The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why We Can't Have Nice Things Anymore
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the New York Times:

Russia Shows What Happens When Terrorists’ Families Are Targeted
By ANDREW E. KRAMER MARCH 29, 2016

MOSCOW — Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, was widely condemned when he called for the United States to “take out the families” of terrorists.

His approach — even after he clarified that he was not talking about killing the relatives — was dismissed by many as immoral and unlawful. Yet, it is the very tactic that Russia has pursued for decades.

Similarly, Israel demolishes the homes of Palestinian terrorists.

It is the signature, though officially unacknowledged, policy behind Moscow’s counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, and Russia’s actions in smashing a Muslim separatist rebellion in the Caucasus provide a laboratory for testing Mr. Trump’s ideas.

The family ties that bind in terrorist groups came into focus last week after the police in Brussels disclosed that two of the three suicide bombers in the attacks there were brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid el-Bakraoui. All told, analysts estimate that a third of the participants in terrorist acts are related to another attacker.

In the conflict that began in Chechnya and has since metastasized into a loosely organized Islamic rebellion throughout the Caucasus region, Russian security services routinely arrest, torture and kill relatives, rights groups say.

The Russian approach, enough to make supporters of waterboarding wince, has by some accounts been grimly effective. Abductions of family members unwound the rebel leadership in Chechnya, for example. …

The most sweeping application of the tactic came during the pacification of Chechnya, after Mr. Putin engineered the recapture of the separatist territory early in his tenure.

Relatives were used as “hooks” to lure in militants. If the militant did not switch sides, the family member disappeared. Chechnya had about 3,000 to 5,000 unresolved disappearances from 2000 to 2005 or so. The policy, executed by the Chechen leader, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the scion of a prominent Chechen family that itself switched sides, broke the organized resistance.

Back in November in Taki’s, I wrote in Four Ways to Save Europe:

Fourth, Europeans need to adapt their legal system to the nonindividualistic culture of Muslims. For example, the threat of a jail term might not deter a Muslim terrorist who expects to flee back to Syria and/or collect his 72 virgins.

Cultures with more experience dealing with Muslims, whether Hindu or other Muslims, typically wind up using various forms of collective punishment to persuade senior Muslims to control their young bravos. For example, the movie Slumdog Millionaire depicts the 1992 communal riots in Bombay in which Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.

Europeans don’t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism. Fortunately, there are civilized, bureaucratic ways to incentivize Muslim extended families to police their own violent youths. …

In Arab countries, except sometimes during the Arab Spring, disorganized street crime is surprisingly rare. That’s because Arabs know how to police Arabs. …

Belgium 1429

For example, several of the Muslim outrages in France in 2015, such as November’s slaughter, the August attack on the train foiled by the American soldiers, and the massacre at the kosher supermarket last January, were organized in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which is less impoverished than you might expect: Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose. If young Mohamed runs amok, the patriarch of his clan should have his beautiful launderette confiscated and he be deported.

But demographic diversity requires legal change. Due to mass migration, Europeans can’t stick with their outdated tradition of punishing only guilty individuals. Instead, whites must learn from the various cultures who have all found that the way to deter Muslim violence is to pre-emptively threaten to punish any and all Muslims merely affiliated with wrongdoers with fines, confiscation, and deportation.

Sure, this new legal doctrine of collective responsibility would be a betrayal of the proud Western European tradition of individualism. But the alternative – keeping Muslims out of Europe – seems unthinkable to today’s leaders such as Dr. Merkel.

Yemen, 2016

Personally, I’m in favor of the old system of having separate countries. Belgium, say, could have laws suited to Belgians and Yemen could have laws suited to Yemenis.

But thinking that makes me some kind of crazed extremist.

So, instead, the whole world needs to adopt the lowest common denominator methods suited to Yemenis.

Collective punishment is now the progressive, European, multicultural, diverse way of doing things. It’s who we are.

 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s almost like any system that is concerned with the lowest common denominator has the least harmful side effects when that lowest common denominator isn’t too different from the average.

    Simple language: people need to be similar for any system to work period.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Another, further, point is that this insane Economist magazine driven agenda of uncontrolled unlimited third world immigration into Europe coincides more or less exactly with the inexorably and apparently irrevocable demographic decline of autochthnous European peoples from their ancient homelands.

    There can only be one outcome of this – the extinction of ethnic Europeans and the establishment of ‘Greater Yemen’.

    • Replies: @JVO
    @Anonymous

    What makes it "apparently irrevocable"? It's a little too soon to make that judgement, I'd say.
    Must a healthy nation necessarily be hurtling toward Hong Kong like levels of population density?

    , @anon
    @Anonymous


    apparently irrevocable demographic decline
     
    As absolutely no attempt has been made to revoke the decline in White birth rates I take using the word "irrevocable" as a anti-white demoralization tactic from an enemy.

    (although i suspect it's really probably just gloating)
  3. Killing terrorists’ families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims. But if the will to take such drastic measures was there, it wouldn’t be needed, because any country genuinely determined to protect its people from terrorists wouldn’t let in Muslims in the first place.

    The same applies to countless other solutions I see proposed to tackle terrorism. It’s like telling a pathological arsonist how to put out fires.

    • Agree: AndrewR, ben tillman
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Rob McX

    I have to agree. It would be easier and more humane to simply keep the aliens out than to adopt their barbaric ways

    I would offer another analogy though: asking the West to adopt medieval Muslim legal customs is like trying to turn a wussy child who won't even stand up for himself into a trained assassin.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Erik Sieven
    @Rob McX

    exactly. the same is true for various measures to "secure" european borders. open border is by now no longer a fringe left wing position but the position of the conservative mainstream in western Europe.

    , @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "Killing terrorists’ families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims."

    And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  4. When I lived in France in the 960’s & 70’s, it was common knowledge among American expatriates that if the kids were caught with drugs, the whole family could be deported. Usually, this wasn’t used for small amounts of “soft” drugs. But I knew families that were visited by the Police and warned to knock it off or get out of the country. In one case, only the fact that the Mother had been born in France and later married an American and switched citizenship stopped the deportation of her and her kids.
    Similarly, if a foreigner running a business legally hired his own countrymen illegally, his home and business could be confiscated and he could be deported. I never heard of a case personally where they went that far, but I knew people who told me it had happened to friends of theirs.

  5. I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’.

    That sums up the West’s mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn’t need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don’t we’re going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don’t have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it’s time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @rod1963

    "I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’."

    Mindanao is the Filipino island with a high percentage of Muslims. But The U.S do not receive a lot of Muslims from Mindanao, we overwhelmingly get the Catholic Filipinos. Similiar to how Lebanese immigration to Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil was overwhelmingly Christian.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    , @Pomegranate
    @rod1963

    I remember giving counter terrorist training to a Filipino police chief in Palawan, near an area that the MILF (no joke, the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front) was trying to expand into.

    We were going through the usual American BS about rules of engagement and he said "Thats stupid. If I know an officer is with the MILF I just have him killed. "

    As far as I know, Palawan is still MILF free. Well, in one sense of the word.

    , @Former Darfur
    @rod1963

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state

    I've said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    , @tsotha
    @rod1963


    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’.
     
    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Ed
    @rod1963

    Funny my uncle's African nurse said the same thing. It was during the Paris attacks, CNN was on. She walks in watches a few seconds the shakes her head & says the white people are too nice, they should kick out all the Muslims. She then goes on with her duties.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @Karl
    @rod1963

    >> Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm


    If you believe the National Statistics Office, the (Philippines) Autonomous Region of Mindanao, has the country's lowest rate of property crimes. And having run amongst those people, I do believe that.

    The violence-on-strangers is also very, very low. What is notable, is the clan warfare. Hatfields-McCoys type of stuff known as "rido". The local jefe's (civil authorities, not Imams) can usually shut each outbreak down after each side has an equal number of casualties.

    Imams don't have any real influence in Muslim Mindanao.

  6. Radley Balko brought the issue of asset forfeiture to light in the last few years. In the U.S., the police often have the power to take money and other assets that contributed to an alleged crime. Balko pointed the rampant abuse that seemed to be going on in some cases of this, as police seized assets with the flimsiest connection to crimes in order to either bolster their own bank accounts or else because the department had its funding cut and needed the stuff to make ends meet.

    But imagine if we started doing so to terrorist assets. Not just their own money, but expand it outwards: stayed at your mom’s house while planning your attacks? Her house is ours now. Used your dad’s car once to meet another terrorist? It’s ours now. Hid some of the explosives at your dad’s business? That beautiful laundrette is ours now. Local Mosque sponsored a speaker that you admired and you attended the event? That mosque’s gotta turn over all the revenue from that event.

    The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.

    Aggressive prosecutors have been known to use RICO and wire fraud provisions to threaten gangster’s mothers’ homes and father’s pizza parlors to shake up the mafia families and get them talking and running. The same could be done with terrorists. Accounting ledgers are often Uncle Sam’s best friend.

    Or we could just not let them in.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    , @NOTA
    @whorefinder

    Don't assume some new state power or use of state power will be in the hands of your friends--instead imagine it in the hands of your enemies. If the authorities can rob the mosque for sponsoring a speaker who is claimed to have radicalized someone, they can do the same with a church that has a pro-life speaker, if someone at the church later shoots an abortion doctor or something.

    The whole war on terror is an exercise in handing really scary, easy-to-misuse powers to the state in response to a very small threat.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @scrivener3

    , @Dsgntd_plyr
    @whorefinder

    The really good TV show "Billions" had Paul Giamatti's prosecutor character threaten to imprison the parents of a hedge fund manager because he held assets in their name to cover shady trades.

    I wonder how often that happens in real life.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @whorefinder

    "The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is."

    I wouldn't be so quick to advocate a policy that might make asset forfeiture popular. I think we should eliminate most asset forfeiture laws and/or policies, which are turning law enforcement organizations into gangs of freebooters.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  7. Wasn’t collective German responsibility what happened after WWII? After two world wars, the Allies’ Final Solution to too much diversity was to expel 15 million peaceable German civilians from countries around Germany. These ethnic german civilians had to leave not because THEY messed up, but because OTHER Germans (the ones in Germany proper) used the ethnics’ presence in neighboring countries as an excuse to invade. So once the war was over, all the German ethnics had to go. Problem solved … forever.

    If a few handfuls of radical Muslims keep screwing up in European countries, the whole lot of them may find themselves booted out and on the road again back to Sharialand.

    Metacomet (King Philip) tried to do the same thing to the English colonists in 1675 in King Philip’s War, but unfortunately was about 25 years too late. He was outnumbered and outgunned when he and his Indian allies finally realized it was a civilizational thing, a collective responsibility thing, and went after ALL the colonists as the problem, not just the bad boy colonists.

    In a sense, Muslims in Europe are an “attractive nuisance”.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor
    @Big Bill


    Wasn’t collective German responsibility what happened after WWII? After two world wars, the Allies’ Final Solution to too much diversity was to expel 15 million peaceable German civilians from countries around Germany. These ethnic german civilians had to leave not because THEY messed up, but because OTHER Germans (the ones in Germany proper) used the ethnics’ presence in neighboring countries as an excuse to invade. So once the war was over, all the German ethnics had to go. Problem solved … forever.
     
    Pretty much _all_ of history follows collective punishment. It's much harder to find examples in history where populations where perfect angels and restrained themselves to punishing only specific individuals for their own actions and not entire broad groups.

    When tribe A fought back and won against rival tribe B, the punish the whole tribe...
  8. @whorefinder
    Radley Balko brought the issue of asset forfeiture to light in the last few years. In the U.S., the police often have the power to take money and other assets that contributed to an alleged crime. Balko pointed the rampant abuse that seemed to be going on in some cases of this, as police seized assets with the flimsiest connection to crimes in order to either bolster their own bank accounts or else because the department had its funding cut and needed the stuff to make ends meet.

    But imagine if we started doing so to terrorist assets. Not just their own money, but expand it outwards: stayed at your mom's house while planning your attacks? Her house is ours now. Used your dad's car once to meet another terrorist? It's ours now. Hid some of the explosives at your dad's business? That beautiful laundrette is ours now. Local Mosque sponsored a speaker that you admired and you attended the event? That mosque's gotta turn over all the revenue from that event.

    The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.

    Aggressive prosecutors have been known to use RICO and wire fraud provisions to threaten gangster's mothers' homes and father's pizza parlors to shake up the mafia families and get them talking and running. The same could be done with terrorists. Accounting ledgers are often Uncle Sam's best friend.

    Or we could just not let them in.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NOTA, @Dsgntd_plyr, @Mr. Anon

    “Or we could just not let them in.”

    Well, obviously, we can’t do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that’s definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that’s just racist.

    • Agree: BB753, Anonym
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won't say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.


    lead, follow or get out of the way--but quit stabbing us in the back

    Replies: @SFG, @Kylie, @Monopthalmus

    , @matt
    @Steve Sailer

    What sort of "nice things" (i.e., morally obligatory behavior) can't people whose village was dronestriked afford? What sort of violations of the categorical imperative do they need to undertake in order to protect themselves from us?

    , @BB753
    @Steve Sailer

    Actually drone strikes against their native villages would be a good deterrent to suicide bombers. " If you blow yourself up and kill innocents, we'll blow your native village and entire clan to smithereens". You cannot play nice with Muslims. They'll despise you the more for that.
    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they'll show no mercy in return.

    Replies: @Pontius, @Clyde

    , @NOTA
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, that's the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don't like Trump's idea of banning all Muslim immigration--that's probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn't require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that's why it's the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @V Vega

    , @iSteveFan
    @Steve Sailer

    This logic you describe about the insanity of jumping through hoops over muslims instead of just not importing them is similar to how we dealt with surface to air missiles in Vietnam. We declared the Soviet ships that were transporting those missiles off limits. We then allowed the ships to dock and unload their cargo. The missiles were then allowed to be trucked to the SAM sites and installed on the launchers. Only after the missiles had been installed and were ready for use did we permit our air force to attack them.

  9. @Anonymous
    Another, further, point is that this insane Economist magazine driven agenda of uncontrolled unlimited third world immigration into Europe coincides more or less exactly with the inexorably and apparently irrevocable demographic decline of autochthnous European peoples from their ancient homelands.

    There can only be one outcome of this - the extinction of ethnic Europeans and the establishment of 'Greater Yemen'.

    Replies: @JVO, @anon

    What makes it “apparently irrevocable”? It’s a little too soon to make that judgement, I’d say.
    Must a healthy nation necessarily be hurtling toward Hong Kong like levels of population density?

  10. One is reminded of the story from 1986, when four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped in Beirut, with one returned killed.

    The Soviets ended back-channel negotiations with Hezbollah, kidnapped a relative of the head-man of Hezbollah and returned his body parts to the big man. The Russians never had trouble in that part of the world with the personal security of their citizens after that for three decades—until perhaps the recent downing of a Russian plane in the Sinai.

    Here’s the news story from 1986.

    http://articles.philly.com/1986-01-15/news/26052630_1_hostage-crisis-soviet-captives-islamic-liberation-organization

  11. @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    “I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’.”

    Mindanao is the Filipino island with a high percentage of Muslims. But The U.S do not receive a lot of Muslims from Mindanao, we overwhelmingly get the Catholic Filipinos. Similiar to how Lebanese immigration to Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil was overwhelmingly Christian.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Jefferson

    My wife is from Mindanao and the big island is definitely majority Catholic, not even close to majority Muslim.

    And, while most of our Filipino immigrants are from the Tagalog-speaking northern half of the country, we get a lot from the Visayan-speaking central and southern regions too.

    Of the hundreds of Filipinos I've known in the USA and Canada, none has been a Muslim, but I don't know more broadly whether Muslims are also coming here from southern Phils.

    Replies: @Karl

  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won’t say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.

    lead, follow or get out of the way–but quit stabbing us in the back

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Anonymous

    He's writing this stuff under his real name. You won't even invent a pseudonym like the rest of us.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Kylie
    @Anonymous

    "Anonymous says:
    April 2, 2016 at 10:24 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Steve Sailer
    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won’t say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.

    lead, follow or get out of the way–but quit stabbing us in the back"

    The irony.

    , @Monopthalmus
    @Anonymous

    He's publically writing about taboo ideas under his own name, and has been doing so for years now. What else do you want? What are you doing?

  13. • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Sean

    Yikes. It's amazing how the British went from cold-blooded state terrorists to total cucks in less than a century. No happy medium.

    Replies: @anon

  14. telling that nyt ignores israels gross collective punishment practises

  15. matt says:

    I can imagine Bin Laden making a similar argument: “Look, we have to kill American civilians. You see, they have this system in their culture called ‘representative democracy’, in which the civilians elect their political representatives. Therefore, the only way to make the elected officials stop killing Muslims is to kill the people who elect them, which will cause the officials to be voted out of office. Of course, I’d prefer that the kuffar stay in their own countries, but it is the way it is.”

    It’s is an interesting rhetorical maneuver: use the atrocities that we (and others) commit as evidence of their barbarism (“Look what they force us to do to them!”). It’s an argument that’s been made many, many times by people committing atrocities, for understandable psychological reasons.

    Of course, their atrocities are never evidence of our barbarism, and our crimes don’t raise any “tough questions” about what ethical shortcuts they need to take against us. It’s just what’s expected from those people.

    (By the way, if separate countries is a good idea, then perhaps Chechnya and Palestine should be separate countries.)

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @matt

    You are aware that Steve's point is that while the evil (sorry, there's no better word for it) Western leadership suppresses anti-immigrationism and is firmly against punishment of terrorists' family members, the same time they push for building a huge police state and conducting drone strikes against their villages back in their countries.

    I guess you are also aware that both Steve and the majority of the commentators are firmly against the useless and cruel wars we are conducting in Muslim countries.

    Replies: @matt, @carol

  16. Keith Vaz [AKA "Sir Charles Pipkins"] says:

    I don’t care if the Russian method is effective or stops more white people being killed. A few more deaths or lives lived in terror is a small price to pay so that people don’t think I’m an Islamophobe.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Keith Vaz

    If you think torturing someone's kids to punish their father is ok, I'd have much worse things to call you than islamophobe.

  17. @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    What sort of “nice things” (i.e., morally obligatory behavior) can’t people whose village was dronestriked afford? What sort of violations of the categorical imperative do they need to undertake in order to protect themselves from us?

  18. You know why I read iSteve? Because I read Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres first.

    Personally, I’m in favor of the old system

    Me too.

  19. Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose.”

    Yes, Muslims are very good at running small businesses with large numbers of cash transactions.

    It seems unlikely the concept of collective responsibility will ever be applied, even in the most obvious and constitutionally acceptable cases. For example, one could argue for applying the idea to chain immigration by looking not only at the would-be sponsor, but also his family. But the left would shut bricks if that were to happen. “How dare we judge Mohammed’s future wife from Lahore based on the fact that his cousin, also named Mohammed, engaged in a bit of workplace violence in Waukesha while mumbling some random mumbo jumbo – ‘Admiral Akbar’ or something. It was totally obvious he was just a Second Amendment nut with an unhealthy fondness for tertiary Star Wars characters.”

    The best way and most clearly Constitutional way to apply collective justice is to not allow the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed of Islamic terrorists to move to the West. The Left won’t even allow that, so we are emphatically screwed.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Wilkey


    the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed
     
    You repeat yourself. These are Muslims we speak of.

    In all seriousness, so much of the difficulty we have had in the last 15+ years with Muslims is due to a criminal lack of awareness among our elites of Muslim customs, endogamous marriage patterns, and tribal propensities. Our elites project Anglo norms and values onto totally alien cultures.

    , @Pontius
    @Wilkey

    Said businesses seem to be unusually flammable right about the time bankruptcy looms, or land prices for condos is spiking.

    There is a firefighting term for this, "Lebanese Lightning".

    , @Pontius
    @Wilkey

    Assimilation is not possible, even when they try.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/glasgow-muslim-murdered-hours-after-posting-easter-wishes/

  20. We are Germany, We are Nice. We are proud not to be proud.

    BE DEUTSCH! [Achtung! Germans on the rise!] | NEO MAGAZIN ROYALE mit Jan Böhmermann – ZDFneo

    • Replies: @SFG
    @George

    Seems tongue-in-cheek. It's just a little too earnest.

    Given the Rammstein parody (he dresses like Till Lindemann) and English lyrics, is this aimed at Germans or foreigners? Anyone over there know?

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    , @Che Guava
    @George

    Wow. I heard of that video before, saw stills, what wondrous logic! Made me sick. Why is it in English, I am puzzled.

    For Wilkey,
    'sixth cousins thrice removed', given the first-cousin marriage fetish, I would doubt that there are too many of those!

  21. Oh, but Europe’s leaders do believe in collective punishment…of the native population. Women told not to go to certain areas, to dress modestly, not to travel alone, public swimming pools closed or segregated, separate train cars. Not to mention the draconian enforcement of hate speech laws and the use of water cannons against peaceful anti-immigrant demonstrators.

  22. @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    Actually drone strikes against their native villages would be a good deterrent to suicide bombers. ” If you blow yourself up and kill innocents, we’ll blow your native village and entire clan to smithereens”. You cannot play nice with Muslims. They’ll despise you the more for that.
    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they’ll show no mercy in return.

    • Replies: @Pontius
    @BB753

    Easy in Chechnya, not so easy in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @Clyde
    @BB753


    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they’ll show no mercy in return.
     
    Thailand Buddhists have done the same in their "restive south" which is proximate to Muslim Malaysia. Muslims have been brutal and gone on monk killing sprees. The Buddhists have given them back the same.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1259404/buddhists-move-restive-southern-thailand

    Replies: @Bill B.

  23. The policy, executed by the Chechen leader, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the scion of a prominent Chechen family that itself switched sides, broke the organized resistance.

    Ramzan A. Kadyrov: Is there ANYTHING he can’t do?

    Maybe we could Crowdsource enough $$$ to hire Obama’s ADOBE guy to create a Certificate of Live Birth so that Mr. Kadyrov is eligible for POTUS.

    TRUMP/KADYROV2016!

    • Replies: @antipater_1
    @TontoBubbaGoldstein

    I think eventually Kadyrov will get to big for his britches. Then Putin will have him liquidated.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  24. Personally, I’m in favor of the old system of having separate countries. Belgium, say, could have laws suited to Belgians and Yemen could have laws suited to Yemenis.

    Steve has fallen into a serious example slump.

    Last week, he uses Italians vs Thais to illustrate how high immigration is unnecessary for bringing in restaurateurs, apparently unaware that actual Thais come here at fraction of the rate of Italians, themselves low on the list. (Is there a concentration of Thais in LA? If so, it’s unique.)

    Now, Belgium as a “separate country”! Belgium is the original European union! It– they– — should be two separate countries. With a duchy or principality for the one percent who speak German.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Reg Cæsar

    Belgium is made up of Northern Europeans who have lived side by side for centuries, often under the same ruler. They're mostly of the same religion too. It wasn't doing too badly as a country, surviving for nearly two centuries until it got the bright idea of replacing its population with Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans.

    If you were to combine all the differences between European peoples - Flemish and Walloon, Basque and Castilian,etc. - it would still amount to a negligible fraction of the difference between Europeans and the hordes of aliens they're allowing to overrun the continent.

    Replies: @officious intermeddler

    , @bomag
    @Reg Cæsar


    Italians vs Thais
     
    I'm not sure about the particular example you are referencing, but the general point is that you can have Thai and Italian restaurants without importing a large demographic cohort.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  25. Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.

    Europeans don’t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism.

    It wasn’t that long ago that whites in America burned down black neighborhoods. Just saying!

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Numinous

    True, but now it's black people who have taken over the unpleasant task of burning down black neighborhoods.

    , @anon
    @Numinous

    For the past fifty years or so blacks have been doing s great job of burning down 'hoods' all by themselves. Bit of a selective memory there sport.

  26. @Rob McX
    Killing terrorists' families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims. But if the will to take such drastic measures was there, it wouldn't be needed, because any country genuinely determined to protect its people from terrorists wouldn't let in Muslims in the first place.

    The same applies to countless other solutions I see proposed to tackle terrorism. It's like telling a pathological arsonist how to put out fires.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Erik Sieven, @Corvinus

    I have to agree. It would be easier and more humane to simply keep the aliens out than to adopt their barbaric ways

    I would offer another analogy though: asking the West to adopt medieval Muslim legal customs is like trying to turn a wussy child who won’t even stand up for himself into a trained assassin.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @AndrewR

    It's a combination of knaves and fools. The European population at large may be the equivalent of a wussy child, but their rulers aren't. They're evil, not soft or naive. The likes of Merkel and Blair cold-heartedly planned the destruction of their countries.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  27. I wish our mainstream media would broadcast uncensored videos of the aftermaths of Islamic bombings and shootings. When one watches those, one is so shaken, sad and disgusted that going after the Islamic terrorists’ complicit inner circles becomes eminently reasonable.

    At Boston, Brussels, etc. there were screaming, moaning people with limbs blown off, bones sticking out. HORROR perpetrated by jackasses from a psychopathic society with folks at home who know what they do.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Let's also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don't appear on tv because they would undermine support for our "humanitarian" interventions in the Middle East. (Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @RamonaQ
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It would help if they covered the good "citizens" of molenbeek celebrating in the aftermath of the terror attack. They know that there would be widespread public support for deporting a 1000 of them everytime a terror attack occurred so I suppose that's why they censor this stuff.

    , @Seran
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Exactly, why are there no photos of dead children? They are faceless victims.

    If they would show the victims of these terror attacks, the public would become more "islamophobic". They are just a faceless group, a statistic, but a dead child syrian child at the beach is a tradegy.

  28. @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Cork

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Yikes. It’s amazing how the British went from cold-blooded state terrorists to total cucks in less than a century. No happy medium.

    • Replies: @anon
    @AndrewR

    Their media was taken over by a hostile minority.

  29. @Wilkey
    Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose."

    Yes, Muslims are very good at running small businesses with large numbers of cash transactions.

    It seems unlikely the concept of collective responsibility will ever be applied, even in the most obvious and constitutionally acceptable cases. For example, one could argue for applying the idea to chain immigration by looking not only at the would-be sponsor, but also his family. But the left would shut bricks if that were to happen. "How dare we judge Mohammed's future wife from Lahore based on the fact that his cousin, also named Mohammed, engaged in a bit of workplace violence in Waukesha while mumbling some random mumbo jumbo - 'Admiral Akbar' or something. It was totally obvious he was just a Second Amendment nut with an unhealthy fondness for tertiary Star Wars characters."

    The best way and most clearly Constitutional way to apply collective justice is to not allow the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed of Islamic terrorists to move to the West. The Left won't even allow that, so we are emphatically screwed.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Pontius, @Pontius

    the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed

    You repeat yourself. These are Muslims we speak of.

    In all seriousness, so much of the difficulty we have had in the last 15+ years with Muslims is due to a criminal lack of awareness among our elites of Muslim customs, endogamous marriage patterns, and tribal propensities. Our elites project Anglo norms and values onto totally alien cultures.

    • Agree: MEH 0910
  30. Belgium is made up of Northern Europeans who have lived side by side for centuries, often under the same ruler. They’re mostly of the same religion too. If you were to combine all the differences between European peoples – Flemish and Walloon, Basque and Castilian,etc. – it would still amount to only a tiny fraction of the difference between Europeans and the hordes of aliens they’re allowing to overrun the continent.

  31. @Reg Cæsar

    Personally, I’m in favor of the old system of having separate countries. Belgium, say, could have laws suited to Belgians and Yemen could have laws suited to Yemenis.
     
    Steve has fallen into a serious example slump.

    Last week, he uses Italians vs Thais to illustrate how high immigration is unnecessary for bringing in restaurateurs, apparently unaware that actual Thais come here at fraction of the rate of Italians, themselves low on the list. (Is there a concentration of Thais in LA? If so, it's unique.)

    Now, Belgium as a "separate country"! Belgium is the original European union! It-- they-- -- should be two separate countries. With a duchy or principality for the one percent who speak German.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @bomag

    Belgium is made up of Northern Europeans who have lived side by side for centuries, often under the same ruler. They’re mostly of the same religion too. It wasn’t doing too badly as a country, surviving for nearly two centuries until it got the bright idea of replacing its population with Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans.

    If you were to combine all the differences between European peoples – Flemish and Walloon, Basque and Castilian,etc. – it would still amount to a negligible fraction of the difference between Europeans and the hordes of aliens they’re allowing to overrun the continent.

    • Replies: @officious intermeddler
    @Rob McX


    They’re mostly of the same religion too.
     
    Mostly of no religion these days, to be more accurate.
  32. But of course, we’re not allowed to notice why we can’t have nice things like civilization and tolerance. From today’s paper:

    Father accused of fatally shooting son because he was gay

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html

    Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said late Friday. “Despite all the civil rights victories we’ve had in the last few years, we still live in a society where people face violence or even murder by their parents, simply by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    Name of the father: Shehada Khalil Issa.

    Headline on most news stories identify the killer as “California man” or “LA man”.

    The headline on the original CBS story subversively read, “LA man Shehada Issa charged with killing son for being gay” but was quickly changed to “LA man charged with killing son for being gay”

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @officious intermeddler

    Yea somehow I don't think Shehada Khalil Issa considers himself as part of a society that is very tolerant of homosexuals

    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @officious intermeddler

    The father's name Shehada Khalil Issa sure sounds Islamic (shahada = the profession of faith that "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"; Issa = the Islamic name for Jesus).
    But on a wall in the parents' house is a crucifix, as shown in a photo at
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520151/LA-man-accused-shoot-son-gay-wife-killed.html
    Did no reporter think to ask, "What religion are these people?"?

    Replies: @Clyde, @anon

    , @Anonymous
    @officious intermeddler

    He's Lebanese Catholic, like GOP Congressman Darrell Issa from Southern California. Homosexuality is an illness, and possibly contagious if the germ hypothesis is correct and thus not something necessarily to be tolerated, nor identical to civilization.

    At any rate, I'd be pissed too. Who the hell wants a gay son? It's not hard to see how a man could get enraged and do something like this. It shouldn't be treated as anything but manslaughter.

    , @Rob McX
    @officious intermeddler

    Contrast this to what happens when it's a Muslim who was the victim of a white aggressor, as happened in Brussels yesterday when a woman was run over (apparently deliberately) by a car. Series of consecutive headlines on the story, from Google News search page:


    Horrifying footage shows Muslim woman 'mown down' by car during ...
    Mirror.co.uk-1 hour ago

    Shocking footage of Muslim woman being hit by car in Brussels ...
    Metro-4 hours ago

    Muslim woman mown down in hit-and-run during banned Brussels ...
    ITV News-13 hours ago

    Muslim woman mowed down in Molenbeek, Brussels
    New Zealand Herald-14 hours ago

    Muslim woman run over in far right protest as third terror suspect ...
    In-Depth-Stuff.co.nz-12 hours ago
     

    Replies: @CJ

  33. @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    I remember giving counter terrorist training to a Filipino police chief in Palawan, near an area that the MILF (no joke, the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front) was trying to expand into.

    We were going through the usual American BS about rules of engagement and he said “Thats stupid. If I know an officer is with the MILF I just have him killed. ”

    As far as I know, Palawan is still MILF free. Well, in one sense of the word.

  34. @whorefinder
    Radley Balko brought the issue of asset forfeiture to light in the last few years. In the U.S., the police often have the power to take money and other assets that contributed to an alleged crime. Balko pointed the rampant abuse that seemed to be going on in some cases of this, as police seized assets with the flimsiest connection to crimes in order to either bolster their own bank accounts or else because the department had its funding cut and needed the stuff to make ends meet.

    But imagine if we started doing so to terrorist assets. Not just their own money, but expand it outwards: stayed at your mom's house while planning your attacks? Her house is ours now. Used your dad's car once to meet another terrorist? It's ours now. Hid some of the explosives at your dad's business? That beautiful laundrette is ours now. Local Mosque sponsored a speaker that you admired and you attended the event? That mosque's gotta turn over all the revenue from that event.

    The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.

    Aggressive prosecutors have been known to use RICO and wire fraud provisions to threaten gangster's mothers' homes and father's pizza parlors to shake up the mafia families and get them talking and running. The same could be done with terrorists. Accounting ledgers are often Uncle Sam's best friend.

    Or we could just not let them in.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NOTA, @Dsgntd_plyr, @Mr. Anon

    Don’t assume some new state power or use of state power will be in the hands of your friends–instead imagine it in the hands of your enemies. If the authorities can rob the mosque for sponsoring a speaker who is claimed to have radicalized someone, they can do the same with a church that has a pro-life speaker, if someone at the church later shoots an abortion doctor or something.

    The whole war on terror is an exercise in handing really scary, easy-to-misuse powers to the state in response to a very small threat.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @NOTA

    You're missing my point. The point is we can have a radically un-American, intrusive, privacy-violating, collective-punishment solution or....

    we can simply not let them in.

    , @scrivener3
    @NOTA

    I like the way you think. Yesterday I posted: You want the kind of State that, if it were under the control of your worse enemy, you would be OK.

    Because you know, the people who control the State are not and never will be your friends. Hillary and Bill "work tirelessly for the little people" give me a break!

    If you think the State might possibly be on your side, try this test. Are you wealthy? If you were a friend of the people who control the State or any major institution it is comprised of, you would be wealthy.

  35. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality. Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it’s the only way. We’re told this isn’t possible but why isn’t it? Because our leaders say so and refuse to take any steps to help the people of this country; their loyalties lay elsewhere. We have a failure of leadership. They’re more interested in currying favor with Goldman-Sachs and living the good life than with the fact that the barbarians are heading our way.

    • Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr
    @anonymous


    The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality.
    Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it’s the only way.
     
    The desire to be "civilized," prevents the common sense policy of immigration restriction because immigration restriction is collective punishment. The behavior of past immigrants prevents new immigrants from entering.

    So our leaders will do nothing until jihadists begin targeting SWPLs, LGBTs, and Jews.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    , @SFG
    @anonymous

    Nuclear weapons also mean a war between Western powers is likely to end very, very badly.

    Replies: @NOTA

    , @RonaldB
    @anonymous

    "Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. ..."

    And yet, there are times when such actions are carried out. There are too many examples to list them all, but take the burning of Cork in Ireland by the Black and Tan, the ravaging of Boer lands by the British during the second Boer War, the firebombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Were these immoral? Is it more immoral to carry out an atrocity, or to lose a war (and possibly your country and people)?

    The rules of justice and individual responsibility were developed for a relatively homogeneous society that takes the concept of individual responsibility seriously. It was the most ignorant action of the George W Bush administration to assume that Western government concepts could be transplanted to Islamic Middle Eastern countries.

    Maintaining rules of individual justice with Muslim invaders is exactly as effective as maintaining rules of engagement with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  36. @Rob McX
    @Reg Cæsar

    Belgium is made up of Northern Europeans who have lived side by side for centuries, often under the same ruler. They're mostly of the same religion too. It wasn't doing too badly as a country, surviving for nearly two centuries until it got the bright idea of replacing its population with Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans.

    If you were to combine all the differences between European peoples - Flemish and Walloon, Basque and Castilian,etc. - it would still amount to a negligible fraction of the difference between Europeans and the hordes of aliens they're allowing to overrun the continent.

    Replies: @officious intermeddler

    They’re mostly of the same religion too.

    Mostly of no religion these days, to be more accurate.

  37. @officious intermeddler
    But of course, we're not allowed to notice why we can't have nice things like civilization and tolerance. From today's paper:

    Father accused of fatally shooting son because he was gay

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html
     

    Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said late Friday. “Despite all the civil rights victories we’ve had in the last few years, we still live in a society where people face violence or even murder by their parents, simply by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity."
     
    Name of the father: Shehada Khalil Issa.

    Headline on most news stories identify the killer as "California man" or "LA man".

    The headline on the original CBS story subversively read, "LA man Shehada Issa charged with killing son for being gay" but was quickly changed to "LA man charged with killing son for being gay"

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Anonymous, @Rob McX

    Yea somehow I don’t think Shehada Khalil Issa considers himself as part of a society that is very tolerant of homosexuals

  38. @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    Yeah, that’s the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn’t require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that’s why it’s the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    • Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr
    @NOTA


    I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.
     
    No it isn't. There isn't a "foreigners' right to US resettlement," in the constitution. In fact the Immigration and Naturalization Act explicitly allows the President to close the border unilaterally.
    , @AndrewR
    @NOTA

    Because borders are racist.

    What we really need is a border-free world with a single government where one's every move is recorded for eternity and one can be imprisoned indefinitely or killed for any reason without trial. Anything less is letting the terrorists win.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "Yeah, that’s the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional."

    "that’s probably overbroad....."

    It isn't.

    "..... and maybe unconstitutional."

    And,.....it isn't.

    Replies: @NOTA

    , @V Vega
    @NOTA


    I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.
     
    I get that if you're this ignorant about our constitution, you shouldn't be posting on the internet about anything having to do with it.

    It's not even about being stupid. You're just being an asshole.

    Replies: @SFG

  39. @Buzz Mohawk
    I wish our mainstream media would broadcast uncensored videos of the aftermaths of Islamic bombings and shootings. When one watches those, one is so shaken, sad and disgusted that going after the Islamic terrorists' complicit inner circles becomes eminently reasonable.

    At Boston, Brussels, etc. there were screaming, moaning people with limbs blown off, bones sticking out. HORROR perpetrated by jackasses from a psychopathic society with folks at home who know what they do.

    Replies: @NOTA, @RamonaQ, @Seran

    Let’s also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don’t appear on tv because they would undermine support for our “humanitarian” interventions in the Middle East. (Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?).

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "Let’s also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don’t appear on tv because they would undermine support for our “humanitarian” interventions in the Middle East."

    That's a good suggestion. People ought to be made to realize the consequences of the policies that they support, even if only tacitly.

    "(Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?)."

    The nerve of those Iraqis.........hanging around on the open street............in Iraq.

    Clearly, they needed to be raked with 20mm cannon-fire.

    Replies: @Ozymandias

  40. @Buzz Mohawk
    I wish our mainstream media would broadcast uncensored videos of the aftermaths of Islamic bombings and shootings. When one watches those, one is so shaken, sad and disgusted that going after the Islamic terrorists' complicit inner circles becomes eminently reasonable.

    At Boston, Brussels, etc. there were screaming, moaning people with limbs blown off, bones sticking out. HORROR perpetrated by jackasses from a psychopathic society with folks at home who know what they do.

    Replies: @NOTA, @RamonaQ, @Seran

    It would help if they covered the good “citizens” of molenbeek celebrating in the aftermath of the terror attack. They know that there would be widespread public support for deporting a 1000 of them everytime a terror attack occurred so I suppose that’s why they censor this stuff.

  41. But of course the larger story, the big picture, overall theme contained within the NYT: It’s still Trump’s fault, it just has to be. Even halfway around the world, whenever a crisis arises, Donald J, just has to be blamed somehow. November Paris attack last year hasn’t been dropped down the memory hole but did Trump generate this kind of widespread condemnation, just cause? Trying to recall. NYT, for all its professed interest in reporting global affairs does manage to retain a provincialism that the paper likes to mock within the US at large.

    How come Kasich or Jeb! never got this kind of treatment? When Yemenis butcher each other over some ancient desert clan dispute, e.g. Atta Ali didn’t like losing his well water because Ahmed’s liter of camels came along and drank it all dry, and throwing in as a peace offering two of his fifty odd daughters didn’t quite do the trick this time and all hell broke loose,…no one at one of the Wests’s major influential papers says ‘Aha! Damn that John Kasich! Who the hell does he think he is, yabbering on that the capital gains rates are going to bring worldwide prosperity anytime soon! Or that he knows how to solve disputes between different groups of people!’

    Capital gains rate is one thing, but losing out your well water due to tons of bad camels and even worse wives just does’t cut it.

  42. Off-topic,

    A fun video essay on the limitations of the long take:

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @syonredux

    I'll see your long takes and raise you some cuts:

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

  43. The way that elites talk about these issues shows that they’re not grown ups. Of course terrorism and killing families works. If I plucked your fingernails, wouldn’t you tell everything you know? The argument is that you’ll say anything to make the torture stop. The obvious solution to that is that you promise more and worse torture if the information you get turns out to be false.

    We can say that this is against our values or whatever, but still be honest.

    Occasionally, animals raised in captivity are released into the wild, and often the results are very bad. Watching Belgium trying to deal with Islamist terrorists reminds me of that. Domesticated humans simply can’t deal with what they’ve brought to their countries.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Hepp

    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state's toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals? Just like the constant surveillance to protect you from terrorists turns out to mean every citizen is constantly spied on, and all those powers have been used mostly for drug cases, family punishment will quickly turn out to be something done for a lot of crimes other than terrorism.

    Thinking like an adult means thinking past step one. There are powers we don't give the state because we don't trust the state with those powers. There are things we agree with other civilized countries not to do, because it's a much better world when we don't do them. Abandoning those limits might make sense in some really dire situation, but doing it without reflecting on the costs is the opposite of reasoning like an adult.

    Terrorist attacks are not a threat to our nation. They're spectacular and scary and mediagenic, but they don't kill very many people or do all that much damage, on the scale of a whole nation. So dismantling the limits we put on the state to respond to them just doesn't make much sense. Discarding the limits the civilized countries have put on themselves is similarly unreasonable.

    The fact that our elites were willing to see those limits on state power and behavior tossed aside, but weren't willing to seriously restrict immigration from countries with a lot of terrorists in them, speaks volumes about their unfitness for power.

    Replies: @BB753, @Hepp

    , @mtn cur
    @Hepp

    Sorting through multiple systems of cause and effect is the sole basis for any system of ethics or science; your comment nicely illustrate the absence of ethics or rational thought.

  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis-invited-into-my-home-welcoming-spirit-divided

    An early proponent of Wilkommenskultur has second thoughts.

    One night the voluntary organisation that placed refugees with German families called us after midnight and said it had a Moldovan who needed a rest. So we Googled Moldova. We were OK with Syrians coming for a sleepover. But what about Moroccans, Eritreans, or the citizens of former Soviet republics? Well OK, we thought, why not?

    Helping people who’d escaped from a brutal civil war seemed an unquestionably sound thing to do – and Germans embraced their role as moral leaders of the western world. Collective narcissism may have played a role too. Other nations have long respected and envied Germany for its economic success. But we have not exactly been considered warm-hearted or lovable. Now, all of a sudden, millions dreamt of coming here – and we felt flattered. The refugees made us feel good about ourselves.

    We also thought we’d benefit economically from our popularity, much like the US did in preceding centuries. Call it Germany’s American dream. A massive influx of young workers was just what the ageing nation needed, we argued. Besides, Merkel wasn’t a crazy idealist. When she made her move in September, we thought she knew what she was doing. She was known to be a cautious, risk-averse politician. So there had to be a plan – and an alternative if the plan didn’t work.

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”. We tried not to read too much into these experiences, limited as they were. But they did suggest that the relationship between Germans and refugees would not be as easy and straightforward as the enthusiasts had suggested.

    Some of the broader assumptions we as a nation made also seem wildly optimistic now. Many economists who were initially in favour of Merkel’s policy have changed their minds. They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.

    Still worse, we’ve lost trust in our institutions. When Merkel said, “We’ll manage”, she appealed to Germans’ pride in their own efficiency. We think we’re pretty good at getting things done; we know how to manufacture luxury cars and other complex engineering products. But when it came to handling the refugee crisis, our government institutions – such as Berlin’s much-criticized Lageso authority – turned out to be anything but well-oiled machines.

    Then there’s Merkel. Her decision to open the borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Hungary was a courageous one. Quite possibly, it was also the best option on the table. But in the aftermath Merkel made some mistakes that seem oddly out of character.

    She didn’t coordinate her plans with European partners, leaving Germany isolated in its pursuit of a common EU solution. She never asked parliament to vote on her policy. And she didn’t even try to convince all those Germans who were sceptical. “If we have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, this is not my country any more,” Merkel said somewhat haughtily. She also suggested that Germany’s borders couldn’t be secured by any means, which needlessly alienated conservative voters – and aided the rise of the rightwing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

    The mood started to shift in late 2015; and when hundreds of women were assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it turned ugly. By then, my wife and I had left Germany for a long trip abroad. Friends told us we’d find the country much changed on our return. And so we did. Germany, a nation with a political culture based on compromise, suddenly felt as divided as Donald Trump’s America. People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts.

    What now? The EU’s borders are pretty much closed, at least for the time being. We don’t have people calling any more asking us to host refugees. And if we did get another call, I’m not sure I’d happily say, “OK then, why not?” That doesn’t mean we’ve turned into barbarians.

    Getting the refugee thing right will be Germany’s biggest challenge in coming years, and we want to make a contribution. But the spirit of the Willkommenskultur – taking in people randomly, exuberantly, without getting to know them and establishing a meaningful relationship – doesn’t feel right any more.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Anonymous

    "They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education."

    Our rationalist betters and self-appointed ethical gate-keepers never pay a price for being wrong.

    The absurd notion that Syrians had high technical skills and superior education levels was quite well excepted in 2015.

    , @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.
     
    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization ... with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The "Jewish girl?" comment about the wife implies she's not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just ... insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    Replies: @newrouter, @anon, @Jay, @anon

    , @Clyde
    @Anonymous

    I appreciate his efforts but he is the kind of liberal that needs to be mugged five times before he gets it. One good thing, he claims the Muslim invasion into Germany has ended for the time being. Must be the border fences those (racist) Balkan nations and Hungary put up.

  45. @Reg Cæsar

    Personally, I’m in favor of the old system of having separate countries. Belgium, say, could have laws suited to Belgians and Yemen could have laws suited to Yemenis.
     
    Steve has fallen into a serious example slump.

    Last week, he uses Italians vs Thais to illustrate how high immigration is unnecessary for bringing in restaurateurs, apparently unaware that actual Thais come here at fraction of the rate of Italians, themselves low on the list. (Is there a concentration of Thais in LA? If so, it's unique.)

    Now, Belgium as a "separate country"! Belgium is the original European union! It-- they-- -- should be two separate countries. With a duchy or principality for the one percent who speak German.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @bomag

    Italians vs Thais

    I’m not sure about the particular example you are referencing, but the general point is that you can have Thai and Italian restaurants without importing a large demographic cohort.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @bomag


    ...but the general point is that you can have Thai and Italian restaurants without importing a large demographic cohort.
     
    Exactly. That's why I said his point was sound, but his choice of example was bizarre. Thais aren't a counterexample, but a better example.

    Is there a thicket of Thais near Studio City that might lead a resident to overestimate Thai presence in America?

    More importantly, are there other nationalities that might be praised for their emigratory restraint? How about Indonesians? Few of their 250,000,000+ are here. The only Indonesian-Americans that come to mind are the President's sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, and Cyril Jordan of the Flaming Groovies. Both had a white parent.
  46. @AndrewR
    @Rob McX

    I have to agree. It would be easier and more humane to simply keep the aliens out than to adopt their barbaric ways

    I would offer another analogy though: asking the West to adopt medieval Muslim legal customs is like trying to turn a wussy child who won't even stand up for himself into a trained assassin.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    It’s a combination of knaves and fools. The European population at large may be the equivalent of a wussy child, but their rulers aren’t. They’re evil, not soft or naive. The likes of Merkel and Blair cold-heartedly planned the destruction of their countries.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Rob McX

    That's certainly a tenable claim but arguably so is the claim that Blair/Merkel/etc were simply criminally negligent and optimistic (IOW, that they really believed their plans would be good for their countries). I'm more inclined to believe the former, but still.

  47. @Rob McX
    @AndrewR

    It's a combination of knaves and fools. The European population at large may be the equivalent of a wussy child, but their rulers aren't. They're evil, not soft or naive. The likes of Merkel and Blair cold-heartedly planned the destruction of their countries.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    That’s certainly a tenable claim but arguably so is the claim that Blair/Merkel/etc were simply criminally negligent and optimistic (IOW, that they really believed their plans would be good for their countries). I’m more inclined to believe the former, but still.

  48. YThe problem with Trump is that he says things that people know are true, but which are supposed to be suppressed:

    1. If something is illegal, then it should be punished (immigration, abortion).
    2. Collective punishment works.
    3. Rich people buy politicians.
    4. American elites are weaker than foreign elites.
    5. Russia is helping us in Syria.
    Etc

  49. @syonredux
    Off-topic,

    A fun video essay on the limitations of the long take:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3FlrbaHN2o

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    I’ll see your long takes and raise you some cuts:

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @Percy Gryce

    Failure to embed. Trying again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAH0MoAv2CI

  50. @whorefinder
    Radley Balko brought the issue of asset forfeiture to light in the last few years. In the U.S., the police often have the power to take money and other assets that contributed to an alleged crime. Balko pointed the rampant abuse that seemed to be going on in some cases of this, as police seized assets with the flimsiest connection to crimes in order to either bolster their own bank accounts or else because the department had its funding cut and needed the stuff to make ends meet.

    But imagine if we started doing so to terrorist assets. Not just their own money, but expand it outwards: stayed at your mom's house while planning your attacks? Her house is ours now. Used your dad's car once to meet another terrorist? It's ours now. Hid some of the explosives at your dad's business? That beautiful laundrette is ours now. Local Mosque sponsored a speaker that you admired and you attended the event? That mosque's gotta turn over all the revenue from that event.

    The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.

    Aggressive prosecutors have been known to use RICO and wire fraud provisions to threaten gangster's mothers' homes and father's pizza parlors to shake up the mafia families and get them talking and running. The same could be done with terrorists. Accounting ledgers are often Uncle Sam's best friend.

    Or we could just not let them in.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NOTA, @Dsgntd_plyr, @Mr. Anon

    The really good TV show “Billions” had Paul Giamatti’s prosecutor character threaten to imprison the parents of a hedge fund manager because he held assets in their name to cover shady trades.

    I wonder how often that happens in real life.

  51. @anonymous
    Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality. Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it's the only way. We're told this isn't possible but why isn't it? Because our leaders say so and refuse to take any steps to help the people of this country; their loyalties lay elsewhere. We have a failure of leadership. They're more interested in currying favor with Goldman-Sachs and living the good life than with the fact that the barbarians are heading our way.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @SFG, @RonaldB

    The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality.
    Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it’s the only way.

    The desire to be “civilized,” prevents the common sense policy of immigration restriction because immigration restriction is collective punishment. The behavior of past immigrants prevents new immigrants from entering.

    So our leaders will do nothing until jihadists begin targeting SWPLs, LGBTs, and Jews.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Dsgntd_plyr


    The desire to be “civilized,” prevents the common sense policy of immigration restriction because immigration restriction is collective punishment. The behavior of past immigrants prevents new immigrants from entering.
     
    No, that's not right. It needn't have anything to do with behavior. Opposition to national cuckoldry suffices.

    Your comment presumes a default position that others are entitled to what we have created unless they are expected to behave badly. That's not a sound presumption.

  52. @NOTA
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, that's the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don't like Trump's idea of banning all Muslim immigration--that's probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn't require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that's why it's the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @V Vega

    I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.

    No it isn’t. There isn’t a “foreigners’ right to US resettlement,” in the constitution. In fact the Immigration and Naturalization Act explicitly allows the President to close the border unilaterally.

  53. I don’t come here to look at smut, Steve. Please remove that shameful photo that shows that woman’s face.

  54. iSteveFan says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @whorefinder

    "Or we could just not let them in."

    Well, obviously, we can't do that. But dronestriking their entire village back in the Old Country, well, that's definitely on the table.

    Immigration control, though, well that's just racist.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @matt, @BB753, @NOTA, @iSteveFan

    This logic you describe about the insanity of jumping through hoops over muslims instead of just not importing them is similar to how we dealt with surface to air missiles in Vietnam. We declared the Soviet ships that were transporting those missiles off limits. We then allowed the ships to dock and unload their cargo. The missiles were then allowed to be trucked to the SAM sites and installed on the launchers. Only after the missiles had been installed and were ready for use did we permit our air force to attack them.

  55. Merkel and Blair and Hollande are all soft and weak. None of them are say, hardened ex KGB agents who likely killed people up close and personal like Putin, or ex paratroopers like Bibi (who also killed people up close and personal in war) or Ehud Barak, former Mossad hit-man against PLA killers.

    And European populations are soft and weak, almost none of them have combat experience, are willing to kill at the drop of a hat, and have the ability to do so.

    BUT … Mass Immavasion won’t stop. This Summer promises something along the lines of 20 million I’d suggest washing ashore in Europe and making their way by FORCE to Germany and England. Once there they will DOMINATE and control everything, making ordinary White Europeans into tax-slaves to support Mohammed and his four wives, many concubines, and so on while they lounge around, train for MMA, and blow stuff up. Meanwhile ordinary Europeans will be on starvation level incomes to pay for the Muslims.

    The Muslim immavasion is abetted by both European women’s HATE HATE HATE for their beta male cohort. And the “Wrath of Khan” strategy — “I hate you so much I’ll die killing you.” There is NOTHING like the hatred of women against men who are not dominant/sexy. And the weak softness of generations of no war and conflict.

    I expect both to end. Already Soccer “hooligans” in Brussels endured water cannons to protest Muslims; and I expect they’l be back as they also sense the soft, weak state of European leaders.

    And that’s the thing about Western women. They HATE HATE HATE White men, for being soft and weak, but turn most White men into Sons of Anarchy/Walking Dead hard men, and they’ll switch in a heartbeat. Women being driven by feelz exclusively, and nothing else.

  56. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won't say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.


    lead, follow or get out of the way--but quit stabbing us in the back

    Replies: @SFG, @Kylie, @Monopthalmus

    He’s writing this stuff under his real name. You won’t even invent a pseudonym like the rest of us.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @SFG

    >He’s writing this stuff under his real name.

    Maybe that's why he heavily censors any comments to his right.

  57. @anonymous
    Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality. Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it's the only way. We're told this isn't possible but why isn't it? Because our leaders say so and refuse to take any steps to help the people of this country; their loyalties lay elsewhere. We have a failure of leadership. They're more interested in currying favor with Goldman-Sachs and living the good life than with the fact that the barbarians are heading our way.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @SFG, @RonaldB

    Nuclear weapons also mean a war between Western powers is likely to end very, very badly.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @SFG

    Yep. Terrorist attacks are the more common fear now, but a war by miscalculation with Russia or China could happen and would be a genuine threat to the existence of the nation. Even a limited non-nuclear war could quickly get very ugly.

    That's one thing that makes our dicking around in Georgia and Ukraine really disturbing. The same foreign policy geniuses who brought us the Iraq, Yemen, and Libya clusterfucks are playing brinksmanship games with Russia. I see zero reason to suspect them of more competence there than they've shown in the Middle East.

    Replies: @SFG

  58. @matt
    I can imagine Bin Laden making a similar argument: "Look, we have to kill American civilians. You see, they have this system in their culture called 'representative democracy', in which the civilians elect their political representatives. Therefore, the only way to make the elected officials stop killing Muslims is to kill the people who elect them, which will cause the officials to be voted out of office. Of course, I'd prefer that the kuffar stay in their own countries, but it is the way it is."

    It's is an interesting rhetorical maneuver: use the atrocities that we (and others) commit as evidence of their barbarism ("Look what they force us to do to them!"). It's an argument that's been made many, many times by people committing atrocities, for understandable psychological reasons.

    Of course, their atrocities are never evidence of our barbarism, and our crimes don't raise any "tough questions" about what ethical shortcuts they need to take against us. It's just what's expected from those people.

    (By the way, if separate countries is a good idea, then perhaps Chechnya and Palestine should be separate countries.)

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    You are aware that Steve’s point is that while the evil (sorry, there’s no better word for it) Western leadership suppresses anti-immigrationism and is firmly against punishment of terrorists’ family members, the same time they push for building a huge police state and conducting drone strikes against their villages back in their countries.

    I guess you are also aware that both Steve and the majority of the commentators are firmly against the useless and cruel wars we are conducting in Muslim countries.

    • Replies: @matt
    @reiner Tor

    You've missed my point entirely. If you acknowledge and oppose our "cruel wars", and yet advocate things like punishing the family members of anti-Western terrorists, then it makes the following question all the more acute: What sort of collective punishment are they entitled to inflict on us, in order to deter our "cruel wars" against them?

    Well? What? Can they torture drone operators? Murder the family members of drone operators? Especially given that our crimes (such as the invasion of Iraq) are far worse than the worst that jihadists have done against us, what sort of collective punishment can be appropriately inflicted on you and your family?

    Again, if you concede that we are committing atrocities, then the demand on you to answer that question is much greater than some blind patriot who doesn't believe America can ever sin.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @carol
    @reiner Tor

    I suspect that the people who welcome Muslim immigrants and those who advocate moar bombing are not the same groups.

    The welcomers feel sooo bad about our foreign policy that they figure it's only fair to punish us all with a culture overhaul.

  59. @George
    We are Germany, We are Nice. We are proud not to be proud.

    BE DEUTSCH! [Achtung! Germans on the rise!] | NEO MAGAZIN ROYALE mit Jan Böhmermann - ZDFneo

    https://youtu.be/HMQkV5cTuoY

    Replies: @SFG, @Che Guava

    Seems tongue-in-cheek. It’s just a little too earnest.

    Given the Rammstein parody (he dresses like Till Lindemann) and English lyrics, is this aimed at Germans or foreigners? Anyone over there know?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @SFG

    Nothing gets by you, huh?

    I think this is aimed at both foreigners and Germans.

    , @Cagey Beast
    @SFG

    I get the impression this was made as a morale boost for Germans who embrace the mainstream narrative. Oddly enough, I think it was done in English on their behalf; they're able to watch this in Germany and hug themselves thinking how the rest of the world will see it too and recognize the virtue points Germany has racked up over the last year.

    It's all so very female and matriarchal. More and more I'm realizing Angela Merkel isn't just the Chancellor of Germany, she's its avatar, its golem, its egregore. In brief, she's Germany in human form.

  60. matt says:
    @reiner Tor
    @matt

    You are aware that Steve's point is that while the evil (sorry, there's no better word for it) Western leadership suppresses anti-immigrationism and is firmly against punishment of terrorists' family members, the same time they push for building a huge police state and conducting drone strikes against their villages back in their countries.

    I guess you are also aware that both Steve and the majority of the commentators are firmly against the useless and cruel wars we are conducting in Muslim countries.

    Replies: @matt, @carol

    You’ve missed my point entirely. If you acknowledge and oppose our “cruel wars”, and yet advocate things like punishing the family members of anti-Western terrorists, then it makes the following question all the more acute: What sort of collective punishment are they entitled to inflict on us, in order to deter our “cruel wars” against them?

    Well? What? Can they torture drone operators? Murder the family members of drone operators? Especially given that our crimes (such as the invasion of Iraq) are far worse than the worst that jihadists have done against us, what sort of collective punishment can be appropriately inflicted on you and your family?

    Again, if you concede that we are committing atrocities, then the demand on you to answer that question is much greater than some blind patriot who doesn’t believe America can ever sin.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @matt

    You are correct, I did miss your point.

    However, I don't think there's a universal moral that all people equally subscribe to. It's obvious that they already think like that, and that they never thought otherwise.

    Now, I guess what you're saying is that once we start doing what they did, we should accept them doing the same thing. But no.

    We can, for example, make collective punishment on our soil a government monopoly. Just like, we make any kind of punishment a government monopoly. I cannot decide what the punishment for someone who killed my daughter should be, and then carry out the punishment myself: it's up to the courts and police.

    So what's your point?

    Replies: @matt

  61. @Numinous

    Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.

    Europeans don’t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism.
     
    It wasn't that long ago that whites in America burned down black neighborhoods. Just saying!

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anon

    True, but now it’s black people who have taken over the unpleasant task of burning down black neighborhoods.

  62. @SFG
    @George

    Seems tongue-in-cheek. It's just a little too earnest.

    Given the Rammstein parody (he dresses like Till Lindemann) and English lyrics, is this aimed at Germans or foreigners? Anyone over there know?

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    Nothing gets by you, huh?

    I think this is aimed at both foreigners and Germans.

  63. @Anonymous
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis-invited-into-my-home-welcoming-spirit-divided

    An early proponent of Wilkommenskultur has second thoughts.

    One night the voluntary organisation that placed refugees with German families called us after midnight and said it had a Moldovan who needed a rest. So we Googled Moldova. We were OK with Syrians coming for a sleepover. But what about Moroccans, Eritreans, or the citizens of former Soviet republics? Well OK, we thought, why not?
     

    Helping people who’d escaped from a brutal civil war seemed an unquestionably sound thing to do – and Germans embraced their role as moral leaders of the western world. Collective narcissism may have played a role too. Other nations have long respected and envied Germany for its economic success. But we have not exactly been considered warm-hearted or lovable. Now, all of a sudden, millions dreamt of coming here – and we felt flattered. The refugees made us feel good about ourselves.

    We also thought we’d benefit economically from our popularity, much like the US did in preceding centuries. Call it Germany’s American dream. A massive influx of young workers was just what the ageing nation needed, we argued. Besides, Merkel wasn’t a crazy idealist. When she made her move in September, we thought she knew what she was doing. She was known to be a cautious, risk-averse politician. So there had to be a plan – and an alternative if the plan didn’t work.

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”. We tried not to read too much into these experiences, limited as they were. But they did suggest that the relationship between Germans and refugees would not be as easy and straightforward as the enthusiasts had suggested.

    Some of the broader assumptions we as a nation made also seem wildly optimistic now. Many economists who were initially in favour of Merkel’s policy have changed their minds. They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.

    Still worse, we’ve lost trust in our institutions. When Merkel said, “We’ll manage”, she appealed to Germans’ pride in their own efficiency. We think we’re pretty good at getting things done; we know how to manufacture luxury cars and other complex engineering products. But when it came to handling the refugee crisis, our government institutions – such as Berlin’s much-criticized Lageso authority – turned out to be anything but well-oiled machines.
     

    Then there’s Merkel. Her decision to open the borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Hungary was a courageous one. Quite possibly, it was also the best option on the table. But in the aftermath Merkel made some mistakes that seem oddly out of character.

    She didn’t coordinate her plans with European partners, leaving Germany isolated in its pursuit of a common EU solution. She never asked parliament to vote on her policy. And she didn’t even try to convince all those Germans who were sceptical. “If we have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, this is not my country any more,” Merkel said somewhat haughtily. She also suggested that Germany’s borders couldn’t be secured by any means, which needlessly alienated conservative voters – and aided the rise of the rightwing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

    The mood started to shift in late 2015; and when hundreds of women were assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it turned ugly. By then, my wife and I had left Germany for a long trip abroad. Friends told us we’d find the country much changed on our return. And so we did. Germany, a nation with a political culture based on compromise, suddenly felt as divided as Donald Trump’s America. People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts.
     

    What now? The EU’s borders are pretty much closed, at least for the time being. We don’t have people calling any more asking us to host refugees. And if we did get another call, I’m not sure I’d happily say, “OK then, why not?” That doesn’t mean we’ve turned into barbarians.

    Getting the refugee thing right will be Germany’s biggest challenge in coming years, and we want to make a contribution. But the spirit of the Willkommenskultur – taking in people randomly, exuberantly, without getting to know them and establishing a meaningful relationship – doesn’t feel right any more.
     

    Replies: @Bill B., @NOTA, @AnotherDad, @Clyde

    “They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.”

    Our rationalist betters and self-appointed ethical gate-keepers never pay a price for being wrong.

    The absurd notion that Syrians had high technical skills and superior education levels was quite well excepted in 2015.

  64. @SFG
    @Anonymous

    He's writing this stuff under his real name. You won't even invent a pseudonym like the rest of us.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    >He’s writing this stuff under his real name.

    Maybe that’s why he heavily censors any comments to his right.

  65. @Rob McX
    Killing terrorists' families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims. But if the will to take such drastic measures was there, it wouldn't be needed, because any country genuinely determined to protect its people from terrorists wouldn't let in Muslims in the first place.

    The same applies to countless other solutions I see proposed to tackle terrorism. It's like telling a pathological arsonist how to put out fires.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Erik Sieven, @Corvinus

    exactly. the same is true for various measures to “secure” european borders. open border is by now no longer a fringe left wing position but the position of the conservative mainstream in western Europe.

  66. Personally, I’m in favor of the old system of having separate countries. Belgium, say, could have laws suited to Belgians and Yemen could have laws suited to Yemenis.

    But thinking that makes me some kind of crazed extremist.

    So, instead, the whole world needs to adopt the lowest common denominator methods suited to Yemenis.

    And if there were a race of people ten times as violent as Muslims, we’d still be letting them in, and the lowest common denominator method of controlling them would be ten times as bad as the one we need for the Muslims. This madness will only end when we stop being ruled by people who want us wiped off the face of the earth.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  67. @Keith Vaz
    I don't care if the Russian method is effective or stops more white people being killed. A few more deaths or lives lived in terror is a small price to pay so that people don't think I'm an Islamophobe.

    Replies: @NOTA

    If you think torturing someone’s kids to punish their father is ok, I’d have much worse things to call you than islamophobe.

  68. By the way the opening arguments by the former UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour and historian Simon Schama at the Toronto debate about refugees that Mark Steyn features on his web site is a useful reminder of the underhand bulls*t that the open borders crowd will deploy.

    http://www.steynonline.com

    Simon Schama is the epitome of the verbose, self-stroking, pseudo-cosmopolitan who is ferociously bound up in a protective ethnic awareness that he would deny to majority white westerners. He swings into London from his upscale New York retreat regularly to tell the UK to open its borders,

    Listen through this BBC debate until about 2′ 50″ when he comes very close to saying to Rod Liddle ‘Get stuffed goy’:

    • Replies: @Perspective
    @Bill B.

    The silly woman at the end of the video thought she was making a deeply profound and salient point, sadly she will probably be lauded for her stupidity.

    Replies: @Clyde

  69. @NOTA
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, that's the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don't like Trump's idea of banning all Muslim immigration--that's probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn't require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that's why it's the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @V Vega

    Because borders are racist.

    What we really need is a border-free world with a single government where one’s every move is recorded for eternity and one can be imprisoned indefinitely or killed for any reason without trial. Anything less is letting the terrorists win.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  70. @Hepp
    The way that elites talk about these issues shows that they're not grown ups. Of course terrorism and killing families works. If I plucked your fingernails, wouldn't you tell everything you know? The argument is that you'll say anything to make the torture stop. The obvious solution to that is that you promise more and worse torture if the information you get turns out to be false.

    We can say that this is against our values or whatever, but still be honest.

    Occasionally, animals raised in captivity are released into the wild, and often the results are very bad. Watching Belgium trying to deal with Islamist terrorists reminds me of that. Domesticated humans simply can't deal with what they've brought to their countries.

    Replies: @NOTA, @mtn cur

    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state’s toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals? Just like the constant surveillance to protect you from terrorists turns out to mean every citizen is constantly spied on, and all those powers have been used mostly for drug cases, family punishment will quickly turn out to be something done for a lot of crimes other than terrorism.

    Thinking like an adult means thinking past step one. There are powers we don’t give the state because we don’t trust the state with those powers. There are things we agree with other civilized countries not to do, because it’s a much better world when we don’t do them. Abandoning those limits might make sense in some really dire situation, but doing it without reflecting on the costs is the opposite of reasoning like an adult.

    Terrorist attacks are not a threat to our nation. They’re spectacular and scary and mediagenic, but they don’t kill very many people or do all that much damage, on the scale of a whole nation. So dismantling the limits we put on the state to respond to them just doesn’t make much sense. Discarding the limits the civilized countries have put on themselves is similarly unreasonable.

    The fact that our elites were willing to see those limits on state power and behavior tossed aside, but weren’t willing to seriously restrict immigration from countries with a lot of terrorists in them, speaks volumes about their unfitness for power.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @NOTA

    So far, terrorist attacks haven't killed that many people. But just wait till they sabotage a nuclear plant, like they nearly did in Belgium. Adults should prepare for the worst. We Europeans used to get more respect when we were ruthless.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Hepp
    @NOTA


    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state’s toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals?
     
    That's like saying "well, if we have jails and the death penalty, we can't trust the government to use it only against bad people, it'll eventually be turned on all of us." As a law abiding American, I am in favor of the liberal use of the death penalty and live with absolute zero fear that the state is going to kill me. Sometimes, they really do use their tools just against the bad guys.

    Terrorism probably isn't serious enough right now to advocate such extreme measures. But it's completely possible that circumstances might eventually dictate that we do things that seem unthinkable now.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  71. @SFG
    @anonymous

    Nuclear weapons also mean a war between Western powers is likely to end very, very badly.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Yep. Terrorist attacks are the more common fear now, but a war by miscalculation with Russia or China could happen and would be a genuine threat to the existence of the nation. Even a limited non-nuclear war could quickly get very ugly.

    That’s one thing that makes our dicking around in Georgia and Ukraine really disturbing. The same foreign policy geniuses who brought us the Iraq, Yemen, and Libya clusterfucks are playing brinksmanship games with Russia. I see zero reason to suspect them of more competence there than they’ve shown in the Middle East.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @NOTA

    Crazy as it sounds, I'm thankful there for Putin. He wants power--a nuclear war would end all that for him (and everyone else in the world!)

  72. @NOTA
    @Hepp

    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state's toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals? Just like the constant surveillance to protect you from terrorists turns out to mean every citizen is constantly spied on, and all those powers have been used mostly for drug cases, family punishment will quickly turn out to be something done for a lot of crimes other than terrorism.

    Thinking like an adult means thinking past step one. There are powers we don't give the state because we don't trust the state with those powers. There are things we agree with other civilized countries not to do, because it's a much better world when we don't do them. Abandoning those limits might make sense in some really dire situation, but doing it without reflecting on the costs is the opposite of reasoning like an adult.

    Terrorist attacks are not a threat to our nation. They're spectacular and scary and mediagenic, but they don't kill very many people or do all that much damage, on the scale of a whole nation. So dismantling the limits we put on the state to respond to them just doesn't make much sense. Discarding the limits the civilized countries have put on themselves is similarly unreasonable.

    The fact that our elites were willing to see those limits on state power and behavior tossed aside, but weren't willing to seriously restrict immigration from countries with a lot of terrorists in them, speaks volumes about their unfitness for power.

    Replies: @BB753, @Hepp

    So far, terrorist attacks haven’t killed that many people. But just wait till they sabotage a nuclear plant, like they nearly did in Belgium. Adults should prepare for the worst. We Europeans used to get more respect when we were ruthless.

    • Replies: @anon
    @BB753


    So far, terrorist attacks haven’t killed that many people.
     
    You're right so far but it's not going to take a nuke plant.

    This has gradually got worse over 30-40 years and if you watched it happen on the ground you could (and people did) predict this 30 years ago.

    It started with the law being gradually gradual squeezed out as ethnic enclaves first developed: fraud, illegal immigration, communities colluding in covering up sexual crimes against non-muslim girls etc. As the ethnic enclaves got bigger it became more explicitly pro Sharia law rather than just anti infidel law with a growth in the pressure on Muslims to follow Sharia e.g. from illegally selling booze to not stocking booze at all.

    So large scale guerrilla war to impose Sharia in a more systematic way was inevitable (and was predicted) *as soon as* there were enough, big enough enclaves in enough cities and that point has only just arrived (in Europe, not yet in the US so the US has a chance to save itself).

    So I predict a jump of around two orders of magnitude within the next two to ten years just from mid-east like car bombs in crowded places.
  73. @officious intermeddler
    But of course, we're not allowed to notice why we can't have nice things like civilization and tolerance. From today's paper:

    Father accused of fatally shooting son because he was gay

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html
     

    Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said late Friday. “Despite all the civil rights victories we’ve had in the last few years, we still live in a society where people face violence or even murder by their parents, simply by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity."
     
    Name of the father: Shehada Khalil Issa.

    Headline on most news stories identify the killer as "California man" or "LA man".

    The headline on the original CBS story subversively read, "LA man Shehada Issa charged with killing son for being gay" but was quickly changed to "LA man charged with killing son for being gay"

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Anonymous, @Rob McX

    The father’s name Shehada Khalil Issa sure sounds Islamic (shahada = the profession of faith that “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”; Issa = the Islamic name for Jesus).
    But on a wall in the parents’ house is a crucifix, as shown in a photo at
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520151/LA-man-accused-shoot-son-gay-wife-killed.html
    Did no reporter think to ask, “What religion are these people?”?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Could well be Christian Arab like this Khalil Issa
    http://www.bookofmemories.com/obituary/1202088/Khalil-Issa.php

    , @anon
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    They probably assumed he was Muslim and censored the news. If he was a Christian and they knew it they wouldn't have censored the story.

  74. @Percy Gryce
    @syonredux

    I'll see your long takes and raise you some cuts:

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    Failure to embed. Trying again:

  75. 13th century French women:

    Christian women were once upon a time also not allowed to dress like whores in public.

    Persian miniature, 17th century

    The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam.

    The biggest mistake we ever made was to give the Saudis trillions of $ which they used to spread Wahhabism worldwide. They used to be as poor as church mice and their version of Islam was considered about as mainstream as snake handling is in Christianity.

    When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve – kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed.

    • Replies: @Monopthalmus
    @Jack D

    Or, buy oil elsewhere.

    Propping up a family as vile as the House of Saud and putting up with their garbage for decades is senseless when it's all done for a commodity available in other places.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    "When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve – kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed."

    So, Mr. Sailer, is this the "South Asian level of barbarism" you are talking about? Or is this the souped-up European version? Or the highly-charged American way of violence? I'm really confused...

    And regarding "separate countries", best wishes advocating "unseparating" America.

    , @Jefferson
    @Jack D

    "The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam."

    Hillbilly White trash women dress like whores. So it is apples to oranges to compare them to Muslim women.

  76. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I wish our mainstream media would broadcast uncensored videos of the aftermaths of Islamic bombings and shootings

    I’d be all for that. Also, any Muslims cheering that on should also be publicized. However, I want to go one step further in service of total public awareness and also broadcast uncensored video of the results of our own bombings around the world. Not just the selected clips of Vietnamese children burned by napalm and so on but all of it in full gory detail to show everybody exactly what the real consequences are of our policies. Let it all hang out.

  77. @reiner Tor
    @matt

    You are aware that Steve's point is that while the evil (sorry, there's no better word for it) Western leadership suppresses anti-immigrationism and is firmly against punishment of terrorists' family members, the same time they push for building a huge police state and conducting drone strikes against their villages back in their countries.

    I guess you are also aware that both Steve and the majority of the commentators are firmly against the useless and cruel wars we are conducting in Muslim countries.

    Replies: @matt, @carol

    I suspect that the people who welcome Muslim immigrants and those who advocate moar bombing are not the same groups.

    The welcomers feel sooo bad about our foreign policy that they figure it’s only fair to punish us all with a culture overhaul.

  78. @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state

    I’ve said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @Former Darfur


    I’ve said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.
     
    Ha! I've given up on voting. When one unelected judge can say that something as fundamental to the social order--indeed, prior to the state--as marriage is not what two millennia of Roman, canon, and common law have said it is, what value has voting?

    The only thing I would vote for is a constitutional convention to correct the fundamental errors of the hundred years.

    Replies: @Ed

  79. @Hepp
    The way that elites talk about these issues shows that they're not grown ups. Of course terrorism and killing families works. If I plucked your fingernails, wouldn't you tell everything you know? The argument is that you'll say anything to make the torture stop. The obvious solution to that is that you promise more and worse torture if the information you get turns out to be false.

    We can say that this is against our values or whatever, but still be honest.

    Occasionally, animals raised in captivity are released into the wild, and often the results are very bad. Watching Belgium trying to deal with Islamist terrorists reminds me of that. Domesticated humans simply can't deal with what they've brought to their countries.

    Replies: @NOTA, @mtn cur

    Sorting through multiple systems of cause and effect is the sole basis for any system of ethics or science; your comment nicely illustrate the absence of ethics or rational thought.

  80. Moshe Dayan called Meir Har Zion the greatest soldier Israel had ever produced. An incident in his life may be of interest. Har Zion’s sister was captured, raped and murdered by Bedouin tribesmen while she was hiking on their territory across the border in Jordan. In revenge Har Zion crossed the border and captured six Bedouin men from the same tribe and killed five of them, four with knives. The sixth was sent back to his tribe to tell them what happened.

  81. OT: Right now, ABC is showing an ESPN documentary about Christian Laettner, the bully basketballer everyone loved to hate.

    We never hear the word “bully” attached to, say, Latrell Sprewell, who wrapped his hands around his coach’s neck and tried to choke him.

    But Coach Bob Knight*, who tried to choke one of his players, was often called a bully.

    Funny how that works, isn’t it?

    *He once went after a kid – a fan, not a player – who called him “Bobby.” You had to call him Coach.

  82. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Lol. If Sailer is really serious about this, them let’s let other countries respond in kind too. If an American GI rapes a foreign girl, should someone track down where his mother lives and rape her?

    What if an American, I don’t know, supports ISIS to break up Syria. What collective punishment should Americans face for not policing our own? Articles like this show how out of touch Americans are with the world. Do we honestly believe that we are just spreading freedom and democracy through the world?

    • Replies: @Warner
    @Anonymous

    We're already facing that punishment or have you not paid attention to the last 15 years?

  83. @Big Bill
    Wasn't collective German responsibility what happened after WWII? After two world wars, the Allies' Final Solution to too much diversity was to expel 15 million peaceable German civilians from countries around Germany. These ethnic german civilians had to leave not because THEY messed up, but because OTHER Germans (the ones in Germany proper) used the ethnics' presence in neighboring countries as an excuse to invade. So once the war was over, all the German ethnics had to go. Problem solved ... forever.

    If a few handfuls of radical Muslims keep screwing up in European countries, the whole lot of them may find themselves booted out and on the road again back to Sharialand.

    Metacomet (King Philip) tried to do the same thing to the English colonists in 1675 in King Philip's War, but unfortunately was about 25 years too late. He was outnumbered and outgunned when he and his Indian allies finally realized it was a civilizational thing, a collective responsibility thing, and went after ALL the colonists as the problem, not just the bad boy colonists.

    In a sense, Muslims in Europe are an "attractive nuisance".

    Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Wasn’t collective German responsibility what happened after WWII? After two world wars, the Allies’ Final Solution to too much diversity was to expel 15 million peaceable German civilians from countries around Germany. These ethnic german civilians had to leave not because THEY messed up, but because OTHER Germans (the ones in Germany proper) used the ethnics’ presence in neighboring countries as an excuse to invade. So once the war was over, all the German ethnics had to go. Problem solved … forever.

    Pretty much _all_ of history follows collective punishment. It’s much harder to find examples in history where populations where perfect angels and restrained themselves to punishing only specific individuals for their own actions and not entire broad groups.

    When tribe A fought back and won against rival tribe B, the punish the whole tribe…

  84. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won't say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.


    lead, follow or get out of the way--but quit stabbing us in the back

    Replies: @SFG, @Kylie, @Monopthalmus

    “Anonymous says:
    April 2, 2016 at 10:24 am GMT • 100 Words

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won’t say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.

    lead, follow or get out of the way–but quit stabbing us in the back”

    The irony.

  85. @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    The policy, executed by the Chechen leader, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the scion of a prominent Chechen family that itself switched sides, broke the organized resistance.

    Ramzan A. Kadyrov: Is there ANYTHING he can't do?

    Maybe we could Crowdsource enough $$$ to hire Obama's ADOBE guy to create a Certificate of Live Birth so that Mr. Kadyrov is eligible for POTUS.

    TRUMP/KADYROV2016!

    Replies: @antipater_1

    I think eventually Kadyrov will get to big for his britches. Then Putin will have him liquidated.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @antipater_1

    "I think eventually Kadyrov will get to big for his britches. Then Putin will have him liquidated."

    Yes, when Kadyrov watches "Scarface" (which I would not be surprised to learn is his favorite movie), he should realize that he is Tony Montana, not Alejandro Sosa.

  86. @SFG
    @George

    Seems tongue-in-cheek. It's just a little too earnest.

    Given the Rammstein parody (he dresses like Till Lindemann) and English lyrics, is this aimed at Germans or foreigners? Anyone over there know?

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    I get the impression this was made as a morale boost for Germans who embrace the mainstream narrative. Oddly enough, I think it was done in English on their behalf; they’re able to watch this in Germany and hug themselves thinking how the rest of the world will see it too and recognize the virtue points Germany has racked up over the last year.

    It’s all so very female and matriarchal. More and more I’m realizing Angela Merkel isn’t just the Chancellor of Germany, she’s its avatar, its golem, its egregore. In brief, she’s Germany in human form.

  87. @Anonymous
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis-invited-into-my-home-welcoming-spirit-divided

    An early proponent of Wilkommenskultur has second thoughts.

    One night the voluntary organisation that placed refugees with German families called us after midnight and said it had a Moldovan who needed a rest. So we Googled Moldova. We were OK with Syrians coming for a sleepover. But what about Moroccans, Eritreans, or the citizens of former Soviet republics? Well OK, we thought, why not?
     

    Helping people who’d escaped from a brutal civil war seemed an unquestionably sound thing to do – and Germans embraced their role as moral leaders of the western world. Collective narcissism may have played a role too. Other nations have long respected and envied Germany for its economic success. But we have not exactly been considered warm-hearted or lovable. Now, all of a sudden, millions dreamt of coming here – and we felt flattered. The refugees made us feel good about ourselves.

    We also thought we’d benefit economically from our popularity, much like the US did in preceding centuries. Call it Germany’s American dream. A massive influx of young workers was just what the ageing nation needed, we argued. Besides, Merkel wasn’t a crazy idealist. When she made her move in September, we thought she knew what she was doing. She was known to be a cautious, risk-averse politician. So there had to be a plan – and an alternative if the plan didn’t work.

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”. We tried not to read too much into these experiences, limited as they were. But they did suggest that the relationship between Germans and refugees would not be as easy and straightforward as the enthusiasts had suggested.

    Some of the broader assumptions we as a nation made also seem wildly optimistic now. Many economists who were initially in favour of Merkel’s policy have changed their minds. They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.

    Still worse, we’ve lost trust in our institutions. When Merkel said, “We’ll manage”, she appealed to Germans’ pride in their own efficiency. We think we’re pretty good at getting things done; we know how to manufacture luxury cars and other complex engineering products. But when it came to handling the refugee crisis, our government institutions – such as Berlin’s much-criticized Lageso authority – turned out to be anything but well-oiled machines.
     

    Then there’s Merkel. Her decision to open the borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Hungary was a courageous one. Quite possibly, it was also the best option on the table. But in the aftermath Merkel made some mistakes that seem oddly out of character.

    She didn’t coordinate her plans with European partners, leaving Germany isolated in its pursuit of a common EU solution. She never asked parliament to vote on her policy. And she didn’t even try to convince all those Germans who were sceptical. “If we have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, this is not my country any more,” Merkel said somewhat haughtily. She also suggested that Germany’s borders couldn’t be secured by any means, which needlessly alienated conservative voters – and aided the rise of the rightwing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

    The mood started to shift in late 2015; and when hundreds of women were assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it turned ugly. By then, my wife and I had left Germany for a long trip abroad. Friends told us we’d find the country much changed on our return. And so we did. Germany, a nation with a political culture based on compromise, suddenly felt as divided as Donald Trump’s America. People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts.
     

    What now? The EU’s borders are pretty much closed, at least for the time being. We don’t have people calling any more asking us to host refugees. And if we did get another call, I’m not sure I’d happily say, “OK then, why not?” That doesn’t mean we’ve turned into barbarians.

    Getting the refugee thing right will be Germany’s biggest challenge in coming years, and we want to make a contribution. But the spirit of the Willkommenskultur – taking in people randomly, exuberantly, without getting to know them and establishing a meaningful relationship – doesn’t feel right any more.
     

    Replies: @Bill B., @NOTA, @AnotherDad, @Clyde

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel’s actions wrt refugees, that hasn’t been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can’t piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It’s not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier–instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense–that’s her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn’t have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse–I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn’t come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn’t back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country–it can’t be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can’t back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @NOTA

    It's not a blunder from the point of view of a Germany that wants to dominate Europe, but has to use non military methods. It will entail massive sacrifices, but they do that kind of Wagnerian stuff every now and again. You didn't think the world had heard the last of Germany, did you?

    Replies: @anon

    , @Ozymandias
    @NOTA

    "It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power."

    Wait to see where she lands, then you'll know the why.

    Replies: @Anonym

    , @Charlesz Martel
    @NOTA

    This wouldn't surprise me. If you look at Anwar Sadat's comment to Barbara Walters, in 1977 I think, about how he was willing to go to Jerusalem for peace, I've always thought he was merely making a rhetorical flourish that she took literally. Once she started repeating it as a huge scoop, he felt that he couldn't back down. This is from memory, I haven't checked to see if the video is online.
    It wound up getting him assassinated, but also 40 years of peace, of a sort, so there's that.

    , @anon
    @NOTA


    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel’s actions wrt refugees, that hasn’t been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all.
     
    She created a crisis which the EU used to power grab immigration policy and frontier control away from the member states without any democratic mandate or discussion.

    “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984
     
    In short; they're sociopaths.

    Western national democracies put a lot of constraints on the exercise of power and sociopath politicians have been trying to change that with the EU which has almost no built in checks and balances.

    Replies: @NOTA

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @NOTA

    I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can’t back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    That's the only explanation I can think of for why Obama pursued the completely futile, worthless "surge" in Afghanistan: he promised it in his campaign. Considering all the campaign promises he reneged on, I don't know why he felt obligated to pursue this waste of American lives and treasure.

    Breitbart, October 2015:


    At least 2,230 U.S. service members have been killed and another 20,127 injured in the ongoing conflict, which started on October 7, 2001. . . . Three out of every four U.S. military deaths (75 percent) and an estimated 9 out of every 10 injuries (87 percent) in Afghanistan have taken place since Obama became president.
     
    BTW, Obama can get convincingly tearful about Americans killed by "gun violence." I doubt he ever sheds tears about the many innocent people killed as a result of his own decisions.

    Replies: @Clyde

  88. Would have been a lot simpler just to never let muslims come to the west.

  89. @Numinous

    Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.

    Europeans don’t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism.
     
    It wasn't that long ago that whites in America burned down black neighborhoods. Just saying!

    Replies: @AndrewR, @anon

    For the past fifty years or so blacks have been doing s great job of burning down ‘hoods’ all by themselves. Bit of a selective memory there sport.

  90. @whorefinder
    Radley Balko brought the issue of asset forfeiture to light in the last few years. In the U.S., the police often have the power to take money and other assets that contributed to an alleged crime. Balko pointed the rampant abuse that seemed to be going on in some cases of this, as police seized assets with the flimsiest connection to crimes in order to either bolster their own bank accounts or else because the department had its funding cut and needed the stuff to make ends meet.

    But imagine if we started doing so to terrorist assets. Not just their own money, but expand it outwards: stayed at your mom's house while planning your attacks? Her house is ours now. Used your dad's car once to meet another terrorist? It's ours now. Hid some of the explosives at your dad's business? That beautiful laundrette is ours now. Local Mosque sponsored a speaker that you admired and you attended the event? That mosque's gotta turn over all the revenue from that event.

    The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.

    Aggressive prosecutors have been known to use RICO and wire fraud provisions to threaten gangster's mothers' homes and father's pizza parlors to shake up the mafia families and get them talking and running. The same could be done with terrorists. Accounting ledgers are often Uncle Sam's best friend.

    Or we could just not let them in.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @NOTA, @Dsgntd_plyr, @Mr. Anon

    “The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is.”

    I wouldn’t be so quick to advocate a policy that might make asset forfeiture popular. I think we should eliminate most asset forfeiture laws and/or policies, which are turning law enforcement organizations into gangs of freebooters.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Mr. Anon

    Agreed. Asset forfeiture is already too popular; it is part of police department budgets under "revenues".

  91. @NOTA
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, that's the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don't like Trump's idea of banning all Muslim immigration--that's probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn't require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that's why it's the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @V Vega

    “Yeah, that’s the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.”

    “that’s probably overbroad…..”

    It isn’t.

    “….. and maybe unconstitutional.”

    And,…..it isn’t.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @Mr. Anon

    If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump's stated goal), it's overbroad--there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don't. I think Rand Paul's initial proposal, which Trump ran with and expanded, was to stop immigration from specific countries where there was a lot of ISIS/Al Qaida activity. That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions--as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here. Would it make sense to break that alliance to keep from letting them come in? I'm not sure about that--the Saudis make nauseating and troublesome allies, but the example of Iraq and Syria makes me suspect we would not like the kind of folks who might come to power there if we weren't backing the current royal family.

    I don't know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be. I suspect the answer would in practice turn on whether foreigners had a right to challenge the policy in U.S. court or not, but I'm not a lawyer and don't aspire to be one.

    Replies: @BB753, @Mr. Anon

  92. @NOTA
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Let's also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don't appear on tv because they would undermine support for our "humanitarian" interventions in the Middle East. (Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Let’s also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don’t appear on tv because they would undermine support for our “humanitarian” interventions in the Middle East.”

    That’s a good suggestion. People ought to be made to realize the consequences of the policies that they support, even if only tacitly.

    “(Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?).”

    The nerve of those Iraqis………hanging around on the open street…………in Iraq.

    Clearly, they needed to be raked with 20mm cannon-fire.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    @Mr. Anon

    "The nerve of those Iraqis………hanging around on the open street…………in Iraq."

    Don't be fooled, loitering is the gateway crime that leads to jihad. The only places you'll find a higher concentration of jihadis are weddings and baby milk plants.

  93. @Wilkey
    Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose."

    Yes, Muslims are very good at running small businesses with large numbers of cash transactions.

    It seems unlikely the concept of collective responsibility will ever be applied, even in the most obvious and constitutionally acceptable cases. For example, one could argue for applying the idea to chain immigration by looking not only at the would-be sponsor, but also his family. But the left would shut bricks if that were to happen. "How dare we judge Mohammed's future wife from Lahore based on the fact that his cousin, also named Mohammed, engaged in a bit of workplace violence in Waukesha while mumbling some random mumbo jumbo - 'Admiral Akbar' or something. It was totally obvious he was just a Second Amendment nut with an unhealthy fondness for tertiary Star Wars characters."

    The best way and most clearly Constitutional way to apply collective justice is to not allow the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed of Islamic terrorists to move to the West. The Left won't even allow that, so we are emphatically screwed.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Pontius, @Pontius

    Said businesses seem to be unusually flammable right about the time bankruptcy looms, or land prices for condos is spiking.

    There is a firefighting term for this, “Lebanese Lightning”.

  94. @Wilkey
    Muslims aren’t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose."

    Yes, Muslims are very good at running small businesses with large numbers of cash transactions.

    It seems unlikely the concept of collective responsibility will ever be applied, even in the most obvious and constitutionally acceptable cases. For example, one could argue for applying the idea to chain immigration by looking not only at the would-be sponsor, but also his family. But the left would shut bricks if that were to happen. "How dare we judge Mohammed's future wife from Lahore based on the fact that his cousin, also named Mohammed, engaged in a bit of workplace violence in Waukesha while mumbling some random mumbo jumbo - 'Admiral Akbar' or something. It was totally obvious he was just a Second Amendment nut with an unhealthy fondness for tertiary Star Wars characters."

    The best way and most clearly Constitutional way to apply collective justice is to not allow the siblings, first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fourth cousins, or sixth cousins thrice removed of Islamic terrorists to move to the West. The Left won't even allow that, so we are emphatically screwed.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Pontius, @Pontius

  95. @antipater_1
    @TontoBubbaGoldstein

    I think eventually Kadyrov will get to big for his britches. Then Putin will have him liquidated.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “I think eventually Kadyrov will get to big for his britches. Then Putin will have him liquidated.”

    Yes, when Kadyrov watches “Scarface” (which I would not be surprised to learn is his favorite movie), he should realize that he is Tony Montana, not Alejandro Sosa.

  96. @BB753
    @Steve Sailer

    Actually drone strikes against their native villages would be a good deterrent to suicide bombers. " If you blow yourself up and kill innocents, we'll blow your native village and entire clan to smithereens". You cannot play nice with Muslims. They'll despise you the more for that.
    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they'll show no mercy in return.

    Replies: @Pontius, @Clyde

    Easy in Chechnya, not so easy in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Pontius

    Because of their money? How long would those countries actually exist without US support? It's time to show them who's the boss.

  97. @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    It’s not a blunder from the point of view of a Germany that wants to dominate Europe, but has to use non military methods. It will entail massive sacrifices, but they do that kind of Wagnerian stuff every now and again. You didn’t think the world had heard the last of Germany, did you?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Sean


    It’s not a blunder from the point of view of a Germany that wants to dominate Europe
     
    It's obviously an even bigger blunder in that context.
  98. @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    “It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.”

    Wait to see where she lands, then you’ll know the why.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Ozymandias

    Wait to see where she lands, then you’ll know the why.

    Lands, or dangles?

  99. I recall reading Gary Brecher’s “War Nerd” column, and he concurs that going after family members, simply works.

    I think he was speaking in the context of concentration camps. The idea of grandma and grandpa taken from their homes, and spending their last years in a concentration camp reliably takes the fight out of the terrorists. It uses their neurotic devotion to their clan against them quite well, just as muslims use our western style of law against us to terrorize citizens.

    When used sanely, concentration camps work wonderfully. They’re a great tool, and they save innocent lives.

    Never declare a war without them, or you’ll get bogged down in guerrilla bullshit till the cows come home, every time. Guerrilla warfare is why concentration camps were invented.

    • Replies: @RamonaQ
    @V Vega

    "When used sanely, concentration camps work wonderfully."

    Haha. The things you read here.

    I will say that squeamishness about this sort of stuff is a function of how stable a society is and how far removed it is from daily violence. I spent 18 years of my life in a country with a very serious terrorism problem and you would be surprised at the measures that meet broad social approval once the problem is widespread and disruptive enough. Collective punishment, extra judicial killings and torture all work very well. In fact they are the only thing that work. Trump stands out as a pragmatist in a political class of utterly deluded buffoons.

  100. @Pontius
    @BB753

    Easy in Chechnya, not so easy in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Replies: @BB753

    Because of their money? How long would those countries actually exist without US support? It’s time to show them who’s the boss.

  101. @NOTA
    @Steve Sailer

    Yeah, that's the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don't like Trump's idea of banning all Muslim immigration--that's probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional. But how on Earth do you condemn that as evil and Hitleresque, but then support a plans to continue bombing the hell out of the Muslim world? Surely refusing someone a visa is a lot less bad than blowing them up!

    Also, refusing visas is something that doesn't require any new government powers, and that is inherently hard to use as a mechanism for controlling dissent within the U.S. In my cynical moments, I suspect that's why it's the unthinkable counterterrorism policy, while spying on everyone all the time, disappearing people into secret prisons, fighting endless wars, incinerating people with drones for looking kinda guilty, etc., are all the counterterrorism policies of choice.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @AndrewR, @Mr. Anon, @V Vega

    I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.

    I get that if you’re this ignorant about our constitution, you shouldn’t be posting on the internet about anything having to do with it.

    It’s not even about being stupid. You’re just being an asshole.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @V Vega

    You could argue it would be an 'establishment of religion'. It's somewhat weak because prospective immigrants aren't actually citizens and hence not protected.

  102. @NOTA
    @Hepp

    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state's toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals? Just like the constant surveillance to protect you from terrorists turns out to mean every citizen is constantly spied on, and all those powers have been used mostly for drug cases, family punishment will quickly turn out to be something done for a lot of crimes other than terrorism.

    Thinking like an adult means thinking past step one. There are powers we don't give the state because we don't trust the state with those powers. There are things we agree with other civilized countries not to do, because it's a much better world when we don't do them. Abandoning those limits might make sense in some really dire situation, but doing it without reflecting on the costs is the opposite of reasoning like an adult.

    Terrorist attacks are not a threat to our nation. They're spectacular and scary and mediagenic, but they don't kill very many people or do all that much damage, on the scale of a whole nation. So dismantling the limits we put on the state to respond to them just doesn't make much sense. Discarding the limits the civilized countries have put on themselves is similarly unreasonable.

    The fact that our elites were willing to see those limits on state power and behavior tossed aside, but weren't willing to seriously restrict immigration from countries with a lot of terrorists in them, speaks volumes about their unfitness for power.

    Replies: @BB753, @Hepp

    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state’s toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals?

    That’s like saying “well, if we have jails and the death penalty, we can’t trust the government to use it only against bad people, it’ll eventually be turned on all of us.” As a law abiding American, I am in favor of the liberal use of the death penalty and live with absolute zero fear that the state is going to kill me. Sometimes, they really do use their tools just against the bad guys.

    Terrorism probably isn’t serious enough right now to advocate such extreme measures. But it’s completely possible that circumstances might eventually dictate that we do things that seem unthinkable now.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Hepp

    Lol. You're either a plant or insane if you think the government will never target people like this site's commentariat. Read more about the activities of the US government, past and present.

  103. @Ozymandias
    @NOTA

    "It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power."

    Wait to see where she lands, then you'll know the why.

    Replies: @Anonym

    Wait to see where she lands, then you’ll know the why.

    Lands, or dangles?

  104. His approach — even after he clarified that he was not talking about killing the relatives — was dismissed by many as immoral and unlawful. Yet, it is the very tactic that Russia has pursued for decades.

    Similarly, Israel demolishes the homes of Palestinian terrorists.

    Maybe The New York Times should hire a Jewish writer so they don’t forget obvious little details like this.

  105. @NOTA
    @SFG

    Yep. Terrorist attacks are the more common fear now, but a war by miscalculation with Russia or China could happen and would be a genuine threat to the existence of the nation. Even a limited non-nuclear war could quickly get very ugly.

    That's one thing that makes our dicking around in Georgia and Ukraine really disturbing. The same foreign policy geniuses who brought us the Iraq, Yemen, and Libya clusterfucks are playing brinksmanship games with Russia. I see zero reason to suspect them of more competence there than they've shown in the Middle East.

    Replies: @SFG

    Crazy as it sounds, I’m thankful there for Putin. He wants power–a nuclear war would end all that for him (and everyone else in the world!)

  106. @V Vega
    @NOTA


    I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional.
     
    I get that if you're this ignorant about our constitution, you shouldn't be posting on the internet about anything having to do with it.

    It's not even about being stupid. You're just being an asshole.

    Replies: @SFG

    You could argue it would be an ‘establishment of religion’. It’s somewhat weak because prospective immigrants aren’t actually citizens and hence not protected.

  107. @Anonymous
    Lol. If Sailer is really serious about this, them let's let other countries respond in kind too. If an American GI rapes a foreign girl, should someone track down where his mother lives and rape her?

    What if an American, I don't know, supports ISIS to break up Syria. What collective punishment should Americans face for not policing our own? Articles like this show how out of touch Americans are with the world. Do we honestly believe that we are just spreading freedom and democracy through the world?

    Replies: @Warner

    We’re already facing that punishment or have you not paid attention to the last 15 years?

  108. @V Vega
    I recall reading Gary Brecher's "War Nerd" column, and he concurs that going after family members, simply works.

    I think he was speaking in the context of concentration camps. The idea of grandma and grandpa taken from their homes, and spending their last years in a concentration camp reliably takes the fight out of the terrorists. It uses their neurotic devotion to their clan against them quite well, just as muslims use our western style of law against us to terrorize citizens.

    When used sanely, concentration camps work wonderfully. They're a great tool, and they save innocent lives.

    Never declare a war without them, or you'll get bogged down in guerrilla bullshit till the cows come home, every time. Guerrilla warfare is why concentration camps were invented.

    Replies: @RamonaQ

    “When used sanely, concentration camps work wonderfully.”

    Haha. The things you read here.

    I will say that squeamishness about this sort of stuff is a function of how stable a society is and how far removed it is from daily violence. I spent 18 years of my life in a country with a very serious terrorism problem and you would be surprised at the measures that meet broad social approval once the problem is widespread and disruptive enough. Collective punishment, extra judicial killings and torture all work very well. In fact they are the only thing that work. Trump stands out as a pragmatist in a political class of utterly deluded buffoons.

  109. @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    This wouldn’t surprise me. If you look at Anwar Sadat’s comment to Barbara Walters, in 1977 I think, about how he was willing to go to Jerusalem for peace, I’ve always thought he was merely making a rhetorical flourish that she took literally. Once she started repeating it as a huge scoop, he felt that he couldn’t back down. This is from memory, I haven’t checked to see if the video is online.
    It wound up getting him assassinated, but also 40 years of peace, of a sort, so there’s that.

  110. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @officious intermeddler

    The father's name Shehada Khalil Issa sure sounds Islamic (shahada = the profession of faith that "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"; Issa = the Islamic name for Jesus).
    But on a wall in the parents' house is a crucifix, as shown in a photo at
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520151/LA-man-accused-shoot-son-gay-wife-killed.html
    Did no reporter think to ask, "What religion are these people?"?

    Replies: @Clyde, @anon

    Could well be Christian Arab like this Khalil Issa
    http://www.bookofmemories.com/obituary/1202088/Khalil-Issa.php

  111. @Former Darfur
    @rod1963

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state

    I've said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce

    I’ve said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.

    Ha! I’ve given up on voting. When one unelected judge can say that something as fundamental to the social order–indeed, prior to the state–as marriage is not what two millennia of Roman, canon, and common law have said it is, what value has voting?

    The only thing I would vote for is a constitutional convention to correct the fundamental errors of the hundred years.

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Percy Gryce

    It's the most ludicrous decision in the history of Western Civilization. The fact that the pivotal judge is some homo loving Reagan appointee from the Bay Area just make it even more appalling.

  112. Yup…

    Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_soviets

  113. @BB753
    @Steve Sailer

    Actually drone strikes against their native villages would be a good deterrent to suicide bombers. " If you blow yourself up and kill innocents, we'll blow your native village and entire clan to smithereens". You cannot play nice with Muslims. They'll despise you the more for that.
    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they'll show no mercy in return.

    Replies: @Pontius, @Clyde

    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they’ll show no mercy in return.

    Thailand Buddhists have done the same in their “restive south” which is proximate to Muslim Malaysia. Muslims have been brutal and gone on monk killing sprees. The Buddhists have given them back the same.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1259404/buddhists-move-restive-southern-thailand

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Clyde

    I looked at the SCMP story and - noticed that a Hong Kong man has built is own Scarlett Johansson.




    http://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/1933145/hong-kong-man-makes-his-own-scarlett-johansson-robot

  114. @Bill B.
    By the way the opening arguments by the former UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour and historian Simon Schama at the Toronto debate about refugees that Mark Steyn features on his web site is a useful reminder of the underhand bulls*t that the open borders crowd will deploy.

    http://www.steynonline.com


    Simon Schama is the epitome of the verbose, self-stroking, pseudo-cosmopolitan who is ferociously bound up in a protective ethnic awareness that he would deny to majority white westerners. He swings into London from his upscale New York retreat regularly to tell the UK to open its borders,

    Listen through this BBC debate until about 2' 50" when he comes very close to saying to Rod Liddle 'Get stuffed goy':

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rCJN7_IiFM

    Replies: @Perspective

    The silly woman at the end of the video thought she was making a deeply profound and salient point, sadly she will probably be lauded for her stupidity.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Perspective

    I watched it and her. What an idiot and typical of the over educated displaying. George Orwell — ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’

  115. @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’.

    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @tsotha

    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    They started it, they had it coming, and they got it but good. The Muslims understand that kind of "peace talk".

    Reminds me of the WWII ads by North American for the P-51 fighter.
    http://americanartarchives.com/northamerican.htm

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  116. @Anonymous
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis-invited-into-my-home-welcoming-spirit-divided

    An early proponent of Wilkommenskultur has second thoughts.

    One night the voluntary organisation that placed refugees with German families called us after midnight and said it had a Moldovan who needed a rest. So we Googled Moldova. We were OK with Syrians coming for a sleepover. But what about Moroccans, Eritreans, or the citizens of former Soviet republics? Well OK, we thought, why not?
     

    Helping people who’d escaped from a brutal civil war seemed an unquestionably sound thing to do – and Germans embraced their role as moral leaders of the western world. Collective narcissism may have played a role too. Other nations have long respected and envied Germany for its economic success. But we have not exactly been considered warm-hearted or lovable. Now, all of a sudden, millions dreamt of coming here – and we felt flattered. The refugees made us feel good about ourselves.

    We also thought we’d benefit economically from our popularity, much like the US did in preceding centuries. Call it Germany’s American dream. A massive influx of young workers was just what the ageing nation needed, we argued. Besides, Merkel wasn’t a crazy idealist. When she made her move in September, we thought she knew what she was doing. She was known to be a cautious, risk-averse politician. So there had to be a plan – and an alternative if the plan didn’t work.

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”. We tried not to read too much into these experiences, limited as they were. But they did suggest that the relationship between Germans and refugees would not be as easy and straightforward as the enthusiasts had suggested.

    Some of the broader assumptions we as a nation made also seem wildly optimistic now. Many economists who were initially in favour of Merkel’s policy have changed their minds. They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.

    Still worse, we’ve lost trust in our institutions. When Merkel said, “We’ll manage”, she appealed to Germans’ pride in their own efficiency. We think we’re pretty good at getting things done; we know how to manufacture luxury cars and other complex engineering products. But when it came to handling the refugee crisis, our government institutions – such as Berlin’s much-criticized Lageso authority – turned out to be anything but well-oiled machines.
     

    Then there’s Merkel. Her decision to open the borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Hungary was a courageous one. Quite possibly, it was also the best option on the table. But in the aftermath Merkel made some mistakes that seem oddly out of character.

    She didn’t coordinate her plans with European partners, leaving Germany isolated in its pursuit of a common EU solution. She never asked parliament to vote on her policy. And she didn’t even try to convince all those Germans who were sceptical. “If we have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, this is not my country any more,” Merkel said somewhat haughtily. She also suggested that Germany’s borders couldn’t be secured by any means, which needlessly alienated conservative voters – and aided the rise of the rightwing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

    The mood started to shift in late 2015; and when hundreds of women were assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it turned ugly. By then, my wife and I had left Germany for a long trip abroad. Friends told us we’d find the country much changed on our return. And so we did. Germany, a nation with a political culture based on compromise, suddenly felt as divided as Donald Trump’s America. People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts.
     

    What now? The EU’s borders are pretty much closed, at least for the time being. We don’t have people calling any more asking us to host refugees. And if we did get another call, I’m not sure I’d happily say, “OK then, why not?” That doesn’t mean we’ve turned into barbarians.

    Getting the refugee thing right will be Germany’s biggest challenge in coming years, and we want to make a contribution. But the spirit of the Willkommenskultur – taking in people randomly, exuberantly, without getting to know them and establishing a meaningful relationship – doesn’t feel right any more.
     

    Replies: @Bill B., @NOTA, @AnotherDad, @Clyde

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.

    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization … with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The “Jewish girl?” comment about the wife implies she’s not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just … insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    @AnotherDad

    >This is just … insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.<

    Chalk "Trump 2016" on the Brandenburg Gate and sit back and enjoy.

    , @anon
    @AnotherDad

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    , @Jay
    @AnotherDad

    One must assume that the German father who hosted invaders in close contact with his female-rich household either had low testosterone levels and had never consciously experienced urges from his own id, or had such low emotional intelligence that he never correctly interpreted the ids of other men. The existence of natural-born cucks is part of hbd too.

    , @anon
    @AnotherDad

    media brain washing combined with some kind of genetic predisposition to motivation by guilt.

    if the media told the whole truth about "diversity" then this wouldn't be happening

  117. @Hepp
    @NOTA


    Given the history of the war on drugs and war on terror in the U.S., why would anyone assume that such tactics, once added to the state’s toolbox, would only be used on terrorists, or even on people you or I would consider criminals?
     
    That's like saying "well, if we have jails and the death penalty, we can't trust the government to use it only against bad people, it'll eventually be turned on all of us." As a law abiding American, I am in favor of the liberal use of the death penalty and live with absolute zero fear that the state is going to kill me. Sometimes, they really do use their tools just against the bad guys.

    Terrorism probably isn't serious enough right now to advocate such extreme measures. But it's completely possible that circumstances might eventually dictate that we do things that seem unthinkable now.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Lol. You’re either a plant or insane if you think the government will never target people like this site’s commentariat. Read more about the activities of the US government, past and present.

  118. @Perspective
    @Bill B.

    The silly woman at the end of the video thought she was making a deeply profound and salient point, sadly she will probably be lauded for her stupidity.

    Replies: @Clyde

    I watched it and her. What an idiot and typical of the over educated displaying. George Orwell — ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’

  119. “This is just … insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.”

    Maybe people watching too many movies and too much TV entertainment. It really is fiction.

  120. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.
     
    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization ... with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The "Jewish girl?" comment about the wife implies she's not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just ... insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    Replies: @newrouter, @anon, @Jay, @anon

    >This is just … insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.<

    Chalk "Trump 2016" on the Brandenburg Gate and sit back and enjoy.

  121. @Anonymous
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/01/germany-refugee-crisis-invited-into-my-home-welcoming-spirit-divided

    An early proponent of Wilkommenskultur has second thoughts.

    One night the voluntary organisation that placed refugees with German families called us after midnight and said it had a Moldovan who needed a rest. So we Googled Moldova. We were OK with Syrians coming for a sleepover. But what about Moroccans, Eritreans, or the citizens of former Soviet republics? Well OK, we thought, why not?
     

    Helping people who’d escaped from a brutal civil war seemed an unquestionably sound thing to do – and Germans embraced their role as moral leaders of the western world. Collective narcissism may have played a role too. Other nations have long respected and envied Germany for its economic success. But we have not exactly been considered warm-hearted or lovable. Now, all of a sudden, millions dreamt of coming here – and we felt flattered. The refugees made us feel good about ourselves.

    We also thought we’d benefit economically from our popularity, much like the US did in preceding centuries. Call it Germany’s American dream. A massive influx of young workers was just what the ageing nation needed, we argued. Besides, Merkel wasn’t a crazy idealist. When she made her move in September, we thought she knew what she was doing. She was known to be a cautious, risk-averse politician. So there had to be a plan – and an alternative if the plan didn’t work.

    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”. We tried not to read too much into these experiences, limited as they were. But they did suggest that the relationship between Germans and refugees would not be as easy and straightforward as the enthusiasts had suggested.

    Some of the broader assumptions we as a nation made also seem wildly optimistic now. Many economists who were initially in favour of Merkel’s policy have changed their minds. They say that, even in the medium term, the costs will outweigh the benefits. And the experiences of companies that hired refugees as trainees have been disheartening. Most people they took on lack even the basics of a high-school education.

    Still worse, we’ve lost trust in our institutions. When Merkel said, “We’ll manage”, she appealed to Germans’ pride in their own efficiency. We think we’re pretty good at getting things done; we know how to manufacture luxury cars and other complex engineering products. But when it came to handling the refugee crisis, our government institutions – such as Berlin’s much-criticized Lageso authority – turned out to be anything but well-oiled machines.
     

    Then there’s Merkel. Her decision to open the borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis in Hungary was a courageous one. Quite possibly, it was also the best option on the table. But in the aftermath Merkel made some mistakes that seem oddly out of character.

    She didn’t coordinate her plans with European partners, leaving Germany isolated in its pursuit of a common EU solution. She never asked parliament to vote on her policy. And she didn’t even try to convince all those Germans who were sceptical. “If we have to apologise for showing a friendly face in an emergency, this is not my country any more,” Merkel said somewhat haughtily. She also suggested that Germany’s borders couldn’t be secured by any means, which needlessly alienated conservative voters – and aided the rise of the rightwing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

    The mood started to shift in late 2015; and when hundreds of women were assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, it turned ugly. By then, my wife and I had left Germany for a long trip abroad. Friends told us we’d find the country much changed on our return. And so we did. Germany, a nation with a political culture based on compromise, suddenly felt as divided as Donald Trump’s America. People with different views didn’t listen to one another any more, they just hated one another’s guts.
     

    What now? The EU’s borders are pretty much closed, at least for the time being. We don’t have people calling any more asking us to host refugees. And if we did get another call, I’m not sure I’d happily say, “OK then, why not?” That doesn’t mean we’ve turned into barbarians.

    Getting the refugee thing right will be Germany’s biggest challenge in coming years, and we want to make a contribution. But the spirit of the Willkommenskultur – taking in people randomly, exuberantly, without getting to know them and establishing a meaningful relationship – doesn’t feel right any more.
     

    Replies: @Bill B., @NOTA, @AnotherDad, @Clyde

    I appreciate his efforts but he is the kind of liberal that needs to be mugged five times before he gets it. One good thing, he claims the Muslim invasion into Germany has ended for the time being. Must be the border fences those (racist) Balkan nations and Hungary put up.

  122. @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "Let’s also broadcast the uncensored images of our bombings and drone strikes. Those don’t appear on tv because they would undermine support for our “humanitarian” interventions in the Middle East."

    That's a good suggestion. People ought to be made to realize the consequences of the policies that they support, even if only tacitly.

    "(Remember the collateral murder video from Wikileaks?)."

    The nerve of those Iraqis.........hanging around on the open street............in Iraq.

    Clearly, they needed to be raked with 20mm cannon-fire.

    Replies: @Ozymandias

    “The nerve of those Iraqis………hanging around on the open street…………in Iraq.”

    Don’t be fooled, loitering is the gateway crime that leads to jihad. The only places you’ll find a higher concentration of jihadis are weddings and baby milk plants.

  123. “routinely arrest, torture and kill relatives”

    Bullshit. This is merely an anti-Russian libel that is a new normal.

  124. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.
     
    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization ... with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The "Jewish girl?" comment about the wife implies she's not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just ... insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    Replies: @newrouter, @anon, @Jay, @anon

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  125. Absurdly off-topic,

    Was feeling masochistic, so I saw Batman v Superman today. Of course I didn’t actually pay to see it. I saw 10 Clovefield Lane (pretty good flick) and theatre hopped.

    Overall impression: Quite tedious.

    Ranking compared to other superhero pictures:

    Better than dreck like Catwoman and Batman and Robin. But not nearly as good as the genre’s upper tier (Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Captain America: The Winter Soldier).

    Best point of comparison: Probably the Tim Burton Batman films. Snyder seems to have a lot of Burton’s strengths (striking images, excellent art direction) and weaknesses (little interest in plot or character development, weak dialogue )

    Question for the class: Is Snyder just Tim Burton on crossfit?

  126. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @officious intermeddler
    But of course, we're not allowed to notice why we can't have nice things like civilization and tolerance. From today's paper:

    Father accused of fatally shooting son because he was gay

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html
     

    Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said late Friday. “Despite all the civil rights victories we’ve had in the last few years, we still live in a society where people face violence or even murder by their parents, simply by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity."
     
    Name of the father: Shehada Khalil Issa.

    Headline on most news stories identify the killer as "California man" or "LA man".

    The headline on the original CBS story subversively read, "LA man Shehada Issa charged with killing son for being gay" but was quickly changed to "LA man charged with killing son for being gay"

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Anonymous, @Rob McX

    He’s Lebanese Catholic, like GOP Congressman Darrell Issa from Southern California. Homosexuality is an illness, and possibly contagious if the germ hypothesis is correct and thus not something necessarily to be tolerated, nor identical to civilization.

    At any rate, I’d be pissed too. Who the hell wants a gay son? It’s not hard to see how a man could get enraged and do something like this. It shouldn’t be treated as anything but manslaughter.

  127. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @tsotha
    @rod1963


    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’.
     
    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    They started it, they had it coming, and they got it but good. The Muslims understand that kind of “peace talk”.

    Reminds me of the WWII ads by North American for the P-51 fighter.
    http://americanartarchives.com/northamerican.htm

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anonymous

    Those ads are good stuff.

    My late brother-in-law had been a fighter pilot for the Royal Australian Air Force during WWII, flying the P-38, among other things. (My oldest sister married a man almost as old as our father.) I had the privilege of flying with him in some vintage aircraft.

    One story he told me was about what set him off against the Japanese. Apparently he witnessed their planes sinking some sort of medical ship his girlfriend was on. Something clicked in his head, and he went on to make several kills during the rest of the war.

    I think if you are going to play this game called war, you'd better know how ruthless your enemy is, and act accordingly. The Japanese were notoriously cruel during the war, and even today they cover that up. They deserved everything we flung at them.

  128. @Anonymous
    @tsotha

    Which is funny, because when the PI was a US colony we put down the Moro Uprising by visiting upon them brutality that would never be tolerated today. The Moros still remember that time bitterly and hate us for it.

    They started it, they had it coming, and they got it but good. The Muslims understand that kind of "peace talk".

    Reminds me of the WWII ads by North American for the P-51 fighter.
    http://americanartarchives.com/northamerican.htm

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Those ads are good stuff.

    My late brother-in-law had been a fighter pilot for the Royal Australian Air Force during WWII, flying the P-38, among other things. (My oldest sister married a man almost as old as our father.) I had the privilege of flying with him in some vintage aircraft.

    One story he told me was about what set him off against the Japanese. Apparently he witnessed their planes sinking some sort of medical ship his girlfriend was on. Something clicked in his head, and he went on to make several kills during the rest of the war.

    I think if you are going to play this game called war, you’d better know how ruthless your enemy is, and act accordingly. The Japanese were notoriously cruel during the war, and even today they cover that up. They deserved everything we flung at them.

  129. @NOTA
    @whorefinder

    Don't assume some new state power or use of state power will be in the hands of your friends--instead imagine it in the hands of your enemies. If the authorities can rob the mosque for sponsoring a speaker who is claimed to have radicalized someone, they can do the same with a church that has a pro-life speaker, if someone at the church later shoots an abortion doctor or something.

    The whole war on terror is an exercise in handing really scary, easy-to-misuse powers to the state in response to a very small threat.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @scrivener3

    You’re missing my point. The point is we can have a radically un-American, intrusive, privacy-violating, collective-punishment solution or….

    we can simply not let them in.

  130. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    The irony of all your snarky comments about what others won't say is indeed very rich while you increasingly reveal yourself as a limp, wilting cuckservative scared to stand up for your purported ideals lest you offend the very people abusing you.

    pathetic and disheartening.


    lead, follow or get out of the way--but quit stabbing us in the back

    Replies: @SFG, @Kylie, @Monopthalmus

    He’s publically writing about taboo ideas under his own name, and has been doing so for years now. What else do you want? What are you doing?

  131. @Jack D
    13th century French women:

    http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/11/55/13/14/sky_ha10.jpg

    Christian women were once upon a time also not allowed to dress like whores in public.

    Persian miniature, 17th century

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Reza_Abbasi_-_Two_Lovers_%281630%29.jpg

    The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam.

    The biggest mistake we ever made was to give the Saudis trillions of $ which they used to spread Wahhabism worldwide. They used to be as poor as church mice and their version of Islam was considered about as mainstream as snake handling is in Christianity.

    When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve - kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed.

    Replies: @Monopthalmus, @Corvinus, @Jefferson

    Or, buy oil elsewhere.

    Propping up a family as vile as the House of Saud and putting up with their garbage for decades is senseless when it’s all done for a commodity available in other places.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Monopthalmus

    In fact the United States imports very little oil from the middle east region. It is a canard that America itself is dependent on oil from this region.

    Replies: @Monopthalmus

  132. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.
     
    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization ... with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The "Jewish girl?" comment about the wife implies she's not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just ... insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    Replies: @newrouter, @anon, @Jay, @anon

    One must assume that the German father who hosted invaders in close contact with his female-rich household either had low testosterone levels and had never consciously experienced urges from his own id, or had such low emotional intelligence that he never correctly interpreted the ids of other men. The existence of natural-born cucks is part of hbd too.

  133. Ed says:
    @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    Funny my uncle’s African nurse said the same thing. It was during the Paris attacks, CNN was on. She walks in watches a few seconds the shakes her head & says the white people are too nice, they should kick out all the Muslims. She then goes on with her duties.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Ed

    And, to concur, my mother-in-law's Jamaican aide said the same. When my SJW sister-in-law was talking about the Syrian migrants in Europe, the aide said, "Those men should be back home fighting for their country."

    My sister-in-law was horrified and told her that many more people are killed by right-wing white terrorists in this country than Muslims. (A phony statistic that ignores the vast difference in percentage of the population of whites and Muslims.)

  134. @Percy Gryce
    @Former Darfur


    I’ve said it before and will again: Vote, vote in the primary, and vote against all Ivy Leaguers and all attorneys, or at least unless they have some extreme mitigating factor.
     
    Ha! I've given up on voting. When one unelected judge can say that something as fundamental to the social order--indeed, prior to the state--as marriage is not what two millennia of Roman, canon, and common law have said it is, what value has voting?

    The only thing I would vote for is a constitutional convention to correct the fundamental errors of the hundred years.

    Replies: @Ed

    It’s the most ludicrous decision in the history of Western Civilization. The fact that the pivotal judge is some homo loving Reagan appointee from the Bay Area just make it even more appalling.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
  135. @George
    We are Germany, We are Nice. We are proud not to be proud.

    BE DEUTSCH! [Achtung! Germans on the rise!] | NEO MAGAZIN ROYALE mit Jan Böhmermann - ZDFneo

    https://youtu.be/HMQkV5cTuoY

    Replies: @SFG, @Che Guava

    Wow. I heard of that video before, saw stills, what wondrous logic! Made me sick. Why is it in English, I am puzzled.

    For Wilkey,
    ‘sixth cousins thrice removed’, given the first-cousin marriage fetish, I would doubt that there are too many of those!

  136. @Rob McX
    Killing terrorists' families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims. But if the will to take such drastic measures was there, it wouldn't be needed, because any country genuinely determined to protect its people from terrorists wouldn't let in Muslims in the first place.

    The same applies to countless other solutions I see proposed to tackle terrorism. It's like telling a pathological arsonist how to put out fires.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Erik Sieven, @Corvinus

    “Killing terrorists’ families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims.”

    And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall."

    I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it.

    But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  137. @Jack D
    13th century French women:

    http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/11/55/13/14/sky_ha10.jpg

    Christian women were once upon a time also not allowed to dress like whores in public.

    Persian miniature, 17th century

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Reza_Abbasi_-_Two_Lovers_%281630%29.jpg

    The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam.

    The biggest mistake we ever made was to give the Saudis trillions of $ which they used to spread Wahhabism worldwide. They used to be as poor as church mice and their version of Islam was considered about as mainstream as snake handling is in Christianity.

    When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve - kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed.

    Replies: @Monopthalmus, @Corvinus, @Jefferson

    “When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve – kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed.”

    So, Mr. Sailer, is this the “South Asian level of barbarism” you are talking about? Or is this the souped-up European version? Or the highly-charged American way of violence? I’m really confused…

    And regarding “separate countries”, best wishes advocating “unseparating” America.

  138. @Anonymous
    Another, further, point is that this insane Economist magazine driven agenda of uncontrolled unlimited third world immigration into Europe coincides more or less exactly with the inexorably and apparently irrevocable demographic decline of autochthnous European peoples from their ancient homelands.

    There can only be one outcome of this - the extinction of ethnic Europeans and the establishment of 'Greater Yemen'.

    Replies: @JVO, @anon

    apparently irrevocable demographic decline

    As absolutely no attempt has been made to revoke the decline in White birth rates I take using the word “irrevocable” as a anti-white demoralization tactic from an enemy.

    (although i suspect it’s really probably just gloating)

  139. @Ed
    @rod1963

    Funny my uncle's African nurse said the same thing. It was during the Paris attacks, CNN was on. She walks in watches a few seconds the shakes her head & says the white people are too nice, they should kick out all the Muslims. She then goes on with her duties.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    And, to concur, my mother-in-law’s Jamaican aide said the same. When my SJW sister-in-law was talking about the Syrian migrants in Europe, the aide said, “Those men should be back home fighting for their country.”

    My sister-in-law was horrified and told her that many more people are killed by right-wing white terrorists in this country than Muslims. (A phony statistic that ignores the vast difference in percentage of the population of whites and Muslims.)

  140. @AndrewR
    @Sean

    Yikes. It's amazing how the British went from cold-blooded state terrorists to total cucks in less than a century. No happy medium.

    Replies: @anon

    Their media was taken over by a hostile minority.

  141. @officious intermeddler
    But of course, we're not allowed to notice why we can't have nice things like civilization and tolerance. From today's paper:

    Father accused of fatally shooting son because he was gay

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html
     

    Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said late Friday. “Despite all the civil rights victories we’ve had in the last few years, we still live in a society where people face violence or even murder by their parents, simply by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity."
     
    Name of the father: Shehada Khalil Issa.

    Headline on most news stories identify the killer as "California man" or "LA man".

    The headline on the original CBS story subversively read, "LA man Shehada Issa charged with killing son for being gay" but was quickly changed to "LA man charged with killing son for being gay"

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Anonymous, @Rob McX

    Contrast this to what happens when it’s a Muslim who was the victim of a white aggressor, as happened in Brussels yesterday when a woman was run over (apparently deliberately) by a car. Series of consecutive headlines on the story, from Google News search page:

    Horrifying footage shows Muslim woman ‘mown down’ by car during …
    Mirror.co.uk-1 hour ago

    Shocking footage of Muslim woman being hit by car in Brussels …
    Metro-4 hours ago

    Muslim woman mown down in hit-and-run during banned Brussels …
    ITV News-13 hours ago

    Muslim woman mowed down in Molenbeek, Brussels
    New Zealand Herald-14 hours ago

    Muslim woman run over in far right protest as third terror suspect …
    In-Depth-Stuff.co.nz-12 hours ago

    • Replies: @CJ
    @Rob McX

    The news stories I have read say that the police arrested the driver, who they describe as a "local man", and his passenger, described as also being "from Molenbeek". None of the stories name the arrested or give any other description. Molenbeek is described as "majority-Muslim" and from the accounts of the neighborhood I have seen, that seems to be a heavy majority, something like 90%. As far as I can tell we don't yet know who the driver is and what his motivation was.

  142. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753
    @NOTA

    So far, terrorist attacks haven't killed that many people. But just wait till they sabotage a nuclear plant, like they nearly did in Belgium. Adults should prepare for the worst. We Europeans used to get more respect when we were ruthless.

    Replies: @anon

    So far, terrorist attacks haven’t killed that many people.

    You’re right so far but it’s not going to take a nuke plant.

    This has gradually got worse over 30-40 years and if you watched it happen on the ground you could (and people did) predict this 30 years ago.

    It started with the law being gradually gradual squeezed out as ethnic enclaves first developed: fraud, illegal immigration, communities colluding in covering up sexual crimes against non-muslim girls etc. As the ethnic enclaves got bigger it became more explicitly pro Sharia law rather than just anti infidel law with a growth in the pressure on Muslims to follow Sharia e.g. from illegally selling booze to not stocking booze at all.

    So large scale guerrilla war to impose Sharia in a more systematic way was inevitable (and was predicted) *as soon as* there were enough, big enough enclaves in enough cities and that point has only just arrived (in Europe, not yet in the US so the US has a chance to save itself).

    So I predict a jump of around two orders of magnitude within the next two to ten years just from mid-east like car bombs in crowded places.

    • Agree: BB753
  143. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @officious intermeddler

    The father's name Shehada Khalil Issa sure sounds Islamic (shahada = the profession of faith that "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"; Issa = the Islamic name for Jesus).
    But on a wall in the parents' house is a crucifix, as shown in a photo at
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520151/LA-man-accused-shoot-son-gay-wife-killed.html
    Did no reporter think to ask, "What religion are these people?"?

    Replies: @Clyde, @anon

    They probably assumed he was Muslim and censored the news. If he was a Christian and they knew it they wouldn’t have censored the story.

  144. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel’s actions wrt refugees, that hasn’t been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all.

    She created a crisis which the EU used to power grab immigration policy and frontier control away from the member states without any democratic mandate or discussion.

    “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    In short; they’re sociopaths.

    Western national democracies put a lot of constraints on the exercise of power and sociopath politicians have been trying to change that with the EU which has almost no built in checks and balances.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    @anon

    Maybe so--I certainly don't claim to be an expert on EU politics. But it's hard for me to see how this will translate into a more powerful Merkel or a more powerful EU. My impression is that the inflow of refugees and related collateral damage has massively strengthened the parties that want to exit the EU, and in practice has closed a bunch of previously-open borders.

  145. @Sean
    @NOTA

    It's not a blunder from the point of view of a Germany that wants to dominate Europe, but has to use non military methods. It will entail massive sacrifices, but they do that kind of Wagnerian stuff every now and again. You didn't think the world had heard the last of Germany, did you?

    Replies: @anon

    It’s not a blunder from the point of view of a Germany that wants to dominate Europe

    It’s obviously an even bigger blunder in that context.

  146. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Were we naive? Perhaps. Most of the refugees who stayed at our home were men in their 20s. They didn’t talk much. Some never even said “thank you”. One seemed to feel genuinely sorry for us because we have three daughters and no sons. Another asked, apropos of nothing, whether my wife was “a Jewish girl”.
     
    You have a three daughters and you a bunch of strange men, in their 20s, from a foreign civilization ... with quite different attitudes towards women, into your home? (The "Jewish girl?" comment about the wife implies she's not ancient and hence the daughters are still at home.)

    This is just ... insanity. Insanity. Some sort of mental disorder.

    Replies: @newrouter, @anon, @Jay, @anon

    media brain washing combined with some kind of genetic predisposition to motivation by guilt.

    if the media told the whole truth about “diversity” then this wouldn’t be happening

  147. I think that Muslim rulers have always been more draconian than their Christian/Hindu/Buddhist counterparts. Can someone back me up on that? In Saudi Arabia, if you steal, you can get your hand cut off. That doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.
    I read a book on the Ottoman Empire once. When a prince became the new Sultan, he would have all his brothers put to death to ensure that there were no succession issues. They did this because they didn’t want any civil unrest (which was part of the reason why the Abbasid Empire weakened). I know that some European rulers did similar foul deeds but it seems that individual liberty is least respected in Muslim countries. What is the cause of this? Is it the Quran? Are Middle Easterners just harder to control?

  148. @anonymous
    Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality. Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it's the only way. We're told this isn't possible but why isn't it? Because our leaders say so and refuse to take any steps to help the people of this country; their loyalties lay elsewhere. We have a failure of leadership. They're more interested in currying favor with Goldman-Sachs and living the good life than with the fact that the barbarians are heading our way.

    Replies: @Dsgntd_plyr, @SFG, @RonaldB

    “Europeans, Americans and other whites have evolved past the point where they feel comfortable regressing to barbarian behavior. …”

    And yet, there are times when such actions are carried out. There are too many examples to list them all, but take the burning of Cork in Ireland by the Black and Tan, the ravaging of Boer lands by the British during the second Boer War, the firebombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Were these immoral? Is it more immoral to carry out an atrocity, or to lose a war (and possibly your country and people)?

    The rules of justice and individual responsibility were developed for a relatively homogeneous society that takes the concept of individual responsibility seriously. It was the most ignorant action of the George W Bush administration to assume that Western government concepts could be transplanted to Islamic Middle Eastern countries.

    Maintaining rules of individual justice with Muslim invaders is exactly as effective as maintaining rules of engagement with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  149. @Buzz Mohawk
    I wish our mainstream media would broadcast uncensored videos of the aftermaths of Islamic bombings and shootings. When one watches those, one is so shaken, sad and disgusted that going after the Islamic terrorists' complicit inner circles becomes eminently reasonable.

    At Boston, Brussels, etc. there were screaming, moaning people with limbs blown off, bones sticking out. HORROR perpetrated by jackasses from a psychopathic society with folks at home who know what they do.

    Replies: @NOTA, @RamonaQ, @Seran

    Exactly, why are there no photos of dead children? They are faceless victims.

    If they would show the victims of these terror attacks, the public would become more “islamophobic”. They are just a faceless group, a statistic, but a dead child syrian child at the beach is a tradegy.

  150. @Clyde
    @BB753


    Hell, even Budists play dirty with Muslims, like we saw in Burma, where not long ago budist monks expelled and butchered Muslims, because they knew they’ll show no mercy in return.
     
    Thailand Buddhists have done the same in their "restive south" which is proximate to Muslim Malaysia. Muslims have been brutal and gone on monk killing sprees. The Buddhists have given them back the same.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1259404/buddhists-move-restive-southern-thailand

    Replies: @Bill B.

    I looked at the SCMP story and – noticed that a Hong Kong man has built is own Scarlett Johansson.

    http://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/1933145/hong-kong-man-makes-his-own-scarlett-johansson-robot

  151. @bomag
    @Reg Cæsar


    Italians vs Thais
     
    I'm not sure about the particular example you are referencing, but the general point is that you can have Thai and Italian restaurants without importing a large demographic cohort.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …but the general point is that you can have Thai and Italian restaurants without importing a large demographic cohort.

    Exactly. That’s why I said his point was sound, but his choice of example was bizarre. Thais aren’t a counterexample, but a better example.

    Is there a thicket of Thais near Studio City that might lead a resident to overestimate Thai presence in America?

    More importantly, are there other nationalities that might be praised for their emigratory restraint? How about Indonesians? Few of their 250,000,000+ are here. The only Indonesian-Americans that come to mind are the President’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, and Cyril Jordan of the Flaming Groovies. Both had a white parent.

  152. @Monopthalmus
    @Jack D

    Or, buy oil elsewhere.

    Propping up a family as vile as the House of Saud and putting up with their garbage for decades is senseless when it's all done for a commodity available in other places.

    Replies: @anon

    In fact the United States imports very little oil from the middle east region. It is a canard that America itself is dependent on oil from this region.

    • Replies: @Monopthalmus
    @anon

    Oh, I know the US isn't dependent on them, but they do still purchase from them. The amount of oil the US purchases may be comparatively small, but it still puts money in the pocket of some very irritating scum, so why not send that money elsewhere?

    Replies: @BB753, @NOTA

  153. @Dsgntd_plyr
    @anonymous


    The example of the last war shocked the civilized people of the world and spurred on a desire to move to a higher level of morality.
    Collective punishment is no longer considered to be something civilized people do. The best way is to not have people who are, in effect, enemy nationalities in our midst; perhaps it’s the only way.
     
    The desire to be "civilized," prevents the common sense policy of immigration restriction because immigration restriction is collective punishment. The behavior of past immigrants prevents new immigrants from entering.

    So our leaders will do nothing until jihadists begin targeting SWPLs, LGBTs, and Jews.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    The desire to be “civilized,” prevents the common sense policy of immigration restriction because immigration restriction is collective punishment. The behavior of past immigrants prevents new immigrants from entering.

    No, that’s not right. It needn’t have anything to do with behavior. Opposition to national cuckoldry suffices.

    Your comment presumes a default position that others are entitled to what we have created unless they are expected to behave badly. That’s not a sound presumption.

  154. @Mr. Anon
    @whorefinder

    "The asset forfeiture system already in place might work well. It would be better than passing laws explicitly doing so, since that would raise alarms and have constitutional challenges immediately. Asset forfeiture has been tough to beat in court as is."

    I wouldn't be so quick to advocate a policy that might make asset forfeiture popular. I think we should eliminate most asset forfeiture laws and/or policies, which are turning law enforcement organizations into gangs of freebooters.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Agreed. Asset forfeiture is already too popular; it is part of police department budgets under “revenues”.

  155. @NOTA
    @whorefinder

    Don't assume some new state power or use of state power will be in the hands of your friends--instead imagine it in the hands of your enemies. If the authorities can rob the mosque for sponsoring a speaker who is claimed to have radicalized someone, they can do the same with a church that has a pro-life speaker, if someone at the church later shoots an abortion doctor or something.

    The whole war on terror is an exercise in handing really scary, easy-to-misuse powers to the state in response to a very small threat.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @scrivener3

    I like the way you think. Yesterday I posted: You want the kind of State that, if it were under the control of your worse enemy, you would be OK.

    Because you know, the people who control the State are not and never will be your friends. Hillary and Bill “work tirelessly for the little people” give me a break!

    If you think the State might possibly be on your side, try this test. Are you wealthy? If you were a friend of the people who control the State or any major institution it is comprised of, you would be wealthy.

  156. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    "Killing terrorists’ families would certainly be preferable to being massacred and enslaved by Muslims."

    And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall.”

    I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it.

    But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it."

    Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It's actually a hunch on your part.

    "But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you."

    Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  157. @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "And this event is ongoing in the States, right? I mean, all of those Muzzie boys and girls yelling death to infidels in the streets of Anytown, USA is a sign of our downfall."

    I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it.

    But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it.”

    Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It’s actually a hunch on your part.

    “But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you.”

    Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It’s actually a hunch on your part."

    No, you are wrong. Public opinion surveys (in the UK, for example) tend to bear that out.

    "Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost."

    Know better than you? Hell yes. Everyone knows better than you. You are a f**king idiot.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  158. CJ says:
    @Rob McX
    @officious intermeddler

    Contrast this to what happens when it's a Muslim who was the victim of a white aggressor, as happened in Brussels yesterday when a woman was run over (apparently deliberately) by a car. Series of consecutive headlines on the story, from Google News search page:


    Horrifying footage shows Muslim woman 'mown down' by car during ...
    Mirror.co.uk-1 hour ago

    Shocking footage of Muslim woman being hit by car in Brussels ...
    Metro-4 hours ago

    Muslim woman mown down in hit-and-run during banned Brussels ...
    ITV News-13 hours ago

    Muslim woman mowed down in Molenbeek, Brussels
    New Zealand Herald-14 hours ago

    Muslim woman run over in far right protest as third terror suspect ...
    In-Depth-Stuff.co.nz-12 hours ago
     

    Replies: @CJ

    The news stories I have read say that the police arrested the driver, who they describe as a “local man”, and his passenger, described as also being “from Molenbeek”. None of the stories name the arrested or give any other description. Molenbeek is described as “majority-Muslim” and from the accounts of the neighborhood I have seen, that seems to be a heavy majority, something like 90%. As far as I can tell we don’t yet know who the driver is and what his motivation was.

  159. @NOTA
    @Anonymous

    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel's actions wrt refugees, that hasn't been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all. It seemed obvious that this would go badly, cause massive political blowback, and probably eventually drive her from power.

    I can't piece together a coherent reasoning process that would have led her to that decision. It's not like she seemed especially softhearted with the Greeks earlier--instead she seemed like she was pursuing German interests without worrying overmuch about Greek interests. (Which makes sense--that's her job, after all.)

    Even assuming a rather sudden desire to carry out some great humanitarian act by letting in a lot of refugees from Syria, this was a nutty way to do it. Taking in a smaller number of refugees, in an orderly and planned way, could probably have worked out. At least, it wouldn't have been a huge visible disaster. But the way she did it is such an obvious disaster that it has already caused a lot of backlash, including closing European borders that had been open for decades. And it will probably get worse--I could imagine this ultimately being be thing that wrecks the EU, and it would be unsurprising to see Merkel lose power over it.

    Was it some complex geopolitical triple-bank shot that just didn't come off as planned? Did she have a burst of nostalgia for when the East German border guards started letting people cross and somehow feel like inviting every refugee in Syria to come to Germany was morally equivalent to it? Was it some misunderstanding or misstep or random comment which, once started, she somehow felt she couldn't back down from? Was she under pressure from someone to do it? (Who would have been able to apply that kind of pressure? Germany is a big, rich, powerful country--it can't be so easy as that to make demands of the chancellor.).

    In my darker moments, I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can't back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    Replies: @Sean, @Ozymandias, @Charlesz Martel, @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can’t back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    That’s the only explanation I can think of for why Obama pursued the completely futile, worthless “surge” in Afghanistan: he promised it in his campaign. Considering all the campaign promises he reneged on, I don’t know why he felt obligated to pursue this waste of American lives and treasure.

    Breitbart, October 2015:

    At least 2,230 U.S. service members have been killed and another 20,127 injured in the ongoing conflict, which started on October 7, 2001. . . . Three out of every four U.S. military deaths (75 percent) and an estimated 9 out of every 10 injuries (87 percent) in Afghanistan have taken place since Obama became president.

    BTW, Obama can get convincingly tearful about Americans killed by “gun violence.” I doubt he ever sheds tears about the many innocent people killed as a result of his own decisions.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Harry Baldwin

    Obama learned early that he can kick back and relax on Afghanistan and his campaign promises that Afghanistan was justifiable but not Iraq. Exactly who is getting chewed up in the Afghani meat grinder? Special forces and special forces types aka white boys and white country boys. A few Hispanics and others. Blacks are way back in the supply lines.

  160. @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "I have no doubt that many of them are saying it in their mosques and in their homes, including all of those smiling liars of CAIR who profess loyalty to America while secretly trying to undermine it."

    Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It's actually a hunch on your part.

    "But they do not signal the real downfall of America. That is better signified by the insipid opinions expressed by nitwits like you."

    Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It’s actually a hunch on your part.”

    No, you are wrong. Public opinion surveys (in the UK, for example) tend to bear that out.

    “Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost.”

    Know better than you? Hell yes. Everyone knows better than you. You are a f**king idiot.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mr. Anon

    "No, you are wrong. Public opinion surveys (in the UK, for example) tend to bear that out."

    Please show the question on those surveys where it states that "Muslims are undoubtedly planning jihad in their mosques or homes".

    "Know better than you? Hell yes."

    So, I'm sure you have the relevant statistics indicating the daily or monthly events in which American Muslims are executing those plans, that this threat is dire.

  161. @Harry Baldwin
    @NOTA

    I suspect that a huge number of screw-ups are just random missteps or political posturing that goes too far, and then decision makers feeling like they can’t back down once they seem to have committed to something.

    That's the only explanation I can think of for why Obama pursued the completely futile, worthless "surge" in Afghanistan: he promised it in his campaign. Considering all the campaign promises he reneged on, I don't know why he felt obligated to pursue this waste of American lives and treasure.

    Breitbart, October 2015:


    At least 2,230 U.S. service members have been killed and another 20,127 injured in the ongoing conflict, which started on October 7, 2001. . . . Three out of every four U.S. military deaths (75 percent) and an estimated 9 out of every 10 injuries (87 percent) in Afghanistan have taken place since Obama became president.
     
    BTW, Obama can get convincingly tearful about Americans killed by "gun violence." I doubt he ever sheds tears about the many innocent people killed as a result of his own decisions.

    Replies: @Clyde

    Obama learned early that he can kick back and relax on Afghanistan and his campaign promises that Afghanistan was justifiable but not Iraq. Exactly who is getting chewed up in the Afghani meat grinder? Special forces and special forces types aka white boys and white country boys. A few Hispanics and others. Blacks are way back in the supply lines.

  162. Obama’s drone strikes take out mostly civilians and relatives … the drone jockeys call the killed children “funny size terrorists”

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @empty

    "Obama’s drone strikes take out mostly civilians and relatives … the drone jockeys call the killed children “funny size terrorists”"

    Do you mean "fun-sized" terrorists, as in "fun-sized" candybars?

    Replies: @Sailer has an interesting life

  163. @anon
    @Monopthalmus

    In fact the United States imports very little oil from the middle east region. It is a canard that America itself is dependent on oil from this region.

    Replies: @Monopthalmus

    Oh, I know the US isn’t dependent on them, but they do still purchase from them. The amount of oil the US purchases may be comparatively small, but it still puts money in the pocket of some very irritating scum, so why not send that money elsewhere?

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Monopthalmus

    Because 99 % of US politicians are on the pay-roll of the House of Saud™.

    , @NOTA
    @Monopthalmus

    Even if we don't buy oil from SA, the world price of oil is heavily dependent on SA's supply, and that affects the price here as well.

    The thought that we might one day dispense with the services of many of the world's oil producing regimes is one thing that makes me pretty enthusiastic about nuclear, solar, wind, biofuel, and any other source of energy that doesn't end up being bought from medeval horrors like the Saudis.

  164. @Monopthalmus
    @anon

    Oh, I know the US isn't dependent on them, but they do still purchase from them. The amount of oil the US purchases may be comparatively small, but it still puts money in the pocket of some very irritating scum, so why not send that money elsewhere?

    Replies: @BB753, @NOTA

    Because 99 % of US politicians are on the pay-roll of the House of Saud™.

  165. I have said this from the start. The people who were killed in California had given that woman a baby shower for God’s sake. And they were building weapons in the garage and no family member knew? If it were up to me, the FBI would show up on the doorstep of the family of any immigrant that commits a terrorist act or is involved in a terrorist act, with a truck load of suitcases and plane tickets to the Muslim country 0f our choice. See ya. Instead of raping this country and then killing its citizens, go live in the slums in the third world country your backward culture creates.

  166. @Jefferson
    @rod1963

    "I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect ‘that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people’."

    Mindanao is the Filipino island with a high percentage of Muslims. But The U.S do not receive a lot of Muslims from Mindanao, we overwhelmingly get the Catholic Filipinos. Similiar to how Lebanese immigration to Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil was overwhelmingly Christian.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    My wife is from Mindanao and the big island is definitely majority Catholic, not even close to majority Muslim.

    And, while most of our Filipino immigrants are from the Tagalog-speaking northern half of the country, we get a lot from the Visayan-speaking central and southern regions too.

    Of the hundreds of Filipinos I’ve known in the USA and Canada, none has been a Muslim, but I don’t know more broadly whether Muslims are also coming here from southern Phils.

    • Replies: @Karl
    @RadicalCenter

    >>> My wife is from Mindanao

    bisaya girls are good at jer-jer, that's for sure. And they run lower maintenance than Manila chicks.

    Wonder if you knew that the city of Zamboanga is Spanish speaking. Well, as close to real Spanish as newyorican is. Close enough for mutual intelligibility. There's outsource call-center joints in Zambo which service Spain & Latin America.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

  167. @Monopthalmus
    @anon

    Oh, I know the US isn't dependent on them, but they do still purchase from them. The amount of oil the US purchases may be comparatively small, but it still puts money in the pocket of some very irritating scum, so why not send that money elsewhere?

    Replies: @BB753, @NOTA

    Even if we don’t buy oil from SA, the world price of oil is heavily dependent on SA’s supply, and that affects the price here as well.

    The thought that we might one day dispense with the services of many of the world’s oil producing regimes is one thing that makes me pretty enthusiastic about nuclear, solar, wind, biofuel, and any other source of energy that doesn’t end up being bought from medeval horrors like the Saudis.

  168. @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "Yeah, that’s the disconnect that keeps stunning me. I mean, I get why people don’t like Trump’s idea of banning all Muslim immigration–that’s probably overbroad and maybe unconstitutional."

    "that’s probably overbroad....."

    It isn't.

    "..... and maybe unconstitutional."

    And,.....it isn't.

    Replies: @NOTA

    If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump’s stated goal), it’s overbroad–there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don’t. I think Rand Paul’s initial proposal, which Trump ran with and expanded, was to stop immigration from specific countries where there was a lot of ISIS/Al Qaida activity. That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions–as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here. Would it make sense to break that alliance to keep from letting them come in? I’m not sure about that–the Saudis make nauseating and troublesome allies, but the example of Iraq and Syria makes me suspect we would not like the kind of folks who might come to power there if we weren’t backing the current royal family.

    I don’t know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be. I suspect the answer would in practice turn on whether foreigners had a right to challenge the policy in U.S. court or not, but I’m not a lawyer and don’t aspire to be one.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @NOTA

    Let me tell you, the likes of Saddam and Assad are less troublesome than either the Saudis or Saudi-backed ISIS.
    We should give Saudi Arabia an Arab Spring treatment, and make sure a non-religious military junta takes over. Keep them bribed and happy, let the oil flow, and stop the funding of wahabism worldwide. I don't care what happens to the thousands of Saudi royals.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA

    "If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump’s stated goal), it’s overbroad–there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don’t."

    Not as many, true. It is also true that we don't need Indonesians here. We got along fine for nearly our entire history without admitting Indonesian immigrants. They have no claim on us and no fundmental right to come here.

    "That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions–as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here."

    Well, there's a simple solution to that. Stop thinking of them as an ally. They aren't. The Saudis export wahabism, and they export their hot-heads in order to keep them from causing trouble for the clan of despots who rule their country.

    "I don’t know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be."

    It isn't.

  169. @anon
    @NOTA


    I would really love to understand whether there was some reasoning behind Merkel’s actions wrt refugees, that hasn’t been released yet. Because it has never made any sense to me at all.
     
    She created a crisis which the EU used to power grab immigration policy and frontier control away from the member states without any democratic mandate or discussion.

    “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984
     
    In short; they're sociopaths.

    Western national democracies put a lot of constraints on the exercise of power and sociopath politicians have been trying to change that with the EU which has almost no built in checks and balances.

    Replies: @NOTA

    Maybe so–I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on EU politics. But it’s hard for me to see how this will translate into a more powerful Merkel or a more powerful EU. My impression is that the inflow of refugees and related collateral damage has massively strengthened the parties that want to exit the EU, and in practice has closed a bunch of previously-open borders.

  170. @NOTA
    @Mr. Anon

    If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump's stated goal), it's overbroad--there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don't. I think Rand Paul's initial proposal, which Trump ran with and expanded, was to stop immigration from specific countries where there was a lot of ISIS/Al Qaida activity. That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions--as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here. Would it make sense to break that alliance to keep from letting them come in? I'm not sure about that--the Saudis make nauseating and troublesome allies, but the example of Iraq and Syria makes me suspect we would not like the kind of folks who might come to power there if we weren't backing the current royal family.

    I don't know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be. I suspect the answer would in practice turn on whether foreigners had a right to challenge the policy in U.S. court or not, but I'm not a lawyer and don't aspire to be one.

    Replies: @BB753, @Mr. Anon

    Let me tell you, the likes of Saddam and Assad are less troublesome than either the Saudis or Saudi-backed ISIS.
    We should give Saudi Arabia an Arab Spring treatment, and make sure a non-religious military junta takes over. Keep them bribed and happy, let the oil flow, and stop the funding of wahabism worldwide. I don’t care what happens to the thousands of Saudi royals.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @BB753

    "We should give Saudi Arabia an Arab Spring treatment, and make sure a non-religious military junta takes over. Keep them bribed and happy, let the oil flow, and stop the funding of wahabism worldwide. I don’t care what happens to the thousands of Saudi royals."

    Indeed. The world would probably be better off if the Arabian peninsula were under the control of a Kemalist-like military junta.

  171. @rod1963
    I remember one Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm who told me to the effect 'that Americans are far too nice in dealing with these people'.

    That sums up the West's mentality to Islam.

    But until the advent of importing Muslims we didn't need to be serious hard asses. But we do now. If we don't we're going to be ripped apart by them.

    Of course we don't have to descend to the level of the Russians if we simply expel them all. It would be the most humane approach, rather than endure a series of terrorist attacks that spawn a nationwide backlash against the Muzzies and their government enablers.

    However given the sort of Ivy League educated idiots we have at the helm of state, I have every confidence that they will continue to merrily import millions more until one day they decide it's time to slice and dice us. Our response will of course be very PC and weak. Some attacks will never be reported at all.

    For example just a couple of days ago a black man(a career criminal with a pistol and 140 rounds of ammo) in Richmond Virginia shot and killed a police officer at a bus terminal just out of the blue and wounded six other people. The story disappeared after a day or two because the killer was a vicious black thug.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-virginia-shooting-james-brown-aurora-20160401-story.html

    Or how about those two attacks by Muslims on the West coast that vanished down the memory hole?

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Pomegranate, @Former Darfur, @tsotha, @Ed, @Karl

    >> Filipino nurse who was raised in a region where Muslim violence was the norm

    If you believe the National Statistics Office, the (Philippines) Autonomous Region of Mindanao, has the country’s lowest rate of property crimes. And having run amongst those people, I do believe that.

    The violence-on-strangers is also very, very low. What is notable, is the clan warfare. Hatfields-McCoys type of stuff known as “rido”. The local jefe’s (civil authorities, not Imams) can usually shut each outbreak down after each side has an equal number of casualties.

    Imams don’t have any real influence in Muslim Mindanao.

  172. @RadicalCenter
    @Jefferson

    My wife is from Mindanao and the big island is definitely majority Catholic, not even close to majority Muslim.

    And, while most of our Filipino immigrants are from the Tagalog-speaking northern half of the country, we get a lot from the Visayan-speaking central and southern regions too.

    Of the hundreds of Filipinos I've known in the USA and Canada, none has been a Muslim, but I don't know more broadly whether Muslims are also coming here from southern Phils.

    Replies: @Karl

    >>> My wife is from Mindanao

    bisaya girls are good at jer-jer, that’s for sure. And they run lower maintenance than Manila chicks.

    Wonder if you knew that the city of Zamboanga is Spanish speaking. Well, as close to real Spanish as newyorican is. Close enough for mutual intelligibility. There’s outsource call-center joints in Zambo which service Spain & Latin America.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Karl

    Don't know what jer-jer is and please remember that we are talking about my wife here.

    As for Zamboanga, yep they speak Chabacano, which is considered a Spanish-based Creole, but it's generally NOT mutually intelligible with Spanish.

    The Zamboangueno dialect of Chabacano -- one of only two such dialects, along with the Cavite version, which is not extinct or soon to be extinct -- uses archaic Spanish words and phrases, and the difficulty is exacerbated by the ongoing influx of Tagalog and English words into Chabacano.

    I'm told that Spanish speakers can easily understand many words in Chabacano but have a very hard time understanding whole sentences, let alone a conversation, especially at a conversational pace. Chabacano is centuries-old Spanish mixed with Visayan and to a much lesser extent Tagalog, and to a much much lesser extent Arabic.

  173. @BB753
    @NOTA

    Let me tell you, the likes of Saddam and Assad are less troublesome than either the Saudis or Saudi-backed ISIS.
    We should give Saudi Arabia an Arab Spring treatment, and make sure a non-religious military junta takes over. Keep them bribed and happy, let the oil flow, and stop the funding of wahabism worldwide. I don't care what happens to the thousands of Saudi royals.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “We should give Saudi Arabia an Arab Spring treatment, and make sure a non-religious military junta takes over. Keep them bribed and happy, let the oil flow, and stop the funding of wahabism worldwide. I don’t care what happens to the thousands of Saudi royals.”

    Indeed. The world would probably be better off if the Arabian peninsula were under the control of a Kemalist-like military junta.

  174. @NOTA
    @Mr. Anon

    If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump's stated goal), it's overbroad--there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don't. I think Rand Paul's initial proposal, which Trump ran with and expanded, was to stop immigration from specific countries where there was a lot of ISIS/Al Qaida activity. That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions--as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here. Would it make sense to break that alliance to keep from letting them come in? I'm not sure about that--the Saudis make nauseating and troublesome allies, but the example of Iraq and Syria makes me suspect we would not like the kind of folks who might come to power there if we weren't backing the current royal family.

    I don't know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be. I suspect the answer would in practice turn on whether foreigners had a right to challenge the policy in U.S. court or not, but I'm not a lawyer and don't aspire to be one.

    Replies: @BB753, @Mr. Anon

    “If your goal is keeping ISIS et al from slipping terrorists in (Trump’s stated goal), it’s overbroad–there are particular countries (including Syria and Iraq) that have a lot of ISIS types, and others (like Indonesia) that don’t.”

    Not as many, true. It is also true that we don’t need Indonesians here. We got along fine for nearly our entire history without admitting Indonesian immigrants. They have no claim on us and no fundmental right to come here.

    “That sounds pretty sensible to me, though there might still be reasons to make exceptions–as one example, as long as Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally, we probably will need to be letting a fair number or Saudis come over here.”

    Well, there’s a simple solution to that. Stop thinking of them as an ally. They aren’t. The Saudis export wahabism, and they export their hot-heads in order to keep them from causing trouble for the clan of despots who rule their country.

    “I don’t know for sure that a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional, but it seems like it might be.”

    It isn’t.

  175. @Karl
    @RadicalCenter

    >>> My wife is from Mindanao

    bisaya girls are good at jer-jer, that's for sure. And they run lower maintenance than Manila chicks.

    Wonder if you knew that the city of Zamboanga is Spanish speaking. Well, as close to real Spanish as newyorican is. Close enough for mutual intelligibility. There's outsource call-center joints in Zambo which service Spain & Latin America.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    Don’t know what jer-jer is and please remember that we are talking about my wife here.

    As for Zamboanga, yep they speak Chabacano, which is considered a Spanish-based Creole, but it’s generally NOT mutually intelligible with Spanish.

    The Zamboangueno dialect of Chabacano — one of only two such dialects, along with the Cavite version, which is not extinct or soon to be extinct — uses archaic Spanish words and phrases, and the difficulty is exacerbated by the ongoing influx of Tagalog and English words into Chabacano.

    I’m told that Spanish speakers can easily understand many words in Chabacano but have a very hard time understanding whole sentences, let alone a conversation, especially at a conversational pace. Chabacano is centuries-old Spanish mixed with Visayan and to a much lesser extent Tagalog, and to a much much lesser extent Arabic.

  176. @empty
    Obama's drone strikes take out mostly civilians and relatives ... the drone jockeys call the killed children "funny size terrorists"

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “Obama’s drone strikes take out mostly civilians and relatives … the drone jockeys call the killed children “funny size terrorists””

    Do you mean “fun-sized” terrorists, as in “fun-sized” candybars?

    • Replies: @Sailer has an interesting life
    @Mr. Anon

    You know what else is fun sized? Your posts. They are just the right size for me to laugh at and call you stupid and inferior between reading the actual, useful commenters. Never change you human garbage. Not that you could, being inferior and all.

  177. @Mr. Anon
    @empty

    "Obama’s drone strikes take out mostly civilians and relatives … the drone jockeys call the killed children “funny size terrorists”"

    Do you mean "fun-sized" terrorists, as in "fun-sized" candybars?

    Replies: @Sailer has an interesting life

    You know what else is fun sized? Your posts. They are just the right size for me to laugh at and call you stupid and inferior between reading the actual, useful commenters. Never change you human garbage. Not that you could, being inferior and all.

  178. @Mr. Anon
    @Corvinus

    "Just because you think that way does not mean it is observably accurate. It’s actually a hunch on your part."

    No, you are wrong. Public opinion surveys (in the UK, for example) tend to bear that out.

    "Right, because YOU know better regarding the aspirations of American Muslims to install Sharia law here and make the United States an Islamic outpost."

    Know better than you? Hell yes. Everyone knows better than you. You are a f**king idiot.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “No, you are wrong. Public opinion surveys (in the UK, for example) tend to bear that out.”

    Please show the question on those surveys where it states that “Muslims are undoubtedly planning jihad in their mosques or homes”.

    “Know better than you? Hell yes.”

    So, I’m sure you have the relevant statistics indicating the daily or monthly events in which American Muslims are executing those plans, that this threat is dire.

  179. @Jack D
    13th century French women:

    http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/11/55/13/14/sky_ha10.jpg

    Christian women were once upon a time also not allowed to dress like whores in public.

    Persian miniature, 17th century

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Reza_Abbasi_-_Two_Lovers_%281630%29.jpg

    The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam.

    The biggest mistake we ever made was to give the Saudis trillions of $ which they used to spread Wahhabism worldwide. They used to be as poor as church mice and their version of Islam was considered about as mainstream as snake handling is in Christianity.

    When we found their oil, we should have just taken it. We should have given them just enough not to starve - kept them in the manner to which they were (then) accustomed.

    Replies: @Monopthalmus, @Corvinus, @Jefferson

    “The problem that we have now is not Islam per se but Wahhabism, which is a sort of Saudi Arabian hillbilly version of Islam.”

    Hillbilly White trash women dress like whores. So it is apples to oranges to compare them to Muslim women.

  180. @matt
    @reiner Tor

    You've missed my point entirely. If you acknowledge and oppose our "cruel wars", and yet advocate things like punishing the family members of anti-Western terrorists, then it makes the following question all the more acute: What sort of collective punishment are they entitled to inflict on us, in order to deter our "cruel wars" against them?

    Well? What? Can they torture drone operators? Murder the family members of drone operators? Especially given that our crimes (such as the invasion of Iraq) are far worse than the worst that jihadists have done against us, what sort of collective punishment can be appropriately inflicted on you and your family?

    Again, if you concede that we are committing atrocities, then the demand on you to answer that question is much greater than some blind patriot who doesn't believe America can ever sin.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    You are correct, I did miss your point.

    However, I don’t think there’s a universal moral that all people equally subscribe to. It’s obvious that they already think like that, and that they never thought otherwise.

    Now, I guess what you’re saying is that once we start doing what they did, we should accept them doing the same thing. But no.

    We can, for example, make collective punishment on our soil a government monopoly. Just like, we make any kind of punishment a government monopoly. I cannot decide what the punishment for someone who killed my daughter should be, and then carry out the punishment myself: it’s up to the courts and police.

    So what’s your point?

    • Replies: @matt
    @reiner Tor


    However, I don’t think there’s a universal moral that all people equally subscribe to. It’s obvious that they already think like that, and that they never thought otherwise.
     
    This is clearly irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether there are universal moral codes that all people subscribe to. What matters is whether there is a universal moral code that all people should subscribe to. That there is simply obvious. Universality distinguishes morality from mere amoral preference.

    We can, for example, make collective punishment on our soil a government monopoly.
     
    Again, irrelevant. Of course we can do anything that it is possible for us to do. Whether we should do it is another question entirely. Our answer should be guided by how we want others to treat us.

    I take it you disagree. That you disagree is also irrelevant. What I have said true and obvious.

  181. matt says:
    @reiner Tor
    @matt

    You are correct, I did miss your point.

    However, I don't think there's a universal moral that all people equally subscribe to. It's obvious that they already think like that, and that they never thought otherwise.

    Now, I guess what you're saying is that once we start doing what they did, we should accept them doing the same thing. But no.

    We can, for example, make collective punishment on our soil a government monopoly. Just like, we make any kind of punishment a government monopoly. I cannot decide what the punishment for someone who killed my daughter should be, and then carry out the punishment myself: it's up to the courts and police.

    So what's your point?

    Replies: @matt

    However, I don’t think there’s a universal moral that all people equally subscribe to. It’s obvious that they already think like that, and that they never thought otherwise.

    This is clearly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether there are universal moral codes that all people subscribe to. What matters is whether there is a universal moral code that all people should subscribe to. That there is simply obvious. Universality distinguishes morality from mere amoral preference.

    We can, for example, make collective punishment on our soil a government monopoly.

    Again, irrelevant. Of course we can do anything that it is possible for us to do. Whether we should do it is another question entirely. Our answer should be guided by how we want others to treat us.

    I take it you disagree. That you disagree is also irrelevant. What I have said true and obvious.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS