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: "Migrants Face Fortress Europe’s Deadly Moat"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the NYT Opinion Section:

Migrants Face Fortress Europe’s Deadly Moat

LONDON — … Who is to blame? European politicians point the finger at traffickers. On Monday, European Union officials came up with a 10-point plan, including military action against smuggling networks.

The traffickers are certainly odious figures, recklessly placing migrants in peril. But what pushes migrants into the hands of traffickers are the European Union’s own policies. The bloc’s approach to immigration has been to treat it as a matter not of human need, but of criminality. It has developed a three-pronged strategy of militarizing border controls, criminalizing migration and outsourcing controls.

For more than three decades, the European Union has been constructing what critics call “Fortress Europe,” a cordon protected by sea, air and land patrols, and a high-tech surveillance system of satellites and drones. When a journalist from Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine visited the control room of Frontex, the European border agency, he observed that the language used was that of “defending Europe against an enemy.” …

So what is to be done? The restoration of a proper search-and-rescue operation is important but insufficient. The European Union should stop treating migrants as criminals, and border control as warfare. It must dismantle Fortress Europe, liberalize immigration policy and open up legal routes for migrants. Some argue this would lead to a flood of immigrants, but current policy is not preventing people from migrating; it is simply killing them, by the boatload.

Fortress Europe has created not just a physical barrier around the Continent but an emotional barricade around Europe’s sense of humanity, too….

Kenan Malik, a contributing opinion writer, is the author, most recently, of “The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics.”

 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “For more than three decades, the European Union has been constructing what critics call “Fortress Europe,” a cordon protected by sea, air and land patrols, and a high-tech surveillance system of satellites and drones.-

    Hysterical. How ‘s it working out, Malik?

  2. Send mines and submarines that need to get rid of aging torpedo inventories. Surface gunnery practice is also needed.

    That would be humane. For our Humans.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The great Berlusconi spearheaded a deal with Gaddafi which ended the channel of illegals flowing from Libya to Europe. The USA, UK, and France killed that by removing Gaddafi.

    All of these illegals should be resettled in those three countries as punishment. 170,000 made it last year. There are some 500,000 to 1 million in Libya right now waiting to sail across to Lampedusa.

  4. Ha! Double ha! Moral suasion from a Turk. How’s that first draft of the Armenian apology coming, Kenan?

    OT, it snowed here this afternoon, on Earth Day Eve. C’mon guys, let’s get on this global warming thing. You promised!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Oops. I assumed Malik was Turk from the name he shares with Pvt Kenan Evren, former president of Turkey born in the Ottoman Empire and still kicking at 97, albeit in prison. (Hence the "private".)

    This other Kenan hails from Sikandar-a-bad, and attended Peter Brimelow's alma mater.
    , @youngalexander
    Reg mate - global warming: temperature is directly related to kinetic energy. Raise the temp of the atmosphere increases the KE of atmos. Greater KE leads to more dynamic events, NOT necessarily warm events, just more extremes - such as late snow!
  5. On the way, they throw Chistians overboard to drown.

    When they get here, they gang-rape our daughters.

    I don’t want them or Mr Malik.

  6. “For more than three decades, the European Union has been constructing what critics call “Fortress Europe,” a cordon protected by sea, air and land patrols…”

    Remember back, like, three decades ago, when they all said we would never be able build the Mediterranean Sea? We sure proved those suckers wrong, didn’t we?

    Kenan Malik’s co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India. Now they say the British have no right to keep them out of Britain. Indians have a right to their own country. The British do not.

    The Rorschach Test-type drawing with the piece is interesting. It looks like it’s supposed to evoke, well, Fortress Europe, but what I see is a white man drowning. Perhaps that’s the point, or maybe it’s just coincidence.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    The Mediterranean Sea is just more white privilege.
    , @Numinous

    Kenan Malik’s co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India.
     
    Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords. Many Brits who were OK with living under Indian or Pakistani administration stayed; most wanted to live in a white-ruled country, and left. Those who stayed found nothing adverse happened to them; what happened in Zimbabwe never happened in the subcontinent (at least to whites; Hindus and Muslims were of course expelled from either side of the Indo-Pak border.)
  7. At present there are only four comments on Malik’s piece. By far the most popular, with 146 likes:

    “Boy, wouldn’t it be great if Europe could accept every last one of the impoverished, uneducated billions in overpopulated, poorly governed third world countries. Of course, that would only have the effect of making Europe as hopeless and poor as the countries from which the immigrants fled. But, never mind. The Europeans are terrible baddies because other countries can’t manage their own affairs.” – Josh Hill

  8. Kenan Malik (born 1960) is an Indian-born English writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science……..

    His full name is Kenan Camp Of The Saints Malik. England has enough crackpots, no need to import them.

  9. “Malik argues that racial scientists should be allowed to express their views publicly and be critiqued in the public domain, while also criticising censorship from traditional anti-racist organisations. ” from Wikipedia

    I think Europeans have habits of discipline, order and responsibility of self that Africans do not, especially Muslim Africans.
    But generally that is why Africa is such a mess and Europe is cooperatively civilized. The Africans want to come and leech off of a civilization that is relatively successful. Why don’t they stay home and work on their own country?
    But my opinions are not what I hear on the TV, I think the germ of this entire problem is the Guilt that a predominantly fat, well fed, vaguely Christian, civilization feels in the face of an obviously dysfunctional civilization across the Mediterranean. Confidence in one’s civilization usually goes hand in hand with its success but after the WW 1 and 2; fat, dry, well fed, Europeans are suckers for shysters and their endlessly repeated guilt trip.

    • Replies: @Michael Soren
    "the germ of this entire problem is the Guilt that a predominantly fat, well fed, vaguely Christian, civilization feels in the face of an obviously dysfunctional civilization across the Mediterranean. Confidence in one’s civilization usually goes hand in hand with its success but after the WW 1 and 2; fat, dry, well fed, Europeans are suckers for shysters and their endlessly repeated guilt trip."

    The concept/image of morbid moral obesity springs to mind unbidden. Thanks for nothing! Would someone please flesh this out (pardon the expression) for me? Something involving binging on the cheap, subsidized carbs of sentimentality, preening, and status-whoring without any salubrious exercise of communal self-defense? Radical thought: could it be that the outcome of WWs 1&2 are more accurately described, not as "success" for Europe but as auto-genocide (à la Killing Fields, Great Leap Forward, and GP Cultural Revolution in Asia)? Getting all cosmic on you, could this be the Great Filter exterminating intelligent life forms before lift-off? ("I'm sorry but these payloads are too morally obese for space-travel!")
  10. Politicians and public figures are scared of talking about border control in terms of action in their own people’s interests. So now they have their chance to show their hatred of “evil traffickers” who risk their passengers’ lives, and can claim border control is in the interests of the would-be immigrants. All of these immigrants paid a relatively small sum to get to Europe, one that would be dwarfed by a lifetime’s entitlement to welfare payments, health care, etc., had they made it safely.

  11. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    So, Europe must be white man’s burden for black man’s hardon?

  12. The British Admiral Parry several years ago predicted a breakdown of the world order as we know it.

    A breakdown from a variety of factors to perhaps include massive and overwhelming illegal immigration from the third world to the first.

    Chaos leading to unmitigated strife as a result. Europe would experience a phenomenon as not seen since the Dark Ages with all that will mean.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Thank you yes it was Admiral Parry who authored that report. Been looking for it forever as I remember reading it and thinking maybe at the highest level there are people actually concerned about the survival of our people, civilization and our security.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-390230/Britain-faces-mass-migration-warns-Admiral.html

    Of course no one seems to have taken much notice then, Fortress Europe?, but this recent crisis seems to be focusing minds.
  13. What a pompous piece of crap. Certain groups–and Indians are one of them–just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality. I usually don’t read the NYT pieces in time to comment, but thanks to Steve, this one i did. I posted my comment at NYT. I’ll see if it’s approved.

    Europeans are under no more moral obligation to take in these Africans than is some random guy in Lagos is to take my kids into his house if I’m too incompetent to see them properly clothed, sheltered and fed.

    Since Kanan Malik, is not even a native European, I’d suggest he take his pompous moral hectoring elsewhere. If Malik thinks these Africans are entitled to a home somewhere else—instead of working to improve their native countries—why not pitch this idea to his native Indians and see what they think about opening up their nation to their African brothers?

    Furthermore since black Africa is the one region that refuses to reign in its own fertility, taking in these migrants won’t make even the tiniest dent in the crappy conditions in their countries. Advocates of Europe opening up to this flood are clearly not interested in saving Africans, but in destroying Europe.

    In fact, I’d argue that the one critical duty that current Europeans owe their posterity is in fact to protect Europe, prevent it—its terrific race and culture (art, music, literature, social and political advancement and that jewel, modern science)—from being destroyed by the demographic tsunami that is black Africa.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Didn't India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?
    , @Numinous

    Certain groups–and Indians are one of them–just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality.
     
    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.
  14. @Reg Cæsar
    Ha! Double ha! Moral suasion from a Turk. How's that first draft of the Armenian apology coming, Kenan?

    OT, it snowed here this afternoon, on Earth Day Eve. C'mon guys, let's get on this global warming thing. You promised!

    Oops. I assumed Malik was Turk from the name he shares with Pvt Kenan Evren, former president of Turkey born in the Ottoman Empire and still kicking at 97, albeit in prison. (Hence the “private”.)

    This other Kenan hails from Sikandar-a-bad, and attended Peter Brimelow’s alma mater.

  15. @Reg Cæsar
    Ha! Double ha! Moral suasion from a Turk. How's that first draft of the Armenian apology coming, Kenan?

    OT, it snowed here this afternoon, on Earth Day Eve. C'mon guys, let's get on this global warming thing. You promised!

    Reg mate – global warming: temperature is directly related to kinetic energy. Raise the temp of the atmosphere increases the KE of atmos. Greater KE leads to more dynamic events, NOT necessarily warm events, just more extremes – such as late snow!

  16. I wish this “Fortress Europe” would start working better, for the sake of Europe.

  17. Fifteen years ago Africa had 810 million people. Today it has 1.1 billion people. It has added over 200 million people in the last ten years.

    So Europe takes in 200 million Africans. What happens? The population pressure on Africa is relieved, and it is back to how it was back in good ole 2005.

    You all remember 2005, right? Back when Africa was heaven on earth?

    If Europe took in 200 million Africans the impact on Europeans would be catastrophic – soaring crime, overpopulation, pollution, overburdened government infrastructure. Meanwhile an Africa with 200 million fewer people would be the same shithole it was 10 years ago, the same shithole it was in 1985, when it had barely half of its current population.

    Fuck these people. May they rot in hell. Their policies would mean the utter, complete collapse of Western Civilization, and they don’t give a shit.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    You're in fine form today, Wilkey.

    I console myself in the knowledge that even if they succeed in destroying Europe they'll never achieve their precious 'equality.' Africans will always remain Africans. That's small consolation, certainly, but knowing how much it burns up the equalitarian true-believer warms my heart all the same.
    , @Horzabky
    You are absolutely right. It's odd that my baby boomer generation of Europeans had it better than any other generation since homo sapiens exists: high incomes, low crime, no war, sexual maturity after the pill was invented but before AIDS came to Europe and North America, and full employment for most of our lifetime. But there will is a price to pay: we have no future. We have few children, and even fewer of them marry and have children. No future as white people, and a yawning abyss right in front of us. Our world is turning into a Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I noticed it decades ago: it's relatively easy to face personal death. We know that we are mortals. But watching our collective death in slow motion is unbearable.

