Steve Sailer: ‘Jewish UCLA Student Body President Apologizes for Using White Privilege to Culturally Appropriate Bloods Sign and Offend Gang Communities’

UCLA was the first place I lived where whites were a minority, and where I met people who openly and proudly identified as Jewish. The fall of 1988 was where my adult life began. I was 22.

At Sierra Community College a year or two previous, my friend’s mom recalled that the UCLA Economics and Business program was dominated by “smart Jews.” That caught my attention. I was used to thinking of myself as the smartest person in the room (or close to it).


June 1988 at Sierra College


On my GF’s bed at Rieber Hall, UCLA March 1989

At UCLA, I proudly identified as “an atheistic communist.” I would talk about Marx to anyone who would listen and before Economics class with visiting professor Russell Roberts (a baal teshuva aka a Jew who became Orthodox), I would write my recommended books on the blackboard, including, Marx’s “On the Jewish Question“, which I thought was the best short introduction to Marx’s thought. A guy with a yarmulke questioned me about the book. With trepidation, I said that Marx saw the Jew as the embodiment of the bourgeoisie. I said there were anti-Semitic parts to his writings but they should be ignored.

I think the guy who asked that question, Steve S., was someone I’d get to know a decade later, but we could never nail down whether or not that was him.

This was my first experience of life in the big city. I felt like I belonged. I’ve lived in LA since 1994 (from 1989 to 1994, CFS forced me back to the country).

Steve Sailer writes:

UCLA student politics aren’t quite as hilarious as Claremont/Pomona’s, but they’re good for a laugh now and then.

Lately, UCLA student politics seem to be mostly The Diverse vs. The Jews.

For example, a high school friend of my son’s who got elected to UCLA student government by mobilizing his obscure Asian ethnic group made the front page of the New York Times for questioning a Jewish nominee to office over whether she could be fair on Israel-related issues. (You may wonder how often Israel comes up in UCLA student government. The answer is: all the time.)

Typical UCLA student and his Neapolitan caddy

Of course, the NYT edited the article and cropped the photo to leave out my son’s highly diverse friend and make it appear that only a blonde coed from Switzerland was, as it were, interrogating the Jewish sorority girl.


In U.C.L.A. Debate Over Jewish Student, Echoes on Campus of Old Biases
By ADAM NAGOURNEY MARCH 5, 2015

Anything else would be too complicated for NYT subscribers to deal with.

This week, the big brouhaha is over the Jewish student body president joking around in an old picture:

From the Daily Bruin:


Students respond to leaked photo of USAC president making gang symbol

BY APRIL HOANG

Students expressed concern and outrage over a photograph of the undergraduate student government president that began circulating Sunday on social media.

In the photo, Danny Siegel, the Undergraduate Students Association Council president, posed with the hand sign of a primarily African American street gang called the Bloods. Many students said they think the gesture was insensitive to individuals affected by gang violence.

Here’s Siegel’s Linked-In page. Does every college student have a Linked-In page these days?

Siegel is a member of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity. I wonder if UCLA’s star QB Josh Rosen is a member? Do football players join fraternities these days, or do they not have time because everything is focused on being a first round draft pick?


Some students began sharing a screenshot of the photo Sunday, one day before voting for this year’s USAC election opened. The photo was originally posted in a GroupMe chat called “Protect the Crown” by Brian Kohaya, Siegel’s appointments director. In the chat, Kohaya commented, “Problematic Danny. (Don’t you dare repost that photo).”

Siegel … posted an apology on Facebook Sunday afternoon:

“This is a result of my white privilege and lack of perspective, something that so many victims of gang violence don’t have the luxury of, in fact this behavior can put their lives at risk,” Siegel wrote in the post. “I should have known better and take full responsibility for my insensitivity.”

Robert Gardner, a fourth-year political science and African American studies student, said a group of African American students called an emergency community meeting Monday night and are discussing how they want to respond to the photo. The students are considering asking for another apology or demanding Siegel resign from the remainder of his term, which ends May 9.

Gardner, whose cousin died because of gang violence, said many African Americans in segregated neighborhoods join gangs for protection or income.

“When a white person throws up the gang sign, they’re basically making a mockery of the oppression that African Americans in hyper-segregated neighborhoods face,” he said. “A lot of black Bruins are extremely upset at this appropriation of our culture … that’s derived out of anti-black racism.”

Kosi Ogbuli, a first-year neuroscience student and incoming vice chair of the Afrikan Student Union, said he thinks the photo is inexcusable.

“From where I grew up, it’s a sign that implies a lot of things and a lot of danger,” Ogbuli said. “It’s like a name tag for what gang you’re in – that’s your set and you’re proud of being in it.” …

“That’s not something that should be mocked or even thought about by somebody that is a student leader,” Ogbuli said. “For some students, that might be a reality, a reason why their father or mother is not in the picture.”

Amy Shao, the USAC Cultural Affairs commissioner who ran with the slate Waves of Change last year, said:

“Being from communities of color, we can’t afford to not understand these things, because they impact us every day,” Shao said. “(Siegel) has the privilege to decide when to be informed and to pick what he knows. I don’t know if he understands that.” …

NJ Omorogieva, a second-year sociology and psychology student, said she knows people on campus who have been deeply affected by gang activity.

“Being part of the black community at UCLA, I know people who do have high stakes (in the issue),” she said. “For someone to mock it is extremely disrespectful. …

Omorogieva added posing with the sign is supposed to represent pride for what gang someone belongs to, and she could not imagine using the sign as someone outside gang culture.

“You know how long it takes to form your fingers into that?” she asked. “In all those minutes, you must have thought about doing it, positioned your fingers, posed for pictures – it takes a pretty long time for you to not realize it’s wrong.”

Siegel said he does not recall his thought process while taking the photo, but added he did know at the time that it was offensive to certain communities.

COMMENTS:

* Danny Segal will be handing off the UCLA student gov presidency later this year to Arielle Yael Mokhtarzadeh, who is running unopposed after completing a successful term as president of Bruins for Israel. Segal took office after the term of Heather Rosen, who succeeded Avinoam Baral. So the office is split between Jews with normal names and funny names.

Prior to that, in 2013, the office was held by John Joanino, a gay-looking filipino who is now executive VP of a cell-phone massage start-up.

* “Many students said they think the gesture was insensitive to individuals affected by gang violence.”

Right. And then, they went back to their dorms to listen to gangster rap about shooting homeys.

But I wonder… it’s more probable that some blacks are miffed that some white/Jewish kid ‘stole’ something considered ‘cool’ in the black community.

At any rate, it’s not the Jewish kids who are killing blacks. It is black kids making gang signs who are killing blacks. But when blacks make those signs, blacks don’t complain.

But I like this development. Maybe blacks should freak out anytime any white or Jew or non-black takes anything from black culture. Rule should be ONLY blacks can act black. Okay, let blacks be the only ones acting like rap thug morons. The hell do I care.

“You know how long it takes to form your fingers into that?” she asked. “In all those minutes, you must have thought about doing it, positioned your fingers, posed for pictures – it takes a pretty long time for you to not realize it’s wrong.”

So, it is a matter of pride. Sheeeeiiiit.

* It’s like a drug.

These morons get a high from finding something to get hysterical about. It gives them a rush of self-righteous sanctimony and superiority.
It is victim-crack or sniffing the KKKrazy Glue.

Jews vs Blacks are always funny because it’s high IQ people pretending to ‘understand’ low IQ people. When Jews apologize, it’s more practical than principled. Jews figure it makes no sense arguing logic with such people. They feel like a person being bit by a crazy dog. The best way is just go easy and ‘okay…. easy … easy’ in the hope that the dog will finally cool down and go away.

Blacks have this legacy of holy suffering, but the MOCKINGBIRD narrative hasn’t had relevance for a long time. So, most of what blacks bleat about is total BS. But we have to pretend as if it’s MOCKINGBIRD once again. But it’s actually more like Cuckoo, Cuckoo.

The tone of the article is revealing. Because of the cult of black moral authority, we have to be gushy-hushy about even the dumbest black rants.

Chutzpah must give way to Hoodspaw.

* Blacks like to vent their grievance at whites/Jews because if they talked that way to other blacks, a fight will break out and someone will get hurt bad… or even dead.

If gang violence is a problem, then shouldn’t that fat black woman be going to the gang-bangers and berating them to stop acting like thugs? But that would get her killed or whupped real bad.

Better to talk big to a bunch of people who will sit and listen.

‘White Privilege’ is the favored target because it’s like a dog that gets kicked and takes it.

* The media absolutely loves blowing up gangsterism to absurdly romantic levels. The Godfather practically rehabilitated the Mafia to most Americans, especially Italians, who suddenly saw those guys not as something to be ashamed of as Italians, but to be proud of. The Godfather was so popular that it literally invented many of the symbolic things in the Mafia that the Mafia began to copy: for example, heads of crime families never got their hands kissed until they started mimicking that film.

But the truth is more along the lines of Scorcese’s Goodfellas: psychotic local bullies who have no code but (1) loyalty to the in-group, only hanging with other tough guys; (2) forcing their victims to pay up, no matter what the circumstance (aka no mercy to the outgroup); and (3) wild spending , debauchery, and conspicuous consumption with little regard to making it the money last. And then you have to strip away all the glamor, intelligence, and bravery Scorcese infused into his guys in Goodfellas.

So the romanticism has occurred with black gangs, pushing them from local drug runners and extortion racketeers to some kind of mythical power. In truth, most gangs take a housing project and make it their own, but never get beyond that.

* Middle Eastern boy who hates both whites and Western culture pretends to be white Westerner when he gets in trouble and has to grovel. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

* Growing up in the “hyper-segregated” D.C. area there were a number of Country Club ‘gangs’. Which one your father belonged to ( in those days the baby mama had no say) determined who your friends were and where you could ‘go’. You couldn’t just hang around the swimming pool at a Country Club if your father wasn’t a member or unless someone whose father was, invited you as a ‘guest’. Only then could you enter that ‘gang’s’ territory.

There were no gang ‘colors’ or throwing of ‘signs’ between the teenage club ‘bangers’. It wasn’t necessary because only members had the right to ‘sign’ for cokes and cheeseburgers at the snack bar. You could tell who the ‘shot callers’ were in these gangs too by how many cheeseburgers and cokes they would sign for for their friends and guests. There were no shootings despite the intense social competition that went on because shooting someone gained you no status. You had to earn your status with fashionable clothing, knowing the prettiest girls and excelling at the club’s sports.

The negro wasn’t part of this world back then so they assume their struggle for status was unique. It wasn’t.

* I showed this to my kid who is going to UCLA in the fall, and my kid commented that the real concern should be how the Bloods are going to deal with Danny Siegel: he may have much, much bigger problems than the SJWs (and, no, I do not condone them doing something nasty to this clueless kid).

* Realistically they won’t give a shit and can’t be bothered. He’s not a threat or competition to them in any tangible way and he didn’t do it in their neighborhood or in their presence. As a middle-class (or higher) white he is not expected to know/abide by all the rules. He “ain’t ’bout dat life” as the saying goes– just a forgettable, rich, soft, dorky white boy.

* The Angry Black Lady style of interrogative discourse has now firmly established itself in academia, having previously been seen mostly in environs such as the DMV and fast-food outlets in downscale neighborhoods. I understand the video interrogation of Professor Christakis’ premises and privilege last year introduced this intellectual development to the wider world. I expect we will see it next at Stanford, because, as we all know, black lives matter a hundred times over, in Palo Alto.

* If South Africa is any guide, wealthy Jewish-Americans will still prefer the Vibrants over the Whites no matter how nasty the Vibrants get. Wealthy Jews of the West will only “take ownership” of the West when they literally take ownership. I mean, UCLA, Harvard, the USA and the West will only be defended by them to the extent that they feel it’s theirs: lock, stock and barrel. When they feel like they’re smashing their own things, then they’ll cut it out.

Hey, we’ve all made a lot of progress in the 100 to 150 years since Jews were given full civil rights. Maybe over the next hundred they’ll get comfy enough to stop smashing the institutions they now own? The UN gave them Israel a few years ago and they seem to have “taken ownership” of that; so there’s hope.

* There was a magazine which I used to read years ago (late 90′s, early oughts) called F.E.D.S. = Finally Every Dimension of the Streets. It was basically one long fanboy letter to drug dealers and gang bangers. It was a bestselling mag in the Black community for years and was only sold retail, so no subscription discount.

* I think the gang sign IS offensive, but the offended students are so inarticulate they can’t explain why, and maybe they don’t even know why or really think it’s offensive. The reason it’s offensive is that it glorifies brutal killers. Indeed, an apt comparison would be with young Siegel posting a photo of himself doing the Hitler salute. Proudly displaying a gang sign should be offensive to everyone, regardless of race. That reason is not cultural appropriation, of course, more the opposite.

I guess the problem is that none of these PC students want to actually criticize the Bloods, because (a) that might be dangerous, and they’re cowards, and (b) that would be to criticize black people.

* “You know how long it takes to form your fingers into that?” she asked. “In all those minutes, you must have thought about doing it, positioned your fingers, posed for pictures – it takes a pretty long time for you to not realize it’s wrong.”

I’m happy to report that it takes this arthritic middle-aged man 11 seconds, so perhaps half that for 22 year old.

* A Jew apologizing for “culturally appropriating” black gang signs? That’s hilarious!

Perhaps they’ve got it backwards, though: the Tribe is the oldest gang in human history. They’ve got initiation rites, symbols, territory, a language and a particular manner of dress. Instead of red or blue hoodies they wear yarmulkes. Instead of cuttings or tattoos, they’ve got circumcision as a physical indicator of initiation.

Maybe the blacks are trying to appropriate the gang culture of the Jews…

* It is morally outrageous for white people to throw gang signs, because gang signs are:

a) an authentic part of black culture, and thus cultural appropriation when thrown by whites.
b) an authentic part of black culture, and thus cultural mockery when thrown by whites.
c) an inauthentic part of black culture, and thus racist indoctrination when thrown by whites.
d) an inauthentic part of black culture, and thus gestural violence when thrown by whites.
e) whitey need to shut the f*ck up!

* How anyone could have sat through that fat lady’s lecture is beyond me. Oh, well, at least the Good Whites and Jews of UCLA are getting the full diversity experience that they likely deserve.

Posted in Blacks, Jews, UCLA | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: ‘Jewish UCLA Student Body President Apologizes for Using White Privilege to Culturally Appropriate Bloods Sign and Offend Gang Communities’

Dumb & Dumber

Steve Sailer writes: Back in the 1960s, campus leftism was in part a product of the lifting of quotas on the number of high-IQ Jews admitted. Harvard dropped its quota on Jews in the mid-1950s, and Yale in 1965. Before then, Yale had concentrated on letting in unintellectual rich guys with leadership potential, such as John F. Kerry in 1962 (IQ ~ 115) and George W. Bush (IQ ~ 120) in 1964.

But in the mid-1960s Yale eliminated its Jewish quota, and, according to my late friend Jim Chapin, brother of folksinger Harry Chapin, who was a history instructor at Yale then, the campus atmosphere immediately became more intellectually intense. Bush, the son of a congressman and grandson of a senator, became alienated from the new culture.

