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
Trump Has A Point–Why NOT Ban Muslim Immigration?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this. Credit:
Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this. Credit:

How about that Donald Trump, eh? Monday this week the Donald called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He walked the thing back a little bit the next day, saying that U.S. citizens who are Muslim should of course be allowed back in from overseas trips: “They’re a citizen. That’s different.” Naturally I am in total agreement. It does needs breaking down a little, though.

There are three ways a foreigner comes to the U.S.A. He comes on an immigrant visa, or on a nonimmigrant visa, or he comes illegally. Let’s ignore the last category there as being just a law-enforcement issue. What about the others?

An immigrant visa confers the right of permanent settlement and ultimately citizenship, unless the immigrant blots his copybook in some serious way. Should we block Muslims from permanent settlement here?

You’re asking me? I write for We want a moratorium on all new permanent settlement! The U.S.A. has as many people as it needs, and some serious problems of assimilation. Let’s stop all issuance of immigrant visas for the indefinite future, and get down to assimilating the huge numbers we’ve let in this past fifty years.

What, exactly, is the case against this? There isn’t one. You can’t make one; although you can, of course, chant platitudes about huddled masses and “a nation of immigrants.” That’s not making a case, that’s just emoting.

When I first came here forty years ago the U.S.A. had 210 million people, who had somehow just managed to put men on the Moon. I traveled all over that 210 million America — actually drove coast to coast and back in my 1964 Chevy. Let me tell ya, in case you weren’t around, 210 million America was a darn nice place.

Now we have 320 million, a 52 percent increase. Is the U.S.A. 52 percent better off for that, discounting for things that would have improved anyway?

I can’t see it.

The ban on settlement needn’t be waterproof. I’m sure most Americans would allow some minimal family unification — spouse and minor children of citizens, subject to basic security checks. Likewise for foreigners with extraordinary talents. If the world’s greatest chess player wants to settle in America, I’d say let him. Personally I’d even allow Muslims in both cases, subject to security screening.

That would get you down to a few thousand a year accepted for permanent settlement, of whom a few dozen might be Muslims. But he current numbers—well over a million a year, ten percent of them Muslims—are insane. We don’t need these people; and with such huge numbers, we can’t do proper, thorough background checks.

So a moratorium on immigrant visas, Muslim or otherwise. What about nonimmigrant visas—business travelers, academic exchanges, diplomats, students, guest workers, tourists?

The first thing to be said here is that these nonimmigrant visa categories are all hopelessly corrupted, as spelled out at length by Michelle Malkin and John Miano in their book Sold Out. The whole system of nonimmigrant visas needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch, with proper entry-exit tracking to stop visa overstayers.

All right, but that’s not going to happen soon. Until it does, should we exclude Muslims, even as tourists?

Yes, we should, to the degree we can. It is true of course that most Muslims aren’t extremists planning terrorism. Only a tiny minority are. The world has a lot of Muslims, though. What’s a tiny minority—0.1 percent? There are 1.6 billion Muslims. Zero point one percent of 1.6 billion is 1.6 million. Keep ’em out!

All, right, but how?

First we need to scrap the Visa Waiver Program. Oh, you didn’t know about that? Citizens of 38 countries can come to the U.S.A. without a visa. These are all First World countries, mostly European; but that’s no protection. Britain, France, and Germany are on the list and now they all have big Muslim populations.

The Visa Waiver Program should be scrapped. Any foreigner who wants to enter the U.S.A. for any purpose should have to apply to his local U.S. embassy for a visa and submit to a personal interview and a background check. Visa officers should have total discretion; and they should be instructed not to issue visas to applicants they suspect of being Muslim.

They’d make a few bad calls in both directions, no doubt; but that’s no reason not to do what we can.

Passport control officers at points of entry are a second line of defense. They already have authority to refuse entry to people on watch lists or who otherwise arouse suspicion. Keeping bad people out is not insuperably difficult.

This is our country. We can admit or exclude anyone we please, without explanation or apology. Right now, with Muslim extremists causing mayhem in Western countries, we obviously have a strong interest in keeping Muslims out.

Again, the ban needn’t be totally waterproof. I’d allow diplomats from Muslim countries, for example; and if the King of Jordan wants to pay a visit, I’d issue him a diplomatic visa.

Beyond that, I don’t see any need. Most of what business travelers do could be skyped. I can’t imagine Muslim tourism is a big sector even of any of our localeconomies. We admit far too many foreign students: our schools are a finite resource that should be preferentially for our own people. The guest worker visas are just a cheap-labor scam—read Michelle and John’s book.

The Trump ban wouldn’t completely solve our Muslim problem. We have stupidly been allowing settlement of tens of thousands of Muslims every year for decades now; and there’s a population of native converts, like the boxer Muhammad Ali and the senior Beltway sniper.

But the Trump ban would stop our Muslim policy from getting worse. That, it seems to me, is good sound policy.


It is a measure of how demented, how detached from reality our public life here in the Western world has become, that the Trump ban, which I have just declared to be good sound policy on, I think, calm and reasonable grounds, generated shrieking hysteria among political and media elites here and abroad.

Politicians from both wings of the Democrat-Republican Open-Borders cartel went into harrumph mode. Jeb Bush took a break from trying to lift his poll numbers up into double digits to tweet: “Donald Trump is unhinged. His ‘policy’ proposals are not serious,” with mockery quotes around the word “policy.” Hillary Clinton, also on Twitter: “This is reprehensible, prejudiced, and divisive … This makes us less safe.” I guess continuing to admit 100,000 Muslims a year for settlement makes us more safe.

Marco Rubio honked that “I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.” End honk. Lindsey Graham lisped that: “Donald Trump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric,” end lisp.

Rick Kriseman [Email him] the mayor of St Petersburg, Florida tweeted that

Perhaps Mayor Kriseman should attend to the beam in his own eye. According to the NeighborhoodScout website:

St Petersburg has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes … One’s chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 16. Within Florida, more than 93 percent of the communities have a lower crime rate than St Petersburg. In fact … NeighborhoodScout found St Petersburg to be one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S.A.

Where one’s personal safety is concerned, being banned from St. Petersburg looks like a good deal.

So it went. I didn’t read a whole lot of these responses, but I have not the slightest doubt that someone somewhere said: “That’s not who we are.” It wouldn’t be a full-blown outbreak of PC hysteria without that.

The politicians at least tried for a dignified style of disdain. The media Lefties were just, if Jeb won’t mind my borrowing an adjective from him, unhinged.

The Philadelphia Daily News ran a cover showing Trump with his arm raised and the headline THE NEW FUROR, F-U-R-O-R.

Having mixed with tabloid journalists considerably this past thirty years, I assumed the subeditor responsible was too stupid to spell Führer correctly, but apparently they were trying for a pun. That’s brilliant, guys.

Comparing Trump with Hitler because of the suggested ban on Muslims is actually a bit odd. Hitler seems to have gotten on well with Muslims. Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when the Nazis took power, was a big favorite. Al-Husseini had an amicable meeting with Hitler himself in 1941; and one of his most treasured possessions was a photograph of him and Heinrich Himmler smiling sweetly at each other, with a friendly inscription by Himmler, taken in 1943. The common bond there was of course hatred of Jews.

It was the same all over the media playpen. I caught The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Monday night. Bill had his two bimbo lawyers there to discuss Trump’s remarks. The first one started in by saying that not granting visas to Muslims would violate the Constitution. That got a smile from the Big Mick. Bill doesn’t know squat about immigration but he does know that foreigners in foreign countries don’t enjoy the protections of the United States Constitution.

So far as Muslims are concerned, it’s not even clear that Constitutional protections apply even in the U.S.A. Religious freedom isn’t absolute. The Constitution doesn’t protect polygamy, for example. And Islam comes with add-ons that fall outside the scope of Constitutional protections: its own law code, for instance, and extra-national loyalties. It’s not just a religion.

The Pew Research Center surveyed Muslims in 39 countries, asking them if they thought sharia law should be supreme in their countries. In Afghanistan, ninety-nine percent said it should. Pakistan, 84 percent.

Trump’s proposed ban is moderate, sensible, and prudent. The fact that it ignited hysteria among our elites just tells us how unmoored from reality our elites have become.

We need some new elites. Electing Donald Trump as President would be a good start.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor 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 FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, Islam 
Hide 95 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. tbraton says:

    “This is our country. We can admit or exclude anyone we please, without explanation or apology. Right now, with Muslim extremists causing mayhem in Western countries, we obviously have a strong interest in keeping Muslims out.”

    Totally agree with everything stated in your blog, Mr. Derbyshire. The quoted paragraph sums up your entire message.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @boogerbently
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    How will ending Muslim immigration save America?

    The main immigration threat is from south of the border.

    And with all the blacks already here and causing so much trouble, do we need more blacks from Africa? Notice that black African immigrants quickly assimilate to the black American narrative. Obama’s blackness is pure African, but he bitches about Selma and etc.

    Indeed, MLK in the movie SELMA is played by some African negro. Imagine that. Black Africans captured and sold blacks to whites, but now the descendants of the slave-sellers are joining with American blacks and yammering about Selma.

    I think some on the Right believe that ending Muslim immigration will gradually avalanche into ending other immigration too, but the moral logic doesn’t work.

    If we should ban Muslims cuz of terrorism, it means immigrants that are not associated with terrorism should be allowed.

    So, more Africans, more Latinos, more yellows, more Hindus, more etc, etc, etc.

    Terror or no terror, as US and EU fills up with non-whites, it aint the West anymore.

    Muslim-bashing is just scapegoating by those who are too afraid to take on Jews, blacks, homos, browns, dotters, and yellow teapets(teacher’s pets) who pose far greater threat to the white race.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @AndrewR
  3. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. I agree with you totally—we must ban immigration, not just of Muslims, but of all people.

    The US has imported millions of aliens and is now becoming a 3rd world country.


    The whole idea that a country must allow foreigners to come and live in the country is insane. Do people go around breaking down their walls and proclaim that others can come and live in their homes? Alienism is equally insane.

    However, the problem is the Lobby. The Jewish lobby controls the media and the all 3 branches of our govt. are the biggest campaign contributors to both political parties (besides millions in bribes under the table and blackmail of patriots) and want to destroy white nations by flooding them with 3rd world aliens.

    If Trump is able to win this election and ban immigration, it would be a great step.

    Another option to removing the chokehold of the special interests on our system is the process of binding superseding national referenda whereby the power to pass major legislation is vested in the people themselves, something which even many 3rd world countries. See National Citizens Initiative For Democracy:

  4. Wyrd says:

    But, but, but banning Submission would be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and bad for cholesterol and credit rating!

  5. Svigor says:

    How will ending Muslim immigration save America?

    That’s a tendentious question. We don’t only do what will “save” us. We also do what will help us.

    And obviously, banning Muslim immigration will help:

    1.) Keep Muslims out of America.
    2.) Sets a precedent that yes, Virginia, we really can stop people from immigrating.
    3.) Sets a precedent that yes, Virginia, some things really are more important than leftism.

    Muslim-bashing is just scapegoating by those who are too afraid to take on Jews, blacks, homos, browns, dotters, and yellow teapets(teacher’s pets) who pose far greater threat to the white race.

    If Muslim-bashing is no big deal, then why is the establishment running around with its wig on fire?

    I get your point. You don’t want to be a pawn of the Zionists, and you don’t want Americans made pawns of the Zionists, either. But look at what your enemy is doing. They know perfectly well that banning Muslims is Bad News for their agenda.

    P.S., this is politics. You play the hand you’re dealt. That’s what Trump is doing. Guerrilla fighters go after the softest targets, they don’t shame each other over not being able to win the war overnight, or take on the enemy where he’s strongest.

  6. Svigor says:

    I think some on the Right believe that ending Muslim immigration will gradually avalanche into ending other immigration too, but the moral logic doesn’t work.

    If we should ban Muslims cuz of terrorism, it means immigrants that are not associated with terrorism should be allowed.

    It’s all about the framing, now isn’t it.

    Ban Muslims because super-duper problematic. Ban others because super problematic. Harder to do the latter in an environment where even the former is unthinkable.

    Criticize Muslims because super-duper problematic. Criticize others because super problematic. Harder to do the latter in an environment where even the former is unthinkable.

    Works for me.

  7. I need to read up more on the immigration status of Trump’s wife prior to their marriage. I’m told she’s a productive, worthwhile person–speaks a few languages and has business sense, on top of the fine looks.

  8. @Priss Factor

    Quit kissing Arab arse.

    Of your groups, only Jews, yellows, and “dotters” have the brains needed to create viruses in the lab. So which of those infected the homos and blacks? That’s not the way to build a coalition.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  9. dfordoom says: • Website

    Personally I’d like my country to ban the entry of Americans. On balance Americans have been responsible for a great deal more misery in the past few decades than Muslims. I realise that not all Americans support the toxic US foreign policies but the safest thing would be to ban them all, and deport those who are already here. I’d especially like to see the deportation of Americans who man US military bases on my country’s soil.

    In fact if every country were to follow such a policy the world would be a much safer place.

    I don’t have anything against Americans but I’d prefer them to stay in their own country.

    • Replies: @Jim
    , @AnAnon
    , @Karl
  10. Interesting how Derbyshire has nothing to say about the country of his birth and ITS reaction to Trump’s proposal. Let’s see, there was the so-called “right-wing” Daily Mail which went slumming with the same stupid pun as the Philly paper. There was the poisonous Piers Morgan, who suggested to Ann Coulter that she be deported, then cut her off when she tried to respond to this bit of lunacy.

    Britain’s one of America’s biggest problems, ideologically. They openly interfere with our elections and are relentlessly trying to export to America the same suicidal policies that have left Britain circling the drain.

  11. Realist says:

    “Trump Has A Point–Why NOT Ban Muslim Immigration?”

    Why not ban all immigration?

  12. Horzabky says:

    We need some new elites.

    Exactly. And the present elite know how we Marine Le Pen voters feel. It makes some of them even more eager to replace present voters with newcomers.

  13. alexander says:

    Dear tbraton,

    “Right now, with Muslim extremists causing mayhem in Western countries, we obviously have a strong interest in keeping Muslims out.”

    Could not agree with you more.

    Unless of course, those” Muslim extremists causing mayhem ” turn out to be “dancing Israelis”

    Then what should we do?

    What happens if Mr Trump is elected President…and bares witness to classified reports implicating Israeli involvement in 9-11?…If, lets say, he sees conclusive evidence that it was Israelis dancing on 9-11, not Muslims….what would you recommend he do ? Inform the American People ?

    Then we start to quarantine and expel Israelis and perhaps Jews also ?


    Obviously, we, as a Nation, have a profound interest in preventing terrorist attacks within our borders, and most Americans are amenable to taking potent steps to achieve that. I am among them.

    Most Americans are also taught to associate terrorism with Muslims..therefore the logic follows that removing the Muslim will remove the terror..but what if we are wrong ?

    I am 52 years old , tbraton , for the first 37 years of my life (that’s almost four decades) there were no Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States…It certainly did not dominate the National discourse , as it has since 9-11. We have had more “terrorist attacks” attributed to radicalized Muslims over the past 10 years, then we had in the previous 40 years…..


    It seems the clear mandate of the American People,post 9-11, was to empower our representative government to do whatever was needed to bring its perpetrators to justice and prevent a similar event from happening. Which is all to the good, and exactly what they should do.

    To this day, the most honest,intelligent and knowledgeable individuals I know, are not sure who committed 9-11, and even if it was Muslim radicals or Al Qaeda, who sponsored them.

    Certainly, the foreign policies the United States” chose” to adopt, in the wake of 9-11,….

    attacking , invading and occupying Muslim nations that never attacked or declared war on us, has left a cesspool of shattered and fractured nations in its wake…and a resentment towards us far beyond the dimensions of which had originally existed.

    Creating “Muslim hate” where non existed, is not a prescription for winning the war on terror…its a prescription for perpetuating it….

    If you scratch the surface of all our “policy’decisions in the wake of 9-11, they seem to have been conceived in the crucible of conflict perpetuation and permanent war.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Paris attacks…as well as San Bernadino, and a host of others..serve that “exact” same purpose also.

    Which only leads me to one conclusion….the true “terrorists” among us, of whatever ethnicity or nation of origin, are those who WANT WAR and are willing to do horrific things to achieve it.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    , @Reg Cæsar
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Your whole argument is ill-informed. An increase in population in the course of 4 decades happened globally, not only in the US and not just because the US allowed immigrants in. The fact that you think the US would improve without the population’s increase, domestic-born or immigrant, just shows how 1960’s your thinking is. You’re outraged over the comparison of Trump with Hitler, yet, to some extent, your friends and your moratorium would cause the US to resemble, in due time, what Hitler was trying to accomplish – a nation of chosen ones, soon of pure blood. You claim that Hitler was fond Mohammed Amin al-Husseini because of their common hatred of Jews. Just think about towards whom Trump would turn his hatred: Muslims? Latinos? Uhm, anyone who disagreed with him? Welcome to the Great American Reich, courtesy of your hero and your thinking.

    • Replies: @manton
  15. Derbyshire is exactly correct. All the hysterical comments on this post – are simply more proof. Of course, the real reason we have the Trump immigration hysteria is because the elites want open borders. The Democrats want more democrat voters and the Republicans want cheap labor. And the elites are insulated from any blowback.

    Unfortunately, most people are stupid. They always follow the elite party line – even when it doesn’t benefit them or even hurts them. Perhaps if the Muslims start killing say 100 Americans a month for maybe 2 years, SOME of them would get the message – and change their minds.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. @alexander

    The funny thing is, until the 1990s, the two groups with the most terrorist attacks inside the US were the Puerto Ricans and the Jews. Muslims started attacking American targets in the ME after Reagan started meddling in Lebanon.

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

    “Of your groups, only Jews, yellows, and “dotters” have the brains needed to create viruses in the lab. So which of those infected the homos and blacks? That’s not the way to build a coalition.”

    You pathetic dammy, don’t you know it was Dr. Reagan’s Indifference?

  18. manton says:

    Just curious: was this post intended as a serious argument or as effective trolling, or some combination of the two?

    Just to state my opinion outright: it fails across the board, but I am genuinely curious about the mind of someone who would bother to waste the time to write it.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If Derbyshire is correct, then everyone who was not in the US 45 years ago should leave.

  20. “I guess continuing to admit 100,000 Muslims a year for settlement makes us more safe.”

    Well, that, combined with giving up our firearms. I feel safer already.

  21. Rehmat says:

    John Derbyshire, as European history student, I also have “a point”, which bigots like Donald Trump and you could answer.

    It’s a historic fact that during peace times, the European nations expelled their Jewish communities 108 times before WWI. Muslim minorities were only expelled by Josef Stalin from Soviet Union. So, why people like Trump, Kevin McDonald, Rep. Peter, you, etc. call for the expulsion of six million Jews from Europe, North and South America?

    You may like to take cue from British scholar Jonathan David Anthony Bowden, who said that Muslims should return to East and Jews to their ancestral West.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @random observer
    , @Karl
  22. TWS says:

    Yes. Very good reasoning with solid reasons. Can you imagine the lower unemployment, real estate prices, crime, grime, and social problems?

  23. Funny, none of the comments answer the question posed. Why does the USA need more immigrants, especially Muslim ones? Why isn’t 320 million a good number? Why do we need to continue to import people?

    How does it benefit say the Bottom 80% of the the population?

    Answers please.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  24. pyrrhus says:

    Derb, if you think a country of 210 million was wonderful (and it was), imagine the country of 150 million that I inherited as a child….My only contacts with Federal employees before age 30 were in the National Parks, where the rangers frequently let us camp without paying any fees, and were extremely helpful when called upon….

    • Replies: @Ivy
    , @Anonymouse
  25. Ivy says:

    We visited a lot of parks in the US and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s and noticed a definite change fir the worse in visitor profile and number beginning in the summer of 1969. It was fun while it lasted.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
  26. manton says:

    When my parent’s were born, the population of California was 10 million. Paradise.

    When I was born, it was 20 million. Still very, very nice.

    When I came of age it was 30 million. Not yet awful enough to be a dystopia, but you could see the cracks everywhere.

    Now it is 40 million and rising. Full blown dystopia.

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

    Muslims, Muslims, Muslims.

    Always the Moos!!!

    But I must ask the Derb….

    what about Shoahria or Shoaria?

    Jews seem to be using Shoaria to ban whites from working their own identity and interests.

    Shoaria says NO to white identity, white lands, white survival, white heritage, white pride, etc.

    It says whites must veil their pride and power and submit to Jews forever.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  28. Doorway says:

    “Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this. Credit:

    I find as I get further and further from the point that I took the red pill, that I notice more and more of these little fabrications by the leftist media. I remember thinking about this in particular one time when noticing on the little rotating main page of MSN how they had juxtaposed three captions and images all onto the same display side by side- An article about the GOP, an article about a neo-nazi who had killed someone, and an article about white privilege- clearly trying to mentally tie all these disparate things together, even though 1. White privilege is a myth perpetrated by those who actually have privilege, to keep theirs, 2. The average establishment GOP big wig does about as much in favor of perpetuating this myth as the average liberal, maybe more if you consider their role as Judas goats, and 3. Nazism was actually form of leftism, and its the leftism and lack of white privilege that creates neo-nazis.

  29. Hail says: • Website

    This is our country.

    Repeat this line as needed in these sorts of discussions. Emphasis on the “our”.

    It’s so simple. Four words. Don’t overthink this.

  30. Hail says: • Website

    you…call for the expulsion of six million Jews from Europe, North and South America?

    I don’t think he has called for this.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  31. “Guerrilla fighters go after the softest targets, they don’t shame each other over not being able to win the war overnight, or take on the enemy where he’s strongest.”

    This points deserves repeating. The armchair WN types that inhabit the comment threads of websites like Alternative Right have no practical strategies for building up a political movement to seriously challenge the current liberal hegemony. They basically just hope and pray that ultra-liberalism will collapse due to its own weaknesses and contradictions.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  32. Rehmat says:
    @Priss Factor

    Nope – Shoaria don’t want elimination of White race because Israeli leaders have always claimed they’re part of Europe; their “culture, governance, occupation, Nazism, racisms, etc. are all western – even though they happen to live in Middle East.”

    Shoaria just want the west to modernize its Christian faith by deleting anti-Jew quotes from the Bible, and – keep paying billions of dollars compensation for what they did to their ancestors in the past.

    On November 8, 2012, Dutch daily Telegraaf quoted former Dutch prime minister Dries Van Agt as saying that Jews should have been given a safe homeland in Germany instead of Palestine.

    “Jews need a safe place. Why couldn’t they get a safe place in Germany, at the time?”, he said while adding: “It would be more logical for Jews to have gotten a piece of land in Germany as the Middle East had nothing to do with World War II.”

    Andreas Antonius Maria ( Dries) Van Agt (born 1931) served Prime Minister of Netherlands from 1977-1982. Earlier he had served as country’s Justice Minister (1971-77) and Deputy Prime Minister (1973-77). Dries Van Agt also served as Dutch ambassador to the US and Japan.

    • Replies: @random observer
  33. Anon7 says:

    You wouldn’t think that immigration would be such a big deal, but to judge from the incredible media pressure (right and left wing) and political pressure (right and left wing), it really is a big deal.

    For example, when I looked at the website this morning, the first seven “Recommended for You” items were angrily anti-Trump, and pro-Muslim, pro-immigration.

    Who is paying both sides? And whose interest are they supporting? Not ours, that’s for sure.

  34. bondo says:

    ban jews from any part of our domestic, foreign policies planning, decision making.
    ban jews from everywhere except their homeland – a toxic landfill in jersey.

    no manufactured problems from muslims.

    in first row first train box to jersey: adelson, wolfiwitz, perle, rita katz, pipes, all the kagans, feith, the wurmsers, friedman, dershowitz.

    the air is already cleaner.

    • Replies: @Druid
  35. MarkinLA says:
    @unpc downunder

    It takes money, time, and the ability to grab one of the national microphones to get the message out long enough to push through the constant brainwashing and browbeating by the media and elites. Where do they get it from the elites?

  36. @Rehmat

    Between Spain in the 16th century [expulsion of Muslim colonial settler peoples and hangers on, not unlike the approach taken by countries from Algeria to the Middle East in the post-colonial era] and the Balkans in the 20th [ditto] most of Europe didn’t have Muslim communities big enough to be worth expelling, if they had any at all. Core Western European nations tended toward the nil end of the spectrum.

    Good times.

  37. @Rehmat

    I can’t imagine the Jews of Europe reacting to that notion in 1945 with much less than full voiding of their stomachs on the shoes of the proposers.

    Imagine Moses telling his followers to build the promised land right there in Egypt. [Which is unfair to pharaonic Egypt. If the analogy had been available in 1945, the proper comparison to Germany for a Jew would have been “Mordor”.]

    I expect it could have been possible for the Allies to insist on it- they were exercising full sovereignty over Germany under the terms of the surrender. They had to exercise that sovereignty with an eye toward an eventual agreed peace treaty between the 4 powers and the German Reich [the London Accords of 1990 ultimately served this purpose]. But still, they had sovereignty over Germany in 1945, and only returned it in dribs and drabs from 1949. They had a window in which they could in theory have done anything.

    On the other hand, the British were also exercising sovereignty over Palestine. They had to do so with an eye to the mandatory provisions [which essentially restricted them in no way theoretical or practical, the mandatory powers having written them]. The British had also won rule of Palestine by force of arms from its previous rulers, inheriting the Sultan’s powers over it just as the conquering allies assumed the powers of the German state in 1945.

    So if the Allies including the British had the full power to give the Jews a state in Germany, then the British alone had the full power to give them one in Palestine, and for the same reasons.

    Or to sum it up, the Middle East may have had ‘nothing to do with World War 2’ [except as a generator of poor-quality SS recruits and sundry hangers on of Heinrich Himmler] but it had plenty to do with World War 1. The Ottoman Empire entered that earlier war with territory, which it lost by its defeat. As the Ottomans exercised full sovereignty over it, so the victors were entitled by their victory to dispose of it however they wanted. Or keep it, or carve it up. That was after all how the Turks got it.

  38. Jim says:

    What is your country?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  39. AnAnon says:

    that is how national sovereignty works, and as an added bonus no one will declare that you are evil for publicly supporting such a plan.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  40. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Muslims are nutty, and I don’t like their barbaric Medievalism.

    But in some ways, the current Western Conzos are missing something crucial.

    They overlook the fact that the Moos, in their rather stupid way, are doing the fighting that Western Conservatives won’t do.

    The main forces of anti-white-ism and anti-conservatism emanate from Jews, blacks, and homos. And now that the ‘gay marriage’ nuttery is over, feminists are back in the spotlight.

    White Cons do not combat these forces and often surrender to them. But Moos will not give into them. Moos may politically ally with them sometimes, but Moos do not submit to their will or agenda.

    Moos are not cucks.

    A true conservative believes that his race, culture, history, and land are #1 in his list of passion and priorities. He thinks in terms of ‘Is it good for me and my people?’

    And Moos feel this way. Moos may sometimes go along politically with Jews, blacks, homos, and feminists — in a shaky alliance of ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ — , but Moos believe that their faith, convictions, loyalties, and worldview are higher, greater, and truer than ANY OTHER. Moos may adapt to different situations, but they will never ever sacrifice their Core Convictions for any other people, faith, culture, etc.

    So, even though Moos sometimes work together with Jews, blacks, and homos in the political arena, they do not worship Jews and the Holocaust-as-new-religion. They don’t apologize to blacks for past slavery but take pride in having spread Allah’s truth to Africa; they demand gratitude from blacks. Muslim men don’t act pansy to screaming biatches. Muslims don’t wave the homo ‘rainbow’ banner or say stuff like ‘Muhammad would have been for ‘gay marriage’.”
    Indeed, even homos don’t say such stuff cuz they fear and respect Muslim’s commitment to their own faith. Homos dare not demand that mosques allow ‘gay marriage’. Imagine Obama saying in public, “I think Allah would be for ‘gay marriage’.” Muslims don’t take that shit.

    Now, Moos can be stupid with beards, veils, and penchant for idiot terror. Whether Timothy McVeigh or Paris attacks, killing lots of innocent people don’t make for good political theater UNLESS you’re fighting to drive out imperialist-colonizers, like when Algerians used terror to drive out the French. If Chinese or Iranians were super-powerful and occupied the US, Americans would be using terror against them, trust me. Like in RED DAWN.

    Moos are not cucks, but Western Conzo-ism is totally cucky. Instead of emulating the Moos and being like them — badass loyal to one’s own culture/people and burning with core conviction — , the Western Conzo logic is totally cuckish:

    “We should ban the Moos cuz they might hurt Jews, homos, and feminists.”

    So, Western Conzo-ism basically says its #1 imperative is to do things for the sake of serving and protecting Jews, blacks, homos, and etc.

    Now, if Jews, blacks, homos, and feminists were supportive of Western Conservatism, that’d be one thing. But the fact is they are the leading forces for the dispossession of the West. Swedish feminists are the ones leading the charge of national suicide.
    NYT Jews say Europe should abandon all borders and surrender to hordes from Middle East and Africa.
    Why should white conzos argue that Moos should be kept out to protect feminists… who are trying to destroy the white race? If anything, white conzos should be like Moos and take the fight to feminists.

    Now, the Moos go too far in their nuttery.

    Women should be free and have equal rights under law. But feminism goes much further. It is crazy, insane, paranoid, hysterical. Its essence can be seen in Sulkowicz and Sabrina Rubin. Horrible insane people.

    Homos should be free to be fruitish and do their ‘gay’ things, but homos demand much more. They now call gayria and Ji-homo-had against anyone who won’t bend over to the homo agenda. You think fecal entry is ewwwww? You think ‘gay marriage’ is insane? You Shall Be Destroyed!!!

    And Jews don’t just want to live in a nation without anti-Jewish hatred. They want gentiles, esp white ones, to worship them as the Chosen People to whom debt must be paid forever and ever… despite the fact that Jews are, by far, the richest and most powerful people in the West.

    Moos do it in a bad way, but they do resist the Jews, homos, blacks, and feminists.
    Conzos need not do it in the stupid brutish manner of the Moos, but they need to take the fight to the main enemies(who are not the Moos except in some parts of Europe, but then the Moos didn’t change the immigration/migration policy that allowed so many Moos to pour in).

    The thing is Moos believe that there is something higher than the West with its technology, capitalism, progressivism, entertainment, and etc.
    As impressive as the West is with its wealth and power, Moos believe there is something far greater: Allah, Muhammad, and their sacred truth.
    So, even as Moos may be adaptive politically, they place themselves at the CENTER of their agenda. Their agenda is ultimately to serve Allah, Muhammad, and fellow Muslims.

    In contrast, Western Conzos believe that their ultimate mission is to be ‘generous, good, and empathetic’ and mold their thoughts and actions to best serve other peoples, especially the favored top three: Jews, blacks, and homos(and sometimes feminists whose main ire is directed at white gentile straight males; feminism is female hatred of white males and white female guilt toward homos and people of color; feminism feels morally superior to white males, morally inferior to non-whites, Jews, and homos. Look at women’s colleges caving to tranny boys who say they are now girls. Also, because Western imperialism invoked progress and enlightenment as justification to conquer and rule the world, feminists are queasy about denouncing abuse of women in non-white lands cuz it might be used as justification for neo-imperialist intervention. And their concerns are partly valid. After all, ‘liberating women’ was one of the justifications for dropping so many bombs in the Middle East.)

    Western Conzos need to be like the Moos in one sense: put their own interests at the center.

    But Christianity is partly a problem cuz it’s all about love and peace and feeling guilty and etc.
    Conzos need to go for a kind of neo-paganism. Christianity is now really over. Not only in ‘god is dead’ way but in ‘god wears women’s dress’ way. When Jimmy Carter says Jesus would have been for ‘gay marriage’ and when the Pope hugs ‘married’ homos…
    it’s really time to give it up.
    It’s over.

    Western Conzos should be wary of Moo violence and should push back against Moo radicalism. And all Moo immigration should be ended, esp in Europe that has too many Moos.

    BUT, Conzos should NEVER argue against Moos on the premise that the main duty of Conzos is to protect Jews, homos, feminists, and etc.
    Jews, homos, blacks, and feminists are even more hostile to the white race and western conservatism than the Moos are.
    If anything, Western Conzos should talk about protecting Moos in the Middle East and North Africa from the globalist agenda of Zionists, filthy rappers, deviant homos, and degenerate feminists.
    Jihad may be crazy, but filth-had of the West is even crazier.

    • Replies: @Da-Mith
  41. Freedom of movement within the Western world is just that, a freedom. It is reciprocal.
    To give it up, for the sake of what? A fairly minor elevated risk of terrorist attacks? If we tolerate the obvious risks of gun ownership for the sake of freedom, why is the risk of a terrorist act is any different?
    The opportunity costs of such measure are painfully obvious. The monetary loss of the tourist industry along will be high.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
  42. ” I’m sure most Americans would allow some minimal family unification — spouse and minor children of citizens, subject to basic security checks. Likewise for foreigners with extraordinary talents. If the world’s greatest chess player wants to settle in America, I’d say let him. Personally I’d even allow Muslims in both cases, subject to security screening.

    That would get you down to a few thousand a year accepted for permanent settlement, of whom a few dozen might be Muslims. ”

    This seems highly unrealistic – in Britain alone, Pakistani cousin marriage brings in large numbers every year, far more than ‘a few dozen.’ A secure immigration policy can’t allow unrestricted immigration by spouses. You’d be wise not to allow children with one non-citizen parent, either. Exceptions should be be made by nation – probably ok to let us Brits in, maybe the Scandinavians – although by ethny would be safer these days.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Karl
  43. @Ivy


    What was the change in the profile of park visitors circa 1969?

    Admittedly, I did not get to North America until the mid 1970s but the visitors to US and Canadian national parks have always struck me as being substantially above the average citizens of both countries.

    I haven’t been to Alberta or BC in ten years but go to Yellowstone and/or Grand Teton almost every year.


    • Replies: @Ivy
  44. AnAnon says:

    Typically one undertakes risks for rewards. there really isn’t a reward as far as mass muslim immigration is concerned.

    “gun ownership” – you’d make a better case, although it would still be utterly specious, with car ownership.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  45. Hildo says:

    How do you expect to recruit armies of muslim jihadis if you aren’t willing to promise them US residency in case of failure?

  46. Hail says: • Website

    Some of the comments here are really just too long.

  47. But surely we want pilots from Middle Eastern Countries, Pakistan, and Indonesia to be able study here so that they can take back the good news about our wonderful country and its freedoms to their Allah-forsaken desert homelands.

  48. @Simon in London

    Exceptions should be be made by nation – probably ok to let us Brits in, maybe the Scandinavians – although by ethny would be safer these days.

    Wouldn’t those Brits have to have some kind of DNA testing to make sure that they didn’t have a few Muslim genes in there somewhere? After all those decades of the British Empire in India, there are bound to be a few stay Pakistani chromosomes in some of the most respectable families.

    • Replies: @Kat Grey
  49. [It’s much better not to clutter up the discussion by publishing numerous short comments, but instead combine them together into one or two longer and more substantial ones.]

    If the Olympic Games or World Cup was held in North America, would we let a few Muslim players in for a few weeks, I think Franck Ribery of France is one such, although he might not be a good example as his reported involvement in a scandal involving an underage prostitute might exclude him from a visa anyway. What you call a double whammy.

    • Replies: @5371
  50. Ivy says:
    @PV van der Byl

    People became less cooperative and more opportunistic, typically over petty things. There was an ethos and sense of respect for self, others and institutions that eroded, along with a change from honest adventuring to less constrained activities.

    Here is an anecdote from the eastern US. One of my professors said that he saw a decline when people started getting mugged while hiking in the Delaware Water Gap.

  51. Karl says:

    it’s not the American military people who are CLEANING OUT the stocks of inventory in every Australian military-operated store in the the Seventh Fleet and the Fifth Fleet.

  52. Karl says:
    @Simon in London

    Singapore & Greece allow alien spouses to attain renewable-upon-clean-record Social Visit Pass to stay alongside their local spouse – but attaining citizenship in Greece is virtually impossible. In singapore it’s just very, very difficult.

    Screening for acceptance of such a reality is a good way to measure the “true love” for the local spouse.

  53. dfordoom says: • Website

    What is your country?

    Australia, an obscure and distant outpost of the American Empire.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  54. dfordoom says: • Website

    that is how national sovereignty works, and as an added bonus no one will declare that you are evil for publicly supporting such a plan.

    National sovereignty is a fine thing. Sadly it’s a thing of the past.

  55. @dfordoom

    Australia, an obscure and distant outpost of the American Empire.

    Then why did you folks complain in 1914 and 1939 when we didn’t go to war?

    Can’t please some people…

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  56. @alexander

    I am 52 years old , tbraton , for the first 37 years of my life (that’s almost four decades) there were no Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States…

    37 years before the 1993 WTC bombing is 1956, which would make you 59– if you’re aging at the same rate as the rest of us. Or have you found the secret fountain of relativity?

    • Replies: @alexander
  57. @Anonymous

    If Derbyshire is correct, then everyone who was not in the US 45 years ago should leave.

    Derbyshire himself wasn’t in the US 45 years ago. Personally, I think he was one of the better deals we got in the immigration game.

    Heck, I can almost forgive him for backing the wrong NY baseball team. (I can’t imagine moving to Lancashire and supporting United. Go City!)

  58. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    Then why did you folks complain in 1914 and 1939 when we didn’t go to war?

    Can’t please some people…

    I don’t think Australia should have gone to war in 1914 and 1939. As usual we got dragged into wars that were none of our business by our “great and powerful friends.” The British dragged us into the Boer War and the two world wars. Our foolish “alliance” with the Americans dragged us into Vietnam and countless other disasters since.

    I also don’t think the US should have gone to war in 1917.

  59. alexander says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    Are you referring to the “white van” filled with explosives that rammed the WTC foundation wall ?

    Were there “Dancing Israelis” spotted “high -five-ing “at that one” too”……..

    …..or was that just you, Reg ?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Hibernian
  60. 5371 says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “Frenchman” Karim Benzema, one of the world’s best players, is in serious legal trouble for cooperating with one of his ghetto friends to blackmail a teammate over a sex tape. Lovely chap.

  61. geokat62 says:

    The Trump ban wouldn’t completely solve our Muslim problem.

    Oh, we have a Muslim problem. And here I thought the root cause of our problem was the neocons/Israel firsters who decided to launch a crusade in the ME, regime changing those countries deemed hostile to the Zionist project, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle (see PNAC’s Clean Break or Oded Yinon Plan).

    So rather than addressing the root cause, this so-called journalist is advising us to treat the symptoms. I wonder why.

    But the Trump ban would stop our Muslim policy from getting worse.

    It’s not your “Muslim policy” you need to worry about, it’s your foreign policy, stupid, as Bill Clinton would have put it.

    We need some new elites.

    Based on this post, what we clearly need is some new journalists.

  62. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The USA and for that matter, most of the West, should be banning central bankers from traveling anywhere to do their sinister dealings.

    It’s those ‘Too Big to Fail’ Wall Street banks that have caused more trouble and grief than any False Flag blamed on Muslims.

    The banksters are up to no good again, with their dodgy investments, CDO crap and slippery junk bonds now a greater threat to the US and world’s economy than it was in 2007, right before the crash.

    Former FED head Bernanke admitted that the FED caused the 1929 Crash, and was probably behind the 2008 crash also and is twiddling its thumbs while banks launder money for terrorists, drug cartels and other nefarious enterprises, so the Big Banks are the true terrorists and need to be contained.

  63. Lupa says:

    Of course it’s a sensible decision! Even if they’re not rebellious, I can’t think of a single way a Westerner benefits from having muslims around him. They’re expensive, troublesome immigrants, who dislike the native culture they arrive to, and whose ultimate loyalty most likely isn’t the country they’re being admitted to.
    Meanwhile we are just to pretend the Gulf states don’t exist – they can build skyscrapers and fancy monuments – but admitting people of their own creed: big no. Just goes to show the filth that is Islam.
    There’s absolutely ZERO reason why any Western country should accept immigrants from the Middle East.
    What the US would do if it had any actual cunning, would be to force the immigrants on Saudi Arabia (they have the means to). It would be a strategically more sound decision.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  64. Rehmat says:

    How could Trump say that Holy Word? The “word” has become new Jewish religion.

    When the Israeli professor Yeshyahu Leibowictz defined holocaust as the new Jewish religion – he was trying to be modest – as in practice it has long passed the threshold of ‘religion’ since Israel’s 1967 invasion of its Arab neighbors during which it occupied the entire pre-1947 Palestine. One can insult the Bible or ridicule the Biblical prophets – but one must not be blasphemous about the “Six Million Died” doctrine.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Lets try this Let get the Muslim out of US and let Muslim counties throw out US business ,dollars,military presence,and any territorial presence in Arab,N Africa,Indonesia,and Pakistan.,and Central Asia .
    Muslims serve purposes that could be by met Mexican and Haitian
    Dollars could be replaced by other currencies and military alliances can be built between Russia or China and these Muslim countries.

  66. @alexander

    I supported the demolition of the WTC way back in the 1970s, on aesthetic grounds– but only after a proper, humane evacuation, as at the same architect’s Pruitt-Igoe in St Louis.

    Islamic teaching on the ethics of demolition appears to differ in some aspects from ours, as we saw with the Taliban and their famous walls.

  67. @AnAnon

    “gun ownership” – you’d make a better case, although it would still be utterly specious, with car ownership.

    Hey, automobile prohibition works! A search for accident reports on Mackinac Island gives only this sort of thing:–kcc–kcc

  68. Hibernian says:

    It was a very serious attempt which caused a lot of property damage and some deaths and consequent grief for families and friends. I don’t know about injuries. It “failed” from the point of view of the perpetrators because the van driver was too lazy to overcome, and/or the planners were too lazy to forseee, the fact of a vehicle already parked in the spot planned for maximum damage. It was parked just any old place and the damage was much less than the perps “hoped” for.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Reg Cæsar
  69. Blobby5 says:

    Immigration should have been stopped the second after Derb hit our shores (and the Mrs. of course), truly a national treasure.

  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The U.S. was founded on principles of democracy, while Islam demands a theocracy – a Caliphate. The two philosophies are fundamentally incompatible. The US is your house. You have the right to refuse entry to your house to those who will not accept the way you want to live. Why admit people who are not house-trained?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  71. Anonymouse says: • Website

    when does it get worse and when does it get better? my childhood NYC was all white with 3% of the population Negro and mostly living in Harlem. cheap jet plane tickets brought yooge number of Puerto Ricans (US citizens) to the city in the 50s. city life got worser and worser in the 60s and 70s and then mirabile dictu in the late 80s NYC started getting better and better. Living elsewhere I did not believe the good news the NYTimes was reporting (I was an out-of-town subscriber then – receiving the paper 4 days late by mail!). 15 years after my mother died there in 1979, I visited NYC for 10 days and I was amazed. It was true. I hitchhiked all over the country way back when. Around what year did hitchhiking go out of existence? In the 60s I could drive back from San Antonio to Austin on IH35 at 2 in the morning without any other traffic pedal to the metal. now IH35 through Austin is the 3d or 4th worst congested highway in the entire county. What can one says but ‘tough titty’ on us?

  72. alexander says:

    You know Hibernian, it is very sad that events like this occur at all….ever.

    Whether the motivation is political or otherwise…its very sad.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  73. Kat Grey says:

    Muslims are only a demographic threat in Europe. In the USA the Hispanics are putting white Anglos on the Endangered Species list. Obviously nobody should get in without a background check and extensive profiling as to their ability to integrate with the host population. Having said this mosques in all western nations need more monitoring and Islamic Centres should be closed down in the interest of public safety.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  74. Kat Grey says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “Muslim genes’??!! Since when was Islam a race or ethnicity? It’s a religion.

  75. Fellow reader Gaspert T quotes the very pertinent comment from VDare: “Any conservative who raises his arm above the shoulder in public will be photographed like this,” i. e., making the fascist or Nazi salute. This is currently de rigueur at the New York Daily News, in its nonstop attacks on Donald Trump. When I was a kid many years ago, I loved the Daily News. It was published by Joseph Patterson, cousin of the Chicago Tribune’s Robert McCormick, and like his kin a dyed-in-the-wool Roosevelt hater and “isolationist.” It was the New Yorkers’ paper, with a daily circulation of two million, four million on Sunday, and on its old headquarters on East 42nd Street was carved (as I recall) the motto, “God must have loved the poor. He made so many of them.” Now the owner of he Daily News is Mortimer Zuckerman, and the political stance is pretty much the opposite of old Joe Patterson’s.

  76. Da-Mith says:
    @Priss Factor

    Mr Factory,
    I must say firstly, that many times I disagree with many of your comments. However , today I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent summation of the relationships between the “Moos” the “Western Conzos” and the “Jews, homos, blacks, and feminists “

  77. @Honesthughgrant

    The same way paying for them, and changing our culture to accommodate them “benefits” us, I guess.

    Red team gets cheap labor, blue team gets votes.
    It’s “who we are” !!!

  78. @tbraton

    We don’t need to “ban” anyone.
    Just quit paying for them and they’ll leave.

  79. @Anonymous

    Read the article beyond he headline and first two paragraphs next time. Hat wasn’t his point at all.

  80. Hibernian says:

    I wasn’t accusing you of callousness about the deaths; it was a quarter century ago and you were mocking another commenter as we all do. It was an instance of jihadis seriously intending extreme harm to many people and a lot of property, which didn’t turn out as they planned. Something like that historically almost always is political, although some individuals may join the cause at least in part to impress their girlfriends or whatever. Andy McCarthy prosecuted the case and is a good source; he has a viewpoint as everyone does.

  81. Hibernian says:
    @Kat Grey

    Islamic Centers should no more be shut down than Jewish Centers or Catholic Centers. In all three cases, individual ones that are demonstrably involved in criminal activity should be shut down. I’m not absolutely opposed to spying on houses of worship if it’s necessary, but I’d certainly be upset if the Parish Hall of my parish was bugged by the FBI, although many parishes could benefit from a visit from an undercover agent of the Papal Nuncio.

  82. Biff says:

    There are three ways a foreigner comes to the U.S.A

    I can think of two more legally, and I’m naive on the subject.

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

    How about an END AMERICA campaign?

    Let each state go its own way and have its own rules and regulations.

    The only ‘federal’ power will be control of currency.

    Otherwise, end the presidency, end the supreme court, end Congress, etc.

    Let each state have its own citizenship laws and immigration laws.

    End it all.

    Let blue states go blue. Let red states go red. And no more tussling and bitching.

    Let Ca be Ca. Let Tx be Tx. Let Il be Il. Let NY be NY.

    End America campaign. Stop the farce. National elections are controlled by oligarchs anyway.

    Also, if the US military is divided among 50 states, it will do far less harm in the world.

    • Replies: @epebble
  84. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    If Amnesia, Alzheimer’s Disease, Addiction, and Hysteria are bad for the individual, why would they be good for an entire people?

    European people are told to forget their history(amnesia), forget who they are & where they are(Alzheimers), wallow like pigs in moronic pop culture opium(addiction), and become wildly PC(hysteria).

    Why is that something that is bad for the individual is prescribed to an entire population?

  85. dfordoom says: • Website

    The U.S. was founded on principles of democracy

    Although as I understand it most of the Founding Fathers thought democracy was dangerous nonsense. The US was founded as a republic, not a democracy. Not the same thing at all.

    • Agree: geokat62
  86. Karl says:

    >>>> Muslim minorities were only expelled by Josef Stalin from Soviet Union

    The two (sunni muslim) circassian towns in northeast Israel, are full of people who can show you the physical evidence that their forefathers were expelled from Russia by the Tsar.

    by the way, these folks have submitted themselves, since 1948, to compulsorary IDF conscription. The IDF chaplaincy prints/issues Qurans for them.

    In fact, they are quite fond of selecting service in the Border Police (gendarmarie). Grey-ish Blue uniforms, with bright green berets. Shoulder tab has an embroidered image of a stockade tower.

    • Replies: @5371
  87. Ft says:

    Language and rhetorics have their place in politics . It hammers the message home as if it were a necessarry nail to be impaled es into consciousness for ever. Terrorism is such a game intentional killings of innocents is on the list of those descipable acts .

    This is why language should not be a barrier but a facilitator to make the understanding of the nature of the evil broader ,easy,reflexive and automatic. I can understand why Trump wants to take this up a few notches more to make it more poignant and urgent.

    But so should be the attitude to the state and nations or companies who deal with the machines and who make business out of killing innocents If drug dealers to be picked up and sent to death or jail, so should be the arms manufacturer . If drug producers can be rounded up from foreign countries so should these arms manufacturers ( who send arms through governemt ( by bribib by threat by lobbying and in name of capitalism or business , to poor third world countries)

    Here is again we hear the headlines from Guardian-

    When UK should be treated same way the way we treat Opium producing Taliban because the people affected from arms or drugs are far away from the orgin of the drugs or the arms.

    Yes,its time to use the same language to describe these Brtis as we describe these Muslim . Brtis
    like Muslim have also a role in preventing the mishap . Actually Brtis have more relevance because no one has destroyed their parlimanetary system of choosing the government and regulating the capitalism model of making money by killing the innocents.

  88. epebble says:
    @Priss Factor

    The way the federal government dysfunctions, this may the eventual outcome; If not 50 states, blocks of Red and Blue states seems logical and probably eventually inevitable. Whether it will happen in another 60 years is the question.

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

    Let me say this. Yes, Muslims are something to worry about, but let’s not get carried away and let’s not get distracted.

    Maybe the Derb sees something differently cuz he’s a Briton, and yes, Muslims are a much bigger problem in Europe, especially France and UK(and now Germany).

    But Muslims are not a big problem in the US. And they never will be.

    Making the Moos the main object of fear and rage is a waste of energy and resources.

    Indeed, suppose that not only are all Moos banned but all Moos living in the US are sent back to Moo-land. Would US suddenly be okay? No. It will still have to deal with globo-Jewish power, masses of Mexers and other immigrants(not Moo), crazy feminists, and the ghastly Boos(the jiga-kind). And there is the degradation of US culture by the Froos or Fruitcakes. In the US, Jews, Boos, and Froos do far more damage the Moos do. Indeed, even Hoos(slut feminism hoors) are worse than the Moos.

    So, identitarians should really focus on the Jews, Boos, Froos, and Hoos than on the Moos.

    Consider communism. American conservatives were once told that it was this huge mega-gargantuan threat and blah blah blah. But in the end, the commies had no chance of taking over the US. Indeed, the USSR didn’t even have the will to take over Western Europe(even though it had the military might to do so right after WWII).

    American Conservatism devoted most of its energies to fighting the commies… and in the end, the US won…. but guess what? American Conzos failed to deal with their most dangerous enemies: the Jews, boos, hoos, and froos.

    If anything, American Conservatism stupidly fought communism on the premise that communism was ‘antisemitic'(oh, Jews are discriminated against in commie nations), ‘racist'(oh, those Russkies were not treating African exchange students very well), ‘sexist'(Soviet women were not as ‘equal’ as American women), and ‘homophobic'(the commies were mean and nasty to the fruitkins).
    Well, some good it did for the American Right. When the commie world finally collapsed, the coalition of Jews, froos, Boos, and Hoos soon attacked American Conservatism.

    So, all this excessive focus on communism had been a distraction from the real enemies.

    Same thing with Islam. Because of American taboos on Jews, Boos, Froos, and Hoos, American Cons find a safe outlet on venting their spleen on the Moos since the commie threat no longer exists.

    But Moos don’t have much power here. And their occasion terror act is hardly an ‘existential’ threat to the US. (If Japan and Germany survived massive US carpet bombing and even nukes), US is certainly gonna survive a few terror attacks.
    Besides, Jews don’t mind a few terror attacks. It only makes Americans more pro-Israel and anti-Arab. Jews welcome the Moos as people-of-color allies against whites, but Jews also gain from Muslim terror since it makes Americans focus on Moos and sympathize with Israel.

    So, while strict controls on Moo immigration is a good idea — total banning is just ridiculous — , the Right must stop pretending that Moos pose some serious threat to America. Americans should not celebrate Islam or praise Muslims, but they would be stupid to make the Moos out to be the #1 bad guys.

    Learn from the Cold War. Communists were NOT the main threat to American Conservatism. Indeed, the main threat was not the left, by which I mean the classic left.
    The true classic left is deader than the Right or conservatism.
    We are told over and over that the ‘left’ won the ‘culture war’, but the ‘left’ that is in power has nothing to do with the classic left that championed the working man, the laborers, the masses, and etc.
    Rather, globalist elites just appropriated the ‘left’ as a brand. Is anyone gonna seriously tell me that Soros, Buffet, Zuckerberg, and etc really constitute the ‘left’? Anyone gonna tell me that homos who work for Hollywood billionaire moguls are part of some ‘left’?
    As for radical ideologues in colleges, they cucked themselves out to privilege, decadence, vanity, and comfort. No true leftist would champion something like ‘gay marriage’ or turn ‘progressivism’ into a struggle for trannies to use girl’s washrooms.
    That’s just silly and decadent, the sort of thing that spoiled pampered idiots bitch about.

    The enemies of white Americans are not ‘leftist’ but identitarians in their own right.

    So, if we remove the veil of bogus ‘left’ vs ‘right’ ideology, it’s all about an all-around identitarian struggle for power by various groups.

    Does anyone think that Boo ‘leftists’ will favor a white socialist over a Boo capitalist?
    No, Boos will side with Boos regardless of whether successful Boos are capitalist or socialist.

    Does anyone think Jew ‘leftists’ will favor white socialists over Jew capitalists? How many Jews oppose Soros or Hollywood moguls who fund the Democratic Party?

    We are all identitarians. Whites and non-whites.

    The only ones who aren’t are white Liberals and White Cucks. And of course, some non-whites who are really dumb enough to have swallowed the bogus ‘universal’ and ‘colorblind’ tenets of PC.

  90. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Abstain. And tell others you’re doing so.

    Not a single one of these people — including the self-parodying Donald Trump — has the desire or the ability to change anything that really matters to those who take the time to read sites like this one. Yet many of us inevitably get cranked up about the four-year charade. Your vote, however thoughtful or informed, in the end does nothing but endorse the system against which you rail.

    Stay divided, stay conquered.

  91. @Hibernian

    Some claim the 1993 blast, if successful, would have been even deadlier than the 2001 attack.

  92. 5371 says:

    [physical evidence that their forefathers were expelled from Russia by the Tsar]

    What on earth do you mean, their circumcised penises? Their forefathers left Russia of their own accord, just as yours did. For that matter, Stalin didn’t expel any minorities from the USSR either. He deported some to Siberia or Kazakhstan, but that’s not the same thing.

  93. AndrewR says:
    @Priss Factor

    Those damn yellows, taking our jobs and our women!

Current Commenter

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 become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS