The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Paul Krugman Appeals for Calm and Avoidance of Cliché
🔊 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

Screenshot 2018-06-21 14.28.50

From the NYT Opinion columns:

Return of the Blood Libel

By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist

June 21, 2018

The speed of America’s moral descent under Donald Trump is breathtaking. In a matter of months we’ve gone from a nation that stood for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a nation that tears children from their parents and puts them in cages.

What’s almost equally remarkable about this plunge into barbarism is that it’s not a response to any actual problem. The mass influx of murderers and rapists that Trump talks about, the wave of crime committed by immigrants here (and, in his mind, refugees in Germany), are things that simply aren’t happening. They’re just sick fantasies being used to justify real atrocities.

And you know what this reminds me of?

Uh, let me guess … Trump’s immigration policies remind Paul, a retired Princeton professor, of … how hard the Princeton Admissions department works to keep out undocumented admittees, turning away 95% of applicants, many of whom have dreamt desperately of going to Princeton? That when you come right down to it, both Ivy League colleges and the United States have rational reasons for limiting the quantity and filtering the quality of admissions?

Each year, after all, Princeton receives tens of thousands of admissions essays from children that are hard luck stories about why my grandma’s death or my oppression by the popular kids means I should be let into Princeton.

And Princeton rejects about 95% of them.

So, Paul might inform his NYT readers, that college admissions departments are just like ICE. Both skeptically listen to hard luck stories and reject many of them.

No? That’s not what Paul came up with?

Okay, I imagine this Nobelist’s novel insight must be even more original. Let’s see what brilliant breakthrough analogy Krugman came up with today about what Trump’s immigration policy reminds him of:

The history of anti-Semitism, a tale of prejudice fueled by myths and hoaxes that ended in genocide.

Oh. Wow. I never saw that coming. Paul really showed intellectual flexibility by avoiding all the cliched possibilities and going instead for the most original response in the history of punditry.

… I don’t know what drives such people — but we’ve seen this movie before, in the history of anti-Semitism.

The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.

… No, the real crisis is an upsurge in hatred — unreasoning hatred that bears no relationship to anything the victims have done. And anyone making excuses for that hatred — who tries, for example, to turn it into a “both sides” story — is, in effect, an apologist for crimes against humanity.

So, anybody who is conflicted or ambivalent on immigration policy is “in effect, an apologist for crimes against humanity.”

You need the kind of overwhelming demographic diversity we see among the NYT Columnist roster to come up with this quality of out-of-the-box diversity of ideas.

 
Hide 97 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hmm, I remember when Sarah Palin called the accusations that she was responsible for Gabby Giffords’ shooting as a “blood libel” and it was the worst thing anyone had ever done to the Jews since pushing bubbe into the shower for her to appropriate that special term.

  2. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.

    That’s the falsehood that has to be addressed in the public mind.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Look up Stalin's Jew Frankel.
    , @Emblematic
    My favourite definition of the word anti-Semitism: a word invented by Jews that means nothing is ever their fault.
    , @SMK
    Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people but had nothing to do with Karl Marx and Jewish Bolsheviks , Trotsky most famously, who joined Lenin into putting his theories into practice in the erstwhile Soviet Union. And, of course, there were and are no Jewish Marxists in the U.S. and other European countries.

    Likewise, opposition to an invasion of tens of millions of nonwhites, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure "indios" from Mexico and Central America, has nothing to do with the actual crimes and behavior of "Hispanics"/Latinos": the myriads of rapes and gang-rapes, assaults and murders, acts of torture and mutilation, vicious gangs like MS-13, drug and sex "trafficking," the inability or refusal to assimilate, and much else.
  3. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.

    Krugman brilliantly debunks the myth that Jews worked to undermine their host countries by writing a column in which he works to undermine his host country

    • Agree: Stan d Mute, TheBoom
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I'm sure Krugman would be the first to point out that it's a canard that all Jews advocate unfettered immigration. There are Jews who are opposed to immigration as well, like Stephen Miller. Of course, they are self-hating, traitorous Jews who undermine everything Jews stand for.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Krugman's one of

    #JewsWorkingToProveHitlerRight

    Yes, I lament it as much as you do.

  4. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.

    That’s the falsehood that must be addressed.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me
  5. Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Krugman!

    • Replies: @European-American
    It’s all just a big joke! It’s a joke.
    https://youtu.be/_dbjFLtyw7w
  6. “The history of anti-Semitism, a tale of prejudice fueled by myths and hoaxes that ended in genocide.”

    Khmelnytsky Uprising: In Jewish history, the Uprising is known for the concomitant outrages against the Jews who, in their capacity as leaseholders (arendators), were seen by the peasants as their immediate oppressors.[3][4] (In this case there were actual grievances directed against Jews and other agents of the Polish Lithuanian confederacy)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Jews

    Best read in Wikipedia because it is very complicated:

    Although the local nobility was granted full rights within the Rzeczpospolita, their assimilation of Polish culture alienated them from the lower classes. This szlachta, along with the actions of the upper-class Polish Magnates, oppressed the lower-class Ruthenians, with the introduction of Counter-Reformation missionary practices and the use of Jewish arendators to manage their estates.

  7. What’s almost equally remarkable about this plunge into barbarism is that it’s not a response to any actual problem.

    Would he feel the same way if I stole $500,000 from him? Given his wealth that wouldn’t really be a “problem” for him .

    Or, more to the point, what if I stole $50 from him, and then 22.8 million compatriots began taking turns stealing $50 each from him? Is there any point at which he would say there’s a problem? Is there any point at which self-defense is justified? Not, if you’re white, clearly.

  8. Anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:

    H A T R E D.

    It’s out there. Coming to a theater near you.

  9. Anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Liberals cannot make sense of a very simple equation: When A and B have a kid, they have no early right to dump that kid on C in an attempt to force C to take care of it.

    Liberals are biological parasites. This is the programming in their reproductive DNA. They think like cowbirds, and they dump their young in someone else’s nest to raise. Think about how many liberals come from divorced and broken families, and how they try to con either the state or a step-parent into coming up with the money to raise their kids. The number of children that liberals try to make someone else’s responsibility is MASSIVE.

    Liberals are parasites, period. They are cowbirds who don’t want to be responsible for making their own nest. They deliberately choose not to be responsible for their own nest, and they want to force everyone else to save them from their own irresponsibility.

    This is a truth that should be pounded into everyone’s head.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Liberals are biological parasites. This is the programming in their reproductive DNA. They think like cowbirds, and they dump their young in someone else’s nest to raise.
     
    And “conservatives” are the cuckolds who willingly, eagerly even, raise them!
    , @Olorin

    Liberals are biological parasites.
     
    Agree. But what are conservatives who go along with this, in the name of, say, Abortion And Birth Control Being Evil, or We Need More Low Paid Workers Because Cabbages Are Rotting in the Fields, or Because Religion?

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/20/illegal-immigration-and-lax-border-controls-are-the-epicenter-of-the-uniparty/
  10. Krugman senses victory. Open Borders as the Law and Trump removed by the FBI for being …. A White male. Or something.

    Cheered on by every soccer mom and single White lady.

    Krugman has never done anything risky in his life . So I’m guessing he’s been told the fix is in. Even Melania Trump will cheer. For the children. And the real enemy White men.

    • Replies: @JSM
    Cheered on by every soccer mom and single White lady.]

    Screw you. White married woman (a/k/a soccer moms) voted for TRUMP: 61.4% Which, single MEN (like you?) did NOT: Trump 49% (i.e., Hillary 51%)

    So, go lecture THEM, wouldja, already.

    https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/03/detailed-demographic-breakdown-of-2016.html
  11. America’s immigration policy should be the same as an exclusive country club. As exclusive as Princeton University, which only admits the best. But then Paul Krugman is no Alfred Einstein.

  12. @Anonymous

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.
     
    That’s the falsehood that must be addressed.

    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Slither back to your hole Whiskey.
    , @WJ
    That post bothered you enough to make that reply post. Interesting. Don't you have another post on interracial porn that you need to write?
    , @Mr. Anon

    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.
     
    The only one around here anyone would suspect of being a paid shill is you, asshat.
    , @Moses
    Cue the ad hominem attack when a legitimate question raised about Jewish conduct in host nations. Das ist verboten.

    They keep confirming the stereotype, don’t they?

  13. Paul Krugman Admits Mass Immigration Reduces Wages For Workers:

    My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand: we’re talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.

    From 2006:

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration/?smid=tw-share

  14. a tale of prejudice fueled by myths and hoaxes that ended in genocide.

    Wouldn’t racism hoaxes and the myth of White race as the sole creator and carrier of all Evil lead to something like this? Especially, once the despised race becomes a wealthy but unorganized minority?

  15. istevefan says:

    I have to admire the other side in how quickly and effortlessly they can mobilize to focus on a single target, in this case the migrants at the border. Every major news outlet is covering this and the coverage is so intensive and provocative that lunatics like Peter Fonda are a couple of steps away from becoming the next John Wilkes Booth. Just like the 5 Dallas cops were cut down by the BLM rhetoric, someone is going to get it before this issue goes away.

    Now as to speculation about why they have chosen this issue.

    1) They want to distract from any positive coverage of the North Korean summit

    2) They want to distract from the IG report which is much more damning than the executive summary would suggest

    3) They are trying to gin up racial hatred of whites ahead of the midterms like they did with BLM.

    4) They really do feel their plans to demographically neuter whites might be in jeopardy if border enforcement is allowed.

    5) other suggestions….

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Yep. 1 2 4 and 3 through stupidity. Probably 2 most of all.
    , @Barnard
    I would say some of all those things are factors with #4 being the strongest reason. A significant number of people truly believe this is an act of great morality as well. Most reporters are really dumb and gullible as well. They won't look any farther into the narrative than is necessary to complete their reports.
    , @stillCARealist
    Read the comments on the WaPo article referenced earlier (#14). Those people do not care about immigrants, legal or illegal, they just hate YOU and the America they think you represent. Very illuminating.
  16. The part of the blood libel where children were separated from parents make him think of it?

  17. Anonymous[351] • Disclaimer says:

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.

    I’d say “amazing”, but this astronomical level of chutzpah is par for the course.

    Anti-Semitism, Kruggie, is not an irrational hatred of Jews. It is a rational reaction to Jews’ irrational hatred of goyim.

    • Replies: @JSM
    Hey, Kruggie, so
    if "anti-semitism" is the term for being mad about what jews never did,
    what's the term for being mad about what jews actually DID?
  18. Paul Krugman knows that the WASP/JEW ruling class is going to lose the WAR ON WHITEY.

    Americans of European Christian ancestry are just now waking up to the fact that they are under attack from the WASP/JEW ruling class.

    Paul Krugman does not want to have to go live in Israel, Uganda or the Congo. Paul Krugman loves to lord it over the regular White Core Americans in the United States.

    Paul Krugman would be one of the Jews to say he is leaving the United States for another country, but that other country always happens to be another European Christian nation like Australia, Canada, France, Denmark or any number of nations built be European Christians.

    In order to reclaim political power in the United States, it might be necessary for European Christian Americans to begin mass deportations of those Jews who seem incapable of showing any gratitude to the European Christian ancestral core of the USA. Paul Krugman is a good candidate to be deported to the Congo. Let Krugman bang on some hollow log in the Congo for a while to concentrate his mind.

  19. Don’t forget our mutual friend David Brooks!

    Tweet from 2015:

  20. Paul Krugman has been a tad tense and irritable these last years, but actually this blood libel thing is not even the most remarkable bit of his last column. For me, it is rather this sentence:

    “There is a highly technical debate among economists about whether low-education immigrants exert a depressing effect on the wages of low-education native-born workers (most researchers find that they don’t, but there is some disagreement).”

    Is there an iSteve reader who knows enough of this “highly technical” debate to be able to explain why the laws of supply and demand work in every market except for the low end of the labor market? And is there a term for that, something like “the low end labor market exception”? I am genuinely curious.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    It's the so called "Lump of Labor Fallacy"....
    , @TheBoom
    Let's not go there. Believing in the law of supply and demand is not who we are.
    , @ziggurat
    About 12 years ago, Paul Krugman wrote a column stating that low-skill immigration should be reduced, because he thought (at the time) that it added little to GDP, reduced the wages of low-skill workers, and threatened the welfare state. Now, Paul Krugamn seems to believe that anti-immigration sentiment is just pure hatred.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html
    North of the Border
    By PAUL KRUGMAN - MARCH 27, 2006

    First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
    ...
    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
    That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do."
    ...
    Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration.
    ...
    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
    , @J.Ross
    If you're interested in Borjas, who was an immigration advocate until the evidence started to change (there was a time when immigration made sense; that was when we turned some people away) his last two books "Heaven's Door" and "We Wanted Workers (But Got People)" are very good.
  21. America’s moral descent

    It never fails to amaze how quickly a Jewish secular materialist can transform into as much a moral absolutist as a John Calvin or a Pope John Paul II.

    And the metaphysical moral yardstick they apply just happens to equate precisely with the narrow worldly group interest of globalist ethnic Jews as applied against those whom they perceive as their enemies.

  22. @Daniel Chieh
    Surely You're Joking, Mr. Krugman!

    It’s all just a big joke! It’s a joke.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I love that movie. It also gifted this:

    https://youtu.be/dpoAdGWGiN0
  23. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:

    This is pretty original though:

  24. Immigration really is at the core of the globalist agenda. They’re defending it with bloody claws.

  25. “The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.“

    Of course. Because as we all know, whenever a group of people provoke enmity in every society they ever reside in the only possible conclusion is that everyone else in the world, with the exception of this one group, is suffering from paranoid delusions. To think that just maybe this one group might, at least occasionally, provoke such animosity by their own behaviour is just unthinkable. At least it better be unthinkable if you know what’s good for you.

  26. … No, the real crisis is an upsurge in hatred — unreasoning hatred that bears no relationship to anything the victims have done. And anyone making excuses for that hatred — who tries, for example, to turn it into a “both sides” story — is, in effect, an apologist for crimes against humanity.

    Well to be fair to the man, he is right about this part.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  27. @DFH

    It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.
     
    Krugman brilliantly debunks the myth that Jews worked to undermine their host countries by writing a column in which he works to undermine his host country

    I’m sure Krugman would be the first to point out that it’s a canard that all Jews advocate unfettered immigration. There are Jews who are opposed to immigration as well, like Stephen Miller. Of course, they are self-hating, traitorous Jews who undermine everything Jews stand for.

  28. The mass influx of murderers and rapists that Trump talks about, the wave of crime committed by immigrants here (and, in his mind, refugees in Germany), are things that simply aren’t happening.

    Doesn’t Krugman know about the rapes and murders committed by immigrants in Germany? Does he not read the news or something?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1009050317432983553

    https://twitter.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1009050963137753091
    , @Rosie

    Doesn’t Krugman know about the rapes and murders committed by immigrants in Germany? Does he not read the news or something?
     
    The rapes in Germany are a serious matter, indeed. Still, Germany would have a right to say no even if MENA immigrants were the most exemplary citizens. Krugman is attacking US sovereignty here by claiming that we carry some burden to prove wrongdoing in order to have a right to say no to non-Whites.
  29. @istevefan
    I have to admire the other side in how quickly and effortlessly they can mobilize to focus on a single target, in this case the migrants at the border. Every major news outlet is covering this and the coverage is so intensive and provocative that lunatics like Peter Fonda are a couple of steps away from becoming the next John Wilkes Booth. Just like the 5 Dallas cops were cut down by the BLM rhetoric, someone is going to get it before this issue goes away.

    Now as to speculation about why they have chosen this issue.

    1) They want to distract from any positive coverage of the North Korean summit

    2) They want to distract from the IG report which is much more damning than the executive summary would suggest

    3) They are trying to gin up racial hatred of whites ahead of the midterms like they did with BLM.

    4) They really do feel their plans to demographically neuter whites might be in jeopardy if border enforcement is allowed.

    5) other suggestions....

    Yep. 1 2 4 and 3 through stupidity. Probably 2 most of all.

  30. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    The mass influx of murderers and rapists that Trump talks about, the wave of crime committed by immigrants here (and, in his mind, refugees in Germany), are things that simply aren’t happening.

    Doesn't Krugman know about the rapes and murders committed by immigrants in Germany? Does he not read the news or something?

    • Replies: @fnn

    A steady and strong decline in crime committed by native Germans.
     
    The average age of actual Germans must be getting pretty high when you consider that 1971 was the last year when births exceeded deaths in the Federal Republic.
  31. @Stan Adams
    Charles Krauthammer is dead:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/charles-krauthammer-pulitzer-prize-winning-columnist-and-intellectual-provocateur-dies-at-68/2018/06/21/b71ee41a-759e-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.107341a588cf

    De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

    • Replies: @JSM
    This is the part where I'm s'posed to look sad-faced, right?
  32. @istevefan
    I have to admire the other side in how quickly and effortlessly they can mobilize to focus on a single target, in this case the migrants at the border. Every major news outlet is covering this and the coverage is so intensive and provocative that lunatics like Peter Fonda are a couple of steps away from becoming the next John Wilkes Booth. Just like the 5 Dallas cops were cut down by the BLM rhetoric, someone is going to get it before this issue goes away.

    Now as to speculation about why they have chosen this issue.

    1) They want to distract from any positive coverage of the North Korean summit

    2) They want to distract from the IG report which is much more damning than the executive summary would suggest

    3) They are trying to gin up racial hatred of whites ahead of the midterms like they did with BLM.

    4) They really do feel their plans to demographically neuter whites might be in jeopardy if border enforcement is allowed.

    5) other suggestions....

    I would say some of all those things are factors with #4 being the strongest reason. A significant number of people truly believe this is an act of great morality as well. Most reporters are really dumb and gullible as well. They won’t look any farther into the narrative than is necessary to complete their reports.

  33. @Harry Baldwin
    The mass influx of murderers and rapists that Trump talks about, the wave of crime committed by immigrants here (and, in his mind, refugees in Germany), are things that simply aren’t happening.

    Doesn't Krugman know about the rapes and murders committed by immigrants in Germany? Does he not read the news or something?

    Doesn’t Krugman know about the rapes and murders committed by immigrants in Germany? Does he not read the news or something?

    The rapes in Germany are a serious matter, indeed. Still, Germany would have a right to say no even if MENA immigrants were the most exemplary citizens. Krugman is attacking US sovereignty here by claiming that we carry some burden to prove wrongdoing in order to have a right to say no to non-Whites.

    • Agree: Dissident
  34. @DFH

    It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.
     
    Krugman brilliantly debunks the myth that Jews worked to undermine their host countries by writing a column in which he works to undermine his host country

    Krugman’s one of

    #JewsWorkingToProveHitlerRight

    Yes, I lament it as much as you do.

  35. The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.

    Why do Jews tolerate this crap? Krugman and his ilk insist that Jews have zero agency. None. They’re just helpless little waifs forever at the mercy of superior white Russians, white Germans, light brown Arabs, etc. Never, ever, are Jews themselves responsible for anything. Why it’s as if they’re typical negro men in American prisons..

    How insulting is this? It’s why I rail endlessly at the Jew-haters and Jew-blamers. If you schmucks weren’t completely cucked into worshipping a Jewish god and weren’t so pathetically weak as to care what a bunch of limp wrist pundits and professors bawl about, Jews would have no more influence than Australian Aborigines. What, is Paul Krugman going to kick your ass if you tell him to STFU?

    “Toxic masculinity” indeed. It appears the toxicity was introduced 2,000 years ago and the result has been quite fatal to masculinity in the West. Turn off your televisions and burn your newspapers then go out in the woods and kill a deer – cut out his guts – then go home and feed your family. How disturbing is it that Ted Nugent is the most masculine figure in American culture today? Motor City Madman, heh..

  36. @Anon
    Liberals cannot make sense of a very simple equation: When A and B have a kid, they have no early right to dump that kid on C in an attempt to force C to take care of it.

    Liberals are biological parasites. This is the programming in their reproductive DNA. They think like cowbirds, and they dump their young in someone else's nest to raise. Think about how many liberals come from divorced and broken families, and how they try to con either the state or a step-parent into coming up with the money to raise their kids. The number of children that liberals try to make someone else's responsibility is MASSIVE.

    Liberals are parasites, period. They are cowbirds who don't want to be responsible for making their own nest. They deliberately choose not to be responsible for their own nest, and they want to force everyone else to save them from their own irresponsibility.

    This is a truth that should be pounded into everyone's head.

    Liberals are biological parasites. This is the programming in their reproductive DNA. They think like cowbirds, and they dump their young in someone else’s nest to raise.

    And “conservatives” are the cuckolds who willingly, eagerly even, raise them!

  37. It’s been made abundently clear how they feel: We can not be allowed to keep our nations; we are to be slaves until we are replaced/genocided.

    Let’s just go ahead and have the war.**

    ** That way i don’t have to make a decision on repairing/restaining my cedar deck or replacing with synthetics until afterwards–when i’m either dead, evicted or basking in a victorious buzz.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Amazing how a post stating that we are, as a nation, sitting around waiting for a civil war sent Steve to the boomer fainting couch but Tiny Duck makes it through all day erryday.

    This attitude is why Boomers made the present we live in.
    , @MBlanc46
    Let’s do it before my knees are completely shot.
  38. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1009050317432983553

    https://twitter.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1009050963137753091

    A steady and strong decline in crime committed by native Germans.

    The average age of actual Germans must be getting pretty high when you consider that 1971 was the last year when births exceeded deaths in the Federal Republic.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    I've read the median age of a German woman is 47....makes you wonder if you count ONLY ethnic "Zee Germans" there probably aren't many pure bloods left....

    And I wouldn't be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

    Actual Germans....even probably Germans who are only half German are probably a minority there in their own country....

    Oktoberfest is so commercial I wonder what percentage is even German any more....
  39. @European-American
    It’s all just a big joke! It’s a joke.
    https://youtu.be/_dbjFLtyw7w

    I love that movie. It also gifted this:

  40. MSM covering this much?:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/21/lawsuit-obama-agency-held-teenage-migrants-brutal-inhumane-conditions/

    President Barack Obama’s immigration agency allowed migrant youths as young as 14 to be abused, tied up, left naked in solitary confinement, and denied health treatment at a juvenile detention center in Virginia in 2015 and 2016, says a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Latino migrant.

  41. @Whiskey
    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me

    Slither back to your hole Whiskey.

  42. @AnotherDad
    It's been made abundently clear how they feel: We can not be allowed to keep our nations; we are to be slaves until we are replaced/genocided.

    Let's just go ahead and have the war.**


    ** That way i don't have to make a decision on repairing/restaining my cedar deck or replacing with synthetics until afterwards--when i'm either dead, evicted or basking in a victorious buzz.

    Amazing how a post stating that we are, as a nation, sitting around waiting for a civil war sent Steve to the boomer fainting couch but Tiny Duck makes it through all day erryday.

    This attitude is why Boomers made the present we live in.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Let’s see. I’m an early Boomer (1946). Truman desegregated the military in 1948. I was two. The Brown v Board decision was 1954. I was eight. The Rosa Parks affair was 1955. I was nine. Little Rock was 1958. I was twelve. The Civil Rights Act was 1964. I was eighteen, but not eligible to vote (had I been able I’d have voted early and often—we do that in Illinois—for Barry Goldwater). The immigration act that is destroying the nation was 1965. I was nineteen; still not eligible to vote. Tell me again how I and my cohort made the present world.
  43. @Anonymous

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.
     
    That’s the falsehood that has to be addressed in the public mind.

    Look up Stalin’s Jew Frankel.

  44. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    I apologize narrenspeice but my deal phone won’t let me reply directly to your post….the term you are looking for is “lump of labor fallacy”

    • Replies: @narrenspeise
    Well, the idea behind the "lump of labor fallacy" is that the amount of work in an economy is fixed, which is not true, hence the "fallacy". However, in order for the disproportionate influx of low-skilled labor not to depress wages for low-skilled jobs, the addition of one low-skilled immigrant seeking work would require the economy to create one additional low-skill job (and quite quickly, too), thus changing the structure of that economy. This is obviously implausible. Therefore, in order for low-skilled wages to stay stable, some other mechanism would have to be at work. Surely somebody has found a term for that.
  45. Krugman in 2006:

    If you are talking about a high-skill, high wage immigrant, there’s–they are going to be contributing more in taxes than they are going to be taking in benefits on average. If you are talking about low wage, low-skill immigrant, no matter how you push the numbers, they’re probably on average going to be–they are costing more in terms of public services, which we have to provide to everybody here, than they are going to be paying in taxes…

    I would like to slow the inflow of low-skilled immigrants because I think it is a problem. I’d like to assimilate all of the people we have here. And I feel guilty even about that solution because the one thing that is clearly part of the overall picture is that for the immigrants themselves this is a huge improvement. And I want everybody to have the chance that my grandparents had to come to America and make a better life, but I don’t think we can sustain that.

    http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/Marketplace033006.html

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    They've all fallen into lockstep now. Fascinating, really.
  46. @narrenspeise
    Paul Krugman has been a tad tense and irritable these last years, but actually this blood libel thing is not even the most remarkable bit of his last column. For me, it is rather this sentence:

    "There is a highly technical debate among economists about whether low-education immigrants exert a depressing effect on the wages of low-education native-born workers (most researchers find that they don’t, but there is some disagreement)."

    Is there an iSteve reader who knows enough of this "highly technical" debate to be able to explain why the laws of supply and demand work in every market except for the low end of the labor market? And is there a term for that, something like "the low end labor market exception"? I am genuinely curious.

    It’s the so called “Lump of Labor Fallacy”….

  47. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:

    Douglas Rushkoff appears to disagree with Krugman:

  48. anon[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Time for some Trump luck. The optics got away on this one. The American public fell for the Iraqi’s tearing newborns out of incubators. You’d think someone had abused a dog.

    Trump will recover from this. The Dems have momentum on this. This column shows that he has lost the optics. Trump came across as a bully. Worse than a hypocrite. Maybe his enemies will over react.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Time for some Trump luck. The optics got away on this one. The American public fell for the Iraqi’s tearing newborns out of incubators. You’d think someone had abused a dog.
     
    IOW: Effectively, the media run the country.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Trump's approval went UP so this sounds like yet another anon eeyore braying about defeat in the face of victory.
  49. @istevefan
    I have to admire the other side in how quickly and effortlessly they can mobilize to focus on a single target, in this case the migrants at the border. Every major news outlet is covering this and the coverage is so intensive and provocative that lunatics like Peter Fonda are a couple of steps away from becoming the next John Wilkes Booth. Just like the 5 Dallas cops were cut down by the BLM rhetoric, someone is going to get it before this issue goes away.

    Now as to speculation about why they have chosen this issue.

    1) They want to distract from any positive coverage of the North Korean summit

    2) They want to distract from the IG report which is much more damning than the executive summary would suggest

    3) They are trying to gin up racial hatred of whites ahead of the midterms like they did with BLM.

    4) They really do feel their plans to demographically neuter whites might be in jeopardy if border enforcement is allowed.

    5) other suggestions....

    Read the comments on the WaPo article referenced earlier (#14). Those people do not care about immigrants, legal or illegal, they just hate YOU and the America they think you represent. Very illuminating.

  50. @fnn

    A steady and strong decline in crime committed by native Germans.
     
    The average age of actual Germans must be getting pretty high when you consider that 1971 was the last year when births exceeded deaths in the Federal Republic.

    I’ve read the median age of a German woman is 47….makes you wonder if you count ONLY ethnic “Zee Germans” there probably aren’t many pure bloods left….

    And I wouldn’t be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

    Actual Germans….even probably Germans who are only half German are probably a minority there in their own country….

    Oktoberfest is so commercial I wonder what percentage is even German any more….

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    And I wouldn’t be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

     

    Prior to Merkel's madness (Merkel's boner, Merkvasion, …) I think the Germans were in better shape diversity wise than France or Britain. They'd shot themselves in the foot with the Gastarbeiter, resulting in a lot of ethnic Turks. But overall less truly incompatible, non-integratable diversity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Ethnic_minorities_and_migrant_background_(Migrationshintergrund)

    A big chunk of their foreign born are from the former Soviet Union--but a lot of those were ethnically German or quasi-German. Some of those folks in my grad school friend's neighborhood in Dingolfing--presumably employed at the BMW plant. But generally I found the German countryside to still be very German and ridiculously pleasant. (It's like time travel back to my childhood suburb in 1965--except the Germans speaking German instead of English.)

    Of course popping into a big city--like Munich--and then you see some "diversity" and think "what the hell is going on here?" But still nothing like Paris where you can get on some subway lines and think you're in the Bronx.

    But then we were last there in September 2015--right when Merkel's madness was kicking into full gear. (Cancelled our trip to Austria because of it.) I'm sure the trash Merkel imported is making itself felt and will proceed to wreck the joint in the years to come. But it isn't wrecked now, if they'd have the sense to depose Merkel--tell her to go to her bunker and take one for the team--and have the guts to send her boys back home, there could still be a Germany.
  51. @Anonymous

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.
     
    That’s the falsehood that has to be addressed in the public mind.

    My favourite definition of the word anti-Semitism: a word invented by Jews that means nothing is ever their fault.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    My favorite definition:

    'An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.'

    --Joseph Sobran
  52. Jews have had a country for three and a half generations now. At what point do they either stop complaining about whitey or admit they’d rather take their chances living in white countries than get stuck living with a bunch of jews in Israel? What kind of immigration policy does Israel have anyway?

  53. @Whiskey
    Krugman senses victory. Open Borders as the Law and Trump removed by the FBI for being .... A White male. Or something.

    Cheered on by every soccer mom and single White lady.

    Krugman has never done anything risky in his life . So I'm guessing he's been told the fix is in. Even Melania Trump will cheer. For the children. And the real enemy White men.

    Cheered on by every soccer mom and single White lady.]

    Screw you. White married woman (a/k/a soccer moms) voted for TRUMP: 61.4% Which, single MEN (like you?) did NOT: Trump 49% (i.e., Hillary 51%)

    So, go lecture THEM, wouldja, already.

    https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/03/detailed-demographic-breakdown-of-2016.html

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  54. @Anonymous

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.
     
    I'd say "amazing", but this astronomical level of chutzpah is par for the course.

    Anti-Semitism, Kruggie, is not an irrational hatred of Jews. It is a rational reaction to Jews' irrational hatred of goyim.

    Hey, Kruggie, so
    if “anti-semitism” is the term for being mad about what jews never did,
    what’s the term for being mad about what jews actually DID?

    • Replies: @TheBoom

    Hey, Kruggie, so
    if “anti-semitism” is the term for being mad about what jews never did,
    what’s the term for being mad about what jews actually DID?
     
    That is anti semitism too. You have no right to do that goy
  55. @Dan Hayes
    De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

    This is the part where I’m s’posed to look sad-faced, right?

  56. @anon
    Time for some Trump luck. The optics got away on this one. The American public fell for the Iraqi's tearing newborns out of incubators. You'd think someone had abused a dog.

    Trump will recover from this. The Dems have momentum on this. This column shows that he has lost the optics. Trump came across as a bully. Worse than a hypocrite. Maybe his enemies will over react.

    Time for some Trump luck. The optics got away on this one. The American public fell for the Iraqi’s tearing newborns out of incubators. You’d think someone had abused a dog.

    IOW: Effectively, the media run the country.

  57. @narrenspeise
    Paul Krugman has been a tad tense and irritable these last years, but actually this blood libel thing is not even the most remarkable bit of his last column. For me, it is rather this sentence:

    "There is a highly technical debate among economists about whether low-education immigrants exert a depressing effect on the wages of low-education native-born workers (most researchers find that they don’t, but there is some disagreement)."

    Is there an iSteve reader who knows enough of this "highly technical" debate to be able to explain why the laws of supply and demand work in every market except for the low end of the labor market? And is there a term for that, something like "the low end labor market exception"? I am genuinely curious.

    Let’s not go there. Believing in the law of supply and demand is not who we are.

  58. @JSM
    Hey, Kruggie, so
    if "anti-semitism" is the term for being mad about what jews never did,
    what's the term for being mad about what jews actually DID?

    Hey, Kruggie, so
    if “anti-semitism” is the term for being mad about what jews never did,
    what’s the term for being mad about what jews actually DID?

    That is anti semitism too. You have no right to do that goy

  59. @narrenspeise
    Paul Krugman has been a tad tense and irritable these last years, but actually this blood libel thing is not even the most remarkable bit of his last column. For me, it is rather this sentence:

    "There is a highly technical debate among economists about whether low-education immigrants exert a depressing effect on the wages of low-education native-born workers (most researchers find that they don’t, but there is some disagreement)."

    Is there an iSteve reader who knows enough of this "highly technical" debate to be able to explain why the laws of supply and demand work in every market except for the low end of the labor market? And is there a term for that, something like "the low end labor market exception"? I am genuinely curious.

    About 12 years ago, Paul Krugman wrote a column stating that low-skill immigration should be reduced, because he thought (at the time) that it added little to GDP, reduced the wages of low-skill workers, and threatened the welfare state. Now, Paul Krugamn seems to believe that anti-immigration sentiment is just pure hatred.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html
    North of the Border
    By PAUL KRUGMAN – MARCH 27, 2006

    First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.
    That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.”

    Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration.

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    • Replies: @narrenspeise
    Wow. Didn't know he used to be _this_ Nazi (alright, that wasn't quite Nazi yet at the time)... but then, at least he is intellectually honest enough to change his opinion when the "highly technical debate" produces new findings.

    Thanks a lot.
    , @AnotherDad
    Yep. Krugman is Jewish, not stupid.

    There is absolutely *no* possible way that importing low-skilled does not lower low-skilled wages and increase unemployment. (That's actually what the "gains to the economy" consist of--lower wages.)

    The only possible way for this not to be true--and only temporarily--is for the immigrants arrival to create "transients", that create labor demand sufficient to suck up the new immigrant supply. Example: need more housing for the immigrant influx and the immigrant influx are makes lots of old suburban school districts suck, causing white flight and more housing/roads/schools/strip malls built, employing lots of the immigrants. (Steve had some entertaining descriptions of this process--sort of--working in the Sand States--his Antelope Valley example--leading up to ... the inevitable crash and the Great Recession.)

    But even these scenarios is are
    a) not plausibly sufficient in magnitude, for low-skill immigration to not suppress low-skill wages even in the short term
    b) inherently transient (can't last)
    c) actually a misallocation of capital
    d) don't take into account welfare costs (schooling, welfare, healthcare, criminal justice) that low-skill workers can't possibly cover.

    There's simply no way that low-skill workers aren't driving down low-skill wages and driving up low-skilled unemployment and making the poor poorer. That's how markets work.


    Krugman knows this. He's shown he knows it in the past. So writing these columns now simply shows that he's putting aside the rational/analytical/homo-economicus part of his brain and letting his Jewish ethnic animus run wild.
  60. Anonymous[778] • Disclaimer says:

    How many goys, when shown how monotonous and pervasive is this ethnic self-absorption in the media, wouldn’t respond “Well, of course, Jews would know all about this. The Holocaust! That’s why we need to listen to them”, like they’re Magical Semites who can sniff out all the early signs of whites behaving badly before it’s too late?

    • Agree: dfordoom
  61. Jim Goad has the perfect response to all this virtual signaling:

  62. @C. Van Carter
    Krugman in 2006:

    If you are talking about a high-skill, high wage immigrant, there's--they are going to be contributing more in taxes than they are going to be taking in benefits on average. If you are talking about low wage, low-skill immigrant, no matter how you push the numbers, they're probably on average going to be--they are costing more in terms of public services, which we have to provide to everybody here, than they are going to be paying in taxes...

    I would like to slow the inflow of low-skilled immigrants because I think it is a problem. I'd like to assimilate all of the people we have here. And I feel guilty even about that solution because the one thing that is clearly part of the overall picture is that for the immigrants themselves this is a huge improvement. And I want everybody to have the chance that my grandparents had to come to America and make a better life, but I don't think we can sustain that.
     

    http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/Marketplace033006.html

    They’ve all fallen into lockstep now. Fascinating, really.

  63. @Emblematic
    My favourite definition of the word anti-Semitism: a word invented by Jews that means nothing is ever their fault.

    My favorite definition:

    ‘An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.’

    –Joseph Sobran

  64. @anon
    Time for some Trump luck. The optics got away on this one. The American public fell for the Iraqi's tearing newborns out of incubators. You'd think someone had abused a dog.

    Trump will recover from this. The Dems have momentum on this. This column shows that he has lost the optics. Trump came across as a bully. Worse than a hypocrite. Maybe his enemies will over react.

    Trump’s approval went UP so this sounds like yet another anon eeyore braying about defeat in the face of victory.

  65. This was in 2014 (quote begins at about the six minute mark):

    “The craziness comes from cultural ethnic issues…the real craziness comes from rural, white Americans who feel they are losing their country, they are losing ownership…and they’re right. We are becoming more diverse, more multicultural, and they are, in the end…they are not the future”

    https://www.nrk.no/urix/–amerikansk-politikk-er-galskap-1.11457779

  66. SMK says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.
     
    That’s the falsehood that has to be addressed in the public mind.

    Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people but had nothing to do with Karl Marx and Jewish Bolsheviks , Trotsky most famously, who joined Lenin into putting his theories into practice in the erstwhile Soviet Union. And, of course, there were and are no Jewish Marxists in the U.S. and other European countries.

    Likewise, opposition to an invasion of tens of millions of nonwhites, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure “indios” from Mexico and Central America, has nothing to do with the actual crimes and behavior of “Hispanics”/Latinos”: the myriads of rapes and gang-rapes, assaults and murders, acts of torture and mutilation, vicious gangs like MS-13, drug and sex “trafficking,” the inability or refusal to assimilate, and much else.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    "Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people"

    Fascism was national socialism. Communism was international socialism. Socialism means government owns or runs the private economy. Government operates by force (regulations, laws, confiscated money) so socialism is a society based on force. It inevitably leads to the escalation of use of force as things go wrong (and things will go wrong Read The Road to Serfdom for why). So socialists end up killing millions of their own citizens. All the rage in Europe in the early 20th century was planning the economy, Nazism and Communism were just two different flavors of the same stuff.

    Capitalism is a society based on voluntary association.
  67. @Whiskey
    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me

    That post bothered you enough to make that reply post. Interesting. Don’t you have another post on interracial porn that you need to write?

  68. @Whiskey
    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me

    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    The only one around here anyone would suspect of being a paid shill is you, asshat.

  69. Paul Krugman is married to a negress. His writing is becoming more unhinged as he not only has to protect Jews from Trump’s “anti-Semitism,” but he has to figure out a way to also protect blacks from Trump.

  70. The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.

    Because they are the one group – among all the peoples of the World – who, everywhere and throughout history, have never done anything crappy, shady, or underhanded to any other group.

    Everyone has probably known ‘that guy’. The guy who regales you with stories about his last job, which he had to leave, because everybody was (unjustly, of course) against him. They sabotaged him, spread lies about him, talked him down. And he only took that job because he had to leave the place he worked at before that, because they treated him so shabbily there. And even that job he only took because he had to leave the job he had before that, because those people were mean. After a while, you begin to realize what was the single, common denominator in all his problems. Him.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Dead on. I have known "that guy." Several of them.
  71. @Mr. Anon

    The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did. It was always about lurid myths, often based on deliberate fabrications, that were systematically spread to engender hatred.
     
    Because they are the one group - among all the peoples of the World - who, everywhere and throughout history, have never done anything crappy, shady, or underhanded to any other group.



    Everyone has probably known 'that guy'. The guy who regales you with stories about his last job, which he had to leave, because everybody was (unjustly, of course) against him. They sabotaged him, spread lies about him, talked him down. And he only took that job because he had to leave the place he worked at before that, because they treated him so shabbily there. And even that job he only took because he had to leave the job he had before that, because those people were mean. After a while, you begin to realize what was the single, common denominator in all his problems. Him.

    Dead on. I have known “that guy.” Several of them.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I have heard more of those stories from women than men, but yeah, they are people to be avoided.
  72. I could never find a good explanation for why people keep listening to Paul Krugman. He is wrong 90% of the time and keeps changing his positions every ten years to be wrong in as many different ways as possible.

  73. @Anonymous
    I apologize narrenspeice but my deal phone won't let me reply directly to your post....the term you are looking for is "lump of labor fallacy"

    Well, the idea behind the “lump of labor fallacy” is that the amount of work in an economy is fixed, which is not true, hence the “fallacy”. However, in order for the disproportionate influx of low-skilled labor not to depress wages for low-skilled jobs, the addition of one low-skilled immigrant seeking work would require the economy to create one additional low-skill job (and quite quickly, too), thus changing the structure of that economy. This is obviously implausible. Therefore, in order for low-skilled wages to stay stable, some other mechanism would have to be at work. Surely somebody has found a term for that.

  74. utu says:

    30 years ago no Jew in MSM would dare to terrorize Americans with Jewish psychosis ranging from ‘blood libel’ to ‘Holocaust.’ They must think that we all internalize their psychosis. They must think that America became a Jewish country. Hubris? No more fear for self-preservation?

    Review of Benjamin Ginsberg’s The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (1993) by Stephen Sniegoski
    https://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/deadlyenemy.htm
    In the liberal revolutions and in the development of liberal states, Jews propagandized the public and financed liberal groups. In France, Jews helped establish the Third Republic in the 1870s; their influence loomed especially large in the republic’s anti-clerical campaigns. Jewish financial and media power also provided the underpinning for the Weimar Republic, whose depiction as the Judenrepublik by anti-Semites was not far from the mark. In late 19th-century Britain, the Jewish-dominated press championed imperialism, which benefited Jewish finance. And during the early stages of the Soviet regime, Jews were numerous in leadership positions, especially in the secret police and the propaganda agencies, which they dominated. In contrast to Judeophiles who claim that Jews observe a higher humanitarian ethos, Ginsberg acknowledges that Jewish Communists played a ruthless role in liquidating their opposition.

    Ginsberg warns that as a result of their great power, Jews become a highly visible target for the enemies of the regime and often suffer group destruction with the regime’s demise. Thus in the late 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain, where they had occupied key positions under previous monarchs. In Germany, Hitler eliminated the Jews along with the Weimar Republic; what enabled Nazism to succeed was a coalescence of lower- and upper-class opposition to Jewish power. Where such a fusion of divergent classes does not take place, as in the French Third Republic, Jewish power survives despite a high degree of anti-Semitism.

    The Jewish fall from power does not always require the demise of a friendly regime. Sometimes a previously hospitable regime will eliminate Jews when they are no longer necessary for the maintenance of power, as was the case in the Soviet Union when Stalin dispensed with Jews. Ginsberg’s fundamental theory is that the Jewish close relationship with the state is a “fatal embrace”: the achievement of great power, and the concomitant high visibility, invite group destruction as situations change.

  75. @ziggurat
    About 12 years ago, Paul Krugman wrote a column stating that low-skill immigration should be reduced, because he thought (at the time) that it added little to GDP, reduced the wages of low-skill workers, and threatened the welfare state. Now, Paul Krugamn seems to believe that anti-immigration sentiment is just pure hatred.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html
    North of the Border
    By PAUL KRUGMAN - MARCH 27, 2006

    First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
    ...
    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
    That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do."
    ...
    Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration.
    ...
    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Wow. Didn’t know he used to be _this_ Nazi (alright, that wasn’t quite Nazi yet at the time)… but then, at least he is intellectually honest enough to change his opinion when the “highly technical debate” produces new findings.

    Thanks a lot.

    • Replies: @ziggurat
    You're welcome, narrenspeise!

    By the way, the "highly technical debate" seems to be more influenced by ideology and business interests, rather than reason and evidence.

    This wayward influence was recently noted in a blog post by the Harvard labor economist George Borjas, who himself is an immigrant from Cuba. He is one of the few economists who have been critical of mass immigration:

    https://gborjas.org/2017/06/19/the-new-narrative-less-immigration-is-bad/

    Borjas: “We all know the party line by now: Immigrants do jobs that natives don’t want to do. As a result, natives do not lose jobs, and natives do not see their wages reduced. And anyone who claims otherwise is obviously a racist xenophobic moron. They obviously don’t like immigrants, and they obviously are not educated/credentialed enough to understand and appreciate expert opinion.”
    ...
    Borjas says he has spotted recent articles stating that less immigration drives up wages, which apparently is bad.
    Borjas: “The article starts off by noting that ‘Businesses in Maine that rely on summer help are hoping that Congress will come to the rescue.’ And what do these businesses have to be rescued from? Higher wages, of course."
    ...
    Also, less immigration hurts Mexico, because the returnees will drive down wages.
    Borjas: “The point of the story, of course, was to imply that Trump’s deportation initiatives are bad because they are making Mexicans worse off. And how exactly are Mexicans made worse off? ‘More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.’"
    ...
    Borjas: “There is no upper bound to the hypocrisy of experts. It might be a lot of fun to keep track of this over the next few years, watching the dominos fall and all those ‘immigration-does-not-affect-wages’ experts fall all over themselves as they switch to proving the economic awfulness of Trump’s actions because fewer immigrants mean higher labor costs, higher prices, more inflation.”

    https://gborjas.org/2017/09/05/im-confused/

    In another blog post (September 2017), Borjas wrote “I’m confused. Haven’t we been told over and over and over again that higher levels of immigration do not lower the wages of American workers? So what’s this I read in Politico: ‘… Congress’ refusal to lift a cap on work visas meant many seasonal businesses had to hire Americans this summer — and pay their workers more. That’s good news for Trump, for U.S. workers, and for supporters of Trump’s “American First” agenda, but business groups complain that increased spending on wages will ultimately cost jobs and sap company profits.'”
  76. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome for sure. A mere twelve years ago–back when he still just an economist, rather than an embittered non-presidential-cabinet-member in Hellary’s non-administration–here’s what he had to say about immigration:

    First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small …

    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico …

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net …

    Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely …

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html

    I mean, back then, on this issue at least, you could have mistaken him for Steve Sailor!

  77. @Harry Baldwin
    Dead on. I have known "that guy." Several of them.

    I have heard more of those stories from women than men, but yeah, they are people to be avoided.

  78. “The thing about anti-Semitism is that it was never about anything Jews actually did.”

    If Krugman honestly believes this, then he is an ignoramus and a fool.

    But he doesn’t, of course. Which makes him a liar and a knave.

  79. @narrenspeise
    Wow. Didn't know he used to be _this_ Nazi (alright, that wasn't quite Nazi yet at the time)... but then, at least he is intellectually honest enough to change his opinion when the "highly technical debate" produces new findings.

    Thanks a lot.

    You’re welcome, narrenspeise!

    By the way, the “highly technical debate” seems to be more influenced by ideology and business interests, rather than reason and evidence.

    This wayward influence was recently noted in a blog post by the Harvard labor economist George Borjas, who himself is an immigrant from Cuba. He is one of the few economists who have been critical of mass immigration:

    https://gborjas.org/2017/06/19/the-new-narrative-less-immigration-is-bad/

    Borjas: “We all know the party line by now: Immigrants do jobs that natives don’t want to do. As a result, natives do not lose jobs, and natives do not see their wages reduced. And anyone who claims otherwise is obviously a racist xenophobic moron. They obviously don’t like immigrants, and they obviously are not educated/credentialed enough to understand and appreciate expert opinion.”

    Borjas says he has spotted recent articles stating that less immigration drives up wages, which apparently is bad.
    Borjas: “The article starts off by noting that ‘Businesses in Maine that rely on summer help are hoping that Congress will come to the rescue.’ And what do these businesses have to be rescued from? Higher wages, of course.”

    Also, less immigration hurts Mexico, because the returnees will drive down wages.
    Borjas: “The point of the story, of course, was to imply that Trump’s deportation initiatives are bad because they are making Mexicans worse off. And how exactly are Mexicans made worse off? ‘More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.’”

    Borjas: “There is no upper bound to the hypocrisy of experts. It might be a lot of fun to keep track of this over the next few years, watching the dominos fall and all those ‘immigration-does-not-affect-wages’ experts fall all over themselves as they switch to proving the economic awfulness of Trump’s actions because fewer immigrants mean higher labor costs, higher prices, more inflation.”

    https://gborjas.org/2017/09/05/im-confused/

    In another blog post (September 2017), Borjas wrote “I’m confused. Haven’t we been told over and over and over again that higher levels of immigration do not lower the wages of American workers? So what’s this I read in Politico: ‘… Congress’ refusal to lift a cap on work visas meant many seasonal businesses had to hire Americans this summer — and pay their workers more. That’s good news for Trump, for U.S. workers, and for supporters of Trump’s “American First” agenda, but business groups complain that increased spending on wages will ultimately cost jobs and sap company profits.’”

  80. The most disturbing thing about Paul Krugman being allowed to write such a brainless and easily rubbished rant is that, because we were not adult enough to stand up to (((them))) about forcing their ethnic mythology into the place of objective history, we now see everybody else learning to copy (((them))). Any accusation that overlaps with a stereotype is falsified regardless of the evidence. Nobody on Earth, other than white people and East Asians, ever so much as ran a red light. Every policy discussion will one day be like trying to argue with a Jew about exactly how many people died and how, to eventually include the policeman listening to catch you Denying.

  81. The speed of America’s moral descent under Donald Trump is breathtaking.

    Exhibit A:

  82. @narrenspeise
    Paul Krugman has been a tad tense and irritable these last years, but actually this blood libel thing is not even the most remarkable bit of his last column. For me, it is rather this sentence:

    "There is a highly technical debate among economists about whether low-education immigrants exert a depressing effect on the wages of low-education native-born workers (most researchers find that they don’t, but there is some disagreement)."

    Is there an iSteve reader who knows enough of this "highly technical" debate to be able to explain why the laws of supply and demand work in every market except for the low end of the labor market? And is there a term for that, something like "the low end labor market exception"? I am genuinely curious.

    If you’re interested in Borjas, who was an immigration advocate until the evidence started to change (there was a time when immigration made sense; that was when we turned some people away) his last two books “Heaven’s Door” and “We Wanted Workers (But Got People)” are very good.

  83. @Anon
    Liberals cannot make sense of a very simple equation: When A and B have a kid, they have no early right to dump that kid on C in an attempt to force C to take care of it.

    Liberals are biological parasites. This is the programming in their reproductive DNA. They think like cowbirds, and they dump their young in someone else's nest to raise. Think about how many liberals come from divorced and broken families, and how they try to con either the state or a step-parent into coming up with the money to raise their kids. The number of children that liberals try to make someone else's responsibility is MASSIVE.

    Liberals are parasites, period. They are cowbirds who don't want to be responsible for making their own nest. They deliberately choose not to be responsible for their own nest, and they want to force everyone else to save them from their own irresponsibility.

    This is a truth that should be pounded into everyone's head.

    Liberals are biological parasites.

    Agree. But what are conservatives who go along with this, in the name of, say, Abortion And Birth Control Being Evil, or We Need More Low Paid Workers Because Cabbages Are Rotting in the Fields, or Because Religion?

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/20/illegal-immigration-and-lax-border-controls-are-the-epicenter-of-the-uniparty/

  84. @Neoconned
    I've read the median age of a German woman is 47....makes you wonder if you count ONLY ethnic "Zee Germans" there probably aren't many pure bloods left....

    And I wouldn't be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

    Actual Germans....even probably Germans who are only half German are probably a minority there in their own country....

    Oktoberfest is so commercial I wonder what percentage is even German any more....

    And I wouldn’t be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

    Prior to Merkel’s madness (Merkel’s boner, Merkvasion, …) I think the Germans were in better shape diversity wise than France or Britain. They’d shot themselves in the foot with the Gastarbeiter, resulting in a lot of ethnic Turks. But overall less truly incompatible, non-integratable diversity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Ethnic_minorities_and_migrant_background_(Migrationshintergrund)

    A big chunk of their foreign born are from the former Soviet Union–but a lot of those were ethnically German or quasi-German. Some of those folks in my grad school friend’s neighborhood in Dingolfing–presumably employed at the BMW plant. But generally I found the German countryside to still be very German and ridiculously pleasant. (It’s like time travel back to my childhood suburb in 1965–except the Germans speaking German instead of English.)

    Of course popping into a big city–like Munich–and then you see some “diversity” and think “what the hell is going on here?” But still nothing like Paris where you can get on some subway lines and think you’re in the Bronx.

    But then we were last there in September 2015–right when Merkel’s madness was kicking into full gear. (Cancelled our trip to Austria because of it.) I’m sure the trash Merkel imported is making itself felt and will proceed to wreck the joint in the years to come. But it isn’t wrecked now, if they’d have the sense to depose Merkel–tell her to go to her bunker and take one for the team–and have the guts to send her boys back home, there could still be a Germany.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Some small German towns & rural areas may still be majority German but the nation as a whole I'm not so sure....

    As for the Turks....theyre not that bad....tend to be more secular and better assimilated than even other more recent Islamic immigrants.

    I was also aware of some level of immigration to Germany from the former Soviet bloc....let me ask you....if you omit them and the various Islamic minorities....i noted the median age of a German woman is 47....do you suppose the median age of a GERMAN woman higher? Over 47?
  85. And you know what this reminds me of?

    Well, it reminds me of all white men in the current year being responsible for everything bad (and nothing good) done by any white man in the last 50, 100, or more years.

  86. @ziggurat
    About 12 years ago, Paul Krugman wrote a column stating that low-skill immigration should be reduced, because he thought (at the time) that it added little to GDP, reduced the wages of low-skill workers, and threatened the welfare state. Now, Paul Krugamn seems to believe that anti-immigration sentiment is just pure hatred.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html
    North of the Border
    By PAUL KRUGMAN - MARCH 27, 2006

    First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
    ...
    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
    That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do."
    ...
    Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration.
    ...
    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Yep. Krugman is Jewish, not stupid.

    There is absolutely *no* possible way that importing low-skilled does not lower low-skilled wages and increase unemployment. (That’s actually what the “gains to the economy” consist of–lower wages.)

    The only possible way for this not to be true–and only temporarily–is for the immigrants arrival to create “transients”, that create labor demand sufficient to suck up the new immigrant supply. Example: need more housing for the immigrant influx and the immigrant influx are makes lots of old suburban school districts suck, causing white flight and more housing/roads/schools/strip malls built, employing lots of the immigrants. (Steve had some entertaining descriptions of this process–sort of–working in the Sand States–his Antelope Valley example–leading up to … the inevitable crash and the Great Recession.)

    But even these scenarios is are
    a) not plausibly sufficient in magnitude, for low-skill immigration to not suppress low-skill wages even in the short term
    b) inherently transient (can’t last)
    c) actually a misallocation of capital
    d) don’t take into account welfare costs (schooling, welfare, healthcare, criminal justice) that low-skill workers can’t possibly cover.

    There’s simply no way that low-skill workers aren’t driving down low-skill wages and driving up low-skilled unemployment and making the poor poorer. That’s how markets work.

    Krugman knows this. He’s shown he knows it in the past. So writing these columns now simply shows that he’s putting aside the rational/analytical/homo-economicus part of his brain and letting his Jewish ethnic animus run wild.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Yeah, or he is a sanctimonious jackass, that's another possibilty.
  87. @AnotherDad
    Yep. Krugman is Jewish, not stupid.

    There is absolutely *no* possible way that importing low-skilled does not lower low-skilled wages and increase unemployment. (That's actually what the "gains to the economy" consist of--lower wages.)

    The only possible way for this not to be true--and only temporarily--is for the immigrants arrival to create "transients", that create labor demand sufficient to suck up the new immigrant supply. Example: need more housing for the immigrant influx and the immigrant influx are makes lots of old suburban school districts suck, causing white flight and more housing/roads/schools/strip malls built, employing lots of the immigrants. (Steve had some entertaining descriptions of this process--sort of--working in the Sand States--his Antelope Valley example--leading up to ... the inevitable crash and the Great Recession.)

    But even these scenarios is are
    a) not plausibly sufficient in magnitude, for low-skill immigration to not suppress low-skill wages even in the short term
    b) inherently transient (can't last)
    c) actually a misallocation of capital
    d) don't take into account welfare costs (schooling, welfare, healthcare, criminal justice) that low-skill workers can't possibly cover.

    There's simply no way that low-skill workers aren't driving down low-skill wages and driving up low-skilled unemployment and making the poor poorer. That's how markets work.


    Krugman knows this. He's shown he knows it in the past. So writing these columns now simply shows that he's putting aside the rational/analytical/homo-economicus part of his brain and letting his Jewish ethnic animus run wild.

    Yeah, or he is a sanctimonious jackass, that’s another possibilty.

  88. @AnotherDad

    And I wouldn’t be shocked if in the say u see 30 demo there are now more non Germans than Germans in Zee Deutschland.

     

    Prior to Merkel's madness (Merkel's boner, Merkvasion, …) I think the Germans were in better shape diversity wise than France or Britain. They'd shot themselves in the foot with the Gastarbeiter, resulting in a lot of ethnic Turks. But overall less truly incompatible, non-integratable diversity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Ethnic_minorities_and_migrant_background_(Migrationshintergrund)

    A big chunk of their foreign born are from the former Soviet Union--but a lot of those were ethnically German or quasi-German. Some of those folks in my grad school friend's neighborhood in Dingolfing--presumably employed at the BMW plant. But generally I found the German countryside to still be very German and ridiculously pleasant. (It's like time travel back to my childhood suburb in 1965--except the Germans speaking German instead of English.)

    Of course popping into a big city--like Munich--and then you see some "diversity" and think "what the hell is going on here?" But still nothing like Paris where you can get on some subway lines and think you're in the Bronx.

    But then we were last there in September 2015--right when Merkel's madness was kicking into full gear. (Cancelled our trip to Austria because of it.) I'm sure the trash Merkel imported is making itself felt and will proceed to wreck the joint in the years to come. But it isn't wrecked now, if they'd have the sense to depose Merkel--tell her to go to her bunker and take one for the team--and have the guts to send her boys back home, there could still be a Germany.

    Some small German towns & rural areas may still be majority German but the nation as a whole I’m not so sure….

    As for the Turks….theyre not that bad….tend to be more secular and better assimilated than even other more recent Islamic immigrants.

    I was also aware of some level of immigration to Germany from the former Soviet bloc….let me ask you….if you omit them and the various Islamic minorities….i noted the median age of a German woman is 47….do you suppose the median age of a GERMAN woman higher? Over 47?

  89. @SMK
    Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people but had nothing to do with Karl Marx and Jewish Bolsheviks , Trotsky most famously, who joined Lenin into putting his theories into practice in the erstwhile Soviet Union. And, of course, there were and are no Jewish Marxists in the U.S. and other European countries.

    Likewise, opposition to an invasion of tens of millions of nonwhites, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure "indios" from Mexico and Central America, has nothing to do with the actual crimes and behavior of "Hispanics"/Latinos": the myriads of rapes and gang-rapes, assaults and murders, acts of torture and mutilation, vicious gangs like MS-13, drug and sex "trafficking," the inability or refusal to assimilate, and much else.

    “Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people”

    Fascism was national socialism. Communism was international socialism. Socialism means government owns or runs the private economy. Government operates by force (regulations, laws, confiscated money) so socialism is a society based on force. It inevitably leads to the escalation of use of force as things go wrong (and things will go wrong Read The Road to Serfdom for why). So socialists end up killing millions of their own citizens. All the rage in Europe in the early 20th century was planning the economy, Nazism and Communism were just two different flavors of the same stuff.

    Capitalism is a society based on voluntary association.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Capitalism is enforced by state violence.
  90. @Whiskey
    Does the FBI pay you by post or hour? Asking for a friend.

    Say hi to Georgy for me

    Cue the ad hominem attack when a legitimate question raised about Jewish conduct in host nations. Das ist verboten.

    They keep confirming the stereotype, don’t they?

  91. Never fails to amaze me how blind Jews are to the fact that many people hate them. And nothing is ever their fault.

  92. @AnotherDad
    It's been made abundently clear how they feel: We can not be allowed to keep our nations; we are to be slaves until we are replaced/genocided.

    Let's just go ahead and have the war.**


    ** That way i don't have to make a decision on repairing/restaining my cedar deck or replacing with synthetics until afterwards--when i'm either dead, evicted or basking in a victorious buzz.

    Let’s do it before my knees are completely shot.

  93. @scrivener3
    "Fascism, including Nazism, was largely a reaction to the rise and threat of Communism, a totalitarian and genocidal ideology that enslaved 1/4 to 1/3 of the world and killed and murdered over a hundred million people"

    Fascism was national socialism. Communism was international socialism. Socialism means government owns or runs the private economy. Government operates by force (regulations, laws, confiscated money) so socialism is a society based on force. It inevitably leads to the escalation of use of force as things go wrong (and things will go wrong Read The Road to Serfdom for why). So socialists end up killing millions of their own citizens. All the rage in Europe in the early 20th century was planning the economy, Nazism and Communism were just two different flavors of the same stuff.

    Capitalism is a society based on voluntary association.

    Capitalism is enforced by state violence.

  94. @Jack Hanson
    Amazing how a post stating that we are, as a nation, sitting around waiting for a civil war sent Steve to the boomer fainting couch but Tiny Duck makes it through all day erryday.

    This attitude is why Boomers made the present we live in.

    Let’s see. I’m an early Boomer (1946). Truman desegregated the military in 1948. I was two. The Brown v Board decision was 1954. I was eight. The Rosa Parks affair was 1955. I was nine. Little Rock was 1958. I was twelve. The Civil Rights Act was 1964. I was eighteen, but not eligible to vote (had I been able I’d have voted early and often—we do that in Illinois—for Barry Goldwater). The immigration act that is destroying the nation was 1965. I was nineteen; still not eligible to vote. Tell me again how I and my cohort made the present world.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Yes, everything that happened after 1965 was totally not your fault and also had no bearing on our current mess.

    Boomer_lawgic.txt
  95. @MBlanc46
    Let’s see. I’m an early Boomer (1946). Truman desegregated the military in 1948. I was two. The Brown v Board decision was 1954. I was eight. The Rosa Parks affair was 1955. I was nine. Little Rock was 1958. I was twelve. The Civil Rights Act was 1964. I was eighteen, but not eligible to vote (had I been able I’d have voted early and often—we do that in Illinois—for Barry Goldwater). The immigration act that is destroying the nation was 1965. I was nineteen; still not eligible to vote. Tell me again how I and my cohort made the present world.

    Yes, everything that happened after 1965 was totally not your fault and also had no bearing on our current mess.

    Boomer_lawgic.txt

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