April 28, 2013

Open Borders: The Case

From The Atlantic:
If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated? 
Some economists are pushing for "open borders" 
SHAUN RAVIV 
What if there was a program that would cost nothing, improve the lives of millions of people from poorer nations, and double world GDP? At least one economist says that increased mobility of people is by far the biggest missed opportunity in development. And an informally aligned group of advocates is doing its best to make the world aware of the "open borders" movement, which suggests that individuals should be able to move between countries at will. 
Vipul Naik is the face, or at least the voice, of open borders on the Internet. In March 2012, he launched Open Borders: The Case, a website dedicated to the idea. Naik, a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics at the University of Chicago, is striving for "a world where there is a strong presumption in favor of allowing people to migrate and where this presumption can be overridden or curtailed only under exceptional circumstances."

I don't know what kind of name Shaun Raviv is, but Vipul Naik is a polite and intelligent young graduate of Chennai Mathematical Institute in Tamil Nadu, India

I admire his ethnocentric loyalty. His people have overpopulated their own country, with dire consequences. He strives to talk Americans into allowing his people to come to America in vast numbers to overpopulate our country.

173 comments:

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Raviv sounds "Scots Irish".

Vipul Naik is not ethnically Tamil but probably from Maharashtra(Mumbai)

Another globalism for me,nationalism for me type Indian

Anonymous said...

No doubt open borders would improve the lives of Indians as talented as Mr. Naik, but it is equally without doubt that it would harm the lives of American citizens. In the process of doubling world GDP, what would pen borders do to U.S. GDP, or even more importantly U.S. GDP per capita given that there will be so many more people here. And since U.S. wages would be depressed across the board, one might expect that any gains would concentrate in the pockets of the elite. More wealth inequality and hundreds of millions of helots - just what America needs.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Reminds me of the episode in The Simpsons where Homer urges Apu to be fruitful and multiply ,Apu after being initially reluctant acquiesces saying "I did notice your country is dangerously underpopulated"

Anonymous said...

Steve,

This post is beneath you.

You know that overpopulation isn't what's wrong with India (other countries have far higher population densities and incomes both), and that quadrupling the population density of the US would still leave it as densely populated as such hellholes as Denmark and France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

Yes, ethnocentrism points in favor of open borders in the USA for Naik, and he is not loyal to America, but he still makes a strong idealist case that is also endorsed by many native-born Americans of European descent with comparable knowledge of the issues. There is good reason to think that he accepts that case in good faith.

Responding with rude personal ethnic attacks, when he has bent over backwards to be polite to you and to discuss your ideas on his blog, is disappointing and supports the accusations of your critics.

Dave Pinsen said...

In his FT column yesterday, Chris Caldwell cited another academic who is making a similar argument (tweeted this to you yesterday, but I'm not sure if you ever click the "connect" button to see who has mentioned you in a tweet).

Jack Hanson said...

What the hell is this? How do anyone take economists seriously when they put out bullshit like this? How is flooding the US with poor illiterates who will work for a bowl of rice going to improve anything? His entire reasoning is spurious.

Anonymous said...

Save the Planet, Overpopulate America Now!

Jeff W. said...

It is absolutely not true that open borders would double the world GDP.

In order to have prosperity, you need to have capital, labor and, very importantly, customers. Open borders and shipping manufacturing jobs to the lowest-wage countries destroys the customers.

Because the U.S. used to have high wages, Americans have filled the role of customers to the world, helping to drag many backward nations out of poverty.

When all the customers are destroyed by turning the whole world into a low-wage hell, it will actually lead to a vicious circle of increasing poverty.

Anonymous said...

"Responding with rude personal ethnic attacks, when he has bent over backwards to be polite to you and to discuss your ideas on his blog, is disappointing and supports the accusations of your critics."

But what if, despite how nice and polite and civil and all, it really is just what it seems, a simple "pro-me" and "pro-my-ethnicity" argument dressed up in NPR-speak? Why does the tone of the argument matter?

Anonymous said...

Vipul Naik sounds like such a smart young Indian that it would be an international crime to keep him from returning to India and uplifting the Indian economy.

Anonymous said...

"Responding with rude personal ethnic attacks, when he has bent over backwards to be polite to you and to discuss your ideas on his blog, is disappointing and supports the accusations of your critics."

Could you please point out where Steve has responded with a "rude personal ethnic attack"?

All Steve did was point out that Naik, coming from the second most populated country on earth, has a vested ethnic interest in encouraging open borders in other countries, especially the highly livable ones. i.e. A conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

"Steve,

This post is beneath you."

Concern troll is concerned.

Anonymous said...

"...quadrupling the population density of the US would still leave it as densely populated as such hellholes as Denmark and France."

I hope you have plans for providing all the water and such for this fine plan.

Then there's the question of... but why? Why overpopulate the US? Or any place else, for that matter?

I think the US with that population density would be a hellhole. Why do you think it wouldn't?

john marzan said...

if they are overpopulated with smart and skilled indians, why not?

unless you a bunch of racists...

Aaron Gross said...

Yes, because anytime anyone proposes something that seems to benefit his own in-group, it's always explained by his group loyalty.

Chief Seattle said...

People don't innovate when they're living hand to mouth. They can't afford to risk it. That's the flaw in the reasoning here. Sure you could get some temporary growth from building a couple hundred million more apartments here, and having cheap labor to run the farms and hotels and restaurants. But what's going to happen to the quality of university research when funding is spread (likely by government mandate) over all the new arrivals. What company is going to invest in R&D when their competior will either steal the invention, or substitute cheap labor for capital and innovation.

The rest of the world benefitted fantastically in the 20th century from advances in technology, and especially from American agricultural productivity. There's plenty of desparate, crowded places in the world where one either does what they're told or starves. It's in the worlds interest to keep what remains of American exceptionalism intact, lest everyone's standard of living stagnates or declines in the next century.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Responding with rude personal ethnic attacks, when he has bent over backwards to be polite to you and to discuss your ideas on his blog, is disappointing and supports the accusations of your critics."

Relax, I dont see how its "rude ethnic attack" just because he noted the population of India is very high.

I think the problem in India is the very high population density of cities rather than the country as a whole

I think Netherlands is the most densely populated country in the world.And they seem to be doing alright

I mean Mumbai which is half the size of NYC has 20 million inhabitants!!

Much of India is not really thickly populated, there is great potential for new cities and small towns thereby relieving much of the pressure off the 4 big metropolitan cites
(Delhi,Mumbai,Calcutta,Chennai)


Anonymous said...

Considering how well Israel's international image is going, a lot of 'Scots-Irish' people will probably immigrate here á la fall of the Soviet Union. Raviv is making sure he gets that possibility(but don't be naive Raviv, Congress knows who it's backers are. It will commit).

The Indian guy is basically acting out of self-interest.

India cannot compare to China, at all. Their IT industry is basically competing on low cost, not high skill. Something many are now waking up to by seeing places like the Philippines beat them at their own out-sourcing game.

Second, India's per-capita GDP is around 1500 dollars. That's not only third world but almost fourth world standards.

China's per-capita GDP is over 10 000 dollars. Some estimates put it even higher, at 15 000. Basically, you cannot compare the two.

And you're starting to see this in immigration patterns too. The people who immigrate to America from China are increasingly students who are here to learn English and/or go to a competitive university. The other booming category is upper-middle class people who are tired of the smog/pollution/bad health issues in food and general corruption. The working-class Chinese are increasingly rare as their opportunities are generally good in China.

This is not the case in India, which is why we only let in their best (typically) or let their under-paid drones come in on H1B visas to do the grunt work for 1/5th of a typical wage for an American worker.

But India is more like a third/fourth world country as a whole, it's population is far poorer than that of Mexico, for instance. So keep that in mind when you think about Indian immigration. We only allow in the top 1%, so it's no wonder that they do well here. But do we want to open the gates to the rest of the country?

Anonymous said...

And, FWIW, if you look at that same link you posted India is the most densely populated country of similar size. The next largest country with a greater population density has less than 5% the area that India has. That country is Bangladesh. The one below that is South Korea. Most of the other countries with greater population density are virtually city states.

So yes, Steve does have a point. And explain how it rewards countries with responsible population control policy when the irresponsible countries are granted the ability to stealth-colonize by immigration?

David said...

>rude personal ethnic attacks<

Remember: noticing things is rude. Looking for motive is rude. Not being "idealist" is rude.

When you're you. But when you're anyone else in the world, ethnic territorialism is the standard M.O. Only whites are supposed to be weird enough to embrace as "idealist" something even its advocates concede to be not only "ethnocentric" but also parasitic. (There's ethnocentrism that wants Fortress America... and there's ethnocentrism that wants to breach Fortress America.)

I'm sure Naik's dwelling could support a few more people. Call and tell him I'll be moving in immediately. Sure, I have a selfish interest in that, but don't be rude. It's for the common good of the world.

Anonymous concern troll at 4/28/13, 9:00 PM, please take your transparently bigoted moralizing and stuff it.

Anonymous said...

"if they are overpopulated with smart and skilled indians, why not?"

There are many smart Indians, but you appear to be assuming they all are. But overall average Indian IQ appears to be in the 80s; it's a more interesting distribution than many other places in the world, maybe one reason is that caste system. What if you get a representative sample, which seems to be the original point of the argument, and let everybody come?


"unless you a bunch of racists..."

Well, it seems you are an anti-traditional-american racist. I've also rather forgotten exactly why I should be bothered when someone calls me a racist, can you enlighten me?

Anonymous said...

"Yes, because anytime anyone proposes something that seems to benefit his own in-group, it's always explained by his group loyalty."

You're right. It's probably just as easily explained by his own family loyalty, wanting to bring his own relatives to the USA.

I guess we'd be all better off living by the rule that if someone has any conceivable reason for wanting something other than his own interest, then we should just assume that this is the main driver when he argues for it. The Occam's butterknife of interest conflicts.

hbd chick said...

i propose an experiment. let's have india open its borders first and let anyone from, say, pakistan or bangladesh or sri lanka or nepal or afghanistan move there freely -- china, too -- and africa. let that run for 20 or 30 years or so, and let us all see how it goes.

H Zucker said...

***unless you a bunch of r*cists...***

@ john marzan,


What, like India building a fecne to keep out the Bangladeshis? Or Israel building a fence to keep out Africans?

The majority in nearly every country surveyed by Pew Research want less immigration. People apparently are not keen on being displaced.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/

H Zucker said...

Open borders hasn't worked out so well in France. Or the Netherlands for that matter.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/127076/the-very-real-jewish-exodus-from-france?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=referral

H Zucker said...

I wonder how many people have read Garrett Hardin's essay about lifeboat ethics? Open borders seems a case of trying to rescue so many people that the lifeboat will capsize and everyone is worse off.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

hbd chick said...

"I don't know what kind of name Shaun Raviv..."

jewish:

Marked For Life
SHAUN RAVIV

A fascinating tour through the history of tattoos—with stops in Auschwitz, New York and Tel Aviv, and visits with young Jews who are purposefully and permanently marking themselves with Jewish symbols.

cached article here.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

@hbdchick

i propose an experiment. let's have india open its borders first and let anyone from, say, pakistan or bangladesh or sri lanka or nepal or afghanistan move there freely -- china, too -- and africa. let that run for 20 or 30 years or so, and let us all see how it goes."

You will have to do better than that- it has been tried.Not from Pakistan (India is kinda sorta at war with them) but from Bangladesh,Afghanistan and Nepal. All of these nationalities get visa on arrival and move freely and obtain employment without too much trouble.
India had a serious problem with illegal Bangladeshi immigrants(one estimate is 20 million illegals) but that has died down after the border was brutally sealed.The issue was not so much with their looking for work but traditional Hindu resistance to Muslim demographic explosion.

Africans coming to India? LOL even now Indians head to countries like Kenya,Ethiopia ,Uganda and Angola for business opportunities than vice versa.

hbdchick, I agree with Steve's and yours positions to a great degree but if you have to be snarky about this by turning the tables on India, it would be more effective if you checked your facts

john marzan said...

There are many smart Indians, but you appear to be assuming they all are. But overall average Indian IQ appears to be in the 80s; it's a more interesting distribution than many other places in the world, maybe one reason is that caste system. What if you get a representative sample, which seems to be the original point of the argument, and let everybody come?

dont get me wrong, anonymous... not exactly advocating for mass immigrating poor, unskilled, uneducated, "no english speaking" types. allow only those who are smart and talented to get in, not just any indian. are you against this?

Anonymous said...

hbd chick said...

i propose an experiment. let's have india open its borders first and let anyone from, say, pakistan or bangladesh or sri lanka or nepal or afghanistan move there freely -- china, too -- and africa. let that run for 20 or 30 years or so, and let us all see how it goes.


HDB chick, forget getting India to open its borders to foreigners. How about having India allow its citizens, internal migrants, to freely relocate within India without massive discrimination and obstacles? This is akin to US states trying to prevent citizens of other states from trying to relocate.

Internal migration in India accounts for a large population of 309 million, or nearly 30 percent of the total population as per Census of India 2001 . This figure is indeed staggering when compared with estimates of Indian emigrants, i.e. 11.4 million . Internal migrants, of which 70.7 percent are women, are excluded from the economic, cultural, social and political lives of society and are often treated as second-class citizens.

The constraints faced by migrants are many - lack of formal residency rights; lack of identity proof; lack of political representation; low-paid, insecure or hazardous work; limited access to state-provided services such as health and education and discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, class or gender. Yet internal migration is given very low priority by the government in policy and practice, partly due to a serious knowledge gap on its extent, nature and magnitude. The difficulties faced by internal migrants are dismissed on the grounds that the Constitution of India does not restrict free mobility within the country. A growing misunderstanding of the migratory phenomenon is often at the root of misconceived policies or inaction regarding migration.

Anonymous said...

There was a PJ O'Rourke write-up where he contrasted the capital of Bangladesh with the city of Fremont in N. California, supposedly on the premise these two places have the same pop. density. Honestly the main thing I remember from it was the hilarious litany of company names he found in Bangladesh... I wonder if that's how they react to our Ciscos, Yahoos, Twitters, etc.

john marzan said...

Anonymous H Zucker said...
What, like India building a fecne to keep out the Bangladeshis? Or Israel building a fence to keep out Africans?

The majority in nearly every country surveyed by Pew Research want less immigration. People apparently are not keen on being displaced.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/


if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you...

john marzan said...

to jewish people who advocate open borders or blanket amnesty like jennifer rubin, i'll take them more seriously once they advocate "right of return" status to palestinians in israel.

Chicago said...

By living in the third world one will get the benefit of things like having to step over people laying on the sidewalk on the way to work. That is, if one is fortunate to have any work.

Kaz said...

@H Zucker

Ouch, that's a lot of human capital France is losing..

Anonymous said...

Africa had open borders for 100,000s of yrs with tribes all around but some good that did.

Spread the poverty around.

Prof. Woland said...

I have a bucket list of places I would like to visit before I die. India is not on the list.

Anonymous said...

Is this the GNXP guy?

Anonymous said...

Israel is dangerously underpopulated. Needs more diversity and people. I'd suggest a couple million Zulus and Hindus. Open borders for Israel would make it better for everyone.

And its the moral thing to do!

DoJ said...

i propose an experiment. let's have india open its borders first and let anyone from, say, pakistan or bangladesh or sri lanka or nepal or afghanistan move there freely -- china, too -- and africa. let that run for 20 or 30 years or so, and let us all see how it goes.

This would not be an interesting test since India as a whole has an extremely low level of social capital.

It is worth noting that Naik does deserve credit for openly stating his entire chain of reasoning, including his obviously wrong assumption that the US's relatively high level of social capital is mostly robust to the level of immigration that would happen under open borders. He even seems to acknowledge that others consider that assumption very questionable. This still isn't good enough because he's shown practically zero interest in TESTING his assumption before advocating policies based on it that endanger half the world, but it's only one step away.

In that vein, I propose the following revision of the "India test": give the open borders folks a charter city or three to control, on territory belonging to currently poor countries. There are a lot of poor countries, so finding just a few cooperative ones should not be an impossible task. Then they can try out their ideas without being dragged down much by entrenched inefficiencies.

Cail Corishev said...

"if they are overpopulated with smart and skilled indians

Who? Are we to take your word for it that they're particularly smart or skilled, or would it be okay if we asked to see some evidence of that before opening the floodgates?

And don't point to the masses of Indian IT workers, because, while there may be some exceptions, on the whole they're neither of the things you claim.

allow only those who are smart and talented to get in, not just any indian. are you against this?

Right now, with unemployment well over 10% and corporations having depressed wages with immigration and guest workers for years, yes. We need a moratorium on immigration for a while, even the smart and talented ones. Let Americans have the jobs for a while, and let American businesses get used to the idea of paying competitive wages again.

When unemployment gets down to normal background levels and wages have at least kept pace with inflation for a while, then we can start to think about letting some people in again. But first we should think about the implications of a "smart and talented" policy that skims the cream from other countries: what does that leave behind? Are we creating future problems for ourselves by taking the best and brightest from other countries, possibly leaving behind disgruntled future America-haters? In a "global economy," is it smart to take from other countries the very people who could build those countries into better trading partners? Those are real questions we should discuss, among others, before raising the moratorium.

But step #1 has to be to stop digging the hole.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

This is sort of another version of the old saw that Mexicans are just mad that we got the side of the border with the good roads.

Naik, et al, are just unhappy that they got the poor and ill-governed side of a border.

And it can all be fixed by letting all those folks over to the rich and well-governed side of the border, because wealth/good governance is determined solely by geographic location.

That seems to be the premise of these guys. And they tout Naik, etc, as one of their intellectual lions? No wonder his homeland is mired in poverty and stupidity.

kajara said...

Actually, this is precisely what is NOT in India's ethnocentric interest. It is in Vipul Naik's personal interest. India cannot afford to have all its smart fraction migrate to America and Europe.
Already, the Indian government has enacted strict laws on doctors seeking to migrate to other countries - they have to sign an agreement that they will return after a stipulated period, and put up fifty thousand dollars (a lot of money in India) as surety.
Free immigration is not good for countries like India because no valuable people are going to want to move there. It is only going to lose more educated people, after spending $$$ training them.

Charlesz Martel said...

I have been to India. Went in the 70's. People were literally dying in the streets of New Delhi in the slum areas.
To quote George Orwell: "The idea is so stupid only an intellectual would believe it."

Has California improved as it's population density increased? If cheap labor and high population density made people and countries wealthy, then Africa should be wealthy, and Germany and Switzerland poor.

Anonymous said...

Yes, ethnocentrism points in favor of open borders in the USA for Naik, and he is not loyal to America, but he still makes a strong idealist case that is also endorsed by many native-born Americans of European descent with comparable knowledge of the issues.
_______________________________

Change "many" to "a few."

Common tactic.

Anonymous said...

"if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you..."

'worst' by your definition, not mine. If my country is to have any immigration at all I would much prefer migrants from ethnic groups most closely related to me. That means Europeans, not Indians.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

million . Internal migrants, of which 70.7 percent are women, are excluded from the economic, cultural, social and political lives of society and are often treated as second-class citizens."

There we go! Can a UNESCO study be complete with the suffering womynnnzzzz.

This would be complete news to most Indians including myself when I went there thrice last year.

It seems that pretty much all the service staff there is out of state (in India different state often means different ethnic or language group) they seem to getting along just fine.

I think they are speaking of labourers in particular, well the problem which the union loving UNESCO fails to mention is that of well unions who are forget about open border, not even open drawbridge sorts.

Not all that different from the unions in America, dont you think?

Whiskey said...

Stop blaming the Jews for everything. Its repetitive and a ghost dance. Instead, copy Jews. Israeli Jews. They know, for a certainty, that every Third Worlder, Muslim or not, wants to annihilate them. From Ugandans to Indians (who aren't Muslim). Copy their wall. Their border. Their profiling (the LAT has a big complaining editorial about it this Sunday)

The flip side of Open Borders is the death of the Nation State, and the birth of the Caliphate. Or Crusader Organization. Or what have you, people organizing by tribe and religion and whatever under the biggest and baddest strongman.

These (often stupid White) academics who espouse this figure because the higher level academic world is borderless, they can organize the world that way. And yes most Academics are precisely that stupid. None actually live with people picking over garbage piles in Manila, or see first hand the drug violence and gangs in Rio's favelas. Or the antics of African Warlords and their child armies or General Butt Naked. Or the pleas of ECOWAS to please, please stop killing and eating pygmies and albinos because doing so won't give you magic powers. Nor will putting on motorcycle helmets make your penis disappear (the fear in Nigeria).

If America is just some open border place on the map, every one will refuse to pay taxes, be out for themselves, and start acting like Tony Soprano on a good day. On a bad one, like Tim McVeigh.

The social contract MEANS that Nations look out for their own. Not foreigners. That there is something tremendously rotten about the ruling class is seen when they make the reverse argument. Its not Jews (Bibi doesn't make that argument, neither for the US or his own people). And its in places where Jews are non-existent: Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc. Ireland, poor and desperate, takes in thousands of Somalis a year. Greece, even poorer and desperate, is over-run with Pakistanis.

The entire Western Elite cares more for dynastic alliances with other elites across the globe than their own people. Thus the hatred of nationalism, which is a threat to trans-national dynasties. Class, in other words. Which is a White people disease. Always has been, always will be.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

I have a bucket list of places I would like to visit before I die. India is not on the list."

something tells me they will get by somehow..

Dr Van Nostrand said...

John Marzan said:
to jewish people who advocate open borders or blanket amnesty like jennifer rubin, i'll take them more seriously once they advocate "right of return" status to palestinians in israel."

THere are some globalist Jews who do advocate the right to return and some who dont ,of coure the latter are hypocrites. Dont know about Rubin, but Thomas Friedman for instance does. But then he is a lunatic

John Marzan said:
if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you..."

Knowing many of the commenters here you may be right but there are good reasons to prioritize Dutch immigrants of similar skill sets.

As an Indian,it pains me to say Indian Americans seem to be less interested in limited government and freedom but are very interested in identity politics and SWPL style bashing of heartland Americans.

I would wager that Dutch guy would bring desirable ideological and human capital while the Indian is likely to migrate solely for financial gain and would high tail it back to India once the going gets tough/Indian economy picks up even more steam.

Which one would you prefer?

Anonymous said...

I was under the impression that the EU open borders has been a tragic failure to natives in net-immigration countries. Am I missing something?

Oh nevermind... It has to be done globally for it to work. I missed that.

Even if GDP numbers were to pan out the way he predicts, would that equate to better quality of life for host populations?

I forgot, when economists write this stuff, they talking about benefits to corporations, not human beings.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe census numbers from 3rd world countries. Actually I don't believe any self-reported figures form the 3rd world. For all we know, India could have 2.5 billion people.

Anonymous said...

If the number of warm bodies per acre of a land is *the* prime determinant of economic growth (as some total and utter fuckwits keep shouting), then why isn't Bangladesh beating the world?

Yup. What America really needs is 11 story textile sweatshops stuffed to the gills with 3000 wage slaves until the jerry-built hovels collapses to the ground.

hbd chick said...

@dr van nostrand - "Not from Pakistan (India is kinda sorta at war with them).... hbdchick, I agree with Steve's and yours positions to a great degree but if you have to be snarky about this by turning the tables on India, it would be more effective if you checked your facts"

but, golly gee -- won't open borders just solve the pakistani-indian problem? i mean, everybody will just get along when the gates are flung open, won't they?

here we have somebody not from my country, or even my civilization, proposing that i should ruin my country. i think i'm allowed to be a little snarky.

hbd chick said...

@anonymous - "HDB chick, forget getting India to open its borders to foreigners. How about having India allow its citizens, internal migrants, to freely relocate within India without massive discrimination and obstacles?"

interesting. thanks.

and that's too bad, but i'm not a citizen of india or even ethnically indian, so i don't presume to tell indians how to run their country. that's up to them. (see how that works, mr. naik?)

Anonymous said...

The absolutely disastous New Labour administration that f*cked up Britain well and good a few years back, were dumb enough to think they were 'smart' by listening to these bullshit economists.
They abolished all immigration controls whatsoever on the sly. All that happened is that Britain has been mired in the worst economic crisis in its history and house prices have reached ridiculous levels and wages have declined.

hbd chick said...

@DoJ - "This would not be an interesting test since India as a whole has an extremely low level of social capital."

well, what i'd be interested in seeing is how the indians would react (peaceably?). and if the chinese would outcompete (i.e. replace) them.

(heh! part of the captcha is: "tribly"!)

Rob said...

Open borders means: a massive rush of people from south to north and from east to west, two or three billion people swarming into an area that previously contained only one billion.

Anonymous said...

You're on to something Steve.

In fact, it's really no secret that the Indian government has an official policy of mitigating its own problems of terrible overpopulation by encouraging as much emigration of Indians as possible to the developed world.
The Indians are currently trying to leverage their (exaggerrated and actually illusionary) recent economic performance as a bragaining chip to force western nations into receiving Indians -a 'trade treaty' signed with the execrable EU actually had the trade-off that access to Indian markets was tied to the immigration of Indians to the EU.
Such is the bullying and corruption of India, such is the cowardice and shittiness of the EU.
British PM, David Cameron recently came back from India with a flea in is ear (metaphorical, but with India who knows?), no doubt to secret talks he loudly pledged to increase Indian immigration - despite 'promising' to 'control' immigration to the UK overall. Dirty, lying bastard.

eah said...

...Would Poverty Be Eliminated?

What he (or she, can never tell with these foreign names) probably means is that 1) if allowed to go to a first world country, a few of the third-worlders could better utilize their talents (as opposed to their current crap environment), and thus would be better off, and 2) the rest of them -- that would be the vast majority -- would be de facto given a first world-ish life at taxpayer expense.

How that would benefit people in first world countries is not clear.

As is why it took so many words to say that.

BTW, this view is closer to what many people who hold power and influence -- government, media, business -- believe than some would probably care to concede.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


but, golly gee -- won't open borders just solve the pakistani-indian problem? i mean, everybody will just get along when the gates are flung open, won't they?

here we have somebody not from my country, or even my civilization, proposing that i should ruin my country. i think i'm allowed to be a little snarky."

Did he specifically state that you should open your borders to countries with whom you have fought 4 wars ,are currently fighting a proxy war and have nuclear weapons pointed at each other?
Pakistan is a very unique case.Unless you count the Bering straits during the cold war, Indian and Pakistan are the only neighboring countries in the world who are implicit goals towards the destruction of the other and to this end they have nuclear weapons and terrorist groups working against each other.

You are barking up the wrong tree, I dont agree with Naik and open borders.I made this clear

Just FYI some centrist Indian politicians like Mulayam Singh Yadav called open borders and open trade with Pakistan.

Again I dont agree with Yadav, but such views are given a mainstream hearing.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

here we have somebody not from my country, or even my civilization, proposing that i should ruin my country. "

forgot to add, he is not proposing and perhaps not even INTENDING that your country get ruined.
He naively assumes open borders would mutually benefit both countries.
That is a far cry from "proposing" that your country get ruined.

No need to impugn and guess his motives when you already have a lot to work with regard to what he has stated explicitly.

There is reading between the lines ,then there is reading between words,letters and so on which a lot of isteve commentators fall for. Occams razor is sufficient most of the time.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


In fact, it's really no secret that the Indian government has an official policy "

LOL, its official policy. May one know the name of this policy and when it was passed by Parliament?

of mitigating its own problems of terrible overpopulation by encouraging as much emigration of Indians as possible to the developed world."

This would be news to the millions of construction workers who India is reluctant to have them leave for foreign shores as the real estate market is still booming in India.

The only terrible overpopulation is in the 4 big cities.

Indeed the Indian government is pursuing the opposite, trying to win back its talented diaspora by promising them all sorts of perks if they return

Anonymous said...

Van Nostrand,
As you know, Acts of Parliament and 'officia policy' aren't one and the same thing.

As an aside, a very large proportion of Indian MPs are currently 'under investigation' for indictable offences, typically theft, murder, rape, fraud etc.

bjdubbs said...

Albanium. Toxic in pure form, but invaluable as an alloy.

Auntie Analogue said...


Sigh.

Mr. Naik's global open borders nonsense as a means to eliminate World Poverty is another utopian lightning flash of stupidity. It's utopian stupidity of the same ilk as the claim that vastly increasing taxes on the rich will eliminate poverty.

Sigh.

john marzan said...

I would wager that Dutch guy would bring desirable ideological and human capital while the Indian is likely to migrate solely for financial gain and would high tail it back to India once the going gets tough/Indian economy picks up even more steam.

Which one would you prefer?


i'd prefer to get both, actually. THEM over the current undeserving ones the US congress is trying to prioritize via amnesty.

john marzan said...

"'worst' by your definition, not mine. If my country is to have any immigration at all I would much prefer migrants from ethnic groups most closely related to me. That means Europeans, not Indians."

i prefer immigrants who are rich, educated, skilled and not a burden to the host country.

john marzan said...

@dr van nostrand - "Not from Pakistan (India is kinda sorta at war with them).... hbdchick, I agree with Steve's and yours positions to a great degree but if you have to be snarky about this by turning the tables on India, it would be more effective if you checked your facts"

hbd chick: but, golly gee -- won't open borders just solve the pakistani-indian problem? i mean, everybody will just get along when the gates are flung open, won't they?


i understand the terrorism threat, and india needs to protect itself from pakistan.

but who wants to move to india? poor indians would rather move out of india.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


As you know, Acts of Parliament and 'officia policy' aren't one and the same thing."

As I do , but where can I find this policy? And who instituted it, who are its authors, when was it past

As an aside, a very large proportion of Indian MPs are currently 'under investigation' for indictable offences, typically theft, murder, rape, fraud etc."

It is quite true.I am not sure why you expect me to defend Indian politicians of all people LOL. But what bearing does it have on the matter.
They may be criminals but I am nt aware of promoting any laws excusing criminality like Eric Holder does!

Anonymous said...

"You know that overpopulation isn't what's wrong with India (other countries have far higher population densities and incomes both), and that quadrupling the population density of the US would still leave it as densely populated as such hellholes as Denmark and France." - First we should bring siberia up to those population densities with any prospective immigrants.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

Are we creating future problems for ourselves by taking the best and brightest from other countries, possibly leaving behind disgruntled future America-haters? In a "global economy," is it smart to take from other countries the very people who could build those countries into better trading partners? Those are real questions we should discuss, among others, before raising the moratorium.

Doesn't even need to be discussed, we already did something like this on a national scale with disastrous results.

That is, civil rights, etc, and the consequent skimming off of the best/brightest of black Americans from their previous communities.

A lot of black communities weren't necessarily Pleasantville pre-civil rights, but the Hobbesian horror of the the poorest black ghettos in modern day America didn't exist.

I think there is a counter-argument to these open border lunatics that serving the short sighted greed of corporations by exploiting/seducing bright third-worlders is immoral, as they better serve the common good (which is what these lunatics profess to value) by staying at home and helping the wretched rather than helping billionaires pile up a few more shekels.

bjdubbs said...

In the open borders ideology, whites are like a big, cheap power station. While everybody else is using butane or firewood or burning tires, whites are like a big power grid that the rest of the world just needs to plug in to benefit. Free markets, democracy and rule of law, powered by albanium.

Reverse colonialism is the new white man's burden.

Anonymous said...

Baboo: Jerry; Very Very Bad Man!

trample said...

South Africa now has an estimated 87mio. people.
After Apartheid there were about 40mio residents of which 8 mio were non-black.
So under black rule basically illegal immigration doubled the population.

I would be OK with the open borders meme if India and Israel also opened their borders. Then those countries will end up like South Africa and all these moral superiors in Israel and India can show us how to live in these newly created hell-holes.

trotel said...

Dr Van Nostrand said...
hbdchick, I agree with Steve's and yours positions to a great degree but if you have to be snarky about this by turning the tables on India, it would be more effective if you checked your facts


Yeah, the "facts" give more credence to iSteve and hbdchick.

Hunsdon said...

Aaron Gross said: Yes, because anytime anyone proposes something that seems to benefit his own in-group, it's always explained by his group loyalty.

Hunsdon: Well, unless they're Jewish. Then it's just tikkun olam, baby

The Radical Centrist said...

WHY is the political debate in america so constrained and narrow, even here on the internet? It's like you guys just regurgitate whatever talking points the media puts out.


How about something new?
Here is something--why not let the american people decide whether to let in immigrants and how many?

Want more? OK, why not have congress pay a law that mandates that each state put the issue of immigration on the ballot and let the people of each state decide how many immigrants?

You don't like that? That is not what your media masters told you to think on sunday morning? I am so very sorry to have disturbed you.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled pseudo-political discussion....

Hunsdon said...

TheRadicalCentrist said: It's like you guys just regurgitate whatever talking points the media puts out.

Hunsdon said: Yes, because this whole discussion was lifted, in whole cloth, from the media's narrative. I should just replace my comments with "bleat, bleat." Ah, but now you have opened our eyes! I salaam in your general direction.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Yeah, the "facts" give more credence to iSteve and hbdchick."

Dont you know how to read?

Big Bill said...

marzam: "dont get me wrong, anonymous... not exactly advocating for mass immigrating poor, unskilled, uneducated, "no english speaking" types. allow only those who are smart and talented to get in, not just any indian. are you against this?"

How do we help the poor of India by robbing their country of the only (smart) people who can save it and leaving the poor dummies behind? Your Marzam policy of stealing smarties from India increases Indian poverty. Why do you hate the poor people of India?

Worse, India is Jim Crow on steroids. The population is divided into over 30,000 (!) race- and color-obsessed endogamous groups that make the American South during slavery look like a Marxist paradise by comparison. These people will inevitably re-establish the racist culture they grew up in and which their (innumerable) Gods ordain.

Keep racists out of America! Ban Indians, Pakis and Bangladeshis from coming here!

Do you really want to see Indian dating ads in US papers that have special sections where everyone lists their racial pedigree and their skin tone ("wheat", "mocha" etc.). These people are sick!

Big BIll said...

Whiskey: "Stop blaming the Jews for everything. Its repetitive and a ghost dance. Instead, copy Jews. Israeli Jews. They know, for a certainty, that every Third Worlder, Muslim or not, wants to annihilate them.

Nope. They "know" that ever Gentile wants to destroy them, "third world" or not. That means the American nation as well.They have been teaching this to their children for two thousand years.

You are right, in one sense, though. Don't listen to what the Jews say, copy what they do.

Build 30 foot walls around the ghetto with police checkpoints at ever entrance/exit. Let them pick their own police/pimps/terrorists to run their society and call them "sovereign" and therefore responsible as a group for any interracial problems

If they get restive and wing a few rockets over the walls, warn all the people in the ghetto that bombers will be coming over to wipe them out and tell them to leave and go huddle is some corner of the prison. If they don't leave and they die in the bombing always remember that you have done your God-ordained duty. Jehovah expects nothing more of you. F'ck 'em.

Anonymous said...

That Bangladesh factory that collapsed and killed over 300 last week http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/04/300-dead-in-bangladesh-factory-collapse.html should inform the immigration discussion. Those people were working for $40/month. Americans have little concept of how bad things are in other places and how good a life of working at minimum wage supplemented by food stamps and EITC would look to most of the world's people.

By the second or third generation, we can't even count on them to be willing to work the minimum wage job. Tamerlan Tsarnaev wouldn't even take a job at Walmart to give his wife a break.

How many people would Naik have us import who have that cultural attitude, that the man's pride is too important to belittle himself with lowly work? Theres plenty of that out there in the world. Plenty of it among native born American males.

Anonymous said...

Dr Van Nostrand said...
Dont you know how to read?

Don't you know how to write?

Anonymous said...

How is flooding the US with poor illiterates who will work for a bowl of rice going to improve anything?
who, whom

The Radical Centrist said...

Anonymous Hunsdon said...

TheRadicalCentrist said: It's like you guys just regurgitate whatever talking points the media puts out.

Hunsdon said: Yes, because this whole discussion was lifted, in whole cloth, from the media's narrative. I should just replace my comments with "bleat, bleat." Ah, but now you have opened our eyes! I salaam in your general direction.

==================


my reply: yes, you simply regurgitate the talking points the media puts out on sunday with regard to immigration. Do I have to spell it out for you. Yeah, I guess so. Here goes: this blogpost and all the comments and half of all the blog posts on paleocon sites and most of all the articles on fakeleftist sites like salon and etc etc are of the following slant: the benefits of mass immigration for the economy or how mass immigration helps the immigrants or other nations or the GDP and etc. Are you following this? I hope so. And all the comments associated with such articles and posts fall right in line and argue the points 'handed down from on high' and so forth. Do I have to expound further? I guess do...None of the comments talk about anything outside of the talking point boundaries set up on the sunday morning political shows.

So since we are supposedly a democracy, I propose something OTHER than what the sunday morning political shows discuss: that congress pass a law allowing the states to decide how many immigrants to let in. Or even a constitutional amendment mandating such.

See how that is OUTSIDE the talking points?

And see how you are INSIDE?

Yeah....

Dr Van Nostrand said...

ctWorse, India is Jim Crow on steroids. The population is divided into over 30,000 (!) race- and color-obsessed endogamous groups that make the American South during slavery look like a Marxist paradise by comparison. "

Cute but sorry no. There is no segregation of castes anymore. There is a preference for fair skin but that doesnt prevent intermarriage of those of different complexions and colors in the least.
Unlike the American south, there is no legal basis for definitions.
Do you think before you type?

These people will inevitably re-establish the racist culture they grew up in and which their (innumerable) Gods ordain. "

Please, they will establish a hierarchical structure for sure but racism is entirely your baby. We didnt slaughter 10s of millions and enslave even more in its name.Thank you

Anonymous said...

"Worse, India is Jim Crow on steroids." Don't worry, no one can beat Whites in the 'committing atrocities' department.

" race- and color-obsessed endogamous groups that make the American South during slavery look like a Marxist paradise by comparison."

On the Boehner girl's post, all I saw was the 'worthy of emulation' arranged marriage culture of Muslims. When Indians,similarly, voluntarily marry within their endogamous group, its worthy of abuse?

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Do you really want to see Indian dating ads in US papers that have special sections where everyone lists their racial pedigree and their skin tone ("wheat", "mocha" etc.).

Uh, thats a color not racial preference. Within the same family you are likely to find considerable variances of color.So they have a preference for skin tone,so what.
Dont whites have preferences for blonde,redheads,brunettes,tanned skin,freckles, blue eyes,green eyes dark eyes and what have you.

These people are sick!"

You are an angry man...Let me guess..an angry black man ....who is upset with all them Indian "leeches" running stores in your neighborhood....I dont know if you are you,but if so...we have seen your kind before...in Uganda

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Steve,

This post is beneath you.

...............................

Responding with rude personal ethnic attacks, when he has bent over backwards to be polite to you and to discuss your ideas on his blog, is disappointing and supports the accusations of your critics."

Bulls**t. Steve was far too kind. Naik is not being polite. It would not be polite of me to go to someone else's home, and demand that they rearrange the furniture to suit my taste, and also ask - by the way, could several of my cousins stay with you...........forever. By the same token, it is not polite to go to someone else's country and demand the same.

Naik is not being polite. He is being a prick.

Mr. Anon said...

"Aaron Gross said...

Yes, because anytime anyone proposes something that seems to benefit his own in-group, it's always explained by his group loyalty."

However, this much certainly IS true: when someone proposes something that is harmful to my group, then it is harmful to my group.

I see no reason not to assume the least charitable motive on his part.

David said...

I'm smart and qualified. My test scores are high. Employers want me.

Will you adopt me?

I require a large bedroom and financial support. I will work very hard and send all the extra money to my family.

When they are ready, they will move in with you, too. They, too, will require a bedroom and financial support.

But I'm smart and qualified. My test scores are high. Employers want me. Why are you discriminating against me?

I hate to say it, but I may have to think the worst about you.

(Even libertarians are rebelling against the above vicious [in the literal sense, that is] invader-mentality, here.)

JSM said...

"Pakistan is a very unique case.Unless you count the Bering straits during the cold war, Indian and Pakistan are the only neighboring countries in the world who are implicit goals towards the destruction of the other and to this end they have nuclear weapons and terrorist groups working against each other."

AHA! SO, if America types in the coordinates to target one of its aging Peacekeeper missiles at Mexico, we can keep out the mestizo parasites? BOOYAH!

ben tillman said...

Yes, ethnocentrism points in favor of open borders in the USA for Naik, and he is not loyal to America, but he still makes a strong idealist case that is also endorsed by many native-born Americans of European descent with comparable knowledge of the issues.

No, he does not make a strong idealist case or a strong case of any kind.

An open borders policy means the less-productive get to consume the produce of the more-productive. Given enough time, such a policy of subsidizing the less-productive would necessarily result in universal poverty.

QED & AYFKM.

ben tillman said...

if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you...

I'm highly educated. Can I have your stuff? Your wife, car, bank account...? You must say yes, or I'd have to assume the worst about you.

Cail Corishev said...

Here is something--why not let the american people decide whether to let in immigrants and how many?

You mean the same American people who decided they wanted four more years of Bush and Obama?

Yeah, at the moment they might make the right decision; I assume the polls still show the majority opposing illegal immigration and amnesty. But you're talking about a populace that was swayed in little more than a decade from thinking same-sex marriage was a sick joke to seeing it as a civil rights issue. Maybe we'd get this one right this time, but for how long against the guaranteed media onslaught, and what else would we get wrong in the meantime?

We're not a pure democracy for a reason. Representation is supposed to shield us from the dangers of popular rule; unfortunately we've watered it down so much that it doesn't provide much protection anymore. If "the American people" really wanted to stop or slow mass immigration, restrictionist candidates would be able to get more than a couple percent of the vote from one of the parties.

Paul Mendez said...

Instead of leaving this line of questioning up to the economists, I believe we need to assemble a group of physicists, geologists, chemists and the like to find out what it is exactly that makes poor people become economically productive simply by moving to the US.

Obviously, there is some sort of unknown force in the Western Hemisphere that extends from the North Pole down to roughly the Rio Grande that makes immigrants immediately prosperous as soon as they arrive. Whether this has to do with ionized radiation seeping through the Ozone Hole, or the ratio of hydrogen isotopes in the rain water, or perhaps fluctuations in the earth's gravitational field, we do not yet know.

If science could just discover what this mysterious force is, and apply it to nations like India and Haiti, their populations could enjoy all the economic benefits of living in North America without having to move!

Anonymous said...

Stop blaming the Jews for everything. Its repetitive and a ghost dance.

Will you do the same when it comes to white women? Given that the majority of white women voted republican, you still treat them as a monolithic group.

You seem to be quite the hypocrite.

Svigor said...

China is almost as densely populated as the Netherlands, in the eastern coastal areas where almost all Chinese live. The trick is to eliminate the less-habitable areas of China from consideration; the interior of Asia isn't very pleasant.

Could you please point out where Steve has responded with a "rude personal ethnic attack"?

Yeah. Rude personal ethnic attacks are my job. Like this:

India's a dump, and the more Indians we bring here, the more America will resemble India.

if they are overpopulated with smart and skilled indians, why not?

unless you a bunch of racists...


Indians, blacks, Jews, yellows, and all the other sociopathic peoples of the world have made it eminently clear that we (white, "gentiles") are a bunch of racists. It's our duty to save these sociopathic types from evil white "gentile" racism by keeping them well away from us, and out of our countries.

Yes, because anytime anyone proposes something that seems to benefit his own in-group, it's always explained by his group loyalty.

No. Anytime anyone who isn't a white "gentile" proposes such, it's always explained by his group loyalty. There, FIFY.

Svigor said...

i propose an experiment. let's have india open its borders first and let anyone from, say, pakistan or bangladesh or sri lanka or nepal or afghanistan move there freely -- china, too -- and africa. let that run for 20 or 30 years or so, and let us all see how it goes.

And Israel. Don't forget Israel. Think how much more prosperous Israel would be, if the 2 million smartest would-be immigrants to Israel from around the world were allowed to immigrate there. Utopia! Security concerns wouldn't enter into it, either; Chinese and Indians aren't blowing up pizza parlors in Israel.

dont get me wrong, anonymous... not exactly advocating for mass immigrating poor, unskilled, uneducated, "no english speaking" types. allow only those who are smart and talented to get in, not just any indian. are you against this?

Not at all. As I said, I'm all for moving millions of "cognitively elite" immigrants into Israel.

And Israel is our closest ally. So, if Israel is strong and unselfish enough to forgo plundering this precious resource, then I think we should, too. We should show our solidarity with Israel by adopting immigration policies equivalent to theirs, and announcing the fact to the world.

if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you...

So, you're an anti-Semite, then? Because Israel refuses even educated, high-skilled immigrants with English knowledge just because they're from India, or the Netherlands, so you must assume the worst regarding Israel, and assuming the worst regarding Jews is "ANTI-SEMITISM!!!"

to jewish people who advocate open borders or blanket amnesty like jennifer rubin, i'll take them more seriously once they advocate "right of return" status to palestinians in israel.

No, that's not good enough. You have to assume the worst regarding them, until they start allowing significant immigration of high-skill, English-speaking Indians.

This still isn't good enough because he's shown practically zero interest in TESTING his assumption before advocating policies based on it that endanger half the world, but it's only one step away.

Yes. At best, these people are criminally negligent.

Hacienda said...

Tao Te Ching Chapter 81:

Small country, few people
Let them have many weapons but not use them
Let the people regard death seriously
And not migrate far away

Although they have boats and chariots
They have no need to take them
Although they have armors and weapons
They have no need to display them

Let the people return to tying knots and using them
Savor their food, admire their clothes
Content in their homes, happy in their customs

Neighboring countries see one another
Hear the sounds of roosters and dogs from one another
The people, until they grow old and die
Do not go back and forth with one another

-----------------

It's the misfortune of America that it is a large country and has a population that has replaced a previous population.

Svigor said...

Stop blaming the Jews for everything. Its repetitive and a ghost dance. Instead, copy Jews. Israeli Jews. They know, for a certainty, that every Third Worlder, Muslim or not, wants to annihilate them. From Ugandans to Indians (who aren't Muslim). Copy their wall. Their border. Their profiling (the LAT has a big complaining editorial about it this Sunday).

Lol. I saw what you did there. You said copy Israeli Jews. Why are American Jewry and Israeli Jewry BFFs? Why is American Jewry Israeli Jewry's most precious asset? Can you explain that to us? Why is there no Israeli contingent to American Jewry fighting for the "Israeli" point of view on immigration, here in America? Is there some magical field, somewhere over the Atlantic, that converts Israeli Jews into American Jews, such that their opinions on immigration reverse polarity before they ever land on US soil?

Stop blaming the Puritans. Stop defending your tribe's malfeasance. It's repetitive and doesn't fit the facts.

i prefer immigrants who are rich, educated, skilled and not a burden to the host country.

So would I. But alas, Israel staunchly, unselfishly refuses. Apparently, they want to let these countries keep this precious resource. And out of solidarity with our greatest ally, America should do the same. And announce this unselfish policy to the world.

Jim Bowery said...

The problem with open borders is horizontal transmissions evolution of virulence. Paul Ewald's evolutionary medical theory applied to human ecologies as non-ambulatory organisms, would seem to indicate that closed borders is as important to social health in the modern era as mosquito-proof building codes is to reducing malaria's virulence.

For even migration rates restricted more than at present, this does not bode well. It is virtually guaranteed that the evolutionary pressure is toward the most virulent becoming most adept at exploiting whatever residual migration rates are allowed, precisely because they are most dependent on escaping the aftermath of their exploitative behavior.

hbd chick said...

@Dr Van Nostrand - "Did he specifically state that you should open your borders to countries with whom you have fought 4 wars, are currently fighting a proxy war and have nuclear weapons pointed at each other?"

you're missing my point (and why i picked pakistan for my example). different peoples don't get along -- some less than others. this is (one of the reasons) why open borders would be a disaster, and why it would be ruinous for my country.

and, yes, afaict he's suggesting that we have 100% open borders everywhere, which would mean that he's suggesting that the u.s. open our borders to everyone from afghanistan and iraq, etc. i'm sure that there is more than a handful of people in both of those countries who would just relish the opportunity.

C. Van Carter said...

Indians can't properly oversee their own country, so they should invite in people from elsewhere who can. Handing the reigns of power over to competent foreign managers would be a blow to Indian self esteem, of course, but that's not a rational objection to a policy that would improve the lives of over a billion people.

Extropico said...

Many of these open border loons desperately want to pretend that we live in a zero sum global population community. Population choices are reflexive, as Soros might portend. When we take in a huge percentage of Mexico's poor, we provide government- mandated incentives for the Mexicans to decline to civilize and sustain themselves. It is a tax incentive for the production of more Mexicans in the world and fewer White Americans.

Same with India or any other Third World nation. If we take in their poor, there is no incentive for them to civilize and start using birth control so they are sustainable. There will still be all that rebarbative poverty in India, and fewer Whites in the West. I recommend that Sanjiv and Fahreed take in a couple of hundred million Africans-the survivability of India depends on it!

Anonymous said...

Indians can't properly oversee their own country, so they should invite in people from elsewhere who can. Handing the reigns of power over to competent foreign managers would be a blow to Indian self esteem, of course, but that's not a rational objection to a policy that would improve the lives of over a billion people.

Nice parry and thrust.

Anonymous said...

Did he specifically state that you should open your borders to countries with whom you have fought 4 wars ,are currently fighting a proxy war and have nuclear weapons pointed at each other?

I believe any person who supports open borders by definition supports the opening of our Southern border with Mexico. Though Mexico doesn't have nukes, she does have a negative history with us and views a large chunk of our Southwest as hers. Thus, allowing mass immigration from Mexico into said territory seems a little insane.

Anonymous said...

"India is Drowning in its Own Excreta-Can Science and Engineering Come to the Rescue?"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2013/04/24/india-drowning-in-its-own-excreta/

"An entire nation drowning in its own excreta is an unpleasant thought, but this is what is happening, at least according to Sunita Narain, Indian environmentalist and Director General of the Centre for Science and Environment, author of “Excreta Matters“, “India’s first and most comprehensive survey …on the state of its water and its management”, in a comment piece published on June 14 in Nature."

Anonymous said...

Israel should first try open borders with all the Middle Eastern countries.

Let's see how that works before we try anything here.




Anonymous said...

Are we creating future problems for ourselves by taking the best and brightest from other countries, possibly leaving behind disgruntled future America-haters?

Yes, but unfortunately the open borders people have already shifted the lion's share of immigration from the best and brightest to the dimmest which is why it is so frustrating to see Silicon Valley weigh in on immigration reform and allow their need, whether real or not, for high-tech workers to be co-opted into support for tens of millions of Mestizo peasants.

In a just world the non-European elites and peasants would remain at home, and our ne'er-do-well white elites would leave the West and resettle in the the third world and bring all the goodness of diversity and inclusiveness to the natives, while leaving the West alone.

After all, Mother Teresa went to Calcutta. She did not bring Calcutta back here.

Anonymous said...

“Excreta Matters“, “India’s first and most comprehensive survey …on the state of its water and its management”

You know you have a problem when the survey on your water supply is called "Excreta Matters".

Anonymous said...

India is Drowning in its Own Excreta

India makes Mexico and its litter look like a nation of clean freaks.

Anonymous said...

"if you refuse even educated, high skilled immigrants with english knowledge just because they're from india, not netherlands, then i'd have to assume the worst re you..."

I refuse all of them.

They take jobs from Americans.

America isn't here for foreigners.

We don't have to give our country away to "smart" nonwhites.



If you like Indians, move to India or I will think the worst of you.You might be an Indian and even you don't want to live with Indians.

Oh, I do prefer white people.

I don't want Indians here.

Indians do not like black people, so Indians are "racists" too. I've talked to them myself.





Anonymous said...

'i prefer immigrants who are rich, educated, skilled and not a burden to the host country."

I prefer no immigrants.

Why do we have to have immigrants?

Anonymous said...

There is no segregation of castes anymore

Really?

I rather suspect there is. Furthermore I suspect better off, higher caste folks know not to discuss the matter in front of YT and if they do to couch it in nice, PC SWPL friendly terms. One would have to have a working knowledge of some Indian languages to find out whats really going on.

Anonymous said...

'i prefer immigrants who are rich, educated, skilled and not a burden to the host country."

I prefer no immigrants.

Why do we have to have immigrants?


Because more immigrants makes jews, Indians and other foreign nationals feels safer while inhabiting the same territory as whites.

Anonymous said...

Cute but sorry no. There is no segregation of castes anymore. There is a preference for fair skin but that doesnt prevent intermarriage of those of different complexions and colors in the least.

What are intermarriage rates among the various castes?

Hunsdon said...

The Radical Centrist said: yes, you simply regurgitate the talking points the media puts out on sunday with regard to immigration.

Hunsdon said: Ah, you mean we answer their arguments. Engage. Respond. I never quite thought of that as regurgitation.

As for suggesting that Congress require a plebiscite, hey, why not just wish it was still 1964?

Anonymous said...

They "know" that ever Gentile wants to destroy them, "third world" or not. That means the American nation as well.They have been teaching this to their children for two thousand years.

My parents certainly never taught me that at all. Likewise, just because Raviv is a globalist lunatic doesn't mean that all Jews are.

The Radical Centrist said...

Hunsdon said...

The Radical Centrist said: yes, you simply regurgitate the talking points the media puts out on sunday with regard to immigration.

Hunsdon said: Ah, you mean we answer their arguments. Engage. Respond. I never quite thought of that as regurgitation.

As for suggesting that Congress require a plebiscite, hey, why not just wish it was still 1964?

===============

FIRST, you twisted what I said. Or you could not read it.

Second, why not say what we want? Funny thins is though that neither the right nor the left want democracy. They each just want their own rules. And the majority wants a mix of both. Funny that neither the right nor the left will talk about this. And neither will you.

But I will....

Anonymous said...

The response to this article is a perfect example of the blindspot in white ethno-centricity.

Jewish pundits advocate for the same thing as this guy all the time but because most white people don't see Jews as a separate ethnic group advocating for the economic destruction of white Americans they react much less than they do to this guy when he says the exact same thing.

ben tillman said...

By the way, I will say that Naik is polite and patient in his responses to comments on his blog. The fact that he allows dissenting comments at all is refreshing.

Steve Sailer said...

Right. Naik is a good guy.

Hunsdon said...

The Radical Centrist said: But I will....

Hunsdon: You go, girl! I twisted what you said? That was a direct quote, homes. Maybe you're right: maybe I couldn't read it. I'll give you this, though: I'm not that terribly in favor of democracy.

Hunsdon said...

Sumdood at 5:29 said: Likewise, just because Raviv is a globalist lunatic doesn't mean that all Jews are.

Hunsdon: NAJALT!

Anonymous said...

Right. Naik is a good guy.

Steve, how can he be a good guy if he is pushing policies that are so harmful to the American people?

Steve Sailer said...

How can Peyton Manning be a good guy if he's trying to get his team to beat your team?

Prof. Woland said...

"Indians can't properly oversee their own country, so they should invite in people from elsewhere who can. Handing the reigns of power over to competent foreign managers would be a blow to Indian self esteem, of course, but that's not a rational objection to a policy that would improve the lives of over a billion people."

I think that is what the British were supposedly doing. Obviously, they came to do good and did quite well indeed. It is interesting to imagine how India as well as Africa would be doing now if colonialism were still a reality.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Indians can't properly oversee their own country, so they should invite in people from elsewhere who can. Handing the reigns of power over to competent foreign managers would be a blow to Indian self esteem, of course, but that's not a rational objection to a policy that would improve the lives of over a billion people"

You first. Follow Jim Rogers recommendation and hand over the White House and Buckingham Palace to the Chinese.



I think that is what the British were supposedly doing. Obviously, they came to do good and did quite well indeed. It is interesting to imagine how India as well as Africa would be doing now if colonialism were still a reality. "

Do you what India was like before the British arrived..It was a great deal better than Britian...why do you think they came there in the first place?
As for the oft repeated railways,parliamentary system,Engligh language...they could easily be imported without being colonized

Dont forget the famines caused the British
5million dead in the late 1800,six million in the early 1900 and another 5 million during WWII(whose deaths your hero Churchill laughed at ,well thank god he managed to save 6 million Jews in Europe...oh wait..)

The British left a much excarbated caste ,ethnic and religious hatreds
as they favored one over the other in their divide and rule policy.

So f u very much, Britain is sinking in the sea due to its colonialist karma and nothing could make me happier

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Really?

I rather suspect there is.

Either provide evidence or STFU.

While arranged marriage is still then norm , "love marriages" occur as young people increasingly of all castes rub elbows in colleges. The parents dont prefer but give in for the most part
They would insist the significant from a respectably family of similar class.



One would have to have a working knowledge of some Indian languages to find out whats really going on."

I do and I travel frequently, I gave you my opinion and you responded with a very factual,knowledgable and deeply researched
"I rather suspect there is"

Dr Van Nostrand said...

hbd chick said...
@Dr Van Nostrand - "Did he specifically state that you should open your borders to countries with whom you have fought 4 wars, are currently fighting a proxy war and have nuclear weapons pointed at each other?"

you're missing my point"

And you are missing my point which is I dont agree with Naik in any of this open borders stuff

Anonymous said...

"How can Peyton Manning be a good guy if he's trying to get his team to beat your team?"

Pretty bizarre to cast Naik as a ethnocentric dissimulating individual.

Seems off the mark completely if you'd taken the time to read his blog archives.

Relevant posts:

http://openborders.info/blog/the-case-for-open-borders-is-universal/

(yes, he supports open borders for India)

http://openborders.info/blog/my-thoughts-on-race-and-iq/

(yes, he believes in the heritability of IQ)

http://openborders.info/blog/universalist-defenses-of-citizenism-bleg/

(heck, he even calls Sailer smart and worth reading here, and gives him the benefit of the doubt rather than calling him a racist bigot).

Sailer, can you point me to a post by Naik which indicates he's ethnocentric or will you admit that you've likely mischaracterized his views/loyalties based on .... really nothing?



Dr Van Nostrand said...


What are intermarriage rates among the various castes?"

I am not sure but from anecdotal evidence it seems to get higher every higher.
Its as if pretty much every friend of mine is marrying outside his community

And when I see the marriage announcements in regional newspapers ,I can tell from the last names,the groom and bride are often of different castes.

Here is something that will make the heads of white HBDs and their Khan lickspittle's head explode-


INTRA caste marriage is more likely to blur color distinctions in an increasingly pan Hindu(or Hindu nationalist) India.

Let me explain -before the re emergence of a Hindu identity for India courtesy of Hindu nationalism, people would prefer to marry within their region,thus a Punjabi would marry a Punjabi, a Tamil a Tamil and so on

Now with the emergence of greater pan Hindu awarness, people are waking up to the fact that northern castes have southern cognates

For eg the dark Tamil Vellalar is equivalent of say a Punjabi Khatri

so by this system a dark Tamil boy gets to marry a fair skinned Punjabi girl.

On the Indian forums who actually know about the caste,color dynamics and history of both(which is more than I can say for this one) they have stated which I have been percieving for the past two decades- North India due to its exodus of Punjabis,Kashmiris and Rajasthanis to the south has been getting darker and the south due to this and coupled with their export of their darker women to the female deficient Haryana and Punjab has been getting fairer.

So increasingly a distinction is to be made between marrying regionally and marrying by caste.

That is not to say there is zero caste segregation by geography, you will find it among many villages in north central and parts of southern India but it is a dying trend.


Anonymous said...

Naik's abhorrent views on Sailer are presented for Sailer's readership here:

"i Andy,

That’s an interesting question. The main reason we address Sailer is because, in my view, he is very good at articulating what a lot of people think but don’t say, either because they lack his ability to formulate it, or because they think such things aren’t said in polite company.

Sailer’s main contribution to the history of human intellectual thought will probably be his formulation of citizenism. This is the best formulation I have seen of the moral intuitions shared by a large fraction of the US citizenry, and probably a large fraction of people the world over. Yet, few people have actually formulated citizenism as clinically and logically as Sailer. The majority come up with highly confused formulations of nationalism that are very difficult to rebut because of their lack of clarity. When we engage Sailer, we are not engaging him as an individual (though I have no problems with doing that either) but rather the ideas for which he is a vehicle. Thus, the extent to which he personally reciprocates our advances is not our main consideration.

Regarding your criticism of citizenism, Sailer acknowledges the existence of moral side-constraints on citizenism, so it’s unclear where he stands on the issue. It does seem to me that Sailer seems to evade the moral questions raised by his theories, and BK presents an intriguing hypothesis to explain this (he continues in a later comment on the same page). Rather than attempt to read Sailer’s mind, however, I will simply return to the reason we engage Sailer’s ideas: it’s because of the popularity of these ideas, not because of their provenance. We consider it our job to engage ideas that are either plausible or popular. Sailer’s ideas meet both criteria.

It is also true that Sailer is quite widely read (though perhaps not as widely cited), so even in so far as he presents unorthodox ideas, these may be worth engaging in advance, prior to their becoming conventional wisdom. In so far as Sailer is a leading indicator of popular opinion or conventional wisdom, he’s worth engaging.

Sailer’s other contributions to the marketplace of ideas are too numerous for me to even catalogue in summary form. I will only mention in passing that his discussions of race and IQ are some of the most erudite and literate ones that are quoted by restrictionists when using race, IQ, and other related arguments to make their case. Given his stature in the IQ/race-based restrictionist arena, he might be worth engaging even there. That said, our engagement of Sailer so far has been primarily focused on his citizenism."

Yes, sounds like one of those ethnocentric bigots from the SPLC.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Hunsdon: NAJALT!
DVN: Yes

Dr Van Nostrand said...



India's a dump, and the more Indians we bring here, the more America will resemble India."

Yes I would agree. Would also agree that Britain was a dump when they came to India and India wasnt and when they left their country was doing well and India was a dump(yes it was a dump even when the British were ruling just FYI)

Indians, blacks, Jews, yellows, and all the other sociopathic peoples "


We are not the ones who murdered tens of millions of Caucasoid people on basis of their noses or supposed Asiatic heritage.So I would ease up on the sociopathic talk.



Hunsdon said...

Our host said: How can Peyton Manning be a good guy if he's trying to get his team to beat your team?

Hunsdon said: Sometimes it just comes down to looking out for your own---however defined. Believe it or not (and it's hard to believe!), but not all the good guys are on our side, and not all the bad guys are on their side.

Oh, wait: those guys, they're ALL BAD.

Anonymous said...

Washington Post today -- even India's crown jewel of a city is a failure and a dump:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/bangalores-reality-lags-behind-image/2013/04/29/5825aa98-ace5-11e2-a8e6-b6e4cc7c49d1_story.html?hpid=z1

But when all else fails, just move in with Whitey... ranting about how awful he is all along the way.

Hunsdon said...

DVN: Sir, you seem defensive and touchy about India. I congratulate you on that! (I am being sincere, no snark!) You doubtless have a knowledge and familiarity that, for instance, I entirely lack. I know I can get touchy and defensive about my ancestral homelands as well. For most of human history, there was no higher calling than defending your homeland, and defending your people.

What was the rebuttal to "My country, right or wrong?" Oh yes. It was "My mother, drunk or sober." In point of fact, why yes, I would stand by my mother, drunk or sober, particularly against outsiders.

Various people love to mock the Arab (or Muslim, some people seem to think the terms interchangeable) world for "Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousins against the world." A cute quip . . . but that's really how the world works.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Svigor:Why are American Jewry and Israeli Jewry BFFs?

DVN: LOL that would be news to Israeli Jewry who increasingly view American Jews as pro Palestinian turncoats.

Svigor: Why is American Jewry Israeli Jewry's most precious asset? Can you explain that to us?

DVN: I cant because its not accurate, according to Daniel Pipes, after the IDF, its the American evangelical who are Israels most strategic asset.

Svigor: Why is there no Israeli contingent to American Jewry fighting for the "Israeli" point of view on immigration, here in America?

DVN: Most American Jews loathe Likudniks and many are increasingly for the Right of Return.
Anyway false equivalency.Israel was specifically created to be a Jewish state.
Does the American constitution any equivalent declaration for WASPS or Northern Europeans?
I know,I know Benjamin Franklin didnt think much of German immigrants ,Jefferson didnt liberate his slaves but did they enshrine those views in the founding documents?
A amendment was required for slavery to be abolished.Why wasnt an amendment needed for immigration of non whites?


Svigor: Stop blaming the Puritans.

DVN: Somewhere in Wall Street a WASP Master of universe who just hired 50 backoffice Chinese and Indian number crunchers is smiling. Yes! he says dont look at us ,keep blaming it on Jews so that we can go on with business as usual.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Hundson: Sir, you seem defensive and touchy about India.
I congratulate you on that! (I am being sincere, no snark!) You doubtless have a knowledge and familiarity that, for instance, I entirely lack.


DVN: Thank you I think ;-)
But am I really all THAT touchy and defensive?I lambasted Naik types who seemd to be pro me anti them.
I said its best U.S imports Dutch rather than Indian immigrants.
I am not blind to India's flaws and neither do I defend them ,just wanted to state its flaws arent unique.
I just want to set the record straight and not invent flaws where there arent any! It is fashionable nowadays to for the British Raj but those who know better and all the net (emphasis of word net) damage it has done ought to say it out loud!

What paleos dont realize is this type of pro colonialist talk that gives a hard on and green light to neocon adventures that still makes paleos wake up screaming in a cold sweat in the middle of the night.

They are so blinded not so much by white power by the idea of white do goodery they dont see its pernicious effects and how in this manner they are not really all that different from white liberals and neocons.


Hundson:Various people love to mock the Arab (or Muslim, some people seem to think the terms interchangeable) world for "Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousins against the world." A cute quip . . . but that's really how the world works.

DVN: with some caveats.Read the book by Philip Salzman on tribes in the middle east(culture and conflict in the Middle East) -only rarely can get with their cousins and invade the world as they are too busy squabbling with their brothers!
THe Mid east scenario doesnt apply to India as it has the former has a much harsher landscape where the price for failure was the extinction of the tribe.
Indians for the most part lived in fertile plains and over millenia developed a code of laws much fairer I dare say than the Hammurabi or Mosaic(but then I repeat myself) system.

of course this never precluded warfare between kingdoms ,indeed this was a constant in India but the aim of each kingdom was to conquer all kingdoms within India(a formidable task -at the time it also included Afghanistan,Pakistan,eastern India,Nepal,Southern Tibet and Bangladesh)


Dr Van Nostrand said...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/bangalores-reality-lags-behind-image/2013/04/29/5825aa98-ace5-11e2-a8e6-b6e4cc7c49d1_story.html?hpid=z1

But when all else fails, just move in with Whitey... ranting about how awful he is all along the way."


I dont know who told you Bangalore was India's "crown jewel" , I have never heard this time applied to any Indian city by any Indian

Seems to me a British anachronism

I visited Bangalore in 1991 and again in 1995,it was absolutely gorgeous. Spacious roads,gorgeous boulevards,moderately populated, clean and great weather.
It was then known as the garden city due to a Persian(persians love gardens,reputedly invented the concept,the persian meaning of the word firdaus from we get paradise is garden) city planner hired by the local administrator.


WHen I saw it in 2010 ,it was a hell hole
Too much development and increase in population(IMO a lot of north Indian riff raff) and the citys infrastructure,maintenance and utilities have utter failed to keep pace

Anonymous said...

We are not the ones who murdered tens of millions of Caucasoid people on basis of their noses or supposed Asiatic heritage.So I would ease up on the sociopathic talk.

No, but a lot of blood has been spilled by non-Europeans. The Muslim conquest of India likely resulted in more deaths than that caused by the British in India.

The Chinese have killed more Chinese than Europeans have killed Europeans.

And as far as colonialism is concerned, we never seem to hear about Moorish Spain or the parts of Europe under Ottoman rule.

The whole world is just as capable of evil as Europe. Because Europe has dominated for the past 500 years, most choose to ignore the crimes of the rest of the world and focus only on Europeans.

Anonymous said...

DVN: ...Does the American constitution any equivalent declaration for WASPS or Northern Europeans?

Actually the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically addressed this issue. Naturalization was limited to free white persons of good moral character. Given that this act was written by the First US Congress, comprised of many Founders, and signed into law by the father of the nation, George Washington, it's a pretty good indicator about what the Founders envisioned.

Unforunately the Founders included in the definition of white the very people who went on to craft the Immigration Act of 1965 which radically altered our immigration policy, and unfortunately turned American citizenship into something that everyone in the world expects and demands. The ironic thing is that many of those whites who wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 don't even consider themselves white.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


No, but a lot of blood has been spilled by non-Europeans. The Muslim conquest of India likely resulted in more deaths than that caused by the British in India."

To be sure I never said the British INTENDED to cause the deaths but it happened anyway and they seemed to be rather indifferent to mass death and starvation.
There are no definitive figures for the deaths caused by Muslims in 800 or so years of Muslim rule. Some put it as much as 60 million including famine and wars.
So thats about 75,000 a year.
The British famines alone killed 16 million over 200 years of their rule.So thats 80,000 a year
So year by year, the British have a higher or atleast comparable ahem batting average!


The Chinese have killed more Chinese than Europeans have killed Europeans."

No argument there.But there are so many more Chinese than there are Europeans. So we should keep that in context as I demonstrated with the deaths caused by Muslims vs British

And as far as colonialism is concerned, we never seem to hear about Moorish Spain or the parts of Europe under Ottoman rule."

Ottoman ruled Europe and Muslim Spain were considered rather desirable places to live.This is not a justification of their rule.
I think the Ottoman record in Turkey and how it dealt with the native Hellenic Christian inhabitants is far more deplorable than anything it did in Europe.



The whole world is just as capable of evil as Europe."

Please tell that to the Svigor and Sailer types not me.

Because Europe has dominated for the past 500 years, most choose to ignore the crimes of the rest of the world and focus only on Europeans."

Again true, European crimes have to be put into context but then again not to be swept under the rug or justified as Svigor and his ilk prefer.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Actually the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically addressed this issue. Naturalization was limited to free white persons of good moral character. Given that this act was written by the First US Congress, comprised of many Founders, and signed into law by the father of the nation, George Washington, it's a pretty good indicator about what the Founders envisioned. "

Good to know.
However the act also prohibits "American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians"
I am not sure even the extreme of white nationalists today would deny citizenship rights to native Americans or white indentured servants.
On the neo Nazi site countercurrents, they go as far to say that its immoral to deny citizenship to blacks with historical rights but its best to segregate them.

The Act is corollary to restricting voting rights to property owning white men.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Don't you know how to write?"

One good turn deserves another..

Dr Van Nostrand said...

(a formidable task -at the time it also included Afghanistan,Pakistan,eastern India,Nepal,Southern Tibet and Bangladesh)"

oops I meant Eastern Iran,not eastern India, specifically the Baluch areas on the Persian gulf who are pro India even today as despite their fancy claims of being of Kurdish origin are pretty much of the same blood as Indians,heck even south Indians.

Baluch are one of the darker ethnic groups in Iran and Pakistan. Kurds are one of the fairest. Baluch is more related to Sindhi and Gujarati than West Iranian(Kurd)

The Baluch claim to fame is wounding Alexander during his disastrous retreat from India through the southern desert. A wound from which he never quite recovered.

ben tillman said...

Anyway false equivalency.Israel was specifically created to be a Jewish state.

The Constitution says it was ordained and established to serve the interests of the founders and their posterity. Exactly the same as Israel.

Somewhere in Wall Street a WASP Master of universe who just hired 50 backoffice Chinese and Indian number crunchers is smiling.

LMAO. There are more Asian Indians than WASPs on Wall Street.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


You know you have a problem when the survey on your water supply is called "Excreta Matters".

Travellers to towns like London ,Paris and other countries in medieval and even industrial era Europe remarked how you could smell it before you saw and they didnt meant it as a compliment!

Strangely enough, they never said about Indian towns until the British came over and graced us with their customs

Thank you European colonialism!

Dr Van Nostrand said...



LMAO. There are more Asian Indians than WASPs on Wall Street."

This will be news to Indians, a Vikram Pandit or two is not indicative.

Londoner said...

But DVN, is that a good reason now to want Britain, which ultimately is an ethnic homeland or set of ethnic homelands just the way your country is, to be destroyed? I'd hope that reasonable people with a stake in seeing human civilisation endure would be above this sort of thing, but it appears that I'd be wrong.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

@Londoner

I have engaged in schadenfreude against Britain's current predicament to admittedly score a cheap point. I personally have to beef currently with English people.
My issue is not so much what people did in the past- the past is past- as long they realize what they did was not "cricket" lets say
I understand the desire of English to portray their history in the brightest possible light but to not even acknowledge the suffering endured by Indians due to their rule(in the case of famines-inadvertently as I emphasis but it did occur) or simply dismiss it(cant make an omlette and all that) is a bit much to take

Anonymous said...

Ottoman ruled Europe and Muslim Spain were considered rather desirable places to live.This is not a justification of their rule.

First, that meme is pushed by an ethnic group that wanted to make political points against Christian Europeans. So by portraying Muslim rule in parts of Europe in such a positive light, they hoped to shame Christian Europeans into being more acceptable of them.

Second, Ottoman rule in the Balkans devastated the genetic makeup of the locals. I imagine most of the so called Greeks of today are essentially Turks, or have a large admixture of Turkish DNA. I imagine that might be one reason why today's Greeks have fallen so far from the ancients.

Did the British do a similar thing in India? Did they alter the DNA of a large part of your population?

Svigor said...

We are not the ones who murdered tens of millions of Caucasoid people on basis of their noses or supposed Asiatic heritage.So I would ease up on the sociopathic talk.

Sociopaths don't get gamed the way westerners are currently being gamed. And in terms of EGI, what the non-whites are doing is the same, but with a higher body count; they're just much better at it.

DVN: LOL that would be news to Israeli Jewry who increasingly view American Jews as pro Palestinian turncoats.

Right, and the NYT and the American MSM is rabidly anti-Israel. We know Doc, we know.

DVN: I cant because its not accurate, according to Daniel Pipes, after the IDF, its the American evangelical who are Israels most strategic asset.

True, I did sort of imply "foreign resource," but actually said "asset"; Daniel Pipes is wrong, of course, and has every reason to fudge on this issue.

"Svigor: Why is there no Israeli contingent to American Jewry fighting for the "Israeli" point of view on immigration, here in America?"

DVN: Most American Jews loathe Likudniks and many are increasingly for the Right of Return.


Me against my brother, etc. Democrats "loathe" Republicans and vice-versa, then their reps get together and vote to start wars. As for American Jews being increasingly for the Right of Return, yeah, sure. That would be a tiny baby step in the direction of what they advocate for white "gentiles," I suppose. But "many are increasingly" is a bit too fuzzy for me. Sounds like the sort of thing that's not quantified because it's insignificant; American Jewry and Israeli Jewry are still BFFs.

Anyway false equivalency.Israel was specifically created to be a Jewish state.

Well, I guess that makes everything all white then. Why do American Jews give Israel a pass on this? Never mind support Israel in this. And why do Jews tend to go into psycho attack mode when whites get the idea in their heads of specifically creating a white "gentile" state? If this is all on the up and up, I mean.

It's not a false equivalency. The point was about what's going on in Israeli Jews' heads vis-a-vis immigration. I say it's "is it good for the Jews?" (and you basically agree), i.e., dual morality, AKA identity politics, that explains the dichotomy. Whiskey asserts that it's just a fundamental difference between Israeli and American Jewry; that Israelis are genuinely opposed to open borders, whether they're the borders of Israel, America, Europe, etc. So I asked why there's no smoke, if there's fire, as Whiskey asserts.

Anonymous said...

DVN wrote, "Good to know.
However the act also prohibits "American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians"
I am not sure even the extreme of white nationalists today would deny citizenship rights to native Americans or white indentured servants."


You read the excerpt from wikipedia which is just a summary written by an editor of that site. To read the full act, which is refreshingly short and sweet, go here. Unlike the 1000 page bills of today, the Founders kept things simple.

Note two things. First, only indentured whites could not apply. Once an indentured servant worked off his term and was free, he could become naturalized if he met the good moral character clause.

Second, Native Americans at that time still had all the land west of the 13 original states to the Pacific Ocean. There was no need to include them as citizens given that they were seen as aliens with their own land. Later when Indians were placed on reservations, they were considered their own separate nations.

As far as the blacks, there were plans to resettle free blacks either in Central America or in Africa, e.g. Liberia.

Svigor said...

Does the American constitution any equivalent declaration for WASPS or Northern Europeans?
I know,I know Benjamin Franklin didnt think much of German immigrants ,Jefferson didnt liberate his slaves but did they enshrine those views in the founding documents?


There is that bit about "posterity." But, does it matter? Do you think Jews would stop being the vanguard of the American opposition to white "gentiles" having for themselves anywhere on Earth what Jews have for themselves in Israel, if the Constitution said White Zion was the thing to do?

A amendment was required for slavery to be abolished.Why wasnt an amendment needed for immigration of non whites?

1. Who cares?
2. An amendment wasn't "required"; an Amendment was passed.

"Stop blaming the Puritans."

DVN: Somewhere in Wall Street a WASP Master of universe who just hired 50 backoffice Chinese and Indian number crunchers is smiling. Yes! he says dont look at us ,keep blaming it on Jews so that we can go on with business as usual.


Indeed. And for every such Anglo-Saxon ("WASP" is an epithet, the very existence of which, undermines your points), there are 5 Jews doing the same thing. And beyond the numbers, the fundamental difference is that the Jews involved are acting in accordance with their own Ethnic Genetic Interests, while the Anglo-Saxons involved are acting against their own EGI. It's much easier to get someone to correct his behavior when it's doing him harm.

To be sure I never said the British INTENDED to cause the deaths but it happened anyway and they seemed to be rather indifferent to mass death and starvation.

Non-whites seem to be rather militantly in favor of the extinction of the European, or at least militantly opposed to anything being done to stop it.

So year by year, the British have a higher or atleast comparable ahem batting average!

The Rwandans beat the Nazis along the same lines:

The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide far exceeded the death rate of the Jewish Holocaust

"The whole world is just as capable of evil as Europe."

Please tell that to the Svigor and Sailer types not me.


But that's not true. Whites, being collectively more powerful than non-whites, are capable of more evil than non-whites.

Again true, European crimes have to be put into context but then again not to be swept under the rug or justified as Svigor and his ilk prefer.

I might as well say you and your ilk want to sweep European crime under the rug; you haven't whispered a sound about Soviet crimes, wherein Hitler and the British are made to look like pikers.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Ottoman ruled Europe and Muslim Spain were considered rather desirable places to live.This is not a justification of their rule.

First, that meme is pushed by an ethnic group that wanted to make political points against Christian Europeans. So by portraying Muslim rule in parts of Europe in such a positive light, they hoped to shame Christian Europeans into being more acceptable of them."

Did you read my entire post. Even above I never said there is a justification for it. What I meant by they being pleasant places is that you have use a better example than those which I provided with- ie Byzantine Turkey.The Bynzantine Greeks were devastated like no other ,the Greek peninsula and the Balkans suffered less than say other victims of Islamic conquest such as Sudan,Iran or India.

Second, Ottoman rule in the Balkans devastated the genetic makeup of the locals. I imagine most of the so called Greeks of today are essentially Turks, or have a large admixture of Turkish DNA. I imagine that might be one reason why today's Greeks have fallen so far from the ancients."

OTOH most Turks are ethnically Greek which is why they are the most cosmopolitan of the entire lot in the Middle East.
But then I think the Greeks had fallen from the ancient standard far earlier than Ottomans arrived on the scene.Already as early as the late Republic /early empire Romans were quite aghast the Greeks didnt exactly measure upto the standards of Alexander.


Did the British do a similar thing in India? Did they alter the DNA of a large part of your population?"

Not really. There was only a small mixed community who we called Anglo Indians , but the British used it differently Anglo Indians to mean a British person domiciled in India for too long.
There was larger percentage of mixed native and European in Sri Lanka called Burghers ,as much as 5 to 8% of the population.
Before the "mutiny" of 1857 ,long long before ..we are talking about the mid 1700s , English traders and soldiers had a tendency to go "native" and marry either a Hindu or Muslim upperclass woman and were on the verge on disappearing into Indian society.It was the arrival of British women that prevented any further liaisons and resulting in hardening or barriers and coarsening of interracial relations which resulted in all sorts of unpleasantness.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


I have engaged in schadenfreude against Britain's current predicament to admittedly score a cheap point. I personally have to beef currently with English people."

That should be "NO beef"

I know I know, my writing isnt lacking typos...
The reason I am a relatively prolific poster is that I can type pretty fast but often spelling and grammar can fall by the wayside and you poor patient readers suffer for it
Apologies

Anonymous said...

Again i think it's very illustrative that someone who is advocating the economic destruction of a people who is obviously visually not of the same tribe gets a much stronger reaction than 1000s of articles saying the same thing written by Jews. If most white people saw Jews as a separate tribe advocating their destruction the reaction would be similar.

It's interesting psychologically.

I guess how it works is if people see someone as "us" tribally then they assume that person believes that what they are advocating is beneficial even if the listener can't understand how it could possibly be beneficial so they don't see it as a direct attack on them even if it is.

Anonymous said...

The West has had open borders for 50 years.

Anonymous said...

"(yes, he supports open borders for India)"

The difference between the US and India having open borders is the difference between allowing anybody to live in you 1972 mobile home with broken windows, broken a/c and a clogged toilet and letting someone live in your updated beach house in Santa Monica.

Anonymous said...

If there is no difference in race, all the smart Indians should move to African with their great IQ's and they would have that continent turned around in 30 years.

But no, they want to move in with the whites or what's left of them.

That says it all.

We don't need you or want you.

Anonymous said...

"Whites, being collectively more powerful than non-whites, are capable of more evil than non-whites."

I hear this worn-out theory often. It only works in some situations. In an inner-city high-school, in in black-run cities, in the U.N. and other circumstances where non-whites rules, they have the power and are capable of more evil. The world, taken as a whole, is more non-white than white; therefor the non-whites are at an advantage and it is becoming increasingly so.

Add to that the leftist whites in power who SIDE with the non-whites, and the situation is even more dire.

Mr. Anon said...

"Steve Sailer said...

How can Peyton Manning be a good guy if he's trying to get his team to beat your team?"

The difference is that Peyton Manning doesn't get to move into my house if he wins.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


There is that bit about "posterity." But, does it matter? "

It matters what they meant by posterity

Do you think Jews would stop being the vanguard of the American opposition to white "gentiles" having for themselves anywhere on Earth what Jews have for themselves in Israel, if the Constitution said White Zion was the thing to do?"

Only one way to find out but yes ,I anticipate it accelerate the aliya.Isnt that what you want?

A amendment was required for slavery to be abolished.Why wasnt an amendment needed for immigration of non whites?

1. Who cares?
2. An amendment wasn't "required"; an Amendment was passed."


1.The slaves I imagine
2.So the slaves need not have been legally emancipated?



DVN: Somewhere in Wall Street a WASP Master of universe who just hired 50 backoffice Chinese and Indian number crunchers is smiling. Yes! he says dont look at us ,keep blaming it on Jews so that we can go on with business as usual.

Indeed. And for every such Anglo-Saxon ("WASP" is an epithet, the very existence of which, undermines your points), there are 5 Jews doing the same thing. And beyond the numbers, the fundamental difference is that the Jews involved are acting in accordance with their own Ethnic Genetic Interests, while the Anglo-Saxons involved are acting against their own EGI. It's much easier to get someone to correct his behavior when it's doing him harm."


Seriously? Self hate is pretty hard to correct.Just ask the Jews!


Non-whites seem to be rather militantly in favor of the extinction of the European, or at least militantly opposed to anything being done to stop it."

How exactly are non whites in favor of extinction of whites? To be sure they are immigrating in large numbers to white countries but only because they have the opportunity to do so not out of any sense of malice towards whites but a better life for themselves.It is quite a stretch to assume they desire the extinction of whites.

The Rwandans beat the Nazis along the same lines:

The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide far exceeded the death rate of the Jewish Holocaust

I am glad to see you acknowledge the Holocaust.Anyway yes I agree modern slaughter can be far worse and non whites are no slouches in that regard.

"The whole world is just as capable of evil as Europe."

Please tell that to the Svigor and Sailer types not me.

But that's not true. Whites, being collectively more powerful than non-whites, are capable of more evil than non-whites."

Well yes but thats a banal statement which , of course greater power has the capacity of greater abuse of it ,regardless of who weilds it.

I might as well say you and your ilk want to sweep European crime under the rug; you haven't whispered a sound about Soviet crimes, wherein Hitler and the British are made to look like pikers."

I have actually as I categorized Soviets as European .Though I realize you may not concur.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Sociopaths don't get gamed the way westerners are currently being gamed."

I never said westerners are sociopaths NOW.Unlike you I dont believe a persons behavior is fixed for eternity due to his genetic makeup.

And in terms of EGI, what the non-whites are doing is the same, but with a higher body count; they're just much better at it."

They are NOW.

DVN: LOL that would be news to Israeli Jewry who increasingly view American Jews as pro Palestinian turncoats.

SV:Right, and the NYT and the American MSM is rabidly anti-Israel. We know Doc, we know.

DVN: Not anti Israel but certainly pro Palestinian -they try to play both sides and end up pleasing none

DVN: I cant because its not accurate, according to Daniel Pipes, after the IDF, its the American evangelical who are Israels most strategic asset.

SV:True, I did sort of imply "foreign resource," but actually said "asset"; Daniel Pipes is wrong, of course, and has every reason to fudge on this issue.

DVN: Pretty all my American Jewish and Israeli friends who visited synagogues and Jewish associations informed me that they are kumbaya disaster. And yes American evangelicals are more stalwart on Israel.Both anecdotal and statistical evidence support it.If you choose not to believe it, thats your concern.

"Svigor: Why is there no Israeli contingent to American Jewry fighting for the "Israeli" point of view on immigration, here in America?"

DVN: Most American Jews loathe Likudniks and many are increasingly for the Right of Return.

Me against my brother, etc. Democrats "loathe" Republicans and vice-versa, then their reps get together and vote to start wars.

DVN: Yes until they start warring against themselves ie the Civil War and near civil war in Israel between Revisionists and Laborites.
Ethnic cohesion exists until it exists , the war between brothers and those you know is often worse than those between strangers.


SV:As for American Jews being increasingly for the Right of Return, yeah, sure. That would be a tiny baby step in the direction of what they advocate for white "gentiles,"

DVN:Right of return isnt exactly a baby step. Its certainly not a baby step towards the destruction of Israel by demography. Is that what white gentiles want?

SV: I suppose. But "many are increasingly" is a bit too fuzzy for me.
Sounds like the sort of thing that's not quantified because it's insignificant; American Jewry and Israeli Jewry are still BFFs.

DVN: Israelis and Zionist American Jews both hope that if you keep repeating that it will come true..

Anyway false equivalency.Israel was specifically created to be a Jewish state.

SV:Well, I guess that makes everything all white then. Why do American Jews give Israel a pass on this? Never mind support Israel in this. And why do Jews tend to go into psycho attack mode when whites get the idea in their heads of specifically creating a white "gentile" state?

DVN: WHich Jews? If you tar all Jews with the same brush then of course you see psychos everywhere.

SV:It's not a false equivalency. The point was about what's going on in Israeli Jews' heads vis-a-vis immigration. I say it's "is it good for the Jews?" (and you basically agree),

DVN: I dont know if you even read my posts or read what you want to read into them.

I will make it clearer. In Israel,I will ask if its good for the Jews.
In America ,I will ask is it good for the great white middle class which is why I stated its best to import Dutch rather than Indian immigrants ,all things considered.

You see? Its really not that complicated.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


The difference between the US and India having open borders is the difference between allowing anybody to live in you 1972 mobile home with broken windows, broken a/c and a clogged toilet and letting someone live in your updated beach house in Santa Monica."

DVN: Currently that is the case. But it wasnt always the case with white countries and South Asian principalites and may not be the case in the future with that type of coarseness.

Arrogance will always lead to downfall. Sic transit gloria

4/30/13, 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...
If there is no difference in race, all the smart Indians should move to African with their great IQ's and they would have that continent turned around in 30 years.

But no, they want to move in with the whites or what's left of them.

That says it all.

We don't need you or want you."

Be careful what you wish for....
You may very well get your beloved Dutch and German immigrants with STEM degrees while the Indians and chinese hightail back to their homelands

And then ,intra white ethnic squabbles ,extinct for the last 50 years would reappear with a vengeance.
A revitalized economy would lead to another slacker generation who would prefer Teutonic Transgendered studies in 19th century Bavaria to the more useful majors of their fathers and grandfathers

You would then approach the Indian and Chinese governments hat in hand requesting research scientists,doctors and engineers but by then they may not need you as much as you need them.

And even if they do need you,they may not comply, people of the old world hold grudges for a long long time as you know.And they will sacrifice any chance of improving their prospects in the process.

4/30/13, 3:53 PM

Svigor said...

"Whites, being collectively more powerful than non-whites, are capable of more evil than non-whites."

I hear this worn-out theory often. It only works in some situations. In an inner-city high-school, in in black-run cities, in the U.N. and other circumstances where non-whites rules, they have the power and are capable of more evil. The world, taken as a whole, is more non-white than white; therefor the non-whites are at an advantage and it is becoming increasingly so.

Add to that the leftist whites in power who SIDE with the non-whites, and the situation is even more dire.


It's not a theory, so much as a statement of fact. You're talking more about people actually do with the power they have. Yes, obviously, capability and behavior are distinct.

There is that bit about "posterity." But, does it matter? "

It matters what they meant by posterity


For God's sake man, slow down and start using some formatting on your posts. A child can learn to use HTML tags in 10 minutes.

No, it really doesn't matter what they meant by posterity. Not outside the tiny minority of people who give a damn about the goose laying the golden eggs, anyway.

Only one way to find out but yes ,I anticipate it accelerate the aliya.Isnt that what you want?

You think that how Jews interpret the Constitution really impacts the rate of aliyah? Seriously?

1.The slaves I imagine

And how many of them do you think to be following this conversation? 1? 0? Hell, I'm barely following it at this point, given your hard left turn onto Absurd Drive.

2.So the slaves need not have been legally emancipated?

K. Stick a fork in yourself, you're done.

Svigor said...

4/30/13, 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...


Sociopaths always say "you'll be sorry; you'll miss me when I'm gone, but it'll be too late."

They can't help themselves. They're always wrong, and it's always embarrassing (on their behalf, for normal people to hear; they have no real sense of shame themselves) but they can't help saying it anyway.

Anonymous said...

"You would then approach the Indian and Chinese governments hat in hand requesting research scientists,doctors and engineers but by then they may not need you as much as you need them.

And even if they do need you,they may not comply, people of the old world hold grudges for a long long time as you know.And they will sacrifice any chance of improving their prospects in the process"

There are already many Indian doctors in this country, at least in my area. There are also many IT people. I see them everyday at work.

We should take them in if we really need them, not just to lower wages.

Don't Indians in India need doctors? Why turn your back on them?



Dr Van Nostrand said...


SV:No, it really doesn't matter what they meant by posterity. Not outside the tiny minority of people who give a damn about the goose laying the golden eggs, anyway.

DVN: What is the goose in your scenario and what are the golden eggs? Im sorry but when dealing with a guy uses refers to Amalekites as code for Palestinians and assumes it is easily decipherable, I have to make sure I know what exactly you are talking about!


SV:You think that how Jews interpret the Constitution really impacts the rate of aliyah? Seriously?

DVN: If they reach the conclusion that you wish to,then yes wouldnt it impact the aliya?

1.The slaves I imagine

SV: And how many of them do you think to be following this conversation? 1? 0? Hell, I'm barely following it at this point, given your hard left turn onto Absurd Drive.

DVN: I see you what you did there. Somehow in a discussion regarding an amendment ending slavery, to consider the opinion of slaves of that era is "hard left(because only leftists care about silly things emancipating black slaves apparently) onto Absurd Drive(the capitalization is a nice touch- you almost fooled everyone into thinking its a real place- how do you do it?)

2.So the slaves need not have been legally emancipated?

SV: Stick a fork in yourself, you're done.

DVN: If you believe that I cant stop you-and IM the sociopath?

5/1/13, 6:41 AM
Svigor said...
4/30/13, 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...

Anon:Sociopaths always say "you'll be sorry; you'll miss me when I'm gone, but it'll be too late."

DVN: Whatever happened to this original post? I cant see it
But any way ,lets assume your idiot observation is accurate-that I am a sociopath. Not all sociopaths are mistaken, the same all paranoid racist,crank WN anti Semites like Svigor are always wrong.
Broken clock and all that.
I am not saying you will miss US(as in Indians) ie Indian restaurants,the occasional woman in a saree, Hindu temples and what have you. I am sure you will do just fine without them by either following a hollow,bastardized version of them(as often occurs) or do without them altogether.I mean the SKILL SETS we have and not the culture that comes with it.
One doesnt have to be a sociopath to see you will miss them.
Hey did we put a gun to the heads of middle class white children and force them to go into debt to take a masters degree in Queer theory in Mycenean Greece so that they could lead rich fulfilling lives asking people if they would like a biscotti with their tall latte?


SV: They can't help themselves. They're always wrong, and it's always embarrassing (on their behalf, for normal people to hear; they have no real sense of shame themselves) but they can't help saying it anyway.

DVN: Forgive me, am not really interested in listening to harangues on embarrassment and decorum from neo Nazis who see the handiwork of Jews under each every unpleasant occurrence.
Ideological disagreements are one but when you start with the name calling, well two can play this game.