The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
A Dismal Anniversary—50 Years of the Immigration Act of 1965
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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
Signing the 1965 Immigration Act. Credit: VDare.com
Signing the 1965 Immigration Act. Credit: VDare.com

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration Act.

The 1965 Act did two big things, and a multitude of small ones.ustoadmit

The first big thing it did: abolish the old National-Origins quotas, established in 1921, revised in 1924 and 1929. The idea of the quotas was to maintain demographic stability by limiting settlement from any European country to some fixed percent of that country’s representation in a recent census.

The 1921 Act used the 1910 census as its benchmark. The 1924 Act used the 1890 census in order to reduce the quota numbers on South and East Europeans, who it was thought did not make as good citizens as north and west Europeans. The 1929 revision went to the 1920 census.

To present-day sensibilities it all sounds very horrible: “Whaddya mean, an Italian or a Pole doesn’t make as good a citizen as a German or Irishman? Whoa!”

But that was then and this is now. And personally, I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It’s up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It’s not up to foreigners.

If, when I applied for U.S. citizenship in 2001, the immigration authorities had said: “Sorry, pal, we don’t like the look of your teeth, and we have enough Brits anyway,” it would not have occurred to me that I had any grounds for complaint. I might have wheedled and pleaded a bit—”Come on, just one more won’t hurt, and I’ll find an orthodontist, I promise”— but if they’d sent me back to Blighty at last I would have understood. This country belongs to Americans. It’s for them and their legislators to say who they want joining them.

Those 1920s quotas applied to Europeans, by the way. Americans at that time didn’t want immigrants from Africa or Asia at all. A few hundred were admitted on exceptional bases, but they weren’t allowed to naturalize.

The Western Hemisphere—Latin America—was also left out of the quotas. Within an absolute and quite low ceiling on total immigration, numbers were not restricted. But there were literacy tests and job requirements that kept them low in practice.

You have to remember that what we now call the Third World didn’t seem very consequential back then. Africa, Asia, and Latin America were numerically inconsequential compared with the developed world, the white world.

Population of the British Isles, Britain and Ireland, in 1921: 47.3 million. Population of Mexico in 1921: 13.9 million. So there were only thirty percent as many Mexicans as Brits back then.

Population of the British Isles today: 68.6 million. Population of Mexico: 120.3 million. So today there are 75 percent more Mexicans than Brits. If you throw in the thirty or forty million people of Mexican origin in the U.S.A., it’s over twice as many. There are people alive today who have seen the ratio of Mexicans to Brits go from thirty percent to two hundred percent.

And yes, back then the black, brown, and yellow nations weren’t civilizationally consequential either. Today Pakistan has the atom bomb. In 1921 Pakistan did n’t even exist!

That’s the story of our age. Across a single lifetime the nonwhite peoples have gone from being backward and few to modern and many—way many. The civilizational gap has closed, technologically if not politically; the demographic gap hasn’t merely closed, it’s flipped. “Numbers are of the essence.”

So why did the 1965 Act abolish the national-origins quota system?

Well, much of it had gone by the board anyway by 1965. The Chinese Exclusion Act, for example, had been repealed in 1943 out of deference to an ally in the war against Japan. The previous year, 1942, had seen the Bracero program to bring in contract labor from Mexico. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 brought in half a million war refugees, mostly from Europe. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 ended most remaining racial restrictions. Other tinkerings and adjustments had been made.

So by 1965 the national-origins quota system had come considerably unraveled—though overall numbers were still kept low.

Then there was the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement.

The Cold War wasn’t just a military competition, remember; it was a competition for prestige. There was a widespread feeling that the U.S.S.R., with its egalitarian ethos, had a moral edge over the U.S.A., with its segregated drinking fountains and such.

Here’s an old Russian joke from Cold War days. Ivan, the generic Russian Everyman, is in conversation with a Communist Party official.

Ivan: Is it true that an engineer in America makes four times the salary of an engineer here in the Soviet Union?

Party guy: In America they lynch Negroes!

The second big thing the 1965 Act did: change the balance between skills-based immigration and family reunification—rather strongly towards the family-reunification side. Seventy-four percent of settlement visas were allocated to family reunification; a proportion that has kept pretty steady ever since.

The politics behind this was straightforward. The labor unions, which in those far-off days still saw it as their business to protect the American working man, didn’t want floods of skilled labor coming in to depress wages. And ethnic lobbies—which in those same days meant mainly East Europeans—wanted to bring relatives here.

The opening-up of immigration from the Third World, where families are bigger, pushed skill-based immigration further…into the shadows, if you like. There is no shortage of applications for family-reunification visas. That’s why we not only got the Texas clock boy Ahmed Mohamad and his Dad, Mohamed Mohamad, we got his invalid illiterate grandma, too.

The 1965 Act thus replaced the strictly-limited immigration regime of the previous forty years, whose main goal was demographic stability, with a mighty flood of immigrants, mostly from the Third World.

And a mighty flood it truly has been. I’ve just been reading this September 28th report out of the Pew Research Center. Opening sentence

Fifty years after passage of the landmark law that rewrote U.S. immigration policy, nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States, pushing the country’s foreign-born share to a near record 14 percent. [Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065]

Fifty-nine million. Did the U.S.A. of 1965 need 59 million more people? Was that the goal of the 1965 Act?

Not according to its sponsors. The Senate floor manager for the Act, when it was still a bill, was Teddy Kennedy. Quote from him at the time:

Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same …

That came with a raft of other promises: the promise, for example, to quote Senator Kennedy again, that

The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset …

Those assurances from Kennedy, and all the others, turned out to be false.

So what actually was the goal of the 1965 Act?

Ann Coulter, in a fine spirited column the other day, boiled it down to party politics. The Democrats, she wrote, knew they’d never get their progressive agenda through a supermajority-white electorate, so they decided to bring in a new electorate.

ORDER IT NOW

It’s certainly turned out that way. But with all respect to Ann, whom I love like a sister, I don’t buy her thesis of a deliberate plan to replace the electorate. Our politicians just don’t think that far ahead. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

In any country, at any time, totally outdated views of the rest of the world are the norm among people who don’t think much. The English people I grew up among in the 1950s all though of France in terms of Gay Paree hedonism, the Folies Bergère and such, as if we were still in the Belle Époque of the 1890s. In fact 1950s France was prim and dull.

These congresscritters of 1965 didn’t have their finger on the world’s demographic pulse. They didn’t spend their free time poring over population projections for Africa and Asia. Mentally, demography-wise, they were still in the 1920s, when the world’s nonwhites didn’t really count, weren’t really important, and existed mainly so that they, the congresscritters, could make grand moral gestures.

Making grand moral gestures is a thing politicians really, really like doing. And they never liked it more than in the Johnson Administration, the high tide of American liberal triumphalism.

Theodore White said that the 1965 Act was “probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society.” Historian Roger Daniels said: “Had Congress fully understood its consequences, it almost certainly would not have passed.”

A different historian, eighty years earlier, had famously said that the British Empire was acquired “in a fit of absence of mind.” A lot of stuff happens like that.

This year marks another immigration anniversary: the 20th anniversary of the publication, in the Spring of 1995, of VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow‘s Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster.

Peter discusses the 1965 Act at length in Chapter Four of his book. Here is a longish quote from the end:

In the end, Americans have to ask themselves very specific questions about the immigration flood unleashed upon their country by the politicians in 1965:

  • Has the mass immigration triggered by the 1965 reform made me and my family better off?
  • Has it made it easier or more difficult for us to work, to educate our children, to live our lives?
  • Has it resulted in more or less congestion? pollution? racial tension? crime?
  • Do I feel that it has made America respected for its generosity — or despised for its gullibility?
  • Are we stronger because immigration brought diversity? Or weaker because it brought divisiveness?
  • Has the post-1965 immigration enabled us to achieve more — or nothing that we could not have managed on our own?
  • What if the 1965 Act had worked as promised and there were fewer immigrants? Or if immigration had been stopped completely in 1965? Would America be a happier or unhappier place than it is today?

Well?

I can’t help but wonder.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books.He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Immigration 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “The second big thing the 1965 Act did: change the balance between skills-based immigration and family reunification—rather strongly towards the family-reunification side. Seventy-four percent of settlement visas were allocated to family reunification; a proportion that has kept pretty steady ever since.”

    Family reunification is anti-Islamic. The Islamic prayer for the dead, the
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat_al-Janazah ,
    rejects the idea that the deceased will be reunited with his family in heaven.
    Instead, the prayer is
    “O God, give him a home better than his home and a family better than his family.”
    Once our immigration laws are sharia-compliant,
    family reunification will have to be changed to family replacement.

  2. unit472 says:

    Its apparent that the effect, if not the intent, of the 1965 Immigration Act, was to make the United States the world’s colony. Every nation in the world, from Afghanistan to Zambia, was free to colonize the world’s richest economy. If you could start a war and get the US to become involved in it you got an immigration bonus. You could send additional people to the US particularly if you didn’t effectively defend your own nation. In fact, there was an economic incentive to lose the war as this would not only require more US military and economic aid to be provided but also open the door for those in power to flee to the US when their government collapsed. Thus rag tag ‘armies’ led by a Fidel Castro or Daniel Ortega could seize power while the ruling elites fled to Miami. It has gotten to the point that even those who were on the winning side prefer to claim ‘loser’ status if it can be parlayed into permanent residency status in the US so North Vietnamese, Cubans or Iranians who ‘won’ grew jealous of their countrymen who had ‘lost’ and found no dishonor in claiming refugee status too.

    That the scale of this immigrant flood has soared is apparent too. If WW2 brought 500,000 displaced persons to the US, today, we get that many refugees from a coup or revolution in a single third world nation! Even bad weather can set off an influx of migrants to the US with the inevitable chain migration effect. Before Hurricane Mitch in 1998 Hondurans didn’t have much of a presence in the US not having had a dictator or civil war of note. By simply showing up in large numbers after the hurricane and evading deportation they now have colonies in the US and plead there is too much crime in Honduras to be sent home.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    , @Rex Little
    , @Reg Cæsar
  3. D. K. says:

    Everyone is glad to know that Emanuel Celler had nothing to do with the act that bears his name, despite his toiling for over forty of his nearly fifty years in the House of Representatives working to pass just such legislation, on behalf of American Jewry, after the 1924 act was passed, to that community’s immense and vocal displeasure, during the first of Representative Celler’s twenty-five terms in Congress.

    “Where’s that confounded bridge?” –Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin [“The Crunge” (1973)]

    Has Mr. Derbyshire, at age 70, merely grown senile; or, like his would-be-sister (or -brother, depending upon the actual chromosome distribution), is he simply that intellectually dishonest? Perhaps we all should merely follow his own heuristic: “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
  4. Corvinus says:

    Derbs makes this grandiose statement–But that was then and this is now. And personally, I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It’s up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It’s not up to foreigners.

    YET, his entire post screams and faints. Derbs, listen, we get it. You’re not a fan of the browns or the blacks entering (or staying) in America.

    “The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset–Those assurances from Kennedy, and all the others, turned out to be false.”

    America is a predominately white country–3/4 white. That unless, of course, you exclude the Italians and Irish, who had been characterized by nativists other than being white.

    “There was a widespread feeling that the U.S.S.R., with its egalitarian ethos, had a moral edge over the U.S.A.”

    First, by whom was this emotion shared? Second, America’s history has thoroughly demonstrated this “egalitarian ethos”. One only needs to read Jean de Crevecoeur.

    “These congresscritters of 1965 didn’t have their finger on the world’s demographic pulse. They didn’t spend their free time poring over population projections for Africa and Asia.”

    Well, European countries desired a large workforce for their colonies in Africa and Asia. Furthermore, just because there people booms in those continents does not equate to America allowing ALL or MOST of those groups of people to our shores, just SOME.

    “Mentally, demography-wise, they were still in the 1920s, when the world’s nonwhites didn’t really count, weren’t really important, and existed mainly so that they, the congresscritters, could make grand moral gestures.”

    Those “nonwhites” were tremendously important to the economies of those white countries who engaged in imperialistic endeavors. And, from a Euro-centric perspective, those countries “civilizationally” may not be of a particular value, but from a humanity standpoint, those cultures were quite content with their happenstance until outsiders ran amok with their goodies and promises.

    “And yes, back then the black, brown, and yellow nations weren’t civilizationally consequential either.”

    You will have to define “civilizationally consequential”. What are the metrics involved? How does one objectively quantify and qualify those standards?

    “Ann Coulter, in a fine spirited column the other day, boiled it down to party politics. The Democrats, she wrote, knew they’d never get their progressive agenda through a supermajority-white electorate, so they decided to bring in a new electorate.”

