August 15, 2010

Projection

From my new VDARE.com column:
The psychological concept of “projection” explains much about modern political rhetoric. It’s a process by which accusations often reflect the accuser rather than the accused.

For example, have you noticed how the Southern Poverty Law Center relentlessly rages against an ever-expanding circle of what it demonizes as “hate groups”? Why did the SPLC rant so furiously about even such a mild and thoughtful a gentleman as Richard Lamm, the environmentalist hero who served three terms as a Democratic governor of Colorado?

Because the SPLC itself is America’s foremost hate group. 

Similarly, Democrats instantly accuse the GOP of being “divisive” on those rare occasions when Republicans stumble upon an issue that unites a broad majority of voters.

Thus, a Google search (August 15, 2010) finds the words “immigration” and “divisive” showing up together on 2,490,000 webpages. (Talk about a worn-out cliché!) Yet immigration is perhaps the least divisive major topic in American politics today.

But here’s a new table from Gallup showing President Obama’s approval ratings for 13 issues:
In other words, the public is less divided over Obama’s handling of immigration than it is over any other topic. What the Democrats are projecting is their own visceral hostility to any criticism of immigration.

Moreover, Democrats are always accusing Republicans of trying to racialize the immigration issue—when, of course, that is the Democrats’ chief strategy. They’ve put untold efforts over the decades into whipping Hispanics into a racial frenzy over immigration.

As it happens, they’ve enjoyed only modest direct results. But the indirect benefit to the Democrats, though, has been enormous. This repeated accusation has succeeded in scaring many Republican politicians away from their best issues. The GOP brain trust doesn’t much understand the concept of projection, so it repeatedly falls for Democrat concern trolling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who got punched in the head a lot as an amateur boxer (and not surprisingly, given projection politics, is campaigning for re-election against Sharron Angle primarily by calling her “wacky”) is not always the most artful at this traditional Democratic tactic. Last week, he orated to a Latino gathering:
"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?"

No, Harry, you don't. That expresses the Democrats’ full depth of thinking on immigration quite nicely.

 Read the rest there and comment upon it below.

88 comments:

Jack Aubrey said...

This repeated accusation has succeeded in scaring many Republican politicians away from their best issues.

That's part of the explanation, but the biggest contributing factor is the, uh, contributors to the GOP who insist on more cheap labor. GOP congressmen frequently have been businessmen themselves, socialize with wealthy businessmen, and live amongst wealthy businessmen. They inhale that ideology (and the contributions that come with it) with every breath. They also scorn the idea that they or their loved ones will ever face competition from poor illegal immigrants, or have to live next door to them. So they don't consider or care about that aspect of it.

Worries about accusations of racism are probably only secondary.

Anonymous said...

Mainstream media personalities tend to think about immigration like Jewish-Americans do.

Right. This is mainly because many mainstream media personalities themselves happen to be Jewish-American.

In general, Italians don't seem to play a very prominent role in national politics, outside of centrist/liberal New York and New Jersey. When they do, they tend to be center (Giuliani, Alfonse D'Amato) or left of center (Cuomo, Ferraro). This might reflect that a lot of them come from the Northeast.

On immigration though, a lot of the leading restrictionist (Arpaio, Tancredo, Lou Barletta, John Tanton) are Italian. Unusual to find so many Italians leading on a right-wing issue.

agnostic said...

Maybe because Sicily has been overrun by so many foreign hordes throughout their history, they view a large influx of Other newcomers with less naivete.

Just an ad hoc idea; haven't checked with other groups that have been constantly occupied by foreign powers to see if it's general, or to see if occupation-free people are nevertheless immigration restrictionists.

Anonymous said...

the japanese are restrictionist, have been for centuries

Anonymous said...

To Mr. Jack Aubrey:

What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?

Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?

Are these "other" types of people such lesser beings?

Why are you entitled but they, not?

agnostic said...

Yeah I guess the real difference is Jews vs. everyone else (maybe Gypsies are with Jews).

Everyone else has had some kind of homeland to defend -- however large or small, and whether they succeeded in avoiding occupation or were overrun. These pressures select for a mind that's naturally suspicious of a bunch of foreigners rolling on in.

Jews must have been selected for the opposite -- to knock open the gates -- since that's what would have boosted their fitness.

B.A. said...

I should probably be embarrassed to admit this but before reading your VDARE article I didn't realize Arpaio and Tancredo were Italian-American. It reminds me of the time I heard a Mid-Western Italian-American refer to himself and his parents as Olive Garden Italians.

Anonymous said...

does not accusations of "projecting" lead to a circular, non-ending, circular accusations of circular

Might YOU be the one projecting? sir?

Anonymous said...

"What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?"

What is wrong with the idea of having a law?

What is wrong with the idea of one group of people protecting themselves from another group of people?

Why are you trying to break the laws of the United States of America and why are you trying to push something on the American people they clearly don't want?

"Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?"

Why do you feel ENTITLED to have a house or an appartement that no one else can use?

Why do you feel ENTITLED to walk down the street without being attacked?

Why do you feel ENTITLED not to be someone's slave?

Why does anyone feel ENTITLED to anything at all? WHY, WHY, WHY?

Life is so full of mystery!!

The "entitled" and "white-privilege" concepts pushed by the anti-white left lately are just another of their vile tactics. They really have no shame and no boundaries. And they keep inventing new stuff. Always on the attack. And then they wonder why we can't live together in the same system while sharing the same set of laws.

Reality Strikes said...

Let me explain this in simple terms for everybody:

Corporations want that border open. It will remain open until they want it closed (which won't be happening seeing as there's no such thing, from a corporation's view, as too much cheap labor).

This will be the status quo, no matter who's in charge. Might as well get used to it. No point giving yourself heartburn over something you're powerless to change.

Anonymous said...

The economy will recover by 2011; Obama will win re-election, and we will have an immigration policy broadly favorable to people of color , particularlu Latinos, by then. There is little point in relishing a temporary declines in poll numbers.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

To Mr. Jack Aubrey:

What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?"

Because they are illegal aliens (not immigrants, aliens), and they do not belong here.

"Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?"

Because we are citizens of this country, and they are not. Yes, we feel entitled to deferential treatment from our own nation's government.

"Are these "other" types of people such lesser beings?"

They are foreign beings. Alien to our people, history, and culture. They do not belong here. Get that through your thick, stupid skull, nitwit. This is OUR country. Not yours.

Anonymous said...

One major difference between Italian Americans and Jewish Americans you neglected to mention - some Jewish American immigrants or their ancestors were fleeing Nazi Germany or had family members who perished in the Holocaust. U.S immigration restrictions put in place in the 1920s almost certainly made it harder for many Jews(especially poorer Jews) to seek refuge in the U.S from the murderous Third Reich.

Many pro-immigration Jews are quick to remind people of this when anyone talks of immigration restrictions; they see it as a kind of death sentence and something that very well made it difficult for a grandmother, or aunt or uncle to escape the Holocaust.

Even before the rise of Nazi Germany, many Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century sought refuge in the U.S because of persecution in eastern Europe. The poor Italian ancestors of today's Italian Americans may have been very poor and oppressed, but they were not routinely persecuted nor were they fleeing a genocide.

I think this explains why Jewish Americans tend to favor more legal and illegal immigration than Italian Americans.

Default User said...

Anonymous asked:
Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?

As currently structured, immigration policy is protectionist. It protects corporations from the need to compete for workers. In the absence of the large flow of labor, corporations would need to compete by offering higher wages or better conditions.

With higher wages, better conditions, and a little more security we might find more Americans willing to become engineers. The might even be prepared to fill those tough blue-collar jobs that we are told Americans no longer do. It is not pride or laziness that keeps Americans from such jobs, it is the precipitous fall in wages. An end to immigration would not end the free market in labor. The existing workers would still need to compete. Industries would rise and fall. Skills would grow into and fall out of demand. Mass immigration is not the free market at work, it is a government policy to benefit particular groups of interests. If no person has the right to a living, then no corporation has the right to cheap labor.

Immigration is essentially a government program. It is not something that just happens. It is not an unstoppable force. The government sets immigration policy creating winners and losers.

Just because something (free markets and free trade) is generally good, it does not mean it is always good. Any trade policy (including truly free trade and open markets) will create winners and losers. Society is about balancing those competing interests.

Mercer said...

Steve, with six of the first eleven comments by "anonymous" I suggest you require people to use a pseudonym before you post their comments.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said..."The 'entitled' and 'white-privilege' concepts pushed by the anti-white left lately are just another of their vile tactics. They really have no shame and no boundaries. And they keep inventing new stuff. Always on the attack. And then they wonder why we can't live together in the same system while sharing the same set of laws."

Good points, until you get to "And then they wonder why...." No, the left doesn't wonder why we can't live together. We are, in fact, living together and furthermore, we the taxpayers are funding the policies they push using their vile tactics. The left marvels at our stupidity, yes, but so long as we keep paying for their lunacy, they couldn't care less about anything else.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said..."What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?

Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?

Are these 'other' types of people such lesser beings?

Why are you entitled but they, not?"

Try asking some alpha male those questions about his wife.

carol said...

"Worries about accusations of racism are probably only secondary."

But...the lower leadership of state GOP's across the country, and local GOP leaders are very paranoid about this accusation. Hence, their rabid fever to support Colin Powell and then Condoleeza Rice for president.

They are that concerned, and that passionate for some sort of absolution for past "sins," that they would boost blacks with practically unknown political beliefs. This fetish expressed itself most recently with the elevation of Michael Steele to RNC chair.

So between them and the elite leadership, we do have a problem.

Anonymous said...

As currently structured, immigration policy is protectionist. It protects corporations from the need to compete for workers.

Nice try at perverting the English language. "Protectionism" is the policy that requires government intervention. By not enforcing the immigration laws the government is not protecting anybody.

And the ultimate masters of corporations are consumers. Your enemy is in the mirror. Do you go around looking for more expensive goods to buy that were made by American labor? If so, tell us what brands we should stick to so we can know.

Anonymous said...

It is a bit gratuitous to assume
$PLC is "projecting"--an unconscious mental
process and one of self-delusion.
The facts unearthed thus far about
the $PLC operations suggest, to the contrary, that it is likely a very deliberate, very intelligent, utterly cynical and amoral mean$ of intimidation of first amendment rights, particularly as regards criticism of Jews or of notions of biological equipotentiality along lines of race, social class, and gender. $PLC is not the least bit confused and is NOT amenable to "therapeutic" correction of its functioning.

C.O. Jones said...

Anonymous is either a provacotuer or is somehow connected with the Catholic church. This "lesser" beings stuff sounds suspiciously like the "welcome the stranger" drivel I hear on those rare Sundays when I sit through mass with my wife.

Paul Mendez said...

Many pro-immigration Jews are quick to remind people of this when anyone talks of immigration restrictions; they see it as a kind of death sentence and something that very well made it difficult for a grandmother, or aunt or uncle to escape the Holocaust.

As someone who has done a lot of grass-roots work against illegal immigration in a heavily Jewish community, I will second this observation.

Anonymous said...

I have known about projection since as a teenager I observed that the girls most likely to offer sex were those who complained the loudest about the lack of virtue among their friends. (I offer this tip to Whiskey who seems to need all the help he can get.)

Jack Aubrey retorts in the first comment that wealthy businessmen hungry for cheap labor are the engine behind the GOP's stance on immigration. I guess I can believe that this is so - at least among some businessmen somewhere. But I notice that there have been no public scandals about such Republicans or the evil businessmen behind them.

If you believed - for example - that all black politicians are crooks, you could point to a lot of news stories that supported your view. You might be over generalizing but there certainly is a lot of supporting evidence.

But when you come to the trope of greedy businessmen perverting the nation's immigration policy, where are the scandals? When have these evil doers been unmasked and exposed? Could it be that this too is just a kind of projection?

Could it be that this whole notion of well organized voracious capitalists who are the underlying cause of the people's frustrations over illegal immigration mostly exists in the imagination?

If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group? In the analogous group of corrupt black politicians we know their name - The Congressional Black Caucus. Black politicians go on the public record all the time arguing that they should be allowed their bad behavior(see the defense of William Jefferson). But these hypothesized businessmen don't ever seem to hold press conferences or band together into groups. There is no United Manufacturers for Cheap Labor (UMCL)as far as I know.

Albertosaurus

Jack Aubrey said...

What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants? Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition? Are these "other" types of people such lesser beings? Why are you entitled but they, not?

You're f---ing brilliant. That's like asking why you have any greater right than anyone else to live in the home that you pay for.

America is property. That property which is not privately owned by individuals or corporations is held by the government in trust for its citizens - citizens who paid taxes for its improvement, and citizens whose ancestors fought and died to conquer and defend it. I and all other citizens are its rightful heirs - the heirs to what is property worth tens of trillions of dollars.

I have no right to go to any other country and compete for labor in defiance of its laws, so there is no logical reason to allow them to do so here. It is the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament.

I loathe reducing all the social and emotional bonds of nationhood to raw economics, but that seems to be the only language you understand. It's hypocritical and absurd that billionaire-funded groups like the Cato Institute and Americans for Tax Deform feel it appalling that we tax billionaire's estates but see it as perfectly acceptable to tax at confiscatory rates the primary asset that most Americans have - their right to live here; a right often paid for in blood.