    On the other hand, it will make us accept more easily the awful consequences of natural resources depletion, pollution, etc. But is sure gives us little incentive to do something about it, except maybe at the local level.
  18. Multiculturalism as the West has it looks like reversed colonialism. They invade us not with force, but with an army of NGOs and fellow-travellers. “Immigrants” and “diversity” become proxies for “third-world economic refugees”, all of which are presented as necessary. They exploit public funds, infrastructure, and natural resources.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Here come the comments — “send ’em back! The West can’t be expected to deal with all these people. They’ll freeload!” etc.

    If that’s all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don’t run the governments of your country — and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You’re alive (sorry, can’t do much about the fact that your existence is part of the “overpopulation problem. “) Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?
     
    I'd do exactly what they're doing - take my chances trying to break into a richer country, but being fully prepared to pay the consequences for my act.

    But then I have no problem with putting my own racial interests first. It just so happens that my racial interests in the world I actually live in - as opposed to the fantasy thought-experiment world in which I'm a starving African - are served by preventing Africans breaking into Europe.
    , @Jim Sweeney
    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own. But that's just me as you asked. You can't expect those primitives to think ahead.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why am I supposed to care what their motivations are?
    , @syonredux
    Dear fellow, try looking up Lifeboat Ethics:

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

    Sometimes it's a case of them or us.
    , @Difference Maker
    You support them in the backyard with your money. And police them, and homeschool them and play doctor

    Good luck with that
    , @notsaying
    #18 - Hugh

    You ask a tough but valid question.

    It is understandable that these people are trying to get to Europe.

    But that doesn't mean Europe has to accept them. The issue is not who is there today or next month or next year but the ones who will come in the future -- by the tens of millions, by the hundreds of millions if they could.

    There's a lot of people who will say, "oh let everybody come in" and then not want to think about about the consequences.

    Whatever big things are done will have to be done in or near the home countries. Even they will only be kept up if the fleeing people stop coming.

    This may not sound nice but it is the reality of the situation.
    , @Neutral
    Let me throw a question right back at you, what do you do if where you live where an endless amount of people move in and degrade the area. I know what you would do, you would move away (not ever being honest why you move) and then pontificate about how pious you are. If the whole of Europe becomes African, do you view that as unimportant ?
    , @AnotherDad
    Too lazy to even write your own comment, "Hugh"?

    This is a word for word lift from an NYT comment--one of the four up last night so i remember it--that was written by "Paula". What are you a soldier in WWT?

    It's also a stupid comment.

    I've often said if i were a young Mexican guy, with limited prospects in my village i might be up here too. And my real hatred is directed to the white hating ideologues who are driving this. But so what.

    If i were a new college grad i'd be out interviewing for jobs. Doesn't mean i hire anyone.
    If i were 19 again, i'd be trying to get into some girls pants. Doesn't mean she has to let me in.
    If i were an ant, i'd be trying to sneak into my pantry. Doesn't mean i don't squash 'em on sight.
    , @ABN
    If I were an African, I might try to illegally migrate to Europe. But then again, if I were a citizen of a Western country, I might try to stop such migration.

    As it happens, I am a citizen of a Western country, and I do wish to stop such migration. To each his own.

    Others have made this point in this thread, but I just want to add two non-trivial things here. Apologies for length, but a lot of people think like Hugh, so this is important.

    First, Hugh's observation reflects one of the problems with the way we traditionally talk about immigration in America and Europe. We have this well-meaning but nonetheless arrogant notion that the Western world is some kind of terrestrial Heaven to which foreigners get to ascend if they've been good. Thus you have all the schmaltzy rhetoric about immigrants putting "food on their families." Even if we were to concede for argument's sake that immigrants are all virtuous people (against the evidence provided by, say, efforts to throw Christians overboard), that says nothing about our national interest.

    Accountable government is constituted by, for, and of the people. Its leaders do not have the right to subvert the national interest (be it economic, demographic, or cultural) by arrogating to themselves some mandate to minister cosmic justice to foreigners.

    In fact, the virtues of immigrants sometimes make them more problematic as far as the national interest goes. If Third World migrants are willing to work more hours for lower wages while accepting accommodations that are squalid by First World standards, then those Third Worlders might be reasonably considered modest, humble, down-to-earth, or what have you. And yet it is precisely those traits that undermine the wages and standards of living of native-born workers. So the immigrant's strengths perversely create a race to the bottom when it comes to labor markets.

    Or consider high-IQ immigrants like Mr. Malik. I am sure Mr. Malik is possessed of intelligence and conscientiousness. These things, too, are virtues. But it is those traits that enable people like Mr. Malik to grab the Megaphone and undermine the solidarity that should exist among the native population. So here, too, we see that an immigrant's virtue can be society's liability.

    The bottom line is that, as Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven, "deserve" ain't got nothing to do with it.

    Second, we in the West are used to thinking about individuals as completely autonomous moral units, but this is somewhat unrealistic. The moral and biological agency of an individual is implicitly connected to his parents, tribe, and nation. At the risk of being reductivistic, if you're the sixth child of a mother in Niger, it means that you're not adding much at the margin. Your country is already full of your people, with all of the political and cultural and economic implications of that fact. Moreover, your family is already full of copies of genomes very much like yours. Your parents couldn't afford you, but they had you anyway...and yet Europeans are on the hook for subsidizing your family's great procreative success? Sorry, not buying it.

    Look at it this way: how do conservationists (people who are often quite liberal) think about wildlife? If an invasive species is destroying a native species, many conservationists will be perfectly willing to cull the invasive species in order to save the native species and their habitat. Thus, for example, conservationists have eradicated 100,000 goats from the island of Isabela in the Galapagos. This might represent an injustice from the perspective of an individual goat that did nothing to deserve being shot, but that individual goat is part of goatkind, which is not threatened, while the native flora and fauna are threatened. It's not like the nice liberals who institute these programs get off on killing goats.

    I am not saying we shouldn't value human individuality at all, and I am definitely not saying we should go around killing anyone.

    What I'm saying is that we must keep in mind the bigger picture. That individual Nigerien must be seen in the context of a country that is already full to (or over) the brim with his people and culture. Those same conservationists who have goats shot from helicopters presumably wish goats well in their native pastures and would be willing to protect those pastures from being paved over or whatever. Likewise, I wish Africans well in Africa. If there are cost-effective ways to help them, we should help them. But of course individual life gets cheaper when that life is overabundant and expansionary. How could it be otherwise--biologically, strategically, or morally?

    , @pinto

    If that’s all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don’t run the governments of your country — and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You’re alive (sorry, can’t do much about the fact that your existence is part of the “overpopulation problem. “) Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?
     
    I would use contraception.
  20. @AnotherDad
    What a pompous piece of crap. Certain groups--and Indians are one of them--just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality. I usually don't read the NYT pieces in time to comment, but thanks to Steve, this one i did. I posted my comment at NYT. I'll see if it's approved.


    Europeans are under no more moral obligation to take in these Africans than is some random guy in Lagos is to take my kids into his house if I’m too incompetent to see them properly clothed, sheltered and fed.

    Since Kanan Malik, is not even a native European, I’d suggest he take his pompous moral hectoring elsewhere. If Malik thinks these Africans are entitled to a home somewhere else—instead of working to improve their native countries—why not pitch this idea to his native Indians and see what they think about opening up their nation to their African brothers?

    Furthermore since black Africa is the one region that refuses to reign in its own fertility, taking in these migrants won’t make even the tiniest dent in the crappy conditions in their countries. Advocates of Europe opening up to this flood are clearly not interested in saving Africans, but in destroying Europe.

    In fact, I’d argue that the one critical duty that current Europeans owe their posterity is in fact to protect Europe, prevent it—its terrific race and culture (art, music, literature, social and political advancement and that jewel, modern science)—from being destroyed by the demographic tsunami that is black Africa.
     

    Didn’t India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Didn’t India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?
     
    Yes, and it should be an example for the US. India, the world's largest democracy, has no problem building a fence to keep out the Bangladeshis. Additionally their shared border is at least 2000 miles long, comparable to the US-Mexican border. So any arguments that democracies don't do this, or that our border is too long should be put to rest.
  21. @Wilkey
    "For more than three decades, the European Union has been constructing what critics call “Fortress Europe,” a cordon protected by sea, air and land patrols..."

    Remember back, like, three decades ago, when they all said we would never be able build the Mediterranean Sea? We sure proved those suckers wrong, didn't we?

    Kenan Malik's co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India. Now they say the British have no right to keep them out of Britain. Indians have a right to their own country. The British do not.

    The Rorschach Test-type drawing with the piece is interesting. It looks like it's supposed to evoke, well, Fortress Europe, but what I see is a white man drowning. Perhaps that's the point, or maybe it's just coincidence.

    The Mediterranean Sea is just more white privilege.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Mare Nostrum becoming Mare Shitstorm
  22. iSteveFan says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Didn't India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?

    Didn’t India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?

    Yes, and it should be an example for the US. India, the world’s largest democracy, has no problem building a fence to keep out the Bangladeshis. Additionally their shared border is at least 2000 miles long, comparable to the US-Mexican border. So any arguments that democracies don’t do this, or that our border is too long should be put to rest.

    • Replies: @rec1man
    India has 1 million muslim illegal immigrants from Pakistan - the entire India-Pakistan border is double fenced and electrified using Israeli help - the entire border has a flood light

    Most of the Pakistan border is desert and easily fenced. The fence extends to Kashmir and prevents most jihadis from crossing over.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/05/article-2033886-0DB93BB000000578-486_964x581.jpg

    see the floodlights at night

    http://images.indiatvnews.com/mainnational/IndiaTv6d04cf_BARBEDWIRE.jpg

    fence in daylight with barbed wire

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/the-india-pakistan-border-from-the-international-space-station-a-unique-view-of-asia.29255/

    visible at night from space station

    -

    The bangladeshi border is much harder, it is swampy land, and local Indian politicians, congress, commies etc actually import bangladeshi muslims for a vote-bank
    but even there, the fence is slowly getting completed


    http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000LpDER_7gEvs/s/600/600/Felani-03.jpg

    bangladeshi illegal immigrant muslim shot at border fence by Indian border security force
  23. @Wilkey
    Fifteen years ago Africa had 810 million people. Today it has 1.1 billion people. It has added over 200 million people in the last ten years.

    So Europe takes in 200 million Africans. What happens? The population pressure on Africa is relieved, and it is back to how it was back in good ole 2005.

    You all remember 2005, right? Back when Africa was heaven on earth?

    If Europe took in 200 million Africans the impact on Europeans would be catastrophic - soaring crime, overpopulation, pollution, overburdened government infrastructure. Meanwhile an Africa with 200 million fewer people would be the same shithole it was 10 years ago, the same shithole it was in 1985, when it had barely half of its current population.

    Fuck these people. May they rot in hell. Their policies would mean the utter, complete collapse of Western Civilization, and they don't give a shit.

    You’re in fine form today, Wilkey.

    I console myself in the knowledge that even if they succeed in destroying Europe they’ll never achieve their precious ‘equality.’ Africans will always remain Africans. That’s small consolation, certainly, but knowing how much it burns up the equalitarian true-believer warms my heart all the same.

  24. It’s not crazy to feel some sympathy for the refugees, who are mostly trying to get our of some genuinely awful places, getting every dime they own squeezed out by the coyotes, and then put to sea in rickety, overloaded boats. But an adult also needs to engage his brain, not just his feelings.

    a. It is not sustainable to have Europe allow in all (or even most) of the refugees from Africa and the Middle East who want to come. Trying will just guarantee anti-immigrant/nativist parties win more elections, and then the inflow will be stopped. Nor is a European welfare state consistent with unlimited immigration from extremely poor countries. Nor is it really workable to demand that the already shitty economies of the southern European countries also accept endless immigrants. The unemployment rate in (say) Spain is already horribly high; they really can’t handle having a huge inflow of desperate low-wage workers.

    b. Letting the refugees come in, or running extensive rescue operations, will lead to more people trying to come in, and likely lead to more death. I mean, the refugees know they’re running huge risks to try to get to Europe–but their alternatives are so awful it’s worth it.

    c. A humane response is probably going to involve providing money for refugee camps outside Europe.
    Perhaps also buying off the North African governments to get them to both run decent refugee camps and run search and rescue operations and anti-people-smuggling patrols. Simply establishing the policy that anyone rescued, after suitable stabilizing care has been given, will be put back ashore in (say) Libya would work pretty well.

  25. @iSteveFan

    Didn’t India build a big fence to keep out Bangladeshis?
     
    Yes, and it should be an example for the US. India, the world's largest democracy, has no problem building a fence to keep out the Bangladeshis. Additionally their shared border is at least 2000 miles long, comparable to the US-Mexican border. So any arguments that democracies don't do this, or that our border is too long should be put to rest.

    India has 1 million muslim illegal immigrants from Pakistan – the entire India-Pakistan border is double fenced and electrified using Israeli help – the entire border has a flood light

    Most of the Pakistan border is desert and easily fenced. The fence extends to Kashmir and prevents most jihadis from crossing over.

    see the floodlights at night

    fence in daylight with barbed wire

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/the-india-pakistan-border-from-the-international-space-station-a-unique-view-of-asia.29255/

    visible at night from space station

    The bangladeshi border is much harder, it is swampy land, and local Indian politicians, congress, commies etc actually import bangladeshi muslims for a vote-bank
    but even there, the fence is slowly getting completed

    bangladeshi illegal immigrant muslim shot at border fence by Indian border security force

  26. The global progressives have already orchestrated demographic transformation of the formerly white areas of North Africa and South Africa and many cities of the USA. The progressives should try this with a non-white country and see how it works out. Try Japan, China, Thailand, Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. Financing basic boat fare is really not an issue at all.

    Maybe Europe should take a page from Israel and hire the Rwandans to take Gadaffi’s place and do the dirty work of shielding Europe from a tidal wave of boat people.

    If black Africans seek the safety of white law enforcement, while in the US, the progressives are trying to expel white police because of equality, maybe we can make a deal, and we can lend a white police force to a currently unlivable area in a failed African state so that they have an option of a peaceful life?

    Maybe if we are running out of safe white Christian homelands to send millions of Arabs/Africans fleeing Arab/African failed states, maybe we should make a bigger effort to shift demographic fertility patterns to sustain this model.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    What formerly white areas of north-africa are you talking about ? north-Africa is facing a possible demographic tsunami very soon but they aren't being replaced yet by sub-saharans and while their media (their european trained media people) has already started to sing the open borders song, I'm not sure the maghrebis are just going to let themselves be overrun. Then again, the southern italians aren't doing anything to stop the invasion so maybe the maghrebians won't do anything either.
  27. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    I’d do exactly what they’re doing – take my chances trying to break into a richer country, but being fully prepared to pay the consequences for my act.

    But then I have no problem with putting my own racial interests first. It just so happens that my racial interests in the world I actually live in – as opposed to the fantasy thought-experiment world in which I’m a starving African – are served by preventing Africans breaking into Europe.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I’d do exactly what they’re doing – take my chances trying to break into a richer country, but being fully prepared to pay the consequences for my act.
     
    A couple more things I'd do: lie through my teeth about the benefits my presence in their country is going to bring; run guilt trips on them about some 'duty' they have towards me in the hopes they'll fall for it; try to cram as many of my coracials into the country as quickly as possible based on the theory that they 'can't deport us all.' Basically, the standard immigrant ploys.
  28. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own. But that’s just me as you asked. You can’t expect those primitives to think ahead.

    • Replies: @Numinous

    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own.
     
    Silly comment. One might as well commit suicide when one falls into an unfortunate situation that's hard to get out of. By the same token, since you (and a lot of people on this comments section) see an apocalyptic future for white America, you should refrain from having kids too.
  29. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    Why am I supposed to care what their motivations are?

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Why am I supposed to care what their motivations are?
     
    Because compassion towards other humans is a good thing. I am very compassionate towards many of the boat people, I'm sympathetic with their plight, but I don't think Europe should accept them. This would expose the natives of Europe to the same violence instability ethnic conflict and and horrors of living in the African/Arab failed states. It would exterminate Europe as we know it, just for a temporary relief to a small percentage of Africans.

    The one genuinely happy, win/win solution to this major problem of the world is opt-in human genetic engineering. Ideally, people could switch ethnic teams. If a billion+ Africans want to switch to team Europe, give them the choice of genetically switching over. Progressives are ok with asking whites to accept extermination, asking blacks that want to, to switch teams and enjoy a better life is a way better, more win-win idea. I have university engineering+biology education and it's my ambition to do a small piece of the technical work in furthering this along. This crowd underestimates the power of engineers to change the world.

  30. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    Dear fellow, try looking up Lifeboat Ethics:

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

    Sometimes it’s a case of them or us.

  31. @silviosilver

    Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?
     
    I'd do exactly what they're doing - take my chances trying to break into a richer country, but being fully prepared to pay the consequences for my act.

    But then I have no problem with putting my own racial interests first. It just so happens that my racial interests in the world I actually live in - as opposed to the fantasy thought-experiment world in which I'm a starving African - are served by preventing Africans breaking into Europe.

    I’d do exactly what they’re doing – take my chances trying to break into a richer country, but being fully prepared to pay the consequences for my act.

    A couple more things I’d do: lie through my teeth about the benefits my presence in their country is going to bring; run guilt trips on them about some ‘duty’ they have towards me in the hopes they’ll fall for it; try to cram as many of my coracials into the country as quickly as possible based on the theory that they ‘can’t deport us all.’ Basically, the standard immigrant ploys.

  32. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Why am I supposed to care what their motivations are?

    Why am I supposed to care what their motivations are?

    Because compassion towards other humans is a good thing. I am very compassionate towards many of the boat people, I’m sympathetic with their plight, but I don’t think Europe should accept them. This would expose the natives of Europe to the same violence instability ethnic conflict and and horrors of living in the African/Arab failed states. It would exterminate Europe as we know it, just for a temporary relief to a small percentage of Africans.

    The one genuinely happy, win/win solution to this major problem of the world is opt-in human genetic engineering. Ideally, people could switch ethnic teams. If a billion+ Africans want to switch to team Europe, give them the choice of genetically switching over. Progressives are ok with asking whites to accept extermination, asking blacks that want to, to switch teams and enjoy a better life is a way better, more win-win idea. I have university engineering+biology education and it’s my ambition to do a small piece of the technical work in furthering this along. This crowd underestimates the power of engineers to change the world.

  33. The use of the term “Fortress Europe” by the open borders camp is a not-so-subtle attempt to link immigration controls with Nazi Germany’s Fortress Europe. It’s like these people think that if they’re crafty enough, it’s not Reductio ad Hitlerum.

    Irish Savant put it best yesterday:

    Fortress Europe. Good God, if Europe’s a fortress I’d hate to see what an open border would look like.

  34. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    You support them in the backyard with your money. And police them, and homeschool them and play doctor

    Good luck with that

  35. I am very compassionate towards many of the boat people, I’m sympathetic with their plight

    They bring their plight upon themselves for being what they are. You might as well feel pity for a skunk for stinking.

  36. “Fortress Europe”? “Festung Europa”? The term that Goebels applied to nazi-occupied Europe? Isn’t that just a little rich?

    And a moat? By moat he means “the Mediteranean sea”, which I believe has separated Africa and Europe for approximately……..all of human history.

    Those devious, evil, racist Europeans – erecting continents and constructing whole seas just to shut out poor, put-upon migrants. Is there nothing these white-devils won’t do? For shame!

  37. Here’s another Australian video to refugees, via The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/22/peter-dutton-in-video-plea-to-nauru-refugees-to-call-cambodia-settlement-hotline

    In it, the Aussie immigration minister encourages refugees in Nauru to accept an offer to settle in Cambodia, a “fast-paced and vibrant country”, where they will be free from persecution, and not to hold out for settling in Australia, which will never happen.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    Love the bit about "vibrant" Cambodia!
  38. @Dave Pinsen
    Here's another Australian video to refugees, via The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/22/peter-dutton-in-video-plea-to-nauru-refugees-to-call-cambodia-settlement-hotline

    In it, the Aussie immigration minister encourages refugees in Nauru to accept an offer to settle in Cambodia, a "fast-paced and vibrant country", where they will be free from persecution, and not to hold out for settling in Australia, which will never happen.

    Love the bit about “vibrant” Cambodia!

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that too, though I suspect he meant it unironically. Still, it's a clever tack by Australia, and one I'd think Europe could easily copy, subbing Rwanda, perhaps, for Cambodia.
  39. @Massimo Heitor
    The global progressives have already orchestrated demographic transformation of the formerly white areas of North Africa and South Africa and many cities of the USA. The progressives should try this with a non-white country and see how it works out. Try Japan, China, Thailand, Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. Financing basic boat fare is really not an issue at all.

    Maybe Europe should take a page from Israel and hire the Rwandans to take Gadaffi's place and do the dirty work of shielding Europe from a tidal wave of boat people.

    If black Africans seek the safety of white law enforcement, while in the US, the progressives are trying to expel white police because of equality, maybe we can make a deal, and we can lend a white police force to a currently unlivable area in a failed African state so that they have an option of a peaceful life?

    Maybe if we are running out of safe white Christian homelands to send millions of Arabs/Africans fleeing Arab/African failed states, maybe we should make a bigger effort to shift demographic fertility patterns to sustain this model.

    What formerly white areas of north-africa are you talking about ? north-Africa is facing a possible demographic tsunami very soon but they aren’t being replaced yet by sub-saharans and while their media (their european trained media people) has already started to sing the open borders song, I’m not sure the maghrebis are just going to let themselves be overrun. Then again, the southern italians aren’t doing anything to stop the invasion so maybe the maghrebians won’t do anything either.

    • Replies: @colm
    Kadafi was the last great maghrebi leader who was doing something about it.

    No maghrebi leader alive will try that now.
  40. @conatus
    "Malik argues that racial scientists should be allowed to express their views publicly and be critiqued in the public domain, while also criticising censorship from traditional anti-racist organisations. " from Wikipedia

    I think Europeans have habits of discipline, order and responsibility of self that Africans do not, especially Muslim Africans.
    But generally that is why Africa is such a mess and Europe is cooperatively civilized. The Africans want to come and leech off of a civilization that is relatively successful. Why don't they stay home and work on their own country?
    But my opinions are not what I hear on the TV, I think the germ of this entire problem is the Guilt that a predominantly fat, well fed, vaguely Christian, civilization feels in the face of an obviously dysfunctional civilization across the Mediterranean. Confidence in one's civilization usually goes hand in hand with its success but after the WW 1 and 2; fat, dry, well fed, Europeans are suckers for shysters and their endlessly repeated guilt trip.

    “the germ of this entire problem is the Guilt that a predominantly fat, well fed, vaguely Christian, civilization feels in the face of an obviously dysfunctional civilization across the Mediterranean. Confidence in one’s civilization usually goes hand in hand with its success but after the WW 1 and 2; fat, dry, well fed, Europeans are suckers for shysters and their endlessly repeated guilt trip.”

    The concept/image of morbid moral obesity springs to mind unbidden. Thanks for nothing! Would someone please flesh this out (pardon the expression) for me? Something involving binging on the cheap, subsidized carbs of sentimentality, preening, and status-whoring without any salubrious exercise of communal self-defense? Radical thought: could it be that the outcome of WWs 1&2 are more accurately described, not as “success” for Europe but as auto-genocide (à la Killing Fields, Great Leap Forward, and GP Cultural Revolution in Asia)? Getting all cosmic on you, could this be the Great Filter exterminating intelligent life forms before lift-off? (“I’m sorry but these payloads are too morally obese for space-travel!”)

  41. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    #18 – Hugh

    You ask a tough but valid question.

    It is understandable that these people are trying to get to Europe.

    But that doesn’t mean Europe has to accept them. The issue is not who is there today or next month or next year but the ones who will come in the future — by the tens of millions, by the hundreds of millions if they could.

    There’s a lot of people who will say, “oh let everybody come in” and then not want to think about about the consequences.

    Whatever big things are done will have to be done in or near the home countries. Even they will only be kept up if the fleeing people stop coming.

    This may not sound nice but it is the reality of the situation.

  42. @ogunsiron
    Love the bit about "vibrant" Cambodia!

    Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that too, though I suspect he meant it unironically. Still, it’s a clever tack by Australia, and one I’d think Europe could easily copy, subbing Rwanda, perhaps, for Cambodia.

  43. The bloc’s approach to immigration has been to treat it as a matter not of human need, but of criminality

    The “migrants” are entering illegally; hence, they are committing a crime.

    The European Union should stop treating migrants as criminals, and border control as warfare.

    Get back to us when India stops its shoot to kill policy with Bangladeshi “migrants” crossing its border.

  44. I think it’s high time all people who advocate bringing in lots more people give us a disclosure statement before they state their position.

    The disclosure would be: What they, personally, are willing to sacrifice to cover the cost of being responsible for all these extra people they beg us to admit.

    I get the feeling they wouldn’t know what to say.

    How long would we have to wait before someone would be the first to say they’d give up their job to one of the new immigrants — and then really do it?

  45. @Wilkey
    Fifteen years ago Africa had 810 million people. Today it has 1.1 billion people. It has added over 200 million people in the last ten years.

    So Europe takes in 200 million Africans. What happens? The population pressure on Africa is relieved, and it is back to how it was back in good ole 2005.

    You all remember 2005, right? Back when Africa was heaven on earth?

    If Europe took in 200 million Africans the impact on Europeans would be catastrophic - soaring crime, overpopulation, pollution, overburdened government infrastructure. Meanwhile an Africa with 200 million fewer people would be the same shithole it was 10 years ago, the same shithole it was in 1985, when it had barely half of its current population.

    Fuck these people. May they rot in hell. Their policies would mean the utter, complete collapse of Western Civilization, and they don't give a shit.

    You are absolutely right. It’s odd that my baby boomer generation of Europeans had it better than any other generation since homo sapiens exists: high incomes, low crime, no war, sexual maturity after the pill was invented but before AIDS came to Europe and North America, and full employment for most of our lifetime. But there will is a price to pay: we have no future. We have few children, and even fewer of them marry and have children. No future as white people, and a yawning abyss right in front of us. Our world is turning into a Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I noticed it decades ago: it’s relatively easy to face personal death. We know that we are mortals. But watching our collective death in slow motion is unbearable.

    On the other hand, it will make us accept more easily the awful consequences of natural resources depletion, pollution, etc. But is sure gives us little incentive to do something about it, except maybe at the local level.

  46. It seems like the ending colonialism in most of Africa was a big mistake. The Europeans better get a backbone and quick.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    It seems like the ending colonialism in most of Africa was a big mistake. The Europeans better get a backbone and quick.
     

    More like *starting* colonialism in Africa was a big mistake. (That can't have ever paid for itself.) Africans should have been left to their own and there would now still only be 100 million of them.

    Europeans have done the world an unbelievably large disservice by giving Africans a huge unearned demographic expansion. First throughout the new world, displacing better, smarter natives killed off by Eurasian disease. Then by bringing European technology and later medicine into Africa.

    ~~

    With you on the backbone issue though. Europeans--all white people--really need to grow a pair; realize there is no magic fairy looking out for their interests ... they have to do it, no one else cares and in fact most other races eagerly enjoy their demise.

  47. @Wilkey
    "For more than three decades, the European Union has been constructing what critics call “Fortress Europe,” a cordon protected by sea, air and land patrols..."

    Remember back, like, three decades ago, when they all said we would never be able build the Mediterranean Sea? We sure proved those suckers wrong, didn't we?

    Kenan Malik's co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India. Now they say the British have no right to keep them out of Britain. Indians have a right to their own country. The British do not.

    The Rorschach Test-type drawing with the piece is interesting. It looks like it's supposed to evoke, well, Fortress Europe, but what I see is a white man drowning. Perhaps that's the point, or maybe it's just coincidence.

    Kenan Malik’s co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India.

    Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords. Many Brits who were OK with living under Indian or Pakistani administration stayed; most wanted to live in a white-ruled country, and left. Those who stayed found nothing adverse happened to them; what happened in Zimbabwe never happened in the subcontinent (at least to whites; Hindus and Muslims were of course expelled from either side of the Indo-Pak border.)

    • Replies: @DWB
    I believe you're likely close to the truth in that the (relatively few) British who had been living in India prior to Independence left more or less voluntarily for the reasons you mention.

    But I would argue that your point is somewhat mooted based on numbers. The European country I am most familiar with - France, where we've lived the past few years - has a population that is approximately 1 in 6 people of African extraction (either directly immigrated, or their descendants). That is, in a nation of about 65 millions, about 10 million are not ethnic Europeans. Recently, the data on birth names were published, and the third most common name for all males born in France was "Mohammed."

    How many Britons lived in India at the peak? I cannot find the data, but I would suspect that, had the number been anywhere NEAR that level, the response would not have been quite so peaceful.

    The nearest data I *can* find (from Wikipedia) say that there are estimated to be 32,000 Britons living in India. A nation of more than a billion.

    However one feels about immigration, it's ridiculous to compare on the one hand, 10 million phenotypically (and largely culturally) foreign people in a land of 65 million, versus 32,000 dispersed in a nation of 1.2 billion.

    The point that many are making is just that. How would Indians react if, by equivalence, 200 million Europeans were to move to India over the course of 50 years? I don't know for sure, but I suspect, not in a particularly welcoming way.
    , @Wilkey
    "Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords."

    In a democracy the people are the overlords. Britain and the rest of Europe are importing their future rulers. The changes wrought on British society as a result of mass immigration are already staggering - no go zones, rape gangs, whole sections of cities where it is unsafe for whites to live, changes to the culture and to what can and cannot be said, and the threat of terrorism as justification for the police state. And that's just today, with the present demographics. What changes will be imposed as a result of this influx 10-20-50 years from now?

    The point of democracy is that the people are entitled to shape the future. But Europeans are being told they have no moral or legal right to object to the enormous changes mass immigration is causing. Demographics is a brutal and unforgiving overlord. The Indians could kick the British out because they were a tiny minority. That may not be possible in Britain.
  48. @AnotherDad
    What a pompous piece of crap. Certain groups--and Indians are one of them--just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality. I usually don't read the NYT pieces in time to comment, but thanks to Steve, this one i did. I posted my comment at NYT. I'll see if it's approved.


    Europeans are under no more moral obligation to take in these Africans than is some random guy in Lagos is to take my kids into his house if I’m too incompetent to see them properly clothed, sheltered and fed.

    Since Kanan Malik, is not even a native European, I’d suggest he take his pompous moral hectoring elsewhere. If Malik thinks these Africans are entitled to a home somewhere else—instead of working to improve their native countries—why not pitch this idea to his native Indians and see what they think about opening up their nation to their African brothers?

    Furthermore since black Africa is the one region that refuses to reign in its own fertility, taking in these migrants won’t make even the tiniest dent in the crappy conditions in their countries. Advocates of Europe opening up to this flood are clearly not interested in saving Africans, but in destroying Europe.

    In fact, I’d argue that the one critical duty that current Europeans owe their posterity is in fact to protect Europe, prevent it—its terrific race and culture (art, music, literature, social and political advancement and that jewel, modern science)—from being destroyed by the demographic tsunami that is black Africa.
     

    Certain groups–and Indians are one of them–just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality.

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.
     
    Huh?

    Since you've somehow divined my reading choices--and yes, in fact, i check iSteve first in the morning before the NYT or WaPo--let me guess on you: Indian.

    You're statement is just silly--at least for Americans. India is simply not in American consciousness very much. America has been engaged with the "Far East"--China and Japan--for 150+ years. They've occupied some actual space in both American intellectual discourse and American popular consciousness for a long time. But India was literally on the other side of the world and in the British colonial sphere and Americans just didn't pay it any attention. This pretty much continued after independence as India was non-aligned and American policy was to continue the Cold War alliance with Pakistan, but just sort of "be nice" to India, try not tip it into the full Soviet camp but leave it alone.

    As a result--and economic\geopolitical realities--you'll see white Americans paying a lot of attention to China and indeed pompous liberal intellectuals lecturing it on human rights, Tibet, etc. But there's basically zero of that in regards to India. Americans know little about it. Are vaguely suckers for Gandhi\"world's largest democracy" themes. Generally have no very good idea about the appalling social system there--still quasi feudal in some backward rural areas of North India. And generally don't feel they have anything to say. I've seen at least a few articles on how India is an example to emulate with a large muslim population that isn't engaged in terrorism. Criticism is basically non-existent. On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back. I can get a free lecture on some American evil or another just by showing up at a party with a bunch of Indians. (Although there's plenty of contempt for politicians in India!)

    Note--this is America. India does have mindshare in Britain. And i know the "British" will lecture India on Kashmir. (Though whether that's actual British or that's handled by the Pakis in the British press--not sure.) Beyond that i don't know. But i'll also note that there's even more Indians omnipresent in British media lecturing white British as well.
    , @Wilkey
    "If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round."

    The difference is that white people no longer much give a shit about what Indians or others do with their own countries. They seem to have very strong opinions about what we should do with ours - mostly let in more people like them.
  49. @Jim Sweeney
    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own. But that's just me as you asked. You can't expect those primitives to think ahead.

    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own.

    Silly comment. One might as well commit suicide when one falls into an unfortunate situation that’s hard to get out of. By the same token, since you (and a lot of people on this comments section) see an apocalyptic future for white America, you should refrain from having kids too.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    Why are all African lands in such a dismal state ? People like you like to argue that individuals are just escaping their bad governments, you never seem to ask the obvious question why all African lands have such bad governments. You also never ask how moving millions of Africans into Europe will not create the same mess as they created in Africa. Why should I suffer because these inferior people (yes they are truly inferior) cannot function ?
  50. Africans should be thankful for that moat, and the Saharan barrier. Without them, a lot of Africa would have likely been overrun by the Romans or some other enterprising empire. What their fates would have been, aside from cultural eradication, is hard to guess. As it turned out, even though the Romans conquered and settled Northern Africa, it was a very stale affair, that eventually gave way to the Arabs’ wave of conquest, which, eventually, infiltrated Africa proper, leading to the presence of caliphates and emirates galore all the way to Zanzibar. Funny how Islamism isn’t seen as something foreign to Africa. It might have been different if the Europeans’ burden for southern conquest had been lower.

  51. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    Let me throw a question right back at you, what do you do if where you live where an endless amount of people move in and degrade the area. I know what you would do, you would move away (not ever being honest why you move) and then pontificate about how pious you are. If the whole of Europe becomes African, do you view that as unimportant ?

  52. @Numinous

    One thing I would not do is to have children and make their lives as miserable as my own.
     
