The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Muslims and Westerners: "Only Disconnect"
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

I wrote in VDARE:

In other words, the Administration and its media shills remain committed to their Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World. Bomb them over there and indulge them over here.

Obviously, when you stop and think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.

So, it’s time for a new Grand Strategy to unify domestic and foreign policies for how Westerners should deal with Muslims. Because strategizing routinely fails due to too much Rube Goldbergish complexity, I’ll boil it down to one word:

Disconnect.

Perhaps the most quoted social philosopher of our time famously asked:

“Can we all get along?”

Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:

No, we can’t.

So, deal with it. When we get in each other’s faces, we get on each other’s nerves. It’s time to get out of each other’s faces.

Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.

To paraphrase E.M. Forster:

“Only disconnect.”

If we start disconnecting now, maybe in a generation or two we’ll have forgotten what we’ve done to each other and can start afresh.

I wrote that back in 2006.

Granted, I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is, on the whole, a pretty good idea. But everybody who is anybody knows instead that All We Have to Do is invite every Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.

That’s All We Have to Do.

 
• Tags: Charlie Hebdo 
Hide 257 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Granted, I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is, on the whole, a pretty good idea. Everybody who is anybody knows instead that All We Have to Do is invite every Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.

    Love it.

  2. All We Have to Do is invite every Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.

    A perfectly good plan if it weren’t for wreckers like you Steve! People like you undermine the multicultural utopia with your intractable xenophobia. Luckily, as Tim Wise says, people like you are dying out. Utopia here we come!

  3. France has a Muslim problem, but at least French Cajun Louisiana does not. BONJOUR YALL.

  4. We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.

    • Replies: @aplcr0331
    @Anonymous

    Yep, that would explain those really really low black male on white female rape statistics, eh?

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Anonymous

    "We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option."

    Yes, nearly half a century of having that idea promoted to them as the most wonderful, erotic, and romantic notion of all, has unfortunately taken quite a toll. Perhaps we should have the media cease doing that?

    , @Tracy
    @Anonymous


    We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.
     
    No, they're not: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    Replies: @Anonym

    , @AP
    @Anonymous


    We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.
     
    A myth. Most whites don't marry outside their race and of those who do, it is with Asians or with light-skinned (thus, mostly-white) Latinos.

    According to a large 2010 Pew study, 9.4% of whites married outside their race. Of those, 43% married Latinos (so, less than 5% of all whites) , 14.4% married Asians, and only 12% married blacks (a little over 1% of whites).
  5. At the end of a Le Monde article on the female cop who was just killed: “L’Union syndicale professionnelle des policiers municipaux s’est de son côté réservé le droit de porter plainte contre le maire de Montrouge qui n’avait pas jugé utile d’armer sa police municipale.”

    If I were a cop over there, I’d go ahead and file that complaint against a mayor who doesn’t judge it “useful” to let me be armed.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    There are a several types of police in France. The national police and national gendarmerie are armed. (The gendarmes are nominally a part of the military.) The type here, municipal police, are more concerned with traffic and parking.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    As my dad used to say ‘some lessons can only be learned the hard way’.

    You can keep doing ‘your thing’, you can be so up yourself that you are right and that your ‘bigotted, narrow-minded, racist, right-wing, reactionary, etc etc etc’ critics are not just wrong but ‘evil’ that you keep plowing your own furrow regardless with increased vigor.
    Self-doubt never enters it. Only ‘moral righteousness’ and dogmatic faith in the utterings of the prophets of your own lefty Islam equivalent.

    To quote another phrase ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.

  7. who’ll do israel’s dirty work then?

  8. “Can we all get along?”
    Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
    No, we can’t.

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    @bossel

    Nonsense indeed

    Thanks to your Muslim buddies in Sweden, the Swedes get to experience car bombings, no go zones where police are afraid to go because they are attacked, Swedes get beaten and their women raped by Muslim gangs, shariah law enforced in no go zones.

    Crime wise some 80% of all criminals are Muslim.

    In France, many of the cities have Muslim quarters that no go zones as well. No police, just Shariah enforcement, they no longer have to abide by French rules or even speak French. Outsiders who wander in risk getting raped and/or robbed by gangs of Muslim youth.Lets not forget the Muzzie past time of burning cars by the hundreds every year when they get upset and storm out of their Muslim quarter. And most of the Muzzies are on the dole, that's what happens when import millions of people with no skills and from a culture where work ethics and honesty are alien concepts.

    Now France hasn't experienced car bombings like Malmo Sweden, but just give them a few more years and I'm sure we'll see them in Paris. Who knows with a bit of luck your Muslims friends will torch one off under the Eiffel Tower.

    Oh yes the French prisons are bursting with Muslims.

    In Britain, Shariah law is now side by side English law. In short Muslims rule by their laws and ignore their host country. They too have no go zones for police and authorities. It is also now illegal for locals to even anything about this. Plus Muslims don't have to obey English law as demonstrated in Rotherham where over a 1000 white girls were raped by Muslims running the the facility and their friends including those working for the state.

    Yes Muslims are doing quite well in Europe - importing their culture in total and dictating to the host country.

    That's not integration that's colonization by a foreign invasive species.

    Replies: @gzu

    , @War for Blair Mountain
    @bossel

    Doomsday scenario:Muslim US geneline enthusiastically voting Whitey into a racial minority on election night Nov 3 2016..Exactly how is this a great benefit to The Historic Native Born White American Majority? Shall we turn the Adirondack Region of NY into a Bosnian enclave of 100 thousand? This is all by many orders of magnitude far worse than 9/11 and the Fort Hood massacre combined.

    , @Andrei Martyanov
    @bossel


    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.
     
    Those who are "integrated", let alone assimilated, stop, in essence, being a Muslim. In the same time, if by "integration" you mean the ability of Muslims to create own enclaves with own Sharia courts but still being able to suck from the state's welfare titty--well, some do use this type of "integration" as an acceptable term. It is akin to "moderate Muslims"--a phenomenon nobody observed yet , but I heard some (especially from liberal presstitude) did see it. Once a Muslim denounces, by action or by word, Sharia he (or she) stop being a Muslim. Muslim and Sharia are inseparable. It is a Winston Smith moment: 2x2=4, everything else follows from it.

    P.S. Yes, situation does vary--in some countries there is a larger pool of troublemakers and future terrorists, in others--it is smaller. The nature, however, remains the same.
    , @unpc downunder
    @bossel

    A number of obvious problems.

    Even if 95 percent of Muslims integrate (which I doubt) that still leaves 5 percent who are quite happy to kill and rape westerners in the name of Islam. Five percent can are doing a lot of damage.

    Western Islam isn't cut off from Eastern Islam. Westerns-born muslim extremists are causing problems in the East, and Eastern-born muslim extremists are causing problems in the west, and contact and cooperation between them is increasing.

    Muslims are aliens on multiple levels. On average they have a lower IQ, they have different, more volatile temperaments (and temperament is at least 50 percent genetic) and they have a different religious tradition. Being different on three important variables is too big a divide to cross.

    The more muslim immigrants come to the west, the more problems we will have - that's a fact not opinion.

  9. Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never ‘invaded the world’. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    • Replies: @Honorary Thief
    @Art Deco

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Who cares?

    Replies: @Bad Mamba Jamba

    , @WhatEvvs
    @Art Deco


    "lax law enforcement"

     

    No way. It was a need for cheap labor. The law in many border parts of the country would love to enforce, they can't. The Jeb Bushes that infest our establishment tie their hands, and if you want me to supply proof, I can't, not the kind of proof that you put on line. Let's just say, "I've heard things."

    IT'S A FIX. But all you have to do is open yer eyes.

    Remember the Occupy kiddies in Zuccotti Park? I paid no attention to them but one day I had business in midtown, and in that area. So I went over to have a look.

    I remember noticing (because I was in a mood to notice things that day) how darn many brown guys were working that day, working hard, at jobs our little Precious Snowflakes don't want to do. Hauling, lifting, cleaning, etc.

    Some of those jobs are construction jobs, doing work for sub-contractors, and are well paid. But when you've got a fancy college degree, you don't do that sort of thing.

    This is how societies die. Mind you I do not blame the illegal aliens, immigrants, what have you. I blame US, esp. the Republican establishment. They started this with their love of "free labor" (i.e., cheap labor). The Dems just responded.

    Replies: @NOTA

    , @Don't drone me bro!
    @Art Deco


    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.
     
    Fans of the Iraq War might at least specify whether they prefer paying $100s billion and 1000s of American lives to make ISIS or some Iranian puppet the ruler of Iraq. Especially since that's not a hypothetical.

    I prefer whomever the Iraqis prefer, and in the most noncommittal way possible. This is the sort of response I would hope for when you ask Iraqis whether they prefer McCain or Obama. MYOB.

    [I'm not right, "alt" or otherwise, but the position isn't difficult to understand.]
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    We invade the world because we invite the world, and there is absolutely such a strategy. The DHS is very concerned about interdiction in points of origin.

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    Replies: @HA

    , @syonredux
    @Art Deco


    Our problems with illegal immigration
     
    Our problems are with all forms of immigration, dear fellow, legal and illegal

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.
     
    Tweedledum or Tweedledee. I don't care
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Art Deco

    "Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq."

    Either one would've been fine by me, quite frankly.

    , @Anon
    @Art Deco


    the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.
     
    These critics seem to alternate between "they don't care" and "Iraq is worse off". It's kind of weird how some these alt-right types veer off into the left in their solicitousness for the welfare of distant foreigners.

    Iraqis (i.e. the majority, meaning Kurds and Shiites) are better off, mainly because they're no longer under the thumb of a cruel and arbitrary tyrant. From the standpoint of American interests, however, it was a waste of men and resources. It wasn't obvious beforehand, but now we know. If the final tab were known prior to the commencement of combat operations, I doubt Bush would have gone through with it.

    Replies: @NOTA

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Art Deco

    "And we never ‘invaded the world’"


    William H. Seward ... suggested that the United States annex the Dominican Republic and purchase Puerto Rico and Cuba.
    ...
    1898, during the Spanish–American War ... Spain ceded Puerto Rico, along with the Philippines and Guam

    number of Puerto Ricans living in the United States ... 4.6 million

    As of the 2010 Census, there were 3.4 million Filipino Americans

    , @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Art Deco

    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy.


    Establishment of French Indochina
    France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French War (1884–85)

    Vietnamese ancestry in ... France. The population is about 300,000

    Overseas Vietnamese ... United States 1,799,632

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @NOTA
    @Art Deco

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn't really come up for the US government. We probably lose more than we gain with these interventions, and the state of those countries we have intervened in recently doesn't inspire any confidence that we're making things better for them, either.

    You don't need an opinion about who should rule some random foreign country, because it's none of your damned business, you have few incentives to get the decision right, and probably little relevant knowledge on which to base your decisions.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  10. Good fences make good neighbors.

    That’s an old saying. It’s yet another example of age-old wisdom now forgotten. To someone from the New York – D.C. ruling, chattering, corridor (or to the European Left) it probably sounds like it came out of the mouth of some hokey cowboy out west or something. But it’s true.

    Once again, Steve Sailer has written something that is true and to the point, and which describes thoughts some of us have had for a long time.

    If only more Americans (and Europeans) would learn this and put it into action!

    Good fences make good neighbors. As in, we have borders for a reason. Not only that, but God really did bless America with a rich, strategically perfect continent. We have never actually had any need to involve ourselves in foreign entanglements, and we have never really needed to let in anyone who didn’t belong here.

    Our rulers and manipulators of course don’t find this to be in their own interest.

    • Replies: @slobotnavich
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Well spake, but open borders, as they're intended, admit an unlimited supply of reliable Democrat voters, which is the unspoken (and hotly denied) objective of the verminous Democrat Party.

  11. Or, as another classic Steveism put it, ‘liberty, equality, diversity, pick any two.’

    • Replies: @GW
    @Anonymous

    Isn't it "liberty, security, and diversity"? I'd gladly settle without equality as well diversity.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Anonymous

    Nope. You get one.

  12. Two policemen were killed during the Charlie Hebdo attack. The second was Franck Brinsolaro, 49, who was assigned to guard the editiorial staff. His widow, Ingrid Brinsolaro is herself the editor in chief of a weekly magazine, L’Eveil Normand.

  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, you’ve got to remember another overriding political justification for massive uncontrolled third world immigration, namely, the importation of a new electorate imported specifically for keeping the importing political party in automatic, permanent political power.
    Such was, explicitly, the case of Britain’s New Labour government which ruled from 1997 to 2010.
    If you don’t believe me and think I’m exaggerating in order to attack New Labour, just read the musings of one Andrew Neather.Neather was a very very senior New Labour apparatchik, and was, apparently, Tony Blair’s right-hand man.
    You can’t get closer to the horse’s mouth – in this case the horse’s ass – than that.

  14. I’m an Internationalist (I can’t help it, it’s embedded in my Faith) but I deeply believe in patriotism (though I refrain nationalism).

    I’m also fed up with the way things are (thought truth be told they don’t affect me).

    I enjoy London’s diversity but as I finished my recent piece (or rant) with John Major’s mangled Orwellian meditation:

    Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and, as George Orwell said, ‘Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist’ and, if we get our way, Shakespeare will still be read even in school.

    At the very least those who believe in the above should always be made welcome to join Britain and the British enterprise or her Commonwealth (I think selective immigration can be a very good thing & reciprocal ones between nations can greatly enrich them).

  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It might be hard to change course now. Invade the world has been going on for the past 117 years ever since the Spanish-American war whetted the US appetite for foreign adventure. The world has changed since then so what worked then doesn’t work so well now but perhaps the US is by now a one-trick-pony doing the same things over and over again but expecting different results. What about NATO? Keep it or dissolve it?

  16. If President Jefferson couldn’t ‘disconnect’ in a world where the Atlantic was a real moat and the US was sending scouts to look at the Pacific, how could a 21st century US disconnect?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @anony-mouse


    If President Jefferson couldn’t ‘disconnect’ in a world where the Atlantic was a real moat and the US was sending scouts to look at the Pacific,
     
    Dear fellow, if only the foolish George W Bush had followed Jefferson's example in the First Barbary War.We would be much better off today.

    how could a 21st century US disconnect?
     
    Copying Israel's policies would be a good place to start
  17. Andrew Bacevich in today’s Globe comes close to agreeing but he stops just short. But it’s pretty clear it is what he is implying.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/08/paris-attack-shows-west-not-free-from-terrorism/K7otuS35BpVYB26zVlFGYJ/story.html

  18. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Before the fall of the Shah in Iran, Americans barely knew anything the Muslims in the Middle East and paid even less attention. Our fixation on them right is based on the fact that for 2 generations now, they’ve been committing large-scale acts of violence (mostly against each other), and smaller-scale acts of terrorism (mostly against the West), and trying to make themselves the rest of the world’s business.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    I notice that Muslims don't attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that's because those countries don't have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    Replies: @MichaelOH59, @Twinkie, @Anon, @AAB

  19. Meanwhile, the press continue to obfuscate the religious motive behind the Hebdo attack:

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/08/new-york-times-reports-on-muslim-proselytizing-during-charlie-hebdo-attack-then-deletes-it/

    As I commented the other day on an expert’s musings in another NYT piece:

    In other words, the attack was religious in nature, which I guess is the truth that’s being evaded in that quote.

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Marxist British Labour Party politician Ken Livingstone tried very very hard to stitch up the massive Muslim bloc vote in the 2012 London mayoral elections.
    One of his campaign tactics used to ingratiate himself with muslims was make explicit and ratherbstrong anti semitic remarks.
    Livingstone lost the election despite his overt anti semitism.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Anonymous

    One of his campaign tactics used to ingratiate himself with muslims was make explicit and ratherbstrong anti semitic remarks.
    --
    Not unremarkable among the British chatterati. Caroline Glick has said her last experience speaking at a British university was so disagreeable she thought she'd stay out of Britain for the rest of her life.

    , @Lot
    @Anonymous

    The conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is a fair part Jewish and high class Turkish Muslim. Of course the Turks were long the main oppressors of the ancestors of many British Muslims.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  21. Yo, Steve, sexy boy. Put through my comment!!

  22. Yes, but what we must absolutely do “over here” is unite – all of us, as Americans whatever our ‘backgrounds’ or ‘foregrounds.’

    • Replies: @Jim
    @Lepanto

    America is far too large and diverse a country for everybody to "unite". Get real.

  23. France has suddenly become the world’s foremost chicken roost. I, for one, am rather pleased that the future is now, while there’s still time to fix the woeful mistakes that have been made.

    Though I don’t expect them to be fixed. The Euro elites will submit to having their throats slit sooner than admitting they were wrong all along — or, worse (and more likely the truth), admitting they did it on purpose and with malice aforethought.

  24. @Lepanto
    Yes, but what we must absolutely do "over here" is unite - all of us, as Americans whatever our 'backgrounds' or 'foregrounds.'

    Replies: @Jim

    America is far too large and diverse a country for everybody to “unite”. Get real.

  25. iSteveFan says:

    If President Jefferson couldn’t ‘disconnect’ in a world where the Atlantic was a real moat and the US was sending scouts to look at the Pacific, how could a 21st century US disconnect?

    How did you arrive at TJ not being able to disconnect? Though he had to dispatch a force to stop the muslim pirates, he did not keep that force on the ground to attempt to colonize or nation-build. Additionally he did not change our immigration laws to welcome them into our nation.

  26. There is a good article on Breitbart arguing that this is not by any means incompetence on the part of our elites. They are deliberately waging war on their own peoples in the name of globalization.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/07/the-european-civil-war-elites-vs-people-in-a-fight-for-survival/

  27. I read your whole post on VDARE . There is even less chance of your disconnect suggestion happening now than there was then. You’re preaching to the choir ,and a small one at that. Not organized or unified except in it’s inchoate revulsion to the clusterf**k that our country has become.
    The thing with the Anointed is that their policies are never wrong. When they run up against reality their response is always more of the same. As the succeeding 8 years since your original post have shown.
    “the most quoted social philosopher of our time” . Poor Rodney, he was just a f**kup really. I felt bad for him that he ended up at bottom of his pool.
    The letter you received from the Paki in Scotland reminded me of a family I knew when I lived in Tulsa in the 70’s. The father had worked as a mechanic for a major airline that had it’s main maintenance and repair facility there. He developed a disease of the CNS that progressed rapidly and was fatal. He had a daughter abt 15? I know she wasn’t old enough to drive. She had a fair chunk of his insurance coming to her, for education I imagine. Anyway a couple weeks after he passed a couple of her fathers brothers showed up took her back to Pakistan and tried to marry her to an older relative obviously to get their hands on the money.She was a US citizen and somehow got back to the States where she became an outcast from her local Paki community.
    There won’t be any solution to this problem with the third world invasions of the US and Europe until there is an economic collapse. And then it will be a bloody one . One that when it’s over and safe for them to crawl out from under their rocks the same scum will begin again to wring their hands over white atrocities and a renewed call for tolerance .

  28. I dream of a day when I no longer have to think about Muslims.

  29. iSteveFan says:

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    Even if some or a large part are well integrated, it is immaterial. They have their own cultures and countries. Why must they live in our nations? What benefit is it to us to bring them in?

    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Why must we?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Actually Japan colonized Korea between 1910-1945 and imported a rather significant number of them as menial laborers (some say slave laborers) during the wartime. In fact, during and after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, a false rumor spread throughout Tokyo and Yokohama that Koreans (especially Korean independence activists in Japan) were committing arson, and the Japanese took to mass murdering the Koreans, requiring a great deal of effort on the part of the Japanese gendarmerie to restore order.

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem, with the tiny exception of pro-North Korean communist activist cadres.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    , @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    Replies: @iSteveFan

    , @Anon
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Because they're not Jewish. Jewish immigrants of any race or ethnic group are welcome in Israel. Non-Jews of any race or ethnic group, however...

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  30. @Anonymous
    Marxist British Labour Party politician Ken Livingstone tried very very hard to stitch up the massive Muslim bloc vote in the 2012 London mayoral elections.
    One of his campaign tactics used to ingratiate himself with muslims was make explicit and ratherbstrong anti semitic remarks.
    Livingstone lost the election despite his overt anti semitism.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Lot

    One of his campaign tactics used to ingratiate himself with muslims was make explicit and ratherbstrong anti semitic remarks.

    Not unremarkable among the British chatterati. Caroline Glick has said her last experience speaking at a British university was so disagreeable she thought she’d stay out of Britain for the rest of her life.

  31. @Anon
    Before the fall of the Shah in Iran, Americans barely knew anything the Muslims in the Middle East and paid even less attention. Our fixation on them right is based on the fact that for 2 generations now, they've been committing large-scale acts of violence (mostly against each other), and smaller-scale acts of terrorism (mostly against the West), and trying to make themselves the rest of the world's business.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    • Replies: @MichaelOH59
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    "I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live."

    Even more important is that they dont take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle for land.

    , @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.
     
    You must be unaware that:

    1. China invaded Turkestan and occupied and kept it after the Chinese Civil War. The area is called Xinjiang today and is inhabited by the Turkic Muslim Uighurs, who commit acts of terror throughout China. Once a purely national liberation movement, there has been some infusion of Islamists into the movement in the recent years, something, of course, the Chinese security establishment love to highlight to us in the West. It is occasionally a source of sore spot with us Americans as well as something that leads moments of limited cooperation.

    In fact, the situation regarding Uighur terrorism in China reminds me of the Irish bombing campaigns in England. If you lived there, you know they happened much more frequently than reported, because you heard of or saw the bombed out train stations with your ears or eyes, but you never found out about them in the news. The security establishment greatly restricted the coverage regarding such terrorist acts in order not to hurt the public morale.

    2. South Korea, as an ally of the United States, sent roughly 3,600 troops to rebuild Irbil during the Iraq War. As a corollary, some South Korean missionaries were captured and beheaded in the Middle East. South Korea is rarely a target of Muslim attacks, however, because it is not seen to be an "imperialist" nation like the US, Canada, the UK, and France and also because the state of security in South Korea is much more stringent. Too, Middle Easterners don't have a substantial presence in South Korea and cannot "blend in" as easily.

    Replies: @donut

    , @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China#Number_of_Muslims_in_China

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2014_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_attack

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Tiananmen_Square_attack

    , @AAB
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Muslims do attack people in China. They did so only last year:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    Replies: @gzu

  32. I’ve often wondered if the whole invade the world/invite the world was simply a hubris grown from 500 years of success. Whites simply believe that our way of life is far superior to anything else out there and, therefore, everyone should live as we do. In addition, individually, we are so awesome as to be able to transform those Iron Age peoples into darker-hued versions of ourselves. (And, of course, they want to be like us, right? After all, we’re pretty incredible.)

    There’s an arrogance behind our elites’ outlook on the world. It’s why they won’t just “disconnect.”

  33. Steve Sailer wrote:

    Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules.

    Not to dispute Mr. Sailer’s ultimate recommendation here but I think one can too easily or completely fall into the “hate all Moslems” movement that has been rather sedulously pushed on the West already.

    One notes, for example, that even after 9-11, which bin Laden himself noted was occasioned not because he just “hates us for what we are” but because of our well-criticizable prior policies, when we took off after him in the aftermath of those towers coming down the arab/moslem world clearly did not rise in his defense. And indeed IIRC there were even some marches and etc. here and there in that world (including in Iran) along the lines of sympathizing with our victims, and clearly distancing from bin Laden.

    It was then only after we decided to stay in Afghanistan and then esp. when we invaded Iraq that we really started to see blow-back, and for one I can hardly say that if I were a young arab/moslem kid I sure wouldn’t want to see my country or people put under those particular unjustified thumbs. Not least due to the Iraq invasion being based on Mr. Bush’s repeated blatant lie that it had anything to do with the “war on terror.”

    And now, with these two brothers on the run, I have read that indeed it was the invasion of Iraq that radicalized them.

    So let’s not pretend that actions have no effects, or that we are so bloody pure that gee, even if just make a mistake nobody can hold same against us. Due to our invasion of Iraq just so far, it might be recalled, it’s estimated that over 100,000 Iraqis were killed.

    Moreover, speaking even more technically about “living under the same rules,” just how come it is that, as I understand it, you go denying the Holocaust, or engaging in some other “hate speech” and you go to jail, man. Same as in GB. Same (or similar) as in Canada.

    But you go mocking Muhammed and … that’s okay? That’s not a double standard? Esp. when taken to the level of cosseting a Salman Rushdie for so long, and yet being so iron-faced with it comes to the politically-correct forms of banned speech.

    The average arab/Moslem, it seems to me, wouldn’t agree that we have a single standard covering things, and in this then at least the arab/Muslim world seems to have a move valid perception of reality than we so proudly and confidently say we do.

    Doesn’t justify violence, but isn’t irrelevant to the larger questions either.

  34. There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    That is one of the doomsday scenarios painted in the comments here.

  35. By “anti semitism” 22 means, as usual, only that many Jews hated him (because of his past criticism of Israel).

  36. “Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.”

    [Laughs] It is observably true that an association exists between higher levels of involvement in church-related activities and participation in American politics. Thus, mosques serve as important religious institutions that are no different than churches and synagogues in the integration process. Furthermore, those Muslims that reside in the U.S. tend to believe that the Islam is compatible with our government institutions.

    American Muslims have come from dozens of nations, tend to have higher income levels, and show a willingness to marry outside of their ethnic group, compared to one or two groups that dominate European countries, who were desired as a cheaper source of labor, and remain in homogenous neighborhoods.

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21615611-why-muslims-fare-better-america-europe-islamic-yet-integrated

    Now, I have absolutely no problem imposing limits or stopping immigrants from entering our country through the rule of law. If that includes Muslims, fine. What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe. How does one carry out this plan? How do people pay for it? Where do the Muslims go when deported, IF countries agree to take them? Are 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims who have integrated included in being kicked out? What constitutional issues are at play with citizens who are Muslims?

  37. @bossel

    “Can we all get along?”
    Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
    No, we can’t.
     
    Nonsense. Many Muslims in "Western" countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don't see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    Replies: @rod1963, @War for Blair Mountain, @Andrei Martyanov, @unpc downunder

    Nonsense indeed

    Thanks to your Muslim buddies in Sweden, the Swedes get to experience car bombings, no go zones where police are afraid to go because they are attacked, Swedes get beaten and their women raped by Muslim gangs, shariah law enforced in no go zones.

    Crime wise some 80% of all criminals are Muslim.

    In France, many of the cities have Muslim quarters that no go zones as well. No police, just Shariah enforcement, they no longer have to abide by French rules or even speak French. Outsiders who wander in risk getting raped and/or robbed by gangs of Muslim youth.Lets not forget the Muzzie past time of burning cars by the hundreds every year when they get upset and storm out of their Muslim quarter. And most of the Muzzies are on the dole, that’s what happens when import millions of people with no skills and from a culture where work ethics and honesty are alien concepts.

    Now France hasn’t experienced car bombings like Malmo Sweden, but just give them a few more years and I’m sure we’ll see them in Paris. Who knows with a bit of luck your Muslims friends will torch one off under the Eiffel Tower.

    Oh yes the French prisons are bursting with Muslims.

    In Britain, Shariah law is now side by side English law. In short Muslims rule by their laws and ignore their host country. They too have no go zones for police and authorities. It is also now illegal for locals to even anything about this. Plus Muslims don’t have to obey English law as demonstrated in Rotherham where over a 1000 white girls were raped by Muslims running the the facility and their friends including those working for the state.

    Yes Muslims are doing quite well in Europe – importing their culture in total and dictating to the host country.

    That’s not integration that’s colonization by a foreign invasive species.

    • Replies: @gzu
    @rod1963

    It would be inaccurate to say "Muslims do XYZ". It is a subset of them that does it. This may not make it any less of a problem, but some propose a wholesale deportation of ALL mohammedans. That is not only unjust, but also pointless.

  38. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    The only question that matters:Why does this insanity continue unrelentingly year after year?Answer; millions of jock sniffing White Males who sit in football stadiums and in front of plasma screens in their “Man” Caves who should be waging a revolt against the White CEOs scab labor policy.

    0 Muslims on US soil…0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring….0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre every ocuring…0 probability of the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers ever occurring.

    I despise 9/11 Truthers with every fibre of my being!!!

    There is nothing wrong with revolting against Modernity…for Modernity is revolting.

  39. (Wikipedia)
    An important goal of Communist propaganda was to create a new man. …. to increase production, on both workers and managers, with critics labeled “wreckers”.

  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    On the subject of pithy little old fashioned quotes and proverbs, the wisdom of ages that sought to reprimand foolish behavior, wasn’t it Einstein who said that the ‘definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result’?

    I mean isn’t the great American disaster, importing vast numbers of west Africans as the ultimate in cheap, let alone ‘vibrant and diverse’ labor, cataclysmic enough for anyone with eyes to see?

  41. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @bossel

    “Can we all get along?”
    Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
    No, we can’t.
     
    Nonsense. Many Muslims in "Western" countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don't see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    Replies: @rod1963, @War for Blair Mountain, @Andrei Martyanov, @unpc downunder

    Doomsday scenario:Muslim US geneline enthusiastically voting Whitey into a racial minority on election night Nov 3 2016..Exactly how is this a great benefit to The Historic Native Born White American Majority? Shall we turn the Adirondack Region of NY into a Bosnian enclave of 100 thousand? This is all by many orders of magnitude far worse than 9/11 and the Fort Hood massacre combined.

  42. Least talked about historical fact of the classical world: Diversity and illegal immigration (called “invasion” back then) played the biggest part in bringing down the Roman Empire.

  43. From the Daily Telegraph: “An Israeli SWAT team unit specializing in siege situations and rescues is on standby ready to travel to Paris to assist the French authorities resolve the siege of the kosher grocery store, Haaretz website has reported.”

    You’ve got to love the Israelis. The audacity, the blatant ethno unity. We have so much to relearn from them.

  44. Does anyone understand what that Libyan intervention was all about? Here’s one explanation:

    http://takimag.com/article/nous_sommes_tous_des_francais_gavin_mcinnes/print#comment-1782009923

    The chief man behind Libya was Bernard Levy, and before anybody says this is a conspiracy theory, Levy has been seen with both Hollande and Cameron, and he was seen in Libya supporting the puppet regime. He is a very prominent political figure (although never been elected to anything) and has massive influence in France.

    Levy is an unapologetic Zionist and French neocon, its not hard to see what his motivation was, as Ghaddafi was not a Zionist.

    The fact that Libya is now a mad max world means that Libya is now utterly forgotten by the mainstream media.

  45. A couple of sloppoids I noticed. (A sloppoid is a factoid so poorly constructed that it falls apart under its own weight.)

    Muslim men are brown.

    Muslim men are whatever color their parents were. Genes come from egg and sperm, not the mosque. Correlation is not causation.

    Muslims are violent

    . I have noticed that the expression of religion has everything to do with the environment (and I do mean the physical, weather and soil environment) and little to do with the core tenants of religion. People make a religion that suits their everyday experiences. Harsh conditions (i.e. desert) make for a harsh religion. Easy living (i.e. Indonesia) renders a more touchy-feely Islam. The wilderness and hostile indians (feather not dot) in Salem, Mass. led to a harsh Christianity. As societies evolve, religions evolve.

    Granted, I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is, on the whole, a pretty good idea. Everybody who is anybody knows instead that All We Have to Do is invite every Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.

    I think you used the wrong tense. Really need to get up with a few of the lesser read columnists here and realize that with fossil fuel depletion (and if you think peak everything is a hoax you are beyond reason) we had better learn to recognize the natural borders of our new homeland(s).

    As for the whole evil-slave thing, people came here with the status they more or less had in their home country. To suddenly get all “I love the third world” and bring tribal failures to live in the suburbs is doubly stupid. We need to stop that and to figure out how to accomplish “demand destruction” without accomplishing “civilization destruction.”

    As a final note, I think our current president and cabinet is doing an outstanding job of demonstrating the futility of bucking nature.

    • Replies: @HairlessNeanderthal
    @Hal

    When you said "peak oil" I realized you were mouthing off about topics you know nothing of. In case you don't read the news, the price of oil is dropping because the supply of oil is greatly outstripping the demand for oil. A handy economic tip for you: something is not "peaking" if it's trading price is in the basement.

    Secondly, long term demand for crude is plummeting at the same time that known reserves are skyrocketing. We've found in the last ten years that there are literally centuries worth of supply for oil even at what was peak consumption. Keep in mind that most "depleted" plays still have up to 60% of their original oil in place remaining. All this is the backdrop of increasingly efficient battery technology, liquid salt reactors, and increasing use of natural gas.

  46. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Who cares?

    • Replies: @Bad Mamba Jamba
    @Honorary Thief

    @Art Deco

    ""Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.""

    "Who cares?"

    Exactly. Is it too late to vote for Saddam? He sat on the muzzies and protected the Christians from slaughter. As a (less than devout - acknowledged before someone blathers on about how I should love all my fellow men) Christian I'd like to see Christians in the Middle East protected from wild-eyed jihadists. I couldn't care less about the rest.

    Saddam shielded the Christians, as did Ghaddafi and Mubarak and Assad. Ergo I'd like to see them in power.

  47. I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is, on the whole, a pretty good idea.

    I’m think of more like 500-1000 separate political entities – countries, city-states, etc. I call this the thousand-state sovereignty model.

  48. @Anonymous
    Or, as another classic Steveism put it, 'liberty, equality, diversity, pick any two.'

    Replies: @GW, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Isn’t it “liberty, security, and diversity”? I’d gladly settle without equality as well diversity.

  49. I think the absolute first step is to kick out anyone in a Western country who we are warned about by another nation’s intelligence services. Russia warned us about the Tsarnaevs; France was warned about the Hebdo attackers by Algeria. They were even on our no-fly list — we (the West) knew they were potentially trouble. At the first warning, bundle them up and kick them out!

    Art Deco — are you forgetting the myriad ways the U.S. engages around the world? Does Libya ring a bell? Arming Syrian rebels? Bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory? Doing who-knows-what in Ukraine? (By the way, I do appreciate many of your comments, but sometimes you are too narrowly focused for your own good).

  50. I suppose everyone is aware of what happened in France today. In the hostage situation in Paris, I just learned that the dumb-shit hostage taker didn’t disable the store’s security camera so the intervention teams could watch his every move the whole time. The police timed their assault very well and most hostages survived.

  51. anon • Disclaimer says:

    “but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized)”

    No they won’t.

    They might have been if

    1) The economic strata they came from was more balanced i.e. if the vast majority hadn’t come from the bottom rungs of their original countries and so destined (for the most part) to stay at the bottom rungs of the new ones

    2) The rate of immigration had been slower to give integration time to work

    3) The total numbers hadn’t been large enough to rapidly take over whole areas such that there was nothing left to integrate into.

    But none of that happened because the economic right wanted to drive down wages and the cultural left wanted to destroy the native euro populations.

    When you create mass enclaves then 1) there is nothing to integrate into and 2) the peer pressure is in the opposite direction. There is zero pressure to integrate and lots of pressure to dis-integrate.

    Second and third generation are becoming *less* integrated because the polarity of peer pressure has reversed.

  52. Record 92,898,000 Americans out of work force. Obama announces free community college. Problem solved.

  53. Charlie Hebdo staff were having a lively debate about Houellebecq’s new novel when they were interrupted by the jidhadists and murdered.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11334812/Inside-Charlie-Hebdo-attack-We-all-thought-it-was-a-joke.html

    I hope Submission smashes the foreign best seller list. Amazon should set up a pre-order now. First time I wish I had studied French.

  54. @Anonymous
    We'll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don't think separation is a realistic option.

    Replies: @aplcr0331, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Tracy, @AP

    Yep, that would explain those really really low black male on white female rape statistics, eh?

  55. Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    “Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands… 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It’s the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    • Replies: @map
    @Doug

    "I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum."

    Yes, the affirmative action muslims who come here taking advantage of the government programs that displace whites.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Doug

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It’s the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict.
    ...
    But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.


    Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
    Dzhokhar enrolled in the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, with a major in marine biology
    ...
    At the time of the bombing, Dzhokhar was a sophomore living in the UMass Dartmouth's Pine Dale Hall dorm.

    , @NOTA
    @Doug

    There are a million or two Muslims in the US. If a large fraction were inclined toward terrorism, things would be blowing up all the time. (Note: I don't know much about France's Muslim population, I'm just saying our present one empirically doesn't seem to be blowing much stuff up.).

    A key part of US law and custom is freedom of religion, which means *not* treating members of different religions differently under the law. That is a very good reason for us to not use kind of coercive measures to separate Muslims out of US society. Muslim citizens are citizens just like anyone else.

    Immigration is fundamentally different. We have every right (and the government has the power without any scary power grabs) to decide which people we do and don't want immigrating into (or even visiting) the US. It makes a lot of sense to be really careful about letting people in from countries where there's a lot of hatred against the US or a history of terrorists coming in.

    , @ben tillman
    @Doug


    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem.
     
    It's not *the" problem, but it's certainly *a* problem. They are permitted to -- and do -- engage in ethnic nepotism that Whites may not, and they receive government subsidies that Whites do not. They are not playing by the same rules, yet you would INVITE them to come here and receive a free share of an extraordinarily valuable corporation whose value was created by us?
    , @Charlesz Martel
    @Doug

    But one never knows when they'll flip or their children will.The London bombers came from millionaire families, 911 pilots were engineers, the underwear bomber was the son of a banker, Major Hassan was a shrink, etc. As Kipling said (paraphrasing): " I do not know when the Gods of his far-off land shall repossess his blood".
    The debate should not be how good It is for the immigrant himself to come here, the question should be how is letting these people in here good for those of us who are already here.

  56. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    “lax law enforcement”

    No way. It was a need for cheap labor. The law in many border parts of the country would love to enforce, they can’t. The Jeb Bushes that infest our establishment tie their hands, and if you want me to supply proof, I can’t, not the kind of proof that you put on line. Let’s just say, “I’ve heard things.”

    IT’S A FIX. But all you have to do is open yer eyes.

    Remember the Occupy kiddies in Zuccotti Park? I paid no attention to them but one day I had business in midtown, and in that area. So I went over to have a look.

    I remember noticing (because I was in a mood to notice things that day) how darn many brown guys were working that day, working hard, at jobs our little Precious Snowflakes don’t want to do. Hauling, lifting, cleaning, etc.

    Some of those jobs are construction jobs, doing work for sub-contractors, and are well paid. But when you’ve got a fancy college degree, you don’t do that sort of thing.

    This is how societies die. Mind you I do not blame the illegal aliens, immigrants, what have you. I blame US, esp. the Republican establishment. They started this with their love of “free labor” (i.e., cheap labor). The Dems just responded.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @WhatEvvs

    Well, the administration went to court to block several immigration enforcement laws and policies passed by the states. Those may have been good or bad policies, but they were attempts to enforce some immigration laws, and they were explicitly blocked by the administration. (I don't remember whether it was Obama or W, and there's not much difference between the two on this issue anyway.).

  57. @yaqub the mad scientist
    At the end of a Le Monde article on the female cop who was just killed: "L’Union syndicale professionnelle des policiers municipaux s’est de son côté réservé le droit de porter plainte contre le maire de Montrouge qui n’avait pas jugé utile d’armer sa police municipale."

    If I were a cop over there, I'd go ahead and file that complaint against a mayor who doesn't judge it "useful" to let me be armed.

    Replies: @Boomstick

    There are a several types of police in France. The national police and national gendarmerie are armed. (The gendarmes are nominally a part of the military.) The type here, municipal police, are more concerned with traffic and parking.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Boomstick

    Yes, the two cops killed during the Charlie Hebdo attack came from entirely different branches of France's police services. Ahmed Merabet was a neighbourhood cop and was the one shot in the street while Franck Brinsolaro was from their close protection unit and was assigned to guard the editor, Stéphane Charbonnier.

  58. God first ste but modern tech makes a direct connection between Islam and the West. If all Muslims left and we stayed out of Muslim lands, leaving aside oil prices, Muslims would still wage jihad. They did at Lepanto. Vienna. Tours.

    Muslims must conquer us to get more women, and slaves. That’s the basis for their society. They fail at tech, manufacturing, any wealth producing activity. But are good at jihad.

    Muslims have been at us since they arose. Only Western power kept them away the last two centuries. With lack of will on our part its eroded.

    Britain and France ruling Egypt and Algeria had no Muslim problem. Sweden never ruled Muslims and has a problem.

    Muslims are a threat. We must be strong to deter them.

  59. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmothieX12"] says: • Website
    @bossel

    “Can we all get along?”
    Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
    No, we can’t.
     
    Nonsense. Many Muslims in "Western" countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don't see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    Replies: @rod1963, @War for Blair Mountain, @Andrei Martyanov, @unpc downunder

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    Those who are “integrated”, let alone assimilated, stop, in essence, being a Muslim. In the same time, if by “integration” you mean the ability of Muslims to create own enclaves with own Sharia courts but still being able to suck from the state’s welfare titty–well, some do use this type of “integration” as an acceptable term. It is akin to “moderate Muslims”–a phenomenon nobody observed yet , but I heard some (especially from liberal presstitude) did see it. Once a Muslim denounces, by action or by word, Sharia he (or she) stop being a Muslim. Muslim and Sharia are inseparable. It is a Winston Smith moment: 2×2=4, everything else follows from it.

    P.S. Yes, situation does vary–in some countries there is a larger pool of troublemakers and future terrorists, in others–it is smaller. The nature, however, remains the same.

  60. @Anonymous
    Marxist British Labour Party politician Ken Livingstone tried very very hard to stitch up the massive Muslim bloc vote in the 2012 London mayoral elections.
    One of his campaign tactics used to ingratiate himself with muslims was make explicit and ratherbstrong anti semitic remarks.
    Livingstone lost the election despite his overt anti semitism.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Lot

    The conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is a fair part Jewish and high class Turkish Muslim. Of course the Turks were long the main oppressors of the ancestors of many British Muslims.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Lot


    The conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is a fair part Jewish and high class Turkish Muslim.
     
    Surely, you jest.
  61. anon, are you serious, did you even read this post?. its about how the west keeps interfering in the Muslim world, what do you mean trying to make ” trying to make themselves the rest of the world’s business”. as if america and the west needs an invite!.

  62. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Fans of the Iraq War might at least specify whether they prefer paying $100s billion and 1000s of American lives to make ISIS or some Iranian puppet the ruler of Iraq. Especially since that’s not a hypothetical.

    I prefer whomever the Iraqis prefer, and in the most noncommittal way possible. This is the sort of response I would hope for when you ask Iraqis whether they prefer McCain or Obama. MYOB.

    [I’m not right, “alt” or otherwise, but the position isn’t difficult to understand.]

  63. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    We invade the world because we invite the world, and there is absolutely such a strategy. The DHS is very concerned about interdiction in points of origin.

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    • Replies: @HA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    In order to induce Ukraine to give up its nukes (which should concern you), the US (along with the UK, Ukraine and Russia) signed the Budapest Memorandum to ensure Russia's respect of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Notwithstanding all the weaselly words of the pro-Putin apologists about how Nuland or Maidan somehow rendered the Memorandum null and void, that memorandum does make Ukraine's current situation into something that is partly America's problem, if not yours. That does not mean that America is obligated to send troops or bombs, but pretending that America has no obligation whatsoever is not going to fool anyone outside of the Russia Today demographic.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  64. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    When Eugene Terreblanche was murdered horrendously, the NYT gloated.

    When Omar Thorton killed a bunch of innocent whites, NYT coverage was about ‘were the whites ‘racist’ and did they deserve it?’

    When Sabrina Rubin wrote a horrible piece of race libel against ‘blondes’ at UVA, NYT was fully on her side and still hasn’t apologized.

    When blacks torched Ferguson, NYT’s stance was ‘blame the whites in the city’. And it’s also the position of New York Review of Books.

    I’m for free speech but do not shed any tear for the dead ‘leftists’ and others in the recent violence in France. These people are committed to ruining the lives of those who won’t bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. For all their yammering about free speech, they support the banning of ‘hate speech’–as defined by them of course.
    They’ve supported policies that brought ruin to the Middle East and Russia.
    And they eagerly look to the day when the West is minority white.

    This is another ‘lib vs lib’ war. It’s a bunch of libs attacked by Muslims who entered the West under lib immigration laws and who always vote for ‘left’ candidates.

  65. OT:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/i-met-god-shes-black_n_6406928.html

    Dylan Chenfeld, a self-described Jewish atheist, is throwing his ideas into the mix.

    “I Met God, She’s Black,” Chenfeld says in posters that he’s allegedly pasted all over Manhattan during the past few days.

    The 21-year-old doesn’t claim to have invented the phrase, saying the trope has existed for quite some time. He’s just the one who decided to put it on a $30 T-shirt.

    • Replies: @donut
    @BenjaminL

    If God is indeed black and female that would explain a lot.

  66. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    Our problems with illegal immigration

    Our problems are with all forms of immigration, dear fellow, legal and illegal

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Tweedledum or Tweedledee. I don’t care

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The problem I foresee with this idea is that “we’re an Empire now” and empires don’t disconnect, ever.

    Their very existence is predicated on the opposite principle.

    Contrary to Art Deco, “we” have invaded the world. And we’re connecting it up to us as rapidly and heedlessly as possible.

    “It will all end in tears, you mark my words. These things usually do.”

  68. @bossel

    “Can we all get along?”
    Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
    No, we can’t.
     
    Nonsense. Many Muslims in "Western" countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don't see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.

    Replies: @rod1963, @War for Blair Mountain, @Andrei Martyanov, @unpc downunder

    A number of obvious problems.

    Even if 95 percent of Muslims integrate (which I doubt) that still leaves 5 percent who are quite happy to kill and rape westerners in the name of Islam. Five percent can are doing a lot of damage.

    Western Islam isn’t cut off from Eastern Islam. Westerns-born muslim extremists are causing problems in the East, and Eastern-born muslim extremists are causing problems in the west, and contact and cooperation between them is increasing.

    Muslims are aliens on multiple levels. On average they have a lower IQ, they have different, more volatile temperaments (and temperament is at least 50 percent genetic) and they have a different religious tradition. Being different on three important variables is too big a divide to cross.

    The more muslim immigrants come to the west, the more problems we will have – that’s a fact not opinion.

  69. @anony-mouse
    If President Jefferson couldn't 'disconnect' in a world where the Atlantic was a real moat and the US was sending scouts to look at the Pacific, how could a 21st century US disconnect?

    Replies: @syonredux

    If President Jefferson couldn’t ‘disconnect’ in a world where the Atlantic was a real moat and the US was sending scouts to look at the Pacific,

    Dear fellow, if only the foolish George W Bush had followed Jefferson’s example in the First Barbary War.We would be much better off today.

    how could a 21st century US disconnect?

    Copying Israel’s policies would be a good place to start

  70. @Anonymous
    We'll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don't think separation is a realistic option.

    Replies: @aplcr0331, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Tracy, @AP

    “We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.”

    Yes, nearly half a century of having that idea promoted to them as the most wonderful, erotic, and romantic notion of all, has unfortunately taken quite a toll. Perhaps we should have the media cease doing that?

  71. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    “Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.”

    Either one would’ve been fine by me, quite frankly.

  72. Differences in temperament between Europeans and North Africans and Middle Easterners is a subject that doesn’t seem to get much attention. I’ve just finished reading Giles Milton’s “White Gold”on the North African white slave trade. And even by the standards of the age, the North African elites came across as more volatile and unpredictable than their European counterparts.

    White kings and aristocrats in the 17th century were pretty harsh when it came to law and order, but their behaviour was relatively predictable. They didn’t just engage in random acts of extreme of violence the way North African sultans did.

  73. French people are once again offered the choice of the suitcase or the coffin, only this time it’s in their own mother country. They need Marcel Bigeard again.

  74. @Anonymous
    We'll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don't think separation is a realistic option.

    Replies: @aplcr0331, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Tracy, @AP

    We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.

    No, they’re not: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Tracy

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    Very interesting. Check out 2014. I know women get a lot of bashing on iSteve, but it is refreshing to know that white women prefer white men by a large percentage. It is unfortunate that white men are now preferring Asian women to their own - this wasn't the case before 2011. To all the white men who act on their yellow fever, shame on you.

    Other interesting things that emerge out from the data:
    -Asian women HATE HATE HATE black men. In fact, they have the strongest preference - against blacks and latinos and for Asians and white men.
    -Everyone but black men HATE HATE HATE black women. And black men are indifferent to them.
    -White men are the most attractive, but black women don't prefer them, except in 20010/2011 a little bit. Maybe De Niro directed a movie that was released then?
    -Black men and Asian men are about equal least attractive to women, except in their own race, where they are prized.
    -Latino and Asian men are more loyal to their own.
    -All women are loyal to their own but Latina and Asian women are strongly tempted by the pale male.
    -Pairings that would be predicted based on mutual likes are:
    1 white male/Asian female
    2 white male/ Latina female
    3 Latino male/white female (would have to have a lot going for the male, because the latino male pursues while the white woman is indifferent - this seems to be the pattern Steve has noticed in the Latin American world)

    These are the major pairings one would expect from the data, and it tends to match what you see in real life. But it doesn't inform about Jews, Subcontinentals or Arabs for example.

    Stability would involve strong endogamous preferences from both sexes relative to other races. It seems that the men of each race let the team down in this regard. If Asian women did not have the Euro fetish, they would cinch stability.

    One wonders whether part of the support for "invite the world" stems from the desirability of white men in the eyes of other races. Elites are attractive in general and to be coarse, there are plenty who won't turn down some free p****. Maybe wanting to keep this going forms some part of the attraction for the Euro elites. I also think that probably informs some of the thinking of the homosexual Euro elites. One finds a lot more ladyboys or whatever outside white countries.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  75. To make this argument is to hear back “Why discriminate against this particular group when the overwhelming majority of the community is peaceful and law-abiding?” You hear that a lot, the “overwhelming majority.”

    To which the answer might be that in this case the minority shows signs of being pretty overwhelming in its own right. This particular minority has overwhelmed freedom of expression by killing some of the bravest journalists in Europe. It managed to turn Paris into an overwhelmingly militarized zone for a few days, just like what happened to Boston in 2013. It has helped create the conditions for overwhelmingly intrusive national and international surveillance systems.

    By contrast, the majority of this particular group has been distinctly underwhelming. When not making apologies for the minority’s behaviour, it often follows the strategy of condemning with one breath and half-justifying with the next, or else going almost directly into tu quoque. One has learned to be content with a patina of disapproval at best after each new atrocity, and one is reluctant to look for anything else for fear of finding just how thin the patina is.

    What we have is an overwhelming minority and an underwhelming majority.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @John Schilling


    To make this argument is to hear back “Why discriminate against this particular group when the overwhelming majority of the community is peaceful and law-abiding?” You hear that a lot, the “overwhelming majority.”

    To which the answer might be that in this case the minority shows signs of being pretty overwhelming in its own right.
     
    That's one answer, but it still accepts Leftist premises. I prefer to ask, "Why *not* discriminate between us and this group? The fact that discrimination is even possible proves that they are not *us* -- so why should we admit them into our group? What's in it for us?"

    Obviously, with Muslims, there's nothing in it for us. Live and let live, but let them live apart.
  76. You guys called it:

    #VoyageAvecMoi hashtag used for offering help and protection to Muslims travelling in French public transport. http://fb.me/70etcSZdk

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/voyageavecmoi?src=hash

  77. @Buzz Mohawk
    Good fences make good neighbors.

    That's an old saying. It's yet another example of age-old wisdom now forgotten. To someone from the New York - D.C. ruling, chattering, corridor (or to the European Left) it probably sounds like it came out of the mouth of some hokey cowboy out west or something. But it's true.

    Once again, Steve Sailer has written something that is true and to the point, and which describes thoughts some of us have had for a long time.

    If only more Americans (and Europeans) would learn this and put it into action!

    Good fences make good neighbors. As in, we have borders for a reason. Not only that, but God really did bless America with a rich, strategically perfect continent. We have never actually had any need to involve ourselves in foreign entanglements, and we have never really needed to let in anyone who didn't belong here.

    Our rulers and manipulators of course don't find this to be in their own interest.

    Replies: @slobotnavich

    Well spake, but open borders, as they’re intended, admit an unlimited supply of reliable Democrat voters, which is the unspoken (and hotly denied) objective of the verminous Democrat Party.

  78. @Anonymous
    Or, as another classic Steveism put it, 'liberty, equality, diversity, pick any two.'

    Replies: @GW, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Nope. You get one.

  79. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    We invade the world because we invite the world, and there is absolutely such a strategy. The DHS is very concerned about interdiction in points of origin.

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    Replies: @HA

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    In order to induce Ukraine to give up its nukes (which should concern you), the US (along with the UK, Ukraine and Russia) signed the Budapest Memorandum to ensure Russia’s respect of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Notwithstanding all the weaselly words of the pro-Putin apologists about how Nuland or Maidan somehow rendered the Memorandum null and void, that memorandum does make Ukraine’s current situation into something that is partly America’s problem, if not yours. That does not mean that America is obligated to send troops or bombs, but pretending that America has no obligation whatsoever is not going to fool anyone outside of the Russia Today demographic.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @HA

    The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn't actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit.

    You also need to remember that America's previous actions had a profound effect on the Russians. For example when Serbia was bombed without provocation and in spite of protests by the Russians, or when Kosovo's independence was recognized by the US, or, especially, when Iraq was overrun - the US didn't play by the rules it largely helped create. Under such circumstances, it's difficult for the US to criticize Russia for not playing by the very same rules. Why would Russia play by the rules when the US did not?

    So let me propose that the Crimea would not be occupied and annexed if the US was playing by its own rules. I.e. this problem was largely created by the US. Moreover, it is unresolvable - I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

  80. @Doug
    Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    "Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands... 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It's the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Replies: @map, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA, @ben tillman, @Charlesz Martel

    “I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.”

    Yes, the affirmative action muslims who come here taking advantage of the government programs that displace whites.

  81. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    These critics seem to alternate between “they don’t care” and “Iraq is worse off”. It’s kind of weird how some these alt-right types veer off into the left in their solicitousness for the welfare of distant foreigners.

    Iraqis (i.e. the majority, meaning Kurds and Shiites) are better off, mainly because they’re no longer under the thumb of a cruel and arbitrary tyrant. From the standpoint of American interests, however, it was a waste of men and resources. It wasn’t obvious beforehand, but now we know. If the final tab were known prior to the commencement of combat operations, I doubt Bush would have gone through with it.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Anon

    How'd our intervention work out for the Christians in Iraq? How about the Yazidis, how're they getting along these days?

  82. @Boomstick
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    There are a several types of police in France. The national police and national gendarmerie are armed. (The gendarmes are nominally a part of the military.) The type here, municipal police, are more concerned with traffic and parking.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    Yes, the two cops killed during the Charlie Hebdo attack came from entirely different branches of France’s police services. Ahmed Merabet was a neighbourhood cop and was the one shot in the street while Franck Brinsolaro was from their close protection unit and was assigned to guard the editor, Stéphane Charbonnier.

  83. Dahlia says:

    I’ve heard contradictory utterances with regards to the Charlie Hebdo and am wondering what exactly the truth is; it is important, I think, to understand their nature and history.

    We’re they about “free speech”? Or were they martyrs for some other cause? Can they be martyrs for another cause AND free speech while having been against it for others?
    I’ve since heard the following and wonder about the veracity:

    a. They wanted a political party banned in France.
    b. One, Charb I think, is said to have said he wanted to make Islam as banal as Catholicism.

    Plus, Charb’s girlfriend said he was a communist in the Daily Mail, though Charb is not the magazine.

    They were heroic in standing up for their beliefs and died for something, but what did they die for?

    It looks like they picked a fight with various religions, were willing to die as martyrs for the cause of secularism, and Islam obliged as is required.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    @Dahlia

    Well, until a couple of days ago I'd never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing-to-say/


    Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

    In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.
     
    And the morning papers also mentioned that at least one of its top cartoonists was Jewish.

    What a strange puzzle. A heavily Jewish-influenced magazine spending many years publishing viciously obscene cartoons attacking Christianity and Islam. I just can't figure it out. Clearly, some riddles are just too difficult for human minds to ever solve.

    I also read somewhere that France's most popular stand-up comedian these days is some black guy who sometimes makes jokes criticizing Jews. For such horrendous offenses, the French government has repeatedly prosecuted him and even threatened him with imprisonment.

    Yet another deep mystery beyond human comprehension...

    Replies: @matt, @Dave Pinsen

  84. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    “And we never ‘invaded the world’”


    William H. Seward … suggested that the United States annex the Dominican Republic and purchase Puerto Rico and Cuba.

    1898, during the Spanish–American War … Spain ceded Puerto Rico, along with the Philippines and Guam

    number of Puerto Ricans living in the United States … 4.6 million

    As of the 2010 Census, there were 3.4 million Filipino Americans

  85. “Our problems are with all forms of immigration, dear fellow, legal and illegal”.
    
Depends largely upon WHO arrives legally.

    “I’m for free speech but do not shed any tear for the dead ‘leftists’ and others in the recent violence in France.”



    Not demonstrating empathy? That would be called sociopathic behavior.

    “On average they have a lower IQ, they have different, more volatile temperaments (and temperament is at least 50 percent genetic) and they have a different religious tradition.”

    Oh dear, we have a biological rapist in the house.

    “Dear fellow, if only the foolish George W Bush had followed Jefferson’s example in the First Barbary War.”

    

And there is our resident neo-con chiming in.

    Again, I have absolutely no problem imposing limits or stopping immigrants from entering our country through the rule of law. If that includes Muslims, fine.

    What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe.

    How does one carry out this plan? How do people pay for it?

    Where do the Muslims go when deported, IF countries agree to take them?

    Are 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims who have integrated included in being kicked out?

    What constitutional issues are at play with citizens who are Muslims?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Corvinus


    Not demonstrating empathy? That would be called sociopathic behavior.
     
    No, no sane person is very empathetic to his hated enemies. When Eugene Terrablanche was murdered horrendously, no leftists showed empathy. When Margaret Thatcher died, there were some celebrations on parts of the British Left.

    What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe. How does one carry out this plan?
     
    I guess one can carry it out similarly how the Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of Algeria. Yes, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of the country. I guess France can be generous and pay some money to the deported so that they'd be able to start a new life in their ancestral homelands.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  86. Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It’s the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    The trouble is, the elite bring their relatives with them. And even if they are nice to your face, dress nicely etc., episodes like Rotherham still occur. The dumb white response is “Awww gee, you mean to tell me people could actually be duplicitous? Who couldda thought?”

  87. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

  88. Jean-Marie Le Pen knows how to play with internet memes. He tweeted this while the two hostage crises were still going on:

    https://twitter.com/lepenjm/status/553546024560889856/photo/1

    Contacted by Le HuffPost, Jean-Marie Le Pen confirmed being the source of the message and took responsibility. To those who’d accuse him of political opportunism or breaking national unity, he said:

    The national unity of my buttocks; we were sidelined” exclaimed Jean-Marie Le Pen when the question of the his party’s presence at the rally on Sunday was discussed.

    On the question of opportunism, the eurodeputy responded:

    “What’s this about political opportunism? One can’t call on people to vote when one wants? Should I be dressed in black? I deplore the loss of 12 Frenchmen but I’m not Charlie at all, je suis Charles Martel if you see what I mean.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2015/01/09/jean-marie-le-pen-front-national-charlie-martel-hebdo-tweet-declarations_n_6443248.html

  89. @HA
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Who rules Iraq is no more my problem than who rules the Crimean peninsula so long as they stay over there and we stay over here.

    In order to induce Ukraine to give up its nukes (which should concern you), the US (along with the UK, Ukraine and Russia) signed the Budapest Memorandum to ensure Russia's respect of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Notwithstanding all the weaselly words of the pro-Putin apologists about how Nuland or Maidan somehow rendered the Memorandum null and void, that memorandum does make Ukraine's current situation into something that is partly America's problem, if not yours. That does not mean that America is obligated to send troops or bombs, but pretending that America has no obligation whatsoever is not going to fool anyone outside of the Russia Today demographic.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn’t actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit.

    You also need to remember that America’s previous actions had a profound effect on the Russians. For example when Serbia was bombed without provocation and in spite of protests by the Russians, or when Kosovo’s independence was recognized by the US, or, especially, when Iraq was overrun – the US didn’t play by the rules it largely helped create. Under such circumstances, it’s difficult for the US to criticize Russia for not playing by the very same rules. Why would Russia play by the rules when the US did not?

    So let me propose that the Crimea would not be occupied and annexed if the US was playing by its own rules. I.e. this problem was largely created by the US. Moreover, it is unresolvable – I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @reiner Tor

    "Moreover, it is unresolvable – I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot."

    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @HA
    @reiner Tor

    "The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn’t actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit."


    An economic agreement with the EU amounts to a violation of non-interference? Well, like I said, more weaselly words. How many tanks did Brussels send eastward, and how much acreage around Lvov did it occupy, in order to ensure that EU agreement was signed?

    The fact that the Memorandum was not ratified is hardly germane given that there is nothing specific to ratify. As I also said, we are not obligated to send troops or bombs. But reasonable people know what that Memorandum means and what it means for the US to walk away from yet another obligation, even if they don't involve launching another world war. And that should concern us. And if, in a decade or two, China decides to play the same game --- for example, with territory in Russia -- I suspect even the fanclub of the great shirtless one will start to see things a little more rationally, though he may well be dead by then, so I guess he doesn't care. But again, the rest of us should.

    If Putin wants to repeat the Belorussia strategy and swallow up Ukraine whole, more power to him. That's not a violation if he can do it without guns and tanks. But if he can't be bothered to do play the game the way he was trained to play it (e.g., with whatever bribes, extortion, and blackmail he can bring to bear -- it's not as if the Ukrainians are too pure to be immune to that kind of pressure), and if he instead has to resort to slicing off chunks of a country, then let him leave them alone.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  90. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    I notice that Muslims don't attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that's because those countries don't have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    Replies: @MichaelOH59, @Twinkie, @Anon, @AAB

    “I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.”

    Even more important is that they dont take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle for land.

  91. @reiner Tor
    @HA

    The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn't actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit.

    You also need to remember that America's previous actions had a profound effect on the Russians. For example when Serbia was bombed without provocation and in spite of protests by the Russians, or when Kosovo's independence was recognized by the US, or, especially, when Iraq was overrun - the US didn't play by the rules it largely helped create. Under such circumstances, it's difficult for the US to criticize Russia for not playing by the very same rules. Why would Russia play by the rules when the US did not?

    So let me propose that the Crimea would not be occupied and annexed if the US was playing by its own rules. I.e. this problem was largely created by the US. Moreover, it is unresolvable - I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

    “Moreover, it is unresolvable – I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot.”

    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.
     
    At this point, that would be the best solution.

    Ukraine gets to save face ("we didn't lose it in a war; we sold it!"), Russia gets formal recognition of the transfer of sovereignty, and the West gets a fiction of a peaceful resolution ("no territorial gain by conquest post-1945!").

    The trick is that the Russians have to withdraw first (and then re-occupy once purchased) in order to really save the Ukrainian face, but I think the Russians suspect treachery if they withdraw.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  92. @iSteveFan

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.
     
    Even if some or a large part are well integrated, it is immaterial. They have their own cultures and countries. Why must they live in our nations? What benefit is it to us to bring them in?

    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Why must we?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie, @Anon

    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Actually Japan colonized Korea between 1910-1945 and imported a rather significant number of them as menial laborers (some say slave laborers) during the wartime. In fact, during and after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, a false rumor spread throughout Tokyo and Yokohama that Koreans (especially Korean independence activists in Japan) were committing arson, and the Japanese took to mass murdering the Koreans, requiring a great deal of effort on the part of the Japanese gendarmerie to restore order.

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem, with the tiny exception of pro-North Korean communist activist cadres.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Twinkie

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan ... but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem

    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza
    ...
    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.
    ...
    Koreans composed 10% of the yakuza proper and 70% of burakumin in the Yamaguchi-gumi
    ...
    Notable yakuza members of Korean ancestry include Hisayuki Machii, the founder of the Tosei-kai, Tokutaro Takayama, the president of the 4th-generation Aizukotetsu-kai, Jiro Kiyota, the president of the 5th-generation Inagawa-kai, Hirofumi Hashimoto, the head of the Kyokushinrengo-kai, and the bosses of the 6th / 7th Sakaume-gumi.


    YouTube video of Japanese girl on an anti-Korean rant goes viral

    Replies: @Twinkie

  93. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy.

    Establishment of French Indochina
    France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French War (1884–85)

    Vietnamese ancestry in … France. The population is about 300,000

    Overseas Vietnamese … United States 1,799,632

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Establishment of French Indochina
    France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French War (1884–85)

    Vietnamese ancestry in … France. The population is about 300,000
     
    Anybody else really liked the restored French plantation sequence in "Apocalypse Now Redux"?
  94. @Corvinus
    “Our problems are with all forms of immigration, dear fellow, legal and illegal”.
    
Depends largely upon WHO arrives legally.


    “I’m for free speech but do not shed any tear for the dead ‘leftists’ and others in the recent violence in France.”



    Not demonstrating empathy? That would be called sociopathic behavior.


    “On average they have a lower IQ, they have different, more volatile temperaments (and temperament is at least 50 percent genetic) and they have a different religious tradition.”

    Oh dear, we have a biological rapist in the house.


    “Dear fellow, if only the foolish George W Bush had followed Jefferson’s example in the First Barbary War.”

    

And there is our resident neo-con chiming in.


    Again, I have absolutely no problem imposing limits or stopping immigrants from entering our country through the rule of law. If that includes Muslims, fine.

    What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe.

    How does one carry out this plan? How do people pay for it?

    Where do the Muslims go when deported, IF countries agree to take them?

    Are 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims who have integrated included in being kicked out?

    What constitutional issues are at play with citizens who are Muslims?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Not demonstrating empathy? That would be called sociopathic behavior.

    No, no sane person is very empathetic to his hated enemies. When Eugene Terrablanche was murdered horrendously, no leftists showed empathy. When Margaret Thatcher died, there were some celebrations on parts of the British Left.

    What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe. How does one carry out this plan?

    I guess one can carry it out similarly how the Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of Algeria. Yes, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of the country. I guess France can be generous and pay some money to the deported so that they’d be able to start a new life in their ancestral homelands.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @reiner Tor

    Most Western European countries already have policies that pay immigrants to leave. The amounts, however, are usually too small -- in the few thousand Euro range -- to have much effect. But the principle of paying unwanted residents to go home is already on the law books.

  95. @reiner Tor
    @Corvinus


    Not demonstrating empathy? That would be called sociopathic behavior.
     
    No, no sane person is very empathetic to his hated enemies. When Eugene Terrablanche was murdered horrendously, no leftists showed empathy. When Margaret Thatcher died, there were some celebrations on parts of the British Left.

    What I do find disturbing are those who outlandishly propose to forcibly remove Muslims who reside in the United States or Europe. How does one carry out this plan?
     
    I guess one can carry it out similarly how the Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of Algeria. Yes, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation Pieds-Noirs were kicked out of the country. I guess France can be generous and pay some money to the deported so that they'd be able to start a new life in their ancestral homelands.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Most Western European countries already have policies that pay immigrants to leave. The amounts, however, are usually too small — in the few thousand Euro range — to have much effect. But the principle of paying unwanted residents to go home is already on the law books.

  96. Is it true that the 2 brothers smoked pot and did a rap video? If so, my take is that its less about them being influenced by religion and more about resentment and envy. Our popular culture generates a lot of envy, especially in the young. Wealth, privilege, inheritance, talent, nepotism are in their faces all the time.

  97. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    I notice that Muslims don't attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that's because those countries don't have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    Replies: @MichaelOH59, @Twinkie, @Anon, @AAB

    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    You must be unaware that:

    1. China invaded Turkestan and occupied and kept it after the Chinese Civil War. The area is called Xinjiang today and is inhabited by the Turkic Muslim Uighurs, who commit acts of terror throughout China. Once a purely national liberation movement, there has been some infusion of Islamists into the movement in the recent years, something, of course, the Chinese security establishment love to highlight to us in the West. It is occasionally a source of sore spot with us Americans as well as something that leads moments of limited cooperation.

    In fact, the situation regarding Uighur terrorism in China reminds me of the Irish bombing campaigns in England. If you lived there, you know they happened much more frequently than reported, because you heard of or saw the bombed out train stations with your ears or eyes, but you never found out about them in the news. The security establishment greatly restricted the coverage regarding such terrorist acts in order not to hurt the public morale.

    2. South Korea, as an ally of the United States, sent roughly 3,600 troops to rebuild Irbil during the Iraq War. As a corollary, some South Korean missionaries were captured and beheaded in the Middle East. South Korea is rarely a target of Muslim attacks, however, because it is not seen to be an “imperialist” nation like the US, Canada, the UK, and France and also because the state of security in South Korea is much more stringent. Too, Middle Easterners don’t have a substantial presence in South Korea and cannot “blend in” as easily.

    • Replies: @donut
    @Twinkie

    Canada ?

