I wish people like Frum could accept that you don't have to be full of race hatred to believe the empirical evidence that population groups vary in mean IQ. It does seem hard to believe that he really truly doesn't believe that American Jews have a higher median IQ or that American blacks have a lower median IQ than the national average. More likely he's like my wife, who like most sensible people insists that while these things are true, it's best not to discuss them. - ViL
"Instead, I suspect, he wants IQ research silenced because it shows that Jews average higher IQs, as AEI's Murray recently noted in Commentary. For example, back in 2003, one of VDARE.com's sins was mentioning this. Frum put us on his little blacklist of "Unpatriotic Conservatives" in part because:"
I disagree. I suspect the real reason Frum doesn’t want to talk about IQ is more prosaic.
The true reason Frum is averse to talk about IQ is that raise questions about IQ inevitably leads to questions about race.
Since the reigning orthodoxy among our increasingly Orwellian elite is that the “R Word” does not exist.
Frum - and most everyone else on the establishment right – risk being purged from their comfy think tank perches if they even suggest there are substantial differences among the various human races, an so they avoid the topic as much as possible.
Importantly, the establishment right truly, deeply BELIEVES race does not matter.
Hence, to this very day, the neocon right is mystified as to why Iraq descended into civil war when the Saddam dictatorship was removed while they previously anticipated Iraq would become peaceful and prosperous just like the Czech Republic became after the fall of Soviet tyranny or Germany and Japan became successes after the overthrow of Hitler and Tojo.
The problem with their predictions was that they refused to see race as a factor in how people act, and the establishment is making the same mistake over immigration policy.
Did he actually read the article? It wasn't easy to recognize much of it in what he wrote.
He bays about "racialism":
It is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong.
And if what one "hopes to achieve" is the preservation of a majority white America? Is it OK then to notice that most immigrants are non-white? Is that "morally wrong"? You're left to assume that anyone who sees a majority white America as worth preserving, or hints that there might be a large intractable component to those troubling group differences that cause so many social problems, is a 'racialist' -- a bad person, a taint.
Is America not an 'achievement'? Looking around the world, isn't current mass immigration (legal and illegal) 'destroying' one thing -- America's heritage as a majority white nation -- that seems to have contributed decisively to this 'achievement'?
It's just more of the usual blinkered, politically correct, bullying, unctuous crap dressed up in big words.
Frum's defensiveness is telling. if vdare was truly "untouchable" as polite company is concerned, i suppose Frum would not have responded at length to the article.
the attempt turn around the "foreign allegiances" reference was pretty deft...for someone grasping at straws.
notice that even as Frum praises the "right to dissent" he can't help but undermine whatever manifestation of dissent he finds.
the dissenting example he cites is akin to the tactic a concerned friend might use to prevent his friend from driving drunk.
the drunk friend sure as hell isn't going to listen to reason, so you should try and persuade those who are still capable of acting in their own self interest to try and stop him from driving.
and of course, the dissenters are "unpatriotic" and Frum, the noble advisor, is the patriot, cheerleading the USA off a cliff.
you could probably rename Frum's piece something along the lines of, "the lies we tell ourselves."
perhaps that will be his title for his autobiography, when he has his McNamara moment 20 years hence.
I think you are missing some worthwhile points Frum made.
1) In response to your question about where Frum's been on the immigration issue, his response seems to be something more than "point and sputter":
"In 1990, as an editor at the Wall Street Journal page... I published two opeds that year by George Borjas, the only two times his work has appeared on that all-important page until 2006. I also worked hard, usually with less success, to publish articles by Marvin Kosters and other economists warning that the inequality trend detected by liberal economists was real."
In 1994, I published my first book, Dead Right, which predicted that the immigration issue would emerge as one of the largest issues in American politics. (It took a while to happen, but that prediction seems at last to have come true.) Between 1996 and 2000, I wrote a lengthy history of the 1970s, How We Got Here, one of whose major themes was equality and inequality and that treated immigration at length."
Is your beef with Frum that he didn't write any anti-open borders speeches for Bush when he worked in the White House? As Frum points out, his influence there was "modest"; also, everyone knows that opening the doors to Mexico was a hobbyist of Bush's since before he became president.
2) WRT Vdare's black & Jew content, Frum's response again is less "point and sputter" or status-seeking than an explanation of why this has harmed immigration restrictionists by turning off potential supporters:
"The VDare website has broken important stories and published important analytic work. Steve Sailer is no dunce either, obviously. Yet they pollute all the good that they do or could do when they give way to racial contempt and antisemitic paranoia.
If I were the only person repelled by this, I suppose it would not matter very much. But I don't think I am. And if we are trying to understand why the immigration reform cause has not had better success over the past 15 years, that repulsion is an important part of the story."
Frum could have done a better job refuting your comments about him and the Northern Ireland correspondent though.
I don't think the Charles Murray thing gets said enough. The most baffling thing about NR and race is their vast respect for Murray, their promotion of his last two books, their publication of his articles... I mean, I’m not talking about Derbyshire here, I mean happy-face conservatives like Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, and whoever signs off on what they publish, Lowry and whoever else. Yes, they whistle around his actual IQ talk, but why isn’t he tainted like the immigration reform movement was? (that is, like it was until the last few months when NR finally arrived to baptize it)
I mean, even if Homer was just nodding during that regrettable Bell Curve period (and in that Commentary article last year or two years ago or whenever it was), they at least agree that he's a decent hate-free guy with humane intentions, right? Not a feverish victim of corrosive “intellectually corrupting” paranoia or whatever, right?
Anyway, I thought Frum did about as good a job as could have been done in trying to rebut Steve’s article--righting off racialism was mandatory and he seemed pretty cordial and heartfelt about it--but I noticed he didn’t address The Murray Question…
Hey, the WSJ printed Murray on education earlier this year, didn’t they? And—it must have been a scary moment for them—they somehow let him write about Hurricane Katrina, no?
Okay, since the NR crowd are so hurt that their friends at the WSJ have written them off as little-better-than-Vdare themselves, what they should do is, strike back by explaining that the open borders movement is now hopelessly tainted by the corrosive racialism of the likes of Murray. See how they like it! Meanwhile, NR can continue to argue for immigration control in their pure, race-free way.
This would of course require purging Murray from NR’s good graces, which leads me back to my original question, why, with their delicate understanding of what the public will stand for and their profound understanding of what is a morally sound topic for discussion, they put up with the guy.
So Frum is claiming that his comments about Godson were a watered down joke? "The guy's a Jew, but he's obsessed about NORTHERN IRELAND, ha ha." He seems to be saying that his joke was simply to call Godson kooky about Northern Ireland, but why did he feel the need to explain that Godson's father was a Jew from Russia, and that he therefore should be interested in Israel?
If the joke was pointing out a Jew obssessed with a country other than about Israel, well, we all know that jokes often reveal an underlying truth.
It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong. Says who? Of course Jewish neocons don't say these things in connection with Israel and its law of return, marriage laws, laws against undermining its Jewish character, etc. The Frum's of this world simply aren't morally consistent whether or not they see themselves that way. Leaving aside whether or not racialism is good or not, most people will agree that hypocricy, like lying, is bad, and I would like to see that as a starting point in any argument concerning the goodness or badness of racialism. Thesesneocons will tell forcefully you that gentiles connecting nation and race are depraved sickos, but they are hypocrites and if they deny it they're liars too (if they aren't simply blind to themselves).
In an unrelated vein, it's remarkable how neocons can go from failure to failure and still keep their jobs as government advisers, think tank members, and journalists. Wolfowitz flops at his world bank job and who replaces him? Another neocon who I understand was buddy buddy with the writers of the PNAC document. The war has been a disaster in terms of the stated aims of its architects, but they've still got their 'pundit' jobs.
As for why Murry gets a pass in spite of his non-conformance, I think its because of the ethnicity of the co-author of the Bell Curve and the fact that he sticks to libertarian positions deemed non-threatening by the Frums, which leads me to the subject of libertarians...They say they value individualism and so on, then if they are sincere wouldn't they opt for tactical racialism (analagous to MLK's tactical non-violence) for the simple reason that libertarianism has next to no currency among non-whites? Of course they wouldn't because they'd be anathematised, but there is an enourmous logic gap there.
Frum hold his own very well - And he is absolutely right - Steve and vDARE attract a lot of people that don't like Jews and don't like blacks - And by not liking them I mean "really despise them" - I do not have the means to measure it, but I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites - So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
I think Frum did a decent job of refuting the claim that he had rarely or never written on immigration. Not every writer can or should devote himself single-mindedly to the issue, but Frum has written about it more than most conservatives outside the paleo orbit. Or do you view him as so super-powerful that he should have been able to single-handedly turn Bush against amnesty when he was a Bush speechwriter? I don't think that's very realistic.
"2) WRT Vdare's black & Jew content, Frum's response again is less "point and sputter" or status-seeking than an explanation of why this has harmed immigration restrictionists by turning off potential supporters"
I agree that the discussion of race on Vdare may turn a lot of possible supporters of immigration restriction off. It just seems impolite. However, despite what everybody wants to believe, race matters. And people need to face up the that eventually. I suspect that most Americans would also be opposed to importing 12-20 million of the smartest Chinese, Mexican, Japanese, or Indians. America would not necessarily want to add a completely new foreign class of elites any more than they want to add a new underclass. It's not just about importing poor people. It's about importing large numbers of people that are vastly different on many levels. Large countries with several large distinct ethnic groups have not had a great track record of holding together in the last 100 years. If people are afraid of all the nukes we have in the world now, what happens 50 years down the road if the US splits up? Who is going to have his finger on the trigger of all those toys?
Frum does not hold his own. On the Steve's most provocative contention that Frum is ethnocentric, his defense consists of explaining away his comment about Godson and then acting too good to answer Steve's claim. Some people may be persuaded by this tactic--I am not.
It's not like this sort of ethnocentrism is unheard of: according to the General Social Survey, 15-20% of American Jews say they think of their ethnicity first when considering political issues.
...I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites....
God forbid white people should try to survive! Whites must commit collective suicide!
So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
And?
We're supposed to prefer our demise to the ignominy of the "taint" of "racism"?
If someone describes me as a racist I threaten legal action. You should too. It is libelous.
One of the definitions from dictionary.com is:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Since the definition of 'racist' is so broad and encompasses everyone in the non-PC camp, how could you possibly win a libel case? The superior/inferior thing is a complex side-issue. Of course races differ wrt univerally desireable traits (like intelligence), while leftists insist that this is not so, insisting that those who believe otherwise only do so because they are conceited. It's like a rhetorical low blow, and you can't win.
Well I can't say this is the best rivalry since Wordsworth and Coleridge or even Jung and Freud but I'm perfectly willing to take sides.
Frum states that racism "is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. Reading between the lines, allow yourself to be perceived as being racist and you will be oppressed.
The other part of that statement that racism is "intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong" is sheer hypocrisy. I've yet to meet a person from another race who wasn't racist or ethnocentric to an extent. The difference is that whites will lose their jobs or have their reputations destroyed for being human.
I think Frum is meting out a warning to his old friends with his phrase "historically obtuse". In other words, you know the consequences, so avoid bringing them on yourself by breaking the taboos on discussing race.
Unfortunately, when you're held to impossible standards, a double standard even, you're bound to make mistakes. Frum is somewhat insulated from the consequences by his Jewish ethnicity. The rest of us, probably most of us who visit these blogs, have had to face consequences all out of proportion to our racial faux pas.
Giving in, backing down has only made allegations of racism a more powerful tool for destruction. I've seen a court proceeding in Houston influenced because black activists wanted to make certain the white criminals were punished as severely as they believed blacks in a similar situation would be punished. Imus lost his job over a remark much less sexist and vulgar than those made by rap artists in music that is played all across the nation.
Whites have also been cornered by allegations of "phantom" racism. Ever been reprimanded that you were creating a hostile working environment for your nonwhite co-workers because you were behaving like a white person? The pro-Amnesty crowd has exploited this phenomenom to great effect. Anyone who doesn't want to experiment with the consequences of unregulated, mass migration is obviously a racist.
What better way to fight back than to discuss unmentionable truths about differences in race, IQ and gender and even to exaggerate and be ethnocentric? Whites are going to be labelled racist anyway. Let's discuss these issues openly. If we have unfounded fears or faulty information then give us evidence not race-baiting.
The real question is why were Neocon bores like FRUM and PODHERTZ given free reign at NR while John Sullivan, Buchanan, Coulter, etc. were more or less banished?
(I suppose we could throw Steve in as one of the Banees.)
Steve of course, brings up the elephant in the room that we're all not supposed to talk about. Namely, that many Jewish pundits and politico's are primarily motivated by their ethnic concerns.
BTW, isn't FRUM a canadian? If so, why we should expect me to care deeply about AMERICAN immigration? The same is true of GERALDO. He has Israeli citizenship, spends alot of time there, contemplated moving to Israel, and even running for the Kennest. Doesn't his attachment for Israel explain his lack of concern over illegal immigration?
On some details -- like the Dean issue -- he might be telling his truth (or not), but that is a pretty naive way of responding to criticism directed at "behavior as it is publicly perceived." If you were put before a judge because of hitting a man while you driving drunk, an excuse like "I drank because my wife left; I didn't intend to kill the guy" isn't a "mitigating" circumstance. Sailer was not trying to read Frum's mind when this or that happened. He criticized Frum's objective "behavior." You didn't "intend" what Steve saw is no defense.
As for the paragraph...
It is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong.
...the trouble with enthocentricism is, well, ethnocentricism. Which is to say, you don't even perceive that you speak from the center of your own ethnicity. Frum is saying, of course,
* white racialism is the "enemy" of Jewish ethnic interests "from within" (i.e. nations hosting Jewish minorities).
* the political resistance point (flaw) that can destroy everything Jews hope to achieve -- by mixing races, nations, etc., so that the world becomes safer for them.
* it is "historically obtuse" (whatever the heck that means; is he saying "history is actually an interplay of ideas, so using the variable of race to understand it muddies the picture?" Probably, because he is a neocon, and like his leftist Jewish brethren, he would like to see Jews' efforts as idealistic/moralistic struggles benefiting all mandkind rather than furthering Jewish interests.
* racialism is "intellectually corrupting" (the youth brainwashed by the educartel to "celebrate diversity" -- again, whatever this is supposed to mean -- despite all their instincts and natural ethnic alliences),
* and "morally wrong" -- if "moral" is allowing Jews to further their ethnic interests without any compunction, and to the detriment of all other races, while they perceive it as to all humanity's advantage and.
*His living is dependent on being seen as "not racist" and having the same base set of cultural and social assumptions. You can't expect him to put his living at risk for a no-payoff move.
*Jews, diaspora Chinese and Indians suffer pogroms for being thought "smarter" by various native populations. Unlike Chinese and Indians, Jews lack a huge nation as their protector. It's understandable he would deny this. A history of pogroms would tend to do that.
*As Bush's hired hand, Frum was just that. A hired hand. One picked to do a job. Bush did not appoint him an advisor, and at any rate like all former pilots who don't rise to command, Bush doesn't listen to anyone but himself. See McCain and his Father.
I also think picking a fight with Frum over this issue is pointless and stupid. The important issue is to kill the Amnesty Bill Part two. Not engage in a Daily Kos like effort to find ideological purity.
You're also wrong on neocons. The first neocon was JFK:
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."
"...I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. ...the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
From the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Diem Coup, Vietnam, etc. JFK was Neocon #1. Bush is just like him: liberal, elite, aristo, stubborn, cronyist, etc. Last time I checked neither were Jews. Neither, for that matter was the Godfather of Neocons: Woodrow Wilson.
As for Buchanon's banning: he's Catholic anti-Semite who wanted America to stay out of WWII and wrote a book about it (on that he shares company with Gore Vidal). For terminal stupidity he should be banned from NRO.
'Racialism is to immigration reform what communism was to American socialism.'
Gee, I don't know. American socialism seems to have done pretty well. Note on that link that in 1900 the government spent less than 6% of the nation's income. Today it is damn near 33%.
He does have a point: we all (including yours truly) need to be more sensitive and tactful when discussing the issue. But the problem is that there's a catch 22 involved: the urgency of immigration reform can't be entirely understood outside of the context of race.
While our present number of immigrants would be way too large no matter who was coming, the added racial, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity add greatly to the threat.
Immigrants simply aren't assimilating, and to the extent that they are, it's often to the ethnocentric, anti-European culture, anti-American, anti-white attitudes of modern leftism.
We are supposed to simply, naively assume that all the races will blend happily into one - the history of blacks in America and Spaniards in Latin America all to the contrary.
Large countries with several large distinct ethnic groups have not had a great track record of holding together in the last 100 years.
Indeed. Mostly, as with China and Russia, they're held together by brute force. In the case of India, they barely hold together at all. And the few examples the open borders freaks can cite are of countries where the racial differences are minimal and the biggest argument is over language. Even those aren't always happy affairs: Canada, Belgium, and the Basques in Spain, for example.
Indeed, virtually every civil war in history has centered on deep-seated racial or ethnic differences. Just look at the last century: Sudan, South Africa, Rwanda, Serbia, the Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Chechnya, ad infinitum.
People may think we're doing well now, but peace will only remain so long as the money keeps flowing - and there are plenty of reasons - from excessive debt, to trade wars, to excess entitlement spending, to the flow of oil - that the economy could be interrupted.
The open borders nuts are trying to do something that has never in the history of ever succeeded anywhere: hold a racially diverse population together, happily, without the use of brute force.
About that typically-Jewish criticism that by highlighting racial issues, VDARE creates an overlap between its readership and those who visit "white nationalist" websites, etc. (even this is illuminating enough; the day Jewish nationalism becomes criminalized like this, I may start listening).
Please note the silly point here: that by doing so, VDARE (and/or anti-immigrationists, or immigration-restrictionists [the latter is supposed to put a better verbal face on the case, although "restricting" immigration from its current levels down to say 46% of it isn't exactly what whites intend; they want TOTAL moratorium]) have "alienated" people who might be sympathetic to their cause. Note the underlying historical obtuseness, intellectually corrupting-ness, and downright morally wrong-ness of this idiotic claim: American whites need the support of immigrants (or non-whites who have immigrated to their country) to lessen/restrict immigration to legitimize their cause for restricting immigration of non-whites. Only a Jew can claim this inanity with a straight face.
(Try saying this to yourself without cracking up, Mr. Frum: Israelis need the support of Hamas voters to legitimize their cause for stopping Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. Nice one, eh? Oh, you find it "diplomatically plausible?" Good, let's start with that one, then, since it is not immigration restrictionists that have turned the Middle East into a hell hole, and started a trillion-dollar war-effort in Iraq that has now gone to the dogs while the US is being colonized by 10s of millions from the south.)
Naturally, true assimilation is alien to you, Mr. Frum.
Have you ever seen millions of Scottsman who have immigrated to (and have BUILT) the US wax lyrical about "promised land Scotland," putting together billions for its "separatist" cause, inventing laws for dual citizenship, considering it their natural privilege to be treated as a separate and distinct group entitled to do these due to "historical grievances" etc. etc.?
Please spare me the nonsense about the "special" case of Jews. If Jews consider themselves special, and have no intention of dumping their Jewish identity for their assumed-identity in their adopted-nations (US, UK, France, etc.) then, heck, they have not assimilated. No, learning the language, paying taxes, or supporting the NY Yankees ain't assimilation. Not enough.
I'm from a non-Christian country in the Mediterranean, and if I were to immigrate to the US, the first things I'd do would be i) convert to Christianity (even though I'm an atheist); ii) Anglify my name (and not as "Jef Eretz" or "Garance-Franke Ruta" but as "Grace Frank Ruth" or "Jeff [double 'f'] Erskine" for instance); iii) have the graves of my parents transferred to the US; iv) cancel any citizenship from other countries I might be holding -- such as my <country of origin [CoO]>; and v) have it arranged by my lawyer that if I: am ever spotted in public rallying for causes involving support for CoO; collecting money to send it over to CoO; be part of "lobbies" and some such to represent CoO in the US... etc. and; last but not least, ever caught on camera, on tape, or in writing yammering on about anything involving CoO to the effect that it might be interpreted as aiding and abetting causes for "foreign entanglements" or "dubious alliences" with CoO, then I be publicly humiliated, and, if necessary, ultimately taken out and shot.
This IS assimilation. No less is. Repeat, NO LESS IS.
Either you stop identifying yourself as Jewish (i.e. as a member of Yahweh's darling race) and consider yourself only American, or you are NOT assimilated.
Let's stop bullshitting each other with mouthful phrases like "racism is historically obtuse." Obtuse my foot, Mr. Frum. You, as a Jew, are an embodiment of "historically obtuse."
Where has anyone claimed that all neocons are Jews, or that the first one was? Why is it a deal big enough to resort to distortion and slander when someone states that some neocons are Jews, and some of them may be neocons because they are ethnocentric?
Shocking, the idea that people who've been persecuted for thousands of years might have loyalties to the group. I'm loyal to the Green Bay Packers, and I couldn't even give you a reason why.
- Is it really tactically sound to go after someone who has been moving in the right direction on immigration during a critical political fight? Couldn't it have waited a few weeks?
- While some are correct in pointing out that VDARE et al would appear less "odious" if they toned themselves down, it is a valuable voice precisely because you can depend on them not to pull any punches. You get the truth, nothing but the truth, etc.
Another problem with Frum's reply is his example of "more than dissent".
The AmCon article lists ways that the Arab world could respond to our attack. This is important information. Why is this more than dissent?
Is he really trying to claim that some Arab somewhere in the middle east will read this stuff and get an "idea" that he couldn't come up with on his own?
He never says he's an American citizen, does he? Here is a Canadian telling us Americans what wars to launch and how to run our immigration policies. The real neocons are all worshippers of the British empire: Blankley, Hitchens, Ferguson, Sullivan, Frum. His mother, by the way, is the Diane Sawyer/Barbara Walters of Canadian television.
... but I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites
Have you any evidence for that, other than your belief? Are you holding in your hand a piece of paper with names on it?
- So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
That sounds like a blast from the 1950's past, Sen. Joe M.'s House Un-American Activities Committee.
You're the one doing the tainting and smearing, Mr. Roy Cohen Jr.
Charles Murray is not libeled as a racist even though he obviously believes that important racial differences exist. To call someone a racist implies something more: that one cares less about the happiness, well-being, rights, etc., of certain classes of citizens because of their racial background. This is why to be called a racist is so damning, and it is what guys like Frum have in mind. Since Steve doesn't feel this way -- indeed, quite the opposite -- he needs to be much more proactive on this, at least in my judgment.
BTW, I suspect that many Ashkenazis have a racist attitude toward my ethnic group, Scots-Irish. They certainly don't seem to care about our well-being and happiness to the same extent that they do their own. They need to face up to this, because most of them seem quite unconcious of the fact.
Finally, if I were a Jew I would be pre-occupied with the safety and existence of Israel as a matter of simple self-preservation. So I do not fault them for there.
In my case I care about the survival of Israel and of the Jewish people because of their powerful positive contributions to the cause of humanity as a whole (the whole Judeo-Christian tradition thing) which I think is to every group's long-term self-interest. I may be wrong about this (don't think so though) but in any case that is my motivation. Not altruism, but enlightened self-interest. The strongest foundation of all.
"I didn't see a lot of substance in it, other than the usual point and sputter about You can't say that! But I'm biased, so maybe I'm missing something worthwhile."
I actually thought it was a pretty good response, especially with respect to his being MIA on immigration until now.
However, I did find something interesting. He writes that racialism (belief in racial group differences) is "historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong." But he doesn't come out and clearly say it's factually wrong. But of course it isn't totally false, Sailer and Murray and others may be wrong in how much of the black-white IQ gap is attributable to genetics, but Occam's razor is certainly on the side of "racialism," whether race differences be small or large. Hence racialism isn't empirically false, it's "corrupting" and "historically obtuse." He doesn't say it's false because he doesn't believe it's false. It's just an icky and corrupting idea. Alrighty then!
Of course Frum is right that rhetoric from some race realists or racialists needs moderation (which I think answers the difference in treatment Murray has received). I like Sailer's snarky prose but on occasion that snark in the race context comes across to some as animus. Race realists would be well served to treat the explosive idea of innate racial differences with dispassionate analysis. They would also be well served to be more tentative and more open to competing ideas.
"[H]istorically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong” is not a super-clear string of words. Perhaps an example of what Sailer said in his article-- that Frum's lucidness as a writer tends to leave him when he discusses issues that engage his passion?
But maybe not. Maybe he’s trying to denounce it without actually saying it’s factually wrong. That’s always tricky.
I hardly see how Steve Sailer can be held responsible for who reads his website, and for what other web-sites those who read his site read.
David Frum writes for the NY Times, a publication widely read by, and often written by, those who despise - and I mean really despise - heterosexuals and christians. Is Frum thereby tainted?
What I value about isteve is that it has something most other commentary doesn't - facts. Actual analysis, based on actual facts, rather than merely sentiments. I've never detected any snarkiness in his tone. Occasionally what he says may sound direct - but its only the sort of directness one expects from someone telling you something you already ought to know.
It is amazing that so many - both in government and the media - whose judgement about the war in Iraq was so abysmal have never been called on the carpet for it. It seems as though a disastrous policy ought to have a few consequences for those who pushed.
That said, I'm not sure it's fair or pertinant to criticize Frum for not influencing George Bush on immigration. Clearly, Bush doesn't listen to anyone, other than Rove and Cheney perhaps. And he wouldn't hear a word against his beloved Mexicans.
As to the general tone of harshness often found among us "restrictionists". I say it's about time. The majority in this country is under assault, and we need to state plainly, bluntly, and even callously what we think.
I believe we need to be immune to the charge of racism - that word is nothing more than a stick with which our enemies would beat us. And we should not be apologetic - even when wrong. Never apologize. That is one lesson we can learn from Al Sharpton. Never apologize.
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
The obvious answer is No - he should not. His column could have waited a few weeks. So not only was a column wasted, he made one of the few mainstream anti-Amnesty voices spend valuable time and space defending himself against friendly fire, while creating cracks in the ranks. Save it for another time.
You're also wrong on neocons. The first neocon was JFK
I don't know how seriously to take this comment. JFK reflected the WASP elite's Cold War consensus of the time. He launched no crusade for democracy in the ME (or anywhere else), he just fought the Cold War against Communism.
Neoconservatism is a post-1968 phenomenon. The original neocons were a predominantly Jewish liberal group who were disgusted with the anti-intelectual excesses of the Sixties New Left and their affection for the Palestinian cause. A special concern for Israel has always been an intrinsic part of neoconservatism.
Martin: I think you may be thinking of David Brooks. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Frum has written for the Times on some occasion or other, but he is not a regular there; Brooks is.)
according to the General Social Survey, 15-20% of American Jews say they think of their ethnicity first when considering political issues.
Which is another way of saying 15-20% of American Jewry is proud of their ethnocentrism and not at all afraid to admit it; that's telling when you consider the Jewish history of crypsis, paranoia about anti-Semitism and persecution, ultra-low levels of ethnic trust, etc.
Shocking, the idea that people who've been persecuted for thousands of years might have loyalties to the group.
I don't think it's fair to imply the arrow of causality in the direction you have. If anything, it's the opposite. After all, the onus is on the diaspora to assimilate, not on the natives to tolerate. At "best," it's a feedback loop of causality.
I'm loyal to the Green Bay Packers, and I couldn't even give you a reason why.
Google "extended phenotype." Okay, that's a bit harsh, but there's a lot of truth to that.
That is one lesson we can learn from Al Sharpton. Never apologize.
Mmm, sort of. I don't think it's a trait we can just pick up, any more than reading a lot will make us as smart as jews; a big part of why Sharpton doesn't apologize is because he never feels sorry, and a big part of why he never feels sorry is because he's black, and they tend to never feel sorry.
I've lived most of my life around blacks. They almost never apologize. In fact, I can't recall even a single instance of a black male sounding genuinely sorry for his behavior.
When they do "apologize," it's usually a way of saying "#$%@ you." You know: "oh, I'm so sorry you don't like my behavior," or, "well I'm sorry (but it's really your fault)".
Just not in the genes, I think.
Not to say you don't have a point about thicker skins and an end to the apologies, because you do...
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
That's really a no-brainer. I tend to think of paleocons as that subsection of plain ol' conservatives without any political sense. George Bush with conservative convictions.
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
It's all about status. Steve relentlessly attacks "neocons" in order to impress his friends and admirers on the Far Right and to secure his masculine bona fides...
(Just kidding, Steve, you know I love you, but I'm not expecting this comment to make it onto the board any more than my last, common-sense point about Gaza.)
"I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites - So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups."
OK, Anonymous, (most original pseudonym, by the way), can you give me a cogent reason white nationalism is illegitimate, as opposed to black, Mexican, etc. nationalism? Any arguments employing the through-the-looking-glass notion that "only whites can be racist" will be summarily dismissed. Until you can provide such a reason, please tell me why VDARE & other immigration restrictionists must do their utmost to distance themselves from white nationalism, while Ted Kennedy is allowed happily to share the podium with an emissary from La Raza: http://apnews.myway.com/image/20070605/Immigration_Congress.sff_DCSW103_20070605124839.html?date=20070605&docid=D8PIQ3A80
You know, the same Mexican nationalist/pro-illegal immigration La Raza whose name means "The Race," that is the Mestizo Mexican race, and one of whose principles is "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." But I guess we Anglo peons aren't supposed to notice things like that.
Is there a reason you so often go into the mode of psychanalyzing your opponents? You accuse pro-open-border economists of hypocracy and intentional blindness, you accuse liberals generally of holding their positions on race as a way of playing one-upsmanship games with other liberals, etc.
Sometimes, people are wrong, not because they're bad people, but just because they're wrong. Dumb decisions and poorly thought out positions don't need some extraordniary explanation in terms of evil motives, or ethnic identification, or whatever. They're mostly just from people not thinking things through very well. People are especially bad at thinking clearly near taboos. IMO, that explains 90+% of the dumb things people say about both race and immigration.
This is irritating, and it also weakens your message. When someone disagrees with your argument, calling them nasty names never wins them over, and is unlikely to win anyone over who sympathizes with their position.
The pity is, the big issues you're talking about are important. We really do need to get some kind of sane immigration policy in place, one which doesn't involve inviting half the third world to move in. We ought to be addressing the black/white test and performance differences, and that's impossible without looking at the IQ differences. We would benefit a lot from decreasing the influence of the Israeli lobby in the US.
Wow, I guess you got under his skin...
ReplyDeleteI wish people like Frum could accept that you don't have to be full of race hatred to believe the empirical evidence that population groups vary in mean IQ.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem hard to believe that he really truly doesn't believe that American Jews have a higher median IQ or that American blacks have a lower median IQ than the national average. More likely he's like my wife, who like most sensible people insists that while these things are true, it's best not to discuss them. - ViL
"Instead, I suspect, he wants IQ research silenced because it shows that Jews average higher IQs, as AEI's Murray recently noted in Commentary. For example, back in 2003, one of VDARE.com's sins was mentioning this. Frum put us on his little blacklist of "Unpatriotic Conservatives" in part because:"
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I suspect the real reason Frum doesn’t want to talk about IQ is more prosaic.
The true reason Frum is averse to talk about IQ is that raise questions about IQ inevitably leads to questions about race.
Since the reigning orthodoxy among our increasingly Orwellian elite is that the “R Word” does not exist.
Frum - and most everyone else on the establishment right – risk being purged from their comfy think tank perches if they even suggest there are substantial differences among the various human races, an so they avoid the topic as much as possible.
Importantly, the establishment right truly, deeply BELIEVES race does not matter.
Hence, to this very day, the neocon right is mystified as to why Iraq descended into civil war when the Saddam dictatorship was removed while they previously anticipated Iraq would become peaceful and prosperous just like the Czech Republic became after the fall of Soviet tyranny or Germany and Japan became successes after the overthrow of Hitler and Tojo.
The problem with their predictions was that they refused to see race as a factor in how people act, and the establishment is making the same mistake over immigration policy.
God save the United States!
Old Right
Did he actually read the article? It wasn't easy to recognize much of it in what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteHe bays about "racialism":
It is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong.
And if what one "hopes to achieve" is the preservation of a majority white America? Is it OK then to notice that most immigrants are non-white? Is that "morally wrong"? You're left to assume that anyone who sees a majority white America as worth preserving, or hints that there might be a large intractable component to those troubling group differences that cause so many social problems, is a 'racialist' -- a bad person, a taint.
Is America not an 'achievement'? Looking around the world, isn't current mass immigration (legal and illegal) 'destroying' one thing -- America's heritage as a majority white nation -- that seems to have contributed decisively to this 'achievement'?
It's just more of the usual blinkered, politically correct, bullying, unctuous crap dressed up in big words.
What an idiot.
eh
Frum's defensiveness is telling. if vdare was truly "untouchable" as polite company is concerned, i suppose Frum would not have responded at length to the article.
ReplyDeletethe attempt turn around the "foreign allegiances" reference was pretty deft...for someone grasping at straws.
notice that even as Frum praises the "right to dissent" he can't help but undermine whatever manifestation of dissent he finds.
the dissenting example he cites is akin to the tactic a concerned friend might use to prevent his friend from driving drunk.
the drunk friend sure as hell isn't going to listen to reason, so you should try and persuade those who are still capable of acting in their own self interest to try and stop him from driving.
and of course, the dissenters are "unpatriotic" and Frum, the noble advisor, is the patriot, cheerleading the USA off a cliff.
you could probably rename Frum's piece something along the lines of, "the lies we tell ourselves."
perhaps that will be his title for his autobiography, when he has his McNamara moment 20 years hence.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI think you are missing some worthwhile points Frum made.
1) In response to your question about where Frum's been on the immigration issue, his response seems to be something more than "point and sputter":
"In 1990, as an editor at the Wall Street Journal page... I published two opeds that year by George Borjas, the only two times his work has appeared on that all-important page until 2006. I also worked hard, usually with less success, to publish articles by Marvin Kosters and other economists warning that the inequality trend detected by liberal economists was real."
In 1994, I published my first book, Dead Right, which predicted that the immigration issue would emerge as one of the largest issues in American politics. (It took a while to happen, but that prediction seems at last to have come true.) Between 1996 and 2000, I wrote a lengthy history of the 1970s, How We Got Here, one of whose major themes was equality and inequality and that treated immigration at length."
Is your beef with Frum that he didn't write any anti-open borders speeches for Bush when he worked in the White House? As Frum points out, his influence there was "modest"; also, everyone knows that opening the doors to Mexico was a hobbyist of Bush's since before he became president.
2) WRT Vdare's black & Jew content, Frum's response again is less "point and sputter" or status-seeking than an explanation of why this has harmed immigration restrictionists by turning off potential supporters:
"The VDare website has broken important stories and published important analytic work. Steve Sailer is no dunce either, obviously. Yet they pollute all the good that they do or could do when they give way to racial contempt and antisemitic paranoia.
If I were the only person repelled by this, I suppose it would not matter very much. But I don't think I am. And if we are trying to understand why the immigration reform cause has not had better success over the past 15 years, that repulsion is an important part of the story."
Frum could have done a better job refuting your comments about him and the Northern Ireland correspondent though.
I don't think the Charles Murray thing gets said enough. The most baffling thing about NR and race is their vast respect for Murray, their promotion of his last two books, their publication of his articles... I mean, I’m not talking about Derbyshire here, I mean happy-face conservatives like Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, and whoever signs off on what they publish, Lowry and whoever else. Yes, they whistle around his actual IQ talk, but why isn’t he tainted like the immigration reform movement was? (that is, like it was until the last few months when NR finally arrived to baptize it)
ReplyDeleteI mean, even if Homer was just nodding during that regrettable Bell Curve period (and in that Commentary article last year or two years ago or whenever it was), they at least agree that he's a decent hate-free guy with humane intentions, right? Not a feverish victim of corrosive “intellectually corrupting” paranoia or whatever, right?
Anyway, I thought Frum did about as good a job as could have been done in trying to rebut Steve’s article--righting off racialism was mandatory and he seemed pretty cordial and heartfelt about it--but I noticed he didn’t address The Murray Question…
Hey, the WSJ printed Murray on education earlier this year, didn’t they? And—it must have been a scary moment for them—they somehow let him write about Hurricane Katrina, no?
ReplyDeleteOkay, since the NR crowd are so hurt that their friends at the WSJ have written them off as little-better-than-Vdare themselves, what they should do is, strike back by explaining that the open borders movement is now hopelessly tainted by the corrosive racialism of the likes of Murray. See how they like it! Meanwhile, NR can continue to argue for immigration control in their pure, race-free way.
This would of course require purging Murray from NR’s good graces, which leads me back to my original question, why, with their delicate understanding of what the public will stand for and their profound understanding of what is a morally sound topic for discussion, they put up with the guy.
So Frum is claiming that his comments about Godson were a watered down joke? "The guy's a Jew, but he's obsessed about NORTHERN IRELAND, ha ha." He seems to be saying that his joke was simply to call Godson kooky about Northern Ireland, but why did he feel the need to explain that Godson's father was a Jew from Russia, and that he therefore should be interested in Israel?
ReplyDeleteIf the joke was pointing out a Jew obssessed with a country other than about Israel, well, we all know that jokes often reveal an underlying truth.
It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteSays who? Of course Jewish neocons don't say these things in connection with Israel and its law of return, marriage laws, laws against undermining its Jewish character, etc. The Frum's of this world simply aren't morally consistent whether or not they see themselves that way. Leaving aside whether or not racialism is good or not, most people will agree that hypocricy, like lying, is bad, and I would like to see that as a starting point in any argument concerning the goodness or badness of racialism. Thesesneocons will tell forcefully you that gentiles connecting nation and race are depraved sickos, but they are hypocrites and if they deny it they're liars too (if they aren't simply blind to themselves).
In an unrelated vein, it's remarkable how neocons can go from failure to failure and still keep their jobs as government advisers, think tank members, and journalists. Wolfowitz flops at his world bank job and who replaces him? Another neocon who I understand was buddy buddy with the writers of the PNAC document. The war has been a disaster in terms of the stated aims of its architects, but they've still got their 'pundit' jobs.
As for why Murry gets a pass in spite of his non-conformance, I think its because of the ethnicity of the co-author of the Bell Curve and the fact that he sticks to libertarian positions deemed non-threatening by the Frums, which leads me to the subject of libertarians...They say they value individualism and so on, then if they are sincere wouldn't they opt for tactical racialism (analagous to MLK's tactical non-violence) for the simple reason that libertarianism has next to no currency among non-whites? Of course they wouldn't because they'd be anathematised, but there is an enourmous logic gap there.
Frum hold his own very well - And he is absolutely right - Steve and vDARE attract a lot of people that don't like Jews and don't like blacks - And by not liking them I mean "really despise them" - I do not have the means to measure it, but I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites - So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
ReplyDeleteI think Frum did a decent job of refuting the claim that he had rarely or never written on immigration. Not every writer can or should devote himself single-mindedly to the issue, but Frum has written about it more than most conservatives outside the paleo orbit. Or do you view him as so super-powerful that he should have been able to single-handedly turn Bush against amnesty when he was a Bush speechwriter? I don't think that's very realistic.
ReplyDelete"2) WRT Vdare's black & Jew content, Frum's response again is less "point and sputter" or status-seeking than an explanation of why this has harmed immigration restrictionists by turning off potential supporters"
ReplyDeleteI agree that the discussion of race on Vdare may turn a lot of possible supporters of immigration restriction off. It just seems impolite. However, despite what everybody wants to believe, race matters. And people need to face up the that eventually. I suspect that most Americans would also be opposed to importing 12-20 million of the smartest Chinese, Mexican, Japanese, or Indians. America would not necessarily want to add a completely new foreign class of elites any more than they want to add a new underclass. It's not just about importing poor people. It's about importing large numbers of people that are vastly different on many levels. Large countries with several large distinct ethnic groups have not had a great track record of holding together in the last 100 years. If people are afraid of all the nukes we have in the world now, what happens 50 years down the road if the US splits up? Who is going to have his finger on the trigger of all those toys?
Frum does not hold his own. On the Steve's most provocative contention that Frum is ethnocentric, his defense consists of explaining away his comment about Godson and then acting too good to answer Steve's claim. Some people may be persuaded by this tactic--I am not.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like this sort of ethnocentrism is unheard of: according to the General Social Survey, 15-20% of American Jews say they think of their ethnicity first when considering political issues.
...I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites....
ReplyDeleteGod forbid white people should try to survive! Whites must commit collective suicide!
So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
And?
We're supposed to prefer our demise to the ignominy of the "taint" of "racism"?
Not a chance.
If someone describes me as a racist I threaten legal action. You should too. It is libelous.
ReplyDeleteOne of the definitions from dictionary.com is:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Since the definition of 'racist' is so broad and encompasses everyone in the non-PC camp, how could you possibly win a libel case? The superior/inferior thing is a complex side-issue. Of course races differ wrt univerally desireable traits (like intelligence), while leftists insist that this is not so, insisting that those who believe otherwise only do so because they are conceited. It's like a rhetorical low blow, and you can't win.
Well I can't say this is the best rivalry since Wordsworth and Coleridge or even Jung and Freud but I'm perfectly willing to take sides.
ReplyDeleteFrum states that racism "is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. Reading between the lines, allow yourself to be perceived as being racist and you will be oppressed.
The other part of that statement that racism is "intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong" is sheer hypocrisy. I've yet to meet a person from another race who wasn't racist or ethnocentric to an extent. The difference is that whites will lose their jobs or have their reputations destroyed for being human.
I think Frum is meting out a warning to his old friends with his phrase "historically obtuse". In other words, you know the consequences, so avoid bringing them on yourself by breaking the taboos on discussing race.
Unfortunately, when you're held to impossible standards, a double standard even, you're bound to make mistakes. Frum is somewhat insulated from the consequences by his Jewish ethnicity. The rest of us, probably most of us who visit these blogs, have had to face consequences all out of proportion to our racial faux pas.
Giving in, backing down has only made allegations of racism a more powerful tool for destruction. I've seen a court proceeding in Houston influenced because black activists wanted to make certain the white criminals were punished as severely as they believed blacks in a similar situation would be punished. Imus lost his job over a remark much less sexist and vulgar than those made by rap artists in music that is played all across the nation.
Whites have also been cornered by allegations of "phantom" racism. Ever been reprimanded that you were creating a hostile working environment for your nonwhite co-workers because you were behaving like a white person? The pro-Amnesty crowd has exploited this phenomenom to great effect. Anyone who doesn't want to experiment with the consequences of unregulated, mass migration is obviously a racist.
What better way to fight back than to discuss unmentionable truths about differences in race, IQ and gender and even to exaggerate and be ethnocentric? Whites are going to be labelled racist anyway. Let's discuss these issues openly. If we have unfounded fears or faulty information then give us evidence not race-baiting.
The real question is why were Neocon bores like FRUM and PODHERTZ given free reign at NR while John Sullivan, Buchanan, Coulter, etc. were more or less banished?
ReplyDelete(I suppose we could throw Steve in as one of the Banees.)
Steve of course, brings up the elephant in the room that we're all not supposed to talk about. Namely, that many Jewish pundits and politico's are primarily motivated by their ethnic concerns.
BTW, isn't FRUM a canadian? If so, why we should expect me to care deeply about AMERICAN immigration? The same is true of GERALDO. He has Israeli citizenship, spends alot of time there, contemplated moving to Israel, and even running for the Kennest. Doesn't his attachment for Israel explain his lack of concern over illegal immigration?
On some details -- like the Dean issue -- he might be telling his truth (or not), but that is a pretty naive way of responding to criticism directed at "behavior as it is publicly perceived." If you were put before a judge because of hitting a man while you driving drunk, an excuse like "I drank because my wife left; I didn't intend to kill the guy" isn't a "mitigating" circumstance. Sailer was not trying to read Frum's mind when this or that happened. He criticized Frum's objective "behavior." You didn't "intend" what Steve saw is no defense.
ReplyDeleteAs for the paragraph...
It is the enemy within, the flaw that can destroy everything you hope to achieve. It is also, as should go without saying, historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong.
...the trouble with enthocentricism is, well, ethnocentricism. Which is to say, you don't even perceive that you speak from the center of your own ethnicity. Frum is saying, of course,
* white racialism is the "enemy" of Jewish ethnic interests "from within" (i.e. nations hosting Jewish minorities).
* the political resistance point (flaw) that can destroy everything Jews hope to achieve -- by mixing races, nations, etc., so that the world becomes safer for them.
* it is "historically obtuse" (whatever the heck that means; is he saying "history is actually an interplay of ideas, so using the variable of race to understand it muddies the picture?" Probably, because he is a neocon, and like his leftist Jewish brethren, he would like to see Jews' efforts as idealistic/moralistic struggles benefiting all mandkind rather than furthering Jewish interests.
* racialism is "intellectually corrupting" (the youth brainwashed by the educartel to "celebrate diversity" -- again, whatever this is supposed to mean -- despite all their instincts and natural ethnic alliences),
* and "morally wrong" -- if "moral" is allowing Jews to further their ethnic interests without any compunction, and to the detriment of all other races, while they perceive it as to all humanity's advantage and.
Talk about one blindly enthocentric guy.
JD
Put yourself in Frum's shoes.
ReplyDelete*His living is dependent on being seen as "not racist" and having the same base set of cultural and social assumptions. You can't expect him to put his living at risk for a no-payoff move.
*Jews, diaspora Chinese and Indians suffer pogroms for being thought "smarter" by various native populations. Unlike Chinese and Indians, Jews lack a huge nation as their protector. It's understandable he would deny this. A history of pogroms would tend to do that.
*As Bush's hired hand, Frum was just that. A hired hand. One picked to do a job. Bush did not appoint him an advisor, and at any rate like all former pilots who don't rise to command, Bush doesn't listen to anyone but himself. See McCain and his Father.
I also think picking a fight with Frum over this issue is pointless and stupid. The important issue is to kill the Amnesty Bill Part two. Not engage in a Daily Kos like effort to find ideological purity.
You're also wrong on neocons. The first neocon was JFK:
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."
"...I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. ...the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
From the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Diem Coup, Vietnam, etc. JFK was Neocon #1. Bush is just like him: liberal, elite, aristo, stubborn, cronyist, etc. Last time I checked neither were Jews. Neither, for that matter was the Godfather of Neocons: Woodrow Wilson.
As for Buchanon's banning: he's Catholic anti-Semite who wanted America to stay out of WWII and wrote a book about it (on that he shares company with Gore Vidal). For terminal stupidity he should be banned from NRO.
'Racialism is to immigration reform what communism was to American socialism.'
ReplyDeleteGee, I don't know. American socialism seems to have done pretty well. Note on that link that in 1900 the government spent less than 6% of the nation's income. Today it is damn near 33%.
He does have a point: we all (including yours truly) need to be more sensitive and tactful when discussing the issue. But the problem is that there's a catch 22 involved: the urgency of immigration reform can't be entirely understood outside of the context of race.
While our present number of immigrants would be way too large no matter who was coming, the added racial, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity add greatly to the threat.
Immigrants simply aren't assimilating, and to the extent that they are, it's often to the ethnocentric, anti-European culture, anti-American, anti-white attitudes of modern leftism.
We are supposed to simply, naively assume that all the races will blend happily into one - the history of blacks in America and Spaniards in Latin America all to the contrary.
Large countries with several large distinct ethnic groups have not had a great track record of holding together in the last 100 years.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Mostly, as with China and Russia, they're held together by brute force. In the case of India, they barely hold together at all. And the few examples the open borders freaks can cite are of countries where the racial differences are minimal and the biggest argument is over language. Even those aren't always happy affairs: Canada, Belgium, and the Basques in Spain, for example.
Indeed, virtually every civil war in history has centered on deep-seated racial or ethnic differences. Just look at the last century: Sudan, South Africa, Rwanda, Serbia, the Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Chechnya, ad infinitum.
People may think we're doing well now, but peace will only remain so long as the money keeps flowing - and there are plenty of reasons - from excessive debt, to trade wars, to excess entitlement spending, to the flow of oil - that the economy could be interrupted.
The open borders nuts are trying to do something that has never in the history of ever succeeded anywhere: hold a racially diverse population together, happily, without the use of brute force.
Also
ReplyDeleteAbout that typically-Jewish criticism that by highlighting racial issues, VDARE creates an overlap between its readership and those who visit "white nationalist" websites, etc. (even this is illuminating enough; the day Jewish nationalism becomes criminalized like this, I may start listening).
Please note the silly point here: that by doing so, VDARE (and/or anti-immigrationists, or immigration-restrictionists [the latter is supposed to put a better verbal face on the case, although "restricting" immigration from its current levels down to say 46% of it isn't exactly what whites intend; they want TOTAL moratorium]) have "alienated" people who might be sympathetic to their cause. Note the underlying historical obtuseness, intellectually corrupting-ness, and downright morally wrong-ness of this idiotic claim: American whites need the support of immigrants (or non-whites who have immigrated to their country) to lessen/restrict immigration to legitimize their cause for restricting immigration of non-whites. Only a Jew can claim this inanity with a straight face.
(Try saying this to yourself without cracking up, Mr. Frum: Israelis need the support of Hamas voters to legitimize their cause for stopping Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. Nice one, eh? Oh, you find it "diplomatically plausible?" Good, let's start with that one, then, since it is not immigration restrictionists that have turned the Middle East into a hell hole, and started a trillion-dollar war-effort in Iraq that has now gone to the dogs while the US is being colonized by 10s of millions from the south.)
Naturally, true assimilation is alien to you, Mr. Frum.
Have you ever seen millions of Scottsman who have immigrated to (and have BUILT) the US wax lyrical about "promised land Scotland," putting together billions for its "separatist" cause, inventing laws for dual citizenship, considering it their natural privilege to be treated as a separate and distinct group entitled to do these due to "historical grievances" etc. etc.?
Please spare me the nonsense about the "special" case of Jews. If Jews consider themselves special, and have no intention of dumping their Jewish identity for their assumed-identity in their adopted-nations (US, UK, France, etc.) then, heck, they have not assimilated. No, learning the language, paying taxes, or supporting the NY Yankees ain't assimilation. Not enough.
I'm from a non-Christian country in the Mediterranean, and if I were to immigrate to the US, the first things I'd do would be i) convert to Christianity (even though I'm an atheist); ii) Anglify my name (and not as "Jef Eretz" or "Garance-Franke Ruta" but as "Grace Frank Ruth" or "Jeff [double 'f'] Erskine" for instance); iii) have the graves of my parents transferred to the US; iv) cancel any citizenship from other countries I might be holding -- such as my <country of origin [CoO]>; and v) have it arranged by my lawyer that if I: am ever spotted in public rallying for causes involving support for CoO; collecting money to send it over to CoO; be part of "lobbies" and some such to represent CoO in the US... etc. and; last but not least, ever caught on camera, on tape, or in writing yammering on about anything involving CoO to the effect that it might be interpreted as aiding and abetting causes for "foreign entanglements" or "dubious alliences" with CoO, then I be publicly humiliated, and, if necessary, ultimately taken out and shot.
This IS assimilation. No less is. Repeat, NO LESS IS.
Either you stop identifying yourself as Jewish (i.e. as a member of Yahweh's darling race) and consider yourself only American, or you are NOT assimilated.
Let's stop bullshitting each other with mouthful phrases like "racism is historically obtuse." Obtuse my foot, Mr. Frum. You, as a Jew, are an embodiment of "historically obtuse."
JD
Where has anyone claimed that all neocons are Jews, or that the first one was? Why is it a deal big enough to resort to distortion and slander when someone states that some neocons are Jews, and some of them may be neocons because they are ethnocentric?
ReplyDeleteShocking, the idea that people who've been persecuted for thousands of years might have loyalties to the group. I'm loyal to the Green Bay Packers, and I couldn't even give you a reason why.
Couple of points:
ReplyDelete- Is it really tactically sound to go after someone who has been moving in the right direction on immigration during a critical political fight? Couldn't it have waited a few weeks?
- While some are correct in pointing out that VDARE et al would appear less "odious" if they toned themselves down, it is a valuable voice precisely because you can depend on them not to pull any punches. You get the truth, nothing but the truth, etc.
Another problem with Frum's reply is his example of "more than dissent".
ReplyDeleteThe AmCon article lists ways that the Arab world could respond to our attack. This is important information. Why is this more than dissent?
Is he really trying to claim that some Arab somewhere in the middle east will read this stuff and get an "idea" that he couldn't come up with on his own?
He never says he's an American citizen, does he? Here is a Canadian telling us Americans what wars to launch and how to run our immigration policies. The real neocons are all worshippers of the British empire: Blankley, Hitchens, Ferguson, Sullivan, Frum. His mother, by the way, is the Diane Sawyer/Barbara Walters of Canadian television.
ReplyDelete... but I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites
ReplyDeleteHave you any evidence for that, other than your belief? Are you holding in your hand a piece of paper with names on it?
- So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups.
That sounds like a blast from the 1950's past, Sen. Joe M.'s House Un-American Activities Committee.
You're the one doing the tainting and smearing, Mr. Roy Cohen Jr.
Charles Murray is not libeled as a racist even though he obviously believes that important racial differences exist. To call someone a racist implies something more: that one cares less about the happiness, well-being, rights, etc., of certain classes of citizens because of their racial background. This is why to be called a racist is so damning, and it is what guys like Frum have in mind. Since Steve doesn't feel this way -- indeed, quite the opposite -- he needs to be much more proactive on this, at least in my judgment.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I suspect that many Ashkenazis have a racist attitude toward my ethnic group, Scots-Irish. They certainly don't seem to care about our well-being and happiness to the same extent that they do their own. They need to face up to this, because most of them seem quite unconcious of the fact.
Finally, if I were a Jew I would be pre-occupied with the safety and existence of Israel as a matter of simple self-preservation. So I do not fault them for there.
In my case I care about the survival of Israel and of the Jewish people because of their powerful positive contributions to the cause of humanity as a whole (the whole Judeo-Christian tradition thing) which I think is to every group's long-term self-interest. I may be wrong about this (don't think so though) but in any case that is my motivation. Not altruism, but enlightened self-interest. The strongest foundation of all.
"I didn't see a lot of substance in it, other than the usual point and sputter about You can't say that! But I'm biased, so maybe I'm missing something worthwhile."
ReplyDeleteI actually thought it was a pretty good response, especially with respect to his being MIA on immigration until now.
However, I did find something interesting. He writes that racialism (belief in racial group differences) is "historically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong." But he doesn't come out and clearly say it's factually wrong. But of course it isn't totally false, Sailer and Murray and others may be wrong in how much of the black-white IQ gap is attributable to genetics, but Occam's razor is certainly on the side of "racialism," whether race differences be small or large. Hence racialism isn't empirically false, it's "corrupting" and "historically obtuse." He doesn't say it's false because he doesn't believe it's false. It's just an icky and corrupting idea. Alrighty then!
Of course Frum is right that rhetoric from some race realists or racialists needs moderation (which I think answers the difference in treatment Murray has received). I like Sailer's snarky prose but on occasion that snark in the race context comes across to some as animus. Race realists would be well served to treat the explosive idea of innate racial differences with dispassionate analysis. They would also be well served to be more tentative and more open to competing ideas.
"[H]istorically obtuse, intellectually corrupting, and morally wrong” is not a super-clear string of words. Perhaps an example of what Sailer said in his article-- that Frum's lucidness as a writer tends to leave him when he discusses issues that engage his passion?
ReplyDeleteBut maybe not. Maybe he’s trying to denounce it without actually saying it’s factually wrong. That’s always tricky.
Auster has a piece on Frum's early work on immigration - attacking immigration restrictionists:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008090.html - ViL
Just look at the last century: Sudan, South Africa, Rwanda, Serbia, the Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Chechnya, ad infinitum.
ReplyDeleteI believe you meant to say "the last decade".
I hardly see how Steve Sailer can be held responsible for who reads his website, and for what other web-sites those who read his site read.
ReplyDeleteDavid Frum writes for the NY Times, a publication widely read by, and often written by, those who despise - and I mean really despise - heterosexuals and christians. Is Frum thereby tainted?
What I value about isteve is that it has something most other commentary doesn't - facts. Actual analysis, based on actual facts, rather than merely sentiments. I've never detected any snarkiness in his tone. Occasionally what he says may sound direct - but its only the sort of directness one expects from someone telling you something you already ought to know.
It is amazing that so many - both in government and the media - whose judgement about the war in Iraq was so abysmal have never been called on the carpet for it. It seems as though a disastrous policy ought to have a few consequences for those who pushed.
That said, I'm not sure it's fair or pertinant to criticize Frum for not influencing George Bush on immigration. Clearly, Bush doesn't listen to anyone, other than Rove and Cheney perhaps. And he wouldn't hear a word against his beloved Mexicans.
As to the general tone of harshness often found among us "restrictionists". I say it's about time. The majority in this country is under assault, and we need to state plainly, bluntly, and even callously what we think.
I believe we need to be immune to the charge of racism - that word is nothing more than a stick with which our enemies would beat us. And we should not be apologetic - even when wrong. Never apologize. That is one lesson we can learn from Al Sharpton. Never apologize.
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
ReplyDeleteThe obvious answer is No - he should not. His column could have waited a few weeks. So not only was a column wasted, he made one of the few mainstream anti-Amnesty voices spend valuable time and space defending himself against friendly fire, while creating cracks in the ranks. Save it for another time.
You're also wrong on neocons. The first neocon was JFK
ReplyDeleteI don't know how seriously to take this comment. JFK reflected the WASP elite's Cold War consensus of the time. He launched no crusade for democracy in the ME (or anywhere else), he just fought the Cold War against Communism.
Neoconservatism is a post-1968 phenomenon. The original neocons were a predominantly Jewish liberal group who were disgusted with the anti-intelectual excesses of the Sixties New Left and their affection for the Palestinian cause. A special concern for Israel has always been an intrinsic part of neoconservatism.
Martin: I think you may be thinking of David Brooks. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Frum has written for the Times on some occasion or other, but he is not a regular there; Brooks is.)
ReplyDeletehttp://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/06/david-frum-replies-at-length-here-to-my.html
ReplyDeleteaccording to the General Social Survey, 15-20% of American Jews say they think of their ethnicity first when considering political issues.
Which is another way of saying 15-20% of American Jewry is proud of their ethnocentrism and not at all afraid to admit it; that's telling when you consider the Jewish history of crypsis, paranoia about anti-Semitism and persecution, ultra-low levels of ethnic trust, etc.
Shocking, the idea that people who've been persecuted for thousands of years might have loyalties to the group.
I don't think it's fair to imply the arrow of causality in the direction you have. If anything, it's the opposite. After all, the onus is on the diaspora to assimilate, not on the natives to tolerate. At "best," it's a feedback loop of causality.
I'm loyal to the Green Bay Packers, and I couldn't even give you a reason why.
Google "extended phenotype." Okay, that's a bit harsh, but there's a lot of truth to that.
That is one lesson we can learn from Al Sharpton. Never apologize.
ReplyDeleteMmm, sort of. I don't think it's a trait we can just pick up, any more than reading a lot will make us as smart as jews; a big part of why Sharpton doesn't apologize is because he never feels sorry, and a big part of why he never feels sorry is because he's black, and they tend to never feel sorry.
I've lived most of my life around blacks. They almost never apologize. In fact, I can't recall even a single instance of a black male sounding genuinely sorry for his behavior.
When they do "apologize," it's usually a way of saying "#$%@ you." You know: "oh, I'm so sorry you don't like my behavior," or, "well I'm sorry (but it's really your fault)".
Just not in the genes, I think.
Not to say you don't have a point about thicker skins and an end to the apologies, because you do...
Mr.Sailer;
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping the heat on that Bum Frum.
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
ReplyDeleteThat's really a no-brainer. I tend to think of paleocons as that subsection of plain ol' conservatives without any political sense. George Bush with conservative convictions.
The biggest issue is of course this: Should Sailer use his precious column inches during a crucial political fight (that the forces of Good have a shot at winning for once!) in order to settle old scores with someone on the same side as himself?
ReplyDeleteIt's all about status. Steve relentlessly attacks "neocons" in order to impress his friends and admirers on the Far Right and to secure his masculine bona fides...
(Just kidding, Steve, you know I love you, but I'm not expecting this comment to make it onto the board any more than my last, common-sense point about Gaza.)
"I believe there is considerable reader overlap between people who visit this site and people who actively visit white nationalist sites - So yes, despite the illuminating discussion and insight that isteve/vdare generate, they are tainted by association and by refusing to disassociate w/ certain groups."
ReplyDeleteOK, Anonymous, (most original pseudonym, by the way), can you give me a cogent reason white nationalism is illegitimate, as opposed to black, Mexican, etc. nationalism? Any arguments employing the through-the-looking-glass notion that "only whites can be racist" will be summarily dismissed.
Until you can provide such a reason, please tell me why VDARE & other immigration restrictionists must do their utmost to distance themselves from white nationalism, while Ted Kennedy is allowed happily to share the podium with an emissary from La Raza:
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20070605/Immigration_Congress.sff_DCSW103_20070605124839.html?date=20070605&docid=D8PIQ3A80
You know, the same Mexican nationalist/pro-illegal immigration La Raza whose name means "The Race," that is the Mestizo Mexican race, and one of whose principles is "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." But I guess we Anglo peons aren't supposed to notice things like that.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIs there a reason you so often go into the mode of psychanalyzing your opponents? You accuse pro-open-border economists of hypocracy and intentional blindness, you accuse liberals generally of holding their positions on race as a way of playing one-upsmanship games with other liberals, etc.
Sometimes, people are wrong, not because they're bad people, but just because they're wrong. Dumb decisions and poorly thought out positions don't need some extraordniary explanation in terms of evil motives, or ethnic identification, or whatever. They're mostly just from people not thinking things through very well. People are especially bad at thinking clearly near taboos. IMO, that explains 90+% of the dumb things people say about both race and immigration.
This is irritating, and it also weakens your message. When someone disagrees with your argument, calling them nasty names never wins them over, and is unlikely to win anyone over who sympathizes with their position.
The pity is, the big issues you're talking about are important. We really do need to get some kind of sane immigration policy in place, one which doesn't involve inviting half the third world to move in. We ought to be addressing the black/white test and performance differences, and that's impossible without looking at the IQ differences. We would benefit a lot from decreasing the influence of the Israeli lobby in the US.
All IMO.