuff.

    They raise their own kids with the notion that serving summers in Negev Desert environment is the coolest way to kill free time and stuff.

    Who’s fault is it that you let them raise your kids?

  134. @SteveM
    Many good points. But this claim doesn't work for me:

    What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.
     
    Which implies that all 40 million African-Americans are imbued with felonious/homicidal sensibilities.

    If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often.

    No. It doesn’t imply that. Steve doesn’t need to include a penumbra of asterisks and explanations around every statement he writes. Only the dimwitted think as you suggest.

  135. @candid_observer

    Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.
     
    Perhaps if Marshall had called them "illegal immigrants" he might have understood how their crime rates might be much higher than that of immigrants who abide by the law.

    And of course he completely ignores the fact that in most of these cases Trump has highlighted -- maybe all -- the most perverse aspect is that the killers had already been convicted of criminal activity, but were released instead of deported. Is it Hate to have a problem with that? I suppose so.

    But Marshall is on a mission of holiness, denouncing the Huge Satan, and can't be bothered to attend to such details.

    You can’t expect him to parse Trump’s arguments. You just end up with smaller units of Hate Speech.

  136. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is totally ignored until there is a war. Then there is hand-wringing for a while and we all just forget again. It's impressive how easily they neutered the BDS movement. I hardly ever hear about them in the news.

    Every ethnocentric, discriminatory thing you could imagine is done by Israel including ones I couldn't even imagine, everything short of actually just killing the Palestinians and yet nobody cares despite Israel being nominally a member of the Western World.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It's just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet... nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship ('Israeli Arab', I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Not only was he charged, he was convicted.

    By the way, I know you used “Israeli Arab” here to illustrate usage, but in general endeavor to employ “Arab Israeli” and “Jewish Israeli”, in order to take back the discourse. You’ll notice that they never use those formulations.

  137. Steve,

    Why are comments taking so long to post?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I've been asleep?
    , @Anonymous
    No problem. Get your rest. It seemed like a few were dripping out in ones and twos throughout the day, which is what puzzled me.

    Thank you for what you are doing.
  138. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    “Outcome-determined” might be more accurate.

    “Who-whom” isn’t really being used in those Bolshevik/Soviet quotes the way Steve uses it.

  139. @Anonymous
    Steve,

    Why are comments taking so long to post?

    I’ve been asleep?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Maybe you should have an automatic email replier saying, The Eye of Sailer is Closed. Please email tomorrow.
    Unlike the mythical Sauron or the reptilian Soros, Mr Steve is Human, All too Human.
    , @vinteuil
    Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?

    That's a problem.
  140. @Mr. Anon
    "These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities."

    This is a common argument from the invite-the-world crowd: So what if some immigrants steal, rape, and murder? Americans commit those crimes too.

    In answer to that, I say: Sure, there are Americans who are criminals. So why should we want to bring in more criminals - especially when we're talking about populations who disproportionately commit crimes, compared to white Americans.

    If you accidently smash your thumb with a hammer, do you then say to yourself - why Hell, I've already smashed one finger, why not smash some more? Or do you become more careful with that hammer?

    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? “Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans.” Well, yeah, but eventually we’re going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? “Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans.” Well, yeah, but eventually we’re going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.
     
    Indeed. One salient fact to bear in mind: the Hispanic American IQ is 10.8 points below the White Anglo mean:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/white-v-hispanic-iq-gap-across-39.html

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA......
  141. And why should Marshall self-aware? Who would dare point it out to him?

    That would be Steve Sailer.

  142. @Altai
    It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is totally ignored until there is a war. Then there is hand-wringing for a while and we all just forget again. It's impressive how easily they neutered the BDS movement. I hardly ever hear about them in the news.

    Every ethnocentric, discriminatory thing you could imagine is done by Israel including ones I couldn't even imagine, everything short of actually just killing the Palestinians and yet nobody cares despite Israel being nominally a member of the Western World.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It's just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet... nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship ('Israeli Arab', I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Why would that be rape? What’s the term we use for obtaining sex fraudulently (besides “fraud”)? “Seduction?”

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn't have done it if she'd known the man wasn't Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.
  143. @Anonymous
    Steve,

    Why are comments taking so long to post?

    No problem. Get your rest. It seemed like a few were dripping out in ones and twos throughout the day, which is what puzzled me.

    Thank you for what you are doing.

  144. @carol
    I've been reading a bio of Robert Penn Warren, which got me interested in Huey Long. The wiki for him says he inspired Sinclair Lewis to write It Can't Happen Here, but he made the demogogue character racist!! of course. But race baiting wasn't Long's schtick. His "hate speech" was directed at the ruling class. And he did a lot of good things in La that progressives would normally applaud, like build roads and bridges and beef up LSU and protect teachers' salaries during the depression...but no matter. Sinclair just knew the type.

    History really does rhyme.

    Read the T. Harry Williams bio on Long.

  145. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    One more time

    Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
    Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

  146. @Anon
    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I'd say it defies simple explanation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Mostly West Africans ended up in the Americas. And the ones that did come over were a selected group that may not have been representative of the population at origin.

  147. Jewish elites really don’t much like white people. And so whites must be punished and swallow diversity to atone for centuries of antisemitism.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    Members of any group are likely to dislike out-groups. This applies as much to Jews as to gentiles. This dislike for outsiders is normal. The reasons we come up with for why we dislike outsiders are rationalizations of our biological and learned instincts.
  148. Josh Marshall’s reaction to Trump’s speech was like blowing up a balloon with hot air and letting go. Stunning aerials but never touched Trump. I loved Trumps speech, and part of what I loved about the speech I heard was that it wasn’t hateful. At long last someone spoke for the ordinary people the Democratic Party used to claim to represent. The Democratic Party officially became the party of the rest of the world, but not you, and complains bitterly now that we’ve noticed.

  149. @Altai
    They were also concentrated in specific locations. Tasmania in particular took a lot.

    It also shouldn't be overstated that a mostly male population will not tend to have much influence on future generations.

    This is certainly true. Also, it must be noted that few served their terms in actual prisons, the vast majority were in penal settlements, not unlike 19th Century penal settlements in Siberia.
    Very violent offenders were a distinctive minority and not typical.

  150. @Glaivester
    A point that needs to keep being made is that Ted Cruz's father, both of Rubio's parents, and Steve Jobs' dad all came to the United States prior to the 1965 Immigration Act and prior to special treatment for Cubans. That suggests that we can get the best and brightest immigrants without mass immigration.

    Neither Marco Rubio, nor his parents are “the best and brightest”. Same goes for Ted Cruz.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ted's smarter than you though.
  151. @Anon
    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I'd say it defies simple explanation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa

    I am guessing the murder rate is under-reported in many African countries.

    On the other hand there are plenty of African descendants in Brazil and Aztecs were well-known for blood lust.

    http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-sacrifice.html

  152. @Steve Sailer
    I've been asleep?

    Maybe you should have an automatic email replier saying, The Eye of Sailer is Closed. Please email tomorrow.
    Unlike the mythical Sauron or the reptilian Soros, Mr Steve is Human, All too Human.

  153. @guest
    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? "Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans." Well, yeah, but eventually we're going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.

    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? “Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans.” Well, yeah, but eventually we’re going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.

    Indeed. One salient fact to bear in mind: the Hispanic American IQ is 10.8 points below the White Anglo mean:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/white-v-hispanic-iq-gap-across-39.html

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA……

    • Replies: @skinnyhoops

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA……
     
    Trump immigration policy could change that. And Trump seems to be proposing new pro-white family propagation tax policy.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/08/the-problem-with-donald-trumps-plan-for-child-care/
    , @guest
    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.
  154. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    It’s not an entry-level catchphrase. You have to know it to know it, if you know what I mean. But once you do know it writing it out longhand as “Who rules whom” or “who shall rule whom” is tedious. People like less obvious catchphrases, by the way. It makes them feel like insiders for knowing them.

    I don’t have a better phrase, but “whose side are you on” works okay. Maybe we could just flash gang signs at each other.

  155. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    I don’t know which one of you conjured up this “liberals are the real racists” argument about urban replacement, but it is one of the least persuasive ideas pedaled on iSteve.

    It violates Occam’s Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are all part one big beautiful leftist family that all thinks the same way. But Australia and Europe don’t have urban crime issues with large black populations. Why do leftists from Sydney and Melbourne want to fill up their cities with Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders? Did Merkel invite in Syrians to push out the children of black American GIs stationed in Germany?

    Moreover, what was American urbanites’ response to the African boat people? Was there a lot of hand-wringing from Americans and whispered warnings to their Italians co-ideologues? Not that I’m aware of.

    I’m not surprised to read this theory in your writing because of your penchant for highly speculative conspiracy theories based on chains of logically but tenuously connected ideas without evidence, but Steve usually does better at grounding things in reality.

    Liberals are not all equally smart and identical enough to spontaneously think of the same ideas on their own, which is why things like Journolist exist. When they do exist, we get evidence of the source of their group-think. What is the origin of the urban replacement plan, and where do we see evidence of its dissemination?

    Maybe Steve has written about this before, but he usually says so when he’s repeating himself or wants to reference his previous writing.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    It violates Occam’s Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites.
     
    Both things can be true. Liberals can have this big boner for "the other" *and* it can be highly convenient.

    I'd say for liberals "compliant servant class" is ahead of strictly the crime issue. By say 1965--no later than 1970--liberals were uncomfortable employing blacks in servant roles. (If you were around in the 60s you saw this transition. I lived in a very middle\upper-middle class neighborhood--not rich--but there were a couple moms that had black maids come in. They were gone by 1970.) Mexicans--and other immigrants--have provided a servant class that doesn't embarrass them with slavery guilt *and* won't go all Django Unchained on them. Later there's a realization that neighborhoods--while not "suitable" for raising kids, definitely not "good schools"--get a lot safer when the Mexicans replace the blacks. And even more cheap services are available--heck maybe you can even afford a nanny! So you can pat yourself on the back for your anti-racism, pat yourself on your back for you anti-nativism and enjoy cheap help and a safer urban environment. Win, win, win, win!
    , @biz
    I completely agree that Liberals do not primarily support immigration because it displaces blacks from adjacent areas. It is wholly unnecessary to posit a conspiracy when the widely stated motivations of Liberals are completely sufficient to explain their actions.

    Most Liberals probably haven't even consciously thought about it.

    But sub-consciously, they are aware of it and like it. They take note when they are walking / driving through a certain neighborhood "Gee this particular area that has rapidly transitioned to hispanic seems a lot safer nowadays. And that dive taco stand is of much more use to me than the wig store that used to be there." Those get filed away in their brain as a positive feeling about immigrants, and thus a positive feeling about immigration.

    The ironic thing is that their sub-conscious feelings are more logical than their conscious ones. For middle class liberals, on a strictly personal level, large-scale immigration is a benefit - they get cheaper services, better food options, and certain areas become safer. Yet the reason that they primarily like and support immigration is none of these - it is primarily because they see themselves as virtuous people which means being 'nice' to immigrants no matter what.
  156. Why the hell do Jews act like they really have it in for White people?

    • Replies: @guest
    Because they think white people are the enemy and forget that to non-whites at least they are white people.
  157. Shaming Arguments are a flaming arrow pointing to female dominated societies. Thought experiment — if America was totally male dominated, wouldn’t criticism of Trump be that he was not “manly enough” and projecting enough force, domination, and crucially patronage/protection?

    Meanwhile, it is “no accident” as the Marxists say that Hillary! is running as Head Mean Girl excluding White Men, which btw most White Professional Women are just fine with. The huuuuggggeeeee disparities between Trump’s support between White Professional Women (who back Hillary by something like 50 points more than their male Professional peers) and Men is telling.

    A female run society is one run amok. The West’s strength was using their women and in particular Upper Class women as astute managers of great estates, family businesses, and the like. Women in the West were very good at preserving, protecting, and enhancing major family wealth. Putting far more women into this class and giving them nothing more than mean girl stuff to do has been a disaster.

    No wonder than Marshall acts like a 17 year old girl; that’s the female-dominated milieu he lives in.

    Unfortunately it looks like we need to look for survival. Hillary is now thinking she’ll get a blow-out; spending in places like Georgia and Utah and South Carolina and ending ad spends in PA, VA, and Ohio, since they’re locked up. That’s mostly because of White Upper Class and would be upper class women.

    The reason Marshall sputters and Mean Girls is that most of the women in the White Upper Class just HATE HATE HATE their male peers. Some are just too unsexy, others plain competition, almost none married the father of their children as is natural in their early 20s.

    TL:DR; make the most critical and important class of White Women as embittered carousel riders and they will get their revenge. OF course foreigners matter more than White male natives. The reason is the bitterness of women denied their destiny: children and family and wealth protection.

  158. @anonymous
    "We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about 'hate speech'."

    No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.


    "The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. "

    Always very convenient when you get to define the heart of the matter.


    "Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it."

    Simple logic can famously be wrong, in particular if underlying assumptions are wrong. What are the facts? What is the actual evidence, the data? Logic always sounds so pretty. I tell you, I always knew it was 12 angels on that pin.

    "This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear..."

    When precisely does fear become rational versus irrational? Is it always irrational if it appears to be a motive?

    "...the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression..."

    I'll say. There is a full-time professional Holocaust industry celebrating and valorizing victims, showing us all how it's really done. It's working hard to sustain bigotry, fear, and oppression.

    "...the intense desire to find a scapegoat or someone to blame."

    Sometimes things are due to a human cause and are not just random items that fall from the sky.


    "...Watch Trump's speeches... with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance... It's hate speech."

    Read Trump's immigration speech. Does that also seem like hate speech?

    "Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech",
    New York Times, SEPT. 1, 2016.

    "Trump Immigration Speech: Transcript and Video", Frontpage, August 31, 2016, Daniel Greenfield.


    "This isn't normal."

    Probably not if you are mentally still in the radical 60s (hey, those immigrants won't change anything, right, isn't that what the man really said?), but times change. You can't be a square mentally stuck in one place in a groovy universe full of rolling stones.


    "And yet it's become normalized."

    Ah, what's going wrong with the Brave New Utopian world? It's tragically starting to look so like the old, cold, real world? The citizens must have failed!


    "It's a mammoth failure of our political press."

    Sure, but are the points in Trump's speech, for instance, correct? Is it a mammoth failure that our political press can presume to be the unchallenged gatekeepers of our political process? Who made them god? And why do they think they are right?

    "By any reasonable standard, Donald Trump's speech on Wednesday night should have ended the campaign..."

    Does this make sense? Is the author serious or just trying to write the required number of words to fill the article? "Ended the campaign" only in some complete fantasy-land about as rooted in reality as Symbionese Liberation Army political theory. Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet.

    “Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet”

    Maybe if it was an article about BLM. But no, they’re the ones doing the locking. That’s what PC is: locking us inside a mental SLA closet. Everything outside the closet is “hate speech.”

  159. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’. Most often we assume that it’s a matter of using particular words … Hate speech is rants meant to inflame, inspire fear or rage or violence against a particular class of people. The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. "

    So now Marshall is calling for reading into the thoughts of people in order to find motives for possible thought crimes that they may not even be consciously aware of committing. Actual words spoken are no longer enough to try and convict a person for thought crimes, motives must be read into what a person thinks and/or is about to say and obviously people such as Marshall are needed to help correctly interpret whether or not such things are in fact hate speech.

    They don’t need to read into the thoughts of a person like Trump. I mean, just look at him. Hate!

  160. @Steve Sailer
    I've been asleep?

    Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?

    That’s a problem.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?"

    It would be great if he had a separate stream of comments that didn't make it.

    A detritus thread.

  161. @syonredux

    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? “Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans.” Well, yeah, but eventually we’re going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.
     
    Indeed. One salient fact to bear in mind: the Hispanic American IQ is 10.8 points below the White Anglo mean:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/white-v-hispanic-iq-gap-across-39.html

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA......

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA……

    Trump immigration policy could change that. And Trump seems to be proposing new pro-white family propagation tax policy.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/08/the-problem-with-donald-trumps-plan-for-child-care/

  162. @Mr. Anon
    Neither Marco Rubio, nor his parents are "the best and brightest". Same goes for Ted Cruz.

    Ted’s smarter than you though.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Ted’s smarter than you though."

    No, not hardly. However, I will concede that he is smarter than you. Marco Rubio is smarter than you too.
  163. @syonredux

    They mostly ignore arguments about IQ, but is their standard response to concerns about the intelligence of illegal immigrants along the same lines? “Who cares? There are plenty of stupid Americans.” Well, yeah, but eventually we’re going to be in Idiocracy, wondering what we could have done differently.
     
    Indeed. One salient fact to bear in mind: the Hispanic American IQ is 10.8 points below the White Anglo mean:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/white-v-hispanic-iq-gap-across-39.html

    By 2060, Hispanics will form roughly 30% of the population of the USA......

    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.
     
    Even worse, Mexican Adam Sandler movies...
  164. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    That makes no sense. White Americans displaced America’s original stock also, so their only claim is on a “might makes right” basis. If white Americans are too stupid to resist their own displacement, they will get what they deserve.
     
    Agree with the thrust here, but a couple caveats:

    --> The claims is quite a bit more than "might makes right" it's "settlement", "civilization", "modernity" or ... "what we've done with it." The native Americans could have not been here at all and America would look very much the same.

    --> In contrast immigrants are not coming to "settle" America--for example, Mexico is a pretty nice patch of the earth, for that matter Syria is perfectly fine piece of real estate (yeah a chunk of desert in the South and East and into Iraq, but some nice arable land as well and some Mediterranean coast). No the folks are coming precisely to glom onto a white created, white run nation and enjoy the prosperity, freedom and rule of law that come with that.

    They aren't coming to displace us so much as glom onto us and our creation and suck. They are coming because white Americans do nation and civilization better than they do.

    ~

    This is the crux of all these battles. Do whites have the right to create stuff and enjoy it themselves .... or are other people always entitled to push into our communities and nations and "share" what we create. I say ... no. No such right exists. Every people are entitled to live in their own territory, keep the fruits of their labor to themselves and exclude others.

    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.

    I don’t see why the immigrants would not have come before any settlement or civilization like the Amerindians did, since the land is economically valuable for any form of economic organization, from hunting, gathering, and agriculture.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.
     
    No it's not a counter example. I'm not saying that if you dial the clock back, immigrants from any group wouldn't grab open land. They would and did.

    What i'm saying is that immigrants to the West today are *not* coming because there is raw land or a settlement opportunity. Not coming to "build their world in a new place". They are not coming for land at all. (Land is cheaper in Mexico than the US. It's cheaper in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan than Germany.)

    Immigrants are coming to the West from the non-West precisely because whites have built nicer societies--more orderly, more free, more technologically advanced, more prosperous, with generous welfare states, etc. etc. etc. Better. (For some of these young men headed to Europe that includes access to white women.) The non-Western immigrants are coming to the West precisely because white people make nice nations ... and they want to glom onto it.

    This is categorically different than what whites were doing when they conquered and settled America or Canada or Australia or South Africa.
  165. Josh Marshall
    Born February 15, 1969 (age 47)
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Occupation Journalist
    Religion Judaism
    Spouse(s) Millet Israeli

  166. @biz

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won't die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don't allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing - it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that "People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel." But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu's son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    I don’t have a big dog in this fight. I’m all for nationalism for everyone including Jews. Israel can do whatever it wants re marriage. Saying “if you don’t want to marry among our ethnicity … go elsewhere!” is perfectly ok.

    But i will point out you threw up five paragraphs and didn’t actually contradict what he said:

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.

    In fact, you more or less confirmed it. (The key words *in Israel*.) There’s no civil marriage, hence no inter-religious marriage. (Don’t know if this is true, but you seem to be confirming it.)

    That many Jews are massive practitioners of who?\whom? when it comes to all these questions of identity–discrimination, separatism, nationalism, endogamy, identity politics, immigration–and that this is obvious to even fair minded Jews like himself was his point.

    • Replies: @biz
    You could say the same thing about Mr. Marshall's crime chart. It is not, strictly speaking, by the letter, a complete lie.

    Immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans. But, as Sailer points out, the chart is clearly designed to be misleading, to make it seem like immigrants have a lower crime rate than Herb and Judy from Green Bay.

    Same thing with what the commenter said about marriage in Israel. The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don't allow intermarriage in their country. But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel, and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.
  167. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think you missed this one-
    “Even now, after all that’s happened, most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. ”

    -Who on this planet can say with a straight face that most political reporters are unwilling or unable to claim Trump is spouting off hate speech? In fact, the challenge is to find a political reporter who doesn’t exaggerate and twist every word that Trump says into a claim of hate speech.

    These guys just write whatever nonsense fantasy pops into their head without the slightest consideration of reality.

    “These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.”

    -Why bother with creating and enforcing laws against rape or child molestation? These families have suffered horribly, but no more than the families of victims of murderers.

    “But there’s no excuse for those who have themselves suffered nothing but exploit this suffering to propagate hate. That fact that we’ve become inured to this, that we now find it normal to see these cattle calls of grief and incitement as part of a political campaign is shocking and sickening. There’s no other word for this but incitement and blood libel.”

    -Indeed. This has been the bread and butter of the left for decades, defaming and extracting resources from White America; and it has oftne been based on falsehood, exaggeration, and irrationally connected dots, not to mention ignoring the enormous positive whites have contributed to America, minorities, and the world. So why is it that now when a Conservative points out truthfully that illegals are causing this harm, and that we don’t have to accept it, we’re told that its suddenly this horrible hate speech that renders it closed for discussion? Seems like who questions the behavior of a group is all that really matters.

  168. @John Derbyshire
    "After the Olympians merged in the men's company, strong Hatred, defender of peoples, burst out"—Iliad 20

    I was delighted, when I read your Homer-quote – in this very translation.

    Usually, there’s way too little traffic at this junction.

    In the US, I see Tom Wolfe, Jonathan Franzen, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx writing fiction, that’s up to the knack and the grit of your quote.
    They all are at the crossroads where anthropology, social psychology, and literary science (ought to) meet – and where they really start working – together with all the other humanities.

    Maybe I could add Updike, Selby and Henry Roth (The Call it Sleep Roth). Jared Diamonds The World Until Yesterday brings a lot of brilliant stuff about hunters and gatherers and especially: Early peasants. Could well be, that Diamond doesn’t quite get, what he is really up to. Anyway: This would be a minor fault. His descriptions of those foreign worlds I like a lot; in his other books too. And then there’s Erich Fromm, whom I miss. He abhorred the strategic use of wrong and right in the intellectual public shpere. And he found ways, to get poeple to listen to what he had to say.
    Plus, he abhorred the strategic use of feelings in the public sphere. That once was the Freudian rule: The voice of reason was expected to be quiet but firm.
    In France, they sense, that arguing refers to sword-fighting – and therefor works best, if all participants have not only an eye on the own argument, but also on the common ground, that is needed for any argument to be examined. If not, the intense interaction that’s called the public discourse will fall pray to the very aggressions, that initiated it in the beginning.
    Those are middle-agean French mindsets, that are still working today – because – and only if! – the public cares for them… – just like Steve Sailer does, or doesn’t he? From what I’ve seen the last few months, I’d conclude: He does.

    It is a little bit uneducated it seems to me to think, that those things mark only a gradual diffrence: Wether you argue decently and honestly and – in a somewhat quiet voice, or wether you start yelling at the public.

    The realms where questions of conduct, style, pros a n d cons, aesthetics a n d ethics meet, are a very important place. That’s why your quote is so strong.

  169. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Was hanging out with an old friend recently who is “of the tribe”. I mentioned that the town I live in has been overrun with Muslims and subcontinenters. My daughter was the only white kid in her pre-school class. He said, “If only you could join the JCC”. No dummies they.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Where I grew up, non-Jews were allowed to join the local JCC. Have you ever actually asked them whether you could join?
  170. @John Derbyshire
    "After the Olympians merged in the men's company, strong Hatred, defender of peoples, burst out"—Iliad 20

    “Menin” hatred, anger, strife… The first word of the Iliad

  171. @Langley
    "If any reader here has actually never met an African-American who does not have a tendency towards gangsta behavior, he needs to get out more often."


    SteveM
    Please edit the above sentence for clarity.
    Thank you.

    I understood it just fine.

  172. @Chrisnonymous
    I don't know which one of you conjured up this "liberals are the real racists" argument about urban replacement, but it is one of the least persuasive ideas pedaled on iSteve.

    It violates Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are all part one big beautiful leftist family that all thinks the same way. But Australia and Europe don't have urban crime issues with large black populations. Why do leftists from Sydney and Melbourne want to fill up their cities with Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders? Did Merkel invite in Syrians to push out the children of black American GIs stationed in Germany?

    Moreover, what was American urbanites' response to the African boat people? Was there a lot of hand-wringing from Americans and whispered warnings to their Italians co-ideologues? Not that I'm aware of.

    I'm not surprised to read this theory in your writing because of your penchant for highly speculative conspiracy theories based on chains of logically but tenuously connected ideas without evidence, but Steve usually does better at grounding things in reality.

    Liberals are not all equally smart and identical enough to spontaneously think of the same ideas on their own, which is why things like Journolist exist. When they do exist, we get evidence of the source of their group-think. What is the origin of the urban replacement plan, and where do we see evidence of its dissemination?

    Maybe Steve has written about this before, but he usually says so when he's repeating himself or wants to reference his previous writing.

    It violates Occam’s Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites.

    Both things can be true. Liberals can have this big boner for “the other” *and* it can be highly convenient.

    I’d say for liberals “compliant servant class” is ahead of strictly the crime issue. By say 1965–no later than 1970–liberals were uncomfortable employing blacks in servant roles. (If you were around in the 60s you saw this transition. I lived in a very middle\upper-middle class neighborhood–not rich–but there were a couple moms that had black maids come in. They were gone by 1970.) Mexicans–and other immigrants–have provided a servant class that doesn’t embarrass them with slavery guilt *and* won’t go all Django Unchained on them. Later there’s a realization that neighborhoods–while not “suitable” for raising kids, definitely not “good schools”–get a lot safer when the Mexicans replace the blacks. And even more cheap services are available–heck maybe you can even afford a nanny! So you can pat yourself on the back for your anti-racism, pat yourself on your back for you anti-nativism and enjoy cheap help and a safer urban environment. Win, win, win, win!

  173. @Anon
    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I'd say it defies simple explanation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    simple explanation is farmer vs forager

    forager homicide rate > farmer rate

    slavery was farmer on forager

    so
    – African rate is average of African farmer and forager rates
    – central american rate is African forager rate

  174. @guest
    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.

    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.

    Even worse, Mexican Adam Sandler movies…

    • Replies: @guest
    "Even worse, *Mexican* Adam Sandler movies..."

    Rob Schneider can still be in them, at least.
  175. @Anon
    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I'd say it defies simple explanation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Crime statistics from sub-Saharan Africa are probably something less than reliable. And they don’t have a class of white status signaling do-gooders impeding the local security forces and/or vengeful relatives.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Take Mali for example. Very nice and humble especially in the cities 2001 ff.. Foreigners used to flock in and leave with lots of enthusiasm about the cultural riches (Song and Dance and Sufism and even women's art etc.) and all that - since - the Touareg took action and the Salafists got a hold of the country and - turned it into a bitter and grim place. The tourists and multiculturalists now fly to other destinations.
    Maybe not a problem of the crime statistics anymore, because - civil war - or micro-war - took over?

    As so often in such a moment, I recommend Hans Magnus Enzensberger about micro wars and civil wars and The Big Migration.

    Some of it is translated**. For readers who understand German: Hans Magnus Enzensberger: Versuche über den Unfrieden. Suhrkamp, Frankfut/M., 11 Euros. He saw it coming.


    ** incredible that not all of it is translated. Has capitalism fallen asleep in the English speaking bookworld? Where are the adventurous young minds, striving to find things out? -

  176. @anonymous
    Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals.

    Weren't a lot of these people, like in the US, from debtor's prisons?


    "...Through the mid 19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe...

    ...In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person's debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released...

    ...the inmates were forced to pay for their keep...

    ...James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors' prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court...

    ...disfavor over debtors' prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts...

    ...The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833..."

     

    Penal colony:


    "...The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies....

    ...Georgia... was first founded... by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison... largely failed...

    ...The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland...

    ...after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements."

     

    One historically important aspect of our winning the revolutionary war was th immediate drying up of indentured servants, courtesy of England, which made importing defeated tribesmen, rapists, and muderers from Africa an option.

    As opposed to the notion that “only the strongest of the Africans made it here,” it was actually were the weaker, and the feeble-minded who tended to be sent to America via the judgement of their peers in Africa. Remember very few Africans set foot on a slave ship without local native approval.

    Put another way, how much of an shithead do you have to be for your family, friends, and community collectively saying, “Get on that boat, asshole. You’re not coming back.”

    The slave ship passengers will tend to not be “the best of Africa” by a long shot, and their offspring will tend to be the same quality as the parentage.

    So, here we are. Dealing with, and attempting to foist equality on the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of Frankenstein’s monster.

    Hardly a promising social strategy, in my opinion.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.
    , @Broski
    Many slaves were tribal war spoils. Your idea that they were basically ostracized criminals is not accurate.
  177. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:
    @Elbin
    One historically important aspect of our winning the revolutionary war was th immediate drying up of indentured servants, courtesy of England, which made importing defeated tribesmen, rapists, and muderers from Africa an option.

    As opposed to the notion that "only the strongest of the Africans made it here," it was actually were the weaker, and the feeble-minded who tended to be sent to America via the judgement of their peers in Africa. Remember very few Africans set foot on a slave ship without local native approval.

    Put another way, how much of an shithead do you have to be for your family, friends, and community collectively saying, "Get on that boat, asshole. You're not coming back."

    The slave ship passengers will tend to not be "the best of Africa" by a long shot, and their offspring will tend to be the same quality as the parentage.

    So, here we are. Dealing with, and attempting to foist equality on the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of Frankenstein's monster.

    Hardly a promising social strategy, in my opinion.

    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    They've mastered part A.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3s5fA7Zhk
    , @Elbin

    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.
     
    No, I mean from a race which likely enjoyed a collective IQ of 75, we recieved an unfortunate share of those who were deemed too stupid or aggressive to get along. The old timey narrative of white people sporting about in Africa, randomly ensnaring noble savage chieftains in their nets needs to be retired.
  178. @Anonymous
    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.

    I don't see why the immigrants would not have come before any settlement or civilization like the Amerindians did, since the land is economically valuable for any form of economic organization, from hunting, gathering, and agriculture.

    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.

    No it’s not a counter example. I’m not saying that if you dial the clock back, immigrants from any group wouldn’t grab open land. They would and did.

    What i’m saying is that immigrants to the West today are *not* coming because there is raw land or a settlement opportunity. Not coming to “build their world in a new place”. They are not coming for land at all. (Land is cheaper in Mexico than the US. It’s cheaper in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan than Germany.)

    Immigrants are coming to the West from the non-West precisely because whites have built nicer societies–more orderly, more free, more technologically advanced, more prosperous, with generous welfare states, etc. etc. etc. Better. (For some of these young men headed to Europe that includes access to white women.) The non-Western immigrants are coming to the West precisely because white people make nice nations … and they want to glom onto it.

    This is categorically different than what whites were doing when they conquered and settled America or Canada or Australia or South Africa.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Nice comment. I've written similar ones on other posts and like your wording.
    , @L Woods
    Right. People that liken immigrants to pioneers and settlers are disingenuous, stupid or both.
  179. Eric Garner, the fat guy who died of a heart attack after a jerk NYPD cop choked him

    Eric Garner died because he resisted arrest. If it wasn’t for “jerk” NYPD cops, New York would be a hellhole like your beloved Chicago.

  180. @The most deplorable one
    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    They’ve mastered part A.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    That is an interesting video snippet.

    They must have had to do that in two shoots ... the bone is spinning different ways on the way up and down.
  181. @The most deplorable one
    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    You mean they kept the rocket surgeons for themselves.

    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    No, I mean from a race which likely enjoyed a collective IQ of 75, we recieved an unfortunate share of those who were deemed too stupid or aggressive to get along. The old timey narrative of white people sporting about in Africa, randomly ensnaring noble savage chieftains in their nets needs to be retired.

  182. We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’.

    Yes, the press has been far too rigorous, up to now. But now the kid gloves need to come off, and the media needs to totally divorce themselves from reality and just make up whatever the Hell they want, to get Cankles elected.

    Most often we assume that it’s a matter of using particular words … Hate speech is rants meant to inflame, inspire fear or rage or violence against a particular class of people. The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. There’s no question that what Trump’s Wednesday night speech was was hate speech, a tirade filled with yelling, a snarling voice, air chopped to bits with slashing hands and through it all a story of American victims helpless before a looming threat from dangerous, predatory outsiders.

    We really need to make the laws more vague, if we’re going to throw millions into the Gulag.

    These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.

    Sort of like all the victims of gun crime, that the Democrats wave around like bloody shirts.

    If we went out and found victims who’d suffered grievously at the hands of Jews or blacks and paraded them around the country before angry crowds the wrongness and danger of doing so would be obvious.

    But parading around the victims of whites is hunky-dorey.

    Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it

    Or, say, the way Jews act in Israel. They like to form mobs and dish out violence to Arabs and other Others, every so often. That’s when they aren’t shelling Palestinian neighborhoods. ‘Course, what with Jews running the American media, you have to dig a lot more for this ongoing violence than you do for the long-gone violence of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany. You have to dig a lot more for the ongoing violence by non-whites against whites in the present-day American South, or present-day Germany, for the same reason.

  183. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.”

    A complicating factor in the settlement of the Americas and these sort of discussions is that there were multiple waves of settlement and displacement. At the moment the area seems to be one of these where the more you learn, the less you know. Lots of open questions.

    The Inuit, for instance, were one of the last waves. They apparently killed off an earlier people now called Dorset:

    “…the Dorset were essentially extinct by 1500 due to difficulties in adapting to the Medieval Warm Period. The Thule, who began migrating east from Alaska in the 11th century, began the displacement of the Dorset. …

    …Inuit legends recount them driving away people they called the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut (First Inhabitants). According to legend, the First Inhabitants were “giants”, people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off.”

    The more you look, they more fractal things get (elephants or turtles all the way down; the same never-ending story with different players).

    “…an isolated remnant of the Dorset may have survived on a few small Hudson Bay islands until 1902. Most of the evidence demonstrates that by 1500 they had essentially disappeared…

    …the Dorset did little hunting of land animals, such as polar bears and caribou. They lacked bow and arrow technology. Instead, they relied upon sea mammals (mostly seal), which they hunted from holes in the ice…

    There appears to be no genetic connection between the Dorset and the Thule who replaced them, indicating a lack of intermarriage

    …did the Thule carry new diseases, how much direct conflict was there between the two peoples, and what was the nature of their social interactions? …

    …Much can be inferred from Inuit legends, archaeology and the genetic studies mentioned above. The Thule were a strong people with a history of warfare, and they had better weapons than the Dorset. The process of “driving off” the Dorset, which is recounted in their legends, would likely have involved direct conflict. As there was almost no interbreeding between them, social interactions did not appear to go much beyond trading.”

    It sounds like sometimes love doesn’t win. (“Image all the Sivullirmiut/ now as dead as stones/…”)

    And this is basically just the North American Arctic coast.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    elephants or turtles all the way down;

    What did he mean by this?
  184. @vinteuil
    Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?

    That's a problem.

    “Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?”

    It would be great if he had a separate stream of comments that didn’t make it.

    A detritus thread.

    • LOL: Broski
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Almost all the comments that make it through are worth reading.

    I cannot speak to the ones that do not make it.
  185. @AnotherDad
    I don't have a big dog in this fight. I'm all for nationalism for everyone including Jews. Israel can do whatever it wants re marriage. Saying "if you don't want to marry among our ethnicity ... go elsewhere!" is perfectly ok.

    But i will point out you threw up five paragraphs and didn't actually contradict what he said:

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    In fact, you more or less confirmed it. (The key words *in Israel*.) There's no civil marriage, hence no inter-religious marriage. (Don't know if this is true, but you seem to be confirming it.)

    That many Jews are massive practitioners of who?\whom? when it comes to all these questions of identity--discrimination, separatism, nationalism, endogamy, identity politics, immigration--and that this is obvious to even fair minded Jews like himself was his point.

    You could say the same thing about Mr. Marshall’s crime chart. It is not, strictly speaking, by the letter, a complete lie.

    Immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans. But, as Sailer points out, the chart is clearly designed to be misleading, to make it seem like immigrants have a lower crime rate than Herb and Judy from Green Bay.

    Same thing with what the commenter said about marriage in Israel. The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don’t allow intermarriage in their country. But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel, and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You sure are mendacious.

    The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don’t allow intermarriage in their country.

    That's exactly what it is. Muslims may not marry into the dominant group.

    And in this country, anti-Miscegenation laws are widely regarded as such.

    But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel,

    Separate but equal right?

    and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    No, there is no legal pathway in Israel for doing that.
  186. @Altai
    It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is totally ignored until there is a war. Then there is hand-wringing for a while and we all just forget again. It's impressive how easily they neutered the BDS movement. I hardly ever hear about them in the news.

    Every ethnocentric, discriminatory thing you could imagine is done by Israel including ones I couldn't even imagine, everything short of actually just killing the Palestinians and yet nobody cares despite Israel being nominally a member of the Western World.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It's just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet... nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship ('Israeli Arab', I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

    Not the case I remember reading about.

    In any event, why was he permitted to plead down after raping a mentally retarded girl?
  187. @StAugustine
    This is not correct. I read "Distant Shore" and it left several impressions on me. One of these is that the stock of convicts, in the time that they were being transported, only accounted for 10% of the "founding stock". I'm not sure how much the convict legacy is represented in the following generations either. I would expect not much, as there just weren't that many women to go around. 15% of the convicts were women -

    More info is here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Convicts_and_colonial_society

    Between 1788 and 1868, approximately 161,700 convicts (of whom 25,000 were women) were transported to the Australian colonies of New South Wales, Van Diemen's land and Western Australia.
     
    The discovery of gold in the 1850s and the push for colonialists led to a huge explosion in population, from around 400,000 in 1850 to 1.1 million in 1860. In 1868, the year that convict transportation ended, the population was 1.5 million.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/eoo


    Sheep farming became really big in Australia during the convict era, from about the 1820s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merino#Australian_Merinos

    I found this note in the History of Australia:

    Between 1788 and 1792, convicts and their gaolers [British military] made up the majority of the population—but after this, a population of emancipated convicts began to grow who could be granted land and these people pioneered a non-government private sector economy and were later joined by soldiers whose military service had expired—and finally, free settlers who began arriving from Britain. Governor Phillip departed the colony for England on 11 December 1792, with the new settlement having survived near starvation and immense isolation for four years.[132] On 16 February 1793 the first free settlers arrived. The settlers: Thomas Rose, with his wife and four children, Edward Powell, Thomas Webb, Joseph Webb, and Frederick Meredith.[134]
     
    So there were colonists arriving almost from the very beginning.

    To address the indentured servants in North America, I found that the estimates are between 50,000 and 120,000 people were transported to NA between 1610 and 1776. Estimated population in 1776: 2.4 million. I'm a little foggy on how many of these went to Canada and the British Indies, but if we just ignore them, you're looking at about 5% of the total population.

    **Humor Warning**

    I’m no expert on Eighteenth Century British law, but maybe some of those “criminals” weren’t so bad. I’m sure a good portion of them really were vicious or mischievous deviants, but others probably just got reported for having sex in front of a cat or something.

  188. @AnotherDad

    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.
     
    No it's not a counter example. I'm not saying that if you dial the clock back, immigrants from any group wouldn't grab open land. They would and did.

    What i'm saying is that immigrants to the West today are *not* coming because there is raw land or a settlement opportunity. Not coming to "build their world in a new place". They are not coming for land at all. (Land is cheaper in Mexico than the US. It's cheaper in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan than Germany.)

    Immigrants are coming to the West from the non-West precisely because whites have built nicer societies--more orderly, more free, more technologically advanced, more prosperous, with generous welfare states, etc. etc. etc. Better. (For some of these young men headed to Europe that includes access to white women.) The non-Western immigrants are coming to the West precisely because white people make nice nations ... and they want to glom onto it.

    This is categorically different than what whites were doing when they conquered and settled America or Canada or Australia or South Africa.

    Nice comment. I’ve written similar ones on other posts and like your wording.

  189. @biz

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won't die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don't allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing - it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that "People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel." But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu's son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc).

    But are those groups pressured to change? Do the editorials and opinion pieces chide them to get with the times? Are they portrayed as bigots?

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    Yes. It's not Israeli right-wingers' fault that American right-wingers don't have enough children and let the Left capture the children they do have.
  190. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:
    @Anonym
    I guess there must be something to those Sub-Saharan Space Programs then.

    They've mastered part A.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3s5fA7Zhk

    That is an interesting video snippet.

    They must have had to do that in two shoots … the bone is spinning different ways on the way up and down.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    It appears to be the front lower leg of an ordinary cow (domesticated bovid metatarsal). So which advanced species did they rustle it from?
  191. The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons.

    If you’re a sperg, which most people aren’t. If you aren’t a sperg, the emotional impact of dead, maimed, or raped citizens at the hands of immigrants is a powerful one. The overarching argument for our side is, “why do we need third-world immigrants?” So the more you pile on the negatives, the more the other side needs to pile on the positives. Which they don’t have.

    This is what I find most interesting with Ashkenazi Jews in the US. Despite all the wealth and distance from it they react hysterically to Eastern Europe though they know nothing about it or it’s history. (Except maybe Fiddler, which is, of course, a realistic documentary…)

    If they learn about Jewish history in eastern Europe, they run a (small) risk of discovering that the periods that were bad for Jews were, generally speaking, mere punctuation for the rest of the time, when Jews were exploiting and oppressing the peasantry.

    Only Whites can make hate speech.

    Hate speech = persuasion + privilege

    Dass rracis!

    Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.

    Just stop. That’s not who we are.

    We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew.

    Also, the Alans were a Germanic tribe, IIRC. So the spelling change was probably a good idea.

    Why didn’t they give him the name “Alan” then?

    See above.

    My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today. I really didn’t want to reveal my power level. Not yet.

    Please ask your relatives how many Jews marry blacks today, when they bring up subjects like this. Pretty please? You don’t have to make an argument out of it, or anything. Just ask them, every time.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It’s just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet… nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Yep. Jews are Nazis in their homeland, but in the diaspora they’re radical opponents of whites showing a scintilla of what Jews do in Israel.

    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won’t die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well.

    You highlight this distinction, as if it constitutes a difference. It doesn’t. And as if Jews don’t run Israel. They do.

    Jews would never, in a million years, tolerate this shit in a white country. Ever. Ever-ever-ever-ever.

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Jews in the diaspora would never tolerate this state of affairs, not in a million years. They’d be screeching about it until it changed.

    Well, as long as the state of affairs was in a white country, and not in Israel, I mean.

    We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.

    Don’t hold your breath. The gun industry is strongly against gun control. The speech industry is just fine with speech control on everyone else. The gun industry sells guns, but the speech industry wants a monopoly.

    It was the political cultural equivalent of watching a toilet or cesspool overflow, where instead of running away in disgust, Trump’s supplicants Jews enthusiastically wallowed and frolicked in the waste.”

    That’s how I feel about the media.

    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I’d say it defies simple explanation.

    I trust African statistics about as far as I can throw them.

    I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Not only was he charged, he was convicted.

    Jews would go collectively ape if something similar happened in a diaspora country, with a white girl instead of a Jewish girl. Completely ape.

    Shaming Arguments are a flaming arrow pointing to female dominated societies.

    Throw the white wymminz under the bus to save the Jews!

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    Three thumbs up Mr Svigor.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    The Alans may well have mixed with Goths and the like on their career through terminal-Imperial/post-Roman Europe, but weren't Germans. Some sort of Circassian/Caucasian/Iranian horsey mob. Eventually merged with the locals, Gauls and particularly displaced Britons. Hence the name being carried (as a personal one) by Counts of Brittany and various (recently conquered) hangers-on of William the Bastard back into Britain after 1066, and its subsequent dissemination among the peasantry as Alan/Allan/Alain
    Originally had more in common with, for instance, the thousands of Sarmatian (Iazgyes) cavalrymen stationed in northern Britain from the 170s on. They seem to have been behind some of the King Arthur myths/rituals (sword in stone etc.)
  192. @Anonymous
    Why the hell do Jews act like they really have it in for White people?

    Because they think white people are the enemy and forget that to non-whites at least they are white people.

  193. P.S., I find that projection about overflowing toilets amusing. Maybe the author runs away in disgust from an overflowing toilet. I grab a plunger.

    • Replies: @guest
    Getting a plunger is dealing with the problem. His analogy would have you reveling in the filth. The picture I had in my head was Trump dancing and clapping as he threw feces in the air.
    , @Brutusale
    Jewish guys come equipped with as much household repair skill as they have sports ability.
  194. @anonymous
    "...the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it."

    A complicating factor in the settlement of the Americas and these sort of discussions is that there were multiple waves of settlement and displacement. At the moment the area seems to be one of these where the more you learn, the less you know. Lots of open questions.

    The Inuit, for instance, were one of the last waves. They apparently killed off an earlier people now called Dorset:


    "...the Dorset were essentially extinct by 1500 due to difficulties in adapting to the Medieval Warm Period. The Thule, who began migrating east from Alaska in the 11th century, began the displacement of the Dorset. ...

    ...Inuit legends recount them driving away people they called the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut (First Inhabitants). According to legend, the First Inhabitants were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off."

     

    The more you look, they more fractal things get (elephants or turtles all the way down; the same never-ending story with different players).


    "...an isolated remnant of the Dorset may have survived on a few small Hudson Bay islands until 1902. Most of the evidence demonstrates that by 1500 they had essentially disappeared...

    ...the Dorset did little hunting of land animals, such as polar bears and caribou. They lacked bow and arrow technology. Instead, they relied upon sea mammals (mostly seal), which they hunted from holes in the ice...

    ...There appears to be no genetic connection between the Dorset and the Thule who replaced them, indicating a lack of intermarriage...

    ...did the Thule carry new diseases, how much direct conflict was there between the two peoples, and what was the nature of their social interactions? ...

    ...Much can be inferred from Inuit legends, archaeology and the genetic studies mentioned above. The Thule were a strong people with a history of warfare, and they had better weapons than the Dorset. The process of "driving off" the Dorset, which is recounted in their legends, would likely have involved direct conflict. As there was almost no interbreeding between them, social interactions did not appear to go much beyond trading."

     

    It sounds like sometimes love doesn't win. ("Image all the Sivullirmiut/ now as dead as stones/...")

    And this is basically just the North American Arctic coast.

    elephants or turtles all the way down;

    What did he mean by this?

    • Replies: @guest
    "'elephants or turtles all the way down'

    What did he mean by this?"

    That sounds like a reference to an apocryphal cosmological theory involving Infinite Regress. Imagine the universe is a flat plate sitting on the back of a turtle. Or an elephant, I suppose, but I usually hear it as a turtle. What is the turtle standing on, you may ask. Why, "it's turtles all the way down."
  195. @syonredux

    The future is an endless string of Adam Sandler movies.
     
    Even worse, Mexican Adam Sandler movies...

    “Even worse, *Mexican* Adam Sandler movies…”

    Rob Schneider can still be in them, at least.

  196. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @biz

    Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!
     
    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

    Not the case I remember reading about.

    In any event, why was he permitted to plead down after raping a mentally retarded girl?

    • Replies: @biz
    To save the victim and her family the trauma of testifying.

    You can read about that whole case here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11329429

    So when the defence attorney proposed to cross-examine her on every one of those 14 cases, the prosecution feared she may be too traumatised and undermine her evidence.

    Thus, a plea bargain was struck whereby Kashur was accused of rape by deception for presenting himself as a Jewish bachelor available for a romantic relationship, whereas in fact he was a Muslim and a married father of two.
     
    When it comes to stories that seem to reflect badly on Israel, the true events are rarely as claimed by the likes of Democracy Now. There is an enormous industry of anti-Israel propaganda out there. Perhaps in the future you will be more skeptical about anti-Israel claims.
  197. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @biz
    You could say the same thing about Mr. Marshall's crime chart. It is not, strictly speaking, by the letter, a complete lie.

    Immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans. But, as Sailer points out, the chart is clearly designed to be misleading, to make it seem like immigrants have a lower crime rate than Herb and Judy from Green Bay.

    Same thing with what the commenter said about marriage in Israel. The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don't allow intermarriage in their country. But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel, and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    You sure are mendacious.

    The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don’t allow intermarriage in their country.

    That’s exactly what it is. Muslims may not marry into the dominant group.

    And in this country, anti-Miscegenation laws are widely regarded as such.

    But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel,

    Separate but equal right?

    and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    No, there is no legal pathway in Israel for doing that.

    • Replies: @biz
    As I said in my previous comment, this is simply a lie. Israelis can go to any other country to marry any person they wish and that marriage is legally recognized in Israel. This is so routine that Israeli tourists going to Cyprus to get married is an industry there.

    If Jews in Israel are guilty of ethnocentrism for rabbis not performing religious intermarriage in Israel, then Muslims, Christians, and Druze in Israel are just as guilty, for their religious leaders do not perform intermarriage either.
    , @Anonymous
    Muslim men can marry Jewish women or Christian women in Israel if you can find an Imam willing to perform that marriage. It's difficult, given the nature of the conflict here, but it is not impossible.

    http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.596691.1450704995!/image/1806099279.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_609x343/1806099279.jpg
  198. @Svigor
    P.S., I find that projection about overflowing toilets amusing. Maybe the author runs away in disgust from an overflowing toilet. I grab a plunger.

    Getting a plunger is dealing with the problem. His analogy would have you reveling in the filth. The picture I had in my head was Trump dancing and clapping as he threw feces in the air.

  199. @Bill Jones
    "Are you really, still, personally vetting all your comments, even as they go into the thousands per day?"

    It would be great if he had a separate stream of comments that didn't make it.

    A detritus thread.

    Almost all the comments that make it through are worth reading.

    I cannot speak to the ones that do not make it.

  200. @Anonymous
    You sure are mendacious.

    The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don’t allow intermarriage in their country.

    That's exactly what it is. Muslims may not marry into the dominant group.

    And in this country, anti-Miscegenation laws are widely regarded as such.

    But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel,

    Separate but equal right?

    and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    No, there is no legal pathway in Israel for doing that.

    As I said in my previous comment, this is simply a lie. Israelis can go to any other country to marry any person they wish and that marriage is legally recognized in Israel. This is so routine that Israeli tourists going to Cyprus to get married is an industry there.

    If Jews in Israel are guilty of ethnocentrism for rabbis not performing religious intermarriage in Israel, then Muslims, Christians, and Druze in Israel are just as guilty, for their religious leaders do not perform intermarriage either.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Taken as a whole, that may be the most disingenuous comment ever on iSteve!