Much of the student radicalism of the late 1960s was due to huge numbers of Jewish students suddenly being liberated to be together at elite institutions. Why, they asked, should WASPs like Bush or crypto-semi-Jewish students like Kerry be in Skull & Bones when there were much smarter students available?

Posted in Academia, Jews | Comments Off on Dumb & Dumber

David Brooks (NYT) wedding registry is pure gold

Politico posts: “WEEKEND WEDDING – NYT’s DAVID BROOKS got married on Sunday to ANNE SNYDER, a freelance writer and director of the Character Initiative at the Philanthropy Roundtable, in a ceremony at the National Arboretum. Atlantic Media owner David Bradley and his wife Katherine held a rehearsal luncheon for Brooks and Snyder on Saturday. @kirstenpowers posts on Instagram: “Beautiful wedding of two beautiful souls. A love story for the ages. Congrats to Anne and David!””

I wonder how David’s ex-wife and children feel about this love story for the ages.

Economist posts: “His over-the-top praise for her in the acknowledgments from his last book (when they were in theory unattached) are pretty funny- so over the top that some Christian college used them recently as an example of the benefits of attending a small Christian college, since Anne Snyder was obviously such a great influence on old Brooksy:

“Anne C. Snyder was there when this book was born and walked with me through the first three years of its writing. This was first conceived as a book about cognition and decision making. Under Anne’s influence, it became a book about morality and inner life. She led dozens of discussions about the material, assigned me reading from her her own bank of knowledge, challenged the superficiality of my thinking in memo after memo and transformed the project. While I was never able to match the lyricism of her prose, or the sensitivity of her observations, I have certainly stolen many of her ideas and admired the gracious and morally rigorous way she lives her life. If there are any important points in this book, they probably came from Anne.”

* “gracious and morally rigorous way she lives her life.”

So that’s what they call home wrecking nowadays.

* I’m still hung up on the fact that Americans post a list of the gifts people should buy them online. Then they call it a “registry” to disguise the fact that they are disgusting hedonistic jerks.

* They have no class. They should ask their guests to give to charities. Why do they need all that stuff? They are old.

Amanda Marcotte posts: Weirdly, my gift idea for the man marrying his 23 year younger research assistant (Viagra bucket) is not on there!

Posted in David Brooks | Comments Off on David Brooks (NYT) wedding registry is pure gold

Deadspin: ‘I Can’t Decide What To Get David Brooks For His Wedding’

Albert Burneko writes:

I mean obviously the first and most important point is: Mazel tov! After a few years of harrowing personal crisis for America’s Foremost Moral Decay Diagnostician, our boy David Brooks has at last found love, and gotten married (to his 23-years-younger former research assistant)!

Yes, things are looking up for ol’ Dave. No longer must he stalk the dim corridors of an empty home, toga’d in soiled linens but shrouded, metaphorically, in despair, declaiming about the death of civic virtue with an ice-cream sandwich hanging out of his mouth. Now he can do marital congress in the sight of God! Now, all is right with the world!

…Yes, how nice it is to have a secure place to store your peener, and to be the kind of millionaire boomer quasi-academic who can, in the opinion pages of the New York Times, read all the human condition into the dust patterns on your hog. Corporate prosperity is secure; ethnonationalist abusiveness is not a problem for the people who matter. David Brooks can spoon in the good graces of nonspecific Western moral tradition; turns out, the republic is safe after all.

Anyway, here is a link to the happy couple’s wedding registry.

Posted in David Brooks | Comments Off on Deadspin: ‘I Can’t Decide What To Get David Brooks For His Wedding’

Wonkette: ‘Is David Brooks Being Compelled To Christ By New Wife’s Vagina? We Are Just Asking Questions’

Rebecca Schoenkopf writes:

Here is a nice story of Nice Time! David Brooks, who believe it or not pens some of the less offensive twaddle for the New York Times, writes books about “character” and “morals,” and taught a … Harvard? Yale? (Yale) … class about humbleness, has married! He is clearly very much in love with his bride, Anne Snyder, a good God-fearing Christian woman who is apparently leading him to Christ by way of her magic vagina.

After (or while?) Brooks and his previous wife — who not only converted to Judaism for him but also “converted” her name from Jane to Sarah — split quietly in 2015, he penned an outsized mash note to his young research assistant, Snyder, with his penis.

In addition, he would like to thank his wife Sarah, who also exists. Just kidding! She got a brief mention in the last paragraph of the acknowledgements for The Road To Character (really), in which he thanked her for taking care of their kids.

Orthodox Jewish…blogger Luke Ford… has compiled all sorts of background, including snippets from a whole bunch of Christians who are VERY EXCITED for their young compatriot, Snyder, and how she is super duper leading this one Jew to Jesus (with her vagina). We’ll steal just one or two and then send you over to Ford’s place for the rest.

Posted in David Brooks | Comments Off on Wonkette: ‘Is David Brooks Being Compelled To Christ By New Wife’s Vagina? We Are Just Asking Questions’

Group Vs Individualist Strategy

When I became interested in converting to Judaism, around 1990, I had weekly conversations with a friend who like me grew up as a Seventh-Day Adventist in Australia. This man worked as a pastor for many years before quitting and become an insurance agent to better provide for his family.

Like me, this bloke didn’t have much experience with Jews, but he did have this distinct memory: “When most people shop for a home, they bring their spouse, but when Jews buy property, they bring their accountant, their lawyer, their friends.” My friend found this distasteful.

I was not bothered by this accusation, but I didn’t understand its significance. Now I see that Jews have a group strategy for life while WASPs tend towards an individualist strategy. Most of the time in the struggle for scarce resources, a group strategy will out-compete an individualist strategy. WASPs come from northern Europe where life’s competition was historically much more against the environment and much less against other competing groups. Jews come from a history of group competition more than environmental competition. Almost all the prayers in the siddur (Jewish prayer book) are in the collective.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Group Vs Individualist Strategy

Haaretz: ‘Israeli Experts Fear Invasion of Yellow Crazy Ant That Wreaks Havoc on Crops’

Should not people and civilizations have the same fear of invasion from those different from themselves? Does not the category of “invasive species” apply to people as well?

For example, why would non-Muslims welcome an influx of Muslims or why would non-black civilizations welcome an influx of blacks? Why would a Muslim country such as Saudi Arabia welcome an influx of non-Muslims? Why would Japan welcome an influx of non-Japanese? Why would Israel want an influx of non-Jews? Such influxes would create social tension and destroy social trust.

When you let in a non-native species, you might not know the devastation the invader will wreck upon your civilization.

It used to be that Los Angeles was filled with beautiful white people. Now they’re a distinct minority. I grew up in white Australia and when I walk down the street these days in brown Los Angeles, and at times and in particular moods I feel uncomfortable because most of the people are so different from me, so brown, and they’re speaking different languages and they don’t have the same allegiances and customs that I have, and I remember that this city, this nation, this West, used to be white and now it is getting browner and stranger by the day, and this makes me, at times, annoyed.

I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism. The more immersed I become in Orthodox Judaism, the more strange the world looks outside of it. The more identify with my group, the more I have fears and concerns about outsiders. That’s the way group identity works. The stronger your group identity, the more likely you are to have negative feelings about outsiders.

Haaretz May 3, 2017:

A small ant from East Asia is keeping Israeli environmental groups awake at night. The ant, whose official name is the yellow crazy ant, has in recent years caused heavy damage to ecological systems and has wreaked havoc with crops in various part of the world, with local experts fearing it could reach Israel.
In a new report, written by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel in conjunction with the Nature and Parks Authority, the SPNI warns that the ant is one of eight invasive species of flora and fauna that could reach the area, and suggests preparing as soon as possible to prevent their entry.
The report, entitled “The Path to National Ecological Security,” will be presented this month to the Knesset Interior and Environment Committee, which will have a special session on coping with invasive species. These are species that succeed in stowing away in cargo or luggage on planes and ships and reaching new areas where they have no natural enemies. They thus reproduce rapidly, often causing environmental damage and sometimes even threatening public health.
The species mentioned are liable to spread rapidly in Israel, whose climate is hospitable to their reproduction and trade ties with those countries where these species are found. The yellow crazy ant lives in large groups and attacks birds and reptiles with an acidic excretion. It also harms plant tissue and can destroy crops like bananas.
Another threat comes from the palm borer, a large moth from South America that attacks palm trees and could pose a threat to Israel’s successful date industry. The larvae of the moth bore into the heart of the palm tree’s trunk and into its leaves. Also feared is the New Guinea Flatworm, which carries a parasite that could cause meningitis and thus poses a public health threat. It also attacks mollusks.
Another threat is the New Zealand mud snail, which pushes out local species.
Invasive plants also pose a serious environmental threat. The list of eight threatening species includes the Alligator Weed, which comes from South America. It crosses borders in the ballast of ships, and can survive both in water and on land. It spreads quickly and blocks access to light and oxygen in pools of water, which can seriously harm the quality of water and the flora and fauna in lakes, winter pools and streams.
The new report recommends developing tools to better control the infiltration of invasive species. “Israel’s borders are open to the infiltration of species that threaten nature, infrastructures and public health,” explained Alon Rothschild, the SPNI’s biodiversity coordinator. “This phenomenon, if not dealt with properly and in time, will cause ecological destruction and significant health and economic damage.
“The government environmental protection agencies don’t have the legal authority to deal with this phenomenon,” he continued. “There must be a law that will give them the authority and the professional tools to deal with invasive species, by regulating the import, commerce and possession of these species. The biggest challenge is preventing inadvertent invasion, like through cargo in which unwanted ‘hitchhikers’ are hiding.”

Wikipedia:

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.[1][dubious – discuss]

One study pointed out widely divergent perceptions of the criteria for invasive species among researchers (p. 135) and concerns with the subjectivity of the term “invasive” (p. 136).[2] Some of the alternate usages of the term are below:

The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called “non-indigenous” or “non-native”) that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland–urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities.[3] It has been used in this sense by government organizations[4][5] as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society.[2] The European Union defines “Invasive Alien Species” as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[6][7] It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds.[8] The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples.
An alternate usage broadens the term to include indigenous or “native” species along with non-native species, that have colonized natural areas (p. 136).[2] Deer are an example, considered to be overpopulating their native zones and adjacent suburban gardens, by some in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions of the United States.[citation needed]
Sometimes the term is used to describe a non-native or introduced species that has become widespread (p. 136).[2] However, not every introduced species has adverse effects on the environment. A nonadverse example is the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), which is found throughout the United States, but rarely achieves high densities (p. 136).

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Haaretz: ‘Israeli Experts Fear Invasion of Yellow Crazy Ant That Wreaks Havoc on Crops’

WP: ‘Before Michelle, Barack Obama asked another woman to marry him. Then politics got in the way.’

Carlos Lozada packs a punch. He’s the most important book critic of our time and he’s neither left nor right.

Washington Post:

Garrow portrays Obama as a man who ruthlessly compartmentalized his existence; who believed early on that he was fated for greatness; and who made emotional sacrifices in the pursuit of a goal that must have seemed unlikely to everyone but him. Every step — whether his foray into community organizing, Harvard Law School, even the choice of whom to love — was not just about living a life but about fulfilling a destiny.

It is in the personal realm that Garrow’s account is particularly revealing. He shares for the first time the story of a woman Obama lived with and loved in Chicago, in the years before he met Michelle, and whom he asked to marry him. Sheila Miyoshi Jager, now a professor at Oberlin College, is a recurring presence in “Rising Star,” and her pained, drawn-out relationship with Obama informs both his will to rise in politics and the trade-offs he deems necessary to do so. Garrow, who received a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Martin Luther King Jr., concludes this massive new work with a damning verdict on Obama’s determination: “While the crucible of self-creation had produced an ironclad will, the vessel was hollow at its core.”

…Jager, who in “Dreams From My Father” was virtually written out, compressed into a single character along with two prior Obama girlfriends, may have evoked something of Obama’s distant mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Like Dunham, Jager studied anthropology, and while Dunham focused on Indonesia, Jager developed a deep expertise in the Korean Peninsula. Jager was of Dutch and Japanese ancestry, fitting the multicultural world Obama was only starting to leave behind. They were a natural fit. Jager soon came to realize, she told Garrow, that Obama had “a deep-seated need to be loved and admired.”

She describes their life together as an isolating experience, “an island unto ourselves” in which Obama would “compartmentalize his work and home life.” She did not meet Jeremiah Wright, the pastor with a growing influence on Obama, and they rarely saw his professional colleagues socially. The friends they saw were often graduate students at the University of Chicago, where Sheila was pursuing her doctorate. They traveled together to meet her family as well as his. Soon they began speaking of marriage.

“In the winter of ‘86, when we visited my parents, he asked me to marry him,” she told Garrow. Her parents were opposed, less for any racial reasons (Barack came across to them like “a white, middle-class kid,” a close family friend said) than for concern about Obama’s professional prospects, and because her mother thought Sheila, two years Obama’s junior, was too young. “Not yet,” Sheila told Barack. But they stayed together.

In early 1987, when Obama was 25, she sensed a change. “He became. . . so very ambitious” very suddenly,” she told Garrow. “I remember very clearly when this transformation happened, and I remember very specifically that by 1987, about a year into our relationship, he already had his sights on becoming president.”

The sense of destiny is not unusual among those who become president. (See Clinton, Bill.) But it created complications. Obama believed that he had a “calling,” Garrow writes, and in his case it was “coupled with a heightened awareness that to pursue it he had to fully identify as African American.”

Maraniss’s 2012 biography deftly describes Obama’s conscious evolution from a multicultural, internationalist self-perception toward a distinctly African American one, and Garrow puts this transition into an explicitly political context. For black politicians in Chicago, he writes, a non-African-American spouse could be a liability. He cites the example of Richard H. Newhouse Jr., a legendary African American state senator in Illinois, who was married to a white woman and endured whispers that he “talks black but sleeps white.” And Carol Moseley Braun, who during the 1990s served Illinois as the first female African American U.S. senator and whose ex-husband was white, admitted that “an interracial marriage really restricts your political options.”

Discussions of race and politics suddenly overwhelmed Sheila and Barack’s relationship. “The marriage discussions dragged on and on,” but now they were clouded by Obama’s “torment over this central issue of his life . . . race and identity,” Sheila recalls. The “resolution of his black identity was directly linked to his decision to pursue a political career,” she said.

In Garrow’s telling, Obama made emotional judgments on political grounds. A close mutual friend of the couple recalls Obama explaining that “the lines are very clearly drawn. . . . If I am going out with a white woman, I have no standing here.” And friends remember an awkward gathering at a summer house, where Obama and Jager engaged in a loud, messy fight on the subject for an entire afternoon. (“That’s wrong! That’s wrong! That’s not a reason,” they heard Sheila yell from their guest room, their arguments punctuated by bouts of makeup sex.) Obama cared for her, Garrow writes, “yet he felt trapped between the woman he loved and the destiny he knew was his.”

Just days before he would depart for Harvard Law School — and when the relationship was already coming apart — Obama asked her to come with him and get married, “mostly, I think, out of a sense of desperation over our eventual parting and not in any real faith in our future,” Sheila explained to Garrow. At the time, she was heading to Seoul for dissertation research, and she resented his assumption she would automatically postpone her career for his. More arguments ensued, and each went their way, although not for good…

Obama had met Michelle Robinson at the Chicago law firm where she worked — and where he was a summer associate — after his first year of law school, and the couple quickly became serious. However, Jager, who soon arrived at Harvard on a teaching fellowship, was not entirely out of his life.

“Barack and Sheila had continued to see each other irregularly throughout the 1990-91 academic year, notwithstanding the deepening of Barack’s relationship with Michelle Robinson,” Garrow writes. (“I always felt bad about it,” Sheila told the author more than two decades later. Once Barack and Michelle were married, his personal ties to Sheila was reduced to the occasional letter (such as after the 9/11 attacks) and phone call (when he reached out to ask whether a biographer had contacted her).

If Garrow is correct in concluding that Obama’s romantic choices were influenced by his political ambitions, it is no small irony that Michelle Obama became one of those most skeptical about Obama’s political prospects, and most dubious about his will to rise. She constantly discourages his efforts toward elective office and resents the time he spends away from her and their two young daughters. Obama vented to a friend how often Michelle would talk about money. “Why don’t you go out and get a good job? You’re a lawyer — you can make all the money we need,” she would tell him, as the couple struggled with student loans and the demands of family and political life. (Garrow sides with Michelle, highlighting how, on the day after Sasha was born, Barack went downtown for a meeting.)

…And he goes deliciously small-bore, too, delving into the culture of the Illinois statehouse, where poker was intense and infidelity was rampant. “There’s a lot of people who f—ed in Springfield,” a female lobbyist tells Garrow. “What else is there to do?” Obama, however, did not. “Michelle would kick my butt,” he told a colleague there. At times Garrow delivers information simply because he has it; I did not need a detailed readout of all of Obama’s course evaluations from his years teaching at the University of Chicago’s law school. (Turns out his students liked him.)

The book’s title seems chosen with a sense of irony. Garrow shows how media organizations invariably described Obama as a “rising star,” in almost self-fulfilling fashion. Yet, after nine years of research and reporting, Garrow does not appear too impressed by his subject, even if he recognizes Obama’s historical importance.

The author is harsh but persuasive in his reading of “Dreams From My Father,” for instance, calling it not a memoir but a work of “historical fiction,” one in which the “most important composite character was the narrator himself.” (Reviewers were impressed by it, but few who knew Obama well seemed to recognize the man in its pages.) He points out that Obama’s cocaine use extended into his post-college years, longer than Obama had previously acknowledged. And he suggests Obama deployed religion for political purposes; while campaigning for the U.S. Senate, Garrow notes, Obama began toting around a Bible and exhibited “a greater religious faith than close acquaintances had ever previously sensed.”

Throughout the book, Obama displays an almost petulant dissatisfaction with each step he took to reach the Oval Office. Community organizing is not ambitious enough, he decides, so he goes to law school. But then he moves into politics because “I saw the law as being inadequate to the task “of achieving social change,” Obama explains. In Springfield, he is again disillusioned by “the realization that politics is a business . . . an activity that’s designed to advance one’s career, accumulate resources and help one’s friends,” as “opposed to a mission.”And upon reaching the U.S. Senate, he tells National Journal that he is “surprised by the lack of deliberation in the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Nothing measures up.

Steve Sailer writes:

Obama was groomed by his extended family, well-educated people with ties to academia and American deep state power, for a career as a foreign relations go-between: what I call a Muslimist. Not an “Arabist,” but similar: an expert on non-Arab heavily Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Kenya.

As Obama told his previous biographer David Maraniss, the “obvious path for me given my background” was to get a graduate degree in international relations and wind up “working in the State Department, in the Foreign Service, or working for an international foundation.…”

Dr. Jager has a similar job involving being an expert on Korea.

In 1985 Obama rebelled against that foreign affairs destiny, moving to insular Chicago. Of course, he didn’t get along all that well with the African-Americans he was now paid to organize, so he acquired a girlfriend straight out of his old International Affairs world.

The white girlfriend he left behind in New York was the daughter of a top Australian intelligence official with expertise in Indonesia who later because Australia’s ambassador to the United States. She was also the stepdaughter of a top Washington Democratic power broker lawyer who ran the Indonesian connection for a giant international mining company. I’ve always wondered who set them up: maybe Timothy Geithner’s dad, who worked with Obama’s mom?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I do find myself wondering how our media will choose to destroy, as they must, Garrow’s book, and his reputation.

Kakutani’s typically incompetent, ham-handed diatribe in the NY Times isn’t going to do the job:

Thing is, Garrow has won a Pulitzer Prize. How do you pretend he and his book don’t exist, and are unworthy?

* Didn’t stop him from dating Larry Sinclair later on. Incidentally, Sinclair confirms Garrow’s claims that Obama’s cocaine use persisted longer than he admitted:

* Daily Caller:

New Biography: Young Obama ‘Considered Gayness’

Former President Barack Obama considered being homosexual as a young man, according to a forthcoming biography of the president.

The biography by David Garrow, “Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama,” is set to come out on May 9. Garrow wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Martin Luther King Jr., and is a regular contributor to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

In a chapter about the former president’s two years at Occidental College, Garrow reveals a close relationship Obama had with an openly gay assistant professor named Lawrence Goldyn.

“Goldyn made a huge impact on Barry Obama,” Garrow wrote in the book. “Almost a quarter century later, asked about his understanding of gay issues, Obama enthusiastically said, ‘my favorite professor my first year in college was one of the first openly gay people that I knew…He was a terrific guy” with whom Obama developed a ‘friendship beyond the classroom.’”

The biographer added, “Goldyn years later would remember that Obama ‘was not fearful of being associated with me’ in terms of ‘talking socially’ and ‘learning from me’ after as well as in class.”

“Three years later, Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness, but ultimately had decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex,” Garrow wrote. “But there is no doubting that Goldyn gave eighteen-year-old Barry a vastly more positive and uplifting image of gay identity and self-confidence than he had known in Honolulu.”

* It’s ironic that marrying Michelle may have been the best decision he made for his political career, but that she seems to be the least supportive spouse in history. He won both because of her and in spite of her. I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually divorce.

* [Jager] She is ethnically half-Dutch and half-Japanese.

* No doubt for the near future we will be treated to a parade of biographical information about our 44th president fleshing out the portrait of a hollow, repellent narcissist.

* When asked about Obama experimenting with homosexuality, Garrow replied, “I think anyone and everyone, no matter what their role in life deserves a certain basic degree of privacy, in that context.”

Meaning “yes he did”. So the usual question: who knew and on what subjects did they blackmail him?

* I doubt it was a marriage of convenience–more likely, Michelle combined the intellectual and educational background Obama needed in a wife to be able to talk to her and the cultural background (authentic American black) he wishes he had. They seem a *much* more natural couple than Jeb and his wife, say.

* Why has it taken almost a decade for this amount of detail about his early life to come out in the mainstream media? Any other President would have had the media outing this woman during the 2008 Primary. We knew this level of info about Romney’s grade school shenanigans minutes after he won his first Primary.

* “Three years later, Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness, but ultimately had decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex,” Garrow wrote.

I’m sorry: What?!! Who has ever resolved sexual confusion that way?

He’s just bullshitting his girlfriend there, trying to sound thoughtful by spewing what is obvious nonsense to anyone but him. Apparently with the young BHO, it was bullshit all the way down.

* Well, I guess it’s nice that the least vetted Presidential candidate in the modern era is finally getting a bit of attention. I wonder if there are any other interesting snippets in the book that might have been missed (i.e. deliberately ignored) by the reviewers?

The fact that the press never uncovered any of this either during the initial campaign or during eight years of his Presidency only provides further proof — as if we needed any — that they are duplicitous liars and slavish suck-ups when their guy is in power.

* He’s faker than most people realized. Picking a wife with which to have children as part of a staging effort in order to sell himself politically is as sociopathic as one can get. One didn’t have to linger long to be puzzled as to what he and his wife really had in common, she having wider shoulders than her thin effeminate husband. Nobody ‘considers gayness’ unless they’re already there to begin with. His body language with his male roommate in one of his well known photos is rather gay. Is there any question left anymore that he’s bi? Had Clinton won we’d have had two bisexuals in a row as president. What would that say about the state of the republic? It’s not likely he’ll put all this into his $60M book which is guaranteed to be a bore.

* I don’t see how Michelle’s affirmative action degree from Princeton adds any intellect to the Obama’s marriage. That she was an authentic American black was no doubt a positive factor for him, but I think that he is obviously smarter than Michelle was just as big a factor. A narcissist like Barack Obama is not going to want a wife who is his intellectual equal.

* “what’s the significance of the cocaine use…?”

Um, it’s a felony?

It would have derailed, disbarred and ash-canned any white or Republican candidate?

* It seems that Barak’s intersectional career was genetically empowered by his wide open nostrils being well-suited for comfortable hoovering of large quantities of clearly drawn white lines.

Malia O. is on a path of such Regression to The Mean Luo, that the whole new wing of Betty Ford Institute would be named after her.

* I wonder how the former First Lady feels about being a tool of political advancement and how she reacted when she figured it out.

* That might be one of the reasons she looks pi$$ed off so often.

* The significance of the cocaine use to me is that he was able to walk away from it. Of the four people I knew who used cocaine, all four destroyed their lives with it.

* Did he though?

The abrupt change in personality described by Miyoshi-Jager sounds like the mania brought on by a coke habit.

* Yeah, reading that passage, I conclude that Obama had already experienced very real gay inclinations — inclinations that almost certainly wouldn’t go away. He chose to be heterosexual because it’s more demanding? Yeah, that’s going to make his nerves jangle when he looks at a woman rather than a man. And I don’t exactly see marriage — least of all to Michelle — putting a damper on those inclinations. I can see a woman entertaining both homosexuality and heterosexuality, and choosing one rather deliberately — but not a man, whose sexual impulses are far more urgent.

The overall picture here is of a guy who decides, based on his long term plans, what he’s going to be — e.g., “heterosexual” or “black” — and lives out that life.

I have to wonder if one fine day we won’t hear about Obama’s long hidden love for another man. Or will he go full Liberace, in denial to the end?

I have to wonder as well how this is going to affect what looks to me to be the rather shaky marriage between Michelle and Barack. (What was Barack doing those several weeks alone in the South Pacific? In how many healthy marriages would that happen?) I don’t really see Michelle being the tolerant type who will put up with the disrespect that comes with being identified as a beard, especially in the black community.

* I think the qualities of emperor/leader you describe are very dependent on the homogeneity of the electorate. An electorate evenly split between cohorts of very different values give the opportunity for a government-by-decree, which is generally how Obama ruled.

The Supreme Court mandate on proportional representation put the lid on the coffin of real representative government. Proportional representation gives racial demagogues like Luis Gutiérrez, Keith Ellison, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee absolutely no reason to take any broad constituency other than blacks or Mexican self-identified nationals, into account.

If you have smaller, more geographically homogeneous countries, there can be better representation in the government, rather than simply an exchange of dictators.

* I think Steve’s interest in the precise month/year BHO took the LSAT is related to the obvious change in his personality, his “blossoming,” as it were. Steve has written on this subject before: since there’s no evidence that Obama’s grades at either Occidental or Columbia were anything to write home about, something other than sheer affirmative action must have gotten him into Harvard Law School. Someone else did cross-tabulations on admissions to Harvard Law School from Columbia in the relevant year, and found that two African-American applicants from Columbia to HLS scored in the top few percentile on the LSAT (maybe 95th+ percentile). Steve reasoned that BHO was likely one of those two.

Steve further concluded that upon receiving his (presumably) very high LSAT score, BHO underwent a personality transformation of sorts, finally realizing that that a world-class political career was within his reach. And of course, once he got to Harvard Law School, everyone else treated him like the Black Messiah, and starting thinking of him as a potential president. How many people in their twenties have the cold self-knowledge to take excessive flattery as just that, as opposed to believing the hype? BHO believed the hype. Acing the LSAT made him think of himself as an ubermensch.

Self-delusion? Maybe. But how many countries have you been president of?

Posted in Barack Obama | Comments Off on WP: ‘Before Michelle, Barack Obama asked another woman to marry him. Then politics got in the way.’

Venerating Havoc – Academia and the media have learned nothing in the 25 years since the L.A. riots

Heather Mac Donald writes: Another five-year anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, another opportunity for media glorification of racial mayhem. The New York Times outdoes itself this year with a fawning profile of one of the sadists who stomped and bludgeoned trucker Reginald Denny nearly to death on April 29, 1992, as Denny tried to maneuver his truck through the already anarchic intersection of Florence and Normandie in South Central Los Angeles.
Henry Keith Watson, an ex-con who had just assaulted an Asian man, stood on Reginald Denny’s neck and head as others kicked him. Watson never served any time for his participation in this grotesque explosion of racial hatred. The Times notes admiringly that Watson apologized to Denny on a talk show.
That forced contrition—an apology was a condition of his probation sentence as well—was short-lived. “Now, 25 years later, Mr. Watson is not in the mood to say sorry,” Times reporter Jennifer Medina writes. Of course not. Why should he be? Watson “called himself ‘an angry black man’ one afternoon this week as he sat on the porch of his home,” Medina reports. “As he has done each anniversary, he is selling Florence and Normandie T-shirts and throwing a block party on Saturday”—a natural way to commemorate a conflagration that took over 50 lives and caused an estimated $1 billion in property damage. The Times does not bother speaking to any of the thousands of victims of that racial mayhem, instead foregrounding Watson’s complaints about ongoing “oppression.” “Nothing has changed, nothing,” Watson grouses. A friend of Watson’s, Nathan Smith, who was on parole in 1992, predicts that another riot is likely. Back then, Smith says, “We all felt like, ‘We’ve been telling you we’re angry and you’re not listening, so now we’re going to show you.” “Showing you” consisted of burning down businesses that have struggled to survive constant robberies and assaults on their employees and have only succeeded due to a fierce work ethic. “Showing you” also consisted of pulling drivers from their cars and mutilating them. Even if there were some legitimate “you” that is responsible for the social chaos of the ghetto, it is certainly not a Korean convenience store owner or a construction worker returning from work.
The familiar “nothing has changed” complaint embodies the entitlement mentality. Its logic is the following: “We destroy the businesses that have served us for decades; we unleash savage violence against every ethnic group other than our own. So why aren’t things better now in our neighborhoods? Government and society owe us reparations in response to our feral rage against other people’s livelihoods and lives.” But a riot is inevitably going to make the local situation worse. Mainstream businesses will be even less willing to move into a riot zone; property values, already depressed by high crime, will plummet further. Though governments usually do respond to riots with cash and programs, such intervention is not going to make any difference unless individuals in the community make better personal choices: paying attention in class, doing homework, not committing crime, staying in a job, and not having children out-of-wedlock.
The University of California’s massive diversity bureaucracy also got into the game of riot whitewash. UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Jerry Kang, is sponsoring a student art competition to commemorate the “social rebellion.” Students can submit performance art, poetry, or visual art to “critically examine the root causes of this historic event . . . and its relevance to contemporary issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Do not expect any installations featuring the charred remains of torched business. To gain “inspiration” for their art works, the competitors had to attend at least one panel in an April 28 conference on the “Los Angeles uprisings,” also organized by the Vice Chancellor of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. That conference assembled ethnic studies professors and racial activists; no first responders were included.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on Venerating Havoc – Academia and the media have learned nothing in the 25 years since the L.A. riots

The End of the Australian Dream?

Lisa Pryor writes for the New York Times Op/Ed page:

SYDNEY, Australia — Let me tell you a fairy tale called Australia. Despite what you may have heard about snakes and spiders and sharks, the remarkable thing about Australia is not its danger but its safety. At its best, this is a peaceful nation, with health care and education for almost everyone, that has enjoyed over the past two decades the longest period of economic expansion of any developed country in modern history. Our cities are regularly judged to be among the most livable in the world.

But we are in danger of stuffing it up, which is an Australian way of saying we may be ruining it all.

In the past 20 years, Australia has become a nation where getting ahead is a national obsession, partly because we have come to expect a world where the natural course of events is to become a little bit richer each year. The winnings of our repeated economic booms have been squandered on inflationary policies that fuel the rat race.

What we are discovering is that when you have a nation full of people trying to get to the top, eventually most of the population is forced to run just to keep up. Our enviable quality of life is at risk.

Consider what has happened with the housing market, Australia being a country where real estate is not just a place to live but a ticket to prosperity and a statement of taste and values.

Generous tax breaks for homeowners and real estate investors have fueled the market to the point where the median price of a house in Sydney, our largest metropolis, is $1.1 million Australian dollars, or about $824,000. An entire genre of newspaper writing is dedicated to telling Australians what they could buy for the same money in other parts of the world — a small chateau in the South of France, even an apartment in Manhattan, for the price of an ugly brick house 40 minutes’ drive from the center of the city. We watch shows like “Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles” and laugh.

So even though Australians do not have to put aside many hundreds of thousands of dollars for college degrees, or tens of thousands of dollars for health insurance, we are still in huge debt through our mortgages. Australia has some of the highest household debt in the world, especially if you compare our debt to our incomes and G.D.P. We are poised for disaster if there is a serious economic downturn.

Even for those lucky enough to own their own home, there is a fool’s-gold feel to this property boom. After all, if you own a three-bedroom house five miles from the city and it increases in value by 50 percent, that means you still have only enough money to buy a three-bedroom house five miles from the city. This is not so much rising wealth as glorified inflation.

And for those who are not owners? The property boom is dividing the nation along lines of age and class. For young people, property prices represent dashed hopes and a looming intergenerational battle.

Steve Sailer writes:

Of course, the text string “migra” doesn’t appear anywhere in this piece.

Australia has a policy against low-skilled immigration, so it still has a more prosperous native blue collar class than the U.S., but it encourages high skill immigration. This is less self-destructive than the U.S. policy, but it has obvious effects like squeezing younger natives out of the home-buying class.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It [high-skilled immigration] is actually more destructive, inasmuch as it more effectively wrests control of the country from the native people and places it into the hands of a hostile elite. It much more akin to an overthrow or to conquest. (And hostile elites are more likely to open the flood gates to low-skilled immigration anyway.)

* Does Australia have a lot of foreigners parking their money in Aussie real estate for fun and profit?

* When is the average Westerner going to realize that mass immigration only benefits the wealthiest few while making life worse on average for everybody else? Australia was doing great before nonwhite immigration. Why did the population let those in power start to ruin such a nice and pleasant country.

* Mainland Chinese are driving prices to the moon in the 5 mainland Capitals, and Canberra.
Australian’s standard of living was pretty ordinary until the MidSixties.
The Whitlam socialist Government elected in 1972 removed protective Tariffs without warning or consultation, destroying the local Textile, Footwear and Clothing industries, and Britain’s entry into the ECM devastated farming.
Since Capital Gains Tax is exempted on one’s ”principal place of residence”, Australians’ main Industry, unless you’re either Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, or Xstrata, is buying and selling houses in the capital cities for profit.

* I’m always nervous of the already high and growing numbers of Han Chinese in Australia and New Zealand even more so with a resurgent China. Given their high numbers they will dominate in universities and universities push the social agenda. New Zealand is even worse because there is comparatively fewer ethnic groups there, making the Chinese more prominent. Could there be a prominent ethnic Chinese party one day? Or maybe a lot of Han MPs in one or the other. Then there is the question of a popular revolt or CCP purge leading to a mass exodus of Han oligarchs (Above what we’re already seeing) to those countries establishing significant wealth and political influence.

You could imagine large amounts of state assets being privatised or agricultural land being sold to China. If and when the sun sets on American military hegemony, Australia and New Zealand are a long way from the core of the West.

* Real estate price inflation has more to do with the lack of capital controls than immigration. And the ultimate cause is the lack of or insufficient land value taxation coupled with higher taxation on other things.

Domestic elites are wealthy people who own lots of real estate and other assets, and thus have an incentive to promote capital inflows that inflate their portfolios.

If the right-wing really wants to shut down immigration and capital flows, they should organize and push for land value taxation. Domestic elites will never tolerate significant land value taxation, as the lack of significant land value taxation is the ultimate source of their wealth and power over the rest of society. But if faced with the prospect of land value taxation, domestic elites will allow for immigration and capital controls to placate the populace and to prevent the land value tax and thus protect their rents and wealth.

* Wander through Melbourne and Sydney, the incipient Chinese colonies. Where does one find “tall poppy syndrome”? Where is the “mateship”? The media has had us sell our posterity for among other things, ethnic restaurants, aka a mess of pottage.

* Go to a capital city and try to catch a taxi with white Australia driver. Taxi driving is obviously an extremely highly skilled position.

* I recently moved from Wolli Creek, a suburb of Sydney about ten kilometres from the Sydney CBD. It is not completely representative of Sydney suburbia, being mostly built on reclaimed industrial land and largely comprising modern high-rise apartments. Two bedroom apartments sell for around $A800,000. There are several real estate agents in the immediate area and most of their marketing efforts are in Chinese. Marketing in English is very limited. My estimate of the ethnic make up of the area is that maybe ten percent of the residents are native Australians and probably sixty percent Asians, mostly Chinese, with some Thais and Japanese. The balance seem to be mainly younger white renters from England, Ireland and Eastern Europe. I think apartment owners would skew more heavily Chinese with most of the apartments being sold off the plan in Shanghai before anyone in Australia even knows about them.
From time to time the mainstream press raises the heretical thought that maybe allowing the richest twenty million Chinese to outbid young Aussies for Australian houses isn’t good for social harmony, but this never gets much traction, maybe because real estate advertising seems to be all that’s saving most newspapers from going broke.

* From the 1850s to the 1890s Australians’ standard of living (per capita GDP) was the highest in the world (few people, a lot of gold, wool and wheat).

It then declined modestly and for nearly the whole of the 20th century was around 80 per cent of the US level. On the back of strong Chinese demand for raw materials (we export massive amounts of iron ore and coal to them) it recovered from the 1990s and has been quite close to the US level (occasionally higher, mostly a little lower) since the early 21st century.

* …and when the SHTF Down Under, the disarmed white Australians will be powerless to do anything about it.

* Chinese buyers mostly, looking to park their ill-gotten gains in a country with the rule of law, good schools and clean air.

* If AUS/NZ want to get a glimpse of the future, they would do well to study the regions of San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver. Those cities are choc full of Asian money causing real estate speculative bubbles likely far worse than in Sydney. The problem with allowing Asia’s elite to squirrel its money into getaway homes in North America is that this same elite won’t stay behind in Asia to fight for a civil society there, or help with general quality of life issues for the middle class. These fleeing Asian elites are either profiting from their homeland government’s corruption, and are simply quasi-fugitives, or they are devoid of noblesse oblige – with no regard for giving back to their lessers & societies. It simply looks like Universal altruism, or even regional altruism is a quaint outdated western notion. The winners from Globalism are increasingly just locusts. While many of these Asian expats may be ‘proud of their heritage’ – that is a just pose to conceal their raw materialism.

* I realised a some years ago, returning to Sydney after having lived and worked elsewhere, that the local property market was for two-income couples who weren’t afraid of taking on a mountain of debt.

Being single, and a person for whom debt is a four-letter word, I had neither the chance nor the desire to buy into the market.

It was a shock to see the average price of houses in Earlwood, where while I was an undergrad I used to visit a girlfriend at her parents’ house, pass $1 million. Then the average valuation for houses in my parents’ suburb, not far away and in a seriously unloved part of Sydney, surpassed $1 million.

While at my job in Sydney about four years ago, I was asked to write a research piece on Australian property prices. In my research, I read somewhere that a contemporaneous survey taken in China revealed that something like 400 million of China’s new middle class would like to come and live in Australia.

It’s very real, and it’s a tremendously sobering statistic, given that our total population is about 5 per cent of that. The demand for Australian housing out of China is immense, the buyers are price-insensitive – they just want to get their money, and if possible their kids, out of the world-historical ponzi scheme and political prison camp that is modern China – and the Australian elite, both politicians and developers, realise that, at current prices, the money flowing in from China is the only thing holding the insanely-leveraged price structure up. All the powerful interest groups have an interest in keeping the inflation game going. Only the kids are appalled at it, but they don’t have voice.

Other causes of the catastrophe are government land-release policies aimed at minimising land-release for housing development, in order to maximise government revenues (massive moral hazard here), and the Reserve Bank’s having taken house prices out of the measure of consumer prices in 1998 in favour of a more theoretically-pure measure of cost of housing services, so that for 19 years massive rises in house prices have occasioned no tightening response from monetary policy.

“Australia has a policy against low-skilled immigration, so it still has a more prosperous native blue collar class than the U.S., but it encourages high skill immigration. This is less self-destructive than the U.S. policy, but it has obvious effects like squeezing younger natives out of the home-buying class.”

The anger about this among young people is white hot. Having been required to pay many thousands for their university educations, they are thrown into competition in the job market and the housing market with what looks like an endless supply of foreign workers brought to Australia by the elite to keep effective demand up and wages down. They are really, really pissed off, and yet the elite are refusing to change course. This should sound familiar!

* The US & Europe have immigration policy akin to jumping behind the wheel of a car and putting your foot to the floor driving as fast possible towards a cliff. Probably while knocking back copious amounts of vodka.

Australian immigration policy is more like getting behind the wheel, wearing a seatbelt and sipping low alcohol beer and driving at a sedate 50 mph – towards a cliff.

* I wonder why money from booming China flees to boring whitebread Oz/NZ/US/Europe and not the other way around?

* Australia’s net migration per capita rate is among the highest in the world. There are few countries that exceed Australia’s net migration per capita and they don’t include the USA or most countries in Europe. Australia’s rate is three times that of the USA’s.

To use your analogy, what Australia is doing is like strapping JATO rockets to your car and aiming it at a cliff. “What is it like to be a Tibetan in Tibet, or Dutch in Formosa (Taiwan), deep in the orbit of China? Well hop in, why don’t we find out!” – Australia’s politicians maniacally cackle out the window.

* What is often ignored is that the West is often not absorbing the “cream” of the developing world w/ investor class immigrants. We are simply absorbing the fugitive beneficiaries of a Globalist sweat shop orgy. These folks are just fleeing a nest they fouled in an industrialization free of pollution controls or labor standards . The negative externalities of China’s denuded landscape, poisoned rivers & smog are simply left to the plebs to choke on. We will see a lot more of this as the plutocrat veneers of other 3rd world countries try to bail out & take refuge in little Western pockets they will try to colonize. The lack of noblesse oblige in the 3rd world ruling elite, leads to even more migratory pressure into the 1st world later. Bottom line: immigration should be restricted across the board.

* Australia is under attack from financialization, globalization and mass immigration. When civil war breaks out in Australia, I hope the patriotic Australians will have the fighting spirit of the Australians who stopped the Japanese Empire in Papua New Guinea on the famous Kokoda trail.

Historians will look back and say the Australian Civil War era started with the Battle of Cronulla in 2005. The Battle of Cronulla was started by the interloper immigrants who presumed to sully the honor of the Australian beach babes. The culture clash brought on by mass immigration and multiculturalism created the conditions for the Battle of Cronulla.

Australian men had inculcated within themselves a method of superb nonchalance and stoic reserve while admiring their beautiful Australian females while at the beach. Pretty soon the beautiful Australian women were wearing next to nothing in the way of bathing suits. This was a wonderful thing that allowed the men to appreciate the gals and the ladies to show off in a highly civilized manner. Then the Muslims showed up. All was torn asunder. Darkness descended across the beach.

Muslims brought to Australia by the destructive policy of mass immigration started to dishonor the beautiful Australian females at Cronulla Beach. The proud and brave Australian men would not tolerate for one second their beautiful women to be mistreated by the Muslim marauders just because they were wearing skimpy attire on the beach. Battles broke out between the patriotic Australian men and the Muslim Misogynists.

The Battle of Cronulla will be refought again and again until such time that patriotic Australians can one day regain control of their beautiful country.

* Australian from Perth here. The migration system here is loose, and its focus on ‘high skills’ is easily rorted. I could go a whole year without being served petrol at a Servo by anybody who wasn’t Indian; they also seem to drive all the taxis; backpackers from Europe and elsewhere pick all the fruit. A generous welfare system means that the Australian born aren’t interest in low-paid jobs on the whole.

Australia’s isolation from other European countries means that there is a still a consensus in favour of an increasing population; if we don’t fill up this country, other people will. Populate or Perish!

The one saving grace of Australia’s immigration programme is that it’s not all from one place – it’s not all Mexicans (USA), Moroccans (Netherlands) or Pakistanis (UK); so such urban ghettos as exist are relatively small and transitory. I say relatively; I wouldn’t want to be a scantily-clad white woman in Lakemba (suburb of Sydney) at night. But most immigration communities eventually seem to blend in.

Plenty of migrants to Australia are also still from traditional sources such as the UK, NZ and Europe; and there are welcome new sources all the time. In the last year for instance, I’ve noticed a large number of middle-class South Americans in my city, particularly Brazilians.

I’d say almost all Aussies are pretty cool with Chinese immigration these days – there is a high rate of inter-marriage and cultural assimilation; property price inflation is limited to 2 cities only: Sydney and Melbourne. The rest of the country would probably welcome foreign real estate investment.

While Muslims are growing in number, they are a small minority of migrants. Of course they are grossly-over-represented in the media: no reality TV show is complete without a hijab-clad woman participant. This kind of tokenism is quite new; nobody in TV or the movies ever bothered for instance to ensure that the native Aboriginal population was similarly represented.

Notwithstanding widespread misgivings about the growth of the Muslim community in Australia, I don’t foresee those misgivings being transformed into any large scale public opposition to the legal immigration system in the future.

A return to White Australia (or some form of it) would be politically unpalatable, and Aussies wouldn’t welcome the international opprobrium that might bring.

In a dangerous world, Australia is still gingerly trying to pursue the goal of an increased population, for its own economic advancement and political security, without surrendering its culture. There have been a few mistakes (the Lebanese Muslims in the 1970s; the Sudanese refugees in the 1990s) but on the whole, provided illegal immigration is kept in check, the public seem to trust the government to administer this programme. For the moment.

* Alt-right logic dictates that if a country is corrupt, it’s because its people are corrupt (defective genes or whatever.) Hence Chinese should be barred from immigrating to countries that aren’t so corrupt lest they reduce those countries to vile situations of the kind found in Middle China.

* The Chinese mostly vote for the Australian Labor Party and The Greens. Since those parties are now only 1 seat [out of 150] short of governing Australia again, the floodgates are likely to fall off the hinges shortly.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on The End of the Australian Dream?