Will London Elect A Muslim Mayor?

Steve Sailer writes: There are two nuclear armed Western European powers: the UK and France. Both have growing numbers of Muslim voters. Houellebecq’s Submission sketches out one path by which a Muslim politician might luck into getting his finger on a nuclear button in Europe.

American Jews really ought to start thinking about whether immigration schmaltz and refugee worship might someday in the distant future put Israel at odds with a Muslim-led Western European nuclear power?

But that doesn’t seem to have yet dawned upon organized Jewish interests in America. For example, the Anti-Defamation League is currently pushing its We Were Strangers Too campaign to browbeat the West into taking in more Muslim refugees.

But is it good for the Jews?

COMMENTS:

* This guy called moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.”

He supports homosexual “marriage,” so it looks like the only part of his tradition he’s hanging on to is the Jew hatred. It should be very interesting to see where all this leads.

* Zac Goldsmith is a lousy candidate. A rich aristocratic socialite trying to appeal to proles and Hindus and Tamils was doomed from the start. People criticize the GOP for being tone-deaf but they ain’t got nothing on the Tories.

* What’s the problem with a muslim mayor!. He supports gay marriage. He has all the right labor opinions. We’ve had Jewish mayors in christian cities for almost a century. Apart from white nationalism or overt religious prejudice (of the Steve Emerson or daniel pipes type), is there a good reason to oppose Muslim politicians in Europe or north America?

* Jews get along better with Muslins (for example-Moorish Spain) than they do Christians, who have been their historical persecutors.

Hopefully, London will elect a Muslim mayor. It would be a start to ending the unfair privileges enjoyed by heterosexual white males in the city.

* “What’s the problem with a muslim mayor!”

Can a Jew, Christian, or Atheist be elected mayor of a city in Iran, Egypt, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia for example?

* I saw a video today about 5 famous refugees – Einstein, Albright, Brin & Freud. I can’t remember the other one but I’m certain they were also Jewish. Somehow the example of these refugees was given as proof as to why Europe should take in more refugees.

Zac has run a bad campaign (and I say this as a Zac) as Boris-lite. Ironically Zac G’s two nephews (Jemima & Imran Khan’s sons) are super-devout Muslims.

The Labour Party is purging the anti-Semitic elements and Ed Miliband was the last leader. I don’t necessarily think it’s bad for the Jews but maybe for Israel (as the old aphorism goes, the left loves the Jews the right Israel).

Apart from naming bikes after himself I have no idea what Boris actually did as mayor and I say this as a Londoner.. He seemed to have simply been sulking that DC’s been PM all this while (the opposition sits on that side of the house but the enemy sits on ours).

I’d like Zac to win (I saw Sadiq voted for a fully elected HoL and I’m a deep believe in the hereditary peerage and their rights to sit in the upper House) but I don’t really care – if anything Zac’s ex-bro-in-law Imran Khan is a far bigger fanatic than Sadiq (who seems a super-moderate sort of chap).

Also it was pretty low of Zac to dredge up those mainly false allegations about Sadiq – race baiting at its worst.

* It’s not just Muslim politicians: white British leftists, such as Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone are making anti-Zionism respectable in the Labour party.

* The French and British nuclear arsenals should be the concern not just of Jews but of everyone. I have mentioned it on these pages before. I hope the US DoD is thinking about those arsenals. I would guess that Israel thinks about them. I would not place too much hope in US Jewry leading the charge against Muslim immigration though. Most are incurably liberal (2/3) and more importantly their institutions are captured entirely by that 2/3. Their motto and the motto of all liberal immigration proponents is: ” I may not agree with Muslims wanting to kill me, but I will fight to the death in order to protect a Muslim’s right to kill me”.

Posted in Islam, Jews | Comments Off on Will London Elect A Muslim Mayor?

One Cheer For Ted Cruz

Steve Sailer writes: With Ted Cruz apparently dropping out, I have to say that I think Cruz ran a relatively strong campaign from a technical standpoint. He’s not a natural leader of men, so for him to come in second out of almost a dozen and a half candidates shows a cunning and resourceful mind. Nixon would have been impressed. Cruz outlasted Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio plus a whole bunch of people whom I’ve forgotten already.

Cruz early on in the campaign figured out that Donald Trump and the immigration issue were for real, so he did what he could to avoid running headlong into those intertwined juggernauts. Unfortunately for Cruz, Trump figured out fairly early that Cruz was his most formidable opponent and turned his fire on him.

COMMENTS:

* Now the political will get personal and will be about White women and whose side they’re on. Trump versus Hillary is going to be a massive Conversation on that.

* Don’t feel too sorry. In 1956 JFK tried and failed to get the Dems VP nomination. And he was just 7 years younger than Cruz will be in 2020 when he became President. Of course then Cruz’ Dad killed him but that’s another story.

* Cruz and Trump were cordial up to the point Cruz figured most of the heavy lifting was done and he could start playing hardball with Trump.

Yeah, Trump beat Cruz like he’s going to Hillary, but he didn’t do himself any favors running as a Dominionist, much like Hillary isn’t doing herself any favors running on “more violent foreigners and I’m taking your guns”.

If Cruz was the vaunted genius everyone thought, he would have united with Trump and spent 8 years as VP before running in 2024 as the heir to a successful President Trump. But no. He had to have it now.

* It felt as if his encounter with the Trump irregulars across the street was fatal. For average Cruz backers, not the Kool Aid politics-dweeb Twitaholic faction, that clip’s gotta hurt. And I sort of respect what he was quixotically going for there, but man, try to know the moment.

* It is strange how politics doesn’t seem to select for people of natural political ability in the same way that sports selects for people of natural athletic ability. It’s inconceivable that you could meet anyone who isn’t already a professional baseball player, and think “he could replace Mike Trout or Bryce Harper.” Yet I’ve met plenty of non-politicians who I thought would be more appealing presidential candidates than the current lot.

For example, Cruz is highly intelligent and strategically savvy…but isn’t there anyone else just as smart and savvy who also looks and sounds like a movie president?

Trump is “alpha” and very media savvy, but not obviously book smart in the same way that Cruz or Bobby Jindal are (and he’s been depantsed organizationally by Cruz, so his management skills are similarly questionable).

Hillary would never get anywhere near the presidency if “natural political ability” were as necessary to become president as “natural pitching ability” is to win the Cy Young award.

Rubio has a lot of natural political ability, but was mostly done in by his disastrous strategery (and he’s not any sort of intellectual). But it sure seems like in a nation of 300 million people, there ought to be someone of comparable looks/charisma to Rubio who isn’t pro-amnesty, and is just a little bit smarter.

Politics clearly selects for some quality other than the surface qualities of intelligence, looks, charisma, debating ability, etc. Perhaps cravenness, or dumb luck?

* He ran a bit of a copycat campaign. Unfortunately for him, he isn’t very likable. The more people got to know him, the more they didn’t like him. Trump is good at exploiting people’s personal flaws.

* In his defense, he did stand up to the trannies (can you even imagine having to argue this point in 1970, the year he was born?), and was apparently the only candidate in either party to call out the twisted women-in-combat trend.

There might have been a more nuanced way to deal with ethanol subsidies– like limiting them to farmers using ethanol and only ethanol in all their vehicles. But NYC and Chicago developers meet their match in corrupting influences in Iowa farmers.

Posted in Ted Cruz | Comments Off on One Cheer For Ted Cruz

Blacks & Property Values

I remember one Saturday morning at an Orthodox shul in 90035, the speaker during the announcements noted the new soul food restaurant on Pico Blvd, and said that if its owner knew something that we didn’t, we should all sell our homes quickly.

Steve Sailer writes:

From the Washington Post:

‘This can’t happen by accident.’

For generations, African Americans have faced unique barriers to owning a home — and enjoying the wealth it brings. In Atlanta, where predominantly black neighborhoods are still waiting for the recovery, the link between race and real estate fortune is stark.

By Emily Badger Wonkblog May 2, 2016

SOUTH DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — When the new subdivisions were rising everywhere here in the 1990s and early 2000s, with hundreds and hundreds of fine homes on one-acre lots carved out of the Georgia forest, the price divide between this part of De­Kalb County and the northern part wasn’t so vast.

Now, a house that looks otherwise identical in South DeKalb, on the edge of Atlanta, might sell for half what it would in North DeKalb. The difference has widened over the years of the housing boom, bust and recovery, and Wayne Early can’t explain it.

The people here make good money, he says. They have good jobs. Their homes are built of the same sturdy brick. Early, an economic development consultant and real estate agent, can identify only one obvious difference that makes property here worth so much less.

“This can’t happen by accident,” he says. “It’s too tightly correlated with race for it to be based on something else.”

The communities in South DeKalb are almost entirely African American, and they reflect a housing disparity that emerges across the Atlanta metropolitan area and the nation. According to a new Washington Post analysis, the higher a Zip code’s share of black residents in the Atlanta region, the worse its housing values have fared over the past turbulent housing cycle.

It’s sad, but true: blacks tend to be bad for property values. One reason even in well-kept up, low crime middle class black neighborhoods is because people aren’t just buying a house, they are buying schoolmates for their children. There’s also a bigger danger that a middle class black neighborhood will slip into an underclass neighborhood than in a comparable white neighborhood, since middle class blacks are more likely to have nephews and so forth come live with them, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air style. A foreclosure issue is that blacks have fewer affluent relatives to borrow from to help them get over life’s bumps.

Part of the bursting of the Housing Bubble in 2007-2008 was the unexpected rediscovery that old stereotypes about black and Hispanic neighborhoods being poor investments tend to be true.

COMMENTS:

* Large numbers of whites move to a geographic region, there is an explosion of innovation, new businesses, development. The whole area gentrifies, properties shoot up, etc.

Large numbers of blacks move to an area, government dependency shoots up, low income housing shoots up, the schools go down the tubes, crime jumps, property values drop.

If you control for the individual family, same type of job, same type of income, the family that chooses to move around the gentrifying upwardly mobile types which tend to be more ethnically white will see housing value appreciate, and the family that moves to the ethnically black neighborhood will see housing value drop.

* Just explain to me why when whites move into the neighborhood, it’s bad for black people and when whites refuse to move into the neighborhood it’s also bad for black people. Good luck.

* It’s called free association.

In the old authentic America you had the right to live with people of your choosing.

In the new fraudulent pseudo-America you are forced to live with aliens and hostiles.

The core outrage of all of this is:

Who invented the towns? The neighborhoods? Who invented the water supplies? The power supplies? The entire infrastructure that supplanted the raw wilderness that was there previously?

Whites created it all but now have no claim to it as whites. Which results in —-of course—- white dispossession.

Legalized racial dispossession of the founding stock of any nation on the planet is very rare. It usually only occurs as a result of total defeat on the battlefield.

The amount of white sweat equity that was transferred to aliens in towns across just California in the past thirty years must be a trillion dollars at least. Whole towns invented and hacked out of the wilderness by whites have been transferred to new occupants. This occurred through ethnic cleansing and it wasn’t nonviolent.

* Steve do low crime Black neighborhoods even exist in Los Angeles? From what I have read, even Baldwin Hills has a high crime problem because they are located way too geographically close to The Jungle, which has housing projects like you see in Training Day.

* The same disparity is seen in Montgomery (white) vs. Prince George’s (black) counties of Maryland, both DC suburbs catering to at least middle class DC government employees. Blacks have done well in government employment and these in Prince George’s are the cream of that crop. But still their schools are doing poorly esp. on test results.

* “…middle class blacks are more likely to have nephews and so forth come live with them…”

Uh-huh. Also those same homeowners are likely to have their own children “come to live with them.” And the more successful and affluent those middle-class black parents are, the more salient reversion toward the mean among their offspring will be.

Any potential white buyers can look fifteen years into the future of a new middle-class black suburb and correctly predict the likely swell of boorishness and crime as the aging middle-class black suburbanites lose control of their maturing spawn, flush with the strength of youth and morally liberated by BLM/BAMN/flavor-of-the-week agitators.

* Blacks aren’t necessarily getting a “better deal” finding cheaper homes in black neighborhoods. Yes, life in black neighborhoods will be easier for them that it would be for whites, but those neighborhoods are still much higher in crime, and black criminals are more than happy to target blacks. Blacks who can afford to often try to live in white neighborhoods.

