The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Slate Rises to Trump's Challenge with a Counterproposal: Pay Muslim Clerics More Money
🔊 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

I pointed out recently that one reason for all the hate and fear elicited from respectable opinionmakers by Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration until officials figure out what’s going on is that respectable opinionmakers couldn’t think of any reforms to propose instead.

But now Slate has a counterproposal: pay imams more money.

America Needs More Imams

A lack of training and funding is creating a Muslim leadership vacuum in the U.S. That’s bad for everyone.

By Ruth Graham

One of many ugly patterns since Sept. 11, 2001, is that those who say they are worried about Islamic terrorism often fight to keep mosques out of their communities. …

In fact, what the United States needs to combat Muslim extremism is more high-stature Muslim leaders, not fewer.

What we have now is what one expert in American Islam described to me as “a leadership vacuum,” created by the low status and low salaries of imams in America. Extremist foreign leadership is attractive in part because local leadership is so sparse. If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams by training them better and paying them more. …

When imams are paid, their salaries are unusually low. A position with a salary of $50,000 would be considered extremely desirable, according to Abdul Nasir Jangda, the former imam of a mosque near his native Dallas. …

Another key issue is that the vast majority of full-time imams were born and educated outside America, well-meaning but sometimes with a weak grasp on local culture. (Bagby said this is in large part because immigrants are likelier to accept low salaries.) …

Of course, only American Muslims can control how they pay and train their leaders.

The King of Saudi Arabia might have a different opinion on that.

One traditional solution European monarchs came up with to defang the subversive, destabilizing effects of religion was the Established Church. The Queen of England appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose job includes making sure that no furious holyman on the taxpayer’s shilling stirs up religious passions disturbing to the Queen’s peace.

Unfortunately for the workings of America’s Zeroth Amendment — Immigration uber alles — the First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

But that’s just more proof that the First Amendment needs to be repealed for contradicting the Zeroth Amendment.

 
Hide 59 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This really isn’t surprising, since the reaction of the left to any group that it claims to care about but is secretly scared stiff of is to try to buy them and their influencers off with money (see Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson).

    Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult."

    9 times out of 10 Atheist is code word for anti-Christian only, but I make an exception for Islam. Just like 9 times out of 10 anti-racist is code word for I believe only White people are capable of being racists.

    Most Atheists do not hate Muslims anywhere near as much as they hate Christians, especially White Christians.


    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist and yet favor installing Muslim prayer rooms in every international airport in America.

    Muslim prayer rooms at airports where government TSA employees work. I thought Left Wing Atheists were in favor of seperation between religion and state. There should be zero Muslim prayer rooms on a property that employees government workers.

    Left Wing Atheists are offended by Walmart store greeters for example saying Merry Christmas to customers who enter the store even though it is a private sector company, but they are not offended at all by Muslim prayer rooms located in airports which employ government workers.

    The majority of Atheists are also part of The KKK Crazy Coalition Of The Democratic Fringes.
  2. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Steve

    I think all White Americans can agree with NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo that it is absolutely urgent for America to import one million young legal immigrant Pakistani Muslim Males into the USMC so that can protect Conservative White American Christians from homophobic Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia.

    The Pakistani Muslim Americans want to protect us.

  3. What will more money do for this guy, an imam in Chicago? Pay for better beard care? Maybe his low salary is what makes him so ill-tempered, Islam being a religion of peace and all:

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=UygWCY1PuxA

    Around 2:30:

    “Know that Paradise lies beneath the shade of swords, paradise belongs to you, oh martyrs, oh fighters, oh mujahideen… Mothers sacrifice their sons and wives sacrifice their husbands for the sake of Allah.”

    As Sean Connery says in the Untouchables “That’s the Chicago way!”

  4. Pakistan, Somalia, Egypt, etc. must have a lack of high status Muslims.

    Slate really knows what the pressing issues are. For example, here’s an article on how Bruce Jenner is too right wing.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/12/15/caitlyn_jenner_echoes_man_in_a_dress_stereotype_still_republican.html

  5. I love how Slate thinks a salary of $50,000 a year is “unusually low,” especially for clergy. I’ve never made $50,000 a year, and I don’t think I’ve ever regularly attended a church where the preacher made $50,000 a year. These days I go to my wife’s Catholic church, where the clergy isn’t paid at all.

    It’s stuff like this that fuels Trump’s rise.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    According to the BLS- not that one should believe them, the median income of the "Religious Workers" subset "Clergy" is $46k.

    http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes212011.htm

    The 1999 Census had Clergy @ $27k

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/earnings/call2usboth.html
    , @Richard S
    I thought that was startling as well:

    A position with a salary of $50,000 would be considered extremely desirable, according to Abdul Nasir Jangda
     
    Well, yeah..
  6. Is it just me or is Slate becoming more “crazy liberal” like Salon?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Slate has become more girly over the years since it was founded by Michael Kinsley with Bill Gates' money, especially since editor David Plotz was replaced with a woman.
    , @AndrewR
    What publications have not become more liberal in recent years?
    , @tbraton
    Back in August, I pronounced the Europeans "insane" for allowing the mass invasion of "Syrian refugees" into Europe. Well, apparently insanity is now an infectious disease, and a number of Slate editors have vacationed in Europe and picked up the insanity infection. Holy cripes! These people are absolutely nuts.
  7. @Jimi
    Is it just me or is Slate becoming more "crazy liberal" like Salon?

