Instapundit Vs Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer wrote Dec. 1, 2002:

If I can make sense of what Instapundit wrote, he seems to be saying that his reason for opposing rationalization of our immigration system stems (as implied by his link) from the fact that his brother is going to marry a very pretty young lady who arrived in America due to one of those Diversity Visa lotteries. You know, the program where the State Department collects 5 to 10 million Green Card applications annually from around the world, and then, instead of trying to benefit America as a whole by skimming the absolute cream of humanity off the top of those millions, simply picks 50,000 foreigners randomly.

Nice that Instapundit’s family has personally benefited from this law, just as it’s not nice that the families of the two Jews murdered at LAX on July 4 by Diversity Lottery winner/terrorist Hesham Mohamed Hadayet personally suffered from this law. Of course, personal anecdotes like these are of limited use in analyzing whether this policy is good for American citizens as a whole. 

For a disinterested take on the Diversity Lottery, click here. For an amusing comparison of the rational Canadian system of selecting immigrants to the bizarre American system, see my article "Canada
doesn’t want me.
"

Instapundit blogs Dec. 16, 2002:

STEVE SAILER’S DISSING ME, over the Lott affair, though I have to say that his disrespect hasn’t stopped him spamming me with emails in the past in the hopes of getting some attention.

I don’t like Sailer’s stuff, or his VDare.org anti-immigration site for reasons that should be pretty obvious. I’m not surprised that he’s sticking up for Lott. That he’s doing so reflects badly on Sailer. And on Lott.

The good news is that, beyond the fringe, America seems to have outgrown this stuff.

UPDATE: In fairness to Sailer, I have to admit that he’s dead-on in saying that fast typing is the secret to my success. Kids: stay in school, and take typing! Thanks, Mrs. Pack — I owe it all to you.

ANOTHER UPDATE: In response to an email from a reader, no, I don’t think that an opposition to illegal immigration is necessarily racist. And, in fact, legal immigrants are often notable for their hostility to illegal immigration — having jumped through the hoops themselves, they naturally resent those who bypass the hoops entirely.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Some of these early adopting things are just in the realm of ideas though, like taking an interest in GNXP and especially Steve Sailer way back when. Even when I read how Instapundit disliked Sailer back in the day because black in-law, I think I stopped reading Instapundit not long after that. Another example is becoming concerned enough about Islam to read the Koran.

Steve is pretty up there when it comes to early adoption re: interest in interesting concepts. Maybe identifying products, not so great. But isn’t the Roomba still in production?

I suppose another example is using imdb ratings to decide which movies to see. Now I’ve noticed that in video stores, they’ve really moneyballed it. High rating movies that were very hard to find are much easier to find in the average DVD rental place now. I guess the general trend of this is that there are other perfectionists out there, and people find it easier to find really good stuff, e.g. through ratings sites etc. Perhaps not settling for mediocre politicians that don’t represent white interests is an outgrowth of this general phenomenon.

* Steve Sailer wrote Sept. 6, 2005:

You may recall last week’s gigantic brouhaha over the two New Orleans pictures, one of blacks and one of whites and the captions that said the blacks were “looting” while the whites were “finding” food. This took up an enormous amount of space in the brains of high-minded folks for quite some time since it provided a welcome distraction from the obvious reality that blacks were doing the vast majority of the looting, raping, sniping and so forth in New Orleans. See, those captions proved the problem in New Orleans was … white racism!

As Larry Auster says in his addendum to Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society:

The worse blacks behave (in this case the total failure of the black-run government of New Orleans to take the absolutely necessary steps to prepare for and respond to the disaster), the more this black failure must be blamed on white racism.

This week, my essay on why the New Orleans nightmare shouldn’t have come as a surprise, as it apparently did, to all levels of government might replace the now tapped-out Caption Controversy as an enjoyable distraction from reality, a Two Minute Hate, for the pure of heart.

Thus,we see libertarian Radley Balko blogging:

I have never understood why Steve Sailer gets taken seriously. Even by people I respect.

One can only hope that after this vile screed, said serious-taking will cease.

This “vile screed” of course being my VDARE.com article on New Orleans. This is representative of the usual “point-and-sputter” attacks on me — no facts or logic are presented, because that’s not the point. The point is merely to gesticulate in fury at the sheer unmentionability of what I’ve said.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin blogs:

Via Instapundit, Steve Sailer weighs in with a related column on race and Katrina. Sailer has written many brilliant articles, and I admire his willingness to challenge politically correct shibboleths. But I strongly disagree with his assertion that African-Americans possess “poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups” and “need stricter moral guidance from society.”

No, I wrote, “tend to possess.”

Thus, the rest of her entry is attacking a non-existent straw man: the idea that I claimed that “moral cowardice and weakness is not predetermined by race,” which I of course never did. I merely pointed out that by the overwhelming weight of statistical evidence, it appears that African-Americans on average show less resistance to temptation than Asians and whites, so a moral environment like that of New Orleans, which specializes in encouraging people to give in to temptation, will tend to be particularly deleterious for blacks.

UPDATE: Michelle has since corrected her out-of-context quotation. My substantive response to her argument that there is no correlation between race and judgment is here: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-there-relationship-between-iq-race.html

A reader writes:

My sense is that on a whole range of issues, the more something is at variance with obvious reality, the more fervently people attack those who suggest that fact. This was pretty similar to what happened for two or three generations in the late, unlamented USSR.

I think a secondary element in this is that people who’ve worked/trained very, very hard to “doublethink” their way around reality are bitterly resentful at some indication that maybe all that training might have been wasted. After all, given the nature of human evolution, pretty much *everyone* can see reality, while only highly-trained elites can manage to (pretend to??) avoid seeing it.

As I’ve said before, I suspect that almost everyone in the world is actually a human biodiversity realist, though the highly trained make enormous efforts to pretend not to be, much like the religious zealots of the Middle Ages sometimes did and claimed to believe all sorts of peculiar things, partly to demonstrate their elite status. Compared to flagellating oneself every Easter (or on Ali Martydom Day, as the Shiites do), just “lying” a lot on TV for lots of money doesn’t seem particularly difficult.

By contrast, I’m almost sure that the simply-educated Latinos who work at my morning coffee shop watch TV and say to each other “those dangerous blacks are rioting again in New Orleans—Boy, I’m glad I don’t live there!”

Careerism is an important part of it (is it really so crazy to say silly things on TV about black rioters so that you yourself don’t actually have to live in a neighborhood near them??) and so is “fashionability.”

Consider the latter. Fashions come and go each year, in partially manipulated but partially mysterious ways, and most people mostly go along with them. Near as I can tell, they’re approximately random (e.g. the fashionability of hair length over the last 50 years).

If all the fashionable people are saying what seem to be silly things, well then, you, too, should probably also say those same things, lest you be considered unfashionable. And if all the smart people (e.g. Harvard professors) say those things, then maybe you’re just not smart enough to understand it properly. And any Harvard professor who might consider saying otherwise would worry about getting in trouble with the Harvard President. And when the Harvard President (accidentally) said something different, well, he learned never to make that same mistake again.

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Instapundit Vs Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer: Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* But he’s also the uncle of Amy Schumer, who the POZ establishment has lately been working overtime to convince us is the next hot, appealing “it” girl, and if you don’t agree (and here’s a penile plethysmograph to gauge your sincerity) you’ll be exiled to work the Dakota oil fields with no other entertainment during your off-time than these GIRLS re-runs (specially edited to contain only Lena Dunham’s nude scenes).

* Chuck Schumer is a smart guy who has been in the game a long time. He laid a trap hoping the GOP would jump into it as they so often do. This is a good example of a political gambit that has no downside to the person deploying it. Ted Cruz is a smart guy and figured out that it was a trap fairly early and largely stayed away from it. He filed some amendments that were never going anywhere so he could later say he tried to stop it if the thing ever got passed.

Rubio is Ms. South Carolina with a penis so he did not see the trap. Instead, he thought he would be hailed as a hero for making a deal that his party elders thought was wonderful. I think what makes Rubio even dumber is that he had an easy way out of this mess back in the summer. He could simply have said he learned a valuable lesson about trusting the Democrats. That would have let him switch sides on immigration. Instead, he made it worse.

The shame of it with Rubio is he is a helluva a pitchman. If he was on our side, pitching our issues, we would be talking about him as a great leader. The trouble is he is too dumb to be reliable.

* Rubio may look like he paid a price for betraying the American people with cheap-labor open-borders immigration, but the donor class loves him. He will be showered with publicity and support and cash and opportunities. He will be allowed to make gaffes that would sink a non-annointed politician. etc. If the donor class coalesces behind him to stop Trump, he may yet be our next president. And if not, he will do very well for himself in the meantime, and there’s always next time.

Ditto with Schumer. If you have the big donors pushing for you and helping push your program, it’s easy to look like you are a tactical political genius. And if you are in a sailboat race, and the wind is at your back, and it’s blowing against your opponent, it’s pretty hard to lose too.

Look at how McCain came out of nowhere to win the Republican nomination for president, ditto Bill Clinton. That wasn’t political skills. That was big money and the establishment press in action.

* Monroe got mixed up with a shrink-monster (like Brian Wilson later-but he survived: she didn’t), Nancy Sinatra had Daddy’s money and pull, Debbie Harry was a hippie under the glam and didn’t care about real success. Madonna isn’t necessarily smarter than any of them, but she sure was determined and disciplined.

I get a chuckle out of people who call her a has-been. When you have a billion dollars you earned yourself, you really don’t care. In fact, a Madonna show will still fill pretty sizable venues, both overseas and here. I’d venture to say she could still pack a venue in any place in America as well as Taylor Swift. For a 57 year old female that’s not too shabby.

* I recall Schumer’s first Congressional run in Brooklyn. He would day after day stand on the Kings Highway elevated subway platform obnoxiously gladhanding people and quite mindlessly yelling to morning commuters as they were getting upstairs onto the platform if an express or local train was coming. Anyone with eyeballs could look down the tracks and very quickly see for themselves, so such ravings were pointless. Struck me then that American politics was a crazy business, and nothing has changed my mind since. And that Schumer so debasing himself was a deeply disturbed person. He looked craven, deranged, unhinged. For all his book smarts, would not trust him with a coffee order.

As it happens I took the Kaplan SAT prep class at their main office at that time, which was about 2 blocks from that station. Never had any class taught by Schumer, but do remember that the teachers were uniformly badly dressed, socially-inept housebound weirdos, mostly orthodox or conservative Jews.They all bragged about high SAT scores they had attained, and perhaps that job paid very well. But they also looked and behaved so odd no law firm, engineering company, bank nor investment brokerage would ever hire any of them. Later took their LSAT prep class too. Was helpful only because it showed how the questions of those tests were asked rather than giving any specific insight into the questions themselves.Which sounds just like Schumer, playing the game instead of doing anything substantive. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard he held any paying job at all except political office.

* I passed on the opportunity to vote for Senor Rubio when he ran for the Senate in 2010. He ran on basically two major issues, no amnesty for illegal aliens and a very aggressive, neoconnish foreign policy. As Senator, Rubio quickly broke his first pledge but has remained very faithful to his second pledge, which tells you a lot of where his true priorities lie.

* Why does Rubio obviously look like a dummy? Not arguing with you, but we’re talking about looks here. Are his eyes too close together? Forehead not high enough? Isn’t this really a case of postjudice? I.e. hardly anyone’s ever met a dumb Jew.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Schumer vs. Rubio: Which One Looks Smarter?

On Black Crime, Obama’s ‘Blackism’ & Burke’s Allergy to Neocons

Ilana Mercer writes:

The following is Part II in a conversation with Jack Kerwick, author of “The American Offensive: Dispatches From The Front.” Read Part I, “Black Muslims & the Racial-Industrial Complex.” Visit Jack’s Beliefnet blog—”At the Intersection of Faith & Culture”—friend him on Facebook, and email him at: [email protected].

ILANA MERCER: Barack Obama as a devotee of “Blackism.” Explain. Why do you think this president is incapable of empathizing with the untold number of white Americans dead by blacks and Muslims?

JACK KERWICK: What I call “Blackism” is an ideology, a recipe for achieving racial “authenticity.” Like any ideology, it is the distillation, the cliff note, of a cultural tradition, the tradition of black Americans. Biological blackness is necessary for authentic “blackness.” It is not, though, sufficient. Blackism is designed for the Barack Obamas of the world, those who are at least partially black biologically but for whom black culture is a foreign language. The ideology is a simple method that, being a method, is comprised of a few principles that need only be affirmed in order to achieve “racial authenticity.” One of these principles is that ultimate reality is comprised of collectivities, primarily racial collectivities. Another principle is that non-whites are perpetually oppressed by whites. It isn’t that Obama or any other Blackist would think to deny that whites (and others) can and have been harmed and killed by blacks and Muslims. It’s only that they must see such violence as stemming from “root causes”—“racism,” a “legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” “the Crusades,” “imperialism,” “poverty,” etc.—that, ultimately, whites should have rectified.

MERCER: Like me, you are still haunted by the “Knoxville Horror”? Why?

KERWICK: This real life story is the stuff of nightmares. In 2007, in Tennessee, a young white couple in their early 20s, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were carjacked, abducted, raped, tortured, and finally murdered by four black men and a black woman. Newsom was blindfolded, sodomized with an instrument, and shot execution-style. His body was then set on fire.

According to The Knoxville News Sentinel, “Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus, and mouth. She was not only raped, but savaged with ‘an object’…She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed by the same solution [.]” “She was then ‘hog-tied,’ with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small white trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets.” The medical examiner concluded that “Christian died slowly, suffocating [.]” Far from being the chronic victims of interracial crime, as the Racism-Industrial-Complex would have us think, blacks are much more likely to be the victimizers: In roughly 90 percent of all attacks involving blacks and whites, the former are the perpetrators. Thankfully, your average black-on-white attack doesn’t involve the savagery of the “Knoxville Horror.” Yet the latter is the textbook illustration of the reality of black-on-white racial violence, as well as the randomness and mercilessness that far too many such attacks do involve. Beyond this, the “Knoxville Horror” is the textbook case of the media’s complicity in the evil of black-on-white violence, for just as it routinely refuses to cover the latter, so the national media refused to cover the ghoulishness in Knoxville.

MERCER: In “The American Offensive,” you recount the forgotten, white, race riots of the 1800s. You reach an unexpected conclusion about the founding American people, also a pathologically passive population. What is it?

KERWICK: Black crime in-general, and black racial mob violence specifically, are huge, persistent problems in contemporary American life. Only the most self-delusional and shameless of race propagandists would think to deny this (though even they admit that black criminality is a problem, albeit, to hear them tell it, the result of a larger problem: “white racism”). WND’s Colin Flaherty is one courageous journalist who has meticulously, unapologetically, chronicled this phenomenon.

Given current racial realities, then, it may surprise people to hear that most race riots in this country until well into the early decades of the 20th Century involved white perpetrators and black victims. And they were brutal, making the black perpetrated riots of today look like temper tantrums.

My point in noting this is not to engage in but another exercise of white guilt-mongering. Rather my point is to remind people that just because whites no longer engage in the type of racial mob violence for which blacks are known today doesn’t mean that history couldn’t repeat itself if circumstances were just right. Since enough violence has a way of provoking more violence, this is something worth bearing in mind.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blacks, Islam | Comments Off on On Black Crime, Obama’s ‘Blackism’ & Burke’s Allergy to Neocons

BLACK MUSLIMS & THE RACIAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Ilana Mercer writes:

The following is Part I in a conversation with Jack Kerwick, author of “The American Offensive: Dispatches From The Front.” Jack received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University. A lifelong Roman Catholic, his work on philosophy, politics, religion and culture has appeared in various publications. He teaches philosophy at Rowan College at Burlington County in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Visit his Beliefnet blog – “At the Intersection of Faith & Culture” – friend him on Facebook, and email him at: [email protected].

Ilana Mercer: In “The American Offensive,” you address the demographic drumbeat meant to downgrade and demoralize what is derisively called the “white vote” in this country. Explain, with reference to 2016.

Jack Kerwick: To no slight extent, it is GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s American-friendly position on immigration that accounts for why both Republican and Democrat Establishmentarians alike despise him. For a half century, American policy has overwhelmingly favored non-white immigrants from the Third World. I think that the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism” – the doctrine that America was “founded” upon some ahistorical abstraction (an “idea” or “proposition”) – coupled with an ideology of anti-”white racism” – the belief that whites are uniquely “racist” – informs contemporary immigration policy. The objective is to simultaneously neglect and repudiate the country’s Eurocentric, Christocentric history.

Trump challenges this narrative. Thus, he is vilified by those who stand to gain from it.

Mercer: No sooner does one immigration give-away fail (the Schubio Gang of Eight), than a new political zombie will resurrect the marvelously intuitive idea of importing masses of migrants from countries in which Christians are being exterminated. On the eve of Christmas, tell us who’s killing whom around the world.

Kerwick: For all of the talk about “Islamophobia,” in reality it is Christians (as well as other religious minorities) in Islamic lands around the globe who are routinely subjected to unimaginably barbaric treatment courtesy of their Islamic oppressors. Inasmuch as this phenomenon of Islamic-on-non-Islamic cruelty transpires throughout Africa and the Middle East, it transcends ethnicity, nationality and culture.

Open Doors (OD) is an organization “dedicated to serving persecuted Christians throughout the world.” OD reports that 40 of the worst 50 countries on Earth for Christians are countries with majority Muslim populations. Still, to listen to the left and (faux) right, with all of their talk of “Islamism” or “extremism,” one could be forgiven for thinking that none of this is happening, that the problem is with something they call “Islamism” or “extremism,” rather than with everyday practitioners of Islam.

Mercer: Slavery was abolished by white Christians; it is still practiced robustly – even religiously regulated – by some Muslims. Tell our readers about this never-discussed reality and the tenets that permit slavery in Islam.

Kerwick: Though, as you mention, white Christians of the 18th century spearheaded a moral revolution that resulted in the abolition of slavery around the world, it is still practiced in parts of the Islamic world. Not being an Islamic scholar, I can only say so much as to why this is the case. Unsurprisingly, the Quran not only authorizes, but commands the practice of slavery. Moreover, Muhammad owned slaves, and – this is crucial–-observant Muslims are expected to emulate the example of “The Prophet.”

While it’s true that the Bible – the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures – also allow for slavery, there is no analogical relationship between it and the Quran on this score. The Bible’s teachings are contextualized within a narrative interpretive framework. The Quran, in glaring contrast, has no such framework. The kind of chronological or historical sequencing of events in the Bible is not to be found in the Quran.

Mercer: I take it you mean to say that the rough passages in the Hebrew Testament do not apply to anyone any longer, unless, in the words of scholar of Islam Robert Spencer, “you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite.”

Kerwick: Exactly. When God commands the Hebrews to kill “unbelievers,” He always refers to some specific group, in a specific place and at a specific time. In Islam, however, “unbelievers” refers to all non-Muslims, everywhere, forever after.

Mercer: Very many black Americans are adopting Islam: Why is this a powder keg?

Kerwick: That Islam – or at least a racialized version of it – has attracted scores of black Americans, to say nothing of black American criminals, over the decades is no secret. This connection between black Americans and Islam is at once revealing and troubling. It’s revealing in that it suggests that those who have been reviled for noting the impulse for militancy within the Islamic tradition just may have been on to something all along, for it is precisely the perception of militancy that appeals to those blacks who feel alienated from mainstream American culture. After all, it isn’t Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism or some other non-Western faith to which they’re gravitating, but Islam.

That the phenomenon of alienated black Americans endorsing a militant ideology is troubling is self-explanatory. Those who are already ripe for violence now have a theological justification for violence.

Mercer: What do you mean by the terms “Racial-Industrial Complex” and “racially correct suicide”? How can they be combated and averted?

Kerwick: The RIC consists of those who stand to gain from promoting the myth that “racism” – white “racism” – is an omnipresent, omnipotent force. Since the RIC is every bit as entrenched and powerful as any other industry, its countless agents must labor inexhaustibly to create ever-expansive notions of “racism.” Only if these professional “anti-racists” can show that there is a need for their “services” can they justify their existence.

“Racially correct suicide” consists in valuing some delusion of “racial justice” over any and all other considerations – including that of improving, or even just maintaining, the quality of life in America. For example, following recent incidents of Islamic mass murder in places like France, American commentators were quick to jump on their high horses and castigate Europeans for allowing the formation of “no go” zones, high-crime bastions of Islamic immigrants into which even authorities dare not travel.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blacks, Islam | Comments Off on BLACK MUSLIMS & THE RACIAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Whatever Happened to Latino Political Power?

By ROBERTO SURO JAN. 2, 2016

DEMOGRAPHY is destiny, or so the saying goes, but Latinos are learning this political season that destiny can take detours.

As their population in the United States surged from 35 million in 2000 to nearly 57 million, Latinos became the subjects of a feel-good political story that bathed a marginalized minority in the glow of demographic triumphalism. Acting as a cohesive political force, Latinos were supposed to power Democratic majorities for decades and enshrine the welcoming immigration policies they overwhelmingly favor.

Instead, the 2016 campaign is showing how viscerally the paranoia of a majority can take aim at those gaining ground. Rather than a moment of triumph, this could be the year of the Latino eclipse. …

Despite a decade of trying, Latinos are finding that legalization grows more remote. Immigration advocates who once demanded nothing less than citizenship for all 11 million unauthorized immigrants would now settle for the temporary reprieve from deportations ordered by President Obama more than a year ago. That plan covers only about half of the unauthorized population with no guarantee of legalization, and red-state governors have blocked it with a lawsuit now before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the immigration battle has produced no name-brand leaders, and despite sporadic successes, the new faces in advocacy, such as the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and United We Dream, have not developed into institutions of sustained influence. Worse, immigration advocacy has not produced powerful alliances for Latinos, but it has aroused some notable enemies.

In opinion polls, Latinos’ partners in the Obama coalition say they favor legalization, but immigration gets scant resources from liberal interest groups compared with gun control, marriage equality or climate change. There is plenty of commitment and passion on the other side, however. Conservative Republicans consistently list a crackdown on unauthorized migration as a top priority, and the president’s executive orders have imbued the issue with the extraordinarily personal animus he provokes among his foes.

A backlash was predictable given the vast demographic change that Latinos are part of: For the past five years, the majority of babies born have not been white. Middle-class economic worries and populist anger at elites added fuel to white anxieties. Then the Washington deadlock over unauthorized migration provided a target. Still, the particular ugliness of the presidential campaign was hard to see coming. With Donald J. Trump stirring the caldron, fear of terrorism is combining with nativism to produce a strain of xenophobia as virulent as any in decades.

Even more surprising is the lack of a Latino response. In past election seasons young unauthorized immigrants, the Dreamers, have staged protests to demand immigration reform, but they have yet to take on Mr. Trump loudly. Given his vitriol, you would expect large demonstrations. Compared with Black Lives Matter protesters, Latinos seem passive. In that case, young people, loosely connected by social media and operating outside of institutions, took action that made race resurgent in politics and policy. Similar activism and strengthening of group bonds could still develop among Latinos. If not, then you have to wonder whether political analysts have assigned immigration too great a role in the Hispanic psyche. …

Over the years, Latinos have claimed a political destiny based on their population numbers, but the numbers that count in politics are those that decide elections. On that score Latinos have a dismal record to overcome. …

Roberto Suro is a professor of public policy and journalism at the University of Southern California.

COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* Latinos haven’t even made much of a dent on the hold blacks have over municipal jobs across the country. In DC, 97% of Metro’s bus drivers and train operators are black. This in an area where Hispanics have grown leaps and bounds. They haven’t even taken steps in cities to cement their power it was foolish to think they’d have much national impact.

* Because white women love love love 5’2″ Guatemalan roofers. Or something.

* If Mexicans love Mexico so much, why are they so eager to move away from their own people and come to live in gringo-land?

This goes for all immigrants. If they feel offended by whites who say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, why do they themselves feel ENOUGH IS ENOUGH(in relation to their own kind in their own nations) and wanna come to white nations?

Immigrants bitch that whites are not welcoming enough of their kind, but they seem hell-bent on getting away from their own kind. Why are they so auto-phobic, or loathing of their own kind?

Why should whites welcome them if they wanna get away from their own kind? They must want to get away cuz their own kind sucks. And even if they wanna get away from their own kind, they TOO are of that kind.

Why should whites have to suffer from the fact that black Africans wanna get away from black Africans and Mexicans wanna get away from Mexicans?
Why not learn to deal with their own kind and fix up their own problems?

The immigrant logic: “I hate whites for not welcoming my kind, but I reject my own nation and people and wanna go live in a white country.”

Sure makes a lot of sense.

Posted in Latino | Comments Off on Whatever Happened to Latino Political Power?

Salon: Donald Trump cites Israel’s illegal separation wall to justify banning Muslims

Ben Norton writes:

Far-right Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has exploited anti-Muslim prejudice in order to appeal to American voters. In December, citing a debunked study by an extremist right-wing think tank, Trump called for banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., with a “total and complete shutdown” of the borders. This led critics worldwide to compare Trump to fascist leaders.

Trump, nevertheless, has stood by his extreme policies in 2016. On Jan. 2, the far-right presidential candidate adopted a new strategy to defend his position: Modeling policies after Israel, the U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East.

The billionaire real estate mogul took to Twitter to criticize Hillary Clinton for opposing his ban on Muslims. “Hillary Clinton said that it is O.K. to ban Muslims from Israel by building a WALL, but not O.K. to do so in the U.S. We must be vigilant!” Trump tweeted.

Trump is referencing the separation wall Israel has constructed alongside and within the borders of the West Bank, which has been illegally occupied by the Israeli military since 1967. The majority of the barrier is in fact inside occupied territory, and prevents Palestinians from entering Israel.

Israel says it built the wall for security, to prevent attacks from Palestinian militants. Critics say Israel is using security as an excuse and unilaterally building a wall in order to illegally annex occupied Palestinian land.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration, Israel | Comments Off on Salon: Donald Trump cites Israel’s illegal separation wall to justify banning Muslims

Refugees & Rape

I doubt that Jewish refugees led to an increase in rapes. Black and Muslim refugees, however, tend to rape a lot.

New York Times:

On Perilous Migrant Trail, Women Often Become Prey to Sexual Abuse

…Interviews with dozens of migrants, social workers and psychologists caring for traumatized new arrivals across Germany suggest that the current mass migration has been accompanied by a surge of violence against women. From forced marriages and sex trafficking to domestic abuse, women report violence from fellow refugees, smugglers, male family members and even European police officers. There are no reliable statistics for sexual and other abuse of female refugees.

Among the more than one million migrants who have entered Europe over the past year, fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and beyond, men outnumber women by more than three to one, United Nations statistics show. “The men dominate, numerically and otherwise,” says Heike Rabe, a gender expert at the German Institute for Human Rights.

Susanne Höhne, the lead psychotherapist at a center in west Berlin specializing in treating traumatized female migrants, says that almost all of the 44 women in her care — some barely adults, some over 60 — have experienced sexual violence.

Posted in Immigration, Rape | Comments Off on Refugees & Rape

The Case For Immigration Insurance

Comment to Arnold Kling:

As for why immigrants (or their employers) should buy insurance when natives don’t have to, note that immigrant insurance covers only risks added by migration! People (foreigners or citizens) who remain in their native countries instead of migrating would not have to buy immigration insurance because they do not add any risks in the destination country (the base costs of the risks they pose in their own countries are covered by local arrangements). Consider a hot-tempered Pakistani who poses a 1% annual risk of murdering someone. If he remains in Pakistan the annual expected value of his bad temper to his neighbors is 0.01 times less than $1 million, but when he enters the USA it becomes 0.01 times more than $9 million. Furthermore, in Pakistan, however much harm that hothead inflicts on his neighbors, he can inflict virtually no harm on Americans. Asking that Pakistani to carry Sudden Jihad Syndrome insurance while he is in America is like asking him to carry liability insurance while he drives a car in America. The insurance is for incremental risk. (Note that immigration insurance might as well be symmetrical– if the USA requires it other countries may also.)

The fact that different immigrants, individually or (for example) by national groups pose different risks would be reflected in their insurance premiums, more or less accurately depending on actuarial considerations and how much regulatory “anti-discrimination” foolishness was injected into premium-setting. High premiums might discourage some prospective migrants. That would be a good thing– forcing immigrants (or their employers) to internalize costs which they now palm off on everyone else. Of course, if insurers were required to “community rate” all immigrants equally instead of distinguishing Brahmins from Salafis, the system would not work as well. If immigrants really aren’t very dangerous then their insurance premiums won’t be very high.

In fact, the big cost would not be insuring against criminal behavior, but against social spending (welfare) consumption. “Community-rated” premiums for that would track the mean expected outlay, which is around $14,000 annually for households in the income range of the mean immigrant household of about $60K (citations on request). Individually-underwritten premiums would vary a lot– immigrant scientists, for example, might pay very little. If we truly cut off social spending on immigrants, we wouldn’t have to ask for insurance against it. (Despite the oft-repeated big lie that immigrants are “not eligible for welfare,” they actually are. Really. Please don’t make me provide the citations again.)

Sailer didn’t offer a detailed proposal. He was trying to put across the point that some immigrants inflict outsized costs– way more than their individual labor is worth– and those are currently absorbed by citizens at large instead of by the folks who benefit from immigration (the immigrants themselves and employers). Employers want to privatize profits (cheap labor) and socialize costs (e.g., Obamacare subsidies for immigrants [official link]). Textbook theory says we should press them to internalize all their costs. There is an insurable risk, and the premiums should be paid by immigrants. For those who work the costs would pass through to their employers and for those who don’t (currently 2/5) the costs would fall on whoever supports them. Employers certainly could pay premiums for SJS insurance. The moral hazard would be small because employers do approximately nothing to control immigrants now so they could hardly do less.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on The Case For Immigration Insurance

NETHERLANDS: Daughter of Archbishop Desmond Tutu Ties Knot with Woman Professor

tutu

REPORT: The Rev. Canon Mpho Tutu, the daughter of former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, tied the knot this week with Professor Marceline van Furth in the Netherlands.

According to Netherlands broadcaster Jeanette Chabalala of News24, the couple reportedly married in a private ceremony held in Oegstgeest in the Netherlands. The couple is set to celebrate their wedding in Cape Town in May.

Tutu is currently the executive director of the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, while Furth is a professor in Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the Vrije University in Amsterdam, and holds the Desmond Tutu Chair in Medicine at the university.

It is the second marriage for both.

Canon Tutu, the youngest daughter of Desmond and Leah Tutu, was married to Joseph Burris. They had two daughters, Nyaniso and Onalenna. She and her then husband lived in Virginia.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off on NETHERLANDS: Daughter of Archbishop Desmond Tutu Ties Knot with Woman Professor

Universities catch almost 50,000 student cheats

The Guardian: UK figures from last three years show non-EU students four times more likely to cheat in exams and coursework essays.

One professor said he believed the use of professional essay writers, whose services are widely available on the internet, was on the rise.

Geoffrey Alderman of the University of Buckingham told the paper: “What I’d call type-1 plagiarism, copying and pasting, is on the wane because it’s so easy to detect. But my impression is that type-2 cheating, using a bespoke essay-writing service, is increasing.”

Such services can charge hundreds of pounds for essays, dissertations and model exam answers written by professional lecturers up to doctorate level.

Posted in Cheating | Comments Off on Universities catch almost 50,000 student cheats