Steve Sailer writes: The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?
Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.
On the other hand, if you live in one of the loser cities where the African-Americans will move to, too bad. Moreover, people in the media will call you a racist for not wanting to take their surplus African-Americans off their hands. You do not get a say in this matter. Your betters have decided that you deserve some Diversity, good and hard. They’ve had enough Diversity, so they’ve decided to share the Diversity with you, you racists.
COMMENTS:
* Did Josh have a problem with the valorization of Khizr Khan?
This pointing and sputtering is less about prejudice and more about the anger of seeing someone use Dems’ methods to counter the Dem/GOPe worldview. Josh is working from the axiom that to consider the interests of Americans over immigrants is anti-American.
Though he does have a point about the potential of publicizing victims. Imagine what policies someone could sell by highlighting the loved ones of victims of black-on-white crime.
As for the “shouting” and the “red faces” at Trump’s speeches: a lot of the shouting is to drown out protestors attempting to disrupt the speech. And Trump is always that color, for whatever reason. It’s not a sign of anger.
* “Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It’s normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.
* The “immigrants will commit lots of crimes!” argument is the weakest anti-immigrant argument out there for lots of reasons. The economic (effect on the labor force), cultural compatibility, and environmentalists (subsidizes overpopulation) arguments are just much stronger.
To take a simple example of the problems with the argument, Australia is famous for having been founded, almost exclusively, by convicted criminals. They were the country’s original stock. And Australia hasn’t really turned out that badly. The British set up their penal colony in Australia after they lost the thirteen American colonies as a place to ship convicts, so a portion of the famous white “founding stock” in the US were convicted criminals as well.
An additional problem with the argument is that it implies, though this is not strictly speaking logically true, that an unlimited number of people with clean records could be taken in, just make sure they had clean records. Something like this was tried before the 1924 more general restrictions on immigration.
* Free Settlers were the overwhelming majority of emigrants to Australia right from the beginning. Transportation of convicts lasted into the early Victorian period. If the descendants of all these people are enumerated, they only constitute 180,000 people, less than 1% of the present Australian population. Over 99% of Australians do not have convict ancestry. No Australian Prime Minister has had convict ancestry.
Please stop broadcasting the old canard that Australia is a convict nation. It’s not true.
* This is what I find most interesting with Ashkenazi Jews in the US. Despite all the wealth and distance from it they react hysterically to Eastern Europe though they know nothing about it or it’s history. (Except maybe Fiddler, which is, of course, a realistic documentary…)
In 2016 would a prominent Irish American intellectual harp about what England did to Ireland for centuries used it to attack domestic political opponents be taken seriously? What if most of them did it from time to time and made a whole sub-genre of film dedicated to the famine? Every year there’d be at least one film on the topic. Would they be taken as anything but gauche and hysterical? (To be fair, the likes of Family Guy, with it’s writers mostly Gen-X/Gen-Y Jews do mock this, but it’s still regarded as a kind of taboo shock comedy when they do.)
It’s like what is always said about irreligious Jews, their religion is anti-Semitism. It’s a dark and foreboding narrative of the world. In an individual it’s clinically diagnosed as pathological paranoia, but when Josh Marshall substitutes ‘Josh Marshall’ with ‘Jews’ it’s okay. Similar to how whites have a deeply depressed collective self-esteem that if it manifested in an individual would be termed severe low self-esteem or depression.
* “Who? Whom?” is a great concept, but a lousy phrase. It’s meaning isn’t obvious enough, it’s a little hard to say, and it sounds too much like an owl talking. Was it translated from a language where it sounds better?
It’s better than no phrase at all, but do readers have any ideas for a substitute phrase for the idea that some people ask who is helped and who is hurt before they decide who is right, in politics. “Cui bono” is related, but not the same — it refers to the “follow the money” idea that some action has a hidden motive. “But will it hurt the Jews?” is the same idea, but we need something that applies generally, not just to one group.
* Who, whom?:
“…a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in 1921…
2nd All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments……”The whole question is — who will overtake whom?”
…Trotsky used the shortened “who whom” formulation in his 1925 article, “Towards Capitalism or Towards Socialism?”…
…invoked by Joseph Stalin in 1929… gave the formula its “aura of hard-line coercion”…
“The fact is, we live according to Lenin’s formula: Kto-Kovo?: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat? “.
…Stalin used kto-kogo to justify a policy of mass coercion against peasant kulaks to implant collective farms long before industry reached a high level.”
Who wins, who dies?
Who gets to do what, to whom?
Who’s the horse, who’s the rider?
* It’s not an entry-level catchphrase. You have to know it to know it, if you know what I mean. But once you do know it writing it out longhand as “Who rules whom” or “who shall rule whom” is tedious. People like less obvious catchphrases, by the way. It makes them feel like insiders for knowing them.
I don’t have a better phrase, but “whose side are you on” works okay. Maybe we could just flash gang signs at each other.
* little to distinguish them from what we see at Aryan Nations or other white hate rallies that we all immediately recognize as reprehensible
This guy watches a lot of Aryan Nations rallies, does he?
That’s weird, because I’m pretty sure Aryan Nation is a prison gang. I don’t imagine the guards actually let them have rallies, do they?
So what he actually means is something like “Trump rallies look just like the way movies and TV portray hate rallies!”.
He’s got a PhD in history, and that’s the kind of stuff he talks about.
* Oh Lord forgive me I am so tired of being lectured by Jews on what it means to be an American.
* I googled the geezer and found a link from ‘why I am a Zionist‘ an anthology gathered from ‘American Jews about their Zionist adherences that indicate the nature or intensity of those commitments’.
In it we find a Josh Marshall entry, presumably the same bloke, writing about his newborn son:
This is a picture of him two or three minutes after he was born but, as you can probably tell, before I told him that the Democrats had won the election.His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. We gave him the middle name Allon after my father, Alan, who died unexpectedly in August. The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew. And it was also the name of Yigal Allon, after whom he is also named, who was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.
Josh Marshall clearly has ‘intense’ Jewish tribal loyalty and ‘commitment’, that’s why his piece was picked for inclusion into the anthology. Now I don’t begrudge him, or any Jews that, though it’s clear that his heartfelt tribal loyalties lie outside the US.
What I do begrudge, is the rank hypocrisy, the double standard. This is not by any means universal amongst Jews. But it is common enough that it is glaringly noticeable, especially given the disproportionately prominence of Jews as commentators and in journalism. But then given the war on noticing that is PeeCee, I guess noticing this sort of thing, is itself anti-Semitic. I’m beyond giving a flying-fornication.
* “We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’.”
No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.
“The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. “
Always very convenient when you get to define the heart of the matter.
“Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it.”
Simple logic can famously be wrong, in particular if underlying assumptions are wrong. What are the facts? What is the actual evidence, the data? Logic always sounds so pretty. I tell you, I always knew it was 12 angels on that pin.
“This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear…”
When precisely does fear become rational versus irrational? Is it always irrational if it appears to be a motive?
“…the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression…”
I’ll say. There is a full-time professional Holocaust industry celebrating and valorizing victims, showing us all how it’s really done. It’s working hard to sustain bigotry, fear, and oppression.
“…the intense desire to find a scapegoat or someone to blame.”
Sometimes things are due to a human cause and are not just random items that fall from the sky.
“…Watch Trump’s speeches… with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance… It’s hate speech.”
Read Trump’s immigration speech. Does that also seem like hate speech?
“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”,
New York Times, SEPT. 1, 2016.
“Trump Immigration Speech: Transcript and Video”, Frontpage, August 31, 2016, Daniel Greenfield.
“This isn’t normal.”
Probably not if you are mentally still in the radical 60s (hey, those immigrants won’t change anything, right, isn’t that what the man really said?), but times change. You can’t be a square mentally stuck in one place in a groovy universe full of rolling stones.
“And yet it’s become normalized.”
Ah, what’s going wrong with the Brave New Utopian world? It’s tragically starting to look so like the old, cold, real world? The citizens must have failed!
“It’s a mammoth failure of our political press.”
Sure, but are the points in Trump’s speech, for instance, correct? Is it a mammoth failure that our political press can presume to be the unchallenged gatekeepers of our political process? Who made them god? And why do they think they are right?
“By any reasonable standard, Donald Trump’s speech on Wednesday night should have ended the campaign…”
Does this make sense? Is the author serious or just trying to write the required number of words to fill the article? “Ended the campaign” only in some complete fantasy-land about as rooted in reality as Symbionese Liberation Army political theory. Maybe this author is locked in an SLA closet.
* So now Marshall is calling for reading into the thoughts of people in order to find motives for possible thought crimes that they may not even be consciously aware of committing. Actual words spoken are no longer enough to try and convict a person for thought crimes, motives must be read into what a person thinks and/or is about to say and obviously people such as Marshall are needed to help correctly interpret whether or not such things are in fact hate speech.
* Well didn’t Mothers Against Drunk Drivers get started by the mother of a child killed by a drunk driver? Is MADD an example of a blood libel against people who happen to drink too much and then drive?
* LINK: 
Typical hypocrite leftist who complains about racism and diversity, yet has an all white/Jewish staff as seen in the above link. How does that staff photo look any different from a white nationalist website staff photo, apart from being less racially diverse?
He is upset over trump using the video and images of victims of illegal immigration because:
1. It is the truth
2. it is effective
3. Normally the GOP cedes this emotional PR ground to the dems
What issue do leftists like marshall NOT use victim families to promote their lies? It certainly isn’t gun control, where emotional appeals using families of victims are literally their entire argument. Marshall has done this very thing on the issue of guns, among many others. He just hates having these tactics used against his cultural marxist side, and is not used to being put on the defensive. His specific use of “hate speech” is because he wants america to join europe in banning political speech he does not like – he is tired of having kids on the internet destroying his hysterical ranting and raving.
* I was at my Jewish grandfather’s house tonight for “shabbat”. My twin sister, who is a millennial, was delighted by the Israeli serviettes on the dinner table. I realised then that for her and others like her, Zionism is a respectable and high-brow form of nationalism. She would scoff at a similar display of Australian nationalism. Indeed, she did exactly that when my Grandfather protested about my brother’s t-shirt, which bore an Austrian crest on it. ‘How dare you wear a t-shirt bearing a crest of the country which murdered my parents in the holocaust!’, he said. I was rolling my eyes as he was saying this. My sister then brought up how white people ‘genocided’ Australian aborigines in Tasmania. My grandfather nodded approvingly as she was went through the list of all the bad things white Australians did. “Did you know that black people couldn’t marry white people 40 years ago!”, she said. I muttered that non-jews still can’t marry jews in Israel today.
* There is no civil marriage in Israel, so Muslim, Christian, and Druze clergy control religious marriages and don’t allow intermarriage (or gay marriage, etc). This is not only a Jewish thing – it applies to these other sectors as well. It is only accurate to say that “People of one religion cannot obtain a religious marriage to people of another religion in Israel.” But of course we need to seize at every thread to say something unflattering about Jews, right?
Israel recognizes any marriages performed abroad, and Israelis routinely go to Cyprus to marry any person they want, including Jews marrying non-Jews, which is then perfectly legally recognized in Israel.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu’s son will probably soon marry his non-Jewish Norwegian girlfriend and the marriage will be valid in Israel.
People who are anti-Israel are so misinformed it is embarrassing. There is plenty to criticize there yet they never seem to get it right.
* To me, hate speech = astrology.
Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don’t believe it’s real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.
It bothers me, though, that we let believers in “hate speech” frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.
And I’m saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called “Wop” and “Dago.” Did I like to hear that? No, I didn’t. But I also don’t believe in outlawing it.
There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don’t think should be outlawed. That’s what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.
* We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.
* What is really astounding, is the rejection of the phrase “all lives matter” goes against their supposed core belief that all races are equal and should be treated as such.
* The phrase “Don Draper’s America” means one thing to Don Draper, another thing to Don Draper’s son, something else to his grandson, and something else again to his great-grandson.
People who base policy on poetry should keep this sort of thing in mind.
* Jewish friends here, please help us out with an important question:
Are Jews capable of coexisting in the same country with another capable group without trying to destroy that group? I’m really beginning to wonder…
* LF: I am not aware of examples of white cohesion and Jewish strength growing together in the diaspora. Normally, in the West, the stronger Jews get, the more divided whites get, as Jews, like all minorities, tend to side with other minorities against the majority. You won’t find many Jews in any movement maximizing majority rights at the expense of minorities though you will find many Jews in movements to boost minority rights, which always come at the expense of majority rights.
Possible exceptions:
* The American South prior to the 1890s (or perhaps the 1960s).
* America prior to the 1960s
* England, Canada and Australia prior to the 1970s.
The stronger a particular gentile group identity, be it racial, national or religious, the more likely they are to have negative views of outsiders, such as Jews, who will stand out more clearly as aliens among them. Similarly, the stronger Jews get in their Jewish identity, the more likely they will have negative views of gentiles.
* It was no longer cool to outright conquer the world or colonize the world. So the elite couldn’t set the world up as one big market to enrich themselves. But invasions to “make the world safe for democracy”, to provide “regime change”, to “free the people from the tyrant” or from “backwardness”, invasions to “protect us from those who hate our freedoms”, to “install women’s rights”, this was all okay. We had to “fight them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here”. Thus, “invade the world.”
Meanwhile, because the ‘elites’ (an ambiguous term roughly accurate to a first degree) could not literally rule all the people in the world (probably for purposes involving the elite’s own economic interest), instead of extending direct political power over non-US or Western parts of the world, as was possible in the past, they achieved direct rule over the individual people of the world by importing them. Thus “invite the world.”
The contrast was particularly glaring when the US military was spending fortunes and immense effort (and lives) often literally protecting the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq, while the US government was consistently finding more ways why it was impossible to defend the borders of the US, why a military with the power of the US could not actually, you know, provide any ability to defend it’s own nation, to protect it’s own borders. Instead of using the Department of Defense to defend the US, we heard endlessly why walls, border, and the concept of the nation state could just never, never, be made to work.
Steve, who goes by “iSteve” blog-wise, had a large number of articles on the topic, often with “invade the world, invite the world” in the title. He has played around with other versions, “invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, incite the losers…”
I get over 2500 hits Googling on: “Invade the world, Invite the world” iSteve
Wikipedia claims Ilana Mercer first articulated the idea that Steve (a marketer by profession) turned into a slogan:
Mercer has argued that “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin;” traditionalist Lawrence Auster noted that this concept was “first articulated by Ilana Mercer and then turned into a neat slogan by Steve Sailer.”…
…Mercer has consistently expressed criticism of U.S. adventurism abroad. She called the intervention in Libya, “A product of the romantic minds of women—Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice—who fantasize about an Arab awakening… estrogen-driven paternalism on steroids.”
Mercer is a Jew originally from South Africa and a staunch critic of the neocons and their philosophy.
Even so, I’m not so sure Mercer was first. It was a meme in the air that it didn’t make sense to have a great military that you couldn’t use to defend yourself or your laws, but could use endlessly to attack others. Even if ‘offense is the best defense’ it can just run out of gas; it works both ways and bin Laden had flat-out said his grand strategy was to make us go broke attacking all over the planet in response to the much cheaper attacks of his.
* Something possibly relevant: murder rate is significantly higher in Latin America compared to Africa, seemingly going against what one might expect from the U.S. situation. There is also huge variation between countries.
* Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
* Jewish elites really don’t much like white people. And so whites must be punished and swallow diversity to atone for centuries of antisemitism.
* LF: Members of any group are likely to dislike out-groups. This applies as much to Jews as to gentiles. This dislike for outsiders is normal. The reasons we come up with for why we dislike outsiders are rationalizations of our biological and learned instincts.
* Josh Marshall’s reaction to Trump’s speech was like blowing up a balloon with hot air and letting go. Stunning aerials but never touched Trump. I loved Trumps speech, and part of what I loved about the speech I heard was that it wasn’t hateful. At long last someone spoke for the ordinary people the Democratic Party used to claim to represent. The Democratic Party officially became the party of the rest of the world, but not you, and complains bitterly now that we’ve noticed.
* Was hanging out with an old friend recently who is “of the tribe”. I mentioned that the town I live in has been overrun with Muslims and subcontinenters. My daughter was the only white kid in her pre-school class. He said, “If only you could join the JCC”. No dummies they.
* The most important thing about the immigrants coming to white countries is that they’re of a different race to the native population. People want to live among their own kind, and they want to be sure their children will too. The instinct to preserve the ethnic homogeneity of your community is stronger than the fear of being murdered by an immigrant.
* Here’s some other simple logic:
-Simple logic tells us that illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes reported against them, and since most crime is intra-racial, illegals are largely victims of fellow hispanics, and many, many of the perpetrators would be illegals.
-Simple logic tells us that visa overstayers- who compose a large portion of the illegal population- are depressing crime stats among illegals, since they came in through legal means and were likely subject to similar standards as illegals.*
-Simple logic tells us that millions of people coming in via illegal channels from backwards, horribly corrupt, impoverished third world countries ravaged by gang and cartel violence and variously have crime/homicide rates far above our own or consistently rank among the highest in the world (and even what is reported is widely believed to be heavily underestimated) are not more law-abiding than US citizens.
-Simple logic tells us that since hispanic citizens commit crime at rates considerably above the national average, illegal hispanics likely have high crime rates.
-Simple logic tells us that if the fear of deportation is acting as a deterrent against committing crime, their rates will likely rise if you legalize these people.
-Simple logic tells us that with what we know about the culture and people of these countries, they often don’t have the self-control to avoid committing crime, even if they’ll be deported.
-Simple logic tells us that our immigration enforcement system is too inept and broken to consistently inspire this fear.
-Simple logic tells us that our culture, by and large, is not so detrimental that it magically increases crime among immigrants over the generations.