  98. @Steve Sailer
    @reiner Tor

    "Moreover, it is unresolvable – I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot."

    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.

    At this point, that would be the best solution.

    Ukraine gets to save face (“we didn’t lose it in a war; we sold it!”), Russia gets formal recognition of the transfer of sovereignty, and the West gets a fiction of a peaceful resolution (“no territorial gain by conquest post-1945!”).

    The trick is that the Russians have to withdraw first (and then re-occupy once purchased) in order to really save the Ukrainian face, but I think the Russians suspect treachery if they withdraw.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    Hopefully. I'm a bit skeptical. You should also keep in mind that commenter HA does indeed have a point: the US cannot wash its hands of the matter after it managed to get deep into the shite.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  99. iSteveFan says:

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem, with the tiny exception of pro-North Korean communist activist cadres.

    Twinkie, my definition of “large” and yours might be different. I know that Koreans were taken to Japan, but I never thought in large amounts. According to the CIA factbook, ethnic Japanese are 98.5% of the pop, and Koreans are 0.5%. Zero-point-five percent is not my definition of large. Maybe they are undercounted, but do they come anywhere close to 3 percent?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    According to the CIA factbook, ethnic Japanese are 98.5% of the pop, and Koreans are 0.5%. Zero-point-five percent is not my definition of large. Maybe they are undercounted, but do they come anywhere close to 3 percent?
     
    The CIA World Factbook largely follows the Japanese census information, which is extremely inaccurate on this topic. Officially, there are only one million Zainichi Koreans in Japan. However, I suspect the actual number of Japanese people with relatively modern Korean ancestry is probably 5-10 times that number. Until recently, there was extreme prejudice against Koreans in Japan and most Japanese with any amount of Korean ancestry hid such origins.

    However, we know that among the Japanese nobility roughly 40% trace their ancestry to Korea. And the Japanese imperial family has already acknowledged its Korean descent, but only on the matrilineal side (though science is pretty convincing for Korean patrilineal ancestry as well).

    The notion of ethnic purity in places like Japan and Korea is largely a fiction, buttressed by a strong emphasis on mono-culturalism.

  100. @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Art Deco

    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy.


    Establishment of French Indochina
    France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French War (1884–85)

    Vietnamese ancestry in ... France. The population is about 300,000

    Overseas Vietnamese ... United States 1,799,632

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Establishment of French Indochina
    France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French War (1884–85)

    Vietnamese ancestry in … France. The population is about 300,000

    Anybody else really liked the restored French plantation sequence in “Apocalypse Now Redux”?

  101. @Tracy
    @Anonymous


    We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.
     
    No, they're not: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    Replies: @Anonym

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    Very interesting. Check out 2014. I know women get a lot of bashing on iSteve, but it is refreshing to know that white women prefer white men by a large percentage. It is unfortunate that white men are now preferring Asian women to their own – this wasn’t the case before 2011. To all the white men who act on their yellow fever, shame on you.

    Other interesting things that emerge out from the data:
    -Asian women HATE HATE HATE black men. In fact, they have the strongest preference – against blacks and latinos and for Asians and white men.
    -Everyone but black men HATE HATE HATE black women. And black men are indifferent to them.
    -White men are the most attractive, but black women don’t prefer them, except in 20010/2011 a little bit. Maybe De Niro directed a movie that was released then?
    -Black men and Asian men are about equal least attractive to women, except in their own race, where they are prized.
    -Latino and Asian men are more loyal to their own.
    -All women are loyal to their own but Latina and Asian women are strongly tempted by the pale male.
    -Pairings that would be predicted based on mutual likes are:
    1 white male/Asian female
    2 white male/ Latina female
    3 Latino male/white female (would have to have a lot going for the male, because the latino male pursues while the white woman is indifferent – this seems to be the pattern Steve has noticed in the Latin American world)

    These are the major pairings one would expect from the data, and it tends to match what you see in real life. But it doesn’t inform about Jews, Subcontinentals or Arabs for example.

    Stability would involve strong endogamous preferences from both sexes relative to other races. It seems that the men of each race let the team down in this regard. If Asian women did not have the Euro fetish, they would cinch stability.

    One wonders whether part of the support for “invite the world” stems from the desirability of white men in the eyes of other races. Elites are attractive in general and to be coarse, there are plenty who won’t turn down some free p****. Maybe wanting to keep this going forms some part of the attraction for the Euro elites. I also think that probably informs some of the thinking of the homosexual Euro elites. One finds a lot more ladyboys or whatever outside white countries.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anonym

    You ought to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They toward very specific demographics and do not reflect the national population as a whole.

  102. The video of the final gunfight at the Hyper Cacher (Super Kosher) market:

    http://www.fdesouche.com/551419-version-censuree-lassaut-du-hyper-cacher

    He ran straight through the stun grenades and into cops on both sides of him.

  103. @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    It is resolvable with money: Russia should pay Ukraine a large, negotiated amount of money for Crimea.
     
    At this point, that would be the best solution.

    Ukraine gets to save face ("we didn't lose it in a war; we sold it!"), Russia gets formal recognition of the transfer of sovereignty, and the West gets a fiction of a peaceful resolution ("no territorial gain by conquest post-1945!").

    The trick is that the Russians have to withdraw first (and then re-occupy once purchased) in order to really save the Ukrainian face, but I think the Russians suspect treachery if they withdraw.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Hopefully. I’m a bit skeptical. You should also keep in mind that commenter HA does indeed have a point: the US cannot wash its hands of the matter after it managed to get deep into the shite.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @reiner Tor

    The main problem I see is that the Russians would be unwilling to leave Donetsk (they have many reasons, one of which is that such a territorial dispute would undermine Ukrainian attempts to join either NATO or the EU), and without a solution to Donetsk it's difficult to find a solution to Crimea.

    So a solution should include a written NATO guarantee of no Ukrainian accession. I'm not sure how that could be made without NATO losing face. (Except maybe if new governments came in the West everywhere. Like Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage mediating or something...

  104. @iSteveFan
    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem, with the tiny exception of pro-North Korean communist activist cadres.

    Twinkie, my definition of "large" and yours might be different. I know that Koreans were taken to Japan, but I never thought in large amounts. According to the CIA factbook, ethnic Japanese are 98.5% of the pop, and Koreans are 0.5%. Zero-point-five percent is not my definition of large. Maybe they are undercounted, but do they come anywhere close to 3 percent?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    According to the CIA factbook, ethnic Japanese are 98.5% of the pop, and Koreans are 0.5%. Zero-point-five percent is not my definition of large. Maybe they are undercounted, but do they come anywhere close to 3 percent?

    The CIA World Factbook largely follows the Japanese census information, which is extremely inaccurate on this topic. Officially, there are only one million Zainichi Koreans in Japan. However, I suspect the actual number of Japanese people with relatively modern Korean ancestry is probably 5-10 times that number. Until recently, there was extreme prejudice against Koreans in Japan and most Japanese with any amount of Korean ancestry hid such origins.

    However, we know that among the Japanese nobility roughly 40% trace their ancestry to Korea. And the Japanese imperial family has already acknowledged its Korean descent, but only on the matrilineal side (though science is pretty convincing for Korean patrilineal ancestry as well).

    The notion of ethnic purity in places like Japan and Korea is largely a fiction, buttressed by a strong emphasis on mono-culturalism.

  105. And as a matter of general comment, I would argue that the lack of Muslim assimilation in the West is a prime example of the influence that culture (rather than genes) plays in the issue.

    For example, Lebanese Christian (especially Maronite Catholic) immigrants have little problem assimilating into Western countries. But their Muslim compatriots have much greater trouble doing so.

    Genetically, Muslim Middle Easterners may be much closer to Europeans and American whites than, say, East Asians are. But it can be argued convincingly that East Asian Christians who embrace Western culture and values can assimilate much more easily into the United States than the former (with, of course, the caveat that the number, whatever the source, has to be small to be assimilated).

    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.

    • Replies: @donut
    @Twinkie

    Danny Thomas

    , @ben tillman
    @Twinkie


    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.
     
    It's HBD, not HG(enetic)D. Culture is part of human biodiversity.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  106. @Hal
    A couple of sloppoids I noticed. (A sloppoid is a factoid so poorly constructed that it falls apart under its own weight.)

    Muslim men are brown.
     
    Muslim men are whatever color their parents were. Genes come from egg and sperm, not the mosque. Correlation is not causation.

    Muslims are violent
     
    . I have noticed that the expression of religion has everything to do with the environment (and I do mean the physical, weather and soil environment) and little to do with the core tenants of religion. People make a religion that suits their everyday experiences. Harsh conditions (i.e. desert) make for a harsh religion. Easy living (i.e. Indonesia) renders a more touchy-feely Islam. The wilderness and hostile indians (feather not dot) in Salem, Mass. led to a harsh Christianity. As societies evolve, religions evolve.

    Granted, I’m some kind of weirdo nut who thinks the basic arrangement of the world into 200 separate countries is, on the whole, a pretty good idea. Everybody who is anybody knows instead that All We Have to Do is invite every Iron Age culture in the world into our countries and then come to a mutual agreement with them upon protocols of behavior governing every aspect of our mutual lives.
     
    I think you used the wrong tense. Really need to get up with a few of the lesser read columnists here and realize that with fossil fuel depletion (and if you think peak everything is a hoax you are beyond reason) we had better learn to recognize the natural borders of our new homeland(s).

    As for the whole evil-slave thing, people came here with the status they more or less had in their home country. To suddenly get all "I love the third world" and bring tribal failures to live in the suburbs is doubly stupid. We need to stop that and to figure out how to accomplish "demand destruction" without accomplishing "civilization destruction."

    As a final note, I think our current president and cabinet is doing an outstanding job of demonstrating the futility of bucking nature.

    Replies: @HairlessNeanderthal

    When you said “peak oil” I realized you were mouthing off about topics you know nothing of. In case you don’t read the news, the price of oil is dropping because the supply of oil is greatly outstripping the demand for oil. A handy economic tip for you: something is not “peaking” if it’s trading price is in the basement.

    Secondly, long term demand for crude is plummeting at the same time that known reserves are skyrocketing. We’ve found in the last ten years that there are literally centuries worth of supply for oil even at what was peak consumption. Keep in mind that most “depleted” plays still have up to 60% of their original oil in place remaining. All this is the backdrop of increasingly efficient battery technology, liquid salt reactors, and increasing use of natural gas.

  107. @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    Hopefully. I'm a bit skeptical. You should also keep in mind that commenter HA does indeed have a point: the US cannot wash its hands of the matter after it managed to get deep into the shite.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The main problem I see is that the Russians would be unwilling to leave Donetsk (they have many reasons, one of which is that such a territorial dispute would undermine Ukrainian attempts to join either NATO or the EU), and without a solution to Donetsk it’s difficult to find a solution to Crimea.

    So a solution should include a written NATO guarantee of no Ukrainian accession. I’m not sure how that could be made without NATO losing face. (Except maybe if new governments came in the West everywhere. Like Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage mediating or something…

  108. iSteveFan says:

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It’s the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims IS a problem. It is a problem FOR those islamic peasants and slum dwellers who remain behind in the muslim world as the best hope for improving their future is strip-mined from their nations. This is just another form of colonialism, namely, resource extraction. And it leaves the stripped nations worse off.

    This applies even more so to doctors from China, India, etc. The USA has around 2.5 physicians per 1000 people. China has less than 1.5 and India has even less, 0.7. What kind of person would support siphoning off doctors from nations like these to bring them into rich nations with higher per capita physician counts? If one wants to bring in more physicians, then bring them in from Australia, Italy and other places that currently have higher per capita rates than we do.

    Additionally, when you bring in large numbers of educated people to fill skilled positions, you adversely affect the citizenry of the wealthy nation. First, you lower wages in the selected field which tends to discourage the native kids from choosing that field, and second, you run the risk of creating a field dominated by one or two ethnic groups which also tends to discourage native kids from joining that field. In other words strip mining poor nations for their cheap human capital has the effect of diminishing the development of human capital in the first world nation.

  109. @reiner Tor
    @HA

    The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn't actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit.

    You also need to remember that America's previous actions had a profound effect on the Russians. For example when Serbia was bombed without provocation and in spite of protests by the Russians, or when Kosovo's independence was recognized by the US, or, especially, when Iraq was overrun - the US didn't play by the rules it largely helped create. Under such circumstances, it's difficult for the US to criticize Russia for not playing by the very same rules. Why would Russia play by the rules when the US did not?

    So let me propose that the Crimea would not be occupied and annexed if the US was playing by its own rules. I.e. this problem was largely created by the US. Moreover, it is unresolvable - I cannot envision a Russian government which just gives up the Crimea without a shot.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @HA

    “The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn’t actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit.”

    An economic agreement with the EU amounts to a violation of non-interference? Well, like I said, more weaselly words. How many tanks did Brussels send eastward, and how much acreage around Lvov did it occupy, in order to ensure that EU agreement was signed?

    The fact that the Memorandum was not ratified is hardly germane given that there is nothing specific to ratify. As I also said, we are not obligated to send troops or bombs. But reasonable people know what that Memorandum means and what it means for the US to walk away from yet another obligation, even if they don’t involve launching another world war. And that should concern us. And if, in a decade or two, China decides to play the same game — for example, with territory in Russia — I suspect even the fanclub of the great shirtless one will start to see things a little more rationally, though he may well be dead by then, so I guess he doesn’t care. But again, the rest of us should.

    If Putin wants to repeat the Belorussia strategy and swallow up Ukraine whole, more power to him. That’s not a violation if he can do it without guns and tanks. But if he can’t be bothered to do play the game the way he was trained to play it (e.g., with whatever bribes, extortion, and blackmail he can bring to bear — it’s not as if the Ukrainians are too pure to be immune to that kind of pressure), and if he instead has to resort to slicing off chunks of a country, then let him leave them alone.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @HA

    Financing and giving international recognition and support to a coup is interference. Yanukovich might have kept power until last December if the Western powers weren't pressuring him not to use too much force against the protesters, whose shock troops were at least partly paid by Westerners. There probably would have been no protesters if the US and other Western powers hadn't financed the opposition. The resolve of Yanukovich's party faltered as more and more people around Yanukovich were sanctioned: some rats wanted to flee a ship they felt was sinking.


    But if he can’t be bothered to do play the game the way he was trained to play it (e.g., with whatever bribes, extortion, and blackmail he can bring to bear — it’s not as if the Ukrainians are too pure to be immune to that kind of pressure),
     
    He did play that game. But Yanukovich was unlawfully toppled by armed football hooligans. Because the government installed in a coup got international recognition and was sure to proceed to quickly hold elections with the only opposition (Yanukovich's party) in shambles (I'm sure over time we'll be able to read analyses on that election as we could on Russia's 1993 and 1996 etc. elections, which at the time were also celebrated as spotless elections highlighting Russia's transition to democracy), Putin knew he had little time.

    You are not very intelligent if you think Putin wanted the Crimea more than the Ukraine whole. He wanted the Ukraine whole, but he couldn't get it, because of Western interference.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world's second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    Or maybe Victoria Nuland and her basket of pastries and Soros money is just too much for Putin to handle, poor little guy.
     
    Yeah, that's what I think, plus Western diplomatic pressure against Ukie politicians (like assets in the West frozen) is more effective than similar Russian threats (because Russia does not have any of the important financial capitals of the world in its territory). So the question is, why is the West interfering, why were they pressuring Ukraine away from Putin?
  110. @Honorary Thief
    @Art Deco

    Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Who cares?

    Replies: @Bad Mamba Jamba

    “”Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.””

    “Who cares?”

    Exactly. Is it too late to vote for Saddam? He sat on the muzzies and protected the Christians from slaughter. As a (less than devout – acknowledged before someone blathers on about how I should love all my fellow men) Christian I’d like to see Christians in the Middle East protected from wild-eyed jihadists. I couldn’t care less about the rest.

    Saddam shielded the Christians, as did Ghaddafi and Mubarak and Assad. Ergo I’d like to see them in power.

  111. @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Actually Japan colonized Korea between 1910-1945 and imported a rather significant number of them as menial laborers (some say slave laborers) during the wartime. In fact, during and after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, a false rumor spread throughout Tokyo and Yokohama that Koreans (especially Korean independence activists in Japan) were committing arson, and the Japanese took to mass murdering the Koreans, requiring a great deal of effort on the part of the Japanese gendarmerie to restore order.

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem, with the tiny exception of pro-North Korean communist activist cadres.

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan … but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem

    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza

    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.

    Koreans composed 10% of the yakuza proper and 70% of burakumin in the Yamaguchi-gumi

    Notable yakuza members of Korean ancestry include Hisayuki Machii, the founder of the Tosei-kai, Tokutaro Takayama, the president of the 4th-generation Aizukotetsu-kai, Jiro Kiyota, the president of the 5th-generation Inagawa-kai, Hirofumi Hashimoto, the head of the Kyokushinrengo-kai, and the bosses of the 6th / 7th Sakaume-gumi.


    YouTube video of Japanese girl on an anti-Korean rant goes viral

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza

    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.
     
    First of all, Koreans make up far more than 0.5% of the Japanese population. Nonetheless, they are definitely over-represented among gangsters, entertainers, and athletes in Japan. It's not that unusual that a highly oppressed minority that is largely barred from respectable professions would excel in such fields. Are Koreans, then, the blacks of Japan?

    Perhaps. But unlike blacks in America, Koreans in Japan also excel in business. "The richest man in Japan," Masayoshi Son of SoftBank (worth north of $20 billion), is an ethnic Korean, for example.

    Replies: @Anon

  112. “So a solution should include a written NATO guarantee of no Ukrainian accession. I’m not sure how that could be made without NATO losing face.”

    You really think that NATO is worried over losing face because the very same same Ukraine that they rejected previously might take the hint and not keep inviting itself to the party? Was NATO howling with indignation when Yanukovich decided to end the last round of NATO-begging? Is there any evidence of this outside your fevered imagination? You really think NATO is worried about Crimea as long as Turkey is a member (not to mention the Baltics)?

    Again, if Putin wants to swallow up Ukraine in one entire gulp, a la Belorussia, have at it. What’s holding him up? He obviously has the country bugged to the rafters. What, are the Ukrainians politicans just too incorruptible and noble to be swayed by bribes, blackmail and extortion? Yeah, that seems likely. Or maybe Victoria Nuland and her basket of pastries and Soros money is just too much for Putin to handle, poor little guy.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @HA


    You really think that NATO is worried over losing face
     
    You wrote in your previous comment (but after my one) the following:

    what it means for the US to walk away from yet another obligation
     
    In other words, the US would lose face, and this would be a problem.

    You really think NATO is worried about Crimea as long as Turkey is a member (not to mention the Baltics)?
     
    No, I think they want regime change in Russia, and that's the reason for the whole Ukraine operation by Nuland and her ilk. Similarly nobody cared for Kosovo, they just wanted to knock out the last remaining Russian ally West of the former Soviet borders.
  113. http://isteve.blogspot.in/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html

    1990 SAT scores

    Asian Hindu = 1029
    White – 934
    Asian Muslim = 923

    even Asian muslim immigrants into USA are low IQ

  114. @Doug
    Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    "Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands... 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It's the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Replies: @map, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA, @ben tillman, @Charlesz Martel

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It’s the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict.

    But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
    Dzhokhar enrolled in the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, with a major in marine biology

    At the time of the bombing, Dzhokhar was a sophomore living in the UMass Dartmouth’s Pine Dale Hall dorm.

  115. iSteveFan says:

    In order to induce Ukraine to give up its nukes (which should concern you),

    Didn’t the Ukrainians really need to give up their nukes regardless of whether or not there was any treaty? Ukraine, like some of the other former USSR states, found itself a nuclear power simply because at the time of the dissolution of the USSR, they had nuclear weapons already stationed there. But they were in no position to properly care for and secure those weapons, which is why the USA was the point man in trying to get them to give them up.

    Interestingly had the USA broken up in 1992, my state, Missouri, would have been one of the world’s foremost nuclear powers with over 100 Minuteman ICBMs. The same could also be said for some other states too. Ukraine and other former Soviet states became ‘nuclear powers’ by accident. I doubt Missouri would have been able to afford such weapons, let alone Ukraine.

    As for the treaty respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, does that only apply to Ukraine’s territorial land, or does it also apply to their government and political processes too?

    PS. Even if Ukraine still kept its nuclear weapons, I tend to doubt they would have used them on Russia over Crimea.

  116. I just saw this on the France 24 news site in the live feed panel:

    We will be closing this liveblog for the evening. Thank you for following and sharing your comments as this dramatic and terrible day unfolded in Paris. You can read a summary of the events on FRANCE 24.

    There will be a unity march in honour of the victims held this Sunday in Paris. We will be there, so don’t hesitate to check our site for photos and information.

    Finally, in closing, our thoughts go out to the victims and their families. We also hope that these terrible events will not provoke more violence, especially retaliatory acts against France’s Muslim community. We wish you, and France, peace.

    http://www.france24.com/en/

  117. Didn’t the Ukrainians really need to give up their nukes regardless of whether or not there was any treaty?

    Perhaps, but Baker and others determined that it was in our interest that the break-up of the USSR was as peaceful and nuke-free as possible, and so they got involved and presumably tried to make everyone feel as if they got something out of the bargain. In hindsight, the Ukrainians can rightly feel cheated, but addressing ethnic grievances through redrawing borders is not a strategy with a happy history for anyone in Europe. Again, I can see why Putin doesn’t care, because he may well die of old age before that decision comes back to haunt Russia, but for everyone else, this is a mess, and pretending we have no obligation is not going to mean we won’t pay the consequences.

    • Replies: @HA
    @HA

    "Perhaps, but Baker and others determined..."

    Correction: while Baker's experience may have helped motivate the Budapest Memorandum, he was gone by the time it was drafted.

    , @reiner Tor
    @HA

    Actually, Yeltsin asked in fall 1991 the Americans if he could inherit the USSR seat on the UN Security Council, as well as the nuclear weapons & status regarding the NPT. The Americans said yes, and they told the Ukrainians (and Belorussians) that Ukraine (and Belarus) would never get recognition without giving up the nukes to Russia. The Kazakhs were later told the same thing. If the Americans hadn't done that, Yeltsin might have decided to keep the USSR after all, and become the leading politician of that larger country. But since he was assured independent Russia could become the by far most important successor the USSR with all the nukes and with the seat on the UN SC, he decided to break up the USSR.

    So the Ukrainians had already promised in 1991 to give up their nukes. They later changed their minds, and demanded something more from the Americans, and they got the Budapest Memorandum, a piece of paper with very little value.

    Essentially Ukraine's borders were protected by things like the CIS treaty, the Helsinki Accords, the UN Charter, the Crimea base lease agreement, so the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke. All four I mentioned here were ratified, some of them by the US as well.

    The problem is the US is only part two of these (Helsinki Accords, UN Charter), and broke both multiple times with regards to Kosovo, Iraq, and some other cases. So the Russians felt once the international system was broken anyway, they don't need to abide by its rules either. The Chinese and the Indians seem to agree with them (and even Israel is not so sure about it), which just shows how powers with little interest in the Crimea view the Wests hypocrisy regarding the inviolability of borders, state sovereignty etc.

    Replies: @HA

  118. @Art Deco
    Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.
    ==
    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country. And we never 'invaded the world'. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.

    Replies: @Honorary Thief, @WhatEvvs, @Don't drone me bro!, @The Anti-Gnostic, @syonredux, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Anon, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn’t really come up for the US government. We probably lose more than we gain with these interventions, and the state of those countries we have intervened in recently doesn’t inspire any confidence that we’re making things better for them, either.

    You don’t need an opinion about who should rule some random foreign country, because it’s none of your damned business, you have few incentives to get the decision right, and probably little relevant knowledge on which to base your decisions.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @NOTA

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn’t really come up for the US government.
    --
    Well, too bad. The identity of that person sometimes has implications for the dynamics of the regional state system. When it does not, or when the regional state system is inconsequential, the autocrat in question is left in peace. Ron Paul can amuse himself by manufacturing 'reasons' that this actor or that actor behaves badly consequent to some random American policy and, if all else fails, argue in the alternative that nothing that actor does matters to anyone. He can do that, because there was never any chance the man would ever make a consequential decision about public policy and in three decades in office, he never has.
    --
    Here's a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you'll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @NOTA

  119. @HA
    Didn’t the Ukrainians really need to give up their nukes regardless of whether or not there was any treaty?

    Perhaps, but Baker and others determined that it was in our interest that the break-up of the USSR was as peaceful and nuke-free as possible, and so they got involved and presumably tried to make everyone feel as if they got something out of the bargain. In hindsight, the Ukrainians can rightly feel cheated, but addressing ethnic grievances through redrawing borders is not a strategy with a happy history for anyone in Europe. Again, I can see why Putin doesn't care, because he may well die of old age before that decision comes back to haunt Russia, but for everyone else, this is a mess, and pretending we have no obligation is not going to mean we won't pay the consequences.

    Replies: @HA, @reiner Tor

    “Perhaps, but Baker and others determined…”

    Correction: while Baker’s experience may have helped motivate the Budapest Memorandum, he was gone by the time it was drafted.

  120. @BenjaminL
    OT:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/i-met-god-shes-black_n_6406928.html

    Dylan Chenfeld, a self-described Jewish atheist, is throwing his ideas into the mix.

    “I Met God, She’s Black,” Chenfeld says in posters that he's allegedly pasted all over Manhattan during the past few days.

    The 21-year-old doesn’t claim to have invented the phrase, saying the trope has existed for quite some time. He's just the one who decided to put it on a $30 T-shirt.
     

    Replies: @donut

    If God is indeed black and female that would explain a lot.

  121. @Doug
    Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    "Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands... 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It's the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Replies: @map, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA, @ben tillman, @Charlesz Martel

    There are a million or two Muslims in the US. If a large fraction were inclined toward terrorism, things would be blowing up all the time. (Note: I don’t know much about France’s Muslim population, I’m just saying our present one empirically doesn’t seem to be blowing much stuff up.).

    A key part of US law and custom is freedom of religion, which means *not* treating members of different religions differently under the law. That is a very good reason for us to not use kind of coercive measures to separate Muslims out of US society. Muslim citizens are citizens just like anyone else.

    Immigration is fundamentally different. We have every right (and the government has the power without any scary power grabs) to decide which people we do and don’t want immigrating into (or even visiting) the US. It makes a lot of sense to be really careful about letting people in from countries where there’s a lot of hatred against the US or a history of terrorists coming in.

  122. @WhatEvvs
    @Art Deco


    "lax law enforcement"

     

    No way. It was a need for cheap labor. The law in many border parts of the country would love to enforce, they can't. The Jeb Bushes that infest our establishment tie their hands, and if you want me to supply proof, I can't, not the kind of proof that you put on line. Let's just say, "I've heard things."

    IT'S A FIX. But all you have to do is open yer eyes.

    Remember the Occupy kiddies in Zuccotti Park? I paid no attention to them but one day I had business in midtown, and in that area. So I went over to have a look.

    I remember noticing (because I was in a mood to notice things that day) how darn many brown guys were working that day, working hard, at jobs our little Precious Snowflakes don't want to do. Hauling, lifting, cleaning, etc.

    Some of those jobs are construction jobs, doing work for sub-contractors, and are well paid. But when you've got a fancy college degree, you don't do that sort of thing.

    This is how societies die. Mind you I do not blame the illegal aliens, immigrants, what have you. I blame US, esp. the Republican establishment. They started this with their love of "free labor" (i.e., cheap labor). The Dems just responded.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Well, the administration went to court to block several immigration enforcement laws and policies passed by the states. Those may have been good or bad policies, but they were attempts to enforce some immigration laws, and they were explicitly blocked by the administration. (I don’t remember whether it was Obama or W, and there’s not much difference between the two on this issue anyway.).

  123. @Anon
    @Art Deco


    the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors). Alt-right critics of the Iraq war might at least specify whether they preferred Uday or Qusay as the ruler of Iraq.
     
    These critics seem to alternate between "they don't care" and "Iraq is worse off". It's kind of weird how some these alt-right types veer off into the left in their solicitousness for the welfare of distant foreigners.

    Iraqis (i.e. the majority, meaning Kurds and Shiites) are better off, mainly because they're no longer under the thumb of a cruel and arbitrary tyrant. From the standpoint of American interests, however, it was a waste of men and resources. It wasn't obvious beforehand, but now we know. If the final tab were known prior to the commencement of combat operations, I doubt Bush would have gone through with it.

    Replies: @NOTA

    How’d our intervention work out for the Christians in Iraq? How about the Yazidis, how’re they getting along these days?

  124. @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.
     
    You must be unaware that:

    1. China invaded Turkestan and occupied and kept it after the Chinese Civil War. The area is called Xinjiang today and is inhabited by the Turkic Muslim Uighurs, who commit acts of terror throughout China. Once a purely national liberation movement, there has been some infusion of Islamists into the movement in the recent years, something, of course, the Chinese security establishment love to highlight to us in the West. It is occasionally a source of sore spot with us Americans as well as something that leads moments of limited cooperation.

    In fact, the situation regarding Uighur terrorism in China reminds me of the Irish bombing campaigns in England. If you lived there, you know they happened much more frequently than reported, because you heard of or saw the bombed out train stations with your ears or eyes, but you never found out about them in the news. The security establishment greatly restricted the coverage regarding such terrorist acts in order not to hurt the public morale.

    2. South Korea, as an ally of the United States, sent roughly 3,600 troops to rebuild Irbil during the Iraq War. As a corollary, some South Korean missionaries were captured and beheaded in the Middle East. South Korea is rarely a target of Muslim attacks, however, because it is not seen to be an "imperialist" nation like the US, Canada, the UK, and France and also because the state of security in South Korea is much more stringent. Too, Middle Easterners don't have a substantial presence in South Korea and cannot "blend in" as easily.

    Replies: @donut

    Canada ?

  125. @Twinkie
    And as a matter of general comment, I would argue that the lack of Muslim assimilation in the West is a prime example of the influence that culture (rather than genes) plays in the issue.

    For example, Lebanese Christian (especially Maronite Catholic) immigrants have little problem assimilating into Western countries. But their Muslim compatriots have much greater trouble doing so.

    Genetically, Muslim Middle Easterners may be much closer to Europeans and American whites than, say, East Asians are. But it can be argued convincingly that East Asian Christians who embrace Western culture and values can assimilate much more easily into the United States than the former (with, of course, the caveat that the number, whatever the source, has to be small to be assimilated).

    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.

    Replies: @donut, @ben tillman

    Danny Thomas

  126. @John Schilling
    To make this argument is to hear back "Why discriminate against this particular group when the overwhelming majority of the community is peaceful and law-abiding?" You hear that a lot, the "overwhelming majority."

    To which the answer might be that in this case the minority shows signs of being pretty overwhelming in its own right. This particular minority has overwhelmed freedom of expression by killing some of the bravest journalists in Europe. It managed to turn Paris into an overwhelmingly militarized zone for a few days, just like what happened to Boston in 2013. It has helped create the conditions for overwhelmingly intrusive national and international surveillance systems.

    By contrast, the majority of this particular group has been distinctly underwhelming. When not making apologies for the minority's behaviour, it often follows the strategy of condemning with one breath and half-justifying with the next, or else going almost directly into tu quoque. One has learned to be content with a patina of disapproval at best after each new atrocity, and one is reluctant to look for anything else for fear of finding just how thin the patina is.

    What we have is an overwhelming minority and an underwhelming majority.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    To make this argument is to hear back “Why discriminate against this particular group when the overwhelming majority of the community is peaceful and law-abiding?” You hear that a lot, the “overwhelming majority.”

    To which the answer might be that in this case the minority shows signs of being pretty overwhelming in its own right.

    That’s one answer, but it still accepts Leftist premises. I prefer to ask, “Why *not* discriminate between us and this group? The fact that discrimination is even possible proves that they are not *us* — so why should we admit them into our group? What’s in it for us?”

    Obviously, with Muslims, there’s nothing in it for us. Live and let live, but let them live apart.

  127. @Dahlia
    I've heard contradictory utterances with regards to the Charlie Hebdo and am wondering what exactly the truth is; it is important, I think, to understand their nature and history.

    We're they about "free speech"? Or were they martyrs for some other cause? Can they be martyrs for another cause AND free speech while having been against it for others?
    I've since heard the following and wonder about the veracity:

    a. They wanted a political party banned in France.
    b. One, Charb I think, is said to have said he wanted to make Islam as banal as Catholicism.

    Plus, Charb's girlfriend said he was a communist in the Daily Mail, though Charb is not the magazine.

    They were heroic in standing up for their beliefs and died for something, but what did they die for?

    It looks like they picked a fight with various religions, were willing to die as martyrs for the cause of secularism, and Islam obliged as is required.

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    Well, until a couple of days ago I’d never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing-to-say/

    Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

    In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.

    And the morning papers also mentioned that at least one of its top cartoonists was Jewish.

    What a strange puzzle. A heavily Jewish-influenced magazine spending many years publishing viciously obscene cartoons attacking Christianity and Islam. I just can’t figure it out. Clearly, some riddles are just too difficult for human minds to ever solve.

    I also read somewhere that France’s most popular stand-up comedian these days is some black guy who sometimes makes jokes criticizing Jews. For such horrendous offenses, the French government has repeatedly prosecuted him and even threatened him with imprisonment.

    Yet another deep mystery beyond human comprehension…

    • Replies: @matt
    @Ron Unz

    Diana Johnstone is consistently fantastic. I've never read a better analyst of European politics. She wrote a great book on NATO's Yugoslav wars. My favorite essay of hers is "Why the French Hate Chomsky," which is also relevant in the wake of recent of events. It puts all the recent French self-congratulation about being a bastion of free speech in perspective.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    You ought to read Gavin McInnis's piece in Takimag for some color on Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists: http://takimag.com/article/nous_sommes_tous_des_francais_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3OO0Tn98B

    Gavin's not shy about criticizing Jews, but he's also a French speaker and knowledgeable about French culture, and he doesn't draw the same conclusion you do.

    Replies: @Ron Unz, @tomv

  128. @Doug
    Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    "Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands... 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It's the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Replies: @map, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA, @ben tillman, @Charlesz Martel

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem.

    It’s not *the” problem, but it’s certainly *a* problem. They are permitted to — and do — engage in ethnic nepotism that Whites may not, and they receive government subsidies that Whites do not. They are not playing by the same rules, yet you would INVITE them to come here and receive a free share of an extraordinarily valuable corporation whose value was created by us?

  129. @Lot
    @Anonymous

    The conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is a fair part Jewish and high class Turkish Muslim. Of course the Turks were long the main oppressors of the ancestors of many British Muslims.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    The conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is a fair part Jewish and high class Turkish Muslim.

    Surely, you jest.

  130. Unz, your money doesn’t make you any smarter. You seem to have made the mistake of thinking that it does.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Moshe

    Just because you hail from the ethnicity that is the smartest on average does not mean your ethnicity is exempt from being collectively wrong and foolish about important things, from time to time.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

  131. matt says:
    @Ron Unz
    @Dahlia

    Well, until a couple of days ago I'd never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing-to-say/


    Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

    In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.
     
    And the morning papers also mentioned that at least one of its top cartoonists was Jewish.

    What a strange puzzle. A heavily Jewish-influenced magazine spending many years publishing viciously obscene cartoons attacking Christianity and Islam. I just can't figure it out. Clearly, some riddles are just too difficult for human minds to ever solve.

    I also read somewhere that France's most popular stand-up comedian these days is some black guy who sometimes makes jokes criticizing Jews. For such horrendous offenses, the French government has repeatedly prosecuted him and even threatened him with imprisonment.

    Yet another deep mystery beyond human comprehension...

    Replies: @matt, @Dave Pinsen

    Diana Johnstone is consistently fantastic. I’ve never read a better analyst of European politics. She wrote a great book on NATO’s Yugoslav wars. My favorite essay of hers is “Why the French Hate Chomsky,” which is also relevant in the wake of recent of events. It puts all the recent French self-congratulation about being a bastion of free speech in perspective.

  132. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    I notice that Muslims don't attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that's because those countries don't have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    Replies: @MichaelOH59, @Twinkie, @Anon, @AAB

    I notice that Muslims don’t attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that’s because those countries don’t have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China#Number_of_Muslims_in_China

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2014_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_attack

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Tiananmen_Square_attack

  133. @Twinkie
    And as a matter of general comment, I would argue that the lack of Muslim assimilation in the West is a prime example of the influence that culture (rather than genes) plays in the issue.

    For example, Lebanese Christian (especially Maronite Catholic) immigrants have little problem assimilating into Western countries. But their Muslim compatriots have much greater trouble doing so.

    Genetically, Muslim Middle Easterners may be much closer to Europeans and American whites than, say, East Asians are. But it can be argued convincingly that East Asian Christians who embrace Western culture and values can assimilate much more easily into the United States than the former (with, of course, the caveat that the number, whatever the source, has to be small to be assimilated).

    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.

    Replies: @donut, @ben tillman

    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.

    It’s HBD, not HG(enetic)D. Culture is part of human biodiversity.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @ben tillman


    It’s HBD, not HG(enetic)D. Culture is part of human biodiversity.
     
    Culture is a part of human diversity, but it is, in the strictest sense, not a part of "biodiversity."

    Cultures, as a general rule, tend to coincide with tribes or nations (or "population groupings"), but not exclusively so. Otherwise there would not be a separate word for it.

    While I agree that the current tendency to isolate culture from race (or any other terms of population groupings) is wrong headed and ultimately destructive, some here go too far in identifying culture in exclusively biological terms.
  134. @Moshe
    Unz, your money doesn't make you any smarter. You seem to have made the mistake of thinking that it does.

    Replies: @Anonym

    Just because you hail from the ethnicity that is the smartest on average does not mean your ethnicity is exempt from being collectively wrong and foolish about important things, from time to time.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @Anonym

    Jews are "collectively wrong?" Howzat?

    I'm a member of the collective. I've been railing against minority crime since 1981. Lots of my collective have, as well, the NY Times just doesn't interview me. I've been arguing about illegal immigration since the early 90s (sorry, I wasn't aware of it before then), esp. with liberal Texas Republicans, who are the worst illegal immigration offenders (they work cheap).

    @Unz

    "Well, until a couple of days ago I’d never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:"

    And now you're a big expert on it, eh? Charlie Hebdo wasn't heavily influenced by Jews. Yes, it had some Jewish influence but it mocked the Holocaust and Judaism. Islam was a particular butt, because Islam scares the shit out of people.

    I guess you being Jewish makes this whole operation a false flag, eh Ron?

    Do you fund Counterpunch?

    Replies: @Anonym

  135. “There are a million or two Muslims in the US. If a large fraction were inclined toward terrorism, things would be blowing up all the time. (Note: I don’t know much about France’s Muslim population, I’m just saying our present one empirically doesn’t seem to be blowing much stuff up.). ”

    Yeah Muslims in the U.S are such a good model minority just like Orientals, NOT. Who committed the Boston bombings ? Fort Hood ? 9/11 ? Was it Southern Baptists ?

    Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but commit 100 percent of all religious related violence in the U.S.

  136. “Genetically, Muslim Middle Easterners may be much closer to Europeans and American whites than, say, East Asians are.”

    Muslim “Whites” on average are more likely to have Sub Saharan DNA than Jewish Whites and Christian Whites, especially if those Muslim “Whites” are from North African countries like Algeria and Egypt.

  137. “Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem,”

    Most Japanese and Koreans practice Eastern religions and are not Christians like most Filipinos. Also both groups look very similar to each other phenotype wise. There is less phenotype difference between between Koreans and the Japanese than there is between Nordic people and Middle Eastern people for example. So is it really surprising that Koreans assimilate EXTREMELY WELL into Japanese society.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jefferson


    Most Japanese and Koreans practice Eastern religions and are not Christians like most Filipinos. Also both groups look very similar to each other phenotype wise. There is less phenotype difference between between Koreans and the Japanese than there is between Nordic people and Middle Eastern people for example. So is it really surprising that Koreans assimilate EXTREMELY WELL into Japanese society.
     
    While you are correct that Koreans and Japanese share a relatively similar culture and have closer genetic propinquity (roughly 30% of genetic similarity), they are religiously very different.

    Japanese are mostly atheists and only a small minority actively practices Buddhism, which is strongly infused with its local Shinto religion (of shamanistic origin). South Koreans, on the other hand, are plurality Christians. Filipinos are heavily Catholic, to be sure, largely because of the Spanish colonial legacy, but South Korea's Christian population (roughly 30-50%) is fervently evangelical Protestant (though Catholicism is gaining there as well). And Koreans adapted Christianity on their own without any foreign, imperialistic coercion. Indeed, their Christian zeal is such that despite their rather small population of 50 million, they field the second largest number of Christian missionaries in the world (after the United States).
  138. All these crocodile tears about the sanctity of European borders as they were established in 1992 (but not at any previous date) – and not one word about how Kosovo was taken from Serbia in violation of this supposed principle by the self-same hypocritical bullies that are doing the crying. Did they remove their troops from Kosovo, negotiate with Serbia for it, pay a large and agreed price? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @5371

    Kosovo was taken from Serbia in violation of this supposed principle by the self-same hypocritical bullies that are doing the crying.
    --
    Kosovo was taken from Serbia because 90% of the population therein is Albanian and the Serb government had spent 12 years abusing that local population. Given the ... uh...evolution in the population distribution within Bosnia over the period running from 1992 to 1995, there was a reasonable inference that the Albanians would be next.

  139. @Ron Unz
    @Dahlia

    Well, until a couple of days ago I'd never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing-to-say/


    Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

    In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.
     
    And the morning papers also mentioned that at least one of its top cartoonists was Jewish.

    What a strange puzzle. A heavily Jewish-influenced magazine spending many years publishing viciously obscene cartoons attacking Christianity and Islam. I just can't figure it out. Clearly, some riddles are just too difficult for human minds to ever solve.

    I also read somewhere that France's most popular stand-up comedian these days is some black guy who sometimes makes jokes criticizing Jews. For such horrendous offenses, the French government has repeatedly prosecuted him and even threatened him with imprisonment.

    Yet another deep mystery beyond human comprehension...

    Replies: @matt, @Dave Pinsen

    Ron,

    You ought to read Gavin McInnis’s piece in Takimag for some color on Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists: http://takimag.com/article/nous_sommes_tous_des_francais_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3OO0Tn98B

    Gavin’s not shy about criticizing Jews, but he’s also a French speaker and knowledgeable about French culture, and he doesn’t draw the same conclusion you do.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    @Dave Pinsen

    Well, I almost never visit Takimag, but I went ahead and clicked on your link. Frankly, I didn't find a single substantive point of any value in the article, which didn't surprise me in the least.

    Although I'm publisher of this webzine, I'm normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the "rabid rightwingers" who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they're always good for a laugh or two.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @matt, @Twinkie

    , @tomv
    @Dave Pinsen

    A French speaker? He can't be a very good one, witness the awkward phrasing of his title.

  140. @5371
    All these crocodile tears about the sanctity of European borders as they were established in 1992 (but not at any previous date) - and not one word about how Kosovo was taken from Serbia in violation of this supposed principle by the self-same hypocritical bullies that are doing the crying. Did they remove their troops from Kosovo, negotiate with Serbia for it, pay a large and agreed price? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Kosovo was taken from Serbia in violation of this supposed principle by the self-same hypocritical bullies that are doing the crying.

    Kosovo was taken from Serbia because 90% of the population therein is Albanian and the Serb government had spent 12 years abusing that local population. Given the … uh…evolution in the population distribution within Bosnia over the period running from 1992 to 1995, there was a reasonable inference that the Albanians would be next.

  141. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Anonym
    @Moshe

    Just because you hail from the ethnicity that is the smartest on average does not mean your ethnicity is exempt from being collectively wrong and foolish about important things, from time to time.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    Jews are “collectively wrong?” Howzat?

    I’m a member of the collective. I’ve been railing against minority crime since 1981. Lots of my collective have, as well, the NY Times just doesn’t interview me. I’ve been arguing about illegal immigration since the early 90s (sorry, I wasn’t aware of it before then), esp. with liberal Texas Republicans, who are the worst illegal immigration offenders (they work cheap).

    @Unz

    “Well, until a couple of days ago I’d never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:”

    And now you’re a big expert on it, eh? Charlie Hebdo wasn’t heavily influenced by Jews. Yes, it had some Jewish influence but it mocked the Holocaust and Judaism. Islam was a particular butt, because Islam scares the shit out of people.

    I guess you being Jewish makes this whole operation a false flag, eh Ron?

    Do you fund Counterpunch?

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @WhatEvvs

    Fair point. View of elite Jews are well to the left on immigration, same with the white elite.

  142. @NOTA
    @Art Deco

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn't really come up for the US government. We probably lose more than we gain with these interventions, and the state of those countries we have intervened in recently doesn't inspire any confidence that we're making things better for them, either.

    You don't need an opinion about who should rule some random foreign country, because it's none of your damned business, you have few incentives to get the decision right, and probably little relevant knowledge on which to base your decisions.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn’t really come up for the US government.

    Well, too bad. The identity of that person sometimes has implications for the dynamics of the regional state system. When it does not, or when the regional state system is inconsequential, the autocrat in question is left in peace. Ron Paul can amuse himself by manufacturing ‘reasons’ that this actor or that actor behaves badly consequent to some random American policy and, if all else fails, argue in the alternative that nothing that actor does matters to anyone. He can do that, because there was never any chance the man would ever make a consequential decision about public policy and in three decades in office, he never has.

    Here’s a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you’ll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Art Deco


    Here’s a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you’ll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.
     
    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it. Then it turned out there was a misunderstanding. Look, I'm not very conspiracy-minded, so I'm inclined to believe the official view that it really was a misunderstanding and Saddam was not deliberately misled. However, after the problem happened, the US could have offered Saddam a way out without losing face. The US chose to push the matter to war instead. After the war, there was still the chance to leave the much weakened Saddam in place. His system was corrupt to the core, oil prices were low, so what harm would have come from leaving him there? After 1991 he never had a chance to build a nuke, and the 'WMD' expression is totally misleading (chemical and biological weapons are way less usable than nuclear ones), so regardless of whether he had a chance to keep some portion of his chemical weapons program (he didn't, as it turned out) he was quite harmless. I can see no reasons why he couldn't have been left in place.

    So what did he exactly do wrong? He wasn't working on nukes (he wasn't even capable of that), he wasn't despoiling or conquering neighboring countries (the only time he did that he thought he had US permission, and after that he wasn't even capable of doing any mischief anywhere), he wasn't harboring criminal organizations, he was not erecting drug-running mafias, he did not run ethnic cleansing operations (after he won his civil war in 1993, he was content to leave the Shia subdued and the Kurds subdued in some provinces and quasi independent in others). Actually, the ethnic cleansing started after the genial American invasion. Are the Iranian puppet, the enlarged Kurdish quasi-independent state (which is hated by Western ally Turkey), and the Islamic State better than Saddam's regime?

    Also, Gaddafi. He was bad enough until the late 1990s, but after that he became normal. The West decided to replace him with chaos and Islamist militias. Was it for the better?

    Finally, Afghanistan. The Taliban already condemned the terror attacks on September 11. (They quite realistically weren't quite interested in worldwide jihad, just in f...ing their goats and ruling their own mountains. Though they were happy to receive jihadist volunteer militias like those of bin Laden and also jihadist monies from Saudi Arabia.) They told the Pakistanis (and the world) that they would extradite bin Laden provided they received sufficient evidence. The US did not want to negotiate with them. (Again, there was no way provided for them to save face, similarly to how they had dealt with Saddam in 1990.) Bin Laden later said that the Taliban had no knowledge of his plans for the terror attacks.

    So even in the case of Afghanistan we can ask the question as to whether it would not have been better to try to get bin Laden without removing the Taliban, especially since now Afghanistan could easily revert to Taliban rule. (Lest we forget, the Bush administration just started an anti-Taliban policy in August 2001.) Or if not that, maybe Taliban could have been toppled and then the US could have left the country to warlords. Either way it doesn't seem to be much worse than what happened.

    But to be honest I personally would also have invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The urge for revenge was just too strong. So I don't hold it much against the Bush administration. But I wouldn't have tried to create "democracy" there. That was and is still just crazy.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anon

    , @NOTA
    @Art Deco

    Fortunately, we don't have to just guess or imagine what an interventionist foreign policy will look like--we have several decades of one whose effectiveness we can judge. How is it working out for us? How are the countries we've intervened in over the last couple decades doing? Have our interventions made us better off?

    I don't see much evidence that we've been real successful in our interventions. Perhaps things would be even worse without them, but the current state of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen don't look to me like commercials for our highly competent foreign interventions.

    My guess is that US interventionist foreign policy is like medieval medicine--done by smart, confident, learned men with a lot of social standing, but not actually any good at making things better except occasionally by mistake.

  143. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    I notice that Muslims don't attack Japan or South Korea or China. Maybe that's because those countries don't have Muslims living in them and because they let Muslim countries choose how they want to live.

    Replies: @MichaelOH59, @Twinkie, @Anon, @AAB

    Muslims do attack people in China. They did so only last year:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    • Replies: @gzu
    @AAB

    You do know that the Chinese are utterly brutal in their oppression of Muslims right? Much like the Tibetans and their religion in fact.

    The difference is, Muslims are more prone to retaliate when this happens. But first blood was not spilled by the Uighurs here.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  144. @HA
    @reiner Tor

    "The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified anywhere. BTW it also calls for non-interference in a more general way, and arguably the US was a little bit involved with Maidan and the Orange Revolution before. (Although probably Russia, too.) Not to mention that Putin never would have invaded the Crimea if the Western powers didn’t actively try to pull Ukraine into their orbit."


    An economic agreement with the EU amounts to a violation of non-interference? Well, like I said, more weaselly words. How many tanks did Brussels send eastward, and how much acreage around Lvov did it occupy, in order to ensure that EU agreement was signed?

    The fact that the Memorandum was not ratified is hardly germane given that there is nothing specific to ratify. As I also said, we are not obligated to send troops or bombs. But reasonable people know what that Memorandum means and what it means for the US to walk away from yet another obligation, even if they don't involve launching another world war. And that should concern us. And if, in a decade or two, China decides to play the same game --- for example, with territory in Russia -- I suspect even the fanclub of the great shirtless one will start to see things a little more rationally, though he may well be dead by then, so I guess he doesn't care. But again, the rest of us should.

    If Putin wants to repeat the Belorussia strategy and swallow up Ukraine whole, more power to him. That's not a violation if he can do it without guns and tanks. But if he can't be bothered to do play the game the way he was trained to play it (e.g., with whatever bribes, extortion, and blackmail he can bring to bear -- it's not as if the Ukrainians are too pure to be immune to that kind of pressure), and if he instead has to resort to slicing off chunks of a country, then let him leave them alone.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Financing and giving international recognition and support to a coup is interference. Yanukovich might have kept power until last December if the Western powers weren’t pressuring him not to use too much force against the protesters, whose shock troops were at least partly paid by Westerners. There probably would have been no protesters if the US and other Western powers hadn’t financed the opposition. The resolve of Yanukovich’s party faltered as more and more people around Yanukovich were sanctioned: some rats wanted to flee a ship they felt was sinking.

    But if he can’t be bothered to do play the game the way he was trained to play it (e.g., with whatever bribes, extortion, and blackmail he can bring to bear — it’s not as if the Ukrainians are too pure to be immune to that kind of pressure),

    He did play that game. But Yanukovich was unlawfully toppled by armed football hooligans. Because the government installed in a coup got international recognition and was sure to proceed to quickly hold elections with the only opposition (Yanukovich’s party) in shambles (I’m sure over time we’ll be able to read analyses on that election as we could on Russia’s 1993 and 1996 etc. elections, which at the time were also celebrated as spotless elections highlighting Russia’s transition to democracy), Putin knew he had little time.

    You are not very intelligent if you think Putin wanted the Crimea more than the Ukraine whole. He wanted the Ukraine whole, but he couldn’t get it, because of Western interference.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world’s second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    Or maybe Victoria Nuland and her basket of pastries and Soros money is just too much for Putin to handle, poor little guy.

    Yeah, that’s what I think, plus Western diplomatic pressure against Ukie politicians (like assets in the West frozen) is more effective than similar Russian threats (because Russia does not have any of the important financial capitals of the world in its territory). So the question is, why is the West interfering, why were they pressuring Ukraine away from Putin?

  145. @HA
    "So a solution should include a written NATO guarantee of no Ukrainian accession. I’m not sure how that could be made without NATO losing face."

    You really think that NATO is worried over losing face because the very same same Ukraine that they rejected previously might take the hint and not keep inviting itself to the party? Was NATO howling with indignation when Yanukovich decided to end the last round of NATO-begging? Is there any evidence of this outside your fevered imagination? You really think NATO is worried about Crimea as long as Turkey is a member (not to mention the Baltics)?

    Again, if Putin wants to swallow up Ukraine in one entire gulp, a la Belorussia, have at it. What's holding him up? He obviously has the country bugged to the rafters. What, are the Ukrainians politicans just too incorruptible and noble to be swayed by bribes, blackmail and extortion? Yeah, that seems likely. Or maybe Victoria Nuland and her basket of pastries and Soros money is just too much for Putin to handle, poor little guy.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    You really think that NATO is worried over losing face

    You wrote in your previous comment (but after my one) the following:

    what it means for the US to walk away from yet another obligation

    In other words, the US would lose face, and this would be a problem.

    You really think NATO is worried about Crimea as long as Turkey is a member (not to mention the Baltics)?

    No, I think they want regime change in Russia, and that’s the reason for the whole Ukraine operation by Nuland and her ilk. Similarly nobody cared for Kosovo, they just wanted to knock out the last remaining Russian ally West of the former Soviet borders.

  146. @HA
    Didn’t the Ukrainians really need to give up their nukes regardless of whether or not there was any treaty?

    Perhaps, but Baker and others determined that it was in our interest that the break-up of the USSR was as peaceful and nuke-free as possible, and so they got involved and presumably tried to make everyone feel as if they got something out of the bargain. In hindsight, the Ukrainians can rightly feel cheated, but addressing ethnic grievances through redrawing borders is not a strategy with a happy history for anyone in Europe. Again, I can see why Putin doesn't care, because he may well die of old age before that decision comes back to haunt Russia, but for everyone else, this is a mess, and pretending we have no obligation is not going to mean we won't pay the consequences.

    Replies: @HA, @reiner Tor

    Actually, Yeltsin asked in fall 1991 the Americans if he could inherit the USSR seat on the UN Security Council, as well as the nuclear weapons & status regarding the NPT. The Americans said yes, and they told the Ukrainians (and Belorussians) that Ukraine (and Belarus) would never get recognition without giving up the nukes to Russia. The Kazakhs were later told the same thing. If the Americans hadn’t done that, Yeltsin might have decided to keep the USSR after all, and become the leading politician of that larger country. But since he was assured independent Russia could become the by far most important successor the USSR with all the nukes and with the seat on the UN SC, he decided to break up the USSR.

    So the Ukrainians had already promised in 1991 to give up their nukes. They later changed their minds, and demanded something more from the Americans, and they got the Budapest Memorandum, a piece of paper with very little value.

    Essentially Ukraine’s borders were protected by things like the CIS treaty, the Helsinki Accords, the UN Charter, the Crimea base lease agreement, so the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke. All four I mentioned here were ratified, some of them by the US as well.

    The problem is the US is only part two of these (Helsinki Accords, UN Charter), and broke both multiple times with regards to Kosovo, Iraq, and some other cases. So the Russians felt once the international system was broken anyway, they don’t need to abide by its rules either. The Chinese and the Indians seem to agree with them (and even Israel is not so sure about it), which just shows how powers with little interest in the Crimea view the Wests hypocrisy regarding the inviolability of borders, state sovereignty etc.

    • Replies: @HA
    @reiner Tor

    He did play that game.

    No, he didn’t. He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail? No dead female or life mail hookers rattling around in any of those car trunks? But no, Putin couldn't be bothered to dig them out. He is lucky the USSR he is so nostalgic for is defunct. If anyone had done such a slipshod job of infiltration during Stalin’s era, a slow death in Siberia would be the best he could hope for. And none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect. If it did, Putin wouldn’t have to resort to nutjob propaganda by paid trolls and like-minded amateurs detailing how Banderites and Illuminati and, for all I know, vampires and other Carpathian ghouls, that are supposedly thirsting for Russian blood.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world’s second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.

    ...the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke.

    Well, if that's the best defense you can mount, I think we can leave it there. Oh look, here's some other agreements Putin *didn't* break! And they're WAY more important.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor

  147. [Kosovo was taken from Serbia because 90% of the population therein is Albanian and the Serb government had spent 12 years abusing that local population. Given the … uh…evolution in the population distribution within Bosnia over the period running from 1992 to 1995, there was a reasonable inference that the Albanians would be next.]

    Can anyone show how this might address any of the points I made?

    Usually, someone who can’t manage to be accurate can at least succeed in being relevant. As a rule, a dedicated troll makes some attempt to provide entertainment. You, however, fail on all counts, even those on which your feebleness itself should by rights make things easier for you.

  148. “Art Deco says:

    Not unremarkable among the British chatterati. Caroline Glick has said her last experience speaking at a British university was so disagreeable she thought she’d stay out of Britain for the rest of her life.”

    I’m not suprised that you cite Caroline Glick as some kind of authority. She is a mediocrity who imagines there are anti-semites under her bed. And she is inveterately anti-european. What she thinks about almost anything is of no interest.

  149. @Dave Pinsen
    @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    You ought to read Gavin McInnis's piece in Takimag for some color on Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists: http://takimag.com/article/nous_sommes_tous_des_francais_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3OO0Tn98B

    Gavin's not shy about criticizing Jews, but he's also a French speaker and knowledgeable about French culture, and he doesn't draw the same conclusion you do.

    Replies: @Ron Unz, @tomv

    Well, I almost never visit Takimag, but I went ahead and clicked on your link. Frankly, I didn’t find a single substantive point of any value in the article, which didn’t surprise me in the least.

    Although I’m publisher of this webzine, I’m normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the “rabid rightwingers” who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they’re always good for a laugh or two.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Ron Unz

    That you find Takimag and Gavin McInnes insufficiently hostile to Jews suggests you may have what John Derbyshire once termed "the Jew thing" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-marx-of-the-anti-semites/ )

    , @matt
    @Ron Unz

    Yep. Takimag is a cesspool. Although Gavin McInnes is fun to laugh at (not with) every once in a while.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    , @Twinkie
    @Ron Unz


    Although I’m publisher of this webzine, I’m normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the “rabid rightwingers” who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they’re always good for a laugh or two.
     
    Too cool to care about your own magazine and, while at it, let's insult the contemptible customers of your own product.

    You have my vote!

    Oh, wait. Does that make ME a "gullible dupe"?

    Replies: @Ron Unz

  150. “Art Deco says:

    ………………..and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone.”

    Apropos of nothing? Who are you to presume that this or that nation has no business developing a nuclear weapon? I can see lots of justifiable reasons why Iran would want to have a nuclear weapon. As the only nation to have ever used one to kill people, we don’t have a lot of ground to stand on in telling other nations.

    “Ron Paul can amuse himself by manufacturing ‘reasons’ that this actor or that actor behaves badly consequent to some random American policy and, if all else fails, argue in the alternative that nothing that actor does matters to anyone.”

    You are an apologist for corrupt state-power, and you truly are a stupid, arrogant dick.

  151. “NOTA says:

    You don’t need an opinion about who should rule some random foreign country, because it’s none of your damned business, you have few incentives to get the decision right, and probably little relevant knowledge on which to base your decisions.”

    Smug A-holes like Art Deco think that everything is their business.

  152. Sailer, you are a fucking moron. You want to outlaw all Muslim immigration despite the MILLIONS of Muslims who live in Europe and never killed anyone or caused any problem. Talk about throwing the baby away with the bath water. You want to punish the 99.999% majority of Muslims for the crimes of the 0.001% of homicidal extremists.

    A far more rational solution is to run criminal background checks on immigrants from Muslim countries to discover links to terrorist organizations, or a an extremist fundamentalist background that could lead to the peopel in question joining terrosrist organizations.

    But this rational solution does not appeal to you because you are a white American conservative/xenophobe/Judaic-Christian who just don’t want to live around people who are different from you even if they are peaceful.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Nick Diaz

    The Algerians ejected the French despite 99.999% of them being peaceful, civilized people etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  153. “Art Deco says:

    “”Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World.””

    There is no such strategy. Our problems with illegal immigration are a manifestation of haphazard law enforcement, which has never not been a generalized problem in this country.

    Were you a born a pathological liar, or did you have to work at it? The acceptance of illegal immigration in this country is clearly a matter of policy. It is not merely a “manifestation of haphazard law enforcement.”

    “And we never ‘invaded the world’. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One place was harboring a criminal organization that had committed a horrific casus belli and the other we had been in a state of belligerency with for 12 years (a consequence of their previous misbehaviors).”

    We maintain a military presence in dozens of countries around the world. We have now been involved in Afghanistan for thirteen years – longer than the civil war, WWI, and WWII combined. You are a typical chicken-hawk coward. If you think our military involvement in all sorts of places is so important, then why don’t you join up and go police the world yourself, you preening horse’s ass.

  154. @Art Deco
    @NOTA

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn’t really come up for the US government.
    --
    Well, too bad. The identity of that person sometimes has implications for the dynamics of the regional state system. When it does not, or when the regional state system is inconsequential, the autocrat in question is left in peace. Ron Paul can amuse himself by manufacturing 'reasons' that this actor or that actor behaves badly consequent to some random American policy and, if all else fails, argue in the alternative that nothing that actor does matters to anyone. He can do that, because there was never any chance the man would ever make a consequential decision about public policy and in three decades in office, he never has.
    --
    Here's a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you'll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @NOTA

    Here’s a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you’ll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.

    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it. Then it turned out there was a misunderstanding. Look, I’m not very conspiracy-minded, so I’m inclined to believe the official view that it really was a misunderstanding and Saddam was not deliberately misled. However, after the problem happened, the US could have offered Saddam a way out without losing face. The US chose to push the matter to war instead. After the war, there was still the chance to leave the much weakened Saddam in place. His system was corrupt to the core, oil prices were low, so what harm would have come from leaving him there? After 1991 he never had a chance to build a nuke, and the ‘WMD’ expression is totally misleading (chemical and biological weapons are way less usable than nuclear ones), so regardless of whether he had a chance to keep some portion of his chemical weapons program (he didn’t, as it turned out) he was quite harmless. I can see no reasons why he couldn’t have been left in place.

    So what did he exactly do wrong? He wasn’t working on nukes (he wasn’t even capable of that), he wasn’t despoiling or conquering neighboring countries (the only time he did that he thought he had US permission, and after that he wasn’t even capable of doing any mischief anywhere), he wasn’t harboring criminal organizations, he was not erecting drug-running mafias, he did not run ethnic cleansing operations (after he won his civil war in 1993, he was content to leave the Shia subdued and the Kurds subdued in some provinces and quasi independent in others). Actually, the ethnic cleansing started after the genial American invasion. Are the Iranian puppet, the enlarged Kurdish quasi-independent state (which is hated by Western ally Turkey), and the Islamic State better than Saddam’s regime?

    Also, Gaddafi. He was bad enough until the late 1990s, but after that he became normal. The West decided to replace him with chaos and Islamist militias. Was it for the better?

    Finally, Afghanistan. The Taliban already condemned the terror attacks on September 11. (They quite realistically weren’t quite interested in worldwide jihad, just in f…ing their goats and ruling their own mountains. Though they were happy to receive jihadist volunteer militias like those of bin Laden and also jihadist monies from Saudi Arabia.) They told the Pakistanis (and the world) that they would extradite bin Laden provided they received sufficient evidence. The US did not want to negotiate with them. (Again, there was no way provided for them to save face, similarly to how they had dealt with Saddam in 1990.) Bin Laden later said that the Taliban had no knowledge of his plans for the terror attacks.

    So even in the case of Afghanistan we can ask the question as to whether it would not have been better to try to get bin Laden without removing the Taliban, especially since now Afghanistan could easily revert to Taliban rule. (Lest we forget, the Bush administration just started an anti-Taliban policy in August 2001.) Or if not that, maybe Taliban could have been toppled and then the US could have left the country to warlords. Either way it doesn’t seem to be much worse than what happened.

    But to be honest I personally would also have invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The urge for revenge was just too strong. So I don’t hold it much against the Bush administration. But I wouldn’t have tried to create “democracy” there. That was and is still just crazy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @reiner Tor

    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.
    --
    He received a bland bit of diplospeak from April Glaspie, nothing more. I see you fancy political fictions.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.
     
    The Iraq-Kuwait dispute was with respect to the shared oil field that crossed the border. Iraq alleged that Kuwait was pumping more than its share. The State Department makes these kinds of non-committal remarks with respect to territorial disputes all the time. The idea is to not encourage the weaker country to think Uncle Sam has given it a blank check to provoke the stronger one. Bottom line is that the disputants should settle it at no cost to Uncle Sam, which is as it should be, since US property is not the subject of the dispute. It was when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire, that everything changed. The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.

    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That's not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

  155. @WhatEvvs
    @Anonym

    Jews are "collectively wrong?" Howzat?

    I'm a member of the collective. I've been railing against minority crime since 1981. Lots of my collective have, as well, the NY Times just doesn't interview me. I've been arguing about illegal immigration since the early 90s (sorry, I wasn't aware of it before then), esp. with liberal Texas Republicans, who are the worst illegal immigration offenders (they work cheap).

    @Unz

    "Well, until a couple of days ago I’d never even heard of that French cartoon magazine. But some commenter provided this intriguing tidbit from Counterpunch:"

    And now you're a big expert on it, eh? Charlie Hebdo wasn't heavily influenced by Jews. Yes, it had some Jewish influence but it mocked the Holocaust and Judaism. Islam was a particular butt, because Islam scares the shit out of people.

    I guess you being Jewish makes this whole operation a false flag, eh Ron?

    Do you fund Counterpunch?

    Replies: @Anonym

    Fair point. View of elite Jews are well to the left on immigration, same with the white elite.

  156. @Ron Unz
    @Dave Pinsen

    Well, I almost never visit Takimag, but I went ahead and clicked on your link. Frankly, I didn't find a single substantive point of any value in the article, which didn't surprise me in the least.

    Although I'm publisher of this webzine, I'm normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the "rabid rightwingers" who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they're always good for a laugh or two.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @matt, @Twinkie

    That you find Takimag and Gavin McInnes insufficiently hostile to Jews suggests you may have what John Derbyshire once termed “the Jew thing” ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-marx-of-the-anti-semites/ )

  157. @Nick Diaz
    Sailer, you are a fucking moron. You want to outlaw all Muslim immigration despite the MILLIONS of Muslims who live in Europe and never killed anyone or caused any problem. Talk about throwing the baby away with the bath water. You want to punish the 99.999% majority of Muslims for the crimes of the 0.001% of homicidal extremists.

    A far more rational solution is to run criminal background checks on immigrants from Muslim countries to discover links to terrorist organizations, or a an extremist fundamentalist background that could lead to the peopel in question joining terrosrist organizations.

    But this rational solution does not appeal to you because you are a white American conservative/xenophobe/Judaic-Christian who just don't want to live around people who are different from you even if they are peaceful.

    Replies: @Anonym

    The Algerians ejected the French despite 99.999% of them being peaceful, civilized people etc. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  158. @reiner Tor
    @Art Deco


    Here’s a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you’ll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.
     
    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it. Then it turned out there was a misunderstanding. Look, I'm not very conspiracy-minded, so I'm inclined to believe the official view that it really was a misunderstanding and Saddam was not deliberately misled. However, after the problem happened, the US could have offered Saddam a way out without losing face. The US chose to push the matter to war instead. After the war, there was still the chance to leave the much weakened Saddam in place. His system was corrupt to the core, oil prices were low, so what harm would have come from leaving him there? After 1991 he never had a chance to build a nuke, and the 'WMD' expression is totally misleading (chemical and biological weapons are way less usable than nuclear ones), so regardless of whether he had a chance to keep some portion of his chemical weapons program (he didn't, as it turned out) he was quite harmless. I can see no reasons why he couldn't have been left in place.

    So what did he exactly do wrong? He wasn't working on nukes (he wasn't even capable of that), he wasn't despoiling or conquering neighboring countries (the only time he did that he thought he had US permission, and after that he wasn't even capable of doing any mischief anywhere), he wasn't harboring criminal organizations, he was not erecting drug-running mafias, he did not run ethnic cleansing operations (after he won his civil war in 1993, he was content to leave the Shia subdued and the Kurds subdued in some provinces and quasi independent in others). Actually, the ethnic cleansing started after the genial American invasion. Are the Iranian puppet, the enlarged Kurdish quasi-independent state (which is hated by Western ally Turkey), and the Islamic State better than Saddam's regime?

    Also, Gaddafi. He was bad enough until the late 1990s, but after that he became normal. The West decided to replace him with chaos and Islamist militias. Was it for the better?

    Finally, Afghanistan. The Taliban already condemned the terror attacks on September 11. (They quite realistically weren't quite interested in worldwide jihad, just in f...ing their goats and ruling their own mountains. Though they were happy to receive jihadist volunteer militias like those of bin Laden and also jihadist monies from Saudi Arabia.) They told the Pakistanis (and the world) that they would extradite bin Laden provided they received sufficient evidence. The US did not want to negotiate with them. (Again, there was no way provided for them to save face, similarly to how they had dealt with Saddam in 1990.) Bin Laden later said that the Taliban had no knowledge of his plans for the terror attacks.

    So even in the case of Afghanistan we can ask the question as to whether it would not have been better to try to get bin Laden without removing the Taliban, especially since now Afghanistan could easily revert to Taliban rule. (Lest we forget, the Bush administration just started an anti-Taliban policy in August 2001.) Or if not that, maybe Taliban could have been toppled and then the US could have left the country to warlords. Either way it doesn't seem to be much worse than what happened.

    But to be honest I personally would also have invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The urge for revenge was just too strong. So I don't hold it much against the Bush administration. But I wouldn't have tried to create "democracy" there. That was and is still just crazy.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anon

    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.

    He received a bland bit of diplospeak from April Glaspie, nothing more. I see you fancy political fictions.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Art Deco

    Apparently you didn't manage to read my second sentence, where I wrote that it was a misunderstanding. Obviously it should be understood as "Saddam believed that he got it". Now what is your answer to the rest of my comment?

    Also, to get back to French babies from the other thread, did you now manage to read my link and find an explanation to the preponderance of sickle cell screenings? What is your alternative explanation if you don't believe that a full one third of "French" babies have full tropical ancestry (both parents)? Here's the link.

  159. @Art Deco
    @reiner Tor

    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.
    --
    He received a bland bit of diplospeak from April Glaspie, nothing more. I see you fancy political fictions.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Apparently you didn’t manage to read my second sentence, where I wrote that it was a misunderstanding. Obviously it should be understood as “Saddam believed that he got it”. Now what is your answer to the rest of my comment?

    Also, to get back to French babies from the other thread, did you now manage to read my link and find an explanation to the preponderance of sickle cell screenings? What is your alternative explanation if you don’t believe that a full one third of “French” babies have full tropical ancestry (both parents)? Here’s the link.

  160. @Anonym
    @Tracy

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

    Very interesting. Check out 2014. I know women get a lot of bashing on iSteve, but it is refreshing to know that white women prefer white men by a large percentage. It is unfortunate that white men are now preferring Asian women to their own - this wasn't the case before 2011. To all the white men who act on their yellow fever, shame on you.

    Other interesting things that emerge out from the data:
    -Asian women HATE HATE HATE black men. In fact, they have the strongest preference - against blacks and latinos and for Asians and white men.
    -Everyone but black men HATE HATE HATE black women. And black men are indifferent to them.
    -White men are the most attractive, but black women don't prefer them, except in 20010/2011 a little bit. Maybe De Niro directed a movie that was released then?
    -Black men and Asian men are about equal least attractive to women, except in their own race, where they are prized.
    -Latino and Asian men are more loyal to their own.
    -All women are loyal to their own but Latina and Asian women are strongly tempted by the pale male.
    -Pairings that would be predicted based on mutual likes are:
    1 white male/Asian female
    2 white male/ Latina female
    3 Latino male/white female (would have to have a lot going for the male, because the latino male pursues while the white woman is indifferent - this seems to be the pattern Steve has noticed in the Latin American world)

    These are the major pairings one would expect from the data, and it tends to match what you see in real life. But it doesn't inform about Jews, Subcontinentals or Arabs for example.

    Stability would involve strong endogamous preferences from both sexes relative to other races. It seems that the men of each race let the team down in this regard. If Asian women did not have the Euro fetish, they would cinch stability.

    One wonders whether part of the support for "invite the world" stems from the desirability of white men in the eyes of other races. Elites are attractive in general and to be coarse, there are plenty who won't turn down some free p****. Maybe wanting to keep this going forms some part of the attraction for the Euro elites. I also think that probably informs some of the thinking of the homosexual Euro elites. One finds a lot more ladyboys or whatever outside white countries.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You ought to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They toward very specific demographics and do not reflect the national population as a whole.

  161. @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Twinkie

    Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan ... but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem

    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza
    ...
    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.
    ...
    Koreans composed 10% of the yakuza proper and 70% of burakumin in the Yamaguchi-gumi
    ...
    Notable yakuza members of Korean ancestry include Hisayuki Machii, the founder of the Tosei-kai, Tokutaro Takayama, the president of the 4th-generation Aizukotetsu-kai, Jiro Kiyota, the president of the 5th-generation Inagawa-kai, Hirofumi Hashimoto, the head of the Kyokushinrengo-kai, and the bosses of the 6th / 7th Sakaume-gumi.


    YouTube video of Japanese girl on an anti-Korean rant goes viral

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza

    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.

    First of all, Koreans make up far more than 0.5% of the Japanese population. Nonetheless, they are definitely over-represented among gangsters, entertainers, and athletes in Japan. It’s not that unusual that a highly oppressed minority that is largely barred from respectable professions would excel in such fields. Are Koreans, then, the blacks of Japan?

    Perhaps. But unlike blacks in America, Koreans in Japan also excel in business. “The richest man in Japan,” Masayoshi Son of SoftBank (worth north of $20 billion), is an ethnic Korean, for example.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Perhaps. But unlike blacks in America, Koreans in Japan also excel in business. “The richest man in Japan,” Masayoshi Son of SoftBank (worth north of $20 billion), is an ethnic Korean, for example.
     
    And then there's Fujio Cho, who was chairman of Toyota, the largest and most important industrial company in Japan, from 2006 to 2013. This was remarkable, considering that the Japanese don't do ethnic quotas, unless one considers favoring the majority ethnic Japanese a type of quota.
  162. @ben tillman
    @Twinkie


    Most of us subscribe to the idea of human biodiversity and its implication here, but we should not underrate how much culture matters too.
     
    It's HBD, not HG(enetic)D. Culture is part of human biodiversity.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It’s HBD, not HG(enetic)D. Culture is part of human biodiversity.

    Culture is a part of human diversity, but it is, in the strictest sense, not a part of “biodiversity.”

    Cultures, as a general rule, tend to coincide with tribes or nations (or “population groupings”), but not exclusively so. Otherwise there would not be a separate word for it.

    While I agree that the current tendency to isolate culture from race (or any other terms of population groupings) is wrong headed and ultimately destructive, some here go too far in identifying culture in exclusively biological terms.

  163. @Jefferson
    "Today there is a very large population of Korean-ancestry people in Japan, which is hugely undercounted, but they are largely assimilated culturally and pose no problem,"

    Most Japanese and Koreans practice Eastern religions and are not Christians like most Filipinos. Also both groups look very similar to each other phenotype wise. There is less phenotype difference between between Koreans and the Japanese than there is between Nordic people and Middle Eastern people for example. So is it really surprising that Koreans assimilate EXTREMELY WELL into Japanese society.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Most Japanese and Koreans practice Eastern religions and are not Christians like most Filipinos. Also both groups look very similar to each other phenotype wise. There is less phenotype difference between between Koreans and the Japanese than there is between Nordic people and Middle Eastern people for example. So is it really surprising that Koreans assimilate EXTREMELY WELL into Japanese society.

    While you are correct that Koreans and Japanese share a relatively similar culture and have closer genetic propinquity (roughly 30% of genetic similarity), they are religiously very different.

    Japanese are mostly atheists and only a small minority actively practices Buddhism, which is strongly infused with its local Shinto religion (of shamanistic origin). South Koreans, on the other hand, are plurality Christians. Filipinos are heavily Catholic, to be sure, largely because of the Spanish colonial legacy, but South Korea’s Christian population (roughly 30-50%) is fervently evangelical Protestant (though Catholicism is gaining there as well). And Koreans adapted Christianity on their own without any foreign, imperialistic coercion. Indeed, their Christian zeal is such that despite their rather small population of 50 million, they field the second largest number of Christian missionaries in the world (after the United States).

  164. “Are Koreans, then, the blacks of Japan?”

    Koreans are not even close to being the Blacks of Japan. In America there are Black neighborhoods where a White person can be physically harmed or worst killed for simply being White stepping foot on their turf.

    There are no Korean neighborhoods in Japan where if a Japanese person steps foot there they will be mugged or murdered for simply being Japanese.

    Since Koreans excel a lot in Japanese business even though they are such a small percentage of Japan’s population, they are more like the Jews of Japan or the high caste Indians of Japan.

  165. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    Yakuza
    While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza

    18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans.
     
    First of all, Koreans make up far more than 0.5% of the Japanese population. Nonetheless, they are definitely over-represented among gangsters, entertainers, and athletes in Japan. It's not that unusual that a highly oppressed minority that is largely barred from respectable professions would excel in such fields. Are Koreans, then, the blacks of Japan?

    Perhaps. But unlike blacks in America, Koreans in Japan also excel in business. "The richest man in Japan," Masayoshi Son of SoftBank (worth north of $20 billion), is an ethnic Korean, for example.

    Replies: @Anon

    Perhaps. But unlike blacks in America, Koreans in Japan also excel in business. “The richest man in Japan,” Masayoshi Son of SoftBank (worth north of $20 billion), is an ethnic Korean, for example.

    And then there’s Fujio Cho, who was chairman of Toyota, the largest and most important industrial company in Japan, from 2006 to 2013. This was remarkable, considering that the Japanese don’t do ethnic quotas, unless one considers favoring the majority ethnic Japanese a type of quota.

  166. @rod1963
    @bossel

    Nonsense indeed

    Thanks to your Muslim buddies in Sweden, the Swedes get to experience car bombings, no go zones where police are afraid to go because they are attacked, Swedes get beaten and their women raped by Muslim gangs, shariah law enforced in no go zones.

    Crime wise some 80% of all criminals are Muslim.

    In France, many of the cities have Muslim quarters that no go zones as well. No police, just Shariah enforcement, they no longer have to abide by French rules or even speak French. Outsiders who wander in risk getting raped and/or robbed by gangs of Muslim youth.Lets not forget the Muzzie past time of burning cars by the hundreds every year when they get upset and storm out of their Muslim quarter. And most of the Muzzies are on the dole, that's what happens when import millions of people with no skills and from a culture where work ethics and honesty are alien concepts.

    Now France hasn't experienced car bombings like Malmo Sweden, but just give them a few more years and I'm sure we'll see them in Paris. Who knows with a bit of luck your Muslims friends will torch one off under the Eiffel Tower.

    Oh yes the French prisons are bursting with Muslims.

    In Britain, Shariah law is now side by side English law. In short Muslims rule by their laws and ignore their host country. They too have no go zones for police and authorities. It is also now illegal for locals to even anything about this. Plus Muslims don't have to obey English law as demonstrated in Rotherham where over a 1000 white girls were raped by Muslims running the the facility and their friends including those working for the state.

    Yes Muslims are doing quite well in Europe - importing their culture in total and dictating to the host country.

    That's not integration that's colonization by a foreign invasive species.

    Replies: @gzu

    It would be inaccurate to say “Muslims do XYZ”. It is a subset of them that does it. This may not make it any less of a problem, but some propose a wholesale deportation of ALL mohammedans. That is not only unjust, but also pointless.

  167. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “A far more rational solution is to run criminal background checks on immigrants from Muslim countries to discover links to terrorist organizations, or a an extremist fundamentalist background…”

    While this would be a sensible thing to do (and might even be done today), aren’t you assuming without proof that terrorism always derives in some unique way from existing “terrorist organizations” or from “fundamentalists”? In that case how do these things get started in the first place? And what do you define as a “link”? The more I think about it, the more tenuous a “link” sounds. The problem with this sort of thinking is it seems to assume that Everything is Easy if Only They Wanted To Do It. Magical thinking.

    • Replies: @gzu
    @anonymous

    Presumably by using the impressive capabilities of the NSA and checking their browsing history.

    By checking whether or not they arefrom a religious family or not. etc

    Seriously, it isn't too hard to imagine. I agree that a general ban on muslim immigration.

  168. @AAB
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Muslims do attack people in China. They did so only last year:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    Replies: @gzu

    You do know that the Chinese are utterly brutal in their oppression of Muslims right? Much like the Tibetans and their religion in fact.

    The difference is, Muslims are more prone to retaliate when this happens. But first blood was not spilled by the Uighurs here.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @gzu


    You do know that the Chinese are utterly brutal in their oppression of Muslims right? Much like the Tibetans and their religion in fact.

    The difference is, Muslims are more prone to retaliate when this happens. But first blood was not spilled by the Uighurs here.
     
    In the relatively early days of Chinese colonization of Tibet, there were strong rumors that the CIA armed the Tibetan resistance. There are certainly photographic and video footages of armed Tibetan Buddhist monks fighting the PRC troops.
  169. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Not really off topic in re to “disconnection”…

    A shockingly sensible statement from California’s willy old Democratic Governor, Jerry Brown. He’s threatening to reduce the UC budget if they raise tuition to make more money off of out-of-state and foreign students (“Brown’s message: Rescind the tuition increases or lose $120 million in the next fiscal year.“):

    “Jerry Brown’s budget battle starts with $120 million threat to UC”, Melody Gutierrez, January 9, 2015:

    “The University of California is created by the people of California,” Brown said Friday. “It’s historically been for the citizens of the state. Yes, it’s good to have some foreign students and some out-of-state people, but I don’t think that should be viewed as a financial mechanism.”

    “Most of the money is going for a good,” Brown said. “Therefore, if you say you want less good, that feels bad. But if all you do is hand out goods, it is bad.”

    “There is only so much money here,” Brown said Friday. “It’s easy to say let’s do that, let’s do that. I look at it in the aggregate and the aggregate is the liabilities are far exceeding the surpluses that we are looking at.”

    I like the line If you say you want less good, that feels bad. But if all you do is hand out goods, it is bad.

  170. @iSteveFan

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.
     
    Even if some or a large part are well integrated, it is immaterial. They have their own cultures and countries. Why must they live in our nations? What benefit is it to us to bring them in?

    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Why must we?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie, @Anon

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Twinkie

    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    Twinkie,

    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.

    I don't doubt Israel has some Thais now. They used to use Palestinians for grunt work, but for obvious reasons Palestinians are not considered safe anymore, similar to how whites no longer seek out blacks like they once did. So they have to resort to bringing in a more docile and dependable group. But even so, I doubt they plan on extending full citizenship rights to those workers, and won't allow them to become statistically significant no matter how docile and dependable they are.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  171. @gzu
    @AAB

    You do know that the Chinese are utterly brutal in their oppression of Muslims right? Much like the Tibetans and their religion in fact.

    The difference is, Muslims are more prone to retaliate when this happens. But first blood was not spilled by the Uighurs here.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You do know that the Chinese are utterly brutal in their oppression of Muslims right? Much like the Tibetans and their religion in fact.

    The difference is, Muslims are more prone to retaliate when this happens. But first blood was not spilled by the Uighurs here.

    In the relatively early days of Chinese colonization of Tibet, there were strong rumors that the CIA armed the Tibetan resistance. There are certainly photographic and video footages of armed Tibetan Buddhist monks fighting the PRC troops.

  172. @anonymous
    "A far more rational solution is to run criminal background checks on immigrants from Muslim countries to discover links to terrorist organizations, or a an extremist fundamentalist background..."

    While this would be a sensible thing to do (and might even be done today), aren't you assuming without proof that terrorism always derives in some unique way from existing "terrorist organizations" or from "fundamentalists"? In that case how do these things get started in the first place? And what do you define as a "link"? The more I think about it, the more tenuous a "link" sounds. The problem with this sort of thinking is it seems to assume that Everything is Easy if Only They Wanted To Do It. Magical thinking.

    Replies: @gzu

    Presumably by using the impressive capabilities of the NSA and checking their browsing history.

    By checking whether or not they arefrom a religious family or not. etc

    Seriously, it isn’t too hard to imagine. I agree that a general ban on muslim immigration.

  173. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    By checking whether or not they arefrom a religious family or not. etc

    Oh, that’ll work, I understand we got great accurate info on who was what in Afghanistan. Or was that Iraq? Both? Lots of people told us lots and lots of things about “bad guys”.

    And how much is this NSA/Total-InSight immigration full-background-super-duper-check system going to cost? Do we do it if it costs much more per immigrant than the immigrants will ever be worth to the country?

    Sensible government policies that do not require omniscience would be really welcome. And when do we get do decide that omniscience-based policies have failed? We need that NTSB failure investigation system for failed policies.

  174. @Ron Unz
    @Dave Pinsen

    Well, I almost never visit Takimag, but I went ahead and clicked on your link. Frankly, I didn't find a single substantive point of any value in the article, which didn't surprise me in the least.

    Although I'm publisher of this webzine, I'm normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the "rabid rightwingers" who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they're always good for a laugh or two.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @matt, @Twinkie

    Yep. Takimag is a cesspool. Although Gavin McInnes is fun to laugh at (not with) every once in a while.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @matt

    For a "cesspool" it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire. And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    Replies: @matt

  175. iSteveFan says:
    @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    Replies: @iSteveFan

    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    Twinkie,

    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.

    I don’t doubt Israel has some Thais now. They used to use Palestinians for grunt work, but for obvious reasons Palestinians are not considered safe anymore, similar to how whites no longer seek out blacks like they once did. So they have to resort to bringing in a more docile and dependable group. But even so, I doubt they plan on extending full citizenship rights to those workers, and won’t allow them to become statistically significant no matter how docile and dependable they are.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.
     
    Point taken, always. However, some folks here overplay that hand, because, frankly, they have no idea about the changes occurring in those countries. In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from "international marriages" in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    People around here of a certain persuasion would like to pretend (perhaps because they don't know any better) that "only white countries" are experiencing non-native demographic growth. In fact, this is a rich country trend, not just a white country trend, more of a global North-South issue than an East-West one.

    *Also, co-ethnicity is not a guarantee of smooth assimilation. After the "opening" of Red China, a substantial movement of ethnic Koreans in China to the richer South Korea began. Though initially welcomed in South Korea ("same blood!"), they quickly wore out the welcome because they became a problematic underclass (gangs, prostitution, violent crimes - and of decidedly different cultural sensitivities than the more restrained Yakuza-like native organized criminal elements).

    Culture, too, matters.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Anon

  176. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @iSteveFan

    Nonsense. Many Muslims in “Western” countries are actually quite well integrated, though for a large part not assimilated. But the situation varies from country to country.

    There are fundamentalists who will never integrate or even assimilate, but the majority of Muslims (at least in Europe) will sooner or later be integrated (& more or less secularized). In some countries this will be harder & take longer than in others (eg. France will have huge problems with its Banlieues), but I don’t see much probability for the doomsday scenarios painted in many of the comments here.
     
    Even if some or a large part are well integrated, it is immaterial. They have their own cultures and countries. Why must they live in our nations? What benefit is it to us to bring them in?

    I am sure Koreans are well-behaved and would integrate into Japanese society. But I am also quite sure the Japanese would never allow a significant number of them in.

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Why must we?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Twinkie, @Anon

    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.

    Because they’re not Jewish. Jewish immigrants of any race or ethnic group are welcome in Israel. Non-Jews of any race or ethnic group, however…

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Yeah, I'm sure those who simultaneously want open borders for the US and Jews only immigration policy to Israel are totally on board with a Christians-only immigration policy in the US. Oh, wait...

  177. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    @Art Deco


    Here’s a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you’ll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.
     
    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it. Then it turned out there was a misunderstanding. Look, I'm not very conspiracy-minded, so I'm inclined to believe the official view that it really was a misunderstanding and Saddam was not deliberately misled. However, after the problem happened, the US could have offered Saddam a way out without losing face. The US chose to push the matter to war instead. After the war, there was still the chance to leave the much weakened Saddam in place. His system was corrupt to the core, oil prices were low, so what harm would have come from leaving him there? After 1991 he never had a chance to build a nuke, and the 'WMD' expression is totally misleading (chemical and biological weapons are way less usable than nuclear ones), so regardless of whether he had a chance to keep some portion of his chemical weapons program (he didn't, as it turned out) he was quite harmless. I can see no reasons why he couldn't have been left in place.

    So what did he exactly do wrong? He wasn't working on nukes (he wasn't even capable of that), he wasn't despoiling or conquering neighboring countries (the only time he did that he thought he had US permission, and after that he wasn't even capable of doing any mischief anywhere), he wasn't harboring criminal organizations, he was not erecting drug-running mafias, he did not run ethnic cleansing operations (after he won his civil war in 1993, he was content to leave the Shia subdued and the Kurds subdued in some provinces and quasi independent in others). Actually, the ethnic cleansing started after the genial American invasion. Are the Iranian puppet, the enlarged Kurdish quasi-independent state (which is hated by Western ally Turkey), and the Islamic State better than Saddam's regime?

    Also, Gaddafi. He was bad enough until the late 1990s, but after that he became normal. The West decided to replace him with chaos and Islamist militias. Was it for the better?

    Finally, Afghanistan. The Taliban already condemned the terror attacks on September 11. (They quite realistically weren't quite interested in worldwide jihad, just in f...ing their goats and ruling their own mountains. Though they were happy to receive jihadist volunteer militias like those of bin Laden and also jihadist monies from Saudi Arabia.) They told the Pakistanis (and the world) that they would extradite bin Laden provided they received sufficient evidence. The US did not want to negotiate with them. (Again, there was no way provided for them to save face, similarly to how they had dealt with Saddam in 1990.) Bin Laden later said that the Taliban had no knowledge of his plans for the terror attacks.

    So even in the case of Afghanistan we can ask the question as to whether it would not have been better to try to get bin Laden without removing the Taliban, especially since now Afghanistan could easily revert to Taliban rule. (Lest we forget, the Bush administration just started an anti-Taliban policy in August 2001.) Or if not that, maybe Taliban could have been toppled and then the US could have left the country to warlords. Either way it doesn't seem to be much worse than what happened.

    But to be honest I personally would also have invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The urge for revenge was just too strong. So I don't hold it much against the Bush administration. But I wouldn't have tried to create "democracy" there. That was and is still just crazy.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anon

    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.

    The Iraq-Kuwait dispute was with respect to the shared oil field that crossed the border. Iraq alleged that Kuwait was pumping more than its share. The State Department makes these kinds of non-committal remarks with respect to territorial disputes all the time. The idea is to not encourage the weaker country to think Uncle Sam has given it a blank check to provoke the stronger one. Bottom line is that the disputants should settle it at no cost to Uncle Sam, which is as it should be, since US property is not the subject of the dispute. It was when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire, that everything changed. The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.

    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That’s not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    As I said, his question was misunderstood and so he misunderstood the answer.


    when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire
     
    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?

    The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.
     
    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam's forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Anon

    , @Twinkie
    @Anon


    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That’s not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.
     
    The Red Chinese can try that and we'll choke off the Straits of Malacca. See who wins that game.

    Of course, they see our Singapore and counter with Burma in return. Lots of golf course building activity on the Burmese-Chinese border.
  178. @matt
    @Ron Unz

    Yep. Takimag is a cesspool. Although Gavin McInnes is fun to laugh at (not with) every once in a while.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    For a “cesspool” it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire. And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    • Replies: @matt
    @Dave Pinsen

    For a “cesspool” it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire.

    Why didn't you mention good ol' Gav?

    And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    Oh hell yah, bro. It has a sexy cartoon lady and says "Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar" at the top. That way you know that Taki is rich. That and all his columns where he just casually mentions that he once mud-wrestled Sir Roger Moore in the nude, on a yacht off the coast of Cyprus.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  179. “Nick Diaz says:

    You want to outlaw all Muslim immigration despite the MILLIONS of Muslims who live in Europe and never killed anyone or caused any problem. Talk about throwing the baby away with the bath water. You want to punish the 99.999% majority of Muslims for the crimes of the 0.001% of homicidal extremists.”

    No, he probably just thinks that France should be french and for the French, and that they should be able to live in their own country without the hassle of accomodating a backward people and their backward tribal religion.

    “A far more rational solution is to run criminal background checks on immigrants from Muslim countries to discover links to terrorist organizations, or a an extremist fundamentalist background that could lead to the peopel in question joining terrosrist organizations.”

    Which solution would have missed the two miscreants who committed the massacre; they were born in France. So your solution is a police state that surveils everyone, just so that people can have the privelege of not being blown up (quite so much) – there’s a name for that: Anarcho-Tyranny.

    By the way – and this cannot be emphasized enough – you are a contemptable nitwit.

  180. @Doug
    Muslim immigrants in America are actually pretty well-integrated.

    "Contrary to popular perceptions, the condition of Muslims in the U.S. is very good. Among South Asians in the country, the large Pakistani American community stands out as particularly well educated and prosperous, with education and income levels exceeding those of U.S.-born whites. Many are professionals, especially doctors, scientists, engineers, and financial analysts, and there are also a large number of entrepreneurs. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in the USA who are of Pakistani origin alone[90] and the number of Pakistani American millionaires was reported to be in the thousands... 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world.[92]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

    Inviting educated, upper-class muslims is not the problem. It's the Islamic peasants and slum-dwellers that Europeans import that produce social conflict. Not saying the US is immune, but our flavor is Mesoamerican.

    I think a lot more people, myself included, would get on board with the alt-right program if they focused on the distinction. But people here seem just as concerned about Chinese doctors coming in on H1B visas as they do about Arab or Honduran gangsters getting political asylum.

    Replies: @map, @Hippopotamusdrome, @NOTA, @ben tillman, @Charlesz Martel

    But one never knows when they’ll flip or their children will.The London bombers came from millionaire families, 911 pilots were engineers, the underwear bomber was the son of a banker, Major Hassan was a shrink, etc. As Kipling said (paraphrasing): ” I do not know when the Gods of his far-off land shall repossess his blood”.
    The debate should not be how good It is for the immigrant himself to come here, the question should be how is letting these people in here good for those of us who are already here.

  181. @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.
     
    The Iraq-Kuwait dispute was with respect to the shared oil field that crossed the border. Iraq alleged that Kuwait was pumping more than its share. The State Department makes these kinds of non-committal remarks with respect to territorial disputes all the time. The idea is to not encourage the weaker country to think Uncle Sam has given it a blank check to provoke the stronger one. Bottom line is that the disputants should settle it at no cost to Uncle Sam, which is as it should be, since US property is not the subject of the dispute. It was when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire, that everything changed. The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.

    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That's not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    As I said, his question was misunderstood and so he misunderstood the answer.

    when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire

    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?

    The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.

    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.
     
    So the Battle of Khafji was just a staged fiction like the moon landing?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?
     
    Not bad science fiction. History. Of which the average person know very little, and Egypt's and Syria's rulers know in intimate detail, which is why they deployed troops for the Desert Storm operation. The legitimacy of a unified empire comes from none other than Muhammad himself, who called for it, and built it, which is why North Africans, Mesopotamians and Levantines speak Arabic today instead of their native non-Arabic languages. The legacy of Islamic empire via armed conquest is also why Iran, Pakistan and all of Central Asia are Muslim today.

    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.
     
    How does anyone know anything about the limits of a conquering ruler's ambitions? Arab conquerors have traditionally stopped only when they were repelled. And they are not unique in that.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  182. @Anon
    @iSteveFan


    I am sure the Chinese are well-behaved and would integrate into Israeli society. But I am also quite sure the Israelis would never allow a significant number of them in.
     
    Because they're not Jewish. Jewish immigrants of any race or ethnic group are welcome in Israel. Non-Jews of any race or ethnic group, however...

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Yeah, I’m sure those who simultaneously want open borders for the US and Jews only immigration policy to Israel are totally on board with a Christians-only immigration policy in the US. Oh, wait…

  183. matt says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    @matt

    For a "cesspool" it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire. And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    Replies: @matt

    For a “cesspool” it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire.

    Why didn’t you mention good ol’ Gav?

    And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    Oh hell yah, bro. It has a sexy cartoon lady and says “Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar” at the top. That way you know that Taki is rich. That and all his columns where he just casually mentions that he once mud-wrestled Sir Roger Moore in the nude, on a yacht off the coast of Cyprus.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @matt


    Oh hell yah, bro. It has a sexy cartoon lady and says “Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar” at the top. That way you know that Taki is rich. That and all his columns where he just casually mentions that he once mud-wrestled Sir Roger Moore in the nude, on a yacht off the coast of Cyprus.
     
    And Mr. Theodoracopulous will have you know that he can Judo-toss most folks over the age of 70. I'm all for class, but his Sir Richard Francis Burton routine does get a bit thick for taste at times.
  184. You want to outlaw all Muslim immigration despite the MILLIONS of Muslims who live in Europe and never killed anyone or caused any problem. Talk about throwing the baby away with the bath water. You want to punish the 99.999% majority of Muslims for the crimes of the 0.001% of homicidal extremists.

    Keeping something that belongs to you does not “punish” those to whom it does not belong.

  185. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “So your solution is a police state that surveils everyone…”

    All we need is a world-wide universal police state that can detect crime-think anywhere in the world, by anybody. We know _everything_ about you, no matter who you are! Orwell would be anti-proud!

    A lot of people, even with US citizenship, seemed to have little understanding of what America was once about. Is it all about grasping the goodies by anyone who can make it into the Inner Party? Onward, Multi-Cult Empire!

  186. “gjk says:

    It would be inaccurate to say “Muslims do XYZ”. It is a subset of them that does it. This may not make it any less of a problem, but some propose a wholesale deportation of ALL mohammedans. That is not only unjust, but also pointless.”

    Why is it unjust? Muslims have no claim to live in european lands. Europeans have a right to their own nations with their own cultures. Bringing in people from a backward, incompatible culture inevitably creates friction and violence. Europeans don’t owe muslims a place to live. And, anyway, muslims already have their own nations. Let them live there – where they would not themselves suffer infidels to live amongst them as equals.

    Why do you say it is pointless? It would certainly work. There wouldn’t be any more problems with muslims in Europe if there were no muslims in Europe.

    When it comes to deporation, my motto is “Yes, We Can!”.

    • Replies: @gzu
    @Mr. Anon

    "Muslims have no claim to live in european lands."

    Yes they do.

    "Europeans have a right to their own nations with their own cultures."

    Irrelevant. They DO have their own nations with their own cultures.

    "Bringing in people from a backward, incompatible culture inevitably creates friction and violence. "

    True. That's why they should stop bringing them in.

    "Europeans don’t owe muslims a place to live. "

    Yes they do. A lot of them are citizens of the countries they live in. Anyhow, driving people from their homes is a crime against humanity.

    "And, anyway, muslims already have their own nations. Let them live there – where they would not themselves suffer infidels to live amongst them as equals."

    Who said I disagree with that? You're right. However, some Muslims would prefer living among infidels. I am one such Muslim. I prefer my current country to my home country.

    "When it comes to deporation, my motto is “Yes, We Can!”."

    Make sure you wear a kevlar helmet while doing it.

  187. @iSteveFan
    @Twinkie

    Interestingly enough, the last time I was in Israel, I saw Thai (!) agricultural workers in Israel. What, kibbutzim not working out?

    Twinkie,

    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.

    I don't doubt Israel has some Thais now. They used to use Palestinians for grunt work, but for obvious reasons Palestinians are not considered safe anymore, similar to how whites no longer seek out blacks like they once did. So they have to resort to bringing in a more docile and dependable group. But even so, I doubt they plan on extending full citizenship rights to those workers, and won't allow them to become statistically significant no matter how docile and dependable they are.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.

    Point taken, always. However, some folks here overplay that hand, because, frankly, they have no idea about the changes occurring in those countries. In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    People around here of a certain persuasion would like to pretend (perhaps because they don’t know any better) that “only white countries” are experiencing non-native demographic growth. In fact, this is a rich country trend, not just a white country trend, more of a global North-South issue than an East-West one.

    *Also, co-ethnicity is not a guarantee of smooth assimilation. After the “opening” of Red China, a substantial movement of ethnic Koreans in China to the richer South Korea began. Though initially welcomed in South Korea (“same blood!”), they quickly wore out the welcome because they became a problematic underclass (gangs, prostitution, violent crimes – and of decidedly different cultural sensitivities than the more restrained Yakuza-like native organized criminal elements).

    Culture, too, matters.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Twinkie


    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*
     
    According to wiki:

    Since the late 1990s, interracial marriages in South Korea have grown rapidly, especially in rural farming communities. Most brides come from China (approximately 60%, mostly ethnic Koreans in China), followed by Vietnam and other Asian countries.

    In 2005, there were 31,180 marriages between South Korean men and non-Korean women; there were 11,941 marriages between South Korean women and non-Korean men.

    Technically I guess you are correct, but that is in no way comparable to what is happening in European nations. If there are surplus Korean men marrying primarily Korean ethnics from China, I don't see that as a problem. Also, the fact that Korean woman are marrying out at such a low rate is a positive for Korea too.

    I am not going to tell you that there is zero immigration into East Asian nations. I am just going to say that whatever passes for immigration there is orders of magnitude less than the mass immigration taking place in the West. And that is the issue for me, mass immigration.

    I grew up in a town of 2500 people about 30 years ago. And we had foreign born people there. As far as I can recall, we had around 6 to 10 people that were clearly born out of the USA. Of these, at least two were Greeks and one was Austrian. I don't know the backgrounds of the others. I suppose we could have had some more, but this is my point. In a town of 2500, one percent of the population would have been 25 people. So at best we had one-half of one percent of our population comprised of immigrants. And these immigrants were known to the community as one was a physician and another owned a popular store. They were treated as part of the community because they constituted no threat or challenge to the current social climate, and blended in well.

    This is an example of immigration. A small number of individuals here and there that don't have enough critical mass to replicate their home culture. They fill a niche, are happy to be here and the locals do not perceive a threat to their culture or way of life.

    Recently, I recently visited a small town about fifty miles away from where I grew up. We used to play them in football, and culturally they were a mirror image of my town. Today however, with its meat packing plant, Mexicans and/or Central Americans comprise approximately 50% of the town's population. This is ridiculous!

    I hope the East Asian nations won't fall prey to this. I only wish the Western nations would stop it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Anon
    @Twinkie


    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*
     
    I've heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

  188. @matt
    @Dave Pinsen

    For a “cesspool” it publishes some quality writers, including Steve and John Derbyshire.

    Why didn't you mention good ol' Gav?

    And it is a better looking website that this to boot.

    Oh hell yah, bro. It has a sexy cartoon lady and says "Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar" at the top. That way you know that Taki is rich. That and all his columns where he just casually mentions that he once mud-wrestled Sir Roger Moore in the nude, on a yacht off the coast of Cyprus.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Oh hell yah, bro. It has a sexy cartoon lady and says “Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar” at the top. That way you know that Taki is rich. That and all his columns where he just casually mentions that he once mud-wrestled Sir Roger Moore in the nude, on a yacht off the coast of Cyprus.

    And Mr. Theodoracopulous will have you know that he can Judo-toss most folks over the age of 70. I’m all for class, but his Sir Richard Francis Burton routine does get a bit thick for taste at times.

  189. @Ron Unz
    @Dave Pinsen

    Well, I almost never visit Takimag, but I went ahead and clicked on your link. Frankly, I didn't find a single substantive point of any value in the article, which didn't surprise me in the least.

    Although I'm publisher of this webzine, I'm normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the "rabid rightwingers" who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they're always good for a laugh or two.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @matt, @Twinkie

    Although I’m publisher of this webzine, I’m normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the “rabid rightwingers” who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they’re always good for a laugh or two.

    Too cool to care about your own magazine and, while at it, let’s insult the contemptible customers of your own product.

    You have my vote!

    Oh, wait. Does that make ME a “gullible dupe”?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    @Twinkie

    Well, possibly.

    I do periodically read the comment-threads, and since "Twinkie" comments so frequently I think I've formed a reasonable impression of him.

    He strikes me as highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about the issues he usually discusses, though admittedly those are often far from my own area of expertise. In personality, he also comes across as being very much the patriotic-hero warrior-type, courageously willing to sacrifice himself for King (so to speak) and Country.

    That's all well and good. All countries can certainly use a reasonable supply of patriotic-hero warrior-types, especially those also possessing strong moral and civic virtues. Unfortunately, such individuals are often overly focused on tactical matters and may thereby fail to notice the strategic. Put another way, their normal inclination is to loyally march where they are ordered, which may be a serious problem if the orders are misconceived or those giving the orders turn out to have a different agenda. Ignoring such distractions, they bravely march into battle against their opposite numbers among the "Enemy," who are often doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.

    Consider a biological metaphor. A particular muscle cell might be exemplary in its work, zealously expanding and contracting in response to the nerve signals it receives. But suppose the animal it serves has been infected with rabies, and the virus having seized control of the central nervous system despite merely constituting 0.0001% of the host's body-mass. Now in such a situation, that loyal, dedicated muscle-cell might actually be acting at cross-purposes to its body's best interests and indeed perhaps leading it into destruction.

    As I've mentioned before, I find it ironic that so many of the commenters here endlessly ridicule the utter dishonesty of Official Reality in one or two particular areas---obviously including immigration, since about 99% of them are apparently anti-immigrationist zealots---but they never seem to question most of the other areas. What a remarkable coincidence---the issues they have personally devoted great energy to investigating are false, but everything else is true.

    Although I'm currently preoccupied with software issues, those of you who haven't done so might at least want to glance at my American Pravda article of a year or two ago. The particular matters it presents are hardly earth-shattering, but I think some of the implications are fairly signicant.

    https://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    Replies: @Twinkie

  190. @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Well, except that Saddam asked for US permission to use force against Kuwait, and he got it.
     
    The Iraq-Kuwait dispute was with respect to the shared oil field that crossed the border. Iraq alleged that Kuwait was pumping more than its share. The State Department makes these kinds of non-committal remarks with respect to territorial disputes all the time. The idea is to not encourage the weaker country to think Uncle Sam has given it a blank check to provoke the stronger one. Bottom line is that the disputants should settle it at no cost to Uncle Sam, which is as it should be, since US property is not the subject of the dispute. It was when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire, that everything changed. The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.

    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That's not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    The US makes noncommittal remarks about the South China Sea, which China claims in its entirety, all the time. That’s not a permission slip for China to put its Coast Guard in the area and start imposing tolls on cargo ships that pass through, or denying access to US naval assets.

    The Red Chinese can try that and we’ll choke off the Straits of Malacca. See who wins that game.

    Of course, they see our Singapore and counter with Burma in return. Lots of golf course building activity on the Burmese-Chinese border.

  191. @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    As I said, his question was misunderstood and so he misunderstood the answer.


    when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire
     
    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?

    The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.
     
    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam's forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Anon

    But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    So the Battle of Khafji was just a staged fiction like the moon landing?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    The Battle of Khafji happened months later, when Iraq was already under military attack, and the reason for it was that Saddam wanted to draw coalition troops into ground engagements, because of course he could see that the air war was causing him enormous casualties, but only very light losses to the Americans and their allies. The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait, and not wait several months after the deployment of American troops was complete and the Americans started an air war against him. Of course Saddam never planned that, and he never had the resources to do that. He could only count on the support of a minority of his own countrymen (Sunni Arabs), there was no way he could control Saudi Arabia with its tribal politics even more complicated than that of Iraq. Saddam was an Arab, so he knew that Arab is not an ethnicity the way say German is, so in fact "uniting" all Arab lands would mean conquering them and occupying them as a foreign power. This is impossible for tiny Iraq, and would be impossible even for much larger Egypt.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  192. iSteveFan says:
    @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.
     
    Point taken, always. However, some folks here overplay that hand, because, frankly, they have no idea about the changes occurring in those countries. In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from "international marriages" in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    People around here of a certain persuasion would like to pretend (perhaps because they don't know any better) that "only white countries" are experiencing non-native demographic growth. In fact, this is a rich country trend, not just a white country trend, more of a global North-South issue than an East-West one.

    *Also, co-ethnicity is not a guarantee of smooth assimilation. After the "opening" of Red China, a substantial movement of ethnic Koreans in China to the richer South Korea began. Though initially welcomed in South Korea ("same blood!"), they quickly wore out the welcome because they became a problematic underclass (gangs, prostitution, violent crimes - and of decidedly different cultural sensitivities than the more restrained Yakuza-like native organized criminal elements).

    Culture, too, matters.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Anon

    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    According to wiki:

    Since the late 1990s, interracial marriages in South Korea have grown rapidly, especially in rural farming communities. Most brides come from China (approximately 60%, mostly ethnic Koreans in China), followed by Vietnam and other Asian countries.

    In 2005, there were 31,180 marriages between South Korean men and non-Korean women; there were 11,941 marriages between South Korean women and non-Korean men.

    Technically I guess you are correct, but that is in no way comparable to what is happening in European nations. If there are surplus Korean men marrying primarily Korean ethnics from China, I don’t see that as a problem. Also, the fact that Korean woman are marrying out at such a low rate is a positive for Korea too.

    I am not going to tell you that there is zero immigration into East Asian nations. I am just going to say that whatever passes for immigration there is orders of magnitude less than the mass immigration taking place in the West. And that is the issue for me, mass immigration.

    I grew up in a town of 2500 people about 30 years ago. And we had foreign born people there. As far as I can recall, we had around 6 to 10 people that were clearly born out of the USA. Of these, at least two were Greeks and one was Austrian. I don’t know the backgrounds of the others. I suppose we could have had some more, but this is my point. In a town of 2500, one percent of the population would have been 25 people. So at best we had one-half of one percent of our population comprised of immigrants. And these immigrants were known to the community as one was a physician and another owned a popular store. They were treated as part of the community because they constituted no threat or challenge to the current social climate, and blended in well.

    This is an example of immigration. A small number of individuals here and there that don’t have enough critical mass to replicate their home culture. They fill a niche, are happy to be here and the locals do not perceive a threat to their culture or way of life.

    Recently, I recently visited a small town about fifty miles away from where I grew up. We used to play them in football, and culturally they were a mirror image of my town. Today however, with its meat packing plant, Mexicans and/or Central Americans comprise approximately 50% of the town’s population. This is ridiculous!

    I hope the East Asian nations won’t fall prey to this. I only wish the Western nations would stop it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    I am not going to tell you that there is zero immigration into East Asian nations. I am just going to say that whatever passes for immigration there is orders of magnitude less than the mass immigration taking place in the West. And that is the issue for me, mass immigration.
     
    True enough. But these are differences in scale and time, not qualitative differences. What I am getting at is this: there is a clear, identifiable migration trend from the Global South to the North, from poorer countries to richer ones, from "dark" regions to "pale" ones. My point simply is that Western Europe and North America, i.e. "white" countries, are not the exclusive destinations of such a latter day Voelkerwanderung. The trend is more pronounced and bigger in scale today in the "white" countries for a variety of reasons, but East Asia is "catching up" on this trend. In a way, East Asia is on the cusp of what the United States experienced in the 1960's. Of course the pattern is not going to be replicated exactly the same way, but there are strong parallels.

    This is an example of immigration. A small number of individuals here and there that don’t have enough critical mass to replicate their home culture. They fill a niche, are happy to be here and the locals do not perceive a threat to their culture or way of life.
     
    And I would argue that this is the right kind of immigration.

    Recently, I recently visited a small town about fifty miles away from where I grew up. We used to play them in football, and culturally they were a mirror image of my town. Today however, with its meat packing plant, Mexicans and/or Central Americans comprise approximately 50% of the town’s population. This is ridiculous!
     
    Yes, indeed. Full agreement there. Full stop.
  193. @Twinkie
    @iSteveFan


    The whole point I was making in my original comment that you responded to eons ago is that nations like Japan, Israel, South Korea, etc., intend to keep their demographic makeup like it is, and thus will not import large numbers of different ethnics into their nations no matter how well-behaved those people are.
     
    Point taken, always. However, some folks here overplay that hand, because, frankly, they have no idea about the changes occurring in those countries. In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from "international marriages" in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    People around here of a certain persuasion would like to pretend (perhaps because they don't know any better) that "only white countries" are experiencing non-native demographic growth. In fact, this is a rich country trend, not just a white country trend, more of a global North-South issue than an East-West one.

    *Also, co-ethnicity is not a guarantee of smooth assimilation. After the "opening" of Red China, a substantial movement of ethnic Koreans in China to the richer South Korea began. Though initially welcomed in South Korea ("same blood!"), they quickly wore out the welcome because they became a problematic underclass (gangs, prostitution, violent crimes - and of decidedly different cultural sensitivities than the more restrained Yakuza-like native organized criminal elements).

    Culture, too, matters.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Anon

    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*

    I’ve heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Also these "immigrants" are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc. The only negative is that they are still diluting the Korean gene pool. In small quantities not necessarily a bad thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @Anon


    I’ve heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.
     
    A majority of such marriage partners is likely ethnic Koreans from China. A substantial minority is made up of Vietnamese (at the other end of the economic/class spectrum, there is also an increasing number of more upscale Koreans who marry foreigners, largely Europeans and North Americans).

    While an argument can be made that ethnic Koreans from China are akin to poorer European immigrants of yore in the United States (though as I mentioned before ethnic Koreans have formed an instant underclass in South Korea due to very different cultural sensitivities and criminal proclivities, let's say), Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not "East Asians," have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that "all the Orientals look the same" would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.

    In any case, these are largely mail order brides, in essence. See: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21602761-korean-men-are-marrying-foreigners-more-choice-necessity-farmed-out

    By the way, until quite recently male issues of such unions were not conscripted or accepted into the ROK military since they were not deemed to be "real" Koreans. However, I understand now that they are. Apparently changing native views about what a Korean is as well as fears of a shrinking pool of young men available for the conscription has resulted in the change.

    As far as other, labor-economic migrants go, there is a rather eclectic mix in South Korea now, including quite a few Africans (also true in parts of China). For a while the prostitution trade in ROK was largely "dominated" by women from Russia and Eastern Europe, which unfortunately has led to other white, especially blonde, women living there complaining about being confused as Russians and being harassed about "how much?" by drunken Korean salarimen in the evenings.

    Replies: @Anon

  194. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    As I said, his question was misunderstood and so he misunderstood the answer.


    when Saddam crossed the Kuwaiti border, on his way to becoming the next Muhammad, unifier of the Arabs, Persians (not to mention Middle Eastern oil fields) and perhaps more, into a single empire
     
    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?

    The formation of a unitary Muslim empire ruled by Saddam was simply not on the list of things acceptable to the West, let alone all the other Muslim rulers in danger of being steamrolled by him. That is why both Egypt and Syria participated in Desert Storm.
     
    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam's forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Anon

    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?

    Not bad science fiction. History. Of which the average person know very little, and Egypt’s and Syria’s rulers know in intimate detail, which is why they deployed troops for the Desert Storm operation. The legitimacy of a unified empire comes from none other than Muhammad himself, who called for it, and built it, which is why North Africans, Mesopotamians and Levantines speak Arabic today instead of their native non-Arabic languages. The legacy of Islamic empire via armed conquest is also why Iran, Pakistan and all of Central Asia are Muslim today.

    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.

    How does anyone know anything about the limits of a conquering ruler’s ambitions? Arab conquerors have traditionally stopped only when they were repelled. And they are not unique in that.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Saddam's Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I'm not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn't even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)

    Replies: @Anon

  195. 192: your own contributions are not calculated to change Unz’s opinion of these threads, being full of factual inaccuracy and empty bluster.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @5371


    192: your own contributions are not calculated to change Unz’s opinion of these threads, being full of factual inaccuracy and empty bluster.
     
    You clearly missed the self-deprecation in that reply.
  196. @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.
     
    So the Battle of Khafji was just a staged fiction like the moon landing?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The Battle of Khafji happened months later, when Iraq was already under military attack, and the reason for it was that Saddam wanted to draw coalition troops into ground engagements, because of course he could see that the air war was causing him enormous casualties, but only very light losses to the Americans and their allies. The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait, and not wait several months after the deployment of American troops was complete and the Americans started an air war against him. Of course Saddam never planned that, and he never had the resources to do that. He could only count on the support of a minority of his own countrymen (Sunni Arabs), there was no way he could control Saudi Arabia with its tribal politics even more complicated than that of Iraq. Saddam was an Arab, so he knew that Arab is not an ethnicity the way say German is, so in fact “uniting” all Arab lands would mean conquering them and occupying them as a foreign power. This is impossible for tiny Iraq, and would be impossible even for much larger Egypt.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.
     
    It certainly showed that the regular Saudi troops couldn't hold the line and couldn't stand up to even the much devastated Iraqi troops. That they had to rely on foreign help and dig deep with their regime-preservation troops (the National Guard) to expel those few Iraqis who broke through the lines.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait
     
    We don't know what was in Saddam Hussein's mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don't think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam. I think he intended to demolish Kuwait, an American protectorate, and show everyone in the neighborhood who was boss in the region. You don't have to conquer everyone to bend all to your will. You just have to kill a couple of guys, guys who thought they were protected by the all-powerful, and show everyone that you are serious and will be around when the "all-powerful" goes home oceans away.

    In retrospect, Saddam's only chance was probably, as you put it, to blitz the Kingdom before the heavy armor from Germany arrived and while the border was guarded by a few light troops and full of sitting duck aircraft. But that was an extremely high stakes "all-in" move, and Saddam was being cautious and thought, incorrectly, that he could negotiate a winning hand.

    But if things had gone as he wanted, and he was able to negotiate a winning settlement with the U.S. on the question of the border oil fields with Kuwait, imagine what his power would be in the Middle East. Remember Edward Luttwak's axiom: the use of power, being of a psychological nature, increases it, but the use of force, being of a material nature, consumes it.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @reiner Tor

  197. @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Wow, is it some kind of a bad science-fiction?
     
    Not bad science fiction. History. Of which the average person know very little, and Egypt's and Syria's rulers know in intimate detail, which is why they deployed troops for the Desert Storm operation. The legitimacy of a unified empire comes from none other than Muhammad himself, who called for it, and built it, which is why North Africans, Mesopotamians and Levantines speak Arabic today instead of their native non-Arabic languages. The legacy of Islamic empire via armed conquest is also why Iran, Pakistan and all of Central Asia are Muslim today.

    Yeah, the Arabs really were given that impression, but of course there was no way Saddam was ever going to conquer Saudi Arabia, he himself never even thought about it. But the Saudis were told Saddam’s forces were occupying jump-off positions on the Saudi border, which was a lie.
     
    How does anyone know anything about the limits of a conquering ruler's ambitions? Arab conquerors have traditionally stopped only when they were repelled. And they are not unique in that.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Saddam’s Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I’m not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn’t even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)

    • Replies: @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Saddam’s Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I’m not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn’t even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)
     
    Again, history. How did a small number of Arabs (from the bottom tip of what is now Saudi Arabia) professing a new religion overcome Mesopotamians, Levantines, North Africans, Persians (Iranians) and Central Asians who spoke diverse non-Arab languages and subscribed to religious beliefs that included animism, shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism and traditional folk beliefs? Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder's tools from time immemorial. This was why the US occupation of Iraq dragged on for almost a decade without resolution, whereas Saddam disposed of both Shiite and Kurdish rebellions without breaking a sweat, as long as foreign powers stayed out of his hair.

    Note that like all empire-builders, Saddam was pretty ecumenical in his rule - while he favored Sunni Arab Tikritis, he also had Shiites and non-Muslims in significant governmental positions. White nationalists are hyper-sectarian in the mold of their vision of perfection, Hitler. Real-life empire-builders like Muhammad were pretty ecumenical. They recruited generals from among the defeated and spared their armies as long as they switched allegiances. Which most personnel are willing to do in exchange for good treatment**.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.

    ** The big US mistake in Iraq was to treat Baathist figures up and down the line as lepers, thus providing the impetus for an insurgency in an economy where most of the well-paying jobs came from the government and the government-controlled oil industry. During the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan, they went after the bigwigs and spared the rank and file.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Twinkie

  198. @Anon
    @Twinkie


    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*
     
    I've heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    Also these “immigrants” are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc. The only negative is that they are still diluting the Korean gene pool. In small quantities not necessarily a bad thing.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    Also these “immigrants” are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc.
     
    To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about here.

    Ethnic Koreans from China are frequently "full" Koreans, but because they have a very different culture, do not assimilate well among modern South Koreans and have become a large (often criminal) underclass in South Korea. Because of this, there is now a strong backlash against them. See:

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/11/2012041100974.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NE04Dg01.html

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  199. @Mr. Anon
    "gjk says:

    It would be inaccurate to say “Muslims do XYZ”. It is a subset of them that does it. This may not make it any less of a problem, but some propose a wholesale deportation of ALL mohammedans. That is not only unjust, but also pointless."

    Why is it unjust? Muslims have no claim to live in european lands. Europeans have a right to their own nations with their own cultures. Bringing in people from a backward, incompatible culture inevitably creates friction and violence. Europeans don't owe muslims a place to live. And, anyway, muslims already have their own nations. Let them live there - where they would not themselves suffer infidels to live amongst them as equals.

    Why do you say it is pointless? It would certainly work. There wouldn't be any more problems with muslims in Europe if there were no muslims in Europe.

    When it comes to deporation, my motto is "Yes, We Can!".

    Replies: @gzu

    “Muslims have no claim to live in european lands.”

    Yes they do.

    “Europeans have a right to their own nations with their own cultures.”

    Irrelevant. They DO have their own nations with their own cultures.

    “Bringing in people from a backward, incompatible culture inevitably creates friction and violence. ”

    True. That’s why they should stop bringing them in.

    “Europeans don’t owe muslims a place to live. ”

    Yes they do. A lot of them are citizens of the countries they live in. Anyhow, driving people from their homes is a crime against humanity.

    “And, anyway, muslims already have their own nations. Let them live there – where they would not themselves suffer infidels to live amongst them as equals.”

    Who said I disagree with that? You’re right. However, some Muslims would prefer living among infidels. I am one such Muslim. I prefer my current country to my home country.

    “When it comes to deporation, my motto is “Yes, We Can!”.”

    Make sure you wear a kevlar helmet while doing it.

  200. @Art Deco
    @NOTA

    I was thinking maybe the decision of how and by whom Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are to be governed shouldn’t really come up for the US government.
    --
    Well, too bad. The identity of that person sometimes has implications for the dynamics of the regional state system. When it does not, or when the regional state system is inconsequential, the autocrat in question is left in peace. Ron Paul can amuse himself by manufacturing 'reasons' that this actor or that actor behaves badly consequent to some random American policy and, if all else fails, argue in the alternative that nothing that actor does matters to anyone. He can do that, because there was never any chance the man would ever make a consequential decision about public policy and in three decades in office, he never has.
    --
    Here's a free suggestion for foreign autocrats: do not conquer and despoil neighboring states, do not run ethnic cleansing operations in your neighborhoods, do not erect drug-running mafias, do not harbor international criminal organizations, and do not sink resources into nuclear weapons programs a propos of nothing in particular, and you get to be left alone. Very often you'll be left alone anyway if you do not do something obtrusively provocative.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @NOTA

    Fortunately, we don’t have to just guess or imagine what an interventionist foreign policy will look like–we have several decades of one whose effectiveness we can judge. How is it working out for us? How are the countries we’ve intervened in over the last couple decades doing? Have our interventions made us better off?

    I don’t see much evidence that we’ve been real successful in our interventions. Perhaps things would be even worse without them, but the current state of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen don’t look to me like commercials for our highly competent foreign interventions.

    My guess is that US interventionist foreign policy is like medieval medicine–done by smart, confident, learned men with a lot of social standing, but not actually any good at making things better except occasionally by mistake.

  201. @iSteveFan
    @Twinkie


    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*
     
    According to wiki:

    Since the late 1990s, interracial marriages in South Korea have grown rapidly, especially in rural farming communities. Most brides come from China (approximately 60%, mostly ethnic Koreans in China), followed by Vietnam and other Asian countries.

    In 2005, there were 31,180 marriages between South Korean men and non-Korean women; there were 11,941 marriages between South Korean women and non-Korean men.

    Technically I guess you are correct, but that is in no way comparable to what is happening in European nations. If there are surplus Korean men marrying primarily Korean ethnics from China, I don't see that as a problem. Also, the fact that Korean woman are marrying out at such a low rate is a positive for Korea too.

    I am not going to tell you that there is zero immigration into East Asian nations. I am just going to say that whatever passes for immigration there is orders of magnitude less than the mass immigration taking place in the West. And that is the issue for me, mass immigration.

    I grew up in a town of 2500 people about 30 years ago. And we had foreign born people there. As far as I can recall, we had around 6 to 10 people that were clearly born out of the USA. Of these, at least two were Greeks and one was Austrian. I don't know the backgrounds of the others. I suppose we could have had some more, but this is my point. In a town of 2500, one percent of the population would have been 25 people. So at best we had one-half of one percent of our population comprised of immigrants. And these immigrants were known to the community as one was a physician and another owned a popular store. They were treated as part of the community because they constituted no threat or challenge to the current social climate, and blended in well.

    This is an example of immigration. A small number of individuals here and there that don't have enough critical mass to replicate their home culture. They fill a niche, are happy to be here and the locals do not perceive a threat to their culture or way of life.

    Recently, I recently visited a small town about fifty miles away from where I grew up. We used to play them in football, and culturally they were a mirror image of my town. Today however, with its meat packing plant, Mexicans and/or Central Americans comprise approximately 50% of the town's population. This is ridiculous!

    I hope the East Asian nations won't fall prey to this. I only wish the Western nations would stop it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I am not going to tell you that there is zero immigration into East Asian nations. I am just going to say that whatever passes for immigration there is orders of magnitude less than the mass immigration taking place in the West. And that is the issue for me, mass immigration.

    True enough. But these are differences in scale and time, not qualitative differences. What I am getting at is this: there is a clear, identifiable migration trend from the Global South to the North, from poorer countries to richer ones, from “dark” regions to “pale” ones. My point simply is that Western Europe and North America, i.e. “white” countries, are not the exclusive destinations of such a latter day Voelkerwanderung. The trend is more pronounced and bigger in scale today in the “white” countries for a variety of reasons, but East Asia is “catching up” on this trend. In a way, East Asia is on the cusp of what the United States experienced in the 1960’s. Of course the pattern is not going to be replicated exactly the same way, but there are strong parallels.

    This is an example of immigration. A small number of individuals here and there that don’t have enough critical mass to replicate their home culture. They fill a niche, are happy to be here and the locals do not perceive a threat to their culture or way of life.

    And I would argue that this is the right kind of immigration.

    Recently, I recently visited a small town about fifty miles away from where I grew up. We used to play them in football, and culturally they were a mirror image of my town. Today however, with its meat packing plant, Mexicans and/or Central Americans comprise approximately 50% of the town’s population. This is ridiculous!

    Yes, indeed. Full agreement there. Full stop.

  202. @Anon
    @Twinkie


    In South Korea, for example, around 10-20% of births today are from “international marriages” in which at least one parent is not Korean.*
     
    I've heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    I’ve heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.

    A majority of such marriage partners is likely ethnic Koreans from China. A substantial minority is made up of Vietnamese (at the other end of the economic/class spectrum, there is also an increasing number of more upscale Koreans who marry foreigners, largely Europeans and North Americans).

    While an argument can be made that ethnic Koreans from China are akin to poorer European immigrants of yore in the United States (though as I mentioned before ethnic Koreans have formed an instant underclass in South Korea due to very different cultural sensitivities and criminal proclivities, let’s say), Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.

    In any case, these are largely mail order brides, in essence. See: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21602761-korean-men-are-marrying-foreigners-more-choice-necessity-farmed-out

    By the way, until quite recently male issues of such unions were not conscripted or accepted into the ROK military since they were not deemed to be “real” Koreans. However, I understand now that they are. Apparently changing native views about what a Korean is as well as fears of a shrinking pool of young men available for the conscription has resulted in the change.

    As far as other, labor-economic migrants go, there is a rather eclectic mix in South Korea now, including quite a few Africans (also true in parts of China). For a while the prostitution trade in ROK was largely “dominated” by women from Russia and Eastern Europe, which unfortunately has led to other white, especially blonde, women living there complaining about being confused as Russians and being harassed about “how much?” by drunken Korean salarimen in the evenings.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.
     
    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?

    Replies: @Twinkie

  203. @5371
    192: your own contributions are not calculated to change Unz's opinion of these threads, being full of factual inaccuracy and empty bluster.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    192: your own contributions are not calculated to change Unz’s opinion of these threads, being full of factual inaccuracy and empty bluster.

    You clearly missed the self-deprecation in that reply.

  204. @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    The Battle of Khafji happened months later, when Iraq was already under military attack, and the reason for it was that Saddam wanted to draw coalition troops into ground engagements, because of course he could see that the air war was causing him enormous casualties, but only very light losses to the Americans and their allies. The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait, and not wait several months after the deployment of American troops was complete and the Americans started an air war against him. Of course Saddam never planned that, and he never had the resources to do that. He could only count on the support of a minority of his own countrymen (Sunni Arabs), there was no way he could control Saudi Arabia with its tribal politics even more complicated than that of Iraq. Saddam was an Arab, so he knew that Arab is not an ethnicity the way say German is, so in fact "uniting" all Arab lands would mean conquering them and occupying them as a foreign power. This is impossible for tiny Iraq, and would be impossible even for much larger Egypt.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.

    It certainly showed that the regular Saudi troops couldn’t hold the line and couldn’t stand up to even the much devastated Iraqi troops. That they had to rely on foreign help and dig deep with their regime-preservation troops (the National Guard) to expel those few Iraqis who broke through the lines.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait

    We don’t know what was in Saddam Hussein’s mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don’t think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam. I think he intended to demolish Kuwait, an American protectorate, and show everyone in the neighborhood who was boss in the region. You don’t have to conquer everyone to bend all to your will. You just have to kill a couple of guys, guys who thought they were protected by the all-powerful, and show everyone that you are serious and will be around when the “all-powerful” goes home oceans away.

    In retrospect, Saddam’s only chance was probably, as you put it, to blitz the Kingdom before the heavy armor from Germany arrived and while the border was guarded by a few light troops and full of sitting duck aircraft. But that was an extremely high stakes “all-in” move, and Saddam was being cautious and thought, incorrectly, that he could negotiate a winning hand.

    But if things had gone as he wanted, and he was able to negotiate a winning settlement with the U.S. on the question of the border oil fields with Kuwait, imagine what his power would be in the Middle East. Remember Edward Luttwak’s axiom: the use of power, being of a psychological nature, increases it, but the use of force, being of a material nature, consumes it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    "We don’t know what was in Saddam Hussein’s mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don’t think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam."

    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    President Bush needed Margaret Thatcher to persuade him about pushing Iraq back by military force.

    Let's accept the Kuwait war. Why couldn't the US then leave the area (leaving some military bases in Kuwait just in case) and try to rebuild relations with Saddam? Mohamed Farrah Aidid's son Hussein Farrah Aidid became a US ally after his father has fought the US in 1993. I know it was more complicated, but I can see no reason why Saddam needed to be made the permanent bad guy after 1993, and why his country needed to be handed over to the Iran-friendly Shia, only so that Saddam's loyal Sunni clansmen could join ISIS in an insurgency against this Iran-friendly Shia government...

  205. @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Also these "immigrants" are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc. The only negative is that they are still diluting the Korean gene pool. In small quantities not necessarily a bad thing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Also these “immigrants” are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc.

    To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about here.

    Ethnic Koreans from China are frequently “full” Koreans, but because they have a very different culture, do not assimilate well among modern South Koreans and have become a large (often criminal) underclass in South Korea. Because of this, there is now a strong backlash against them. See:

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/11/2012041100974.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NE04Dg01.html

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    The fact that there is a backlash against ethnic Koreans from China actually shows that what is happening in the West is totally unprecedented and unseen anywhere else in the world. So no, it's not a North-South issue or whatever. What's happening in the West is totally unique.

  206. @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.
     
    It certainly showed that the regular Saudi troops couldn't hold the line and couldn't stand up to even the much devastated Iraqi troops. That they had to rely on foreign help and dig deep with their regime-preservation troops (the National Guard) to expel those few Iraqis who broke through the lines.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait
     
    We don't know what was in Saddam Hussein's mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don't think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam. I think he intended to demolish Kuwait, an American protectorate, and show everyone in the neighborhood who was boss in the region. You don't have to conquer everyone to bend all to your will. You just have to kill a couple of guys, guys who thought they were protected by the all-powerful, and show everyone that you are serious and will be around when the "all-powerful" goes home oceans away.

    In retrospect, Saddam's only chance was probably, as you put it, to blitz the Kingdom before the heavy armor from Germany arrived and while the border was guarded by a few light troops and full of sitting duck aircraft. But that was an extremely high stakes "all-in" move, and Saddam was being cautious and thought, incorrectly, that he could negotiate a winning hand.

    But if things had gone as he wanted, and he was able to negotiate a winning settlement with the U.S. on the question of the border oil fields with Kuwait, imagine what his power would be in the Middle East. Remember Edward Luttwak's axiom: the use of power, being of a psychological nature, increases it, but the use of force, being of a material nature, consumes it.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @reiner Tor

    “We don’t know what was in Saddam Hussein’s mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don’t think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam.”

    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?
     
    Unlike the Nazis, the Iraqi Ba'athists and Saddamists did not have all-pervasive bureaucracies with the attendant, detailed, nay immaculate, records. Even today, I think there are conflicting views about Saddam's motives and goals. And he wasn't much of a memoirist either. There is no Iraqi equivalent of the Mein Kampf.

    But I will say this for him, he was certainly one of the more modernist among the Arab socialists/dictators unlike other more sectarian and tribal strongmen in the region. If he hadn't made some fatal miscalculations, we could have done business with him a long time.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  207. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    @Anon

    Saddam's Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I'm not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn't even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)

    Replies: @Anon

    Saddam’s Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I’m not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn’t even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)

    Again, history. How did a small number of Arabs (from the bottom tip of what is now Saudi Arabia) professing a new religion overcome Mesopotamians, Levantines, North Africans, Persians (Iranians) and Central Asians who spoke diverse non-Arab languages and subscribed to religious beliefs that included animism, shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism and traditional folk beliefs? Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder’s tools from time immemorial. This was why the US occupation of Iraq dragged on for almost a decade without resolution, whereas Saddam disposed of both Shiite and Kurdish rebellions without breaking a sweat, as long as foreign powers stayed out of his hair.

    Note that like all empire-builders, Saddam was pretty ecumenical in his rule – while he favored Sunni Arab Tikritis, he also had Shiites and non-Muslims in significant governmental positions. White nationalists are hyper-sectarian in the mold of their vision of perfection, Hitler. Real-life empire-builders like Muhammad were pretty ecumenical. They recruited generals from among the defeated and spared their armies as long as they switched allegiances. Which most personnel are willing to do in exchange for good treatment**.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.

    ** The big US mistake in Iraq was to treat Baathist figures up and down the line as lepers, thus providing the impetus for an insurgency in an economy where most of the well-paying jobs came from the government and the government-controlled oil industry. During the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan, they went after the bigwigs and spared the rank and file.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    But where's the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Twinkie
    @Anon


    Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder’s tools from time immemorial.
     
    It should be noted, too, that the initial Arab explosion was particularly well-timed (unintentionally). The Byzantines and the Persians had exhausted each other in violent conflicts in the preceding decades and the conflict zone was ripe for conquest. And of course the initial Arab attacks, just like those of the Vikings and Norsemen, were largely (economic) razzia/raids, further destabilizing, depopulating, and impoverishing the border areas.

    In the end, many Byzantine subjects welcomed the Arabs because they taxed less than Constantinople did and provided security/stability.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.
     
    Sure. Had he allowed the fiction of Ukrainian liberation and self-government if only during the wartime, we'd have a different story on the Eastern Front. But would Hitler have been Hitler without the ideology that brought his party to power? You have to win the primary to get to the election in the first place, to borrow the American political analogy.
  208. “Yep. Takimag is a cesspool. Although Gavin McInnes is fun to laugh at (not with) every once in a while.”

    Gavin McInnes is one of the few people who self identify themselves as Libertarian that has common sense political views on the issue of immigration. He didn’t sell his soul to big businesses that prefer cheap 3rd world labor like most Libertardians in the media have.

    • Replies: @matt
    @Jefferson

    He didn’t sell his soul to big businesses that prefer cheap 3rd world labor like most Libertardians in the media have.

    Then he's even dumber than I thought. What's the point of being a libertarian if you don't sell your soul to big business?

  209. @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Saddam’s Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I’m not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn’t even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)
     
    Again, history. How did a small number of Arabs (from the bottom tip of what is now Saudi Arabia) professing a new religion overcome Mesopotamians, Levantines, North Africans, Persians (Iranians) and Central Asians who spoke diverse non-Arab languages and subscribed to religious beliefs that included animism, shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism and traditional folk beliefs? Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder's tools from time immemorial. This was why the US occupation of Iraq dragged on for almost a decade without resolution, whereas Saddam disposed of both Shiite and Kurdish rebellions without breaking a sweat, as long as foreign powers stayed out of his hair.

    Note that like all empire-builders, Saddam was pretty ecumenical in his rule - while he favored Sunni Arab Tikritis, he also had Shiites and non-Muslims in significant governmental positions. White nationalists are hyper-sectarian in the mold of their vision of perfection, Hitler. Real-life empire-builders like Muhammad were pretty ecumenical. They recruited generals from among the defeated and spared their armies as long as they switched allegiances. Which most personnel are willing to do in exchange for good treatment**.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.

    ** The big US mistake in Iraq was to treat Baathist figures up and down the line as lepers, thus providing the impetus for an insurgency in an economy where most of the well-paying jobs came from the government and the government-controlled oil industry. During the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan, they went after the bigwigs and spared the rank and file.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Twinkie

    But where’s the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    But where’s the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?
     
    To my knowledge, no documentation has been discovered. At the same time, there are many things that remain unknown to us, even though they were probably documented, if only to dot the i's and cross the t's. The fate of large numbers of abducted people from Saddam's era remains unknown. Mass graves from that era continue to be discovered during routine farm or construction work. He presumably had large numbers of agents in both Allawi's and Maliki's governments. Do we have lists of those agents? A unitary Muslim or Arab empire isn't some imaginary construct.

    When Muslims talk about the ummah, they are referring to something as real to them as Mount Rushmore is to us. When Arabs talk about the Arab nation, they are referring to a classical golden age, to which many want to return. Not everyone believes in progress, i.e. the idea that history has been a process of improvement in all things. In a way, the Arab yearning for a unified Arab empire is similar to the German yearning for a unified Germany, back in the day when the German states were frequently in (armed) contention with each other, but the religious schisms (Catholic vs various Protestant sects) had largely been swept under the table.

    To an American, the 100 years since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire scattered the Arabs of the Near East into distinct nations seems like an eternity. To an Arab Muslim steeped in the history of his people, it's the blink of an eye.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  210. @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    "We don’t know what was in Saddam Hussein’s mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don’t think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam."

    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?

    Unlike the Nazis, the Iraqi Ba’athists and Saddamists did not have all-pervasive bureaucracies with the attendant, detailed, nay immaculate, records. Even today, I think there are conflicting views about Saddam’s motives and goals. And he wasn’t much of a memoirist either. There is no Iraqi equivalent of the Mein Kampf.

    But I will say this for him, he was certainly one of the more modernist among the Arab socialists/dictators unlike other more sectarian and tribal strongmen in the region. If he hadn’t made some fatal miscalculations, we could have done business with him a long time.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Anon

  211. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Anon


    I’ve heard the vast majority are Chinese nationals of Korean origin. And most of the rest are East Asians. Which is pretty similar to the US importing European immigrants in the 19th century.
     
    A majority of such marriage partners is likely ethnic Koreans from China. A substantial minority is made up of Vietnamese (at the other end of the economic/class spectrum, there is also an increasing number of more upscale Koreans who marry foreigners, largely Europeans and North Americans).

    While an argument can be made that ethnic Koreans from China are akin to poorer European immigrants of yore in the United States (though as I mentioned before ethnic Koreans have formed an instant underclass in South Korea due to very different cultural sensitivities and criminal proclivities, let's say), Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not "East Asians," have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that "all the Orientals look the same" would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.

    In any case, these are largely mail order brides, in essence. See: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21602761-korean-men-are-marrying-foreigners-more-choice-necessity-farmed-out

    By the way, until quite recently male issues of such unions were not conscripted or accepted into the ROK military since they were not deemed to be "real" Koreans. However, I understand now that they are. Apparently changing native views about what a Korean is as well as fears of a shrinking pool of young men available for the conscription has resulted in the change.

    As far as other, labor-economic migrants go, there is a rather eclectic mix in South Korea now, including quite a few Africans (also true in parts of China). For a while the prostitution trade in ROK was largely "dominated" by women from Russia and Eastern Europe, which unfortunately has led to other white, especially blonde, women living there complaining about being confused as Russians and being harassed about "how much?" by drunken Korean salarimen in the evenings.

    Replies: @Anon

    Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.

    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anon


    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?
     
    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.

    Replies: @Anon

  212. @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    Well, that was prudent to worry about in 1990, but has any documentation of that emerged since 2003?
     
    Unlike the Nazis, the Iraqi Ba'athists and Saddamists did not have all-pervasive bureaucracies with the attendant, detailed, nay immaculate, records. Even today, I think there are conflicting views about Saddam's motives and goals. And he wasn't much of a memoirist either. There is no Iraqi equivalent of the Mein Kampf.

    But I will say this for him, he was certainly one of the more modernist among the Arab socialists/dictators unlike other more sectarian and tribal strongmen in the region. If he hadn't made some fatal miscalculations, we could have done business with him a long time.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?
     
    I don't subscribe to the notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait. My own suspicion is that he preferred a negotiated settlement in which he got to keep bulk of the disputed Kuwaiti oil fields (which was the nominal, initial casus belli) and then retain a recognized "special interest" in Kuwait.

    After that, much of the region would have been his oyster, without having to resort to conquest. Saudis, certainly, would have been much more amenable to his demands.

    But we'll never know. His inner circle is unreliable and contradictory and we have little in the way of documentary evidence.
    , @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government's modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    , @Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?
     
    Given that Bin Laden evaded capture for a decade, and much of the information came from aerial surveillance, it would appear that the US interrogation methods are none too effective. Besides, decision-makers don't get access to the other side's documents (not to mention leadership figures) until they've defeated them and occupied their capital, and then only if the other side hasn't destroyed those documents. Note that most of Saddam's closest confidants ended up in the insurgency, including Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, where he's said to have become a key figure in the ISIS coalition. He is likely to take Saddam's secrets to the grave with him, including what was in the freight shipments to Syria just before the US invasion. Should the US have waited until it had access to the Taliban's archives or captured the Taliban cabinet before attacking them for backing bin Laden? Perhaps the Taliban were merely jealously guarding Afghanistan's sovereignty rather than active supporters of al Qaeda.
  213. @Anon
    @reiner Tor


    Saddam’s Iraq was essentially a country ruled by the Iraqi Sunni Arab ethnic group. This is a tiny ethnic group of a few million people. Their cultural levels are more or less third world (although Saddam to his credit did a lot of work to improve education). How on Earth would they have controlled Saudi Arabia, let alone other Arab lands? (And I’m not talking about conquering Iran, which Iraq was clearly incapable of doing, it couldn’t even conquer the one Iranian province they wanted for themselves.)
     
    Again, history. How did a small number of Arabs (from the bottom tip of what is now Saudi Arabia) professing a new religion overcome Mesopotamians, Levantines, North Africans, Persians (Iranians) and Central Asians who spoke diverse non-Arab languages and subscribed to religious beliefs that included animism, shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism and traditional folk beliefs? Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder's tools from time immemorial. This was why the US occupation of Iraq dragged on for almost a decade without resolution, whereas Saddam disposed of both Shiite and Kurdish rebellions without breaking a sweat, as long as foreign powers stayed out of his hair.

    Note that like all empire-builders, Saddam was pretty ecumenical in his rule - while he favored Sunni Arab Tikritis, he also had Shiites and non-Muslims in significant governmental positions. White nationalists are hyper-sectarian in the mold of their vision of perfection, Hitler. Real-life empire-builders like Muhammad were pretty ecumenical. They recruited generals from among the defeated and spared their armies as long as they switched allegiances. Which most personnel are willing to do in exchange for good treatment**.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.

    ** The big US mistake in Iraq was to treat Baathist figures up and down the line as lepers, thus providing the impetus for an insurgency in an economy where most of the well-paying jobs came from the government and the government-controlled oil industry. During the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan, they went after the bigwigs and spared the rank and file.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Twinkie

    Extreme brutality and collective punishment, coupled with generous rewards for those who complied, taken from the property from those who were killed. In other words, the empire-builder’s tools from time immemorial.

    It should be noted, too, that the initial Arab explosion was particularly well-timed (unintentionally). The Byzantines and the Persians had exhausted each other in violent conflicts in the preceding decades and the conflict zone was ripe for conquest. And of course the initial Arab attacks, just like those of the Vikings and Norsemen, were largely (economic) razzia/raids, further destabilizing, depopulating, and impoverishing the border areas.

    In the end, many Byzantine subjects welcomed the Arabs because they taxed less than Constantinople did and provided security/stability.

    * And part of the reason Hitler failed was his hyper-sectarianism. Instead of recruiting Jews, Poles and Ukrainians to his cause, he exterminated them.

    Sure. Had he allowed the fiction of Ukrainian liberation and self-government if only during the wartime, we’d have a different story on the Eastern Front. But would Hitler have been Hitler without the ideology that brought his party to power? You have to win the primary to get to the election in the first place, to borrow the American political analogy.

  214. @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Anon

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    I don’t subscribe to the notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait. My own suspicion is that he preferred a negotiated settlement in which he got to keep bulk of the disputed Kuwaiti oil fields (which was the nominal, initial casus belli) and then retain a recognized “special interest” in Kuwait.

    After that, much of the region would have been his oyster, without having to resort to conquest. Saudis, certainly, would have been much more amenable to his demands.

    But we’ll never know. His inner circle is unreliable and contradictory and we have little in the way of documentary evidence.

  215. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    But where's the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?

    Replies: @Anon

    But where’s the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?

    To my knowledge, no documentation has been discovered. At the same time, there are many things that remain unknown to us, even though they were probably documented, if only to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The fate of large numbers of abducted people from Saddam’s era remains unknown. Mass graves from that era continue to be discovered during routine farm or construction work. He presumably had large numbers of agents in both Allawi’s and Maliki’s governments. Do we have lists of those agents? A unitary Muslim or Arab empire isn’t some imaginary construct.

    When Muslims talk about the ummah, they are referring to something as real to them as Mount Rushmore is to us. When Arabs talk about the Arab nation, they are referring to a classical golden age, to which many want to return. Not everyone believes in progress, i.e. the idea that history has been a process of improvement in all things. In a way, the Arab yearning for a unified Arab empire is similar to the German yearning for a unified Germany, back in the day when the German states were frequently in (armed) contention with each other, but the religious schisms (Catholic vs various Protestant sects) had largely been swept under the table.

    To an American, the 100 years since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire scattered the Arabs of the Near East into distinct nations seems like an eternity. To an Arab Muslim steeped in the history of his people, it’s the blink of an eye.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anon


    To an American, the 100 years since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire scattered the Arabs of the Near East into distinct nations seems like an eternity. To an Arab Muslim steeped in the history of his people, it’s the blink of an eye.
     
    The so-called Golden Age of Arab Muslim rule only looks rosy to the Arabs because of their humiliation and impotence during European colonial rule.

    The initial Arab surge petered out rather quickly and was only sustained by importation of Turkic warriors, who soon replaced and ruled their erstwhile masters.
  216. @Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    But where’s the documentation from Baghdad files or insiders that Saddam was intending to conquer the entire Gulf after Kuwait? I can see the logic of worrying about it from a military intelligence point of view, but where is the evidence that Saddam had any Alexandrine plans beyond Kuwait?
     
    To my knowledge, no documentation has been discovered. At the same time, there are many things that remain unknown to us, even though they were probably documented, if only to dot the i's and cross the t's. The fate of large numbers of abducted people from Saddam's era remains unknown. Mass graves from that era continue to be discovered during routine farm or construction work. He presumably had large numbers of agents in both Allawi's and Maliki's governments. Do we have lists of those agents? A unitary Muslim or Arab empire isn't some imaginary construct.

    When Muslims talk about the ummah, they are referring to something as real to them as Mount Rushmore is to us. When Arabs talk about the Arab nation, they are referring to a classical golden age, to which many want to return. Not everyone believes in progress, i.e. the idea that history has been a process of improvement in all things. In a way, the Arab yearning for a unified Arab empire is similar to the German yearning for a unified Germany, back in the day when the German states were frequently in (armed) contention with each other, but the religious schisms (Catholic vs various Protestant sects) had largely been swept under the table.

    To an American, the 100 years since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire scattered the Arabs of the Near East into distinct nations seems like an eternity. To an Arab Muslim steeped in the history of his people, it's the blink of an eye.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    To an American, the 100 years since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire scattered the Arabs of the Near East into distinct nations seems like an eternity. To an Arab Muslim steeped in the history of his people, it’s the blink of an eye.

    The so-called Golden Age of Arab Muslim rule only looks rosy to the Arabs because of their humiliation and impotence during European colonial rule.

    The initial Arab surge petered out rather quickly and was only sustained by importation of Turkic warriors, who soon replaced and ruled their erstwhile masters.

  217. @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Anon

    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government’s modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Art Deco

    Why are you asking me? I'm not the one suggesting that Iraq had a grand plan (that no evidence emerged for during a decade of American occupation).

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @Art Deco


    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government’s modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?
     
    Everyone, empire-builder or not, is an opportunist of some kind. Fail at something? Switch to something else. Fail to conquer Iran? Switch to Kuwait. The annals of history are replete with empire-builders who were checked in a certain direction, went after easier targets and then returned for a second bite at the initial target. And there are those who succeed beyond their wildest dreams. The Manchurians, cousins of the Koreans, went after northeast China, and ended up with the whole enchilada, founding one of China's longest-lived dynasties. If they had only managed to capture China's northeastern provinces (while warding off the Russians), Korea's northern neighbor might today be a country called Manchuria.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  218. @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government's modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    Why are you asking me? I’m not the one suggesting that Iraq had a grand plan (that no evidence emerged for during a decade of American occupation).

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    Why are you asking me? I’m not the one suggesting that Iraq had a grand plan (that no evidence emerged for during a decade of American occupation).
     
    The grand plan is always sitting in the background in the minds of Muslims and Arabs. It was historical fact for over a thousand years. It doesn't need talking about. The opportunistic aspect is the part where you grab what you can when you can, until you are stopped.
  219. @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.
     
    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?

    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.
     
    Given that ethnic Koreans from China not only speak the same language, but share the same bloodlines, and live in the part of China that used to be a chunk of the (ancient Korean) Koguryo empire, I'd say they were akin to US immigrants from the British Isles.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  220. @Jefferson
    "Yep. Takimag is a cesspool. Although Gavin McInnes is fun to laugh at (not with) every once in a while."

    Gavin McInnes is one of the few people who self identify themselves as Libertarian that has common sense political views on the issue of immigration. He didn't sell his soul to big businesses that prefer cheap 3rd world labor like most Libertardians in the media have.

    Replies: @matt

    He didn’t sell his soul to big businesses that prefer cheap 3rd world labor like most Libertardians in the media have.

    Then he’s even dumber than I thought. What’s the point of being a libertarian if you don’t sell your soul to big business?

  221. @reiner Tor
    @HA

    Actually, Yeltsin asked in fall 1991 the Americans if he could inherit the USSR seat on the UN Security Council, as well as the nuclear weapons & status regarding the NPT. The Americans said yes, and they told the Ukrainians (and Belorussians) that Ukraine (and Belarus) would never get recognition without giving up the nukes to Russia. The Kazakhs were later told the same thing. If the Americans hadn't done that, Yeltsin might have decided to keep the USSR after all, and become the leading politician of that larger country. But since he was assured independent Russia could become the by far most important successor the USSR with all the nukes and with the seat on the UN SC, he decided to break up the USSR.

    So the Ukrainians had already promised in 1991 to give up their nukes. They later changed their minds, and demanded something more from the Americans, and they got the Budapest Memorandum, a piece of paper with very little value.

    Essentially Ukraine's borders were protected by things like the CIS treaty, the Helsinki Accords, the UN Charter, the Crimea base lease agreement, so the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke. All four I mentioned here were ratified, some of them by the US as well.

    The problem is the US is only part two of these (Helsinki Accords, UN Charter), and broke both multiple times with regards to Kosovo, Iraq, and some other cases. So the Russians felt once the international system was broken anyway, they don't need to abide by its rules either. The Chinese and the Indians seem to agree with them (and even Israel is not so sure about it), which just shows how powers with little interest in the Crimea view the Wests hypocrisy regarding the inviolability of borders, state sovereignty etc.

    Replies: @HA

    He did play that game.

    No, he didn’t. He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail? No dead female or life mail hookers rattling around in any of those car trunks? But no, Putin couldn’t be bothered to dig them out. He is lucky the USSR he is so nostalgic for is defunct. If anyone had done such a slipshod job of infiltration during Stalin’s era, a slow death in Siberia would be the best he could hope for. And none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect. If it did, Putin wouldn’t have to resort to nutjob propaganda by paid trolls and like-minded amateurs detailing how Banderites and Illuminati and, for all I know, vampires and other Carpathian ghouls, that are supposedly thirsting for Russian blood.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world’s second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.

    …the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke.

    Well, if that’s the best defense you can mount, I think we can leave it there. Oh look, here’s some other agreements Putin *didn’t* break! And they’re WAY more important.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @HA


    He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail?
     
    Wow. So you think Putin could have bought ALL politicians and oligarchs in Ukraine, in spite of the best American efforts for this not to happen. But... I mean, couldn't the Americans do the same thing? What would have happened if they also upped the ante? In fact, how do you know that this is not what happened? (Everyone knows that after the Orange Revolution a lot of pro-Western politicians were bought off or blackmailed into Yanukovich's camp. In fact, that's how Yanukovich managed to get a clear majority. Putin played this game and lost.) Obviously if one side can buy all politicians in a country, so can the other. But since one politician cannot be simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-American, only one of them can prevail. It sort of reminds of the unstoppable cannon ball hitting the unbreakable city wall... The two cannot exist in the same universe.

    By the way, what do you think about American meddling? Why was it necessary at all? Why were Nuland and her ilk spending billions of dollars, freezing assets of pro-Russian oligarchs (as I already said, that was something Putin couldn't match), etc.? Only to make Putin pay even more for Ukrainian oligarchs? Or for some other reason? And why do you think it was good for America (or the West in general)?

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.
     
    Well, it was Yeltsin's decision not to keep the other republics which he considered to be much poorer and hence worthless in times of economic trouble. Siberia will never be thought of this way. But we don't have to debate it here, we'll see over the next few decades. I still can't imagine how Siberia will become Chinese. BTW why would it be good for Uncle Sam or the West in general? It would be very bad for all of us, for anybody other than China, I think. But it won't happen.

    that’s the best defense you can mount
     
    I'm not here to defend Putin. He doesn't need my defense at an obscure blog. I'm commenting for fun only. And I noticed a very bad argument, the Budapest Memorandum. Which is a worthless paper. You can bring up the UN Charter (which the US broke many more times since 1991 than Russia), the Helsinki Accords (which the US also broke), the Crimea military base agreement (this was only a matter between Russia and Ukraine, but of course the Ukrainians are within their rights to be mad about it), the NPT (which the US also broke), the CIS treaty (although other CIS states as signatories actually more or less accepted Putin's moves), etc. But of course by bringing up these you'd have to acknowledge that international law was in fact first broken by the US (indeed neocons actually took delight around 2001-2003 in calling international law "irrelevant"), and that only long after that did Russia also break it. However, then Russia broke it even more than the US ever did.
    , @reiner Tor
    @HA


    none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect
     
    It's no justification, maybe. But that's how life is. Putin found it a vital Russian interest (which it was and is) for Ukraine not to join the Western camp, and since he ran out of options, he took Crimea and instigated an insurgency in Ukraine. Push him into a corner, and he will attack, whether it's within the international law or not. The US can of course object to it, but having violated international law countless times before, such objections matter very little for countries not directly involved, like India, China, etc.

    Replies: @HA

  222. “Can anyone show how this might address any of the points I made?”

    Prevention of genocide is regarded as more sacrosanct than preservation of borders. That’s why South Sudan also got to break away. It was something of a cheat given that what people were really responding to was Darfur, and the two are unrelated, but it was close enough.

    Alas, Putin’s false-flag operatives haven’t yet infiltrated the so-called “Kiev junta” to the extent that they begin to implement Tymoshenko’s plans to nuke Eastern Ukraine (or whatever RT is peddling this week) credible to anyone who isn’t already bending over for Putin.

    As for Serbia, people were willing to ignore their longstanding eagerness for getting rid of the Kosovars (e.g. http://www.cpi.hr/download/links/hr/11118.pdf ) for years. But eventually, the snipers, and mortars on Dubrovnik, rape camps, etc., began to add up, and people stopped believing Milosevic.

    Apparently, repeatedly pounding on your neighbors, all the while insisting that *you’re* the one who is on the verge of extinction, doesn’t make for a very convincing strategy — at least, not if you’re a gentile.

    PS That should be “live male” instead of “life mail” in the previous post.

  223. AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] says:
    @Anonymous
    We'll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don't think separation is a realistic option.

    Replies: @aplcr0331, @Kevin O'Keeffe, @Tracy, @AP

    We’ll, white girls are highly attracted to Men of Colour so I don’t think separation is a realistic option.

    A myth. Most whites don’t marry outside their race and of those who do, it is with Asians or with light-skinned (thus, mostly-white) Latinos.

    According to a large 2010 Pew study, 9.4% of whites married outside their race. Of those, 43% married Latinos (so, less than 5% of all whites) , 14.4% married Asians, and only 12% married blacks (a little over 1% of whites).

  224. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Art Deco, @Anon

    So despite arresting practically all the Iraqi inner circle of 1990 and having ways of making them talk, nothing has emerged to support the common notion that Saddam intended to keep going after Kuwait?

    Given that Bin Laden evaded capture for a decade, and much of the information came from aerial surveillance, it would appear that the US interrogation methods are none too effective. Besides, decision-makers don’t get access to the other side’s documents (not to mention leadership figures) until they’ve defeated them and occupied their capital, and then only if the other side hasn’t destroyed those documents. Note that most of Saddam’s closest confidants ended up in the insurgency, including Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, where he’s said to have become a key figure in the ISIS coalition. He is likely to take Saddam’s secrets to the grave with him, including what was in the freight shipments to Syria just before the US invasion. Should the US have waited until it had access to the Taliban’s archives or captured the Taliban cabinet before attacking them for backing bin Laden? Perhaps the Taliban were merely jealously guarding Afghanistan’s sovereignty rather than active supporters of al Qaeda.

  225. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Art Deco

    Why are you asking me? I'm not the one suggesting that Iraq had a grand plan (that no evidence emerged for during a decade of American occupation).

    Replies: @Anon

    Why are you asking me? I’m not the one suggesting that Iraq had a grand plan (that no evidence emerged for during a decade of American occupation).

    The grand plan is always sitting in the background in the minds of Muslims and Arabs. It was historical fact for over a thousand years. It doesn’t need talking about. The opportunistic aspect is the part where you grab what you can when you can, until you are stopped.

  226. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    @Anon


    Why Mexicans? Why not Italians? Or the inhabitants of the Balkans?
     
    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.

    Replies: @Anon

    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.

    Given that ethnic Koreans from China not only speak the same language, but share the same bloodlines, and live in the part of China that used to be a chunk of the (ancient Korean) Koguryo empire, I’d say they were akin to US immigrants from the British Isles.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anon


    Given that ethnic Koreans from China not only speak the same language, but share the same bloodlines, and live in the part of China that used to be a chunk of the (ancient Korean) Koguryo empire, I’d say they were akin to US immigrants from the British Isles.
     
    Except immigrants from the British Isles don't form a large underclass in the United States and are not noted for their criminal tendencies. (One of my immediate neighbors is an Englishman married to an American woman.)

    Again, culture matters.

    And Koguryo was over a thousand years ago.
  227. “gjk says:

    ““Muslims have no claim to live in european lands.””

    Yes they do.”

    Do we then have a claim to yours? Can we just move into your country and impose our will on it – build churches there, make you accept Christian law? You have no right to western nations.

    None.

    “Europeans have a right to their own nations with their own cultures.”

    “Irrelevant. They DO have their own nations with their own cultures.”

    Bullshit. They are losing them.

    ““Europeans don’t owe muslims a place to live. ””

    “Yes they do. A lot of them are citizens of the countries they live in. Anyhow, driving people from their homes is a crime against humanity.”

    No, we do not. It isn’t your home.

    “And, anyway, muslims already have their own nations. Let them live there – where they would not themselves suffer infidels to live amongst them as equals.”

    “Who said I disagree with that? You’re right. However, some Muslims would prefer living among infidels. I am one such Muslim. I prefer my current country to my home country.”

    I don’t care what you would prefer. Again – you have no right to demand anything from our nations (other than that we leave your nation alone).

    And you might not be a problem. A small number of muslims is not a problem. A large number is. When they become numerous enough that a politician gives a damn about their votes, then they are a problem.

  228. @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Those would be the ethnic Koreans from China.
     
    Given that ethnic Koreans from China not only speak the same language, but share the same bloodlines, and live in the part of China that used to be a chunk of the (ancient Korean) Koguryo empire, I'd say they were akin to US immigrants from the British Isles.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Given that ethnic Koreans from China not only speak the same language, but share the same bloodlines, and live in the part of China that used to be a chunk of the (ancient Korean) Koguryo empire, I’d say they were akin to US immigrants from the British Isles.

    Except immigrants from the British Isles don’t form a large underclass in the United States and are not noted for their criminal tendencies. (One of my immediate neighbors is an Englishman married to an American woman.)

    Again, culture matters.

    And Koguryo was over a thousand years ago.

  229. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    @Steve Sailer

    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government's modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government’s modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?

    Everyone, empire-builder or not, is an opportunist of some kind. Fail at something? Switch to something else. Fail to conquer Iran? Switch to Kuwait. The annals of history are replete with empire-builders who were checked in a certain direction, went after easier targets and then returned for a second bite at the initial target. And there are those who succeed beyond their wildest dreams. The Manchurians, cousins of the Koreans, went after northeast China, and ended up with the whole enchilada, founding one of China’s longest-lived dynasties. If they had only managed to capture China’s northeastern provinces (while warding off the Russians), Korea’s northern neighbor might today be a country called Manchuria.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Okay, but the U.S. occupied Iraq and arrested Saddam's inner circle and what do we have to show for it in terms of evidence that Iraq had any plans to conquer the rest of the Gulf?

    Replies: @Anon

  230. @Anon
    @Art Deco


    Did it occur to you that the Iraqi government’s modus operandi was opportunistic and responsive to immediate conditions, not a consequence of some grand plan?
     
    Everyone, empire-builder or not, is an opportunist of some kind. Fail at something? Switch to something else. Fail to conquer Iran? Switch to Kuwait. The annals of history are replete with empire-builders who were checked in a certain direction, went after easier targets and then returned for a second bite at the initial target. And there are those who succeed beyond their wildest dreams. The Manchurians, cousins of the Koreans, went after northeast China, and ended up with the whole enchilada, founding one of China's longest-lived dynasties. If they had only managed to capture China's northeastern provinces (while warding off the Russians), Korea's northern neighbor might today be a country called Manchuria.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Okay, but the U.S. occupied Iraq and arrested Saddam’s inner circle and what do we have to show for it in terms of evidence that Iraq had any plans to conquer the rest of the Gulf?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Steve Sailer


    Okay, but the U.S. occupied Iraq and arrested Saddam’s inner circle and what do we have to show for it in terms of evidence that Iraq had any plans to conquer the rest of the Gulf?
     
    Would there be any evidence? Or would Saddam have held those details close to his chest on suspicion that some of his inner circle were in the employ of, or vulnerable to being bought by, foreign powers (including his neighbors, to whom that information would be most vital)? And indeed, two of his sons-in-law defected to Jordan after Desert Storm.Why would anyone assume that Saddam's inner circle would reveal his secrets? One of the Shiite Arab hangmen who executed Saddam was assassinated in 2013. The brother of the man who informed on Saddam's location was killed in 2004.

    Quite apart from fear of being killed, why would a loyal subordinate disclose this information? The Mafia is made up of amoral sociopathic borderline retards with few family ties and they don't get many snitches, which is why it's still in operation. Saddam's inner circle was composed of fellow Tikritis who were in many cases blood relatives. Without the application of more ruthless methods, including the torture and incremental slaughter of friends and relatives, it's doubtful that the inner circle could have been persuaded to give up their secrets. Sunni Arab insurgents killed almost 5000 GI's armed-to-the-teeth with the latest and most expensive warfighting equipment in the world despite the fact that GI's and Iraqis lived in separate worlds. Getting to a Sunni Arab snitch would have been a cakewalk compared to killing a GI.
  231. @Twinkie
    @Ron Unz


    Although I’m publisher of this webzine, I’m normally far too busy with my software work to read the articles let alone the comments. But when I occasionally do, many of the “rabid rightwingers” who hang out here in the threads come across as such gullible dupes, they’re always good for a laugh or two.
     
    Too cool to care about your own magazine and, while at it, let's insult the contemptible customers of your own product.

    You have my vote!

    Oh, wait. Does that make ME a "gullible dupe"?

    Replies: @Ron Unz

    Well, possibly.

    I do periodically read the comment-threads, and since “Twinkie” comments so frequently I think I’ve formed a reasonable impression of him.

    He strikes me as highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about the issues he usually discusses, though admittedly those are often far from my own area of expertise. In personality, he also comes across as being very much the patriotic-hero warrior-type, courageously willing to sacrifice himself for King (so to speak) and Country.

    That’s all well and good. All countries can certainly use a reasonable supply of patriotic-hero warrior-types, especially those also possessing strong moral and civic virtues. Unfortunately, such individuals are often overly focused on tactical matters and may thereby fail to notice the strategic. Put another way, their normal inclination is to loyally march where they are ordered, which may be a serious problem if the orders are misconceived or those giving the orders turn out to have a different agenda. Ignoring such distractions, they bravely march into battle against their opposite numbers among the “Enemy,” who are often doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.

    Consider a biological metaphor. A particular muscle cell might be exemplary in its work, zealously expanding and contracting in response to the nerve signals it receives. But suppose the animal it serves has been infected with rabies, and the virus having seized control of the central nervous system despite merely constituting 0.0001% of the host’s body-mass. Now in such a situation, that loyal, dedicated muscle-cell might actually be acting at cross-purposes to its body’s best interests and indeed perhaps leading it into destruction.

    As I’ve mentioned before, I find it ironic that so many of the commenters here endlessly ridicule the utter dishonesty of Official Reality in one or two particular areas—obviously including immigration, since about 99% of them are apparently anti-immigrationist zealots—but they never seem to question most of the other areas. What a remarkable coincidence—the issues they have personally devoted great energy to investigating are false, but everything else is true.

    Although I’m currently preoccupied with software issues, those of you who haven’t done so might at least want to glance at my American Pravda article of a year or two ago. The particular matters it presents are hardly earth-shattering, but I think some of the implications are fairly signicant.

    https://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz, I sincerely appreciate the personal reply as well as the very kind words about me.

    I must say, however, that (and this is not false modesty) to call me any kind of a "hero-type" is grossly off the mark. I've known and worked with real heroes. And some of them no longer draw breaths. And even the ones who are still alive usually don't talk or write so much.

    Frankly, I am a coward. I prefer to dish out punishment rather than take it. I have the soul of a hill country bushwacker rather than that of a noble warrior who stands his ground against immense odds (I'd rather take potshots and scoot to fight another day).

    But I still thank you very much for the spirit in which you wrote those nice words.

    As for my loyalty, you correctly deduce that I tend toward what the post-war Germans call Kadavergehorsam ("zombie like obedience" to authority). But in my older years, I have become increasingly seditious to the Powers That Be in this country... which is why I so much enjoy my time alone on the hills. I am actually quite misanthropic now. People suck, those in power doubly so. Dogs are more loyal and dependable.

    Points taken about the motives of those who order others into battle. Nonetheless, do you not think that we still need to inculcate, even if a Noble Lie, the devotion to (as you put it) King and Country? If we didn't have that (perhaps imagined) Permanence which unites us, would we not degenerate into a dog-eat-dog world and fight amongst ourselves?

    After all, are not great civilizations torn down by civil strife rather than by external invaders?

  232. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Okay, but the U.S. occupied Iraq and arrested Saddam's inner circle and what do we have to show for it in terms of evidence that Iraq had any plans to conquer the rest of the Gulf?

    Replies: @Anon

    Okay, but the U.S. occupied Iraq and arrested Saddam’s inner circle and what do we have to show for it in terms of evidence that Iraq had any plans to conquer the rest of the Gulf?

    Would there be any evidence? Or would Saddam have held those details close to his chest on suspicion that some of his inner circle were in the employ of, or vulnerable to being bought by, foreign powers (including his neighbors, to whom that information would be most vital)? And indeed, two of his sons-in-law defected to Jordan after Desert Storm.Why would anyone assume that Saddam’s inner circle would reveal his secrets? One of the Shiite Arab hangmen who executed Saddam was assassinated in 2013. The brother of the man who informed on Saddam’s location was killed in 2004.

    Quite apart from fear of being killed, why would a loyal subordinate disclose this information? The Mafia is made up of amoral sociopathic borderline retards with few family ties and they don’t get many snitches, which is why it’s still in operation. Saddam’s inner circle was composed of fellow Tikritis who were in many cases blood relatives. Without the application of more ruthless methods, including the torture and incremental slaughter of friends and relatives, it’s doubtful that the inner circle could have been persuaded to give up their secrets. Sunni Arab insurgents killed almost 5000 GI’s armed-to-the-teeth with the latest and most expensive warfighting equipment in the world despite the fact that GI’s and Iraqis lived in separate worlds. Getting to a Sunni Arab snitch would have been a cakewalk compared to killing a GI.

  233. [China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.]

    What’s the secret for stringing words together in a way that is as far from expressing any thought as this? Drugs? Surgery? Mind-emptying meditation?

  234. @Ron Unz
    @Twinkie

    Well, possibly.

    I do periodically read the comment-threads, and since "Twinkie" comments so frequently I think I've formed a reasonable impression of him.

    He strikes me as highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about the issues he usually discusses, though admittedly those are often far from my own area of expertise. In personality, he also comes across as being very much the patriotic-hero warrior-type, courageously willing to sacrifice himself for King (so to speak) and Country.

    That's all well and good. All countries can certainly use a reasonable supply of patriotic-hero warrior-types, especially those also possessing strong moral and civic virtues. Unfortunately, such individuals are often overly focused on tactical matters and may thereby fail to notice the strategic. Put another way, their normal inclination is to loyally march where they are ordered, which may be a serious problem if the orders are misconceived or those giving the orders turn out to have a different agenda. Ignoring such distractions, they bravely march into battle against their opposite numbers among the "Enemy," who are often doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.

    Consider a biological metaphor. A particular muscle cell might be exemplary in its work, zealously expanding and contracting in response to the nerve signals it receives. But suppose the animal it serves has been infected with rabies, and the virus having seized control of the central nervous system despite merely constituting 0.0001% of the host's body-mass. Now in such a situation, that loyal, dedicated muscle-cell might actually be acting at cross-purposes to its body's best interests and indeed perhaps leading it into destruction.

    As I've mentioned before, I find it ironic that so many of the commenters here endlessly ridicule the utter dishonesty of Official Reality in one or two particular areas---obviously including immigration, since about 99% of them are apparently anti-immigrationist zealots---but they never seem to question most of the other areas. What a remarkable coincidence---the issues they have personally devoted great energy to investigating are false, but everything else is true.

    Although I'm currently preoccupied with software issues, those of you who haven't done so might at least want to glance at my American Pravda article of a year or two ago. The particular matters it presents are hardly earth-shattering, but I think some of the implications are fairly signicant.

    https://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Mr. Unz, I sincerely appreciate the personal reply as well as the very kind words about me.

    I must say, however, that (and this is not false modesty) to call me any kind of a “hero-type” is grossly off the mark. I’ve known and worked with real heroes. And some of them no longer draw breaths. And even the ones who are still alive usually don’t talk or write so much.

    Frankly, I am a coward. I prefer to dish out punishment rather than take it. I have the soul of a hill country bushwacker rather than that of a noble warrior who stands his ground against immense odds (I’d rather take potshots and scoot to fight another day).

    But I still thank you very much for the spirit in which you wrote those nice words.

    As for my loyalty, you correctly deduce that I tend toward what the post-war Germans call Kadavergehorsam (“zombie like obedience” to authority). But in my older years, I have become increasingly seditious to the Powers That Be in this country… which is why I so much enjoy my time alone on the hills. I am actually quite misanthropic now. People suck, those in power doubly so. Dogs are more loyal and dependable.

    Points taken about the motives of those who order others into battle. Nonetheless, do you not think that we still need to inculcate, even if a Noble Lie, the devotion to (as you put it) King and Country? If we didn’t have that (perhaps imagined) Permanence which unites us, would we not degenerate into a dog-eat-dog world and fight amongst ourselves?

    After all, are not great civilizations torn down by civil strife rather than by external invaders?

  235. “Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock.”

    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans and other East Asian groups. The only type of White people who on average can tell East Asians and Southeast Asians apart are either those who are obsessed with Asian culture and have a lot of Asian friends or those who live in a state with a large Asian population like California and Hawaii.

    I am a White guy who lives in San Francisco, so I learned to spot differences even if minor among many different Mongoloid Asian groups. If I had lived in flyover country my whole life, I probably would not have this ability because there are very few Asians in flyover country. A Cambodian can tell White people that she or he is 100 percent Japanese and most White people would believe that person. But most Japanese people would be suspicious and think there is something off about that person.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike. I am Italian (Sicilian and Calabrian) but if I told Mongoloid Asians that I am 100 percent Norwegian, most of them would believe me. But most actual Norwegians would be suspicious of my claim of being 100 percent ethnically Norwegian and think there is something off about me.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Jefferson

    My wife is Vietnamese. She used to work in a Japanese restaurant in Europe. The Japanese patrons of the restaurant sometimes started talking to her in Japanese, in the mistaken belief that she was Japanese, too. To be sure, this was a minority of Japanese patrons visiting the restaurant, but still. I asked my wife sometimes about some random East Asian looking guys whether they were Vietnamese or Chinese, and sometimes she couldn't tell, at least not before hearing them speak. Weirdly enough once she told me she had to watch them move, because - according to her - Vietnamese move their bodies very differently from Chinese.

    A Chinese girl once explained to me that Japanese looked different from Koreans and Chinese still different from Koreans, but she also wasn't always totally sure, especially if it was just one person. She also told me that sometimes Vietnamese could be mistaken for Chinese and vice versa, but usually it was easy for her to tell them apart. So basically the same thing as my wife told me. A group of Vietnamese are easy to tell apart from Koreans, but some Koreans look a bit off and some Vietnamese also and so there could be some overlap. Just like your odd redhead Arab or South Italian might look a bit Irish or something.

    I am ginger myself and people rarely if ever correctly guess my being Hungarian. Strangely in Hungary even in touristy places where waiters normally speak English they usually start talking to me in Hungarian, though, but not always, so sometimes they think I'm a foreigner and start talking to me in English. Maybe it's a clue that my face shows I understand what they talk to each other, or something.

    I also have difficulty guessing Hungarian faces. Hungarians are a mixed bunch, and usually some Western Slavs, some Austrians, some Bavarians, some South Slavs, etc. look just like this or that Hungarian. But I think I would be better than random at recognizing Hungarian faces.

    , @Twinkie
    @Jefferson


    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans
     
    I think you grossly underestimate the eyes of other whites. Even in, as you call it, "flyover country" whence my wife hails. Because of universities and military (experience), quite a few "flyover" folks can tell Asians apart pretty easily. When I visited my in-laws for the first time, their old white guy neighbor (which describes most of their neighbors) immediately started to speak to me in my birth tongue. Former military and former USG service overseas. He was (and is) very fluent.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike.
     
    What do you mean "your people"?

    I think you also underestimate East Asians. They may not guess with great accuracy and detail, but they'll instinctively distinguish between southern Italians and Scandinavians. They look pretty obviously different.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  236. @Jefferson
    "Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock."

    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans and other East Asian groups. The only type of White people who on average can tell East Asians and Southeast Asians apart are either those who are obsessed with Asian culture and have a lot of Asian friends or those who live in a state with a large Asian population like California and Hawaii.

    I am a White guy who lives in San Francisco, so I learned to spot differences even if minor among many different Mongoloid Asian groups. If I had lived in flyover country my whole life, I probably would not have this ability because there are very few Asians in flyover country. A Cambodian can tell White people that she or he is 100 percent Japanese and most White people would believe that person. But most Japanese people would be suspicious and think there is something off about that person.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike. I am Italian (Sicilian and Calabrian) but if I told Mongoloid Asians that I am 100 percent Norwegian, most of them would believe me. But most actual Norwegians would be suspicious of my claim of being 100 percent ethnically Norwegian and think there is something off about me.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    My wife is Vietnamese. She used to work in a Japanese restaurant in Europe. The Japanese patrons of the restaurant sometimes started talking to her in Japanese, in the mistaken belief that she was Japanese, too. To be sure, this was a minority of Japanese patrons visiting the restaurant, but still. I asked my wife sometimes about some random East Asian looking guys whether they were Vietnamese or Chinese, and sometimes she couldn’t tell, at least not before hearing them speak. Weirdly enough once she told me she had to watch them move, because – according to her – Vietnamese move their bodies very differently from Chinese.

    A Chinese girl once explained to me that Japanese looked different from Koreans and Chinese still different from Koreans, but she also wasn’t always totally sure, especially if it was just one person. She also told me that sometimes Vietnamese could be mistaken for Chinese and vice versa, but usually it was easy for her to tell them apart. So basically the same thing as my wife told me. A group of Vietnamese are easy to tell apart from Koreans, but some Koreans look a bit off and some Vietnamese also and so there could be some overlap. Just like your odd redhead Arab or South Italian might look a bit Irish or something.

    I am ginger myself and people rarely if ever correctly guess my being Hungarian. Strangely in Hungary even in touristy places where waiters normally speak English they usually start talking to me in Hungarian, though, but not always, so sometimes they think I’m a foreigner and start talking to me in English. Maybe it’s a clue that my face shows I understand what they talk to each other, or something.

    I also have difficulty guessing Hungarian faces. Hungarians are a mixed bunch, and usually some Western Slavs, some Austrians, some Bavarians, some South Slavs, etc. look just like this or that Hungarian. But I think I would be better than random at recognizing Hungarian faces.

  237. @Dave Pinsen
    @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    You ought to read Gavin McInnis's piece in Takimag for some color on Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists: http://takimag.com/article/nous_sommes_tous_des_francais_gavin_mcinnes#axzz3OO0Tn98B

    Gavin's not shy about criticizing Jews, but he's also a French speaker and knowledgeable about French culture, and he doesn't draw the same conclusion you do.

    Replies: @Ron Unz, @tomv

    A French speaker? He can’t be a very good one, witness the awkward phrasing of his title.

  238. @HA
    @reiner Tor

    He did play that game.

    No, he didn’t. He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail? No dead female or life mail hookers rattling around in any of those car trunks? But no, Putin couldn't be bothered to dig them out. He is lucky the USSR he is so nostalgic for is defunct. If anyone had done such a slipshod job of infiltration during Stalin’s era, a slow death in Siberia would be the best he could hope for. And none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect. If it did, Putin wouldn’t have to resort to nutjob propaganda by paid trolls and like-minded amateurs detailing how Banderites and Illuminati and, for all I know, vampires and other Carpathian ghouls, that are supposedly thirsting for Russian blood.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world’s second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.

    ...the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke.

    Well, if that's the best defense you can mount, I think we can leave it there. Oh look, here's some other agreements Putin *didn't* break! And they're WAY more important.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor

    He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail?

    Wow. So you think Putin could have bought ALL politicians and oligarchs in Ukraine, in spite of the best American efforts for this not to happen. But… I mean, couldn’t the Americans do the same thing? What would have happened if they also upped the ante? In fact, how do you know that this is not what happened? (Everyone knows that after the Orange Revolution a lot of pro-Western politicians were bought off or blackmailed into Yanukovich’s camp. In fact, that’s how Yanukovich managed to get a clear majority. Putin played this game and lost.) Obviously if one side can buy all politicians in a country, so can the other. But since one politician cannot be simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-American, only one of them can prevail. It sort of reminds of the unstoppable cannon ball hitting the unbreakable city wall… The two cannot exist in the same universe.

    By the way, what do you think about American meddling? Why was it necessary at all? Why were Nuland and her ilk spending billions of dollars, freezing assets of pro-Russian oligarchs (as I already said, that was something Putin couldn’t match), etc.? Only to make Putin pay even more for Ukrainian oligarchs? Or for some other reason? And why do you think it was good for America (or the West in general)?

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.

    Well, it was Yeltsin’s decision not to keep the other republics which he considered to be much poorer and hence worthless in times of economic trouble. Siberia will never be thought of this way. But we don’t have to debate it here, we’ll see over the next few decades. I still can’t imagine how Siberia will become Chinese. BTW why would it be good for Uncle Sam or the West in general? It would be very bad for all of us, for anybody other than China, I think. But it won’t happen.

    that’s the best defense you can mount

    I’m not here to defend Putin. He doesn’t need my defense at an obscure blog. I’m commenting for fun only. And I noticed a very bad argument, the Budapest Memorandum. Which is a worthless paper. You can bring up the UN Charter (which the US broke many more times since 1991 than Russia), the Helsinki Accords (which the US also broke), the Crimea military base agreement (this was only a matter between Russia and Ukraine, but of course the Ukrainians are within their rights to be mad about it), the NPT (which the US also broke), the CIS treaty (although other CIS states as signatories actually more or less accepted Putin’s moves), etc. But of course by bringing up these you’d have to acknowledge that international law was in fact first broken by the US (indeed neocons actually took delight around 2001-2003 in calling international law “irrelevant”), and that only long after that did Russia also break it. However, then Russia broke it even more than the US ever did.

  239. @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    Also these “immigrants” are already genetically half-Korean, culturally more than half so, they are incapable of creating ethnic networks, separate enclaves, etc.
     
    To be blunt, you have no idea what you are talking about here.

    Ethnic Koreans from China are frequently "full" Koreans, but because they have a very different culture, do not assimilate well among modern South Koreans and have become a large (often criminal) underclass in South Korea. Because of this, there is now a strong backlash against them. See:

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/11/2012041100974.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NE04Dg01.html

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The fact that there is a backlash against ethnic Koreans from China actually shows that what is happening in the West is totally unprecedented and unseen anywhere else in the world. So no, it’s not a North-South issue or whatever. What’s happening in the West is totally unique.

  240. @Twinkie
    @reiner Tor


    The reason for the Khafji attack was to create casualties for the coalition troops, but it failed to reach even its limited aims.
     
    It certainly showed that the regular Saudi troops couldn't hold the line and couldn't stand up to even the much devastated Iraqi troops. That they had to rely on foreign help and dig deep with their regime-preservation troops (the National Guard) to expel those few Iraqis who broke through the lines.

    In fact, if Saddam really intended to conquer Saudi Arabia, it would have made much more sense to do that right after the invasion of Kuwait
     
    We don't know what was in Saddam Hussein's mind, but I will hazard a guess. I don't think he intended to conquer all of the House of Islam. I think he intended to demolish Kuwait, an American protectorate, and show everyone in the neighborhood who was boss in the region. You don't have to conquer everyone to bend all to your will. You just have to kill a couple of guys, guys who thought they were protected by the all-powerful, and show everyone that you are serious and will be around when the "all-powerful" goes home oceans away.

    In retrospect, Saddam's only chance was probably, as you put it, to blitz the Kingdom before the heavy armor from Germany arrived and while the border was guarded by a few light troops and full of sitting duck aircraft. But that was an extremely high stakes "all-in" move, and Saddam was being cautious and thought, incorrectly, that he could negotiate a winning hand.

    But if things had gone as he wanted, and he was able to negotiate a winning settlement with the U.S. on the question of the border oil fields with Kuwait, imagine what his power would be in the Middle East. Remember Edward Luttwak's axiom: the use of power, being of a psychological nature, increases it, but the use of force, being of a material nature, consumes it.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @reiner Tor

    President Bush needed Margaret Thatcher to persuade him about pushing Iraq back by military force.

    Let’s accept the Kuwait war. Why couldn’t the US then leave the area (leaving some military bases in Kuwait just in case) and try to rebuild relations with Saddam? Mohamed Farrah Aidid’s son Hussein Farrah Aidid became a US ally after his father has fought the US in 1993. I know it was more complicated, but I can see no reason why Saddam needed to be made the permanent bad guy after 1993, and why his country needed to be handed over to the Iran-friendly Shia, only so that Saddam’s loyal Sunni clansmen could join ISIS in an insurgency against this Iran-friendly Shia government…

  241. @HA
    @reiner Tor

    He did play that game.

    No, he didn’t. He tried to play it on the cheap by pocketing one corrupt politician and sitting back and ignoring what happened elsewhere. You think Pravy Sektor is immune to blackmail? No dead female or life mail hookers rattling around in any of those car trunks? But no, Putin couldn't be bothered to dig them out. He is lucky the USSR he is so nostalgic for is defunct. If anyone had done such a slipshod job of infiltration during Stalin’s era, a slow death in Siberia would be the best he could hope for. And none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect. If it did, Putin wouldn’t have to resort to nutjob propaganda by paid trolls and like-minded amateurs detailing how Banderites and Illuminati and, for all I know, vampires and other Carpathian ghouls, that are supposedly thirsting for Russian blood.

    I wish good luck to the Chinese doing a Crimea on the world’s second nuclear military power. I hardly doubt they would do that, though.

    China doesn’t have to do much of anything. Rather, it’s what Russia will no longer be able to get away with. When that happened to the USSR, it didn’t last, nukes notwithstanding.

    ...the Budapest Memorandum was by far the least important paper Putin broke.

    Well, if that's the best defense you can mount, I think we can leave it there. Oh look, here's some other agreements Putin *didn't* break! And they're WAY more important.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor

    none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect

    It’s no justification, maybe. But that’s how life is. Putin found it a vital Russian interest (which it was and is) for Ukraine not to join the Western camp, and since he ran out of options, he took Crimea and instigated an insurgency in Ukraine. Push him into a corner, and he will attack, whether it’s within the international law or not. The US can of course object to it, but having violated international law countless times before, such objections matter very little for countries not directly involved, like India, China, etc.

    • Replies: @HA
    @reiner Tor

    "But that’s how life is."

    Just as long as we agree that he's flouting international law, that's fine with me, although I would also point out that there's more to renegging on an agreement than "loss of face". To take an analogous situation, if your credit score tanks due to your inability to honor your payments, you may well regard it as shameful and a besmirchment of your reputation, but there are other costs that need to be factored in. Until you can work that into your worldview, I think debating larger issues is rather pointless, so I'll mark the earlier comment as TLDR.

    As for what Putin is doing, that may be life, as you say, but so is blowback. It may take a while to happen, but happen it will.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  242. @Jefferson
    "Vietnamese are more like Mexicans and Central Americans in America. They are not “East Asians,” have very different phenotypes and are of a very different genetic stock from Koreans. Only whites who think that “all the Orientals look the same” would confuse the two as being of a same genetic stock."

    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans and other East Asian groups. The only type of White people who on average can tell East Asians and Southeast Asians apart are either those who are obsessed with Asian culture and have a lot of Asian friends or those who live in a state with a large Asian population like California and Hawaii.

    I am a White guy who lives in San Francisco, so I learned to spot differences even if minor among many different Mongoloid Asian groups. If I had lived in flyover country my whole life, I probably would not have this ability because there are very few Asians in flyover country. A Cambodian can tell White people that she or he is 100 percent Japanese and most White people would believe that person. But most Japanese people would be suspicious and think there is something off about that person.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike. I am Italian (Sicilian and Calabrian) but if I told Mongoloid Asians that I am 100 percent Norwegian, most of them would believe me. But most actual Norwegians would be suspicious of my claim of being 100 percent ethnically Norwegian and think there is something off about me.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Twinkie

    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans

    I think you grossly underestimate the eyes of other whites. Even in, as you call it, “flyover country” whence my wife hails. Because of universities and military (experience), quite a few “flyover” folks can tell Asians apart pretty easily. When I visited my in-laws for the first time, their old white guy neighbor (which describes most of their neighbors) immediately started to speak to me in my birth tongue. Former military and former USG service overseas. He was (and is) very fluent.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike.

    What do you mean “your people”?

    I think you also underestimate East Asians. They may not guess with great accuracy and detail, but they’ll instinctively distinguish between southern Italians and Scandinavians. They look pretty obviously different.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Twinkie

    East Asian World Cup soccer teams provide standardized photos of healthy young men by nationality -- see how well you can tell them apart.

  243. @Twinkie
    @Jefferson


    Most White people can not tell a Vietnamese or any other Mongoloid Southeast Asian apart from Koreans
     
    I think you grossly underestimate the eyes of other whites. Even in, as you call it, "flyover country" whence my wife hails. Because of universities and military (experience), quite a few "flyover" folks can tell Asians apart pretty easily. When I visited my in-laws for the first time, their old white guy neighbor (which describes most of their neighbors) immediately started to speak to me in my birth tongue. Former military and former USG service overseas. He was (and is) very fluent.

    But on the flip side, Twinkie most of your people think all White people look alike.
     
    What do you mean "your people"?

    I think you also underestimate East Asians. They may not guess with great accuracy and detail, but they'll instinctively distinguish between southern Italians and Scandinavians. They look pretty obviously different.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    East Asian World Cup soccer teams provide standardized photos of healthy young men by nationality — see how well you can tell them apart.

  244. @reiner Tor
    @HA


    none of your litany of football hooligans and whatever begins to rise to a justification for tearing off a neighboring country whose borders you obligated yourself to protect
     
    It's no justification, maybe. But that's how life is. Putin found it a vital Russian interest (which it was and is) for Ukraine not to join the Western camp, and since he ran out of options, he took Crimea and instigated an insurgency in Ukraine. Push him into a corner, and he will attack, whether it's within the international law or not. The US can of course object to it, but having violated international law countless times before, such objections matter very little for countries not directly involved, like India, China, etc.

    Replies: @HA

    “But that’s how life is.”

    Just as long as we agree that he’s flouting international law, that’s fine with me, although I would also point out that there’s more to renegging on an agreement than “loss of face”. To take an analogous situation, if your credit score tanks due to your inability to honor your payments, you may well regard it as shameful and a besmirchment of your reputation, but there are other costs that need to be factored in. Until you can work that into your worldview, I think debating larger issues is rather pointless, so I’ll mark the earlier comment as TLDR.

    As for what Putin is doing, that may be life, as you say, but so is blowback. It may take a while to happen, but happen it will.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @HA


    there’s more to renegging on an agreement
     
    There was no formal agreement to do anything, so by doing nothing the US would renege on no agreement. Not to mention that the US broke things like the UN Charter before many times. Did you feel shame when the US started bombing Serbia, or when it invaded Iraq, or helped bomb Libya, or when McCain entered Syrian territory without a visa or permission from its government? Or to get closer to the Ukraine crisis, when three EU foreign ministers signed an agreement together with Ukraine opposition leaders and Mr. Yanukovich to keep Yanukovich as president until the early elections in May, and Yanukovich was deposed (unconstitutionally) less than two days later, and there was no protest from the signatories (except of course on Mr. Yanukovich's part), did you condemn it? Did you think the EU foreign ministers (the people, not the countries) were acting dishonorably when they watched their written words being broken and didn't even protest? At least they could have pointed out that Mr. Yanukovich was deposed in violation of the Ukraine constitution.

    Oh, and maybe my English is at fault, but besmirchment of reputation is actually quite similar to loss of face: both are lower types of morality, when you are concerned about what others think of you. So I don't understand why you thought loss of face was not at stake for NATO here, now that they have made a lot of noise to support Ukraine. I think loss of face should somehow be prevented (or at least minimized) for all parties involved now.

    I also doubt morality (the shame type, not the reputation type) can be applied to countries. President G. H. W. Bush was a different person than Obama. Obama cannot be morally obligated to honor Bush's unbinding promise. Hence, countries have no morality, only persons.

    Another point is that you seem to think that non-written agreements mean nothing, you mocked the idea that the West should have kept the unwritten promise made to Gorbachev not to enlarge NATO. You explicitly stated that because there was nothing written, it didn't exist. A rather strange interpretation of morals, once we accept your bizarre idea of countries having morality.

    You also mocked the idea that such an important point (non-enlargement of NATO) could stay unwritten. Well, it is generally understood that in Yalta the US and UK agreed to the partition of Europe. Except that it was never written anywhere. But when Soviet troops put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956 (at the time there was no legal basis at all for Soviet troops stationing in Hungary, not even an agreement between the puppet government of communist Hungary and the USSR) or when Warsaw Pact troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968, nobody did anything, because it was understood that these countries were part of the Soviet sphere of influence. But it was and remained unwritten. And now you think such an important thing as spheres of influence would be put in writing... well, they never were, not since 1945.

  245. “East Asian World Cup soccer teams provide standardized photos of healthy young men by nationality — see how well you can tell them apart.”

    Steve you live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area which has a large Asian population especially in the San Gabriel Valley, Long Beach, and Orange County. How good are you at telling apart Southeast Asians from East Asians ?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jefferson

    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. I got 9 right, while random guessing would most often lead to 6 right. So I was 50% better than random but only 25% of the way from random to perfect.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  246. @Jefferson
    "East Asian World Cup soccer teams provide standardized photos of healthy young men by nationality — see how well you can tell them apart."

    Steve you live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area which has a large Asian population especially in the San Gabriel Valley, Long Beach, and Orange County. How good are you at telling apart Southeast Asians from East Asians ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. I got 9 right, while random guessing would most often lead to 6 right. So I was 50% better than random but only 25% of the way from random to perfect.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese.
     
    Mr. Sailer, I think you misunderstood the point of contention between Jefferson and me.

    We are not talking about telling Koreans and Japanese apart (both East Asians), but Koreans and Vietnamese apart (NE Asians and SE Asians).

    See a Vietnamese fast food worker: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3730911121_2d4a731ac9.jpg

    Now see a North Korean fast food worker: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2009/10/12/2009101200371_0.jpg

    I think most whites, on the skin tone alone, can tell the two apart. Now where it gets tricky is with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Even then, with most of them being of Southern Chinese origin with considerable Austronesian genetic input, they look very different from, say, Koreans who have almost zero Austronesian genes. Koreans are almost pure Siberian paleo-hunters in their genetic origins.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  247. @Steve Sailer
    @Jefferson

    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. I got 9 right, while random guessing would most often lead to 6 right. So I was 50% better than random but only 25% of the way from random to perfect.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese.

    Mr. Sailer, I think you misunderstood the point of contention between Jefferson and me.

    We are not talking about telling Koreans and Japanese apart (both East Asians), but Koreans and Vietnamese apart (NE Asians and SE Asians).

    See a Vietnamese fast food worker:

    Now see a North Korean fast food worker:

    I think most whites, on the skin tone alone, can tell the two apart. Now where it gets tricky is with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Even then, with most of them being of Southern Chinese origin with considerable Austronesian genetic input, they look very different from, say, Koreans who have almost zero Austronesian genes. Koreans are almost pure Siberian paleo-hunters in their genetic origins.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Twinkie

    Vietnamese are usually quite a bit darker skinned than Koreans (similarly to how Italians are different from Swedes), but many Vietnamese have lighter skins more similar to your North Korean fast food worker examples (especially city dwellers who work permanently indoors, and most especially Vietnamese living in European countries with foggy weather). Also most Vietnamese are not nearly as fat as the fast food worker used in your example.

    I would say Vietnamese look more similar to South Chinese than to Cambodians, but they are normally distinguishable from Japanese and Koreans (or North Chinese). Sometimes it's easy (I could easily tell North Chinese tourists apart from locals in Nha Trang), but sometimes not so much (like my wife in Japanese clothes when seen by Japanese patrons in the restaurant).

  248. “Mr. Sailer, I think you misunderstood the point of contention between Jefferson and me.

    We are not talking about telling Koreans and Japanese apart (both East Asians), but Koreans and Vietnamese apart (NE Asians and SE Asians).

    See a Vietnamese fast food worker:
    Now see a North Korean fast food worker:
    I think most whites, on the skin tone alone, can tell the two apart. Now where it gets tricky is with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Even then, with most of them being of Southern Chinese origin with considerable Austronesian genetic input, they look very different from, say, Koreans who have almost zero Austronesian genes. Koreans are almost pure Siberian paleo-hunters in their genetic origins.”

    Even though Koreans lack the Austronesian genes, they are still capable of getting very dark tans. I have seen tanned Koreans and Japanese who look as Brown as a Khmer and a Filipino. Japanese and Koreans who are obsessed with tanning are usually the health buffs who work out at the gym a lot.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Jefferson


    Even though Koreans lack the Austronesian genes, they are still capable of getting very dark tans. I have seen tanned Koreans and Japanese who look as Brown as a Khmer and a Filipino.
     
    Look no further than Korean-Japanese Judo star and MMA fighter Yoshihiro Akiyama/Choo Sung-Hoon (aka "Sexyama"):

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vC7rHR9oCKU/SEEwpcxEotI/AAAAAAAAEOA/YosbuDzEpgg/s400/go+ara+choo+sung+hoon.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vC7rHR9oCKU/SEEwp8xEoxI/AAAAAAAAEOg/EZRrAfdRSBU/s400/go+ara+choo+sung+hoon4.jpg

    That guy gets very tan.

    By the way, this whole conversation reminds me of the scene in which Kahn the Laotian is introduced in the animation "King of the Hill":

    Hank meets Kahn for the first time.

    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: I live in California last twenty year, but, ah... first come from Laos.
    Hank Hill: Huh?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: Laos. We Laotian.
    Bill Dauterive: The ocean? What ocean?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: We are Laotian--from Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in southeast Asia. It's between Vietnam and Thailand, OK? Population 4.7 million.

    Hank ponders this for a few seconds.
    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
     
  249. @Jefferson
    "Mr. Sailer, I think you misunderstood the point of contention between Jefferson and me.

    We are not talking about telling Koreans and Japanese apart (both East Asians), but Koreans and Vietnamese apart (NE Asians and SE Asians).

    See a Vietnamese fast food worker: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3730911121_2d4a731ac9.jpg

    Now see a North Korean fast food worker: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2009/10/12/2009101200371_0.jpg

    I think most whites, on the skin tone alone, can tell the two apart. Now where it gets tricky is with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Even then, with most of them being of Southern Chinese origin with considerable Austronesian genetic input, they look very different from, say, Koreans who have almost zero Austronesian genes. Koreans are almost pure Siberian paleo-hunters in their genetic origins."

    Even though Koreans lack the Austronesian genes, they are still capable of getting very dark tans. I have seen tanned Koreans and Japanese who look as Brown as a Khmer and a Filipino. Japanese and Koreans who are obsessed with tanning are usually the health buffs who work out at the gym a lot.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Even though Koreans lack the Austronesian genes, they are still capable of getting very dark tans. I have seen tanned Koreans and Japanese who look as Brown as a Khmer and a Filipino.

    Look no further than Korean-Japanese Judo star and MMA fighter Yoshihiro Akiyama/Choo Sung-Hoon (aka “Sexyama”):

    That guy gets very tan.

    By the way, this whole conversation reminds me of the scene in which Kahn the Laotian is introduced in the animation “King of the Hill”:

    Hank meets Kahn for the first time.

    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: I live in California last twenty year, but, ah… first come from Laos.
    Hank Hill: Huh?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: Laos. We Laotian.
    Bill Dauterive: The ocean? What ocean?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: We are Laotian–from Laos, stupid! It’s a landlocked country in southeast Asia. It’s between Vietnam and Thailand, OK? Population 4.7 million.

    Hank ponders this for a few seconds.
    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?

  250. “By the way, this whole conversation reminds me of the scene in which Kahn the Laotian is introduced in the animation “King of the Hill”:

    Hank meets Kahn for the first time.

    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: I live in California last twenty year, but, ah… first come from Laos.
    Hank Hill: Huh?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: Laos. We Laotian.
    Bill Dauterive: The ocean? What ocean?
    Kahn Souphanousinphone: We are Laotian–from Laos, stupid! It’s a landlocked country in southeast Asia. It’s between Vietnam and Thailand, OK? Population 4.7 million.

    Hank ponders this for a few seconds.
    Hank Hill: So are you Chinese or Japanese?”

    I have never watched”King Of The Hill” but it is suppose to take place in Texas correct ? Texas has a large Vietnamese population in the Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas, so I am surprised Hank believes there is only 2 types of Asians and that is Chinese and Japanese. Unless Hank lives in rural Texas out in the sticks in Deliverance country.

  251. Texas has a large Vietnamese population in the Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas, so I am surprised Hank believes there is only 2 types of Asians and that is Chinese and Japanese. Unless Hank lives in rural Texas out in the sticks in Deliverance country.

    It take place in a small town in Texas.

  252. “It take place in a small town in Texas.”

    Figures it was not located in suburb of a major metropolitan area like Dallas or Austin.

  253. @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    I took a quiz once of 18 photos divided equally among Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese.
     
    Mr. Sailer, I think you misunderstood the point of contention between Jefferson and me.

    We are not talking about telling Koreans and Japanese apart (both East Asians), but Koreans and Vietnamese apart (NE Asians and SE Asians).

    See a Vietnamese fast food worker: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3730911121_2d4a731ac9.jpg

    Now see a North Korean fast food worker: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2009/10/12/2009101200371_0.jpg

    I think most whites, on the skin tone alone, can tell the two apart. Now where it gets tricky is with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Even then, with most of them being of Southern Chinese origin with considerable Austronesian genetic input, they look very different from, say, Koreans who have almost zero Austronesian genes. Koreans are almost pure Siberian paleo-hunters in their genetic origins.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Vietnamese are usually quite a bit darker skinned than Koreans (similarly to how Italians are different from Swedes), but many Vietnamese have lighter skins more similar to your North Korean fast food worker examples (especially city dwellers who work permanently indoors, and most especially Vietnamese living in European countries with foggy weather). Also most Vietnamese are not nearly as fat as the fast food worker used in your example.

    I would say Vietnamese look more similar to South Chinese than to Cambodians, but they are normally distinguishable from Japanese and Koreans (or North Chinese). Sometimes it’s easy (I could easily tell North Chinese tourists apart from locals in Nha Trang), but sometimes not so much (like my wife in Japanese clothes when seen by Japanese patrons in the restaurant).

  254. @HA
    @reiner Tor

    "But that’s how life is."

    Just as long as we agree that he's flouting international law, that's fine with me, although I would also point out that there's more to renegging on an agreement than "loss of face". To take an analogous situation, if your credit score tanks due to your inability to honor your payments, you may well regard it as shameful and a besmirchment of your reputation, but there are other costs that need to be factored in. Until you can work that into your worldview, I think debating larger issues is rather pointless, so I'll mark the earlier comment as TLDR.

    As for what Putin is doing, that may be life, as you say, but so is blowback. It may take a while to happen, but happen it will.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    there’s more to renegging on an agreement

    There was no formal agreement to do anything, so by doing nothing the US would renege on no agreement. Not to mention that the US broke things like the UN Charter before many times. Did you feel shame when the US started bombing Serbia, or when it invaded Iraq, or helped bomb Libya, or when McCain entered Syrian territory without a visa or permission from its government? Or to get closer to the Ukraine crisis, when three EU foreign ministers signed an agreement together with Ukraine opposition leaders and Mr. Yanukovich to keep Yanukovich as president until the early elections in May, and Yanukovich was deposed (unconstitutionally) less than two days later, and there was no protest from the signatories (except of course on Mr. Yanukovich’s part), did you condemn it? Did you think the EU foreign ministers (the people, not the countries) were acting dishonorably when they watched their written words being broken and didn’t even protest? At least they could have pointed out that Mr. Yanukovich was deposed in violation of the Ukraine constitution.

    Oh, and maybe my English is at fault, but besmirchment of reputation is actually quite similar to loss of face: both are lower types of morality, when you are concerned about what others think of you. So I don’t understand why you thought loss of face was not at stake for NATO here, now that they have made a lot of noise to support Ukraine. I think loss of face should somehow be prevented (or at least minimized) for all parties involved now.

    I also doubt morality (the shame type, not the reputation type) can be applied to countries. President G. H. W. Bush was a different person than Obama. Obama cannot be morally obligated to honor Bush’s unbinding promise. Hence, countries have no morality, only persons.

    Another point is that you seem to think that non-written agreements mean nothing, you mocked the idea that the West should have kept the unwritten promise made to Gorbachev not to enlarge NATO. You explicitly stated that because there was nothing written, it didn’t exist. A rather strange interpretation of morals, once we accept your bizarre idea of countries having morality.

    You also mocked the idea that such an important point (non-enlargement of NATO) could stay unwritten. Well, it is generally understood that in Yalta the US and UK agreed to the partition of Europe. Except that it was never written anywhere. But when Soviet troops put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956 (at the time there was no legal basis at all for Soviet troops stationing in Hungary, not even an agreement between the puppet government of communist Hungary and the USSR) or when Warsaw Pact troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968, nobody did anything, because it was understood that these countries were part of the Soviet sphere of influence. But it was and remained unwritten. And now you think such an important thing as spheres of influence would be put in writing… well, they never were, not since 1945.

  255. If international law ever existed, the west killed it when they recognised Kosovo.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS