The American Indians of USA.
Obviously, they are all a bunch of ranting, raving, seething, vicious, genocidal, hate-filled scum, right? No, wait. They can't be. Only White people can be racist. I forgot. Silly me.
So where are the Nutcase Liberal-Left and the Minority Professional Victims when it comes to abusing these vicious, evil US Amerindians? Nowhere to be seen. Why is that? They're all busy beating up on those vile White folks.
Why are US Amerindians so anti-immigration? Think about it. Real hard.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Defense of White Working Class Republicans
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated December 7:
Here.
Doesn't make much sense.
First of all, it starts out with a defense that the White working class is making an intelligent decision to vote on abortion, gay rights and the 2nd Amendment as opposed to economics. Not much to say to that.
Next he argues that Democrats don't really have the economic interests of the White working class at heart; in fact, Republicans do. This is the hoary Republican line, disproven endlessly, especially in these difficult times.
Finally he gets down to some red meat. Turns out that Republicans are better for the White working class because they support lax to nonexistent zoning regulations, which makes homes cheaper! This incredible argument is from none other than Steve Sailer, who apparently works for the Republican Party now. Sailer wants to have a truce with me, but I am thinking of unilaterally violating the cease-fire.
According to Sailer, the Republicans support something called "cheap family formation". A study of economic statistics over the past 30 years should disprove that.
Yeah, I've met so many working class Whites who vote Republican to eviscerate zoning laws so they can get a cheap house ! Lax zoning laws of course being a prime cause of crappy neighborhoods in the first place of course.
Next up. It's smart for the White working class to vote Republican an anti-immigration basis. Though both parties are horrible on this issue, the current Republican Party is one of the most horrible parties for immigration-restrictionists in recent memory. The Republican Party is for all intents and purposes an Open Borders political party.
Last, it's smart for the White working class to vote Republican because Democrats try to desegregate White schools. First of all, few actual desegregation efforts occur outside the South anymore. Second of all, they are ordered by judges, not federal, state or local officials. Third, I am not aware of the Republicans doing anything to stop desegregation of schools.
From the banner:
Who is this blogger? He's big enough to get written up in the New York Times? How sorry.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated December 7:
Here.
Doesn't make much sense.
First of all, it starts out with a defense that the White working class is making an intelligent decision to vote on abortion, gay rights and the 2nd Amendment as opposed to economics. Not much to say to that.
Next he argues that Democrats don't really have the economic interests of the White working class at heart; in fact, Republicans do. This is the hoary Republican line, disproven endlessly, especially in these difficult times.
Finally he gets down to some red meat. Turns out that Republicans are better for the White working class because they support lax to nonexistent zoning regulations, which makes homes cheaper! This incredible argument is from none other than Steve Sailer, who apparently works for the Republican Party now. Sailer wants to have a truce with me, but I am thinking of unilaterally violating the cease-fire.
According to Sailer, the Republicans support something called "cheap family formation". A study of economic statistics over the past 30 years should disprove that.
Yeah, I've met so many working class Whites who vote Republican to eviscerate zoning laws so they can get a cheap house ! Lax zoning laws of course being a prime cause of crappy neighborhoods in the first place of course.
Next up. It's smart for the White working class to vote Republican an anti-immigration basis. Though both parties are horrible on this issue, the current Republican Party is one of the most horrible parties for immigration-restrictionists in recent memory. The Republican Party is for all intents and purposes an Open Borders political party.
Last, it's smart for the White working class to vote Republican because Democrats try to desegregate White schools. First of all, few actual desegregation efforts occur outside the South anymore. Second of all, they are ordered by judges, not federal, state or local officials. Third, I am not aware of the Republicans doing anything to stop desegregation of schools.
From the banner:
Half SigmaUm, don't think so.
The new politics of common sense. Neither Republican, Democratic, nor Libertarian.
Who is this blogger? He's big enough to get written up in the New York Times? How sorry.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Children of Low Wage Immigrants are Criminals
The male children, at least.
This has been true at least in the past 150 years or so. We went through Hell for decades already with the Sicilians, the Irish and the Jews. After some time, they've all comfortably made it to middle class America and beyond. The Irish, Jewish and Sicilian ghettos of yore are nowhere to be found.
We are seeing it again with Hispanic illegal immigrants from Mesoamerica and the Dominican Republic and with unscreened immigrants from US colonies in Puerto Rico and Western Samoa. The first generation of illegal or unscreened immigrants produces criminal children, which then produces a criminal culture.
In some cases, it ends right there and the newer generations assimilate well. In other cases, as with the White ethnics above, you end up with decades of Underclass Hell before they finally climb aboard. In other cases, the criminal children of the first generation may produce a permanent Underclass. Look at the Gypsies in Europe. They've been there since 1100. They're still as Underclass as the day they showed up.
White racists hate to hear this, but legal immigrants to the US seem to cause relatively few problems.
We screen them very well, it takes years to even get in in the first place, they have to jump through endless hurdles and pay lots of money, and once they get in, they have to be on good behavior, or the first arrest and they get tossed back to wherever. In general, I think their children do well too.
What it boils down to is that the overwhelming majority of immigrant problems in the US are caused by illegal and unscreened and to a lesser extent, low-wage immigrants and their multiple lines of descendants.
This also seems to be the case in Australia, New Zealand and Europe.
The importation of Pacific Islander low wage immigrants to Australia and New Zealand has been bad news. Many are not fitting in at all and are just forming Underclasses, which at this point seem interminable. Pacific Islander immigration to these lands must be stopped altogether or urgent research must be done to figure out which PI's are most likely to thrive and only allow those in.
Importation of low-wage Arab, North African, Jamaican and Pakistani immigrants to Europe has been disastrous. In large part this is due to Islam, except for the Jamaicans, but the end result is the same. Due to Islam, one wonders not when assimilation to European society will occur with these immigrants but whether it is even possible.
The reproduction of the gang - barrio - vato idiot Underclass among US Hispanics is urgently in need of study. Studies are concluding that this pathological culture is now going on five generations here in the US.
What's causing this? What are the factors behind it? What are the characteristics of Hispanics in the Underclass and those assimilating? Forget ending it; it's probably permanent. How do we keep it from growing, and how do we quit importing more nightmares?
As I have mentioned before, US Hispanics are split into two vast groups - an assimilated group doing well and a nightmarish Underclass, with a lot of movement in between.
We grew up with Hispanics in Orange County in the 1960's, 70's and 80's. The ones we knew were all completely assimilated to US culture and were for all intents and purposes just Americans like anyone else. They were like White people with some interesting ancestry.
As a native Californian, I recognize that Hispanics are part of the neighborhood here in my state. Many of them have just as much or more right to be here as the rest of us. I grew up with them, befriended them and had Mexican girlfriends. I was taking Spanish lessons at age 6. I asked my Mom why and she peered into her crystal ball and said, "This is the future." I'm not kidding, exact words.
For fun, we slummed it up in Mexico on a regular basis, but we were always happy to make to the other side of the border at the end. I had six years of Spanish in school. I've eaten great Mexican food my whole life. Hell, I even go to a Catholic Mass now, and I go to the Spanish language session, because the music is better and the crowd is more relaxed.
The Mexican-American friends I grew up with absolutely despised the nascent barrio - vato - gangster culture at the time. There was some of it in the 1970's - mostly in East LA. My friends were blistering in their contempt for these people, who they called garbage, maggots and other endearing terms. They had nothing to do with them, would not even talk to them, and hated being associated with them.
What's odd now is the metasticization of this shit barrio - vato - gangster Hispanic culture all across California. What was once a pretty minor element in Hispanic life in California in the 1970's (at the time most Hispanics here seemed well-assimilated like the ones I knew) has burgeoned across the state like a rampaging cancer.
And my assimilated Hispanic friends, who once regarded the barrio crowd as worms (Rightly so!) now defend them to me in conversation. Sadly, my once-perfectly assimilated Hispanic friends have now adopted Hispanic Identity Politics like everyone else.
Given what we now know about the children of low-wage immigrants becoming criminals, often multi-generational, in more advanced societies, the obvious, sane, bipartisan, non-racist solution is to simply stop importing low-wage immigrants period. If we do need to import them, we can always import some real guest workers like via the Bracero Program.
The Hispanic activists (illegal alien lovers) get all upset when anyone mentions the Bracero Program. Apparently the workers were treated like shit back in the day, in the 1950's. Well, here it is, 2008, and what do you know, illegal alien workers are often treated like shit too.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. That's not a problem with guest worker programs. The problem is that it's the American way to treat workers like shit.
Anyway, whatever it's faults, a Bracero Program 2008 would seem better than the current nightmare of turning the US Southwest into Northern Tijuana.
A commenter, James Schipper, noted on an earlier post that illegal immigrants who have been in the US for 10 years or so have shown significant duty to country such that they can be amnestied in. This was my position up until 1½ years ago. As long as I always lived in White areas in California, I could afford to be liberal on immigration.
Now that I live the barrio, I've lost all my illusions. Getting hit on the head with the reality stick can be a tough beating. I want all the illegals gone, not now, yesterday, and I don't give a damn how long they've been here, I don't care about breaking up their damned families, I don't care about anything.
I would also like to point out that the very qualities that make low-wage immigrants, in particular illegal immigrants, such problem immigrants in Western nations will not magically vanish as soon as you grant them amnesty.
My impression is that the children of the illegals who were amnestied in in 1986 are just as bad, if not worse, than the children of the illegals themselves. Legalizing them via amnesty does not magically transform low-quality illegal immigrants in fine, upstanding citizens. I doubt it if does much good at all except to legalize more problem residents of our nation.
This has been true at least in the past 150 years or so. We went through Hell for decades already with the Sicilians, the Irish and the Jews. After some time, they've all comfortably made it to middle class America and beyond. The Irish, Jewish and Sicilian ghettos of yore are nowhere to be found.
We are seeing it again with Hispanic illegal immigrants from Mesoamerica and the Dominican Republic and with unscreened immigrants from US colonies in Puerto Rico and Western Samoa. The first generation of illegal or unscreened immigrants produces criminal children, which then produces a criminal culture.
In some cases, it ends right there and the newer generations assimilate well. In other cases, as with the White ethnics above, you end up with decades of Underclass Hell before they finally climb aboard. In other cases, the criminal children of the first generation may produce a permanent Underclass. Look at the Gypsies in Europe. They've been there since 1100. They're still as Underclass as the day they showed up.
White racists hate to hear this, but legal immigrants to the US seem to cause relatively few problems.
We screen them very well, it takes years to even get in in the first place, they have to jump through endless hurdles and pay lots of money, and once they get in, they have to be on good behavior, or the first arrest and they get tossed back to wherever. In general, I think their children do well too.
What it boils down to is that the overwhelming majority of immigrant problems in the US are caused by illegal and unscreened and to a lesser extent, low-wage immigrants and their multiple lines of descendants.
This also seems to be the case in Australia, New Zealand and Europe.
The importation of Pacific Islander low wage immigrants to Australia and New Zealand has been bad news. Many are not fitting in at all and are just forming Underclasses, which at this point seem interminable. Pacific Islander immigration to these lands must be stopped altogether or urgent research must be done to figure out which PI's are most likely to thrive and only allow those in.
Importation of low-wage Arab, North African, Jamaican and Pakistani immigrants to Europe has been disastrous. In large part this is due to Islam, except for the Jamaicans, but the end result is the same. Due to Islam, one wonders not when assimilation to European society will occur with these immigrants but whether it is even possible.
The reproduction of the gang - barrio - vato idiot Underclass among US Hispanics is urgently in need of study. Studies are concluding that this pathological culture is now going on five generations here in the US.
What's causing this? What are the factors behind it? What are the characteristics of Hispanics in the Underclass and those assimilating? Forget ending it; it's probably permanent. How do we keep it from growing, and how do we quit importing more nightmares?
As I have mentioned before, US Hispanics are split into two vast groups - an assimilated group doing well and a nightmarish Underclass, with a lot of movement in between.
We grew up with Hispanics in Orange County in the 1960's, 70's and 80's. The ones we knew were all completely assimilated to US culture and were for all intents and purposes just Americans like anyone else. They were like White people with some interesting ancestry.
As a native Californian, I recognize that Hispanics are part of the neighborhood here in my state. Many of them have just as much or more right to be here as the rest of us. I grew up with them, befriended them and had Mexican girlfriends. I was taking Spanish lessons at age 6. I asked my Mom why and she peered into her crystal ball and said, "This is the future." I'm not kidding, exact words.
For fun, we slummed it up in Mexico on a regular basis, but we were always happy to make to the other side of the border at the end. I had six years of Spanish in school. I've eaten great Mexican food my whole life. Hell, I even go to a Catholic Mass now, and I go to the Spanish language session, because the music is better and the crowd is more relaxed.
The Mexican-American friends I grew up with absolutely despised the nascent barrio - vato - gangster culture at the time. There was some of it in the 1970's - mostly in East LA. My friends were blistering in their contempt for these people, who they called garbage, maggots and other endearing terms. They had nothing to do with them, would not even talk to them, and hated being associated with them.
What's odd now is the metasticization of this shit barrio - vato - gangster Hispanic culture all across California. What was once a pretty minor element in Hispanic life in California in the 1970's (at the time most Hispanics here seemed well-assimilated like the ones I knew) has burgeoned across the state like a rampaging cancer.
And my assimilated Hispanic friends, who once regarded the barrio crowd as worms (Rightly so!) now defend them to me in conversation. Sadly, my once-perfectly assimilated Hispanic friends have now adopted Hispanic Identity Politics like everyone else.
Given what we now know about the children of low-wage immigrants becoming criminals, often multi-generational, in more advanced societies, the obvious, sane, bipartisan, non-racist solution is to simply stop importing low-wage immigrants period. If we do need to import them, we can always import some real guest workers like via the Bracero Program.
The Hispanic activists (illegal alien lovers) get all upset when anyone mentions the Bracero Program. Apparently the workers were treated like shit back in the day, in the 1950's. Well, here it is, 2008, and what do you know, illegal alien workers are often treated like shit too.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. That's not a problem with guest worker programs. The problem is that it's the American way to treat workers like shit.
Anyway, whatever it's faults, a Bracero Program 2008 would seem better than the current nightmare of turning the US Southwest into Northern Tijuana.
A commenter, James Schipper, noted on an earlier post that illegal immigrants who have been in the US for 10 years or so have shown significant duty to country such that they can be amnestied in. This was my position up until 1½ years ago. As long as I always lived in White areas in California, I could afford to be liberal on immigration.
Now that I live the barrio, I've lost all my illusions. Getting hit on the head with the reality stick can be a tough beating. I want all the illegals gone, not now, yesterday, and I don't give a damn how long they've been here, I don't care about breaking up their damned families, I don't care about anything.
I would also like to point out that the very qualities that make low-wage immigrants, in particular illegal immigrants, such problem immigrants in Western nations will not magically vanish as soon as you grant them amnesty.
My impression is that the children of the illegals who were amnestied in in 1986 are just as bad, if not worse, than the children of the illegals themselves. Legalizing them via amnesty does not magically transform low-quality illegal immigrants in fine, upstanding citizens. I doubt it if does much good at all except to legalize more problem residents of our nation.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican
If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.
I've made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I've never met one, and I've never seen one anywhere on the Net.
The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.
In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.
James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.
Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can't get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It's true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it's being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that's apparently legal.
The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.
The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.
Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes - they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.
Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It's a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.
*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to "heighten the contradictions" in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will "wake up the sleeping Whites" to the White racist cause.
The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.
I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to "shake things out". I was appalled. I really don't think it's ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.
I've made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I've never met one, and I've never seen one anywhere on the Net.
The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.
In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.
James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.
Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can't get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It's true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it's being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that's apparently legal.
The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.
The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.
Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes - they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.
Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It's a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.
*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to "heighten the contradictions" in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will "wake up the sleeping Whites" to the White racist cause.
The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.
I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to "shake things out". I was appalled. I really don't think it's ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Revealed Unemployment Versus Revealed Death
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Our very smart Leftist Brit commenter Lafayette Sennacherib notes in the comments section:
Above, LS compares the revealed (hidden) unemployment in Communism to the revealed (hidden) death in capitalism. He also notes that conditions in the capitalist world are getting observably crappier and crappier for workers in recent years. The capitalists don't even deny it, but they say that things have to get worse due to globalization.
At the same time, capitalism is the best system on Earth and is making us better all the time. Except that we're getting worse. Or something. Or whatever.
LS notes the idiocy of a Leftist like George Galloway singing the praises of US super-capitalism, while attributing it's success to the very immigrant flood that has devastated US workers. This Leftist offers more of the same tidal wave for British workers.
"The US success model".
But the US is a rich country (not nearly the richest on Earth - check Luxembourg - kicking our ass for years now) on paper only. The bottom 80% has been getting screwed off and on for the last 30 years, just like everywhere on Earth radical neoliberalism has been implemented.
The immigrant hurricane surge will devastate British workers the same way it did America's.
Failure is success. Getting worse is getting better. The cognitive dissonance is Earth-shattering.
LS also notes that terrible corruption is always going to be a problem in any capitalist society due to wealth accumulation. In the 3rd World, it's nearly set in stone. Note the horrible corruption and mass theft that accompanied the moves from socialism to capitalism in Russia and China.
If capitalism is the greatest engine on Earth for making money - and maybe it is - it's also the greatest engine on Earth for theft from petty to grand. Wherever you find capitalism, you will find an orgy of thievery. It's nearly built into the system.
LS' last paragraph has some good points. Huy is a British social democrat who is much enamored of whatever snake oil New Labour is pushing these days. He thinks that the market can definitely fix global warming.
Clearly, the market alone is incapable of resolving the global warming problem. By standard market economics, it's economically rational to devastate the planet with global warming (with unknown consequences) and it's economically irrational to try to stop global warming with mass government intervention.
There's tons of money in global warming and tons of red ink in stopping it. Knowing that, the market is going to take the biggest write-off in history and fix this problem? Get real!
Yet the last 30 years of the rap song blasting, "Market! Market!" in our ears nonstop has mutated Americans. There can be no solutions to anything outside of the market.
The government, or state, is dead, except for blowing shit up, conquering tinpot dictators, putting cuffs on every other American and throwing millions in the hole. The state's for killing people and busting your ass. Soldiers and cops, and there's little else. No wonder Americans hate the government so much.
Even Mother Jones, a "liberal" US magazine, stated in a recent issue on global warming that any solution would have to be a market solution. Why? Because that's just the way it is nowadays. The state is dead, the market rules. The libertarians won the Culture of Economics War.
Yet the market is incapable of fixing global warming because there's no money it and it involves massive losses. So the magic hand is essentially on track to blow up the fucking planet, using weather and Mother Nature as the thermonuclear device.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Our very smart Leftist Brit commenter Lafayette Sennacherib notes in the comments section:
Among the buzzwords on the collapse of the Soviet bloc was 'revealed unemployment', meaning that communist industries were employing people to do nothing useful apart from living and breeding. The capitalists are bit by bit feeling their way to getting us to accept the idea of 'revealed death' i.e. the idea that it's ok for lots of people to starve to death because there wasn't really a place in the economy for them.This was an excellent comment by LS, a very smart guy. Let me translate a bit:
We already accept that the 3rd world are used to starving to death, and so it's no big deal for them; and I've even seen the starvation in Korea in the 90s (though there's some doubt about whether that actually happened - see Bruce Cummings) described as a 'leveling of the population to what is its natural optimum level (loosely)'; the next thing is to get Europeans and N. Americans to accept that 'we can't carry passengers, if we show too much compassion for the weak then they'll drag us down with them...etc'.
America has always been pretty close to that anyway, but Europe's heading that way with ample help from the capitalist propaganda machine - we can't afford welfare anymore etc. You know - capitalism works because we're all much better off than they used to be, but we'll all have to work harder and longer with fewer benefits because of globalisation... So are we better off or worse off?
Even supposed leftists like George Galloway come out with this stuff - " immigration is a good thing; that's why the US is the richest country in the world..." He really says that, while also arguing that the capitalists are screwing us harder and harder.
But I think there's room for hope; I get the feeling that even the most indoctrinated and unreflective among our poor are now finding the contradictions in the media bullshit just too blatant, and the hard realities just too hard to ignore.
It really is 'socialism or barbarism'; just because it hasn't worked perfectly so far is no reason to give up.
There just isn't enough discussion of this, anywhere; there is obviously the problem that under capitalism private accumulation of wealth makes excluding corruption impossible...Discussions of how an effective democracy could work should take up about 50% of the discourse on 'the left', but they take up effectively zero, though there are isolated academics and think-tanks, I occasionally hear of, who do some interesting work.
" I think the free market if galvanized by the government and the media, can solve problems like global warming far better than a soviet style socialist economy." huy
Come on, huy! What's the solution likely to be - the 'revealed deaths' of 4 to 5 billion people. The 'free market' will starve them, and the media will put a positive spin on it.
Anyway, there is no 'free market'; capitalism operates like a vacuum cleaner, sucking all wealth and power to the top - it is a mechanism, which is effectively self-perpetuating - mammon, money reified and deified, which can only create despots, slaves, death and destruction of the environment.
Above, LS compares the revealed (hidden) unemployment in Communism to the revealed (hidden) death in capitalism. He also notes that conditions in the capitalist world are getting observably crappier and crappier for workers in recent years. The capitalists don't even deny it, but they say that things have to get worse due to globalization.
At the same time, capitalism is the best system on Earth and is making us better all the time. Except that we're getting worse. Or something. Or whatever.
LS notes the idiocy of a Leftist like George Galloway singing the praises of US super-capitalism, while attributing it's success to the very immigrant flood that has devastated US workers. This Leftist offers more of the same tidal wave for British workers.
"The US success model".
But the US is a rich country (not nearly the richest on Earth - check Luxembourg - kicking our ass for years now) on paper only. The bottom 80% has been getting screwed off and on for the last 30 years, just like everywhere on Earth radical neoliberalism has been implemented.
The immigrant hurricane surge will devastate British workers the same way it did America's.
Failure is success. Getting worse is getting better. The cognitive dissonance is Earth-shattering.
LS also notes that terrible corruption is always going to be a problem in any capitalist society due to wealth accumulation. In the 3rd World, it's nearly set in stone. Note the horrible corruption and mass theft that accompanied the moves from socialism to capitalism in Russia and China.
If capitalism is the greatest engine on Earth for making money - and maybe it is - it's also the greatest engine on Earth for theft from petty to grand. Wherever you find capitalism, you will find an orgy of thievery. It's nearly built into the system.
LS' last paragraph has some good points. Huy is a British social democrat who is much enamored of whatever snake oil New Labour is pushing these days. He thinks that the market can definitely fix global warming.
Clearly, the market alone is incapable of resolving the global warming problem. By standard market economics, it's economically rational to devastate the planet with global warming (with unknown consequences) and it's economically irrational to try to stop global warming with mass government intervention.
There's tons of money in global warming and tons of red ink in stopping it. Knowing that, the market is going to take the biggest write-off in history and fix this problem? Get real!
Yet the last 30 years of the rap song blasting, "Market! Market!" in our ears nonstop has mutated Americans. There can be no solutions to anything outside of the market.
The government, or state, is dead, except for blowing shit up, conquering tinpot dictators, putting cuffs on every other American and throwing millions in the hole. The state's for killing people and busting your ass. Soldiers and cops, and there's little else. No wonder Americans hate the government so much.
Even Mother Jones, a "liberal" US magazine, stated in a recent issue on global warming that any solution would have to be a market solution. Why? Because that's just the way it is nowadays. The state is dead, the market rules. The libertarians won the Culture of Economics War.
Yet the market is incapable of fixing global warming because there's no money it and it involves massive losses. So the magic hand is essentially on track to blow up the fucking planet, using weather and Mother Nature as the thermonuclear device.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Down With Race, Up With Ethnicity
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments threads, James Schipper, one our fine commenters who usually has something brilliant to say, discusses the post, On the Non-persistence of Any Jewish Agenda:
White culture was married with California or American culture to the point where one scarcely knew where one ended and the other began. No one even thought of themselves as White, and we had many friends who were non-Whites. I even dated non-Whites, in particular American Indians and Hispanics.
The American Indians, NE Asians, Filipinos, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans were for all intents and purposes "White" because they didn't really behave any differently from anyone else, mostly because they were not recent immigrants and were very well assimilated. Maybe they ate some ethnic food; maybe their parents spoke some of the old tongue. We were all just "Californians" and then "Americans".
I think what made Whites junk this and start seeing themselves as White was the mass immigration that flooded our state. In my city, it becomes obvious to me very quickly that I am a minority. Due to my UK, French and German heritage? No, because I am a "non-Hispanic White".
With a little bit of multiculturalism, national identity is still possible and can transcend ethnic identity. With overnight mass immigration, it becomes harder and harder.
Mass immigration also forced many of us Whites to reminisce about the California we grew up in and how and why it is not like that anymore. It also reminds us that what we grew up with, now gone forever, was something of real value. What did we grow up with? Not so much a White California, but a California with a White culture that most others just de facto embraced.
The reason it's gone, and replaced with something inferior, is due to mass immigration transforming this state into Tijuana North. We never thought about Hispanics much before, but now the issue is so shoved in our faces 24-7 that we can scarcely ignore it.
When a poor White neighborhood continues to be a better place to live than a poor Hispanic neighborhood, which in turn is a much better place to live than a poor Black neighborhood, it's hard not to think of "White" as a race. Whatever it is, even if not a race, it's something tangible and real, with hard reality consequences all the way down the line.
James is correct that many ethnic Whites have only recently been taken into the White fold and have started to think of themselves as White, instead of Irish, Portuguese, Italian, Armenian or whatnot. That's an interesting subject right there. How The Irish Became White is supposed to be a good book on that.
Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard professor, is a difficult and disturbing thinker, but this looks like a good book.
Anyway, Ignatiev's position is similar to Schipper's above. He doesn't want to get rid of Whites physically. Like Schipper, he just wants to get rid of the whole notion and category of White people, which he says has no meaning. Ignatiev has aroused fury in White nationalist circles due to his publishing a journal called Race Traitor. Ignatiev is Jewish. The reviews at the link are very interesting.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
In the comments threads, James Schipper, one our fine commenters who usually has something brilliant to say, discusses the post, On the Non-persistence of Any Jewish Agenda:
One of the most politically correct countries in the world is Sweden. How many Jews are there in Sweden? The Netherlands also used to be very PC, but its Jewish minority is not even 0.5% of population. As you said, it is to easy to blame PC on Jews. It makes Gentiles look like innocent children that can be manipulated at will by the Chosen Ones.He makes some very interesting comments. Growing up in California in the 1960's and 1970's, no one of us ever thought of ourselves as White. We more or less assimilated to a California culture, which, as I think back on it now, was largely a White culture. But I never realized it at the time.
I don't think that we should confuse ethnocentricity with racism. An ethnic group is not a race. An ethnic group can be composed of several races and a race can be divided into many ethnic groups. The Brazilians are an ethnic group, but they aren't one race.
Europeans in 1950 were for practical purposes all white, but they were divided in numerous ethnic groups. Nobody in the British Isles, for instance, said: "We are all one ethnic group because we are all white. The French across the Channel are white too, so they are also part of our ethnic group."
It is only in the Americas and the colonies that Whites started to think racially and to confuse race and ethnicity. Remember, if two groups are racially different, they are usually also ethnically different.If that is the case, the ethnic rivalry will also acquire a racial coloration. If the French were black, the ethnic rivalry between the English and French would also have acquired a racial dimension, even though it is ethnic at bottom.
It is inevitable that human beings will be ethnocentric to some extent, but it is not inevitable that this ethnocentricity will be expressed racially. If multiracial countries want to acquire cohesion, they should practice racially inclusive ethnocentricity.
This is also why race-based rights such as affirmative action should be abolished. They undermine ethnic unity and promote racial solidarity instead of multiracial ethnic solidarity. Down with race and up with ethnicity.
White culture was married with California or American culture to the point where one scarcely knew where one ended and the other began. No one even thought of themselves as White, and we had many friends who were non-Whites. I even dated non-Whites, in particular American Indians and Hispanics.
The American Indians, NE Asians, Filipinos, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans were for all intents and purposes "White" because they didn't really behave any differently from anyone else, mostly because they were not recent immigrants and were very well assimilated. Maybe they ate some ethnic food; maybe their parents spoke some of the old tongue. We were all just "Californians" and then "Americans".
I think what made Whites junk this and start seeing themselves as White was the mass immigration that flooded our state. In my city, it becomes obvious to me very quickly that I am a minority. Due to my UK, French and German heritage? No, because I am a "non-Hispanic White".
With a little bit of multiculturalism, national identity is still possible and can transcend ethnic identity. With overnight mass immigration, it becomes harder and harder.
Mass immigration also forced many of us Whites to reminisce about the California we grew up in and how and why it is not like that anymore. It also reminds us that what we grew up with, now gone forever, was something of real value. What did we grow up with? Not so much a White California, but a California with a White culture that most others just de facto embraced.
The reason it's gone, and replaced with something inferior, is due to mass immigration transforming this state into Tijuana North. We never thought about Hispanics much before, but now the issue is so shoved in our faces 24-7 that we can scarcely ignore it.
When a poor White neighborhood continues to be a better place to live than a poor Hispanic neighborhood, which in turn is a much better place to live than a poor Black neighborhood, it's hard not to think of "White" as a race. Whatever it is, even if not a race, it's something tangible and real, with hard reality consequences all the way down the line.
James is correct that many ethnic Whites have only recently been taken into the White fold and have started to think of themselves as White, instead of Irish, Portuguese, Italian, Armenian or whatnot. That's an interesting subject right there. How The Irish Became White is supposed to be a good book on that.
Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard professor, is a difficult and disturbing thinker, but this looks like a good book.
Anyway, Ignatiev's position is similar to Schipper's above. He doesn't want to get rid of Whites physically. Like Schipper, he just wants to get rid of the whole notion and category of White people, which he says has no meaning. Ignatiev has aroused fury in White nationalist circles due to his publishing a journal called Race Traitor. Ignatiev is Jewish. The reviews at the link are very interesting.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Insanity of Unilateral Anti-Racism
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib, a very smart British White guy with no interest in White nationalism, notes, regarding WN, that the WN's do have a point:
I discussed this very issue with Kevin McDonald himself a while back, and he agreed with me when I said that Whites either need to go ethnocentric just like the Jews or they are going to get screwed by the ethnocentric group.
That's a problem with the Jews. Their ethnocentrism advantages them.
The only sane way to fight it, or fight any competing ethnocentric ethnic, is to go ethnocentric right back on them. I'm not saying kill em, but do to the Jews whatever they do to us (they don't kill us). Otherwise, in capitalism, an ethnocentric group will tend to win out over a less ethnocentric group.
This is what commenter James Schipper means when he says that unilateral anti-racism makes no sense. It's makes about as much sense as unilateral disarmament. As long as the opposing ethnics are racist, your group has to at least keep its guard up. You can't go around singing Kumbaya and hugging competing ethnics while they are using racism and ethnocentricity against you. You'll get screwed.
What's really happened here in the US is that US Whites have gone overboard for anti-racism, while frankly, I don't think the other ethnics have. I think other ethnics mostly just use anti-racism as a club to beat Whites with whenever they get pissed at us.
We are already hearing stories about Black city governments that preferentially hire Blacks and discriminate against White applicants. The insanity of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) scab labor scam means that whole IT shops get flooded with crappy Indian cheap labor coders. Eventually, management is replaced by Indian management.
Indian Hindus being very ethnocentric folks, they quickly fire all of the remaining Americans (mostly Whites) and replace them with Hindu 1-B job-thieving invaders.
Jews have long practiced preferential hiring in many industries, particularly Hollywood, and it's actually one of the secrets of their success. Jewish directors have even bragged in interviews that they preferentially hire Jews and dared anyone to do anything about it.
In fact, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, I believe that the Jews who were very influential in this fight tried to write the laws specifically so that Jews would not get busted for discriminatory hiring.
In California, we have Hispanic employers who will openly tell you to your face that they only hire their own kind.
What's interesting about all of this is that I am not aware of any Black, Hispanic, Hindu Indian or Jewish employer who has ever run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, nor have they ever been sued. Who bears the brunt of these laws? Whites and only Whites. As long as anti-discrimination laws are just used as clubs to beat Whites with, I can almost understand, but not condone, White racists' opposition to them.
There is another kind of discrimination that is more subtle going on now, in that the utter insanity of mass legal and illegal Mesoamerican immigration, especially in the West, has resulted in entire fields, such as construction, that are now de facto Hispanic occupations.
Hispanics, almost all both legal and illegal immigrants, have been working in them for so long that when they have an opening, they just ask the other Hispanic workers, and they go get one of their Hispanic buddies. They often won't hire Whites because they're going to be like the only White guy on the crew. So a de facto "Hispanic old boys network" has been created.
Further, formerly good-paying, often unionized, often heavily-White jobs, fields and occupations have now gone permanently low-wage and immigrant.
At the slaughterhouse in Iowa that finally got raided by ICE and where 300 illegals were then hauled away, the slaughterhouse contemplated shutting down. But they quickly hauled in 300 immigrant refugee Somalis who were perfectly happy to work a very unpleasant non-union job for a crap wage and horrific treatment.
In this way, the insanity of mass immigration, legal and illegal, has destroyed high-paying, unionized, heavily-White working class jobs if not forever, then at least into the foreseeable future. What's terrifying about this is that even deporting the 12-40 million illegals in the US might not necessarily solve it.
We have a venal, traitorous, America-hating capitalist class here in the US that has become addicted to cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor that they can underpay, slide on taxes, insurance and regulation with, and treat like total shit.
Like a drug addict pulled off his drugs, they don't know how to deal with the withdrawal of the crack cocaine of cheap illegal immigrant labor. They go through withdrawals and thrash around looking for some similar substitute. Going through cold turkey altogether, going clean and hiring back mostly-White legal American workers at union jobs is not even contemplated. They're hooked on crack. Illegal alien crack.
*When I say mostly-White workforce, I am speaking from my own biases. My working class friends who got screwed by illegals are overwhelmingly White. That's not because I'm racist; it just represents the crowd I run with. I'd like to point out that the record shows that Blacks, especially Black men, make very good factory workers.
After World War 2, many Blacks moved from the South to the North to work in factories. As far as I can tell, the record shows that these Black men did a good job at their often-unionized factory jobs. Although young Black men have gotten a sense of entitlement lately, I still think that union jobs paying $20 an hour and up would appeal to many Black men nowadays, young and older.
I have noticed that Blacks tend to side with the illegals, possibly due to bonding with a another group they sense as oppressed by Whites. If you have read my post above, I suggest they do this at their peril and to the harm of their self-interests. Blacks need to start thinking about what's good for Black folks, not making common cause with fellow non-Whites.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib, a very smart British White guy with no interest in White nationalism, notes, regarding WN, that the WN's do have a point:
A White Nationalist argument that has some merit is that tribal loyalties are unfortunate but inevitable, and in the face of the organised tribal interest of at least one demographic, whites should not have their hands tied behind their backs. Could you deny that there is some merit in that?I respond: As much as I dislike the WN's for their overt racism and dislike for nearly all non-Whites, they are the only folks here in the US that have the balls to discuss certain truths that no one else with touch with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension.
I discussed this very issue with Kevin McDonald himself a while back, and he agreed with me when I said that Whites either need to go ethnocentric just like the Jews or they are going to get screwed by the ethnocentric group.
That's a problem with the Jews. Their ethnocentrism advantages them.
The only sane way to fight it, or fight any competing ethnocentric ethnic, is to go ethnocentric right back on them. I'm not saying kill em, but do to the Jews whatever they do to us (they don't kill us). Otherwise, in capitalism, an ethnocentric group will tend to win out over a less ethnocentric group.
This is what commenter James Schipper means when he says that unilateral anti-racism makes no sense. It's makes about as much sense as unilateral disarmament. As long as the opposing ethnics are racist, your group has to at least keep its guard up. You can't go around singing Kumbaya and hugging competing ethnics while they are using racism and ethnocentricity against you. You'll get screwed.
What's really happened here in the US is that US Whites have gone overboard for anti-racism, while frankly, I don't think the other ethnics have. I think other ethnics mostly just use anti-racism as a club to beat Whites with whenever they get pissed at us.
We are already hearing stories about Black city governments that preferentially hire Blacks and discriminate against White applicants. The insanity of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) scab labor scam means that whole IT shops get flooded with crappy Indian cheap labor coders. Eventually, management is replaced by Indian management.
Indian Hindus being very ethnocentric folks, they quickly fire all of the remaining Americans (mostly Whites) and replace them with Hindu 1-B job-thieving invaders.
Jews have long practiced preferential hiring in many industries, particularly Hollywood, and it's actually one of the secrets of their success. Jewish directors have even bragged in interviews that they preferentially hire Jews and dared anyone to do anything about it.
In fact, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, I believe that the Jews who were very influential in this fight tried to write the laws specifically so that Jews would not get busted for discriminatory hiring.
In California, we have Hispanic employers who will openly tell you to your face that they only hire their own kind.
What's interesting about all of this is that I am not aware of any Black, Hispanic, Hindu Indian or Jewish employer who has ever run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, nor have they ever been sued. Who bears the brunt of these laws? Whites and only Whites. As long as anti-discrimination laws are just used as clubs to beat Whites with, I can almost understand, but not condone, White racists' opposition to them.
There is another kind of discrimination that is more subtle going on now, in that the utter insanity of mass legal and illegal Mesoamerican immigration, especially in the West, has resulted in entire fields, such as construction, that are now de facto Hispanic occupations.
Hispanics, almost all both legal and illegal immigrants, have been working in them for so long that when they have an opening, they just ask the other Hispanic workers, and they go get one of their Hispanic buddies. They often won't hire Whites because they're going to be like the only White guy on the crew. So a de facto "Hispanic old boys network" has been created.
Further, formerly good-paying, often unionized, often heavily-White jobs, fields and occupations have now gone permanently low-wage and immigrant.
At the slaughterhouse in Iowa that finally got raided by ICE and where 300 illegals were then hauled away, the slaughterhouse contemplated shutting down. But they quickly hauled in 300 immigrant refugee Somalis who were perfectly happy to work a very unpleasant non-union job for a crap wage and horrific treatment.
In this way, the insanity of mass immigration, legal and illegal, has destroyed high-paying, unionized, heavily-White working class jobs if not forever, then at least into the foreseeable future. What's terrifying about this is that even deporting the 12-40 million illegals in the US might not necessarily solve it.
We have a venal, traitorous, America-hating capitalist class here in the US that has become addicted to cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor that they can underpay, slide on taxes, insurance and regulation with, and treat like total shit.
Like a drug addict pulled off his drugs, they don't know how to deal with the withdrawal of the crack cocaine of cheap illegal immigrant labor. They go through withdrawals and thrash around looking for some similar substitute. Going through cold turkey altogether, going clean and hiring back mostly-White legal American workers at union jobs is not even contemplated. They're hooked on crack. Illegal alien crack.
*When I say mostly-White workforce, I am speaking from my own biases. My working class friends who got screwed by illegals are overwhelmingly White. That's not because I'm racist; it just represents the crowd I run with. I'd like to point out that the record shows that Blacks, especially Black men, make very good factory workers.
After World War 2, many Blacks moved from the South to the North to work in factories. As far as I can tell, the record shows that these Black men did a good job at their often-unionized factory jobs. Although young Black men have gotten a sense of entitlement lately, I still think that union jobs paying $20 an hour and up would appeal to many Black men nowadays, young and older.
I have noticed that Blacks tend to side with the illegals, possibly due to bonding with a another group they sense as oppressed by Whites. If you have read my post above, I suggest they do this at their peril and to the harm of their self-interests. Blacks need to start thinking about what's good for Black folks, not making common cause with fellow non-Whites.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Illegal Aliens Don't Vote
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
I don't particularly like illegal aliens in the aggregate, though I'm known to socialize with them and even buy them a taco if they are hungry, or a beer in the bar if they are thirsty.
Check out this stupid-ass article via the never-heard-of-before Cutting Edge News, which, it turns out, is a far Right and pro-Zionist neoconservative rag. That they get 1.4 million readers a month is frightening. On the other hand, we do get 50,000 readers a month right here on Robert Lindsay.
I review the very strange and creepy Cutting Edge News here.
This article is really retarded. I have no doubt whatsoever that illegals register to vote, probably by giving the application to someone who can speak English to fill it out. They do this to get into the system in order to get their fake ID's so they can work. But I doubt if many of them vote.
I live in a community that is completely overrun by illegals and their anchor baby horror-children. The illegals certainly do not vote, and the anchor babies usually don't either as they are too busy smoking dope and gangbanging.
These illegals are not involved in their communities in any whatsoever. I would laugh if I heard of any significant number of them voting in an election. They've probably heard that voter fraud is a felony and I'm sure they'd like to avoid that. They are pretty paranoid people, believe it or not, and most of them want to avoid anything that's going to get them in trouble legally or get them deported.
We are talking about a community that takes no interest whatsoever in politics, that can't read, write or in general even speak English, and who lives on the margins. The idea that they would vote, or could even read a ballot, is comical.
Legal Hispanic aliens are another story. Most of them don't speak English really well either, don't read much English, probably can hardly write English at all, and are estranged from US society. I guess a few of them might vote, but I doubt it. They do speak English better than the illegals, but they have a lot of problems with the language and are most comfortable with Spanish.
These illegals avoid anything having to do with government in any way. After a traffic accident or if they get victimized by crime, they refuse to go to the cops. You will never see one near the government building. They are voting? GMAB.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated August 23:
I don't particularly like illegal aliens in the aggregate, though I'm known to socialize with them and even buy them a taco if they are hungry, or a beer in the bar if they are thirsty.
Check out this stupid-ass article via the never-heard-of-before Cutting Edge News, which, it turns out, is a far Right and pro-Zionist neoconservative rag. That they get 1.4 million readers a month is frightening. On the other hand, we do get 50,000 readers a month right here on Robert Lindsay.
I review the very strange and creepy Cutting Edge News here.
This article is really retarded. I have no doubt whatsoever that illegals register to vote, probably by giving the application to someone who can speak English to fill it out. They do this to get into the system in order to get their fake ID's so they can work. But I doubt if many of them vote.
I live in a community that is completely overrun by illegals and their anchor baby horror-children. The illegals certainly do not vote, and the anchor babies usually don't either as they are too busy smoking dope and gangbanging.
These illegals are not involved in their communities in any whatsoever. I would laugh if I heard of any significant number of them voting in an election. They've probably heard that voter fraud is a felony and I'm sure they'd like to avoid that. They are pretty paranoid people, believe it or not, and most of them want to avoid anything that's going to get them in trouble legally or get them deported.
We are talking about a community that takes no interest whatsoever in politics, that can't read, write or in general even speak English, and who lives on the margins. The idea that they would vote, or could even read a ballot, is comical.
Legal Hispanic aliens are another story. Most of them don't speak English really well either, don't read much English, probably can hardly write English at all, and are estranged from US society. I guess a few of them might vote, but I doubt it. They do speak English better than the illegals, but they have a lot of problems with the language and are most comfortable with Spanish.
These illegals avoid anything having to do with government in any way. After a traffic accident or if they get victimized by crime, they refuse to go to the cops. You will never see one near the government building. They are voting? GMAB.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Project Middle Class Death
Updated August 23. Note: This post has been accused of racism. See here for my position on racism.
There have been quite a few articles lately about meatpacking plants in the US. Through the 1960's and 1970's, these were union jobs all filled by hard-working Americans. That's all gone now, and all of the work is now being done by illegal aliens or more recently refugees from foreign lands. Most of these articles have screamed about how no Americans are willing to do this kind of work.
It's quite interesting how plenty of Americans were willing to do this admittedly unpleasant work in 60's and 70's, albeit at union wages that you could buy a house and raise a family on. The unions were broken via a corporate conspiracy. This plot has been unveiled an Atlantic Monthly article, but I have not been able to find it.
First of all, the meatpacking companies moved their plants away from the large cities to smaller towns. It happened in LA - they moved to Las Vegas. There was no business reason at all to move to Vegas - it was done for the sole purpose of breaking the union. They hoped to break the unions by having the old employees stuck in Los Angeles and not being willing to move due to family ties.