    Silly comment. One might as well commit suicide when one falls into an unfortunate situation that's hard to get out of. By the same token, since you (and a lot of people on this comments section) see an apocalyptic future for white America, you should refrain from having kids too.

    Why are all African lands in such a dismal state ? People like you like to argue that individuals are just escaping their bad governments, you never seem to ask the obvious question why all African lands have such bad governments. You also never ask how moving millions of Africans into Europe will not create the same mess as they created in Africa. Why should I suffer because these inferior people (yes they are truly inferior) cannot function ?

  53. Fortress Europe has created not just a physical barrier around the Continent but an emotional barricade around Europe’s sense of humanity, too….

    LOL!…… what a pretentious poofter. You can’t write satire in 2015.

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    That's what happens when you ban the word faggot. You can't use it to refer to people doing/writing obviously faggy things.
  54. doesnt the moat work both ways? I.e., prevent Europeans from fleeing to Libya ?

  55. I’m really (pleasantly) surprised at how many people oppose the NYT on this one. My innocuous comment hasn’t gotten through so I wonder how many more comments suffered the same fate.

  56. Fortress Europe has created not just a physical barrier around the Continent but an emotional barricade around Europe’s sense of humanity, too….

    You know, Europeans are humans, too. How about a little concern for their well-being?

    Garrett Hardin was right.

  57. @Adar.
    The British Admiral Parry several years ago predicted a breakdown of the world order as we know it.

    A breakdown from a variety of factors to perhaps include massive and overwhelming illegal immigration from the third world to the first.

    Chaos leading to unmitigated strife as a result. Europe would experience a phenomenon as not seen since the Dark Ages with all that will mean.

    Thank you yes it was Admiral Parry who authored that report. Been looking for it forever as I remember reading it and thinking maybe at the highest level there are people actually concerned about the survival of our people, civilization and our security.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-390230/Britain-faces-mass-migration-warns-Admiral.html

    Of course no one seems to have taken much notice then, Fortress Europe?, but this recent crisis seems to be focusing minds.

  58. “Numinous says:

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.”

    Are you a habitual liar, or habitually stupid? Or were you just born stupid?

  59. “Hugh says:

    Here come the comments — “send ‘em back! The West can’t be expected to deal with all these people. They’ll freeload!” etc.

    If that’s all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don’t run the governments of your country — and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You’re alive (sorry, can’t do much about the fact that your existence is part of the “overpopulation problem. “) Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    No jobs?

    Plenty of Weapons?

    No say in my government?

    That already sounds like America to me, Hugh.

    If those countries are awful, it is the people who live there who made it so. Bringing them here will just give the opportunity to make our countries awful too. It is the people who make the country, not the other way around.

    If your heart bleeds for them, why don’t you go over there and help them, rather than inviting them into our homes.

  60. What does this Dune quote remind you of?

    “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

  61. DWB says: • Website
    @Numinous

    Kenan Malik’s co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India.
     
    Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords. Many Brits who were OK with living under Indian or Pakistani administration stayed; most wanted to live in a white-ruled country, and left. Those who stayed found nothing adverse happened to them; what happened in Zimbabwe never happened in the subcontinent (at least to whites; Hindus and Muslims were of course expelled from either side of the Indo-Pak border.)

    I believe you’re likely close to the truth in that the (relatively few) British who had been living in India prior to Independence left more or less voluntarily for the reasons you mention.

    But I would argue that your point is somewhat mooted based on numbers. The European country I am most familiar with – France, where we’ve lived the past few years – has a population that is approximately 1 in 6 people of African extraction (either directly immigrated, or their descendants). That is, in a nation of about 65 millions, about 10 million are not ethnic Europeans. Recently, the data on birth names were published, and the third most common name for all males born in France was “Mohammed.”

    How many Britons lived in India at the peak? I cannot find the data, but I would suspect that, had the number been anywhere NEAR that level, the response would not have been quite so peaceful.

    The nearest data I *can* find (from Wikipedia) say that there are estimated to be 32,000 Britons living in India. A nation of more than a billion.

    However one feels about immigration, it’s ridiculous to compare on the one hand, 10 million phenotypically (and largely culturally) foreign people in a land of 65 million, versus 32,000 dispersed in a nation of 1.2 billion.

    The point that many are making is just that. How would Indians react if, by equivalence, 200 million Europeans were to move to India over the course of 50 years? I don’t know for sure, but I suspect, not in a particularly welcoming way.

  62. The thing that really galls me is this: A lot of you say that Africans are barbarians, etc, etc. Well, maybe. But here’s the thing: Five years ago, Libya was a rapidly developing nation, the most advanced in Africa, with a variety of resplendent social programs that would be the envy of even the European nanny-states.
    Now Libya is a terrorist hub, a hellhole, a nation whose saner and more cultured citizens desperately want to leave.

    Why? Because the scumbags of the international class exemplified by this Kenan animal INSISTED that NATO blow up Libya and murder Qaddafi. They just HAD TO ruin the #1 most advanced nation in Africa.
    In this case, we know exactly who caused the debacle in Libya. It wasn’t the Africans. And it wasn’t the Europeans. No. It was the international NYT-types who love bombing for democracy, moralizing about rednecks, urinating upon other people’s culture, and licking the boots of the shady interests who maintain them.

  63. @silviosilver
    The Mediterranean Sea is just more white privilege.

    Mare Nostrum becoming Mare Shitstorm

  64. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    Too lazy to even write your own comment, “Hugh”?

    This is a word for word lift from an NYT comment–one of the four up last night so i remember it–that was written by “Paula”. What are you a soldier in WWT?

    It’s also a stupid comment.

    I’ve often said if i were a young Mexican guy, with limited prospects in my village i might be up here too. And my real hatred is directed to the white hating ideologues who are driving this. But so what.

    If i were a new college grad i’d be out interviewing for jobs. Doesn’t mean i hire anyone.
    If i were 19 again, i’d be trying to get into some girls pants. Doesn’t mean she has to let me in.
    If i were an ant, i’d be trying to sneak into my pantry. Doesn’t mean i don’t squash ’em on sight.

  65. @Numinous

    Kenan Malik’s co-nationals insisted on kicking the British out of India.
     
    Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords. Many Brits who were OK with living under Indian or Pakistani administration stayed; most wanted to live in a white-ruled country, and left. Those who stayed found nothing adverse happened to them; what happened in Zimbabwe never happened in the subcontinent (at least to whites; Hindus and Muslims were of course expelled from either side of the Indo-Pak border.)

    “Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords.”

    In a democracy the people are the overlords. Britain and the rest of Europe are importing their future rulers. The changes wrought on British society as a result of mass immigration are already staggering – no go zones, rape gangs, whole sections of cities where it is unsafe for whites to live, changes to the culture and to what can and cannot be said, and the threat of terrorism as justification for the police state. And that’s just today, with the present demographics. What changes will be imposed as a result of this influx 10-20-50 years from now?

    The point of democracy is that the people are entitled to shape the future. But Europeans are being told they have no moral or legal right to object to the enormous changes mass immigration is causing. Demographics is a brutal and unforgiving overlord. The Indians could kick the British out because they were a tiny minority. That may not be possible in Britain.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    Brits conquered India through a mixture of war and trickery, and then ruled the country and lived in apartheid conditions for almost two centuries. Today's immigrants to the UK arrive in an altogether more peaceful manner. And far from ruling the UK, immigrants either tend to be disgruntled and at the bottom of the pyramid or somewhat assimilated and in the middle class; none are remotely close to the levers of power.

    Oh, and by the way, you missed my point completely and reiterated a falsehood at the end of your comment. The Indians did not kick the British out of the country; they just asked them (at the end, quite politely, compared to what Hindus and Muslims did to each other) to stop ruling them.
  66. Jean Raspail of The Camp of the Saints was interviewed on French radio on Tuesday. Here’s the quote selected by the F. Desouche site:

    Jean Raspail : « The governments of Europe will be incapable of responding to Third World immigration » (Audio)

    What is described in the book is now taking place. Little Europe, completely decadent, must face up to the enormous human reservoir of the Third World. A large part of the European population have a fear within them of no longer being the majority in their own place. The demographic studies done on the subject are relatively troubling.

    … and a link to the audio, for all you francosexuals out there:
    http://www.fdesouche.com/590897-jean-raspail-les-gouvernants-de-leurope-seront-incapables-de-repondre-limmigration-du-tiers-monde-audio

  67. @Numinous

    Certain groups–and Indians are one of them–just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality.
     
    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.

    Huh?

    Since you’ve somehow divined my reading choices–and yes, in fact, i check iSteve first in the morning before the NYT or WaPo–let me guess on you: Indian.

    You’re statement is just silly–at least for Americans. India is simply not in American consciousness very much. America has been engaged with the “Far East”–China and Japan–for 150+ years. They’ve occupied some actual space in both American intellectual discourse and American popular consciousness for a long time. But India was literally on the other side of the world and in the British colonial sphere and Americans just didn’t pay it any attention. This pretty much continued after independence as India was non-aligned and American policy was to continue the Cold War alliance with Pakistan, but just sort of “be nice” to India, try not tip it into the full Soviet camp but leave it alone.

    As a result–and economic\geopolitical realities–you’ll see white Americans paying a lot of attention to China and indeed pompous liberal intellectuals lecturing it on human rights, Tibet, etc. But there’s basically zero of that in regards to India. Americans know little about it. Are vaguely suckers for Gandhi\”world’s largest democracy” themes. Generally have no very good idea about the appalling social system there–still quasi feudal in some backward rural areas of North India. And generally don’t feel they have anything to say. I’ve seen at least a few articles on how India is an example to emulate with a large muslim population that isn’t engaged in terrorism. Criticism is basically non-existent. On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back. I can get a free lecture on some American evil or another just by showing up at a party with a bunch of Indians. (Although there’s plenty of contempt for politicians in India!)

    Note–this is America. India does have mindshare in Britain. And i know the “British” will lecture India on Kashmir. (Though whether that’s actual British or that’s handled by the Pakis in the British press–not sure.) Beyond that i don’t know. But i’ll also note that there’s even more Indians omnipresent in British media lecturing white British as well.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    I don't comment all that much, but I have mentioned my being Indian whenever it was relevant to what I had to say. Never hid it, if that's what you are implying.

    I agree with your comment in general. India hardly figures in the American consciousness. (I lived in the US for a decade and was an avid news/politics junkie.) But you misread my comment. I did not mean to suggest that there was a surfeit of articles in which Americans were hectoring India, just that articles in which Americans tried to hector India (few and far between) were still overwhelmingly more numerous in number than public articles in which Indians adopted a tone of moral superiority over Americans. Most Indians with any awareness of the world know that their country is in a pathetic state compared to America. Any complaints they make are nitpicks (like the case of an Alabama cop assaulting and old Indian guy a few months ago) because they really have nothing else. The Indians I hung around with while in the US were young grad students, and generally appreciative of American culture. The people you meet at parties seem to be older people who feel the urge to nitpick about America out of guilt at being in a much better situation than their relatives back in the homeland. Get them drunk and they'll probably sing a different tune.
    , @Numinous
    On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back.

    I read Fareed's article too and it seemed to me he was expressing an opinion on how Americans should deal with illegal immigrants. He wasn't addressing (or hectoring) white Americans specifically; that's your inference. Comments like yours make me wonder how even very Americanized foreigners can fully assimilate into American society if people like you look suspect ulterior motives in their words and actions. Isn't Fareed an American now? Isn't he allowed to express an opinion on political issues (views that are well in the mainstream of white Americans)? And then you all complain that foreigners don't assimilate. Isn't assimilation a two-way street, requiring acceptance and trust from the hosts as well?
  68. @Ed
    It seems like the ending colonialism in most of Africa was a big mistake. The Europeans better get a backbone and quick.

    It seems like the ending colonialism in most of Africa was a big mistake. The Europeans better get a backbone and quick.

    More like *starting* colonialism in Africa was a big mistake. (That can’t have ever paid for itself.) Africans should have been left to their own and there would now still only be 100 million of them.

    Europeans have done the world an unbelievably large disservice by giving Africans a huge unearned demographic expansion. First throughout the new world, displacing better, smarter natives killed off by Eurasian disease. Then by bringing European technology and later medicine into Africa.

    ~~

    With you on the backbone issue though. Europeans–all white people–really need to grow a pair; realize there is no magic fairy looking out for their interests … they have to do it, no one else cares and in fact most other races eagerly enjoy their demise.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Remarkable how unselfconscious some people are here...
  69. The argument that have made Norway semi-close the border, is that for the same money it costs to integrate one immigrant in Norway, you could help hundreds in the home country.

    This means that those who now say they want Norway to accept more non-white immigrants, get thrown in their face that they don’t really want to help non-whites, as that would be to use the money where they help the most people, but is driven by something far less noble, like wanting Norway to loose it’s Norwegian majority.

    Sweden have taken billions out of the foreign aid budget, in order to have money for integrating all the immigrants they now need to support in Sweden, a pretty immoral thing to do, if you mean we have responsibility to help the weakest in the world, in stead of helping those with enough money to be smuggled into Sweden.

    • Replies: @ren

    Sweden have taken billions out of the foreign aid budget, in order to have money for integrating all the immigrants they now need to support in Sweden, a pretty immoral thing to do, if you mean we have responsibility to help the weakest in the world, in stead of helping those with enough money to be smuggled into Sweden.
     
    Indeed it is a far less noble goal to destroy Norway.
  70. @Numinous

    Certain groups–and Indians are one of them–just *love* to lecture other (white) people about morality.
     
    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.

    “If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.”

    The difference is that white people no longer much give a shit about what Indians or others do with their own countries. They seem to have very strong opinions about what we should do with ours – mostly let in more people like them.

    • Replies: @Numinous

    The difference is that white people no longer much give a shit about what Indians or others do with their own countries. They seem to have very strong opinions about what we should do with ours – mostly let in more people like them.
     
    What are you talking about? Don't confuse Indians with La Raza activists. I don't see Indians write public editorials asking Americans to have more liberal immigration policies; many businesses want a lot more H1B visas because that affects their bottom line, but that's pretty much it.
  71. I do like well done satire.
    Malik should play again soon.

  72. @Wilkey
    "Nope, they just wanted the Brits to stop being the overlords."

    In a democracy the people are the overlords. Britain and the rest of Europe are importing their future rulers. The changes wrought on British society as a result of mass immigration are already staggering - no go zones, rape gangs, whole sections of cities where it is unsafe for whites to live, changes to the culture and to what can and cannot be said, and the threat of terrorism as justification for the police state. And that's just today, with the present demographics. What changes will be imposed as a result of this influx 10-20-50 years from now?

    The point of democracy is that the people are entitled to shape the future. But Europeans are being told they have no moral or legal right to object to the enormous changes mass immigration is causing. Demographics is a brutal and unforgiving overlord. The Indians could kick the British out because they were a tiny minority. That may not be possible in Britain.

    Brits conquered India through a mixture of war and trickery, and then ruled the country and lived in apartheid conditions for almost two centuries. Today’s immigrants to the UK arrive in an altogether more peaceful manner. And far from ruling the UK, immigrants either tend to be disgruntled and at the bottom of the pyramid or somewhat assimilated and in the middle class; none are remotely close to the levers of power.

    Oh, and by the way, you missed my point completely and reiterated a falsehood at the end of your comment. The Indians did not kick the British out of the country; they just asked them (at the end, quite politely, compared to what Hindus and Muslims did to each other) to stop ruling them.

  73. @AnotherDad

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.
     
    Huh?

    Since you've somehow divined my reading choices--and yes, in fact, i check iSteve first in the morning before the NYT or WaPo--let me guess on you: Indian.

    You're statement is just silly--at least for Americans. India is simply not in American consciousness very much. America has been engaged with the "Far East"--China and Japan--for 150+ years. They've occupied some actual space in both American intellectual discourse and American popular consciousness for a long time. But India was literally on the other side of the world and in the British colonial sphere and Americans just didn't pay it any attention. This pretty much continued after independence as India was non-aligned and American policy was to continue the Cold War alliance with Pakistan, but just sort of "be nice" to India, try not tip it into the full Soviet camp but leave it alone.

    As a result--and economic\geopolitical realities--you'll see white Americans paying a lot of attention to China and indeed pompous liberal intellectuals lecturing it on human rights, Tibet, etc. But there's basically zero of that in regards to India. Americans know little about it. Are vaguely suckers for Gandhi\"world's largest democracy" themes. Generally have no very good idea about the appalling social system there--still quasi feudal in some backward rural areas of North India. And generally don't feel they have anything to say. I've seen at least a few articles on how India is an example to emulate with a large muslim population that isn't engaged in terrorism. Criticism is basically non-existent. On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back. I can get a free lecture on some American evil or another just by showing up at a party with a bunch of Indians. (Although there's plenty of contempt for politicians in India!)

    Note--this is America. India does have mindshare in Britain. And i know the "British" will lecture India on Kashmir. (Though whether that's actual British or that's handled by the Pakis in the British press--not sure.) Beyond that i don't know. But i'll also note that there's even more Indians omnipresent in British media lecturing white British as well.

    I don’t comment all that much, but I have mentioned my being Indian whenever it was relevant to what I had to say. Never hid it, if that’s what you are implying.

    I agree with your comment in general. India hardly figures in the American consciousness. (I lived in the US for a decade and was an avid news/politics junkie.) But you misread my comment. I did not mean to suggest that there was a surfeit of articles in which Americans were hectoring India, just that articles in which Americans tried to hector India (few and far between) were still overwhelmingly more numerous in number than public articles in which Indians adopted a tone of moral superiority over Americans. Most Indians with any awareness of the world know that their country is in a pathetic state compared to America. Any complaints they make are nitpicks (like the case of an Alabama cop assaulting and old Indian guy a few months ago) because they really have nothing else. The Indians I hung around with while in the US were young grad students, and generally appreciative of American culture. The people you meet at parties seem to be older people who feel the urge to nitpick about America out of guilt at being in a much better situation than their relatives back in the homeland. Get them drunk and they’ll probably sing a different tune.

  74. @AnotherDad

    If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round.
     
    Huh?

    Since you've somehow divined my reading choices--and yes, in fact, i check iSteve first in the morning before the NYT or WaPo--let me guess on you: Indian.

    You're statement is just silly--at least for Americans. India is simply not in American consciousness very much. America has been engaged with the "Far East"--China and Japan--for 150+ years. They've occupied some actual space in both American intellectual discourse and American popular consciousness for a long time. But India was literally on the other side of the world and in the British colonial sphere and Americans just didn't pay it any attention. This pretty much continued after independence as India was non-aligned and American policy was to continue the Cold War alliance with Pakistan, but just sort of "be nice" to India, try not tip it into the full Soviet camp but leave it alone.

    As a result--and economic\geopolitical realities--you'll see white Americans paying a lot of attention to China and indeed pompous liberal intellectuals lecturing it on human rights, Tibet, etc. But there's basically zero of that in regards to India. Americans know little about it. Are vaguely suckers for Gandhi\"world's largest democracy" themes. Generally have no very good idea about the appalling social system there--still quasi feudal in some backward rural areas of North India. And generally don't feel they have anything to say. I've seen at least a few articles on how India is an example to emulate with a large muslim population that isn't engaged in terrorism. Criticism is basically non-existent. On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back. I can get a free lecture on some American evil or another just by showing up at a party with a bunch of Indians. (Although there's plenty of contempt for politicians in India!)

    Note--this is America. India does have mindshare in Britain. And i know the "British" will lecture India on Kashmir. (Though whether that's actual British or that's handled by the Pakis in the British press--not sure.) Beyond that i don't know. But i'll also note that there's even more Indians omnipresent in British media lecturing white British as well.

    On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back.

    I read Fareed’s article too and it seemed to me he was expressing an opinion on how Americans should deal with illegal immigrants. He wasn’t addressing (or hectoring) white Americans specifically; that’s your inference. Comments like yours make me wonder how even very Americanized foreigners can fully assimilate into American society if people like you look suspect ulterior motives in their words and actions. Isn’t Fareed an American now? Isn’t he allowed to express an opinion on political issues (views that are well in the mainstream of white Americans)? And then you all complain that foreigners don’t assimilate. Isn’t assimilation a two-way street, requiring acceptance and trust from the hosts as well?

    • Replies: @DWB
    Numinous:

    it's a good point, actually.

    But it's, as you say, a two-way street. The mainstream press (which is not typically sympathetic to the views of people like Sailer) almost always frame these debates about race in terms of white and everyone else. Look, for example, at the ridiculous attempts by the NYT to try to frame the shooting of Trayvon Martin as a Simon Legree killing an angelic black child. The pinnacle of the intellectual gymnastics was the "white Hispanic" corner they painted themselves into.

    The whole scam of "privilege" rests on stereotypes like this.

    I've lived in the far East (Taiwan) in the past, and among the Chinese, the word "American" is used almost interchangeably with "white." And the American left are only happy to use the trope when it suits their needs.
    , @Lackawanna
    We don't want replacement of our own people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    As if a white man who somehow lived in India and was involved with politics would not have their motives scrutinized.
  75. @Wilkey
    "If you are actually in the habit of reading the NY Times or any other mainstream newspaper (which I doubt; you probably stick to iSteve, VDare, and American Renaissance for your daily news), you would notice that there is FAR more lecturing on morality done by white people on Indians than the other way round."

    The difference is that white people no longer much give a shit about what Indians or others do with their own countries. They seem to have very strong opinions about what we should do with ours - mostly let in more people like them.

    The difference is that white people no longer much give a shit about what Indians or others do with their own countries. They seem to have very strong opinions about what we should do with ours – mostly let in more people like them.

    What are you talking about? Don’t confuse Indians with La Raza activists. I don’t see Indians write public editorials asking Americans to have more liberal immigration policies; many businesses want a lot more H1B visas because that affects their bottom line, but that’s pretty much it.

  76. I do think the world’s civilized areas will be reduced to several defensible areas like New York and the Bay Area, and several outliers like New Zealand.

  77. @ogunsiron
    What formerly white areas of north-africa are you talking about ? north-Africa is facing a possible demographic tsunami very soon but they aren't being replaced yet by sub-saharans and while their media (their european trained media people) has already started to sing the open borders song, I'm not sure the maghrebis are just going to let themselves be overrun. Then again, the southern italians aren't doing anything to stop the invasion so maybe the maghrebians won't do anything either.

    Kadafi was the last great maghrebi leader who was doing something about it.

    No maghrebi leader alive will try that now.

  78. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Even the NYT commenters are going off the author.

    Urban liberal white progs seem to be quite resistant to prog bullshit when it comes from the mouths of indians/asians/etc. Perhaps because the latter are so crappy at their rhetoric?

    Either way, I encourage the NYT in their hiring of more and more Indians and Pakistanis and Chinese and so on to write their progressive rhetoric.

  79. @AnotherDad

    It seems like the ending colonialism in most of Africa was a big mistake. The Europeans better get a backbone and quick.
     

    More like *starting* colonialism in Africa was a big mistake. (That can't have ever paid for itself.) Africans should have been left to their own and there would now still only be 100 million of them.

    Europeans have done the world an unbelievably large disservice by giving Africans a huge unearned demographic expansion. First throughout the new world, displacing better, smarter natives killed off by Eurasian disease. Then by bringing European technology and later medicine into Africa.

    ~~

    With you on the backbone issue though. Europeans--all white people--really need to grow a pair; realize there is no magic fairy looking out for their interests ... they have to do it, no one else cares and in fact most other races eagerly enjoy their demise.

    Remarkable how unselfconscious some people are here…

  80. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    If I were an African, I might try to illegally migrate to Europe. But then again, if I were a citizen of a Western country, I might try to stop such migration.

    As it happens, I am a citizen of a Western country, and I do wish to stop such migration. To each his own.

    Others have made this point in this thread, but I just want to add two non-trivial things here. Apologies for length, but a lot of people think like Hugh, so this is important.

    First, Hugh’s observation reflects one of the problems with the way we traditionally talk about immigration in America and Europe. We have this well-meaning but nonetheless arrogant notion that the Western world is some kind of terrestrial Heaven to which foreigners get to ascend if they’ve been good. Thus you have all the schmaltzy rhetoric about immigrants putting “food on their families.” Even if we were to concede for argument’s sake that immigrants are all virtuous people (against the evidence provided by, say, efforts to throw Christians overboard), that says nothing about our national interest.

    Accountable government is constituted by, for, and of the people. Its leaders do not have the right to subvert the national interest (be it economic, demographic, or cultural) by arrogating to themselves some mandate to minister cosmic justice to foreigners.

    In fact, the virtues of immigrants sometimes make them more problematic as far as the national interest goes. If Third World migrants are willing to work more hours for lower wages while accepting accommodations that are squalid by First World standards, then those Third Worlders might be reasonably considered modest, humble, down-to-earth, or what have you. And yet it is precisely those traits that undermine the wages and standards of living of native-born workers. So the immigrant’s strengths perversely create a race to the bottom when it comes to labor markets.

    Or consider high-IQ immigrants like Mr. Malik. I am sure Mr. Malik is possessed of intelligence and conscientiousness. These things, too, are virtues. But it is those traits that enable people like Mr. Malik to grab the Megaphone and undermine the solidarity that should exist among the native population. So here, too, we see that an immigrant’s virtue can be society’s liability.

    The bottom line is that, as Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven, “deserve” ain’t got nothing to do with it.

    Second, we in the West are used to thinking about individuals as completely autonomous moral units, but this is somewhat unrealistic. The moral and biological agency of an individual is implicitly connected to his parents, tribe, and nation. At the risk of being reductivistic, if you’re the sixth child of a mother in Niger, it means that you’re not adding much at the margin. Your country is already full of your people, with all of the political and cultural and economic implications of that fact. Moreover, your family is already full of copies of genomes very much like yours. Your parents couldn’t afford you, but they had you anyway…and yet Europeans are on the hook for subsidizing your family’s great procreative success? Sorry, not buying it.

    Look at it this way: how do conservationists (people who are often quite liberal) think about wildlife? If an invasive species is destroying a native species, many conservationists will be perfectly willing to cull the invasive species in order to save the native species and their habitat. Thus, for example, conservationists have eradicated 100,000 goats from the island of Isabela in the Galapagos. This might represent an injustice from the perspective of an individual goat that did nothing to deserve being shot, but that individual goat is part of goatkind, which is not threatened, while the native flora and fauna are threatened. It’s not like the nice liberals who institute these programs get off on killing goats.

    I am not saying we shouldn’t value human individuality at all, and I am definitely not saying we should go around killing anyone.

    What I’m saying is that we must keep in mind the bigger picture. That individual Nigerien must be seen in the context of a country that is already full to (or over) the brim with his people and culture. Those same conservationists who have goats shot from helicopters presumably wish goats well in their native pastures and would be willing to protect those pastures from being paved over or whatever. Likewise, I wish Africans well in Africa. If there are cost-effective ways to help them, we should help them. But of course individual life gets cheaper when that life is overabundant and expansionary. How could it be otherwise–biologically, strategically, or morally?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I don't think there's room for your ugly racist attitudes in the 21st century.
  81. A further word about Mr. Malik–I take this open-borders propagandizing personally. We’re always talking about how patriotic Jews need to admonish the ethnocentric flaws of Sheldon Adelson types.

    Well, my dad’s from India, and I think this Malik guy’s full of crap. (I’m pretty sure my dad would agree, too.)

    As I commented above, importing an upscale high-IQ upscale population is an act of questionable wisdom. We’re not all like Malik, though, for the record.

  82. BEST COMMENT from the NYTimes article

    Robert McConnell Oregon 6 hours ago

    “Malik begins with this telling phrase, “Fleeing war and poverty, most had paid large sums to traffickers…” Racking my brain trying to hold fundamentally opposite concepts “fleeing poverty” while at the same time paying “large sums” to traffickers.
    These tragic issues boil down to overpopulation in the countries affected, and regrettably, corruption and clan-and religious-based hatreds. Not sure how the EU is responsible for the deaths of these unfortunate people. And as to accepting virtually unlimited numbers of immigrants, wasn’t it Deng Xiaopeng who, responding to George H W Bush’s offer of “amnesty” to any Chinese citizen who claimed oppression, said,”well, how many would he like? We have 1200 million.”

  83. How about if the Europeans have to take, say, twice as many as the number of deaths caused by their colonialism? The number of Congo dead for King Leopold is estimated at 10 million. “He ran the Congo using the mercenary Force Publique for his personal enrichment. He used great sums of the money from this exploitation for public and private construction projects in Belgium during this period.” (Wikipedia)

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    How about if the Europeans have to take, say, twice as many as the number of deaths caused by their colonialism?
     
    That's a good one, but I'd use it sparingly. As long as Europeans can be morally intimidated into complete racial surrender with the standard methods I think it's all good.
  84. @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Fortress Europe has created not just a physical barrier around the Continent but an emotional barricade around Europe’s sense of humanity, too….
     
    LOL!...... what a pretentious poofter. You can't write satire in 2015.

    That’s what happens when you ban the word faggot. You can’t use it to refer to people doing/writing obviously faggy things.

  85. @ABN
    If I were an African, I might try to illegally migrate to Europe. But then again, if I were a citizen of a Western country, I might try to stop such migration.

    As it happens, I am a citizen of a Western country, and I do wish to stop such migration. To each his own.

    Others have made this point in this thread, but I just want to add two non-trivial things here. Apologies for length, but a lot of people think like Hugh, so this is important.

    First, Hugh's observation reflects one of the problems with the way we traditionally talk about immigration in America and Europe. We have this well-meaning but nonetheless arrogant notion that the Western world is some kind of terrestrial Heaven to which foreigners get to ascend if they've been good. Thus you have all the schmaltzy rhetoric about immigrants putting "food on their families." Even if we were to concede for argument's sake that immigrants are all virtuous people (against the evidence provided by, say, efforts to throw Christians overboard), that says nothing about our national interest.

    Accountable government is constituted by, for, and of the people. Its leaders do not have the right to subvert the national interest (be it economic, demographic, or cultural) by arrogating to themselves some mandate to minister cosmic justice to foreigners.

    In fact, the virtues of immigrants sometimes make them more problematic as far as the national interest goes. If Third World migrants are willing to work more hours for lower wages while accepting accommodations that are squalid by First World standards, then those Third Worlders might be reasonably considered modest, humble, down-to-earth, or what have you. And yet it is precisely those traits that undermine the wages and standards of living of native-born workers. So the immigrant's strengths perversely create a race to the bottom when it comes to labor markets.

    Or consider high-IQ immigrants like Mr. Malik. I am sure Mr. Malik is possessed of intelligence and conscientiousness. These things, too, are virtues. But it is those traits that enable people like Mr. Malik to grab the Megaphone and undermine the solidarity that should exist among the native population. So here, too, we see that an immigrant's virtue can be society's liability.

    The bottom line is that, as Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven, "deserve" ain't got nothing to do with it.

    Second, we in the West are used to thinking about individuals as completely autonomous moral units, but this is somewhat unrealistic. The moral and biological agency of an individual is implicitly connected to his parents, tribe, and nation. At the risk of being reductivistic, if you're the sixth child of a mother in Niger, it means that you're not adding much at the margin. Your country is already full of your people, with all of the political and cultural and economic implications of that fact. Moreover, your family is already full of copies of genomes very much like yours. Your parents couldn't afford you, but they had you anyway...and yet Europeans are on the hook for subsidizing your family's great procreative success? Sorry, not buying it.

    Look at it this way: how do conservationists (people who are often quite liberal) think about wildlife? If an invasive species is destroying a native species, many conservationists will be perfectly willing to cull the invasive species in order to save the native species and their habitat. Thus, for example, conservationists have eradicated 100,000 goats from the island of Isabela in the Galapagos. This might represent an injustice from the perspective of an individual goat that did nothing to deserve being shot, but that individual goat is part of goatkind, which is not threatened, while the native flora and fauna are threatened. It's not like the nice liberals who institute these programs get off on killing goats.

    I am not saying we shouldn't value human individuality at all, and I am definitely not saying we should go around killing anyone.

    What I'm saying is that we must keep in mind the bigger picture. That individual Nigerien must be seen in the context of a country that is already full to (or over) the brim with his people and culture. Those same conservationists who have goats shot from helicopters presumably wish goats well in their native pastures and would be willing to protect those pastures from being paved over or whatever. Likewise, I wish Africans well in Africa. If there are cost-effective ways to help them, we should help them. But of course individual life gets cheaper when that life is overabundant and expansionary. How could it be otherwise--biologically, strategically, or morally?

    I don’t think there’s room for your ugly racist attitudes in the 21st century.

    • Replies: @ABN
    Are you being sarcastic? (I'm honestly not sure. You can never tell online.) If not, what's so ugly about what I said?

    Is it that business about shooting goats? It's a rough analogy, you know. It's not meant to be taken literally.

    In general, I think we should be nice to people. I'm not a judgemental person. My world isn't full of good guys and bad guys, let alone good races and bad races. It's full of people being people. I wish more than anything else to understand, and to understand is to forgive.

    So of course I'm sympathetic to human suffering. The moral, Christian argument for helping would-be refugees or economic migrants of any race is obvious, and it's felt viscerally by anyone who isn't a sociopath.

    It's precisely because it's obvious and natural to say "Take these poor people in!" that we ought to think about and articulate any countervailing principles that apply, such as the obligation of governments to favor their citizens' interests and the necessity of distinguishing between the base-level population of foreign lands and the marginal population seeking to colonize yours.

  86. @Hersh
    How about if the Europeans have to take, say, twice as many as the number of deaths caused by their colonialism? The number of Congo dead for King Leopold is estimated at 10 million. "He ran the Congo using the mercenary Force Publique for his personal enrichment. He used great sums of the money from this exploitation for public and private construction projects in Belgium during this period." (Wikipedia)

    How about if the Europeans have to take, say, twice as many as the number of deaths caused by their colonialism?

    That’s a good one, but I’d use it sparingly. As long as Europeans can be morally intimidated into complete racial surrender with the standard methods I think it’s all good.

  87. @silviosilver
    I don't think there's room for your ugly racist attitudes in the 21st century.

    Are you being sarcastic? (I’m honestly not sure. You can never tell online.) If not, what’s so ugly about what I said?

    Is it that business about shooting goats? It’s a rough analogy, you know. It’s not meant to be taken literally.

    In general, I think we should be nice to people. I’m not a judgemental person. My world isn’t full of good guys and bad guys, let alone good races and bad races. It’s full of people being people. I wish more than anything else to understand, and to understand is to forgive.

    So of course I’m sympathetic to human suffering. The moral, Christian argument for helping would-be refugees or economic migrants of any race is obvious, and it’s felt viscerally by anyone who isn’t a sociopath.