    Well, considering that the reforms of the 1820’s-1850’s and during the Progressive era were implemented by a “supermajority-white electorate”, her assertion is not entirely accurate. Besides, the Democrats agenda has at various points in time moved forward with predominant white support (whatever “white” means these days, the definition is either vague or changing). And securing support for one’s plans is about party politics, and seeking constituents, new or old, is nothing surprising–changes in policies need not be reliant upon only one group of people.

    “In the end, Americans have to ask themselves very specific questions about the immigration flood unleashed upon their country by the politicians in 1965:

    Has the mass immigration triggered by the 1965 reform made me and my family better off?

    DEFINE “BETTER OFF”. BESIDES, ONE WOULD HAVE TO INVESTIGATE TO WHAT EXTENT HAS IMMIGRANTS PERSONALLY IMPACTED THE FAMILY’S ECONOMY.

    Has it made it easier or more difficult for us to work, to educate our children, to live our lives?

    EASIER.

    Has it resulted in more or less congestion? pollution? racial tension? crime?

    HECK, JUST MORE PEOPLE IN GENERAL SEPARATE FROM IMMIGRATION CAUSES THESE THINGS!

    Do I feel that it has made America respected for its generosity — or despised for its gullibility?

    IN THE END RESPECTED, LIKE IN YEARS PAST WHEN AMERICA ENABLED THE IRISH, GERMANS, AND ITALIANS TO COME TO OUR SHORES. THERE WAS OPEN HOSTILITY, THEN OPEN ARMS. IT TAKES A COUPLE OF GENERATIONS.

    Are we stronger because immigration brought diversity? Or weaker because it brought divisiveness?

    STRONGER. OUR HISTORY PROVES IT.

    Has the post-1965 immigration enabled us to achieve more — or nothing that we could not have managed on our own?

    DEFINE “ACHIEVE MORE”.

    “What if the 1965 Act had worked as promised and there were fewer immigrants? Or if immigration had been stopped completely in 1965? Would America be a happier or unhappier place than it is today?”

    HAPPY OR UNHAPPY IS A RELATIVE TERM.

  5. Tom_R says:

    THIRD MOST POPULOUS NATION ON EARTH MUST BAN IMMIGRATION.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.

    I agree that we (USA) have too much immigration (legal and illegal) and this is the 3rd most populous nation on earth, and immigration needs to be banned. This country gives about 3 millions visas per year and about 3 million enter illegally. This country lets in more immigration than the rest of the world combined.

    The Judaists are behind massive 3rd world immigration. Eg:

    Jewish Groups Gang Up To Push For Amnesty For 3rd World Illegals In USA–While Building Huge Prison For Africans In Israel

    See:

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/breaking-news/wide-range-jewish-groups-urge-faster-path-citizenship

    http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/04/israel-building-immigrant-prison-camp-for-africans/

    Joe Biden admitted that Judaists are behind the alien invasion here:

    http://ihr.org/other/biden_jewish_role

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Time to ban immigration.

  6. iSteveFan says:
    @D. K.

    Ann Coulter suffers from this too. I guess blaming this on a drunken Irishman is easier to do.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  7. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Immigration Act or not, maybe the same crap would have happened regardless.

    No matter what the law is, if it is not enforced, it aint worth shit.

    Look at European nations. Did they come up with something as dramatic or epochal-sounding as the Immigration Act of 1965 in the US? I dunno, but whatever the case, their immigration policies are just as crazy, and no effective measures have been taken to ensure that whites will remain the owners of their own ancestral lands.

    Some keep mentioning the Nazi era and WWII in light of recent crisis, but the lessons drawn are all wrong.
    The problem of National Socialism was it went from nationalist to imperialist.
    German National Socialism invaded and violated the nationalisms of OTHER nations.
    So, it was actually anti-nationalist. It went from German nationalism(when it was reasonably sound) to German imperialism(whereupon it became nasty and tyrannical), and it trampled all over the nationalism of other nations.
    It violated Czech nationalism and Polish nationalism. And finally, it violated Russian nationalism even though Russia chose to suspend hostilities with Germany.

    So, the lesson to be learned from WWII is DO NOT TRAMPLE ON THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER NATIONS. Do not violate the nationalism of another nation. Protect your own nationalism and respect the nationalism of others. Reject imperialism and violations of national sovereignty.

    But idiot Germans took the wrong lesson. Now, they are violating their own nationalism and undermining Germany’s right to be Germany, undermining their own right to be German. Germans were bad in WWII not because they loved their own Germany, protected its borders, and worked for its national interests. They were bad cuz they disrespected other nations and violated their national rights and aspirations.

    But today, German globalist leaders are trampling on the national rights of Germany, their own nation. It is a new form of imperialism. Globalist auto-imperialism. It is
    elite -driven and favors elite power all over the world against the power of indigenous populations. The German elites don’t defend or represent Germans. They rub shoulders with fellow elitists in other European nations, US, Middle East, Asia, and etc.
    During WWII, German elites trampled on the national rights of other nations. Today, German elites, serving as collaborator-participants of globalist-imperialism, trample on the national rights of Germans(and even try to trample on the national rights of other European nations as well by forcing them to take in tons of migrants. Germany once invaded other nations with its own armies. Now, Germany tries to have other nations be invaded by hordes from Africa and Arabia.

    Invading other nations and allowing your nation to be invaded are the same thing. Both are violations of the legitimate national rights of a people to survive and thrive in their homeland as a cultural, historical, and racial group.
    German leaders went from violating the survival rights of other nations(during WWII) to violating the survival rights of the people of their own nation(in light of recent events). Germans may think they are atoning for the sins of WWII but they are really repeating the same mistake: they are doing to themselves what they did to others during WWII.
    It’s like this: killing other people is wrong. If you are killing other people, the thing is to stop killing them and pledge never to kill others again. The solution is not to turn the gun around and kill yourself; that is just one more murder, an auto-murder.

    It could be that the problem has gotten so bad and is spreading all around the world cuz of the power of globalism.
    Globalism is all about winners and losers. It’s not about the People as race and nation.
    Globalism is ruthless in favoring the winners and making winners identify with other winners and forsaking the losers.

    In a nation bound by race and culture, there are surely winners and losers but one’s core identity transcends winning and losing. A rich German, a middle class German, a working class German, and a poor German belong on different economic scales. The rich German is a winner and a poor German is a loser. And middle class and working class Germans are somewhere in between. But they are all Germans first. A working class German identifies more with other Germans(even rich ones) than with working class Chinese or Chileans. And rich Germans identify more with middle class, working class, and even poor Germans than with rich Japanese or Indians. And that is how it should be. Communism failed cuz of its conceit that workers of the world could all be borderless brothers. It didn’t work, so communism eventually reverted to nationalism before it finally faded as an economic experiment.

    Now, there is globalism, a kind of neo-aristocraticism and neo-populism that threatens to destroy borders and nations and cultures. Among the elites, the main identification is not with race, culture, or history but with success, money, privilege, and connections. Since the economic and social game has been globalized, an Asian-Indian who attended Harvard might feel closer to fellow elites of other nations than with fellow Asian-Indians, whom he is likely to disdain and look upon with sneering contempt.
    Globalism is all about being part of a class of winners. A winner identifying with fellow winners around the world is what globalism is about. So, the elite winner class no longer identifies with the ‘losers’ of its own race and nation. (Whites elites are embarrassed to identify with white masses who are regarded as ‘racist’ trash, and non-whites are embarrassed to identify with their own masses who are regarded as ‘backward’ and ‘provincial’. So, white elites and non-white elites identify with one another as fellow cosmopolitan winners.)

    To a nationalist rich person/winner, it still matters that he belongs to the same nation/tribe/culture as those who are not so rich or successful. He still wants his nation to be populated and led by people who are of the same race/tribe. As a winner, he feels his main responsibility is to lead, guide, and inspire his own people.

    In contrast, the globalist rich/winner only identifies with other winners around the world regardless of their race or culture. Now, there is nothing wrong with elites of the world becoming friends and learning from one another. But when the winner class feels closer to other winners around the world than to non-winners of his own race/nation, then it paves the way for globalist-elite-imperialism.

    Under this system, all elites around the world are imperialists and all peoples are colonized subjects, whites and non-whites alike. It is like the Latin-Americanization of the world. Swedish elites/winners no longer care about the Swedish people. They shmooze with London elites, NY elites, HK elites, Rio deJaniro elites, Seoul elites, Riyadh elites, Cairo elites, Amsterdam elites, Warsaw elites, Istanbul elites, Nairobi elites, Capetown elites, and etc. And all these elites snub their noses at their own people who are dismissed and shamed as ‘atavistic’ and ‘reactionary’ and ‘racist’ for opposing the open borders mania of globalism.
    Swedish elites don’t care if Sweden is swamped with non-Swedes. As long as they remain the winners, they just go on using ‘moral signaling’ to feel superior to the hoi polloi. The globalist elites are both material-supremacists and moral-narcissists. Materially, they find ways to make more money and live better than everyone else. But they want to own morality too, so they’ve rigged PC to favor elite conceits. So, a rich white person in Sweden can wear fancy jewelry and drive a fancy car but then yammer about ‘gay rights’ and ‘multiculturalism’ to feel superior to all the hoi polloi who are direly affected by breakdown of traditional morality and massive influx of foreigners.

    But it would be wrong to see globalism as merely an elite phenomenon. Because the elites also control the media and academia, they’ve brainwashed, heart-rinsed, gut-flushed, and ball-cleansed the countless masses into non-national amnesia and globo-orgamo-hedonism.
    Most of Western history teach little more than ‘white guilt’, and so, white people became allergic to historical memory. What’s the point of remembering one’s own history if it’s all about how rotten whites have always been?
    Only masochistic whites keep reading history only to feel rotten about themselves. As SJW, these clowns do get to feel righteous… by attacking their own race, history, and culture. “I’m a worthless white person of privilege, but I’m better than ‘those whites’ because I accept the burden of guilt, if only in rhetoric.)

    As for those who don’t care to learn history that only reviles their own kind, there is the escapist/fantasist drug of pop culture, a popiate. As pop culture is all about maximization of orgamo-pleasure, it doesn’t care who is who or what is what. It could be someone from half-way around the globe. He is ‘cool’ because he fills you with jollies. And in our narcissistic age, people communicate all around the world via facebook to take selfies and score ‘likes’ from ‘friends’. As idiots seek attention from morons from all over the world, this also undermines any national feeling and racial unity.

    A true nation is not about winners and losers. Of course, all societies have winners and losers, but a sense of nationhood goes beyond that. It’s like family. If you have lots of siblings, some will be successful, some won’t be. Some will win, some will lose. But family isn’t determined by who got rich, who didn’t. It is determined by being related by blood and shared memory. So, even a winner family members prizes a loser family member as part of the family. And that is what nationhood is about. It is a people as a national community and family.

    But globalism wages war on that. Globalism says elite winners should cut themselves from the losers of their own kind and just identify with other winners around the world. It is a form of neo-imperialism, but many people fail to see this cuz globalism masquerades as ‘leftist’ and ‘progressive’. It is actually very hierarchical and isn’t about justice or equality.

    Just look at the bogus phenomenon of Bernie Sanders the so-called socialist. If Sanders is such a commie pinko who loves the poor, why did he choose to settle in Vermont, a rich white state? You’d think he would have gone to El Paso or Detroit to work for poor people there. Or to Appalachia with the poor dumb hicks. No, he went to serve the rich whites of a very white state. Privileged whites like him cuz of his cachet of being a ‘progressive socialist’. But in fact, he just gives cover to globalists who are all about winning and all about winners preferring fellow winners all around the world than the ‘losers’ of their own kind.

    Israel is the only true ethno-state because even winner-rich Jews identify foremost with other Jews than with non-Jewish winners around the world.
    Ethno-state is the only sound basis of nationhood. The idea of a globo-state is self-contradictory. It is the sort of state where the winner-elites pimp out their people to the ruthless winds of globalism.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @Clyde
  8. D. K. says:
    @iSteveFan

    Yes, I commented on her, at modest length, under one of Steve Sailer’s recent posts, because of her latest column, as reposted, per usual, at VDare.com– Mr. Derbyshire’s new home base, as of his departing Taki’s, earlier this year. His virtual landlord there, Mr. Brimelow, has conceded that Mr. Celler, along with the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations’ Norbert Schlei, were the real force behind the 1965 act– not young Teddy Kennedy, Ms. Coulter’s perennial bete noir, whom Mr. Brimelow himself considers to have been the act’s “poster boy.” In fact, however, the act had, and needed, no poster boy, as it was a bipartisan fancy that was considered essentially symbolic in nature. Instead, Ted Kennedy, who went on to become the Democratic Party’s revered “Lion of the Senate,” by surviving as long as he did, despite his infamous alcoholism and morbid obesity, merely has been “retconned” (as Steve Sailer himself might say) into the role of poster boy of the 1965 act, by virtue of his minor role in its passage, by serving as the Senate floor manager for the bill, and the availability of a couple of laughably unprescient quotes about its likely effects. Both Mr. Derbyshire and his would-be sibling, Ms. Coulter, have a socially convenient blind spot about a certain ethnic lobby, comparable to the one that then-D.A. of New Orleans, Jim Garrison, had about Carlos Marcello’s New Orleans-based crime empire.

