Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Schadenfreude: I was struck with the feeling of schadenfreude once again as I read Peter Brimelow's piece about the New York Times smear. He cited Ed Rubenstein's finding that John McCain would have won the election if America's racial balance as of 1976 had not changed. Oh, the delicious contemplation of McCain slowly slitting his own throat over the past three decades.

Bill O'Reilly is at times a bit annoying, but he is on fire since the Times suggested that folks like him and the writers at VDARE are white supremacists. They've gotten his Irish up, and unlike so many men these days, he's not going to lick boots and shut up about illegal immigration.

He is exactly right that the NYT writes this kind of trash in order to make it easier for the Left to turn America into a one-party country. Reilly is a good example for all the women with penises. When someone calls you a racist, don't apologize and volunteer for sensitivity training. Fight back.

This is a prime opportunity for immigration restrictionists. Times are getting tough. Jobs are disappearing at half a million a month. The limited numbers of jobs we have should go to Americans. We need to open up more spots by sending the illegals packing. We can't afford to have all those wages sent to relatives in Mexico. The generosity must end. Americans first. The Open Borders Crowd doesn't give a damn about ordinary Americans, but we do.

29 comments:

Jewish Atheist said...

Here's the thing I don't get. O'Reilly is obviously a white supremacist. There's video of him talking about how the U.S. has a white, Christian male power structure and how he wants it to stay that way. Brimelow doesn't pretend to hide his desire that America remain majority white. That's textbook. I mean that's what white supremacism is, right?

Why do people like him and Brimelow get all up in arms when other people just tell the truth? If you don't like being a white supremacist, maybe you shouldn't be one.

Jokah Macpherson said...

"Why do people like him and Brimelow get all up in arms when other people just tell the truth?"

Because being well-liked is more fun and useful than accepting truthful labels that make people hate you.

It's just pragmatism. Successful politicians are masters at it.

Anonymous said...

whats wrong with a desire for the US to remain majority white JA?


Would you like to see Israel become majority Somolian?

Me either.



White people, whether you like it or not, built America and were 90% of its populace as recently as 1965.



Wanting America to stay majority white does not mean you support the KKK or something. I for one, miss the country I grew up in. I think there should be a 20 year moratorium on immigration just to assimilate fully what we have now.

Blode032222 said...

Wikipedia's definition seems serviceable to me:
White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other racial groups. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance of whites.

The first part makes it clear that one can't be a white supremacist unless one believes in a universal frame of reference. I have seen zero evidence that Brimelow believes in a universal frame of reference.

If one doesn't believe in a universal frame of reference, preference for one's own kind would be a simple matter of taste and predilection. It is considered acceptable for all groups other than whites to prefer their own kind. You can have a double-standard or not, it is your choice.

The second part is okay but it doesn't define "dominance". If dominance means "having the power to outvote other groups" then yeah, anyone who wants America to remain demographically as is "supports white dominance". Just as anyone who accepts that there are more female voters than males "supports female dominance". So an overbroad usage of "dominance" leads to a weak definition of "white supremacist".

If "dominance" means having "disproportional or exclusive power", this again doesn't apply to Brimelow unless you can point to anywhere you've seen him advocate racial qualifications for voting rights, or something like that.

And, of course, if "dominance" means demanding that the political system put its thumb on the scale in favor of your ethnic group, then pretty much everyone but VDare, Ward Connerly, and the like is a black-and-Hispanic supremacist.

(As to Bill O'Reilly, he is just a guy who interrupts his guests. I know nothing of him except about five uninformative minutes of two or three of his shows.)

Now then, it's question time. If a Japanese politician advocates immigration restrictions, does that make him a Japanese supremacist?

Last question: Which ethnic groups are allowed to openly advocate for their own interests? And for which ethnic groups does such advocacy equate to "supremacism"?

Vanishing American said...

The term 'White supremacist' has become a weapon with which the politically correct discredit and silence anyone who attempts to defend or advance the interests of their own people, the historic White majority of America.
If O'Reilly says that this country had a White, Christian male power structure, or has until recent years, that is nothing more sinister than a statement of fact. Yet suddenly this is supposed to be a condemnation of O'Reilly.
The Founding Fathers of this country referred to the homogeneous White (English) Christian origin of the country, which is fact.