    It’s precisely because it’s obvious and natural to say “Take these poor people in!” that we ought to think about and articulate any countervailing principles that apply, such as the obligation of governments to favor their citizens’ interests and the necessity of distinguishing between the base-level population of foreign lands and the marginal population seeking to colonize yours.

  88. Are you being sarcastic?

    Yeah, of course. But I thought there was a good chance you’d take it seriously and I wanted to see how you’d respond.

    I think it’s a complete waste of time to argue with dyed-in-the-wool anti-whites like Numinous (who is Indian). You’re not going to persuade him to change course. The thought of whites putting whites first frightens, insults and enrages him and there is only one way to deal with that – whites must go. So it doesn’t really matter what you say or how well you formulate your arguments, it doesn’t matter what outrageous burdens you’re protesting against, you’re only ever going to get called racist in reply, because that is the proven method of disposing of whites who refuse to cooperate in their own disposition.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    I think it’s a complete waste of time to argue with dyed-in-the-wool anti-whites like Numinous (who is Indian). You’re not going to persuade him to change course. The thought of whites putting whites first frightens, insults and enrages him and there is only one way to deal with that – whites must go.

    Huh? Point out a single thing I wrote on immigration policy (and really, even on this issue of Africans rowing into Europe; for all you know, my position might be to keep the Africans in a cell, feed them, refuel their boats, and send them back). All I was doing was responding to specific stereotypes a lot of you have, and saying you were wrong when you stated wrong facts. The responses I get to my comments are hilarious. Instead of responding to specific points (which is what I was doing really, I had no larger intention), you treat me as the second coming of Gramsci and write long essays ridiculing positions I don't even hold.

    Like I've said before on these forums, they way you all write and respond to comments says a lot about your thought process and psychology.

  89. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?”

    But it won’t work mathematically, will it? Africa’s population will grow at a rate that will outpace the emigration rate, so there is effectively an infinite supply of such people. You don’t expect Daddy to somehow click his fingers and magically solve the problem, do you?

    How do you expect civilization to survive if basic numeracy is ignored?

  90. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?”

    Ultimately you have little choice. First the soap box, then the ballot box, then the jury box, then the public square, then the ammo box.

    You assume they will always have some place to flee. If you throw open the borders, how long before they need to flee from here? What happens then?

    Why push things to where everbody’s at the point, down the road, of needing the ammo box here?

    I used to wonder how those elites in places like Revolutionary France could have been so blind and foolish, but I don’t wonder any more.

  91. @tunglet
    The argument that have made Norway semi-close the border, is that for the same money it costs to integrate one immigrant in Norway, you could help hundreds in the home country.

    This means that those who now say they want Norway to accept more non-white immigrants, get thrown in their face that they don't really want to help non-whites, as that would be to use the money where they help the most people, but is driven by something far less noble, like wanting Norway to loose it's Norwegian majority.

    Sweden have taken billions out of the foreign aid budget, in order to have money for integrating all the immigrants they now need to support in Sweden, a pretty immoral thing to do, if you mean we have responsibility to help the weakest in the world, in stead of helping those with enough money to be smuggled into Sweden.

    Sweden have taken billions out of the foreign aid budget, in order to have money for integrating all the immigrants they now need to support in Sweden, a pretty immoral thing to do, if you mean we have responsibility to help the weakest in the world, in stead of helping those with enough money to be smuggled into Sweden.

    Indeed it is a far less noble goal to destroy Norway.

  92. So of course I’m sympathetic to human suffering. The moral, Christian argument for helping would-be refugees or economic migrants of any race is obvious, and it’s felt viscerally by anyone who isn’t a sociopath.

    Well then upwards of 90% of folks are sociopaths.

  93. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?”

    You are clearly making an argument for colonialism. These poor people can’t run their country, but you clearly expect Europeans to run a country with an arbitrary number of these people in it. So you are saying it is only moral for Europeans to rule these people. By the logic of the greatest good for the greatest number, you are calling for Europeans to rule Africa.

    Unless maybe you’re saying that God somehow “dropped all the goodness” down on Europe and mysteriously keeps it that way without Europeans being involved.

    Or show me how you aren’t saying this.

    Neo-colonialism! Neo-colonialism Now! As you say, it’s the only way. Do it for the children.

  94. @Anonymous
    Here come the comments -- "send 'em back! The West can't be expected to deal with all these people. They'll freeload!" etc.

    If that's all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don't run the governments of your country -- and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You're alive (sorry, can't do much about the fact that your existence is part of the "overpopulation problem. ") Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    If that’s all you have to say, explain what you would do if you were living in a region of the world in which there are no jobs and plenty of weapons. You don’t run the governments of your country — and those in power would be happy to kill you or let you leave. You’re alive (sorry, can’t do much about the fact that your existence is part of the “overpopulation problem. “) Exactly what would you do if you were one of these people?

    I would use contraception.

  95. @silviosilver

    Are you being sarcastic?
     
    Yeah, of course. But I thought there was a good chance you'd take it seriously and I wanted to see how you'd respond.

    I think it's a complete waste of time to argue with dyed-in-the-wool anti-whites like Numinous (who is Indian). You're not going to persuade him to change course. The thought of whites putting whites first frightens, insults and enrages him and there is only one way to deal with that - whites must go. So it doesn't really matter what you say or how well you formulate your arguments, it doesn't matter what outrageous burdens you're protesting against, you're only ever going to get called racist in reply, because that is the proven method of disposing of whites who refuse to cooperate in their own disposition.

    I think it’s a complete waste of time to argue with dyed-in-the-wool anti-whites like Numinous (who is Indian). You’re not going to persuade him to change course. The thought of whites putting whites first frightens, insults and enrages him and there is only one way to deal with that – whites must go.

    Huh? Point out a single thing I wrote on immigration policy (and really, even on this issue of Africans rowing into Europe; for all you know, my position might be to keep the Africans in a cell, feed them, refuel their boats, and send them back). All I was doing was responding to specific stereotypes a lot of you have, and saying you were wrong when you stated wrong facts. The responses I get to my comments are hilarious. Instead of responding to specific points (which is what I was doing really, I had no larger intention), you treat me as the second coming of Gramsci and write long essays ridiculing positions I don’t even hold.

    Like I’ve said before on these forums, they way you all write and respond to comments says a lot about your thought process and psychology.

  96. DWB says: • Website
    @Numinous
    On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back.

    I read Fareed's article too and it seemed to me he was expressing an opinion on how Americans should deal with illegal immigrants. He wasn't addressing (or hectoring) white Americans specifically; that's your inference. Comments like yours make me wonder how even very Americanized foreigners can fully assimilate into American society if people like you look suspect ulterior motives in their words and actions. Isn't Fareed an American now? Isn't he allowed to express an opinion on political issues (views that are well in the mainstream of white Americans)? And then you all complain that foreigners don't assimilate. Isn't assimilation a two-way street, requiring acceptance and trust from the hosts as well?

    Numinous:

    it’s a good point, actually.

    But it’s, as you say, a two-way street. The mainstream press (which is not typically sympathetic to the views of people like Sailer) almost always frame these debates about race in terms of white and everyone else. Look, for example, at the ridiculous attempts by the NYT to try to frame the shooting of Trayvon Martin as a Simon Legree killing an angelic black child. The pinnacle of the intellectual gymnastics was the “white Hispanic” corner they painted themselves into.

    The whole scam of “privilege” rests on stereotypes like this.

    I’ve lived in the far East (Taiwan) in the past, and among the Chinese, the word “American” is used almost interchangeably with “white.” And the American left are only happy to use the trope when it suits their needs.

  97. @Numinous
    On the flip side, Fareed Zakaria was just lecturing us white people on the proper attitude to immigration a week or so back.

    I read Fareed's article too and it seemed to me he was expressing an opinion on how Americans should deal with illegal immigrants. He wasn't addressing (or hectoring) white Americans specifically; that's your inference. Comments like yours make me wonder how even very Americanized foreigners can fully assimilate into American society if people like you look suspect ulterior motives in their words and actions. Isn't Fareed an American now? Isn't he allowed to express an opinion on political issues (views that are well in the mainstream of white Americans)? And then you all complain that foreigners don't assimilate. Isn't assimilation a two-way street, requiring acceptance and trust from the hosts as well?

    We don’t want replacement of our own people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    As if a white man who somehow lived in India and was involved with politics would not have their motives scrutinized.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    We don’t want replacement of our own people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    It seems to me there's a serious dispute about what the words "people" and "replacement" mean. On these forums, "people" implies a racial category, but it's far from clear that most Americans (even white Americans) think that way. I lived in your country for a decade (and used to travel and hike in the interior a fair amount) and never met anyone who talked the way people like you talk. So either most (white) Americans genuinely don't have much racial feeling anymore, or take great pains not to express such views even in private conversations. On the other hand, culture seems to be key; Americans accept anyone who is Americanized in thought and behavior, regardless of race. For iSteve commenters who visit this blog multiple times a day, it can be easy to assume that most people think they way they do, but then why haven't borders been shut already? You'll probably say that the evil elite keeps the flow going to protect its ill-gotten gains, but I'm not so conspiracy-minded.

    As if a white man who somehow lived in India and was involved with politics would not have their motives scrutinized.

    Indeed they would, but they would have as many defenders as critics. India is not so different from the US in this respect. And, you know, India was actually invaded and ruled by white people not too long ago; if Americans had a similar experience, I must have missed it from the history books. In India, Sonia Gandhi came within a whisker of being Prime Minister, and though she didn't, she was the power behind the throne for most of the past decade. She has had more defenders than detractors, at least when her party had the upper hand. And one of the reasons India is a mess is because people are paranoid and constantly question the motives of politicians and those who make public pronouncements. Some trust would go a long way in improving this country. If you want the US to go the way India did, that's your choice.
  98. @Lackawanna
    We don't want replacement of our own people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    As if a white man who somehow lived in India and was involved with politics would not have their motives scrutinized.

    We don’t want replacement of our own people. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    It seems to me there’s a serious dispute about what the words “people” and “replacement” mean. On these forums, “people” implies a racial category, but it’s far from clear that most Americans (even white Americans) think that way. I lived in your country for a decade (and used to travel and hike in the interior a fair amount) and never met anyone who talked the way people like you talk. So either most (white) Americans genuinely don’t have much racial feeling anymore, or take great pains not to express such views even in private conversations. On the other hand, culture seems to be key; Americans accept anyone who is Americanized in thought and behavior, regardless of race. For iSteve commenters who visit this blog multiple times a day, it can be easy to assume that most people think they way they do, but then why haven’t borders been shut already? You’ll probably say that the evil elite keeps the flow going to protect its ill-gotten gains, but I’m not so conspiracy-minded.

    As if a white man who somehow lived in India and was involved with politics would not have their motives scrutinized.

    Indeed they would, but they would have as many defenders as critics. India is not so different from the US in this respect. And, you know, India was actually invaded and ruled by white people not too long ago; if Americans had a similar experience, I must have missed it from the history books. In India, Sonia Gandhi came within a whisker of being Prime Minister, and though she didn’t, she was the power behind the throne for most of the past decade. She has had more defenders than detractors, at least when her party had the upper hand. And one of the reasons India is a mess is because people are paranoid and constantly question the motives of politicians and those who make public pronouncements. Some trust would go a long way in improving this country. If you want the US to go the way India did, that’s your choice.

  99. “Art Deco says:

    Remarkable how unselfconscious some people are here…”

    ………said the unselfconsciously smug nincompoop known as Art Deco.

    What was wrong with what Another Dad posted? Apparently your only comment is to point and sputter.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2