If you are out there,  there is a self-confessed liar  called Armor who wishes to lecture you.

I know I said I was out of this thread. But as you know, just because I say so, it doesn't mean I will keep my word.

You wrote :

Quote from American Renaissance:

"Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate".

What you were suggesting was that by Taylor's own argument, the western world should favor the replacement of white people with Chinese people. Well, you should read his AmRen article written this week. (A Reply to Takimag) It comes in the form of a reply to Paul Gottfried and John Zmirak, but you don't really need to read what they said.

Here are a few excerpts from Taylor's piece :

"IQ has nothing to do with the desire to see one’s people survive and flourish"
(...)
"It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them. I love the traditions of the West, not necessarily because they are superior but because they are mine, just as I love my children because they are mine, not because they have high IQs."

"I agree with Mr. Zmirak that talk of race and IQ is uncivil."
(...)
"But as I have explained many times, we are forced to talk about IQ in self-defense. We are reproached and punished for the failures of others—especially blacks—and have no choice but to point out the true cause of their failures. We are also filling our country with Third-Worlders who have made wrecks of their own countries. Must we remain silent when we are told that in a generation they will all be fit heirs of the Jeffersonian tradition, and that if they are not, this, too, is our fault?"

--
So, racial differences in IQ and crime rates are seen by Taylor as useful tools to use in a debate with left-wing fools. The drawback of using those arguments is that you may give the impression that you are more concerned about those questions than about the survival of your own people. Still, they are very useful arguments, and very easy to use.

It is crazy to suggest that after the last European has disappeared, we will continue to exist through the immigrants who will have adopted our culture or our way of life.

In an ideal world, we should not have to justify at all our desire to see the white race and our European peoples continue their existence as long as possible.

I'll repeat again to those that wish ill of America, just who in this sorry world we inhabit would you want to replace us with - the Chinese, the Russians, Chavez, Mugabe, the little fascists ruling from Brussles - as the only standing super power?

We aren't perfect, but, we sure aren't the malevalent entity that the degenerate elitist weasels and their MSM organs in the EU try to portray us as.

Happy Birthday America.

I know what's wrong with all of you BJ commentors: you are jealous of my incredible mental powers. If that's how it is, I'm off. I will no longer bother you... (on this thread! ha! ha!)

Cephran said: "Your time in America has been well spent."

If you appreciate Marcfrans, please take him back with you. We've had enough of him in Europe.

Snorri Godhi said: "Why oh why did nobody look up the blogger profile in the Yellow Stars blog? a quick check reveals that she is not European, but American."

Okay. Now everybody has to rewrite his comment with this new perspective in mind. Starting with Frank Lee.

@ pvdh

1) Sensible judgments can only be made by comparing numerous sources and testing predictions (made by others) against actual results. Empirical observations are absolutely necessary as a check on abstract (often ideological) theorising.

2) I wish to correct a misperception contained in your last comment.  You talk about a "contradiction in a free market" in the context of "inequalities at the beginning of the industrial revolution all over Europe".

A couple of points about that: 

-- I doubt that there was much of a "free market" at the time.  The existing income inequality was indeed extreme, and was essentially based on politics and culture, not on any "free market".  People had essentially 'assigned' (de facto, not necessarily de jure) economic roles in society. But, there were certainly differences between different countries in terms of openness of their major markets, and it is no co-incidence that the industrial revolution 'started' (or perhaps better phrased: first took hold) mainly in the relatively 'open' countries at the time (e.g. England and Benelux).

-- Before the industrial revolution, typically there were only a few very rich (based on concentrated land ownership and on government coercion via taxation) while most of the rest was close to 'subsistence level'.  Those few "very rich" were not often rich in an absolute sense, only in a relative sense (compared with their 'subjects'). That was extreme income inequality, but it did not allow for very much wealth creation, and therefore there were not really many great individual 'fortunes' either.

-- In a situation of a vicious circle (low income, low savings, low investments, low income, low...etc..) virtually everybody is poor.  The increased specialisation that went along with the industrial revolution allowed for the creation of economic 'surplus' and for gradually escaping the vicious circle.  In that process, a growing number of people was able to escape from the subsistence level.  That certainly led to growing diversity of income levels, and in a sense may also give the appearance of greater income inequality.  But I do not think that it was as extreme as the inequality preceding it (of virtually everybody poor and a few rich aristocrats). 

3) I tend to agree with you that some nonmarket "redistibution of income" is justified.  But, I believe that such redistribution should largely occur via (a) public investments, mainly infrastructure, which enhance the productivity of private industry, and via (b) efficient production of a limited number of 'public goods' which only government can supply.  Examples of the latter would be 'universal' primary and (some form) of secundary education, certain public health measures, and the provision of a 'fair' judicial system that enforces contracts and strengthens 'markets' as opposed to special interest groups.  Note that the efficient production of such 'public goods', beyond a certain minimum level of funding, is no longer mainly a question of 'more money' but of 'more accountability'.  We discussed this before in the context of education.  Also, note that such arguments for "redistribution of wealth" should be guided by long-term considerations of getting the economy on a faster (structural) growth path, not for short-term consideration of business cycle (conjuncture) management.

4) True, inflation and currency depreciation will have (often unpredictable) redistributive effects on incomes, but that is not a good argument for inflation nor for currency depreciation.   Rapid inflation will undermine the underlying growth rate of income in the economy, because it encourages rent-seeking behavior as opposed to actual productive activities.  If overall income grows slower, there is less to distribute than there otherwise would have been.  Currency depreciation may become necessary to achieve a better balance on the external balance of payments of a country, which is another way of saying that savings and investment levels in the economy have to be 'reconciled'.  But it would be an 'ineffcient' way of achieving (unpredictable) income redistribution.   If it is politically-judged necessary to redistribute income further (i.e. beyond my earlier plea for public investments and effcient government production of certain 'necessary' public goods), then that extra redistribution can be most efficiently achieved via fiscal policy means (or the government's budget), and not via monetary 'manipulations'.

This is exactly the type of writing you do better than anybody else. Congratulations.

Why oh why did nobody look up the blogger profile in the Yellow Stars blog? a quick check reveals that she is not European, but American.

A few more things that you might have discovered with a bit more effort, i.e. by reading a few blog posts:

First, she calls herself a Christian Democrat, but she does not think that the CDU/CSU are "real" Christian Democrats, because they are too conservative. She feels closer to Jerry Falwell -- no, I am not making this up!

Second, she is fascist, and I do not use that word lightly:

1: she wants "true democracy", i.e. a "democracy" that does not upset the rulers: no referendums on the Lisbon Treaty, please!
1b: she believes in a conspiracy by rich Americans (not necessarily Jewish, I suppose) to rule the World, and thinks that this conspiracy has manipulated the Irish people into rejecting the Lisbon Treaty.

2: She rejects both capitalism and socialism in favor of a third way. This 3rd way looks a lot like socialism from the capitalist point of view, but she is no Marxist, because she is religious (see above), she does not believe that economic forces drive history, and she does not want to abolish private property.

3: she is a "blood and soil" European nationalist: she thinks that people of European ancestry like herself have a moral right to return to the Fatherland; and she aims at World domination by the EU. If you think I am making this up, look up Toward a World ruled by Yellow Stars.

4: Contrary to most fascists, she is pro-globalization and against autarky -- as long as it's the "right kind" of globalization, of course.

She got 3 out of 4, so, to paraphrase WF Buckley, she is _fascist_, but she is not _a fascist_.

Yet another thing that can be seen with little effort is that she is a paralegal, but cannot write in correct English. She has trouble with both syntax and diction (search her blog for "separating the wheat from the shaft").

Excellent job!

I hope your grasp and control of free market Capitalism rubs off on your European countrymen.

Your time in America has been well spent.

Indeed a very interesting post. I wonder where you keep getting the information from. Could you explain what factors created the big inequalities at the beginning of the industrial revolution all over Europe? We had a small very rich elite and a very poor working-class with scandalously low wages that provided hardly enough to eat. (Not speaking about the working condition, the child labor, and others.) I understand the market mechanism of course. There were an abundance of people looking for work which made there value and thus wages very low. But the fact that they hadn’t any wealth mended also that they couldn’t spend anything, which prevented the economy to grow, and on it’s turn prevented the creation of new jobs. (As an example: there wasn’t enough food, yet the farmers were very poor too. That seems a contradiction in a free market isn’t it?) Isn’t some redistribution of wealth justified? Just to get the economy started and ongoing?
One other comment: redistribution of wealth is not only achieved by differentiated taxation and redistribution. Inflation and depreciation of the currency serve the same purpose.

"In a capitalist system, money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands from one generation to the next, until the same people own everything: farmland, houses, businesses... "

Armor, please, you are parroting ridiculous undigested lefty themes, and, you are grossly wrong. Personal wealth in a capitalistic system gets built and destroyed on a regular basis in the level playing field capitalism provides. Poverty isn't permanent, it's transient. Very few Americans live permanently in poverty. Wealth gets lost and renewed within families from generation to generation. 
 
You spew garbage that has no basis in fact.  I would suggest you learn to Google, it's your friend. Try the US Census Bureau which has reliable stats, the University of Chicago's economic blog site, the Wall Street Journal(our paper of record now), whatever, but, stop presenting your incurious, stuck on stupid, and fact challenged garbage to us. 
 
And, Armor, the lights are dimming on democracy in Europe, that, my friend, would make the wiser person more curious, more of a fact seeker, more tolerant and less of a socialist totalitarian syncophant.

Yet another excellent post from marcfrans. If only a fraction of the perspicaciousness exhibited in its content was likely to rub off on Armor it might have all been worth the effort. Sadly, I very much doubt it. Perhaps Armor's response to it will prove the best indicator.

 
@ Armor, cont....
 
3) You are misinformed on the 'Great Wall of America'.  There is a problem.  The politicians were ignoring it for a long time. The public has 'spoken, in a variety of ways (even to the point of not re-electing certain 'soft' Republicans in various states) and the politicians are beginning to react.  The 'wall' (both physical and 'cultural') is now finally being built. But it will need careful 'watching', especially if the Democratic party gets still bigger in Congress next November.

4) Your crime numbers are misleading.  US crime is extremely concentrated in certain (mainly inner) cities.  And yes, there are quite a lot of naive whites who put themselves at greater risk than 'normal' people (of any color) would.  But, yes, your numbers put in perspective the sillyness of certain race-hustling black politicians and white-liberal politicians who constantly hark on the wrongs of the past, instead of focusing on the wrongs of the present.

5) Your "envy" of Bill Gates is, both, small-minded and short-sighted.  And I do not believe that you "do not want to punish him for his success".  You already called him "undeserving", the next step is....(look into European history closely).  I trust that Gates will 'redistribute' his wealth (as he is already doing) in a smarter and socially more responsible way than any typical government would.

6) As to your "level playing field", many more factors come into this than "race" (and/or silly liberal government policies concerning race).   As usual, 'culture' is the primary determinant of 'success', especially the sub-cultures that are formed and nurtured in certain communities (and not, or to a lesser extent, in others).  In fact, statistically, 'parents' (or the sub-culture of the family home) is the single most important predictor of 'success'.  

Strictly speaking, in the United States, it is not whites that suffer the most from government-sanctioned 'discrimination', but Asians.  And, yet, Asians as a single ethnic group are in many respects (and certainly in terms of income levels) the most succesfull Americans today.  You better think about that, and you should wonder why that is so!  A hint: it has nothing to do with skin color or 'race'.  

@ Armor

You make a number of interesting points but, sadly, you are mistaken on most of them.

1) If by "capitalist system" you mean "free market economy" (a matter of degree) then your statement is false, even though it is a commonly held myth in France (and elsewhere). There exists a wealth of empirical economic research, both in the form of time-series studies and of cross-section analyses of different countries, that shows that free(er) markets tend to promote a better income distribution than closed markets do.  And, from a global world perspective, nothing has done more to improve the world's income distribution than the decisions of the two largest countries to 'liberalise' many of their markets (China in the early 80's, and India in the early 90's). 

One complication is the distinction between economic system and political system.  If the latter is 'unfree' then the opportunities to exploit monopoly positions in certain protected economic sectors will generally be much greater than in more 'open' (democratic) political systems. 

Economic liberalisation will typically enable the emergence of a (generally) small number of very rich people, compared with the situation in closed economies.  In a democratic free-market economy, some will get very rich based on technology and on risk-taking.  In an autocratic free-market economy, the few very rich wil get rich on the basis of political favors (i.e. via the creation of 'exceptions' to be exploited in selected markets lacking freedom of entry on the supply side).

In a free-market economy, money does not gets increasingly concentrated in fewer hands.  That is nonsense.  In a genuinely free market economy, 'exceptional' returns or profits set in motion all sorts of forces that will undermine these 'exceptional' gains.  To mention some: on the supply side it will attract increased and new competition, and on the demand side it will induce substitution effects.  These forces will not operate (or to a lesser extent) in closed market economies.

Sociological research confirms that, in the United States at least, great wealth tends to dissipate after 2 or 3 generations.  Obviously there are many reasons for that, including psychological ones (having to do with spoiled rich children lacking incentives to perform).  The situation you describe (of "the same people own everything") is typical for situations of political autocracy, not of free-market economies.  You are mixing apples (economy) with oranges (political system).

It is also economic nonsense for you to claim that it is harder today for "unskilled workers to find good-paying jobs" than 50 years ago. Unskilled workers of today generally have higher incomes than those of 50 years ago (even after inflation-adjustment).  But, it is true that the gap between unskilled and skilled is getting bigger all the time (which means that the premium on 'education' tends to get bigger over time, which is a good argument to help keep young people from behaving foolishly when they are young).  And, it is also true that this RELATIVE gap is getting worse in part because of many immigration policies (which tend to undermine the 'bargaining power' of native unskilled labor on various labor markets.
 

2) It is true that the EEC had removed a lot of INTERNAL protectionist arrangements which had resulted in much (A) "trade creation".  But there has also been much (B) "trade diversion" (i.e. the substitution of high-cost internal supply sources for lower-cost external sources). Nevertheles the A effects have outweighed the B effects.  However, the current EU craze of 'harmonisations' and of excessive regulations, in many cases leads to less competition on markets and could thus involve 'hidden' forms of new protectionism.  The 'best' policy lies somewhere in between Thomas Jefferson and contemporary 'Brussels'.  As long as the 'competition portfolio' at the EU Commission can be kept in 'Dutch' hands, and out of 'French' hands, then the worst could perhaps be avoided.

.....

You will probably have learned by now that, if Armor says so, it must be true.

Take heart!
Atlantic's latest effort isn't worth 1 quarter of your so-so post.

Quote from American Renaissance:
 
"Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate".
 
Thanks for the tip. So, being white myself, the next time I decide to vacation in the Big Apple, I must remember to stay in a hotel in Chinatown rather than commute from my usual cottage in the Hamptons. ;-)
 
http://www.weber-realestate.com/Hamptons-Cottage.asp
 

Well stated and very refreshing..

OneCent said: "Re-distribution of wealth" is a slipperly slope (...) I'll fight to keep my wages"

In a capitalist system, money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands from one generation to the next, until the same people own everything: farmland, houses, businesses... So, you need some redistribution.
Also, it has become harder for unskilled workers to find good-paying jobs, compared with 50 years ago. And this is made much worse by the immigration policy. So, I think welfare measures are more justified now than in the past.

"As Thomas Jefferson noted "he who is governed less is governed best". He's be out of sync with the little fascists in Brussels."

In fact, the EU has been trying to remove some protectionist arrangements within member states so as to facilitate economic competition.

"The common man has never been trusted in Europe outside of Britain. We don't have politcal "elites" here."

In the USA, there is a huge gap between what the common man would like (for example, a big wall on the border with Mexico), and what he gets from his political non-elites: a policy of racial replacement.

"Crime isn't that bad, it's confined to criminal black-on-black urban areas by the numbers."

In the USA, according to this link, Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic.

"I don't envy Bill Gates nor want to punish him for his success."

I envy Bill Gates. I wish I had his fortune. I don't want to punish him for his success, but I think it is ludicrous to allow a businessman to get so incredibly rich. I think no one deserves to get that rich. Maybe capitalism is a good thing overall, but then, it is a good thing in spite of Bill Gates.

"I'm just glad my kids have a level playing field to make their mark and take whatever risks they want"

According to what I have read, if your kids are white, they do not have a level playing field in the USA.

An excellent post. Well done Sir!

No question that socialism comes in various degrees, but, I propose that it ends in totalitarianism eventually, or am I missing something about the anti-democratic Nanny State in Brussels morphing into fascism.  "Re-distribution of wealth" is a slipperly slope, it's not necessarily virtuous as much as serfdom.  I'll fight to keep my wages, I'm a wiser saver or spender than some moronic gov't bureaucrat. I'll also direct my charity money to ones that waste less and do more. As Thomas Jefferson noted "he who is governed less is governed best".  He's be out of sync with the little fascists in Brussels.
It's a cultural difference as Alexis de Tocqueville so well documented, we Americans don't trust big gov't,we reward risk and don't look to gov't for solutions that are more often personal responsibilities.  Europeans distrust capitalism and expect gov't to solve their problems. The common man has never been trusted in Europe outside of Britain.  We don't have politcal "elites" here.
No one has starved to death in America, no one is denied health care in spite of a lack of insurance.  There is plenty of indigent charity money or gov't money to help those folks.  Crime isn't that bad, it's confined to criminal black-on-black urban areas by the numbers. I don't lock my door most nights and haven't in all three states I've lived in.  Carbeques like in Paris would end real fast as we are armed and anti-socials have to think twice.  I don't envy Bill Gates nor want to punish him for his success. I'm just glad my kids have a level playing field to make their mark and take whatever risks they want without some pinheaded EU bureaucrat smothering their plans.  A gov't or union "job for life" still has the connotaction of a loser here. 

Hey, if socialism works for you than that's fine. Let's agree that we have different cultures, histories and perspectives. 

And thank you, Peter. It's the way we do things in Pyongyang.  ;-))))

We are turning towards platitudes I’m afraid. Of course, its in advance a lost cause to try to defend socialism at the Brussels Journal. Nevertheless I tank you all for at least reading and giving sincere responses in return.

@ Onecent
 
There ARE "all kinds of socialism".
 
 
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama
 
 

Sorry, there is only one kind of socialsim: the grabbing kind.
Since you learned that only the free market creates the resources to grab, you allow "some kind of controlled free market" to be able to grab whatever you can from that "free market". You will even call it a free market as not to scare away the investors.
Well, sir, it's over, game finished, bankrupcy is near for socialism.

Of course Marxism has been a failure. You guys have a very out-dated view on socialism. There are all kinds of socialism. There is communism which is obviously a experiment in trying to force society into some kind of egalitarian prison. It turned into an incredible disaster and a huge crime against humanity. But modern socialism is based on totally different grounds:
The first principle, and that may come as a surprise, is that free market is the rule, and the state must only interfere in the economy on moral grounds or in an effort to leave nobody behind.
We are well aware of the fact that all interference from the government means imperfections in the market mechanism and thus a cost for society. E.g. We can prohibit hard drugs, but the cost is the high prices these drugs get and the subsequent crime that is associated with it, and the price we have to pay to fight this crime. Never the less nobody who isn’t ill in his mind will find it a sound principle to allow hard-drugs. We (socialists) do, however stand for higher taxes that are redistributed in the form of free quality education for everybody, social security for everybody and a safety-net (minimum-income and unemployment wages) for everybody who has the misfortune to fall out of the system. All this comes with a cost in terms of wealth creation and possibilities for fraud or corruption. But socialist find this price worth paying for a better society for everyone. Of course there are a lot of gradations. There are socialist who favor a lot more “redistribution of wealth” then others. I’m probably much closer to the more “liberal” view of socialism then say the French speaking PS in Belgium.

As of the political system in the U.S: The two party system, the elections, a strong president… all that are great institutions, no doubt about that. Most of the critic is about the lobby groups and the way fund-raising play a huge role in the decision-making. Again, the candidate or pressure-group with the most money has the best chance to win. In a socialist mind, this is often opposite to what is best for the common man.

Peter, please, the American political system has withstood the test of time far longer than any in Europe. It's fair and efficient - a majority win by the numbers occuring every four years instead of inefficient coalition multiple party gov'ts, the likes of which bog down Europe. If we elect a fool or want change, we have an election on a fixed schedule every four years. No one is complaining here. Our First and Second Amendments form our civil society around free speech with no phoney Human Rights tribunals like in the EU to stop dissent and we are free to arm ourselves to protect our lives and property and ourselves should we ever have a gov't with evil intentions. That's fine with me. Those basic human rights are being removed from Europeans.

No, we aren't socialists and resist it. I like unbridled capitalism, it has delivered more personal wealth to the maximum number of people than any system that exists, again by the numbers. We are a nation of small business owners, risk takers, and innovators. You can still land in America with the shirt on your back and make a very good life for yourself, few barriers are in place unlike socialized Europe.

By every empirical measure, quality of life as well as economic, Marxism has been a failure. Humans don't spiritually or intellectually do well in utopias constructed by fascist elites.

Europeans think that they know us, but, they don't. Lame Hollywood movies that very few Americans can identify with and the unrelenting anti-American bias of the European media are too often the only sources of information about us.

otherwise he'd realize that there's not a bar that he wouldn't get his butt kicked.

It’s a rejection of the political system, not a rejection of Americans

Sorry, Peter. It's not that easy to inoculate yourself.

The American political system, though oftentimes very messy , is still based upon individual liberty, the freedom to choose, inalienable rights, and representative government. Americans are quite right to take attacks on those principles personally.

"To the defense of my fellow left-wing Europeans: It’s a rejection of the political system, not a rejection of Americans".
Well, Mr Envious Admirer, do you really, honestly think that America could have achieved as much, had Old Euro-Leftist freaks been at the helm? Of course not.
Each and every socialist "recipe" has been tried in Europe, to no avail. They have all led to or ended in inevitable, execrable failures.
Why do you continue to believe in an idiotic ideology such as socialism - "an insult to intelligence" according to Pope JPII?
Socialism has never worked anywhere. Be realistic and pragmatic.
Moreover, let me also add that Europe's Christian Democrats are Christians in name only. With Christians like these, Christianity does not need enemies.
 

Of course rhetoric as the above is more common for far left smaller parties, but we can’t deny its un undertone in most of the thinking about the US in socialist and Christian democrat European circles. It’s a wrong perception created by a biased left media. To the defense of my fellow left-wing Europeans: It’s a rejection of the political system, not a rejection of Americans. The feeling about the Americans is a mixture of admiration and sound envy for their accomplishments and their overall dominance in so many fields of society.

This is one of the examples why the likes of Ann Applebaum, who wrote after the rise of FPÖ that in some continental European countries there remains so little in the way of substantial policy and worldview differences between "mainstream" "left" and "right" that they are virtually indistinguishable, was right then and remains so now.
One may add - and often those nominally right politicians both preach and take a que from the very same distorted anti-American fantasies as the Left.

I guess he's never heard of Google for fact checking.  He pretty much sums up the lefty anti-American propoganda machine that has run unchecked in Europe for decades.
 
You've got to wonder what an idiot like this would be spouting from a dirty hellhole public flat or Gulag if Russia had won the Cold War or if the Islamofascists win theirs in Europe.
 
There is no country left standing with the military might, the money, and the moral conviction needed to slap down the world's thugs when they act bad but the US. (Sadly, the Brits got neutered in the EU socialist rat hole.) So, he can keep spewing his anti-American hate until he needs America someday as a counter-weigh against Putin's Russia, Iran's nuclear bomb or whenever some thug plans to do him in.
 
My daughter was verbally accosted by an anti-American spittle spewing moron like this in a bar in Paris a couple years ago. He got real lucky that a quick witted bartender intervened.
 
My heart goes out to the decent Europeans that have to turn this rot around. Time is running out and you are going to need every ally that you can find. Bashing America, the only Good Cop left, not perfect mind you, but, still standing, is stupid.

Another reason why America's prison population is so high is because almost 25% of the prisoners are Illegal Immigrants who sneak into the USA and commit many violent crimes.

This type of story is reminiscent of the worst Soviet propaganda ever. 
Was Bukovsky right? The more I consider the EU as it stands now with its Lisbon limbo, the more I feel Bukovsky is a great visionary. All this is really becoming frightening. 
The next step will probably be to prevent Europeans from travelling the world because of "global warming", in order that they can no longer compare their shitty continent with better places.
Thank you to the BJ for posting this.     

What does the author of this blog do in his spare time? This couldn't be him, could it?
 
http://www.captaineuro.com/

The author wrote: "[America] is the most criminalized society on Earth and more Americans are behind bars than in any other nation on Earth".
At least in the US, most criminals stay behind bars for most of their terms, especially for serious crimes, which is not the case in the so sophisticated but hopelessly irresponsible Old Europe.
 

@ Amsterdamsky
 
"I grew up in the 70's..".
 
Kindly justify that remark or withdraw it!

I grew up in the 70's.  Everything was crap and everyone was suffering it seemed until Reagan.  Everything got better and stayed that way until recently.  This is why nobody is eager to elect a leftist Democrat like Obama even after the horribly job the Bush team has done.

As an older , if not wiser , Brit , I must take issue with Yellow Stars Blog ; this is a picture of America that I do not recognise , on my visits to the U.S. I have noticed a generally higher standard of living than in Europe . I would agree that there are pockets of poverty , but no more that in the E.U. Further , even in Chicago , I have felt safer than in many places at home , Paris and Amsterdam are very scary places .As for Ronald Reagan , I remember when he went more than the extra mile to help us during the Falklands war , so hands off R.R. In fact Yellow stars do not make me angry .

If you link to this nut's website, he uses the word "Europhobia."  Amazing.  One more mental ailment in need of government therapy.  Sadly, many Europeans, especially in the north in my experience, share this luminary's view of the US.

Bravo Sir! You and I started out on a bit of a rocky relationship but I have been well pleased with your level-headed defense of America from people who appear to be rabid lunatics.

I really feel bad for those people whose minds are so polluted by EU Elitism, multiculturalism, socialism and anti Christian bigotry.

Europe is loaded with this foolish and dangerous thinking as this TBJ blog clearly illuminates.

When you have people like Peter Vanderheyden and Kapitein Andre spouting such ignorant, venomous drivel, it really causes us "uncultured" Americans to shake our heads.

If “enlightened” EU-types keep worshiping at the altar of man, the Earth and Godliness, then they will get their just desserts. I pray for your lost souls.

BTW, great job Onecent, Atlanticist911 and FLLegal (and others). Your attempt to beat back the tidal wave of galling European Elitism and ignorance deserves recognition because it can be positively maddening when trying to debate complete fools.

Boy, do they love America at the Yellow Stars blog! How 'christian' and charitable of them.

And boy, do they have smarts there, if only they could keep their heads out of the sand! 

"Dismantled social safety nets, demonized the poor (instead of America!), destroyed jobs and education funding?"    

Are these all facts, or are they convenient fiction.  What do the actual numbers show?  Well, the social safety nets keep on expanding (although Clinton adjusted its form somewhat at the federal level), there has been continual net job creation (not destruction) for decades, the only demonization going is that of GWBush (ignoring Reverend White's demonization of whites, of course) and education spending has never been higher, both in absolute terms and in relative terms in both senses (i.e. relative to GDP and in 'real' dollars after inflation adjustement). 

So, what is Yellow Stars Blog?  A fog-creating machine?  Or are there 'serious' people behind it?  Haven't they noticed that, continually every year, millions of people are trying to scale the 'Great Wall of America', some legally and others illegally.  All this, to join the "unbearable wasteland".....of the rich and the well-off.

Gee, with christians and democrats like these, the future must be swell...

When Americans make criticisms of Europe, no matter how well-supported, those Americans are routinely dismissed as uncultured, unsophisticated, ignorant boobs -- dismissed as such by both the American elites and the European elites. But when Europeans make bizarre sweeping dismissals of America in contradiction to the obvious facts, those Europeans are usually rewarded with nods of approval by the European elites (and, alas, sometimes by the American elites). When will Europeans start demanding more of themselves? How do European scientists, for example, accomplish anything when they work in such a fundamentally dishonest, self-congratulatory culture? Or is it only regarding America (and Islam) that the elites are so foolish?