The idea was to get the local rural people around Vegas to work for nothing, along with the few loyal workers who might move to Vegas to follow the company, who would work for less than previously, but not for as little as the new hires.
When they couldn’t find workers to be dupes for them (surprise!) they somehow managed to bus in Mexicans. From Mexico? Apparently. This was in the early 80’s, when Ronald Reagan, still champion of so many working class White Americans called Reagan Democrats, was President.
The US construction companies pretty much broke the unions, one by one, in the 1970's and especially in the 1980's. Somehow, an incredible cultural narrative has been constructed that tells us that only Hispanics, especially illegal aliens, are capable of or expected to do construction work.
When my friends worked construction in 1975-76, you could buy a house and raise a family on those wages, which would be the equivalent of $40-45/hour now for union jobs laying drywall. If you go around now looking at construction jobs, look hard, very hard, for the sight of a White man working construction. He barely exists.
It's all Hispanics doing the work. Mostly illegals, but the market is so flooded with low-skilled labor that you even have a lot of legal Hispanic immigrants and even Hispanic Americans doing this work. The business owners scream and fuss and carry on that they can't get White workers to do this work anymore. That's because it doesn't pay crap.
I do not really want to diss on any ethnic group. I'm sure back in the union days there were Hispanic-Americans who could cut the high standards of union work, where you cut it or you're gone. Nowadays, for whatever reason, the private housing built by cheap-labor Hispanics - legal, illegal, whatever, is well-known to be garbage.
Everyone knows this, the White workers like my own brother who are constantly browbeaten by their bosses ("You better shut up and knock it off or I'm going to replace all of you with Mexicans!"), the hip Whites tuned in to the construction scene, probably even the businessmen-criminals themselves.
The problems often start cropping up within a year or so after the builder’s warranty ended. Sagging roofs, foundations so poorly laid they start cracking and splitting. Pipes so poorly fitted and installed they cause leaks; with the predictable high cost of ripping out wallboard to replace them.
That’s the price of that cheap Hispanic labor for you. One would think that after labor costs declined from $42/hour in 1976 to $4-10/hour in 2008 (2008 dollars), the businesses could "pass on a lot of those savings to the home buyer.
That's what the right-wing and business crowd always tells us is so glorious about crap wages - the consumer saves bigtime. In the case of homes, not one nickel got knocked off the price, ever. All those savings just translated into extra profits for the builder.
There is a rightwing, classist line that the crushing of the US worker occurred because US union workers had gotten fat and lazy and were demanding too much money! The poor suffering businessmen just could not make a profit anymore! They were in danger of losing their yachts, and their mansions were about to be foreclosed!
In the 1970's, a lot of US businesses started screaming hardship. That's because our standard of living in this country was as high as it has ever been (1973). Wages were rising right along with productivity, and no capitalist will stand for that for very long.
At this time, most unions said that if the companies opened their books to independent auditors of the unions' choosing, the unions would take the cuts the company was claiming were needed. The whole thing was just a massive lie because none of the companies ever opened their books. Chrysler did, but only because they were forced to.
The whole thing was a shell game - a plot to make it look like if they did not offshore, they were going to go out of business. As it turned out, they went ahead and offshored anyway.
All of the offshoring happened because at this time, business schools started teaching the profoundly unpatriotic notion that the purpose of a business is to generate vast paper profits for their skyrocketing bonus and stock option plans. Prior to the 80’s, most CEO's weren’t compensated so lavishly for short term stock actions, and they managed it like a family business.
It really was a cultural shift, and it once again coincided with Mr. Reagan, whom 53% of Americans say is a hero.
On American Renaissance, a worker tells the saga of one of these shlock MBA's:
You think any MSM media source will tell that? Dubious. Lou Dobbs, the sole populist voice in our nation's mass media? Perhaps. Good luck finding another one.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
There have been quite a few articles lately about meatpacking plants in the US. Through the 1960's and 1970's, these were union jobs all filled by hard-working Americans. That's all gone now, and all of the work is now being done by illegal aliens or more recently refugees from foreign lands. Most of these articles have screamed about how no Americans are willing to do this kind of work.
It's quite interesting how plenty of Americans were willing to do this admittedly unpleasant work in 60's and 70's, albeit at union wages that you could buy a house and raise a family on. The unions were broken via a corporate conspiracy. This plot has been unveiled an Atlantic Monthly article, but I have not been able to find it.
First of all, the meatpacking companies moved their plants away from the large cities to smaller towns. It happened in LA - they moved to Las Vegas. There was no business reason at all to move to Vegas - it was done for the sole purpose of breaking the union. They hoped to break the unions by having the old employees stuck in Los Angeles and not being willing to move due to family ties.
The idea was to get the local rural people around Vegas to work for nothing, along with the few loyal workers who might move to Vegas to follow the company, who would work for less than previously, but not for as little as the new hires.
When they couldn’t find workers to be dupes for them (surprise!) they somehow managed to bus in Mexicans. From Mexico? Apparently. This was in the early 80’s, when Ronald Reagan, still champion of so many working class White Americans called Reagan Democrats, was President.
The US construction companies pretty much broke the unions, one by one, in the 1970's and especially in the 1980's. Somehow, an incredible cultural narrative has been constructed that tells us that only Hispanics, especially illegal aliens, are capable of or expected to do construction work.
When my friends worked construction in 1975-76, you could buy a house and raise a family on those wages, which would be the equivalent of $40-45/hour now for union jobs laying drywall. If you go around now looking at construction jobs, look hard, very hard, for the sight of a White man working construction. He barely exists.
It's all Hispanics doing the work. Mostly illegals, but the market is so flooded with low-skilled labor that you even have a lot of legal Hispanic immigrants and even Hispanic Americans doing this work. The business owners scream and fuss and carry on that they can't get White workers to do this work anymore. That's because it doesn't pay crap.
I do not really want to diss on any ethnic group. I'm sure back in the union days there were Hispanic-Americans who could cut the high standards of union work, where you cut it or you're gone. Nowadays, for whatever reason, the private housing built by cheap-labor Hispanics - legal, illegal, whatever, is well-known to be garbage.
Everyone knows this, the White workers like my own brother who are constantly browbeaten by their bosses ("You better shut up and knock it off or I'm going to replace all of you with Mexicans!"), the hip Whites tuned in to the construction scene, probably even the businessmen-criminals themselves.
The problems often start cropping up within a year or so after the builder’s warranty ended. Sagging roofs, foundations so poorly laid they start cracking and splitting. Pipes so poorly fitted and installed they cause leaks; with the predictable high cost of ripping out wallboard to replace them.
That’s the price of that cheap Hispanic labor for you. One would think that after labor costs declined from $42/hour in 1976 to $4-10/hour in 2008 (2008 dollars), the businesses could "pass on a lot of those savings to the home buyer.
That's what the right-wing and business crowd always tells us is so glorious about crap wages - the consumer saves bigtime. In the case of homes, not one nickel got knocked off the price, ever. All those savings just translated into extra profits for the builder.
There is a rightwing, classist line that the crushing of the US worker occurred because US union workers had gotten fat and lazy and were demanding too much money! The poor suffering businessmen just could not make a profit anymore! They were in danger of losing their yachts, and their mansions were about to be foreclosed!
In the 1970's, a lot of US businesses started screaming hardship. That's because our standard of living in this country was as high as it has ever been (1973). Wages were rising right along with productivity, and no capitalist will stand for that for very long.
At this time, most unions said that if the companies opened their books to independent auditors of the unions' choosing, the unions would take the cuts the company was claiming were needed. The whole thing was just a massive lie because none of the companies ever opened their books. Chrysler did, but only because they were forced to.
The whole thing was a shell game - a plot to make it look like if they did not offshore, they were going to go out of business. As it turned out, they went ahead and offshored anyway.
All of the offshoring happened because at this time, business schools started teaching the profoundly unpatriotic notion that the purpose of a business is to generate vast paper profits for their skyrocketing bonus and stock option plans. Prior to the 80’s, most CEO's weren’t compensated so lavishly for short term stock actions, and they managed it like a family business.
It really was a cultural shift, and it once again coincided with Mr. Reagan, whom 53% of Americans say is a hero.
On American Renaissance, a worker tells the saga of one of these shlock MBA's:
The place I worked for just had a president of one of its divisions leave. The man was a complete failure. No product came in at schedule or expected cost. He instituted stupid money wasting policies that could be found in any of the CEO worshipping books around. He walked away with over $40 million for his 5 year stint as a lowly division president - $30 million from stock options.There you have it. All the mergers, all the demands for wage and pension cuts, all the hiring of illegals and refugees and cheap labor this or that, all the breaking of unions, all of this is just to get the stock price up so executives can fatten their wallets on the bonuses. It's doesn't have anything to do with international competition or any of that.
All the stock growth was just from being in the right place at the right time. Now that we can’t grow the top line, because our primary products have completely penetrated the market, we are talking about moving production overseas. There is nothing wrong with our workforce, nor are they greedy and lazy. We just can’t get the stock price up and too may bonuses are dependent on it.
You think any MSM media source will tell that? Dubious. Lou Dobbs, the sole populist voice in our nation's mass media? Perhaps. Good luck finding another one.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Muslims in France
Clearly, the North African, mostly-Caucasian Muslims in France (primarily Algerians) have been a disaster. They are the ones that are rioting all the time and tearing up the country. Contrary to popular rumor, the N African Muslim population in France is ~10%, not 20%,. The Black population is not known, but surely it is much smaller than the 10% North African population.
The North Africans are there primarily due to French colonialism and imperialism. Algeria was a former French colony, brutally ruled by France for 134 years, from 1830 to 1964.
The Algerians fought a horribly brutal war of independence, in which 25,000 French and 1 million Algerians were killed. Incredibly, the anti-Communist Right in the US still sings the praises of French colonialism in this war, and makes the revolutionaries out to be the bad guys.
It's true that the Algerian revolutionaries did not fight a very nice or pretty war. Yet they paid for it with 40 times the casualties of the French. To the dead person, I don't think it really matters how they got killed (an accusation against the revolutionaries is that they killed people in brutal ways such as beheadings).
It's true that you can go on the Internet, usually to Zionist sites, and see some horrible photos of those killed by the Algerian revolutionaries. A specialty was chopping the head off, chopping the genitals off, and stuffing the guy's dick in his severed head.
Anyway, colonialism is always wrong, period. The French were wrong, and they lost. After the war, Algerians started showing up in France in large numbers. White nationalists (who, by the way, never met a White imperialist or colonialist project they did not adore) claim that the Algerians are in France due to insane liberals bringing them there to diversify France and I guess to dilute the European Whites.
The French may be liberal, but they are not retarded like liberal Americans and liberal Scandinavians.
I would like to point out that none of this White nationalist bullshit is true.
First of all, the Algerian Muslim immigrants were not brought in as some loony liberal experiment in diversity, but instead as pro-French refugees fleeing soon before or after the FLN won the war. Think of the fall of Saigon.
The White nationalist line is that the French used to be hardcore and nasty and brutal (after all, the guillotine was still used until the 1970's) and the French Foreign Legion was brutal as Hell in the Algerian Civil War, but now the French have gone soft and wimpy, and they are letting Muslim punks run all over them.
That hardcore France the White nationalists love so much was rejected by none other than the French people themselves after the criminal colonial wars of Algeria and Vietnam. There was a big scandal about all the murdering and torturing the French Foreign Legion was doing in Algeria.
The US anti-Communist Hard Right, to this very day, sees this humanist sentiment, and its attendant rejection of colonialism, and even, to some extent, at least in popular culture, embrace of national liberation movements (see Régis Debray and Fritz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth) as a sign of weakness (see my prior post on the Straussian impulse driving the neocons).
Note that Fanon's seminal work appeared in 1961, the year of his death, in the midst of the Algerian revolution, and that Debray started pushing his foco theories right around this time (Revolution in the Revolution appeared in 1967).
The rebels were even worse than the Foreign Legion, but the French did not want to see themselves as brutal, colonialist maniacs.
This was also a period when France was supporting other imperialist and colonial powers in the Suez War in 1956, where British and French colonialism, with their colonial Jewish puppet state, attacked Egypt and tried to grab the Suez Canal back from Nasser, who had rightly and properly seized the canal as Egypt's property.
After that, the French turned their backs on colonialism (more or less - they still, to their discredit, hold colonies in the South Pacific), and to some extent on imperialism - but not totally - see the crucial French role in the armed coup that threw out President Aristide in Haiti - elected with the support of 92% of the population.
France as a colonial and imperial power was more or less finished by the late 1960's, Situationists and other crazies were rioting in Paris in the summer of 1968, and the torch of imperialism passed to the US after the British lost stomach for it after Suez.
Suez pretty much led to a "peasant revolt" in the UK against British imperialism due to the blatant and sickening imperialism of the Suez War. British imperialism, of course, continues today, even, outrageously, in the Labor Party, really the last place anyone would hope to find it. See British support for the imperialist invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq for more.
To the dismay of White nationalists, who assume any criminals rioting in the streets must be a bunch of niggers*, the problem kids are North African Caucasians, not Blacks. These Arabs don't act this way in North Africa. The whole mess is really because they are Muslims and refuse to assimilate. All other theories seem to fall flat on their faces.
White nationalists try to blame this mess on France being taken over by multiculturalist liberal idiots, but France has always been extremely assimilationist and anti-multiculturalist, so this isn't a failure of multiculturalism at all. In fact, France has been brutal and cruel towards the Bretons, the Basques and the Corsicans, all of whom have every right to take up arms against the French state.
The Algerians are just a problem immigrant group that flat out refuses to assimilate.
One problem here is that the French have always assumed that all immigrants would just lose it all and become Frenchmen. There was never much racism in France and everyone was French anyway, so there was no need for affirmative action.
There is good evidence that the Muslims experience widespread discrimination in employment. The French refuse to remedy this with the only working remedy for discrimination - affirmative action and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
White nationalists argue that the discrimination is to be expected based on the behavior of so many of the Algerians, but that misses the point. If amelioration of discrimination against Algerians makes them happier, would they not riot less?
The Muslim areas are not particularly dangerous, unless maybe if you're a cop. They give off instead the impression that Little Italys used to give off in this country, of a safe zone where the state does not rule and someone else does instead. In the Little Italys, it was the Mafia, and they did keep the crime rate down.
If one were not a resident, people knew that, and you were being watched, but everyone left you alone. The Islamists have, in a similar fashion, taken hold over Algerian zones. Therefore, the Islamist shadow state in the banlieus has a lot of responsibility for the insane rioting that goes on there just about every night.
There is not much to be done at this point except for France to quit importing Algerians. White nationalists like to scream that the French should deport all the Muslims. But I believe that most of these rioting idiots are citizens and hence un-deportable.
If I were running France, I am not sure what I would do.
The Muslims are yet only 10%, so it will be quite a while, if ever, before they have a majority.
*used sardonically.
The North Africans are there primarily due to French colonialism and imperialism. Algeria was a former French colony, brutally ruled by France for 134 years, from 1830 to 1964.
The Algerians fought a horribly brutal war of independence, in which 25,000 French and 1 million Algerians were killed. Incredibly, the anti-Communist Right in the US still sings the praises of French colonialism in this war, and makes the revolutionaries out to be the bad guys.
It's true that the Algerian revolutionaries did not fight a very nice or pretty war. Yet they paid for it with 40 times the casualties of the French. To the dead person, I don't think it really matters how they got killed (an accusation against the revolutionaries is that they killed people in brutal ways such as beheadings).
It's true that you can go on the Internet, usually to Zionist sites, and see some horrible photos of those killed by the Algerian revolutionaries. A specialty was chopping the head off, chopping the genitals off, and stuffing the guy's dick in his severed head.
Anyway, colonialism is always wrong, period. The French were wrong, and they lost. After the war, Algerians started showing up in France in large numbers. White nationalists (who, by the way, never met a White imperialist or colonialist project they did not adore) claim that the Algerians are in France due to insane liberals bringing them there to diversify France and I guess to dilute the European Whites.
The French may be liberal, but they are not retarded like liberal Americans and liberal Scandinavians.
I would like to point out that none of this White nationalist bullshit is true.
First of all, the Algerian Muslim immigrants were not brought in as some loony liberal experiment in diversity, but instead as pro-French refugees fleeing soon before or after the FLN won the war. Think of the fall of Saigon.
The White nationalist line is that the French used to be hardcore and nasty and brutal (after all, the guillotine was still used until the 1970's) and the French Foreign Legion was brutal as Hell in the Algerian Civil War, but now the French have gone soft and wimpy, and they are letting Muslim punks run all over them.
That hardcore France the White nationalists love so much was rejected by none other than the French people themselves after the criminal colonial wars of Algeria and Vietnam. There was a big scandal about all the murdering and torturing the French Foreign Legion was doing in Algeria.
The US anti-Communist Hard Right, to this very day, sees this humanist sentiment, and its attendant rejection of colonialism, and even, to some extent, at least in popular culture, embrace of national liberation movements (see Régis Debray and Fritz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth) as a sign of weakness (see my prior post on the Straussian impulse driving the neocons).
Note that Fanon's seminal work appeared in 1961, the year of his death, in the midst of the Algerian revolution, and that Debray started pushing his foco theories right around this time (Revolution in the Revolution appeared in 1967).
The rebels were even worse than the Foreign Legion, but the French did not want to see themselves as brutal, colonialist maniacs.
This was also a period when France was supporting other imperialist and colonial powers in the Suez War in 1956, where British and French colonialism, with their colonial Jewish puppet state, attacked Egypt and tried to grab the Suez Canal back from Nasser, who had rightly and properly seized the canal as Egypt's property.
After that, the French turned their backs on colonialism (more or less - they still, to their discredit, hold colonies in the South Pacific), and to some extent on imperialism - but not totally - see the crucial French role in the armed coup that threw out President Aristide in Haiti - elected with the support of 92% of the population.
France as a colonial and imperial power was more or less finished by the late 1960's, Situationists and other crazies were rioting in Paris in the summer of 1968, and the torch of imperialism passed to the US after the British lost stomach for it after Suez.
Suez pretty much led to a "peasant revolt" in the UK against British imperialism due to the blatant and sickening imperialism of the Suez War. British imperialism, of course, continues today, even, outrageously, in the Labor Party, really the last place anyone would hope to find it. See British support for the imperialist invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq for more.
To the dismay of White nationalists, who assume any criminals rioting in the streets must be a bunch of niggers*, the problem kids are North African Caucasians, not Blacks. These Arabs don't act this way in North Africa. The whole mess is really because they are Muslims and refuse to assimilate. All other theories seem to fall flat on their faces.
White nationalists try to blame this mess on France being taken over by multiculturalist liberal idiots, but France has always been extremely assimilationist and anti-multiculturalist, so this isn't a failure of multiculturalism at all. In fact, France has been brutal and cruel towards the Bretons, the Basques and the Corsicans, all of whom have every right to take up arms against the French state.
The Algerians are just a problem immigrant group that flat out refuses to assimilate.
One problem here is that the French have always assumed that all immigrants would just lose it all and become Frenchmen. There was never much racism in France and everyone was French anyway, so there was no need for affirmative action.
There is good evidence that the Muslims experience widespread discrimination in employment. The French refuse to remedy this with the only working remedy for discrimination - affirmative action and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
White nationalists argue that the discrimination is to be expected based on the behavior of so many of the Algerians, but that misses the point. If amelioration of discrimination against Algerians makes them happier, would they not riot less?
The Muslim areas are not particularly dangerous, unless maybe if you're a cop. They give off instead the impression that Little Italys used to give off in this country, of a safe zone where the state does not rule and someone else does instead. In the Little Italys, it was the Mafia, and they did keep the crime rate down.
If one were not a resident, people knew that, and you were being watched, but everyone left you alone. The Islamists have, in a similar fashion, taken hold over Algerian zones. Therefore, the Islamist shadow state in the banlieus has a lot of responsibility for the insane rioting that goes on there just about every night.
There is not much to be done at this point except for France to quit importing Algerians. White nationalists like to scream that the French should deport all the Muslims. But I believe that most of these rioting idiots are citizens and hence un-deportable.
If I were running France, I am not sure what I would do.
The Muslims are yet only 10%, so it will be quite a while, if ever, before they have a majority.
*used sardonically.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Why US Business Loves Mass Immigration
...And why every American who is not a businessmen should not.
This post will show how immigration is great for US business, but it's bad for everyone else in the country. That includes everyone who doesn't run a business, all of you, "What's good for my boss is good for" worker-fools.
James Schipper has been laying out some excellent reasons in the comments threads about why immigration does not appear to make much sense for economics or society as a whole. In fact, mass immigration seems to be detrimental to your average person. His arguments seemed logical, but I had hardly heard them before.
But then I wondered, if it's so obvious that mass immigration is bad for society and even for average income, why would business and the elites support it?
Turns out that business has no interest at all in the average income of workers. In the Third World, they are perfectly content to have millions starving or living in the streets every year, as in India. Or to have 90% of the population in poverty as Guatemala was for years and Haiti is now.
As long as the rich stay rich and business stays profitable, they don't really give a flying fuck about anyone else and whether they are in poverty or not.
In Haiti, the elite has a monopoly on food sales, which they mostly import and mark up at very high rates. Since the poor have to eat or starve, they have no choice but to pay the high prices. So even a 90% poor country can still generate high profits for business. Fewer poor people would mean rising wages or more of returns going to wages than to owners. Of course, business always opposes rising wages and increased shares to workers.
Let's let James show us just how supporting mass immigration is logical for businessmen:
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
This post will show how immigration is great for US business, but it's bad for everyone else in the country. That includes everyone who doesn't run a business, all of you, "What's good for my boss is good for" worker-fools.
James Schipper has been laying out some excellent reasons in the comments threads about why immigration does not appear to make much sense for economics or society as a whole. In fact, mass immigration seems to be detrimental to your average person. His arguments seemed logical, but I had hardly heard them before.
But then I wondered, if it's so obvious that mass immigration is bad for society and even for average income, why would business and the elites support it?
Turns out that business has no interest at all in the average income of workers. In the Third World, they are perfectly content to have millions starving or living in the streets every year, as in India. Or to have 90% of the population in poverty as Guatemala was for years and Haiti is now.
As long as the rich stay rich and business stays profitable, they don't really give a flying fuck about anyone else and whether they are in poverty or not.
In Haiti, the elite has a monopoly on food sales, which they mostly import and mark up at very high rates. Since the poor have to eat or starve, they have no choice but to pay the high prices. So even a 90% poor country can still generate high profits for business. Fewer poor people would mean rising wages or more of returns going to wages than to owners. Of course, business always opposes rising wages and increased shares to workers.
Let's let James show us just how supporting mass immigration is logical for businessmen:
The reason why the business community tends to support immigration is that more immigrants means more workers, more customers and more real estate users.
The essential question is not whether immigrants work for less than natives but whether the presence of immigrants makes labor cheaper than it otherwise would be.
I think that mass immigration has a depressing effect on wages, or else its prevents wages from rising as fast as they would rise without immigration. Lower wages do not necessarily translate into fatter profits because, by lowering production costs, immigration may lead to lower prices.
Slavery also lowered production costs, so the ultimate beneficiaries of slavery may have been the consumers of goods produced with slave labor.
More immigrants likely means that there will be economic growth, and that can mean increased sales. What matters to business is not per capita sales but total sales. Let's illustrate this. We have a town with 500 people and a restaurant. Let's assume that on average each town resident consumes 6 restaurant meals per month, so the restaurant sells 3000 meals per month.
Now 200 immigrants enter the town. They lower average income, so that each town resident now consumes 5 meals instead of 6. The restaurant still benefits from the population increase because it now can sell 3500 meals per month instead of 3000. if you are in the business of selling widgets, you are better-off selling 1200 widgets to 150 people than 1000 widgets to 100 people.
Suppose that no immigrants had entered the US in the last 50 years, would average real estate prices be as high today as they are? I doubt it. The more people you put in a given space, the more property is likely to be worth in that space. Immigrants have to live somewhere. Since business owns a lot of real estate, they benefit from population growth.
For business, the important thing is usually total economic growth, not per capita economic growth, let alone per capita consumption. For ordinary people, the important thing is per capita income growth and its distribution.
Let me illustrate demographic investment once more. We have a country with 400,000 high school students and there are 400 high schools. Schools last 100 years, so each year the country has to build 4 schools. Let's assume that a school costs 50 million dollars. That means 200 million in building costs per year.
In addition, the country spends 5,000 per year on each student. Adding the building costs to that amount, the cost of each high school student is 5,500 per year if the student population remains the same.
Now we make the assumption that the student population increases by 4000 each year. Since there are 1000 students per school, the country has to build 4 more schools to accommodate the new arrivals. Instead of building 4 schools, the country now has to build 8.
In the first year after the growth in the student population, the costs per student are (404,000 x 5,000) + 8 x 50 million = 2,420,000,000/404,000 = 5,990. In other words, the cost per student has increased from 5,500 to 5,990.
The increment of 490 can't be used for consumption. That is the effect of demographic investments. It reduces consumption. Education is an investment.
The establishment can also believe in a lot nonsense. Many members of the elite may believe in immigration because it makes them look cosmopolitan, tolerant and sophisticated, so unlike the unwashed who don't like immigrants because they are unenlightened and bigoted. It is a coalition of plutocrats and political correcties that keep the flow of immigrants going in Canada and the US.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
On Immigration
We have quite a few folks coming to this blog who are opposed to immigration. To be honest, almost everyone in the US who is opposed to immigration is White, and to some extent, it's associated with White nationalism.
There are also anti-immigrant sites out there like Vdare, but they are almost always on the crazy end of the spectrum. Vdare is not White nationalist, but they do want to end all immigration altogether. On the far moderate end of White nationalism, we have American Renaissance. I do like to hang out there because it's nice to hear real, honest talk on race for once.
In general, the White nationalists on Amren want to end non-White immigration altogether.
I'd like to point out that this is a crazy and extremist point of view. Furthermore, Whites are only 65% of the US in 2006 according to this chart, and possibly less. 2% of the US is Muslim, and the overwhelming majority are not Europeans. Another .5% of the population are Indian-Americans. 1% of the population are Arabs, mostly Christians. Let us reduce the Euro-White population to 61.5%.
I suppose with a White population declining like this, we would expect to see wild and crazy proposals like this. It's really just a sign of desperation.
Few non-Whites want to limit immigration this strictly, and even many Caucasians don't. Keep in mind that most White nationalists call only Europeans White. Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Indians - none of them count.
So almost everyone who is not a European White in the US has recent immigrant roots and does not want to end immigration. We should feel lucky if they want to limit it at all.
Arabs, Turks, Kurds, North Africans, Africans, Hispanics of all types (even White Hispanics), Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, SE Asians, Filipinos, Polynesians, East Indians, Central Americans, Caribbeans, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis - none of these folks are on board for an immigration moratorium.
That leaves us the 61.5% Euro-Whites? Now, we would need over 80% of European Whites to get on board for an immigration moratorium. Not going to happen. They would be very lucky to get even 50%.
Looking around the world, we would be very hard-pressed to find even one country that has banned all immigration. Someone find me one, please!
Japan and Korea are always being brought up, but there are plenty of immigrants in both places. What may be a lot more difficult there is getting citizenship.
But that's not unusual, nor is it the point here. Germany had race-based citizenship until recently, and may still have it. Syria and probably other Arab nations has race-based citizenship (The Kurds have not even been allowed to be citizens, because they are not Arabs!)
So White nationalists are really changing the subject here. We ask them to show us some countries who have been so crazy as to ban all immigration, and they point to Japan and Korea, who have merely made it difficult to be a citizen, while immigrants are fairly common (indeed, Jared Taylor, head of Amren, was an immigrant in Japan for years).
So the truth is that there are almost no nations that have banned immigration altogether. Why are White nationalists promoting this then? Because they are nuts.
At this point, this project isn't going anywhere, like every White nationalist project.
So I would say it's time for those of us on the anti-immigrant spectrum to cut our losses and do some damage control. As immigration isn't going to be ended, sensible folks ought to focus on limiting it. Negative Population Growth advocates an end to illegal immigration to the extent possible, a removal of all illegal immigrants, and a reduction in legal immigration to 200,000. This is reasonable, and I support that organization.
Here is a good example of the White nationalist mindset from my comments section:
The problem with this is that it is in large part false. The notion that immigration leads to inevitable strife, group competition, environmental degradation in an already crowded nation, etc. is going to be true with any group of immigrants.
However, White nationalists are pro-natalists who cheer stories about White women having 18 kids, so they really shouldn't talk about overpopulation leading to environmental degradation. Furthermore, your average White nationalist is a hard rightwinger, and at least their voting patterns suggest that they are quite hostile to environmentalism.
All of the other points are not true for non-White immigration in toto. There is no problem with "non-White" immigration per se, but there are problems, sometimes major problems, with select groups.
As a good rule, less restricted immigration from US colonies, of refugees and illegal immigration is problematic because of a lack of a rigorous selection process that winnows out many applicants. Legal immigration with a rigorous selection process has been associated with few problems, except in the odd case of Dominicans from the Dominican Republic.
Let us look at the "non-White" immigrant groups in the US:
South Americans: No problems here. They are very well-screened, and with the exception of some Colombians in New York City, pretty well behaved. It's not a large group. There are small Peruvian, Ecuadorian and Argentine enclaves in Los Angeles, and there are Venezuelan enclaves in Florida and Texas.
Japanese: Always one of the best immigrant groups. There are enclaves in San Francisco and Gardena, California. The enclaves are safe as far as the Japanese go, but Gardena now has many Blacks. When I taught school in Los Angeles, the non-PC teachers used to joke, "Gimme a class full of Japs and Jews and I'll never complain."
A teacher friend of mine was asked to fill out a form that idiotically said, "Ethnic preference". He was White, but he put, "Japanese". The principal called him in and asked, "What do you think you're doing? You're not Japanese." He answered, "It said ethnic preference. I prefer to teach Japanese students." I was amazed that Japanese students got a little squirrelly in 8th grade.
All humans are horrible at age 13, but I thought maybe the Japanese transcended that. They didn't, but they were the breeziest 8th graders I've ever taught. By 9th grade, they were back to normal, and by 7th grade, they were still ok. If all kids were like this, parenting could be done with your eyes closed.
Chinese: See Japanese. There are many new immigrants with poor English who are are adding to already existing Chinatown enclaves in many large cities, but this problem will sort itself out. There is poverty in Chinatowns, but there is little crime. For some reason, poverty in Chinatowns is not a serious societal problem.
There are also quite a few exploited Chinese illegal immigrants, but almost all are working in Chinatowns and speaking Chinese on the job. They are taking few, if any, jobs from Americans. Very low crime rate. Chinatowns are safe places in the daytime at least and generally pleasant at night.
Koreans: More or less the same as Chinese. They are probably better assimilated than Chinese. There is a vast enclave in Los Angeles (Koreatown) and a large enclave in Garden Grove, California. The enclaves are safe both night and day. Very low crime rate.
Vietnamese: Most came as refugees and got off to a rocky start. There are some gangs, but overall it appears that their crime rate is far below Whites. Their criminals generally prey on their own.
Young Vietnamese in Orange County, California are becoming a new high-achieving elite. This is the highest scoring group in the CA school system and US Irvine is full of Vietnamese students. They have formed some ethnic enclaves, but the young ones are assimilating, and even their enclaves are pleasant, non-dangerous places in both night and day. One large ethnic enclave is in Garden Grove, California.
There is an enclave in Richmond, California that has a high crime rate and is not doing well, but this seems to be anomalous.
Khmer: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves, especially in Long Beach and Santa Ana, California. There is still heavy welfare use, but a new generation is coming up. There are some youth gangs, but overall, the crime rate seems low. Khmer enclaves are pleasant and not dangerous at least in daytime.
Hmong: This group of refugees still has very heavy welfare use. There are also gangs, but the overall crime rate seems much lower than the White rate, at least here in Fresno. There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Minnesota.
The new generation is coming of age, going to school and doing well. Highly intelligent; they resemble Chinese. Their enclaves are not that pleasant and tend to be poor and rundown, but don't seem to be all that dangerous. Their criminals generally prey on their own.
Mien: There are enclaves in Northern California in Davis and Merced in the Central Valley. They are refugees that came in with the Hmong. In appearance and behavior, they are very Chinese like the Hmong.
A friend of mine worked in Social Services in Davis and said she would go to these poverty-stricken, blighted, rundown, hellhole apartment complexes and visit the Mien welfare families. The parents would be sitting on the floor eating out of a rice bowl and did not speak a word of English. They seemed like they were fresh out of the jungle of SE Asia. The walls would be covered with the kids' report cards - all A's. Think about it.
On balance, seems to be a good group. High welfare use is balanced by a crime rate probably way lower than Whites, and the kids seem to have a good future.
Lao: This group of refugees still has high welfare use, and there are youth gangs. The young people seem to be doing well, going to school, graduating, moving on. Despite the gangs, the crime rate seems to be much lower than the White rate, at least in Fresno. There are enclaves in Fresno and Santa Ana, California. Their enclaves are poor and run-down, but not that dangerous for non-SE Asians.
They are part of the high-crime, poorly-performing Asian enclave in Richmond, California that is so far pretty anomalous.
Khmu: Khmu from Laos are part of the poorly-performing, high-crime Asian enclave in Richmond, California, along with Vietnamese, Lao and Samoans. So far, this situation is pretty anomalous. This seems to be a case of very poor Asian refugees moving into a horrible Black ghetto and aping the worst Black behaviors.
I don't have any data on Khmu other than the Richmond report, and on that basis, I'm inclined to mark them as a problem ethnic group, but to tell the truth, I lack good data on them, and they really are a miniscule group anyway.
Thai: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves in Los Angeles. They seem to be doing well and are out of poverty. Little or no gangs or crime. Professionals, owners of shops and restaurants.
Burmese: A tiny group that seems to be doing quite well, at least those I met.
Tibetans: A very small group that is active politically. No known problems. Behaviorally resemble Chinese.
Filipinos: A much-vilified group, even by other Asians. There are youth gangs. They form large enclaves in California in Carson, Wilmington, north of downtown Los Angeles and in San Fransisco. There are also a number in the Central Valley.
I have no idea what the crime rate is, but their enclaves in the Harbor area are pleasant enough at daytime. I taught them in school for a long time and felt they were well-behaved and pleasant students. Some are quite intelligent. Filipinos may undergo high selection pressure by US immigration, because they are said to be one of the highest performing immigrant groups of all, and the highest performing of the Asian groups.
Indonesians, Aborigines, Melanesians, Papuans, Malays, Mongolians, Nepalese: For all intents and purposes, these groups don't even exist as immigrant communities in the US. I've never met an immigrant from most of these groups. I have met a few Indonesian and Malay students who were very well-behaved.
Micronesians (Marshall Islands): There are a few of them in the US, but not many. Some have serious diseases, because the islands are a disease haven. As immigrants, they are totally unscreened, as the islands are still pretty much US territory. Overall, little problem. Warm, friendly, pleasant, easy-going people. I do recommend completely cutting these islands off from US colonization.
Polynesians (Hawaiians, Tongans and Samoans): Samoa is still a colony of the US, so they get to come here totally unscreened. I taught them for years in LA, and I really don't mind them too much, but some can be violent.
Easy-going, warm, friendly, pleasant people who like to laugh and party. There are gangs, but Samoans are not a large community, so it's dubious how much of a problem they are. They are reportedly causing major problems in Salt Lake City.
There appear to be some problems with Tongan gangs, but it doesn't seem to be serious because there are just not that many of them.
This is one immigrant group that may on balance be a problem, albeit a small one. They are an issue purely because they are unscreened. Hawaiians are not immigrants in Hawaii, but they are a serious problem there, where they form a vast and teeming underclass. They are not violent so much as thieving. This is not an immigrant issue because Hawaiians are native to the US.
Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans: This group more or less does not exist in the US. Never met one.
East Indians: This is a fairly large immigrant group here in California. H-1B scab guest workers are a problem, but they are not immigrants, so they are best dealt with elsewhere. Here in this part of California, this group is mostly Punjabis.
Punjabis are a very high-functioning ethnic group in the US who cause almost no problems at all. Punjabis in the US have a surprisingly high intelligence, work extremely hard and commit almost no crime. Other Indians are not so common, but they tend to be very high-functioning also, and are often professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a bad idea, but it's not happening yet.
Afghans: A very small group of very high-functioning immigrants. I have met some. Many professionals. Those here tend to be quite secular and even progressive or even Leftist. There is a small enclave in Fremont, California.
Pakistanis: We have some here in California. Here again, a very high-functioning group with few to no problems. Many professionals, some shopkeepers and a few students. Tend to be seculars or even Christians.
Iranians: This group is doing very well in the US. There is an enclave in Beverly Hills, California. The ones who are here are often the rich and secular supporters of the Shah. This group causes almost no problems at all. High education attainment and professional involvement.
Kurds: A very small group that appears to cause minimal problems, but some in Tennessee have formed street gangs for some reason. Little known.
Iraqis: Those here tend to be Chaldean Christians who cause almost no problems at all. We have a few in California. There is an enclave in Michigan. A very traditional group who do not mingle much with outsiders.
Palestinians: We have some in my area. They run small stores, gas stations, bakeries, and cause no problems at all. A very high-functioning group. Most around my place seem to be pretty apolitical. Quite a few are Christians. Warm, easy-going, happy, talkative and very hard-working. A few are militant in a quiet way.
Syrians: Mostly secular, often secular Muslims or Christians. Often well-educated. A small group.
Lebanese: A small group that does quite well. A very large number are Christians. Often run small stores. An enclave in Michigan. Many have been in the US for a long time.
Yemenis: There is a small group around me who run markets. They do very well, are extremely hard-working and cause no problems at all. Tend to be apolitical religious Muslims who are very conservative and traditional.
Turks: A small group in the US who often run stores, dry cleaners, etc. Very well-behaved. Tend to be secular.
Kuwaitis: There are some students here. Tend to be very, very religious Muslims. I'm not aware of any problems though. They seem to go home after school. This is a tiny group.
Jordanians: Secular, often Palestinian, mostly students. I only met one, and she was a militant but secular Palestinian-Jordanian and was very well-to-do. A tiny group.
North Africans: Honestly, I have never met one other than Egyptians. This must be a very tiny group.
The US is not having problems with Kurds, Iraqis, Turks and North Africans like the Europeans are. Mass immigration of Turks, North Africans, Kurds and Arabs as the Europeans did would probably be a disaster - this entire whole group is extremely well-screened, and that needs to continue.
Egyptians: Run gas stations or work in the professions. Many are Coptic Christians. Absolutely zero problems at all. Most here are apolitical, secular and divorced from Middle Eastern issues altogether. Often traditional, even the Copts. Often surprisingly intelligent and educated, as is the case with many Arabs in the US.
Ethiopians: There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Los Angeles down around the airport (LAX). This group seems to cause few to no problems. Many are students and are quite intelligent. They very much keep to themselves. Many are Christians. The women are often quite beautiful.
Somalis: Apparently a disaster. They are also causing terrible problems in Europe, especially Norway and Finland. Almost all are coming to the US as refugees, and refugees are typically a more or less unscreened population. In other words, almost anyone gets in. Probably 99% of these Somalis would be rejected if they applied for ordinary legal immigration, but with refugees, they pretty much all get in.
There are not many of them here, but the few that are have quickly descended into an Underclass of chaos, crime, poverty, unemployment and heavy welfare use. These refugees are not appropriate for America.
They come from Africa, and are not the sort of Africans who do well here (see the next listing). They can easily go to other African nations. It won't be ideal, but I assume that in general, they won't starve. There's no reason to bring an African refugee all the way to the US.
Sub-Saharan Black Africans: There are few in the country. There are some Nigerians, but they are often extremely high-functioning professionals. There are reportedly some Nigerian criminals in the US, but the number is not large.
This group undergoes extreme screening (99.5% minimum of Nigerians trying to get in to the US are rejected), which is appropriate. As such, they are surprisingly the highest-performing immigrant group of all. I have only met Nigerians and one Cameroonian, all professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a nightmare.
Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz: Virtually nonexistent.
Armenians: Some White nationalists say they are not White, so we include them. A very high-functioning group. There are some street gangs in Los Angeles around Hollywood and Glendale, and there is some organized crime also, but overall, they appear to not be much a problem.
There are enclaves in California in Los Angeles (East Hollywood), Glendale and vicinity and around Fresno in the Central Valley. The enclaves are quite safe. Most Armenian crime involves fighting amongst and preying on their own kind.
Here in the Valley this is a very high-performing, intelligent group that is still quite traditional and often still keeps to themselves somewhat. They are farmers and run retail stores, restaurants and repair outfits, work in sales and the professions, and in general, do all sorts of things. Can be very warm and friendly. They have actually formed an elite in this area.
Georgians, Azeris, people of the Caucasus: They barely exist in the US.
Europeans: White nationalists seem to think this group is not a problem, and indeed they are not. Some formed highly criminal and impoverished Underclasses in the US for decades in the past, but they have moved out of that now. In my area, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, etc. (Mediterraneans) form a White elite and do very well, despite some White nationalists who insist they are not White.
Gypsies: Disaster. Fortunately, there are few of them in the US, and it needs to stay that way. They have adopted crime as a way of life. Very few should be allowed to enter the US. A small number are assimilated, out of crime and doing very well, but it's not typical.
Cubans: Hard to say. They have taken over Miami and turned it into a part of Latin America and virtually torn it off from the US. Many are arrogant and refuse to learn English. Miami as a city has virtually done away with the English language. They have formed a Latin American style White reactionary elite that has seriously corrupted Miami.
Miami has one of the most extreme wealth differentials in the US, as the reactionary Cubans have transplanted semi-feudal Latin American economics to their pet city. The wet foot - dry foot policy needs to end, and this group needs to be well-screened at least. I feel that on balance this group is not positive, mostly because they are arrogantly refusing to assimilate and are recreating Batista's Cuba in the US.
Dominicans: Reports indicate that this group is on balance a nightmare. Some are educated and intelligent and doing very well - I know one who is a clinical psychologist. Many others have transformed New York City neighborhoods into crime-ridden Underclass hellholes.
My understanding is that the vast majority of them in Washington Heights in New York came to the US as illegal aliens pretending to be Puerto Ricans, starting in the 1970's. They gave birth to anchor babies who are now all US citizens.
This group needs to be much better screened at the very least. This group formed an Underclass quickly after they came here post-1965, and in general this scenario has continued or even gotten worse.
Puerto Ricans: Same as Dominicans - a nightmare. A colony of the US. As such, they get to immigrate unscreened. Some are highly intelligent, are doing very well and are even in the professions. I know one who is a university professor.
Back East, they have formed crime-ridden, gang-infested Underclass hellholes, especially in New York City. We need to cut this colony loose and let them go their own way. Like Dominicans, they have formed long-lasting Underclass wrecked zones that have lingered or even gotten worse. This is one group that is not climbing out of the Underclass.
Future immigrants need much better screening, but that will never happen as long as Puerto Rico is a US colony. As long as Puerto Rico is a colony, Puerto Ricans can go to the US the same way I can move from California to Nevada.
Jamaicans: Tough call. There are supposed to be some drug gangs around, but I'm not sure how serious of a problem this is. I've met a few who were very warm, pleasant, friendly, hard-working and honest. It does not seem to be a large group. Mass immigration would be a mistake.
Haitians: Although we turn most of them away, there are quite a few in the US anyway. One might think they would form Underclass hellholes, but that does not seem to be the case. I don't know much about them. There are quite a few in New York and Florida.
Other Caribbeans (Virgin Islands, Grenada, etc.): There are not many here. Those who are here are often professionals. I met two who were schoolteachers and were doing very well.
Panamanians: Few, doing well. Very small group.
Costa Ricans: Small group that is doing well in the US.
Nicaraguans: On balance, seems to be a positive group, but little is known about them. Those that I have met were functioning well. Seems to be a small group. There is an enclave in Florida.
Hondurans: This group seems to be a problem. Many are illegals, and are caught up in the usual Mesoamerican illegal immigrant scenario. Doesn't appear to be a really large group. Needs much better screening and needs more research to be done on them - poorly known.
Salvadorans: Disaster. Many came here in the war as refugees and eventually got legalized. Many are in street gangs, selling dope, living in barrios and ghettos, and not doing well.
They have a vast enclave near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles that is probably quite dangerous at night. I have been there in the daytime, and even then it seems run-down, teeming, Third-Worldish, horribly overcrowded, impoverished, chaotic and somewhat Hellish, but I used to walk around there anyway, and nothing ever happened to me. The English language does not exist in this part of Los Angeles.
This group is not working out at all. Needs much better screening at the least.
Guatemalans: Nightmare. Huge numbers are illegal immigrants. Others are caught up in the gangsta thing. Many do not speak English well. This group is doing very poorly. Seem to have very high rates of criminality and gang membership. Needs much better screening at an absolute minimum.
Mexicans: A very complex group that makes up the huge majority of Hispanic immigrants to the US. A vast number of Mexicans are illegal immigrants who have destroyed towns all up and down California and all over Arizona and Texas. They are now fanning out across the US, causing crime and chaos everywhere they go.
Typically, cities with large numbers of Mexicans become run-down, dirty, trash-ridden (they don't believe in trash cans), graffiti-covered, crime-ridden, drug-drenched, gang-infested, noisy, chaotic, dangerous, overcrowded, wrecks. Sex crimes in particular seem to escalate. Petty thievery becomes epidemic. Spanish appears to be the native language and English is sidelined.
Services are quickly overrun, hospitals close and schools are overwhelmed. Very political, and many harbor irredentist and revanchist (in particular) aims on the US Southwest, which many claim as a part of Mexico. This treasonous mindset has also been adopted by the Left and is highly disturbing.
Cities with many Mexicans may quickly become very corrupt. Mexican farm labor contractors utilize employer-employee relations out of the Third World. Cities taken over by Mexicans come to more resemble Tijuana than American cities. Many are hostile towards the US and especially towards Whites. This group, viewed as a whole, is a total catastrophe, and is the main source of immigration problems in the US today.
At the same time, many older Mexican illegals are hard-working, pleasant, polite, generous, family-oriented, religious and very well-behaved, but their children are typically a horror.
There is also a large group of Mexicans who have been here a while, in some cases for over 100 years as the original residents of the US Southwest. In most cases, they are assimilated and doing very well.
Another group came more recently and has assimilated well, though they continue to speak Spanish a lot. Their English is also often fine, and many are light-skinned. This group could be classed as the White Mexicans, and they tend to form a bit of an elite in these Mexican communities, although the extreme racial stratification of Mexico seems to be breaking down in the US. They are often very well-behaved and so are their children.
There is another group that are not necessarily White Mexicans, but are also also assimilating and doing very well.
As you can see, this is a very complex group that is split in two huge classes, one a good-functioning and assimilating group that causes few to no problems and the other a vast Underclass that is a total clusterfuck. There are also probably many that are floating somewhere in between these two vast sets in a transition zone, or into one set and out of another, or back and forth into the transition zone.
At the very least, illegals need to be tossed out or encouraged to leave, Mexican legal immigration must be lowered, and we urgently need to do a lot of research on which Mexican immigrants are likely to join the positive assimilating group and which are going to augment our Mexican Underclass horror.
Continued mass immigration of this group will cause a continuation and vast deepening of the gang and Underclass horrorshow in the US, along with an increasingly radical and militant Mexican politics in the US. As they get into power in some states, Mexicans will tend to promote Open Borders with Mexico.
If they ever get into power, expect to see Spanish made into an official language at the state level at least. If they get into power at the national level, expect Spanish as an official language in the US and an open border with Mexico.
Abortion may be made illegal. Women's rights may nosedive. We may develop a much more corrupt society. Human rights and basic liberties may go out the window in favor of the usual Latin American authoritarianism and lack of respect for the individual.
We may get a politics of either the Hard Left or Hard Right, as in Latin America. Gay rights will take a nosedive. The result of open borders with Mexico would quickly be 1/2 of Mexico in the US, and the US would be transformed just another Latin American country.
This endgame must be resisted at all costs and with all of our might. This is an issue that transcends Left, Right and Center and needs to be put front and center by US patriots of all ethnicities across the spectrum.
Conclusion: There is an urgent need for more research on the immigrant groups that are performing poorly, or at least those have large sections that are performing poorly. Some of these groups, such as Mexicans, have large groups that are doing well, large groups that are doing horribly, and probably a large group drifting in between or in and out of the two main groups.
It is essential to determine the characteristics of those sections of Caribbean and Mesoamerican immigrants that are causing so many problems for our society. This research will be difficult to do because the usual suspects will scream racism at the very mention of it.
No one is talking about keeping certain ethnicities off of the immigration rolls altogether. We are only trying to determine a set of characteristics that winnows the successful from the unsuccessful and then hopefully proceed to a saner immigration policy from there.
Problems with native citizens are bad enough, but you can hardly keep them out of the country - you are more or less stuck with them. Immigrants are guests at best; they are here at our whim and can be expelled or denied entry in the first place as we see fit.
It is sheer madness to import large numbers of persons who are bad for the nation. By that definition, America has been an insane nation for many years now. It's time for some treatment. Time is of the essence and we have little time to wait.
We also need to seriously reconsider family reunification immigration.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
There are also anti-immigrant sites out there like Vdare, but they are almost always on the crazy end of the spectrum. Vdare is not White nationalist, but they do want to end all immigration altogether. On the far moderate end of White nationalism, we have American Renaissance. I do like to hang out there because it's nice to hear real, honest talk on race for once.
In general, the White nationalists on Amren want to end non-White immigration altogether.
I'd like to point out that this is a crazy and extremist point of view. Furthermore, Whites are only 65% of the US in 2006 according to this chart, and possibly less. 2% of the US is Muslim, and the overwhelming majority are not Europeans. Another .5% of the population are Indian-Americans. 1% of the population are Arabs, mostly Christians. Let us reduce the Euro-White population to 61.5%.
I suppose with a White population declining like this, we would expect to see wild and crazy proposals like this. It's really just a sign of desperation.
Few non-Whites want to limit immigration this strictly, and even many Caucasians don't. Keep in mind that most White nationalists call only Europeans White. Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Indians - none of them count.
So almost everyone who is not a European White in the US has recent immigrant roots and does not want to end immigration. We should feel lucky if they want to limit it at all.
Arabs, Turks, Kurds, North Africans, Africans, Hispanics of all types (even White Hispanics), Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, SE Asians, Filipinos, Polynesians, East Indians, Central Americans, Caribbeans, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis - none of these folks are on board for an immigration moratorium.
That leaves us the 61.5% Euro-Whites? Now, we would need over 80% of European Whites to get on board for an immigration moratorium. Not going to happen. They would be very lucky to get even 50%.
Looking around the world, we would be very hard-pressed to find even one country that has banned all immigration. Someone find me one, please!
Japan and Korea are always being brought up, but there are plenty of immigrants in both places. What may be a lot more difficult there is getting citizenship.
But that's not unusual, nor is it the point here. Germany had race-based citizenship until recently, and may still have it. Syria and probably other Arab nations has race-based citizenship (The Kurds have not even been allowed to be citizens, because they are not Arabs!)
So White nationalists are really changing the subject here. We ask them to show us some countries who have been so crazy as to ban all immigration, and they point to Japan and Korea, who have merely made it difficult to be a citizen, while immigrants are fairly common (indeed, Jared Taylor, head of Amren, was an immigrant in Japan for years).
So the truth is that there are almost no nations that have banned immigration altogether. Why are White nationalists promoting this then? Because they are nuts.
At this point, this project isn't going anywhere, like every White nationalist project.
So I would say it's time for those of us on the anti-immigrant spectrum to cut our losses and do some damage control. As immigration isn't going to be ended, sensible folks ought to focus on limiting it. Negative Population Growth advocates an end to illegal immigration to the extent possible, a removal of all illegal immigrants, and a reduction in legal immigration to 200,000. This is reasonable, and I support that organization.
Here is a good example of the White nationalist mindset from my comments section:
Why do Whites oppose massive non-White immigration?You will find this mindset all over Amren, and probably deep down inside Vdare, too.
Because non-White immigration causes higher crime, declining standards in education and morality, more drugs, more economic degradation and economic inequality, more strife/suspicion/competition between ethnic groups, more welfare and big government, more overpopulation and pollution, and so on.
ALL countries and empires have eventually fallen or balkanized after being swamped by millions of 'immigrant' invaders, even the non-White empires and countries -- and the same is now happening in America.
Those opposing massive non-White immigration to America are more opposed to the decline of America than they are against other races and ethnicities. If they are against other races or ethnicities it is because their presence hastens and is an obvious sign of this decline.
The problem with this is that it is in large part false. The notion that immigration leads to inevitable strife, group competition, environmental degradation in an already crowded nation, etc. is going to be true with any group of immigrants.
However, White nationalists are pro-natalists who cheer stories about White women having 18 kids, so they really shouldn't talk about overpopulation leading to environmental degradation. Furthermore, your average White nationalist is a hard rightwinger, and at least their voting patterns suggest that they are quite hostile to environmentalism.
All of the other points are not true for non-White immigration in toto. There is no problem with "non-White" immigration per se, but there are problems, sometimes major problems, with select groups.
As a good rule, less restricted immigration from US colonies, of refugees and illegal immigration is problematic because of a lack of a rigorous selection process that winnows out many applicants. Legal immigration with a rigorous selection process has been associated with few problems, except in the odd case of Dominicans from the Dominican Republic.
Let us look at the "non-White" immigrant groups in the US:
South Americans: No problems here. They are very well-screened, and with the exception of some Colombians in New York City, pretty well behaved. It's not a large group. There are small Peruvian, Ecuadorian and Argentine enclaves in Los Angeles, and there are Venezuelan enclaves in Florida and Texas.
Japanese: Always one of the best immigrant groups. There are enclaves in San Francisco and Gardena, California. The enclaves are safe as far as the Japanese go, but Gardena now has many Blacks. When I taught school in Los Angeles, the non-PC teachers used to joke, "Gimme a class full of Japs and Jews and I'll never complain."
A teacher friend of mine was asked to fill out a form that idiotically said, "Ethnic preference". He was White, but he put, "Japanese". The principal called him in and asked, "What do you think you're doing? You're not Japanese." He answered, "It said ethnic preference. I prefer to teach Japanese students." I was amazed that Japanese students got a little squirrelly in 8th grade.
All humans are horrible at age 13, but I thought maybe the Japanese transcended that. They didn't, but they were the breeziest 8th graders I've ever taught. By 9th grade, they were back to normal, and by 7th grade, they were still ok. If all kids were like this, parenting could be done with your eyes closed.
Chinese: See Japanese. There are many new immigrants with poor English who are are adding to already existing Chinatown enclaves in many large cities, but this problem will sort itself out. There is poverty in Chinatowns, but there is little crime. For some reason, poverty in Chinatowns is not a serious societal problem.
There are also quite a few exploited Chinese illegal immigrants, but almost all are working in Chinatowns and speaking Chinese on the job. They are taking few, if any, jobs from Americans. Very low crime rate. Chinatowns are safe places in the daytime at least and generally pleasant at night.
Koreans: More or less the same as Chinese. They are probably better assimilated than Chinese. There is a vast enclave in Los Angeles (Koreatown) and a large enclave in Garden Grove, California. The enclaves are safe both night and day. Very low crime rate.
Vietnamese: Most came as refugees and got off to a rocky start. There are some gangs, but overall it appears that their crime rate is far below Whites. Their criminals generally prey on their own.
Young Vietnamese in Orange County, California are becoming a new high-achieving elite. This is the highest scoring group in the CA school system and US Irvine is full of Vietnamese students. They have formed some ethnic enclaves, but the young ones are assimilating, and even their enclaves are pleasant, non-dangerous places in both night and day. One large ethnic enclave is in Garden Grove, California.
There is an enclave in Richmond, California that has a high crime rate and is not doing well, but this seems to be anomalous.
Khmer: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves, especially in Long Beach and Santa Ana, California. There is still heavy welfare use, but a new generation is coming up. There are some youth gangs, but overall, the crime rate seems low. Khmer enclaves are pleasant and not dangerous at least in daytime.
Hmong: This group of refugees still has very heavy welfare use. There are also gangs, but the overall crime rate seems much lower than the White rate, at least here in Fresno. There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Minnesota.
The new generation is coming of age, going to school and doing well. Highly intelligent; they resemble Chinese. Their enclaves are not that pleasant and tend to be poor and rundown, but don't seem to be all that dangerous. Their criminals generally prey on their own.
Mien: There are enclaves in Northern California in Davis and Merced in the Central Valley. They are refugees that came in with the Hmong. In appearance and behavior, they are very Chinese like the Hmong.
A friend of mine worked in Social Services in Davis and said she would go to these poverty-stricken, blighted, rundown, hellhole apartment complexes and visit the Mien welfare families. The parents would be sitting on the floor eating out of a rice bowl and did not speak a word of English. They seemed like they were fresh out of the jungle of SE Asia. The walls would be covered with the kids' report cards - all A's. Think about it.
On balance, seems to be a good group. High welfare use is balanced by a crime rate probably way lower than Whites, and the kids seem to have a good future.
Lao: This group of refugees still has high welfare use, and there are youth gangs. The young people seem to be doing well, going to school, graduating, moving on. Despite the gangs, the crime rate seems to be much lower than the White rate, at least in Fresno. There are enclaves in Fresno and Santa Ana, California. Their enclaves are poor and run-down, but not that dangerous for non-SE Asians.
They are part of the high-crime, poorly-performing Asian enclave in Richmond, California that is so far pretty anomalous.
Khmu: Khmu from Laos are part of the poorly-performing, high-crime Asian enclave in Richmond, California, along with Vietnamese, Lao and Samoans. So far, this situation is pretty anomalous. This seems to be a case of very poor Asian refugees moving into a horrible Black ghetto and aping the worst Black behaviors.
I don't have any data on Khmu other than the Richmond report, and on that basis, I'm inclined to mark them as a problem ethnic group, but to tell the truth, I lack good data on them, and they really are a miniscule group anyway.
Thai: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves in Los Angeles. They seem to be doing well and are out of poverty. Little or no gangs or crime. Professionals, owners of shops and restaurants.
Burmese: A tiny group that seems to be doing quite well, at least those I met.
Tibetans: A very small group that is active politically. No known problems. Behaviorally resemble Chinese.
Filipinos: A much-vilified group, even by other Asians. There are youth gangs. They form large enclaves in California in Carson, Wilmington, north of downtown Los Angeles and in San Fransisco. There are also a number in the Central Valley.
I have no idea what the crime rate is, but their enclaves in the Harbor area are pleasant enough at daytime. I taught them in school for a long time and felt they were well-behaved and pleasant students. Some are quite intelligent. Filipinos may undergo high selection pressure by US immigration, because they are said to be one of the highest performing immigrant groups of all, and the highest performing of the Asian groups.
Indonesians, Aborigines, Melanesians, Papuans, Malays, Mongolians, Nepalese: For all intents and purposes, these groups don't even exist as immigrant communities in the US. I've never met an immigrant from most of these groups. I have met a few Indonesian and Malay students who were very well-behaved.
Micronesians (Marshall Islands): There are a few of them in the US, but not many. Some have serious diseases, because the islands are a disease haven. As immigrants, they are totally unscreened, as the islands are still pretty much US territory. Overall, little problem. Warm, friendly, pleasant, easy-going people. I do recommend completely cutting these islands off from US colonization.
Polynesians (Hawaiians, Tongans and Samoans): Samoa is still a colony of the US, so they get to come here totally unscreened. I taught them for years in LA, and I really don't mind them too much, but some can be violent.
Easy-going, warm, friendly, pleasant people who like to laugh and party. There are gangs, but Samoans are not a large community, so it's dubious how much of a problem they are. They are reportedly causing major problems in Salt Lake City.
There appear to be some problems with Tongan gangs, but it doesn't seem to be serious because there are just not that many of them.
This is one immigrant group that may on balance be a problem, albeit a small one. They are an issue purely because they are unscreened. Hawaiians are not immigrants in Hawaii, but they are a serious problem there, where they form a vast and teeming underclass. They are not violent so much as thieving. This is not an immigrant issue because Hawaiians are native to the US.
Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans: This group more or less does not exist in the US. Never met one.
East Indians: This is a fairly large immigrant group here in California. H-1B scab guest workers are a problem, but they are not immigrants, so they are best dealt with elsewhere. Here in this part of California, this group is mostly Punjabis.
Punjabis are a very high-functioning ethnic group in the US who cause almost no problems at all. Punjabis in the US have a surprisingly high intelligence, work extremely hard and commit almost no crime. Other Indians are not so common, but they tend to be very high-functioning also, and are often professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a bad idea, but it's not happening yet.
Afghans: A very small group of very high-functioning immigrants. I have met some. Many professionals. Those here tend to be quite secular and even progressive or even Leftist. There is a small enclave in Fremont, California.
Pakistanis: We have some here in California. Here again, a very high-functioning group with few to no problems. Many professionals, some shopkeepers and a few students. Tend to be seculars or even Christians.
Iranians: This group is doing very well in the US. There is an enclave in Beverly Hills, California. The ones who are here are often the rich and secular supporters of the Shah. This group causes almost no problems at all. High education attainment and professional involvement.
Kurds: A very small group that appears to cause minimal problems, but some in Tennessee have formed street gangs for some reason. Little known.
Iraqis: Those here tend to be Chaldean Christians who cause almost no problems at all. We have a few in California. There is an enclave in Michigan. A very traditional group who do not mingle much with outsiders.
Palestinians: We have some in my area. They run small stores, gas stations, bakeries, and cause no problems at all. A very high-functioning group. Most around my place seem to be pretty apolitical. Quite a few are Christians. Warm, easy-going, happy, talkative and very hard-working. A few are militant in a quiet way.
Syrians: Mostly secular, often secular Muslims or Christians. Often well-educated. A small group.
Lebanese: A small group that does quite well. A very large number are Christians. Often run small stores. An enclave in Michigan. Many have been in the US for a long time.
Yemenis: There is a small group around me who run markets. They do very well, are extremely hard-working and cause no problems at all. Tend to be apolitical religious Muslims who are very conservative and traditional.
Turks: A small group in the US who often run stores, dry cleaners, etc. Very well-behaved. Tend to be secular.
Kuwaitis: There are some students here. Tend to be very, very religious Muslims. I'm not aware of any problems though. They seem to go home after school. This is a tiny group.
Jordanians: Secular, often Palestinian, mostly students. I only met one, and she was a militant but secular Palestinian-Jordanian and was very well-to-do. A tiny group.
North Africans: Honestly, I have never met one other than Egyptians. This must be a very tiny group.
The US is not having problems with Kurds, Iraqis, Turks and North Africans like the Europeans are. Mass immigration of Turks, North Africans, Kurds and Arabs as the Europeans did would probably be a disaster - this entire whole group is extremely well-screened, and that needs to continue.
Egyptians: Run gas stations or work in the professions. Many are Coptic Christians. Absolutely zero problems at all. Most here are apolitical, secular and divorced from Middle Eastern issues altogether. Often traditional, even the Copts. Often surprisingly intelligent and educated, as is the case with many Arabs in the US.
Ethiopians: There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Los Angeles down around the airport (LAX). This group seems to cause few to no problems. Many are students and are quite intelligent. They very much keep to themselves. Many are Christians. The women are often quite beautiful.
Somalis: Apparently a disaster. They are also causing terrible problems in Europe, especially Norway and Finland. Almost all are coming to the US as refugees, and refugees are typically a more or less unscreened population. In other words, almost anyone gets in. Probably 99% of these Somalis would be rejected if they applied for ordinary legal immigration, but with refugees, they pretty much all get in.
There are not many of them here, but the few that are have quickly descended into an Underclass of chaos, crime, poverty, unemployment and heavy welfare use. These refugees are not appropriate for America.
They come from Africa, and are not the sort of Africans who do well here (see the next listing). They can easily go to other African nations. It won't be ideal, but I assume that in general, they won't starve. There's no reason to bring an African refugee all the way to the US.
Sub-Saharan Black Africans: There are few in the country. There are some Nigerians, but they are often extremely high-functioning professionals. There are reportedly some Nigerian criminals in the US, but the number is not large.
This group undergoes extreme screening (99.5% minimum of Nigerians trying to get in to the US are rejected), which is appropriate. As such, they are surprisingly the highest-performing immigrant group of all. I have only met Nigerians and one Cameroonian, all professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a nightmare.
Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz: Virtually nonexistent.
Armenians: Some White nationalists say they are not White, so we include them. A very high-functioning group. There are some street gangs in Los Angeles around Hollywood and Glendale, and there is some organized crime also, but overall, they appear to not be much a problem.
There are enclaves in California in Los Angeles (East Hollywood), Glendale and vicinity and around Fresno in the Central Valley. The enclaves are quite safe. Most Armenian crime involves fighting amongst and preying on their own kind.
Here in the Valley this is a very high-performing, intelligent group that is still quite traditional and often still keeps to themselves somewhat. They are farmers and run retail stores, restaurants and repair outfits, work in sales and the professions, and in general, do all sorts of things. Can be very warm and friendly. They have actually formed an elite in this area.
Georgians, Azeris, people of the Caucasus: They barely exist in the US.
Europeans: White nationalists seem to think this group is not a problem, and indeed they are not. Some formed highly criminal and impoverished Underclasses in the US for decades in the past, but they have moved out of that now. In my area, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, etc. (Mediterraneans) form a White elite and do very well, despite some White nationalists who insist they are not White.
Gypsies: Disaster. Fortunately, there are few of them in the US, and it needs to stay that way. They have adopted crime as a way of life. Very few should be allowed to enter the US. A small number are assimilated, out of crime and doing very well, but it's not typical.
Cubans: Hard to say. They have taken over Miami and turned it into a part of Latin America and virtually torn it off from the US. Many are arrogant and refuse to learn English. Miami as a city has virtually done away with the English language. They have formed a Latin American style White reactionary elite that has seriously corrupted Miami.
Miami has one of the most extreme wealth differentials in the US, as the reactionary Cubans have transplanted semi-feudal Latin American economics to their pet city. The wet foot - dry foot policy needs to end, and this group needs to be well-screened at least. I feel that on balance this group is not positive, mostly because they are arrogantly refusing to assimilate and are recreating Batista's Cuba in the US.
Dominicans: Reports indicate that this group is on balance a nightmare. Some are educated and intelligent and doing very well - I know one who is a clinical psychologist. Many others have transformed New York City neighborhoods into crime-ridden Underclass hellholes.
My understanding is that the vast majority of them in Washington Heights in New York came to the US as illegal aliens pretending to be Puerto Ricans, starting in the 1970's. They gave birth to anchor babies who are now all US citizens.
This group needs to be much better screened at the very least. This group formed an Underclass quickly after they came here post-1965, and in general this scenario has continued or even gotten worse.
Puerto Ricans: Same as Dominicans - a nightmare. A colony of the US. As such, they get to immigrate unscreened. Some are highly intelligent, are doing very well and are even in the professions. I know one who is a university professor.
Back East, they have formed crime-ridden, gang-infested Underclass hellholes, especially in New York City. We need to cut this colony loose and let them go their own way. Like Dominicans, they have formed long-lasting Underclass wrecked zones that have lingered or even gotten worse. This is one group that is not climbing out of the Underclass.
Future immigrants need much better screening, but that will never happen as long as Puerto Rico is a US colony. As long as Puerto Rico is a colony, Puerto Ricans can go to the US the same way I can move from California to Nevada.
Jamaicans: Tough call. There are supposed to be some drug gangs around, but I'm not sure how serious of a problem this is. I've met a few who were very warm, pleasant, friendly, hard-working and honest. It does not seem to be a large group. Mass immigration would be a mistake.
Haitians: Although we turn most of them away, there are quite a few in the US anyway. One might think they would form Underclass hellholes, but that does not seem to be the case. I don't know much about them. There are quite a few in New York and Florida.
Other Caribbeans (Virgin Islands, Grenada, etc.): There are not many here. Those who are here are often professionals. I met two who were schoolteachers and were doing very well.
Panamanians: Few, doing well. Very small group.
Costa Ricans: Small group that is doing well in the US.
Nicaraguans: On balance, seems to be a positive group, but little is known about them. Those that I have met were functioning well. Seems to be a small group. There is an enclave in Florida.
Hondurans: This group seems to be a problem. Many are illegals, and are caught up in the usual Mesoamerican illegal immigrant scenario. Doesn't appear to be a really large group. Needs much better screening and needs more research to be done on them - poorly known.
Salvadorans: Disaster. Many came here in the war as refugees and eventually got legalized. Many are in street gangs, selling dope, living in barrios and ghettos, and not doing well.
They have a vast enclave near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles that is probably quite dangerous at night. I have been there in the daytime, and even then it seems run-down, teeming, Third-Worldish, horribly overcrowded, impoverished, chaotic and somewhat Hellish, but I used to walk around there anyway, and nothing ever happened to me. The English language does not exist in this part of Los Angeles.
This group is not working out at all. Needs much better screening at the least.
Guatemalans: Nightmare. Huge numbers are illegal immigrants. Others are caught up in the gangsta thing. Many do not speak English well. This group is doing very poorly. Seem to have very high rates of criminality and gang membership. Needs much better screening at an absolute minimum.
Mexicans: A very complex group that makes up the huge majority of Hispanic immigrants to the US. A vast number of Mexicans are illegal immigrants who have destroyed towns all up and down California and all over Arizona and Texas. They are now fanning out across the US, causing crime and chaos everywhere they go.
Typically, cities with large numbers of Mexicans become run-down, dirty, trash-ridden (they don't believe in trash cans), graffiti-covered, crime-ridden, drug-drenched, gang-infested, noisy, chaotic, dangerous, overcrowded, wrecks. Sex crimes in particular seem to escalate. Petty thievery becomes epidemic. Spanish appears to be the native language and English is sidelined.
Services are quickly overrun, hospitals close and schools are overwhelmed. Very political, and many harbor irredentist and revanchist (in particular) aims on the US Southwest, which many claim as a part of Mexico. This treasonous mindset has also been adopted by the Left and is highly disturbing.
Cities with many Mexicans may quickly become very corrupt. Mexican farm labor contractors utilize employer-employee relations out of the Third World. Cities taken over by Mexicans come to more resemble Tijuana than American cities. Many are hostile towards the US and especially towards Whites. This group, viewed as a whole, is a total catastrophe, and is the main source of immigration problems in the US today.
At the same time, many older Mexican illegals are hard-working, pleasant, polite, generous, family-oriented, religious and very well-behaved, but their children are typically a horror.
There is also a large group of Mexicans who have been here a while, in some cases for over 100 years as the original residents of the US Southwest. In most cases, they are assimilated and doing very well.
Another group came more recently and has assimilated well, though they continue to speak Spanish a lot. Their English is also often fine, and many are light-skinned. This group could be classed as the White Mexicans, and they tend to form a bit of an elite in these Mexican communities, although the extreme racial stratification of Mexico seems to be breaking down in the US. They are often very well-behaved and so are their children.
There is another group that are not necessarily White Mexicans, but are also also assimilating and doing very well.
As you can see, this is a very complex group that is split in two huge classes, one a good-functioning and assimilating group that causes few to no problems and the other a vast Underclass that is a total clusterfuck. There are also probably many that are floating somewhere in between these two vast sets in a transition zone, or into one set and out of another, or back and forth into the transition zone.
At the very least, illegals need to be tossed out or encouraged to leave, Mexican legal immigration must be lowered, and we urgently need to do a lot of research on which Mexican immigrants are likely to join the positive assimilating group and which are going to augment our Mexican Underclass horror.
Continued mass immigration of this group will cause a continuation and vast deepening of the gang and Underclass horrorshow in the US, along with an increasingly radical and militant Mexican politics in the US. As they get into power in some states, Mexicans will tend to promote Open Borders with Mexico.
If they ever get into power, expect to see Spanish made into an official language at the state level at least. If they get into power at the national level, expect Spanish as an official language in the US and an open border with Mexico.
Abortion may be made illegal. Women's rights may nosedive. We may develop a much more corrupt society. Human rights and basic liberties may go out the window in favor of the usual Latin American authoritarianism and lack of respect for the individual.
We may get a politics of either the Hard Left or Hard Right, as in Latin America. Gay rights will take a nosedive. The result of open borders with Mexico would quickly be 1/2 of Mexico in the US, and the US would be transformed just another Latin American country.
This endgame must be resisted at all costs and with all of our might. This is an issue that transcends Left, Right and Center and needs to be put front and center by US patriots of all ethnicities across the spectrum.
Conclusion: There is an urgent need for more research on the immigrant groups that are performing poorly, or at least those have large sections that are performing poorly. Some of these groups, such as Mexicans, have large groups that are doing well, large groups that are doing horribly, and probably a large group drifting in between or in and out of the two main groups.
It is essential to determine the characteristics of those sections of Caribbean and Mesoamerican immigrants that are causing so many problems for our society. This research will be difficult to do because the usual suspects will scream racism at the very mention of it.
No one is talking about keeping certain ethnicities off of the immigration rolls altogether. We are only trying to determine a set of characteristics that winnows the successful from the unsuccessful and then hopefully proceed to a saner immigration policy from there.
Problems with native citizens are bad enough, but you can hardly keep them out of the country - you are more or less stuck with them. Immigrants are guests at best; they are here at our whim and can be expelled or denied entry in the first place as we see fit.
It is sheer madness to import large numbers of persons who are bad for the nation. By that definition, America has been an insane nation for many years now. It's time for some treatment. Time is of the essence and we have little time to wait.
We also need to seriously reconsider family reunification immigration.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