    Slate has become more girly over the years since it was founded by Michael Kinsley with Bill Gates’ money, especially since editor David Plotz was replaced with a woman.

  8. @Mr. Blank
    I love how Slate thinks a salary of $50,000 a year is "unusually low," especially for clergy. I've never made $50,000 a year, and I don't think I've ever regularly attended a church where the preacher made $50,000 a year. These days I go to my wife's Catholic church, where the clergy isn't paid at all.

    It's stuff like this that fuels Trump's rise.

    According to the BLS- not that one should believe them, the median income of the “Religious Workers” subset “Clergy” is $46k.

    http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes212011.htm

    The 1999 Census had Clergy @ $27k

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/earnings/call2usboth.html

  9. We Americans have a needlessly Imported Fire!

    Slate: “Let’s Pour Gasoline On It!”

    • Replies: @Abe

    We Americans have a needlessly Imported Fire!

    Slate: “Let’s Pour Gasoline On It!”
     
    "Crime is out of control! The only way to fight it is with more confidential informants!"

    "How do we get more c.i.'s ?"

    "With more criminals, duh! You know how low the success rate is of converting criminals to secret informants?"
  10. Another example of the enrichment brought by Muslim Arab immigrants: http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/12/saudi-millionaire-rape-charge.html

    Steve, this strikes me as a story that could blow up by triggering feminists (they’ll spin it as an example of patriarchy, but if normal people hear the story most of them won’t be able to help Noticing that it’s a corrupt Muslim immigrant getting away with raping a young woman in America).

    In general I think we all need to do our part to publicize stories like this that can drive wedges into the weak points of the left’s very loosely cobbled together fringe coalition.

    Other potential fault lines besides feminists and Muslims: feminists and blacks (by publicizing the rape stats), feminists and trannies, gays and trannies, blacks and immigrants (over both low-skill jobs and affirmative action)…I’m sure there are a ton of others, and I hope we can tap in to the vast reserves of perceptive intellect in the iSteve commentariat to put together a master list.

  11. Ms. Graham wrote:

    What we have now is what one expert in American Islam described to me as “a leadership vacuum,” created by the low status and low salaries of imams in America… If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams…

    She has a bit of a logical contradiction here:expanding the pipeline of imams means increasing supply: that will cause them to get lower salaries.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Nonsense. It has already been established beyond cavil that the relationship of supply and demand to price doesn't apply to labor/immigration. This is why immigration is such a win/win proposition. Come the revolution you will need reeducation, Tovarisch.
    , @AnAnon
    Well we'll just need to bring in a lot more muslims to go with them.
  12. @PhysicistDave
    Ms. Graham wrote:

    What we have now is what one expert in American Islam described to me as “a leadership vacuum,” created by the low status and low salaries of imams in America... If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams...
     
    She has a bit of a logical contradiction here:expanding the pipeline of imams means increasing supply: that will cause them to get lower salaries.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Nonsense. It has already been established beyond cavil that the relationship of supply and demand to price doesn’t apply to labor/immigration. This is why immigration is such a win/win proposition. Come the revolution you will need reeducation, Tovarisch.

  13. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can’t play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she’s not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with ‘sky is falling’ scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a ‘bad girl’. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it’s different if you’re running for office.

    Americans like Trump ‘going there’ on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn’t have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn’t do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He’s good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said ‘this’ will finish him, but he’s still in the game and leading among GOP. He’s good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He’s like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he’s done well.

    And it’s possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who’d lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It’s like in JAWS. The town’s establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump’s remark was ‘extreme’, he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It’s best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
    My dear Anon, in their 1968 song "Salt Of The Earth" The Rolling Stones beat you to your "Trump is a gambler" smear - sticking it onto all politicians:

    "Raise your glass to the hard working people
    Let's drink to the uncounted heads
    Let's think of the wavering millions
    Who need leaders but get gamblers instead."
     
    Donald Trump did not conceive or institute the lunacy known as the "visa lottery," our Dear Gambler Rulers beat him to that one.
    , @AndrewR
    It's hilarious to me that you're imploring Trump to be more PC while you unironically use the term "browns."
    , @map
    "Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn’t do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants."

    Because the idea is to reduce the body count ahead of time.
    , @tbraton
    I gather you are not a Trump supporter. If you had watched the debate the other night and listened carefully, you would have found that Trump and Rand Paul were the only two of the nine candidates who spoke with any sign of rationality and common sense with respect to foreign policy issues. With the other seven, we are flirting with the real possibility of winding up in WWIII.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers?
     

    why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS?
     
    Trump said neither. Your dishonesty is showing. Don't you Leftists get tired of your relentless dishonesty?
    , @Jefferson
    "But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn’t have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS?"

    Mexico is a narco state, so yeah a lots of Mexicans are disproportionately drug dealers when compared to White Gringos.

    Also why not ban all Muslims from immigrating to the U.S? If the San Bernardino shooters had been Jewish, you would have been the first to say that America should ban all Jews from immigrating to The United States. If the guy who murdered Kate Steinle was a Jew, you would have used that as an example as to why there needs to be zero Jewish immigration into the U.S.