  9. Lot says:

    But with all respect to Ann, whom I love like a sister, I don’t buy her thesis of a deliberate plan to replace the electorate. Our politicians just don’t think that far ahead. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    I agree. Enoch Powell had unusual foresight, but he was an exceptional case. I think Kennedy believed his own lies.

    And ethnic lobbies—which in those same days meant mainly East Europeans—wanted to bring relatives here.

    I am dubious of this. Eastern European Americans in 1964 had largely come 40-80 years ago, and had long ago lost touch with the old country.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  10. Clyde says:
    @unit472

    Its apparent that the effect, if not the intent, of the 1965 Immigration Act, was to make the United States the world’s colony. Every nation in the world, from Afghanistan to Zambia, was free to colonize the world’s richest economy

    This colonization was also done via our version of free trade which meshes perfectly with our version of open borders. Outsourcing and insourcing, both policies screwing the average American and leading to wealth concentration. Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot predicted this 23 years ago in the 1992 Presidential race. The US economy was better balanced in 1992. Without the Federal Reserve doling out methedrine aka quantitative easing, our economy would be in the crapper.
    Computerization kills good jobs. Our dominating FIRE sector is the parasite sector. As far as production of tangible goods, our only improvement has been in cheap domestically produced oil and natural gas via our fracking revolution which also lowers our trade deficit.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  11. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    It is one of the most profound exhibits of demagoguery I read in a long time. The statement on “stronger” crowns it all. Sir, for starters, open Correlli Barnett–he is better historian than you–read his definition of the national strength.

  12. Corvinus says:

    SmoothieX12–

    “It is one of the most profound exhibits of demagoguery I read in a long time.”

    Ok, you’re going to have break it down rather than make a cursory statement.

    “The statement on “stronger” crowns it all.”

    Speaking of historians, here is what Jean de Crevecoeur stated–What is an American? He is either a European, or the descendant of a European; hence that strange mixture of blood which you will find in no other country.

    In the context of the times, it was “strange” for him to bear witness to the “mixing” of different ethnic groups of European origin that historically kept to themselves. The English thought of themselves as being English who resided in Europe, the French thought of themselves as being French who resided in Europe, etc. There was great consternation among the groups toward one another–only in the upper echelons of society was intermarriage of Europeans desirable for political purposes, i.e. to consolidate the power of two elite families. Naturally, Creveocoeur’s ideas were extended to non-European groups in that they could “melt into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world”, similar to the concept of non-landowner males obtaining the right to vote, as this group in the past were thought to be intellectually inferior to “properly” engage in political discourse.

    “Sir, for starters, open Correlli Barnett–he is better historian than you–read his definition of the national strength.”

    Yes, HIS definition. Perhaps you ought to summarize his ideas rather than throw some name out there.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  13. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    Ok, you’re going to have break it down rather than make a cursory statement.

    OK, how about you break it down, for starters, giving the definition of “stronger”? I lived in US for almost 20 years now and observed each year how the country was (and still is) going down the drain in virtually every meaningful metric, from massive de-industrialization and relegation of once highly capable US labor force to the status of office and distribution centers plankton to the collapse of, always weak, public education system. So what is stronger, Sir? The loss of cohesion and degeneration of the political system into the panopticon of human stupidity, corruption, incompetence and open malice–you call it stronger? The fact that US disastrous foreign policy is run by ethnic mafias makes it somehow “stronger”? Will you deny this fact? I will break you some news–multicultural societies DO NOT endure. I have a first hand experience with that and know how “balkanization” happens very well. I also know how state institutions dissolve themselves really fast–precisely on the basis of “diversity”. I omit here, of course, political correctness which reached already grotesque proportions. Guess what is in the foundation of it.

    Now, to a specifics, if you would open at least the preface of Barnett’s seminal (and written in superb English even I can appreciate) The Collapse Of British Power you would read:

    “For the power of the nation-state by no means consists only in its armed forces, but also in its economic and technological resources, in the dexterity, foresight and resolution with which its foreign policy is conducted; the efficiency of its social and political organizations. It consists most of all in the nation itself, the people; their skills, energy, ambition, discipline, initiative; their beliefs, myths and illusions. And it consists, further, in the way all these factors are related to one another. Moreover, national power has to be considered not only in itself, in its absolute extent, but relative to the state’s foreign or imperial obligations; it has to be considered relative to the power of other states.”

    “The Collapse Of British Power”, Correlli Barnett. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York, 1972. Page 1.

    From here, you may want to look at the larger framework of what constitutes “stronger” in Chapter 4 of Huntington’s (atoning and redeeming) The Clash Of Civilization. All 14 points. You may start from here. And then, after all is said and done, there is the issue of war.

  14. Corvinus says:

    “I lived in US for almost 20 years now and observed each year how the country was (and still is) going down the drain in virtually every meaningful metric, from massive de-industrialization and relegation of once highly capable US labor force to the status of office and distribution centers plankton to the collapse of, always weak, public education system.”



    Your rhetorical gymnastics withstanding, ‘tis true that the United States has experienced significant decline in a number of areas within the past couple of decades. Now, if one is going to declare that multiculturalism is the primary factor or major impetus, rather than a myriad of interconnected and complex political, economic, and social phenomenons, one must offer into evidence specific rather than posturing.

    “The loss of cohesion and degeneration of the political system into the panopticon of human stupidity, corruption, incompetence and open malice–you call it stronger?”
    
Because multiculturalism. Wow, just wow.

    “The fact that US disastrous foreign policy is run by ethnic mafias makes it somehow “stronger”?”

    

Assuming the basis of your statement is rooted in fact. What ethnic mafias are you referring to? What parts of American foreign policy have been “disastrous”?

    “I will break you some news–multicultural societies DO NOT endure.”

    
Praytell, what are the causes of those multicultural societies to fall? Is it because of outside forces unrelated to the problems that befall a nation that is diverse, or is it because those ethnic groups of a particular society were persistently at “each other’s throat” to the point that civilization declined or fell? Context matters.

    On a side note, interesting how the Roman Empire openness contributed to cultural diversity–”Here, the openness of Roman citizenship, which was in striking contrast with the exclusiveness of Greek poleis, needs to be emphasized. Why Romans were far more generously admitting aliens is difficult to answer, but one thing is clear: otherwise they might not have survived the earlier wars in Italy, let alone the unification of Italy under their feet. The multi-layered structure of Roman citizenship was designed as an effective device to absorb the shock from the increasing admission of peregrines, but at the same time it worked to facilitate and accelerate the admission. Thus it happened that even slaves were manumitted, and ultimately franchised: so rampantly during the late Republic that Augustus had to contrive some inhibiting legislations. Meanwhile, the republican practices of individual grant to the magistrates of the coloniae, municipia, and allied communities persisted in imperial period. In addition, with the professionalization of Roman army underway in the early Principate, the soldiers of the auxiliary regiments and other non-citizen branches were rewarded with Roman citizenship on completion of 25 years of service.”

    Kim, Kyung-hyun, “Multiculturalism And The Roman Empire”

    Now, Barnett’s seminal work focuses on the myriad of reasons for the decline of British power. I imagine you would be able to offer specific quotations from that masterpiece regarding his thoughts on immigration and diversity in relation to current condition of the United States.

    • Replies: @5371
  15. 5371 says:
    @Corvinus

    You are a copy-paste squid who expels large quantities of irrelevant junk and scuttles to a new position.

  16. MarkinLA says:
    @Clyde

    Computerization kills good jobs.

    This is not the case if a country has a national industrial policy like the Japanese and makes an effort to keep jobs within the country. When the industrial robots began appearing on the automotive factory floors the PC and semiconductor industries were starting to expand rapidly. Most PCs and their components were made in the US and there were many silicon foundries still in the US. This was a good thing – people were out of the paint booths breathing in all that toxic air and were assembling PC chassis and installing PC components. More intelligent workers were techs on the assembly lines and working with the engineers designing new utility boards for the PCs or working the PCB manufacturing lines.

    Now almost all that work is done offshore – that is the problem.

    We still have a big footprint in applying high tech to the medical field but even that is being off shored. However you can’t compare 100s of millions of PCs being built each year with 200,000 pacemakers a year in terms of jobs.

    This is the fallacy that somehow the “free market” is always smarter than government regulation. Yes, for the guy getting the bonus destroying the long term health of the company he has a 5 year contract with but not for everybody else.

  17. Corvinus says:

    “You are a copy-paste squid who expels large quantities of irrelevant junk and scuttles to a new position.”

    5371, you’re going to have to offer more than hit-and-run statements. What specifically do you disagree with? Why? See, that’s called engaging in debate. Do you even know what that entails?

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    But with all respect to Ann, whom I love like a sister, I don’t buy her thesis of a deliberate plan to replace the electorate. Our politicians just don’t think that far ahead.

    Except the deliberate plan wasn’t thought up by our politicians. They’re whores who do their paymasters’ bidding. They don’t give a damn who they have to sell out, so long as they increase their power and wealth and stay in power for as long as possible… morally and ethically bankrupt, the lot of them…

    Look at Honey Boo Hoo – for a lifetime of screwing over the citizenry, he’ll retire as Speaker of the House and go straight to The Payoff. Probably sit on half a dozen Boards of Directors (but not actually… you know, show up and do anything… but still collect a paycheck) – just take a look at the list of “contributors”. Betcha we’ll be seeing them again…

    There’s a plan, alright… just not one thought up by the gaggle of a\$\$hats inside the Beltway.

  19. @Corvinus

    America is a predominately white country–3/4 white. That unless, of course, you exclude…

    …kindergarteners and the like. How white are those US citizens born in this century?

  20. @unit472

    Every nation in the world, from Afghanistan to Zambia, was free to colonize the world’s richest economy.

    You left out the Abkhasians, Zimbabwe, and the Zulus.

  21. Corvinus says:

    “How white are those US citizens born in this century?”

    I’m sure you have the answer. Are you willing to share your knowledge?

    The fixation on “white” on this fine blog is legendary. Ah, yes, that’s what race baiters do. Now, perhaps you can define “white”. I can never a straight answer out of people here on such an important matter. Are you willing to oblige?

    Interesting to note that most growth in the Hispanic population from 2000 to 2010 was due to births, not immigration, a change from the long-time pattern.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Kat Grey
    , @JSM
    , @Reg Cæsar
  22. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    The Census Bureau’s category is White or Caucasian, and includes the descendants of indigenous Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners. Indians and other Subcontinentals, despite their being Caucasians, and often being much whiter than North Africans and Middle Easterners, got themselves dropped from the category, decades ago, so that they could officially be oppressed “people of color” entitled to the benefits flowing from that official designation. The other non-Europeans are attempting to follow suit, and probably will succeed with the 2020 census. Most Hispanics tell the Census, inter alia, that they are White, racially, yet they are treated as another group of oppressed “people of color”– even when they are 100% European, by descent.

    If you are merely meaning to imply that race itself is merely a social construct, you are merely displaying your scientific illiteracy. The major continental races can be discerned, with virtually 100% accuracy, by randomly selecting 1000 or fewer base pairs from a test subject, from among the approximately three billion such pairs in the human genome. Evolution sped up, after the Out-of-Africa event of fifty-or-so thousand years ago, and differentiated regional populations; it did not grind to a halt– especially as to our most important and most energy-consuming organ– as fantasized by the Tabula Rasa Cult.

    As for Hispanic births in the United States, these days, since a couple can have more than two children each, and Hispanic immigrants tend to do just that, it is hardly surprising that, less than a decade after the Great Recession decreased the pull of the economic magnet, such births, at least temporarily, might exceed immigration, for Hispanics. Those children still would not be here, if their respective parents had not immigrated here– many of them illegally.

    Do you consider it “race bait[ing]” for non-Europeans in America to “fixate” on their respective racial, ethnic, national, religious, cultural and linguistic heritages; or, is that merely a crime against nature when engaged in by European Americans trying to preserved their own heritage, as explicitly desired by the founders of the United States?

    • Replies: @Lepanto
  23. Kat Grey says:
    @Corvinus

    How would you define non-white?

  24. Faust says:

    I did a bit of immigration work back in the 70’s. Unless I am mixing up my legislation, INS employees frequently referred to the “Western Hemisphere Preference Act”. This was credited to Ted Kennedy. As I understood it, there was a quota on Europeans linked to the number of Western Hemisphere immigrants.

    “Skills” it has been a while, but several times I struck up conversations with older men who spoke with accents from “Mittle Europa”. Frequently the response to their occupations was “Ya, I am a machinist”.

  25. Corvinus says:

    “The Census Bureau’s category is White or Caucasian, and includes the descendants of indigenous Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners.”

    Wait, we are going to rely on the gummint to define White or Caucasian? Isn’t that strange, considering a litany of posters here have indicated that North Africans and Middle Easterners are decidedly not white? I think they are referred to as sand (rhymes with chiggers).

    What do YOU think is “white”?

    “Indians and other Subcontinentals, despite their being Caucasians, and often being much whiter than North Africans and Middle Easterners, got themselves dropped from the category.”

    Indians from India, or Indians as in Native Americans?

    “Most Hispanics tell the Census, inter alia, that they are White, racially, yet they are treated as another group of oppressed “people of color”– even when they are 100% European, by descent.”

    Well, the Census Bureau defines Hispanic or Latino as not a race, but an ethnic identification. A Hispanic or Latino can be of any race. White Americans are referenced as White Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Whites.

    “If you are merely meaning to imply that race itself is merely a social construct, you are merely displaying your scientific illiteracy.”

    Some would argue that race IS a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Moreover, the nativists in the 1850’s deemed the Irish as “other than white”, and in the 1890’s pointed out that the “Italians” were “not white”. Were they wrong in this characterization?

    “Do you consider it “race bait[ing]” for non-Europeans in America to “fixate” on their respective racial, ethnic, national, religious, cultural and linguistic heritages; or, is that merely a crime against nature when engaged in by European Americans trying to preserved their own heritage, as explicitly desired by the founders of the United States?”

    It’s race baiting across the board, of course.

    “How would you define non-white?”

    Fair question. “Pure” Africans, Asians, and indigenous groups. If a European and an African, Asian, or indigenous mated, then the offspring is a “mutt”. How that mutt is defined, well, that’s a whole other ballgame.

  26. D. K. says:

    “White” is a color designation. It is not meant to be literal– any more than are “Black, Brown, Red and Yellow!” It is used descriptively, within that sense, often as a proxy for race. “Caucasian” is a broader racial descriptor. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that the president of Syria, for instance, or the queen of Jordan, is “White,” while at the same time recognizing that such Arabs are more distantly related to the Irish than are the Welsh, and that North Africans and Middle Easterners, in general, come from cultures that are largely alien to Europeans, and vice versa. The ongoing “flight from White,” however, is not a matter genetics, nor even of culture; it is simply an attempt to be privileged legally by being a supposedly oppressed minority, rather than punished legally for remaining a part of the supposedly oppressive majority.

    If you cannot tell which Indians I meant, from other nouns in that same sentence, you are a moron.

    Yes, Hispanics may be of any race– as may be those of us who, instead, come from French-speaking countries or backgrounds. Hispanics, however, are treated by our elites, outside of the Census Bureau, as if they were a distinct race– which is why they usually are broken out, and subtracted in whole, from the White population, with “White” being implicitly used to mean “non-Hispanic White,” and “Hispanic” being implicitly used to mean “Brown!” The explicit term “White Hispanic,” while perfectly meaningful when referring to an Hispanic of European descent (e.g., former Mexican president Vicente Fox, who is 100% of European descent), is virtually never used by the elites, including the mainstream news media. The one time that they famously deigned to use it, they deliberately lied, using it to falsely characterize the part-Black Hispanic mestizo, George Zimmerman– who is no more a “White Hispanic” than Barry Obama is a “White African American!” They merely did so to advance their fallacious White-on-Black hate-crime narrative, after they had mistakenly accepted the word of the Trayvon Martin camp that he had been killed by a racist White man. Charlie Sheen is a “White-Hispanic” American; George Zimmerman is not.

    You obviously do not understand genetics. Gene frequencies cluster, based on historical breeding pools. If race were simply a social construct, people could not be placed in their recognizable and self-identified continental races with virtually 100% accuracy, by randomly sampling 1000 out of 3,000,000,000 DNA base pairs. The fact that there is social construction involved in interpreting gene clusters does not mean that those clusters are not real and meaningful. Species involve the same sort of social construction on the part of scientists. Do you really think that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are the same, with the same traits, and that it is merely pseudoscientific to label them as different breeds of dogs? Inuit and Aborigines are different breeds of humans, with different traits, much as Great Danes and Chihuahuas are different breeds of dogs, with different traits.

    Will we ever see an end to the canard that the Italians, and even the Irish, were not considered white? They were considered different from Englishmen and Germans, yes. They were considered different “races,” yes– when that word essentially referred to ethnicity, rather than to continental races. If they had not been considered white, they would not have been able to vote; indeed, they would not have been allowed to be naturalized as American citizens, in the first place. In “Gone with the Wind,” as Steve Sailer has often pointed out, the O’Hara family is not sold into slavery, when the neighbors belatedly realize that the family is Irish!

    Why don’t you try to prove that race is a mere social construct, devised by malicious Whites (who, of course, do not really exist, in the first place!) merely to oppress non-Whites (ditto!), by polling Black Americans on whether their own race is real, or merely a figment of the fevered imagination of (non-existent) Whites? Get back to us when you have their opinions all tabulated….

  27. JayMan says: • Website

    The 1965 immigration act did a lot of bad things. But I am in no position to complain about it, since without it, I and my children would not exist.

    • Agree: Seminumerical
    • Disagree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @D. K.
    , @Reg Cæsar
  28. iffen says:
    @JayMan

    Which side wants to claim JayMan for their side of the argument? For or Against?

  29. D. K. says:
    @JayMan

    I would not be here– nor anywhere– absent the Great Wave immigration of my two maternal grandparents from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (she as a baby, and he as an adolescent). Both of them died before I even was born (he by less than three years, and she by more than twenty-three years). It is on principle, and with no disrespect at all personally to my own recent ancestors, that I oppose mass immigration– not just for now, but for always, and not just for us Americans, but for all nations, each of which ought to act to protect its existing people and their heritage. To change intentionally the (genetic) demographics of a nation’s native-born population is surely a crime against its own people; to do so based merely on the economic principle of (supposedly) increasing, or even maximizing, GDP, as if people were nothing but economic inputs and outputs, and nations were nothing but collections of such inputs and outputs, is the loathsome ideology of Economism. Globalism, which moves beyond that ideology by destroying nation-states altogether, is the reincarnation of Communism– an inherently totalitarian worldwide system.

  30. Corvinus says:

    ““White” is a color designation. It is not meant to be literal– any more than are “Black, Brown, Red and Yellow!””

    White is a designation meant to signify a particular racial group among a particular ethnic group. Not literal? Tell that to the anti-white crowd around these parts.

    “There is nothing inconsistent with saying that the president of Syria, for instance, or the queen of Jordan, is “White,”

    Such nuance is lost here. If a Syrian or Jordanian is “white”, then the white nationalism crowd ought to be embracing their brethren.

    “while at the same time recognizing that such Arabs are more distantly related to the Irish than are the Welsh, and that North Africans and Middle Easterners, in general, come from cultures that are largely alien to Europeans, and vice versa?”

    Pro-white groups that I know of do not label Arabs, North Africans, or Middle Easterners as “white, but distantly related”. Rather, they call them, as you stated, as “alien”.

    “If you cannot tell which Indians I meant, from other nouns in that same sentence, you are a moron.”

    Feather or dot?

    “Hispanics, however, are treated by our elites…”

    Just. Stop. Now. Elites is merely a buzzword with no defined meaning, just like cuck, racist, and rapist.

    “The one time that they famously deigned to use it, they deliberately lied, using it to falsely characterize the part-Black Hispanic mestizo, George Zimmerman– who is no more a “White Hispanic” than Barry Obama is a “White African American!””

    Well, there is upcoming racial draft. Perhaps the teams are trying to jockey for position to get the number 1 overall pick.

    “Charlie Sheen is a “White-Hispanic” American; George Zimmerman is not.”

    Here is the ancestry of George Zimmerman—Afro-Peruvian, German.
    Here is the ancestry of Charlie Sheen—Spanish and Irish.

    A White Hispanic is an American citizen who is racially white. They have origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. So, is your quibble in that George is not a White Hispanic because he has Peruvian and African blood? Are you saying that the Peruvian and African blood in this specific case is more dominant, thus George is incorrectly labeled as a White Hispanic?

    From what I gathered, ”White Hispanic” is also meant to describe people who have European blood, but are Latin American or celebrate the heritage. Within the context of social convention, white refers to skin color. Is not Zimmerman of European descent?
    “Will we ever see an end to the canard that the Italians, and even the Irish, were not considered white?”

    So, were the nativists mistaken in their assessment at that juncture in time?

    “They were considered different from Englishmen and Germans, yes.”

    Different in what regard?

    “They were considered different “races,” yes– when that word essentially referred to ethnicity, rather than to continental races.”

    Except that characterization would be demonstrably false. Race and ethnicity are completely different terms.

    “If they had not been considered white, they would not have been able to vote; indeed, they would not have been allowed to be naturalized as American citizens, in the first place.”

    Nativists at that time considered it offensive that the Irish and Italians were even granted citizenship rights, as they were racially “white”, but not culturally “white”.

    “Inuit and Aborigines are different breeds of humans, with different traits, much as Great Danes and Chihuahuas are different breeds of dogs, with different traits.”

    False comparison. The Inuit, or Eskimos, and Aborigines are not “breeds” of humans. They are of a particular race and ethnic group. Using a loose definition of breed, one could place humans into groups with certain distinguishable characteristics. But if you go by an exact definition, one cannot make this comparison. Humans were not artificially selected and controlled by propagation, so using the term “breed” is best apt for domesticated creatures. Breeding is a planned program, designed explicitly to maintain, enhance, diminish, and/or eliminate certain traits. Now, if you are referring to breeds of dogs as having distinct phenotypes, certainly some human populations share this feature, so in this regard they are similar.

    Human are animals, yes, but they were not “bred” for a particular purpose like canines. People certainly do select their mates, and it is often based on specific physical and intellectual traits. However, dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct. Indeed, there are groups of humans with distinctive appearances. However, humans are NOT similar to breeds compared to domesticated animals. 


    “It is on principle, and with no disrespect at all personally to my own recent ancestors, that I oppose mass immigration– not just for now, but for always, and not just for us Americans, but for all nations, each of which ought to act to protect its existing people and their heritage.”

    Using your logic, your ancestors had no right to be here, considering that those groups from the Austro-Hungarian Empire were, from a nativist point of view, undesirable, an affront to the Anglo traditions cemented by our forefathers.

    Praytell, who is “us” Americans? Because, nativists would content, it assuredly is NOT people from your background.

    “To change intentionally the (genetic) demographics of a nation’s native-born population is surely a crime against its own people.”

    Interesting how the venerable Vox Day proffered the argument that the “Irish, Italians, Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Latinos, and Africans have already completely destroyed what was once a predominantly English nation with English values. None – none – of the other immigrants ever fully grasped the English concept of limited government, which is why they transformed what had been a voluntary association into an empire held together by force in 1860.” The audacity he has, coming from a tri-racial—Mexican, Asian, Native American.

    So, DK, how would you respond to Vox’s assertion, considering that your ancestors did not come from England and that Austro-Hungarians are unable to comprehend limited government?

Here is the entire post for context.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2015-09-25T12:40:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=20&by-date=false

    “To change intentionally the (genetic) demographics of a nation’s native-born population is surely a crime against its own people.”

    

So, how many people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire helped to colonize the New World? How many of them were Americans at the time of the American Revolutionary War?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  31. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    My last name, in fact, is English, as were my ancestors bearing it in England, hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately for them, one of my Dutch ancestors got to Manhattan before anyone from England managed to find the place, and before any of my other Old World ancestors managed to make it to the New World, at all.

    “Feather or dot?”

    Thank you for removing all doubt….

  32. Corvinus says:

    “My last name, in fact, is English, as were my ancestors bearing it in England, hundreds of years ago.”

    SOME of your ancestors, allegedly. Recall you explicitly made it clear that YOU would not be here in America had your two maternal grandparents been prohibited to emigrate. It would seem you are laying claim to being English in order to legitimize your family’s “right” to be in America, even though your maternal grandmother and grandfather came from groups, which you do not specify, within the Austro-Hungarian Empire that would be deemed “alien” by your own reasoning.

    “Thank you for removing all doubt…”

    D.K., I offer rebuttals and clarifying questions to your claims, and this is all you can muster up? That’s weak sauce. Refer to the questions posed to me and get back to us at your earliest convenience.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @D. K.
  33. @Priss Factor

    Some keep mentioning the Nazi era and WWII in light of recent crisis, but the lessons drawn are all wrong. The problem of National Socialism was it went from nationalist to imperialist. German National Socialism invaded and violated the nationalisms of OTHER nations.

    Priss this is an important point–one i’ve thought about and been meaning to write on–which needs to be pressed to help win these debates.

    The problem with the Nazis wasn’t “nationalism” it was imperialism. The just did to fellow European nations–and in some cases much more violently–what the Brits, French and to a lesser extent a bunch of other nations including America in the Philippines had done aboard.