* Tired of the white/black racial duopoly in these msm articles. It’s fraud. All of the other racial groups are magically disappeared from the calculus.

These rotten media outlets will continue the dishonest white/black duopoly until they are forced to include Asians Hispanics etc.

Let’s discuss the Asian/black achievement gap, shall we?

And why aren’t Asians mixing with blacks in all corners of society? Where are the 50-50 Asian-black neighborhoods? Churches? Schools? Businesses?

Dark conclusions come to mind when one notices Asian reluctance to embrace black America.

* Regardless of ethnicity, low property values are good for buyers and bad for owners and sellers. The article is focused on the fact that black home owners aren’t getting the home appreciation benefits that whites are. And this is true.

From a mindset of individual meritocracy, this really isn’t fair. Black individuals are financially punished for choosing to self-segregate with their own ethnic group. White individuals are rewarded for self-segregating. And this isn’t due to individual merit, it’s due to group merit.

From another viewpoint, groups of whites are building better neighborhoods and communities than groups of blacks. It’s not white people’s fault that groups of blacks aren’t building nicer neighborhoods and cultural capital. Groups of Asians are surely building better neighborhoods than groups of blacks and politically, it’s not feasible to blame Asians. Politically, the left will need to find a way to blame white and justify redistribution and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

* Sure, low cost housing is a benefit to new buyers, but it’s bad for long time owners and sellers. And blacks aren’t getting the home value appreciation benefits that whites are. That is real.

However, this is largely because groups of blacks don’t make great neighborhoods that shoot up in value like other ethnic groups. And the liberals are trying to find ways to pin that blame onto whites and justify big government redistribution. Note that they aren’t considering Mexicans or Asians because those ethnic groups aren’t politically viable marks to seize money from.

* …if blacks were building great neighborhoods, people would want to move there, and they would rise in value, and nothing whites or Asians or Mexicans do would stop that.

The problem is that when large numbers of blacks move to a neighborhood, crime goes up, schools go down, government dependence goes up, business innovation goes down, the service industry weakens, and economic growth slows.

* Blacks are bad for property values, who’d a thunk.

A couple of years ago in Newark, New Jersey, people were literally selling their houses for pennies and dollars to get out of Dodge. Newark used to be the most dangerous city in the country, now Camden takes the top spot if I remember correctly, though I think Chicago and their pace for 700 murders this year will dethrone Camden.

When my family first came to America they settled in Newark. It was a completely different city back then. Full of hard-working white immigrants, that is until the 67 or 69 riots I forget which. After that, all perishable food markets left the city and all people had to travel miles out of the city to get food.

Serves them right.

* No matter how ‘respectable’, ‘cultured’, ‘polite’ ‘well-mannered’, ‘well educated’ and ‘well spoken’ any given Afro-American appears to be, you can bet the farm that he is closely related to a stereotypical ghetto thug.

The statistics bear this out. Such a vast proportion of the male African American has been incarcerated at least one time in their lives that by sheer force of random probability you can be sure that *every* Afro-American is closely related to a violent thug.

* OT, but the discovery of marijuana at the homes of the Rhoden family in Pike County, Ohio is now leading to speculation that they were murdered by drug dealers – perhaps members of a Mexican cartel.

If that happens to be the case and the murderers are illegal aliens, it’s interesting to speculate what the political ramifications might be.

* I grew up in Dekalb, back in the 70′s. It was the place to be. Now it’s a third world shit hole, and every night on the news, there’s another grieving black momma/grandmomma in Stone Mountain whose thug son has shot someone or been shot. Or whose whose toddler child/grandchild in Lithonia has been run over by a fleeing thug or by the pursuing cop. Or whose daughter has been raped by a thug in Avondale. Or whose home on Memorial Drive has been burglarized or invaded by thugs. And it’s always in south Dekalb. Some portion of the county government is always under investigation, facing probation or being sanctioned. And they keep sending Cynthia McKinneys and Hank Johnsons to DC. So yes, the South Dekalb situation is very tightly tied to race.

* They are trying to blame the problems of black neighborhoods on white neighborhoods that have had success. The instant you consider successful Asian neighborhoods and Hispanic neighborhoods, the logic becomes absurd.

There is a whole political apparatus setup to blame whites for the ills of the world and seize their communities and assets for redistribution. But, the instant they try to expand blame whitey to blame whitey and Asians and even some Hispanics, they will lose political viability.

From Nelson Mandela’s autobiography:

“Ngabelungu” is a Xhosa expression that means, “It is the whites [fault]”

* The vast majority of Blacks can not afford to purchase a home in affluent predominantly Asian suburbs in California like Arcadia and Cupertino, so does that make Asians anti-Black racists?

* So Blacks are benefiting from cheaper prices for identical housing. Sounds like a good thing.

* I stayed with friends in one of these new, upper middle class majority-black (I saw multiple white families) developments in Atlanta in 2007: the houses really were well built (much nicer than the McMansions I’ve been in in the North from the same period, maybe because of lower cost structures), the woods next to each house were very pretty, the neighbors were excited to visit each other and hang out.

But the combination of greater family instability and reversion of income to a lower mean is a bad one-two punch; and a layoff and an ugly divorce later my friends were short-selling their house three years later, in 2010. I had heard they could hardly get anything for it, relative to what they paid.

* I wish. But the 14th Amendment has been held in various SCOTUS decisions to trump everything that came before it i.e. it’s a new government, a coup by the winners of the War of Northern Aggression. Then SCOTUS came out with further doctrines like “separate isn’t equal enough” and so they restrict your ability to avoid mixing.

* This is just the free market setting the correct price on black-owned homes. The more the government mucks with that, the bigger the problems that are gonna ensue, like the housing bubble explosion.

* Asians are Schrödinger Whites. They’re considered white when doing so helps the left (see: the alleged “diversity deficiency” in Silicon Valley) and considered non-white when that helps the left (“muh cultural appropiation”).

* Black males have a one in three lifetime incarceration risk.
So, the probability of any random black male *not* ever being incarcerated is roughly 0.66.
Consider all the close relations, brothers, nephews, uncles, father, sons, cousins, in-laws etc that each and every black male must have. As a ballpark figure, allow 10 of those all told.
0.66 to the power of 10, the probability of *no* close criminal male relation must be a vanishingly small number.

* You can use this site (among others) to check out all the demographic stats of whatever zip codes you want: zipwho.com.

* In the 1990s NYC cabbies were being slaughtered–35-45 per year.

The cabbies were overwhelmingly NAMs.

The cabbies stopped taking fares from lower Manhattan to the ghetto at night.

Danny Glover complained to the NYC taxi commission about this NAM on NAM discrimination. Giuliani cracked down on cabbies. The slaughter continued.

* That’s why we need to send the Homosexual Gentrifier Shock Troops into the ghetto to drive up house values and create wealth for black homeowners! Just think how wonderful it will be for ghetto dwellers when their house prices double or triple! Think of all the Black Wealth that will be created!

Joking aside, this article points out the silliness of SJW thinking.

If ghetto homes INCREASE in value, SJWs bitch about the “institutional racism” of “unaffordable housing” or “gentrification” and insist that white folks pay for “affordable housing”.

If ghetto homes DECREASE in value, SJWs bitch about the “institutional racism” that depresses the price of ghetto homes and prevents black folks from “accumulating wealth” in their homes.

Mess with their heads. When you read an article like this, circle back on them:

“Wait! So what you are saying is that Atlanta has plenty of ‘affordable housing’ for blacks, but very little ‘affordable housing’ for whites? We need to eliminate this ‘institutional racism’ against whites! Whites need to have a ‘white homebuyers subsidy’ until this housing price disparity is eliminated!”

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Blacks & Property Values

I Want To Smooth Out My Rough Edges

When I send an email or start a conversation, I usually get going with whatever is on my mind, while the people I admire start with, “I trust you are well. I was just thinking about you and wondering how you were doing…”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I Want To Smooth Out My Rough Edges

The Inner Logic of Civil Rights

From Chronicles Magazine: In 1861 U.S. President Abraham Lincoln launched a war of conquest against the South, and legend claims it was all for the abolition of slavery, officially declared by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. Yet exactly 101 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the forcefully reinstated Union, signed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting “discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.” As Martin Luther King, Jr., had put it the preceding year, “Americans one hundred years after, must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free,” and that equality was still a word unable to hide “segregation and racial injustice.”

I would like to suggest there is more than meets the eye in a claim that, taken at face value, may look reasonable, if not simply humane. As everyone knows, ideas have consequences—some immediate, others slowly unraveling as the idea gradually takes root in the public mind. The latter is precisely what happened with the idea that initiated the civil-rights movement.

In democratic societies, citizens are supposed to enjoy equal opportunity to achieve their happiness, whatever this may mean for each one. Which is what Thomas Jefferson said, declaring it self-evident that men, having been created equal, are endowed with unalienable rights, notably the right to the free pursuit of each one’s happiness. Which, in turn, entitled Martin Luther King, Jr., to see the Declaration of Independence as a “promissory note” to all Americans, handing each and every one a check to cash (to use his somewhat inelegant, but telling, wording) and making it patent injustice that blacks be refused free access to various public spaces from buses to theaters and universities, or submitted to discriminating limitations on voting.

With black soldiers having shed their blood for America’s sake during World War II, President Truman had already, in 1948, prohibited discrimination in the Armed Forces. Then the issue became a cause célèbre for the liberal WASPs, gently prodded by Comintern propagandists, and eager to show that, despite their money, they also had a democratic conscience: In the 60’s they turned into new crusaders faithful to MLK’s memory and his policy of nonviolent civil disobedience. But, by and by, there were none among them to venture beyond the demand “to open the doors of opportunity to all of God’s children”: What was unjust was to deprive “the Negro living on the lonely island of poverty” of the right to live up to the American dream, or to access “the vast ocean of material prosperity” through the same channels white people used—notably, education. For the most liberal, the injustice resided in the fact that the black man was refused the means to enter and sustain competition with the white, so that there could never be a black John D. Rockefeller. Hence LBJ’s new Act, whose only originality was to set up agencies to enforce nondiscrimination at the gates of the racetracks.

But this was just the beginning. Almost 50 years after President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the evidence remains, not easy to dismiss, that despite all positive discrimination, resentment abides among the black population. As any election easily shows, black voters manifest a distinct tendency to vote en bloc, a bloc courted by Republicans and Democrats alike, as if it reflected a distinct body of citizens. Mr. Obama did not display any reluctance to be considered not only a messiah or savior, but a black one—though maybe not exclusively black, since there are now other minorities vying with blacks for public attention.

But I think it is also time to face reality. Very few are indeed willing to acknowledge that black resentment stems from the very fabric of our Western society, in general, and of American society, in particular. And by this I do not allude to the simplistic liberal opinion that a majority of white people are selfish racists and exploiters, which is simply stupid.

These societies, indeed, have two manifest gods: freedom and equality. Which is why they are democratic and free-market societies: A democracy is assumed to comprise utterly free and equal citizens, and a market a place for exchanges between individuals on a free and equal footing. In the political sphere no man is assumed to be a born leader, and every man deemed equally capable of dealing with public affairs; in the economic realm all are considered able to measure up to the American dream. And the common opinion prevails that there can be no freedom where there is no uniform equality, and no equality where there is no uniform freedom. These concepts are taken to be two sides of the same coin: This is common-sense democracy. But therein lies the rub, because democracy distorts these concepts in such a way as to make them collide.

If democracy means the sovereignty of the people, it means each citizen is a sovereign in his own right and is therefore endowed with a right to do as he pleases without taking leave of anyone but himself. Now, why should an individual endowed with such freedom be respectful of others? Of course, he may fear retaliation, or he may reckon it more rational in the long run not to behave toward others as he would not like them to behave toward him. But there is no inner restraint to his freedom, which makes it essentially an ability to serve his interest, without regard for others: The sovereignty of the people, or of individuals, means there can be no moral principle superior to the individual’s sovereign will. But then the sovereign freedom of each citizen makes him unresponsive to the call of equality. The more radical freedom there is, the less equality.

Read on.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Inner Logic of Civil Rights