    When it comes to Muslims and Hispanics, you are just as politically correct Far Left Wing as Salon, Slate, and The Huffington Post. But when it comes to the Jews you go all Stormfront on them. But your views on Muslims and Hispanics is to the Far Left of Stormfront. As Stormfront believes all Non Nordic immigration to The United States is bad. To them Mexican, Guatemalan, Syrian, and Egyptian immigrants for example are just as racially undesirable as Jewish immigrants. They believe immigration to the U.S should be limited to majority blue eyed ethnic groups like the Scottish and the Swedes for example.

    Anon's views on Muslims and Hispanics is closer to that of Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton than it is to Jared Taylor and David Duke. But your views on Jews is closer to that of David Duke than to Hillary.

    Why is that? You are most likely either MENA or Latin American or both. I doubt very much you are a WASP, at least not a full 100 percent WASP.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    I don't think Trump needed to be careful at all. His idea is clearly most sensible response to Islamic terrorism. Our current immigration policy is about as stupid as not profiling people in security checks.
  14. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    My dear Anon, in their 1968 song “Salt Of The Earth” The Rolling Stones beat you to your “Trump is a gambler” smear – sticking it onto all politicians:

    “Raise your glass to the hard working people
    Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
    Let’s think of the wavering millions
    Who need leaders but get gamblers instead.”

    Donald Trump did not conceive or institute the lunacy known as the “visa lottery,” our Dear Gambler Rulers beat him to that one.

  15. It’s doubtful then Slate might enquire some corruption who gangrened the Muslim clerics like in Algeria according to this French article written in August 2014 (here the approximate Google translation).

    Will Slate help the ones who convert to Christianity? http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/14/interview-hospitalised-christian-convert-tells-breitbart-london-muslims-said-theyd-chop-off-head/
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/muslim-refugees-are-being-baptized-and-converting-to-christianity-says-berlin-pastor-144554/

    And slightly off-topic some of the Kurds people, who returns back to Zoroastrianism as mentionned in this other French article. http://www.siwel.info/Daech-fait-renaitre-le-zoroastrisme-de-ses-cendres-au-Kurdistan-irakien_a8174.html

  16. @Jimi
    Is it just me or is Slate becoming more "crazy liberal" like Salon?

    What publications have not become more liberal in recent years?

    • Replies: @Richard S
    The Belfast News Letter, the oldest continuously printed English language newspaper in the world (since 1737), hasn't demanded papists and other rebellious non-conformers be subjected to pitchcapping and the gibbet since, oh, at least the late 1980s.

    It's political correctness gone mad.

    , @Jimi
    The New York Review of Books? Still leftist but they seem to have a bit more skepticism about the prevailing leftwing consensus than they used to.
  17. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    It’s hilarious to me that you’re imploring Trump to be more PC while you unironically use the term “browns.”

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One traditional solution European monarchs came up with to defang the subversive, destabilizing effects of religion was the Established Church. The Queen of England appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose job includes making sure that no furious holyman on the taxpayer’s shilling stirs up religious passions disturbing to the Queen’s peace.

    Unfortunately for the workings of America’s Zeroth Amendment — Immigration uber alles — the First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

    Right, and some countries today like China that aren’t Muslim but have sizeable Muslim communities have state sanctioned versions of Islam that ensure that Muslims are loyal and subservient to the state:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_china#China_Islamic_Association

    In May 1953, the government set up the China Islamic Association, which was described as aiming to “help the spread of the Qur’an in China and oppose religious extremism”. The association is to be run by 16 Islamic religious leaders who are charged with making “a correct and authoritative interpretation” of Islamic creed and canon.

    As you note, because of the First Amendment, the government can’t really do things like this formally, although it apparently does do things like surveil mosques, and in the past the WASP establishment relied on social and cultural pressures and mechanisms to curtail Catholicism’s religious and cultural power in the US. But contemporary elites find overtly pressuring Islam in this fashion to be distasteful and politically incorrect, and basically hope that pop culture and liberal academic and media culture will do the trick for them.

  19. The first time an American-born imam gets implicated with terrorism, we’ll hear about a “home-grown extremist clergy crisis”.

    I think it would be cool if highbrow outfits like Yale Divinity School took up training imams. They’ll give us our first female imams, gay imams, atheist imams…

  20. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    “Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn’t do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.”

    Because the idea is to reduce the body count ahead of time.

  21. @Jimi
    Is it just me or is Slate becoming more "crazy liberal" like Salon?

    Back in August, I pronounced the Europeans “insane” for allowing the mass invasion of “Syrian refugees” into Europe. Well, apparently insanity is now an infectious disease, and a number of Slate editors have vacationed in Europe and picked up the insanity infection. Holy cripes! These people are absolutely nuts.

  22. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    I gather you are not a Trump supporter. If you had watched the debate the other night and listened carefully, you would have found that Trump and Rand Paul were the only two of the nine candidates who spoke with any sign of rationality and common sense with respect to foreign policy issues. With the other seven, we are flirting with the real possibility of winding up in WWIII.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't trust him but he is by far the best candidate of either party.
  23. @Auntie Analogue
    We Americans have a needlessly Imported Fire!

    Slate: "Let's Pour Gasoline On It!"

    We Americans have a needlessly Imported Fire!

    Slate: “Let’s Pour Gasoline On It!”

    “Crime is out of control! The only way to fight it is with more confidential informants!”

    “How do we get more c.i.’s ?”

    “With more criminals, duh! You know how low the success rate is of converting criminals to secret informants?”

  24. I’m generally a fan of Ruth Graham’s, except when she gets too close to the PC event horizon.

    Incidentally, she once blogged about being horrified by a man on public access TV discoursing on HBD: https://publicroad.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/where-ive-been-part-3/

  25. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers?

    why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS?

    Trump said neither. Your dishonesty is showing. Don’t you Leftists get tired of your relentless dishonesty?

    • Replies: @Anon
    Technically you're right, but he said in a way that gave the impression that he was insulting an entire people.

    Mexers can get awful touchy. They have a massive tortilla chip on their shoulder.

    Even if GOP cannot get majority of Mexer vote, it's still better to get more.

    If it's a close race, and Mexers going 30/70 for GOP than 20/80 for GOP can make the difference.

    You gotta be tough with Mexers without making them feel insulted.

    Remember what happened with Greg Haugen? He was just joking(Chavez fought a bunch of Tiajuana Taxi drivers), but Mexers took it so personally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9bz99quvU
  26. If we had more Muslims in the West, they would feel more comfortable and would not feel the need to lash out at a racist white supremacist society that continues to defecate on them from unseen heights.

    • Replies: @anon
    a racist white supremacist society that continues to defecate on them from unseen heights.

    That's quite the turn of phrase. I'm sure it sounded better in its original language.

    Seriously, though, we should just blame Muhammad's horse, who ascended into heaven with him. They'll buy that.
  27. • Replies: @tbraton
    From your linked article: "Some sophisticates slam Trump for acting in the Las Vegas debate like he didn’t know what the nuclear triad is. "

    The moderator who asked Trump about the "triad" was conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, lauded by people in both parties for his erudition. Here is what Hewitt said earlier in the Las Vegas debate:

    "HEWITT: Dr. Carson…
    (APPLAUSE)
    … you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon…
    CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
    HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. . . ."

    Now it seems to me that the distinction between a "neurosurgeon" and a "neurologist" is something that is more commonly known than the meaning of the artful term "triad." Since I have been following international politics since I was in college, I have long known what "triad" means. But most people, who have not taken a course in international relations, probably don't have a clue. Anyone who has followed American politics for the past year surely knows that Dr. Ben Carson is a world famous pediatric neurosurgeon. I was shocked that someone of Hugh Hewitt's stature didn't have a clue and erroneously referred to Dr. Carson as a "neurologist." To refer to him as a "neurologist surgeon" shows the man is clueless.

    After hearing Marko Rubio expound on foreign affairs, I don't have more confidence in his judgment just because he knew what the "triad" was.
  28. Raise minimum wage on Imans!!!! That’s it.

    You see, WWII could have been avoided if that damned art school had admitted Hitler.

    (No wonder art schools admit just about anyone these days. It is to de-Hitlerize the world.)

    Or at least offer midnight basketball to the Imans.

  29. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Another good way to prevent world horror is to provide lots of jobs to young people. It’s all economics, you see.

    Germans were awful angry during the Depression. They were becoming radicalized.
    But the new chancellor gave them jobs to build highways, and so another war was avoided.

    WWII? Just a hoax like the moon landing. Never happened. Too many content Germans with jobs.

    • Replies: @fnn
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html
  30. I guess radical clerics could be bought off.

    Saudis prevented a radical revolution in their kingdom by funding the Wahabis who were bought off. So, no trouble in the Kingdom.

    The peaceable and well-paid clerics only spread their message in other Muslim nations and…

  31. @tbraton
    I gather you are not a Trump supporter. If you had watched the debate the other night and listened carefully, you would have found that Trump and Rand Paul were the only two of the nine candidates who spoke with any sign of rationality and common sense with respect to foreign policy issues. With the other seven, we are flirting with the real possibility of winding up in WWIII.

    I don’t trust him but he is by far the best candidate of either party.

    • Agree: tbraton
  32. iSteveFan says:

    If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams by training them better and paying them more. …

    And who is going to pay them? Is she suggesting that the government get involved? If so then I guess the First Amendment really has to go. Since the First Amendment covers free speech, which the loons on the left are now saying needs to be curtailed; freedom of association, which has already taken tremendous hits; and the establishment clause which apparently must be abandoned so that we can pay for these imams. What will be left of the First?

    BTW, aren’t the people at Slate the first to argue separation of Church and State when some little elementary school tries to sing Silent Night? Yet paying the clergy of a religion is apparently OK with them.

  33. @Tiny Duck
    If we had more Muslims in the West, they would feel more comfortable and would not feel the need to lash out at a racist white supremacist society that continues to defecate on them from unseen heights.

    a racist white supremacist society that continues to defecate on them from unseen heights.

    That’s quite the turn of phrase. I’m sure it sounded better in its original language.

    Seriously, though, we should just blame Muhammad’s horse, who ascended into heaven with him. They’ll buy that.

  34. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers?
     

    why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS?
     
    Trump said neither. Your dishonesty is showing. Don't you Leftists get tired of your relentless dishonesty?

    Technically you’re right, but he said in a way that gave the impression that he was insulting an entire people.

    Mexers can get awful touchy. They have a massive tortilla chip on their shoulder.

    Even if GOP cannot get majority of Mexer vote, it’s still better to get more.

    If it’s a close race, and Mexers going 30/70 for GOP than 20/80 for GOP can make the difference.

    You gotta be tough with Mexers without making them feel insulted.

    Remember what happened with Greg Haugen? He was just joking(Chavez fought a bunch of Tiajuana Taxi drivers), but Mexers took it so personally.

    • Replies: @BurplesonAFB
    Trump will get more of the Mex-Am vote than Romney or McCain. They appreciate the cojones.
  35. @Anon
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/17/speaking-the-unspeakable-why-the-establishment-wants-to-silence-donald-trump/

    From your linked article: “Some sophisticates slam Trump for acting in the Las Vegas debate like he didn’t know what the nuclear triad is. ”

    The moderator who asked Trump about the “triad” was conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, lauded by people in both parties for his erudition. Here is what Hewitt said earlier in the Las Vegas debate:

    “HEWITT: Dr. Carson…
    (APPLAUSE)
    … you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon…
    CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
    HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. . . .”

    Now it seems to me that the distinction between a “neurosurgeon” and a “neurologist” is something that is more commonly known than the meaning of the artful term “triad.” Since I have been following international politics since I was in college, I have long known what “triad” means. But most people, who have not taken a course in international relations, probably don’t have a clue. Anyone who has followed American politics for the past year surely knows that Dr. Ben Carson is a world famous pediatric neurosurgeon. I was shocked that someone of Hugh Hewitt’s stature didn’t have a clue and erroneously referred to Dr. Carson as a “neurologist.” To refer to him as a “neurologist surgeon” shows the man is clueless.

    After hearing Marko Rubio expound on foreign affairs, I don’t have more confidence in his judgment just because he knew what the “triad” was.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Hewitt's take on any issue is suspect. If you find yourself agreeing with him re-examine your presuppositions.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    I thought it was the Chinese Mafia.
  36. @tbraton
    From your linked article: "Some sophisticates slam Trump for acting in the Las Vegas debate like he didn’t know what the nuclear triad is. "

    The moderator who asked Trump about the "triad" was conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, lauded by people in both parties for his erudition. Here is what Hewitt said earlier in the Las Vegas debate:

    "HEWITT: Dr. Carson…
    (APPLAUSE)
    … you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon…
    CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
    HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. . . ."

    Now it seems to me that the distinction between a "neurosurgeon" and a "neurologist" is something that is more commonly known than the meaning of the artful term "triad." Since I have been following international politics since I was in college, I have long known what "triad" means. But most people, who have not taken a course in international relations, probably don't have a clue. Anyone who has followed American politics for the past year surely knows that Dr. Ben Carson is a world famous pediatric neurosurgeon. I was shocked that someone of Hugh Hewitt's stature didn't have a clue and erroneously referred to Dr. Carson as a "neurologist." To refer to him as a "neurologist surgeon" shows the man is clueless.

    After hearing Marko Rubio expound on foreign affairs, I don't have more confidence in his judgment just because he knew what the "triad" was.

    That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Hewitt’s take on any issue is suspect. If you find yourself agreeing with him re-examine your presuppositions.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

    Enough said. But, hey, George W. Bush thought she was a great lawyer, and I believe George W. was a cheerleader at Yale, so he must know something.
  37. @tbraton
    From your linked article: "Some sophisticates slam Trump for acting in the Las Vegas debate like he didn’t know what the nuclear triad is. "

    The moderator who asked Trump about the "triad" was conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, lauded by people in both parties for his erudition. Here is what Hewitt said earlier in the Las Vegas debate:

    "HEWITT: Dr. Carson…
    (APPLAUSE)
    … you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon…
    CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
    HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. . . ."

    Now it seems to me that the distinction between a "neurosurgeon" and a "neurologist" is something that is more commonly known than the meaning of the artful term "triad." Since I have been following international politics since I was in college, I have long known what "triad" means. But most people, who have not taken a course in international relations, probably don't have a clue. Anyone who has followed American politics for the past year surely knows that Dr. Ben Carson is a world famous pediatric neurosurgeon. I was shocked that someone of Hugh Hewitt's stature didn't have a clue and erroneously referred to Dr. Carson as a "neurologist." To refer to him as a "neurologist surgeon" shows the man is clueless.

    After hearing Marko Rubio expound on foreign affairs, I don't have more confidence in his judgment just because he knew what the "triad" was.

    I thought it was the Chinese Mafia.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Maybe you should give some serious thought to running for President. You appear to have what it takes.
  38. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    “But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn’t have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS?”

    Mexico is a narco state, so yeah a lots of Mexicans are disproportionately drug dealers when compared to White Gringos.

    Also why not ban all Muslims from immigrating to the U.S? If the San Bernardino shooters had been Jewish, you would have been the first to say that America should ban all Jews from immigrating to The United States. If the guy who murdered Kate Steinle was a Jew, you would have used that as an example as to why there needs to be zero Jewish immigration into the U.S.

    When it comes to Muslims and Hispanics, you are just as politically correct Far Left Wing as Salon, Slate, and The Huffington Post. But when it comes to the Jews you go all Stormfront on them. But your views on Muslims and Hispanics is to the Far Left of Stormfront. As Stormfront believes all Non Nordic immigration to The United States is bad. To them Mexican, Guatemalan, Syrian, and Egyptian immigrants for example are just as racially undesirable as Jewish immigrants. They believe immigration to the U.S should be limited to majority blue eyed ethnic groups like the Scottish and the Swedes for example.

    Anon’s views on Muslims and Hispanics is closer to that of Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton than it is to Jared Taylor and David Duke. But your views on Jews is closer to that of David Duke than to Hillary.

    Why is that? You are most likely either MENA or Latin American or both. I doubt very much you are a WASP, at least not a full 100 percent WASP.

  39. @Arclight
    This really isn't surprising, since the reaction of the left to any group that it claims to care about but is secretly scared stiff of is to try to buy them and their influencers off with money (see Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson).

    Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult.

    “Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult.”

    9 times out of 10 Atheist is code word for anti-Christian only, but I make an exception for Islam. Just like 9 times out of 10 anti-racist is code word for I believe only White people are capable of being racists.

    Most Atheists do not hate Muslims anywhere near as much as they hate Christians, especially White Christians.

    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist and yet favor installing Muslim prayer rooms in every international airport in America.

    Muslim prayer rooms at airports where government TSA employees work. I thought Left Wing Atheists were in favor of seperation between religion and state. There should be zero Muslim prayer rooms on a property that employees government workers.

    Left Wing Atheists are offended by Walmart store greeters for example saying Merry Christmas to customers who enter the store even though it is a private sector company, but they are not offended at all by Muslim prayer rooms located in airports which employ government workers.

    The majority of Atheists are also part of The KKK Crazy Coalition Of The Democratic Fringes.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    I begin to think then these atheists are "aino" (atheists in name only).
    , @Reg Cæsar

    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist
     
    A SPLAT!
  40. That proposal reminds me of one of the best Moldbug posts.

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/right-wing-terrorism-as-folk-activism.html

    Islamic terrorism (which is in every case left-wing – as you can see every time Osama quotes Chomsky) is legitimate because it’s effective. It’s effective because its political result is to expand the political power and privilege of Muslims and their progressive sponsors. Right-wing terrorism is illegitimate because it’s ineffective. It’s ineffective because its political result is to contract the political freedom and influence of conservatives (extremist or moderate).

    Why does left-wing terrorism work, and right-wing terrorism not? As Carl Schmitt explained in Theory of the Partisan, terrorist, guerrilla or partisan warfare is never effective on its own. While an effective military strategy, it is only effective as one fork of a pincer attack. The terrorist succeeds when, and only when, he is allied to what Schmitt called an interested third party – either a military or political force.

    Left-wing terrorism succeeds as the violent arm of a political assault that would probably be overwhelming in any case. In every case, the terrorist plays Mutt in a Mutt-and-Jeff act. Right-wing terrorism in the modern world is cargo-cult terrorism: Mutt without Jeff. Indeed, in historical cases where right-wing terrorism has been successful, in every case we see it aligned with powerful forces within the state. Right-wing terrorism worked in Weimar Germany, for instance, or prewar Japan, because it aligned with fascist conspiracies in the security forces. Somehow I don’t see a lot of that in 2011 Norway.

    Thus, we note that there are two responses to terrorism: the natural response and the unnatural response. The natural response is to take revenge on the terrorist and everyone even remotely resembling him. If he is a Muslim, the natural response is to chastise the Muslims. When Grynzspan, a Jew, kills the German vom Rath, the German people must chastise the Jews. And, of course, when a right-wing piece of filth slaughters the cream of the Norwegian Komsomol, all racists and reactionaries are automatically suspect.

    The unnatural response – which will not happen by itself, but can be made to happen by a sufficiently powerful psychological-warfare machine – is to look instead at the grievances of the attacker. After all, no one commits terrorism unless he has some complaint. No complaint – no terrorism. Thus while the Nazi response to the terrorism of Grynzspan is to collectively punish the Jews, the Atlantic response to the terrorism of Grynzspan (ineffective and thus illegitimate) is to attribute it to the injustices suffered by the Jews. This of course is also our response to the terrorism of Mandela (effective and thus legitimate).

    Thus, Islamic terrorism is productive, because it results in increasing communal deference to the Islamic community and its progressive allies. Fascist terrorism is counterproductive, because it results in increasing communal intolerance toward the fascist community – which of course has no conservative allies.

  41. If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams by training them better and paying them more.

    This will just give us more articulate, wiley proponents of the political-religous system that is Islam. These will be better able to game our societies in furtherance of their coercive authoritarian ideology.

    We should stop giving Islam a free or even facilitated pass simply because it comes wrapped in the guise of religion.

    It’s nasty, dangerous and inimical to classical liberalism.

  42. @Reg Cæsar
    I thought it was the Chinese Mafia.

    Maybe you should give some serious thought to running for President. You appear to have what it takes.

  43. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Hewitt's take on any issue is suspect. If you find yourself agreeing with him re-examine your presuppositions.

    “That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.”

    Enough said. But, hey, George W. Bush thought she was a great lawyer, and I believe George W. was a cheerleader at Yale, so he must know something.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Miers seemed to be a feint by W as he dealt with other issues and queued up a more plausible candidate. It almost seemed like he proffered her because he lost a bet or something, as she just didn't come across as SCOTUS material.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    In hindsight, maybe W. was on to something with that pick. She would have been a Republican Sotomayor. And who is a more reliable vote for her party than Sotomayor? Dems play to win in their SCOTUS picks.
  44. Americans like to imagine our country’s tradition of religious neutrality being purely a product of the sudden enlightenment and sophistication which emerged in the 18th century, but “enlightenment” only began to take root in the first place because Europeans spent about 150 years fighting each other to a bloody standstill over which version of Christianity would prevail. Our ancestors didn’t abandon religious persecution because they suddenly became nicer, more empathetic, more rational people; they abandoned it because it dawned on them that nobody was winning, and they weren’t any closer to a re-united Christendom than when they started. The philosophical and intellectual arguments for toleration would have been largely ignored if not for the need to justify a strategic truce.

    Except tangentially, Islam was not involved in the intra-European religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, nor did it play any part in the religious armistice that followed. Catholics can feel ashamed of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the excesses of the Inquisition, just as Protestants don’t consider the executions of Thomas More or Edmund Campion as their finest hour, but Muslims have no particular bad memories to dissuade them from persecuting the infidel. Religious war and persecution have always worked very effectively for them in the past, so why would they bother respecting someone else’s truce?

    That is why it’s futile to even try integrating most of the world’s Muslims into religiously pluralistic societies.

  45. @PhysicistDave
    Ms. Graham wrote:

    What we have now is what one expert in American Islam described to me as “a leadership vacuum,” created by the low status and low salaries of imams in America... If you want to integrate Muslims into American culture, these experts say, expand the pipeline of American imams...
     
    She has a bit of a logical contradiction here:expanding the pipeline of imams means increasing supply: that will cause them to get lower salaries.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Well we’ll just need to bring in a lot more muslims to go with them.

  46. @Mr. Blank
    I love how Slate thinks a salary of $50,000 a year is "unusually low," especially for clergy. I've never made $50,000 a year, and I don't think I've ever regularly attended a church where the preacher made $50,000 a year. These days I go to my wife's Catholic church, where the clergy isn't paid at all.

    It's stuff like this that fuels Trump's rise.

    I thought that was startling as well:

    A position with a salary of $50,000 would be considered extremely desirable, according to Abdul Nasir Jangda

    Well, yeah..

  47. @tbraton
    "That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

    Enough said. But, hey, George W. Bush thought she was a great lawyer, and I believe George W. was a cheerleader at Yale, so he must know something.

    Miers seemed to be a feint by W as he dealt with other issues and queued up a more plausible candidate. It almost seemed like he proffered her because he lost a bet or something, as she just didn’t come across as SCOTUS material.

  48. @AndrewR
    What publications have not become more liberal in recent years?

    The Belfast News Letter, the oldest continuously printed English language newspaper in the world (since 1737), hasn’t demanded papists and other rebellious non-conformers be subjected to pitchcapping and the gibbet since, oh, at least the late 1980s.

    It’s political correctness gone mad.

  49. @Jefferson
    "Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult."

    9 times out of 10 Atheist is code word for anti-Christian only, but I make an exception for Islam. Just like 9 times out of 10 anti-racist is code word for I believe only White people are capable of being racists.

    Most Atheists do not hate Muslims anywhere near as much as they hate Christians, especially White Christians.


    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist and yet favor installing Muslim prayer rooms in every international airport in America.

    Muslim prayer rooms at airports where government TSA employees work. I thought Left Wing Atheists were in favor of seperation between religion and state. There should be zero Muslim prayer rooms on a property that employees government workers.

    Left Wing Atheists are offended by Walmart store greeters for example saying Merry Christmas to customers who enter the store even though it is a private sector company, but they are not offended at all by Muslim prayer rooms located in airports which employ government workers.

    The majority of Atheists are also part of The KKK Crazy Coalition Of The Democratic Fringes.

    I begin to think then these atheists are “aino” (atheists in name only).

  50. @tbraton
    "That is the same Hugh Hewitt that supported Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court."

    Enough said. But, hey, George W. Bush thought she was a great lawyer, and I believe George W. was a cheerleader at Yale, so he must know something.

    In hindsight, maybe W. was on to something with that pick. She would have been a Republican Sotomayor. And who is a more reliable vote for her party than Sotomayor? Dems play to win in their SCOTUS picks.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    And the Rs give us morons like Sandra Day O'Connor who was vetted by John Roberts. Reagan was warned that she would go left, but evidently this was a "woman" seat on SCOTUS.

    In one of her last opinions, she hoped that AA would only have to last another 25 years. Who knew judgements had expiration dates?
    , @tbraton
    Jim Don Bob beat me to the punch. Instead of "the Republican Sotomayor," she probably would have been "the Republican Sandra Day O'Connor." Or "the Republican John Roberts." Jim Don Bob cites the affirmative action case in O'Connor's case, which is spot on. I would cite Roberts' decision upholding Obamacare on the tax ground, after he jumped the toughest hurdle, ruling that it violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Or we might say, which is much more likely, that she would have been "the Republican David Souter."
  51. @Dave Pinsen
    In hindsight, maybe W. was on to something with that pick. She would have been a Republican Sotomayor. And who is a more reliable vote for her party than Sotomayor? Dems play to win in their SCOTUS picks.

    And the Rs give us morons like Sandra Day O’Connor who was vetted by John Roberts. Reagan was warned that she would go left, but evidently this was a “woman” seat on SCOTUS.

    In one of her last opinions, she hoped that AA would only have to last another 25 years. Who knew judgements had expiration dates?

  52. @Jefferson
    "Of course it is unusual to see that side of the aisle saying we need stronger organized religion in this country, but they basically see Muslims as a racial group, not part of an extremely violent and illiberal cult."

    9 times out of 10 Atheist is code word for anti-Christian only, but I make an exception for Islam. Just like 9 times out of 10 anti-racist is code word for I believe only White people are capable of being racists.

    Most Atheists do not hate Muslims anywhere near as much as they hate Christians, especially White Christians.


    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist and yet favor installing Muslim prayer rooms in every international airport in America.

    Muslim prayer rooms at airports where government TSA employees work. I thought Left Wing Atheists were in favor of seperation between religion and state. There should be zero Muslim prayer rooms on a property that employees government workers.

    Left Wing Atheists are offended by Walmart store greeters for example saying Merry Christmas to customers who enter the store even though it is a private sector company, but they are not offended at all by Muslim prayer rooms located in airports which employ government workers.

    The majority of Atheists are also part of The KKK Crazy Coalition Of The Democratic Fringes.

    How the hell can you call yourself a Secular Progressive Liberal Atheist

    A SPLAT!

  53. @Dave Pinsen
    In hindsight, maybe W. was on to something with that pick. She would have been a Republican Sotomayor. And who is a more reliable vote for her party than Sotomayor? Dems play to win in their SCOTUS picks.

    Jim Don Bob beat me to the punch. Instead of “the Republican Sotomayor,” she probably would have been “the Republican Sandra Day O’Connor.” Or “the Republican John Roberts.” Jim Don Bob cites the affirmative action case in O’Connor’s case, which is spot on. I would cite Roberts’ decision upholding Obamacare on the tax ground, after he jumped the toughest hurdle, ruling that it violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Or we might say, which is much more likely, that she would have been “the Republican David Souter.”

  54. @Anon
    I think Trump ought to be more careful.

    He can't play it like Coulter.
    Coulter can get away with her shtick cuz she's not running for office.

    And I know that game. To get attention and stir up controversy, you gotta throw some tantrums and come up with 'sky is falling' scenarios. She is a media personality and thrives on being a 'bad girl'. We get it. I play that game when I talk about stuff with friends too.

    BUT, it's different if you're running for office.

    Americans like Trump 'going there' on topics that usually off limits. I like how he got the nation grappling some issues that had been swept under the carpet.

    But did he really have to go so far as to suggest so many Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers? He didn't have to be so harsh. He dodged the bullet on that one(but still did major damage by alienating even conservative browns).
    And why say BAN ALL MUSLIMS? Why not call for more toughness and maybe accountability for those who approved immigrants who turned out to be terrorists.
    A bill that calls for punishment for immigration agents who didn't do their job in properly combing through possible dangers among foreign applicants.

    Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
    He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.

    Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He's good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
    And Trump has defied many odds. Many said 'this' will finish him, but he's still in the game and leading among GOP. He's good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He's like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
    So far, he's done well.

    And it's possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.

    But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
    And all those who'd lambasted him will have eggs on their face.

    It's like in JAWS. The town's establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.

    Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump's remark was 'extreme', he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
    But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.

    But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.

    It's best not to make reckless bets in politics.

    I don’t think Trump needed to be careful at all. His idea is clearly most sensible response to Islamic terrorism. Our current immigration policy is about as stupid as not profiling people in security checks.

  55. @Anon
    Another good way to prevent world horror is to provide lots of jobs to young people. It's all economics, you see.

    Germans were awful angry during the Depression. They were becoming radicalized.
    But the new chancellor gave them jobs to build highways, and so another war was avoided.

    WWII? Just a hoax like the moon landing. Never happened. Too many content Germans with jobs.
  56. @AndrewR
    What publications have not become more liberal in recent years?

    The New York Review of Books? Still leftist but they seem to have a bit more skepticism about the prevailing leftwing consensus than they used to.

  57. @Anon
    Technically you're right, but he said in a way that gave the impression that he was insulting an entire people.

    Mexers can get awful touchy. They have a massive tortilla chip on their shoulder.

    Even if GOP cannot get majority of Mexer vote, it's still better to get more.

    If it's a close race, and Mexers going 30/70 for GOP than 20/80 for GOP can make the difference.

    You gotta be tough with Mexers without making them feel insulted.

    Remember what happened with Greg Haugen? He was just joking(Chavez fought a bunch of Tiajuana Taxi drivers), but Mexers took it so personally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9bz99quvU

    Trump will get more of the Mex-Am vote than Romney or McCain. They appreciate the cojones.

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