In the London Telegraph, columnist Ed West reflects on the slowly growing awareness among intellectuals that Diversity != Equality. He cites as a locus classicus of the genre a VDARE column of mine from way back in 2000, Inequality, the Immigration Dimension, comparing, among the Four Corners states, the more diverse and less equal New Mexico and Arizona versus the less diverse and more equal Colorado and Utah. West concludes:
Sailer is a popular blogger, rather like an eccentric but brilliant professor possessed of a vast breadth of knowledge, and would probably be a big thing in American commentary, producing those American polemics With Those Absurdly Long Subtitles that Explain the Entire Subject of the Book, but his views on the biology of race put him beyond the pale for mainstream conservative publications.
That's above my GCSE double award science-level knowledge of the subject, but on the growing inequality in American life he is almost certainly right, and the untrammelled globalism of George W Bush-style conservatism, described by Sailer as “invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world”, has been a dismal failure. Sailer’s own state, California, with its high rate of illegal immigration and legal out-migration, has already become Latin Americanised, with ever higher levels of inequality and a shrinking middle class (not to mention bankrupt cities and rotting public services). This has been allowed to happen because diversity makes important Right-wing people rich and important Left-wing people feel good about themselves.
The Spirit Level was popular because it touched on a truth – that inequality is a bad thing – but with all its countless measures of prison rates, child mortality, obesity and even aid, it almost completely ignored the elephant in the room. Where equality campaigners even dare to mention diversity, they argue that this handicap can be solved with a chequebook, ignoring the unfortunate facts that you can’t buy social capital, and that ethnically diverse populations are unwilling to support Scandinavian-style wealth redistribution (as suggested by various studies).
Protesters can camp outside St Paul’s from now until the Second Coming for all the good it will do, but until they start to question the diversity delusion, then Britain, like the United States, will continue down its road to Latin Americanisation.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
87 comments:
I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale.
@ Anon,
I disagree. The problem is Sailer is like someone trying to write about the flaws of Communism in the old USSR. It's not going to be tolerated, especially when it is based on HBD which offends a basic assumption of right thinking people.
"I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale."
Helps you connect the dots: elite Jews have been among the biggest supporters of increased immigration, though they are only a part of a bigger picture including business interests looking for cheap labor and Democrats looking for votes. If the support for increased immigration weren't so bipartisan I don't think it would be as unassailable as it is.
That said, anti-Semitism is a particularly bad prejudice for a guy whose greatest strength is coming up with unusual thoughts. What you really want is to cut immigration; why make the media and pundits think you want to stick them and their whole family into an oven? (And, yes, they are that paranoid!)
I think the problem is that if you want to oppose 'invite the world' and 'invade the world', your only pool of supporters on the right is the Old Right, and not being anti-Semitic can cost you supporters. Most mainstream-right commentators are in favor of interventions on behalf of Israel. Though I don't know what cause and effect is here; only Steve knows, and it may not be in his interests to say.
I do wonder if some Jewish kids gave him a wedgie in AP History or something. ;)
Leftists are on a mission to grow a bigger and more all-controlling government, and they make judgments based on the question, "Will this help enlarge government?"
From the standpoint of growing government, income inequality is actually good because it justifies a big government operation of redistributing wealth so as to promote equality.
Diversity is good because many of the diverse demand a lot of social services. Also the friction between diverse groups creates demands for government policing. Also diverse groups outnumber the only group that resists (though very ineffectually) government expansion: whites with jobs in the private sector. So diversity is very good.
So from the leftist point of view, equality and diversity are both good and both compatible because the more you pursue these goals the more you grow the government.
I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale.
Steve isn't anti-Semitic though. If anything, he's philo-Semitic. You might be thinking of many of his commenters who do seem to be anti-Semitic.
Leftists are on a mission to grow a bigger and more all-controlling government, and they make judgments based on the question, "Will this help enlarge government?"
The "bigger and more all-controlling government" is only the MEANS to an END.
But it is not the END itself.
That said, anti-Semitism is a particularly bad prejudice for a guy whose greatest strength is coming up with unusual thoughts.
I have to love your thoughtless acceptance of the inane proposition that anybody who says anything remotely critical of Jews is an "anti-Semite", just like Goebbels and Hitler.
It's a good thing Hitler never killed blacks, or pubic discussion of them would be even more circumscribed than it is at present.
It used to be said on the right that "a racist is somebody winning an argument with a liberal". The same applies to "anti-semites". When people cannot respond intelligently to points made about Jews, they try to shut all discussion down by playing the "anti-semite" card.
Last year Jonah Goldberg wrote a column on the topic of how the charge of "racism" has become a joke from being invoked so often. All you people spluttering about anti-semitism - you look like relics of the past. Try stepping into the 21st century.
Diversity means more equal access but not more equal outcome. A society that is more diverse allows more kinds of people access to education and opportunities. But there's no guarantee that all groups will do as well in everything. That's what leftists don't realize since they still adhere to the mantra of 'race is just a myth' and so 'there are no racial differences.'
"If anything, he's philo-Semitic."
Eh?
why make the media and pundits think you want to stick them and their whole family into an oven? (And, yes, they are that paranoid!)
People who are paranoid like this aren't going to be convinced by fawning behavior. The whole point of extreme paranoia like this is to be paranoid even when things seem to be fine and dandy and to take precautions like promoting immigration "just in case".
"I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale."
Nowhere have I read that Steve hates Semites(Midde Easterns).
Steve loves all peoples especially his own kind.
Steve for President!At least Senator!
Anonymous:"I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale."
Comments like this simply prove that anti-Semitism is now a bit of meaningless gibberish.There is nothing anti-Semitic about Steve Sailer.
"diversity delusion"
I'm surprised stuff like that can get published in a major British newspaper. Pleasantly surprised, don't get me wrong. In general, on average, Brits seem to be more afflicted with PC than Americans.
Could one commenter point to one thing Sailer has written that is anti-Semitic?
Seriously. Just because the SPLC accuses him of being a hater doesn't make it true.
Sailer is a laid back Southern Californian champion of the middle class who doesn't exhibit ill will for any race or ethnic group.
I guess you're saying that powerful Jews control American discourse so much that Sailer should have shut up about the Jews and only been completely servile to their tribal interests if he wanted a career in opinion journalism. Is that how it works?
Doesn't it seem like Britain is starting to turn more towards a non-pc worldview?
I disagree. The problem is Sailer is like someone trying to write about the flaws of Communism in the old USSR. It's not going to be tolerated, especially when it is based on HBD which offends a basic assumption of right thinking people.
Agreed. The anti-Semitism thing is not a factor here. Heck, there are Jewish bloggers like jewamongyou who write about many of the same things as Steve does, and they don't get invited to write for the Weekly Standard either.
So... has this Ed West fellow been fired yet? Is he rich or something? You just don't say stuff like that where people can hear you when you have college debt or a mortgage to worry about.
Even though some of the posters here are disgustingly anti-semitic, nothing in Steve Sailer's writing reflects that sentiment.
Congrats Steve, I think this is a real breakthrough for you. There are some other brave souls out there who mention you favorably -- Rod Dreher in particular. But no one and no publication that I know of with this amount of 'juice'. You've been at it a long time -- good to know that perseverance is starting to pay off.
Come on, not this anti-Semitism canard again. Steve isn't an anti-Semite. He is Jewish question realist. Just like on HBD, he poses questions no one dares to. He is an acute observer, and he reports what he sees. He does not pretend to have all the answers - but he tries and welcomes others' ideas on the subject. And I am saying it as a half Jew who does identify as Jewish.
Kudos to Ed West for telling the truth. Being a glass half empty kind of guy, I can't help but notice the obligatory safety clause though: "but his views on the biology of race put him beyond the pale for mainstream conservative publications. That's above my GCSE double award science-level knowledge of the subject".
Uh-huh. Poor under-educated Ed who can't say a word about race because he does not have Ph.D. in genetics.
Pleasantly surprised by that column, good to see someone outside the US point out these things. Since Britain has had a big welfare state about a generation longer than the US and supported it at much higher levels than the US ever did, it should short circuit domestic leftist critiques here that we just need more Great Society style welfare to solve the inequality problem.
American leftists tend to believe our greater inequality is the result of an insufficient big government redistribution schemes, and if we would just model ourselves along German or Dutch or Scandinavian or British or French or even Canadian lines all that nasty income inequality would go down. Granted that is becoming harder to rationalize in light of increasing inequality in places like Britain, France, and Sweden, but the US is much larger both demographically and geographically than those other countries and has had very large NAM populations for a much longer time and has the inequality commensurate with it. In light of that the left should be circumspect in that argument, but as Steve has pointed out on numerous occasions, diversity thinking rots your brain.
Finland's welfare state must work because of the Finnish government's commitment to equality, not to the fact that there are very few non-Northern European peoples living in Finland. Of course you have to ignore the equal ardor of the Swedish government to reducing inequality but that isn't working anymore because Sweden has decided to embrace "diversity". Does not compute!!!! The modern leftist is like a computer on Star Trek told by Mr. Spock to find the last digit of Pi.
Interesting comment on the original article by commenter "LabanTall":
were I an evil capitalist billionaire looking to reduce the power of trades unions and destroy the welfare state, I'd start by funding Left groups supporting mass immigration. I'd encourage such groups, and left-wing lawyers too, to support the most outrageous abuses of the welfare system, knowing that it would discredit welfare in the eyes of ordinary working people - and I'd chuckle to see Telegraph and Mail readers getting angry when benefits rise, as they should do, with inflation.
"The plan is working ... heh heh heh ..."
People who are paranoid like this aren't going to be convinced by fawning behavior. The whole point of extreme paranoia like this is to be paranoid even when things seem to be fine and dandy and to take precautions like promoting immigration "just in case".
Right. Ashkenazi paranoia is proactive, like Ashkenazi anti-ANTI-SEMITISM!!!
I'm surprised stuff like that can get published in a major British newspaper. Pleasantly surprised, don't get me wrong. In general, on average, Brits seem to be more afflicted with PC than Americans.
I've consistently seen stuff published in major UK papers that would never see print in their American counterparts.
were I an evil capitalist billionaire looking to reduce the power of trades unions and destroy the welfare state, I'd start by funding Left groups supporting mass immigration. I'd encourage such groups, and left-wing lawyers too, to support the most outrageous abuses of the welfare system, knowing that it would discredit welfare in the eyes of ordinary working people
It's touching that you imagine that the opinions of the "ordinary working people" count for something. They don't - we have welfare plus open borders because that is what the evil capitalist billionaires want us to have.
In general, on average, Brits seem to be more afflicted with PC than Americans.
That is my sense also, after having lived there for several years. But their chattering classes seem to be less afflicted by PC than their American counterparts.
Maya: why exactly would he be binned? However much they endeavor nowadays the UK will never be so PC-addled as N. America is. The press there is more partisan but far less timid--compare the Spectator or New Statesman to the drivelology of TNR or Weekly Standard
D. Starkey was on the front page of the Times again recently.
Ex: Toby Young 8/13/11 --without regard to personal pique "racism" is a tangible problem subject for discussion and critical exploration, not the national taboo/high sorceror's incantation ensconced in the U.S. 30 years ago.
"I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale."
Sailer's not an anti-Semite (or anti-Jew, if you are a stickler for specificity).
"Right. Ashkenazi paranoia is proactive, like Ashkenazi anti-ANTI-SEMITISM!!!"
It's not just Askhenazi paranoia. We (you, me, and most of Steve's readers; not me and my fellow Hebrews) look at lefty immigration/diversity/affirmative action policies as a disaster. We either remember (as in Steve's case, for example), or have heard from our elders of an idyllic America before these policies were all taken to extremes. But the architects of the egalitarian ideology behind these policies in Europe were looking back to the Europe of the early 40s.
We all know that tens of millions were killed in World War II, but those are just pixels on a screen. The corpses are real and they still haven't finished digging them all up. As of 2 years ago, this German "corpse hunter" was finding 10 a day near Berlin.
Western Europe then had six decades of peace and prosperity under policies that demphasized race and nationality. Now, of course, the fabric of post-war Europe is starting to fray, but it's worth keeping Europe's bloody past in perspective. If the choice is between the current status quo and the Southern California of Steve Sailer's youth, I think we'd all pick door #2. But for Europeans the past is a different country, and you can get a sense of that in the increasingly high price they are paying to keep the fictions of the Eurozone alive.
Ed West is right, of course.
He is one of the brightest upcoming journalistic stars in Britain, and writes some very good articles.
In my opinion the problem really started with the failure of the soft/corporate socialist/keynesian/
poltics of Jimmy Carter and Jim Callaghan in Britain that collapsed in stagflation and economic discontent in the late '70s.The backlash against these policies went too far - swivel eyed dogmatists of the extreme right defined policy.The collapse of the USSR under that dumb klutz Gorbachev added an air of triumphalism to the hard right and further entrenched their gains.
The dogmatists took full cntrol of the debate, the left lost confidence and started playing at being soft rightists - that's how far and strong the rout of socialism became.The nadir was Tony Blair, who junked all leftism apart from moronity about immigration.
The running, rabid dogs of the dogmatist/globalist agenda and orthodoxy were the in-house magazines of the elitists, the WSJ and 'The Economist'.Though not originating dogamtism (swivel eyed think tanks did that), they jumped on the trens and proclaimed it their own.They got more and more shrill over time as they were winning.Politicians (usually empty headed gaseous verbal flatulating wind-bags selected for showmanship), love to be thought of as 'clever' (they are primarily very vain and shallow as the dominating character trait, why else go into politics?), being 'clever' in their circles is reading 'The Economist' and and imposing the policies advocated therein.Hence foisted on the west were open-borders immigration, complete loss of any control of trade policy, taxes for the ultra rich reducd to nothingness,'deregulation' of banks - they could do the f*ck they liked etc etc.Policies that once were the preserve of the swivel eyed became the orthodoxy, by degrees, and were never really challenged.The left 'opposition' played along with the maniacs muttering 'these are te policies that actually WORK, there is no alternative'.
The result is there for all to see.A latin American style cockfight and rat race, gated communities, favelas, commuter helicopters, vicious urban riots, a financial collapse ('deregulation!') the likes of which the world has never seen, China rampant ('free trade benefits us all!'), Chian eclipsing the USA and forcing oil prices to unafforadbility, the Euro imposed on Europe to disastrous consequences, ('national currencies are a tax on trade!')and general worlwide armageddon, excepting China of course, who post Tiannanmen refused to listen to the dogamtists and did their own statist, nationalist thing.
Oh, and by the way non-White school children are now 67% of the inner London pupilship, and no doubt will be close to 100% in generation's time.
Thank you Tony Blair and your open borders ('There shall be no Borders! , Bob Bartley of the WSJ).
Right wing dogmatism has failed, crashed and burned just as much as the lefty version of the USSR did in 1990.
The UK has less of a PC taboo than the US, but nevertheless remains extremely liberal and "PC".
I've noticed that it's very hard for Americans to wrap their heads around this fact. They automatically associate liberalism with liberal censorship/control of media.
@Anonymous 11/16/11 4:55 PM (GOD people pick Name/URL and MAKE SOMETHING UP IT'S NOT THAT HARD) - (Steve I wonder if you labelled it 'anonymous name/optional URL' ...)
I wonder if it takes some of the edge off, to talk about someone else's diversity problems. I can't imagine it's much, but the little bit of distance + abstraction might make it possible to catch people by surprise, and allow them to entertain the thought longer. So Steve, maybe you should write about India's (Brazil's? China's?) diversity problems :)
"Western Europe then had six decades of peace and prosperity under policies that demphasized race and nationality. "
Well, sure, if you are starting from the Nationalist Socialist regime as a baseline. But Germany retained its pure Jus Sanguinis citizenship policies all the way up to 2000. France famously dropped out of NATO's integrated command and developed its own Nukes because it De Gaule didn't trust Americans.
I think the extreme anti-nationalism of the European elites has more to do with their economic and political power than with any "memory" of WWII -- which few if any active elite members are old enough to remember personally.
Suburban DC would support this idea of the more diversity the less equality. Although anecdotal, I think most anyone who drives from Chevy Chase to Kensington is struck by the transition from high rent to lower middle class that shouts at you from the side of the road. Montgomery County has about 900,000 people, a lot of rental apartments and the elite are very proud of their diversity.(I think they forget to ask their uninsulated-by-real-estate-values middle class). Montgomery County has high-rent Potomac, ever-so-exclusive Chevy Chase and the new barrio…Silver Spring.
In contrast, right next door is Howard County which is only about 300,000; without a lot of rental apartments. Howard County is mostly detached houses, mostly middle and upper middle class homes inhabited by people who want to raise their kids well. Howard has a nascent urban-like sore/core that is just beginning to grow. But they also do not have the large high-rent ghettos of Potomac and Chevy Chase.
So in Howard there is not this glaring difference in the housing that shouts at you as you drive by but… who knows? perhaps in the future a developer will come in, buy up some farmland, gate the place and name the new neighborhood “Gini Coefficient Acres, Where Real Estate Values Insulate and Create That Cozy Fifties Feeling.”
Fred's comment is a bunch of nonsense.
The Europe of the 30s and 40s that is such an apparent horror story was caused by German's beef with ethnic minorities, and the role ethnic German's took as ethnic minorities in neighboring countries. So clearly the solution is promoting having lots and lots of ethnic minorities in every European country?
Sailer is part-Jewish, so he obviously can't be an anti-S. Next brickbat?
It is most definitely the anti-Semitism that renders Sailer a non-entity. Yes, Jews tend to be much more left-wing than non-Jews, however there is a significant percentage of Jews who are open to HBD, and who are opposed to an open borders policy. Moreover, in the future, as the percentage of Jews in the U.S. who are Orthodox increases, Jews will be less left-wing. Jared Taylor has it right: give no quarter to any anti-Semitism.
While Sailer is too smart to often make explicitly anti-Semitic comments, he does insinuate and communicate hostility to Jews, especially in singling them out, while he does acknowledge the brains and talent of his enemy. As the comments to his blog are moderated, that entails that he wants the right and ability to not publish certain comments. Yet he chooses to publish odious anti-Jewish comments all the time, indicating that he doesn't think they're beyond the pale, which speaks volumes about Sailer.
Saying NAMs are bad is to call a spade a spade.
To say that its the Jews who are bringing the NAMs is calling it a bloody shovel.
One is beyond the pale, the other is utter ostracism. I always wonder when will our friends at Google pull the plug. I backup the whole blog every fortnight.
"Jared Taylor has it right: give no quarter to any anti-Semitism."
Is that why he generously gives interviews to Don Black's son?
Taylor is despicable.
"It is most definitely the anti-Semitism that renders Sailer a non-entity."
Okay, let's say Sailer is an antisemite. But are you willing to admit most Jews are anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-conservative?
My take on Sailer is he's counter-semite, i.e. he critiques Jews because most Jews attack his kind.
A true antisemite is someone who attacks Jews even when Jews pose no threat to his people.
So, Sailer's counter-semitism is defensive and reactive than virulent and aggressive. But I think he doesn't hit back hard enough. Though he allows some comments critical of Jews, he also comments by Whiskey the 'Islamophobe'.
While it's true that some Jews are for HBD, they do not attack fellow Jews who are anti-white. If HBD Jews expect white rightists to attack white antisemites, then white rightists should expect Jewish rightists to attack Jewish anti-whitites. But Jewish rightists too often make excuses for liberal and leftist Jews.
Jews expect UNCONDITIONAL support for the Jewish community as a whole even though most Jews are rabidly anti-white. If HBD Jews want us to stop criticizing Jewish power, they must criticize and convince other Jews to stop being so anti-white. If HBD Jews decide to turn a blind eye to Jewish anti-whititism, then white rightists have no choice but to call out on the foul deeds of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community.
It's like if a moderate Muslim wants us to stop condemning Muslims, he must take a strong stand on Islamic radicalism in the Middle East, Africa, and the West. If he won't criticize his own Muslim community which is so hostile to the Chritian West, then we have no choice but to do it ourselves. Clean your own house before telling us to clean ours. If anything, the main problem of American conservatism is it goes out on a limb to support and praise Jews when most Jews despise white rightists.
Anyway, to prove that Sailer tends to muffle comments critical of Jews, consider the fact that this comment hasn't been allowed by Komment Kontrol.
I agree that the jew-bashing tone gets in the way of the HBD, immigration, and citizenism messages. Its nothing too egregious, though, and even if he backed off it I doubt that would make too much difference.
-omandias
The republican party can take over the entire old democrat portfolio can't they?
If Jews and Judeophiles consider any criticism of, or even just looking at, the behaviors of some Jews, Israel, any particular Jew, Jewish culture, organizations where Jews are over-represented to be the vilest anti-Semitism, they should think hard 'bout it. Anti-Semite might just be a few years behind racist. It's a great term to shut someone down and frighten other people into keeping their heads down. Will it work forever?
The range of Anti-Semitism has grown tremendously:
OWS: The interest charges on debt are usurious, the colleges collude to crank up prices, Wall Street is internationalist and looting America. The financial industry takes 40% of the profits in the US. This is bad.
Scotch-Irish: anti-Semite
The pro-Semites are confused about some things: when Jews are (falsely) accused of usury, or having dual loyalties, or whatnot, it's anti-Semitic because bad things are being attributed to Jews as a class, not because, not because of deciding that whatever Jews do, it is awful. Thinking that usurious interest rates on non-dischargeable debt is bad thing is not anti-Semitic. Thinking that spying on the US for foreign countries is treason: also not anti-Semitic.
"There are problems with the ways white Christians treat outsiders"
"There are problems with the ways Jews treat outsiders" anti-Semitic.
I can't see how accusing people who want the third world immivasion to stop, think the financialization of the economy is a disaster, that debt-sterilization of the white middle and working class is near-genocidal, etc. of anti-Semitism is anything other than a tacit admission that some Jews pushed for 'em and benefit from them unless the pro-Semites have decided that anything ever associated (true or false) with Jews is hunky-dory no matter what.
Steve is not an anti-Semite. Unfortunately that cannot be said about his many, many commenters. That is not bad from a "moral" perspective -- Blacks are far more anti-semitic than iSteve commenter. Rather, it is wrong because it does not accurately describe what is wrong with the West and flails around in magical ghost-dancing conspiracy theories "if we just get those meddling Jews" etc.
Diversity is easy to grasp as the Colors of Benetton or the inheritor, Target Ads. White professional women LOVE LOVE LOVE it, not the least of which is the post-Christian Protestant (without Christianity) status mongering in a Calvinism devoid of actual religion other than some people are more morally good than others.
The Chosen People, heavily Zionist, cannot even keep Africans from flooding into Israel. Tel Aviv is experiencing White flight from the African influx. Jews being highly cognitive gifted, richer, and more female-influenced (because to get rich as a people you need to liberate women) are most susceptible to this. American Jews endorse SWPL which is suicidal because it empowers the Hugo Chavez and Louis Farrakhans who are their enemies. But they endorse it because educated professional women as a group like moral posturing in status competition, they way the snap up Jimmy Choos (same thing, different aspect).
I'd argue the inequality is DESIRED among educated women, along with the diversity. Women endorse it like the fairy tale princesses and princes of Twilight and other vampire stuff they go nuts over (or Sex and the City).
Female liberation/freedom is like bodybuilding -- the "natural" Jack La Lane stuff gives you incredible advantages as a people or civilization. But steroids causes massive health problems. Which IMHO is enabling female status-competition, delayed marriage, single motherhood, and so on to continue well into the thirties.
Women married around 25 with kids by age thirty tend to focus their energies not on competition for status with other women but their kids. They become innately conservative, thinking about how the future will look for their kids when they grow up. Meanwhile single women want to gamble on inequality/diversity because it enables a stratification and pushes up the top guys (which they can then chase) higher as well as offering lots of employment and social status mongering.
If every woman aged 25 was married, thought experiment, and every woman age 30 had at least one kid, how much support for diversity and inequality would exist? How quickly would the border be closed and illegals (and others) be kicked out?
Rather than chase phantom conspiracies and mind-control, people ought to look at the broad social changes enabled by technology sweeping the West.
As the comments to his blog are moderated, that entails that he wants the right and ability to not publish certain comments. Yet he chooses to publish odious anti-Jewish comments all the time, indicating that he doesn't think they're beyond the pale, which speaks volumes about Sailer.
You can see "odious comments" about all sorts of people on this blog, and on the internet in general. Yet the sort of comments which you think should be "beyond the pale" are comments about Jews, which speaks volumes about you as a Jew.
If you see somebody saying something you disagree with on the subject of Jews, the correct response is to argue against what they are saying. In your desire to simply ban all views which you dislike you are living down to a negative Jewish stereotype.
Re Islamaphobia, that's a made up condition. Since Muslims are pretty much the enemy of every non Muslim. Not all Muslims, not all the time. But most of them. Just look at people who are not Muslim living in Muslim places -- they regularly get massacred. There was a notorious incident in Indonesia (the most "moderate" and syncretic of Muslim Nations) where three Catholic High School girls were beheaded by Muslims. Who were then given fairly mild sentences. Meanwhile most Muslim nations including "moderate" Malaysia have the death penalty for conversion from Islam (to any religion).
If Muslims stayed in their own places, did not come here, and did not come here to impose their way of life on us, I would not mind them. Since none of that is true, I find them a threat like say, a rabid dog. If they dropped their polygamy they'd probably be as inoffensive as Mormons today. But they are not able to do that (polygamy is the heart of what drives Muslim violence and domination).
Moreover, as a realist, given how the world is so interconnected and inter-dependent, either Western Secularism destroys Islam or Islam will destroy it. You cannot cut off the internet (which flows both ways -- secular messages and jihadist websites), satellite TV, global corporations, mass global trade, resource dependency, critical shipping lanes, much less immigration. Even if the will and ability existed to stop and reverse mass Muslim immigration to the West (Dearborn MI might as well be Pakistan, with Christians unwelcome as well as secularists) you can't stop Coca-Cola, Pepsi, oil trades, satellite TV, the internet, and everything else. Conflict is inevitable, because technology and trade bring the Muslim and Western worlds right next to each other and thus in eternal conflict unless one is destroyed.
Steve is not an anti-Semite. Unfortunately that cannot be said about his many, many commenters
Some of his many, many commenters are full-blown members of the he-man-woman-haters club. I don't think that their (your) comments should be censored on that account though.
I do think that your remarks should be censored because they are mindlessly repetitive. You only have one thing to say ("white women hate-hate-hate beta men") and you've been repeating that one thing endlessly for years and years on those blogs which have not banned you.
I think your views are kooky, but I don't think you should be banned simply for having them. I do wish bloggers would clamp down on your habit of saying your One Thing regardless of the topic which everybody else is trying to discuss.
I really hate the tic of automatically conflating domestic Jews with Israelis, as if one were a giant sleeper cell for the other, as if a majority of Hebrew folk going through their daily motions ponder their int'l "brethren" even occasionally, but after 8 years of reading the site I assume that will not change. C'est les blogs
Jewish sports talker Jim Rome mocks Tim Tebow and and his fans and no one calls Jim Rome "AntiChristian" or "insensitive"
Why the double standard?
Anyone read Jim Goad in TakiMag on the difference between Commies and Nazis and the acceptability of the former among young people?
http://takimag.com/article/the_bloody_red_flag#axzz1e05ceCF4
@ Steve,
Here is David Goodhart's excellent article in Prospect Magazine that West mentions.
While Sailer is too smart to often make explicitly anti-Semitic comments, he does insinuate and communicate hostility to Jews, especially in singling them out, while he does acknowledge the brains and talent of his enemy. As the comments to his blog are moderated, that entails that he wants the right and ability to not publish certain comments. Yet he chooses to publish odious anti-Jewish comments all the time, indicating that he doesn't think they're beyond the pale, which speaks volumes about Sailer.
This is exactly the type of talk that got Jews booted out of European countries repeatedly. It's just like throwing an obnoxious man out of a bar. Jews as a whole do seem to have an amazing lack of empathy or altruism for non-Jewish Europeans, and I think that both Jews and Europeans who support Jews unconditionally don't understand this fact. And I'm not even saying it's necessarily bad -- I am willing to count it up as a genetic defect -- but conversely, it means that "anti-Semitism" is not the irrational "odious" hatred that Jews are always saying it is.
Come on, what's all this nonsense about Steve being an anti-semite? I would put some of his commenters in that category, but Steve himself - no way. I don't agree with all his criticisms and singling out of Jewish behavior - sometimes it's a bit too schematic and seems to carry a very mild whiff of bigotry - but overall he's a valuable commenter on the much neglected theme of the Jewish role in... well, everything.
And I say this as another one of Steve's part-Jewish readers.
While Sailer is too smart to often make explicitly anti-Semitic comments, he does insinuate and communicate hostility to Jews, especially in singling them out, while he does acknowledge the brains and talent of his enemy. As the comments to his blog are moderated, that entails that he wants the right and ability to not publish certain comments. Yet he chooses to publish odious anti-Jewish comments all the time, indicating that he doesn't think they're beyond the pale, which speaks volumes about Sailer.
It certainly does speak volumes. It boldly states that he's not willing to ignore he BS double standards that Jews expect people to adhere to. Eg, A nation-state is wonderful for Jews, but not for whites. Ethnic belonging is wonderful for Jews, but not for whites. Mixing is wonderful for whites (diversity!), but it's "loving the Jews to death" for Jews. Open borders for whites, closed borders for Israel. Border fence bad for whites, wonderful for Israel. Segregation horrible for whites, wonderful for Jewish settlers. And on and on it goes.
Silver
morley,
I really hate the tic of automatically conflating domestic Jews with Israelis, as if one were a giant sleeper cell for the other,
I bet Abe Foxman feels the same way.
Silver
If you see somebody saying something you disagree with on the subject of Jews, the correct response is to argue against what they are saying. In your desire to simply ban all views which you dislike you are living down to a negative Jewish stereotype.
Ie I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death the privilege of preventing you saying it.
Silver
Anonymous Jew: It is most definitely the anti-Semitism that renders Sailer a non-entity...Jared Taylor has it right: give no quarter to any anti-Semitism.
Exactly correct! When we consider Taylor's weekly column in the WSJ, his daily TV show on FoxNews, and the vast numbers of Congressmen, Senators, and elite MSM type who attended his recent gala conference in DC, it's obvious that he followed the correct ideological path. There's even been some talk that Romney might give Taylor a Cabinet post if elected. Steve's just been an utter fool for destroying himself the way he has...
"It is most definitely the anti-Semitism that renders Sailer a non-entity. Yes, Jews tend to be much more left-wing than non-Jews, however there is a significant percentage of Jews who are open to HBD, and who are opposed to an open borders policy."
If you want to talk about HBD honestly, then you must talk about the right tail of the IQ bell curve, and not just the middle and left. If you favor immigration restriction, you need to be intellectually honest enough to discuss the makeup of the opposition and their motivations, so you can respond to their emotional, manipulative propaganda. I would think that pro-HBD, pro-restriction Jews would be most effective in responding to the Godwin-violating crap that most Jews spew when talking politics, but the former almost always refuse (Paul Gottfried honorably excepted).
Here's one more vote for Steve not being an anti-Semite. Some of the commenters, sure, but it's still a very small fraction. This aint VNN. It's funny, my views on this have changed a lot since I started reading iSteve. I remember a few years ago being shocked at some of the comments and now I look back and think "hmm, I guess that's a valid point". I think we can all agree that the topic of Jewish ethnic solidarity is a very under-discussed topic in the West. Critically examining it (or the reasons why) doesn't make one an anti-Semite; not even close. I like the H.L. Mencken definition as quoted in a previous thread: "Anti-semitism is hating the Jews more than you have to".
I mean, anti-semites certainly DO exist but the real question is "how much is too much?" It seems that many HBD's/WN's seem to view the presence of Jews as both a necessary AND sufficient condition for the anti-white regime we find ourselves in (Svigor?). While I don't agree with that analysis, I also don't think simply adhering to it necessarily makes one an anti-semite. To me, being a real anti-semite takes a combination of things.
One aspect is the narrowly Jew-focused historical/social analysis I just mentioned, PLUS let's say believing that "only a few tens of thousands of Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and it's all a giant Zionist conspiracy" PLUS not accepting that a Jew could EVER genuinely like and respect a Gentile without wanting to swindle them, PLUS never being willing to praise Jews for valid reasons as in "Oh, Einstein just ripped off De Pretto/Hilbert - like ALL Jews do". In sum, anti-semitism is something I know when I see and I see "the real deal" VERY rarely. I'm pretty comfortable calling Alex Linder or David Duke anti-semites but who else? *shrug* Definitely not Kevin MacDonald, for example.
And of course, simply being an anti-semite doesn't necessarily mean you want to start stocking up on the Zyklon-B. Yet another important distinction totally lost on our mainstream intellectual class.
Anyway, that's one Ashkenazi's opinion. Gotta go, I think the Mason's are on my call display ;)
On the subject of anti-Semitism, I would submit that the reason why intellectually honest people are so outspoken about Jews and Jewish influence on the world comes down to the double standard that previous commenters have mentioned.
Our current epoch is one in which rationality and lucid analysis (e.g., the scientific method) have been sanctified and blind belief (e.g., religious faith) has been relentlessly mocked and discredited; and yet on certain subjects--race, gender, foreign policy--there are rules in place indistinguishable from religious dogma.
In my view, being an agnostic, an emphasis on lucid intellectual inquiry is certainly desirable, given some of its technological fruits (as life is a hell of a lot more comfortable since the advent of science); however, what I genuinely resent (as I know do many of the esteemed commenters here) is when some topics are open to relentless scrutiny while others are guarded with the utmost jealousy and potential for social stigma.
For me, it's simple: either nothing is sacred, like with Hume; or everyone gets to discuss and weigh their beliefs and prejudices (which, despite what some would have you believe, we all have, even the saintly liberal black-lesbian-jews) with equal legitimacy. So, Jews should be allowed to advocate for themselves; as should blacks and hispanics and asians and antarcticans--but so too should whites, in the Sailer/Taylor/Buchanan mold.
That's the issue. It's not that Jews and blacks and hispanics and asians and women and gays and Tralfamadorians are looking out for number one (which of course they are), but that everyone EXCEPT whites is allowed, nay, encouraged to consider their interests above other groups'.
Is this because of some pernicious Jewish influence on an otherwise virtuous white society? I doubt it; but the reason why it, I think, is a valid--and therefore not gratuitously ANTI-SEMITIC!--topic is because of this conspicuous hierarchy of group preference. When everyone else in the world has one standard, and a single isolated group has another, you need to consider that fact. Isn't lucid and emotionally unflinching observation what the liberally-venerated scientific method is all about?
And my question for Jews is simple: if you don't want people to be suspicious of you, why do you behave in such a brazenly suspicious manner? Why not just adhere to the same standards as everyone else? (For then you would no longer be suspected!) I ask this last question in good faith, and I'm curious as to the answer from one of the intellectually honest (as most are) Jewish iSteve commenters.
Silver: if you've got such an inside window onto Furious Foxman's brain then perhaps you should join up with his Intelligence Report. You have the appropriate one-track mentality.
Ed West:
> Next year two titans of American academia, from either side of the political spectrum, Robert Putnam and Charles Murray, publish books which deal with the huge and growing wealth chasm in America.
2012 - a good year for iSteve! At least if people continue denying it, at least let them not /actively/ promulgate it. When you seen upside-down things like this (from here: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/11/the_iq_question.php):
> Two years ago, the School Governance Council of Berkley High School in Berkeley, California, said it would eliminate all science labs and the five teachers who ran them because the labs were seen as "largely classes for white students." The council wanted to spend the money on narrowing the district’s "dismal racial achievement gap."
it's not a minor 'niceness tax' anymore, it's beginning to derail the train.
I remember about a year after 'The Bell Curve' came out, there started to be talk about 'equality of opportunity, not of outcome' - I don't know what happened to that, I guess the courts beat it back.
Steve, my response to comments grew to about 3x or more what blogger will let me put into a comment so I put it on my blog, here.
Steve, if you'd be so kind, when you get the chance, check the spam filter - though I'm sure you do already. I'm just posting this to make sure it's your choice whether my comment got through.
It's funny, my views on this have changed a lot since I started reading iSteve. I remember a few years ago being shocked at some of the comments and now I look back and think "hmm, I guess that's a valid point".
And why would that be the case? Because the rule in most areas of life is that any discussion of Jews by non-Jews is "anti-semitism", end of story. So the average person comes across a blog where Jews are discussed exactly as honestly and clinically as any other group of people .... and has a heart attack! They can't say that, can they?
Of course this rule, while patently idiotic, is one which the majority of non-Jews have imposed on themselves.
"Our current epoch is one in which rationality and lucid analysis (e.g., the scientific method) have been sanctified and blind belief (e.g., religious faith) has been relentlessly mocked and discredited; and yet on certain subjects--race, gender, foreign policy--there are rules in place indistinguishable from religious dogma."
So well said, thanks. Recently, I've begun to think of left-wingers as religious fanatics. It's the only thing I know that explains their otherwise inexplicable belief system and actions.
Ed West is a smart guy, I'm sure he knows fine well that your view of HBD is accurate.
anon:
"I think maybe the anti-Semitism helps put you beyond the pale."
By British standards (or those of anywhere outside USA & Israel) Sailer is mildly pro-Semitic.
anon:
" In general, on average, Brits seem to be more afflicted with PC than Americans."
Nope. We just have a much more oppressive State. The average middle-class Brit is far less PC than the average middle-class American. Although we are a lot more PC than the average middle-class Frenchman.
Morley,
Silver: if you've got such an inside window onto Furious Foxman's brain then perhaps you should join up with his Intelligence Report. You have the appropriate one-track mentality.
Inside window? The man's output is such that you don't need any inside window.
But you're confused. The "Intelligence Report" [snort] is the SPLC's creation, not the ADL's.
As for a one-track mentality, you couldn't be more wrong.
A few words of advice for you. I'm not responsible for any "white resurgence." I didn't create it, nor the conditions that are leading to it. Had different policies been followed at various times in the past it would likely not be now taking (or threatening to take) place, at least not with the overreactionary fervor some display. But I can no more hold it back than I can keep the waves at the beach at bay by holding up my palms. My suggestion is: grab a surfboard and ride the sucker!
Silver
Could one commenter point to one thing Sailer has written that is anti-Semitic?
Steve isn't Jewish, and for some people that's all it takes to qualify as an anti-semite.
Steve isn't Jewish, and for some people that's all it takes to qualify as an anti-semite.
Huh? Sounds like b.s. to me, even if it's sarcasm. And Steve is quite possibly part-Jewish genetically.
Sailer doesn't have to say anything anti-Jewish. All he does is moderate each and every comment submitted and only allow the ones he chooses to allow. Some of my posts in the past, he did not allow, for whatever his reasons were. But he does indeed allow vicious, vile, anti-Jewish rantings, defamations, and lunatic speculations. That's the proof of Sailer's anti-Semitism. Fortunately, the ADL keeps good records of what Sailer allows to be posted on his blog, so that Sailer's future influence is dimmed.
"By British standards (or those of anywhere outside USA & Israel) Sailer is mildly pro-Semitic."
I have newfound esteem for the UK.
Man De Novo:
THe change in your reaction over time reflects how the Overton Window (the range of respectable political/social opinion) works. What ideas seem crazy or evil isn't mainly about how crazy or evil they are, but rather about how familiar they are.
A lot of the effective control of discussion exerted by the big media sources is like this. Certain discussions simply don't happen, certain viewpoints are either excluded or are presented only in a two minutes' hate kind of format. Other viewpoints become part of the cultural background noise--they're commonplace. And most people respond accordingly--even ideas they think are wrong don't register as scarily crazy or evil, when they're common enough to hear. My sense is that most peoples' filter for crazy or evil ideas has much more to do with how often they hear the idea than with whether it really is at odds with reality, or with moral principles almost everyone agrees on.
Consider two people: one explains the black/white performance gap in schools by reference to white racism, the other by reference to the blakc/white IQ difference. One of them is likely to be excluded from discussions and villified as an anti-scientific racist, even though that's the one with more evidence behind his argument. This is how people filter views and discussions before they get around to weighing evidence.
Pointing out that AIPAC has a lot of influence in Washington, or that a lot of the intellectual/pundit class is Jewish in the US, is often seen as borderline anti-Semetic, even though both statements are demonstrably true. Because those things are rarely heard. (And the taboo keeps them rarely heard.)
The net is in the process of breaking this. Blogs and foreign news sources simply don't have the same constraints on what can be said. It's often pointed out that Israeli newspapers have way more open discussion on Israeli policy toward the Palestinians than US newspapers. With the internet, people who are interested can read that discussion. They can watch Al Jazeera or read The Guardian and listen to Democracy Now and get an entirely different set of acceptable and unacceptable ideas.
Once you've heard the unthinkable and offensive discussed a fewtimes, it becomes thinkable, and you can start evaluating it--does AIPAC have too much power? Does Goldman have too much power? Should drugs be legalized? What effect will mass immigration from our south have on us?
Discussing the unthinkable is Steve's competitive advantage. He's a smart guy and a good writer, but part of what makes him stand out is that he's discussing stuff that's often ourside the window of acceptable mainstream discussion. That means he gets labeled all sorts of nasty things--anti-Semetic, racist, socialst, sexist. But really, that's what happens when you talk and think outside the Overton Window.
I often disagree with Steve. But they're interesting disagreements--they force me to think about things I'd never think about watching CNN or Fox.
he does indeed allow vicious, vile, anti-Jewish rantings, defamations, and lunatic speculations.
Translation: "Everywhere else on the net we Jews have successfully enforced out speech codes, but not here! Here people are actually allowed to post comments arguing that Jews are ethnocentric. Oy vey!"
Fortunately, the ADL keeps good records of what Sailer allows to be posted on his blog, so that Sailer's future influence is dimmed.
Wait - you're saying that the ADL can control how much influence a writer has? What are you, some sort of anti-semite? A neo-Nazi? How dare you propagate such slanderous rumors about Jews! I can't believe that Steve allowed your vile anti-Jewish rantings to appear here!
Antisemitism is a problem in a nation where most people are antisemites(and Jews really have little or no power).
Philosemitism is a problem in a nation where most people are philosemites(and Jews really have lots of power).
Some philosemitism is good in a society that is overly antisemitic.
Some antisemitism is good in a society that is overly philosemitic.
Nothing wrong with a bit of balance.
"Fortunately, the ADL keeps good records of what Sailer allows to be posted on his blog, so that Sailer's future influence is dimmed."
Translation: We have no power, but if you suggest that we do, then we'll crush you.
OK, so ADL LLC and the Southern Predatory Libelous Center are formally separate, worlds apart, like Sprite vs. 7-Up--glad to have that clarified.
Their CEO-for-life is on record belittling the Ukrainian famine but did lose media prestige after sticking up for the WWI Ottoman military; now he might be as influential as Van Jones. Perhaps it's time to start shopping around for a better nemesis.
I was writing about my jewish bully at school and quite forget that Im of partly jewish origin myself! I didnt know about that when I was at school however and so it has no bearing on the stroy.
Jew 8:29 AM - tragic to hear that some of your laboriously composed remarks were eaten by the locusts. Unless you have Sailer's Google password you know nothing about which spammy/ranting comments were discarded or how many (dozens per hour, I'd bet--which is why one of the account options should be mandated, if only to conserve somebody's time). Start your own blog for a backup record if you feel the need to make a federal case out of it.
Thripshaw
That commenter "Laban Tall" has his own blog which is linked both to VDare and Ed West's blog on the Telegraph.
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/
Fortunately, the ADL keeps good records of what Sailer allows to be posted on his blog, so that Sailer's future influence is dimmed.
You're taking the piss, right?
"Steve isn't Jewish, and for some people that's all it takes to qualify as an anti-semite."
Huh? Sounds like b.s. to me, even if it's sarcasm. And Steve is quite possibly part-Jewish genetically.
Sounds like the truth to me. The idea that anti-semitism "mystically" arises, regardless of what Jews do, and is inherent in non-Jewish populations, is not a new one. It's actually a school of thought IIRC.
Translation: We have no power, but if you suggest that we do, then we'll crush you.
lol.^^ There is nothing more funny nor poignant than the essence of what is true.
The strange thing is that, in 2014, philo-semites think that the term "anti-semitism" has the same shock value here that it does elsewhere.
Is there such a thing as legitimate "anti-semitism"? You bet. Just like there is legitimate anti-black hate and legitimate anti-white hate. Legitimate hate rhetoric needs to include a call to violence, however, and what it is not is above the board inter-group parrying in a shared political space (the USA) or inter-group competition on the international level.
For instance, the desire to keep educational standards at a high level is not anti-black "hate". It is merely advocacy for the interests of whites, and the advocacy is done directly (not deviously). Whites don't determine that black advocacy for lowering exam standards is anti-white hate, but at the same time whites feel legitimate in vying to keep what is in their best interest. All of this is standard group parrying in our wonderful, inherently functional multicultural environment (/sarc).
Many Jewish people, especially those who are voices for the Jewish establishment in the USA, like to throw the word "anti-Semite" at anyone who significantly opposes Jewish actions toward Jewish group interest. These are actions that more than likely come at a cost to those who question the action. This is an illegitimate use of this term that has been formed to convey the sentiment of "hate". It is illegitimate because the opposing group does not "hate" Jews. The opposing group is merely playing the political game in our shared space. In our shared space, groups are expected to play nice. We all must live here and no one wants trouble. However, the misuse of hate speech accusations are leading us down that road. Groups that feel that the very language of the playing field is unfairly constructed are getting agitated and will continue to become so until they feel that their voice in not being unjustly and aggressively silenced.
On this part of the internet, the term "anti-semite" will be rightly deconstructed and evaluated for accurate use.
Group political maneuvering, accomplished in an above-the-board democratic fashion, is not hate. I would, however, define hate as the aggressive silencing of any group or, more insidiously, the denial of that group's right to be called a group and openly lobby, without personal penalty, for its shared political interests. Such oppression can only be labeled hate.
The ADL can keep track. We're doing the same.
More and more of us are catching on as time ticks on. We were a little slow to the party due to our expected minimum fair political treatment after our sacrifices in World War II, for those who now nakedly oppress our group, but this has been a good lesson for us. Lessons can only be learned through experience.
All righteous people should lobby for fair representation for all political groups. It's not too late. People without true political representation are vulnerable people who are at true risk for real violence from groups that are allowed to organize.
Anything less than oppression free representation is immoral and can only lead to national decay. That is why we protest against the too common fallacious use of the term "anti-Semite".
Post a Comment