PS: Good afternoon, Mr. Moderator & Friends!

“One difference between that behavior and that of Mrs. Omar is that these Jewish people were born here and often have had family here for a century. What that says is, well, another post.”

What that says is that stereotypes tend to be true for reasons.

Moar seriously though... I have no reason to believe that Somali Hyphenated Americans are any more likely to assimilate to American culture and American norms than are Jewish Hyphenated Americans. Just not gonna happen.

But for different reasons...

Fun Fact! The average IQ in Somalia is 68.
That means that one half of all Somalis have an IQ below 68.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk

And while I cannot find a fertility rate for Somali Hyphenated Americans living in America, the fertility rate for Somali women living in Somalia ranges between 5.7 and 6.9 children per woman, depending on the source one uses.

I also found this...
https://mn.gov/admin/assets/Fertility-of-Foreign-Born-Women-in-MN-MSDC-Jan2003_tcm36-219639.pdf

Happy Wednesday! ☮️

PS: Ahhhh! Whatdya trying to do to me? I made a promise (to my wife too). Thanks, anyway. ;-}

So, I think I found a sensible workaround...
______________

The US Toppling of Imran Khan
Covert regime change strikes again. This time in Pakistan.
JEFFREY D. SACHS • FEBRUARY 1, 2024

A principal instrument of U.S. foreign policy is covert regime change, meaning a secret action by the U.S. government to bring down the government of another country. There are strong reasons to believe that U.S. actions led to the removal from power of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022, followed by his arrest on trumped-up charges of corruption and espionage, and sentencing this week to 10 years imprisonment on the espionage charge. The political objective is to block Pakistan’s most popular politician from returning to power in the elections on February 8.

The key to covert operations of course is that they are secret and hence deniable by the U.S. government. Even when the evidence comes to light through whistleblowers or leaks, as it very often does, the U.S. government rejects the authenticity of the evidence and the mainstream media generally ignore the story because it contradicts the official narrative. Because editors at these mainstream outlets don’t want to peddle in “conspiracy theories,” or are simply happy to be the mouthpieces for officialdom, they give the U.S. government a very wide berth for actual regime-change conspiracies.

Covert regime change by the U.S. is shockingly routine. One authoritative study by Boston University professor Lindsay O’Rourke counts 64 covert regime change operations by the U.S. during the Cold War (1947 and 1989), and in fact the number was far larger because she chose to count repeated attempts within one country as a single extended episode. Since then, U.S. regime change operations have remained frequent, such as when President Barrack Obama tasked the CIA (Operation Timber Sycamore) with overthrowing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. That covert operation remained secret until several years after the operation, and even then, was hardly covered by the mainstream media.

All of this brings us to Pakistan, another case where evidence points strongly to U.S.-led regime change. In this case, the U.S. desired to bring down the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan, the charismatic, talented, and hugely popular leader in Pakistan, renowned both for his world-leading cricket mastery and for his common touch with the people. His popularity, independence, and enormous talents make him a prime target of the U.S., which frets about popular leaders who don’t fall into line with U.S. policy.

Imran Khan’s “sin” was to be too cooperative with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, while also seeking normal relations with the United States. The great mantra of U.S. foreign policy, and the activating principle of the CIA, is that a foreign leader is “either with us or against us.” Leaders who try to be neutral amongst the great powers are at dire risk of losing their positions, or even their lives, at U.S. instigation, since the U.S. does not accept neutrality. Leaders seeking neutrality dating back to Patrice Lumumba (Zaire), Norodom Sihanouk (Cambodia), Viktor Yanukovych (Ukraine), and many others, have been toppled with the not-so-hidden-hand of the U.S. government.

Like many leaders in the developing world, Khan does not want to break relations with either the U.S. or Russia over the Ukraine War. By sheer coincidence of prior scheduling, Khan happened to be in Moscow to meet Putin on the day that Russia launched the special military operation (February 24, 2022). From the start, Khan advocated that the conflict in Ukraine should be settled at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield. The U.S. and E.U. arm-twisted foreign leaders including Khan to fall into line against Putin and to support Western sanctions against Russia, yet Khan resisted.

Khan probably sealed his fate on March 6 when he held a large rally in northern Pakistan. At the rally, he berated the West, and especially 22 EU ambassadors, for pressuring him to condemn Russia at a vote in the United Nations. He also excoriated NATO’s war against terror in next-door Afghanistan as having been utterly devastating to Pakistan, with no acknowledgment, respect, or appreciation for Pakistan’s suffering.

Khan told the cheering crowds, “EU ambassadors wrote a letter to us asking us to condemn and vote against Russia… What do you think of us? Are we your slaves … that whatever you say, we will do?” He added, “We are friends with Russia, and we are also friends with America; we are friends with China and with Europe; we are not in any camp. Pakistan would remain neutral and work with those trying to end the war in Ukraine.”

From the U.S. perspective, “neutral” is a fighting word. The grim follow-up for Khan was revealed in August 2023 by investigative reporters at The Intercept. Just one day after Khan’s rally, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu met in Washington with Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S., Asad Majeed Khan. Following the meeting, Ambassador Khan sent a secret cable (a “cypher”) back to Islamabad, which was then leaked to The Intercept by a Pakistani military official.

The cable recounts how Assistant Secretary Lu berated Prime Minister Khan for his neutral stance. The cable quotes Lu as saying that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.”

Lu then conveyed the bottom line to Ambassador Khan. “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.”

Five weeks later on April 10, with the U.S. blunt threat hanging over the powerful Pakistani military, and with the military’s hold over the Pakistani parliament, the Parliament ousted Khan in a no-confidence vote. Within weeks, the new government followed with brazenly manufactured charges of corruption against Khan, to put him under arrest and prevent his return to power. In utterly Orwellian turn, when Khan made known the existence of the diplomatic cable that revealed America’s role in his ouster, the new government charged Khan with espionage. He has now been convicted on these charges to an unconscionable 10 years, with the U.S. government remaining silent on this outrage.

When asked about Khan’s conviction, the State Department had the following to say: “It’s a matter for the Pakistani courts.” Such an answer is a vivid example of how U.S.-led regime change works. The State Department supports Khan’s imprisonment over Khan’s public revelation of U.S. actions.

Pakistan will therefore hold elections on February 8 with its most popular democratic leader in prison and with Khan’s party the subject of relentless attacks, political murders, media blackouts, and other heavy-handed repression. In all of this, the U.S. government is utterly complicit. So much for America’s “democratic” values. The U.S. government has gotten its way for now—and has deeply destabilized a nuclear-armed nation of 240 million people. Only Khan’s release from prison and his participation in the upcoming election could restore stability.
______________

Read it. Don't read it. Whatever.
Either way, promise kept!

Cheers! ☮️

PS: "Jeff Sachs is now a regular contributor to the Unz REview. Very good."

Ahhhh! Whatdya trying to do to me? I made a promise (to my wife too). Thanks, anyway. ;-}

I'm sure other readers would appreciate this. I will say that the best thing about articles being on Ron Unz's site is that the commenting system is stellar.

PS
Jeff Sachs is now a regular contributor to the Unz REview. Very good. - Apropos US invades the World - makes covert regime changes 2023: Pakistan's Imran Khan - - Jeff Sachs explains - -

https://www.unz.com/article/the-us-toppling-of-imran-khan/

PS: Mr. Hail, I tended to think of the "Invade the World" policy as being a post-Cold War phenomenon. During the Cold War, America, with CIA over-influence, got involved in plenty of invading that was not necessarily part of the effort to contain Communism. Often that was hard to separate from the that effort.

Before, the Cold War, yes, you have a good point about the imperialism in the Philippines being used as an excuse for invitations.

Until the 1965 immigration act, and sometime well after Operation Wetback, when illegal immigration was let to go on again (albeit, in a trickle compared to now!), the numbers were still very small, and I think the actual refugees or escapees from Communism*/Totalitarianism were much more assimilable.

Then too, Filipinos and most especially Filipinas, are at the top of the list of the type of foreigners who've been most assimilable.

I'll write more later. Thanks for the commentary. I used your American Conservative cover image, so thanks for that too!


* BTW, that was another excuse for letting in refugees - it made America look good in the Cold War battle of public opinion. Not many people were begging for asylum in Soviet Russia.

PS: Mr. Smith, what you brought up in the memes is indeed a good point. It's one I didn't think would be able to fit within this post, as long as it was already. Yes, there are many Jewish Americans who have dual loyalties, at least in the media and government. They have a lot of influence.

One difference between that behavior and that of Mrs. Omar is that these Jewish people were born here and often have had family here for a century. What that says is, well, another post.

PS

-- The Philippines, in "Invade-Invite" chronology --

Here is another snippet, or historical flash, for you good-and-loyal Peak Stupidity readers out there to consider. To add to my proposed timeline (below) on how "Invade-Invite" emerged:

In 1934, the U.S. Congress passed a law granting the Philippines independence. It was a bid to finally dispose of the albatross foolishly acquired in 1898 during an unwise war against Spain (also the source of U.S. possession of Puerto Rico and associated with other problems, including the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and several other mid-Pacific possessions, themselves forming a symbol of "Invade-Invite"). The actions of 1898 were the first-ever true examples of the kind of "Invade" that Sailer meant in the "Invade-Invite" formulation: attacking, bullying, harassing, or grabbing foreign territories and making their population subject to U.S. power. But in the 1890s and for generations yet beyond, there was no "Invite" part yet. An effectively-Whites-only immigration policy held.

But here is the interesting part to the 1934 law granting the Philippines independence: Although the Philippine population were legal subjects of the United States, a provision of the 1934 independence bill insisted upon by U.S. Congressmen expressly barred all Filipinos immigration into the United States, expressly forbade acquisition of regular U.S. citizenship by Filipinos. The mood of the early-mid 1930s, back there, was against BOTH "Invade" and "Invite," and seems to have kind of seen them as part of one whole, or potentially so. Why else would Congressmen have held up the Philippine independence bill in order to secure explicit bans on Filipino immigration and citizenship?

Now, here is an even-more interesting part, especially viewed from the age of anti-White Wokeness era and its aggressive open-gate Migrant policy:

After Philippine immigration and citizenship were expressly banned as part of the 1934 independence agreement, major sweeps were conducted by U.S. authorities, with an aim to deport the vast majority of Philippine residents who had made their way to the USA in previous decades. These Filipinos had entered under a kind of legal grey area, and were comparable to today's "illegal immigrants" tolerated by the Regime and not really subject to deportation. Lots of Filipinos were deported in 1934 and 1935, mainly out of California, after lobbying for years by White citizens.

What was left of the Filipino communities, after 1935 or so, was clearly under pressure, and no longer in any kind of place to do the usual "chain migration" racket, even if U.S. law had allowed it (which it didn't). We can, for practically purposes, no longer any real Filipino population in the mainland United States by the late 1930s. A small one that existed as of 1934 had been removed and repatriated.

So that was the world of the 1930s, before "Invade-Invite" seized control of U.S. "foreign policy" (or however we can describe the thing). But some processes that would undo the whole thing were already at work. They didn't necessarily have to become dominant. That really needed the events of the 1940s.

After the effective ban from the mainland United States, the Filipinos continued to hang around the margins in the Pacific possessions (such as Hawaii), having developed income-streams by doing things like laundries and menial work and housekeeping. There was not enough of this kind of presence to deliver millions of Filipinos to the mainland. The real change, and which gives us the huge numbers of Filipinos the USA now has, comes directly from the 1940s war.

One of Japan's reasons for launching the war against the U.S. in 1941 was a heavy U.S. military presence in the Philippines. (The islands were not yet truly independent, for a time-lag had been built into the 1934 law.) The 1941-45 war, therefore, put the Philippine Islands as a major theater of the war. The anti-war men of the 1930s, like Smedley Butler, could have predicted on outline how it ultimately happened. "Invade" interests stuck around in the Philippines; "Invite" elements followed it. By some future point, the two became too intertwined to fully disentangle. Viewed from the 2000s or 2010s or 2020s, it seems like a "chicken or egg" dispute -- because the two have been 'intertwined' for so long. But that doesn't mean the pursuit is not worth the time.

In this case, it was in the mid-1940s that the Invade-Invite ideology's "intertwining" really "kicked in" for the Philippines vis-a-vis the U.S.; the Philippines got formal independence in 1946, but also a close alliance with the United States and a moral imperative of helping out little-buddy Philippines, such good allies in the Good War, the little-brown-people whom MacArthur promised to save, and did save; the war-mythos helping create a political revolution back in the United States in racial policy. And soon the "Inviting" began: immigration by shiftless and low-human-capital Filipinos (who are "very nice people", many U.S. Whites born in, and socialized into, the Invade-Invite era and ethos will insist on telling you).

The process of Filipino immigration, which had been so feared by the men of the 1930s that they outright banned all Filipinos from immigration and banned them from U.S. citizenship as a matter of course, had begun. Little more than a single decade later (after 1946), the gates were opened.

Yes, in 1946, the U.S. made a major exception to its racial policy and granted Philippine subjects the right to acquire U.S. citizenship after all. And thus begins, in earnest, that particular source of "chain migration," actually one of the biggest of all, especially considering the great distance of the Philippines to the United States mainland. In the case of the Philippines, Invade-Invite seem clearly tied together, without any big mystery -- and it points directly and unambiguously to the 1940s and the "Good War."

(See: Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934.)

PS

Another little addition to the "Invade-Invite" slogan's timeline:

By mid-2007, conservative columnist James P. Pinkerton was using the slogan, adopted "whole cloth", but without attribution to Steve Sailer.

Owing to the still-powerful syndication process, James Pinkerton's columns that used the phrase ("Invade the world, invite the world") were probably read by hundreds of thousands. I think his columns could be picked up by dozens if not hundreds of newspapers large and small in those days, and he was well known in the New York City market. Probably the loyal-newspaper-reading John Derbyshire came across Pinkerton often in those days.

In a column from May 2007, published in syndication in early June 2007, we find Pinkerton writing "from the future," the day after election day in November 2008, with a retrospective on how the Republicans had won the election

(this column is of interest to read, now seventeen years later; would/could this column appear in the 'Wokeness' era? And I see Sailer's influence in more than only the "Invite-Invite" political-slogan; you can also see the 'specter' of MAGA-Trump here, which came eight years later with the "Trump comes down the escalator, They're Not Sending Their Best speech" of June 2015...)

_____________

-- HOW THE GOP WON THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008 --
by James P. Pinkerton
June 2007

Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2008: To understand how the Republicans did the seemingly impossible -- win the presidency for a third straight election -- we must go back to the pivotal period: spring 2007.

That was when the GOP finally snapped out of its infatuation with George W. Bush and his “invade the world/invite the world” ideology.

On the one hand, the Bush policy was to fight open-ended foreign wars in the name of abstractions simply not applicable to Muslims in the Middle East. On the other hand, the president seemed to think America was an abstraction, a land of universal principles, as opposed to distinct cultural traditions.

In Bush’s view, the United States was a platform for international experimentation, not a homeland to be secured. Thus, pacifying the Sunni Triangle was more important than securing the border with Mexico.

So of course the GOP was punished at the polls in 2006. And the forecast for 2008 looked equally bleak. But then the Republicans woke up. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich captured the Republican mood when he compared the Bush administration to that of Jimmy Carter. In that same June 4, 2007, issue of The New Yorker, Gingrich labeled the campaign strategies of White House political guru Karl Rove as “maniacally dumb.”

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans finally insisted on an Iraq rethink. In late May 2007, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- as instinctively pro-Bush as anyone this side of Barney the first dog -- declared on “Face the Nation” that a new course in Iraq would be needed if “the surge” fizzled. Four months later, in the fall of that year, Bush agreed to start drawing down American forces.

And here’s where the GOP caught a political break. As Republicans strove for “peace with honor” in Iraq, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., having earlier declared the war “lost,” went even further, pursuing his partisan vendetta against the 43rd president. Egged on by the lefty neo-McGovernite blogosphere, Reid didn’t understand that in dishonoring the commander in chief he was seen as dishonoring the troops the chief commanded.

On immigration, the GOP finally exorcised itself -- rejecting the president’s not-so-well-disguised amnesty plan. Whereupon Sen. John McCain’s presidential prospects were blown away; the Arizonan seemed to disappear in a dust-devil of four-letter insults aimed at fellow Republicans.

Opponents of the 2007 immigration bill, led by Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., forced a series of votes on hot-button issues: Should English be the official language of the United States? Should illegal aliens be able to collect Social Security benefits? Should bilingualism be protected? Should dual citizenship with Mexico be expanded?

In each instance, The New York Times counseled the Democrats to vote in favor of “sophisticated” open-borders liberalism. And, of course, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., each hungering for The Times’ presidential endorsement, were eager to please. But the “Reagan Democrats” -- the folks who had elected populist Democrats such as Jim Webb and Jon Tester to the Senate in 2006 -- were not so pleased. So when the Republicans finally found their voice on immigration, the Reagan Democrats were re-Reaganized.

Finally, Republicans were speaking about realism and the national interest, always a winner for them.

The Democrats tried to fight back, using the health care issue, but the GOP was ready with a response, pointing to moderate health plans enacted by Republican governors from Massachusetts to California. Finally, late in the 2008 campaign, the Democrats attempted to energize their own small base, endorsing gay marriage and repeal of the Patriot Act. It didn’t work.

The Republicans, nominating a ticket free of any close association with the outgoing administration, won a comfortable victory. And so, for the eighth time in 11 presidential elections, liberalism was defeated.

(End of May/June 2007 column by James P. Pinkerton)

________________

PS: Mr. Smith, good memes there. Thanks.

PS: It's getting late, so I'll just address one point now from Mr. Hail:

"I would say that late-1970s period, with the Southeast Asian "Boat People" and their millions of opportunist chain-migrant followers-on, is far too LATE to look for the "origin point" of Invade-Invite."

Yeah, I didn't mean that was the very beginning of the "invite" policy. By that I meant it was the beginning of the idea of using the "invade the world" (Vietnam) policy, whether one was for it or not, as an excuse for the "invite the world" policy.

BTW, I think I'll use your graphic - the American Conservative cover - to replace mine. Thanks.

PS

"Perhaps this idea started with the aftermath of the Vietnam war. Yes, Americans did see good reasons to take in the boat people and other refugees from the Communists. Right at the end of the war there were about 150,000 who came, but from 1979 to '99, a half million more did."

I would say that late-1970s period, with the Southeast Asian "Boat People" and their millions of opportunist chain-migrant followers-on, is far too LATE to look for the "origin point" of Invade-Invite. It is, rather, a typical example of a phenomenon already essentially fully formed. I think earlier forms of this can easily be found throughout the 1960s, often also with Vietnam but only because it was a big deal at the time (the ideology and specific geopolitical events are not thee exact same thing; the ideology takes advantage of geopolitical events).

It is harder to see, but a similar kind of thinking exists also in the 1950s, despite numbers being low. This thinking did NOT exist in the 1930s and early 1940s, but a kind of political revolution occurs in the mid-1940s during the "Good War", which we still live with.

I note, for example, that the strict Chinese exclusion laws were lifted in 1943. Thata was itself a major revolution, and came against muted response from the coalition that had held since the 1870s opposing Chinese "immigration" and citizenship for Chinese (which was also, for all practical purposes, illegal until 1953 after a Supreme Court decision revoking the legal category "aliens ineligible for citizenship," which meant Nonwhites of foreign origin).

Why was the response so "muted" to the unilateral cancellation by FDR of the Chinese exclusion law in 1943? Of course, because "we are fighting to save the world from Bad Guys; the Chinese are our 'allies'; so we HAVE TO do Invade-Invite. Or what, are you unpatriotic and oppose the troops? You're not a TRAITOR, are you? Thought not."

That, my friends, is Invade-Invite in its early form.

PS

-- On the relationship of 'Invade' and 'Invite' and their origins --

The Peak Stupidity entry says: "Is the "Invite the World" policy an effect of the "Invade the World" policy, does the arrow of causation go the other way, or is it just that the same people push for both policies?"

I think from early on, Steve Sailer has suggested a tightly intertwined ideology exists among a certain type of Republican, necessitating both 'Invade' and 'Invite' as animating ideological-geopolitical impulses. Among the important people in power in the Republican Party, there is not necessarily an "Invade, but Don't Invite" faction vs. some "Invite, but Don't Invade" faction. By 2007, you had this out-of-nowhere Ron Paul insurgent movement with great success, with Ron Paul and his people basically against BOTH Invade and Invite.

This may seem puzzling, but ideology can work like that -- and Steve Sailer was able to satirize it with his famous six-word slogan back in 2003/04.

As for the "intertwined" ideology, it becomes hard to disentangle, and really a realm for the historian or even the "historian of ideas." Clearly there are plenty of strands to pick up in the mid- and late-20thcentury.

As so often, it seems to come back to the 1930s-40s at origin. Nothing before that period, especially the radical changes of the mid-1940s, point in any kind of strong way towards "invite, Invite." Now THAT is something Steve Sailer, basically a loyal believer in our civic-nationalist "Good War Myth" related to that period, that is something Sailer won't really want to much touch, like a high-caste Hindu wandering about the low-caste slums.

Even John McCain, one of Steve Sailer's bugbears of the 2000s and beyond, has a claim to "fame" entirely based on the 1940s period, as his father was a high-ranking military officer at the time. There is no reason that just because somebody is some general's son that he would necessarily become a bigwig himself. But it happened, and it happens all over.

These types of people are littered all over the place, and among the younger set you even see the two major strands -- Invade and Invite -- expressed within the very same person, such as this left-wing Senator named Tammy Duckworth. Actually, that "pipeline" is IMO exactly how Tulsi Gabbard got an "in" for her political career, though she wandered off from the straight-and-narrow path after a few years.

PS

Sailer coined the phrase "Invade the world, Invite the world" I believe in 2003, or 2004, in The American Conservative magazine.

By some time in the 2010s, much (not "all", but much) of the Sailer output was continuing to puff up things he'd first come up with and published in the 2000s and even 1990s (when he was a pretty-prolific guest columnist in paper newspapers).

Steve Sailer's influence during the 2000s was considerable. If we are dividing history into "thirds of a decade" periods, I would argue or propose that Sailer's breakthrough period was the "mid-2000s." Too much earlier than that is implausible (though early-2000s could be defended); depending on definitions, as late as the mid- or even late-2010s could even be defended, but you're talking about different things in that case (number of Twitter followers does not qualify as influence).

By the peak of the 2007-08 presidential campaign season, with John McCain, the "Invade the World, Invite the world" slogan was well established, and recognized not only by Sailer's readers but even further afield. By about eight to ten years after THAT (late 2010s), "Invade, Invitee" was a mainstream talking-point you'd see from people like Charlie Kirk in his long-running "Colorblind Civic Nationalism" mode in which he'd occasionally make quick dashes outside the (White man's) Reservation.

Here is the famous magazine-cover from early 2008 with Sailer's slogan (four or so years after its coining by Sailer, or by an editor at The American Conservative magazine, adapting Sailer's original phrasing, according to Steve 'Mr Modest' Sailer):

https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/mccain-invade-the-world-invite-the-world-2008-am-con-magazine-coined-by-steve-sailer.jpg

(I can add, in case it's not obvious: Steve Sailer opposed McCain during the Republican primaries, on "Invade the world, Invite the world" grounds.)

PS: Good evening, Mr. Moderator...

Steve who?

https://i.ibb.co/f2ZRbGq/Dual-Loyalty.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nnkTzNC/Omar.jpg

Cheers! ☮️