April 10, 2009

The point of Obama's amnesty push

Why is Obama bringing up amnesty during a ferocious economic downturn?

Mickey Kaus says the Obama Administration's PR surge about amnesty coming before the 2010 elections will attract more illegal aliens hoping to get in before the cutoff date. But, I think his motivation is more to tell illegal aliens already here:
Don't Leave!

Don't go home now just because you are unemployed and it's cheaper to live at home. Stick around so you and your descendants unto the seventh generation can qualify for the upcoming amnesty.

Well, that's my latest theory.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

91 comments:

Sean said...

It would also help with the census count, and possible add/retain electoral/congressional votes for Democratic leaning states like CA, NY, and IL. OTH, republican leaning states like Texas would benefit too.

Anonymous said...

The illegals will be a big part of his power base in four years. Obama can afford to think ahead. The congress is behind most of his agenda right now anyway.

Anonymous said...

The problem with your theory is that it's based on social calculations, which I don't think Obama makes. I think it's entirely based on political calcs, which means he's essentially reaffirming to Hispanic groups (not the illegals themselves) that he caaaaares about and understaaaaands them. Why? Because bailing out banks and corporations, which has been his focus since January, overwhelmingly helps the rich and the middle class, who are generally...white.

Anonymous said...

Politics by other means.


If 20 million Germans were in the United States, and 15 million of them were very likely Republican voters who were prone to have 3.1 children-per-female, even the idiots who run the GOP (an insult to idiots everywhere, I know) would be looking for ways to keep them here, even in a economic pinch.


Borat Obama is looking beyond the current crisis.
Make no mistake people, there are Democrats whose numero uno concern is the demographic transformation of this country more than anything else, so great is their hatred and jealousy for -YOU-.

Don't believe me?, Look at this:
http://www.america2050.org/

kudzu bob said...

"Sure," Obama explains, "we lose money on each unskilled, illiterate Third Worlder who sneaks into this country, but we make up for it in volume!"

Blode0322 said...

Because bailing out banks and corporations, which has been his focus since January, overwhelmingly helps the rich and the middle class, who are generally...white.

Are you sure?

Anonymous said...

So it means that what you've been saying about Obama regarding Hispanics/Asians as "miscellaneous" is incorrect.

Obama is a sincere leftist.

If he had just ignored the amnesty issue, everyone on the left would have excused it, on the grounds of political expediency.

Anonymous said...

Do they even want legal status? Isn't it a formality anyway? What exactly can't they do now because they're illegal? Vote? That doesn't seem to be a priority for them. Serve in juries? Who's ever wanted to do that? Hispanic politicians want amnesty, but do actual illegals want it very much?

I could be wrong about this. Maybe there are some benefits that I'm overlooking here.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that Obama is not thinking as far ahead as 2101! He will most likely be dead by then, and term limits would be a problem.

Chief Seattle said...

What you say makes a lot of sense, Steve. Why would Obama (and the controlled press) make such a big noise all of a sudden about something that's not going to happen until the fall? You don't have to make a big noise in the press to make a promise to a few pro-immigration groups - that can be done privately.

The amount of Hispanics going home right now must be truly overwhelming. Most of the industries that Mexicans and their southern brethren work in, except for agriculture, have been decimated by this recession. Living in your car or outside gets old if there's no work. And I see big new numbers of hispanics waiting outside the missions, and also many more at Home Depot than the year before. Those guys aren't going to wait around forever if there's not something to look forward to.

Anonymous said...

According to Roll Call, even Democrat aides believe immigration reform will be hard to advance:

http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/04/10/congress-to-stiff-obama-on-immigration/

“How do we let more immigrants in, or legalize people, when Americans need jobs?” a senior House Democratic aide said. “Putting aside how horrific the vote is for some people anyway, the politics of this have only gotten worse.”

The aide said immigration reform ranks last among the White House’s highest priorities, after major overhauls of health care, energy, education, financial regulations and fiscal responsibility. “I don’t think the White House is going to go to the mat for immigration,” the aide said.

A senior Senate aide agreed, arguing that despite pressure from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and some elements of his own administration, it will be nearly impossible for Obama to complete work on his top priorities if immigration is thrown into the mix.

“With all of Obama’s other initiatives that have been stated, this is going to be a huge list,” the aide said, adding that the Senate is already expected to address energy, health care reform, the annual appropriations process and an equally controversial “card check” labor bill before the end of the year…

And aides added that when that list includes the potential for another supplemental war spending bill, the host of executive and judiciary nominations, and the continuing focus on the economy, it will be almost impossible for either chamber to seriously consider immigration reform before next year unless Obama is willing to drop an issue, such as energy legislation.

Additionally, political realities would likely dictate that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who must contend with the conservative Blue Dog Coalition and a number of Members from traditionally Republican districts — would not take up the bill before the Senate, which would push back action significantly, Democrats said. In fact, a senior House Democratic aide said it is “likely” the Senate will move first on the issue.

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake people, there are Democrats whose numero uno concern is the demographic transformation of this country more than anything else, so great is their hatred and jealousy for -YOU-.

I've met a number of such people. They've openly admitted to me that their goal is to turn the U.S. into a brown-skinned country with a lower standard of living, to "teach you guys" a lesson for...what, being successful? Yeah, I guess that'll larn us.

Jim said...

I tend to think it's to cement the relationship of hispanics to the Dems. that "amnesty" doesn't happen will be blamed on guess who?

Anonymous said...

I tend to think it's to cement the relationship of hispanics to the Dems.

That is already cemented. The idea is to greatly increase their numbers.

Anonymous said...

Obama isn't a very good politician in the slippery, backslapping Clinton sense, and as Steve's book convincingly argues, he sees a lot (if not everything) through the prism of race. Plus, we're still in the early, idealist phase of his term. So I have to agree more with the commentators who think this absurdly timed amnesty push is more about his ideals: creating a multiculti, post-whiteness, salad-bowl, diverse, yadda yadda America. It just seems to fit what we know about him more than the idea that this is just a political sop to la Raza or a census plan. (Though we do know how he's trying to politicize that.) He's a True Believer being given a free pass by the media, and he's pushing hard for all the things the Dems want: health care reform, education reform, amnesty, "green" and so on. The only question is, how hard are we going to push back?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

even the idiots who run the GOP (an insult to idiots everywhere, I know) would be looking for ways to keep them here, even in a economic pinch.

Germany has a $200 billion trade surplus and one of the best educated populations on the planet. They actually would be an economic benefit. I would still oppose them staying.

Yeah, I think it's mostly to keep them around. Why would he make the supposed amnesty push public unless he wanted people to know? Why would he do so 5-6 months in advance of introducing the actual legislation?

It's April. He's talking about fall. What comes between spring and fall? Summer. Landscaping work. Vacations. Housing starts. Or maybe none of that.

The industries most heavily filled by illegals will get hit the hardest. What else happens between now and the fall? Schools let out. Unemployed illegals may decide to take their kids home once school is out. American teens also go looking for summer jobs. Given the economic conditions those teens may be facing greater pressure from their parents to get summer jobs. Only 32% of teens 15-19 had jobs last summer. At least some businesses will take advantage of the legal, English-speaking labor. Some homeowners will be taking advantage of American teens offering to do their yard work.

We've been hearing about illegals supposedly flooding back to Mexico but I haven't really believed it. I think this summer will be the test. Fall enrollment levels will be a good indicator, too.

Anonymous said...

act when you've got the goodwill ... he only has a few more months of adoration before economy goes to heck...

anon-2 said...

I don't think 0bama can deliver on amnesty. So he's doing the next best thing which is to encourage illegal aliens to stay here and have anchor babies. As if we don't have enough of them already making our schools awful

Steve's theory is right
Amnesty or no, illegals are winning because their anchor babies are the real invasion the battering ram for our third world president to use on us

Reg Cæsar said...

This shows that Obama is a party man, not a race man. There is nothing but harm for his race in this.

The Democratic Party is one giant moral hazard. Can you think of one single issue where what's good for the country is good for the party, or vice versa?

It would also help with the census count, and possible add/retain electoral/congressional votes for Democratic leaning states like CA, NY, and IL. OTH, republican leaning states like Texas would benefit too. --Sean

That last part is wrong. The new Electors might be Republican, but the new Representatives will be Democrats.

hcl said...

Damn, I wish that other Obama expert "Robert Henderson" were around to say something about this. He seems unusually knowledgeable about American politics for a Brit and the only other person on Earth to have read both Obama books.

Anonymous said...

The point of Obama's amnesty putsch, you mean.

stari_momak said...

I used to be a conventional conservative. Colorblind, end affirmative action. Then I started reading vdare, and it really hit me as being true. (Ironically, I first heard of vdare at David Horowitz's site, something about 'racial right attacks Horowitz', but they kindly linked to vdare I'm not so sure it wasn't an uncoordinated 'Good Cop, Bad Cop thing'.) But I still thought Steve's 'citizenism' is a good way to go.

Now with 94% of blacks voting for an African, with Celia 'La Raza' Muñoz driving immigration policy I think something along the lines of Jared Taylor is the only way whites will able to maintain their identity, as anything other than a small and dwindling minority in a cold version of Brazil, unless we work on developing a racial consciousness and start considering other forms of polity besides the US. It is clear that the US state is against our interests. It is clear that there are too many whites who are happy with the way things are going -- libertarian ideologues, upper middle class useful idiots who think they can insulate from the effects their 'help' and its progeny is having on our society, and so on. However, 55% of US voted for one of the worst presidential candidates of all time. That to me says there is a core of whites waiting to be mobilized.

PA said...

Immigrants (legal or not) to keep: ones who produce daughters who are nice to look at and whose sons you wouldn't mind your daughters marrying.

SFG said...

"This shows that Obama is a party man, not a race man. There is nothing but harm for his race in this."

This is one of the interesting isteveish observations I go here for. Steve has observed that Hispanics are bad for blacks; because their reputation is less criminal, etc., they tend to be preferred for jobs. But Obama's more interested in helping his party with extra votes than his race. I think he's probably just an old-fashioned opportunist of the sort that come in every color.

Whites lose either way of course.

wake up said...

>But I still thought Steve's 'citizenism' is a good way to go.

yeah, a society without shared race shared religion shared ethnicity shared language shared culture shared values or shared beliefs is the way forward.....history shows that works well.

we will all pull together based on citizenship.......because identity as a citizen is the highest calling and appeals to the nature of men. the other layers of identity in the human experience are naturally subordinated to the deep yearnings of the average person to simply be a citizen.......to enter into a system of laws and a tax scheme and a state with a huge mass of people with which he has little in common.......little in common except the insatiable drive to be a good citizen.

petty tribalism naturally melts away in the citizenist system.....rodney king's faith in mankind is finally restored because the citizens really can all get along.

citizenism stirs the soul and the workers are happy.....the citizens put the universality of mankind above all.......the citizens are rational and enlightened.

hail citizenism in the mighty citizenist state.

The Round Peg said...

Obvious it's because Hispanics (along with Blacks and Asians) overwhelmingly votes for Obama over McCain in the presidential election. (FYI, I'm Asian, and I voted for Obama, and I really glad that I did.)

Hispanics will make a huge political clout that will guarantee that the White-Christian-male-ruled Republican party will never dominate ever again.

Truth said...

"Now with 94% of blacks voting for an African,"

OF course 89% of blacks voted for an Englishman for years before, and 92% voted for a Scottsman in 2000. For some reason, moronic knuckle draggers who spend their lives claiming to have superior IQ's cant calculate simple percentage comparisons.


"Immigrants (legal or not) to keep: ones who produce daughters who are nice to look at and whose sons you wouldn't mind your daughters marrying"

Capital idea, and who should be the judge of this? Ive got it! Simon Crowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul only work 3 months a year, right?

testing99 said...

No Steve.

Obama's push for Amnesty as Mexico collapses and the recession hardens is all about punishing WHITEY(tm).

That's his entire political philosophy. You've read his book, that's who he is. Either race-baiting Bobby Rush style politico, or SWPL anti-Whitey(tm) snob.

Arugula and Al Sharpton. That's Obama.

He'll get Amnesty too. The Media will fly air cover for him, Reps are too disorganized, and there is no political price EVER to pay for pushing Amnesty.

There, Guzzardi is just DEAD WRONG. No significant political figure has ever had his/her career ended for supporting Amnesty. Quite the contrary, anti-Amnesty figures are now all out of politics: Tancredo (God Bless him!) being the biggest example.

What Steve doesn't get is that Single and Married White women face no significant disadvantage from Amnesty, considerable social pressure to support it (from the Media, other women, etc) and find Amnesty a good way of separating the "Beta" males from the "true Alphas" in terms of success and failure.

Ronduck said...

stari_momak said...

It is clear that there are too many whites who are happy with the way things are going -- libertarian ideologues, upper middle class useful idiots who think they can insulate from the effects their 'help' and its progeny is having on our society, and so on.

Don't forget those Catholics who agree with their hierarchy's plan to make America part of Catholic Latin America

Reg Cæsar said...

...a small and dwindling minority in a cold version of Brazil. --Stari Momak

Brazil has two advantages we don't, however: a single language, and decent taste in music.

So the story of their collapse will have a good soundtrack, which everyone can understand. Can we say the same?

Big Bill said...

Is Obama driven by class? Is he driven by race? Is it both? How to explain his betrayal of working class black folks with his amnesty?

It is hard getting black folks to be honest about this. They are congenitally unable to be honest with white people or to address the painful issues of their crime and anti-intellectualism.

There are some exceptions however. One is found at www.whataboutourdaughters.com, a website for black women who are tired of covering for black men, making excuses, being forced to breed with them (no matter how shiftless) and stay with them (no matter how violent).

They talk about "divesting" themselves of the black community and church that try to destroy them and burden them with guilt for not showing race loyalty.

It is well worth a read. Only be gentle and don't blog a bunch of sarcasm. These are tough issues they are working through, and they try their best to be honest.

To get a good taste, this blog (http://tinyurl.com/cowelz) and comments hammer Tyler Perry (Madea) for painting all educated blacks (particularly black women) as disfunctional fools who "ack white".

This blog and comments (http://tinyurl.com/cosqbp)damn the Oakland black community for celebrating Lovelle Mixon, the black cop-killer in Oakland who raped 12-year-old black girls.

This blog and comments (http://tinyurl.com/3xbq3k) damn Al Sharpton, NAN, and the NAACP for demonstrating FOR the four black teen rapist who raped a Haitian woman, forced her to have sex with her 12-year-old son, cut them with broken glass, doused them both with cleaning fluid and tried to set them on fire (but they didn't have matches, thank God!).

If there is any possible rapprochement that American white folks can have with black folks, it is black women like these, with their "divesting" and climbing on the "Ark", that we can meet halfway.

Deckin said...

I think the 'don't leave' theory would be well tested by a glance at the Spanish speaking media. Was this story picked up by Univision or Telemundo? I highly doubt the average illegal is wiling away the hours reading the Times over scones and freshly brewed Kenyan High Ground.

Anonymous said...

OF course 89% of blacks voted for an Englishman for years before, and 92% voted for a Scottsman in 2000. For some reason, moronic knuckle draggers who spend their lives claiming to have superior IQ's cant calculate simple percentage comparisons.

Uhhhhh....say what?

John Forbes Kerry (nee Kohn) is half Jewish and half British.

The gist of your argument may have had some merit until the Hillary v. Barack showdown, when blacks voted for the brutha at a rate of 90%+. But then it probably didn't have merit even before that, given the black conformist mentality.

What matters is not a candidate's ethnic or racial identity but the fact that blacks consistently vote to butter their own bread at enormous cost to the rest of us. One of these days whites will give up the "Holier than Bubba" routine and realize they have to do the same.

Acilius said...

@Stari Momak: "55% of US voted for one of the worst presidential candidates of all time"

I don't know which election you're talking about. In 2008, 98.6% of Americans who voted for president voted for one of the two worst presidential candidates of all time. Perhaps what you're saying rests on a distinction you don't make explicitly. Maybe one of the two was merely "one of the worst presidential candidates of all time" (say, somewhere in the bottom ten) while the other was the single worst candidate of all time.

king obama said...

I think Steve is right. The big public push for amnesty is to keep the illegal aliens around for another one or two years while the economy rebounds.

However, who knows with Obama. To me, he seems like the kind of guy that does things based on the direction the wind is blowing.

If amnesty becomes too unpopular to support, then he will drop the issue and pretend like he never brought it up.

I honestly think what he will really end up doing is completely killing immigration enforcement. I mean, we already have de facto amnesty, why take the risk for "official" amnesty? The status quo seems pretty fine for the Dems anyway.

obrien said...

I wouldn't have (that much of) a problem with Amnesty if the borders were closed, and immigration restricted to the best and brightest. There are tens of millions of people in the world with IQs over 130, indeed there are probably several million even in Africa (taking Sub-Saharan Africa's "real" IQ to be 85, and assuming there are more people at the extremes than the Guassian would predict, both of which are reasonable assumptions). Certainly there are many with 120+ IQs, probably at least a quarter billion in East Asia.

In other words, there are plenty of bright people around. There is no reason, other than convenience, to allow one or a few nearby countries to be the primary emigrants to the USA, even if one despises whitey.

My suspicion, however, is that what is despised most is the traditional working class white value system--also known as "the Lions" by Machiavelli, the Sensing personality type by Myers-Briggs, and Class II residues by Pareto and Burnham. I believe that Celts, and to a slightly lesser extent, Anglo-Saxons are more prone to this type compared to other Europeans, and especially to East Asians and Jews, amongst whom the Myers-Briggs iNtuitive [opp of Sensing] personality is far more common, though probably still the minority.

In any case, if the Stuff White People Like (SWPL) crowd hates old-fashioned values and the American working-class lifestyle, and the rank hypocrisy and neuroticism of Anglo and Celtic culture [1], they are making a huge mistake by allowing tens of millions of poor Mestizos to immigrate.

[1]Celts and to a lesser extent Anglo-Saxons have an especially twisted view of alcohol and other drug abuse (see, for example, THE NATURAL HISTORY OF ALCOHOLISM), that is to say, that use, abuse, and full-blown addiction are confounded, making dealing with intoxicants far more problematic than it has to be.

Anonymous said...

Very OT: Steve, I don't think you've blogged about the "Greatest Britons" TV show/poll, which has apparently sparked imitators all over the world.

I find the whole thing fascinating. The Portuguese public voted the long-time dictator Salazar as the greatest Portuguese of all time, for example. Stalin came in third among Russians. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV was first among Czechs. Princess Di was third among Britons, ahead of Newton, Darwin, Shakespeare and many others. Yes, the Brits have fallen hard in so many ways. The loudmouth Lennon (8th) beat McCartney (19th). Karl Marx came third in Germany, after Adenauer and Martin Luther.

Sure it's all kitschy, but it's also so much fun! In Spain the current king won, followed by Cervantes, Columbus, and his (the current king's) wife. The king's son was 7th, while Francisco Franco came in 22nd. In France the winner was De Gaulle.

Steve, you could do so much with these lists.

Truth said...

"The gist of your argument may have had some merit until the Hillary v. Barack showdown, when blacks voted for the brutha at a rate of 90%+"

Really? Now that would just depend on when the poll was taken, now wouldn't it sport?

In case you are to lazy to read the article, I'll give you an excerpt:

"Early polls show Hillary Clinton far ahead of Obama among black voters (a CBS News poll gave Clinton 52% of the vote vs. 28% for Obama), although this in part reflects her extremely high name recognition."

Now, the polls changed when it was revealled that Barack Obama was more charismatic, interesting, younger and and simply more palatable than Hillary Clinton, oh, and guess what; most white people felt the same way.

Quite honestly, a lot of you people are simply repeaters, you hear something some other mouth breather said on the news, and due to an inability to formulate an independent thought you repeat it ad nauseum.

If things are as simple as you say, explain this

"What matters is not a candidate's ethnic or racial identity but the fact that blacks consistently vote to butter their own bread."

No shit Sherlock? Let me give you a little information here: THAT'S WHAT THE #$%^&**& VOTING IS ALL ABOUT! You cast a ballot for someone that is going to butter your own bread, that's what the institution was invented for. How many white people do you know that voted for Al Sharpton?

Anonymous said...

"Brazil has two advantages we don't, however: a single language, and decent taste in music. "

The only advantage Brazil has over America is sexier women. Then again, almost every country has that advantage over America to some degree.

Anonymous said...

Truth,
Yours is a common belief, but it was debunked here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010548.html

Ken Hechtman, a Canadian journalist, argued your point in this debate.

Anonymous said...

How many white people do you know that voted for Al Sharpton?

I'm sure that Sharpton got some white votes in his various campaigns. If he wasn't so fat and if his base was in a city other than New York, he could probably break through with SWPLers in a big way.

See, trying to incite race riots in NYC isn't the same as trying to do the same thing in Alabama. Lots of important people live in NYC. They don't want that kind of thing so close to home.

Malcolm X did and Obama does look stylish. Sharpton doesn't. Obesity is one of the few things in life SWPLers consider to be truly sinful.

And even in spite of that I'm sure that he attracted some white voters. How could he not have?

Mr. Anon said...

To stari_momak:

Good post. Well said.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

I think the 'don't leave' theory would be well tested by a glance at the Spanish speaking media. Was this story picked up by Univision or Telemundo?

Really? You somehow doubt they picked up that story?

but Obama would surely like to win the 90% of the black vote in most states that Jackson did.

Jackson won 90% of the black vote, Obama won 90% of the black vote. Really now - so it took blacks a month or two to decide Barack was black enough for them? Shocking!

Now, the polls changed when it was revealled that Barack Obama was more charismatic, interesting, younger and and simply more palatable than Hillary Clinton, oh, and guess what; most white people felt the same way.

Most white people? Not even close. Obama barely edged out Clinton in terms of the overall vote, doing so with over 90% of the black vote, and blacks are about 20% of the Democratic Party. If the Reverend Wright scandal had broken sooner it's likely he wouldn't have won at all. Clinton was gaining all the M*V in the end.

If things are as simple as you say, explain this

Explain what, the fact that blacks won't vote for blacks who don't think that government's sole purpose is to make private property a nullity? It explains itself.

So I explained that. Now you explain this. What is it? It's Fortune's list of the 500 largest companies in the world. Notice anything? 5 of the 6 settled continents are home to some of the companies. Even Australia, a continent with a population of just 20 million, is home to 8 of them. But Africa, home to over a billion people? Not one.

Let me give you a little information here: THAT'S WHAT THE #$%^&**& VOTING IS ALL ABOUT! You cast a ballot for someone that is going to butter your own bread, that's what the institution was invented for.

Tommy Jefferson and Jimmy Madison and Geo Washington spin in their graves. There is certainly something to be said for "voting your interests," but they had some notion of interest broader than "pillage the rich and give it to me" in mind. The fact that every failed black city or nation state on the planet pretty much shares your view is instructive.

However, who knows with Obama. To me, he seems like the kind of guy that does things based on the direction the wind is blowing. If amnesty becomes too unpopular to support, then he will drop the issue and pretend like he never brought it up.

Bollocks. That was Clinton. Obama is a hardcore ideologue. He'd rather lose in 2012 if he can get most of his agenda through.

He doesn't have the temperament to last as president for a full 8 years. He'll start to have all sorts of Reverend Wright-style "gaffes," which in Washington is defined as "accidentally telling the truth." His extreme anti-Americanism will start to show.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget those Catholics who agree with their hierarchy's plan to make America part of Catholic Latin America

A Mestizoized, Catholicized United States will be followed in short order by a Mandarin-speaking Western Hemisphere. If the whole Western Hemisphere goes Latin it will not have the capacity to defend itself against Asia. It will be an Orientalized repeat of 1500-1890, only greatly compressed.

The best thing for Latin America, ironically, is a United States that is not Mestizo and therefore not Catholic. The Monroe Doctrine does not translate into Spanish. The Roman Catholic Church is digging its own grave - but then it's been doing that since Vatican II.

Truth said...

"And even in spite of that I'm sure that he attracted some white voters. How could he not have?"

Yes, he attracted "some" white voters, just as John McCain attracted "some" black voters, and "some" birds know how to speak English.

"Really now - so it took blacks a month or two to decide Barack was black enough for them? Shocking!"

At the time of the primary, the scorecard read like this:

Obama: Black for 46 years
Clinton: Black for 0 years

So I'd say that Hillary Clinton leading the black vote in the democratic primary proves that blacks do not automatically throw support behind a black.

"If the Reverend Wright scandal had broken sooner it's likely he wouldn't have won at all."

If "it's" and "buts" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.

"Explain what, the fact that blacks won't vote for blacks who don't think that government's sole purpose is to make private property a nullity? It explains itself."

Well, there goes the theory of blacks supporting anyone black now doesn't it? All three of these black republicans ran against white democrats in this race, and all three DID BETTER AMONG WHITE VOTERS THAN BLACKS.

"So I explained that. Now you explain this. What is it? It's Fortune's list of the 500 largest companies in the world. Notice anything?"

Yes, I notice you have no ability to stay on topic, and a great desire to build straw men.

"There is certainly something to be said for "voting your interests,"

No chief, not "something to be said", "everything to be said" that's why democracy was invented, so people could vote their interests.

"but they had some notion of interest broader than "pillage the rich and give it to me" in mind."

Your president Obama is taking YOUR tax money and giving it away to wealthy bankers and CEO's every day, that's not "pillage the rich and give it to me" no, that's "pillage me and give it to the rich." Of course you can't understand that because Rush and Sean didn't tell it to you in two syllable words. Do me a favor, just go back to watching "Dancing with the stars" and we'll call it even, OK.

Anonymous said...

Re: "this absurdly timed amnesty push"

It may not be a coincidence that the amnesty question was given prominence the very week Obama's "illegal" aunt was granted an extension to stay in the US.

I mean, with Obama the new big man in Kenya, she can hardly continue to claim political asylum.

Peter said...

I've met a number of such people. They've openly admitted to me that their goal is to turn the U.S. into a brown-skinned country with a lower standard of living, to "teach you guys" a lesson

Hate to break it you, but if you met anyone who told you that he's probably yanking your chain. Most liberals I know are very concerned that the Republicans are trying to turn the US into Mexico or Brazil, a country where 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth and the middle class goes begging. Unfortunately while the liberals are right about those Republican long term goals, the liberals fail to see that immigration is a key part of that strategy. Liberals aren't evil per se, they're just stupid and naive, and wilfully supporting the programs that will eventually destroy them. The leadership of the GOP is truly evil because they know what they're doing.

Tanstaafl said...

What's the point of Obama's amnesty push?

Obama wants to give "free" health care and a college education to all Americans. He's pretty honest about that. What he and the other genocidal immigrationists are not so honest about is that they see the some 6.3 billion other inhabitants of the world (excluding native Europeans) as "undocumented" Americans, whether they live here yet or not.

Hispanic politicians want amnesty, but do actual illegals want it very much?

All the genocidal immigrationist politicians are really really tired of having to constantly defend their genocidal intent in every crummy piece of legislation. What's happening is the politicians who oppose this genocide keep insisting on tacking on clauses that restrict benefits from flowing to illegal aliens, even for legislation that seemingly has nothing to do with immigration. Yes, these restrictions usually get removed, but the genocidalists really don't like having to constantly remove them. It shines too much light on the fact that an embarrassingly large fraction of the people living amongst us are illegitimate, and this despite the unbelievably generous legitimate means the genocidal immigrationists have already provided them. Constantly and flagrantly favoring even aliens who have proven themselves hostile to our rules isn't just boring. It looks bad. As if they really really dislike the native population and our rules. Which they indubitably do. That's why they call us "nativists" and "fascists", as if what we want is somehow less moral than the genocidal coffee-colored racial purity they claim to desire.

The point of "comprehensive immigration reform", AKA amnesty, is to once and for all end the debate about immigration the genocidalists have pointedly refused to engage in. They'd like to just get on with the genocide.

Simon Zukas said...

stari_momak,

Interesting comments. Reminded me of an article I read in my Surfer's Journal a couple of years ago regarding South Africa. The American writer hangs out with the family of one of his friends in Kwa-Zulu Natal. One day the family dog is ill and they take it to the local vet. The patriarch of the family, one Mr. Ellis, fills in the writer on the vet's background - he'd belonged to a hard-line party that had "advocated armed resistance to the change in government on the eve of the ANC's victory." Mr. Ellis, a moderate, was against such things. Toward the end of the writer's stay, the writer and his friend's father were driving off the highway through the region. On one side of the road were middle class white homes, brick walls, manicured lawns. On the other were the ever-proliferating mud and tin shanties of the Xhosas, chickens, beaten corn stalks. The writer closes the section with this:

"...this wasn't destitution; it was a neighborhood operating smoothly with what it had. In those simple homes, I suspect the whites saw the meek that shall inherit the earth. Mr. Ellis disn't say much; maybe he was thinking of the past. But he did say something I've remembered: 'I've never been political. I didn't get involved. I just wanted to provide a decent home for my family and to live a good, moral life.' He paused and we looked at the permanence of the shanties. 'But I see now how I missed what was really going on.' "

White America is made up of millions of people like Mr. Ellis.

Svigor said...

given the black conformist mentality.

This is an interesting subject that I think gets kicked around a lot but is little examined. Whites capable of thinking qua whites look at black political behavior and voting trends and tend to write blacks off as inherently collectivist but I don't think that's true. Collectivists-by-nature wouldn't make sub-Saharan Africa what it is. They wouldn't behave the way blacks behave (crime, illegitimacy, etc.). They wouldn't fall where they do on Rushton's scale.

Blacks are only collectivist in certain narrow senses. They conform to certain narrow views, and they unite under the banner of hating whitey, but other than that they revert to their biology, which is individualist, not collectivist.

A category of people is not "collectivist" or "conformist" just because they tend to form mobs from time to time. All humans are collectivist and conformist enough for that.

Whites see blacks as collectivists, but that's just a teetotaler seeing anyone who takes a drink, ever, as a drunk. Ceteris paribus, I think whites are more collectivist and conformist than blacks. It's just that their environments are so very different, we get substantially different outcomes.

Not saying you stated otherwise, just thought I'd contribute my tuppence.


In other words, there are plenty of bright people around. There is no reason, other than convenience, to allow one or a few nearby countries to be the primary emigrants to the USA, even if one despises whitey.

Great, so we'll let the ethnic beachheads be composed of each group's best and brightest. They'll provide a false sense of the quality of their respective originating populations, lulling the suckers (95% of us, I'd guess) into approving more immigration of their co-ethnics. They'll work far more effectively in paving the way for mass immigration of their co-ethnics than their average co-ethnics could. And their offspring will regress toward their ethnic means.

THAT'S WHAT THE #$%^&**& VOTING IS ALL ABOUT!

Really? Then when do whites start voting to end immigration, stop the massive wealth transfer from whites to blacks, stop the enforced dilution of their political and cultural power, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum?

From the VFR link:
Before Iowa and New Hampshire, black Democrats didn't take Obama seriously, didn't think he could win enough white votes to be anything but the next Jesse Jackson.

Bingo.

There is certainly something to be said for "voting your interests," but they had some notion of interest broader than "pillage the rich and give it to me" in mind.

Indeed. "Black self-interest" only makes sense in this context if whites are thought of in a sort of cargo cult way, as the invulnerable golden goose that can never, ever, be harmed enough to stop laying golden eggs.

So I'd say that Hillary Clinton leading the black vote in the democratic primary proves that blacks do not automatically throw support behind a black.

Indeed:
Before Iowa and New Hampshire, black Democrats didn't take Obama seriously, didn't think he could win enough white votes to be anything but the next Jesse Jackson.

He can't just be black. He has to be black and be perceived as having a chance of winning.

Well, there goes the theory of blacks supporting anyone black now doesn't it? All three of these black republicans ran against white democrats in this race, and all three DID BETTER AMONG WHITE VOTERS THAN BLACKS.

Indeed. Now we seem to be triangulating the real requirements:

1) black
2) has a reasonable chance of winning
3) is not an Uncle Tom.

Wait, no, 1 and 3 are pretty much the same thing. So we're back to:

He has to be black and be perceived as having a chance of winning.

So, the rule seems pretty straightforward and simple after all. Ceteris paribus, blacks vote black at extre

Svigor said...

On June 18, 2007, a black woman was gang raped by 10 youths and forced
at gunpoint to have sex with her own 12 year old son
in a housing
complex called Dunbar Village in West Palm Beach, Florida. The young
men not only viciously punched, kicked and sliced this sister and her
son with glass objects, but they also blinded her boy by pouring nail
polish remover into his eyes.


(Emphasis added)

Sounds like the sort of story that would make for a "media feeding frenzy" and a "national sensation." First I've heard of it, though.

Market failure? Or is some money not worth having?

Try and imagine this story not being made into a national media circus had the perps been white. As they say in Hollywood, that scene "doesn't work for me."

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

At the time of the primary, the scorecard read like this: Obama: Black for 46 years. Clinton: Black for 0 years. So I'd say that Hillary Clinton leading the black vote in the democratic primary proves that blacks do not automatically throw support behind a black.

No, Clinton did not lead the black "vote" in the "democratic primary." She lead in some polls leading up to the primary. In the actual primary that alleged support instantaneously evaporated.

Both Obama and Jackson (you brought him up) remove all doubt. Of course blacks will vote for a white Democrat over a black Republican; and of course they'll vote for a black Democrat over a white Republican; but when you compare Democrats to Democrats, rotten apples to rotten apples, the black rotten apple wins the black vote.

My mention of the Fortune Global 500 was not a distraction. It was the issue - the fact that black political attitudes lead to little but poverty for the believers. The fact that a billion man continent cannot produce a single member of the Global 500 when even a tiny continent like Australia produced 8 is revealing. If you look at a broader list, like the Forbes Global 2000, it's even more revealing. On that list Africa actually does have a few - 20 in fact. One is in Egypt. One (Royal Caribbean) is a false flag operation in Liberia, with all its actual operations elsewhere. Eighteen are legacy companies in the formerly white-controlled South Africa.

Everywhere they go, black political attitudes produce nothing but misery and poverty.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Big Bill, those sites are incredible. Those women are pro-capitalism, pro-gun, and pro-public order. I LIKE BLACK PEOPLE AGAIN.

ben tillman said...

The only advantage Brazil has over America is sexier women.

De gustibus non disputandam est, I guess, but that's a pretty crazy perspective..

ben tillman said...

So I'd say that Hillary Clinton leading the black vote in the democratic primary proves that blacks do not automatically throw support behind a black.

What on earth are you talking about? The poll you referred to is from January 2007, more than a year before the primaries. It was taken when many Americans -- black and white -- had never heard of Obama and did not know his racial background.

Truth said...

"Of course blacks will vote for a white Democrat over a black Republican; and of course they'll vote for a black Democrat over a white Republican;"

Great then party affiliation is more important to blacks than race. Your words, not mine. This seems to invalidate the rest of your post, doesn't it?

And about Fortune 500, I don't think anyone would argue that white people are the best in the world at creating greedy, destructive (and constructive) usury organizations. great, they are also unrivaled at murdering people. That is good as well as bad, but you see, if making money, tearing up the environment and building and convincing people that they need useless shit is not exactly what everyone aspires to do. I don't idolize Donald Trump, Steve Wynn or Jack Welch, they strike me as clowns, if you do, that is well within your rights, in my opinion, going back to sustenance farming and away from a lifestyle that has turned most of you fat, lazy and stupid would not be the worst thing in the world; in the words of a wise man:

Reporter: What do you think of Western Civilization?

Ghandi: I'm in favor of it!

Jack Aubrey said...

In those simple homes, I suspect the whites saw the meek that shall inherit the earth. Mr. Ellis disn't say much; maybe he was thinking of the past. But he did say something I've remembered: 'I've never been political. I didn't get involved. I just wanted to provide a decent home for my family and to live a good, moral life.' He paused and we looked at the permanence of the shanties. 'But I see now how I missed what was really going on.

Great quote. However....

This is not the meek inheriting the earth. This is violence against violence - or, in South Africa's case, violence against resignation. Those walls were there for a reason. Those unwilling to defend themselves and their own will be overrun, as white South Africans have been.

Great then party affiliation is more important to blacks than race.

Within the parameters of the Democratic Party blacks will vote for the candidate of their race.

about Fortune 500, I don't think anyone would argue that white people are the best in the world at creating greedy, destructive (and constructive) usury organizations.

Because without the Global 500 you get Nirvana! People in France and Italy hopping on anything that floats just hoping it'll drift to Cameroon...

great, they are also unrivaled at murdering people.

Compared to Mao? Compared to Pohl Pot? Compared to Rwandans with machetes?

Mr. Anon said...

On this general topic, democratic legislators in Maine are trying to change the law to allow non-citizens (Somali refugees, for example) to vote in municipal elections.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=247244

As Mogadishu goes, so goes the nation.

Reg Cæsar said...

Peter pontificates:
Most liberals I know are very concerned that the Republicans are trying to turn the US into Mexico or Brazil, a country where 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth and the middle class goes begging. Unfortunately while the liberals are right about those Republican long term goals, the liberals fail to see that immigration is a key part of that strategy. Liberals aren't evil per se, they're just stupid and naive, and wilfully supporting the programs that will eventually destroy them. The leadership of the GOP is truly evil because they know what they're doing.

Peter has evidently never heard of Edward Moore Kennedy.

If there were a nanogram of truth in Peter's comment, then all the resistance to present immigration policy would be found in the Democratic Party, because not all liberals, certainly not those elected to Congress, are "stupid and naïve". Instead, there is zero [0] resistance on that side of the aisle. Look at the vote on S-2611 for an example. Or read what another Peter has to say on the subject.

Really, now... Republicans want to import López Obrador's and Lula da Silva's electorates to boost their power.

I nominate Peter's as the most inane comment to appear on iSteve.com in the entire decade. Any seconds?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Most liberals I know are very concerned that the Republicans are trying to turn the US into Mexico or Brazil

Most "liberals" I know wouldn't dare allow you to suggest that turning the US into Mexico is bad in any way whatsoever. That would be racist even though, as we all know, the "Hispanics" in Mexico are "white."

sj071 said...

Contrarian view, found on CR comment thread:
Here's an angle to consider, for tax time...

[The Honorable Tom Harkin

731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent, (hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status rather than just a bonafide citizen of the USA )]

Anonymous said...

Truth said...
I don't think anyone would argue that white people are [...] also unrivaled at murdering people.


In terms of sheer numbers of people murdered, you'd have to go with the Asians: Genghis Khan, Hong Xiuquan, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot. These four alone probably killed more people than all the white dictators in history put together.

In terms of sheer killing rate, the prizewinners would be the Rwandan Hutus: at the peak of their extremely well-organized and horrifically brutal genocide, they were butchering people at a rate four times greater than the Holocaust at its peak. And that was accomplished without all the industrial and technological wherewithal the Nazis had at their disposal. Just machetes and transistor radios, that it. That's some very impressive murdering capacity, if you ask me.

So, buck up and be proud, Truth: Your people can outdo whitey at many things, including murdering people.

Simon Zukas said...

"In those simple homes, I suspect the whites saw the meek that shall inherit the earth..."

"This is not the meek inheriting the earth. This is violence against violence - or, in South Africa's case, violence against resignation."

You're right, Captain Jack. I should point out that it's the American writer, still able to fly back to his suburbs, who's putting the thoughts in the African whites' someday-to-be-necklaced heads.

Truth said...

"great, they are also unrivaled at murdering people.

Compared to Mao? Compared to Pohl Pot? Compared to Rwandans with machetes"

Oh I don't know, who killed more people; Stalin, Hitler, Rosevelt or a Rwandan with a machete?

Peter said...

Reg Caesar - you're not thinking. Electoral votes are not the game - cheap labor is the game. Why do you think big business, big finance, and the Wall Street Journal have been cheerleading for unlimited immigration for decades? The electoral advantage for Democrats from immigration is overstated. Most poor people can't be bothered to vote anyway and the GOP is generally pretty good at discouraging minority turnout. And the GOP is still convinced that eventually they'll get significant numbers of latinos to vote GOP, blacks will never ever vote GOP so why not dilute the blacks with latinos? goes GOP thinking. And Reg, if you don't think the Democrats are also in the pocket of Wall Street you're pretty fucking naive yourself. I've never met a liberal who wants to turn the US into Mexico - they truly believe Mexicans will magically "assimilate". As Steve has pointed out here numerous times the Democrats and the liberal media are dominated by East Coasters who don't really understand the scale and nature of latino immigration.

stari_momak said...

@Simon,

Sounds like an interesting Surfer's Journal article, do you know about what year/month it was published?

Anonymous said...

It would also help with the census count, and possible add/retain electoral/congressional votes for Democratic leaning states like CA, NY, and IL.

Indeed. It would also shrink the area around which state legislatures can draw each minority-majority district. As pointed out in an earlier thread, Americans don't care or even notice when practically no one shows up to vote in these districts - they still get their leftist Latino congressman, who still gets a full vote in Congress.

Stan said...

One point not mentioned in the letter to Harkin.

Illegals and the real estate bubble.

Ronduck said...

Even without the illegals there are so many Hispanics in the US that their welfare fueled growth will eventually make them a majority. You once wrote sarcastically that America's 600 million Hispanics vetoed immigration reform, soon we may actually have 600 million.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Even without the illegals there are so many Hispanics in the US that their welfare fueled growth will eventually make them a majority.

What happens to an organism that requires less energy to survive and reproduce than another? Under the same set of conditions, it multiplies faster.

Those human organisms with lower energy needs (i.e., monetary requirements) are breeding faster. Of course it's not actual monetary requirements so much as material expectations, but it's effectively the same thing. Immigrants coming from poor conditions elsewhere around the globe are willing to live in poorer conditions because that's what they were living in at home, anyway. Take in immigrants from these countries and they will always outbreed us. Combine our sources of immigration with the rate of intake and it's a genetic death sentence - a self-imposed death sentence.

One point not mentioned in the letter to Harkin. Illegals and the real estate bubble.

That letter was written during either the '06 or '07 putsch, before the bubble burst. I saw it or something similar at the time. In fact I called my own senators and asked his aide if I could have such a deal. She was not pleased. She had probably already heard it from a thousand other callers.

In terms of sheer numbers of people murdered, you'd have to go with the Asians: Genghis Khan...

Yeah, I forgot about him. Did anyone here see the movie "Mongol"? Decent movie, but I thought it odd how the director tried to do a Braveheart on one of history's most ruthless (and fecund) conqueror's.

Anonymous said...

Even without the illegals there are so many Hispanics in the US that their welfare fueled growth will eventually make them a majority.

That's where Obama's spending habits lead to diminishing if not outright negative returns. Spread the welfare spending out over several decades (as we do presently) and the Mestizo population explosion can continue. By blowing it all on one giant spending orgy we will hit a wall. You can double welfare spending but you're not going to double breeding rates. People will stop lending us money. Social breakdown will become more obvious. Wage decline will become more obvious. Tolerance for welfare will fall faster than political support from the imported leftists will rise.

Bush & Clinton let the invaders nibble away at our borders inch by inch. Obama has declared war. An open declaration means we can now fight on the same terms.

Anonymous said...

Truth said...

Oh I don't know, who killed more people; Stalin, Hitler, Rosevelt or a Rwandan with a machete?


If you mean who personally killed more people, with his own two hands, I'd definitely go with the Rwandan.

Simon Zukas said...

stari_momak,

It's out in the garage at the moment, but believe it was 2007. They publish quarterly, so shouldn't be that hard to find (the relevant quotes I'd written down were from the copious notes I keep on the biological disappearance of various species and subspecies).

Best of luck on your transformation. Keep up the reading and the observing and someday you'll be able to be censored on Steve's blog.

Truth said...

"at the peak of their extremely well-organized and horrifically brutal genocide, they were butchering people at a rate four times greater than the Holocaust at its peak."

But why stop at the Holocaust? Why not include the dead Russians, Swedes, English, Americans, French...

"If you mean who personally killed more people, with his own two hands, I'd definitely go with the Rwandan."

Seeing as how the aforementioned leaders were war "heroes" before becoming statesmen, even that's highly questionable.

Truth said...

Correction:

All except FDR; he was an ancestor to the modern day chicken-hawk.

Anonymous said...

Truth said...
But why stop at the Holocaust? Why not include the dead Russians, Swedes, English, Americans, French...
Because we're comparing one specific organized genocide with another. You know, comparing like with like?

But if you want to take that tack, then okay: Why stop at the 100-day killing spree perpetrated by the Interahamwe? Why not include all the countless long-running tribal wars and massacres and genocides going on in Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, Uganda, etc., etc., etc.?

Reg Cæsar said...

Reg Caesar - you're not thinking. Electoral votes are not the game - cheap labor is the game. --Peter

I don't know about "liberals", but for Democrats, votes are the game. Game, set, match, tournament, tour, career.

Peter has the Stupid and Evil Parties confused. A clue to why may lie in his Imperial spelling of wilfully.

Why do you think big business, big finance, and the Wall Street Journal have been cheerleading for unlimited immigration for decades?

...As Steve has pointed out here numerous times the Democrats and the liberal media are dominated by East Coasters who don't really understand the scale and nature of latino immigration.
The same is true for the Wall Street Journal and 'big finance', so you just answered your own question. Oh, and a lot of big finance tends toward Democrats-- Buffet, Soros, hedge funds, Madoff... Then there's Hollywood, a major source of support, which happens to share a county with "the scale and nature of [Latin] immigration."

The basic rule of American politics is, Democrats know what they're doing, and Republicans don't. That's why the GOP is truly split on the immigration issue, and the Dems unified-- unified in favor.

I alluded to the fact that 99% of resistance to immigration in the major parties takes place in the GOP. Funny, that's the one point I made that Peter declined to respond to.

Peter said...

I alluded to the fact that 99% of resistance to immigration in the major parties takes place in the GOP. Funny, that's the one point I made that Peter declined to respond to.I'm not declining to respond - that actually helps makes my point. The GOP elite is running roughshod over its base, the Democrats are doing what its base wants. And the Democrats are the evil party who know what they're doing? Please. The GOP leadership is completely cynical - doing the bidding of billionaires. The Democrats, for the most part, at least believe in the pie-in-the-sky they're selling.

Simon Zukas said...

Truth is right.

Stan said...

"That's why the GOP is truly split on the immigration issue, and the Dems unified-- unified in favor."

Business interests control the republican party. The show of resistance to immigration in the republican party is a ruse to keep middle class and working class whites voting for the interests of big banking and big business. Abortion and same sex marriage are also used to convince the middle class to vote for the republican party.

Then there are the corporate stooges, Rush Limbaugh and Fox channel frauds, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity who have managed to persuade middle class americans that the great transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich that began with Reagan has been good for America. Fox channel is up to its old tricks of distracting popular discontent by making an issue of Obama bowing to the Saudi King.

David said...

obrien said

taking Sub-Saharan Africa's "real" IQ to be 85I don't know what you mean by "real" IQ, but the figures I've seen put average sub-Sarharan black IQ at about 70.

Stan said...

Israel plans to deport 100,000 undocumented workers. Who will do the jobs that Israelis won't do?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3700189,00.html

Truth said...

"But if you want to take that tack, then okay: Why stop at the 100-day killing spree perpetrated by the Interahamwe...?

Because I specified on one specific group of white people in one specific conflict; e.g; The Germans during WWII

They killed 6-7 million Jews (allegedly) as well as more than 20 million "others" in a span of less than 10 years.

Thank you Simon, sometimes I start wondering myself if I am not, indeed F.O.S.

And Jack, with all possible respect, there are two sides to the "we" created this and "you" didn't create that
game

Anonymous said...

Truth said...
Because I specified on one specific group of white people in one specific conflict; e.g; The Germans during WWII
Actually, you didn't specify anything, you made a blanket statement about white people being unrivalled at murdering. I then pointed out that in terms of sheers numbers that was probably wrong.

Then, comparing the two most gruesomely efficient attempts to systematically exterminate an entire people, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, I noted that in terms of sheer murderous efficiency directed at a targeted group, the backwards Hutus outperformed even the Nazis by a factor of four, even though the Nazis had a huge industrial/technological advantage. Score one for Africa.

But if you want to broaden the scope again, to include an entire race and other types of murder, fine. Taking into account several African auto-genocides (some of which are still going on), the constant tribal warfare, and the countless ethnic massacres, I'd say it's a good bet that Africans can easily rival whites at murdering people, both in terms of sheer numbers and kill-rates.

Truth said...

"Actually, you didn't specify anything, you made a blanket statement about white people being unrivalled at murdering. I then pointed out that in terms of sheers numbers that was probably wrong."

Please God, why...Why...WHY must you torture me? I believe in you, I practice the golden rule, I got good grades in school? what is it that you want out of me? Should I become a monk? Should I change my name to Job? I beg of you just send me a signal of what you want me to do... I simply cannot take it anymore!

Anonymous said...

Truth said...
"sometimes I start wondering myself if I am not, indeed F.O.S."

Perhaps you should listen to your intuition, Truth. I used to enjoy your posts, but recently you've become the kind of person I just can't take seriously.

Anonymous said...

what is it that you want out of me? Should I become a monk? Should I change my name to Job? I beg of you just send me a signal of what you want me to do...Drop the Aaron McGruder/Spike Lee act. That'll do it.

Anonymous said...

I noted that in terms of sheer murderous efficiency directed at a targeted group, the backwards Hutus outperformed even the Nazis by a factor of four, even though the Nazis had a huge industrial/technological advantage. Score one for Africa.The Nazis had to carefully play on people's suspicions and envy of Jews, while building an organization (their own party) of people who could reliably be counted on to act fully on their hatred. When the Holocaust was taking place it was done almost entirely behind-the-scenes. The Rwandan murderers relied on widespread bloodlust.

The show of resistance to immigration in the republican party is a ruse to keep middle class and working class whites voting for the interests of big banking and big business.What show of resistance? By whom? By George W Bush? By John McCain? By Arlen Specter?

The Republicans in Congress are genuinely divided on the issue.

Abortion and same sex marriage are also used to convince the middle class to vote for the republican party.The GOP mostly isn't doing anything about same sex marriage, either - certainly not at the national level. All of those efforts have been at the state level, often in the form of a plebiscite.

Fox news channel is up to its old tricks of distracting popular discontent by making an issue of Obama bowing to the Saudi King.Fox is reliably neoconservative. Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Mike Huckabee all have their own shows. Mike Huckabee would not have his own show if it weren't for his views on immigration.

Rupert Murdoch is clearly opposed to immigration enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Israel plans to deport 100,000 undocumented workers. Who will do the jobs that Israelis won't do?Vicente Fox said that Mexicans are doing jobs that "even blacks won't do."

Now Israel is telling us that there aren't any jobs that "even Jews won't do."

And if the ethnic group with the highest IQ of any ethny in the world is willing to do these jobs shouldn't we all be able to?

Anonymous said...

The Nazis had to carefully play on people's suspicions and envy of Jews, while building an organization (their own party) of people who could reliably be counted on to act fully on their hatred. When the Holocaust was taking place it was done almost entirely behind-the-scenes. The Rwandan murderers relied on widespread bloodlust..

Mmmm. Sort of. It's true that the Nazis moved the mass murders out of sight from the German public--first to remote wooded areas, later to full-scale death factories in Poland--whereas the mass murder in Rwanda took place in the towns and villages in full view of the public.

But the Hutu government engaged in a very similar propaganda campaign to identify Tutsis in every community and then gradually step up the vilification process until it reached fever pitch. It wasn't a spontaneous explosion of ethnic rage. It took years of careful planning to stage the Rwandan genocide. It's true, though, that a larger percentage of the public took an active part in the Rwandan genocide than in the Holocaust.

In any case, the Interahamwe remain the most efficient mass murderers in modern history.

Ronduck said...

The Rwandan genocide is a good example of the failure of diversity. Rwanda should have been split up into two countries so that each tribe could live in its own land under its own government.