Ask yourself this: if America does not somehow belong to Americans, why would anyone risk their lives to defend it?

We do not really need an open border to have a free market in labor or goods. That's what free trade and travel is for. You don't have to move people when you can move the products of their labor, or, in the case of services, when people can travel to their countries to receive it - like American vacationers to Mexico or medical tourists to India.

Wandrin said...

"Worries about accusations of racism are probably only secondary."

There's an indirect effect as well though. Those few politicians who aren't whores for the corporations who want unlimited mass immigration know that if they're accused of being racist by the MSM white voters will be guilt-tripped into not voting for them.

It's the effect of the MSM on white voters, under-cutting their base of support on issues related to race, that is largely responsible for conservative politicians selling out. They can't beat them so they join them.

"What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?"

Diversity kills.

There's been rivers of blood caused by mass immigration (and desegregation), legal and illegal that has been covered up by the MSM for 60 years.

Covering up the diversity slaughterhouse has allowed it to continually get worse year after year. That makes the MSM and the pro-immigration and desegregation lobbies accessories to mass murder.

Rohan Swee said...

Yet another retard who lacks the lobes to create a pseudonym asks: "Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?

Are these 'other' types of people such lesser beings?"


If by "lesser", you mean "I don't invest anywhere near the kind of means, thought, or interest in them that I am willing to invest in those affiliated to me by blood, common culture and history, etc." then, yeah, they're "lesser".

In other words, I feel about me and mine the same way they feel about them and theirs. Is there a problem here? I'm not seeing it. Looks all nice and even-steven to me.

smead jolley said...

Say all you want about projection, but the "hate" tactic will continue to work precisely because of HBD. That is, The melanized groups will never be able to align themselves with conservative thinking because they'll always viscerally view whites as natural enemies, and cannot distinguish between Cons and Dems. As you know, blacks make no such distinction as to who is a "racist," and the newer arrivals won't either.

Anonymous said...

The "Jews like immigration cause of the Holocaust" conveniently forgets that Jews have always been against ANY kind of immigration restriction. They fought the 1924 act tooth and nail and every restriction attempt before and after that.

American Jews just like the idea that any Jew from anywhere in the World can come here anytime they want. Illegal immigration is "Good for the Jews" - that's it.

Anonymous said...

The kind of Ellis Island Kitsch, like that Emma Lazarus poem that renders so many Jewish pundits too verklempt to be capable of rational thought about borders . . .

Emma Lazarus has a lot to answer for. I'm pretty sure my own immigrant ancestors (from Germany in the mid-19th century) would have socked anybody who called them "tired," "poor," or "huddled" (especially "huddled"!), in the face.

Anonymous said...

As for "projection", it is not
too unlikely that $PLC and its
sympathizers do sense subconsciously that if the writings of Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, were ever to burst into massive teach ins, etc. and lead to a genuine public dialogue about the merits of the work of Jensen, Rushton,Brand, Lynn, and others---a huge issue would rise up over this awakening.
That issue is the Question of "Why in the hell did we as a Society not manage to get open and clear about all this realism much much sooner?" "Why in the hell did we not discover--white, Black, male, female, white collar, blue collar-- that we CAN visit openly about this science and can accommodate to it humanely and rationally?"
And those questions would immediately point to the conduct for many decades of organizations like ADL, $PLC, ISAR, Searchlight, etc etc.
The crude and awful answer arising
in a primate roar from the streets (tempered and defused from the suites, we can hope ) would be
J E W J E W J E W
It shouldn't have to happen, but
these very organizations are ,in fact, moving matters toward just such a spectre. How can we assist them to avert it?

Default User said...

@Anonymous
"Protectionism" is the policy that requires government intervention. By not enforcing the immigration laws the government is not protecting anybody.

The United States issues one million legal visas each year. Legal immigration is as much a problem as illegal immigration. The constant calls to expand H-1B numbers, even in a recession, are an example of a government intervention. These visas represent a government program to increase the supply of labor.


Do you go around looking for more expensive goods to buy that were made by American labor? If so, tell us what brands we should stick to so we can know.

At my local dollar store I can find Made-in-the-US goods right beside their Made-in-China equivalents. And, yes, I do check the labels. Toiletries, glassware, and batteries are all available at that $1 price point in both US and China made options.

I will save you the trouble and state: that because the labels say nothing about the employees who made the goods they could all be made by cheap imported workers. However, I would be surprised if that were the case.

David Davenport said...

If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group?...