    So Christian, Druze and Muslim clerics are guilty of discrimination because they have to follow Israeli law? Ahh, OK.
    , @Alden
    Christians allow interfaith marriages and have for centuries. The Catholics always demanded that the infidel promise to baptize the kids Catholic but otherwise, no barrier.
  201. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.”

    -I think this idea can also explain another interesting phenomenon. They want the Hispanics to go to NYC, DC, etc. – because they’re better quality brown people, who are less dangerous and more likely to spend their day trying to work (even if it is for minimum wage) than our afro countrymen. But at the same time, you don’t see them settling the refugees near the elites. The Somalis, the Syrians, the Afghans. Why? These guys are dangerous! Who the heck wants to be eating tofu and sipping a latte at that cute little SWPL joint on the corner and having some nut bust in screaming ‘Allahu Ackbar’ and start mowing people down? Or trying to con your daughter into illicit activities with their extended family for drugs? No, plop those guys down in flyover country with the white people we want to get rid of anyway.

    • Replies: @guest
    We are Refugee Central here in the People's Republic of Minnesota. Up to our ears in Somalis, Hmong, etc. They aren't allowed near the elite-elite, but I do see them around hipsters and such. MN is not NY-DC-LA. We are run by SJWs, but not of the same caliber, exactly.
  202. Speaking of double standards SMH has Trump grooves at black church

    RAW: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump makes his pitch to black voters in Detroit, Michigan, in an effort to peel away minority support from his Democratic rival.

    Would a similar video be acceptable like: Trump speaks at white church. RAW: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump makes his pitch to white voters in an effort to peel away majority support from his Democratic rival.

  203. Feinstein’s interpretation of “Fiddler on the Roof” transforms the great musical into an exploration of the challenges of modernity.

    For Tevye, tradition is authoritative; it gives him roots and provides substance to his meager existence. Yet, that world is falling apart. Tevye’s oldest daughter, Tzeitel, refuses the matchmaker and chooses to marry for love — one nail in tradition’s coffin.

    Her sister Hodel chooses a world of social activism that ripped through Eastern Europe — Zionism, socialism, communism or Bundism, each of which offered a strange but recognizable path to the moral idealism of tradition — the second nail.

    The youngest daughter, Chava, uses freedom to intermarry and set out on her own.

    Whether Judaism can survive freedom is the inescapable question of 21st-century Jews.

    Trump should valorize Tevye’s victimhood ASAP!

  204. @Svigor

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons.
     
    If you're a sperg, which most people aren't. If you aren't a sperg, the emotional impact of dead, maimed, or raped citizens at the hands of immigrants is a powerful one. The overarching argument for our side is, "why do we need third-world immigrants?" So the more you pile on the negatives, the more the other side needs to pile on the positives. Which they don't have.

    This is what I find most interesting with Ashkenazi Jews in the US. Despite all the wealth and distance from it they react hysterically to Eastern Europe though they know nothing about it or it’s history. (Except maybe Fiddler, which is, of course, a realistic documentary…)
     
    If they learn about Jewish history in eastern Europe, they run a (small) risk of discovering that the periods that were bad for Jews were, generally speaking, mere punctuation for the rest of the time, when Jews were exploiting and oppressing the peasantry.

    Only Whites can make hate speech.

    Hate speech = persuasion + privilege
     
    Dass rracis!

    Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.
     
    Just stop. That's not who we are.

    We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew.
     
    Also, the Alans were a Germanic tribe, IIRC. So the spelling change was probably a good idea.

    Why didn’t they give him the name “Alan” then?
     
    See above.

    My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today. I really didn’t want to reveal my power level. Not yet.
     
    Please ask your relatives how many Jews marry blacks today, when they bring up subjects like this. Pretty please? You don't have to make an argument out of it, or anything. Just ask them, every time.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It’s just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet… nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!
     
    Yep. Jews are Nazis in their homeland, but in the diaspora they're radical opponents of whites showing a scintilla of what Jews do in Israel.

    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won’t die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well.
     
    You highlight this distinction, as if it constitutes a difference. It doesn't. And as if Jews don't run Israel. They do.

    Jews would never, in a million years, tolerate this shit in a white country. Ever. Ever-ever-ever-ever.

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.
     
    Jews in the diaspora would never tolerate this state of affairs, not in a million years. They'd be screeching about it until it changed.

    Well, as long as the state of affairs was in a white country, and not in Israel, I mean.

    We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.
     
    Don't hold your breath. The gun industry is strongly against gun control. The speech industry is just fine with speech control on everyone else. The gun industry sells guns, but the speech industry wants a monopoly.

    It was the political cultural equivalent of watching a toilet or cesspool overflow, where instead of running away in disgust, Trump’s supplicants Jews enthusiastically wallowed and frolicked in the waste.”
     
    That's how I feel about the media.

    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I’d say it defies simple explanation.
     
    I trust African statistics about as far as I can throw them.

    I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Not only was he charged, he was convicted.
     
    Jews would go collectively ape if something similar happened in a diaspora country, with a white girl instead of a Jewish girl. Completely ape.

    Shaming Arguments are a flaming arrow pointing to female dominated societies.
     
    Throw the white wymminz under the bus to save the Jews!

    Three thumbs up Mr Svigor.

  205. Just wanted to say Bravo, Steve! I just love your M.O. of eviscerating pieces like this and exposing brazen, blazing, burning, bawdy, and bodacious double standards and hypocrisy. So entertaining! It’s like watching a good MMA fight that ends in a spectacular KO. Too bad we can’t get the equivalent of an Internet “tap out” or “submission”. I’d love to see Steve Sailer vs. Josh Marshall in a cage match….

  206. @Elbin
    One historically important aspect of our winning the revolutionary war was th immediate drying up of indentured servants, courtesy of England, which made importing defeated tribesmen, rapists, and muderers from Africa an option.

    As opposed to the notion that "only the strongest of the Africans made it here," it was actually were the weaker, and the feeble-minded who tended to be sent to America via the judgement of their peers in Africa. Remember very few Africans set foot on a slave ship without local native approval.

    Put another way, how much of an shithead do you have to be for your family, friends, and community collectively saying, "Get on that boat, asshole. You're not coming back."

    The slave ship passengers will tend to not be "the best of Africa" by a long shot, and their offspring will tend to be the same quality as the parentage.

    So, here we are. Dealing with, and attempting to foist equality on the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of the son of Frankenstein's monster.

    Hardly a promising social strategy, in my opinion.

    Many slaves were tribal war spoils. Your idea that they were basically ostracized criminals is not accurate.

  207. @Anonymous
    elephants or turtles all the way down;

    What did he mean by this?

    “‘elephants or turtles all the way down’

    What did he mean by this?”

    That sounds like a reference to an apocryphal cosmological theory involving Infinite Regress. Imagine the universe is a flat plate sitting on the back of a turtle. Or an elephant, I suppose, but I usually hear it as a turtle. What is the turtle standing on, you may ask. Why, “it’s turtles all the way down.”

  208. @Anonymous
    "Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values."

    -I think this idea can also explain another interesting phenomenon. They want the Hispanics to go to NYC, DC, etc. - because they're better quality brown people, who are less dangerous and more likely to spend their day trying to work (even if it is for minimum wage) than our afro countrymen. But at the same time, you don't see them settling the refugees near the elites. The Somalis, the Syrians, the Afghans. Why? These guys are dangerous! Who the heck wants to be eating tofu and sipping a latte at that cute little SWPL joint on the corner and having some nut bust in screaming 'Allahu Ackbar' and start mowing people down? Or trying to con your daughter into illicit activities with their extended family for drugs? No, plop those guys down in flyover country with the white people we want to get rid of anyway.

    We are Refugee Central here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Up to our ears in Somalis, Hmong, etc. They aren’t allowed near the elite-elite, but I do see them around hipsters and such. MN is not NY-DC-LA. We are run by SJWs, but not of the same caliber, exactly.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    MN SJWs are true believers, they don't have any power. The NY-DC-LA spout SJW nonsense, they don't live that way though.
  209. Anonymous [AKA "ullastret/talipiot"] says:
    @Anonymous
    You sure are mendacious.

    The point was to imply that Jews have some superiority thing where they don’t allow intermarriage in their country.

    That's exactly what it is. Muslims may not marry into the dominant group.

    And in this country, anti-Miscegenation laws are widely regarded as such.

    But that is simply not the proper conclusion from the fact that there is no religious intermarriage allowed by any of the religious groups in Israel,

    Separate but equal right?

    and that anyone who wants to marry a member of another group easily can legally.

    No, there is no legal pathway in Israel for doing that.

    Muslim men can marry Jewish women or Christian women in Israel if you can find an Imam willing to perform that marriage. It’s difficult, given the nature of the conflict here, but it is not impossible.

  210. Even now, after all that’s happened, most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. … This is hate speech.

    Anyone who writes something like the above is a hate person.

  211. Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.

    Or, better yet, shouldn’t we just improve ourselves?

  212. @Anonymous
    Steve says "Another term for it is “Who? Whom?”

    Indeed.

    While reading the above quotes my attention was distracted and when I came back to reading the quote it took me a moment to realize that he was referring to Trump and his supporters. I really thought that he was talking about Hillary and had a moment of real cognitive confusion when he said this, "That fact that we’ve become inured to this, that we now find it normal to see these cattle calls of grief and incitement as part of a political campaign is shocking and sickening. There’s no other word for this but incitement and blood libel." All I could see in my mind's eye was Hillary with those black mother's during the Democratic convention.

    He thinks that he is looking through a window, but it's a mirror. A half-silvered pane of glass shows us a view through to the other side with a palimpist-like reflection of ourselves superimposed over it.

    He thinks that he is looking through a window, but it’s a mirror.

    That’s a good line.

  213. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly.

    On the other hand, look at Georgia.

  214. @Jean Cocteausten
    The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.

    The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.

    The Left asserts that the White race is innately different from other races — i.e., the White race is innately evil. So it seems that your assessment is wrong.

  215. Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it will tell you that the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression.. . .

    If I didn’t know better, I might think that he just celebrated and valorized victims in order to stir up bigotry against, and fear and oppression of, us.

    • Replies: @guest
    But his side doesn't have impressionable, violent, suggestable people, like phantom KKK members. It has only responsible, humane, measured people, like blacks...oh.
  216. @Jean Cocteausten
    The left is less a political movement than a religion that has only one sin: acknowledging innate differences between the races and sexes.

    If leftism is a religion its god is Hitler. Religions have evil gods. Hitler rules over them and dictates their every thought and action.

  217. @ben tillman

    Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it will tell you that the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression.. . .
     
    If I didn't know better, I might think that he just celebrated and valorized victims in order to stir up bigotry against, and fear and oppression of, us.

    But his side doesn’t have impressionable, violent, suggestable people, like phantom KKK members. It has only responsible, humane, measured people, like blacks…oh.

  218. @iSteveFan

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc).
     
    But are those groups pressured to change? Do the editorials and opinion pieces chide them to get with the times? Are they portrayed as bigots?

    Yes. It’s not Israeli right-wingers’ fault that American right-wingers don’t have enough children and let the Left capture the children they do have.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    How are they pressured to change? Do groups like ACT-UP or Pussy Riot bust in and interrupt their religious services? Does the government threaten to remove any favorable tax treatment they might have? Are there endless editorials in the media?
  219. @L Woods
    Crime statistics from sub-Saharan Africa are probably something less than reliable. And they don't have a class of white status signaling do-gooders impeding the local security forces and/or vengeful relatives.

    Take Mali for example. Very nice and humble especially in the cities 2001 ff.. Foreigners used to flock in and leave with lots of enthusiasm about the cultural riches (Song and Dance and Sufism and even women’s art etc.) and all that – since – the Touareg took action and the Salafists got a hold of the country and – turned it into a bitter and grim place. The tourists and multiculturalists now fly to other destinations.
    Maybe not a problem of the crime statistics anymore, because – civil war – or micro-war – took over?

    As so often in such a moment, I recommend Hans Magnus Enzensberger about micro wars and civil wars and The Big Migration.

    Some of it is translated**. For readers who understand German: Hans Magnus Enzensberger: Versuche über den Unfrieden. Suhrkamp, Frankfut/M., 11 Euros. He saw it coming.

    ** incredible that not all of it is translated. Has capitalism fallen asleep in the English speaking bookworld? Where are the adventurous young minds, striving to find things out? –

  220. @guest
    Why would that be rape? What's the term we use for obtaining sex fraudulently (besides "fraud")? "Seduction?"

    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn’t have done it if she’d known the man wasn’t Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn’t have done it if she’d known the man wasn’t Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.
     
    That's fraud in the factum rather than fraud in the inducement.
    , @guest
    Sounds more like abuse of authority than deception. I doubt they would've locked up an 18 year-old for telling her sex would clear up her acne, for instance. Or if the sexes were reversed, for that matter.

    There's too much deception involved in sex (unless it's prostitution) for me to take fraud as seriously as rape. Rape is a big, big word.
  221. Overplaying the victims of minority criminals is an excellent countermeasure to the left’s obsession for victims of white criminals/cops. It doesn’t even need to be true. Didn’t some white girl get raped by blacks then fed to the alligators a few weeks ago? That’s good material. They should use that story to do everything the left did with Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, etc. Emphasize that the perps were bigots, haters etc, link it to a widespread cultural problem, and accuse anyone who denies that problem of being haters themselves. Repeat for a few months. Doesn’t matter if the perps actually were haters.

    If right wing media hammered it repeatedly, forced the issue onto the national stage, then it creates a sort of equivalence. The average person will absorb that narrative, which will temper their support for liberal hysteria. Only the ideological leftists will resist, and there aren’t that many of those.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    She was killed in 2009. The facts just came out in another court case involving one of the perps based on something a witness told a fellow inmate in prison.
    , @Anonymous
    The problem is you get these Dylan Roofs who read one too many black crime reports and decide to do something about it, even if that something is completely insane. And that's when the media disappears noticers and noticing in the same way it disappeared the Confederate flag.
  222. @Hhsiii
    This one is even more over the top:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/putting-lives-in-danger-trumps-vile-phoenix-speech-was-terrifying-and-the-result-could-be-tragic/

    "Several hours after returning from Mexico to a rabid crowd of supporters in Phoenix, he would give one of the most violent, vicious, vile and repugnant speeches in modern American political history. It was the political equivalent of watching a toilet or cesspool overflow, where instead of running away in disgust, Trump’s supplicants enthusiastically wallowed and frolicked in the waste."

    Also note the double standard: if a white person kills someone of color Trump and his supporters will have blood on their hands because of his racist rhetoric. But DeVega would never acknowledge that the dead cops in Dallas, NYC etc were killed because they were incited by BLM rhetoric.

  223. @Jason Liu
    Overplaying the victims of minority criminals is an excellent countermeasure to the left's obsession for victims of white criminals/cops. It doesn't even need to be true. Didn't some white girl get raped by blacks then fed to the alligators a few weeks ago? That's good material. They should use that story to do everything the left did with Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, etc. Emphasize that the perps were bigots, haters etc, link it to a widespread cultural problem, and accuse anyone who denies that problem of being haters themselves. Repeat for a few months. Doesn't matter if the perps actually were haters.

    If right wing media hammered it repeatedly, forced the issue onto the national stage, then it creates a sort of equivalence. The average person will absorb that narrative, which will temper their support for liberal hysteria. Only the ideological leftists will resist, and there aren't that many of those.

    She was killed in 2009. The facts just came out in another court case involving one of the perps based on something a witness told a fellow inmate in prison.

  224. The most important thing about the immigrants coming to white countries is that they’re of a different race to the native population. People want to live among their own kind, and they want to be sure their children will too. The instinct to preserve the ethnic homogeneity of your community is stronger than the fear of being murdered by an immigrant.

  225. @Jason Liu
    Overplaying the victims of minority criminals is an excellent countermeasure to the left's obsession for victims of white criminals/cops. It doesn't even need to be true. Didn't some white girl get raped by blacks then fed to the alligators a few weeks ago? That's good material. They should use that story to do everything the left did with Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, etc. Emphasize that the perps were bigots, haters etc, link it to a widespread cultural problem, and accuse anyone who denies that problem of being haters themselves. Repeat for a few months. Doesn't matter if the perps actually were haters.

    If right wing media hammered it repeatedly, forced the issue onto the national stage, then it creates a sort of equivalence. The average person will absorb that narrative, which will temper their support for liberal hysteria. Only the ideological leftists will resist, and there aren't that many of those.

    The problem is you get these Dylan Roofs who read one too many black crime reports and decide to do something about it, even if that something is completely insane. And that’s when the media disappears noticers and noticing in the same way it disappeared the Confederate flag.

    • Replies: @guest
    They're doing that, anyway. They've bleached almost the entire white population of race-consciousness and "noticing," and still pretend as if the country is crawling with KKK nightstalkers, and that talk radio and Trump, or whatever, are inciting violence. Fight fire with fire.
  226. With those offending trajectories, one thing to bear in mind that there are probably going to be some composition differences that even out the curve.

    Most Mexican migrants are going to be probably 18-24, usually childless men and women. Most of the 12-17 by comparison are going to tend to be the children of foreign folk granted work visas (who tend to be a bit more upscale).

    So there is some degree of an artificial gap going on there. You’d probably see a smoother curve, mapping closer to the Second Generation,if you controlled for illegal vs non-illegal and Mexican vs non-Mexican (with the right sample size).

    Really, though real concerns about Mexican migration linked to crime can’t just be about the average offending rate of Mexican migrants themselves. It’s about if narcoterrorism enters the United States piggybacking on Mexican migration. The Sicario thing.

    It’s once that starts to happen that you’ll then see your big increase in your murders, whether or not First Gen Mexican migrants themselves are heavily involved, or if the gangs instead turn to native Blacks and Whites and Second Generation Mexicans.

    “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime”. Doesn’t mean First Gen Mexicans have to have a high offending rate themselves for it to be true.

  227. @Tiny Duck
    This is the last gasp of the white make. After Ms. Clinton or whoever wins we will enact laws that hold treason talkers like at Trump and the altright accountable.

    The west WILL be diverse. It is inevitable. No longer will white males be able to spew hate in the name of free speech. Things will be equal.

    Things will be equal.

    Ball-peen hammer to the head.

  228. “On the other hand, if you live in one of the loser cities where the African-Americans will move to, too bad. Moreover, people in the media will call you a racist for not wanting to take their surplus African-Americans off their hands.”

    http://www.pjstar.com/news/20160625/shootings-up-within-peoria-police-lawmakers-say-theyre-working-on-it

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    That article was interesting. No one mentioned the real reason that shootings have increased in Peoria. A few of the commenters hinted at it, but only in a round-about way. On a recent trip through Illinois, I noticed black people in lots of small towns where one did not see them before. This must be part of Chicago's poverty-dispersal campaign.
  229. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    Why would they have to recruit anybody? Chicago’s Mexican and Central American population is larger than its black population. I doubt that all of these people are legal! Also, there are many undocumented immigrants from the world over in Chicago. The Sears Tower was once raided by INS agents and about 1/3 of its workforce was undocumented. These were people from Mexico, Poland, Pakistan, and even Ireland.

  230. @Anonymous
    Nice to see you defending a man who raped a mentally retarded girl and plead down to a lesser crime via an archaic law called rape by deception.

    Not the case I remember reading about.

    In any event, why was he permitted to plead down after raping a mentally retarded girl?

    To save the victim and her family the trauma of testifying.

    You can read about that whole case here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11329429

    So when the defence attorney proposed to cross-examine her on every one of those 14 cases, the prosecution feared she may be too traumatised and undermine her evidence.

    Thus, a plea bargain was struck whereby Kashur was accused of rape by deception for presenting himself as a Jewish bachelor available for a romantic relationship, whereas in fact he was a Muslim and a married father of two.

    When it comes to stories that seem to reflect badly on Israel, the true events are rarely as claimed by the likes of Democracy Now. There is an enormous industry of anti-Israel propaganda out there. Perhaps in the future you will be more skeptical about anti-Israel claims.

  231. @Rob McX
    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn't have done it if she'd known the man wasn't Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.

    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn’t have done it if she’d known the man wasn’t Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.

    That’s fraud in the factum rather than fraud in the inducement.

  232. @Chrisnonymous
    I don't know which one of you conjured up this "liberals are the real racists" argument about urban replacement, but it is one of the least persuasive ideas pedaled on iSteve.

    It violates Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation for liberals pro-immigration positions is that they believe the things they say, which are adequate motivation even if mistaken.

    It is not only the US in which there are pro-immigration liberals. The Australians and Europeans I know have just as big a boner for the Other as US urbanites. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are all part one big beautiful leftist family that all thinks the same way. But Australia and Europe don't have urban crime issues with large black populations. Why do leftists from Sydney and Melbourne want to fill up their cities with Indians, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders? Did Merkel invite in Syrians to push out the children of black American GIs stationed in Germany?

    Moreover, what was American urbanites' response to the African boat people? Was there a lot of hand-wringing from Americans and whispered warnings to their Italians co-ideologues? Not that I'm aware of.

    I'm not surprised to read this theory in your writing because of your penchant for highly speculative conspiracy theories based on chains of logically but tenuously connected ideas without evidence, but Steve usually does better at grounding things in reality.

    Liberals are not all equally smart and identical enough to spontaneously think of the same ideas on their own, which is why things like Journolist exist. When they do exist, we get evidence of the source of their group-think. What is the origin of the urban replacement plan, and where do we see evidence of its dissemination?

    Maybe Steve has written about this before, but he usually says so when he's repeating himself or wants to reference his previous writing.

    I completely agree that Liberals do not primarily support immigration because it displaces blacks from adjacent areas. It is wholly unnecessary to posit a conspiracy when the widely stated motivations of Liberals are completely sufficient to explain their actions.

    Most Liberals probably haven’t even consciously thought about it.

    But sub-consciously, they are aware of it and like it. They take note when they are walking / driving through a certain neighborhood “Gee this particular area that has rapidly transitioned to hispanic seems a lot safer nowadays. And that dive taco stand is of much more use to me than the wig store that used to be there.” Those get filed away in their brain as a positive feeling about immigrants, and thus a positive feeling about immigration.

    The ironic thing is that their sub-conscious feelings are more logical than their conscious ones. For middle class liberals, on a strictly personal level, large-scale immigration is a benefit – they get cheaper services, better food options, and certain areas become safer. Yet the reason that they primarily like and support immigration is none of these – it is primarily because they see themselves as virtuous people which means being ‘nice’ to immigrants no matter what.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    I think you're right.
  233. @Rob McX
    "Hate speech" is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It's normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.

    ““Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/hate-crime-america-numbers-n81521

    “Race has generally fallen as a percentage of hate crimes (from about 60 percent to the high 40s), while sexual orientation has generally risen in share (from the low teens to about 20 percent).
    Over the entire period, these were the average number of incidents reported per year, by type: race, 3,979; religion, 1,382; sexual orientation, 1,210; ethnicity/national origin, 951; disability, 52; multiple-bias, 5.”

    • Replies: @guest
    Just change it to: meant to be applied to cis-het white, Christians or at least non-Muslims born in the U.S. of ordinary mental and physical capability, and nobody else.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Usually you make something up, rather than simply replying with a non-sequitur. What Rob McX said is true. "Hate Speech" is a bogus concept. We have a right to hate. We have a right to hate anybody we want. And, indeed, it is perfectly rational to hate ones enemies.
  234. “The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?”

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840’s and 1850’s, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the late 1800’s like the Italians and Slavs. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Yet, they were given “free passes”. Interesting, to say the least.

    “What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior.”

    I thought it was 60 million. Where did you get your figures? I got mine from David Duke.

    “According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that.”

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    “It’s striking how blatant double-standards are.”

    I imagine you are exempt from such descriptions being an integral part of the alternative media, right?

    “On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense.”

    Most definitely! Any measures necessary to get one’s point across?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-rhetoric.html

    “Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.”

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800’s.

    “In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation.”

    That’s what hypocrites do. Perhaps you should also look in your own backyard as well?

    • Replies: @Paco Wové

    “The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?”

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840′s and 1850′s, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.
     
    Actually, they didn't. Especially on the succeeding generations point.

    “Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.”

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800′s.
     
    Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as "low quality" and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn't follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea.

    "If they let your grandfather in back then, it follows that you are morally obligated to agree that anybody who wants to should be able to move here now" is a logically fallacious and stupid-on-its-face "argument". The onus is on the people who trot it out to explain why it isn't mere vacuous emotionalism.
    , @Anonymous
    Everything you write is is just plain wrong.

    Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites. It's just a persistent myth, if not actual lie, that this is not so. Probably because the ill-informed still have a hard time believing that blacks have white collar jobs.

    The descendants of 'ethnic' European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?"

    Yeah, and that's so much worse than murder, rape, and strong-arm robbery, isn't it? Blacks commit over half the murders in the United States, every year, year-in, year-out, despite the fact that they only make up about one eighth of the population. Kind of sticks in your craw, doesn't it? Actually, blacks commit white-collar crime at a disproportionately high rate too, but you conveniently ignored that.

    You guys - always willing to put in a good word for a hard-working felon, aren't you?
    , @res

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
     
    It takes some chutzpah to make an assertion like that and "support" it with a link that shows blacks are arrested at ~2.5x the per capita rate of whites for those crimes (well, either chutzpah or an inability to think statistically).

    And "So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?" is laughable (since you like evidence, look at the % of arrests for blacks in each category in your linked table. The only categories where blacks are close to represented at their proportion of the US population of ~12% are the alcohol related crimes--which is actually interesting, does anyone have any hypotheses for why?).

    Sometimes you question the conventional wisdom here in an interesting way. Other times you just appear to be a troll promoting misinformation and bad arguments. This was an example of the latter.
  235. @Corvinus
    "The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?"

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840's and 1850's, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the late 1800's like the Italians and Slavs. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Yet, they were given "free passes". Interesting, to say the least.

    "What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior."

    I thought it was 60 million. Where did you get your figures? I got mine from David Duke.

    "According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that."

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let's call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    "It’s striking how blatant double-standards are."

    I imagine you are exempt from such descriptions being an integral part of the alternative media, right?

    "On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense."

    Most definitely! Any measures necessary to get one's point across?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-rhetoric.html

    "Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now."

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800's.

    "In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation."

    That's what hypocrites do. Perhaps you should also look in your own backyard as well?

    “The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?”

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840′s and 1850′s, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Actually, they didn’t. Especially on the succeeding generations point.

    “Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.”

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800′s.

    Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as “low quality” and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn’t follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea.

    “If they let your grandfather in back then, it follows that you are morally obligated to agree that anybody who wants to should be able to move here now” is a logically fallacious and stupid-on-its-face “argument”. The onus is on the people who trot it out to explain why it isn’t mere vacuous emotionalism.

    • Replies: @guest
    Also, even if the immigrants were the same as they are now the country has changed. We have a Welfare State now. Assuming the children of immigrants are just like any other American (which is a stupid assumption, but bear with me), Americans aren't the same as they used to be. We really don't need any more, thanks.
    , @Corvinus
    "Actually, they didn’t. Especially on the succeeding generations point."

    Sources?

    All one needs to look at is the Irish. You know, white Europeans. Those considered to be desirable to the Alt-Right.

    The Irish quickly made a name for themselves and not always for the right reasons. Cash-strapped and fleeing their country after years of hunger, it appears that some of the Irish in New York turned to crime and violence while women engaged in prostitution to earn money. By the 1850's, over half of those arrested in the city were Irish-born and a staggering percentage of those arrested for being drunk and disorderly also hailed from the Emerald Isle.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/Irish-Famine-refugees-caused-a-crime-wave-in-New-York-City-stats-show-.html

    The question was not simply a product of anti-Italian stereotypes. As the table below notes, crime statistics of the time showed that while Italians committed few crimes against property or public order, they were highest on the list for crimes against persons, i.e., violent crimes.

    http://bostoniano.info/northendspirit/italian-immigrants-violent-crime

    Interesting how the descendants of these Europeans today are part of the Alt Right who clamor for immigration restrictions, yet whose relatives had fought long and hard to get into this country to make a difference.

    "Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as “low quality” and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn’t follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea."

    There is no sake of argument. The nativists of the late 1800's were correct in their prejudices and assumptions, right?

    Now, if the American public votes on restricting or prohibiting further immigration to the States, fine. Just don't believe that all or most Mexicans, Pakistanis, and Kenyans are somehow less deserving if their "cream of the crop" desire to emigrate to America for similar reasons like your ancestors.
  236. @Rob McX
    Having sex with a woman when you obtain her consent through deception (the assumption is she wouldn't have done it if she'd known the man wasn't Jewish) is classed as rape in many jurisdictions. In England, the precedent for this was the ruling in R v Williams (1923), where a singing coach was convicted of rape after he had sex with a 16-year-old pupil under the pretence that it was a procedure to improve her voice.

    Sounds more like abuse of authority than deception. I doubt they would’ve locked up an 18 year-old for telling her sex would clear up her acne, for instance. Or if the sexes were reversed, for that matter.

    There’s too much deception involved in sex (unless it’s prostitution) for me to take fraud as seriously as rape. Rape is a big, big word.

  237. @Anonymous
    The problem is you get these Dylan Roofs who read one too many black crime reports and decide to do something about it, even if that something is completely insane. And that's when the media disappears noticers and noticing in the same way it disappeared the Confederate flag.

    They’re doing that, anyway. They’ve bleached almost the entire white population of race-consciousness and “noticing,” and still pretend as if the country is crawling with KKK nightstalkers, and that talk radio and Trump, or whatever, are inciting violence. Fight fire with fire.

  238. @Corvinus
    "“Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/hate-crime-america-numbers-n81521

    "Race has generally fallen as a percentage of hate crimes (from about 60 percent to the high 40s), while sexual orientation has generally risen in share (from the low teens to about 20 percent).
    Over the entire period, these were the average number of incidents reported per year, by type: race, 3,979; religion, 1,382; sexual orientation, 1,210; ethnicity/national origin, 951; disability, 52; multiple-bias, 5."

    Just change it to: meant to be applied to cis-het white, Christians or at least non-Muslims born in the U.S. of ordinary mental and physical capability, and nobody else.

  239. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?"

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840's and 1850's, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the late 1800's like the Italians and Slavs. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Yet, they were given "free passes". Interesting, to say the least.

    "What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior."

    I thought it was 60 million. Where did you get your figures? I got mine from David Duke.

    "According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that."

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let's call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    "It’s striking how blatant double-standards are."

    I imagine you are exempt from such descriptions being an integral part of the alternative media, right?

    "On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense."

    Most definitely! Any measures necessary to get one's point across?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-rhetoric.html

    "Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now."

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800's.

    "In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation."

    That's what hypocrites do. Perhaps you should also look in your own backyard as well?

    Everything you write is is just plain wrong.

    Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites. It’s just a persistent myth, if not actual lie, that this is not so. Probably because the ill-informed still have a hard time believing that blacks have white collar jobs.

    The descendants of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites."

    Sources?

    "The descendants of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm."

    What was this Anglo-Saxon norm?
  240. @AnotherDad

    The counter-example would be the fact that the Amerindians went to America before there was any settlement or civilization on it.
     
    No it's not a counter example. I'm not saying that if you dial the clock back, immigrants from any group wouldn't grab open land. They would and did.

    What i'm saying is that immigrants to the West today are *not* coming because there is raw land or a settlement opportunity. Not coming to "build their world in a new place". They are not coming for land at all. (Land is cheaper in Mexico than the US. It's cheaper in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan than Germany.)

    Immigrants are coming to the West from the non-West precisely because whites have built nicer societies--more orderly, more free, more technologically advanced, more prosperous, with generous welfare states, etc. etc. etc. Better. (For some of these young men headed to Europe that includes access to white women.) The non-Western immigrants are coming to the West precisely because white people make nice nations ... and they want to glom onto it.

    This is categorically different than what whites were doing when they conquered and settled America or Canada or Australia or South Africa.

    Right. People that liken immigrants to pioneers and settlers are disingenuous, stupid or both.

  241. @Anonymous
    Ted's smarter than you though.

    “Ted’s smarter than you though.”

    No, not hardly. However, I will concede that he is smarter than you. Marco Rubio is smarter than you too.

  242. @Corvinus
    "The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?"

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840's and 1850's, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the late 1800's like the Italians and Slavs. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Yet, they were given "free passes". Interesting, to say the least.

    "What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior."

    I thought it was 60 million. Where did you get your figures? I got mine from David Duke.

    "According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that."

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let's call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    "It’s striking how blatant double-standards are."

    I imagine you are exempt from such descriptions being an integral part of the alternative media, right?

    "On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense."

    Most definitely! Any measures necessary to get one's point across?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-rhetoric.html

    "Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now."

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800's.

    "In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation."

    That's what hypocrites do. Perhaps you should also look in your own backyard as well?

    “Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?”

    Yeah, and that’s so much worse than murder, rape, and strong-arm robbery, isn’t it? Blacks commit over half the murders in the United States, every year, year-in, year-out, despite the fact that they only make up about one eighth of the population. Kind of sticks in your craw, doesn’t it? Actually, blacks commit white-collar crime at a disproportionately high rate too, but you conveniently ignored that.

    You guys – always willing to put in a good word for a hard-working felon, aren’t you?

  243. @Corvinus
    "“Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/hate-crime-america-numbers-n81521

    "Race has generally fallen as a percentage of hate crimes (from about 60 percent to the high 40s), while sexual orientation has generally risen in share (from the low teens to about 20 percent).
    Over the entire period, these were the average number of incidents reported per year, by type: race, 3,979; religion, 1,382; sexual orientation, 1,210; ethnicity/national origin, 951; disability, 52; multiple-bias, 5."

    Usually you make something up, rather than simply replying with a non-sequitur. What Rob McX said is true. “Hate Speech” is a bogus concept. We have a right to hate. We have a right to hate anybody we want. And, indeed, it is perfectly rational to hate ones enemies.

  244. @biz
    I completely agree that Liberals do not primarily support immigration because it displaces blacks from adjacent areas. It is wholly unnecessary to posit a conspiracy when the widely stated motivations of Liberals are completely sufficient to explain their actions.

    Most Liberals probably haven't even consciously thought about it.

    But sub-consciously, they are aware of it and like it. They take note when they are walking / driving through a certain neighborhood "Gee this particular area that has rapidly transitioned to hispanic seems a lot safer nowadays. And that dive taco stand is of much more use to me than the wig store that used to be there." Those get filed away in their brain as a positive feeling about immigrants, and thus a positive feeling about immigration.

    The ironic thing is that their sub-conscious feelings are more logical than their conscious ones. For middle class liberals, on a strictly personal level, large-scale immigration is a benefit - they get cheaper services, better food options, and certain areas become safer. Yet the reason that they primarily like and support immigration is none of these - it is primarily because they see themselves as virtuous people which means being 'nice' to immigrants no matter what.

    I think you’re right.

  245. @Mike Zwick
    "On the other hand, if you live in one of the loser cities where the African-Americans will move to, too bad. Moreover, people in the media will call you a racist for not wanting to take their surplus African-Americans off their hands."

    http://www.pjstar.com/news/20160625/shootings-up-within-peoria-police-lawmakers-say-theyre-working-on-it

    That article was interesting. No one mentioned the real reason that shootings have increased in Peoria. A few of the commenters hinted at it, but only in a round-about way. On a recent trip through Illinois, I noticed black people in lots of small towns where one did not see them before. This must be part of Chicago’s poverty-dispersal campaign.

    • Replies: @guest
    I noticed that here in MN, too. And that's before I caught wind of the latest anti-white flight (or just anti-white?) strategy.
  246. @PiltdownMan
    That Richmond Lattimore translation is a modern delight, but earlier versions did mostly have it as "strife, the driver of armies" or "strife, the goader of fighting men" or some such, rather than "hatred."

    I'll go with Lattimore, though. He's wonderful.

    Thanks, Derb.

    Eris, Spirit of Discord.

    Uncertain etymology – if PIE *ere- to separate, then English ‘strife’ makes more sense; if PIE *ares for anger, then English ‘hatred’ becomes a contender.

    What did ancient Aeolians mean by it? What Mycenaeans?

    Judging by the gleeful spite we sense in her from examining the legends today, hate seems strong. On the other hand, she did move men to kill each other. Either way, she naturally was female.

    BTW, so many basic words have these overlapping semantic and phonic etymological possibilities when you trace them back to PIE that I am starting to think this is yet another way language is a para-biological process: etymological collapse is parallel to pedigree collapse.

  247. @Anonymous
    Jewish friends here, please help us out with an important question:

    Are Jews capable of coexisting in the same country with another capable group without trying to destroy that group? I'm really beginning to wonder...

    I am not aware of examples of white cohesion and Jewish strength growing together in the diaspora. Normally, in the West, the stronger Jews get, the more divided whites get, as Jews, like all minorities, tend to side with other minorities against the majority. You won’t find many Jews in any movement maximizing majority rights at the expense of minority rights though you will find many Jews in movements to boost minority rights, which always come at the expense of majority rights.

    Possible exceptions:

    * The American South prior to the 1890s (or perhaps the 1960s).
    * America prior to the 1960s
    * England, Canada and Australia prior to the 1970s.

    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them. Similarly, the stronger Jews get in their Jewish identity, the more likely they will have negative views of gentiles.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them.

    Thank for your response, Luke. Is the above proposition borne out by experience though, or even by theory? Perhaps it is more jewish perception than reality. The periods you cite would undermine the proposition. Could it be that negative attitudes towards jews spring from jewish action against another group's strength and cohesion (action taken due to the perception you describe or to some other motivation, such as fear of assimilation). And moreover, a group would react more negatively as an inverse function of its power, position, cohesion. That is, the weaker the group, the more it is threatened by jewish competition and subversion. One could even argue this has some support in Germany in first half of the 20th C.
  248. @Anonymous
    Jewish friends here, please help us out with an important question:

    Are Jews capable of coexisting in the same country with another capable group without trying to destroy that group? I'm really beginning to wonder...

    Different groups will always have different interests and the more diversity you have in a country, the more conflict and disharmony.

  249. @skinnyhoops
    Jewish elites really don't much like white people. And so whites must be punished and swallow diversity to atone for centuries of antisemitism.

    Members of any group are likely to dislike out-groups. This applies as much to Jews as to gentiles. This dislike for outsiders is normal. The reasons we come up with for why we dislike outsiders are rationalizations of our biological and learned instincts.

  250. So much material, so little time … but the big glaring one is worth noting:

    Josh has his panties all in a twist because Trump is decrying illegal alien crime and Obama\Democrats non-deportation … leading to actually American victims. But the only violence from this “blood libel” agitation has been Mexicans and Soros mobs beating up Trump supporters.

    Meanwhile … in plain view of Josh Marshall …

    the Democrats\BLM\Hillary have spent the last few years–since Trayvon–yelling that blacks are endanger from racists whites. The last couple years, since Michael Brown, BLM and Hillary have been very explicit that young innocent blacks are being specifically targeted and gunned down by racist white cops who drain their blood to bake into their donuts.

    This “blood libel”–which Hillary knows is nonsense–has resulted in a jump in the black murder rate by hundreds, probably right around a thousand, and directly the murder of several cops.

    • Replies: @guest
    Now that's a blood libel! Josh just liked the way those words sound, so he used them. But I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean.
  251. Just to make a point that is in a way obvious, but deserves note:

    Marshall’s entire attack is nothing but one further attempt to distract from the central, and indisputably deep and philosophical, question that Trump’s speech explicitly, and with great clarity, raises and answers: What is the fundamental goal of immigration? Whose interests should it serve — those of current citizens, or those of uncountable potential immigrants?

    This is the question so basic and so dangerous that it will never be mentioned by the elite or its media toadies. Even to ask the question is to challenge the open borders religion, and this religion can be justified only by faith, not argument.

    Marshall throws out “Blood Libel!” instead, because he knows in his enlarged, flabby heart — as do all sermonizers for open borders — that he has no convincing answer on the merits to Trump’s basic question.

  252. @Gabriel M
    Yes. It's not Israeli right-wingers' fault that American right-wingers don't have enough children and let the Left capture the children they do have.

    How are they pressured to change? Do groups like ACT-UP or Pussy Riot bust in and interrupt their religious services? Does the government threaten to remove any favorable tax treatment they might have? Are there endless editorials in the media?

  253. @anonymous
    Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals.

    Weren't a lot of these people, like in the US, from debtor's prisons?


    "...Through the mid 19th century, debtors' prisons (usually similar in form to locked workhouses) were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe...

    ...In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 10,000 people were imprisoned for debt each year. A prison term did not alleviate a person's debt, however; an inmate was typically required to repay the creditor in-full before being released...

    ...the inmates were forced to pay for their keep...

    ...James Wilson, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, spent some time in a debtors' prison while still serving as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court...

    ...disfavor over debtors' prisons along with the advent and early development of U.S. bankruptcy laws led states to begin restricting imprisonment for most civil debts...

    ...The United States ostensibly eliminated the imprisonment of debtors under federal law in 1833..."

     

    Penal colony:


    "...The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies....

    ...Georgia... was first founded... by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison... largely failed...

    ...The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland...

    ...after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements."

     

    Rootling about in the registries for years doing family history led the wife (a Scouser, therefore has a rich vein of felonry to excavate) to eventually remark “You know the Victorians weren’t that bad, the juries wouldn’t go along with it unless you’d really been annoying”. She meant from about 1830, can’t say what went on earlier.
    It seems that it was a sort of rudimentary “three strikes and you’re out” policy; persistent thieving, soliciting, long-term anti-social behaviour in general. Which is why there wasn’t a revolution as a result. The later (English, I know, I know) convicts had pretty much pissed everyone off, including their relatives, by the time they got Botany Bayed.
    If they’d been hung, Bloody Code style, I suspect the reaction would have been a real threat to the near-military dictatorship of the early nineteenth century which lurked below the illusion of Monarchy.

    • Replies: @fnn

    If they’d been hung, Bloody Code style, I suspect the reaction would have been a real threat to the near-military dictatorship of the early nineteenth century which lurked below the illusion of Monarchy.
     
    I think it was supposed to be the illusion of liberal democracy. The kind of crap that the EU says today represents the essence of unique "European values", which nevertheless are not superior to the values of any other part of the world- except the US. Not to imply that I'm defending the American Empire.
  254. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:

    He is kinda saying that when Trump talks about building the wall, it is really a code phrase for “building the ovens!”

  255. @Paco Wové

    “The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?”

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840′s and 1850′s, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.
     
    Actually, they didn't. Especially on the succeeding generations point.

    “Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.”

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800′s.
     
    Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as "low quality" and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn't follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea.

    "If they let your grandfather in back then, it follows that you are morally obligated to agree that anybody who wants to should be able to move here now" is a logically fallacious and stupid-on-its-face "argument". The onus is on the people who trot it out to explain why it isn't mere vacuous emotionalism.

    Also, even if the immigrants were the same as they are now the country has changed. We have a Welfare State now. Assuming the children of immigrants are just like any other American (which is a stupid assumption, but bear with me), Americans aren’t the same as they used to be. We really don’t need any more, thanks.

  256. @Mr. Anon
    That article was interesting. No one mentioned the real reason that shootings have increased in Peoria. A few of the commenters hinted at it, but only in a round-about way. On a recent trip through Illinois, I noticed black people in lots of small towns where one did not see them before. This must be part of Chicago's poverty-dispersal campaign.

    I noticed that here in MN, too. And that’s before I caught wind of the latest anti-white flight (or just anti-white?) strategy.

  257. @AnotherDad
    So much material, so little time ... but the big glaring one is worth noting:

    Josh has his panties all in a twist because Trump is decrying illegal alien crime and Obama\Democrats non-deportation ... leading to actually American victims. But the only violence from this "blood libel" agitation has been Mexicans and Soros mobs beating up Trump supporters.

    Meanwhile ... in plain view of Josh Marshall ...

    the Democrats\BLM\Hillary have spent the last few years--since Trayvon--yelling that blacks are endanger from racists whites. The last couple years, since Michael Brown, BLM and Hillary have been very explicit that young innocent blacks are being specifically targeted and gunned down by racist white cops who drain their blood to bake into their donuts.

    This "blood libel"--which Hillary knows is nonsense--has resulted in a jump in the black murder rate by hundreds, probably right around a thousand, and directly the murder of several cops.

    Now that’s a blood libel! Josh just liked the way those words sound, so he used them. But I don’t think they mean what he thinks they mean.

  258. @Anonymous
    Everything you write is is just plain wrong.

    Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites. It's just a persistent myth, if not actual lie, that this is not so. Probably because the ill-informed still have a hard time believing that blacks have white collar jobs.

    The descendants of 'ethnic' European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm.

    “Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites.”

    Sources?

    “The descendants of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm.”

    What was this Anglo-Saxon norm?

    • Replies: @guest
    "Sources?"

    Try: www.google.com
  259. @The most deplorable one
    That is an interesting video snippet.

    They must have had to do that in two shoots ... the bone is spinning different ways on the way up and down.

    It appears to be the front lower leg of an ordinary cow (domesticated bovid metatarsal). So which advanced species did they rustle it from?

  260. @Paco Wové

    “The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?”

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840′s and 1850′s, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.
     
    Actually, they didn't. Especially on the succeeding generations point.

    “Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.”

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800′s.
     
    Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as "low quality" and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn't follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea.

    "If they let your grandfather in back then, it follows that you are morally obligated to agree that anybody who wants to should be able to move here now" is a logically fallacious and stupid-on-its-face "argument". The onus is on the people who trot it out to explain why it isn't mere vacuous emotionalism.

    “Actually, they didn’t. Especially on the succeeding generations point.”

    Sources?

    All one needs to look at is the Irish. You know, white Europeans. Those considered to be desirable to the Alt-Right.

    The Irish quickly made a name for themselves and not always for the right reasons. Cash-strapped and fleeing their country after years of hunger, it appears that some of the Irish in New York turned to crime and violence while women engaged in prostitution to earn money. By the 1850’s, over half of those arrested in the city were Irish-born and a staggering percentage of those arrested for being drunk and disorderly also hailed from the Emerald Isle.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/Irish-Famine-refugees-caused-a-crime-wave-in-New-York-City-stats-show-.html

    The question was not simply a product of anti-Italian stereotypes. As the table below notes, crime statistics of the time showed that while Italians committed few crimes against property or public order, they were highest on the list for crimes against persons, i.e., violent crimes.

    http://bostoniano.info/northendspirit/italian-immigrants-violent-crime

    Interesting how the descendants of these Europeans today are part of the Alt Right who clamor for immigration restrictions, yet whose relatives had fought long and hard to get into this country to make a difference.

    “Ask them what? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 19th century immigrants were as “low quality” and incompatible as the current inflows, it doesn’t follow that not being picky and choosy in the 21st is a good idea.”

    There is no sake of argument. The nativists of the late 1800’s were correct in their prejudices and assumptions, right?

    Now, if the American public votes on restricting or prohibiting further immigration to the States, fine. Just don’t believe that all or most Mexicans, Pakistanis, and Kenyans are somehow less deserving if their “cream of the crop” desire to emigrate to America for similar reasons like your ancestors.

  261. These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.

    Why do we have to keep hearing this logical nonsense? Yes, we have screw-ups. Bringing in more screw-ups neither cancels out them or the new screw-ups. It’s all just more screw-ups. It’s like saying, “sure, this is giving you heart disease, but you’ve already got cancer!” It’s worse when they cite “white racists” as negating somehow the new bigots we’re bringing in by the thousands–the “problem” of white racism can only be aggravated by the policies being defended.

  262. @Corvinus
    "Firstly, blacks in the USA have a much higher per capita rate of conviction for fraud, forgery, embezzlement and the like than do whites."

    Sources?

    "The descendants of ‘ethnic’ European immigrants to the States show levels of criminality no different from the Anglo-Saxon norm."

    What was this Anglo-Saxon norm?

    “Sources?”

    Try: http://www.google.com

  263. @guest
    We are Refugee Central here in the People's Republic of Minnesota. Up to our ears in Somalis, Hmong, etc. They aren't allowed near the elite-elite, but I do see them around hipsters and such. MN is not NY-DC-LA. We are run by SJWs, but not of the same caliber, exactly.

    MN SJWs are true believers, they don’t have any power. The NY-DC-LA spout SJW nonsense, they don’t live that way though.

  264. @Svigor

    The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons.
     
    If you're a sperg, which most people aren't. If you aren't a sperg, the emotional impact of dead, maimed, or raped citizens at the hands of immigrants is a powerful one. The overarching argument for our side is, "why do we need third-world immigrants?" So the more you pile on the negatives, the more the other side needs to pile on the positives. Which they don't have.

    This is what I find most interesting with Ashkenazi Jews in the US. Despite all the wealth and distance from it they react hysterically to Eastern Europe though they know nothing about it or it’s history. (Except maybe Fiddler, which is, of course, a realistic documentary…)
     
    If they learn about Jewish history in eastern Europe, they run a (small) risk of discovering that the periods that were bad for Jews were, generally speaking, mere punctuation for the rest of the time, when Jews were exploiting and oppressing the peasantry.

    Only Whites can make hate speech.

    Hate speech = persuasion + privilege
     
    Dass rracis!

    Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.
     
    Just stop. That's not who we are.

    We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew.
     
    Also, the Alans were a Germanic tribe, IIRC. So the spelling change was probably a good idea.

    Why didn’t they give him the name “Alan” then?
     
    See above.

    My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today. I really didn’t want to reveal my power level. Not yet.
     
    Please ask your relatives how many Jews marry blacks today, when they bring up subjects like this. Pretty please? You don't have to make an argument out of it, or anything. Just ask them, every time.

    Deporting Pinoy maids if they get pregnant and hiving off Eritreans to Sweden! It’s just made for modern click-bait outrage porn and yet… nothing! I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!
     
    Yep. Jews are Nazis in their homeland, but in the diaspora they're radical opponents of whites showing a scintilla of what Jews do in Israel.

    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won’t die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well.
     
    You highlight this distinction, as if it constitutes a difference. It doesn't. And as if Jews don't run Israel. They do.

    Jews would never, in a million years, tolerate this shit in a white country. Ever. Ever-ever-ever-ever.

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.
     
    Jews in the diaspora would never tolerate this state of affairs, not in a million years. They'd be screeching about it until it changed.

    Well, as long as the state of affairs was in a white country, and not in Israel, I mean.

    We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.
     
    Don't hold your breath. The gun industry is strongly against gun control. The speech industry is just fine with speech control on everyone else. The gun industry sells guns, but the speech industry wants a monopoly.

    It was the political cultural equivalent of watching a toilet or cesspool overflow, where instead of running away in disgust, Trump’s supplicants Jews enthusiastically wallowed and frolicked in the waste.”
     
    That's how I feel about the media.

    Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries. All in all, I’d say it defies simple explanation.
     
    I trust African statistics about as far as I can throw them.

    I recall that Amy Goodman did cover the time a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship (‘Israeli Arab’, I love that term, as if they came in later) got charged with rape because he lied to a girl and said he was Jewish!

    Not only was he charged, he was convicted.
     
    Jews would go collectively ape if something similar happened in a diaspora country, with a white girl instead of a Jewish girl. Completely ape.

    Shaming Arguments are a flaming arrow pointing to female dominated societies.
     
    Throw the white wymminz under the bus to save the Jews!

    The Alans may well have mixed with Goths and the like on their career through terminal-Imperial/post-Roman Europe, but weren’t Germans. Some sort of Circassian/Caucasian/Iranian horsey mob. Eventually merged with the locals, Gauls and particularly displaced Britons. Hence the name being carried (as a personal one) by Counts of Brittany and various (recently conquered) hangers-on of William the Bastard back into Britain after 1066, and its subsequent dissemination among the peasantry as Alan/Allan/Alain
    Originally had more in common with, for instance, the thousands of Sarmatian (Iazgyes) cavalrymen stationed in northern Britain from the 170s on. They seem to have been behind some of the King Arthur myths/rituals (sword in stone etc.)

  265. @Corvinus
    "The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?"

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the 1840's and 1850's, like the Germans and Irish. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    You should ask those European immigrants who were allowed to come in droves in the late 1800's like the Italians and Slavs. They exhibited the same tendencies.

    Yet, they were given "free passes". Interesting, to say the least.

    "What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior."

    I thought it was 60 million. Where did you get your figures? I got mine from David Duke.

    "According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that."

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let's call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    "It’s striking how blatant double-standards are."

    I imagine you are exempt from such descriptions being an integral part of the alternative media, right?

    "On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense."

    Most definitely! Any measures necessary to get one's point across?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-rhetoric.html

    "Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now."

    Again, ask those people whose ancestors came here in the mid and late 1800's.

    "In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation."

    That's what hypocrites do. Perhaps you should also look in your own backyard as well?

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    It takes some chutzpah to make an assertion like that and “support” it with a link that shows blacks are arrested at ~2.5x the per capita rate of whites for those crimes (well, either chutzpah or an inability to think statistically).

    And “So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?” is laughable (since you like evidence, look at the % of arrests for blacks in each category in your linked table. The only categories where blacks are close to represented at their proportion of the US population of ~12% are the alcohol related crimes–which is actually interesting, does anyone have any hypotheses for why?).

    Sometimes you question the conventional wisdom here in an interesting way. Other times you just appear to be a troll promoting misinformation and bad arguments. This was an example of the latter.

    • Replies: @guest
    They don't need booze; they have purple drank.
    , @Corvinus
    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in "white collar" jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

    I'm just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.
  266. @res

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
     
    It takes some chutzpah to make an assertion like that and "support" it with a link that shows blacks are arrested at ~2.5x the per capita rate of whites for those crimes (well, either chutzpah or an inability to think statistically).

    And "So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?" is laughable (since you like evidence, look at the % of arrests for blacks in each category in your linked table. The only categories where blacks are close to represented at their proportion of the US population of ~12% are the alcohol related crimes--which is actually interesting, does anyone have any hypotheses for why?).

    Sometimes you question the conventional wisdom here in an interesting way. Other times you just appear to be a troll promoting misinformation and bad arguments. This was an example of the latter.

    They don’t need booze; they have purple drank.

  267. @Days of Broken Arrows
    I totally agree with this. To me, hate speech = astrology.

    Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don't believe it's real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.

    It bothers me, though, that we let believers in "hate speech" frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.

    And I'm saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called "Wop" and "Dago." Did I like to hear that? No, I didn't. But I also don't believe in outlawing it.

    There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don't think should be outlawed. That's what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of "hate speech" because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society...which is much worse than annoying words.

    The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.

    The war on “hate speech” has two purposes. First and most importantly, it’s an effort to criminalize political thought one dislikes. If you can label your opponent’s speech as “hate” then you needn’t debate him on the facts and logical merits of the issue. Secondly, it keeps a large segment of the population perpetually in a childish tantrum state. Generally those whose brains have fully developed are unconcerned about “bad words” (see the late George Carlin’s many rants on this subject) and instead focus on bad behaviors. By labeling most of western civilization’s core tenets as “hate,” the leftists may excuse and justify the rampant race-based criminal violence of their African clients. Most leftists couldn’t care less about your choice of words except in how they might be used as a weapon against you and/or serve as justification for when their African clients gang rape then set fire to your 93 year old grandmother (“she said the word ‘boy’ in their presence”).

    • Agree: BB753
  268. @Joshua
    I think it's time for me to convert. One of my sisters has flat-out told me that she must support high immigration, cause Jewish. Maybe it's because I've always identified more with mainstream American culture, but I've never realized before just how strongly 'being Jewish' informs the thoughts of so many. Of course, I'm sure that's true of every group, but it's still startling to me.

    Did you at least try to argue your position and get them to see reality?

  269. “Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.”

    Here’s some other simple logic:

    -Simple logic tells us that illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes reported against them, and since most crime is intra-racial, illegals are largely victims of fellow hispanics, and many, many of the perpetrators would be illegals.

    -Simple logic tells us that visa overstayers- who compose a large portion of the illegal population- are depressing crime stats among illegals, since they came in through legal means and were likely subject to similar standards as illegals.*

    -Simple logic tells us that millions of people coming in via illegal channels from backwards, horribly corrupt, impoverished third world countries ravaged by gang and cartel violence and variously have crime/homicide rates far above our own or consistently rank among the highest in the world (and even what is reported is widely believed to be heavily underestimated) are not more law-abiding than US citizens.

    -Simple logic tells us that since hispanic citizens commit crime at rates considerably above the national average, illegal hispanics likely have high crime rates.

    -Simple logic tells us that if the fear of deportation is acting as a deterrent against committing crime, their rates will likely rise if you legalize these people.

    -Simple logic tells us that with what we know about the culture and people of these countries, they often don’t have the self-control to avoid committing crime, even if they’ll be deported.

    -Simple logic tells us that our immigration enforcement system is too inept and broken to consistently inspire this fear.

    -Simple logic tells us that our culture, by and large, is not so detrimental that it magically increases crime among immigrants over the generations.

    *This does not mean they are as big of a concern as illegals from south of the border as many on the left have implied, to downplay the problem of southern illegal immigration. We are awful at prosecuting visa overstayers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/20/illegal-immigrants-who-overstay-visas-rarely-inves/) and there are no verified numbers on visa overstayers. Even if visa overstayers made up as high as 60% of the illegal population as has been claimed, illegals from south of the border would still be a bigger issue, because we deport visa overstayers at a far lower rate than border-crossers (whether at the border or within the country), and this does not include all the people we don’t catch at the border, the people who are caught at Mexico’s southern border trying to get here etc.

    • Replies: @Yolbak
    "-Simple logic tells us that visa overstayers- who compose a large portion of the illegal population- are depressing crime stats among illegals, since they came in through legal means and were likely subject to similar standards as illegals.*"

    Meant to say "similar standards as legals". This goes in line with how often these people, in addition to flat-out claiming illegals commit fewer crimes, lump together the crime rates of legal and illegal immigrants. It's really not surprising legal immigrants have low rates of crime. We have generally high legal immigration standards, in contrast to say, much of Europe.

  270. @guest
    You're right. When white people hear "Jim Crow" they may not automatically think of innocent blacks hanging from trees. Maybe they think of blacks raping innocent white women now, and wonder, "Hey, maybe there was something to this Crow fellow."

    Writers like this don't take that into account. They assume everyone thinks the same way about settled issues like the evil of Jim Crow. But those issues aren't settled, and never will be.

    Agree. School segregation, with black-majority schools getting slightly higher levels of funding than white schools so they can’t complain, sounds better and better lately.

  271. @Expletive Deleted
    Rootling about in the registries for years doing family history led the wife (a Scouser, therefore has a rich vein of felonry to excavate) to eventually remark "You know the Victorians weren't that bad, the juries wouldn't go along with it unless you'd really been annoying". She meant from about 1830, can't say what went on earlier.
    It seems that it was a sort of rudimentary "three strikes and you're out" policy; persistent thieving, soliciting, long-term anti-social behaviour in general. Which is why there wasn't a revolution as a result. The later (English, I know, I know) convicts had pretty much pissed everyone off, including their relatives, by the time they got Botany Bayed.
    If they'd been hung, Bloody Code style, I suspect the reaction would have been a real threat to the near-military dictatorship of the early nineteenth century which lurked below the illusion of Monarchy.

    If they’d been hung, Bloody Code style, I suspect the reaction would have been a real threat to the near-military dictatorship of the early nineteenth century which lurked below the illusion of Monarchy.

    I think it was supposed to be the illusion of liberal democracy. The kind of crap that the EU says today represents the essence of unique “European values”, which nevertheless are not superior to the values of any other part of the world- except the US. Not to imply that I’m defending the American Empire.

  272. @guest
    You're right. When white people hear "Jim Crow" they may not automatically think of innocent blacks hanging from trees. Maybe they think of blacks raping innocent white women now, and wonder, "Hey, maybe there was something to this Crow fellow."

    Writers like this don't take that into account. They assume everyone thinks the same way about settled issues like the evil of Jim Crow. But those issues aren't settled, and never will be.

    Yes, it’s something the folks who were comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till a few years back don’t seem to have realized. The effect wasn’t to sanctify Martin but to raise doubts about the innocence of Till.

  273. @Yolbak
    "Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They're likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us."

    Here's some other simple logic:

    -Simple logic tells us that illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes reported against them, and since most crime is intra-racial, illegals are largely victims of fellow hispanics, and many, many of the perpetrators would be illegals.

    -Simple logic tells us that visa overstayers- who compose a large portion of the illegal population- are depressing crime stats among illegals, since they came in through legal means and were likely subject to similar standards as illegals.*

    -Simple logic tells us that millions of people coming in via illegal channels from backwards, horribly corrupt, impoverished third world countries ravaged by gang and cartel violence and variously have crime/homicide rates far above our own or consistently rank among the highest in the world (and even what is reported is widely believed to be heavily underestimated) are not more law-abiding than US citizens.

    -Simple logic tells us that since hispanic citizens commit crime at rates considerably above the national average, illegal hispanics likely have high crime rates.

    -Simple logic tells us that if the fear of deportation is acting as a deterrent against committing crime, their rates will likely rise if you legalize these people.

    -Simple logic tells us that with what we know about the culture and people of these countries, they often don't have the self-control to avoid committing crime, even if they'll be deported.

    -Simple logic tells us that our immigration enforcement system is too inept and broken to consistently inspire this fear.

    -Simple logic tells us that our culture, by and large, is not so detrimental that it magically increases crime among immigrants over the generations.

    *This does not mean they are as big of a concern as illegals from south of the border as many on the left have implied, to downplay the problem of southern illegal immigration. We are awful at prosecuting visa overstayers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/20/illegal-immigrants-who-overstay-visas-rarely-inves/) and there are no verified numbers on visa overstayers. Even if visa overstayers made up as high as 60% of the illegal population as has been claimed, illegals from south of the border would still be a bigger issue, because we deport visa overstayers at a far lower rate than border-crossers (whether at the border or within the country), and this does not include all the people we don't catch at the border, the people who are caught at Mexico's southern border trying to get here etc.

    “-Simple logic tells us that visa overstayers- who compose a large portion of the illegal population- are depressing crime stats among illegals, since they came in through legal means and were likely subject to similar standards as illegals.*”

    Meant to say “similar standards as legals”. This goes in line with how often these people, in addition to flat-out claiming illegals commit fewer crimes, lump together the crime rates of legal and illegal immigrants. It’s really not surprising legal immigrants have low rates of crime. We have generally high legal immigration standards, in contrast to say, much of Europe.

  274. @Anon
    Was hanging out with an old friend recently who is "of the tribe". I mentioned that the town I live in has been overrun with Muslims and subcontinenters. My daughter was the only white kid in her pre-school class. He said, "If only you could join the JCC". No dummies they.

    Where I grew up, non-Jews were allowed to join the local JCC. Have you ever actually asked them whether you could join?

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Have you ever actually asked them whether you could join?".
    Yes. They said "no".
  275. @biz

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won't die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don't allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing - it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that "People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel." But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu's son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    So what he said was 100% true. In the Jewish state, inhabited mostly by Jews, non-Jews can’t marry Jews in Israel. They can go to Norway or Cyrpus. But they can’t do it in Israel. That’s the claim. Because you don’t like it, it’s a lie?

  276. “loser cities where the African-Americans will move to”

    Plenty of Hispamic and other immigrants move directly to small towns, and certainly wealthy suburbs. For all the annoyance, Section 8 is a small program.

  277. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Ford
    I am not aware of examples of white cohesion and Jewish strength growing together in the diaspora. Normally, in the West, the stronger Jews get, the more divided whites get, as Jews, like all minorities, tend to side with other minorities against the majority. You won't find many Jews in any movement maximizing majority rights at the expense of minority rights though you will find many Jews in movements to boost minority rights, which always come at the expense of majority rights.

    Possible exceptions:

    * The American South prior to the 1890s (or perhaps the 1960s).
    * America prior to the 1960s
    * England, Canada and Australia prior to the 1970s.

    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them. Similarly, the stronger Jews get in their Jewish identity, the more likely they will have negative views of gentiles.

    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them.

    Thank for your response, Luke. Is the above proposition borne out by experience though, or even by theory? Perhaps it is more jewish perception than reality. The periods you cite would undermine the proposition. Could it be that negative attitudes towards jews spring from jewish action against another group’s strength and cohesion (action taken due to the perception you describe or to some other motivation, such as fear of assimilation). And moreover, a group would react more negatively as an inverse function of its power, position, cohesion. That is, the weaker the group, the more it is threatened by jewish competition and subversion. One could even argue this has some support in Germany in first half of the 20th C.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    It's just social identity theory, and it applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews:

    http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

    Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

    Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.

    In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!

    Therefore, we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).

    This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.

    The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

    Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.
     

    Listen to this Fash the Nation podcast.

    Fash host: "We are the white blood cells fighting an infection in our society. We are the natural outgrowth of an attack on our cultural organism. It's a natural phenomena."

    Greg: "It is natural for people to respond to threats. For a long time, people have been inhibited from that because they've been kept ignorant and inhibited..."

    "Five years ago, I was talking to Kevin MacDonald about the Jewish survival strategy. He said it is not really a survival strategy because it has often led to catastrophes. Jews have a dominance strategy. It is not a survival strategy because they do not have the ability to apply the brakes. Therefore, they pursue these things fanatically, unreflectively. They pursue it while it working splendidly and then they keep it pursuing until it gets to the point where it is no longer working in their best interest and then they hit a brick wall. That is the mentality of the left. They will fail. The only question is if there will be any of us left to pick up the pieces."

    I think all living things have a dominance strategy. We all naturally try to dominate when we can. I don't think Jews are any different in that regard, they just have a higher upside because of IQ, and as a consequence of that, a lower downside.

    All living things react strongly against that which threatens its existence. If you feel threatened enough, you will react with fury.

  278. “many Jews in the media are not very self-aware of their own prejudices.” – If they were aware they would not be as effective. True believers are the most effective deceivers.

  279. @Anonymous
    Where I grew up, non-Jews were allowed to join the local JCC. Have you ever actually asked them whether you could join?

    “Have you ever actually asked them whether you could join?”.
    Yes. They said “no”.

  280. @Erik Sieven
    also it is a quite recent invention. Leftist love to portray themselves as guardians of concepts deeply ingrained in (western) civilization, yet all they do is pushing their agenda farther every 5 years or so

    Yes indeed … Just check the dismal life and thought trajectory of the ghastly Eric Hobsbawm … His hate still kills as it is nurtured and handed on …

  281. @res

    Well, whites do have a monopoly on forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement crimes. Must be in-born. So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
     
    It takes some chutzpah to make an assertion like that and "support" it with a link that shows blacks are arrested at ~2.5x the per capita rate of whites for those crimes (well, either chutzpah or an inability to think statistically).

    And "So, let’s call it a wash regarding racial tendencies toward crime, eh?" is laughable (since you like evidence, look at the % of arrests for blacks in each category in your linked table. The only categories where blacks are close to represented at their proportion of the US population of ~12% are the alcohol related crimes--which is actually interesting, does anyone have any hypotheses for why?).

    Sometimes you question the conventional wisdom here in an interesting way. Other times you just appear to be a troll promoting misinformation and bad arguments. This was an example of the latter.

    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in “white collar” jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

    I’m just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.

    • Replies: @guest
    Would that stand to reason? What point would you be making, considering how many more white than black people there are in this country?
    , @res

    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

     

    Well,
    1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly.
    2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that.

    Whether absolute or per capita rates are more relevant depends on the argument being made.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in “white collar” jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

     

    Come on Corvinus, you're better than this. Surely you can make an argument that doesn't undermine yourself. A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior.

    I’m just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.
     
    Your satire/parody shtick is even worse than your devil's advocate using inadequate evidence and bad arguments shtick.
  282. Classic “overthinking”…poor kid.

  283. @Anonymous
    The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them.

    Thank for your response, Luke. Is the above proposition borne out by experience though, or even by theory? Perhaps it is more jewish perception than reality. The periods you cite would undermine the proposition. Could it be that negative attitudes towards jews spring from jewish action against another group's strength and cohesion (action taken due to the perception you describe or to some other motivation, such as fear of assimilation). And moreover, a group would react more negatively as an inverse function of its power, position, cohesion. That is, the weaker the group, the more it is threatened by jewish competition and subversion. One could even argue this has some support in Germany in first half of the 20th C.

    It’s just social identity theory, and it applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews:

    http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

    Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

    Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.

    In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!

    Therefore, we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).

    This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.

    The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

    Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

    Listen to this Fash the Nation podcast.

    Fash host: “We are the white blood cells fighting an infection in our society. We are the natural outgrowth of an attack on our cultural organism. It’s a natural phenomena.”

    Greg: “It is natural for people to respond to threats. For a long time, people have been inhibited from that because they’ve been kept ignorant and inhibited…”

    “Five years ago, I was talking to Kevin MacDonald about the Jewish survival strategy. He said it is not really a survival strategy because it has often led to catastrophes. Jews have a dominance strategy. It is not a survival strategy because they do not have the ability to apply the brakes. Therefore, they pursue these things fanatically, unreflectively. They pursue it while it working splendidly and then they keep it pursuing until it gets to the point where it is no longer working in their best interest and then they hit a brick wall. That is the mentality of the left. They will fail. The only question is if there will be any of us left to pick up the pieces.”

    I think all living things have a dominance strategy. We all naturally try to dominate when we can. I don’t think Jews are any different in that regard, they just have a higher upside because of IQ, and as a consequence of that, a lower downside.

    All living things react strongly against that which threatens its existence. If you feel threatened enough, you will react with fury.

  284. @Corvinus
    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in "white collar" jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

    I'm just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.

    Would that stand to reason? What point would you be making, considering how many more white than black people there are in this country?

  285. @Corvinus
    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in "white collar" jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

    I'm just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.

    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

    Well,
    1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly.
    2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that.

    Whether absolute or per capita rates are more relevant depends on the argument being made.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in “white collar” jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

    Come on Corvinus, you’re better than this. Surely you can make an argument that doesn’t undermine yourself. A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior.

    I’m just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.

    Your satire/parody shtick is even worse than your devil’s advocate using inadequate evidence and bad arguments shtick.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well, 1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly."

    In those three areas I listed, it is roughly 65/35. Under this context, my use of the word monopoly suffices.

    "2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that."

    According to who?

    "A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior."

    It's really cute you are coming to the defense of whites who are predisposed to commit those crimes. I'm simply using a race realism argument to characterize a specific group of whites and their in-born tendency to steal when in high-powered positions.
  286. @carol
    I've been reading a bio of Robert Penn Warren, which got me interested in Huey Long. The wiki for him says he inspired Sinclair Lewis to write It Can't Happen Here, but he made the demogogue character racist!! of course. But race baiting wasn't Long's schtick. His "hate speech" was directed at the ruling class. And he did a lot of good things in La that progressives would normally applaud, like build roads and bridges and beef up LSU and protect teachers' salaries during the depression...but no matter. Sinclair just knew the type.

    History really does rhyme.

    “his story really does rhyme”
    mystery ?
    here is the thing, if we apply the ultra-uber-pc purity test to ANYONE in his story, NONE would ‘pass’…
    if we do the same today -as appears to be the trend-, only a few rabid ultra-uber-pc libtards would ‘qualify’…
    this retarded idea that any/all politicians or leaders of ANY gruppe, HAVE TO pass some bullshit ultra-uber-pc litmus test is INSANE…
    our pluralistic small-dee democracy is NOT INTENDED to homogenize and align everyone’s views and philosophy to be THE SAME, all mao-like…
    but to ALLOW -if not promote- the free and varied expression of ALL peoples and views, AND TO provide legal protections to do the same, NOT TO ENFORCE AN ORTHODOXY…
    dog damn, i hates me some authoritarians (not you, carol, just to be clear) whether of the libtard or conservatard flavor…
    uh oh, now i am a self-admitted hate-crimer…
    Pre-Crime Unit, cleanup on aisle 3 ! ! !

  287. @res

    The source I provided clearly shows that more whites than blacks get arrested in those three areas I listed. It would stand to reason that the overall numbers, not per capita rate or proportion to population, are more relevant.

     

    Well,
    1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly.
    2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that.

    Whether absolute or per capita rates are more relevant depends on the argument being made.

    Furthermore, are there not also more whites who work in “white collar” jobs than blacks? I mean, just looking at Google and headlines of whites bilking out their fellow employees out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, one would get the impression that it is more genetic rather than environmental as the cause for these crimes.

     

    Come on Corvinus, you're better than this. Surely you can make an argument that doesn't undermine yourself. A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior.

    I’m just trying to keep up with this race realism stuff.
     
    Your satire/parody shtick is even worse than your devil's advocate using inadequate evidence and bad arguments shtick.

    “Well, 1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly.”

    In those three areas I listed, it is roughly 65/35. Under this context, my use of the word monopoly suffices.

    “2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that.”

    According to who?

    “A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior.”

    It’s really cute you are coming to the defense of whites who are predisposed to commit those crimes. I’m simply using a race realism argument to characterize a specific group of whites and their in-born tendency to steal when in high-powered positions.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    You seem to lack an understanding of per-capita rates.

    For example, if 5% of your population commits, say 32% of a certain type of crime, while the other 95% commits the remaining 68%, that 5% population does have a higher propensity to commit that crime than the majority and they warrant greater scrutiny.

    Identifying criminals in the 5% population is far easier than identifying them in the majority.
  288. The most deplorable one [AKA "The Fourth Political Theory"] says:
    @Corvinus
    "Well, 1. You used the word monopoly. There is a big difference between 2/3 and a monopoly."

    In those three areas I listed, it is roughly 65/35. Under this context, my use of the word monopoly suffices.

    "2. You used the statistics as evidence of an inborn tendency. Per capita rates are much more relevant for assessing that."

    According to who?

    "A greater proportion of whites in positions where they can commit white collar crimes combined with a lower proportion of arrests for such crimes is even stronger evidence of differing tendencies towards misbehavior."

    It's really cute you are coming to the defense of whites who are predisposed to commit those crimes. I'm simply using a race realism argument to characterize a specific group of whites and their in-born tendency to steal when in high-powered positions.

    You seem to lack an understanding of per-capita rates.

    For example, if 5% of your population commits, say 32% of a certain type of crime, while the other 95% commits the remaining 68%, that 5% population does have a higher propensity to commit that crime than the majority and they warrant greater scrutiny.

    Identifying criminals in the 5% population is far easier than identifying them in the majority.

  289. Looks to me like Josh Marshall is doing a “blood libel” thing on Trump.

    Josh Marshall is telling a lie on Trump – just like the Jews claim happened to them with the blood libel charge.

    Over and over Trump talks about one America – about “America first” for all Americans.

    Me thinks Josh Marshall is bucking for a raise in his Jewish media world.

  290. @Ron Unz

    Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
     
    Ha, ha, ha...

    Based on some of Steve's other recent posts, I'm surprised that the whites living in Chicago haven't already hired recruiters to go all around the world and persuade illegal immigrants to move to their fine city...

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    How do you explain the levels of Hispanic murder and violent crime in Massachusetts? Too many “black” Hispanics and not enough George Zimmermans and Lin-Manuel Mirandas?

  291. @biz

    I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
     
    This again? Lie #74,365 about Israel that just won't die.

    There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don't allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing - it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that "People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel." But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?

    Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.

    Even Benjamin Netanyahu's son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.

    People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.

    If the only democracy in the Middle East was able to think of some novel, secular concept such as the establishment of the state sanctioned matrimonial office, then Jasser and Golda could have stayed home to tie the knot, instead taking that trip from Haifa to Cyprus.

    In 1871, Bismarck enacted the “Civil Marriage Law” which enabled interfaith marriages as well as marriages between spouses of different Christian denominations.

    Since Germany of the late 19th century was packed with Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Sikhs, Taoists, Druze, Zoroastrians, and Jain, it’s not too difficult to figure out which religious group had benefited the most from the Europeans’ decision to permit a non-Christians to intermarry the Christians.

    So,why not try some of that good old kulturkampf in Israel?

    Some snarly atheist-libtard would claim that it’s not happening just because the majority of the religious Jewish-Israelis belong to some kooky, pioneering stock that acts solely on the ancient Torah! Torah! Torah! based principals.

    Apparently, that’s the only logical explanation why Gretna Green is nowhere to be found in Israel.

    So far away from the truth.

    The real reason is that Israeli theocratic-heavy neighborhood is just not ready for such a change.

    How can you impose a sanctity of the state matrimony in Israel when everybody around you- Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon , Saudi Arabia, and even libertarian Qatar-are also rejecting the concept of civil marriage?

    You just can’t!

    Because the last thing Jewish-Israelis want to do is to piss-off their neighbors.
    Because the expression of the religious freedom of their own Muslim-Israeli community is paramount to Jewish-Israelis.
    And because the Jewish-Israelis also have to deal with you snooze- you lose from a Druze mentality of those, by sheer power of numbers, crucial constituents.

    One way to resolve this would be to directly address this whole marriage-apartheid to the UN.
    But do you really want to snitch internationally on your own citizenry (Druze and Muslims,that is), regardless of how repulsive their religious traditions are for 21st century standards?

    Can ADL, AIPAC, and J-Street pull a few remaining strings in the White House and Congress to pressure Druze-Israelis and Muslim-Israelis to accept mixed-marriages, so the Jewish-Israeli religious community can be also finally allowed to be not what they are right now, but, instead, what they really always wanted to be ?

    Until that happens, my prayers are certainly with the underprivileged community of the Israeli Jews.

  292. @Svigor
    P.S., I find that projection about overflowing toilets amusing. Maybe the author runs away in disgust from an overflowing toilet. I grab a plunger.

    Jewish guys come equipped with as much household repair skill as they have sports ability.

    • Replies: @Alden
    That's why Jews are so pro Hispanic immigration, they need handymen to do everything.
  293. @biz
    As I said in my previous comment, this is simply a lie. Israelis can go to any other country to marry any person they wish and that marriage is legally recognized in Israel. This is so routine that Israeli tourists going to Cyprus to get married is an industry there.

    If Jews in Israel are guilty of ethnocentrism for rabbis not performing religious intermarriage in Israel, then Muslims, Christians, and Druze in Israel are just as guilty, for their religious leaders do not perform intermarriage either.

    Taken as a whole, that may be the most disingenuous comment ever on iSteve!

    So Christian, Druze and Muslim clerics are guilty of discrimination because they have to follow Israeli law? Ahh, OK.

  294. @Verymuchalive
    Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
    Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It's not true.

    Thanks I was going to repudiate the old Australia was founded mostly by convicts.

  295. @Brutusale
    Jewish guys come equipped with as much household repair skill as they have sports ability.

    That’s why Jews are so pro Hispanic immigration, they need handymen to do everything.

  296. @biz
    As I said in my previous comment, this is simply a lie. Israelis can go to any other country to marry any person they wish and that marriage is legally recognized in Israel. This is so routine that Israeli tourists going to Cyprus to get married is an industry there.

    If Jews in Israel are guilty of ethnocentrism for rabbis not performing religious intermarriage in Israel, then Muslims, Christians, and Druze in Israel are just as guilty, for their religious leaders do not perform intermarriage either.

    Christians allow interfaith marriages and have for centuries. The Catholics always demanded that the infidel promise to baptize the kids Catholic but otherwise, no barrier.

  297. @Eric Rasmusen
    "Who? Whom?" is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It's meaning isn't obvious enough, it's a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
    It's better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. "Cui bono" is related, but not hte same--- it refers to the "follow the money" idea that some action has a hidden motive. "But will it hurt the Jews?" is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally,n ot just to one group.

    I think that ‘Who? Whom?’ is a great formulation.

    Nothing could be more concise.

    Subject form, object form.

    I gather English-speaking countries in general have policies where grammar is only taught to a very small minority of students, some elite high schools. At tertiary level, teachers of English, students of grammar or language.

    It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking.

    It’s not surprisimg that you say its meaning isn’t obvious, since you clearly don’t know the difference between ‘it’s and ‘its’.

    The first point is because too many fools, even many who are paid to write, have an asinine concept that ‘whom’ is simply a grand way to say ‘who’, so they write or say ‘whom’ when ‘who’ is correct. They imagine it shows off their superior educations.

    The opposite error, ‘who’ where ‘whom’ is correct, generally arises from a similar misconception, but with the converse aim.

    As for sounding like an owl, I can only imagine it happening through certain types of old lady’s voice or female impersonator’s voices being combined with certain thick accents.

    Good article by Mr. Sailer.

  298. I think that ‘Who? Whom?’ is a great formulation.

    Nothing could be more concise.

    Subject form, object form.

    I gather English-speaking countries in general have policies where grammar is only taught to a very small minority of students, some elite high schools. At tertiary level, teachers of English, students of grammar or language.

    It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking.

    It’s not surprisimg that you say its meaning isn’t obvious, since you clearly don’t know the difference between ‘it’s’ and ‘its’.

    The first point is because too many fools, even many who are paid to write, have an asinine concept that ‘whom’ is simply a grand way to say ‘who’, so they write or say ‘whom’ when ‘who’ is correct. They imagine it shows off their superior educations.

    The opposite error, ‘who’ where ‘whom’ is correct, generally arises from a similar misconception, but with the converse aim.

    As for sounding like an owl, I can only imagine it happening through certain types of old lady’s or female impersonator’s voices being combined with certain thick accents.

    Good article by Mr. Sailer.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Mods, I double-posted by accident. Missed a quotation mark. Please delete the earlier one at 11.12 GMT, and this after.

    Thought that I had cancelled the earlier one. Regards, always appreciate the site.
  299. @John Cunningham
    "Which side are you on?" seems clearer to me.

    It is much broader than that. I am sure that Lenin intended it in a very broad sense.

    Who gains from whom?

    Who defeats whom?

    Who did what to whom?

    Who chooses to be with, support, favour or join whom?

    I am quite sure Mr. Sailer understands the full breadth, as did Lenin.

    It goes well beyond the above, although with brief thought, those were the main points Lenin was making.

    Mr. Sailer uses it in (roughly) the sense ‘Who is guilty of bad behaviour against whom?’, as far as I can see.

    Always depends on context.

  300. @Che Guava
    I think that 'Who? Whom?' is a great formulation.

    Nothing could be more concise.

    Subject form, object form.

    I gather English-speaking countries in general have policies where grammar is only taught to a very small minority of students, some elite high schools. At tertiary level, teachers of English, students of grammar or language.

    It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking.
     
    It's not surprisimg that you say its meaning isn't obvious, since you clearly don't know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.

    The first point is because too many fools, even many who are paid to write, have an asinine concept that 'whom' is simply a grand way to say 'who', so they write or say 'whom' when 'who' is correct. They imagine it shows off their superior educations.

    The opposite error, 'who' where 'whom' is correct, generally arises from a similar misconception, but with the converse aim.

    As for sounding like an owl, I can only imagine it happening through certain types of old lady's or female impersonator's voices being combined with certain thick accents.

    Good article by Mr. Sailer.

    Mods, I double-posted by accident. Missed a quotation mark. Please delete the earlier one at 11.12 GMT, and this after.

    Thought that I had cancelled the earlier one. Regards, always appreciate the site.

  301. @eD
    The "immigrants will commit lots of crimes!" argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.

    To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country's original stock. And Australia hasn't really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white "founding stock" in the US were convicted criminals as well.

    An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.

    Wouldn’t the willingness of the illegals to break the law just by entering lead to the conclusion that they might be inclined to breaking laws?
    Of course there are no absolutes in anything except mathematics or science?,but sounds logical to me.
    And their very visible and mostly localized,Ca. and AZ anti -American attitudes and demonstrative tendency to flout the law by violent disruptions leads some to some of us questioning the importation of more America haters,to go with all the illiberal scum who support this criminal behavior.
    This illegal support,as all their propaganda,is MSM divide and conquer,here and Australia btw.
    And their loyalty,to Israel,means closed borders for that nation.

  302. Anonymous [AKA "JC Huff"] says:

    Predictable. The South is the left’s evil foil once again. Marshall throws out segregarion as this moral stain, as do many in the media and politics, but never bothers to explain what was so bad about it. There were more blacks graduating both High School and College in the 50’s and early 60’s than there are today. Out of wedlock births are four times higher as a percentage of live births comparing 1961 to 2015 (20% vs 80%). There were thriving black business districts in towns across the southeast. The black section of the town I grew up in was bustling in the 60’s, but now you wouldn’t go there in the middle of the day. Unemployment rates for blacks in Georgia was less than the white unemployment rate. I could continue, but you get the point. I’m too young to have seen segregarion, but old enough to remember a place where whites almost universally had a paternalistic attitude toward blacks. There was no egalitarianism for sure, but the blacks had their place and both our community and theirs recognized it as such. In a way it’s sad to see that world view go, and be replaced by a resentment imposed on us from outside actors, who never had either of our collective interests at hart to begin with. The sword they lived by, will, in time, be the one they die by mark my words.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2