Quote note (#292)
What makes for successful immigration? […] It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.
* On average, Jewish households in Britain are twice as wealthy as the rest of the country. So says Trevor Phillips, a former Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. Britain’s Hindus/Sikhs are runners-up.
** This “NY Times” piece http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/opinion/24herbert.html?_r=1
*** 75 percent of welfare-pampered Dutch gypsies have an official criminal record, as the Mayor of Amsterdam disclosed. So it does not take a genius to figure out that crime levels are even more mind-blowing among the 12 million overwhelmingly dirt-poor Roma from and in Eastern Europe. “95 percent” sounds like a fine ballpark extrapolation. But on all fronts, gypsies are below the bottom of the barrel. In the Czech Republic, for example, an eye-bulging 35 percent of all children in special-needs schools are Roma kids, who are overrepresented by a factor of 10……….. For decades, the Communists in Eastern Europe forced integration on Roma people – complete with education and guaranteed make-work jobs. It was one big fiasco. Indeed, the Communists invented the crime of “parasitism” specifically for all those Roma who refused to work under any circumstances……….
(Via Wikileaks (Via))
Well, this is awkward. (The “It’s no brain surgery” line is especially precious coming from the neuro-mongering executive core of the Cathedral apparatus.)
ADDED: Or, not Podesta. Sorry. The bait was too tasty to avoid, so the hook went in deep. Not sure who “email@example.com” but the Dutch email address should have been a clue. I guess the sacrifice of humor is compensated by a restoration of interpretative consistency. (There aren’t actually fascinatingly realistic conversations happening behind closed Cathedral doors, apparently.)
I’m leaving it up, rather than pulling it down in shame, because:
(a) That’s how the Internet should, and will, work, and
(b) The email is great