    If they’d just had a bunch of torchlight parades, rejected Versailles terms, adopted a nationalist economic policy, organized against the British imperial system (ex. supported liberation movements) and even done “Germany for Germans” and tossed out non-integrating Jews and Gypsies … it would have been just fine. It was invading everyone else that was the problem.

    ~~

    Priss, you need to shorten–dramatically. I’m wordy and tend to push to the limit or beyond what anyone wants to read in a comment.

    This bit above about the true nature of the Nazis crime–violent imperalism–is important. It takes a paragraph or two to say it. And if you *only* say that, then people might read your comment, understand and remember your point.

    The length of the rest of your comment is such even i didn’t bother reading it. Maybe there’s another gem in there … but who wants to wade through a couple thousand words to find out.

  34. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    I can only hope that you are not a native-born American, because your own English-language comprehension is utterly abysmal!?! To begin with, the sentence that you quote back to me is clearly stating, and merely stating, that my ancestors in England who bore the same (unstated) surname as mine, hundreds of years ago, were English. In my very next sentence, which you chose not to quote, I explicitly stated that my first ancestor in the New World (1630s), who settled in today’s Manhattan, New York, was Dutch. How could my previous brief comment, therefore, even ignoring my earlier comment, to Jay Man, about my Slavic grandparents, possibly have been claiming that I was only of English descent, genius? Some of my ancestors migrated out of East Africa, scores of thousands of years ago. Some of their ancestors were non-human apes. Some of their ancestors were aquatic animals. Some of their “ancestors” were single-celled organisms. How far back into the Earth’s geological past would you care to delve, Mr. Wizard?

    As of today, I know of the following origins of my (more-recent) ancestors, in descending order of magnitude, according to my genealogist-sister: Slovak, Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, German, Alsatian, and French Huguenot. (I suspect that my long-dead maternal grandmother, cited above, however, was actually a Ruthenian, rather than a Slovak!?!) I consider myself to be a Euromongrel. Regardless, my ancestors, English and otherwise, were among the founding stock of this nation, hundreds of years ago, and their own ancestors were colonists going back to the 1630s– before Manhattan was filled with Third World barbarians, inter alia. I will be happy to leave this country of my birth, and of my parents’ births, and promise never to return, on pain of immediate death, if you, first, will remove all of the nation’s post-1965 immigrant stock (with the possible exception of Lucy Liu), and then, finally, yourself, if you happen to reside here, among us– all of you with that same promise, and upon that same immediate penalty for default. Deal?

    In your previous reply, you asked me: “Feather or dot?” That was a follow-up to your asking me, in your reply before that: “Indians from India, or Indians as in Native Americans?” The stupidity and ignorance inhering in those inquiries– with the second merely reinquiring– is breathtaking, especially coming from someone who– as is clear from this Web site– (laughably) views himself as a savant and an intellectual. The first time that you inquired for clarification, it was in direct response to this statement from me: “Indians and other Subcontinentals, despite their being Caucasians, and often whiter than North Africans and Middle Easterners, got themselves dropped from the category….” (There was more to my original statement, as indicated by my punctuation, both here and there, even though, when quoting it back, you ended what of mine is requoted, here, with a period. I will leave it to other readers, here, to decide for themselves, respectively, where your own illiteracy leaves off, and your intellectual dishonesty proceeds, unimpeded.)

    As I say, it is breathtaking that any adult with a three-digit IQ and a high-school diploma would need to inquire as to which type of Indians was being discussed. That you cannot even meet that low threshhold, in your own comments here, is why I am not going to waste (even more) time in answering your other inane questions, in which you ascribe to your enemies the usual epithets of the open-borders, anti-racist Left: “nativists,” “white [sic] nationalism crowd,” “race baiters,” etc. A person who believes that “rape” is a mere “buzzword,” for which there is “no defined meaning,” has no place in adult company– let alone here, debating someone trained in criminal law, among countless other subjects that you obviously know little, if anything, about….

    • Replies: @D. K.
  35. D. K. says:
    @D. K.

    ERRATUM: In requoting myself, from several comments earlier, and with my iPad’s copy-and-paste feature not working properly, for some reason, I had inadvertently left out a (redundant use of the word) “being” (between “often” and “whiter”). “Mea culpa!” (as we used to say, in the “good old days,” before Vatican II).

  36. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    P.S. For the record, according to the folks at 23andMe.com, my own genome is approximately 3.0% of Neanderthal origin. You may make of that what you might (as, indeed, I have)!?!

    P.P.S. If you can manage to scrounge up a real-life “nativist” who insists that my natural-born citizenship is legally null and void, because I am not of purely English descent– or even just because my two pre-deceased maternal grandparents had been nothing but “filthy Slavs!” who were allowed to become naturalized American citizens, albeit long before my own mother was eventually born to them– be sure to invite him here to read me the riot act!?!

  37. Corvinus says:

    “How could my previous brief comment, therefore, even ignoring my earlier comment, to Jay Man, about my Slavic grandparents, **possibly have been claiming that I was only of English descent**, genius?”

    I never made that specific claim, nor implied it**. The little pig that built his house using straw would assuredly enjoy your contribution, man. Why would I make that assertion when I had previously acknowledged your maternal grandparents came from somewhere within the Austro-Hungarian Empire? Nay, you are using your English descent as the crutch to be part of the “us Americans” in crowd, when in fact the Slavics, which you say is your predominant heritage, were characterized by “true” Americans as lacking the Anglo-Saxon temperament required to maintain a free society. You know, like demonstrating self-discipline and employing a work ethic. Some would say “barbarian”.

    “I will be happy to leave this country of my birth, and of my parents’ births, and promise never to return, on pain of immediate death, if you, first, will remove all of the nation’s post-1965 immigrant stock (with the possible exception of Lucy Liu**), and then, finally, yourself, if you happen to reside here, among us– all of you with that same promise, and upon that same immediate penalty for default. Deal?”



    At least you have some semblance of taste in foreign delicacies.** But, no deal. You oppose mass immigration after the fact (how Malkinesque) in light of your Slavic ancestors weaseling their way into a country generally founded by the English, even though this group is third on your ancestral depth chart. Post 1965-immigrant stock had been in same proverbial boat as your Slavic ancestors–labeled as “alien” and derided as utterly incapable of “becoming an American”. The only difference is that one group was “European”–as if that mattered to most nativists–and those post-1965 are “non-European”.

    Listen, I happen to believe that our country ought to limit or ban future immigration as well, but not because I believe that “Third Worlders” will inevitably denigrate American society. The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Slavics were also characterized in some fashion as being “Third World” regarding their customs, morals, and mannerisms by the “founding stock”. Does anyone truly think that since because those ethnic groups who are European are “designed” or “inclined” to be readily assimilated, compared to Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, because these ethnic groups merely share the same “genetics”? Wow, just wow.

    “In your previous reply, you asked me: “Feather or dot?” That was a follow-up to your asking me, in your reply before that: “Indians from India, or Indians as in Native Americans?”


    It wasn’t stupidity or ignorance, as I clearly understood what you were saying, but rather I took it upon myself to call you out on your apparent effort to be “sophisticated”, and to act on my hunch that you would spill precious digital ink in trying to defend and belabor this point. My Spidey sense was indeed accurate. “Indians and other subcontinentals” MAY refer to the actual Indian subcontinent, and some readers of this fine blog may have been confused–after all, some may not have the three-digit IQ I assume you possess. Definitions of the extent of the Indian subcontinent differ but it usually includes India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and even Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Had you simply referenced your point as “Native Americans” or “indigenous groups of the Americas”, rather than come off as an obtuse blowhard, then I likely would have resisted my natural inclination to watch others go off the rails on something trivial. To paraphrase the Joker in The Dark Knight, “all it took was a little push”.

    “That you cannot even meet that low threshhold, in your own comments here, is why I am not going to waste (even more) time in answering your other inane questions, in which you ascribe to your enemies the usual epithets of the open-borders, anti-racist Left: “nativists,” “white [sic] nationalism crowd,” “race baiters,” etc.”

    
More straw, man. The little pigs commend you on your generosity.

    “A person who believes that “rape” is a mere “buzzword,” for which there is “no defined meaning,” has no place in adult company.”

    
In my haste, I should have clarified. “Rapist”, “sexist”, “elites”, etc., ALL have been co-opted by the left and the right within the past twenty-years for their own purposes. Regarding “cuck”, I find it hilarious that this term has become an overnight sensation in political discourse. “Rapist”, “sexist”, and “elites” were terms that had observable meaning in the past, and even political opponents were able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what they actually meant. Today, one need only behave in some way deemed to be “offensive”, and the acolytes come out of the woodwork, with their razor-sharped tongues, to cut he or she to shreds for their actions.

    “If you can manage to scrounge up a real-life “nativist” who insists that my natural-born citizenship is legally null and void.”

    How many people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire helped to colonize the New World? How many of them were Americans at the time of the American Revolutionary War? How would you respond to Vox’s assertion that groups other than the English are unable to comprehend limited government?

    Use that training in criminal law to wrap your head around these issues.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  38. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    ***

    ME:

    My last name, in fact, is English, as were my ancestors bearing it in England, hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately for them, one of my Dutch ancestors got to Manhattan before anyone from England managed to find the place, and before any of my other Old World ancestors managed to make it to the New World, at all.

    ***

    YOU:

    “My last name, in fact, is English, as were my ancestors bearing it in England, hundreds of years ago.”

    SOME of your ancestors, allegedly. Recall you explicitly made it clear that YOU would not be here in America had your two maternal grandparents been prohibited to emigrate. It would seem you are laying claim to being English in order to legitimize your family’s “right” to be in America, even though your maternal grandmother and grandfather came from groups, which you do not specify, within the Austro-Hungarian Empire that would be deemed “alien” by your own reasoning.

    ***

    ME AGAIN:

    I can only hope that you are not a native-born American, because your own English-language comprehension is utterly abysmal!?! To begin with, the sentence that you quote back to me is clearly stating, and merely stating, that my ancestors in England who bore the same (unstated) surname as mine, hundreds of years ago, were English. In my very next sentence, which you chose not to quote, I explicitly stated that my first ancestor in the New World (1630s), who settled in today’s Manhattan, New York, was Dutch. How could my previous brief comment, therefore, even ignoring my earlier comment, to Jay Man, about my Slavic grandparents, possibly have been claiming that I was only of English descent, genius? . . .

    ***

    YOU AGAIN:

    “How could my previous brief comment, therefore, even ignoring my earlier comment, to Jay Man, about my Slavic grandparents, **possibly have been claiming that I was only of English descent**, genius?”

    I never made that specific claim, nor implied it**. . . .

    ***

    YOU PREVIOUSLY (TO REVIEW):

    “My last name, in fact, is English, as were my ancestors bearing it in England, hundreds of years ago.”

    SOME of your ancestors, allegedly. Recall you explicitly made it clear that YOU would not be here in America had your two maternal grandparents been prohibited to emigrate. It would seem you are laying claim to being English in order to legitimize your family’s “right” to be in America, even though your maternal grandmother and grandfather came from groups, which you do not specify, within the Austro-Hungarian Empire that would be deemed “alien” by your own reasoning.

    ***

    ME NOW:

    So, what was the purpose of your immediately preceding paragraph, with those particular words emphasized by you, as they were, if not to imply that I was attempting to claim that I was purely of English descent, and thereby a genuine “nativist”-approved American, rather than a half-Slav, “nativist”-disapproved faux American? Shall we open the floor, now, and put the issue to a vote?

    ****

    YOU AGAIN:

    Does anyone truly think that since because those ethnic groups who are European are “designed” or “inclined” to be readily assimilated, compared to Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, because these ethnic groups merely share the same “genetics”? Wow, just wow.

    ***

    ME NOW:

    Looking past the obvious illiteracy of your question: Yes! Be as wowed or as not-wowed as you may wish; nature, in general, and evolution, in particular, do not care what your ideology tells you must not, or even cannot, be, any more than they care what your ideology tells you can, or even must, be.

    ****

    YOU AGAIN:

    “’Indians and other subcontinentals [sic]’ MAY refer to the actual Indian subcontinent….”

    ***

    ME NOW:

    No, moron, “Indians and other [S]ubcontinentals” MUST refer “to the actual Indian subcontinent!”

    That imperative is further solidified by the rest of my original sentence: “…despite their being Caucasians, and often being much whiter than North Africans and Middle Easterners, got themselves dropped from the category, decades ago, so that they could officially be oppressed ‘people of color’ entitled to the benefits flowing from that official designation.”

    Amerindians– which you refer to by the politically correct label of “Native Americans”– are not Caucasians, are not generally whiter than North African and Middle Eastern indigenes, and could not have had themselves dropped from the category of “White or Caucasian” decades ago, because they were never in that category; since the adoption of racial categorization by the Bureau of the Census, Amerindians always have constituted a separate racial category, however labeled; and, since the advent of government-sanctioned discrimination, in the name of “civil rights,” they always have been a legally protected class.

    ****

    YOU AGAIN:

    In my haste, I should have clarified. “Rapist”, “sexist”, “elites”, etc., ALL have been co-opted by the left and the right within the past twenty-years for their own purposes. Regarding “cuck”, I find it hilarious that this term has become an overnight sensation in political discourse. “Rapist”, “sexist”, and “elites” were terms that had observable meaning in the past, and even political opponents were able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what they actually meant. Today, one need only behave in some way deemed to be “offensive”, and the acolytes come out of the woodwork, with their razor-sharped tongues, to cut he or she to shreds for their actions.

    ***

    ME NOW:

    Although the words “rape” and “rapist(s)” have always been used metaphorically, the notion that these “have been co-opted by the left and the right within the past twenty-years for their own purposes” is utterly absurd. They are primarily used, within a political context, by racial realists who recognize the obvious factual reality that different demographic groups commit rape, and other forms of sexual assault, at significantly different rates, with significant social implications. Any sentient adult who denies that racial reality is either an ignoramus, a psychotic, or a bald-faced liar.

    ****

    YOU AGAIN (FOR THE ROAD):

    How many people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire helped to colonize the New World? How many of them were Americans at the time of the American Revolutionary War? How would you respond to Vox’s assertion that groups other than the English are unable to comprehend limited government?

    ***

    ME (DITTO!):

    The United States of America: Thursday, 4 July 1776 to the present

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire: Friday, 1 March 1867 through Monday, 25 November 1918

    When your friend ‘Vox’ finds a purebred English American who actually comprehends limited government, do feel free to invite them both back here. I assume that, in such an event, I would be long-dead, by then; but, stranger things, I suppose, have happened!?!?!

  39. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    there ya go, john–throw your readers some more red meat…democrats are the enemy, and not big business, right?

    Get your two-minute Hate on!

    I am sure this will make things better…
    Big Business, I am sure, had nothing to do with the immigration invasion…just democrats, right?

  40. Biff says:

    The beltway entity is one of explotation. It exploits those abroad, and those at home. In this context the 1965 immigration act makes perfect sense.

  41. Corvinus says:

    “So, what was the purpose of your immediately preceding paragraph, with those particular words emphasized by you, as they were, if not to imply that I was attempting to claim that I was purely of English descent…”

    I stated the purpose. You glossed over it —> You oppose mass immigration after the fact (how Malkinesque) in light of your Slavic ancestors weaseling their way into a country generally founded by the English, even though this group is third on your ancestral depth chart.** Post 1965-immigrant stock had been in same proverbial boat as your Slavic ancestors–labeled as “alien” and derided as utterly incapable of “becoming an American”. The only difference is that one group was “European”–as if that mattered to most nativists–and those post-1965 are “non-European”.

    **This statement alone indicates that I knew you were not exclusively or purely of English descent. You doth protest too much.

    I personally have no problem with Slavs, or da Joos, or Muslims, or dark Africans who seek to immigrate to our country legally. But, as I stated before, “us Americans” have a host of other problems that require our immediate attention, and curbing or eliminating immigration is not “un-American” or “racist”, but just practical at this moment in time.

    “the notion that these “have been co-opted by the left and the right within the past twenty-years for their own purposes” is utterly absurd.”

    You do not pay close attention to the left when they cry a situation is “rape” and the reaction by the right to that same event is manufactured outrage, or when the right lays claim to a circumstance in which “rape” occurred, with the left coming out of the woodwork to…manufacture outrage. There is no absurdity at all.

    “No, moron, “Indians and other [S]ubcontinentals” MUST refer “to the actual Indian subcontinent!””

    More precious digital ink wasted. What a shame.

    “They are primarily used, within a political context, by racial realists who recognize the obvious factual reality that different demographic groups commit rape, and other forms of sexual assault, at significantly different rates, with significant social implications.”

    “Racial realist”, now there is another made up word similar to “cuck”. Now, it depends how those facts and implications are reported. The left and the right today take the information and craft in a manner to suit their narrative as race baiters.

    “Any sentient adult who denies that racial reality is either an ignoramus, a psychotic, or a bald-faced liar.”

    Hyperbole much?

    “When your friend ‘Vox’ finds a purebred English American who actually comprehends limited government…”

    He’s not my friend. Oink, oink, oink.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  42. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0

    Hey, guess what?

    Jews are suddenly ‘white’ again.

    “They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters.”

    NEW YORK TIMES doesn’t mention that a lot of these ‘white male donors’ are Jewish. Typical Jewish trick to bundle Jewish power and privilege with ‘white privilege’ and then blame it on ‘white people’.

    Yet, GOP cucks itself out to Jews and American Conservatives try to appease Jews at every turn?

  43. Corvinus says:

    “NEW YORK TIMES doesn’t mention that a lot of these ‘white male donors’ are Jewish. Typical Jewish trick to bundle Jewish power and privilege with ‘white privilege’ and then blame it on ‘white people’.”

    There is no trick. There is no power play. You’re “da Joos are to blame for everything” schtick wears thin.

  44. @Lot

    “I am dubious of this. Eastern European Americans in 1964 had largely come 40-80 years ago, and had long ago lost touch with the old country.”

    But they had not lost touch with their new country, created in 1948.

  45. JSM says:
    @Corvinus

    .

    I can never a straight answer out of people here on such an important matter.

    I’ll bite. A good definition is: a White person is any person not eligible for Affirmative Action / protected minority status.

    Myself, I like: anyone wholly of European ancestry (for at least the past five generations) who is also of Christian heritage (though current Christian worship is not necessary, since we’re talking about genetics.) That is what *I* mean when I use the word American-American as a synonym for White.

    Certainly, anti-Whites such as yourself have no difficulty telling who we are when it’s time for you to commence the White-bashing / demanding stuff.

  46. JSM says:

    he fixation on “white” on this fine blog is legendary. Ah, yes, that’s what race baiters do. Now, perhaps you can define “white”. I can never a straight answer out of people here on such an important matter. Are you willing to oblige?

    Interesting to note that most growth in the Hispanic population from 2000 to 2010 was due to births, not immigration, a change from the long-time pattern.

    Ok, *I* defined White. (Which you posture to have such difficulty getting the idea.) Now YOU define “Hispanic.” You can’t possibly be using a definition of “anyone who speaks Spanish” — particularly since you look at births in your counting of Hispanics (which, birth is, of course, about genetics) — and a language does not necessarily get passed down.

  47. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    They won’t say who this kid is, but ‘diversity’ sure messes up this country.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265526/Dozens-parents-pulling-children-California-elementary-school-grader-throws-rocks-teachers-punches-fellow-students.html

    Btw, I think the 1965 immigration law was as damaging as the slave trade that brought over lot of blacks. Importation was the much bigger problem.

    To be precise, the problem wasn’t the slave trade or slavery itself but whom were enslaved. Powerfully built West-African blacks.
    What were white folks thinking? As long as whites had firm control over powerfully built blacks, the jivers were good workers and a boon to the economy. But what about the day when the Negroes are allowed to run wild and free? They would have biological advantage over whites.

    If US had brought over 1 million Vietnamese slaves and accepted 1 million free black African immigrants, the latter would still have caused more problems in the future while the freed Vietnamese would likely have gotten along with whites.
    The problem isn’t slavery/history but biology.

    If US were all-white, the immigration act would have been a bad idea. But with so many Negroes having so many kids, white Americans really had two choices. Gradually surrender to America growing blacker and suffering under blacks, or bring in lots of non-blacks(even if non-white) and use them as some kind of buffer and padding.

    Only massive immigration from Mexico and Central America has been a real problem so far.

    Add up all the numbers of Arabs, Asians, and South Americans who’ve come to the US, and they don’t add up to much in percentage terms. The million+ immigrants from black Africa are much more problematic simply because Negroes are the Problem Race.

    So, if there’s a white nation, it should be kept white.
    But if that white nation has lots of blacks who breed like rabbits(while white population drops), the only long-term security for whites is to fill it up with non-whites who are also non-black.

    Just like the Civil War cannot be understood apart from blacks, Immigration cannot be understood apart from blacks.

    Whites in the South were especially unwilling to free the slaves cuz whites were afeared of powerfully built blacks. If the slaves were scrawny Vietnamese, whites might have been more willing to end slavery.
    So, the slave issue led to a huge controversy and finally led to war.

    Similarly, immigration cannot be understood apart from white fear of blacks.

    Better multi-color diversity than blacks.

    It could be that German enthusiasm for Middle Eastern Arabs, esp Syrians, is a way to favor them over black Africans.

    White Americans have such thorny issues with blacks that, paradoxically enough, white Libs and cuckservatives even get black Africans to offset American blacks.
    This would seem to make no sense. I mean why get more blacks when there are so many problem blacks in the US already.

    They figure black Africans can serve as ‘blank slate’ Negroes who will act better than American blacks. That way, white folks can deal with seemingly nicer black Africans than with angry American blacks and stave off accusation of ‘racism’ or redeem ‘white racism’ by showing the world how it really should have been done
    . While African immigrants, due to traditions and eagerness, may be more cooperative and nicer than American blacks, in the long run their descendants will black-Americanize and be a huge pain in the ass as well.

    Whites who welcome black African immigrants feel they are doing it right this time around. Bringing free blacks and treating them nice and watching them become successful(and maybe black-Americans will follow suit as African-immigrant blacks become the new black elites of America.)
    But it is really just a pipe dream. While talented black african immigrants do come, many blacks are still just blacks.
    And when we look at the state of blacks in Europe, it isn’t very appetizing or promising.

  48. @Corvinus

    You are the one who claimed a “predominantly white country”, Mr Crow. (Is that Jim, by any chance? Iacobus Corvinus?)

    I was merely pointing out that you are only correct about those of advanced age.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  49. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Look at the video below. That is why Jews hate racial homogeneity. There are no such marches in the US cuz white identity has been so disabused.

    As for UK and France, they got so used to playing imperialist roles over diverse peoples that they are still in habit of ‘governing the world’.

    But Poland has no imperialist history outside Europe.
    Also, as it suffered much, it has a victim mentality than a victor one.
    Victim mentality is great for nationalism. The Right should use victimology carefully.
    Those who feel as victims feel no ‘collective guilt’. They feel collective rage and anger.

    Poland had been wiped off the map by Russian and German imperialism. Poland resurfaced as a nation after WWI but then was swallowed up by Germany and Russia again in WWII. And then, it was under Soviet Occupation for 55 yrs. It finally regained freedom and independence with the fall of communism.

    But Globalist Imperialism is now saying that Poland must be invaded by massive invasions of foreigners. This globalism is controlled by Zio-Jewish elites, promoted by the US, and served by America’s puppet states and its brainwashed minions.

    Since Jewish supremacist foreign policy destroyed the Middle East, make Jews pay for the damage and make Jewish communities in Israel and New York take in all the ‘refugees’.

  50. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    ————–You are the one who claimed a “predominantly white country”, Mr Crow. (Is that Jim, by any chance? Iacobus Corvinus?)————

    Why do you call Corvinius “Mr Crow”?

    Does Corvinius mean ‘crow’ in some language?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  51. Lepanto says:
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus, I agree with you overall. I would say that the ‘new’ immigration has the potential to make us very strong provided that the new immigrants are culturally well integrated into the country – assimilated. From what I have read and researched on my own, it is by and large the case that the immigrants are assimilating.

    Yes, I have no doubt that the Democrats are playing to the immigrants and even using the amnesty law to bring more voters to their platform. But that platform is in fact – and I hesitate to use the word – “inclusive.” And by inclusive here I mean “conducive to assimilation.”

    I think there is a radical left politics/cultural Marxist – critical race theory for example – that is anti-white and an explicit effort to hinder assimilation, but I don’t see them as dominating the Democratic party by any means.

    What I also see – and I have said it before in comments – is a tendency in articles like this to miss the fact of assimilation and so end up helping to do the work of the cultural Marxists.

    If some of you think this is a white-only country that is your right. It certainly started out that way. If you think we can build a future country by excluding non-whites then you are deluded. If you think the cause is lost, then you are articulating yourselves out of existence – the very thing anti-whites want you to do. You need a different strategy.

    Take this as an appeal.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  52. Lepanto says:
    @D. K.

    Let’s spend more time defining “American.” Seems that this word is strong enough to handle a lot of the above group categories. And there are certainly a lot of non-whites who consider themselves Americans.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  53. AndrewR says:
    @Lepanto

    Well we need to be realistic. Some groups are more assimilable than others. A good part of it comes down to genes. Plus I dont think the anti-white anti-assimilation crowd is a negligible fringe of the left. They drive the left. The really vocal, hostile ones may be relatively few in number but it is they who are steering the agenda and mobbing dissenters.

  54. D. K. says:
    @Lepanto

    An “American” is anyone bearing legal citizenship in the United States of America. I did not need to waste all of those years in law school, et seq., to know that. The nature of America, however, is determined by the overall nature of those Americans, much more so than the other way around. If you fill America with Third Worlders, America will take on a Third World culture, leading, as the night proverbially follows the day, to a Third World country.

  55. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    As I clearly stated to Jay Man, above, I am against mass immigration– everywhere and always– on principle. Not having access to a time machine, I have no power nor influence over the past. For the record, however, my maternal ancestors did not “weasel” their way to America, during the Great Wave. They were inveigled to come here, legally, as cheap labor for the steel mills.

  56. Corvinus says:

    JSM— A good definition is: a White person is any person not eligible for Affirmative Action / protected minority status.

    First, you do comprehend that your definition is based exclusively on a social construct. I’ve been reminded here on this fine blog by numerous folk that race is decidedly NOT a social construct. So, what is your response to those individuals?

    Second, are not those whites who receive welfare akin to a “protected minority status”? We know that the majority of Americans are NOT on welfare. A subset of the population, however, do qualify to receive benefits. Based on this rationale, those people who are on the gummint dole are in the minority, are protected in that those benefits are guaranteed, and have status as being “on welfare”, regardless if this status has a negative connotation. So, how do you address those whites who are a “protected minority status”? Of course, you can dispute my reasoning, which I look forward to your counter claims.

    JSM—“Myself, I like: anyone wholly of European ancestry (for at least the past five generations) who is also of Christian heritage (though current Christian worship is not necessary, since we’re talking about genetics.) “

    You do comprehend that nativists in the 1840’s/1850’s, in the 1890’s, and in the 1920’s disputed your notion of “white”, which again you base it on social constructs. Irish and German Catholics were considered by nativists, in some cases WASP’s, as “alien”, unworthy of citizenship because their cultural ways of life were incompatible with American ways of life. Moreover, Americans of northern and western European stock found it utterly contemptible for eastern and southern Europeans to be granted access to America due to their “foreign attitudes”. So, were these individuals wrong in their assessment?

    “That is what *I* mean when I use the word American-American as a synonym for White.”



    American is NOT a synonym for white. American represents an ethnic group; white represents a racial group.

    “Certainly, anti-Whites such as yourself have no difficulty telling…”

    So, anyone who challenges or disputes your claims from your perspective is “anti-white”? Wow, just wow. Moreover, pro-race is code for anti-humanity. I prefer to look at things in terms of human beings. Why are you hung up on race like Al Sharpton?

    JSM—Now YOU define “Hispanic.”

    Hispanic broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures with a historical link (usually through colonization) to Spain.

    Reg Caesar—“You are the one who claimed a “predominantly white country”, Mr Crow. (Is that Jim, by any chance? Iacobus Corvinus?)”

    No, it’s not Jim. Of course America was a predominantly white country, as in whites had been part and parcel to its founding. They, of course, “generously removed” native tribes from their homelands in the process, and “invited” Africans by the millions as slaves to tend to the fields.

    Lepanto—Thank you.

    AndrewR—“Well we need to be realistic. Some groups are more assimilable than others. A good part of it comes down to genes.”

    Genetics plays a role in the assimilation process? Really? Ok, please offer specific evidence to prove this claim. I’m always willing to entertain scientific reasoning on these matters.

    D.K.—“If you fill America with Third Worlders, America will take on a Third World culture, leading, as the night proverbially follows the day, to a Third World country.”

    You assume WAY too much. Be mindful, as I stated this earlier, the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Slavics were also characterized in some fashion as being “Third World” regarding their customs, morals, and mannerisms by the “founding stock”. Does anyone truly think that since because those ethnic groups who are European are “designed” or “inclined” to be readily assimilated, compared to Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, because these ethnic groups merely share the same “genetics”? Wow, just wow.

    D.K.—“They were inveigled to come here, legally, as cheap labor for the steel mills.”

    Inveigled, how cute. Was it not the same argument by nativists back then, as it is now, why immigrants today ought not gain entry, that they are willing to work for low wages? Yet, somehow, it was acceptable for YOUR Slavic ancestors to come on in and take jobs away from “us Americans”. Wow, just wow.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    , @res
  57. @JayMan

    The 1965 immigration act did a lot of bad things. But I am in no position to complain about it, since without it, I and my children would not exist.

    So you don’t speak out against rape and incest, because you descend from both? Fat lot o’ sense that makes!

    How do I know you descend from both? Because– duh– everyone is. Unless you argue that none of your billion trillion ancestors of just 60 generations ago engaged in those acts.

    If you think the 1964-5 act is detrimental, in full or in part, you have a duty as an American– and as a parent, if you are one— to work against it.

    If one’s parent’s actions disqualified one from doing good, there’d be few Irish (orHmong) cops in this country!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  58. @Reg Cæsar

    Before anyone jumps on me for my math, let me correct that to a million trillion ancestral slots at 60 generations, a billion trillion at 70. And that’s roughly— it’s using powers of ten for convenience, but in reality powers of two, eg 1,024 at ten generations, not 1,000.

  59. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    What is it about the fundamental– and irremediable– difference between the past and the future that you cannot get your vast intellect around, genius?

    The mass immigration of all of those non-British peoples changed the nation irrevocably from the overwhelmingly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation that was founded by the thirteen original colonies, in 1776. Under the United Nations’ own current definition, that was genocide! The early Americans should have kept other nationalities, ethnicities and races out of their new country; they never should have imported Africans, irrespective of its morality, even before nationhood.

    That cannot be undone, now, anymore than these past fifty years can be undone. The next fifty years, however, depend wholly upon what is done now and in the future. It is too late for America to be great again; it is not too late to maintain it as a relatively civilized First World country. If mass immigration is not halted, and soon, however, so that the current population projections for the remainder of this century, let alone beyond these next eighty-five years, are averted, then in 2100, America– if it still exists, at all– will be Third World country, riven with ever-increasing turmoil, corruption, violence, and general lawlessness, led by interracial and interethnic strife.

    The “nativists” of the past were right; the “nativists” of the present are right. The “nativists” are always right! As I told Jay Man, above, which apparently goes right over your head, my maternal grandparents should never have been admitted to this country! That is not because they were not good and decent people; it is because they changed the nature of the nation, irrevocably.

  60. @Corvinus

    Yet, somehow, it was acceptable for YOUR Slavic ancestors to come on in and take jobs away from “us Americans”. Wow, just wow.

    “Acceptable” is a relative term. In 1900, America was the same size as today– future states were already territories– with one-quarter the population. Lots of arable land was left to homestead, even close to cities. “Nativists” were free to discriminate as much as they liked, and hammer American ways into the newcomers. The few welfare provisions were local or private. Failures and discontents went home– in some groups, half or more. Even the most backward of Europeans came from at least a thousand years of civilization, and some three thousand or more. They competed with the whole range of native ability, not just the poorest.

    So, yes, the cheap-labor Slavs were far from unquestionably acceptable, yet still far more so than Africans and Amerinds. The cost-benefit analysis varies by group and by time.

  61. Corvinus says:

    D.K.

    “The mass immigration of all of those non-British peoples changed the nation irrevocably from the overwhelmingly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation that was founded by the thirteen original colonies, in 1776.”

    You admitted that you are more Slavic than anything else in your heritage. You have Reg Caesar in essence calling Slavics as being “far from unquestionably acceptable“. Does that statement even bother you in the least? You admitted that Slavics were not founding members of our country. Yet, you claim that your English blood qualifies you as being part and parcel to the WASPS, throwing your Slavic grandparents under the bus in the process, even though you agree that being “an ‘American’ is anyone bearing legal citizenship in the United States of America”. Wow, just wow.

    “Under the United Nations’ own current definition, that was genocide!”

    Are you referring to this part—“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”? Because legal immigration decidedly does NOT meet this criteria. Try again.

    “The early Americans should have kept other nationalities, ethnicities and races out of their new country; they never should have imported Africans, irrespective of its morality, even before nationhood.”



    Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Let’s stick with reality, shall we? Nana and Papa are rolling in their graves based on your comments.

    “It is too late for America to be great again; it is not too late to maintain it as a relatively civilized First World country.”

    For a third time—> The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Slavics were also characterized in some fashion as being “Third World” regarding their customs, morals, and mannerisms by the “founding stock”.

    “The “nativists” of the past were right; the “nativists” of the present are right.”

    
Are you finally admitting that the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Slavics are not “white”, that the nativists were actually correct in their assessment?

    “…let alone beyond these next eighty-five years, are averted, then in 2100, America– if it still exists, at all– will be Third World country, riven with ever-increasing turmoil, corruption, violence, and general lawlessness, led by interracial and interethnic strife.”

    That’s Chicken Little talking.

    Reg Caesar—“Even the most backward of Europeans…”

    What qualifies you to make such assertions regarding what Europeans or non-Europeans are “forward” or “backward”? How are YOU the expert at determining this sliding scale? What metrics are involved?

    Reg Caesar—“So, yes, the cheap-labor Slavs were far from unquestionably acceptable, yet still far more so than Africans and Amerinds.”

    Assuming that your analysis of those “backward Europeans**” is accurate. I believe Slavics are “white”, yet you characterize them in that fashion**. That mindset is clearly one of a race traitor. Do you not need all of the white allies you can muster to ward off the dark cloud America inevitably faces?

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Reg Cæsar
  62. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    If you can find an IQ test based solely on missing the point, I would advise you to take it, and then to frame your score for posterity. You are obviously impervious to reality, just as you are to logic.

  63. @Priss Factor

    Does Corvinius mean ‘crow’ in some language?

    Yes, more or less, in Cæsar’s own.

    Look up the English word corvine in any dictionary that gives etymologies.

  64. @Corvinus

    What qualifies you to make such assertions regarding what Europeans or non-Europeans are “forward” or “backward?

    I never said I was qualified. That’s for the reader to determine. Some might think the Greeks and Sicilians were backward due to their poverty, despite three millennia of civilization. Others, particularly Christians, would suggest the Lithuanians, the last lot to be Christianized. (Or was it the Letts?)

    Anyway, it’s not about who’s better or worse, but who’s more suitable for us. No one can claim the white man is supreme anymore, not after his equation of marriage with cornholery. Both predate civilization, but one created it, and the other, until recently, operated furtively outside it.

  65. res says:
    @Corvinus

    I’ve been reminded here on this fine blog by numerous folk that race is decidedly NOT a social construct.

    I guess it’s hard to understand that race is/not a social construct is a false dichotomy. I would argue anyone advocating either position without qualification is either exaggerating for effect or is poorly informed about reality. What exactly is your position on this?

    The notion of race in the US clearly has social construct aspects. Some of the most notable of these are:
    – The one drop rule.
    – Multiracial individuals choosing which race(s) to identify as.
    – Affirmative action rules.

    The notion of race clearly has biological construct aspects. PCA plots showing whites, blacks, and admixtures are a good example demonstrating this. There is a great deal of other evidence for those who choose to acknowledge the reality of differences between group averages and the resultant, and often easily observable, tail differences (e.g. dominance of elite sprinters of West African ancestry).

    It’s worth mentioning that the social construct aspects can vary greatly across cultures (e.g. Brazil versus the US), but the biological construct aspects do not.

  66. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Oops. I think this Negro sort of gets it.

    Immigration isn’t good for white America, but immigrants are a bigger boon to white elites than to Negroes. Also, Negroes are beginning to wake up to the fact that ‘diversity’ is a way by which whites can build a buffer of brown and yellow against blacks.

    The real hidden passion of BLM is black anger over white Libs who prefer ‘diversity’ over black justice.

  67. Corvinus says:

    Priss Factor–“Immigration isn’t good for white America, but immigrants are a bigger boon to white elites than to Negroes.”

    Define white. Define elites.

    D.K.–“If you can find an IQ test based solely on missing the point, I would advise you to take it, and then to frame your score for posterity. You are obviously impervious to reality, just as you are to logic.”

    Is this what they taught you at law school? Seriously, grow up.

    Reg Caesar—“I never said I was qualified.”

    You could have surprised me.

    “That’s for the reader to determine. Some might think the Greeks and Sicilians were backward due to their poverty, despite three millennia of civilization. Others, particularly Christians, would suggest the Lithuanians, the last lot to be Christianized. (Or was it the Letts?)”

    So, in a nutshell, it’s subjective in nature.

    “Anyway, it’s not about who’s better or worse, but who’s more suitable for us.”

    Who is this “us” YOU refer to? And, actually, on the basis of your posts, it is about who is “better or worse”.

    “No one can claim the white man is supreme anymore, not after his equation of marriage with cornholery.”

    
Assuming that the “white man” was indeed supreme.

    “Both predate civilization, but one created it, and the other, until recently, operated furtively outside it.”



    People created civilization, including whites, blacks, Asians, and indigenous folk. You seem hung up that WESTERN CIVILIZATION, compared to other civilizations, is the standard bearer, by which all other civilizations ought to “measure up”.

    res—“I guess it’s hard to understand that race is/not a social construct is a false dichotomy.”

    Actually, it is for a number of people here.

    “I would argue anyone advocating either position without qualification is either exaggerating for effect or is poorly informed about reality.”

    Exactly.

    “What exactly is your position on this?

    
Well, so far what you said.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Reg Cæsar
  68. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    No, bobo doll, I learned it in graduate school, in Personality and Social Psychology, before I made the mistake of heading off to law school, instead. (Or, perhaps, I really learned it while I still was a teenaged undergraduate, in Italian 101: “‘Vaffanculo!’ he explained.”)

  69. @Corvinus

    People created civilization, including whites, blacks, Asians, and indigenous folk. You seem hung up that WESTERN CIVILIZATION, compared to other civilizations, is the standard bearer…

    I said civilization; you inserted “Western”. (Or “western”. Whatever you meant by “WESTERN”.) Thou dost project.

    Married people created civilizations.

    You seem hung up that WESTERN CIVILIZATION, compared to other civilizations, is the standard bearer…

    I live in an African immigrant neighborhood. But I’m not the one threatening to jail them for circumcising their daughters; the local pseudoliberals (the “Corvini”, as it were) do that. I personally don’t care. It’s their business, not mine. I didn’t invite the Africans here. They can do as they want, as long as it doesn’t affect me. (And that doesn’t affect me!)

    If you don’t like us imposing Western values on non-Westerners, you can start with Patricia Schroeder’s ridiculous law. How is that our concern?

    You keep doing your dance with your airs of moral superiority, but you never say anything of substance, do you?

    I don’t know why I’m arguing with a raving raven. Nevermore!

  70. Corvinus says:

    D.K.–“Vaffanculo”

    Your Rosetta Stone lessons have done wonders for your vocabulary.

    Reg Caesar–“I said civilization; you inserted “Western”. (Or “western”. Whatever you meant by “WESTERN”.) Thou dost project.”

    Again, what do you mean by “civilization”? What metrics are involved? Moreover, when you talk about “imposing Western values”, there is no projection on my part.

    “Married people created civilizations”.

    Partly true. Married people are part of a larger group of people, and it was through individual and collective efforts that civilizations developed.

    “But I’m not the one threatening to jail them for circumcising their daughters; the local pseudoliberals (the “Corvini”, as it were) do that.”

    Considering this particular practice is barbaric, and should you have actually knowledge of this ancient cultural ritual, you have a duty to contact law enforcement.

    “I personally don’t care. It’s their business, not mine.”

    
Well, you are in the business of anti-humanity.

    “If you don’t like us imposing Western values on non-Westerners.”

    For the love of God, who is “us”? And, what makes “western values” inherently superior as you imply?

    “You keep doing your dance with your airs of moral superiority”

    Just trying to keep up with the Jones’ such as yourself.

    “but you never say anything of substance, do you?”

    

That’s observably false. I say a myriad of things which are substantial, you simply chose to ignore the points made. You would rather caw out in frustration.


    • Replies: @D. K.
    , @Reg Cæsar
  71. D. K. says:
    @Corvinus

    No, here is the man to blame:

    https://www.cla.purdue.edu/slc/directory/index.aspx?p=Benjamin_Lawton

    It was all of those Pier Paolo Pasolini films that he forced us to watch, almost forty years ago, now.

  72. Bill says:

    Yes, it had nothing to do with either capitalists wanting cheap labor or those who must not be named. It just kinda happened. In a fit of absence of mind.

  73. @Corvinus

    Considering this particular practice is barbaric, and should you have actually knowledge of this ancient cultural ritual, you have a duty to contact law enforcement.

    Are you calling my black neighbors barbarians? Shame on you!

    Shock at clitoridectomy is a Western value. It is not an African value.

    So I’m being the relativist and Corvinus is the Western bigot, right, guys? Let’s take a vote!

  74. Corvinus says:

    “Are you calling my black neighbors barbarians? Shame on you!”


    I am referring to the cultural practice as barbaric, not the people themselves.

    “Shock at clitoridectomy is a Western value. It is not an African value.”

    That’s patently false. Shock at clitoridectomy is a HUMAN value. Moreover, there have been increasing efforts to bring to light this practice and change the mentality. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html

    I do acknowledge that the above report is nearly 20 years old, but the trends reported then have continued, as evident by this source.

    http://www.unicef.org/media/media_69883.html

    It is surprising that you oppose this practice, as I was led to believe you are an **ardent supporter of patriarchal authority and control of female sexuality**. Now, I could have been led astray, so perhaps you could clear the air regarding your position on this matter**.

    Although, I have a hunch that although you are publicly revolted by this cultural practice, you ultimately approve of this measure, as it helps to accomplish the overall goal of ensuring male domination, IF you take this approach.

    “So I’m being the relativist and Corvinus is the Western bigot, right, guys? Let’s take a vote!”


    Do you or do you not embrace “western values”, which is an integral part of “western civilization”? Because if your response is affirmative, then you have an obligation to report any and all actions contrary to that ideology to the local authorities, regardless if you seemingly do not care whether or not your African neighbors engage in conduct that runs counter to that ideology.

  75. That’s patently false. Shock at clitoridectomy is a HUMAN value

    Progressive conceit in a nutshell. “Your prejudices are bigotry. Our prejudices are ‘universal values’.”

  76. @Priss Factor

    Dear Priss:
    Why should one use rather difficult procedure of gene editing,
    when much simpler method exist ?
    Mild eugenics would be equally effective.
    Just do not pay welfare to mothers / fathers of carriers of most dangerous alleles.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  77. Corvinus says:

    RegCaesar–“Progressive conceit in a nutshell. “Your prejudices are bigotry. Our prejudices are ‘universal values’.”

    You would make a great ad man. Rather than focus on the topic at hand, you are resorting, like any demagogue liberal or conservative, to mantras.

    The Priss Factory–“Maybe non-whites can be gene-edited to be more assimilate-able.”

    What gives you the liberty to ensure that this program becomes viable?

    Former U.S,S,R.–

    “when much simpler method exist ? Mild eugenics would be equally effective.”

    No thanks, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Your proposal is absolutely anti-civilization and against common decency.

    “Just do not pay welfare to mothers / fathers of carriers of most dangerous alleles.”

    Your plan would invariably include millions of whites, IF your metrics actually bear fruit. Which, in the end, is anti-white, considering you will need every ally in the event of this so-called race war that will inevitably play out.

  78. @Corvinus

    Humm, rapists and murderers
    are definitely representatives of common decency and civilization.
    Good luck co-existing with them.

  79. Corvinus says:

    “Humm, rapists and murderers are definitely representatives of common decency and civilization.
    Good luck co-existing with them.”

    You, like many people on this fine blog, make grand assumptions regarding the actions and attitudes of “non-Westerners”.

  80. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    “Why should one use rather difficult procedure of gene editing…”

    It’s difficult now but will be easy with advance of technology.

  81. @Corvinus

    The “topic at hand” is whether white people have any business dictating, or even just judging, how Africans rear their children. I happen to think, no, and that’s consistent with my position that we shouldn’t be inviting them to live here.

    “Human values” is your mantra, sahib.

  82. Corvinus says:

    ““Human values” is your mantra, sahib.”

    Corrected for accuracy–It is a mantra for human beings.

    “The “topic at hand” is whether white people have any business dictating, or even just judging, how Africans rear their children.”

    You, as a defender of “western values”, indeed have such a duty. You choose to neglect that responsibility. That’s doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    “and that’s consistent with my position that we shouldn’t be inviting them to live here.”

    Feel free to work toward disinviting them.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The author asks if we “earlier Americans” are better off as a result of the increased immigration levels to the U.S. of the last fifty years. In many ways, we are. Compare the U.S. to Japan, and you’ll see that our immigration levels have helped us avoid the aging crisis that afflicts that country. Compare the U.S. to Russia, and you’ll see that our high levels of immigration have prevented the many problems associated with declining population. And, certainly one can cite many articles that stress that immigration has strengthened our tradition of entrepreneurship… just look at all the first and second generation immigrant successes in Silicon Valley.

    I think the author and others who see immigration as a net negative often do so due to changes in our national culture, ethnic and racial mix, etc. They don’t like “diversity” and its ascendancy as our cultural meme.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  84. D. K. says:
    @Anonymous

    What are the (wholly presumed) benefits to the native-born American public, as a a whole, of an ever-expanding population, through continual mass immigration? Yes, the immigrants benefit, by leaving Third World countries to come here, whether to start up Silicon Valley successes, to work as one-man lawn-care services, or to live wholly off of the American taxpayers– a la Cuban retirees, now streaming ashore! The plutocrats benefit, both from having an endless supply of cheap, placid, and easily replaceable labor, and also from having an ever-burgeoning First World population of consumers. How do the rest of us benefit? By paying ever more for real property, whether when buying or renting? By paying more for ever-scarcer resources? By paying more in taxes, to fund an endless stream of impoverished net tax-consumers? By wasting more of our lives sitting in worse traffic jams? By having ever more of the countryside plowed under to build more homes? By suffering from more manmade pollution? By suffering from imported diseases that had been wiped-out here, or which had never existed here, at all? From suffering socially and politically from the tribalism and corruption of imported Third World cultures? By having our own people, ancestors, history, culture and language demeaned and degraded by left-wing identity groups, many bearing historic grudges, or outright hatred, for us? Need I go on…?!?

    The notion of many (if not indeed most) economists that countries merely are artificial barriers to economic efficiency and growth, and that a country’s residents– forget about citizenship!– are merely fungible units of input and consumption, is nothing but a monomaniacal pursuit of GDP, as a reified goal, irrespective of human happiness– except for that of plutocrats, their political puppets, and their imported better-than-slave laborers from the Third Worlders! That anyone could believe that the modern, industrialized, robotic, First World economy of Japan is going to leave that country’s next generation begging for the importation of unassimilable aliens, because living in a less-densely-populated Tokyo will be simply more than those future Japanese citizens can bear, should be utterly mind-boggling to anyone who thinks like a human being, rather than like an indoctrinated business-school drone. There is a word we have for uncontrolled growth in the natural world: cancer! As for “diversity” per se, when different species compete for the same niche in a natural setting, one species wins out, and the others go extinct. That is an iron law of nature herself– and she does not give the proverbial tinker’s dam about any left-wing ideology to the contrary!

  85. Corvinus says:

    “Wha are the (wholly presumed) benefits to the native-born American public, as a a whole, of an ever-expanding population, through continual mass immigration?”

    Legal mass immigration or illegal mass immigration. There is an inherent difference. Of course, one has to define “mass immigration”. What metrics are involved? The number of immigrants jumped by 1.4 million between 2010 and 2013 — and 10.2 million since 2000, according to the American Community Survey. Does this data meet your criteria? In what regard? Regarding benefits, well, ask your resident “plutocrat”–tax revenue and consumer spending, for starters.

    “The plutocrats benefit, both from having an endless supply of cheap, placid, and easily replaceable labor, and also from having an ever-burgeoning First World population of consumers.”

    Again, why should not plutocrats benefit? Is it not in their best interests as capitalists to maximize productivity and minimize costs?

    ““How do the rest of us benefit? By paying ever more for real property, whether when buying or renting? By paying more for ever-scarcer resources? By paying more in taxes, to fund an endless stream of impoverished net tax-consumers? By wasting more of our lives sitting in worse traffic jams? By having ever more of the countryside plowed under to build more homes? By suffering from more manmade pollution? By suffering from imported diseases that had been wiped-out here, or which had never existed here, at all?””

    Why don’t you throw in the reason why the Cubs lost as being attributed to “mass immigration”. Listen, the problems you listed may be caused by immigrants, but there are other factors involved, Cochise. You’re going to have to isolate the factors, conduct research, and definitively prove each talking point memo how and why “mass immigration” is the primary cause over other causes to each phenomenon you described.

    “From suffering socially and politically from the tribalism and corruption of imported Third World cultures? By having our own people, ancestors, history, culture and language demeaned and degraded by left-wing identity groups, many bearing historic grudges, or outright hatred, for us? Need I go on…?!?””

    That’s rich, coming from someone who admitted that their own ancestors should not have been admitted to the United States.

    “As for “diversity” per se, when different species compete for the same niche in a natural setting, one species wins out, and the others go extinct. That is an iron law of nature herself– and she does not give the proverbial tinker’s dam about any left-wing ideology to the contrary!”

    Different ethnic groups are not “different species”. Furthermore, recall that Europeans themselves had tended to wrongly refer to themselves as members of “various races”, yet when they came to America they engaged in something abnormal–marriage between ethnic groups. Remarkably, the “ethnic group” known as Americans was borne.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS