June 23, 2012

A Scots-Irish Perspective

From the BBC:
The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said. 
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural. 
He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law. 
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration. 
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas. 
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

124 comments:

wren said...

Nigel Farage calls for a moratorium on immigration into the UK.

Good for him.

Anonymous said...

Anglo-Irish, no Scot in that lad. But I know what you mean.

German reader said...

But Sutherland really is Scots-Irish, not "Scots-Irish" in the sense used here, isn't he?

IHTG said...

This guy has been called the "father of globalization"! And yet he's for all intents and purposes anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Peter Sutherland, of Goldman Sachs, has a glorious record of incompetent oversight at Allied Irish Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and BP. He was persistent cheerleader for the Irish economy when even the dogs on the street knew it was doomed. A classic example of a bloated corporate windbag.

An Irishman in America

wren said...

A much better video of Nigel Farage sharing his thoughts on the disaster of EU immigration policy on the UK.

John Cunningham said...

so brilliant!! just look at the peaceful history of Multiculti Yugoslavia, or Rwanda in the 90s.

jody said...

lol. i wondered how many other people saw this.

Anonymous said...

If the EU is to exist it kinda will have to do that, though there is a difference between making european nation states simply european, and turning them into african and middleeastern nation states.

Anonymous said...

That said I doubt that the EU will or should continue to exist.

Anonymous said...

well... that's depressing.

Steve Sailer said...

"But Sutherland really is Scots-Irish"

Right, his father is Scottish, his mother Irish.

Anonymous said...

Sutherland is in ________?

Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism was such a stunning success for Yugoslovia, Rwanda, & pre-war Germany (i.e., Germans & Jews living together), that the Leftists now demand smilar mixing of different races, cultures, religions and languages for all nations.

Anonymous said...

"Right, his father is Scottish, his mother Irish."

His father is Scottish, in the same way Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish.

Aaron B. said...

In a recent article for VDARE, John Derbyshire said that political correctness on race "will fall to earth when our understanding of the human genome makes innate race differences undeniable." But statements like this make me wonder. People already ignore massive amounts of evidence on the subject, and believe things like "prosperity depends on diversity" without a single fact to back it up. Why would they treat genetic evidence any differently?

Anonymous said...

This is pretty hilarious.

Anonymous said...

"But Sutherland really is Scots-Irish"

Right, his father is Scottish, his mother Irish.


In the same sense that Sasha Baron Cohen's father is Welsh?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how we can get a full transcript of his remarks?

Anonymous said...

Funny how nobody is calling for Japan, South Korea, China, etc, to be "undermined". Is this all a conspiracy against white people? Sometimes I have to wonder.....

Anonymous said...

Why? Why is this agenda being pushed?

Is it:

a. Just more inanity from a brainwashed liberal?

b. Saying what one must say in order to get ahead in the right crowd?

c. Trying to get more warm bodies into Europe so that the power elite will have even more to feed on?

d. Trying to get cheap labor, all else be damned?

Or none of the above?

- A Solid Citizen

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6/23/12 3:34 PM:
Is this all a conspiracy against white people? Sometimes I have to wonder.....

Peter Sutherland is a white person.

Chicago said...

Yes, it sounds like quite a project, however "difficult it may be to explain" to the citizenry that what Goldman Sachs wants is more important than what they want.

Anonymous said...

"Right, his father is Scottish, his mother Irish."

His father is Scottish, in the same way Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish.


Day-Lewis's father was born in Ireland.

Anonymous said...

Supposedly, only white countries are not reprouducing themselves fast enough, and therefore need this help. The Japanese, I read, are forgoing the joys of diversity by producting robotics far beyond what we have in other countries, to take care of their elderly. But hey, if all we need is more people, and not more Third World people, why aren't elites like this pushing incentives for white births? Because whites have always been less likely to do as they're told, although we all know...never mind, I'll just keep praying.

Anonymous said...

"But Sutherland really is Scots-Irish"

Right, his father is Scottish, his mother Irish.


Is his father Scottish in the same way that Sasha Baron Cohen's father is Welsh?

Anonymous said...

immigration. where the progressive multiculturalists and the big businesses can really get together. the former like it because they can feel good about promoting diversity from their eastern suburban enclaves. the latter like it because it provides cheap labor. i don't think either side appreciates the solidarity here.

Anonymous said...

These arch-globalists remind me of the hard core Marxists of the Sixties and Seventies. While it was clear to normal observers that the Communist project was in ruins, these fanatics always maintained that the faults were caused by insufficient Communism. A purer strain of Stalinism or Leninism needed to be applied and then Socialism would work.

There are differences though too: The motives of the old Left were less cynical and more idealistic. The individuals tended to narcissism and the usual dysfunctional personalities, but at least they were not billionaires in Gulfstream jets. Also, the old Left created catastrophes that could be fixed...

Gilbert Pinfold.

pat said...

I suppose I'll have to read Albion's Seed before I dare comment here, but some of this seems far fetched. I can well believe that an isolated clan can adopt feisty interpersonal relations. I saw The Hatfields and McCoys on TV.

But here you act as if having one Irish parent and one Scots parent is some kind of super combustible formula. Seems improbable.

In any case it is clear that people want all groups to be equal. I agree. But my solution is so much more sensible. I want blacks to be as smart as whites or even Koreans or Jews. I want to have legs like LeBron James. I want the Japanese to be taller. And the Pima to be thinner.

There is still plenty of room for individual differences but we should cull out group differences.

This is what I'm calling Supply Side Equality. The tropical races must be made more intelligent.

I'm bored with studies showing correlations between bad behavior and black skin. Currently the media, the government and much of society supresses this knowledge. Steve and a few others try to teach the truth. I'm more interested a cure.

Detroit scares me. I see no way out there. All the Demand Side Equality measures have failed. The solution for blacks is indeed education but first they need better brains. Tell me I'm wrong.

Albertosaurus

IHTG said...

His father is Scottish, in the same way Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish.

Prove it.

Hacienda said...

"Funny how nobody is calling for Japan, South Korea, China, etc, to be "undermined". Is this all a conspiracy against white people? Sometimes I have to wonder....."

Funny, no one in those countries ever called for the creation of the EU. Neither do they create professional, self-appointed globalist advocates like Sutherland.

Point no fingers, lest others point their fingers at you.

Q said...

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.


The ruling elite are in the grip of magical thinking. If you asked Peter Sutherland to explain the precise mechanism by which becoming multicultural leads to future prosperity, he'd huff and puff and obfuscate. But I don't doubt that he truly believes what he says all the same. Belief is rarely founded on a rational foundation.

Anonymous said...

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".


In fact, however difficult it may be to explain this to anyone, even to economists.

Anonymous said...

Anglo-Irish, no Scot in that lad.


Sutherland is a Scottish surname, so at some point in his paternal line there were Scots.

Tony said...

The guy went to a Jesuit school. What did you expect?

Anonymous said...

"His father is Scottish, in the same way Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish."

Please give link so that I can go back to trusting that my eyes are unlikely to be deceived. He doesn't look like a typical Scots-Irish to me, unless he's a relative of Manischewitz (a more appropriate drink to use as a handle than the current one).

Anonymous said...

So the Scotch-Irish bankers conspiracy is real?

Whiskey said...

Yes its against White people last anon. Because White guys are not sexy enough, basically. Other than Trujillo you don't see the Third World calling for lots of smart people from Europe or Asia to come there. And Trujillo was one off.

That guy, Sutherland, I could shake a stick at pretty much the entire leadership of Fine Gael, and find guys just like him. That's why IRELAND is over-run with Somalis and the like. They parrot that even when it is VERY BAD for politics, see Greece, New Dawn, and the struggle between Sudanese, Somalis, Pakistanis, and the like vs. Greeks for limited aid and food resources.

This utopian "without borders" stuff is driven mostly by female-driven consumer spending. P&G's business is basically the female consumer, I'm sure Steve will correct me on that if I am wrong (I could be). White/Japanese women got raised to equality with men, through social standing and contraception, and found them unsexy. Japanese women reacted by not having kids and lavishing money on pets and pseudo pets. Western women by not having kids and getting behind multiculturalism (your society is worthless if no sexy men, basically).

EVERYONE here knows Multiculturalism/Diversity is bad. It is known by people like Theo Sarrazin. Or Nigel Farage. But it is a LOSER politically. Mitt Romney can't trade on it. With 8.5% unemployment officially. Tom Tancredo committed political suicide endorsing it. Against McCain, his opponent went nowhere. Because so many Whites oppose this with their being. We call them women.

Irish politics revolved around who could spread German/Dutch money around the most to the electorate. Sutherland found it wise to import lots of Muslim foreigners and Africans to soak up that money. Because it appealed to the worst not best of Irish women, who like all women in the West (and Japan) are removed from their men in so many ways, not the least of which is the stuff P&G supports via advertising.

Silver said...

so brilliant!! just look at the peaceful history of Multiculti Yugoslavia, or Rwanda in the 90s.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But on the other hand, what about the peaceful history of homogeneous Europe throughout just the last century? That was a pretty bloody affair, so learning to "manage diversity," be it within a country or between countries is important stuff (if you care about human suffering).

If there actually is one real gain from the past fifty or whatever years of immigration and anti-racism it's that people have made great strides in learning to appreciate one another and leave each other alone more than has ever been the case in human history. One could argue that the low-level violence experienced during the adjustment phase to newcomers is worth it, because people preoccupied with sorting out these domestic issues are people not planning on invading their neighbors. That might not seem such a tremendous gain nowadays, because we've all grown accustomed to peace between western countries, but it wasn't that long ago that it was common for these people to lust after vanquishing their neighbors.

It simply must be said, however, that there isn't any reason why this progress should mean countries must be so overwhelmed with diversity that they are effectively snuffed out of existence.

Anonymous said...

The interesting Peter Sutherland, "father of globalization", apparently was the founding Director-General of the World Trade Organization; he is credited with playing the key role in creating the WTO. He is very clear on where he stands:

"The Case for EMU: More than Money", Peter Sutherland, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 1997:

"European Monetary Union may be an economic undertaking, but it is as much about politics and the prospects for European integration as about pfennigs and francs."

"Transforming Nations: How the WTO Boosts Economies and Opens Societies", Peter Sutherland, Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr 2008:

"The power of the WTO to aid national transformation is easily forgotten."

Here is an excerpt from an online speech by Sutherland (about Ireland and the EU Lisbon Treaty):

"First of all it must be recognised that a Treaty of this complexity is not easily put to the people. It is complex of necessity because if it did not seek to cover everything in detail even more absurd interpretations than those to which we have been subjected would be advanced by opponents. So this complexity paradoxically is the result of attempts to be clear and unambiguous. ...

Recognising the difficulty of having a referendum on such a text, every other Member State wisely decided that parliamentary democracy should provide the ratification method. All the other 26 Member States foresaw the mischief that could be made in a popular debate about a Treaty that, in reality, did very little more than increase the efficiency of a Union that needed reform ...

In my opinion one reason for the public’s confusion was the result of the fact that the national broadcaster RTE treated the arguments as if equal credibility attached to each side whereas virtually no respected and knowledgeable academic or political analyst would have recognised as real the threats that were so stridently proclaimed during the campaign. ...

It is good to record that this time round we will have an organised group of lawyers engaged in the debate..."


Sounds like he's definitely in the "be reasonable and do it my way or you're and idiot" camp. Truly, we should appreciate the sacrifices people like him make to keep us safe from ourselves. We should simply adopt the rule of lawyers and judges. Maybe we already have in the US. If so, the result is not pretty.

jack strocchi said...

He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

Implying that a national immigration policy is in some sense a violation of human rights. Well thats nice to know.

I wonder if Mr Peter Sutherland enforces an immigration policy on those who would wish to barge into his splendid London home and perhaps make themselves free with his sideboard. And whether he would regard a posting a "no trespassing" sign over the threshold as a violation of their human rights.

He has an enviable CV and has had a stellar career in finance and international trade. Exactly the Very Serious Person who has brought the international financial system to its present toxic state, where free movements of capital cause rolling asset price bubbbles and busts.

Now he wants to apply the same logic to free movement of labour. What could possibly go wrong, especially when one adds in the special magic ingredient of diversity into the mix.

I mean, do these guys ever look up from their spread sheets and actually look at where they are taking the world?

Anonymous said...

What's the most non-homogeneous society? Are they faring better? Can someone do a linear regression on this subject? Prosperity vs diversity?

You figure a guy from the UN and all can come up with numbers.

Melykin said...

It is not fair to blame all Scots and Irish for this moron. There are plenty of idiots of every ethnicity.

Sutherland, of course, is a county in Scotland, way up north. My grandfather was named Sutherland, though he was from County Caithness (which is the northern most county in Scotland).

I hope I am not related to this twit Peter Sutherland. My theory is that most of the smarter Scots left for Canada, Australia, etc years ago.

Luke Lea said...

Guys like him have a short agenda: don't mess with our tax havens and don't interfere with the free mobility of labor and capital around the world.

Dutch Boy said...

Goldman-Sachs, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, WTO - this guy is the whole enchilada!

Steve Sailer said...

Daniel Day-Lewis's father, C. Day-Lewis, was the Poet Laureate of England, the same job Chaucer had.

Black Sea said...

"But is it good for the Europeans . . . ?"


On a different note, Daniel Day-Lewis's father was Anglo-Irish. Though born in Ireland, he only lived there for the first two years of his life, and chose British rather than Irish citizenship.

Anonymous said...

Goldman-Sachs, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, WTO - this guy is the whole enchilada!

LOL, funny.

Granted, looks can be deceiving but more often than not they are informative. The thing is, Peter Sutherland does look very stereotypically Ashkenazi Jewish. Do many Scots looks like Jews?

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, yeah, yeah. But on the other hand, what about the peaceful history of homogeneous Europe throughout just the last century?"

But they weren't homogenous and these frictions led to World War 1&2.

Anonymous said...

@Luke Lea

"Guys like him have a short agenda: don't mess with our tax havens and don't interfere with the free mobility of labor and capital around the world."

Even though I am a libertarian, I agree with this. If there were any justice in the Universe, the members of the families of large banking and financial clans would be chained and made to work in forced labor camps for the rest of their lives. They are COMPLETE bastards who are completely self-serving and amoral. At least a warrior who slays people believes in SOMETHING. These men believe in nothing but their own self-aggradizement, and they care nothing about destroying the lives of millions of human beings. They foment wars so they can bankrupt entire states and control them - but of course, they never step foot on the battlefield -, they lobby the government of great powers like the U.S and France to invade tiny countries to steal their oil, etc.

They use libertarian ideals of "freedom" and "justice" and "spreading democracy" to invade oil-rich countries, and the same excuses to bring millions of poor people into Western nations. i wouldn't have a problem if they truly believed in libertarian ideals and genuinelly wanted to spread democracy and help poor people of the Third World by making them American or European. But they don't. That is just an excuse: what they really want is to put their hands on the oil reserves and to have slave labor.

(continued on part II)

Anonymous said...

I despise Karl Marx, but unfortunately I have to agree with him when he stated that, to the upper burgeoise, morality is just a veneer that they use as an excuse to get people to do what they want when flat out intimidation and brutality cannot be used.

For instance, during the 1980s, American corporate and financial World were highly nationalistic. Why? Well, because they were taking an ass-raping from the Japanese, and their only hope of saving themselves was to portray themselves as "American heroes" who gave Americans jobs and had to be protected by tariffs because of that. For instance, Coca-Cola openly called itself an "American" corporation back in the 1980s. Now, it is suddenly a "global" corporagtion. Why? Because back in the 1980s America represented more than half of Coca-Cola's sales and now it is down to 20% due to the immense growth of Asia and even Latin America. In other words, they are no longer an "American", but "global" corporation because it suits their interests more.

(continued on part III)

Anonymous said...

I came to better understand the psychology of men from high finances and business Worlds after reading Richard Hare's book "The Mask Of Sanity". Hare is the World's foremost student of psychopathy. According to him, everyone goes through a highly egocentric phase from birth until about the age of 4 or 5 when one develops the ability to ascribe sentient value to others, or to ascribe to others the abiility to exeperience, sensorially, the same as one. This leads to concern for others, as others become yourself by proxy. For reasons that are not understood, a very small amount of people never leave the egocentric phase, and remain for the rest of their lives completely self-serving and callous, like toddlers who expect at any whimper that their demands and needs are met and see everything else that exists in the Universe as props for their well-being. Even though I am an atheist, I found Hare's religious metaphor interesting. He said that pscyhopaths could be seen as the negative side of God, the one who rejects Creation and love and tries to keep all for Himself. For if you are the only posseser of sentience in rrality, then there is nothing else to serve but the Self.

The highest proportion of psychopaths is found in the World of high finances and business and not in prison. Men who are openly violent and concerned with dominance are not usually psychopaths. Most prison inmates are macho men with short tempers and not psychopaths. Psychopaths are cowards who care nothing about open displays of dominance because they are too cool-headed for that. They gravitate towards power, the more the better, and the world of international finance offers the most power at the least personal cost to one's well-being. Being a general who leads from the front and risks his life is not as good as being the guy who profits by selling the general weapons at no harm to oneself. Politics offers even more rewards in terms of power for oneself than finances, such as military power. But politics also offers greater risks for oneself, such as being assassinated. Psychopaths are cowards because they love themselves so much and their own self-preservation, so they seek the highest reward for the lowest price. Finances is perfect. You get to make billions and control indirectly the destiny of entire nations at almost no personal risk to youraelf. Psychopaths are what the British call in polite society "bastards", that is, individuals who are UTTERLY vile with no redeeming qualities. They are not really immoral, but more like amoral, as in "no morality". Any morality is just a veneer to hide self-serving motives. Ideology implies altruism, which implies concern for something other than oneself, and psychopaths care nothing about anything but the Self.

(continued on part IV)

Anonymous said...

Most of the high corporate and financial executives will be "conservative", or "liberal", or "libertarian", depending on what serves their PERSONAL interests in that given historical or sociological context.

Psychopaths lack what philosophers call a "theory of mind". Most animals are like that as well. The nurturing instincts of the female of most species is just an automatic programming. A lion cares nothing about the pain of it's prey. The difference between animals and psychopaths is that animals care nothing about antyhing other than the Self because they lack a Self. They see themselves and reality as the same. Conversely, a psychopath care nothing about anything but the Self because to the psychopath there is nothing BUT THE SELF. Everything else that exists, including people, are only props to serve the Self. The ability to see others as SEPARATE versions of the Self, is exclusive of non-psychopathic humans, and is absent in animals and psychos.

(continued on part V)

Anonymous said...

(part VI)

Most of the high corporate and financial executives will be "conservative", or "liberal", or "libertarian", depending on what serves their PERSONAL interests in that given historical or sociological context.

Psychopaths lack what philosophers call a "theory of mind". Most animals are like that as well. The nurturing instincts of the female of most species is just an automatic programming. A lion cares nothing about the pain of it's prey. The difference between animals and psychopaths is that animals care nothing about antyhing other than the Self because they lack a Self. They see themselves and reality as the same. Conversely, a psychopath care nothing about anything but the Self because to the psychopath there is nothing BUT THE SELF. Everything else that exists, including people, are only props to serve the Self. The ability to see others as SEPARATE versions of the Self, is exclusive of non-psychopathic humans, and is absent in animals and psychos.

Steve Sailer wants to get these people to his side because they have power, but what he doesen't understand is that any alliance with the high corporate and financial elites is fickle and self-interested on their part, and they will betray you as soon as they see any bigger gain supporting another agenda. There is no loyalty for criminals, and they are all essentially ruthless criminals. And make no mistake about this: they ARE all criminals. The only reason why they don't go killing people with their bare hands is because killing people does not pay off. That lends you in jail and the rewards are low(a loaded wallet does not have much compared to a well corporate raid). It is much better to get a high financial job and make 50 K a day for doing nothing than getting a gun and killing people for their wallets. If murder payed off, they would with a smile on their faces. But of course, they do kill a lot of people. But not directly. They start wars and profit from it, and let others die in their place. Psychopaths find war a terrible thing when it happens to THEM. But of course, they have no problem lobbying the government to invade other countries and kill millions of young men to make profits by opening a new market "for democracy" or to grab oil concessions when the war is over. They of course, tell the young men that they are fighting for their "country", or "freedom", when in reality they laugh with cynicism at any concept of altruism and find it incomprehensible. Making an alliance with corporate and financial moguls is like trusting your house when you go on vacation to a burglar. As the popular saying goes, there is no honor between thieves.

In conclusion, I am enraged that these corporate moguls embrace libertarian ideals of open borders so they can have 7 year-old Mexican kids working at their paint factories for pennies and get the kids brain-damaged for life. You want a solution to really get them...? Support their open borders, and tell them that you will go even further than that on fullfilling the ideals of the Enlightment by proposing before the U.S a GLOBAL tax income on everyone who makes more than 1 MIL a year to help the poor Third World people they "care" so much about. That will get them.

Anonymous said...

"But Sutherland really is Scots-Irish, not "Scots-Irish" in the sense used here, isn't he?"

Yes, that's why it's funny.

Anonymous said...

Aaaron B.
"In a recent article for VDARE, John Derbyshire said that...Why would they treat genetic evidence any differently?"

I think the medical consequences of denial will be too strong. Moral people - even those who have been tricked into supporting blank slatery for what they thought were moral reasons - won't be able to handle denying reality anymore if it means denying the potential medical benefits of medical screening and drug research based on ethnicity.

The other reason of course is China used to be far behind the West in science but thanks to the offshoring and transfer of western technology over the last 30 years they are now ahead in some areas - especially those areas which aren't allowed to be studied in the US. So even if it's possible for the western elites to cover up the potential medical benefits of ethnicity based treatments it'll come out via East Asia, and maybe Russia, anyway

Anonymous said...

"Why? Why is this agenda being pushed?"

The 1% of the cultural far left and the 1% of the economic far right are allied in a war against the 98%.

Anonymous said...

"Detroit scares me. I see no way out there. All the Demand Side Equality measures have failed. The solution for blacks is indeed education but first they need better brains. Tell me I'm wrong."

You need to control the violence first as that prevents anything else from working - which probably contains a more general major evolutionary truth as well.

Not only do you need to stop the most violent preventing any other program from working you need to stop them having the most kids as well - which is what is making things slightly worse each generation.

Anonymous said...

"But on the other hand, what about the peaceful history of homogeneous Europe throughout just the last century?"

But that's exactly the point. They're using that argument to recreate a miniaturized version of that same ethnic conflict in every city, town, village and street. All they're doing is changing the scale.

When it all goes up in flames it's going to be horrific.

Anonymous said...

"That guy, Sutherland, I could shake a stick at pretty much the entire leadership of Fine Gael, and find guys just like him. That's why IRELAND is over-run with Somalis and the like. "

whiskey scores again!!
the scots-irish show in Ireland

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
>Multiculturalism was such a stunning
>success for Yugoslovia, Rwanda, &
>pre-war Germany (i.e., Germans & Jews
>living together), that the Leftists
>now demand smilar mixing of different
>races, cultures, religions and
>languages for all nations.

none of the countries you mentioned were multiculturalist. they weren't ethnically homogenic but that's not the same as being multiculturalist.
actually, it takes an exceptional "flexibility" of the mind to cite overtly nationalist jingoist societies as a primer for the evils of multiculturalism and Leftism.

And doing so under a story about a corporate mogul is doubly ironic.

I just want to see his face said...

Given the current radical imbalances of global power in the USA’s favour; Globalisation is actually elite America’s nationalism. Because America is in the verge of turning the historic international Hobbesian state of nature, where nation states in turn battled and cooperated and created an Anarchic Society, into a Hobbsian Civil Society where the Levitation of American power creates a Monarchical Society of nations with the role of Sovereign played by the US.

If you look at a world map, only Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba do not at this point respect America’s authority. Russia and China have totally bought into the USA–led global economic system even if they still symbolically resist militarily.

The USA already sells its Navy as a global force for good. And indeed it is arguable that a USA dominated world order would be more stable than the historic state of nature battles between nations but that is not the point of my comment.

One key ideological enemy of USA globalisation is of course Nationalism. Thus we the US leading the way in promoting mass immigration and radical off-shoring, while at the same time attacking the concepts of protectionism and ethnic national identity.

The US attitude towards European integration is highly ambivalent. On the one hand it emphasis on anti-nationalism does seem on the surface to fit in well with the USA’s global agenda. Paradoxically though, one of the greatest potential dangers to US global domination would be IF a strong, nationalist, self-assertive United States of Europe (USE) were to eventually emerge from the messy primordial soup of European integration. Just think of the economic and political potential of a USE led by a Marine Le Pen-type EUROPEAN nationalist? For those obsessed with racial makeup, even with all the recent mass immigration, Europe is probably not more than 3% sub Saharan African, and many Europeans of African descent are from upper middle class backgrounds and tend to do fairly well in European societies (some major exceptions in Britain of course). I don’t need to remind anyone of the current racial line-up in the USA.

So a strong nationalist USE would indeed be a serious threat to the globalist ambitions of the USA. So, American policy towards the EU features a two-pronged approach. On the one hand any moves that weaken any eventual USE, like for example mass third world immigration, is encouraged. On the other hand, to hedge against the possibility of a strong USE, America promotes European nationalists to attack the EU knowing full well that the USA can dominate the various European nations if they are divided but would struggle to compete against a USE.

Within this context Peter Sutherland’s comments can be read as a call for action to further weaken the social fabric of any eventual USE as well as being an attempt to create the reaction of stoking local Nationalist anger to avoid further European integration.

JayMan said...

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states

Yeah, good luck with that — especially in the South and East of Europe...

ben tillman said...

"His father is Scottish, in the same way Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish."

Day-Lewis's father was born in Ireland.


That was his point. Born in Ireland but not ethnically Irish.

I don't know Sutherland's background, but the contention is that his father is likewise not ethnically Scottish.

Anonymous said...

"Ass-raping"?

If the right-wingers can't even communicate like right-wingers, who will?

Right-wingers, I implore you:
Please keep all anal sex metaphors out of your writing.
Try it, it's not so hard. Just for a week. It'll help you get practice with other metaphors.

Why not replace [anal sex] with "a thorough drubbing". Or "a little Waterloo". Or "a dramatic reversal of fortune". Or "a defeat".

(This does not apply to black-on-white prison violence, or any other situation in which actual anal sex occurs.)

Over and out.

Anonymous said...

Richard "holebrook", Michael "Lewis" Jon "Stuart"

I think mr. "sutherland" is that sort of scot irish.

He looks very very very askanazi, almost stereotypically so.

Anonymous said...

his brother's name is 'david'.. normally that would set off alarm bells but ...its a very common scottish name. (the first or second king of scotland was david - very unusual for western christian countries, and of course we have the quintessential low-lander - Davy Balfour....

I have heard that there is an ancient jewish scottish connection- a lost tribes type of thing, but its mostly speculation i believe.

Anonymous said...

@ anaon 6/24/12 12:40 AM
i would paint the bougeiouse with such a broad brush. Is Shedelen Adleson that way? Or does he look after his own people?

The old elite, like Henry Ford, were geniunely nationalist and paternal towards anglo-saxon america.

Anonymous said...

Having a Scots father & Irish mother makes him Scots & Irish not Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots. Technically the ethnic-political group Scots-Irish is a people who ancestors migrated from the Lowlands of Scotland (Presbyterians)to Ulster in Ireland from 1603. Overwhelmingly they did not inter-marry with the native Irish.

Anonymous said...

Detroit scares me. I see no way out there. All the Demand Side Equality measures have failed. The solution for blacks is indeed education but first they need better brains. Tell me I'm wrong.

Pat/Albertosaurus,

That kind of genetic engineering is a long way off. First, we have to have some idea of the genes involved in intelligence, which is barely the case now. The Beijing Genomics Institute is working on the problem, but they've got a ways to go. At that point, current technology would allow pre-implantation embryo selection, but that would only permit selection of an embryo possessing the best combination of intelligence alleles held by both parents, not the truly best set of alleles out there. Genetic manipulation of the embryos might be possible in the future, but it won't be easy if there are many genes of low-effect that need to be tweaked. As for large-scale genetic manipulation after birth, that's beyond capability for now. Even single-gene manipulations are difficult.

Genetic engineering for intelligence and other traits will probably happen eventually. But for intelligence, it's more likely in 50 to 100 years than in 5 to 10 years.

Anonymous said...

I was unfamiliar with the references to Daniel Day-Lewis, so I googled. According to wikipedia (granted, not the most definitive reference), "His mother was Jewish, and his maternal grandparents' families had emigrated to Britain from Latvia and Poland."

Also, it was common during a period of Jewish immigration to Britain, perhaps the 1800's, for Jews to take Anglo names. It was seen as a commendable practice, a sign of assimilation.

Anonymous said...

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.


The ruling elite are in the grip of magical thinking. If you asked Peter Sutherland to explain the precise mechanism by which becoming multicultural leads to future prosperity, he'd huff and puff and obfuscate

but they don't have to explain. they just keep repeating it - bet 90% of people you asked on the street would say that diversity is good... it might cause some problems they would say, but its basically good...

Anonymous said...

Capitalism will be the end of the West. Corporations are obsessed with diversity.

How much growth do we need? We need to rethink the whole economy based on endless growth. Most of what we buy is useless or dangerous.

Sheila said...

The architect behind Ireland's admittance of thousand of African immigrants is also Irish born - Alan Shatter. He's also Scots-Irish. As someone far more clever than I wrote, being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse.

Anonymous said...

"Also, it was common during a period of Jewish immigration to Britain, perhaps the 1800's, for Jews to take Anglo names. It was seen as a commendable practice, a sign of assimilation."

I went to an Ivy League college with lots of NY Jews, and some were named Lewis and Smith. I know a Franklin who used to be Finkel as well.

IHTG said...

He looks very very very askanazi, almost stereotypically so.

Why, because he's old, chubby and has a big nose?

Here's a photo of him from the early 80's.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling there is something about multiculturalism and PC in modern Ireland that I am completely missing.

I recently was in a meeting with a very charming Irish multinational corporate management type, he and Peter Sutherland would get on great. This fellow was unequivocally completely Irish. I don't think I've ever met a white before who was so PC, so multicultural, so insistent that all differences between people were just "cultural".

Some of the Indians in attendance, who are, of course, often some of the most race-realist people you'll ever meet, but are also smart enough not to raise the issue, tried to put the brakes gently on to this fellow, but he was clearly utterly convinced of the basic PC multicultural tenets; that everyone was the same except for culture, that all cultures could be changed, etc..

What's the story here? That folks like these succeed in modern multinational corporations; that the Irish are pushing PC because they think it's the way of the future; or what?

Anonymous said...

The architect behind Ireland's admittance of thousand of African immigrants is also Irish born - Alan Shatter. He's also Scots-Irish.


In this case, "Scots-Irish" does mean Jewish.

Anonymous said...

I was unfamiliar with the references to Daniel Day-Lewis, so I googled. According to wikipedia (granted, not the most definitive reference), "His mother was Jewish"



And Beethoven was black.

Time to put an end to this absurd one-drop-rule.

Anonymous said...

"There is still plenty of room for individual differences but we should cull out group differences.

...

The tropical races must be made more intelligent.

...
I'm more interested a cure."



I've heard this argument since the late 60s, I'm sure it's much older. It's a nice idea and up to a point workable. The general problem, and one of importance to HBD, is that, other than the "peace of the dead", if technology is developed to achieve this, why won't we get _more_ group differences, not less? We will probably get more groups. People engineered to occupy new niches, high altitude, under water maybe, whatever. How can you possible keep everyone "average", even if you make average "real good"?

The other problem with this "one race, for real" idea is that it's likely very risky. One disease or parasite that can target the entire population, and bam, extinction. People worry about this with food crops, why not people?

Anonymous said...

Having a Scots father & Irish mother makes him Scots & Irish not Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots. Technically the ethnic-political group Scots-Irish is a people who ancestors migrated from the Lowlands of Scotland



That is not actually the "technical" definition. It's the definition of David Hackett Fischer in his 1989 book, Albion's Seed. The term Scots-Irish was around for a long, long time prior to 1989.

And it's a pretty dumb definition - the Scots-Irish are neither Scots nor Irish, but English?

Of course Fischer also labeled staunch republican plantation owners like Jefferson and Hamilton "Cavaliers".

Anonymous said...

Having a Scots father & Irish mother makes him Scots & Irish not Scots-Irish


Priceless.

Anonymous said...

The thing is, Peter Sutherland does look very stereotypically Ashkenazi Jewish. Do many Scots looks like Jews?


Many Northern Europeans look like Ashkenazi Jews, and many Ashkenazi Jews look like Northern Europeans. A thousand years of interbreeding will do that.

irishman said...

When it comes to Sutherland the key thing to know about him is that he is a jesuit. I'm not normally interested in conspiracy theories but the jesuits run Ireland. They produce the governing class of business and politics and like the catholic church generally they are very anti-nationalist. Except with the jesuits this is much more pronounced. Some of those jesuit catholic colleges in america are pioneers in whiteness studies too. Ann Coulter said she got her worst time as jesuit colleges. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Himmler modeled the SS on the jesuits.

Thankfully religion is dying in Ireland.

Steve Sailer said...

The joke about Daniel Day-Lewis is that he likes to moan about he felt like an outsider at school because he was Irish. His father was the Protestant Anglo-Irish Poet Laureate of England and his Jewish mother was the daughter of the owner of England's most famous movie studios, Ealing.

And with this hugely privileged background, he has more than lived up to his privileges: a great actor, a bit of a British eccentric (dropped out of acting to apprentice under the best shoemaker in Italy), and, from what some commenter here once said, a nice guy. But, everybody feels like the deck was stacked against them in life.

Sam said...

Mr. Sutherland would change his tune if the immigrants were coming to his neighbourhood, he couldn't send his kids to a private school and had to pay an extra 30% tax

Anonymous said...

His father was the Protestant Anglo-Irish Poet Laureate of England

What the hell does "Anglo-Irish" mean?

Anonymous said...

If Sutherland is really Scots Irish, how did he end up being a Jesuit??

Anonymous said...

If there actually is one real gain from the past fifty or whatever years of immigration and anti-racism it's that people have made great strides in learning to appreciate one another and leave each other alone more than has ever been the case in human history.

I don't think the empirical evidence really supports this claim. Both the United States and Israel have been almost continuously at war with other people during that time.

Anonymous said...

@IHTG:

Here's a photo of him from the early 80's.

Here is the same but much higher resolution. My first thought would still be "Ashkenazi". His look has a lot in common with looks of Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Jean-Yves Naouri - both Ashkenazi Jews.

Note that I am not saying that he is a Jew. There is a decent chance that he is, though - despite his name and father's "British-Scottish" ancestry (whatever British-Scottish refers to).

Anonymous said...

So multiculturalism and presumably multi-racialism and multi-religionism is "good" for Europe huh?

Then explain this.

Spain - Has a Basque minority community that has separatist tendencies. ETA uses terrorism to advance its goals. The Catalans are also advocating for separatism too. If multiculturalism is "good" why are the Basques, Catalans and Spanish not getting along?

France - Has a separatist ethnic group in the Bretons. Also suffers from great troubles with its alien muslim and African immigrants.

Belgium - Profoundly split between its Dutch speaking Flemish and French speaking Waloons. The two communities are completely alienated from each other and have zero interaction.

Switzerland - Four different ethnic and language groups that have their own territories and interact as little as possible with each other.

Italy - Has a troublesome German speaking minority in the north.

Ex-Yugoslavia - Lets not even go there.

Bosnia - Ex-Yugoslavia in miniature. A trainwreck just waiting to happen.

Macedonia - Hostile split between Albanians and Slavo-Macedonians.

Cyrpus - Torn between its Greek and Turkish inhabitants who despise each other.

Romania - Has a 2 million Hungarian minority that is at odds with the Rumanians. Also greatly burdened by a parasitic Gypsy Roma population.

Czechoslovakia - Split into two states. And this despite the two communities having much in common.

Latvia - Tensions between Letts and Russian citizens.

Estonia - Tensions between Estonians and Russian citizens.

Lithuania - Tensions between Lithuanians and Russian citizens.

Russia - Ethnic tension just about everywhere. Dagestan, Chechnya, central Asia etc,

Norway and Sweden - Broke apart into two different countries in 1905, despite having even more in common then the Czechs and Slovaks.

The British Isles - 400 years of violence and tension between the Scottish settlers and the Irish in the north. The Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, which apaprently isn't very united as there are separatist parties in both Scotland and Wales. England is a sea of racial hatred between the native English and black and brown foreigners.

How can anyone deny Spain wouldn't be better off with an all-Spanish population or Great Britain with an all English one? Just as Japan is better off with an all Japanese one.

Yeah sure, multiculturalism has worked out just great for Europe. Europe needs far more of it....

Anonymous said...

"Time to put an end to this absurd one-drop-rule."

Unfortunately it no longer seems possible to completely ignore these things. The problem is that sometimes it matters, when people self-select to consider it important to themselves, something more important than their countrymen. It comes down to trust, whose side they will be on when push comes to shove.

You could call it the Melita Norwood effect. The "most important female agent ever recruited by the USSR". I don't know where things stand today, but back when she was uncovered the story was that she did what she did (for 40 years) not for pay or money, or strong ideology, but simply because of her grandfather.

Sure, that doesn't mean at all that everyone with a similar background is like her, but it's wrong to suggest that people are not doing the right thing when they take the background of such people into consideration, in particular when people present arguments about "what's good for us all".

One good thing about the open society of the west is that, ultimately, you get a pretty good idea of who people (or a people) really are, how much you can trust folks, what La Raza really is all about, who tries to bully people into not making arguments...

Hunsdon said...

Hey, kids, I've got an idea! Let's put on a show! No, wait, that was my OTHER idea. My real idea is, "How about we focus on the 'destroy the nation-state' aspect of Sutherland's speech, without worrying overly much if he's Ashkenazi?"

Besides, you know, there's that whole Goldman Sachs thing to fall back on.

We can default to ethny, or we can discuss the merits of his argument. Here we've got a straight up insider laying it on the line, and we're chasing down where his grandmother came from.

Anonymous said...

Having a Scots father & Irish mother makes him Scots & Irish not Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots.

I think Steve was making a joke about Whiskey, who claims to be "Scots-Irish" but who while trying to defuse the incredulousness of the isteve audience towards this assertion revealed he didn't even know what Scots-Irish actually means, having explained that, yes, he is really Scots-Irish because his father is Scottish and his mother is Irish.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6/24/12 11:21 wrote:

And Beethoven was black.

Not this garbage claim again. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that Beethoven had black ancestry.

ben tillman said...

none of the countries you mentioned were multiculturalist. they weren't ethnically homogenic but that's not the same as being multiculturalist.

Yeah, it is. "Multiculturalism" is a euphemism for "multiracialism".

ben tillman said...

"I was unfamiliar with the references to Daniel Day-Lewis, so I googled. According to wikipedia (granted, not the most definitive reference), 'His mother was Jewish'"

And Beethoven was black.

Time to put an end to this absurd one-drop-rule.


One drop? The article said all 4 of her grandparents were Jewish!

Touche said...

Sutherland is likely assimilated Tribesman. In the Bing photo gallery as a younger man he looks like Clinton advisor Dick Morris and then more like Harvey Weinstein later in life.

Bill Clinton's Sec of State was so deeply assimilated she didn't find out until she was vetted for that job.

There are many public statements by these types of folks describing their lifelong mystical attachment to things Jewish. The radical left wing politics seems to come preternaturally. Sutherland is a militant Trotskyite.

Anonymous said...

What the hell does "Anglo-Irish" mean?

I take that to mean English Protestants, or rather Anglicans settled in Ireland, different from the largely Scots Protestants in Northern Ireland. Farmers, landowners, merchants, administrators etc Further confused by the addition of Irish Catholic converts to their ranks.

The more robust Protestants of the North were and unlikely to attract many Catholic converts but the less onerous Church of Ireland (C of E in Ireland) was more attractive and offered potential social/political/economic advancement for those converts.

After partition in 1922 many of them migrated back to mainland UK or perhaps even into the North but many remain to this day. I believe the southside of Dublin is still regarded as a suspect pro-English enclave.

Norville Rogers said...

Except he's a Catholic...

Norville Rogers said...

Sailer, if you wish to do research next time before writing posts this is a site you could keep handy, FYI

irishman said...

"If Sutherland is really Scots Irish, how did he end up being a Jesuit??"

They used to have a rule in the catholic church which excommunicated those who married protestants. Southern Irish protestant men had an extraordinarily high death rate in WWI so many of their women had to marry Irish catholics or move to England or remain childless. The result was that the Anglo Irish episcopalians shrivelled to nearly nothing(although still a very loud and influential nearly nothing). Sutherland may have been an example of this working in reverse with his father converting.

Needless to say, the Anglo Irish whine about this incessantly.

PS. Someone asked what an Anglo Irish person is... It is what is says it is. Someone who lives in Ireland of English ethnicity and usually Episcopalian(Church of Ireland) religion. William Butler Yeats is probably the most famous example.

Anonymous said...

Ive taken a look at Sutherland's photos available by websearch and some of those posted here: the eye shape, nose shape, and generous lip volume look very much like many Jewish men. Irish? Not so much. That man looks Jewish to me. Im not 'hatin' or whatever, and dont want to, thats just my visual impression and the ethnicity I would have guessed if no info on him were provided.

Anonymous said...

My first thought would still be "Ashkenazi"
yes. the sleepy eyes, prominent lips, nose, etc.. classic askanazi.

And as we know from Richard "holebrooke" and theodore "Dalrymple" they go way beyond taking simple anlgo names like green, wallace and lewis

Doug1 said...

Yet more leftist dogma and lies.

Where is the evidence for his assertions?

Not all groups are equal in intellectual abilities, which are what's needed for success in the modern developed world. The evidence for that is abundant.

Anonymous said...

What the hell does "Anglo-Irish" mean?



Anglo-Irish was a term used primarily in the 19th and early 20th centuries to identify a privileged social class in Ireland, whose members were the descendants and successors of the Protestant Ascendancy, mostly belonging to the Church of Ireland, which was the established church of Ireland until 1871, or to a lesser extent one of the English dissenting churches, such as the Methodist church. Its members tended to follow English practices in matters of culture, science, law, agriculture and politics. Many became eminent as administrators in the British empire and as senior army and naval officers.

The term is not usually applied to Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, whose ancestry is mostly Scottish and who are usually identified as "Ulster-Scots." In the United States, people who identify with the Ulster-Scots are usually called "Scotch-Irish."

pat said...

Genetic engineering for intelligence and other traits will probably happen eventually. But for intelligence, it's more likely in 50 to 100 years than in 5 to 10 years.

You may be right but not for the reasons you cite. We probably have at least a decade of arguing some more about black IQ. This is tragic.

We need to get working on fixing the black brain ASAP. Consider the consequences of inaction.

About a generation ago white America came up with a solution for crime from black youth. We decided to "lock 'em up". In the sixties and seventies there was a lot of verbiage about "root causes", prevention, "overcoming institutional racism" and "battling poverty". None of that worked - indeed it made things worse. So reluctantly America listened to more "hard line" arguments and built more prisons.

Simultaneously we tried education and jobs programs. But conditions continued to deteriorate. There are plenty of jobs even today for software engineers. Do you think that's comforting for unemployed black teens?

We are instead pursuing a mad quest for "Superman" - a teacher so talented he can make inner city black teens into good, motivated and well behaved students. Glen Ford and Sydney Poitier portrayed this ghetto miracle working teacher in the movies fifty years ago. Exxon has a TV ad running now with a black woman engineer who testifies that some inspiring teacher she had had in High School made her what she is today.

As a nation we spend a lot of time and energy whistling past this particular graveyard. Education and therefore job training for blacks simply doesn't work. There doesn't seem to be another arrow in that quiver.

Steve has demonstrated that American schools do just fine when compared ethnic group by ethic group to schools anywhere. We are bombarded with testimony that our schools are rotten. What is really happening is that no one can educate blacks very well. We have a lot of blacks and so our schools and teacher look bad. This truth is being concealed but must eventually come out.

The world has changed. Blacks were brought here as agricultural workers. It took big, robust men to work the fields so that we could eat. But today instead of a team of black men, we have one elderly white woman riding in an air conditioned combine listening to the radio. When those black men escaped to Detroit it took 27 men to make a car. I think it's 4 today. Three decades ago Japanese cars were made by robots we were warned. We adapted and now so are ours.

The black male teens of Detroit are doomed. Even the Army doesn't want them. Right now we wait for them to commit a crime so we can lock them up. Hence all the commentary that Trayvon Martin was "innocent".

But how much longer till we lock up Trayvon and his like just for being a black male teen? If we can't bring up the IQ and hence the employability of kids like Trayvon then they will be rounded up and sent to some camp somewhere.

If that happens, this won't be America anymore. I don't like this vision of the future but someone tell me another alternative.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

One drop? The article said all 4 of her grandparents were Jewish!


If you mean the Wikipedia article, it said nothing of the sort.

As an example of how this works, Wikipedia says that Daniel Day-Lewis is Jewish. Would you claim that all four of his grandparents are Jewish?

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that Beethoven had black ancestry.


No, there isn't.

But there is also absolutely no conclusive evidence that Sutherland is Jewish. In fact the evidence that Sutherland is Jewish is the same as the evidence that Beethoven was black.

Anonymous said...

"What the hell does "Anglo-Irish" mean?"

That he is descended from the medieval Norman/English settlers of Ireland.

Anonymous said...

The Scots Irish are a fair-skinned people.

Anonymous said...

Having a Scots father & Irish mother makes him Scots & Irish not Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots. Technically the ethnic-political group Scots-Irish is a people who ancestors migrated from the Lowlands of Scotland (Presbyterians)to Ulster in Ireland from 1603. Overwhelmingly they did not inter-marry with the native Irish.

How were you able to check the marriage records so quickly and how did you distinguish between a native Campbell from an invader?

Anonymous said...

"What the hell does "Anglo-Irish" mean?"


That he is descended from the medieval Norman/English settlers of Ireland.


No. The Normans who went to Ireland were absorbed and are now completely Irish. Fitzgerald is an example of a Norman name in Ireland. The same happened with the Normans in England - they are now English. Nobody would suggest that an Englishman whose last name is "Lacy" is actually "Norman".


The Anglo-Irish are from a later period, the 17th century and not the 12th.

Anonymous said...

The more robust Protestants of the North were and unlikely to attract many Catholic converts


Yeah, they were more likely to murder Catholics than to try to convert them.

Anonymous said...

Someone who lives in Ireland of English ethnicity and usually Episcopalian(Church of Ireland) religion. William Butler Yeats is probably the most famous example.



You would not have wanted to say that to Yeats' face, seeing as how he was an Irish nationalist. An ardent and fervent Irish nationalist who supported the Irish War of Independence.

Anonymous said...

You would not have wanted to say that to Yeats' face, seeing as how he was an Irish nationalist
so was parnel, anglo irish.. in fact many famous 'irish' were really anglo irish: swift, burke, synge, of yeats and even Bono was halfsies.

Fun fact the big, main cathedral in Dublin Saint Patricks is Church of Ireland (anglican) as is Christ Church

Anonymous said...

n ardent and fervent Irish nationalist
the original irish nationalist movement was almost all Anglo-Irish led, sweetheart.

Svigor said...

I think Steve was making a joke about Whiskey, who claims to be "Scots-Irish" but who while trying to defuse the incredulousness of the isteve audience towards this assertion revealed he didn't even know what Scots-Irish actually means, having explained that, yes, he is really Scots-Irish because his father is Scottish and his mother is Irish.

Lol. "Scots-Irish Whiskey" is neither Scots, nor Irish (nor Scots-Irish), nor is he whiskey.

Anonymous said...

"About a generation ago white America came up with a solution for crime from black youth. We decided to "lock 'em up"...So reluctantly America listened to more "hard line" arguments and built more prisons."

If the rate of violent crime among the black population is circa six times as high as the white population for genetic reasons then prison will work if

a) it reduces the number of children the most violent segment of the black population have

and

b) it is applied for long enough - which if the problem is genetic by definition means multiple generations

The efficency of the process will be determined by how well targeted the criminal justice is towards creating this stealth eugenic effect.

I would suggest modifying three strikes and you're out to two strikes and you're out till you're 26 followed by three strikes and you're out for good would improve that targeting.

Obviously this policy would need to be combined with *not* importing more new criminals for the same time period.

Anonymous said...

many famous 'irish' were really anglo irish: swift, burke, synge, of yeats and even Bono was halfsies.


The claim was that the Anglo-Irish were not Irish at all, not even "halfsies".

The English remind me of Jews and blacks in their tendency to claim accomplished people as their own.

Fred said...

"And as we know from Richard "holebrooke" and theodore "Dalrymple" they go way beyond taking simple anlgo names like green, wallace and lewis"

Richard Holbrooke (not "holebrooke") didn't "take" that name -- he was born with it. His father, a Polish-Jewish refugee, changed his last name to that from Goldbrajch.

Presumably, generations earlier, an ancestor of Holbrooke's changed his name to "Goldbrajch" to assimilate in Poland; so what's your issue with Holbrooke's father wanting to assimilate in the US? According to Wikipedia, Holbrooke wasn't even raised Jewish. His parents took him to Quaker services instead.

On the one hand, Jews are criticized when they assimilate, and on the other hand, they're criticized for not assimilating. Make up your minds.

And as for Sutherland: please provide evidence that he is Jewish. His facial features aren't evidence of that, as they are part of a phenotype found among plenty of non-Jews in Europe.

Matthew said...

"On the one hand, Jews are criticized when they assimilate, and on the other hand, they're criticized for not assimilating. Make up your minds."

Changing your name has near shit to do with assimilating, though I do agree that immigrants to America should Anglicize their name to make it easier to spell and pronounce in the English language.

To take on an ethnic name like Stewart, Kerry, Holbrooke, or whatever is to steal a name that isn't yours. Stewart is a Scottish name. It implies Scottish ancestry. Holbrooke is an English name. It implies English ancestry.

How would Jews like it if British-Americans started adopting the surname Cohen?

Anonymous said...

Wrong said Fred wrote:

"And as for Sutherland: please provide evidence that he is Jewish. His facial features aren't evidence of that..."

If the alternative is believing, as you apparently pretend to, that facial features reveal nothing of one's ancestry, then they certainly are.

Clearly, facial features mean more than nothing, and realistically you can only quibble about how much weight you accord them.

You also apparently pretend to believe that the term "jewish" refers exclusively to a self-avowed adherent of the religion. In real life, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anonymous said...

"On the one hand, Jews are criticized when they assimilate, and on the other hand, they're criticized for not assimilating. Make up your minds."

When have Jews been criticized for assimilating?