Nobody seems to object to China remaining Chinese or Nigeria remaining black; why is it worthy of condemnation to want America to remain a majority White country? When did we make it Holy Writ that this country must be 'diverse' or 'a nation of immigrants"? It seems to me that the Founding Fathers never said a word to that effect. Those dubious ideas are of very recent coinage and origin.

togo said...

Using JA's definition of "supremacist" Israel is a Jewish Supremacist state since it wants to remain majority Jewish.

Jewish Atheist said...

whats wrong with a desire for the US to remain majority white JA?

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that Brimelow and O'Reilly are what the NYT says they are.

Using JA's definition of "supremacist" Israel is a Jewish Supremacist state since it wants to remain majority Jewish.

I think it matters WHY a person wants a country to remain majority X. O'Reilly and Brimelow, I think, want America to remain majority white because they think whites are better or make for a better country or something. If I'm wrong, then I'd agree that they are not supremacists.

In contrast, Israel wants to remain majority Jewish to remain a safe haven for Jews -- it's not that they think other races are inherently inferior or something.

RobertHume said...

You don't have to believe that your race is better than another race to want to see mostly your own race as you go about your daily routine.

I think Chinese have higher IQ's than whites, but I would much prefer to live in the US with white people than if the whites were replaced with Chinese.

I'm sure most Chinese would not want their population, except for themselves, to be replaced by whites with the IQs of Newton and Adam Smith.

We see quite clearly in Africa that blacks would rather live in poverty with their own on top, than to live a comfortable life with whites and Asians on top.

Sociologists have shown that diversity breeds anomie. I prefer to have a calm mind.

wongba said...

roberthume said: "We see quite clearly in Africa that blacks would rather live in poverty with their own on top, than to live a comfortable life with whites and Asians on top."

that's amazing. u call colonialism and apartheid comfortable? yes, zimbabwe and sa had less crime/disease, but surely u can't believe living ur entire life as a second class citizen w/o the same rights that others enjoy is something comfortable. yes, quality of life dropped precipitously, but it's not like they were living on cloud 9 before their own took over.

a jail cell could be comfortable too if u're gonna use that frame of reference.

Anonymous said...

I surmise that RobertHume picked "comfortable" deliberately. I'm sure if you asked a wealthy European burgher if his life was comfortable (economically and with respect to crime, etc.), he'd answer in the affirmative even during the era in which burghers were excluded from political power (i.e., blocked from becoming legislators, high-ranking military officers, or senior civil servants). Does he want more political power? Sure. Would he rather risk mob rule to get it, or stay with the status quo? Probably the latter (although the more Machiavellian sort of democrat would not that he could be converted to democratism if he could be convinced that mob rule would not be the result).

Comfort has nothing to do with political rights. It has to do with freedom from fear of violence, economic liberty, the ability of communities to maintain their traditions, etc.

Anonymous said...

JA,

So a Somali majority would prevent Israel from being a safe haven for Jews?

If Palestinians all became Jewish and they Palestinians became the majority in Israel, you wouldn't mind?

Anonymous said...

Carlos Slim lent the New York Times 250 million at 14% interest folks.


He's getting the editorial content he paid for, hence the comic editorial about "nativist".



Of course high IQ whites will make a better country than low IQ-Somalis and low IQ Aztecs. Gimme a break. IF that wasn't the case, Equitorial Guinea would have been a tropical paradise, but its obviously not.

Jewish Atheist said...

So a Somali majority would prevent Israel from being a safe haven for Jews?

Beats me. I think Israel's more scared of the Palestinians.

If Palestinians all became Jewish and they Palestinians became the majority in Israel, you wouldn't mind?

Wait, how did I get into this? I was talking about what Israel wants, not what I want. But yeah, if the Palestinians all because legitimately Jewish (rather than faking it) I'm sure Israel wouldn't mind if they became the majority.

It's really not about race, at least not for most of them. One would have thought that the people who read this blog would at least be aware that "Jewish" is not a race. Especially in Israel, where a huge percent of the Jews are Sephardi, which is basically a different ethnicity than Ashkenazi Jews.

luis said...

Answer this:

The following is mostly based on what I read from the third poster down.
OK: Let's say in the future there's some type of moratorium on immigration, there's a big crackdown on illegals, and full assimilation becomes the goal, with the basis that this is a "White Christian nation". What would happen to the legal, native born non-whites? This is a question the purists always seem to sidestep. I know this seems like a slippery-slope, but if a white Christian America is encouraged, I can't help but thinking this would become like Japan, where the "gaijin" is basically treated as a seperate species and perceived as less capable in virutally all areas. But Japan has been inhabited by Japanese for centuries. The U.S. has never been as homogenous as Japan, and unless draconian measures are taken, it never will be.

Anonymous said...

"One would have thought that the people who read this blog would at least be aware that "Jewish" is not a race. Especially in Israel, where a huge percent of the Jews are Sephardi, which is basically a different ethnicity than Ashkenazi Jews."

The last sort of person I'd have thought likely to feel this is way would be a Jewish atheist. I used to say "obviously Jews are a religion - the ethnicity is "Semites"." But if you can be a Jewish atheist, then Jewishness is not a religion. (So far so good, Judaism is the name of the religion and Jewishness is something subtly different.) But we've also had it asserted that "Jewish" is not race. No problem there, if Arabs are white (and some feel they are), as well as most Egyptians, etc.), then Jews certainly are.

Nationality is obviously out, though it obviously applied in ancient times (and would again if - hypothetically - all Jews were Zionists and got on the plane). Which leaves ethnicity ... "Jewish" is obviously an ethnicity. But we've had it asserted that there are at least two ethnic groups within the Jewish group (the Mizrahim would possibly constitute a third). Would this make Jews a "superethnicity" (not in the sense of a "master ethnicity" but in the sense of a superset)?

I suppose if the demographers and historians were to sit down and figure out what (not who - that is obvious) the Jews are, they would probably settle on something like "quasi-religious multiregional kinship group". Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt anyone would memorize it.

It would probably be better to adopt a more nuanced idea of ethnic groups in which supersets can still be ethnic groups, though it still won't keep the lumpers and splitters from shouting at each other.

Blode032222 said...

I'll have a whack at your question, Luis.

Not everyone who wants to restrict immigration has the same goals. (Bears repeating.) I can only speculate what would happen if the "white Christian nation" types had their way. There may be a few who would want to apply affirmative action in the other direction or whatever, though I don't know of any.

The separatist types would of course want to allow communities to be monoethnic, though again I don't know of any who would want to ban black communities from excluding while also wanting to allow white communities to exclude whites. I have heard murmurings from some less articulate types about kicking out all the non-whites from the whole country but I haven't discovered a real leader among them.

Generally separatists make a couple of important points:
(a) Their policies are no different from Malcolm X's except with the races shifted.
(b) There is no conceivable way everyone can have complete freedom to live wherever they want - even if there were an infinite amount of land. The shining cities of civilization attract people from everywhere - you don't like tourists, you have to move away or put up. (This may explain why Parisian have such a reputation for nastiness.) If the First Amendment means you have the right to play your stereo as loud as you want (IMHO, it does not), then no one has the right to silence anywhere.

The only detailed separatist plans I've seen don't give black areas any less rights than white areas - they don't even prohibit mixed-race areas. I'm thinking of Michael Hart's proposal, among others.

As to the thornier issue of whether the out-group in the proposed monoethnic regions could be forced to leave or not, I'm sure it varies from plan to plan. A happy medium might be - they wouldn't be forced to leave, but would have no right to bring their families in. Furthermore, advocates of white homelands are often also rightist enough that they would abolish the welfare programs that encourage large families. Some also support anti-miscegenation laws.

As to the Christian part, I don't think supporting the Ten Commandments or fighting evolution in schools would really hurt nonwhites any more than whites. Smashing gay marriage and pushing folks in the closet would appeal to more Latinos and blacks than whites, at least if the recent California vote is an indication. So the Christian angle is pretty much orthogonal to the ethnic thing.

Blode032222 said...

My druthers are not strictly apropos since I don't consider myself a purist, but I'll answer from my perspective since I studiously avoided doing so in the last post. I'm like Steve Sailer, more or less, a citizenist.

First, I am not the slightest bit shy about criticizing minority groups. If culture is the cause of crime, unemployment, and fatherlessness, then the groups where those things are common need to change their culture (full assimilation) or keep it out of everyone else's way (separatism). The idea that racism is the cause of these groups is founded on a notion I find preposterous: the "sticks and stones may break bones but names are actually important" thesis. The groups with the best collective behavior get the short end of the interracial stick. Interracial crime, affirmative action, self-esteem ... the system treats blacks and Latinos better than whites and Asian in ever way that can actually be measured.

