1) Why Israel is in the news so much, and Mexico isn't.

Its obviously because of the jewish overrepresentation in the media, print, internet, and broadcasting. I think the figure is something like 40% jewish for mainstream media? When you consider the strict application of affirmative action, that's a 70% overall white figure, of which about 60% are jewish. Yeah, sounds like regular America to me. The subject matter is both pro- or contra- Israel, but its largely one amongst jews themselves. I'm certainly a lot less interested in whether a jewish Isreal's existence is threatened than whether a white America and Europe's existence is.

One of the points I was trying to make in a previous posting on another topic is that jews, like any other group, are prone to the same cronyism and nepotism that all other groups are, yet its never discussed. Overrepresentation is never ascribed to the "old-boy network" as it is for non-jewish whites, but solely to hard work and superior intelligence--sounds a bit like the clannish WASPS of old, doesn't it? A bit of honesty on this subject would be nice.

The bit Alec suggested, that the interest in Israel was because of jewish and christian concern over the Holy Land almost had me laughing out of my chair! Are you serious? What other concern for Christianity has the press ever shown in a favorable manner? Look, 90% of jews are democratic, as are 90% of blacks, homosexuals, hispanics, etc--which comprise the vast majority of the media. Is it any wonder that white, conservative christians are mocked in the press? Every single religious denomination I can think of that doesn't openly endorse the liberal agenda is excoriated in the press--fundamentalist islam, christianity, catholicism--the only religious denomination that does not follow the liberal agenda and is not demonized the press is orthodox judaism. Alec, its obvious you were grasping at straws for that one. The rest of us really aren't that dumb.

The thing is that all groups show tribal affiliation. Its natural. For the last 40 years in America, jews, blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, feminist/lesbians, muslims, etc have all been able to build or take over networks of power in this country, while demonizing and breaking apart, under threat of lawsuits and penalities, that of white christian men. Its reaching the point of absurdity and destroying the very country itself. I guess we're not supposed to notice this. Unfortunately as things get worse here, more and more will. People somehow think that America is different and outside of history and human nature. Not so. But I anticipate many more problems before a solution. Some people don't know when to back off.

2) The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizen parents. Anchor babying is illegal. They should never be recognized as citizens, period. I think birthright citizenship should end. Why don't the leftists who always argue for socialized medicine because "everybody else does it" argue for the end of birthright citizenship because "everybody else" does that too? Its just a bunch of nonsense.

3) Crooks who commit crimes should be kept in jail until they learn the commoner languages. Case closed.

4) Oh, the black-latino problem! Where's Jesse and Al? How about the media cardboard-cutout Obama? Where's the crying black-loving liberal now? Somebody, anybody? Hypocrites. All leftism is is anti-whiteness. If its not about sticking it to christian heterosexual whites, its not a problem.

Posted by: BIOH on August 6, 2007 9:38 PM

Ricpic -- Funny and shrewd thoughts, tks.

Alec -- I'm not sure what your cavil is. It was thought that Latinos and blacks would be natural allies. In fact it seems that they're more like natural rivals. It's often argued that current immigration policies are economically a good thing. In fact the costs seem to fall hardest on our least well-off people. What to make of all this is of course up in the air, but these seem to be the facts.

Clio -- There are many, many hot spots on the face of the planet. Why the mideast gets as much of the coverage of hot spots that it does is a bit of a mystery not just to me but to many others. Meanwhile, Mexico's population, policies, rulers, and economy are next door, coming here, and having direct impacts on day to day American life. You'd think editors might see news opportunities in all that. Yet few of them do, even while they push a general "What does it mean for you?" approach to journalism.

Peter L.W. -- Many if not most advanced nations *don't* offer birthright citizenship. And our reason for doing so is based on a controversial reading of the 14th amendment.

Peter -- Sub-Saharan Africa does seem like the lost continent, doesn't it?

PatrickH -- "Sinkhole" is a nice word! My own preferred policy where Israel is concerned is to give Florida to the Israelis, then never bother with the mideast again.

BIOH -- The old civil-rights establishment (and the old civil-rights picture) is looking mighty, mighty old these days, isn't it?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 6, 2007 10:15 PM

Yes, but Michael, there are so many nations that depend on Middle Eastern oil. If the various low-level conflagrations there ever explode into a major one, it would affect trade, economies, lives, everywhere. There really isn't another region as important to world trade as the Middle East is. Except, perhaps, the United States itself.

Meanwhile, of course coverage of news from Mexico ought to be better. I just don't think there's any particular mystery about the intensity of world interest in the Middle East.

Posted by: alias clio on August 6, 2007 10:38 PM

Clio -- I think you're attributing a lot more in the way of rationality and global realpolitik to our editors and politicians than they deserve.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 7, 2007 6:06 AM

Perhaps it is a function of the old equation of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" but I continue to be perplexed by the gentle treatment afforded BIOH in these immigration threads. It is one thing to be against massive illegal immigration. It is quite another to continually make blatantly racist comments, repeatedly backed up by "statistics" plucked either from thin air or white supremacist propaganda tracts. ["that's a 70% overall white figure, of which about 60% are jewish ..."

When BIOH talks about "demonizing and breaking apart, under threat of lawsuits and penalities, [the networks of power] of white christian men" what do others think he is referring to? At one end of the spectrum this would describe the 'gentlemen's clubs' that served in many communities as places for the good old boys to retreat from the women folk and rabble to relax after a hard day of running their local government and industries. At the other end of the spectrum are the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood.

I do not apologize for, nor defend, those who use race as an excuse for crime or, for that matter, bad manners. If a friend with whom I share a similar socio-political point of view makes a racist or anti-Semitic remark I usually call them on it. Men who bemoan the loss of the "good ol' days" before feminism don't get much sympathy from me.

I guess where I'm going with this is to say that I can (and do) enjoy discussing a wide range of socio-political issues with people who hold very different opinions than I do. I generally try to understand and respect the views of those with whom I disagree. I don't want or need to be surrounded by a chorus of like-minded voices. That said, there are close-minded bigots who defy civil discourse. I get nervous when I seem to be alone in being offended by blatant racism so forcefully expressed.

Posted by: Chris White on August 7, 2007 9:05 AM

Chris -- Feel free to call BIOH (or anyone) on whatever you want to call him on. Me, I'm into promoting a broader, more wide-ranging, more civil, and more open conversation than is generally allowed. The more discussion the better, is my feeling. There's much in the world (and much that I disagree with) that needs to be aired. And I tend to think that it's healthier to allow strong feelings to be expressed rather than suppress them, so long as they're expressed in a tolerable, respectful way. Anyway, I didn't turn to blogging to play thought-police. I turned to blogging partly because I think there's too much damn thought-policing going on in the conventional media.

I do try to call people on it when their behavior gets beyond a certain level of incivility, though ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 7, 2007 10:46 AM

What a collection!
Every next comment is funnier than another. [oops. it wasn't correct English, now, was it? ah, we forrin Jews, always mess up]

Posted by: Tatyana on August 7, 2007 11:34 AM

BIOH's arguments are strongly worded that that may alienate some people, but they are coherent and make important points. Chris's objection that somethign is "racist" is utterly meaningless. The R-word (or the B-word, or the X-word) is a content-free nothing. Anyone who uses it as a debating point loses my respect.

Posted by: PA on August 7, 2007 11:59 AM

I just said that jews act like any other group of people--that they are just the same--and I get called anti-semitic!

What I said about the tearing down of white christian power structures and associations is true. Its done by just about any group that can claim a non-white and non-christian affiliation, and it has been done though the courts and the "unofficial court" of public opinion by a leftist media. I don't understand how that is controversial; after all, it is the stated purpose of such groups to do exactly that. Hardly "racist" to point that out. If you want an explicit statement of such ideas, go to any university and survey their liberal arts curricula, or tune into these minority group's specialized media for a more detailed account of their positions.

I think its a statement on the level of debate that such basic truths are deemed dangerous or skirting some sort of line. People form networks based on common identities and interests and seek to order the greater society in favor of their respective group. I'm just wondering why one particular group can't do this anymore, and is demonized if it tries to. This is quite relevant to the discussion of unlimited immigration from non-white, non-christian countries to Europe and America. The immigration is changing the fundamental identity of these countries to the point of erasure. Since this is my country and Europe is the homeland of my ancestors, it concerns me. I don't want my group demonized and displaced, so that makes me bad? I think that people are basically tribal in nature, and alike in that regard, and that makes me a bigot? I don't think so.

One point I wanted to make about the non-coverage of Mexico, but forgot to, was that the American media really doesn't cover much news from the rest of the world, period, and Americans aren't that troubled about it either. It seems oftentimes that the press talks to itself and to the elite in Washington, where the world news concentrates on wars, policy conflicts, or economic news that concerns the American empire, and little else. World news has really only started to impact regular americans when tens of millions of economic refugees are pouring into the country, and people want to know why (case in point, Mexico). Unfortunately, our press uses its forum to try to create sypmapthy for such people here, law-breaking or not, instead of detailing the reasons that bring them here. In other words, its biased, having sympathy for the illegal aliens and not the native citizens of the country. The focus is not on correcting the problems abroad which bring them here, but on how we should try to pander to them and integrate them into our society, when many are here not because they want to be like us, but in order to make more money (often displacing native workers).

Posted by: BIOH on August 7, 2007 12:42 PM

When describing a comment like, "For the last 40 years in America, jews, blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, feminist/lesbians, muslims, etc have all been able to build or take over networks of power in this country, while demonizing and breaking apart, under threat of lawsuits and penalities, that of white christian men." in what way is it meaningless to use the term racist? If that term and the B- and X- words are removed from the vocabulary allowed what terms should we use?

Since the Union victory in the War Between the States power, prestige and privilege has been steadily spreading out to a wider cross section of the populace from the white landowning men who previously held power and enjoyed prestige and privilege. If one only thinks of himself as a white man, not as a citizen in a diverse country, he may well decry this trend. I don't read in BIOH's comments any important points beyond the angry response of a small child throwing a temper tantrum when told to share the public playground's sandbox.

Posted by: Chris White on August 7, 2007 1:13 PM

Chris, to answer your questions, you can choose to respond to BIOH's assertion on its facutual and logical merits.

If you can show that his argument is wrong, then using the R-word is unnecessary. If his argument is right, then you won't be the first person whose worldview was challenged.

In either case, when you use the R-word, you are behaving like a small child throwing a temper tantrum. Except that a mere temper tantrum doesn't have the "shut up you heretic, I have the power to destroy you!" force that the loathsome R-word does.

In general and given allowance for quibbles and level of intensity, I think BIOH's worldview is basically correct and yours suffers from what someone once called "a fallacy of insufficient cynicism." And BIOH is laying out coherent arguments in support of his, while you are just calling him names.

Posted by: PA on August 7, 2007 2:23 PM

Chris' main point, I think, is here:

"Since the Union victory in the War Between the States power, prestige and privilege has been steadily spreading out to a wider cross section of the populace from the white landowning men who previously held power and enjoyed prestige and privilege. If one only thinks of himself as a white man, not as a citizen in a diverse country, he may well decry this trend."

I pretty much agree with that. If BIOH is complaining that white men are losing their stranglehold on power as more non-white people attain positions of power, than what else can you say about that viewpoint other than "racist?"

Now, BIOH's views on immigration are a bit more sophisticated, and I don't disagree with many of his points, particularly his interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: the patriarch on August 7, 2007 2:33 PM

Some folks have made a point that carelessly tossing out the term "racist" is a way to stifle debate. I certainly agree with that. I tend to think that Chris White is approaching this the wrong way. I would hold that BIOH shouldn't be taken seriously because by the terms of what MB has put forth for his desired behavior in his blog, BIOH doesn't meet the criterion of an equal level of dialogue.

I really don't care that BIOH is some sort of white seperatist or supremacist. If he was able to demonstrate a certain level of being able to take non-white posters at an equal level to himself in one on one exchanges, it would suffice to have serious dialogue with him. The fact that in my previous exchanges with him he's labeled me a "La Raza" activist despite the fact I'm not Mexican and against mass immigration (showing both his inability to determine ethnicity by name origin and to read even glancingly what I've written in my replies about my ethnic background and beliefs). I'm sure that his interactions with MB and others here would be quite different if it was a Blowhardo, Blowderjee or Blowberg posting, even if the content of beliefs and character were exactly the same.

That said, I hate thought police. Better to let fools hoist themselves by their own petards. As for myself, I have nothing to say to Mr. BIOH, even if he might have a lot to say to me. Other people's mileage will vary accordingly.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on August 7, 2007 4:51 PM

Oddly enough, I also agree with BIOH on the 14th Amendment. I also agree that there is a problem with border control. And I question other aspects of our immigration policy. However, I find it very difficult to simply ignore the other aspects of many of his comments.

Where my opinions begin to diverge is over who to blame or punish for the problems being created. I ask why we accept a globalized economy where capital and corporations are allowed to freely move about the planet to exploit resources (including cheap labor) but then seek to curtail the ability of individuals who are not already benefiting from globalization to move to better enjoy the supposed fruits of globalization.

I also do not define those who I might consider "my tribe" by their ethnicity or religion.

Posted by: Chris White on August 7, 2007 9:15 PM

Chris: When describing a comment like, "For the last 40 years in America, jews, blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, feminist/lesbians, muslims, etc have all been able to build or take over networks of power in this country, while demonizing and breaking apart, under threat of lawsuits and penalities, that of white christian men." in what way is it meaningless to use the term racist?

In what way is it meaningful? What information does "racist" convey? It doesn't tell me why the statement is true or false, it doesn't even tell me that the statement is true or false. In this case, it doesn't even serve as a marker of indignation, since you appear to be in substantial agreement with, and to approve of, the facts purported in the first clause of the statement. I'm left none the wiser about your views on the truth or falsehood of the second clause.

Where my opinions begin to diverge is over who to blame or punish for the problems being created. I ask why we accept a globalized economy where capital and corporations are allowed to freely move about the planet to exploit resources (including cheap labor) but then seek to curtail the ability of individuals who are not already benefiting from globalization to move to better enjoy the supposed fruits of globalization.

I don't recall your getting ticked off with BIOH for being in favor of free movement of movement of capital and corporations but against free movement of labor. You have a bad habit of wandering off topic (or rather, off accusation) instead of engaging with specifics. Now, the problems of globalization you raise are certainly interesting and extremely relevant to the problems of immigration. But recognizing ultimate causes doesn't make proximate problems go away. I'm sure BIOH has opinions on globalization, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of them were in agreement with your own.

I also do not define those who I might consider "my tribe" by their ethnicity or religion.

To paraphrasally abuse yet again the old Trotsky saw, you may not be interested in tribalism, but tribalism is interested in you. Like you, and like most Americans in my station in life, I find the whole notion of tribalism deeply distasteful. Unlike you, I recognize that my personal distaste doesn't constitute an analysis or a description of how the world works.

Posted by: Moira Breen on August 8, 2007 11:19 AM

Chris White says:
"repeatedly backed up by "statistics" plucked either from thin air or white supremacist propaganda tracts. ["that's a 70% overall white figure, of which about 60% are jewish ..."

BIOH wrote "about", indicating that the statement of 60 percent of whites in the media being jews (not 60% of the whole media as you may have mistakenly read the statement) is a guess. You'd realize it was an educated guess if you knew that Harvard university has slightly more jews than gentile whites. That the elite members of the media would show an ethnic makeup similiar to Harvard is not an unreasonable assumption to make. You need to do a little fact checking before you toss off phrases like "white supremicist propaganda tracts".

Posted by: pjgoober on August 8, 2007 5:14 PM

Approximately 60% of the whites at Harvard are jewish, so BIOH's guess that 60% of whites in the media are jewish strikes me as reasonable, as opposed to something plucked from a "whites supremecist propaganda tract".

Posted by: pjgoober on August 8, 2007 5:18 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?