210 words / 1:55:42
David Zsutty of the Homeland Institute was Greg Johnson‘s guest on the latest broadcast of Counter-Currents Radio, where they discussed the Institute’s latest poll on immigration and deportation issues as well as other current things. It is now available for download and online listening.
Topics discussed include:
00:01:30 Introduction to the results
00:02:49 What percentage of these surveyed were in favor of deporting illegals?
00:06:15 Why do so many people make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants?
00:12:42 Racial game theory
00:17:08 How do we convince people to deport legal immigrants?
00:20:43 “Legal aliens”
00:22:06 Support for immigration goes down when you mention demographics
00:29:28 On courting rogue elites
00:31:58 Why do we need immigrants when we have artificial intelligence?
00:37:08 On National Divorce
00:42:36 The difference between the European immigrants of the past and modern immigrants
00:48:13 The Left is more passionate
00:49:34 How do we make the Right more passionate?
00:54:38 Should we vote at all?
01:11:07 “Zero Seats” for the Conservative Party in the upcoming United Kingdom national election
01:21:57 What do you think about state broadcasters?
01:30:12 Is the regime creating a bunch of educated White Nationalists?
01:39:36 On affirmative action and anti-white discrimination
01:45:40 Is being an autodidact better?
01:52:18 The Homeland Institute’s next poll
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
5 comments
Trump doing the last thing someone told him to do, which I sense is a very accurate description, sounds like an old person issue. It’s how older people tend to be. They grab on to whoever is put in front of them. Whatever other people have said before that vanishes and they need reminding/persuading all over again about whatever the original thing was. And it sounds to me Trump isn’t really in control.
There’s only three years age difference between Trump and Biden, and although Trump is certainly more vital than the ridiculous spectacle of Biden I do think these characters are a bit old in the sense that makes them unusually vulnerable. This makes them great for people who want to take advantage of them of course.
You add Trump’s ego and strange characteristics….well he’s brilliant at triggering the left, he has healthy instincts about some important issues, but there’s only three years difference between Trump and Biden.
It’s said in the interview Tucker Carlson changed Trump’s mind over something. This would need to happen all the time.
Trump has also been put through the grinder, unjustly of course, but he’s got the treatment and we don’t know what effect that will have, how that will compromise him.
Top notch, top notch. Both you guys have been doing great stuff on Twitter/X too.
There are also the traditional beltway Republican reasons to vote for trump too—taxation without representation, and…I can’t think of the others…
He’s probably just trying to get them to call off the legal dogs with the green card thing, but far too much neuronal energy in this country has been invested into trying to read sense into trump’s actions at this point. 4d chess or 1d checkers?
Mr. Zsutty, I thought I heard you imply that women are taking up more than our fair share of law school seats, so I listened again to make sure. I wouldn’t want to be “shrill” or anything. And yes, given the context, you definitely gave the impression that men are being hard done by in legal education, though you didn’t say so outright.
Since I wouldn’t want men to feel discouraged or hopeless about their prospects of a legal career, I am happy to report that this is incorrect. Women are earning their way into law school. Admittee LSAT scores and undergrad GPAs, broken down by gender, are published on the internet, as you should know. Women admittees are every bit as qualified as their male peers, and they are as likely as men to pass the bar upon graduation. Groups that recieve preference, by contrast, have abysmal bar passage stats as they weren’t qualified to begin with.
Let me explain something to you, Mr. Zsutty. Setting aside your obnoxious habit of talking about us like we’re not in the room, it is truly pathetic to defend gender disparities that favor men and then turn around and cry about gender disparities that favor women.
I have always been very candid about acknowledging that men are better than women at certain tasks involving spatial reasoning and mathematics. That being the case, men are always going to dominate mechanical engineering, computer science, etc. That is perfectly fine, but the upshot of that is going to be that men will face more opportunity costs that may prevent them from pursuing careers in the legal profession. Even if men are every bit as good as women at the kinds of things that make for good lawyers, we are still going to dominate the profession because of opportunity cost alone.
That said, I do happen to think women are superior in the skills and propensities that make for good lawyers. Men seem to have an undue preference for brightline rules that are easy to dumb down for Black Letter Outlines, without which they seem to fear primal chaos (the menacing water behind the “floodgates” they worry about opening), or at least a disruption of their golf schedule.
The other day, some grug brain on Red Ice was going on about how all the women lawyers and judges he encountered in the course of his bad experience with the legal system made the case about “feelings.” Well, I’ve got loads of female corpses of women caught in flagrante delicto to prove that “feelz” have been part and parcel of legal analysis for some time. Of course, it’s dressed up as the kind of uncontrollable murderous rage that any “reasonable man” in like circumstances would feel, but it is what it is nonetheless.
Note that I don’t have a particular problem with the heat of passion mitigation. I have principles, proportionality among them, that do not change based on any who/whom calculation. Clearly, when it comes to justice, circumstances matter, and that is precisely the point. My advice to anyone who doubts that, in the judicial system, yin > yang: read Herman Melville’s novella Billy Budd and call me in the morning.
As I said, you may completely disagree with me that women are better suited, in general, to the law than men, but the fact of differential opportunity cost remains, and will tend to the same outcome regardless. Likewise with medical school. There are a lot of really f’ing brainy White women in the world. Deal with it.
Owned! I want to see them compare LSAT scores.
I would like to have CC produce a book which indeed would open the eyes of ordinary Americans about how the vast immigrant hordes are changing our DEMOGRAPHICS countrywide — preferably with a minimum of graphs, which most ordinary people — like me — can’t decipher. Most people still have little knowledge that our founding race — i.e. European stock — have already fallen beneath the 50% line.
A book which explains this to the average American is sorely needed. Certainly neither of our political rulers will ever spell this out correctly, and the Left would never say a word about this. It is up to us to do.
By the way, the County of Los Angeles (POP: 10 million +-) has a White population which has dropped to one-quarter of the total. This is what people need to know. Need I say that Hispanics currently clock in at 45%?
How about your town, county, state?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.