Second, I don't think white nationalist and white separatists are pariahs. (I don't agree that they are anything like neo-Nazis or racial supremacists or mystics or any of that.) Unlike several noted pro-black groups, WNs and separatists don't advocate lower standards for their own people. Unlike several notable black leaders, they don't advocate violence or make use of "any means necessary". I disagree with them on a number of points; I see assimilation or separatism as a logical choice.

Third, I don't think preserving race and preserving culture are the same thing. I want to make massive cuts in immigration but the immigrants we do let in don't have to be from any particular race. Ilana Mercer identifies a couple of very small visa programs she accepts and I largely agree with her - immigrants who come here to invest, work, learn, etc., are welcome. I also agree that the welfare state produces exactly the opposite, at least after the first generation.

Basically, I think the who multi-ethnic America could have worked had a couple of minority groups (subgroups, actually, in the case of Hispanics, in view of how different Cubans and Chicanos are) been willing to play by the same rules everyone else does. Modern leftism is so racialized that the rules are never the same, and the centralizers (Supreme Court leftists) have made sure those rules are applied everywhere.

It's not entirely the minorities' fault; white politicians and university people have been all too willing to make up weird excuses for why minorities fail to thrive. Some of these explanations are bogus because they use real disadvantages to explain failures that haven't happened (i.e., Japanese folks were sent to internment camps in '42, which is why Japanese folks can't get jobs or go to school??) Other explanations fail because they explain real failures with disadvantages that don't exist (i.e., blacks suffer unemployment, crime, and dropping out because they have lower self-esteem ... since the surveys don't back this up at all, I can only surmise that someone somewhere knows a whole bunch of shoegazing black teenagers who write sad songs about how guilty they are and how they feel invisible...?)

So there you have it. If we didn't make up excuses for the cultures that prime their people for failure, we could see all this. It's sad that there are so few citizenists around, advocating color-blind government while also calling a spade a spade when it comes to the culture of poverty, but that's how it is.

Blode032222 said...

Per the GSS, whites and blacks are quite similar when it comes to feeling worthless. Slightly more blacks than whites (2% versus 1.4%) felt worthless all the time, but more whites felt worthless all or most of the time (4% versus 2.6%). Slightly more blacks never felt worthless (80.5 vs. 78.6%).

Other groups (Asian, Hispanics, etc.) tended to feel worthless more often (only 70% never felt worthless at all).

Anonymous said...

For more on black self-esteem, Google:
measuring "black self-esteem"

It's interesting to see that hardly anyone denies that blacks have greater self-esteem, but a lot of people want to explain why it doesn't really matter too much. Extremely ad hoc, and it again leaves the left with no way to explain what is the vector by which rude words about black people cause blacks to drop out of college.

Also note how genteel some can be in handling what is basically a whopping, partisan urban legend. "Another popular explanation of black crime is low self-esteem caused by white, but the boundary condition in this explanation appears to be a non-fact." That's the way Bernard R. Boxill puts it in a footnote in Race and Racism (p. 170).

-Blode0322

Audacious Epigone said...

JA and Jokah,

You're both confusing white supremacism with white nationalism. Blode's first comment essentially explains the difference. Those of European descent are unique in that such a large portion of their members do not (publicly) think in ethnic or racial terms. Many Jews fear ethnic nationalism, in my view largely for historical reasons that aren't relevant today, at least among developed majority-white countries.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

OK: Let's say in the future there's some type of moratorium on immigration, there's a big crackdown on illegals, and full assimilation becomes the goal, with the basis that this is a "White Christian nation". What would happen to the legal, native born non-whites?

WNs/HBDers/Race Realists, whatever they call themselves, have a wide variety of opinion on what to do with Nonwhites already here.

But there is a strong consensus among prowhites that we are in a hole and need to stop digging, ie, we need to end immigration illegal and legal, deport the illegal immigrants, build a fence and then see where we are.

For what it's worth, I would have an immigration system similar to East Asia's. In countries such as Japan it is almost impossible to get citizenship in Japan unless you are ethnically Japanese.

However, Japan has no problem being generous with tourist visas, some work visas, visas for scientific researchers, investors, visas for businessmen who are not ethnically Japanese for long periods of time.

People of high productive value - especially from Europe or other parts of Asia - can go to Japan if they can show they will be beneficial during their stay. It's just very hard to get citizenship rights unless you are racially Japanese.

Similarly, for America I would restrict citizenship to Whites only but allow a large number of high IQ nonwhites to stay for extended periods of time in the US if we thought they had something useful to contribute. I just would be highly restrictive in offering actual citizenship to high IQ nonwhites.

At least that's my two cents.

Blode032222 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In contrast, Israel wants to remain majority Jewish to remain a safe haven for Jews -- it's not that they think other races are inherently inferior or something.

Many WNs would like America to be a haven for whites, a country they can call their own in which their race can live potentially permanently without being bred out of existence by other incompatible races. Is this wrong or evil? If so, why?

And you're either ignorant or lying about Jewish religious beliefs about other peoples. They most certainly consider themselves superior.

Anonymous said...

Undiscovered Jew and Blode (Mencius?), why don't you ever criticize arrogant Jewish obscurantists like "Jewish Atheist" as Jews? You must know very well by now that not every "judeoskeptic" (let's call them) is a frothing killsixmillionjews anit-semite (wishing for the heads of Jews-through-and-through like Rahm Emmanuel to roll isn't killsixmillionism in my book). So why the reticence?

Blode032222 said...

Anonymous 6:23 AM -

That is a fair question, I think, but I honestly don't know what it mean to criticize Jews as Jews. I'm not trying to play dumb or anything. Let me audition a couple of statements and evaluate them:

"Far too many Jews today advocate polices that hurt whites and Western civilization (affirmative action, multicult, dumbed-down education). Worse than the policies are the countless misrepresentations of reality, in which black-on-white crime is ignored, while white-on-black crime is blown out of proportion or created out of whole cloth. These misrepresentations are not exclusively the fault of Jews, but when Jews use memories of Nazi-perpetrated mass murder to shield themselves for criticism, that is appallingly unethical, and it needs to be rejected wholesale."

I agree with the above statement. (Note that it is true whether or not you regard Jews as whites, which I consider a matter of opinion.) Does that count as criticizing Jews as Jews? How about:

"There is something inherent about Jews that causes them to adopt anti-white, anti-civilization leftist policies. People of Jewish descent cannot live in, or even tolerate, a successful, stable white community."

I disagree with that statement. I am not saying the statement is tantamount to killing anyone. I just don't really believe it. I've gotten plenty of daggers in the back for being a *boo hiss* conservative, but they've all come from gentiles (generally family or the group of friends I severed ties with about two years ago).

Some of the straightest talk I've heard about left vs. right issues came from an Orthodox Jew. Almost of all of the bitterest, most demoralizing, most anti-white political correctness has come from white gentiles (specifically, young, cheerful, "liberal" white gentiles). In that environment it is hard for me to see why Jewishness is such a big deal.

I hope that answers your question. If it has obscured things, my bad.

(BTW, I'm not Mencius Moldbug. I've read his blog a lot but I got bored recently. I agree with him on his analysis of leftist methods; I'm ambivalent about his description of the Puritan origins of leftism; I disagree with his patchwork solution; I mildly kind of sort of favor his Restore the Stuarts suggestion (though I know it is a pipe dream.)

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Undiscovered Jew and Blode (Mencius?), why don't you ever criticize arrogant Jewish obscurantists like "Jewish Atheist" as Jews? You must know very well by now that not every "judeoskeptic" (let's call them) is a frothing killsixmillionjews anit-semite (wishing for the heads of Jews-through-and-through like Rahm Emmanuel to roll isn't killsixmillionism in my book). So why the reticence?

Because I don't view Jewish genes as the problem.

The antisemites blame Jews' genetic makeup for their support of liberalism when Occam's razor suggests Jewish support of egalitarianism is simply the result of cultural issues related to cyclical periods of persecution in Europe.

PS, Jews are white, Bauchet in 2007 showed Jews cluster on gene association studies with Armenians, Turks (Yes Turks, ie modern Anatolians, are white, if you don't believe me visit Istanbul sometime), Greeks and Southern Italians, not Arabs.

Btw, group selection - which is obviously highly important to MacDonald's theories on Jews - does NOT work in real life. Please inform old Kev for us and tell him he needs to retake genetics 101 ;)

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/group-selection.html

Blode032222 said...

The antisemites blame Jews' genetic makeup for their support of liberalism when Occam's razor suggests Jewish support of egalitarianism is simply the result of cultural issues related to cyclical periods of persecution in Europe.

Not a bad explanation.

I just thought of something the other day. What is the word for "nationality" in Yiddish? I was just thinking, if it's the same as the Hebrew word, then when a youthful Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc., Jew said to his father, "Papa, which nationality are we?" it would be indistinguishable from "Papa, which goyim are we?"

Just a thought ... might not be accurate.

My own personal explanation, maybe a bit overly glib, is that wordy-scholarly types like equality and meritocracies because they're not likely to flourish as much in environments where all that really counts is who you're related to. Like a lot of downtrodden European peoples, Jews lacked family connections to nobility (not withstanding the five Rothschild sons who became barons), but unlike a lot of downtrodden peoples, the Jews had excellent literacy rates (and presumably other administrative/ scientific / financial-type skills, though I have less actual data on that).

As the Renaissance wore on, these skills became better tickets out of poverty, but most of all in those areas that were most meritocratic (equal in opportunity).

Taking 19th Century Hungary as an example, the Jews and Magyars got along fairly well because of an informal but quite potent "division of labor" - the Magyars got the farms and the civil service, the Jews got business (while the Saxons and Swabians were few in number but quite well off, and the Slavs in Hungary got crumbs). Another reason Jews and Magyars got along fairly well is that the former were unusually enthusiastic about learning Hungarian, which was all the latter needed to treat them as allies at the very least. (This fact is obscured by the fact that most every group in that era seems riddled with people who like to put down all the neighboring groups; summing up Hungarian barbs about Jews as "anti-semitism" misses the fact that Hungarians thought much less charitable things about Slavs and Romanians).

Unfortunately, advocacy of equal opportunity degenerates into demands for equal everything, and the "pro-equality" momentum of Jewish civilization has carried Jews from liberalism into angry-Marxist-revenge territory which threatens the health of mother goose and her previously-growing pile of golden eggs. But I suppose that is pretty well-known in these parts.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Thanks Blode.

For the record, I don't have a problem with people criticizing the ADL when they file another lawsuit against someone putting up a Christmas tree in a public place, or the like.

I just have a problem with people who want to attack liberal Jews for being ethnically Jewish rather than attack them as liberals.

Blode032222 said...

I just have a problem with people who want to attack liberal Jews for being ethnically Jewish rather than attack them as liberals.

Right there with you, Undisco.

I am so disappointed. We had opening salvoes from the left that made it sound like they were really willing to sit down and talk this time.

I think it matters WHY a person wants a country to remain majority X. O'Reilly and Brimelow, I think, want America to remain majority white because they think whites are better or make for a better country or something. If I'm wrong, then I'd agree that they are not supremacists.

In contrast, Israel wants to remain majority Jewish to remain a safe haven for Jews -- it's not that they think other races are inherently inferior or something.


Sounds so discussable, doesn't it? I'm all for safe havens, but I still don't see any legitimate reason to make exceptions for Jews on this (or any other) matter. I mean, what if some Jews want Israel to remain Jewish because they prefer the company of Jews? Anything sinful about that?

No. Merely getting Israel's Arabs to obey the same laws isn't going to be enough. How are the young Ashkenazi women in their bikinis are going to feel if a bunch of Muslims - ones not convicted of any crime - decide to visit Israel's beaches and make it known how they feel about the situation?

What if said women decide they don't like the idea of waiting for the inevitable violence to arrest, and try to convict (in the face of angry mobs of Muslims) the perpetrators? What if they just freaking feel more comfortable around their own kind? Does this make them Jewish supremacists?

And what if there is something ... anything ... that might make America not a safe haven for white people? Oh, say, like America's Trotskyite/ Neocon spy movement importing the Latin American criminal underclass and teaching them to hate white people, while the Trotskyite/ Neocon media dutifully covers the whole thing up? Combined with the fact that Western Europe is Islamifying itself as fast as it can (and legally persecuting people who question this course of action), and Eastern Europe is a crime-riddled misogynist hellhole, sounds pretty scary for my peeps, don't it? I mean, we can't all move to Singapore, can we?

But really, I'm just incurably naive. I'm forgetting that this is the same J.A. who couldn't figure out exactly what was going on in Detroit that is so bad (over at Unqualified Reservations). I should have known from the outset that there is quite a fine line, in the blogosphere, between "liberals" and trolls. I will feed neither any more.

(The other option in the Muslims-don't-like-chics-in-bikinis problem would be for either law or social custom to be changed to forbid conspicuous displays of women's bodies. Every time something like this is tried, it further radicalizes the Muslims, convinces them that the dhimmis are starting to accept their role as second-class citizens. It is tantamount to just giving Jewish girls away to be second and third wives of the men threatening Judaism - something Podhoretz advocated in the 1960s, with regard to a different group of violent men.)