November 8, 2009

A busy week

From my new VDARE.com column:
It was a busy week for Invite the World / Invade the World / In Hock to the World news:

First, Gallup announced the results of polling 259,542 adults in 135 countries during 2007-2009:
700 Million Worldwide Desire to Migrate Permanently
U.S. tops desired destination countries

“… Gallup finds about 16% of the world's adults would like to move to another country permanently if they had the chance. This translates to roughly 700 million worldwide -- more than the entire adult population of North and South America combined.”

Second, a U.S. Army major / Palestinian terrorist shot two score soldiers at Fort Hood. Texas. President Barack Hussein Obama rushed to warn that there must be no rush to stereotype Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The New York Times played along, running a five-part red herring discussion on "Combat Stress and the Fort Hood Gunman." Presumably, Major Hasan, who had never seen combat, was suffering from PTSD: Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Third, the government announced that the unemployment rate had exceeded 10 percent for the first time in 26 years. But discussion of the role of immigration in unemployment was simply nonexistent in the Main Stream Media.

When things go very wrong, as they have, the most likely causes are ones that Nobody who is Anybody expected. Their conceptual framework leaves them unable to cope with unthinkable reality.

In contrast, my alternative Invite / Invade / In Hock analysis of the Bush-Obama Era’s dominant approach helps point out linkages behind events that baffle those brainwashed by the conventional wisdom.

For example, if you stop and think about it, you’ll notice that Hasan, whose mother was born in Jerusalem, was following in the tradition of Palestinian terrorist Sirhan Sirhan, who shot Sen. Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968.

Few conceive of Sirhan as a Palestinian terrorist because nobody in American thought much about Palestine or terrorism before George Habash masterminded the skyjacking of four jetliners in 1970. Hence, most Americans mentally lump Sirhan in with the 1960s domestic assassins Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray.

Yet, Sirhan certainly saw himself as a Palestinian terrorist. Sirhan murdered Bobby Kennedy on the first anniversary of Israel’s June 5, 1967 attack on its Arab neighbors because RFK promised to send 50 fighter jets to Israel.

That there’s an inevitable conflict between “Invade” and “Invite” in terms of domestic terrorism is something that the Kennedy brothers never figured out.

Read it there and comment about it here.

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

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Any clue what the racial breakdown of that 700 million is?

Anonymous said...

Apparently some muslims are enraged about the lack of an anti-Muslim backlash.
Just the kind of low down dirty trick the kaffirs would stoop to to show Islam in a bad light.

corvinus said...

Well, first they have to be able to come here. And they can only do that by chain immigration (~300,000/yr), marrying an American (another ~200,000/yr, although many of these are chain immigration due to marrying a naturalized U.S. citizen from the same country), certain employment categories (~150,000/yr), the refugee/asylee racket (~100,000/yr), or the diversity racket (~50,000/yr).

Chain immigration has been written about a lot by immigration restrictionists. But there's one thing about it: it's becoming a less efficient method at bringing in new Third Worlders. Back in 1970, the average Latino or Asian immigrant had half a dozen brothers and sisters, with perhaps another couple dozen children, nieces, and nephews, plus the parents. Now that birth rates in the Third World have crashed from six per woman to two or three (or even lower, in the case of China and Korea), and given the fact that not all of the relatives will feel like moving, chain immigration is slumping. In fact, the backlog in applications has been shrinking for several years. CIS is approving immigrants at a rate of slightly over 1 million per year, and it has a few years to go, but it eventually will fall to about 700,000/yr if things continue as they are.

Trying to cut out chain immigration will be difficult as long as people elect Democrats. But the lottery seems doable. One strategic reason we should kill the diversity lottery -- which lets in mostly immigrants from Africa and Europe, with some from Asia -- is that we don't want chain immigration from Africa, with its stubbornly high birth rate, to swamp the country.

Anonymous said...

The "Invite the World" part of your slogan is a little bit of a misnomer, don't you think? We certainly aren't doing anything to make it easier for people to immigrate from Britain, or France, or Japan, or any other civilized country whose talented people might actually benefit our society. "Invite the Hispanics" would be a more accurate statement of current policy, since the idea is to bring in poor people who are covered by affirmative action who will therefore be in hock to the party that claims to help the poor and defends affirmative action.

TGGP said...

Sirhan Sirhan and the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were both Christians (or at least their parents were). Not too many of them left in Palestine. That might not have been the case if an Ataturk or Pahlavi was in charge there, but under "liberation" the psychos will inherit the earth.

Anonymous said...

US unemployment is actually north of 17%. The government ignores people who work part time but who would like to work full time, and people who have given up trying to find work.

rightsaidfred said...

Interesting comparison of the latest trigger puller to Sirhan.

I initially thought of the parallels between Hasan and the Egypt Air pilot who dumped the jetliner out of New York in 1999. Something about Arab/Muslim beta males facing a life change in mid life stirs apocalypse.

Jimmy Crackedcorn said...

Here's a thought...

Everyone knows that the freedom of speech is not considered absolute. It does not cover yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and it does not cover making death threats. Hell nowadays I'm not even sure it covers people who want to engage in political speech.

Nor is the freedom of religion considered absolute: witness the pressures placed on the Mormon Church to end the practice of polygamy, though that was in the 1800s and given the radical changes in jurisprudence since who the hell knows how they would rule today.

But a query: what is the religious equivalent of yelling fired in a crowded theatre, or of a death threat, if not the injunctions of the Quran to kill, persecute or subjugate the non-believer?

Anonymous said...

"TGGP said...

Sirhan Sirhan and the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were both Christians (or at least their parents were). Not too many of them left in Palestine. That might not have been the case if an Ataturk or Pahlavi was in charge there, but under "liberation" the psychos will inherit the earth."

This isn't very surprising, but it may complicate matters when talking about Palestinian terrorism as a uniquely "Islamic" phenomenon, as it is so often portrayed in the media by the talking heads who forget about the Palestinian Christians. Afif Safieh, a prominent diplomat representing the PLO is also a Palestinian Christian. Palestinian activist Rifat Odeh Kassis is another.

While Palestinian Muslims seem to be more capable as individuals of the more extreme forms of terrorism like suicide-bombings, Palestinian Christians seem to be more likely to be leaders, activists, intellectuals or do behind the scenes type work. They are disproportionately among the "brains" of Palestinian terrorism and activism. Let the dumb Muslims do all the dirty work...

Most of the Christian population of Palestine that was displaced during Israel's creation just gave up and left from wherever they ended up in 1948, and didn't get heavily involved in Palestinian liberation or activism with some notable exceptions(and the ones who are involved are often among the most influential, like Edward Said).

In part this may be due to Palestinian Christians being more affluent than Palestinian Muslims, which implies the Palestinian Christians have higher IQs. In fact, throughout the Middle East the Arab Christians have long been more successful on average compared to Arab Muslims. Although only a small percentage of the Arab population of the Middle East, they have been disproportionately represented among Arab business leaders and intellectuals and played a pivotal role in the Pan-Arab movement.

It's even said that Arab Christians tend to be fairer and more "western" in outlook, compared to Arab Muslims. The Arab Christians of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel and some other countries represent a remnant of the original northern Semitic race(technically speaking, they aren't even "Arabs") that founded the most ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia. The Arab Islamic conquests(which originated in the Arabian peninsula) from 1,500 years ago of Mesopotamia, the Levant and beyond, introduced a lot of south Semitic genes from the Arabian peninsula(Lebanese Muslims are more likely to have these genes compared to Lebanese Christians, according to the latest genetic research), sometimes with a tincture of black African genes. Most of the Christians in these countries converted to Islam and mixed with the invaders, while the ones who remained Christian hardly mixed with the Muslim invaders and kept their north Semitic bloodline pure.

I haven't seen any IQ studies of this, but I would not be surprised at all if the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians of Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have higher IQs than the Muslims of the same country(I'm not a Christian BTW).

Studies need to be done on this to see how IQ and culture influences the behavior of terrorists. So what may have influenced Major Hassan to commit his rampage may have been Palestinian nationalism combined with Islam(which may explain why he wasn't Egyptian-American, or Syrian-American, or Pakistani-American).

So let's not underestimate the power of Palestinian nationalism/anti-Americanism in getting Palestinians to do violent or crazy things, regardless of their religious background. While most are Muslim, the George Habashes and Sirhan Sirhans among them may more easily slip through certain cracks due to their religion. That said, Palestinian nationalism combined with extremist Islam(Hamas) seems far more deadly than the Palestinian nationalism of Palestinian Christians, on average.

Just rambling...

CJ said...

Yes, Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of RFK was indeed the first Palestinian terrorist hit on U.S. territory. You've got that absolutely right, and indeed Sirhan himself insisted on the political motivation of his act -- only to be resolutely ignored by a liberal media that had its own story and was sticking to it.

While we're at it, the assassination of JFK by a Marxist, Castro-sympathizing onetime defector to the Soviet Union didn't fit the preferred media narrative of the time either. Despite the undeniable indications that Lee Harvey Oswald was an extreme leftist, the dead Kennedy was portrayed as a victim of the right. I doubt that any of the living Kennedys even now understand the actual political motives of the two assassins.

Tom Regan said...

"And they could do Republican candidates some good—by giving them something to run on.

That’s probably why these ideas are unmentionable in the MSM.

But why are they also unmentionable among Republicans?"

On the basis that demographics is destiny, what do you think is the common characteristic of those who dominate the upper echelons of the media, and the neocons who have taken a grip on the GOP?

Anonymous said...

Do Lebanese Christians look different from Lebanese Muslims?

Ben Franklin said...

One can’t get more “mainstream” by the lights of the gatekeepers to public opinion than Gallup and it was Gallup asking the question: how many third world aliens want to swamp the Western world? Even Gallup noted that the numbers added up to the West being and I quote “overwhelmed” and the third world being emptied out.

But for years, the Neocons (Jonah Goldberg; David Frum; JPOD; Norman Pod; David Brooks; Linda Chavez; Ben Wattenberg; Irving Kristol; Billy Kristol, etc.) have held that even ASKING QUESTIONS about insane open borders policies was beyond the pale. When paleocons raised the issue of immigration in 1989, the Neocons asserted, without argument, that even raising the issue was out of bounds.

Thanks to the Neocons, the mess we have today is much worse than it might otherwise have been, if they hadn’t suppressed the debate over the vital issue of controlling the massive influx from the dysfunctional third world.

teacher.paris said...

http://marwinsing-marwinsing.blogspot.com/2009/11/spot-european-in-this-advert-and-win.html

Anonymous said...

'But why are they also unmentionable among Republicans?'


You silly goose. You still don't understand the difference between the Right and the Left.

The Right is on the side of Capital, whereas the Left is on the side of Labor.

Bot the Democratic party (the Pseudo-Left) and the GOP (the Pseudo-Populist) are on the side of the Right. One way we know this is because both the GOP and the Dems want more immigration. Immigration is very favorable to Capital and unfavorable to Labor.

See, one day you will understand this thing called "politics." Just stick with me and I will explain all about it....


-cryofan

Tanstaafl said...

Thanks to the Neocons, the mess we have today is much worse than it might otherwise have been, if they hadn’t suppressed the debate over the vital issue of controlling the massive influx from the dysfunctional third world.

The ADL, SPLC, and ACLU are not at all neoconservative and have done just as much or more to stifle resistance to genocidal levels of immigration - ironically doing their utmost to defame, impoverish, and restrict civil liberties in the process.

JFK and RFK may never have seen the increasingly awful consequences of invade/invite, but Ted and most high-level politician since (again, not restricted to neocons) have not only faced it, they have also figured out that to gain or hold political power they must support it, no matter the harm to or objections from the bulk of their constituency.

Tanstaafl said...

Neocons distinguish themselves by explicitly opposing ethnic nationalism in historically White countries, while advocating using the wealth and military of these countries, which they ostensibly owe their allegience to, to support and defend jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel.

In contrast, leftist opponents of White ethnic nationalism oppose, or pretend to oppose, jewish ethnic nationalism as well.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that any of the living Kennedys even now understand the actual political motives of the two assassins.

Careful there - you're about to get accused of bigotry & intolerance towards drunken, thieving, fornicating, Irish papists.

Richard A. said...

Steve Sailer wrote,
"Get rid of the H-1B indentured servant visa program that has helped make computer programming the career of the past for American students."

One problem here is that the MSM has shifted the blame of unemployment caused by the H-1B visa on to offshore outsourcing -- that is, when they are not peddling computer programming shortage.

DCS said...

Seems that the NYT has not heeded the voice of the master to avoid jumping to conclusions about Maj. Hasan. I guess when your only tool is a hammer, everything loks like a nail. Surprising that people who work for an outfit that studies PTSD are going to conclude that was the reason for the shootings.

Whiskey said...

Oh Please Steve, you are stretching it. Denmark, which never "invaded" the World has Muslims worldwide wanting to kill as many Danes over cartoons. China, which certainly did "invade" good parts of the world (Tibet, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Central Asia) has a chronic, constant terrorism problem not only in XianXing but Shanghai and Beijing, with attacks during the run-up to the Olympics. China has certainly not invited the World.

EVEN China has problems with Islamic terrorism because technology gives even failed peoples the ability to reach out and kill. Reality check -- unless we want to periodically wipe out nations with nukes, "invading" places and breaking things/people is the only humane, cost-effective alternative.
--------------
Scapegoating is both stupid as well as useless. Neocons are not the issue, they will at least fight sometimes. The issue is corporate SWPL leaders (Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/Larry Ellison), SWPL Media, and White Women who form a electoral and money power base in favor of gutting out America's industrial capacity and making stuff cheaper overseas (via cheap oil transport).

White Women would always back increased immigration because it means cheaper Rosa the Illegal Alien nanny replacing a loathesome beta husband, freeing her to live a "life of passion" according to Christina Nehring and Barbara Ehrenreich. Along with anti-White Blacks/Hispanics that is a majority.

The GOP could have nominated Pat Buchanon every time and LOST by ten percent or more EVERY TIME. Because REALITY CHECK White Women favor immigration, H1B Visas, etc. broadly. Look at any NBC Sitcom: Parks and Recreation, the Office, Community etc. for the White female attitude towards Joe Average White guy and immigrants.

This is why the BNP is so significant: it argues directly to White Brit women they get a better (socialist) deal with them by cutting the pie to exclude immigrants. Simple spoils politics.

Anonymous said...

Its not really INVITE THE WORLD Steve. Its INVITE THE THIRD WORLD. Or INVITE THE NON-WHITE WORLD. Or INVITE THE NON-WESTERN WORLD. Few people indeed come here today from Europe. And those that do generally don't make trouble.

On a side note isn't it kind of ironic that a Kennedy was killed by an immigrant? It was Teddy Kennedy who was responsible for America's immigration disaster.

Tatosian said...

"And they could do Republican candidates some good—by giving them something to run on.”

Republicans can run on third rails (literally) as far as I/m concerned.
They are a pandering, weak party whose go along to get along philosophy has effectively removed us from our own political process.
Let the republicans go gently into that good night while we focus instead on third party candidates, voter initiatives and whatever else we can do to stop our decent into a third world hell.
Republicans have betrayed us.
Stop exhibiting some sort of perverse battered wife syndrome and cut the punks loose.
Time is not on our side.
Stop it.

Anonymous said...

I think we need to be concerned if other copycat wannabe terrorists start joining the US military at a higher rate.

Do you think recruiters loyal to the USA will find ways to keep out our enemies?

spacehabitats said...

In the process of reading this column I ended up following the links to your article "Five Years After 9/11: Why Did Bush Blunder?".

After exploring various theories on the origins of the neocon agenda of "Imperialism, Immigration, and Insolvency", you finally conclude that "..it's becoming obvious that [the Bush] Administration's invade-the-world strategy reflects mostly the deluded obsessions of a few men of strong passion and weak reason."

Steve, of all people I would think that YOU would recognize Occam's butter knife when you see it. After all, dis-organized stupidity, ignorance, and greed can only explain so much. Have any of the events of the last two years changed your opinion on this?

If the relentlessly self-destructive policies of EVERY presidential administration since Calvin Coolidge weren't enough; how about the seamless manner in which the Obama administration has continued the policies of Invite,Invade, and In Hock?

If nothing else, the way in which John McCain sided with the the hugely unpopular Bush administration AND with his "opponent" Barack Obama, in support of the first Wall Street bailout should make you question your conspiracy-free political model. This was a monumentally self-destructive political gesture. What kind of "strong passion" would it take to cause a career politician like McCain to thumb his nose at the majority of the American voters on the eve of the most important election of his life?

Anonymous said...

Based on my recent trips to Lebanon, Lebanese Christians, from what I can tell, are indeed fairer than Muslim Lebanese. Many of the Arab Christians in Lebanon seem to have a significant mixture of European and Turkish blood. My own opinion is that many of them are the descendants of Crusader populations. Interestingly, I met more than one Lebanese Muslim family who had a German or French grandfather who immigrated to Lebanon around the time of WWII (and no, they weren't Jews!). In talking with my Sunni Muslim friends, the Christians are perceived as wealthier and more sophisticated than the Muslims. The Muslims tell me they don't understand why this is so.

Anonymous said...

One small quibble; once again you make the unsubstantiated claim that TMK's support of immigration was due to a desire to bring in more Irish immigrants to vote for him. The link you provided the last time was just an assertion of this very statement, without any articles or facts backing it up. I bring it up because the Immigration Act ended country of origin quotas, which means the Irish quota (and that portion of the British quota filled by Irishmen) was destroyed. This hurt the Irish especially badly because, unlike the English or Germans, their economy was particularly bad during the 60s. As a result, many immigrated to England instead (a process that was ongoing well before the notorious Act, and was caused as much if not more so by the geographical proximity of high paying low skilled employment in Britain's post-war economy). In any event, you shouldn't take at face value TMK's loyalty to the Irish; that has only been a one way street (judging by Boston bussing and jobs for working class whites in general). If he had an underlying motivation, then it well could have been contempt of the old WASP order. But hating that order, and seeking its overthrow, is not the same as being pro-Irish, or thinking that doing so would help the Irish. You give TMK the credit of having the goal of creating something, whereas destruction only seems a more plausible motivation for such a man. A more interesting question to ask/analyse is to what extend the Act and its ramifications led to a sizeable chunk of ethnic Catholic Americans moving over to the Republican Party and the right in general. How divided would the white population be if the Act never passed? To what extent did the resulting sh··storm augment or diminish white solidarity?

general torpor said...

"It's even said that Arab Christians tend to be fairer and more "western" in outlook, compared to Arab Muslims."

I noticed that when I lived in Haifa, Israel. Haifa is about half and half Arab/Jewish, and the Arabs there are mostly Christian. They did look fairer and more Euro than the Arabs to the north, in Akka. A generalization of course. But it makes sense somehow. Various religious sects in the middle east have not conmingled much outside the market place, down through the centuries.

general torpor said...

"I doubt that any of the living Kennedys even now understand the actual political motives of the two assassins."

But do you understand that nobody who has studied the whole event, including the Warren Report, believes Oswald or Sirhan were lone gunman? I mean nobody who cares enough to think about it with discernment and research. There was even a mainstream paper in England that pretty much came out admitted the jury is on that fact that Sirhan's bullets did not, and indeed could not have, hit RFK where he was hit.
But yeah, whatever Sirhan's role (even if it was politically motivated, to this day he remembers nothing of event), he was the first Palestinian immigrant we know of, who got famous due to an act of terrorism, even if there were Americans involved also.

Anonymous said...

Bot the Democratic party (the Pseudo-Left) and the GOP (the Pseudo-Populist) are on the side of the Right. One way we know this is because both the GOP and the Dems want more immigration. Immigration is very favorable to Capital and unfavorable to Labor.

Your right on the Republicans, but the leftists are anti-white. They support third world immigration in spite of the fact that it drives down the cost of labor, not because of it.

Richard Hoste said...

"Oh Please Steve, you are stretching it. Denmark, which never "invaded" the World has Muslims worldwide wanting to kill as many Danes over cartoons. China, which certainly did "invade" good parts of the world (Tibet, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Central Asia) has a chronic, constant terrorism problem not only in XianXing but Shanghai and Beijing, with attacks during the run-up to the Olympics. China has certainly not invited the World.

EVEN China has problems with Islamic terrorism because technology gives even failed peoples the ability to reach out and kill. Reality check -- unless we want to periodically wipe out nations with nukes, "invading" places and breaking things/people is the only humane, cost-effective alternative."

If you're willing to commit mass murder, why not simply expel Muslims from Western lands?

Oh, that's right. You ignore that option because if we did that you would no longer have an excuse to ask Americans to die for your Scots-Irish ethnostate in the Middle East.

As someone on the other thread said, since sexually frustrated men sometimes commit mass murder, and Testing is sexually frustrated, we should declare preemptive war on you. You might have a nuke in a suitcase or something.

Ben Franklin said...

EvilNeocon/Testing99/Whiskey doesn’t really care about the reality that the Neocons prevented any discussion of the Immigration disaster on the Right. But here is just a little of the evidence for that, with Bill Kristol, son of Irving, arguing that Illegal Immigration is really a good thing, leading to reduced crime, lower unemployment and more fodder for the wars Neocons want others to fight.

(I would advise EvilNeocon/Whiskey/T99 to stick to writing about homosexuals and the media.)

IRVING KRISTOL’S SON, IN PRAISE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/fns_roundtable_april_2.html

On Sunday morning on Fox News with Chris Wallace, William Kristol said:

I'm a liberal on immigration.... What damage have they done that's so great in 20 years [since the 1986 amnesty]?... What's happened that's so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?

And they've been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people—what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.?

... I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration. An awful lot of Mexican Americans, an awful lot of sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Army.

KOMMENT FOLLOWS BY LARRY AUSTER ON THE ABOVE:

Isn’t that something? The neocons, and in particular the Jewish neocons, have been long seen by the paleo right as people who only care about spreading an American democratic empire abroad and who, in their pedal-to-the-metal support for open borders, are indifferent to the actual well-being, and even the long-term survival, of America as a distinct country. The neocons, of course, see such suspicions as nothing but irrational bigotry against Jews. And so what does Kristol do? He comes right out and says on national television that he couldn’t care less about the mass invasion of this country by illegal aliens.

Matra said...

whiskey: White Women would always back increased immigration because it means cheaper Rosa the Illegal Alien nanny replacing a loathesome beta husband, freeing her to live a "life of passion"

The polls do NOT show that. Some have women taking a harder line others show them slightly more liberal. But usually men and women have similar views on illegal immigration.

Repeating something over and over may work with the masses who lack curiosity and don't pay much attention to such matters, but it will not work here.

whiskey: REALITY CHECK White Women favor immigration, H1B Visas, etc. broadly. Look at any NBC Sitcom

How about looking at polls instead of sitcoms and Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

"It's even said that Arab Christians tend to be fairer and more "western" in outlook, compared to Arab Muslims."

Off topic, but French Protestants also have a reputation for being fairer in appearance than the rest of the French. I can't figure that one out.

Jimmy Crackedcorn said...

"An awful lot of Mexican Americans, an awful lot of sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Army." - Bill Kristol

If we made our decisions about which groups could immigrate to this country based on who was most likely to put on a uniform, which groups would we exclude? One group that Kristol would be pissed about excluding, surely.

Truth said...

"If nothing else, the way in which John McCain sided with the the hugely unpopular Bush administration AND with his "opponent" Barack Obama, in support of the first Wall Street bailout should make you question your conspiracy-free political model."

Here, here.

Wake up Steve, you've been a little sleepy today.

Truth said...

Mr. Hoste, I read your piece on vdare.com and while I never agree with anything you believe, I congratulate you on your successful 6-month writing career, and give you kudos for taking initiative.

That is a trait that more of us, myself included could stand to take on.

TGGP said...

Thanks anonymous for the thoughtful response.

No need to speak out your ass on women and immigration, I already had that covered a while back.

The Netherlands does serve as an example of why not to import a Muslim underclass. However, the death toll has so far amounted to just Van Gogh. With Pim Fortuyn, that puts them neck-and-neck with animal rights activists. So yes, minding your own business internationally seems less likely to result in being attacked. But what the hell do the Swiss or Swedes know?

Tatu said...

"Oh Please Steve, you are stretching it. Denmark, which never "invaded" the World has Muslims worldwide wanting to kill as many Danes over cartoons."

Denmark was actually part of both Iraq war and Afganistan war. For a time, Iraq war was more popular in Denmark than in the US (I don't know about the current situation, though.)

headache said...

In talking with my Sunni Muslim friends, the Christians are perceived as wealthier and more sophisticated than the Muslims. The Muslims tell me they don't understand why this is so.



Hint: it's the religion.

David said...

> Any clue what the racial breakdown of that 700 million is? <

White with 100 IQ average.

Let them in! Stack 'em (like cordwood) and tax 'em, I say. There's plenty of room in our western states.

(sarcasm off....sadly, though, this is approximately the viewpoint of our self-styled "leaders")

Svigor said...

Yes, and white women take the brunt of the criticism over miscegenation, when women in general (including white women) are far more racist in their romantic choices than men (who are basically only incidentally racist (since the attractiveness criterion has disparate impact)).

David said...

spacehabitats said

> the way in which John McCain sided with the the hugely unpopular Bush administration AND with his "opponent" Barack Obama, in support of the first Wall Street bailout should make you question your conspiracy-free political model. This was a monumentally self-destructive political gesture. What kind of "strong passion" would it take to cause a career politician like McCain to thumb his nose at the majority of the American voters <

"That loyal retainer of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the American president." -- Gore Vidal

corvinus said...

Off topic, but French Protestants also have a reputation for being fairer in appearance than the rest of the French. I can't figure that one out.

FRENCH Protestants? I would have expected Protestants in general, since, after all, the blondest parts of Europe became Protestant.

Anonymous said...

Your right on the Republicans, but the leftists are anti-white. They support third world immigration in spite of the fact that it drives down the cost of labor, not because of it.

Thats the beauty of it. The true believers are checkmated by their belief in egalitarianism and anti-racism. Tptb only have to frame an issue in such a way that opposition to (or support for) a given policy becomes racism, then they can do what they want, the left will be shouting about racism. Meanwhile all the old class/wealth issues are ignored..

Anonymous said...

The GOP could have nominated Pat Buchanon every time and LOST by ten percent or more EVERY TIME.

Leaving aside whether that's accurate or not, so what?

We wouldn't have the wonderful Bush years or the "Contract With America"? Yeah, a real loss that would have been.