The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: "Fear Ignorance, Not Muslims"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

The headline on an NYT Editorial waging the War on Noticing:

Fear Ignorance, Not Muslims

One of the reasons the name George Orwell still comes up all the time is Orwell’s deep insight into the tendencies of political journalists, such as the urge to call things by their direct opposite. Clearly, the NYT is calling for ignorance, but is invincibly convinced that it is on the side of knowledge.

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe141761.html#kVHUo1ae0e4p7tHU.99

  2. Obviously, the NYT loves Big Brother.

    Interestingly, Trump specifically said we need to figure out what is going on.

  3. “Ignorant” is used by SJWs in the same way that millenials (at least stereotypically) use the word “literally”.

    Perhaps a relevant anecdote was a discussion on the off-topic political subforum on a message board for my favorite NFL team about the no indictment in the Michael Brown case. One of the conservative posters, for months had been predicting that there would be no indictment, and, by message board standards anyway, methodically recounting the many ways in which the SJW narrative of the whole thing was preposterous. He turned out to be vindicated, of course, even by Eric Holder’s DOJ. Yet the lefties, even the ones that appeared to be pretty smart would just respond, “you my friend are ignorant.” I almost wonder if there’s some secret memo somewhere that instructs SJWs to call someone ignorant as kind of a last resort.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It means "I lack the desire and/or intellectual capacity to refute your claims but I don't want to concede anything so I'll just fling shit."
    , @Buffalo Joe
    My two youngest children (daughters), aged 28 and 25 use ignorant in this manner, as in; "Oh, that's just ignorant.", when they don't agree with a point of view. Must be something they learned in their recent education. Strange, too, that someone would preface the statement with..."you, MY FRIEND are ignorant." Hardly a friendly thing to do, call someone your friend, and then tell them they are ignorant. What happened to....."You know my friend, I think that you are mistaken."
  4. “Ignorance” is one of those words that has subtly changed in meaning over the last few decades. I’d be interested to read a good analysis of the political history of the word between, say, 1950 and the present.

    If someone does it, they can call on the services of Google ngram.

    First shot: “ignorant racist” Ngrammed. Began to grow in mid-1980s but really took off in late 1990s. Broke previous high watermark of 1960s in year 2000.

    Appeared 13x more often in 2008 (last year of Ngram data) than in 1985.

  5. Anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don’t control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Bastion
    Muslim eruptions and the reactions have taken how many trillion dollars out of the US economy over the last few decades? And furthermore their violence has provided the convenient fig leaf for a host of intrusions on our liberties. I know memories fade quickly, but remember what it was like to fly 20 years ago? Remember when you could see a loved one off at the gate?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "They will always be a small minority. "

    Unless and until they become a large minority. Now's the time to prevent that.

    And as Bastion pointed out, accomodating the disclocation they bring has cost us dearly, both in money and loss of liberty.
    , @Jefferson
    "One thing for sure, Muslims don’t control the NYT"

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim. And I don't think he would appreciate you lumping his power into the Jewish power category. To Arabs the biggest insult in the world is being mistaken for a Jew.

    Carlos Slim is a greedy dirty capitalist Lebanese Arab, not a greedy dirty capitalist Jew.
    , @Discard
    "They will always be a small minority". Famous last words.
    , @Jefferson
    "There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority."

    It's all about proportions. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but on a per capita basis they sure have committed a lot of terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil for such a small miniscule demographic.

    If a bunch of religious extremist Orthodox and Hasidic Jews went around committing terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil, I doubt you would say religious Jews do not pose much of a threat to the U.S. You would be the first to say the U.S needs to bomb Israel out of existence or at least advocate for a ban on all Jewish immigrants from entering The U.S in order to prevent anymore terrorist attacks on U.S soil from crazy violent religious Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, even if most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists but you would not want to take any chances. As for you even 1 Jewish terrorist would be 1 terrorist too many.

    Anon you give Muslims a pass for things that you would never in a million years give Jews a pass for.

    , @Gp


    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.
     
    You could be an Englishman, or Frenchman, twenty years ago.
  6. I am continually amazed at how many things the left says are direct opposites of reality. A lot of it is due to projection but it even goes beyond that. Sometimes I come across a another instance of an opposite and I think, “Wow! Another opposite. I should have been noting all these opposites down. Oh well, too late now, I have forgotten too many good examples.” and then I come across a half a dozen more instances.

    Regarding “ignorance,” I seriously believe there is a not tiny contingent of the “Oh my God! That’s sooo ignorant!” brigade who don’t even know what the word means.

    • Replies: @wolfy
    the right is also ignorant about several things.
    , @Fun with aluminum
    Agree wholeheartedly, right down to thinking "hey, I should really be cataloguing all of these examples of inversion". While I am leery of the whole diagnose-your-political-opponents-with-mental-illness routine, the inversion of reality is so consistent that there must be some psychological explanation.

    Three examples that come to mind:

    1) The iSteve classic: prog garment-rending over the unending threat to innocent black bodies posed by racist white men with guns.
    2) The focus of 100% of "rape culture" propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.
    3) The classic line of shills for Hamas (whose charter is explicitly exterminationist, and whose only political tactic is random murder): these people will invariably tell you the real problem in "Palestine" is Israel's lack of concern for "human rights".

    It would be interesting if someone were to put together a larger catalogue of these inversions.
  7. Progressives think education is the solution to everything. Maybe it’s because they’re all schoolmarms at heart.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    'Education' is always the solution for them, because they are the educators and they get to craft the curriculum.
  8. Why is it that after the Colorado Springs planned parent hood shooting, The New York Times did not write an article titled “Fear Ignorance, Not White Males”?

  9. The corollary on Twitter this PM was fear Trump not Muslim’s. Funny how a guy depicted as an unserious candidate by journalists is now taken very serious by same.

  10. I’ve got to ask “who’s really afraid?” the NY Times is calling for national “disarmament” while uttering not a peep about the victory of the Front National.

    Clearly there’s a lot of fear behind this push to neuter Americans. The white-faced, nightmarish fear that accompanies a guilty conscience. All the NY Times is doing lately is screaming about the need to disarm American citizens. Given crime stats it doesn’t really add up unless you take another step and look into their terror-stricken souls.

    Marion Marechal-Le Pen is correct: the old order is in its death throes. All it can do is writhe in fear of the people it has betrayed.

  11. Why is the New York Times leading the assault on the most fundamental human rights, namely self-defense and self-preservation?

    • Replies: @Hail
    Lothrop Stoddard was a New York Times correspondent into the 1940s. Imagine that. It's true.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Percy, The NYT misreads the American Public, the self preservation and self defense they are interested in, is their own. The pandering of a dying publication.
  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Related topic:

    Trump’s opponents all rushed into the trap tonight. I knew they were all mostly mediocre but even Cruz botched it.

    ISIS is going to strike again and Trump will be coronated. ISIS doesn’t even have to strike stateside.

    The thing about Trump is he demonstrates the total lameness of our top politicians. The puppeteers want dump puppets and that’s what we’ve got.

    Even Fiorina who is verbal and has some dexterity walked into this one.

    Judging by the recent frequency of ISIS attacks: there should be at least a half dozen significant attacks in the next year and Trump will leap higher with each one.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Trump’s opponents all rushed into the trap
     
    Rand Paul apparently called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration first, earlier in the day, but the media didn't explode. They only reacted to Trump.
  13. Fear? Ha ha ha ha. OK, I’m not nearly as bad as a lot of my friends, who seem to regard Islam as a death cult, a moon cult (yeah, that’s what they say). Long term, I do wonder if a multiconfessional state with pretensions of religious equality will work out, but that’s certainly not the same thing as fearing Muslims.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    Well, we've managed for more than 200 years....
  14. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    Muslim eruptions and the reactions have taken how many trillion dollars out of the US economy over the last few decades? And furthermore their violence has provided the convenient fig leaf for a host of intrusions on our liberties. I know memories fade quickly, but remember what it was like to fly 20 years ago? Remember when you could see a loved one off at the gate?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Well said.
    , @Bill Jones
    You do realize it was the West which attacked the Muslim world, don't you?
  15. Is it really productive to fear muslims in America.. Considering what they’ve done, relative to their population in two decade time horizon?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Is it really productive to fear muslims in America.. Considering what they’ve done, relative to their population in two decade time horizon?"

    Yes, because it sends a very specific message to muslims: You are not welcome here. And it sends a message to would-be immigrants more generally: You are not welcome here.
  16. Some–not all, but some–Muslims are inspired to commit terrorism based on the things they read in the Koran. People who can’t grasp that shouldn’t be our leaders. (Or do they grasp it but strategically think it’s better to lie and say it’s not true?)

  17. Trump’s position is rational.

    I suspect the patron of liberals, FDR, would support such a move. Shows you how far the left has turned away from the American people.

  18. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    “They will always be a small minority. ”

    Unless and until they become a large minority. Now’s the time to prevent that.

    And as Bastion pointed out, accomodating the disclocation they bring has cost us dearly, both in money and loss of liberty.

  19. @Bastion
    Muslim eruptions and the reactions have taken how many trillion dollars out of the US economy over the last few decades? And furthermore their violence has provided the convenient fig leaf for a host of intrusions on our liberties. I know memories fade quickly, but remember what it was like to fly 20 years ago? Remember when you could see a loved one off at the gate?

    Well said.

  20. …such as the urge to call things by their direct opposite.

    There is also the urge to call someone a ‘friend’ with little or no context. Derb was apoplectic about Mark Zuckerberg this past weekend. Derb has his sound reasons, mine is that he has cheapened the word ‘friend’ to mean nothing. Zuck is NOT trying to call a friend an enemy, but he is trying to destroy a once meaningful word. (My phantom Facebook friends all agree.)

    Do not get a Facebook account or participate. Unless. of course, you can power-troll. I can’t, but I should leave that option open.

  21. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    “One thing for sure, Muslims don’t control the NYT”

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim. And I don’t think he would appreciate you lumping his power into the Jewish power category. To Arabs the biggest insult in the world is being mistaken for a Jew.

    Carlos Slim is a greedy dirty capitalist Lebanese Arab, not a greedy dirty capitalist Jew.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as "Arab"? Maronites often don't. It appears that Slim's father had ties to a rightwing Falangist (i.e., Fascist) party, as well as Slim's late wife being the cousin of Maronite warlord Bashir Gemayel.

    It would seem like an interesting topic for the New York Times to investigate, no?

    , @AnotherDad

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim.
     
    What the heck are you talking about? The Sulzbergers still own the Times and exert editorial control. Slim is a creditor and minority investor. His interests--which in terms of US policy, (promoting open immigration) are very well aligned with Jewish elites' minoritarianism--are well represented by the NYT.
  22. Michael Jackson used the word “ignorant” a lot when responding to questions about why he liked to sleep with little boys. South Park spoofed it:

  23. Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    "Oh no here come the Muslims! Geez, you guys are scared little pussies," Kikuyu said mockingly as people began screaming when the black-clad couple burst into the room where his Christmas party was being held and fired indiscriminately into the crowd.
    , @Bastion
    No, curtailing immigration from Islamic basket cases is the thin end of the wedge, Mr. Wizard. Once the public sees how "less immigration == more better" who knows how far we might ride that horse?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!"

    So if some muslim blows a gasket and decides to open up a can of jihad, we can use you as a human shield? I'm cool with that.
    , @AnAnon
    come on, put effort into your trolling.
    , @AnotherDad

    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!
     

    Exactly backwards. "We can't keep them out that would be mean!" That's classic pussy talk.

    The non-pussy move is to defend your territory against all comers so that it is there for your children, their children, etc. etc. Non pussy people--shall we call them "penis people"--are also on average more *rational*. Muslim immigration into the West (or honestly any non-muslim civilization) is one of those things for which there is absolutely no detectable up-side. The rational--penis people--response is ... "Uh, this is stupid, let's not do it."

    Being rational, farsighted, protective of your civilization--that's not being a pussy.

  24. “Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance — these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible.”

    – Isaiah Berlin

    When all you’ve got is a hammer…

  25. @Jefferson
    "One thing for sure, Muslims don’t control the NYT"

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim. And I don't think he would appreciate you lumping his power into the Jewish power category. To Arabs the biggest insult in the world is being mistaken for a Jew.

    Carlos Slim is a greedy dirty capitalist Lebanese Arab, not a greedy dirty capitalist Jew.

    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as “Arab”? Maronites often don’t. It appears that Slim’s father had ties to a rightwing Falangist (i.e., Fascist) party, as well as Slim’s late wife being the cousin of Maronite warlord Bashir Gemayel.

    It would seem like an interesting topic for the New York Times to investigate, no?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    Wikipedia has Carlos Slim is listed as an Arab Mexican. Which makes 100 percent sense, as he does not qualify as a European Mexican. Even George Lopez has more European ancestry than Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.
    , @ogunsiron
    A lot of christian Lebs identify as Arab but it's also quite common for them to identify as Lebanese, Phoenician, or even Syrian. I don't know how it is in Mexico but given the beating that whiteness is taking in north-american mainstream culture,I'm expecting Lebanese christians to start identifying more and more with the arab side. Flight from white, as you'd say.
    , @IBC

    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as “Arab”? Maronites often don’t.
     
    It's a testament to Mexico's assimilative power, that someone from an Arab immigrant background, like Carlos Slim, not only strongly identifies as Mexican, but chooses to live and work in the US just like millions of his old-stock mexicano countrymen from deepest Durango and beyond.

    Interestingly, one of the founders of the Ba'ath, Arab nationalist movement was a Syrian of Greek Orthodox background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aflaq (no connection to Gilbert Gottfried)

    The other two were Syrians of Alawite and Sunni origin.

    There's still a Ba'ath party in Lebanon but it doesn't appear to be that strong these days. Recently Hezbollah (backed by Assad), has gained the support of some Lebanese Christians, though for mostly pragmatic reasons it seems.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability
  26. @Anonymous
    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    “Oh no here come the Muslims! Geez, you guys are scared little pussies,” Kikuyu said mockingly as people began screaming when the black-clad couple burst into the room where his Christmas party was being held and fired indiscriminately into the crowd.

  27. @Harold
    I am continually amazed at how many things the left says are direct opposites of reality. A lot of it is due to projection but it even goes beyond that. Sometimes I come across a another instance of an opposite and I think, “Wow! Another opposite. I should have been noting all these opposites down. Oh well, too late now, I have forgotten too many good examples.” and then I come across a half a dozen more instances.

    Regarding “ignorance,” I seriously believe there is a not tiny contingent of the “Oh my God! That’s sooo ignorant!” brigade who don’t even know what the word means.

    the right is also ignorant about several things.

    • Replies: @bomag
    the right is also ignorant about several things

    Who's ignorance is more likely to take us over the societal cliff?

    The Left's foolishness will have us replaced/regulated out of existence. The Right's foolishness will give us slower GDP growth.
    , @AnotherDad

    the right is also ignorant about several things.
     
    *Everyone* is ignorant about some things.

    But if you try and wrap the current left\right dispute into five to ten general principles that underlie the dispute, the right is right about all of them, the left none of them.

    Here's a quickie go from my "rightest" perspective--what makes me "right wing":
    -- there is human nature, and it is neither all that malleable nor perfectible; utopia does not exist in this world
    -- people, groups of people (including the sexes) are not "all the same" but vary widely in their talents and inclinations
    -- people respond to incentives
    -- our traditions are valuable; (they are there for a reason, sort of "gelled knowledge")
    -- the family, not the state is the core institution of civilization
    -- government programs\actions\interventions may--and usually do--have unintended, unanticipated side effects
    -- state power is to be feared, not worshiped; it is best when exercised locally (closest to the people) and constrained

    A leftist could no doubt write down a list and come up with some boringly true statements--e.g. "the state can do good things"--which even a crazy right winger like me would agree with. But if he actually drilled into the areas of ideological dispute and wrote down a statement for his side--e.g. "nurture is more important than nature" or "we're all the same under the skin" or "diversity makes us stronger", he'd be wrong pretty much 100% of the time.
  28. @Percy Gryce
    Why is the New York Times leading the assault on the most fundamental human rights, namely self-defense and self-preservation?

    Lothrop Stoddard was a New York Times correspondent into the 1940s. Imagine that. It’s true.

  29. @Harold
    I am continually amazed at how many things the left says are direct opposites of reality. A lot of it is due to projection but it even goes beyond that. Sometimes I come across a another instance of an opposite and I think, “Wow! Another opposite. I should have been noting all these opposites down. Oh well, too late now, I have forgotten too many good examples.” and then I come across a half a dozen more instances.

    Regarding “ignorance,” I seriously believe there is a not tiny contingent of the “Oh my God! That’s sooo ignorant!” brigade who don’t even know what the word means.

    Agree wholeheartedly, right down to thinking “hey, I should really be cataloguing all of these examples of inversion”. While I am leery of the whole diagnose-your-political-opponents-with-mental-illness routine, the inversion of reality is so consistent that there must be some psychological explanation.

    Three examples that come to mind:

    1) The iSteve classic: prog garment-rending over the unending threat to innocent black bodies posed by racist white men with guns.
    2) The focus of 100% of “rape culture” propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.
    3) The classic line of shills for Hamas (whose charter is explicitly exterminationist, and whose only political tactic is random murder): these people will invariably tell you the real problem in “Palestine” is Israel’s lack of concern for “human rights”.

    It would be interesting if someone were to put together a larger catalogue of these inversions.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I'm waiting for a breakdown of American college campus sexual assault rates compared to the racial demographics of the school. That would be a real hoot!
    , @ben tillman

    2) The focus of 100% of “rape culture” propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.
     
    That's ridiculous. Sure, the "rape culture" propaganda greatly exaggerates things, but the truth is bad enough. Rape is common on college campuses.
  30. “Ignorant” of what you’re supposed to say and do to make the eye of Soros move on without fixing on you.

  31. @Steve Sailer
    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as "Arab"? Maronites often don't. It appears that Slim's father had ties to a rightwing Falangist (i.e., Fascist) party, as well as Slim's late wife being the cousin of Maronite warlord Bashir Gemayel.

    It would seem like an interesting topic for the New York Times to investigate, no?

    Wikipedia has Carlos Slim is listed as an Arab Mexican. Which makes 100 percent sense, as he does not qualify as a European Mexican. Even George Lopez has more European ancestry than Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.
     
    The San Bernardino terrorists were South Asian Pakistanis. Mark Zuckerberg is more Levantine than the San Bernardino terrorists.
    , @Jack D
    Slim has unremarkable European features. He is a fine Christian gentleman whose ancestors just happened to live at the eastern end of the Mediterranean instead of Spain or Italy.

    http://b-i.forbesimg.com/doliaestevez/files/2014/01/350px-CarlosSlimHelu-20101.jpg

    The San Bernardino terrorist were Pakistani and looked nothing like Slim.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151207093031-malik-farook-chicago-airport-medium-plus-169.jpg

    I wonder whether Farook went to work wearing this getup?
    , @AndrewR
    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It's just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back.
  32. @Anonymous
    Related topic:

    Trump's opponents all rushed into the trap tonight. I knew they were all mostly mediocre but even Cruz botched it.

    ISIS is going to strike again and Trump will be coronated. ISIS doesn't even have to strike stateside.

    The thing about Trump is he demonstrates the total lameness of our top politicians. The puppeteers want dump puppets and that's what we've got.

    Even Fiorina who is verbal and has some dexterity walked into this one.

    Judging by the recent frequency of ISIS attacks: there should be at least a half dozen significant attacks in the next year and Trump will leap higher with each one.

    Trump’s opponents all rushed into the trap

    Rand Paul apparently called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration first, earlier in the day, but the media didn’t explode. They only reacted to Trump.

  33. Why should we fear ignorance? I thought “ignorance is strength.”

  34. Rand Paul’s call for a Muslim immigration moratorium was apparently made in the morning of Dec. 7th (on a program called “America’s Newsroom,” airing 9 AM to 11 AM) (Link). Trump’s came something like six hours later on Dec. 7th.

    The evening news didn’t even mention Rand Paul’s, but Trump’s call immediately became Stop-the-Presses material.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don't pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now.
    , @Bill Jones
    Rand's not a threat to the system
  35. @Anonymous
    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    No, curtailing immigration from Islamic basket cases is the thin end of the wedge, Mr. Wizard. Once the public sees how “less immigration == more better” who knows how far we might ride that horse?

  36. @Anonymous
    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    “Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!”

    So if some muslim blows a gasket and decides to open up a can of jihad, we can use you as a human shield? I’m cool with that.

  37. This is just rhetoric, like FDR saying “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    This is just rhetoric, like FDR saying “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”.
     
    Was that before or after "Shinto is a religion of peace"?
  38. @Kaz
    Is it really productive to fear muslims in America.. Considering what they've done, relative to their population in two decade time horizon?

    “Is it really productive to fear muslims in America.. Considering what they’ve done, relative to their population in two decade time horizon?”

    Yes, because it sends a very specific message to muslims: You are not welcome here. And it sends a message to would-be immigrants more generally: You are not welcome here.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    That doesn't make the fear make any sense. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they're a big threat even when they're a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.
  39. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Since many of them have demonstrated that they are ignorant savages, it seem appropriate to fear Muslims.

  40. @Hail
    Rand Paul's call for a Muslim immigration moratorium was apparently made in the morning of Dec. 7th (on a program called "America's Newsroom," airing 9 AM to 11 AM) (Link). Trump's came something like six hours later on Dec. 7th.

    The evening news didn't even mention Rand Paul's, but Trump's call immediately became Stop-the-Presses material.

    Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don’t pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don’t pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now."

    Even though he favors legalizing The Chronic, you don't see Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, and The Dogg Pound endorsing Rand Paul for president. At the end of the day Rand Paul is still a Republican and that automatically makes him a White supremacist in the eyes of most Black voters.
    , @tbraton
    Very curious thinking on Rand Paul's part. In seeking to expand his base (I didn't realize that many blacks voted in Republican primaries), he kinda lost his natural base. Somehow he convinced himself that, if he trimmed and hedged his foreign policy positions, he wold make himself more acceptable to Sheldon Adelson and the neocon set.
  41. Mr. Anon—Unless and until they become a large minority. Now’s the time to prevent that.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    • Replies: @anon
    Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    I'm sure Lil' Dzhokhar probably was too. He won't be Lil' forever, you know.

    You're right, there are only about three million Muslims in the US. Considering that they pull off way more than 1% of the terrorist attacks, it would seem to indicate that there's a problem.

    And are the ones who aren't terrorists so great that we just can't live without them? We seem to have gotten by just fine when there were essentially zero Muslims here.
    , @Ragno
    Do we have a credible source for that? Because that number seems decidedly low....three million would probably just about cover the Michigan contingent. Here in Tel Aviv West, they are frickin' ubiquitous.

    Unless it's just me, and all those mosques one sees everywhere these days are like the sunspots and weather balloons people used to mistake for UFOs all the time back in the day.

  42. @Jefferson
    Wikipedia has Carlos Slim is listed as an Arab Mexican. Which makes 100 percent sense, as he does not qualify as a European Mexican. Even George Lopez has more European ancestry than Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.

    Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.

    The San Bernardino terrorists were South Asian Pakistanis. Mark Zuckerberg is more Levantine than the San Bernardino terrorists.

  43. @Jefferson
    Wikipedia has Carlos Slim is listed as an Arab Mexican. Which makes 100 percent sense, as he does not qualify as a European Mexican. Even George Lopez has more European ancestry than Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.

    Slim has unremarkable European features. He is a fine Christian gentleman whose ancestors just happened to live at the eastern end of the Mediterranean instead of Spain or Italy.

    The San Bernardino terrorist were Pakistani and looked nothing like Slim.

    I wonder whether Farook went to work wearing this getup?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Slim has unremarkable European features."

    Slim does not have unremarkable European features. He looks closer to a Jew in phenotype than he does to a Norwegian or a Swedish. He has a typical Levantine phenotype.
  44. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Mr. Anon—Unless and until they become a large minority. Now’s the time to prevent that.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil' Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    I’m sure Lil’ Dzhokhar probably was too. He won’t be Lil’ forever, you know.

    You’re right, there are only about three million Muslims in the US. Considering that they pull off way more than 1% of the terrorist attacks, it would seem to indicate that there’s a problem.

    And are the ones who aren’t terrorists so great that we just can’t live without them? We seem to have gotten by just fine when there were essentially zero Muslims here.

  45. US immigration policy leads to slavery in the Mexico then the US:

    Prostitution Pipeline To U.S. Begins In Tenancingo, Mexico
    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/06/30/pimp-city-tenancingo

    Immigrant prostitution business, no mention of slavery:

    6 massage parlors in Middlesex County raided in prostitution bust, cops say
    http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/11/19_charged_in_widespread_massage_parlor_prostituti.html

  46. Islam is Peace (War is Peace)
    ???????? (Freedom is Slavery)
    Diversity is Strength (Ignorance is Strength)

    I’m still looking for a new phrase of Freedom is Slavery. Any suggestions?

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    How about "Arbeit Macht Frei"?
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Seran, you are not paying attention, there is no freedom from slavery.....reparations maybe, freedom no way.
  47. @El Gringo del Norte
    Progressives think education is the solution to everything. Maybe it's because they're all schoolmarms at heart.

    ‘Education’ is always the solution for them, because they are the educators and they get to craft the curriculum.

  48. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    “They will always be a small minority”. Famous last words.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    In retrospect, George Orwell must emerge as one of the few towering intellectual giants of the 20th century. As time moves on, and the memories and personalities of that century fade away, surely Orwell must be remembered in the same way as remember Burke, Locke, Paine etc as great intellects and defenders of the human spirit.

    The only problem with Orwell was that he was true – too true.

  50. @Steve Sailer
    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as "Arab"? Maronites often don't. It appears that Slim's father had ties to a rightwing Falangist (i.e., Fascist) party, as well as Slim's late wife being the cousin of Maronite warlord Bashir Gemayel.

    It would seem like an interesting topic for the New York Times to investigate, no?

    A lot of christian Lebs identify as Arab but it’s also quite common for them to identify as Lebanese, Phoenician, or even Syrian. I don’t know how it is in Mexico but given the beating that whiteness is taking in north-american mainstream culture,I’m expecting Lebanese christians to start identifying more and more with the arab side. Flight from white, as you’d say.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I met a girl online once and called her on the phone to chat. For some reason she passed the phone to her friend, whom I knew nothing about. The friend had the stereotypical bourgie white girl accent.

    I asked her her name and she told me to guess. I said Nicole. She said, "no, that's a white girl's name."

    I said "you're not white?" She said "I'm Chaldean."

    Although I consider Chaldeans to be basically white, albeit clannish and very often very trashy, on that evening I did not want to get into a debate regarding that subject so I simply asked her what her name was again.


    She replied, and I am not making this up: "Ashley." I knew then I was dealing with a very dim person, and that it was unlikely her friend (the girl I had called) was much brighter...

  51. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    “There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.”

    It’s all about proportions. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but on a per capita basis they sure have committed a lot of terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil for such a small miniscule demographic.

    If a bunch of religious extremist Orthodox and Hasidic Jews went around committing terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil, I doubt you would say religious Jews do not pose much of a threat to the U.S. You would be the first to say the U.S needs to bomb Israel out of existence or at least advocate for a ban on all Jewish immigrants from entering The U.S in order to prevent anymore terrorist attacks on U.S soil from crazy violent religious Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, even if most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists but you would not want to take any chances. As for you even 1 Jewish terrorist would be 1 terrorist too many.

    Anon you give Muslims a pass for things that you would never in a million years give Jews a pass for.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Don't be a dammy.

    I oppose all non-white immigration to the West, and it'd also be a good thing to have some degree of secession along racial lines as far as I'm concerned.

    My point is the Muslim problem in the US isn't such a big deal. It's not what it is in the EU with nations like France that really has a huge Muslim population. France is also vulnerable cuz of historical 'guilt', especially in Algeria where the war killed a lot of people. Americans have no such guilt about Muslims, not least because US imperialism in the Middle East has been masked with 'democracy promotion' and etc.
    (Europeans also prize Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism and sublimated anti-Jewishness. Europeans cannot be blatantly anti-Jewish due to Holocaust guilt. So, supporting Muslims-as-victims-of-Zionism is a proxy form of anti-Jewish-ness. Also, Europeans notice that US is still a 'Christian nation' and its foreign policy is nakedly pro-Zionist. So, they take some pleasure in defending Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism. It got surreal even when the homo leftist Foucault sided with the Iranian Revolution cuz it was anti-American.)

    Also and more importantly, these problems have less to do with Islam per se than Western foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa. It is true that Muslims are more likely to fight back cuz it's a warrior creed and fills Muslims with vengeful rage.
    But it is worth asking... do Arabs and Muslims have legit grievances? I think they do.

    Take the Fort Hood shooting. Of course, it was horrible stuff and should have been prevented. And the guy deserves death penalty.
    But Americans are missing a key issue. It's often been said that everyone remained mum about Hassan cuz they were afraid of being called 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'. (I'll bet it actually had to do with the military culture of sticking together and looking the other way. Same kind of code of silence prevails among cops, as in PRINCE OF THE CITY.)
    Okay, let's say the culture of political sensitivity prevented officers and soldiers from reporting Hassan's suspicious behavior. And this led to a bloodbath. Bad stuff. Who can disagree?
    But Americans who make this point are overlooking a much bigger issue. Even though Hassan's actions were horrible, his grievances were legit. He is, after all, a Palestinian. US, along with USSR, supported Zionist imperialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 40s. And US has been supporting Zionist occupation ever since. Worse, US has expanded Zionist-led foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa that have led to so much violence, mayhem, instability, etc.
    And the fact is most Americans, high and low, have remained mum about all this because (1) they are afraid of being called 'antisemitic' and (2) they are pitifully slavish to Jewish power and wealth.

    Hassan did something terrible, but he is small potatoes. Palestinians don't control US foreign policy. His violence was limited to a cafeteria. The US military should have had a more watchful eye on him and should have reported his strange behavior before the eruption happened.
    But the same thing should be said about Jewish power and foreign policy that have done far more damage. Jewish foreign policy wasn't limited to a cafeteria. It led to the ethnic cleansing and occupation of an entire people. It led to the neo-Great-Game in the Middle East that led to mass starvation and death-by-disease among Iraqi women and children. It led to Iraq War that unleashed many more deaths and terrorists taking over whole swaths of that country. It even led to toppling of Gadfly and Libya turning into hellhole and opening the gates of African migrants to Europe. And now, there is hell to pay for in Syria. And which group was most responsible for the mess in Ukraine? Russia and EU were growing closer and working in peace, but Jews used Ukraine Crisis as wedge, and everybody is hurting.
    It looks to me that Jews have done far more damage all over the world. In contrast, Hassan shot up a cafeteria. Hassan's terrible act killed a dozen. Jewish foreign policy has led to deaths of 100,000's if not millions.

    But how come no one in the mass media or government is talking about this power? Because being labeled an 'anti-semite' is far more damaging than being labeled an 'Islamophobe'. In fact, bashing Muslims still makes for lucrative career in the US.
    So many talk radio show hosts have millions of fans even though they rant about Muslims all the time. Trump is front runner. Bill Maher still has his show, and he rips on Muslims all the time. Ann Coulter was raked over the coals for 'fuc*ing Jews' but she was allowed to write tons of nasty stuff about Muslims. Prior to Iraq War, she said go there and forcibly convert them all. She didn't lose her career. I once listened to some radio freak named Mancow and he said of Iraq, "kill them all and take their oil." He still has a radio gig even though his remarks were Nazi-like.
    But how many of those people would have job or be popular if they said something about Jewish power or influence? Rick Sanchez got blacklisted simply because he said Jews are big in the media. That was it!

    Muslims may be scuzzy, but Jews have far more power. And Jews don't use classic terrorism since they can use the powerful militaries of nation-states to crush entire nations. (Jewish anarchists and early Jewish Zionists resorted to terror when they didn't have the power.) Jewish Power has 'legitimacy' because it has control of institutions. It can use the power of sanctions to destroy economies. It's like Iran was economically crippled cuz, gee whiz, it just might... er might... have nukes in 20 or 30 yrs. But Israel that bans all inspections and has 200 to 300 nukes? It gets a pass and receives 3 to 4 billion in aid every year. Israel also gets to spy all it wants on the US.
    Yet, there is total silence. Even though Jewish-led foreign policy has done so much damage, all we hear is 'I stand with Israel' as if poor helpless Jews are about to mass-murdered by Palestinian Neo-Nazis. It's surreal like Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz. And what about Iranian scientists who were blown up by Mossad operatives? Western media reported the story with quotes around 'terrorists'. So, if Jews kill Iranian scientists, they are 'terrorists'. But if Iran were to target Jewish scientists in Israel, you bet there will be no quotes. Iranian operatives would be called TERRORISTS, and US will declare war on Iran.

    Muslim anger has more to do with foreign policy than Islam itself.
    Suppose US and EU hadn't messed up the Middle East. Suppose US and EU hadn't propped up Israel, the last outpost of Western Imperialism. Suppose US hadn't messed up Iraq and Libya and Syria. Suppose US hadn't supported Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular regime.
    Would the odd Muslim immigrant be blowing stuff up in America? I don't think so.

    Or, see it this way. Suppose US does to Israelis that it did to Palestinians. Suppose US occupies Israel and then encourages a whole bunch of Asian-Indians to migrate to Israel without Jewish consent. And if fighting breaks out between Hindus and Jews, suppose US calls for partition where Jews get half and Hindus get half. Suppose Jews rise up but lose the war and suppose Hindus take most of Israel. Suppose US fully supports this and then gives lots of aid to Hindu-run Israel. Suppose US shows no sympathy to Jews now living under humiliating occupation. Suppose US gives 3 billion in aid and all sorts of military wares to Hindu-Israel.
    And suppose Hindus come to dominate elite institutions of America, and American foreign policy does everything to appease Hindu-elite demands.
    Do you think Jewish-Americans and Israeli-immigrants in America would sit still and do nothing? While most will probably not take part in terror, some certainly will.
    Again, it will have more to do with foreign policy and politics than Judaism per se.

    The Irish terror against the UK was about nationalism and foreign policy of UK; it wasn't really about Catholic theology.

    Given the way things are, US should be very careful about Muslim immigrants from certain parts of the world. But this isn't really an issue of Islam but about crazy Western foreign policy.
    I mean we have a situation where US accuses Iran of being the biggest sponsor of terror when it is Saudi Arabia, US's close ally, that is supporting and funding the ISIS loonies in Syria. Turkey is the other US ally that is helping ISIS. And Israelis and Zionists love seeing Syria blow up to cinders.
    US didn't create ISIS but it certainly created the conditions that made a group like ISIS thrive.
    Suppose I tear off a piece of your flesh and rub it with excrement. Suppose you soon have maggots crawling all over you. While I didn't put the maggots there, I created the conditions that led to maggoty flesh.

    Muslims are certainly not saints and they are not the best human material. Muslim immigration doesn't make much sense. But Muslim rage in the West has more to do with Western foreign policy(driven by Jews) than about Islam itself.

    US doesn't mess up Malaysia, so we don't see Malaysian terrorists here.
  52. @Jack D
    Slim has unremarkable European features. He is a fine Christian gentleman whose ancestors just happened to live at the eastern end of the Mediterranean instead of Spain or Italy.

    http://b-i.forbesimg.com/doliaestevez/files/2014/01/350px-CarlosSlimHelu-20101.jpg

    The San Bernardino terrorist were Pakistani and looked nothing like Slim.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151207093031-malik-farook-chicago-airport-medium-plus-169.jpg

    I wonder whether Farook went to work wearing this getup?

    “Slim has unremarkable European features.”

    Slim does not have unremarkable European features. He looks closer to a Jew in phenotype than he does to a Norwegian or a Swedish. He has a typical Levantine phenotype.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's true he doesn't look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn't really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations.
  53. the NYT are the prime purveyors of ignorance about everything to do with race and immigration.

  54. @Mr. Anon
    Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don't pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now.

    “Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don’t pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now.”

    Even though he favors legalizing The Chronic, you don’t see Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, and The Dogg Pound endorsing Rand Paul for president. At the end of the day Rand Paul is still a Republican and that automatically makes him a White supremacist in the eyes of most Black voters.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    Rand Paul is good at saying slightly controversial stuff in a rational way, so he gets less attention than Trump, who often just says the most outrageous thing that comes to mind and gets tons of media attention.
  55. @Anon
    This is just rhetoric, like FDR saying "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".

    This is just rhetoric, like FDR saying “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”.

    Was that before or after “Shinto is a religion of peace”?

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Was that before or after 'Shinto is a religion of peace'?"

    You see, that's just it.

    Japan vs US had nothing to do with Shinto. It was a war of imperial ambitions, control of the Pacific.

    So, to blame Shinto-ism would have been foolish. While the modernizers made Shinto the national religion, it wasn't the reason for the Pacific War and Pearl Harbor.
    Japanese didn't attack Hawaii because they sat in a garden, sipped tea, and got some idear from a fox spirit that it'd be great to drop bombs on surfers.

    Granted, the sacred spiritual sense of Japanese-ness did make Japanese put up a ferocious defensive war that led to so much misery when a quick surrender would have prevented that, but the thing is the Pacific War was a political conflict, not a spiritual one.

    Now, I'll grant international Islam is more aggressive for religious reasons. But the real source of the West vs Muslims is still geo-political than religious or spiritual.

    As for this 'religion of peace' stuff, it's just rhetoric, and rhetoric is necessary in politics and diplomacy.

    It's like what happened with the Japanese emperor after WWII. He was actually more responsible for war policy, but McCarthur figured he would be useful as Tokyo Shoeshine Boy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru5_0q0O-q4

    So, the narrative became the emperor was just some marine biologist who liked to sip tea and sit in a garden but was MISLED by nasty military men like Tojo who got what he deserved. It's just how politics is played. And it was deemed necessary cuz China turned Red, and the Cold War was one, and Japan(along with Germany) became key allies in the fight against the commie threat.

    US has allies and enemies in the Middle East(much of it according to Jewish interests), and it just won't do to alienate ALL Muslims by saying Islam itself is the problem.

    Even during the Cold War, US played it differently with different commies. It reviled Soviet Union as the Evil Empire but could be sort of friendly with Yugoslavia and Romania. And even though Mao was crazier than any Soviet leader, Nixon was shucking and jiving in Peking and praising the Chinese.

    From a diplomatic viewpoint, it would be stupid for US to say Islam itself is the problem and the enemy. It would not only alienate all Muslim nations(who are pieces on the geopolitical chessboard), but it would render vulnerable the Muslim leaders who are allied with the US. Imagine if you're a leader of a Muslim nation and you're closely allied with the US; suppose US leaders say Islam sucks. How are you gonna justify your alliance with the US? Radical clerics can defame you as a renegade turncoat collaborator of Americans.
  56. @Mr. Anon
    Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don't pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now.

    Very curious thinking on Rand Paul’s part. In seeking to expand his base (I didn’t realize that many blacks voted in Republican primaries), he kinda lost his natural base. Somehow he convinced himself that, if he trimmed and hedged his foreign policy positions, he wold make himself more acceptable to Sheldon Adelson and the neocon set.

  57. Having been just ahead of the “that’s ignorant” “that’s racist” trend, I can see it very clearly, like an avalanche on my heels. I think it’s a little like how one’s accent used to give away one’s social class, but now that our American accents are much more homogenized into the broad regions, we need something else to distinguish our betters. Also, it’s never said “you’re racist” or “you’re ignorant” as those are personal attacks – but the formation “that’s ____ [what you just said or believe]” which is effective in enforcing the moral “upper class” code. “That’s racist” has limited use, although quite flexible, so I believe “that’s ignorant” is used for all other non-racist contexts, or as a substitute to avoid saying the R-word.

    PC orthodoxy is based on a confusion between belief and truth. Adherents believe that their beliefs are the Truth, and any contradiction to the Truth must be due to ignorance or malice [racism]. Perhaps the switch to the word “ignorance” is to avoid direct conflict; but perhaps it also reflects the current generation’s loss of skepticism. “It just is.” “I just can’t even [believe what I see/hear]” “Didn’t you know that [such and such study says that whatever liberal talking point]?” And even if you can contradict them with evidence or facts or anecdotes, these do not have enough weight against their believed orthodoxy. You’re just ignorant of the Truth.

    Thus the Truth can be used both as a status marker in conversation and to distinguish between Believers and the Unsaved (or worse, they know the Truth and mock it-just like the Devil!!!! Those on the side of the Devil are Evil and must be resisted/destroyed no matter what!).

    Hear the Good News and repent!

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Hear the Good News and repent!

     

    Excellent analysis; gold border well-deserved.

    But I think your final line needs a bit of amendment: it should be something more like 'Hear the Good News, and you will be enlightened!'

    The 'Truth' for SJWs/progressives has little to do with traditional western conceptions of the word. It's instead much closer to the 'Truth' in gnosticism, i.e. a burst of enlightenment that transforms one's very worldview. For gnostics, it means realizing you're not just some flesh-bound schlub trying to get along day by day; instead, your very essence is a spark of the divine.

    Progressives, as post-modern gnostic Christian heretics, don't feel they need to be tethered to tedious recitations and analysis of facts and statistical patterns; they 'just know' what's True.

    Their use of the epithet 'ignorant' also needs to be understood in this context. 'Ignorance' of progressive Truth can't be overcome by actual research and learning, no matter how much progressives claim to be on the side of 'science'. It must come to one in a Buddha-like flash that opens the enlightened one's inner eye to a gestalt of beliefs, attitudes, and value judgements. 'Education' is therefore the answer, but only a particular form of education that's really just 'consciousness-raising', just as we see on university campuses around the western world.

  58. @Anon
    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    And I agree with NYT that we should fear ignorance.

    Americans are all too ignorant of the TRUE ELITES of this country.

    One thing for sure, Muslims don't control the NYT or New York in general. They are cabbies. People who rule NY ride around in limos, most of which are not driven by Muslims.

    There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority.

    You could be an Englishman, or Frenchman, twenty years ago.

  59. @Anonymous
    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    come on, put effort into your trolling.

  60. @Hunsdon
    Fear? Ha ha ha ha. OK, I'm not nearly as bad as a lot of my friends, who seem to regard Islam as a death cult, a moon cult (yeah, that's what they say). Long term, I do wonder if a multiconfessional state with pretensions of religious equality will work out, but that's certainly not the same thing as fearing Muslims.

    Well, we’ve managed for more than 200 years….

  61. @Mr. Anon
    "Is it really productive to fear muslims in America.. Considering what they’ve done, relative to their population in two decade time horizon?"

    Yes, because it sends a very specific message to muslims: You are not welcome here. And it sends a message to would-be immigrants more generally: You are not welcome here.

    That doesn’t make the fear make any sense. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they’re a big threat even when they’re a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they’re a big threat even when they’re a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists."

    Terrorist attacks will become more common, the more muslims who are here. Why not stop the problem before it becomes larger, and life in the US becomes like life on the West Bank. Your attitude is akin to saying: Hey, it's only a small tumor. What's the problem?
    , @anon
    1) for now

    2) places like Dearborn will already have all the problems you get in Europe - the media won't report it
    , @Buffalo Joe
    NOTA, I fear the unthinkable. The terrorist who plans the Apocalyptic Event....a dirty bomb or biological attack. And make no mistake there are terrorists salivating over the thougth of massive destruction.
  62. @Jefferson
    "Good for Rand Paul. However, if people don’t pay too much attention to him, it is his own fault to a large degree. If he had made more direct appeals to whites rather, than trying to win votes from blacks, who will never vote for him in significant numbers, he might have been farther ahead in the polls now."

    Even though he favors legalizing The Chronic, you don't see Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, and The Dogg Pound endorsing Rand Paul for president. At the end of the day Rand Paul is still a Republican and that automatically makes him a White supremacist in the eyes of most Black voters.

    Rand Paul is good at saying slightly controversial stuff in a rational way, so he gets less attention than Trump, who often just says the most outrageous thing that comes to mind and gets tons of media attention.

  63. @Blah Blah Teleblah
    "Ignorant" is used by SJWs in the same way that millenials (at least stereotypically) use the word "literally".

    Perhaps a relevant anecdote was a discussion on the off-topic political subforum on a message board for my favorite NFL team about the no indictment in the Michael Brown case. One of the conservative posters, for months had been predicting that there would be no indictment, and, by message board standards anyway, methodically recounting the many ways in which the SJW narrative of the whole thing was preposterous. He turned out to be vindicated, of course, even by Eric Holder's DOJ. Yet the lefties, even the ones that appeared to be pretty smart would just respond, "you my friend are ignorant." I almost wonder if there's some secret memo somewhere that instructs SJWs to call someone ignorant as kind of a last resort.

    It means “I lack the desire and/or intellectual capacity to refute your claims but I don’t want to concede anything so I’ll just fling shit.”

  64. @Jefferson
    Wikipedia has Carlos Slim is listed as an Arab Mexican. Which makes 100 percent sense, as he does not qualify as a European Mexican. Even George Lopez has more European ancestry than Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim is of the same stock as the San Bernardino terrorists and not of the same stock as Donald Trump.

    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It’s just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It’s just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back."

    George Lopez has 54 percent European ancestry. How much European ancestry does Carlos Slim have?
  65. This strikes me as a bad policy, overreacting to a tiny practical threat and maybe crossing some important lines wrt freedom of religion. But honestly, that makes it a bargain compared to basically every other anti-terrorism measure we come up with–mostly those involve bombing a lot of third world peasants to ensure a robust supply of future terrorists, or spying on every American all the time, or Kafkaesque crap like the no fly list, or giving the president the power to have anyone he wants killed for any reason or none, etc.

  66. @Jefferson
    "Slim has unremarkable European features."

    Slim does not have unremarkable European features. He looks closer to a Jew in phenotype than he does to a Norwegian or a Swedish. He has a typical Levantine phenotype.

    It’s true he doesn’t look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn’t really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations.

    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    Wow, you can read Nazi minds. By all means, tell us more.
    , @Jefferson
    "It’s true he doesn’t look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn’t really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations."

    Nazis still look alot closer to Scandinavians in phenotype than they do to Levantine Arabs. If Nazis looked like Levantines, they would have been the biggest hypocrites on the planet for trying to wipe Jews off the planet for not looking Nordic Aryan enough. It would have been the pot calling the kettle black.

  67. @ogunsiron
    A lot of christian Lebs identify as Arab but it's also quite common for them to identify as Lebanese, Phoenician, or even Syrian. I don't know how it is in Mexico but given the beating that whiteness is taking in north-american mainstream culture,I'm expecting Lebanese christians to start identifying more and more with the arab side. Flight from white, as you'd say.

    I met a girl online once and called her on the phone to chat. For some reason she passed the phone to her friend, whom I knew nothing about. The friend had the stereotypical bourgie white girl accent.

    I asked her her name and she told me to guess. I said Nicole. She said, “no, that’s a white girl’s name.”

    I said “you’re not white?” She said “I’m Chaldean.”

    Although I consider Chaldeans to be basically white, albeit clannish and very often very trashy, on that evening I did not want to get into a debate regarding that subject so I simply asked her what her name was again.

    She replied, and I am not making this up: “Ashley.” I knew then I was dealing with a very dim person, and that it was unlikely her friend (the girl I had called) was much brighter…

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Although I consider Chaldeans to be basically white,"

    What's so White about Chaldeans? Do most of them have blue eyes? NOPE Do most of them have blond hair? NOPE Do most of them have light brown hair? NOPE.

    Dark brown hair/black hair, brown eyes, and swarthy pigmentation are the dominant traits in Chaldeans.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tq8Wn-HwgJY/UCm73W32-iI/AAAAAAAAAdo/ceNQZq-A1hI/s1600/14th%2BAugust.png
    http://www.zindamagazine.com/graphics/ZindaAds/AACFparty.jpg
    http://www.ishtartv.com/en/articles_images/articles_image120110819004957Tw7S.jpg
    http://www.billboard.com/files/styles/promo_650/public/media/lisa_bashi_650.png
    http://s7.postimg.org/5tfmgw4tn/yasmine_hanani_8060.jpg

    I also notice curly hair is common among Chaldeans, most likely due to them looking closer to Arab Semites in phenotype than to WASP Americans from Nebraska and Iowa for example.

    Phenotype wise nobody would ever mistake Chaldeans for generic White Americans of German, English, and Scotch-Irish ancestry.

    If you don't have a Nordic WASP looking phenotype, you are not White. Or you are Off White/Whitish at best.

    But the gold standard of Whiteness is the Nordic WASP phenotype. That phenotype is the epitome of Whiteness.
  68. @Bastion
    Muslim eruptions and the reactions have taken how many trillion dollars out of the US economy over the last few decades? And furthermore their violence has provided the convenient fig leaf for a host of intrusions on our liberties. I know memories fade quickly, but remember what it was like to fly 20 years ago? Remember when you could see a loved one off at the gate?

    You do realize it was the West which attacked the Muslim world, don’t you?

    • Replies: @anon
    The muslim world attacked the west from c. 600 to c. 1600.

    Then there was a lull for western colonialism.

    And now we're back where we were.
  69. @NOTA
    That doesn't make the fear make any sense. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they're a big threat even when they're a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.

    “Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they’re a big threat even when they’re a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.”

    Terrorist attacks will become more common, the more muslims who are here. Why not stop the problem before it becomes larger, and life in the US becomes like life on the West Bank. Your attitude is akin to saying: Hey, it’s only a small tumor. What’s the problem?

  70. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The word ‘ignorant’ is used nowadays as meaning someone who doesn’t think what they’re supposed to, someone who doesn’t go in for group-think. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the party line is called stupid, uneducated and ‘ignorant’.
    No non-Muslims have ever lived next to Muslims without hating them. This has been true everywhere there’s Muslims. There’s reasons for that. People who deny reality are ignorant.

  71. @wolfy
    the right is also ignorant about several things.

    the right is also ignorant about several things

    Who’s ignorance is more likely to take us over the societal cliff?

    The Left’s foolishness will have us replaced/regulated out of existence. The Right’s foolishness will give us slower GDP growth.

  72. Thank you for digesting this for us. A good sign that a Times editorial is so full of crap even editors can barely stand it is preclusion of comments. By now, the NYT realizes comments such junk attracts often exhibit better analysis and even writing skills than the original piece. No comments, no piece (worth reading).

  73. @Fun with aluminum
    Agree wholeheartedly, right down to thinking "hey, I should really be cataloguing all of these examples of inversion". While I am leery of the whole diagnose-your-political-opponents-with-mental-illness routine, the inversion of reality is so consistent that there must be some psychological explanation.

    Three examples that come to mind:

    1) The iSteve classic: prog garment-rending over the unending threat to innocent black bodies posed by racist white men with guns.
    2) The focus of 100% of "rape culture" propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.
    3) The classic line of shills for Hamas (whose charter is explicitly exterminationist, and whose only political tactic is random murder): these people will invariably tell you the real problem in "Palestine" is Israel's lack of concern for "human rights".

    It would be interesting if someone were to put together a larger catalogue of these inversions.

    I’m waiting for a breakdown of American college campus sexual assault rates compared to the racial demographics of the school. That would be a real hoot!

    • Replies: @res
    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is. If someone wants to do this, merging these two data sources would probably be a good start.

    The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetDownloadFile.aspx for crime data.

    The Education Data Analysis Tool (EDAT) http://nces.ed.gov/edat/ for demographic data.

    I may look into this later. If anyone else does please post.
  74. @Seran
    Islam is Peace (War is Peace)
    ???????? (Freedom is Slavery)
    Diversity is Strength (Ignorance is Strength)

    I'm still looking for a new phrase of Freedom is Slavery. Any suggestions?

    How about “Arbeit Macht Frei”?

  75. I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    This is why voting should require a numeracy test.

    Terrorist attacks will become more common, the more muslims who are here. Why not stop the problem before it becomes larger, and life in the US becomes like life on the West Bank. Your attitude is akin to saying: Hey, it’s only a small tumor. What’s the problem?

    Same thing goes for persecution of whites. Sure, it’s mostly just talk (and wide-spectrum discrimination against whites) for now. But the leftist response is always “it’s only a small tumor. Stop being so paranoid.”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    This is why voting should require a numeracy test.

     

    In Illinois, voting should require an FOID card.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.
     
    You are being sarcastic, there are better examples:

    Almost everyone here likes Ayaan Hirsi Ali a thousand times more than Bernie Sanders or Bill DeBlasio. Of course there are great Muslim people and undesirable Euro whites.

    Ideally, society should select for the good and exclude the bad. That's actually quite complicated for a government to do.
  76. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson
    "There are eruptions of Muslim violence off and on in the US, but Muslims will never be much of a threat. They will always be a small minority."

    It's all about proportions. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but on a per capita basis they sure have committed a lot of terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil for such a small miniscule demographic.

    If a bunch of religious extremist Orthodox and Hasidic Jews went around committing terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil, I doubt you would say religious Jews do not pose much of a threat to the U.S. You would be the first to say the U.S needs to bomb Israel out of existence or at least advocate for a ban on all Jewish immigrants from entering The U.S in order to prevent anymore terrorist attacks on U.S soil from crazy violent religious Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, even if most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists but you would not want to take any chances. As for you even 1 Jewish terrorist would be 1 terrorist too many.

    Anon you give Muslims a pass for things that you would never in a million years give Jews a pass for.

    Don’t be a dammy.

    I oppose all non-white immigration to the West, and it’d also be a good thing to have some degree of secession along racial lines as far as I’m concerned.

    My point is the Muslim problem in the US isn’t such a big deal. It’s not what it is in the EU with nations like France that really has a huge Muslim population. France is also vulnerable cuz of historical ‘guilt’, especially in Algeria where the war killed a lot of people. Americans have no such guilt about Muslims, not least because US imperialism in the Middle East has been masked with ‘democracy promotion’ and etc.
    (Europeans also prize Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism and sublimated anti-Jewishness. Europeans cannot be blatantly anti-Jewish due to Holocaust guilt. So, supporting Muslims-as-victims-of-Zionism is a proxy form of anti-Jewish-ness. Also, Europeans notice that US is still a ‘Christian nation’ and its foreign policy is nakedly pro-Zionist. So, they take some pleasure in defending Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism. It got surreal even when the homo leftist Foucault sided with the Iranian Revolution cuz it was anti-American.)

    Also and more importantly, these problems have less to do with Islam per se than Western foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa. It is true that Muslims are more likely to fight back cuz it’s a warrior creed and fills Muslims with vengeful rage.
    But it is worth asking… do Arabs and Muslims have legit grievances? I think they do.

    Take the Fort Hood shooting. Of course, it was horrible stuff and should have been prevented. And the guy deserves death penalty.
    But Americans are missing a key issue. It’s often been said that everyone remained mum about Hassan cuz they were afraid of being called ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’. (I’ll bet it actually had to do with the military culture of sticking together and looking the other way. Same kind of code of silence prevails among cops, as in PRINCE OF THE CITY.)
    Okay, let’s say the culture of political sensitivity prevented officers and soldiers from reporting Hassan’s suspicious behavior. And this led to a bloodbath. Bad stuff. Who can disagree?
    But Americans who make this point are overlooking a much bigger issue. Even though Hassan’s actions were horrible, his grievances were legit. He is, after all, a Palestinian. US, along with USSR, supported Zionist imperialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 40s. And US has been supporting Zionist occupation ever since. Worse, US has expanded Zionist-led foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa that have led to so much violence, mayhem, instability, etc.
    And the fact is most Americans, high and low, have remained mum about all this because (1) they are afraid of being called ‘antisemitic’ and (2) they are pitifully slavish to Jewish power and wealth.

    Hassan did something terrible, but he is small potatoes. Palestinians don’t control US foreign policy. His violence was limited to a cafeteria. The US military should have had a more watchful eye on him and should have reported his strange behavior before the eruption happened.
    But the same thing should be said about Jewish power and foreign policy that have done far more damage. Jewish foreign policy wasn’t limited to a cafeteria. It led to the ethnic cleansing and occupation of an entire people. It led to the neo-Great-Game in the Middle East that led to mass starvation and death-by-disease among Iraqi women and children. It led to Iraq War that unleashed many more deaths and terrorists taking over whole swaths of that country. It even led to toppling of Gadfly and Libya turning into hellhole and opening the gates of African migrants to Europe. And now, there is hell to pay for in Syria. And which group was most responsible for the mess in Ukraine? Russia and EU were growing closer and working in peace, but Jews used Ukraine Crisis as wedge, and everybody is hurting.
    It looks to me that Jews have done far more damage all over the world. In contrast, Hassan shot up a cafeteria. Hassan’s terrible act killed a dozen. Jewish foreign policy has led to deaths of 100,000’s if not millions.

    But how come no one in the mass media or government is talking about this power? Because being labeled an ‘anti-semite’ is far more damaging than being labeled an ‘Islamophobe’. In fact, bashing Muslims still makes for lucrative career in the US.
    So many talk radio show hosts have millions of fans even though they rant about Muslims all the time. Trump is front runner. Bill Maher still has his show, and he rips on Muslims all the time. Ann Coulter was raked over the coals for ‘fuc*ing Jews’ but she was allowed to write tons of nasty stuff about Muslims. Prior to Iraq War, she said go there and forcibly convert them all. She didn’t lose her career. I once listened to some radio freak named Mancow and he said of Iraq, “kill them all and take their oil.” He still has a radio gig even though his remarks were Nazi-like.
    But how many of those people would have job or be popular if they said something about Jewish power or influence? Rick Sanchez got blacklisted simply because he said Jews are big in the media. That was it!

    Muslims may be scuzzy, but Jews have far more power. And Jews don’t use classic terrorism since they can use the powerful militaries of nation-states to crush entire nations. (Jewish anarchists and early Jewish Zionists resorted to terror when they didn’t have the power.) Jewish Power has ‘legitimacy’ because it has control of institutions. It can use the power of sanctions to destroy economies. It’s like Iran was economically crippled cuz, gee whiz, it just might… er might… have nukes in 20 or 30 yrs. But Israel that bans all inspections and has 200 to 300 nukes? It gets a pass and receives 3 to 4 billion in aid every year. Israel also gets to spy all it wants on the US.
    Yet, there is total silence. Even though Jewish-led foreign policy has done so much damage, all we hear is ‘I stand with Israel’ as if poor helpless Jews are about to mass-murdered by Palestinian Neo-Nazis. It’s surreal like Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz. And what about Iranian scientists who were blown up by Mossad operatives? Western media reported the story with quotes around ‘terrorists’. So, if Jews kill Iranian scientists, they are ‘terrorists’. But if Iran were to target Jewish scientists in Israel, you bet there will be no quotes. Iranian operatives would be called TERRORISTS, and US will declare war on Iran.

    Muslim anger has more to do with foreign policy than Islam itself.
    Suppose US and EU hadn’t messed up the Middle East. Suppose US and EU hadn’t propped up Israel, the last outpost of Western Imperialism. Suppose US hadn’t messed up Iraq and Libya and Syria. Suppose US hadn’t supported Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular regime.
    Would the odd Muslim immigrant be blowing stuff up in America? I don’t think so.

    Or, see it this way. Suppose US does to Israelis that it did to Palestinians. Suppose US occupies Israel and then encourages a whole bunch of Asian-Indians to migrate to Israel without Jewish consent. And if fighting breaks out between Hindus and Jews, suppose US calls for partition where Jews get half and Hindus get half. Suppose Jews rise up but lose the war and suppose Hindus take most of Israel. Suppose US fully supports this and then gives lots of aid to Hindu-run Israel. Suppose US shows no sympathy to Jews now living under humiliating occupation. Suppose US gives 3 billion in aid and all sorts of military wares to Hindu-Israel.
    And suppose Hindus come to dominate elite institutions of America, and American foreign policy does everything to appease Hindu-elite demands.
    Do you think Jewish-Americans and Israeli-immigrants in America would sit still and do nothing? While most will probably not take part in terror, some certainly will.
    Again, it will have more to do with foreign policy and politics than Judaism per se.

    The Irish terror against the UK was about nationalism and foreign policy of UK; it wasn’t really about Catholic theology.

    Given the way things are, US should be very careful about Muslim immigrants from certain parts of the world. But this isn’t really an issue of Islam but about crazy Western foreign policy.
    I mean we have a situation where US accuses Iran of being the biggest sponsor of terror when it is Saudi Arabia, US’s close ally, that is supporting and funding the ISIS loonies in Syria. Turkey is the other US ally that is helping ISIS. And Israelis and Zionists love seeing Syria blow up to cinders.
    US didn’t create ISIS but it certainly created the conditions that made a group like ISIS thrive.
    Suppose I tear off a piece of your flesh and rub it with excrement. Suppose you soon have maggots crawling all over you. While I didn’t put the maggots there, I created the conditions that led to maggoty flesh.

    Muslims are certainly not saints and they are not the best human material. Muslim immigration doesn’t make much sense. But Muslim rage in the West has more to do with Western foreign policy(driven by Jews) than about Islam itself.

    US doesn’t mess up Malaysia, so we don’t see Malaysian terrorists here.

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    No entangling foreign alliances, and no entangling foreigners.
    , @Thea
    After 9/11 bin Laden wrote a clear, concise letter explaining that US support of the Israeli government was the sole reason for the attacks. End the finance & military support of Israel, and he would leave us alone. I hope everyone here understands how misguided and evil Bush's "it's because Sadam has weapons of mass distruction & let's double down on support for Israel" was. And the idiocy of Invading Afghanistan while calling Iran, who has quietly been fighting the taliban for decades now, part of the Axis of Evil. Now the Muslims have more reason to attack.

    You are right that they only attack due to our foreign policy. But the Zionist Jews only have power because evangelicals worship them like leftist worship blacks.

    Our real problem is ever other white Gentiles
  77. Classic jedi mind trick: These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. That would be quite ignorant of you, now wouldn’t it?

  78. @Anon
    Don't be a dammy.

    I oppose all non-white immigration to the West, and it'd also be a good thing to have some degree of secession along racial lines as far as I'm concerned.

    My point is the Muslim problem in the US isn't such a big deal. It's not what it is in the EU with nations like France that really has a huge Muslim population. France is also vulnerable cuz of historical 'guilt', especially in Algeria where the war killed a lot of people. Americans have no such guilt about Muslims, not least because US imperialism in the Middle East has been masked with 'democracy promotion' and etc.
    (Europeans also prize Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism and sublimated anti-Jewishness. Europeans cannot be blatantly anti-Jewish due to Holocaust guilt. So, supporting Muslims-as-victims-of-Zionism is a proxy form of anti-Jewish-ness. Also, Europeans notice that US is still a 'Christian nation' and its foreign policy is nakedly pro-Zionist. So, they take some pleasure in defending Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism. It got surreal even when the homo leftist Foucault sided with the Iranian Revolution cuz it was anti-American.)

    Also and more importantly, these problems have less to do with Islam per se than Western foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa. It is true that Muslims are more likely to fight back cuz it's a warrior creed and fills Muslims with vengeful rage.
    But it is worth asking... do Arabs and Muslims have legit grievances? I think they do.

    Take the Fort Hood shooting. Of course, it was horrible stuff and should have been prevented. And the guy deserves death penalty.
    But Americans are missing a key issue. It's often been said that everyone remained mum about Hassan cuz they were afraid of being called 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'. (I'll bet it actually had to do with the military culture of sticking together and looking the other way. Same kind of code of silence prevails among cops, as in PRINCE OF THE CITY.)
    Okay, let's say the culture of political sensitivity prevented officers and soldiers from reporting Hassan's suspicious behavior. And this led to a bloodbath. Bad stuff. Who can disagree?
    But Americans who make this point are overlooking a much bigger issue. Even though Hassan's actions were horrible, his grievances were legit. He is, after all, a Palestinian. US, along with USSR, supported Zionist imperialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 40s. And US has been supporting Zionist occupation ever since. Worse, US has expanded Zionist-led foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa that have led to so much violence, mayhem, instability, etc.
    And the fact is most Americans, high and low, have remained mum about all this because (1) they are afraid of being called 'antisemitic' and (2) they are pitifully slavish to Jewish power and wealth.

    Hassan did something terrible, but he is small potatoes. Palestinians don't control US foreign policy. His violence was limited to a cafeteria. The US military should have had a more watchful eye on him and should have reported his strange behavior before the eruption happened.
    But the same thing should be said about Jewish power and foreign policy that have done far more damage. Jewish foreign policy wasn't limited to a cafeteria. It led to the ethnic cleansing and occupation of an entire people. It led to the neo-Great-Game in the Middle East that led to mass starvation and death-by-disease among Iraqi women and children. It led to Iraq War that unleashed many more deaths and terrorists taking over whole swaths of that country. It even led to toppling of Gadfly and Libya turning into hellhole and opening the gates of African migrants to Europe. And now, there is hell to pay for in Syria. And which group was most responsible for the mess in Ukraine? Russia and EU were growing closer and working in peace, but Jews used Ukraine Crisis as wedge, and everybody is hurting.
    It looks to me that Jews have done far more damage all over the world. In contrast, Hassan shot up a cafeteria. Hassan's terrible act killed a dozen. Jewish foreign policy has led to deaths of 100,000's if not millions.

    But how come no one in the mass media or government is talking about this power? Because being labeled an 'anti-semite' is far more damaging than being labeled an 'Islamophobe'. In fact, bashing Muslims still makes for lucrative career in the US.
    So many talk radio show hosts have millions of fans even though they rant about Muslims all the time. Trump is front runner. Bill Maher still has his show, and he rips on Muslims all the time. Ann Coulter was raked over the coals for 'fuc*ing Jews' but she was allowed to write tons of nasty stuff about Muslims. Prior to Iraq War, she said go there and forcibly convert them all. She didn't lose her career. I once listened to some radio freak named Mancow and he said of Iraq, "kill them all and take their oil." He still has a radio gig even though his remarks were Nazi-like.
    But how many of those people would have job or be popular if they said something about Jewish power or influence? Rick Sanchez got blacklisted simply because he said Jews are big in the media. That was it!

    Muslims may be scuzzy, but Jews have far more power. And Jews don't use classic terrorism since they can use the powerful militaries of nation-states to crush entire nations. (Jewish anarchists and early Jewish Zionists resorted to terror when they didn't have the power.) Jewish Power has 'legitimacy' because it has control of institutions. It can use the power of sanctions to destroy economies. It's like Iran was economically crippled cuz, gee whiz, it just might... er might... have nukes in 20 or 30 yrs. But Israel that bans all inspections and has 200 to 300 nukes? It gets a pass and receives 3 to 4 billion in aid every year. Israel also gets to spy all it wants on the US.
    Yet, there is total silence. Even though Jewish-led foreign policy has done so much damage, all we hear is 'I stand with Israel' as if poor helpless Jews are about to mass-murdered by Palestinian Neo-Nazis. It's surreal like Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz. And what about Iranian scientists who were blown up by Mossad operatives? Western media reported the story with quotes around 'terrorists'. So, if Jews kill Iranian scientists, they are 'terrorists'. But if Iran were to target Jewish scientists in Israel, you bet there will be no quotes. Iranian operatives would be called TERRORISTS, and US will declare war on Iran.

    Muslim anger has more to do with foreign policy than Islam itself.
    Suppose US and EU hadn't messed up the Middle East. Suppose US and EU hadn't propped up Israel, the last outpost of Western Imperialism. Suppose US hadn't messed up Iraq and Libya and Syria. Suppose US hadn't supported Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular regime.
    Would the odd Muslim immigrant be blowing stuff up in America? I don't think so.

    Or, see it this way. Suppose US does to Israelis that it did to Palestinians. Suppose US occupies Israel and then encourages a whole bunch of Asian-Indians to migrate to Israel without Jewish consent. And if fighting breaks out between Hindus and Jews, suppose US calls for partition where Jews get half and Hindus get half. Suppose Jews rise up but lose the war and suppose Hindus take most of Israel. Suppose US fully supports this and then gives lots of aid to Hindu-run Israel. Suppose US shows no sympathy to Jews now living under humiliating occupation. Suppose US gives 3 billion in aid and all sorts of military wares to Hindu-Israel.
    And suppose Hindus come to dominate elite institutions of America, and American foreign policy does everything to appease Hindu-elite demands.
    Do you think Jewish-Americans and Israeli-immigrants in America would sit still and do nothing? While most will probably not take part in terror, some certainly will.
    Again, it will have more to do with foreign policy and politics than Judaism per se.

    The Irish terror against the UK was about nationalism and foreign policy of UK; it wasn't really about Catholic theology.

    Given the way things are, US should be very careful about Muslim immigrants from certain parts of the world. But this isn't really an issue of Islam but about crazy Western foreign policy.
    I mean we have a situation where US accuses Iran of being the biggest sponsor of terror when it is Saudi Arabia, US's close ally, that is supporting and funding the ISIS loonies in Syria. Turkey is the other US ally that is helping ISIS. And Israelis and Zionists love seeing Syria blow up to cinders.
    US didn't create ISIS but it certainly created the conditions that made a group like ISIS thrive.
    Suppose I tear off a piece of your flesh and rub it with excrement. Suppose you soon have maggots crawling all over you. While I didn't put the maggots there, I created the conditions that led to maggoty flesh.

    Muslims are certainly not saints and they are not the best human material. Muslim immigration doesn't make much sense. But Muslim rage in the West has more to do with Western foreign policy(driven by Jews) than about Islam itself.

    US doesn't mess up Malaysia, so we don't see Malaysian terrorists here.

    No entangling foreign alliances, and no entangling foreigners.

  79. @Hail
    Rand Paul's call for a Muslim immigration moratorium was apparently made in the morning of Dec. 7th (on a program called "America's Newsroom," airing 9 AM to 11 AM) (Link). Trump's came something like six hours later on Dec. 7th.

    The evening news didn't even mention Rand Paul's, but Trump's call immediately became Stop-the-Presses material.

    Rand’s not a threat to the system

  80. @Jack D
    It's true he doesn't look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn't really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations.

    Wow, you can read Nazi minds. By all means, tell us more.

  81. @Svigor
    I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.
     
    This is why voting should require a numeracy test.

    Terrorist attacks will become more common, the more muslims who are here. Why not stop the problem before it becomes larger, and life in the US becomes like life on the West Bank. Your attitude is akin to saying: Hey, it’s only a small tumor. What’s the problem?
     
    Same thing goes for persecution of whites. Sure, it's mostly just talk (and wide-spectrum discrimination against whites) for now. But the leftist response is always "it's only a small tumor. Stop being so paranoid."

    This is why voting should require a numeracy test.

    In Illinois, voting should require an FOID card.

  82. @NOTA
    That doesn't make the fear make any sense. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they're a big threat even when they're a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.

    1) for now

    2) places like Dearborn will already have all the problems you get in Europe – the media won’t report it

  83. @Bill Jones
    You do realize it was the West which attacked the Muslim world, don't you?

    The muslim world attacked the west from c. 600 to c. 1600.

    Then there was a lull for western colonialism.

    And now we’re back where we were.

  84. @Svigor
    I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil’ Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.
     
    This is why voting should require a numeracy test.

    Terrorist attacks will become more common, the more muslims who are here. Why not stop the problem before it becomes larger, and life in the US becomes like life on the West Bank. Your attitude is akin to saying: Hey, it’s only a small tumor. What’s the problem?
     
    Same thing goes for persecution of whites. Sure, it's mostly just talk (and wide-spectrum discrimination against whites) for now. But the leftist response is always "it's only a small tumor. Stop being so paranoid."

    I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.

    You are being sarcastic, there are better examples:

    Almost everyone here likes Ayaan Hirsi Ali a thousand times more than Bernie Sanders or Bill DeBlasio. Of course there are great Muslim people and undesirable Euro whites.

    Ideally, society should select for the good and exclude the bad. That’s actually quite complicated for a government to do.

    • Replies: @Aristotle's Homeboy
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a muslim and thus cannot be an example of a good muslim.
    I totally agree that society should promote virtue (good habits that lead to good acts) and and punish vice, and it certainly is something difficult for the government to discern generally and for the most part.
    However, in other situations it is pretty straightforward, for example membership in organized crime operation. Our society prohibits such organizations from having a formal status before the law and persecutes those suspected of being its members.
    Considering the intrinsically warlord like behavior of the religion's founder and the fact that he is regarded as the exemplar of a good human being for Muslims then it is not to far fetched to think of Islam itself as being a good deal like an organized crime organization. For example the jizya is basically a protection racket. Most people involved in organized crime don't actually do the violent stuff themselves, but the muscle does rely on a broader network of smugglers, numbers guys, informants, and wives/girlfriends to maximize the efficacy of the violent acts.

    Based on this survey: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
    then a good half of all muslims are totally innocuous while about quarter of the other half (the 9% of ISIS supporters and a few more percentage points for the ones who lied) are possible terrorists with the rest of the not good half being the type of people likely to supply and lie for the ones inclined to actually commit violent crime.
  85. @Brutusale
    I'm waiting for a breakdown of American college campus sexual assault rates compared to the racial demographics of the school. That would be a real hoot!

    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is. If someone wants to do this, merging these two data sources would probably be a good start.

    The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetDownloadFile.aspx for crime data.

    The Education Data Analysis Tool (EDAT) http://nces.ed.gov/edat/ for demographic data.

    I may look into this later. If anyone else does please post.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    It's a pipe dream. Given the reporting of faux assaults, the non-reporting of real assaults, the administration at Pigskin U protecting the Heisman-candidate running back and teammates who gang-shagged a drunk/stoned coed, events at off-campus housing that involves students but didn't occur on school grounds, etc., I don't see anything approaching reality coming.
    , @ben tillman

    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is.
     
    Presumably, it's not trustworthy in the least since so many girls are raped without even knowing it.
  86. @Anon
    Don't be a dammy.

    I oppose all non-white immigration to the West, and it'd also be a good thing to have some degree of secession along racial lines as far as I'm concerned.

    My point is the Muslim problem in the US isn't such a big deal. It's not what it is in the EU with nations like France that really has a huge Muslim population. France is also vulnerable cuz of historical 'guilt', especially in Algeria where the war killed a lot of people. Americans have no such guilt about Muslims, not least because US imperialism in the Middle East has been masked with 'democracy promotion' and etc.
    (Europeans also prize Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism and sublimated anti-Jewishness. Europeans cannot be blatantly anti-Jewish due to Holocaust guilt. So, supporting Muslims-as-victims-of-Zionism is a proxy form of anti-Jewish-ness. Also, Europeans notice that US is still a 'Christian nation' and its foreign policy is nakedly pro-Zionist. So, they take some pleasure in defending Muslims as a form of anti-Americanism. It got surreal even when the homo leftist Foucault sided with the Iranian Revolution cuz it was anti-American.)

    Also and more importantly, these problems have less to do with Islam per se than Western foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa. It is true that Muslims are more likely to fight back cuz it's a warrior creed and fills Muslims with vengeful rage.
    But it is worth asking... do Arabs and Muslims have legit grievances? I think they do.

    Take the Fort Hood shooting. Of course, it was horrible stuff and should have been prevented. And the guy deserves death penalty.
    But Americans are missing a key issue. It's often been said that everyone remained mum about Hassan cuz they were afraid of being called 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'. (I'll bet it actually had to do with the military culture of sticking together and looking the other way. Same kind of code of silence prevails among cops, as in PRINCE OF THE CITY.)
    Okay, let's say the culture of political sensitivity prevented officers and soldiers from reporting Hassan's suspicious behavior. And this led to a bloodbath. Bad stuff. Who can disagree?
    But Americans who make this point are overlooking a much bigger issue. Even though Hassan's actions were horrible, his grievances were legit. He is, after all, a Palestinian. US, along with USSR, supported Zionist imperialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 40s. And US has been supporting Zionist occupation ever since. Worse, US has expanded Zionist-led foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa that have led to so much violence, mayhem, instability, etc.
    And the fact is most Americans, high and low, have remained mum about all this because (1) they are afraid of being called 'antisemitic' and (2) they are pitifully slavish to Jewish power and wealth.

    Hassan did something terrible, but he is small potatoes. Palestinians don't control US foreign policy. His violence was limited to a cafeteria. The US military should have had a more watchful eye on him and should have reported his strange behavior before the eruption happened.
    But the same thing should be said about Jewish power and foreign policy that have done far more damage. Jewish foreign policy wasn't limited to a cafeteria. It led to the ethnic cleansing and occupation of an entire people. It led to the neo-Great-Game in the Middle East that led to mass starvation and death-by-disease among Iraqi women and children. It led to Iraq War that unleashed many more deaths and terrorists taking over whole swaths of that country. It even led to toppling of Gadfly and Libya turning into hellhole and opening the gates of African migrants to Europe. And now, there is hell to pay for in Syria. And which group was most responsible for the mess in Ukraine? Russia and EU were growing closer and working in peace, but Jews used Ukraine Crisis as wedge, and everybody is hurting.
    It looks to me that Jews have done far more damage all over the world. In contrast, Hassan shot up a cafeteria. Hassan's terrible act killed a dozen. Jewish foreign policy has led to deaths of 100,000's if not millions.

    But how come no one in the mass media or government is talking about this power? Because being labeled an 'anti-semite' is far more damaging than being labeled an 'Islamophobe'. In fact, bashing Muslims still makes for lucrative career in the US.
    So many talk radio show hosts have millions of fans even though they rant about Muslims all the time. Trump is front runner. Bill Maher still has his show, and he rips on Muslims all the time. Ann Coulter was raked over the coals for 'fuc*ing Jews' but she was allowed to write tons of nasty stuff about Muslims. Prior to Iraq War, she said go there and forcibly convert them all. She didn't lose her career. I once listened to some radio freak named Mancow and he said of Iraq, "kill them all and take their oil." He still has a radio gig even though his remarks were Nazi-like.
    But how many of those people would have job or be popular if they said something about Jewish power or influence? Rick Sanchez got blacklisted simply because he said Jews are big in the media. That was it!

    Muslims may be scuzzy, but Jews have far more power. And Jews don't use classic terrorism since they can use the powerful militaries of nation-states to crush entire nations. (Jewish anarchists and early Jewish Zionists resorted to terror when they didn't have the power.) Jewish Power has 'legitimacy' because it has control of institutions. It can use the power of sanctions to destroy economies. It's like Iran was economically crippled cuz, gee whiz, it just might... er might... have nukes in 20 or 30 yrs. But Israel that bans all inspections and has 200 to 300 nukes? It gets a pass and receives 3 to 4 billion in aid every year. Israel also gets to spy all it wants on the US.
    Yet, there is total silence. Even though Jewish-led foreign policy has done so much damage, all we hear is 'I stand with Israel' as if poor helpless Jews are about to mass-murdered by Palestinian Neo-Nazis. It's surreal like Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz. And what about Iranian scientists who were blown up by Mossad operatives? Western media reported the story with quotes around 'terrorists'. So, if Jews kill Iranian scientists, they are 'terrorists'. But if Iran were to target Jewish scientists in Israel, you bet there will be no quotes. Iranian operatives would be called TERRORISTS, and US will declare war on Iran.

    Muslim anger has more to do with foreign policy than Islam itself.
    Suppose US and EU hadn't messed up the Middle East. Suppose US and EU hadn't propped up Israel, the last outpost of Western Imperialism. Suppose US hadn't messed up Iraq and Libya and Syria. Suppose US hadn't supported Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular regime.
    Would the odd Muslim immigrant be blowing stuff up in America? I don't think so.

    Or, see it this way. Suppose US does to Israelis that it did to Palestinians. Suppose US occupies Israel and then encourages a whole bunch of Asian-Indians to migrate to Israel without Jewish consent. And if fighting breaks out between Hindus and Jews, suppose US calls for partition where Jews get half and Hindus get half. Suppose Jews rise up but lose the war and suppose Hindus take most of Israel. Suppose US fully supports this and then gives lots of aid to Hindu-run Israel. Suppose US shows no sympathy to Jews now living under humiliating occupation. Suppose US gives 3 billion in aid and all sorts of military wares to Hindu-Israel.
    And suppose Hindus come to dominate elite institutions of America, and American foreign policy does everything to appease Hindu-elite demands.
    Do you think Jewish-Americans and Israeli-immigrants in America would sit still and do nothing? While most will probably not take part in terror, some certainly will.
    Again, it will have more to do with foreign policy and politics than Judaism per se.

    The Irish terror against the UK was about nationalism and foreign policy of UK; it wasn't really about Catholic theology.

    Given the way things are, US should be very careful about Muslim immigrants from certain parts of the world. But this isn't really an issue of Islam but about crazy Western foreign policy.
    I mean we have a situation where US accuses Iran of being the biggest sponsor of terror when it is Saudi Arabia, US's close ally, that is supporting and funding the ISIS loonies in Syria. Turkey is the other US ally that is helping ISIS. And Israelis and Zionists love seeing Syria blow up to cinders.
    US didn't create ISIS but it certainly created the conditions that made a group like ISIS thrive.
    Suppose I tear off a piece of your flesh and rub it with excrement. Suppose you soon have maggots crawling all over you. While I didn't put the maggots there, I created the conditions that led to maggoty flesh.

    Muslims are certainly not saints and they are not the best human material. Muslim immigration doesn't make much sense. But Muslim rage in the West has more to do with Western foreign policy(driven by Jews) than about Islam itself.

    US doesn't mess up Malaysia, so we don't see Malaysian terrorists here.

    After 9/11 bin Laden wrote a clear, concise letter explaining that US support of the Israeli government was the sole reason for the attacks. End the finance & military support of Israel, and he would leave us alone. I hope everyone here understands how misguided and evil Bush’s “it’s because Sadam has weapons of mass distruction & let’s double down on support for Israel” was. And the idiocy of Invading Afghanistan while calling Iran, who has quietly been fighting the taliban for decades now, part of the Axis of Evil. Now the Muslims have more reason to attack.

    You are right that they only attack due to our foreign policy. But the Zionist Jews only have power because evangelicals worship them like leftist worship blacks.

    Our real problem is ever other white Gentiles

  87. @Blah Blah Teleblah
    "Ignorant" is used by SJWs in the same way that millenials (at least stereotypically) use the word "literally".

    Perhaps a relevant anecdote was a discussion on the off-topic political subforum on a message board for my favorite NFL team about the no indictment in the Michael Brown case. One of the conservative posters, for months had been predicting that there would be no indictment, and, by message board standards anyway, methodically recounting the many ways in which the SJW narrative of the whole thing was preposterous. He turned out to be vindicated, of course, even by Eric Holder's DOJ. Yet the lefties, even the ones that appeared to be pretty smart would just respond, "you my friend are ignorant." I almost wonder if there's some secret memo somewhere that instructs SJWs to call someone ignorant as kind of a last resort.

    My two youngest children (daughters), aged 28 and 25 use ignorant in this manner, as in; “Oh, that’s just ignorant.”, when they don’t agree with a point of view. Must be something they learned in their recent education. Strange, too, that someone would preface the statement with…”you, MY FRIEND are ignorant.” Hardly a friendly thing to do, call someone your friend, and then tell them they are ignorant. What happened to…..”You know my friend, I think that you are mistaken.”

  88. @Percy Gryce
    Why is the New York Times leading the assault on the most fundamental human rights, namely self-defense and self-preservation?

    Percy, The NYT misreads the American Public, the self preservation and self defense they are interested in, is their own. The pandering of a dying publication.

  89. @Seran
    Islam is Peace (War is Peace)
    ???????? (Freedom is Slavery)
    Diversity is Strength (Ignorance is Strength)

    I'm still looking for a new phrase of Freedom is Slavery. Any suggestions?

    Seran, you are not paying attention, there is no freedom from slavery…..reparations maybe, freedom no way.

  90. @Jack D
    It's true he doesn't look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn't really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations.

    “It’s true he doesn’t look Scandinavian but last time I looked Northern Europeans were less than half of all Europeans. Southern Europeans are European too. Even Nazis didn’t really look the way they imagined themselves to look in their imaginations.”

    Nazis still look alot closer to Scandinavians in phenotype than they do to Levantine Arabs. If Nazis looked like Levantines, they would have been the biggest hypocrites on the planet for trying to wipe Jews off the planet for not looking Nordic Aryan enough. It would have been the pot calling the kettle black.

  91. The same newspaper that would sign off TOMORROW on legislation outlawing “intemperate racial/religious/political speech”; on prioritizing the maintenance of extra-legal Homeland Security databases tracking real-life and online activities of same; and on the vigorous and disproportionately-punitive prosecution of such offenders, all in the name of Fighting Hate (whatever the fuck that is, exactly)…..this same newspaper has the nerve to serve up this tired bilgewater, with chunks of cliche swimming in it that would embarrass the producers of an ABC Afterschool Special.

    Wait. Wait wait!…..did I say “would sign off on”? Cos what I meant to say was “is continually proposing, with mounting, breathless hysteria with each new iteration”. After all – when was the last time an Official Times Editorial commissioned a fucking logo, right out of a Marvel comic book, to help sell their pinko-Pollyanna policy suggestions?

  92. @NOTA
    That doesn't make the fear make any sense. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are both super rare spectacular events that get lots of media attention, and so seem like they're a big threat even when they're a tiny threat. You are at enormously more risk from (for example) black criminals than Muslim terrorists.

    NOTA, I fear the unthinkable. The terrorist who plans the Apocalyptic Event….a dirty bomb or biological attack. And make no mistake there are terrorists salivating over the thougth of massive destruction.

  93. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    This is just rhetoric, like FDR saying “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”.
     
    Was that before or after "Shinto is a religion of peace"?

    “Was that before or after ‘Shinto is a religion of peace’?”

    You see, that’s just it.

    Japan vs US had nothing to do with Shinto. It was a war of imperial ambitions, control of the Pacific.

    So, to blame Shinto-ism would have been foolish. While the modernizers made Shinto the national religion, it wasn’t the reason for the Pacific War and Pearl Harbor.
    Japanese didn’t attack Hawaii because they sat in a garden, sipped tea, and got some idear from a fox spirit that it’d be great to drop bombs on surfers.

    Granted, the sacred spiritual sense of Japanese-ness did make Japanese put up a ferocious defensive war that led to so much misery when a quick surrender would have prevented that, but the thing is the Pacific War was a political conflict, not a spiritual one.

    Now, I’ll grant international Islam is more aggressive for religious reasons. But the real source of the West vs Muslims is still geo-political than religious or spiritual.

    As for this ‘religion of peace’ stuff, it’s just rhetoric, and rhetoric is necessary in politics and diplomacy.

    It’s like what happened with the Japanese emperor after WWII. He was actually more responsible for war policy, but McCarthur figured he would be useful as Tokyo Shoeshine Boy.

    So, the narrative became the emperor was just some marine biologist who liked to sip tea and sit in a garden but was MISLED by nasty military men like Tojo who got what he deserved. It’s just how politics is played. And it was deemed necessary cuz China turned Red, and the Cold War was one, and Japan(along with Germany) became key allies in the fight against the commie threat.

    US has allies and enemies in the Middle East(much of it according to Jewish interests), and it just won’t do to alienate ALL Muslims by saying Islam itself is the problem.

    Even during the Cold War, US played it differently with different commies. It reviled Soviet Union as the Evil Empire but could be sort of friendly with Yugoslavia and Romania. And even though Mao was crazier than any Soviet leader, Nixon was shucking and jiving in Peking and praising the Chinese.

    From a diplomatic viewpoint, it would be stupid for US to say Islam itself is the problem and the enemy. It would not only alienate all Muslim nations(who are pieces on the geopolitical chessboard), but it would render vulnerable the Muslim leaders who are allied with the US. Imagine if you’re a leader of a Muslim nation and you’re closely allied with the US; suppose US leaders say Islam sucks. How are you gonna justify your alliance with the US? Radical clerics can defame you as a renegade turncoat collaborator of Americans.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Shinto was a massive problem for the United States, both as a foreign policy and then as a domestic policy, because it encouraged militarist craziness.

    On the other hand, Shinto and Japanese culture in general, like American culture at the time, came with a sense of honor about its craziness, so loyalty oaths turned out to be a highly effective tool for predicting the behavior of individual . About 5,000 Japanese Americans, many of whom had been sent back to Japan for high school and indoctrination in the Shinto cult, refused to take a loyalty oath to the U.S. They were sent to a special camp, Tule Lake, where they caused all sorts of problems for the guards with their violence. On the other hand, these Emperor-worshippers never promised not to make war against the U.S. so their violence against the U.S. was not dishonorable.

    The Japanese Americans who took a loyalty oath to America were allowed to stay where they lived if they didn't live on the West Coast. And the West Coasters who took oaths to the U.S. did not cause much trouble at all at their lower security internment camps (where they were paid like draftee privates in the U.S. Army). So, in retrospect, a big injustice was done to the Japanese-Americans since, after a few unfortunate incidents of treason at the time of Pearl Harbor, they showed a high degree of honorable behavior in living up to their loyalty oaths to America.

    So that raises the question of whether Muslim culture puts as high of a value of honor regarding loyalty oaths as does Japanese culture? Or does it have a culture of dissimulation?

    But in any case, our 21st culture tends to treat loyalty oaths as a McCarthyite joke, so it would be weird for Muslims to take them all that seriously. For example, the immigration oath would appear to require immigrants to give up citizenship in other countries, but the Supreme Court's 1967 Afroyim case allowing an immigrant from Israel to vote in both countries gutted the oath.

  94. @Corvinus
    Mr. Anon—Unless and until they become a large minority. Now’s the time to prevent that.

    So, what numbers are we talking about? Listen, around three million Muslims live currently in the United States. Considering how rare Muslim terrorist attacks are in the United States, there is little to prevent. Lil' Hassan down my street is more concerned about throwing snowballs with his neighborhood friends than going in the garage and making pipe bombs.

    Do we have a credible source for that? Because that number seems decidedly low….three million would probably just about cover the Michigan contingent. Here in Tel Aviv West, they are frickin’ ubiquitous.

    Unless it’s just me, and all those mosques one sees everywhere these days are like the sunspots and weather balloons people used to mistake for UFOs all the time back in the day.

  95. @AndrewR
    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It's just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back.

    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It’s just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back.”

    George Lopez has 54 percent European ancestry. How much European ancestry does Carlos Slim have?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Carlos Slim's dad was a member of the fascist Phalange in Lebanon and his older brother was a secret policeman in Mexico who interrogated / tortured leftist troublemakers. His beloved late wife was the cousin of the extreme right warlord Bashir Gemayel who allied with Ariel Sharon in 1982 but was blown up before taking the oath of office as president.

    For some reason, the NYT hasn't shown much interest in exploring this fascinating family history.

    , @AndrewR
    What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said.
  96. Svigor—“I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks.”

    It’s not sympathy, it’s called fact.

    Massimo—“Of course there are great Muslim people and undesirable Euro whites.”

    That’s actually blasphemy around these parts.

    Jefferson—“Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but on a per capita basis they sure have committed a lot of terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil for such a small miniscule demographic.”

    First, you’re going to have to define “a lot”. Second, what are the crime rates of Muslim Americans compared to the rest of the population? I would surmise that they are for the most part law-abiding citizens. Third, America has all sorts of extremists. Here, take a look at the “scorecard”.

    http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

    As a side bar, when talking about “true Americans”, a June survey (2015) by the Public Religion Institute showed that 33 percent of Americans said being a Christian was “very important” for being truly American, while the second-largest category, at 27 percent, said it was not at all important. Almost 60 percent said it was either very important or somewhat important that a true American was born in America.
    
Also, when talking about violence, specifically murder, well non-Muslims are way ahead of the curve compared to Muslims. Homicide rates in Muslim-majority countries average about 2 murders per 100,000 people each year. In non-Muslim countries, the average rate is about 8 murders per 100,000 each year. These rates change yearly, but they are consistently low in Muslim societies. The homicide rate in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is 1 per 100,000—one-fifth the rate of the world’s largest Christian country, the United States.

    Jefferson—If a bunch of religious extremist Orthodox and Hasidic Jews went around committing terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil, I doubt you would say religious Jews do not pose much of a threat to the U.S.

    A number of people here blame da Joos for their terrorist activity commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism.

    Jefferson—The U.S in order to prevent anymore terrorist attacks on U.S soil from crazy violent religious Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, even if most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists but you would not want to take any chances.

    You said it. Most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists. Now apply that same logic to Muslims.

    Anon—“You’re right, there are only about three million Muslims in the US. Considering that they pull off way more than 1% of the terrorist attacks, it would seem to indicate that there’s a problem.”

    A problem with Muslim extremists committed acts of terrorism, yes. A problem with the overall American Muslim population yelling “Allah” and blowing up government and civilian targets, no.

    Son, you are more likely to get mugged by a darkie than experience a terrorist attack by a Muslim. It’s that rare.

    If Americans want to limit or restrict or even ban immigration, great. Let’s do it. But as soon as the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups begin demanding to deport American Muslims citizens, good luck.

    “And are the ones who aren’t terrorists so great that we just can’t live without them? We seem to have gotten by just fine when there were essentially zero Muslims here.”

    Muslims have been in our country since the early 1900’s. You will have to enlighten me regarding their long-standing, pervasive history of engaging in terrorist acts on American soil since that time period.

    Hail—“I agree. Every country has a right to protect its ethnic core.”

    America’s “ethnic core” is, well, American.

    • Replies: @anon
    A problem with the overall American Muslim population yelling “Allah” and blowing up government and civilian targets, no.

    Which is why I asked you if the ones who aren't terrorists are so great that we just can't live without them. Which I notice you didn't answer.

    Son, you are more likely to get mugged by a darkie than experience a terrorist attack by a Muslim. It’s that rare.

    Far, far more likely. But they're already citizens, so the idea of immigration laws having any impact doesn't really matter. If there WAS a group of immigrants mugging people at the rate that African-Americans do, we wouldn't let them come here either, and nobody would have a problem with it.

    But as soon as the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups begin demanding to deport American Muslims citizens, good luck.

    Which is all the more reason to keep them out in the first place, so we won't have to worry about it.

    Muslims have been in our country since the early 1900’s. You will have to enlighten me regarding their long-standing, pervasive history of engaging in terrorist acts on American soil since that time period.

    No I don't. I asked you if the ones who aren't terrorists are so great that we just can't live without them. I'll take your refusal to answer that question as a no.
  97. @AndrewR
    I met a girl online once and called her on the phone to chat. For some reason she passed the phone to her friend, whom I knew nothing about. The friend had the stereotypical bourgie white girl accent.

    I asked her her name and she told me to guess. I said Nicole. She said, "no, that's a white girl's name."

    I said "you're not white?" She said "I'm Chaldean."

    Although I consider Chaldeans to be basically white, albeit clannish and very often very trashy, on that evening I did not want to get into a debate regarding that subject so I simply asked her what her name was again.


    She replied, and I am not making this up: "Ashley." I knew then I was dealing with a very dim person, and that it was unlikely her friend (the girl I had called) was much brighter...

    “Although I consider Chaldeans to be basically white,”

    What’s so White about Chaldeans? Do most of them have blue eyes? NOPE Do most of them have blond hair? NOPE Do most of them have light brown hair? NOPE.

    Dark brown hair/black hair, brown eyes, and swarthy pigmentation are the dominant traits in Chaldeans.

    I also notice curly hair is common among Chaldeans, most likely due to them looking closer to Arab Semites in phenotype than to WASP Americans from Nebraska and Iowa for example.

    Phenotype wise nobody would ever mistake Chaldeans for generic White Americans of German, English, and Scotch-Irish ancestry.

    If you don’t have a Nordic WASP looking phenotype, you are not White. Or you are Off White/Whitish at best.

    But the gold standard of Whiteness is the Nordic WASP phenotype. That phenotype is the epitome of Whiteness.

  98. @Massimo Heitor

    I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks. After all, for every Malik there seems to be a Clock Boy.
     
    You are being sarcastic, there are better examples:

    Almost everyone here likes Ayaan Hirsi Ali a thousand times more than Bernie Sanders or Bill DeBlasio. Of course there are great Muslim people and undesirable Euro whites.

    Ideally, society should select for the good and exclude the bad. That's actually quite complicated for a government to do.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a muslim and thus cannot be an example of a good muslim.
    I totally agree that society should promote virtue (good habits that lead to good acts) and and punish vice, and it certainly is something difficult for the government to discern generally and for the most part.
    However, in other situations it is pretty straightforward, for example membership in organized crime operation. Our society prohibits such organizations from having a formal status before the law and persecutes those suspected of being its members.
    Considering the intrinsically warlord like behavior of the religion’s founder and the fact that he is regarded as the exemplar of a good human being for Muslims then it is not to far fetched to think of Islam itself as being a good deal like an organized crime organization. For example the jizya is basically a protection racket. Most people involved in organized crime don’t actually do the violent stuff themselves, but the muscle does rely on a broader network of smugglers, numbers guys, informants, and wives/girlfriends to maximize the efficacy of the violent acts.

    Based on this survey: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
    then a good half of all muslims are totally innocuous while about quarter of the other half (the 9% of ISIS supporters and a few more percentage points for the ones who lied) are possible terrorists with the rest of the not good half being the type of people likely to supply and lie for the ones inclined to actually commit violent crime.

  99. @Steve Sailer
    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as "Arab"? Maronites often don't. It appears that Slim's father had ties to a rightwing Falangist (i.e., Fascist) party, as well as Slim's late wife being the cousin of Maronite warlord Bashir Gemayel.

    It would seem like an interesting topic for the New York Times to investigate, no?

    Does Carlos Slim self-identify as “Arab”? Maronites often don’t.

    It’s a testament to Mexico’s assimilative power, that someone from an Arab immigrant background, like Carlos Slim, not only strongly identifies as Mexican, but chooses to live and work in the US just like millions of his old-stock mexicano countrymen from deepest Durango and beyond.

    Interestingly, one of the founders of the Ba’ath, Arab nationalist movement was a Syrian of Greek Orthodox background:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aflaq (no connection to Gilbert Gottfried)

    The other two were Syrians of Alawite and Sunni origin.

    There’s still a Ba’ath party in Lebanon but it doesn’t appear to be that strong these days. Recently Hezbollah (backed by Assad), has gained the support of some Lebanese Christians, though for mostly pragmatic reasons it seems.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability

  100. @Jefferson
    "One thing for sure, Muslims don’t control the NYT"

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim. And I don't think he would appreciate you lumping his power into the Jewish power category. To Arabs the biggest insult in the world is being mistaken for a Jew.

    Carlos Slim is a greedy dirty capitalist Lebanese Arab, not a greedy dirty capitalist Jew.

    But a Jew does not control The NYT either. It is owned by the Arab multi-billionaire Carlos Slim.

    What the heck are you talking about? The Sulzbergers still own the Times and exert editorial control. Slim is a creditor and minority investor. His interests–which in terms of US policy, (promoting open immigration) are very well aligned with Jewish elites’ minoritarianism–are well represented by the NYT.

  101. @Jefferson
    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It’s just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back."

    George Lopez has 54 percent European ancestry. How much European ancestry does Carlos Slim have?

    Carlos Slim’s dad was a member of the fascist Phalange in Lebanon and his older brother was a secret policeman in Mexico who interrogated / tortured leftist troublemakers. His beloved late wife was the cousin of the extreme right warlord Bashir Gemayel who allied with Ariel Sharon in 1982 but was blown up before taking the oath of office as president.

    For some reason, the NYT hasn’t shown much interest in exploring this fascinating family history.

  102. @Anon
    "Was that before or after 'Shinto is a religion of peace'?"

    You see, that's just it.

    Japan vs US had nothing to do with Shinto. It was a war of imperial ambitions, control of the Pacific.

    So, to blame Shinto-ism would have been foolish. While the modernizers made Shinto the national religion, it wasn't the reason for the Pacific War and Pearl Harbor.
    Japanese didn't attack Hawaii because they sat in a garden, sipped tea, and got some idear from a fox spirit that it'd be great to drop bombs on surfers.

    Granted, the sacred spiritual sense of Japanese-ness did make Japanese put up a ferocious defensive war that led to so much misery when a quick surrender would have prevented that, but the thing is the Pacific War was a political conflict, not a spiritual one.

    Now, I'll grant international Islam is more aggressive for religious reasons. But the real source of the West vs Muslims is still geo-political than religious or spiritual.

    As for this 'religion of peace' stuff, it's just rhetoric, and rhetoric is necessary in politics and diplomacy.

    It's like what happened with the Japanese emperor after WWII. He was actually more responsible for war policy, but McCarthur figured he would be useful as Tokyo Shoeshine Boy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru5_0q0O-q4

    So, the narrative became the emperor was just some marine biologist who liked to sip tea and sit in a garden but was MISLED by nasty military men like Tojo who got what he deserved. It's just how politics is played. And it was deemed necessary cuz China turned Red, and the Cold War was one, and Japan(along with Germany) became key allies in the fight against the commie threat.

    US has allies and enemies in the Middle East(much of it according to Jewish interests), and it just won't do to alienate ALL Muslims by saying Islam itself is the problem.

    Even during the Cold War, US played it differently with different commies. It reviled Soviet Union as the Evil Empire but could be sort of friendly with Yugoslavia and Romania. And even though Mao was crazier than any Soviet leader, Nixon was shucking and jiving in Peking and praising the Chinese.

    From a diplomatic viewpoint, it would be stupid for US to say Islam itself is the problem and the enemy. It would not only alienate all Muslim nations(who are pieces on the geopolitical chessboard), but it would render vulnerable the Muslim leaders who are allied with the US. Imagine if you're a leader of a Muslim nation and you're closely allied with the US; suppose US leaders say Islam sucks. How are you gonna justify your alliance with the US? Radical clerics can defame you as a renegade turncoat collaborator of Americans.

    Shinto was a massive problem for the United States, both as a foreign policy and then as a domestic policy, because it encouraged militarist craziness.

    On the other hand, Shinto and Japanese culture in general, like American culture at the time, came with a sense of honor about its craziness, so loyalty oaths turned out to be a highly effective tool for predicting the behavior of individual . About 5,000 Japanese Americans, many of whom had been sent back to Japan for high school and indoctrination in the Shinto cult, refused to take a loyalty oath to the U.S. They were sent to a special camp, Tule Lake, where they caused all sorts of problems for the guards with their violence. On the other hand, these Emperor-worshippers never promised not to make war against the U.S. so their violence against the U.S. was not dishonorable.

    The Japanese Americans who took a loyalty oath to America were allowed to stay where they lived if they didn’t live on the West Coast. And the West Coasters who took oaths to the U.S. did not cause much trouble at all at their lower security internment camps (where they were paid like draftee privates in the U.S. Army). So, in retrospect, a big injustice was done to the Japanese-Americans since, after a few unfortunate incidents of treason at the time of Pearl Harbor, they showed a high degree of honorable behavior in living up to their loyalty oaths to America.

    So that raises the question of whether Muslim culture puts as high of a value of honor regarding loyalty oaths as does Japanese culture? Or does it have a culture of dissimulation?

    But in any case, our 21st culture tends to treat loyalty oaths as a McCarthyite joke, so it would be weird for Muslims to take them all that seriously. For example, the immigration oath would appear to require immigrants to give up citizenship in other countries, but the Supreme Court’s 1967 Afroyim case allowing an immigrant from Israel to vote in both countries gutted the oath.

  103. @Jefferson
    But genetically Trump is far more related to Slim than Lopez. There is no genetic watershed between Europe and the Levant. It’s just gradual change as you travel northwest to southeast and back."

    George Lopez has 54 percent European ancestry. How much European ancestry does Carlos Slim have?

    What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said."

    White is only limited to people who have European ancestry. The more European ancestry you have, the closer to White you are. There for George Lopez is over half White because he is 54 percent European, while Carlos Slim is zero percent White because has no European ancestors. Carlos Slim is a Middle Eastern Semite just like Osama Bin Laden and Paula Abdul. Carlos Slim is not of the same racial stock as the Swedish group ABBA.

  104. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Shinto was a massive problem for the United States, both as a foreign policy and then as a domestic policy, because it encouraged militarist craziness.”

    Shinto itself wasn’t the problem. It wasn’t even much of a religion. It didn’t have an ideology or creed. It was just a form of Japanese animism centered around rituals and nature worship and bowing before a bowl of water.

    What happened was that the modern militarists fashioned it into some kind of nationalist ideology, and this had little to do with actual Shinto. It was more like Bushido–way of samurai–writ large as a nationalist ideology. Bushido originally applied to the samurai elites who made up 5% of population. But modern nationalism imbued bushido spirit for all Japanese.

    But this could be done with any faith or idea or creed. Christianity was about peace, but the Teutonic Knights used it for some ultra-violence. And then you got even nuttier people like Jim Jones.

    As for the honor thing, I think what really mattered was that Japanese system was hierarchical and institutional. While the emperor was divine ruler, many were willing to fight all the way and kill/die for him. But once the emperor called it quits and the government surrendered, hierarchism took over. All obeyed. It’s like in the film JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY.

    Some officers wanna fight all the way(even if all of Japan is smashed) and they dread the emperor calling for surrender, but when the game is over, it is really over. There is no higher authority than the emperor and the system. It’s like a bee hive. Bees cannot exist as solo creatures.

    This is where Islam is different. Muslims can go solo in their violence because the ultimate authority is with Allah. Though Muslims may organize, their truth isn’t about loyalty to a system. Allah is bigger than any system or worldly authority. So, even if a Muslim-led government surrenders in war, the jihad carries on in the heart because Allah can never be defeated.

    When Japan lost the war and emperor said, “guess what? I’m human after all”, Japanese called it quits. They were supposed to obey and follow. And they did. Some killed themselves, but they still understood that it was over.

    But there is no such authority in the Muslim world. Allah is too big.
    But Jews are like this too. Romans clobbered them real good. So did other powers. But Jews still carried on with their rage and resentment cuz they believe that God is ultimately on their side and their day will come.

    I suppose one could argue Mishima did try to go solo, but when he failed to win over the soldiers who jeered at him, he chose death.

  105. I was listening to tonight’s news on various TV stations, and I heard Jeh Johnson, the semi-black appointee of the half-black President Obama to be the director of the Office of Homeland Security, essentially criticizing Trump’s recent remarks as improperly aiding the terrorist organization ISIS. Here is a quote of what he said:

    “Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson also weighed in, telling MSNBC: “I believe that it’s the responsibility of those of us in national security and homeland security, when a leading candidate for office proposes something that is irresponsible, probably illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to international law, un-American, and will actually hurt our efforts at homeland security and national security, we have to speak out.” ” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-us-35638676

    Who would have thought that an appointee of Obama would so criticize the words of his own President for taking the position back in 2012 in support of same sex marriage? Considering the fact that Obama was strongly against SSM starting in 2004 (when he was running for the Senate) and remaining so until 2012, his change of position was clearly proposing something that was irresponsible. Since the Supreme Court had not yet issued its controversial 5-4 decision, what he was proposing was probably illegal and unconstitutional. And there is little doubt that SSM is not only un-American but runs contrary to the beliefs of Muslims and a large majority of the world’s population, not to say the beliefs of ISIS, so it can easily be said that Obama’s final flip in his historic flip-flop-flip on SSM fueled ISIS’s propaganda and thus hurt our efforts at homeland security and national security. How about a round of applause for Jeh Johnson for speaking the truth to power.

  106. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Svigor—“I suppose we should sympathize with the folks who say Muslims are good folks.”

    It’s not sympathy, it’s called fact.


    Massimo—“Of course there are great Muslim people and undesirable Euro whites.”

    That’s actually blasphemy around these parts.


    Jefferson—“Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S population, but on a per capita basis they sure have committed a lot of terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil for such a small miniscule demographic.”

    First, you’re going to have to define “a lot”. Second, what are the crime rates of Muslim Americans compared to the rest of the population? I would surmise that they are for the most part law-abiding citizens. Third, America has all sorts of extremists. Here, take a look at the “scorecard”.

    http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

    As a side bar, when talking about “true Americans”, a June survey (2015) by the Public Religion Institute showed that 33 percent of Americans said being a Christian was "very important" for being truly American, while the second-largest category, at 27 percent, said it was not at all important. Almost 60 percent said it was either very important or somewhat important that a true American was born in America.
    
Also, when talking about violence, specifically murder, well non-Muslims are way ahead of the curve compared to Muslims. Homicide rates in Muslim-majority countries average about 2 murders per 100,000 people each year. In non-Muslim countries, the average rate is about 8 murders per 100,000 each year. These rates change yearly, but they are consistently low in Muslim societies. The homicide rate in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is 1 per 100,000—one-fifth the rate of the world’s largest Christian country, the United States.

    Jefferson—If a bunch of religious extremist Orthodox and Hasidic Jews went around committing terrorist attacks/mass shootings on U.S soil, I doubt you would say religious Jews do not pose much of a threat to the U.S.

    A number of people here blame da Joos for their terrorist activity commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism.

    Jefferson—The U.S in order to prevent anymore terrorist attacks on U.S soil from crazy violent religious Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, even if most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists but you would not want to take any chances.

    You said it. Most Jewish immigrants are not terrorists. Now apply that same logic to Muslims.


    Anon—“You’re right, there are only about three million Muslims in the US. Considering that they pull off way more than 1% of the terrorist attacks, it would seem to indicate that there’s a problem.”

    A problem with Muslim extremists committed acts of terrorism, yes. A problem with the overall American Muslim population yelling “Allah” and blowing up government and civilian targets, no.

    Son, you are more likely to get mugged by a darkie than experience a terrorist attack by a Muslim. It’s that rare.

    If Americans want to limit or restrict or even ban immigration, great. Let’s do it. But as soon as the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups begin demanding to deport American Muslims citizens, good luck.

    “And are the ones who aren’t terrorists so great that we just can’t live without them? We seem to have gotten by just fine when there were essentially zero Muslims here.”

    Muslims have been in our country since the early 1900’s. You will have to enlighten me regarding their long-standing, pervasive history of engaging in terrorist acts on American soil since that time period.

    Hail—“I agree. Every country has a right to protect its ethnic core.”

    America's "ethnic core" is, well, American.

    A problem with the overall American Muslim population yelling “Allah” and blowing up government and civilian targets, no.

    Which is why I asked you if the ones who aren’t terrorists are so great that we just can’t live without them. Which I notice you didn’t answer.

    Son, you are more likely to get mugged by a darkie than experience a terrorist attack by a Muslim. It’s that rare.

    Far, far more likely. But they’re already citizens, so the idea of immigration laws having any impact doesn’t really matter. If there WAS a group of immigrants mugging people at the rate that African-Americans do, we wouldn’t let them come here either, and nobody would have a problem with it.

    But as soon as the Coalition of the Right Fringe groups begin demanding to deport American Muslims citizens, good luck.

    Which is all the more reason to keep them out in the first place, so we won’t have to worry about it.

    Muslims have been in our country since the early 1900’s. You will have to enlighten me regarding their long-standing, pervasive history of engaging in terrorist acts on American soil since that time period.

    No I don’t. I asked you if the ones who aren’t terrorists are so great that we just can’t live without them. I’ll take your refusal to answer that question as a no.

  107. @StAugustine
    Having been just ahead of the "that's ignorant" "that's racist" trend, I can see it very clearly, like an avalanche on my heels. I think it's a little like how one's accent used to give away one's social class, but now that our American accents are much more homogenized into the broad regions, we need something else to distinguish our betters. Also, it's never said "you're racist" or "you're ignorant" as those are personal attacks - but the formation "that's ____ [what you just said or believe]" which is effective in enforcing the moral "upper class" code. "That's racist" has limited use, although quite flexible, so I believe "that's ignorant" is used for all other non-racist contexts, or as a substitute to avoid saying the R-word.

    PC orthodoxy is based on a confusion between belief and truth. Adherents believe that their beliefs are the Truth, and any contradiction to the Truth must be due to ignorance or malice [racism]. Perhaps the switch to the word "ignorance" is to avoid direct conflict; but perhaps it also reflects the current generation's loss of skepticism. "It just is." "I just can't even [believe what I see/hear]" "Didn't you know that [such and such study says that whatever liberal talking point]?" And even if you can contradict them with evidence or facts or anecdotes, these do not have enough weight against their believed orthodoxy. You're just ignorant of the Truth.

    Thus the Truth can be used both as a status marker in conversation and to distinguish between Believers and the Unsaved (or worse, they know the Truth and mock it-just like the Devil!!!! Those on the side of the Devil are Evil and must be resisted/destroyed no matter what!).

    Hear the Good News and repent!

    Hear the Good News and repent!

    Excellent analysis; gold border well-deserved.

    But I think your final line needs a bit of amendment: it should be something more like ‘Hear the Good News, and you will be enlightened!’

    The ‘Truth’ for SJWs/progressives has little to do with traditional western conceptions of the word. It’s instead much closer to the ‘Truth’ in gnosticism, i.e. a burst of enlightenment that transforms one’s very worldview. For gnostics, it means realizing you’re not just some flesh-bound schlub trying to get along day by day; instead, your very essence is a spark of the divine.

    Progressives, as post-modern gnostic Christian heretics, don’t feel they need to be tethered to tedious recitations and analysis of facts and statistical patterns; they ‘just know’ what’s True.

    Their use of the epithet ‘ignorant’ also needs to be understood in this context. ‘Ignorance’ of progressive Truth can’t be overcome by actual research and learning, no matter how much progressives claim to be on the side of ‘science’. It must come to one in a Buddha-like flash that opens the enlightened one’s inner eye to a gestalt of beliefs, attitudes, and value judgements. ‘Education’ is therefore the answer, but only a particular form of education that’s really just ‘consciousness-raising’, just as we see on university campuses around the western world.

  108. @AndrewR
    What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said.

    “What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said.”

    White is only limited to people who have European ancestry. The more European ancestry you have, the closer to White you are. There for George Lopez is over half White because he is 54 percent European, while Carlos Slim is zero percent White because has no European ancestors. Carlos Slim is a Middle Eastern Semite just like Osama Bin Laden and Paula Abdul. Carlos Slim is not of the same racial stock as the Swedish group ABBA.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Cite your sources.
  109. @Anonymous
    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    Geez, you guys are scared little pussies

    Oh no here come the Muslims!

    Exactly backwards. “We can’t keep them out that would be mean!” That’s classic pussy talk.

    The non-pussy move is to defend your territory against all comers so that it is there for your children, their children, etc. etc. Non pussy people–shall we call them “penis people”–are also on average more *rational*. Muslim immigration into the West (or honestly any non-muslim civilization) is one of those things for which there is absolutely no detectable up-side. The rational–penis people–response is … “Uh, this is stupid, let’s not do it.”

    Being rational, farsighted, protective of your civilization–that’s not being a pussy.

  110. @wolfy
    the right is also ignorant about several things.

    the right is also ignorant about several things.

    *Everyone* is ignorant about some things.

    But if you try and wrap the current left\right dispute into five to ten general principles that underlie the dispute, the right is right about all of them, the left none of them.

    Here’s a quickie go from my “rightest” perspective–what makes me “right wing”:
    — there is human nature, and it is neither all that malleable nor perfectible; utopia does not exist in this world
    — people, groups of people (including the sexes) are not “all the same” but vary widely in their talents and inclinations
    — people respond to incentives
    — our traditions are valuable; (they are there for a reason, sort of “gelled knowledge”)
    — the family, not the state is the core institution of civilization
    — government programs\actions\interventions may–and usually do–have unintended, unanticipated side effects
    — state power is to be feared, not worshiped; it is best when exercised locally (closest to the people) and constrained

    A leftist could no doubt write down a list and come up with some boringly true statements–e.g. “the state can do good things”–which even a crazy right winger like me would agree with. But if he actually drilled into the areas of ideological dispute and wrote down a statement for his side–e.g. “nurture is more important than nature” or “we’re all the same under the skin” or “diversity makes us stronger”, he’d be wrong pretty much 100% of the time.

  111. Anon..

    “This is where Islam is different. Muslims can go solo in their violence because the ultimate authority is with Allah.”

    Some go rogue. But there’s a reason why they’re called “sleeper cells”. Moreover, Radical Christians and Radical Jews have also “gone solo” in their bloody rampages in similar fashion as Muzzies.

    “Though Muslims may organize, their truth isn’t about loyalty to a system.”


    Their loyalty is to Allah, who assists in creating the system. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

    “Allah is bigger than any system or worldly authority.”

    

As is Jesus Christ.

    “Which is why I asked you if the ones who aren’t terrorists are so great that we just can’t live without them. Which I notice you didn’t answer.”

    The Muslims who are American citizens are part of any group living here who have their lunatics. It has nothing to do with “living without them” or them “being so great”, but rather understanding that some people wrongly characterize the entire group as decidedly violent.

    “If there WAS a group of immigrants mugging people at the rate that African-Americans do, we wouldn’t let them come here either, and nobody would have a problem with it.”

    
You mean like the English and French who “mugged” Native Americans, right? And, you said it, IF THERE WAS.

    “Which is all the more reason to keep them out in the first place, so we won’t have to worry about it.”

    Ask the nativists who felt the same way about da Joos, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Italians.

  112. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The Muslims who are American citizens are part of any group living here who have their lunatics. It has nothing to do with “living without them” or them “being so great”, but rather understanding that some people wrongly characterize the entire group as decidedly violent.

    So, in other words, we would get by just fine if we never let another Muslim in ever again, which means we should stop letting them immediately. I accept your gracious acknowledgement that I am right.

    
You mean like the English and French who “mugged” Native Americans, right? And, you said it, IF THERE WAS.

    Yes. And the Native Americans would be a lot better off today if they HAD been able to kick us out, wouldn’t they? Thank you for proving my point.

    “Ask the nativists who felt the same way about da Joos, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Italians.”

    What should I ask them? Whether America would be doing fine today if we hadn’t let them in? I already know the answer to that. Of course it would. Though I would note that I can think of lots of positive contributions made by those people, which is something I can’t say about Muslims.

  113. @res
    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is. If someone wants to do this, merging these two data sources would probably be a good start.

    The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetDownloadFile.aspx for crime data.

    The Education Data Analysis Tool (EDAT) http://nces.ed.gov/edat/ for demographic data.

    I may look into this later. If anyone else does please post.

    It’s a pipe dream. Given the reporting of faux assaults, the non-reporting of real assaults, the administration at Pigskin U protecting the Heisman-candidate running back and teammates who gang-shagged a drunk/stoned coed, events at off-campus housing that involves students but didn’t occur on school grounds, etc., I don’t see anything approaching reality coming.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  114. Anon–“So, in other words, we would get by just fine if we never let another Muslim in ever again, which means we should stop letting them immediately. I accept your gracious acknowledgement that I am right.”

    We are fine with “our Muslims” here. We have been fine with letting Muslims into our country. Should the citizens decide not to “import” additional Muslims, then it is their decision…and the nation is still fine. You do realize that several million Muslims had been among us since the 1600’s…those who came here as slaves. I wonder what happened to them if they dared to practice their faith. And, I never acknowledged you were right in any regard. Great imagination!

    “Yes. And the Native Americans would be a lot better off today if they HAD been able to kick us out, wouldn’t they? Thank you for proving my point.”

    The only point proven, using your logic, is that Europeans ought to immediately leave this country and return it to Native Americans. Are you going to call for that event to take place?

    “What should I ask them? Whether America would be doing fine today if we hadn’t let them in? I already know the answer to that. Of course it would.”

    You have mere speculation.

    “Though I would note that I can think of lots of positive contributions made by those people, which is something I can’t say about Muslims.”

    You’re not thinking hard enough.

    Ragno—“Do we have a credible source for that? Because that number seems decidedly low….three million would probably just about cover the Michigan contingent. Here in Tel Aviv West, they are frickin’ ubiquitous.”

    The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.

    • Replies: @anon
    We are fine with “our Muslims” here. We have been fine with letting Muslims into our country.

    Except for the ones that kill people and cause us to be so divided. There is no benefit to them being here, and there are drawbacks, so they should not be here.

    You do realize that several million Muslims had been among us since the 1600’s…those who came here as slaves.

    Most of whom weren't Muslims, and the ones that were, we converted.

    And, I never acknowledged you were right in any regard. Great imagination!

    Sure you did. You acknowledged that there was absolutely no benefit to them being here. No benefit, plus drawbacks, means that they are a net negative to our society. You acknowledged this by failing to come up with any reasons they should be here.

    The only point proven, using your logic, is that Europeans ought to immediately leave this country and return it to Native Americans. Are you going to call for that event to take place?

    No, the point proven is that immigration can have disastrous effects on the people who were already here. There's no "ought to" involved. The question is, whose side are you going to take? I take mine, you take everybody else's.

    Although I might eventually go to Europe if they'd kick all of the non-Europeans out of there.

    You have mere speculation.

    Actually, no, I have the history of the United States prior to their arrival, in which America was doing fine.

    You’re not thinking hard enough.

    No, it's just that there aren't any.

    Why are you still doing this? It's clear that you don't have anything resembling a point. Why won't you just let it drop?
  115. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Anon--“So, in other words, we would get by just fine if we never let another Muslim in ever again, which means we should stop letting them immediately. I accept your gracious acknowledgement that I am right.”

    We are fine with “our Muslims” here. We have been fine with letting Muslims into our country. Should the citizens decide not to “import” additional Muslims, then it is their decision…and the nation is still fine. You do realize that several million Muslims had been among us since the 1600’s…those who came here as slaves. I wonder what happened to them if they dared to practice their faith. And, I never acknowledged you were right in any regard. Great imagination!

    “Yes. And the Native Americans would be a lot better off today if they HAD been able to kick us out, wouldn’t they? Thank you for proving my point.”

    The only point proven, using your logic, is that Europeans ought to immediately leave this country and return it to Native Americans. Are you going to call for that event to take place?

    “What should I ask them? Whether America would be doing fine today if we hadn’t let them in? I already know the answer to that. Of course it would.”

    You have mere speculation.

    “Though I would note that I can think of lots of positive contributions made by those people, which is something I can’t say about Muslims.”

    You're not thinking hard enough.

    Ragno—“Do we have a credible source for that? Because that number seems decidedly low….three million would probably just about cover the Michigan contingent. Here in Tel Aviv West, they are frickin’ ubiquitous.”

    The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.

    We are fine with “our Muslims” here. We have been fine with letting Muslims into our country.

    Except for the ones that kill people and cause us to be so divided. There is no benefit to them being here, and there are drawbacks, so they should not be here.

    You do realize that several million Muslims had been among us since the 1600’s…those who came here as slaves.

    Most of whom weren’t Muslims, and the ones that were, we converted.

    And, I never acknowledged you were right in any regard. Great imagination!

    Sure you did. You acknowledged that there was absolutely no benefit to them being here. No benefit, plus drawbacks, means that they are a net negative to our society. You acknowledged this by failing to come up with any reasons they should be here.

    The only point proven, using your logic, is that Europeans ought to immediately leave this country and return it to Native Americans. Are you going to call for that event to take place?

    No, the point proven is that immigration can have disastrous effects on the people who were already here. There’s no “ought to” involved. The question is, whose side are you going to take? I take mine, you take everybody else’s.

    Although I might eventually go to Europe if they’d kick all of the non-Europeans out of there.

    You have mere speculation.

    Actually, no, I have the history of the United States prior to their arrival, in which America was doing fine.

    You’re not thinking hard enough.

    No, it’s just that there aren’t any.

    Why are you still doing this? It’s clear that you don’t have anything resembling a point. Why won’t you just let it drop?

  116. @Fun with aluminum
    Agree wholeheartedly, right down to thinking "hey, I should really be cataloguing all of these examples of inversion". While I am leery of the whole diagnose-your-political-opponents-with-mental-illness routine, the inversion of reality is so consistent that there must be some psychological explanation.

    Three examples that come to mind:

    1) The iSteve classic: prog garment-rending over the unending threat to innocent black bodies posed by racist white men with guns.
    2) The focus of 100% of "rape culture" propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.
    3) The classic line of shills for Hamas (whose charter is explicitly exterminationist, and whose only political tactic is random murder): these people will invariably tell you the real problem in "Palestine" is Israel's lack of concern for "human rights".

    It would be interesting if someone were to put together a larger catalogue of these inversions.

    2) The focus of 100% of “rape culture” propaganda on American university campuses, when there are essentially no places on the the planet where you are less likely to be a victim of forcible sex assault.

    That’s ridiculous. Sure, the “rape culture” propaganda greatly exaggerates things, but the truth is bad enough. Rape is common on college campuses.

  117. @res
    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is. If someone wants to do this, merging these two data sources would probably be a good start.

    The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool http://ope.ed.gov/security/GetDownloadFile.aspx for crime data.

    The Education Data Analysis Tool (EDAT) http://nces.ed.gov/edat/ for demographic data.

    I may look into this later. If anyone else does please post.

    Not sure how trustworthy campus sexual assault rate data is.

    Presumably, it’s not trustworthy in the least since so many girls are raped without even knowing it.

  118. Anon…

    “Except for the ones that kill people and cause us to be so divided.”

    I’m sure you are able to present everyday occurrences of those bloodthirsty, murderous thieves known as American Muslims. Praytell, what are their violent crime rates compared to non-Muslims?

    “There is no benefit to them being here, and there are drawbacks, so they should not be here.”

As you said, only for the ones that are terrorists. Praytell, how many of them are you able to definitively state fit that description?

    “You acknowledged that there was absolutely no benefit to them being here.”

    
As George Castanza quipped, “It’s not a lie, unless you believe it”. You have his mantra down to a tee.

    “No, the point proven is that immigration can have disastrous effects on the people who were already here.”

    
CAN, being the operative word.

    “The question is, whose side are you going to take?”

    Considering that the history of America is one of immigration, I’ll take that side.

    “Actually, no, I have the history of the United States prior to their arrival, in which America was doing fine.”

    So, you have several, specific instances in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant actions that has led to America “not doing fine”. Looking forward to those examples.

    “No, it’s just that there aren’t any.”



    Pro tip –> When a person generally talks in absolutes, he/she comes across as ignorant.

    • Replies: @anon
    I’m sure you are able to present everyday occurrences of those bloodthirsty, murderous thieves known as American Muslims. Praytell, what are their violent crime rates compared to non-Muslims?

    I don't need to. Some of them are terrorists, none of them are a benefit, so they are a net negative.

    As you said, only for the ones that are terrorists. Praytell, how many of them are you able to definitively state fit that description?

    If it's one, they are a net negative, and it's more than one.

    Considering that the history of America is one of immigration, I’ll take that side.

    Why?

    So, you have several, specific instances in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant actions that has led to America “not doing fine”. Looking forward to those examples.

    I have several examples of them doing bad things. You have no examples of them doing anything to make America better.

    Pro tip –> When a person generally talks in absolutes, he/she comes across as ignorant.

    Pro tip--> When a person keeps insunuating that there's a good reason to do something, and repeatedly fails to come up with a single example as to why, it generally means that they can't, but just don't want to admit it.

    In this case, it means that you can't come up with an example of any benefit to having Muslims here, and simply telling me that I need to think harder about reasons they are a benefit does not hide that fact, nor does it make you seem intelligent.

    I think I'm done here. You don't have a point. You are never going to have a point. You are simply a liberal, and therefore, there is nothing to be gained by listening to you.
  119. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Anon...

    “Except for the ones that kill people and cause us to be so divided.”

    I’m sure you are able to present everyday occurrences of those bloodthirsty, murderous thieves known as American Muslims. Praytell, what are their violent crime rates compared to non-Muslims?

    “There is no benefit to them being here, and there are drawbacks, so they should not be here.”

As you said, only for the ones that are terrorists. Praytell, how many of them are you able to definitively state fit that description?

    “You acknowledged that there was absolutely no benefit to them being here.”

    
As George Castanza quipped, “It’s not a lie, unless you believe it”. You have his mantra down to a tee.

    “No, the point proven is that immigration can have disastrous effects on the people who were already here.”

    
CAN, being the operative word.

    “The question is, whose side are you going to take?”

    Considering that the history of America is one of immigration, I’ll take that side.

    “Actually, no, I have the history of the United States prior to their arrival, in which America was doing fine.”

    So, you have several, specific instances in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant actions that has led to America “not doing fine”. Looking forward to those examples.

    “No, it’s just that there aren’t any.”



    Pro tip --> When a person generally talks in absolutes, he/she comes across as ignorant.

    I’m sure you are able to present everyday occurrences of those bloodthirsty, murderous thieves known as American Muslims. Praytell, what are their violent crime rates compared to non-Muslims?

    I don’t need to. Some of them are terrorists, none of them are a benefit, so they are a net negative.

    As you said, only for the ones that are terrorists. Praytell, how many of them are you able to definitively state fit that description?

    If it’s one, they are a net negative, and it’s more than one.

    Considering that the history of America is one of immigration, I’ll take that side.

    Why?

    So, you have several, specific instances in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant actions that has led to America “not doing fine”. Looking forward to those examples.

    I have several examples of them doing bad things. You have no examples of them doing anything to make America better.

    Pro tip –> When a person generally talks in absolutes, he/she comes across as ignorant.

    Pro tip–> When a person keeps insunuating that there’s a good reason to do something, and repeatedly fails to come up with a single example as to why, it generally means that they can’t, but just don’t want to admit it.

    In this case, it means that you can’t come up with an example of any benefit to having Muslims here, and simply telling me that I need to think harder about reasons they are a benefit does not hide that fact, nor does it make you seem intelligent.

    I think I’m done here. You don’t have a point. You are never going to have a point. You are simply a liberal, and therefore, there is nothing to be gained by listening to you.

  120. “I don’t need to. Some of them are terrorists, none of them are a benefit, so they are a net negative.”



    If you are going to make this outrageous claim–none of them are a benefit–then it incumbent upon yourself that you offer a shred of evidence.

    “If it’s one, they are a net negative, and it’s more than one.”

    
Using your logic, several white Christian males have committed heinous acts recently, resulting in a “net negative”. See how foolish is your reasoning?

    “You have no examples of them doing anything to make America better.”

    Millions of (black) Muslims were imported here and heavily assisted in the development of the United States. Regarding recent events, take a look.

    http://www.chicagonow.com/midwestern-muslim/2014/01/muslims-dont-contribute-to-america-think-again/

    “In this case, it means that you can’t come up with an example of any benefit to having Muslims here…”

    As I stated earlier, I am certain you have several, specific instances in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant actions that has led to America “not doing fine”. Looking forward to those examples.

    “You are simply a liberal, and therefore, there is nothing to be gained by listening to you.”

    No, I don’t fancy myself a liberal or a conservative, just an American who tries to back up my claims when pressed with proof. Do you want to know more, citizen?

  121. @Jefferson
    "What? Probably none. That has nothing to do with what I said."

    White is only limited to people who have European ancestry. The more European ancestry you have, the closer to White you are. There for George Lopez is over half White because he is 54 percent European, while Carlos Slim is zero percent White because has no European ancestors. Carlos Slim is a Middle Eastern Semite just like Osama Bin Laden and Paula Abdul. Carlos Slim is not of the same racial stock as the Swedish group ABBA.

    Cite your sources.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings