Absence of non-East Asian coronavirus fatalities so far makes some wonder if there ever will be any

Time will tell.

There are considerations other than genetic racial predisposition or vulnerability to infection, however.

As the Chinese are now reporting, the coronavirus infection affects older men much more than women. In the initial phase of infection in Wuhan, for example, 68% of patients were men. Strikingly, as recently as 2015, 68% of Chinese men were said to smoke cigarettes, making them predisposed to infection because of impaired lung health.

Still, no death so far has involved someone without East Asian ancestry, which may indicate, as with the SARS coronavirus epidemic in 2002-2004, that fear of a global pandemic resulting in millions of deaths may not be reasonable and that this may remain an East Asian epidemic. It could be that just as sub-Saharan Africa is responsible for 80% of genetic sickle cell disease China may be prone to respiratory disease for some as yet unknown genetic reason.

VDARE's Ed Rubenstein tries to put lipstick on foreign born pig, but their population and employment both are up 1.7 million under Trump, their labor force is up 1.4 million: There is no "Trump effect" suppressing The Great Replacement

Here.

More alt-right, this time VDARE, realizing attacks on Tucker Carlson show that the people aren't with them

Washington Watcher II puts some lipstick on the Trump immigration pig

Trump is up against a 21st-century nullification movement. Trump does, of course, have options. As A.W. Morgan wrote recently, Trump could assert his authority as the executive, a co-equal branch of government, defy Congress and the kritarchs, and arrest sanctuary officials on federal obstruction of justice charges. He can’t enforce law, as is his duty, if judges and state and localities block him at every turn. ... Because of inexplicable staffing decisions, Trump’s foes now often work for him, with the inevitable result. The most recent Homeland Security chiefs—Kirstjen Nielsen and Kevin McAleenan— both privately oppose immigration patriotism. Both have proven inadequate. In other words, it’s Trump vs. the entire  Ruling Class.

No. In other words we have a president who is not serious. Just like the rest of the country.

Read it all here.

"Washington Watcher II" distills the David French-Sohrab Ahmari kerfuffle: Immigration patriots really don’t have a dog in this fight

Because your choices are limited to Drag Queen Story Hour Conservatism or a new Catholic imperium in the Americas, which come to think of it are pretty much the same thing.
  

This French-Sohrab Ahmari “Debate” Won’t Grasp The Nettle: For The Historic American, Demography Is Destiny

YouTube restores high-profile Vdare channel but many others remain purged

YouTube's Susan Wojcicki wins Hypocrite of the Year Award: Purges Vdare et alia to please ADL, VERY NEXT DAY says controversial and even offensive content OK on platform

Martin Luther wrote "Against the Jews and their Lies" for a reason.

An alt-right taxonomy one year after Charlottesville, and its prospects for survival

Provided by Paul Gottfried, with useful links, in Paul Gottfried: Charlottesville After A Year—As An Outsider, I Think The Alt-Right Far From Finished, from which this excerpt:

Growing racial tensions, reckless immigration and a further weakening of already-weakened social bonds could all help the Alt-Right expand its following.

Part of the Alt Right’s eventual success may come from its anti-traditionalism. The Alt-Right is mostly (but not entirely) anti-Christian and advances a Nietzschean or neo-pagan perspective. It is thereby in sync with the growing secularism of millennials.  

And the Alt-Right doesn’t wear itself out trying to defend the traditional bourgeois family. It appears to be made up largely of young, unattached bloggers. Most of those Alt-Right publicists I read focus on racial conflict or the struggle between civilizations; and they push these themes far more frankly and with less careerist backtracking than the well-paid propagandists of Conservatism, Inc. They also cite telling statistics about racial and gender differences; and they pride themselves on their openness to science as well as on their sometimes vaguely defined “radical traditionalism.”

The Alt-Right belongs to a post-conservative Right. 

This is another way of saying the future success of the alt-right depends on the continued splintering of the American experience occasioned by its enthusiasm for secular ideologies.

Hence the way to defeat the alt-right, if that is what the left really wants, is to reject multiculturalism and participate in unifying the country instead of working toward its demise. And that implies supporting the radical correction of America's immigration laws symbolized and actualized by Donald Trump's wall.

But, of course, that would make too much sense, as little sense as reproducing oneself the old-fashioned way, by marrying and having children.

Idealism, of whatever stripe, is poison, but our thirst for it, unfortunately, is the well nigh inescapable bastard patrimony of our Christian past. 

Or that the charm and venom, which they drunk,

Their blood with secret filth infected hath,

Being diffused through the senseless trunk

That, through the great contagion, direful deadly stunk.

-- Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, Canto II, iv.

Sometimes the enemy wears a uniform, sometimes not

Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal is Jewish, and so is Steve Wynn?

Who knew?

Story here.

We're old right, not alt-right, in case you were wondering, because we have faith in God and fear him and they don't

And they will end badly, if they can even manage to end at all.

Alt-righter John Derbyshire, formerly welcome at National Review where he was a better and even somewhat beloved writer, explains the difference here: 

"As has often been noted, state ideologies, like the Cultural Marxism that currently holds sway in the West, key to the same social and psychological receptors as religions. Recall the late Larry Auster’s observation that blacks are sacred objects, criticism of which is received just as blasphemy used to be in the Age of Faith, and still is in places like Pakistan.

"Alt-Right types — all of them, though in many different ways — are reacting against this state ideology.

"What characterizes the Alt-Right is the rejection of Cultural Marxism; but while it characterizes us, it doesn’t unify us. That’s because we haven’t fled from the CultMarx pseudo-religion to some other, unifying faith. We don’t do faith." 

Substituting the truth with a lie doesn't make the truth a lie.

Mike Pence was an immigration squish in 2007 who caved to the gay mafia in 2015

This is not Trump surrounding himself with the best.

Detailed here and here.

Libertarian Koch brothers funded American Action Forum finds cost of deportation to be $67,000 per, ICE only $12,500

What a shock.

Ed Rubenstein, here:

One AAF report put the total cost of removing all 11.3 million illegals living in the U.S. at between $420 billion and $619 billion. That is based on the assumption that 20% of the aliens would leave voluntarily [The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration: Alternative Strategies, By Ben Gitis and Laura Collins, March 6, 2015].

But let’s do the math. Deducting those who would self-deport we are left with 8.96 million illegals that the U.S. government would have to forcibly deport. Dividing AAF’s low and high cost estimates by these involuntary deportees, we arrive at a per deportee cost ranging from $45,000 to $67,000. By comparison, ICE—the government agency in charge of deportations, estimates that it costs $12,500 to deport an illegal alien. [ ICE reveals cost for deporting each illegal immigrant, By Mizanur Rahman, San Francisco Chronicle,  January 27, 2011]. ...

To understand why AAF inflates its deportation cost estimates, just follow the money. Not the Federal tax money: the donor money. The Koch brothers [have] given millions to the forum as part of the now-familiar quid pro quo: our money for your “research” supporting open borders [The newest dark money power player: American Action Network, By Zachary Roth, MSNBC, March 18, 2014]. The Kochs see illegal aliens as a profit center rather than a problem.

Governor Nikki Haley, not a natural born citizen who took down the Confederate flag, endorses not a natural born citizen Marco Rubio for president

Or: anchor baby endorses anchor baby, which won't fly.

From another story here:

Haley’s parents moved to South Carolina in 1969; she was born in January 1972. In those days, it took at least five years to be naturalized.  So it’s evident Haley’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens at her birth.  Thus she is ineligible to the offices of president and vice-president.  For both, the Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, a deliberately higher standard than simple citizenship. ... Haley doesn’t make the cut. Neither do Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and nor did—yes—Barack Obama. My question for the future: was Columba Bush a U.S. citizen when George P. was born?

Trump's success teaches that Republican voters are not libertarian ideologues

So says John Reid, here:

'Yet if the Trump’s enduring success has taught us anything [it] is that Republican voters are not libertarian ideologues. He recognizes that politics is about “Who, whom?”'

Sen. Marco Rubio Avoids Talking About Defacto Amnesty On Rush Limbaugh

And Rush avoided bringing up the subject. All Rubio said was that we have "an existing problem":

Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. And we're not. Never have been. 

On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration. And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed. We also recognize, because conservatism's always been about common sense, that we do have an existing problem that needs to be dealt with in the best way possible.

But it came up on Mark Levin's show, as Washington Watcher noted at VDare, here:

In promoting his amnesty on the Mark Levin show last week, Rubio came up with what appeared to Levin to be a novel argument. Rubio claimed that by not enforcing the law, we currently have a “de facto amnesty”—which will continue unless we support his plan, which involves illegals supposedly paying a fine, community service, learning English and various other bits [of] unenforceable window-dressing. Levin, who has been solid on immigration in the past (and, it should be noted, has not come out in support of Rubio’s amnesty), found this argument compelling. He noted:

"We have de facto amnesty right now. When he said it, it set a light bulb off. Maybe I am a little slow. I said, ‘Well he’s right, we do have de facto amnesty.’ Which is exactly why Obama wants to really do nothing." . . . 

[D]espite Mark Levin’s “light bulb” moment, this argument is not novel. Thus in 2007, John McCain said "For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty."  [GOP Candidates Shy Away From Bush, by Glen Johnson, Associated Press, June 6, 2007]  Even Barack Obama has sold amnesty as a punishment . . ..

It's clear Sen. Rubio is sensitive to negative feedback. He's fine tuning the message for the skulls full of mush out there in order to build the case for the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty plan. But as Washington Watcher says in his article, only the first of several reasons the status quo is preferable is that an outright amnesty will trigger a deluge of illegal immigration to take advantage of it.

The country is already full of unassimilated foreigners, so, pace Sen. Rubio, they represent the reason for conservatives to be against more legal immigration, not just the illegal kind. The law and the law-abiding have been the victims in this charade, not the illegals, and it is they who need to pay. It's about time so-called conservatives started saying so instead of cooking up compromises with the devil.

George Bush: Mushy-Headed Liberal

George W. Bush has been beating his little isolationism, protectionism and nativism drum for years now, but it seems like conservatives such as Laura Ingraham are finally looking at it in the right way. She's even suggesting that if we knew in 2000 what we know today about George and his family (people should be free to marry anyone they love), maybe conservatives wouldn't have supported W back in the day.

I know I didn't. I admit it. I was one of the few, the proud, the (top!) 500,000 Americans who voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. And I've still got the lawn sign to prove it! In 2004 I had to be drawn kicking and screaming to vote for Bush. The alternative was too horrible to contemplate (a man who won't stop for stop signs while behind the wheel of his Jeep is a dangerous man, willing to break any law), as it was also too horrible to contemplate in 2008, as events prove everyday.

Bush's continuing antagonism against, for example, advocates of border security doesn't surprise me, and Laura is right to perceive that his sort of Republican poses a threat to the policy initiatives championed by Tea Partyers and conservatives. Her show this morning is devoting considerable time to Bush's remarks at Southern Methodist University on January 24th.

But Bush was making similar remarks already in November 2010 in Britain as part of his book tour, and Pat Buchanan eviscerated him way back in March 2008 for the very same kind of loose and silly talk:

In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.

Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy's policy.

The truth is George Bush hasn't changed, and has never been a conservative. Ever true to his self-described role as The Decider, he once boasted that he would be the one who decided what is Republican and what isn't:

"That conservative movement stuff is over. I've redefined the Republican party."

Even liberals have recognized Bush as one of their own. So Richard Cohen in The Washington Post in 2007, after cataloguing Bush's liberal intentions in No Child Left Behind, in affirmative action hires in his administration, and even in the Iraq war, he adds:

You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration -- another liberal sentiment -- or his frequent mention of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a "mushy-headed liberal."

Cohen leaves out Bush's greatest liberal achievement: Drugs for Seniors, the single largest expansion of federal government to that time since Lyndon Johnson. He leaves it out because that's what really drives liberals crazy, how George Bush out-liberaled the liberals, and co-opted them for eight years.

That's why they really hated him.