What’s Wrong with the World

is all in favor of bringing many thousands of Syrians to the U.S.

Well, I'd be in favor of bringing thousands of Syrians to the U.S. too: Melkites, Antiochean Orthodox, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. There was once a large Christian population in Syria.

I haven't any clue what Jeb! said, but every Christian in Iraq and Syria should have been given a U.S. visa ages ago. You could settle them en mass in the plains, even, and nobody would even notice their presence.

There is one, exactly one, candidate who has stated clearly and repeatedly that any of these migrants accepted into the US under the weakness of Obama will be sent back if he is elected President. Any guesses? Rhymes with rump.

P.S. - I will also say that I was expecting something more surprising here: I read the headline as The Atlantic, the magazine. Different.

Titus, I might ruffle feathers, but I don't agree that we should automatically accept Christian Middle Eastern immigrants en masse. There are a variety of reasons for my hesitation. One of them is that _all_ large-scale immigration places strain, sometimes not sustainable, on the host country. It has been a wise previous requirement of immigration policy, for example, that the prospective immigrant "not become a public charge." There are economic issues, health care issues, etc., that must be addressed, especially considering the large number of immigrants the U.S. is already trying to place from Mexico, South America, etc. Moreover, _all_ large-scale immigration involves matters of cultural assimilation, including the good aspects of cultural assimilation. I know there are bad ways to assimilate to American culture, but there are also just things that are either positively good or neutral and that have to be done--language learning, etc. These things take time, and while it might seem like a cruel prudence to keep immigration to a trickle when people are in dire straits, there is also such a thing as allowing one's good intention and pity to overwhelm legitimate prudence concerning the nature of immigration itself.

More than that (and here is where I'm _really_ going to start ruffling feathers), Arab Christians have special characteristics that raise special concerns related to their Arab identity. "Christian" is not all there is to who they are. I'm sorry to have to bring up a touchy subject, but Sirhan Sirhan was not from a Muslim family but from a Christian Arab background, and it was that that motivated his terrorist act of assassination. Dhimmitude and Arab self-identification with the Muslim persecutors is a real thing and has ramifications, including, e.g., support for a terrorist group like Hezbollah. We already have Muslims in the U.S. sending money to Hezbollah, though that's illegal (I believe). Do we really want to accept thousands or even hundreds of thousands of others who, if they succeed in the U.S., may well do the same?

I agree entirely with this post, but just want to point out that it has been widely reported that only a minority - maybe a quarter - of the "refugees" inundating Europe are actually from Syria. Even the Syrians are not directly fleeing battle but are coming from refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, where they have been living in relative safety for years in most cases. Most of the "refugees" are simply economic migrants looking for a higher standard of living, and come from as far from Europe as Pakistan (where there is no war) and Afghanistan (where, obviously, which a low intensity war has been going on for many years). Merkel's impulsive and reflexive invitation to the Syrians has triggered this flood from all over the Muslim world, in addition to the flow from Africa that has been a problem since Obama and Hillary overthrew Khaddafi with "smart power."

As far as I can tell, all of the Republican presidential candidates are clueless on immigration. Ted Cruz, for example, is against amnesty but reportedly supports increasing legal immigration (which is already too high). Anyone who believes in the genuineness of Rubio's supposed change of heart after the Gang of Eight fiasco, give me a call, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And Trump is just exploiting this issue to fuel is narcissistic campaign. His latest brainstorm is to deport all 11 million illegal aliens and then admit the 80% of them who are "the good ones" back into the country.

Paul Ryan, who is about to become Speaker of the House, is the looniest open borders ideologue of them all, in the addled tradition of the late Jack Kemp. He is now saying that, if he becomes speaker, he won't bring an immigration bill to the floor while Obama is president. Obama is leaving office in just under 15 months. Have a nice day.

djf,

Anything short of deportation is amnesty (see Lawrence Auster) so Cruz is for amnesty. Trump letting back in 8 million (80% of 11 million)? Yeah could be. Of course the real number is not 11 million but somewhere 30-50 million. So we let back in 8 out of 50 million. Any others can work here on visas seasonally for a few years until our markets adjust towards hiring American workers instead.

See? It can be done.

And maybe just occasionally try to convince your more foolishly kind Christian friends that ruining our own house by letting it be overwhelmed by unsustainable immigration is not, in the long run (or even the medium run) a good way to help anybody.

In Europe, the Christians who are bending over backwards to help and advocate for the migrants are going to likely end up in for a nasty surprise when the ultra-nationalists start mobilizing and gaining converts. Austria is already seeing gun ownership rates explode, and popular German and Swedish reaction is increasingly militant and nationalists. Many Christians are on the wrong side, and Christians who are not fools over there would do well to publicly disown their "brothers and sisters in Christ" as traitors to their nation for even so much as uttering words advocating for increased Islamic immigration.

Why? If they don't, expect the nationalists to turn on the church in a big way. Once they're done with the Muslims, they'll come for the Church because too many Christians are publicly on the wrong side of the issue.

Actually, before those predictions come true, Mike T. (if they do), I anticipate that the foolishly kind Christians may get a nasty surprise when they are harmed by the very people they are trying to help. I strongly suggest that anyone going to "migrant camps" to help the poor refugees leave the women behind, that's for sure. And go armed if possible.

The activists are mainly SJWs from what I read. Don't offer them any words of wisdom. They need to get mugged by reality. That is just as true of the women as it is the men.

Bag it. No gloating over evil acts on my threads, even if they happen to clueless people and _you_ think they "had it coming." Not gonna allow that kind of stuff around here.

[comment in which Mike T. doesn't bag it, waxes pedantic about the meaning of "gloat," and brags about his apathy towards the rape or murder of leftists. LM}

And no, they're not "clueless." Many of them passionately hate their own societies. Why? I could give a damn, much for the same reason I could give a damn less why men like Aimes do what they do. They're traitors, plain and simple.

Apologies for the rapid posting, but one last point that makes a difference, I think. [More stuff about how these are mouth-foaming, SJW bad guys and therefore...something about letting them suffer the consequences of their politics. Still not bagging it. Next time, I just delete. Stop being incorrigible, Mike. I mean it. LM]

I strongly suggest that anyone going to "migrant camps" to help the poor refugees leave the women behind, that's for sure. And go armed if possible.

And go with groups of 3 or more, staying largely within arm's length (or at least a stone's easy throw) of each other. If you go armed, and they gang up on you to take your weapon away, all you have done is arm the violent.

Of course the real number is not 11 million but somewhere 30-50 million.

50 million illegals, Andrew? Really? I haven't seen a number like that bandied about by anyone. That would be 1/6 of the ENTIRE population. (Or 1/7 of the entire admitted and non-admitted population, if the number is real). There are something like 35 million legal foreign-born here. You are saying there are MORE illegals than the entire legal foreign-born group?

To say of a few hundred thousand refugees in vast country of more than three million square miles and 320 million people are unsustainable is just ridiculous.

1) Exactly the same argument might have been made by the people that opposed immigration of German Jews in 30's.

2) The mess in Syria, Libya, Iraq etc is direct responsibility of the Western countries. It was American air force that assisted in lynching of Qaddafi. It was CIA that was involved in gun-running to Syrian Islamists. And it is not Obama or Democrats alone. Republicans too cheered for all what Obama did.

"Among the large number of “refugees” coming into Europe are Moslems who are converting to the Christian faith. Recently, an unnamed 24-year-old Iranian who spoke about his Christian conversion was beaten unconscious by Moslem refugees in Germany. Although severely injured in the near-fatal attack, he was, thankfully, saved by more than a dozen onlookers who pulled the attackers off of him. In particular, large numbers of Iranian Moslems are becoming Christians. One church in Berlin, Germany, reports that its membership has increased from 150 to more than 600, with most of its new members being former Moslems from Iran. In a recent interview, Pastor Gottfried Martens of the Berlin church, said, “I know there are — again and again — people coming here because they have some kind of hope regarding asylum. I am inviting them to join us because I know that whoever comes here will not be left unchanged.” These new Christian believers are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and never wish to return to their home country because of the intense persecution they would face." http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/#sthash.zvJ7rc5m.dpuf

And go with groups of 3 or more, staying largely within arm's length (or at least a stone's easy throw) of each other. If you go armed, and they gang up on you to take your weapon away, all you have done is arm the violent.

Armed with... what? Guns? Try that in Germany, where most of these incidents seem to be happening, and see how that ends with your handling by the legal system.

Bedarz Iliaci, she isn't saying we can't make room for them, she's saying they would be an additional strain on an already strained social services system, among other things more detrimental over the long haul. Besides, how many multiples of these "few hundred thousand" refugees do you think we have room yet for, AND can accommodate in all of their non-Western ways and modes of living? We're supposed to believe that all the Mexican and South American immigrants are good Catholics too, but I ain't really seeing it unless Jorge Begoglio is the definition of a "good Catholic."

And of course, the actual industrial use of a melting pot is to make an alloy. That means that by definition, if you support anything more than a very conservative immigration policy, you are intrinsically supporting the dilution of your own society and culture.

I feel for the Iranian converts. I really do, but the leadership of Germany is engaging in high treason against their country. Even if all of those people became devout Christians, the fact is that their mere presence would likely lead to an irreversible change in Germany society and culture.

You know, if we paid the Germans to swap 100k of our illegals with these new Christian Iranians, I bet 50% of our illegals would start self-deportation within 48 hours. Come to America, see the militant nationalist side of Germany.

I actually agree that American policies are partially the cause of the mess in the Middle EAst. But to my mind it is an extremely bad idea to let that fact guilt-trip us into unwise immigration policies. Two dumb policies don't make wisdom, especially two dumb policies in such different areas as foreign policy and immigration to our own shores.

And, yes, it is possible to be unwise in immigration policies even if 1) the people coming here already profess Christ or 2) they become converts afterwards.

I find it interesting that anyone would use as an argument for mass Muslim immigration a scene *in Germany* where a Christian is beaten viciously by a mob of Muslims. This is an argument _for_ immigration? Because that particular Christian was an ex-Muslim and an immigrant himself? That's crazy. Look at the bigger picture: What a great idea. Let's import hordes of people who try to beat other people to death for converting to Christianity! Because maybe _some_ of them will instead convert. Or beat other people half to death first and then convert. Or something.

Bad idea.

Tony,

Ann Coulter's book Adios, America is a must read. In there she points to a study, done back in 2008 I believe, by some Bear Stearns analysts who wanted a more accurate count of the illegal population for banking reasons. They looked at wages being sent back to Mexico and other places and concluded that the illegal population was more like 30-32 million. Fast forward through 7 year so Obama and 50 million is not unreasonable.

That's why 8 out of 50 million returning would be win-win. 8 million is a lot of people so no one can say we're cruel. Maybe we keep 5 million, still a huge number. But when the real magnitude of the problem is revealed the immigration hawks will be thrilled we dodged a fatal bullet.

Should say: "Fast forward through 7 years of Obama and ...."

They looked at wages being sent back to Mexico and other places and concluded that the illegal population was more like 30-32 million.

That raises a great way to crimp illegal immigration and get some self-deportation: tax this transfer at a 60% rate. Use the money to offset damage to the economy and society. If Bear Stearns can FIND this money, we can tax it. (And, as with other places where Americans are aiding and abetting illegals to work here, I would put in draconian penalties on American institutions helping them avoid this tax, up to and including confiscation of the entire business.)

I haven't read the book, and it seems unlikely to me but I am just being skeptical before seeing the data. As far as projecting ANOTHER 18 million in the last 7 years, that's way too generous: everyone admits that the economic slump reversed the trend for years. And if the 30 million represents the result of some 20 years (since Reagan's 1986 foolishness) (though it might be longer), then the implicit rate of 1.5M per year likely isn't going to be leapfrogged into 2.5M per year under Obama. He didn't actually modify border patrol or enforcement policy significantly from the start.

I think that most people on all sides of the issue will be shocked into silence when the truth is revealed. And that will make it possible to settle on a reasonable absolute number to allow back in (some % of the total much less than 80% as djf suggested above).

That raises a great way to crimp illegal immigration and get some self-deportation: tax this transfer at a 60% rate. Use the money to offset damage to the economy and society.

Use civil asset forfeiture and take the entire thing. I bet you could probably find some way of hitting the illegals with some white collar criminal statutes too. Start sending federal agents to visit the money wire services and tell them that it would be... "disadvantageous to be seen as facilitating crime."

Welcome to the future: a dumber, poorer, but more vibrant America...

The only way to get rid of a significant part of the illegal population is to enforce against business the laws prohibiting hiring illegals. Not through criminal prosecution, but through substantial fines and shutting down their businesses as a civil penalty. When employers find it too risky to employ illegals, most of them will stop.

Criminal prosecution is just too clunky and expensive to be feasible as a solution for a problem of this scale. Administrative enforcement against employers would be much faster and cheaper and more reliable. For one thing, in administrative proceedings, the government does not have to prove intent. Also, the rules of evidence are not as rigid.

Deporting millions of people would be an administrative and fiscal nightmare, and is not just feasible. Trump's idea of deporting millions of people just to re-import them back is beyond stupid. What is the point of spending billions to deport them and then taking them back in, when it is their presence here that is the problem? Also, how do you define who are "the good ones"?
Trump is obviously not serious about this issue. Which is no surprise, since his hotels no doubt employ thousands of illegal alien maids, cooks, gardeners, janitors, etc. The hospitality industry is one of the worst offenders in hiring illegals.

The real problem - socially and fiscally - is that we have too much immigration, legal and illegal, not that somebody "broke the law" and must be punished (in fact, being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense, as far as I know). Once we incentivize employers not to hire the illegals, and it becomes harder (it will never be impossible) for illegals to get hired, a good chunk of those already here will leave on their own, and the future inflow will be reduced. But for any of this to be worthwhile, we need, not only future border and visa enforcement, but to reduce legal immigration, which, at the current level, bears no relationship to the interests of the current citizenry. Unfortunately, it seems that all of the GOP candidates, even those who claim to be against amnesty and for border enforcement, want to increase legal immigration, which is an obsession of the venal GOP donor class.

The foregoing is my view on what is fiscally and administratively feasible and should be done. I am under no illusion that any of this is likely to be done, especially now that the brilliant Republicans in the House have made the smarmy crank Paul Ryan speaker.

Lydia,
I do not argue for Moslem immigration, mass or otherwise. I would restrict to Christians.
Do you think it was justified or good to deny asylum to German Jews?
The case of Middle-East Christians is even more justified. USA is directly implicated in their plight.
Even now, America is supporting those who would massacre them.
They are only a million or two, all told. Surely, America can accommodate them.
To hold them off, merely because they would not hold to the Zionist line is simply hardness.

If you burn a man's house, even accidentally, surely it lies upon you to make some amends.

Suppose a boat load of Africans does manage to cross Atlantic and lands on a deserted stretch of East Coast. Further suppose, they work on and improve some unoccupied land. Do they hereby get to own this land (by natural law) and would it be unjust for the Govt to remove them or deny them suitable recognition of ownership?

djf,

Read Trump's immigration position paper.

Also, google Operation Wetback. Trump frequently cites this as a model. 1.5 million illegals moved two or three times (further south each time so they wouldn't keep returning). Sure, enforce the laws and make it difficult for illegals to go about their business. But deportations will be necessary. It can be done. I also believe that the US Code states that anyone residing in the country without proper documentation is subject to deportation.

Illegal immigration costs $200-240 billion a year when you add up all the services, welfare, education (and not counting all the remissions). The wall and deportations will cost a small fraction.

The entire power structure wants to see Trump brought to heel. If he hired any illegals we'd be told about it.

"Suppose a boat load of Africans does manage to cross Atlantic and lands on a deserted stretch of East Coast. Further suppose, they work on and improve some unoccupied land. Do they hereby get to own this land (by natural law) and would it be unjust for the Govt to remove them or deny them suitable recognition of ownership?"

That is a highly hypothetical scenario. Since when, in recent times, have refugees made a country better?

It is a pretty ludicrous scenario in general, have you seen Africa? Have you seen the stark difference between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe? Or that of South Africa pre-1994 and post-1994?

Andrew E,
It is reported in NRO today that Trump has spoken in favor of increasing H1-B immigration.
He is also reported to be willing to accept a majority of the deported provided they go back and apply for immigration. They would be favorably considered.

As Steven Sailer says, the question of legality of the immigration is one thing and the quantum of legal immigration is yet another. You could be for deporting all illegals but for increasing manifold the legal immigration. Is that what you want?

Lydia:

As usual, the U.S. is protected by an ocean from having quite the same uncontrolled invasion that Europe has. We can keep hoping that this happy accident of geography will save us from our feckless rulers, Democrat and Republican alike. (Jeb Bush, says the story linked above, is all in favor of bringing many thousands of Syrians to the U.S.)

Both as a fraction of the resident population and in absolute numbers, America has more noncitizens than Europe. Europe is getting migrants who are from a more obviously foreign and dysfunctional culture, with correspondingly greater angry nationalist response demanding expulsion and similar, but the Atlantic won't save America from brazil-ification and banana republicry.

Iliaci:

2) The mess in Syria, Libya, Iraq etc is direct responsibility of the Western countries. It was American air force that assisted in lynching of Qaddafi. It was CIA that was involved in gun-running to Syrian Islamists. And it is not Obama or Democrats alone. Republicans too cheered for all what Obama did.

I'd be happy to see pretty much every member of the political class/governing class turned out of house and home and their mansions sold to construct Section 8 housing where the politicos can live down with the migrants.

But in practice, laying the blame on "Western countries" and trying to demand that they make it up to migrants is not going to result in the political class suffering much in the way of hardship or accountability. It's the civilians who will be the ones to pay - insofar, that is, as there even are such things as civilians in a country with popular government, which raises a sticky issue.

It can be argued that to whatever extent 'the Will of the People' is actually a thing, the People can be held responsible for the acts of their elected representatives and therefore it's reasonable to impose on the People to make it up for ordering a mess in Syria etc. But the unfortunate implication of this argument appears to be that when a democratic country goes to war, the People, because they are functioning as military commanders, are legitimate targets of reprisal. In other words, there's no such thing as terrorism against voters. This seems rather absurd. Are you endorsing this conclusion? If not, where do you draw the line for imposing on the general populace for the sins of the elected representatives?

Eric,
To accommodate a few co-religionists in a huge country--is it comparable in any way with military reprisal against civilians or terrorism?

And yet when the people stand in queues to vote for the politicians, they are not entirely blameless. But there is no extrapolation to terrorism.

the Atlantic won't save America from brazil-ification
I have lived in a southern town of Brazil--very nice town, very nice people-some petty crime but peaceful.My room mate was a Maronite-not remotely comparable to underclass immigrants one might reasonably fear.

"Europe is getting migrants who are from a more obviously foreign and dysfunctional culture, with correspondingly greater angry nationalist response demanding expulsion and similar, but the Atlantic won't save America from brazil-ification and banana republicry."

As much as Americans like to make fun of Europeans for some perceived weakness, the reality is far from it. The last time an obviously foreign culture irked an European majority, the Holocaust happened and the Reconquista has shown a similar fate for hostile Muslims in Europe.

Beyond precedents laid out with the actions taken against the Moors, Saracens, Turks, Jews, and Gypsies in the past, Europe also has a unique set of conditions that makes it even more likely that an extremely violent backlash will occur, most likely quite soon. The current crop of invaders will not have a chance.

As for America, I am not as sure. It's very likely that America will become Mexico/Brazil North. Maybe Trump will lay down the path for a national savior. Or atleast destroy the GOP and the "respectable conservatives" of movement conservatism so a more nationalist and uncompromisingly right wing party can take over.

"I have lived in a southern town of Brazil--very nice town, very nice people-some petty crime but peaceful.My room mate was a Maronite-not remotely comparable to underclass immigrants one might reasonably fear."

Nice try, Southern Brazil is different from the rest of Brazil, it's basically Bavaria. Don't get me wrong, Brazil looks like a fun place but I would never want to live there permanently.

"Eric,
To accommodate a few co-religionists in a huge country--is it comparable in any way with military reprisal against civilians or terrorism?"

I think you're pushing the same straw man argument ad nauseaum. Besides Lydia, no one has a problem with Old Christian Levantines and Copts coming into this country. Better them, than the constant flood of illegals from Mexico or Albanians or the Hmong.

And even staunchly nationalist countries like Hungary have made exceptions for Christian refugees.

Do they hereby get to own this land (by natural law)

They have no ownership claim because it's land under the sovereignty of the United States, which supercedes their claim.

Your sources, a British tabloid, Breitbart and Jim Hoft aka "the dumbest man on the internet".
Are you serious??

There is NO evidence for an increased crime rate so far, NO evidence for new diseases (cholera? What a joke), NO evidence for the breakdown of German or Austrian or Swedish social security systems, NO evidence for hidden terrorist agendas. It's all about anecdotes and racist inventions.

Are there some criminals (even rapists) among the million refugees? Sure, but hardly beyond statistical expectation. Are there cultural misunderstandings? Of course. Do these people cause waste and produce feces? Sure, what do you expect them to do? Will these events change European (German) society? Probably, but not neccesarily in a detrimental way.
Are there economic migrants? Of course, but they will be expelled soon. Are people from Syria, Eritrea, Afganistan, or from overcrowded refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey "economic migrants"? No. Who says otherwise is either dumb or heartless.
This brings me to Mike who, as we all know, is both. Calling someone a "traitor" who emigrates from a living hell like Syria, where a cruel dictator is fighting with religious lunatics (there are almost no fighting "moderates" left), is preposterous.

Lydia, you call yourself a "philosopher" and a "Christian"? But wait, according to you, even Arab Christians have "special characteristics". (Hint: They may have experienced the blessings of US foreign policy.)
What a shame! If this is not pure hate-driven racism, I do not know what would qualify instead. (With the honorouble exception of Bedarz [keep the Spirit!] the whole thread is simply disgusting)

Thank God for the Atlantic, indeed.

Um, Grobi, the concern about cholera was both raised and (allegedly) answered by the WHO. I don't happen to be impressed by their answer, but they brought it up or I (racist xenophobe that I am) probably would never have thought of it. You can argue with them. The pictures of the building-up trash occur in a story by the BBC as well, which you evidently failed to notice.

But never mind, move along. There is NO evidence that this is all anything but a smashing success.

Bedarz Iliaci,

On Trump and H1B's. Yes, his answer to that question in the debate was muddled and a little confused. I suspect because it's an aspect of immigration he hasn't focused much on yet. But he was asked again about yesterday in Reno, NV by an astute young person and gives the correct answer. See 1:16:30 here:

http://www.shallownation.com/2015/10/25/video-donald-trump-speech-at-reno-nevada-rally-thurs-oct-29-2015/

Also, see his much more thorough response to Breitbart from yesterday evening:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/exclusive-donald-trump-rights-ship-on-immigration-demands-disney-rehire-workers-replaced-by-cheap-foreign-labor-calls-rubio-silicon-valleys-puppet/

Sure, Trump's rhetoric on the stump about letting the good ones back in is ambiguous. Probably deliberately so. Look, Trump knows the real number is not 11 million but much closer to 50. Does anyone think that when the real magnitude of the problem is revealed that we're going to expand the population by 30-40 million (all non-violent illegals) at the stroke of a pen? We would under an amnesty president which is everyone but Trump. But if Trump wins the negotiations will begin in his favor because he's made clear the deportations come first.

I gotta love how Bedarz restates my careful references to Middle Eastern Christians' possible support for Hezbollah as "not holding to the Zionist line." Well, that's fine, Bedarz, if you think the only alternative to "holding to the Zionist line" is supporting terrorism, then that's a very revealing false dichotomy you got yourself there. I can only say that, if that's your approach to life, then if you were a prospective immigrant, I'd look askance at that as well.

It looks like the video I linked to just above has been changed slightly. The relevant part actually begins around 1:13:00.

"There is NO evidence for an increased crime rate so far, NO evidence for new diseases (cholera? What a joke), NO evidence for the breakdown of German or Austrian or Swedish social security systems, NO evidence for hidden terrorist agendas. It's all about anecdotes and racist inventions."

Hey, Grobi, is there any particular reason for your hysterical tone? We have no obligations to Muslims whatsoever while we definitely have an obligation towards ME Christians. That being said, Muslims have caused enough problems and the vast majority of "refugees" are Muslims. Muslims = Trouble so it follows that No Muslims = No Trouble. That's just simple math.

I will say that Lydia is wrong about Arab Christians and their "special Arab characteristics". I've met them, and they're decent people, far better than Sicilians and far, far less Semitic than Bedouins and Jews. They are pretty inoffensive and all I can say is that they do have the Arab hospitality without the Arab pathologies.

But once again, it's only the Christians. The others can [ed] and so can traitorous Christians like you and the traitorous Leftists.

"Calling someone a "traitor" who emigrates from a living hell like Syria, where a cruel dictator is fighting with religious lunatics (there are almost no fighting "moderates" left), is preposterous."

You seem like a religious lunatic yourself, considering that you want to flood Europe with foreigners out of some sort of religious fervor (it's obvious that you're some sort of treasonous Christian). And as for Assad? He is a secular nationalist trying to protect his country and his people from scum like ISIS. And in fact, Syrian Christians support Assad because the Alawites are one of their allies in region.

If you were truly as smart as you implied, you would know that and wouldn't had have to rely on hysterics to make your arguments. You lost immediately when you started up with the hysterics.

"I gotta love how Bedarz restates my careful references to Middle Eastern Christians' possible support for Hezbollah as "not holding to the Zionist line." Well, that's fine, Bedarz, if you think the only alternative to "holding to the Zionist line" is supporting terrorism, then that's a very revealing false dichotomy you got yourself there. I can only say that, if that's your approach to life, then if you were a prospective immigrant, I'd look askance at that as well."

Possible support not confirmed support. Though at the same time, I've read Eastern Orthodox blogs who have in the end supported Hezbollah.

Either way, not our problem. Hezbollah doesn't attack America (unlike the groups that America indirectly funds by allying with Saudi Arabia. If terrorism was that big of a deal to you, you would support the ending of Saudi-US relations. I do.) and Israel is not our concern. Thomas Jefferson, Isolationism and all.

This brings me to Mike who, as we all know, is both. Calling someone a "traitor" who emigrates from a living hell like Syria, where a cruel dictator is fighting with religious lunatics (there are almost no fighting "moderates" left), is preposterous.

And once again, Grobi demonstrates that he's dumber [edited LM] since he thinks the migrants were the ones I was accusing of treason or its moral equivalent...

Thought I would add my 2 cents.

I live in Tower Hamlets, London. One of the more infamous areas of England with the high proportion of Bangladesh people their, the problem of social integration with them in particular. Also, living in London I see first hand the housing crisis. The population is increasing stupidly fast, it has prompted institutions like Oxford and Birmingham university to comment on the role immigration is having on population specific problems like these. Just this week, a think tank has released sobering forecasts of the next ten years. By 2025 Britain's population is expected to increase by 15%. The scary part? The forecasted statistics used were LOWER than current levels and optimistically low to boot. 68% of this growth was due to immigration.

Now Tower Hamlets has had instances of these 'sharia patrols' but they are somewhat uncommon. Calls of racism taint serious conversations on it - but the coming population bomb should have no such problems. Its a disgrace that it does. The numbers are objective and as neutral as can be. Yet the politicians - and yes the general public too - won't look at it seriously, lest they be seen as bigots or heartless.

Australia or the states is starting to look like a good option if Britain doesn't leave the EU before the referendum.

Actually, I'm quite sure Grobi is _not_ a Christian, based on past interactions. Just a leftist who likes some of my philosophical work and finds my politics horrifying.

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I'm off to edit out some bad language and sundry other little clean-up tasks.

Ajax, it's really weird that you know precisely zip about my position on Saudi-US relations and yet assume that you do. Where's that coming from?

I'd certainly be happy to see a less warm relationship between us and the Saudis! And I'd _love_ to see immigration from Saudi Arabia ended yesterday. Or fifteen years ago. On the other hand, it would be as stupid for us to support the actual overthrow of the Sauds as it was for us to support the overthrow of Assad and the rest of the "Arab spring" nonsense.

And, sorry, I disagree with you. If somebody is supporting Hezbollah, especially materially supporting (donating, etc.,), then I regard him as a poor candidate for citizenship. Naturally, if you put a gun to my head and force me to choose, I will prefer a Hezbollah-supporting immigrant who _doesn't_ commit acts of terrorism on our own soil over one who does, and one who otherwise gets a job, works hard, etc., over one who doesn't do those things, but I'd prefer to have neither, and I'm certainly not going to endorse inviting several hundred thousand or even a couple million whose identity and values incline them unto strong support for Hezbollah.

I also stand by my above comments about the inadvisability of bringing 2 million new non-Americans suddenly into the U.S., period. It's not as though their being Christian in religion erases all the difficulty of placing, employing, teaching language to, supporting, etc., immigrants, especially given that the economy is not employing all of the Americans in the first place.

Btw, Ajax, if I were a garden-variety neocon I wouldn't say that, would I? I'd be more generally pro-immigration. On the other hand, based on comments in this thread, it appears that the paleocon line is, "Bring in all the Arab Christians!" And as you see, I don't agree with that either.

So my positions are not universally predictable on the basis of the neocon-paleocon divide, either direction.

"I'd certainly be happy to see a less warm relationship between us and the Saudis! And I'd _love_ to see immigration from Saudi Arabia ended yesterday. Or fifteen years ago. On the other hand, it would be as stupid for us to support the actual overthrow of the Sauds as it was for us to support the overthrow of Assad and the rest of the "Arab spring" nonsense."

I disagree. The Saudis are unbelievably horrible scumbags, the depths of their depravity knowing no bounds. In fact, I don't like to call the Lebanese or the Syrians "Arabs" because I feel that it implies that they are on an equal level and that is insulting to the Lebanese (who are mostly Christian, Lebanon was a Christian country) and the Syrians (who have a decent Christian minority). And really, the former are Phoenicians and the latter are Syrians.

If I could control U.S. foreign policy I would cut ties to the Gulf Monarchies and support the secular nationalist dictators of the region and let them and Iran do whatever they want to the Gulf Monarchies while I turn a blind eye. Terrorism throughout the world is caused by Saudi money. Including terrorist acts upon Americans.

"And, sorry, I disagree with you. If somebody is supporting Hezbollah, especially materially supporting (donating, etc.,), then I regard him as a poor candidate for citizenship. Naturally, if you put a gun to my head and force me to choose, I will prefer a Hezbollah-supporting immigrant who _doesn't_ commit acts of terrorism on our own soil over one who does, and one who otherwise gets a job, works hard, etc., over one who doesn't do those things, but I'd prefer to have neither, and I'm certainly not going to endorse inviting several hundred thousand or even a couple million whose identity and values incline them unto strong support for Hezbollah."

Well, I changed my mind on Hezbollah and Hamas when I started reading sites by Greek and Slavic Eastern Orthodox writers talking about why Middle Eastern Christians support them. The main reason being that they are a protective force for Christians against Sunni militants like ISIS (and Al-Quaeda) as well as against Israel who are seen as a threat due to the situation involving the unwanted occupation of Lebanon (which is once again Christian land) during the Lebanese Civil War.

From what I perceive, Hezbollah and Hamas are like the IRA of the Middle East: nominally religious but hardcore secular nationalist in reality.

Hezbollah and Hamas have no anger against America beyond our unfruitful alliances with the rogue states of the Middle East. But lots of countries hate America for what we've done, like Serbia just to name one other country who has a justification to hate America.

Right, well, then, we will just agree to disagree. Not that I claim to have a comprehensive Middle Eastern policy of my own to sell in any event.

Well this certainly won't do anything to make the immigrants in Norway look like good candidates to join the future of Norway...

And Lydia, the next time you want to go on about how SJWs are "clueless," look at what they're doing there. They point-and-shriek "sexism! patriarchy!" at the native men and then denounce even telling the names of the suspects when it's foreign males lest they provoke "racism."

That's not clueless, that's evil. That is one of many reasons I said that these people have at least committed the moral equivalent of treason in their hearts. They are of a kind with men like Aldrich Aimes, Benedict Arnold and Walter Duranty, not just misguided, good members of society.

Ajax,

Like your heroic namesake, I think Athena has turned you temporarily insane given some of your comments on the Middle-East. I don't want to hijack Lydia's excellent post, but I didn't want to let these comment just sit there without a response:

1) "and that is insulting to the Lebanese (who are mostly Christian, Lebanon was a Christian country)"

The only thing right about that phrase is the word "was" -- Lebanon hasn't been a Christian country for years -- the current population breakdown is roughly 54% Muslim (half Sunni and half Shia), 40.5% Christian (all sorts of sects) and 5.6% Druze. There are also quite a few Muslim refugees living there, mostly Palestinians (hence the PLO in the late 70s, the Israeli invasion, and the formation of Hezbollah.)

2) "Terrorism throughout the world is caused by Saudi money."

You'll get no disagreement from me that the Saudis need to pay for their support for terrorism (or really just stop it) but to ignore the Shia side of the equation is madness. If you think Iran is our friend, I've got a bride to sell you. Let's not forget, the Marines killed by Hezbollah in Beirut (we were there with the French to help keep the peace), the soldiers killed in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers, and the help Iran gave to the Iraqi insurgency killing who knows how many of our soldiers during that fight.

3) "The main reason being that they are a protective force for Christians against Sunni militants like ISIS (and Al-Quaeda) as well as against Israel who are seen as a threat due to the situation involving the unwanted occupation of Lebanon (which is once again Christian land) during the Lebanese Civil War."

First of all, you realize how ridiculous that statement is when you lump Hamas in there with Hezbollah -- like Hamas is protecting Christians in the Gaza Strip! And the idea that Hamas is protecting the Palestinian population from Israel is also a laugh riot -- they are inciting them to attack Israel and causing the regular folks hardship and misery.

As for Lebanon -- I recommend the book "The Road to Fatima Gate" by the reporter Michael Totten who has spent considerable time in Lebanon, knows the players, and has interviewed lots of people who live in Hezbollah controlled territory. If at one time it was true that many Lebanese welcomes Hezbollah's help to end the Israeli occupation, they resent and despise the monster that has now grown up in their country -- meddling in democratic government, imposing a form of sharia law in southern Lebanon, using their militia to impose their will on the country. Hezbollah is now acting like just another garden variety terrorist organization -- which is what they always were.

4) "Hezbollah and Hamas have no anger against America beyond our unfruitful alliances with the rogue states of the Middle East."

What does that mean -- Israel is a rogue state? Please. Your Greek and Slavic Eastern Orthodox writers need to get a clue and learn the proper Christian response should be to ruthless terrorist. It is not to make allies with them.

Ajax,

Like your heroic namesake, I think Athena has turned you temporarily insane given some of your comments on the Middle-East. I don't want to hijack Lydia's excellent post, but I didn't want to let these comment just sit there without a response:

1) "and that is insulting to the Lebanese (who are mostly Christian, Lebanon was a Christian country)"

The only thing right about that phrase is the word "was" -- Lebanon hasn't been a Christian country for years -- the current population breakdown is roughly 54% Muslim (half Sunni and half Shia), 40.5% Christian (all sorts of sects) and 5.6% Druze. There are also quite a few Muslim refugees living there, mostly Palestinians (hence the PLO in the late 70s, the Israeli invasion, and the formation of Hezbollah.)

2) "Terrorism throughout the world is caused by Saudi money."

You'll get no disagreement from me that the Saudis need to pay for their support for terrorism (or really just stop it) but to ignore the Shia side of the equation is madness. If you think Iran is our friend, I've got a bride to sell you. Let's not forget, the Marines killed by Hezbollah in Beirut (we were there with the French to help keep the peace), the soldiers killed in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers, and the help Iran gave to the Iraqi insurgency killing who knows how many of our soldiers during that fight.

3) "The main reason being that they are a protective force for Christians against Sunni militants like ISIS (and Al-Quaeda) as well as against Israel who are seen as a threat due to the situation involving the unwanted occupation of Lebanon (which is once again Christian land) during the Lebanese Civil War."

First of all, you realize how ridiculous that statement is when you lump Hamas in there with Hezbollah -- like Hamas is protecting Christians in the Gaza Strip! And the idea that Hamas is protecting the Palestinian population from Israel is also a laugh riot -- they are inciting them to attack Israel and causing the regular folks hardship and misery.

As for Lebanon -- I recommend the book "The Road to Fatima Gate" by the reporter Michael Totten who has spent considerable time in Lebanon, knows the players, and has interviewed lots of people who live in Hezbollah controlled territory. If at one time it was true that many Lebanese welcomes Hezbollah's help to end the Israeli occupation, they resent and despise the monster that has now grown up in their country -- meddling in democratic government, imposing a form of sharia law in southern Lebanon, using their militia to impose their will on the country. Hezbollah is now acting like just another garden variety terrorist organization -- which is what they always were.

4) "Hezbollah and Hamas have no anger against America beyond our unfruitful alliances with the rogue states of the Middle East."

What does that mean -- Israel is a rogue state? Please. Your Greek and Slavic Eastern Orthodox writers need to get a clue and learn the proper Christian response should be to ruthless terrorist. It is not to make allies with them.

Jeffery, regarding most of your comment above, I will admit that I may be mistaken (I need to check up on some more facts).

Plus regarding Lebanon, Lebanon was a Christian country as recently as the 90s.

"but to ignore the Shia side of the equation is madness. If you think Iran is our friend, I've got a bride to sell you."

I don't know how much you've read up on Carl Schmitt's Friend-Enemy Distinction, but Iran is obviously an enemy because even though conflict will in all practicality will not happen, it is possible. That being said, Saudi Arabia is far worse and I would love nothing more than to let Iran off the leash and make quick work of Saudi Arabia.

The Shia side of the equation is nowhere near as troublesome as the Sunni side of the equation. My proposal is to side with the Shia, deal with the Sunni and then after all of that figure out where the Shia stand with us.

"As for Lebanon -- I recommend the book "The Road to Fatima Gate" by the reporter Michael Totten who has spent considerable time in Lebanon, knows the players, and has interviewed lots of people who live in Hezbollah controlled territory. If at one time it was true that many Lebanese welcomes Hezbollah's help to end the Israeli occupation, they resent and despise the monster that has now grown up in their country -- meddling in democratic government, imposing a form of sharia law in southern Lebanon, using their militia to impose their will on the country. Hezbollah is now acting like just another garden variety terrorist organization -- which is what they always were."

Thanks for the book recommendation as well as that new tidbit of information, I hadn't realized how the situation on the ground had changed in Lebanon.

"What does that mean -- Israel is a rogue state? Please. Your Greek and Slavic Eastern Orthodox writers need to get a clue and learn the proper Christian response should be to ruthless terrorist. It is not to make allies with them."

Regarding Israel, you mention the murder of Marines by Hezbollah which puts Hezbollah firmly in enemy status IMO. In the same regard, the attack on the U.S.S Liberty tells me all I need to know about Israel. They are not our friends and not to be trusted. Sure they can be our allies (as long as we keep the friend-enemy distinction in mind) but now they have become a liability and their utility as an ally has long ended. They're as useful as Saudi Arabia, though maybe even less, since the Saudi's only real worth comes from the prime real estate they sit upon. Is there oil in Israel? I'd rather make nice with Russia to be able to trade for oil with them. That way we wouldn't have to put up with this annoying Middle Eastern drama.

The ideal would be a completely Christian Middle East. Not Muslim, not Jewish, but Christian. But ideals are ideals and not realities for a reason. It's for this reason why I just want to reiterate that it is never good form to be knee-jerk anything. Being knee-jerk anti-Muslim is generally a good idea because let's face it, Muslims are trouble. But being knee-jerk pro-Jewish is generally a bad idea, because Jews are also trouble (I know it's not respectable to say so, but the cold gritty facts are never respectable. Just look at the historical record). And yet at the same time, both can be our allies, since alliances are not based in some sort of international Best Friends Forever status but on a common goal that we share with another nation at a certain point in time.

Regarding allying with terrorists... Did Christian conservatives protest when we allied with the Taliban and the proto-Al-Quaeda against the Soviet Union? I mean, it is possible that the Greek and the Slavic Orthodox have a similar blindspot that Christian conservatives had back in the Cold War.

"Well this certainly won't do anything to make the immigrants in Norway look like good candidates to join the future of Norway..."

I'm surprised. Norway, Denmark and Finland are far superior in this regard compared to Sweden.

Did Christian conservatives protest when we allied with the Taliban and the proto-Al-Quaeda against the Soviet Union?

In hindsight, a few Christian conservatives (me, for example) may be some of the only ones saying, "Hey, that didn't work out so well. Let's not do that again."

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

"In hindsight, a few Christian conservatives (me, for example) may be some of the only ones saying, "Hey, that didn't work out so well. Let's not do that again."

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."

I brought up the example not to judge American Christian conservatives but to say that the Orthodox are probably making the same sort of mistake and to show them some charity.

We owe our co-religionists that.

Not to the point of inviting a mass immigration of two million of them here. Charity only goes so far. And in any event, as I've implied, I don't think we should be inviting two million of _anybody_ here. Heck, were it up to me, I wouldn't bring in two million ethnic Swedes with a solid work ethic all at once!

Iliaci:

Eric,
To accommodate a few co-religionists in a huge country--is it comparable in any way with military reprisal against civilians or terrorism?

And yet when the people stand in queues to vote for the politicians, they are not entirely blameless. But there is no extrapolation to terrorism.

Democracy aside, there is Christian moral obligation to accommodate a few co-religionists (within the limits of prudence) and to not commit terrorism. But this has nothing to do with "who started it".

It's when you start saying that the citizens of a bunch of democratic countries should be obliged to take in refugees on the grounds that those democratic countries contributed to the refugee problem, that's where you run into trouble, because I can respond that by the same logic, those citizens are obliged to tolerate being shot by Syrians as an occupational hazard, and it's not terrorism because these citizens functioned as military commanders, giving orders to meddle in Syria (through several intermediaries) and military commanders are legitimate targets of hostilities. This strikes me as a first-rate reductio ad absurdum.

"Not to the point of inviting a mass immigration of two million of them here."

I meant we owe the same sort of charity to the Greek, Syrian and Slavic Orthodox and the Maronite and Chaldean Catholics for misunderstanding Hamas and Hezbollah that we give American Christian conservatives for misunderstanding the Taliban.

"And in any event, as I've implied, I don't think we should be inviting two million of _anybody_ here. Heck, were it up to me, I wouldn't bring in two million ethnic Swedes with a solid work ethic all at once!"

Really? Well, that's a ridiculous stance (I mean, I sort of agree with you regarding Swedes). It's less about the numbers than it would be about quality control for me. I would willingly invite 60 million (non-fruitcake i.e. No Piers Morgan i.e. No Homo) ethnic Anglo-Saxons from the Isles (No Chavs of course) and Canada with no hesitation. The same goes for Scots and Scots-Irish.

While ethnic Swedes and Christian Arabs can't reSaxonize America, those groups can.

I would willingly invite 60 million (non-fruitcake i.e. No Piers Morgan i.e. No Homo) ethnic Anglo-Saxons from the Isles (No Chavs of course) and Canada with no hesitation. The same goes for Scots and Scots-Irish.

Say goodbye to the Bill of Rights with that one. The Brits would drain Medicaid with their incontinence expenses until the 2nd amendment is repealed.

Mike T, I did say No Piers Morgan/No Homo and No Chav too.

Of course, I'm talking in terms of hypotheticals as well. There is no way that there are 60 mil Oswald Mosley/Jack Churchill/Cecil Rhodes/W.D.M Bell/Shakespeare/Rudyard Kipling/Chesterton/Henry Ford/King Richard the Lionheart (one of England's greatest kings probably up there with King Arthur) types amongst the Anglo-Saxons any more than there are many Erik the Red/Charles Lindbergh types amongst the Swedes.

But hypothetically, I see nothing wrong with importing shiploads upon shiploads of that Anglo-Saxon type to America.

Hypothetically.

Mike t
Are you allowed to invoke national sovereignty in a discussion of ownership? As I recall the necessity of political context was my position that you and Tony were arguing against.

Mike T, I did say No Piers Morgan/No Homo and No Chav too.

In other words, 3/4 of Britain need not apply.

Bedarz, since I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Please don't import a discussion from a completely different post, especially by a completely different contributor, to a thread on my post about a completely different topic. Thanks.

Ajax, Unlike you I'm not particularly looking to re-Saxonize America. But I think you do understand why I picked hard-working ethnic Swedes for my example. As in, no, they aren't going to blow up bombs, but yes, they are going to vote to take away a bunch of my civil rights and make America even more liberal. A friend of a friend is Swedish by birth, now an American citizen, and took her children back to Sweden to visit relatives. When it came out in casual conversation with someone there that she has occasionally spanked her children in the past, the person she happened to be chatting with threatened to call the Swedish version of CPF on her, and she only got back out of the country with her American citizen children because she boldly declared that the Swedish ban on spanking didn't apply to her and them. (It certainly wouldn't apply to actions carried out years previously *in the U.S.*, but she was to some degree bluffing, because Swedish CPF might have thought they could kidnap the children to prevent future "endangerment.") Europeans can be pretty nuts.

But I do not have a particular commitment to racially re-Saxonizing.

probably up there with King Arthur

Who was a Christian Celt and fought the heathen Anglo-Saxon invasion of his country. His descendants (if he had any) were Welsh. Real history is weird that way.

And Cecil Rhodes wasn't so great. One of the original modern globalists.

Mike T - the US would be lucky to have the last traditional east enders from Britain from the 60's and 70's. There's just enough left to bring a little calm headed nuttiness. Good for the community though, with how often they'll pop around for tea. You like jaffa cakes don't you?

Ajax,

It's interesting to note that the Israeli government has not been chastising the nations of Europe for their "anti-semitism." The response to Charlie Hebdo was mainly along the lines of suggesting that French Jews should move to Israel. I don't recall Netanyahu even suggesting that the French ought to make protecting the Jews a priority.

My take is that Israeli Jews have started to wake up to the realization that now that Jewish nationalism has been realized in Israel, Jews can no longer play the multicultural game without either undermining Israel or stoking legitimate distaste for Judaism in non-Jewish countries. Every argument that can be used to demand that France fully accommodate Jews as not just a religion, but a partially separate people within France, can be turned on them with the Palestinians.

Many, if not most, Western Jews have dual identities that prevent them from having a full loyalty to their native land. I saw a discussion of David Brooks and whether he is a "good Jew" or not and one of the arguments that was used in his favor was that one or two of his sons joined the IDF and that's incredible for a Jew living in NYC. Now stop to consider what they are saying. They are saying it's good that he raised his sons with such a strong sense of being Americans that they joined the Israeli armed forces. Ideally, his sons should have been stripped of their US citizenship upon the US embassy discovering such a thing, but you can only imagine how many people would be shrieking "anti-Semitism!" if we did that.

"Who was a Christian Celt and fought the heathen Anglo-Saxon invasion of his country. His descendants (if he had any) were Welsh. Real history is weird that way."

Interesting. I had forgotten about that.

Mike T.,

While I find such behavior to be especially egregious (including the obnoxious whining everytime people rightly call them out), it would be great if they all moved back to Israel and never, ever came back; that was in fact the Great Promise of Israel. I'm tired of them putting up the pretense that they have loyalty to the countries they reside in.

In the words of Sobran regarding Jews and people accusing them of dual loyalty: "We'll get dual loyalty if we're lucky."

Gents, we are not going to discuss Israel and whether or not you like American Jews or deem them to be loyal American citizens on this thread. There is a reason why I myself blog about such topics only at my personal blog where full moderation is enabled. I hereby deem discussions of your preferences regarding Jews and Israel to be OT in this thread. And, in the name of fairness, I will deem the same regarding those who want to call you nuts or debate you on the merits.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Lydia,
Given the perilous state of liberty of religion in this country, one might have supposed that hard-pressed Christians would welcome 2 million ME Christians as solid allies in the culture war.
Terrorism is neither here or there. Many would and do account allied bombing of German cities to be acts of terrorism as well not to mention present day droning or bombing of civilians by Americans and their Saudi allies.

In 1982, The Lebanese Christians allied with Israel. It is certainly to be hoped that the alliance could be revived.

The question of a homeland for Europeans Jews is different from the question of homeland IN Palestine. I do think that justice might have been better served were the European Jews given a piece of occupied Germany, say a district or two in Bavaria.

However, as always, the land belongs to those as can hold it. That is the sole legitimacy.

However, as always, the land belongs to those as can hold it. That is the sole legitimacy.

No, that's the sole fact that matters in a pure realpolitk manner in a fallen world. It's not a matter of legitimacy which is a matter of moral right. Your life itself, only belongs to you to the extent that no one is willing and able to take it from you, if you wish to take your argument to its final conclusion.

Instapundit had a post about another German town of about 102 people having to "welcome" 750 migrants. Allegedly, the only person in town excited about it was a council member who is openly neo-nazi in his inclinations. Wonder why that is the case...

Probably has something to do with this observation by VD which is sadly, very true...

If the choice is between having your children raped and killed or murderous ultra-nationalists, the normal citizenry will choose the ultras every single time. The loudest voices in favor of immigration bans and mass deportations should be the strident anti-Nazis, because the mass migrations presently being enabled by the Western governments is the most certain way to bring the ultras to power.

Merkel, in not so many words, very recently told the German people to go eff themselves if they don't agree with her policies. It was obviously not that wording, but she told them in no uncertain terms that she would not even negotiate with people who oppose her. She doesn't seem to grasp that she is playing a game that very well may lead to the return of murderous nationalism and this time, the people will be fully aware and in agreement with what they are doing.

"In 1982, The Lebanese Christians allied with Israel. It is certainly to be hoped that the alliance could be revived."

Once again, Carl Schmidtt and all. Lebanon will ally with Israel if the alliance is fruitful. There is nothing special or sacred about the Lebanon-Israel relationship or even the American-Israeli relationship. If they are good for us, help them. If they are neutral, leave them alone no matter what. If they are bad for us, destroy them. It's as simple as tat.

"The question of a homeland for Europeans Jews is different from the question of homeland IN Palestine. I do think that justice might have been better served were the European Jews given a piece of occupied Germany, say a district or two in Bavaria."

Are you serious? That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Bavaria is for Bavarians not for Jews. And European Jews are just Jews, not Europeans, they have no right to Europe. And what do you mean by "justice"?

I think the Jewish homeland should have been created in Madagascar or somewhere deep, deep within Africa (away from Rhodesia and South Africa of course as well as away from North Africa).

Please. Enough about where the Jewish homeland "should have been created."

You guys need to learn to take a hint. Maybe I was too nice earlier. I mean, I _could_ say that you're a bunch of nutso paleo Israel haters verging on anti-semites and that I wouldn't mind if you got lost permanently.

Instead, I'm reminding myself that your type of commentator _can_ have valuable insights on _some_ issues if made to shut up when necessary.

This is _not_ a post whose comments are meant to serve as a repository of your sentiments on these topics, and if you can't stop, your OT comments will be deleted.

"I mean, I _could_ say that you're a bunch of nutso paleo Israel haters verging on anti-semites and that I wouldn't mind if you got lost permanently."

That's rich. Where do non Old Rightists get off on criticizing paleoconservatives considering that neocons/the Christian Right/Tea Partiers have never had any sort of the intellectual seriousness that the Old Right of Europe and America has had? There's a reason why liberals think they are so smart. It's because their only real opposition is the panty-waist NRO conservative. [contentless personal insults removed LM]

Regardless, I apologize for the off-topic thread derailing. And to my credit, I had taken the hint (I could tell through your alleged "niceness" that you were trying to imply that if we kept on the track you would response by dumping a bunch of ad hominems upon us), but I couldn't let the proposal of a Jewish homeland in Bavaria stand. It would be bad for Jews and more importantly, for Germans.

I edited out the contentless personal insults. My readers over a period of many years will just have to decide for themselves, poor dears, whether I "can think" or am proud of being unable to.

Oh, by the way: From a mindless NRO conservative to a "thinking" "Old Rightist," perhaps I may also point out that "negative comment about a person's knowledge or character" is not the same thing as an "ad hominem." Feel free to study the actual definitions of informal fallacies while you're brushing up on Medieval English history. And meanwhile, bag it with the aggressive paleo stuff.

You guys need to learn to take a hint. Maybe I was too nice earlier. I mean, I _could_ say that you're a bunch of nutso paleo Israel haters verging on anti-semites and that I wouldn't mind if you got lost permanently.

Heh, it would be funny if you included me in that statement...

"Oh, by the way: From a mindless NRO conservative to a "thinking" "Old Rightist,"

I just want to point out that the NRO is the one that's gone pro-gay marriage and is accepting of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner because "he's good on taxes". That's what a "respectable conservative" is and these are the people who align yourself to when you want to play within the frame established by the Left.

"perhaps I may also point out that "negative comment about a person's knowledge or character" is not the same thing as an "ad hominem.""

Except my "negative comments about a person's knowledge or character" are censored out. Not that I'm complaining, it's your prerogative, but just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the obvious hypocrisy. It's one thing to say, "hey I disagree with you regarding the Jews" (God forbid anyone says anything slightly negative about the Sacred Semites!) and quite another to say "Hey, you're a nutso". You chose the latter.

"bag it with the aggressive paleo stuff."

It's good that you've moved from "nutso" to "aggressive". What exactly is your problem with paleconservatives? Is the fact that they're the adherents to an actual, authentic American right-wing tradition and your beloved movement conservativism is nothing more than a joke comprising of some sick mashup of Randianism, Thomas Painesque Radical Englightment values, and Trotskyism with a thin veneer of American identity (once that is based in free markets and constant war and goes back about 20, maybe 30 years)?

Your version of "conservatism" is basically NRO drivel just 20-30 years behind.

"My readers over a period of many years will just have to decide for themselves, poor dears, whether I "can think" or am proud of being unable to."

Obviously you can think (more than a typical NRO con), but you seem to prefer to froth at the mouth whenever those icky paleocons/alt-rightists/right-wing boogeyman come into your combox and move only a little to the right of you on certain issues.

I just want to point out that the NRO is the one that's gone pro-gay marriage and is accepting of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner because "he's good on taxes". That's what a "respectable conservative" is and these are the people who align yourself to when you want to play within the frame established by the Left.

All you need to know is that they have no room for Derbyshire, Steyn, Coulter or Sobran (when he was alive), but have plenty of room for arguments for gay marriage is such a natural fit on the right. Though in their defense, they did have the courage to denounce Lena Dunham. That counts for something, right?

"All you need to know is that they have no room for Derbyshire, Steyn, Coulter or Sobran (when he was alive), but have plenty of room for arguments for gay marriage is such a natural fit on the right."

And therein lies the rub. What is there to read at the NR now? Communism is dead faith (although unfortunately cultural Bolshevism is alive and well, but apparently it's "conservative") so even if the John Birchers hadn't been purged, they would have nothing to say and the Old Right including the paleocon set that's represented now by Chronicles has been purged.

It looks like AmConMag is going down the same road as NRO. Rod Dreher is especially nauseating, yeah he holds the line on the sexually morality stuff, but when it comes to everything else? He might as well be a liberal.

Unfortunately, everybody on the pseudo-Right thinks they're "more conservative than thou" until they meet someone who is and then the prissy liberalesque insults start flowing.

Anyone on the so-called Right who thinks that they're better than any genuine right-wing tradition.

"Though in their defense, they did have the courage to denounce Lena Dunham. That counts for something, right?"

Barely.

"Heh, it would be funny if you included me in that statement..."

I think she did. You made some mildly critical statements about the Jews. You might as well be Hitler, you Nazi bastard.

Lydia,
On the topic itself, would you not agree that an arsonist is obliged to make amends for burning down a people's home? Especially if he has a particularly spacious house and the people are his sort of people.

I think she did.

It made me laugh a bit because I'm probably the most pro-Israel commenter here. Among other things, I generally turn a very apathetic blind eye toward how much force the Israelis use in self-defense.

But the Jewish question is a serious one that is highly topical here whether Lydia wishes to consider it or not. Multiculturalism is rapidly approaching its sell-by date in Europe. We are seeing the rise of "far right" parties all across Europe that are unabashedly anti-multiculturalism and anti-(im)migrant. Many of the Jewish communities in Europe persist in the belief that they can shame the Europeans into accepting multiculturalism by continuing to invoke the Holocaust and anti-Semitism as a form of racism charge. They don't seem to grasp that what is happening in Germany, Sweden and a few other countries right now is going to not only kill multi-culturalism but probably bring back a chilling and sober racism the likes of which Europe has never seen before.

No small part of the reason I say the Jews need to start leaving now is concern for their safety. They aren't riding the tide of nationalism, but trying to suppress it. They don't have the ability to do that because the forces Merkel and Greece have unleashed on Europe are significantly more powerful than anything the Jews can bring to bear to maintain the status quo that has benefited them. They need to move to Israel, become unabashed Israeli patriots and encourage the Europeans to rise up and defend their homelands because an Islamic Europe is one of the worst possible scenarios for the Jews and Israeli national security there is.

Since I virtually never read National Review (except for Wesley J. Smith, who I wish had not moved his blog there) and started to find it boring a long, long time ago, the discussion of the failures of National Review is not only irrelevant to the main post but also irrelevant to any discussion of my own views and my own alleged failings as a conservative. Not that this thread is supposed to come to be about the latter anyway.

Bedarz,

Sure, I agree with the statement about an arsonist. But (you knew this was coming) I disagree with the relevance of the analogy. I don't know much else about commentator Erik, but it looks to me like he has taken the time to answer you on this analogy above and has done a pretty good job of it.

The NRO is actually sad, but excellent example of the capture of nominally right-wing institutions by people with leftist tendencies or missions. One of the many examples of that is that the NRO, as I recall, was furiously shrieking about the rise of Fascism in Europe in response to the early successes of the nationalist parties starting about a year ago. There is little room there, at the Weekly Standard, etc. for any view of immigration that comes from a more "blood and soil" concept of nationalism. When the chips are down, they'll be beating the drum for maintaining the pro-immigration/migration status quo.

NRO is still pretty good and does not always toe the establishment line. Just read, for instance, read the obituary of Ahmed Chalabi,

his reward was to be pilloried in a media disinformation campaign backed by State and the CIA, that Chalabi was responsible for the WMD “lies” and was therefore responsible for the entire war. Newsweek even ran a cover story, “Our Con Man in Iraq,” to that effect.

"But the Jewish question is a serious one that is highly topical here whether Lydia wishes to consider it or not. Multiculturalism is rapidly approaching its sell-by date in Europe. We are seeing the rise of "far right" parties all across Europe that are unabashedly anti-multiculturalism and anti-(im)migrant. Many of the Jewish communities in Europe persist in the belief that they can shame the Europeans into accepting multiculturalism by continuing to invoke the Holocaust and anti-Semitism as a form of racism charge. They don't seem to grasp that what is happening in Germany, Sweden and a few other countries right now is going to not only kill multi-culturalism but probably bring back a chilling and sober racism the likes of which Europe has never seen before."

Agreed. Just because you don't want to talk about the Jews doesn't mean that they are not of concern. It is so, so obvious how the Jews unabashedly and unashamedly support things that hurt the countries they reside in, but for some reason it's taboo to talk about actual facts. I mean, George Soros or Herbert Marcuse or Saul Alinsky... Are those Italian names? It is so unbelievably obvious nowadays that even my formerly stubbornly philosemitic friends who would go into hysterics regarding my views begrudgingly admit that there is a discrepancy here and that yeah, something seems really fishy here.

This will, in the future become an issue that no one can no longer ignore. And from what I've seen, we've already gotten to that point. Alot of my SoCon friends turned with the SCOTUS forcing sodomarriage upon the land.

"It made me laugh a bit because I'm probably the most pro-Israel commenter here. Among other things, I generally turn a very apathetic blind eye toward how much force the Israelis use in self-defense."

I would probably be an avid supporter of Israel if the promise of Israel lived up to the reality.

"The NRO is actually sad, but excellent example of the capture of nominally right-wing institutions by people with leftist tendencies or missions. One of the many examples of that is that the NRO, as I recall, was furiously shrieking about the rise of Fascism in Europe in response to the early successes of the nationalist parties starting about a year ago. There is little room there, at the Weekly Standard, etc. for any view of immigration that comes from a more "blood and soil" concept of nationalism. When the chips are down, they'll be beating the drum for maintaining the pro-immigration/migration status quo."

It's ridiculous how quickly AmConMag is going down the same road. And to think, that was a magazine founded by Taki, Buchanan, and Richard Spencer (before he became a neo-nazi or whatever he is now).

Nationalism is primal behemoth and it is resurfacing. And like the few times it's risen before, it will absolutely crush everything that gets in it's way, Christians, leftists, conservatives, Jews, immigrants, it doesn't matter. Of course, it didn't have to be this way, but its too late now in Europe atleast.

"NRO is still pretty good "

Hahaha! Who is this joker? That's like saying "Neurosyphillis is still pretty good, I'd say"

"Victor Davis Hanson on tooth-gnashing in the Republican establishment. Which alt-right could have said it better?"

No seriously, who is this guy? "Which alt-right could have said it better?" Uhh.... Have you tried every single one? Beyond the Alt-Right, the Old Right and the Paleocons have been saying that for years upon years before whoever this Victor Davis Hanson decided to talk about it.

Talk about being behind the curve.

whoever this Victor Davis Hanson

VDH is pretty well known on the Internet among the right. He has a regular column at PJMedia. I suggest you check him out. Not sure where he writes beside that, but he's got a lot there and most of it is very good stuff and not the lurch to the left garbage seen in places like the NRO.

This is another point relevant to the SJW issue I posted above. It may seem extreme how I refer to them, but consider the following points about SJWs you see on this issue, sexual assault on campus (and elsewhere) and many other issues...

1. SJWs frequently are open about how they despise their own cultures.
2. They will harass and bully people who don't get with the program until they are destroyed or suicidal (one artist on Tumblr recently nearly died of suicide following an organized campaign to destroy her over her drawings related to a kid's cartoon. No, I'm not exaggerating. Look up "Steven Universe tumblr suicide" on Google if you don't believe me)
3. They will impose all sorts of draconian regulations on consensual sex involving men in their own culture, but literally demand that women who are gang raped by immigrants keep quiet lest they "stoke racism."
4. Now we see them setting up honey traps for prominent men in the computer industry to accuse them of sexual impropriety in order to quickly destroy their reputation (see link).

These people aren't foolish or clueless. They are evil. They literally subscribe to almost precisely the same "the ends justify the means" view of forcing submission that the jihadists do. If they had the same level of faith in the afterlife that the jihadists do, I would wager that you'd see them committing a lot more violence than they do.

At this point, I've decided that the simplest thing to do is just to close down further comments on this thread. I don't need the time sink deciding whether to edit or delete the above comments, and future ones, that explicitly violate the policies I have set for the thread. Congrats, Mike T. and Ajax. You decided to use the thread as a repository for whatever you felt like saying, and you got it shut down for everybody, yourselves included. Go find a different tabula rasa on which to write about whatever you feel like writing about. I hope you feel real proud of yourselves.