tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post1467670155859873543..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Charles Murray responds to Ron Unz college admissions articleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70390167947176372572012-12-16T09:17:22.541-08:002012-12-16T09:17:22.541-08:00"as if this doesen't mean exactly the sam..."as if this doesen't mean exactly the same thing as saying that northwestern Europeans are superior"<br /><br />indeed it does, when it comes to preserving the identity of the country.<br />at least truth is funny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69559445357828596042012-12-15T01:27:23.587-08:002012-12-15T01:27:23.587-08:00@Anonymous 9:39 PM
"Nick, Sailer claimed t...@Anonymous 9:39 PM<br /><br /> "Nick, Sailer claimed that blacks...........<br /><br /> ----> "You have not shown that the non-WASPs"<---------<br /><br /> (I reply to all your other points below this one, but I decided to address this one in particular to show how you are putting words in my mouth and attacking straw mans)<br /><br /> Why would I prove a claim I never made? Show me where I state that Southern European immigrants were denied the rights of citizens? Epic straw man.<br /><br /><br /> "This might be true, but it is not discrimination as much as it is preference..."<br /><br /> (answer to all your other paragraphs of text)----><br /><br /> You are parroting Sailer's point to me as if this somehow invalidates mine. It doesen't. You are comparing apples and oranges, attacking me for something I never said and jusdging my claim from a stadard I have already rejected. <br /><br /> And what you are saying is the textbook definition of descrimination, dummy. Once again, playing with semantics. Using the word "preference" rather than "discrimination". To prefer and to discriminate are synonymous.<br /><br /> Well, I disagreed with this point from Sailer and I am not forced to agree with it. Just because you parrot it over and over again, does not it true.<br /><br /> I proved my point that there WAS inequality of status and rights by pointing out the fact that all Amrican presidents up to the last one were of northwestern European descent and most were WASPS, and that a man of Italian or Spanish desent could not have become president no matter how qualified. <br /><br /> Then brought up the 1924 Immigration Act, which specifically limited the number of Southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologially inferior.<br /> <br /> The only thing that you guys could reply to this was to twist the argument with semantics and say that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to keep the "indentity of the country", as if this doesen't mean exactly the same thing as saying that northwestern Europeans are superior.<br /><br /> And you guys called bogus on it, and yet what I said istrue and you know it and couldn't disprove it. No way a man called "Desí Arnaz" could ever become U.S president.<br /> <br /> And, pray tell, how exactly bringinp up immigration policy is not germane to the debate? Immigration policy is valid because a Society shows what kind of people it values most by what kind of people it gives preference when it comes to allowing to become citizens of your country. <br /><br /> It is pathetic how much you guys try to boggle the argument down with semantics or point out examples that I am giving to illustrate my point by proxy as invalid just because they aren't directly related to the issue at hand. I particularly love this one:<br /><br /> "It was then pointed out that discriminating against foreigners"<br /><br /> I think you are being disengenious on purpose. No one is this cynical. Now this is a beautiful twist of semantics! Are you are a lawyer? Discrimination against foreigners? First of all, I am talking about discrimination against native-born Italian and Spanish Americans. Secondly, discrimination against foreigners is a valid way to access the prejudices of a Society when you the Society in question discriminates in VARIABLE degrees groups of foreigners from diferent ethnic groups.<br /><br /> "Sailer's point is still valid that descendants of slaves"<br /><br /> I disagree with this. Discrimination and "preference" become synonyms in practical terms when certain positions of power are denied for those of certain ethnic groups in non-oficial manners.Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31071826258442475102012-12-14T21:39:10.794-08:002012-12-14T21:39:10.794-08:00What you are bringing up is completely besides the...<i>What you are bringing up is completely besides the point. Steve Sailer made a claim that I decided to refute. His claim was the only blacks have ever been discriminated in the U.S. So I addressed THAT.</i><br /><br />Nick, Sailer claimed that blacks were the only ones who faced discrimination because they were denied the rights of citizens. I believe he also said Native Americans could claim aggrieved status too for the loss of their lands. Based on this, Sailer argued that blacks, <i>descendants of Americans slavery and Jim Crow and not recent Africans</i>, and Native Americans, <i> descendants of Indians from present day USA north of the Rio </i>,should be the only ones eligible for affirmative action.<br /><br />To counter Sailer, you wrote that non-NW Europeans were discriminated against too and the proof of this was the fact that no member of a non-NW European group was ever elected President in pre-21st century America. In effect your test for proof of group discrimination centered around the question of, "could a person with a non WASP backgroup been elected President in 1940?" <br /><br />To which most of the people on this blog called bogus. You then tried to prove discrimination by pointing out that immigration from Southern Europe and elsewhere was limited. You brought immigration into the argument. It was then pointed out that discriminating against foreigners wanting to come to America is not the same as discriminating against citizens. In effect you cannot discriminate against a non-citizen who doesn't live in your country. To borrow a phrase from the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which foreigners in a foreign land are not and thus cannot be discriminated against.<br /><br />You have not shown that the non-WASPs who were allowed into our nation where denied the rights of their fellow citizens. You only claimed they would never have been able to get elected President by the largely NW European demographic. This might be true, but it is not discrimination as much as it is preference. This is not the same as blacks who were legally segregated and denied the right to vote.<br /><br />Sailer's point is still valid that descendants of slaves and American Indians are the only ones that should benefit from affirmative action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1280455418597681702012-12-14T20:35:40.201-08:002012-12-14T20:35:40.201-08:00@TomV
"Where did Steve ever say that? The ... @TomV<br /><br /> "Where did Steve ever say that? The "lies" and "straw men" that you protest a little too much about are your own projections"<br /><br /> He claimed that by proxy when he used the marriage of Desí Arnaz to Lucille Ball as evidence that White Latinos were never discriminated in América.<br /><br /> NO WHERE do I claim that Sailer stated that directly with those words verbatim. Go ahead and show me where?<br /><br /> Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65988167984935067142012-12-14T20:32:07.297-08:002012-12-14T20:32:07.297-08:00"Anonymous 11:12 PM" is a perfect exampl... "Anonymous 11:12 PM" is a perfect example of what I said about you guys getting frustrated at your inability to counter my points with cogent arguments that are logically consistent and based on evidence, and thus having to resort to insulting me and making ad hominem invective to pretend like you are "winning" the argument.<br /><br /> Just claim that your oponent has been "spanked" and that he suffered "utter defeat and humiliation". Then, have your blog friends pat you on the back agreeing with you, because, you know, appealing to ad populum is always a nice way to "win" an argument, because we all know that, if a lot of people agree with you, it is because you are right.<br /><br /> Then, you can feel all good about you having "won" the argument. Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8346622845287042952012-12-14T19:53:45.969-08:002012-12-14T19:53:45.969-08:00@Anonymous 11:12 PM
"If the US wanted to d... @Anonymous 11:12 PM<br /><br /> "If the US wanted to discriminate against southern Europeans, the way to do that would be to completely end their immigration, not to let them in on the basis of ethnic balance!"<br /><br /> What an idiotic comment. So the U.S tried to limit the number of Southern European immigrants but did NOT try to do the same for those from northwestern Europe and this does not indicate a preference for NW European immigrants? <br /><br /> It is not required for the U.S to have eliminated COMPLETELY immigration from Southern Europe for my point about about immigrants from northwestern Europe being prefered to stand. All that is required is a preference for the latter compared to the former. This is very simple logic, but it eludes you.<br /><br /> See what I mean by you guys using semantics and circular arguments to try disprove me? <br /><br /> "What a ridiculous chip on your shoulder you have."<br /><br /><br /> Nope. I just don't like to see people lying to push an agenda - in this case, Sailer getting Latinos to identify as whites to get them off Affirmative Action.<br /><br />"How silly that after you've been repeatedly spanked on this thread, you repeat the same discredited argument you already attempted, then write "THE END" in all caps as some sort of extra proof of your stupidity."<br /><br /> The really funny thing about this is that this statement you make here applies to YOU guys, and it goes to show how SHAMELESS you are for saying this. Where have you disproven me? Show me? I have DESTROYED you in this debate. Not even close. You have been unable to reply to any of the arguments I made, and most of my rebuttals went unanswered because I showed in exact detail why your reasoning(or lack thereof) is flawed, and you were so flabbergasted by them that you simply left my points unchallenged. What a lack of SHAME for you to say that I have been spanked in this thread, when in reality it was you guys.<br /><br />"I can't even get started on your silly idea that Sicilians were terribly discriminated against (as compared to the French) in the USA."<br /> You can't get started because you have no cogente arguements to make, so acting outraged and insulting me is all you have.<br /><br /> "I hope your utter defeat and humiliation on this thread leads you to go comment on kiddie table blogs in the future. You are obviously not able deal with grown-ups."<br /><br /> Bwa ha ha ha...you are joking right? SHAMELESS. <br /><br /> I OWNED you guys so badly that you have NOTHING to reply to me except insulting me. What else is new?Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39626032964165116232012-12-14T01:50:47.325-08:002012-12-14T01:50:47.325-08:00Diaz:
"And yet, Steve Sailer shamelessly cla...Diaz:<br /><br /><i>"And yet, Steve Sailer shamelessly claims that American Society never discriminated against anyone except blacks. That all ethnic groups, except blacks, had the same socio-political status as WASPS."</i><br /><br />Where did Steve ever say that? The "lies" and "straw men" that you protest a little too much about are your own projections. TomVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17444310940860282036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67484772620618198362012-12-13T23:12:06.958-08:002012-12-13T23:12:06.958-08:00This Nick Diaz guy is pathetic.
Even if they didn...This Nick Diaz guy is pathetic.<br /><br /><i>Even if they didn't dicriminate against Southern Europeans on the grounds that they were innately inferior, which they did, saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END.</i><br /><br />If the US wanted to discriminate against southern Europeans, the way to do that would be to completely end their immigration, not to let them in on the basis of ethnic balance! <br /><br />What a ridiculous chip on your shoulder you have. <br /><br />How silly that after you've been repeatedly spanked on this thread, you repeat the same discredited argument you already attempted, then write <i>"THE END"</i> in all caps as some sort of extra proof of your stupidity.<br /><br />I can't even get started on your silly idea that Sicilians were terribly discriminated against (as compared to the French) in the USA.<br /><br />I hope your utter defeat and humiliation on this thread leads you to go comment on kiddie table blogs in the future. You are obviously not able deal with grown-ups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74484185354726300192012-12-13T01:03:23.390-08:002012-12-13T01:03:23.390-08:00I enjoyed the part of their comments where the Int...I enjoyed the part of their comments where the Internetters began spontaneously arguing on whether Japanese/AZN are inherently less humane; got a CBS-William Westmoreland flashback right there... "Life is not valued by the Oriental"Alcalde Jaime Miguel Curleohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11801154986193443160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22368138798653073652012-12-13T00:04:31.263-08:002012-12-13T00:04:31.263-08:00@Anonymous 11:44 PM
"Do Mexicans consider ... @Anonymous 11:44 PM<br /><br /> "Do Mexicans consider others to be inferior? Do Japanese, Koreans and Israelis consider others to be inferior? You still continue to ignore the fact other nations practice restrictive immigration policies to maintain their ethnic balances as well. <br /><br />You criticize the NW Euros for wanting to maintain the ethnic balance. But what about you and the other pro-Hispanic immigration activists of today? Are you not essentially arguing that you want to change the ethnic balance of this nation to better reflect the ethnic and cultural makeup of your own groups? Are you not implying that an increase of your group over others is desireable?<br /><br />The immigration issue is two sides of the same coin. The dominant group in any nation wishes to maintain the ethnic balance, while the minority group wishes to change the ethnic balance in its favor.<br /><br />You are a hypocrite. You are quick to attack NW Euros, but ignore similar practices around the world. And you promote ethnic rebalancing in your favor while condemning Americans from an earlier age of wishing to do the same"<br /><br /> So you agree with me? Good. <br /><br /> I think you guys have a serious problem of Reading comprehension and understanding basic deductive logic.<br /><br /> Your replies to me are an amalgamation of straw mans, circular semantical arguments and endless ad hominem invective.<br /><br /> What you are bringing up is completely besides the point. Steve Sailer made a claim that I decided to refute. His claim was the only blacks have ever been discriminated in the U.S. So I addressed THAT.<br /><br /> So why are you arguing with me something that I never brought up in the first place. Where countries should limit the number of immigrants or not has NOTHING to do with my point, which was to REFUTE SAILER'S CLAIM - and only that.<br /><br /> Are you guys serious with this? Can you read?<br /><br /> If you must know, I do think that countries should have some limit on immigration, but I do not think it should be based on ethnic criteria. That is ethically despicable. Disriminating based on education is reasonable, but it has to be done at the INDIVIDUAL level. No turning down Latin Americans as a category because you assume from "IQ tests", which are far from perfect, that they are biologically inferior ethnically. That is disgusting to any civilized sensibility.Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83619353331842111732012-12-12T23:42:41.353-08:002012-12-12T23:42:41.353-08:00@Joe Schmoe
"Well, sure. There's nothin...@Joe Schmoe<br /><br /> "Well, sure. There's nothing wrong with recognizing cultural differences. Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries require women to cover their faces. They also forbid them from driving."<br /><br /> You missed the gist of my argument. Since culture can be taught or enforced innate abilities being equal, the fact that American Soiety limited the number of Southern European immigrants indicates that they believed that Southern Europeans were of inferior INNATE ability. In fact, I don't even need to debate this with you because the 1924 Immigration Act was passed on the belief that Southern EWuropeans were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to northwestern European. THE. END. <br /><br /> "We certainly do regard cultures where women are forbidden to drive as mysognist and inferior to our own, in that respect. This is not to say that we regard Saudi culture is inferior in every respect, but we do regard it as inferior in a very important respect, i.e. the way it treats 50% of its population."<br /><br /> This is a value-judgement. American Society is not devoid of engaging in practices that I find culturally deplorable, like circumcision of boys. Your brethren in Europe regard you as barbarians for doing that. That is just a matter of opinion. Cultural custos that are barbaric to you may not be to me, and vice-versa.<br /><br /> "So your premise that there is no distinction between "cultural" differences and "racial" differences is simply flawed."<br /><br /> Straw man alert! Where have I stated this? If you read what I wrote, that is not what I said. I said that the fact that Americans tried to limit immigraton from Southern European EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE NATIVE CULTURE ON THEM indicates that American Society believed that these immigrants could not assimilate due to innate abilities. I love when you guys come up with straw mans and attack them, or when you boggle the issue down with semantics using synonyms as if they were antonyms.<br /><br /> "It is possible Americans of the time may have considered Southern Europeans biologically inferior. I don't know enough about the 1920's to say. My sense is that back then, people viewed Italians (and the Irish) as clannish, superstitious peasants who did not value education, were content to work in blue-collar jobs more or less forever (the horror!) , and "kept to themselves" and refused to assimilate, rather than as a separate "race," like blacks. And in the case of Irish and Italians, the behavior which people saw as a refusal to assimilate was quite organized and formal. They had a separate religion (Catholicism), refused to attend public schools and set up their own educational institutions instead (Catholic schools), organized themselves into political machines (Tammany Hall), etc., etc. Ultimately the Irish and Italians did assimilate, but the point is that THIS IS NOT RACIAL BEHAVIOR -- it is cultural."<br /><br /> It had nothing to do with religion, as American Society never imposed the same harsh rtestrictions of the French as they did on Sicilians, for instance. <br /><br /> "But here is the salient point: while as you say, Americans DID force people back then to assimilate, they were worried that the program of assimilation would be rendered ineffective because it would be overwhelmed by more immigrants than the system could cope with. That's a reasonable fear. The basic idea is that the system can only handle so much immigration. And there is some truth to that, don't you think? For example, if 100,000,000 people from India were to immigrate here in the next 10 years, they would assimilate far less quickly than if only 10,000 Indians would, no? Again, this is not a "racial" issue at all. It is a numbers issue."<br /><br /> You would have a valid point here if it weren't for the large number of Anglo politicians back in the 1920s who justified stopping immigration from Southern Europe on the grouns that they were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to northwestern Europeans.Nick Diaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82895000307290742372012-12-12T13:08:25.541-08:002012-12-12T13:08:25.541-08:00"It's despicable the way he kisses the bu..."It's despicable the way he kisses the butts and advocates for the people who are leading the charge against traditional America while he won't even mention the plight of his own people. Disgusting."<br /><br />It's a living. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9695739212981963122012-12-12T13:06:26.978-08:002012-12-12T13:06:26.978-08:00'haha i got kommenent kontrolled!'
You go...'haha i got kommenent kontrolled!'<br /><br />You got whim-whammed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20795707510917084822012-12-12T13:04:35.181-08:002012-12-12T13:04:35.181-08:00wasps turned into wisps.
wisps are wimpy wispy w...wasps turned into wisps. <br /><br />wisps are wimpy wispy wasps who work to undermine wasp power to the very last drop. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10932882688026153772012-12-12T12:39:54.266-08:002012-12-12T12:39:54.266-08:00"His selective focus is not rational at all. ..."His selective focus is not rational at all. He fixates on discrimination against Asians while ignoring the much larger issue of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews. I wouldn't really expect much better from a neocon propagandist like Murray, but strangely some people who ought to know better really look up to this guy."<br /><br />Exactly, Charles Murray has always been always been on the other side. <br /><br />It's despicable the way he kisses the butts and advocates for the people who are leading the charge against traditional America while he won't even mention the plight of his own people. Disgusting.ATBOTLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28004958926393672112012-12-12T11:08:10.429-08:002012-12-12T11:08:10.429-08:00Steve, you somehow missed this story:
http://www....Steve, you somehow missed this story:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/a-quick-descent-for-cecilia-chang-dean-at-st-johns.html?adxnnl=1&ref=general&src=me&adxnnlx=1355339141-/GjoIPfhs/2+FIRKBvxBhAehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6188194771011228532012-12-12T08:06:46.444-08:002012-12-12T08:06:46.444-08:00"Is it possible that the Asian students at th..."Is it possible that the Asian students at these places don't want to be in an all Asian school?"<br />Excellent point. Has any East Asian who did get in ever complained of not having enough Asian classmates? <br /><br />NotMyRealNamenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66003579502731987602012-12-12T07:57:01.980-08:002012-12-12T07:57:01.980-08:00http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/0...http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/?single_page=true<br /><br />"Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves."<br /><br />Could it be that multi-cultism among relatively UNsuccessful liberals is a status-seeking imitation of super-rich ultra-successful liberals?<br />Multi-cultism is sold as 'leftism' favoring the 'disenfranchised', but it seems the superrich have their own version that is far more enticing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13930092595960385482012-12-12T07:49:11.904-08:002012-12-12T07:49:11.904-08:00http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/0...http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21360649950697509432012-12-12T06:52:32.385-08:002012-12-12T06:52:32.385-08:00@ Nick Diaz 9:20 p.m. (cont'd)
Finally, ther...@ Nick Diaz 9:20 p.m. (cont'd)<br /><br /><br />Finally, there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve the fundamental "look" and "feel" of one's nation. People want to live around others who speak the same language and share the same values. Americans are tolerant and will put up with the discomfort caused by diversity, because we are a nation of immigrants. I don't mind if a Mexican family moves in next door to me, even if they have too many relatives over on the weekends, which adversely affects my peace and quiet and discourages me from puttering around in the garden because I don't want to do so under the curious gaze of 40 strangers, and park one of those pimped out 1930's cars in the driveway. Those things bother me but I put up with them because it is the right thing to do. I'm not going to move out or burn a cross in their lawn, I will take it. do mind living in Michocan Norte, where no one speaks English, there are gangs in the schools, and people keep chickens in the front yard. And what is wrong with that? How is it "racial?"Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43341476003632299722012-12-12T06:52:05.230-08:002012-12-12T06:52:05.230-08:00@ Nick Diaz 9:20 p.m.
"...saying that it was...@ Nick Diaz 9:20 p.m.<br /><br />"...saying that it was needed to maintain the "ethnic balance" of the country means they implied that such balance was desirable, meaning that they ascribed more positive cultrural qualities to northwestern Europeans than to southern Europeans. THE. END."<br /><br />Well, sure. There's nothing wrong with recognizing cultural differences. Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries require women to cover their faces. They also forbid them from driving. <br /><br />This isn't a racial difference -- women in Saudi Arabia are physically capable of wearing jeans and t-shirts, and driving cars -- it's a cultural difference. And that particular cultural difference is one that most Americans find appalling. It is fundamentally inconsistent with American values and social norms. <br /><br />We certainly do regard cultures where women are forbidden to drive as mysognist and inferior to our own, in that respect. This is not to say that we regard Saudi culture is inferior in every respect, but we do regard it as inferior in a very important respect, i.e. the way it treats 50% of its population. <br /><br />So your premise that there is no distinction between "cultural" differences and "racial" differences is simply flawed. <br /><br />"But of course, it wasn't only about culture, because culture is a construct that can be assimilated if innate capabilities are equal, and if they believed that southern Europeans were merely culturally inferior and not biologically inferior, they would have no problem with SE immigration since America at that time had a forced cultural assimilation program for all immigrants, making the threat of a competing culture dissolving the nation non-existence. A simple logical deduction leads to the conclusion that WASP America regarded Southern Europeans as INNATELY inferior."<br /><br />It is possible Americans of the time may have considered Southern Europeans biologically inferior. I don't know enough about the 1920's to say. My sense is that back then, people viewed Italians (and the Irish) as clannish, superstitious peasants who did not value education, were content to work in blue-collar jobs more or less forever (the horror!) , and "kept to themselves" and refused to assimilate, rather than as a separate "race," like blacks. And in the case of Irish and Italians, the behavior which people saw as a refusal to assimilate was quite organized and formal. They had a separate religion (Catholicism), refused to attend public schools and set up their own educational institutions instead (Catholic schools), organized themselves into political machines (Tammany Hall), etc., etc. Ultimately the Irish and Italians did assimilate, but the point is that THIS IS NOT RACIAL BEHAVIOR -- it is cultural. <br /><br />But here is the salient point: while as you say, Americans DID force people back then to assimilate, they were worried that the program of assimilation would be rendered ineffective because it would be overwhelmed by more immigrants than the system could cope with. That's a reasonable fear. The basic idea is that the system can only handle so much immigration. And there is some truth to that, don't you think? For example, if 100,000,000 people from India were to immigrate here in the next 10 years, they would assimilate far less quickly than if only 10,000 Indians would, no? Again, this is not a "racial" issue at all. It is a numbers issue. <br />Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81491349481860212782012-12-12T05:22:23.756-08:002012-12-12T05:22:23.756-08:00I hope the tears streaming down my pink cheeks don...<i>I hope the tears streaming down my pink cheeks dont ruin my keyboard as I sit here typing this post. Yes.The 1920s. Let us never forget the 1920s,when Ivy League colleges had quotas agianst Jews.The banality of evil. The men who did this werent monsters;they were cultured and educated. They had wives and kids.Yet these men,whom I call A. Lawrence Lowells Willing Administrators, carried out this evil Plan wholeheartedly. They couldve rebelled,they couldve refused,but they didnt.What must it have been like? Did they line up the Jewish applicants and go down the line,nodding at this one,nodding at that one.Who gets in...who does not. A survivor of the Quotas,Melvin Fleeglebaum,recalls one admissions counselor,nicknamed the Angel of Rejection. "He approached me,and he was just about to turn me down when,for some reason I'll never know,he pointed at me and said,"You're in,kid." Why me? Why did I get in;when so many didnt?" You could,they say,smell the bitter odor in the air around Harvard,the unmistakable odor of applications being burned.</i><br /><br />Haha, beautiful my son, just beautiful.<br /><br />I'd bet real money this kind of comment could get you jailed ("trivializing the memory of the dead" or somesuch) in most of Europe.<br /><br />You RACIST ANTI-SEMITE!!!Svigornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64556564626007815462012-12-12T05:21:47.360-08:002012-12-12T05:21:47.360-08:00" It is exactly the same thing that Ivy Leagu...<i>" It is exactly the same thing that Ivy League admissions officers did to Jewish applicants in the 1920s, when it was decided that too many Jews were getting into their schools."<br /><br />And yet, Steve Sailer debunks the shameless claims on the part of mestizos to the victimhood of blacks.</i><br /><br />FTFY<br /><br /><i>Never mind the Harvard quotas for Jews.</i><br /><br />Never mind the Israeli quotas on non-Jews. Oh, wait, there aren't any - Jews don't even let non-Jews into their country.<br /><br /><i>Never mind the 1924 Immigration Act which especifically limited the number of southern European immigrants on the grounds that they were biologically inferior to northwestern Europeans.</i><br /><br />Never mind Israeli immigration policy, which specifically limits the number of non-Jewish immigrants (to double digits) on the ground that they aren't the Chosen People of G-d, and are thus subhuman and ineligible for Israeli citizenship.<br /><br /><i>Never mind that only WASPS up to the early 1960's could make it to the top in the political and corporate ladder.</i><br /><br />I'm going to reply in kind from now on, when I read haters using this "WASP" term. E.g., in this case, I'm responding to spic aggression.<br /><br />Never mind that only Jews are even allowed to immigrate to Israel, <i>right now</i>.<br /><br /><i>So you have just agreed with me that the 1924 Immigration Act was designed to stop non-northwestern European immigration, except you used more euphemistic terms to describe what I did.</i><br /><br />You've already conceded the high ground here; you care not a whit about the current, ongoing, and much worse discrimination against non-Jews in Israel, the 1924-esque discrimination against non-Mexicans in current Mexican immigration policy, etc.<br /><br />It's not discrimination that concerns you, but barriers to your ethnic self-interest.<br /><br /><i>If a Jewish guy did it..<br /><br />Murray: 'hmmmmmmm. I wonder who did it.... let me see.... hmmmmm.</i><br /><br />Indeed. I believe the term of choice is "Sabbath goy."<br /><br /><i>Nice obfuscation of the facts with semantics.</i><br /><br />Nice three-paragraph dodge afterward, of the fact that you don't give a shit when anybody else does it, your own kind very much included. You whine about 1924 when Anglo-Saxons did it, and ignore 2012 where Mexicans and Jews (and pretty much everyone else <i>except</i> NW Euros) do it.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps, but pretty much everyone prefers to be Goliath. Sometimes, David gets a lucky shot in with his sling, but most of the time, he gets pounded into paste by his enormously bigger and stronger opponent.</i><br /><br />As has been pointed out here several times before, the real moral of David and Goliath is that it's good to bring a gun to a fist fight. And heroic and plucky.Svigornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-973168244728765832012-12-12T00:46:39.660-08:002012-12-12T00:46:39.660-08:00They're letting in the white gentiles they wan...<i>They're letting in the white gentiles they want (rich donors) and keeping out the hoi polloi.</i><br /><br />White gentiles are the most underrepresented. They're more underrepresented than Asians are. So "the elites" are saying that white gentiles are the most "hoi polloi" type of people out there, which is absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81261246713202946632012-12-12T00:42:26.253-08:002012-12-12T00:42:26.253-08:00The top echelon of american universities became th...The top echelon of american universities became the envy of the world AFTER the jewish influx of the last century. back in the 1700's and mid 1800's there wasn't all that much going on in these places compared to europe. if harvard had not admitted them, it would have been to its own detriment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com