Some names are: the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

From the Chamber of Commerce website:

Workforce

To compete and win in a global economy, American companies need well-educated and well-trained workers and an efficient immigration system. The U.S. Chamber works to strengthen the nation’s educational standards, promote effective workforce training programs, and advocate for commonsense immigration reform. ...

http://library.uschamber.com/issues

"Immigration reform" -- the extra super secret code words.

Harry Baldwin said...

But when you come to the trope of greedy businessmen perverting the nation's immigration policy, where are the scandals? When have these evil doers been unmasked and exposed? Could it be that this too is just a kind of projection?

Have you read about the scandals involving the hiring of illegal aliens in the meat processing industry?

Also, while the US Chamber of Commerce may not advocate for illegal aliens (that would be a bit overt), but it aggressively promotes immigration in general.

This is its policy as stated on its website:

Immigration

For the 111th Congress, the Chamber will:

* Continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform that: increases security; has an earned pathway to legalization for undocumented workers already contributing to our economy, provided that they are law-abiding and prepared to embrace the obligations and values of our society; creates a carefully monitored guest or essential worker program to fill the growing gaps in America's workforce recognizing that, in some cases, permanent immigrants will be needed to fill these gaps; and refrains from unduly burdening employers with worker verification systems that are underfunded or unworkable.

* Urge Congress and the administration to address delays, backlogs, and disruptions in our immigration and border management systems that impede the movement of legitimate cargo and travelers across U.S. borders.

* Ensure the continuity and expansion of H-1B, L-1, and EB visas for professionals and highly valued workers.

* Lobby for reform to enable seasonal and small businesses to continue to use the H-2B temporary visa.

Anonymous said...

@Albertosaurus, an example of big business types pushing for open borders would be the Wall Street Journal and their request for a new constitutional amendment.

The editorial board has long argued for a less restrictive immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the board wrote: If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.'

David Davenport said...

I will save you the trouble and state: that because the labels say nothing about the employees who made the goods they could all be made by cheap imported workers. However, I would be surprised if that were the case.

Do you or your daughters shop at the American Apparel chain of mall shops?
///////////////////////////

1,800 American Apparel workers may be ineligible
Posted 7/1/2009 9:05 AM

LOS ANGELES (AP) — American Apparel(APP), no stranger to controversial headlines, said Wednesday that the government has found that 1,800 of its employees are either illegally working in the U.S. or potentially illegal to work.
Those employees comprise about one-third of the clothier's Los Angeles manufacturing operation.

The disclosure came as a result of an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Of the 1,800 workers identified, 1,600 were deemed to be unauthorized to work while Immigration had been unable to verify the status of the remaining 200. The company said it was not found to have willingly hired illegal workers.

If the workers are unable to provide proof of eligibility, they will be forced to leave the company, American Apparel said in a statement. The company said the departures aren't expected to hurt its financial results and noted it has a surplus of inventory and production capacity. Compare this statement to the last sentnece in this clippingt. -- DD )

...

American Apparel has touted its "sweatshop-free" operation and says it pays some of the highest wages in the industry.

"The company remains very proud of its track record as an advocate for the comprehensive reform of the country's immigration laws," company founder Dov Charney said in a statement.
...
Charney has been at the center of other controversies, most recently a $5 million settlement with filmmaker Woody Allen over the use of Allen's image in a billboard. American Apparel depicted Allen as a Hasidic Jew with a long beard, side curls and black hat. The billboard featured Yiddish text meaning the holy rabbi.

American Apparel shares have fallen 45% in the past year. ...

Anonymous said...

Albertosaurus - There is no United Manufacturers for Cheap Labor (UMCL)as far as I know.

Thats the beauty of the current political climate, they don't have to!

They've got an army of marxists, socialists, Christians, liberals and anarhists to do it for them - all for free.

Anonymous said...

The United States issues one million legal visas each year. Legal immigration is as much a problem as illegal immigration. The constant calls to expand H-1B numbers, even in a recession, are an example of a government intervention. These visas represent a government program to increase the supply of labor.

And who requires a visa in the first place to come and work in the country?

The state already practices protectionism in favor of workers. Probably 95% of the people in the world who would like to move to America and can afford to on their own are kept out.

You can oppose immigration all you want, but you can't arbitrarily change the definition of words. "Protectionism" is government taking action to interfere with movements of good/people to create different results than what would be the case if they left things alone. If the state stayed out of it, there would be more immigration, not less.

Truth said...

"If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group? In the analogous group of corrupt black politicians we know their name - The Congressional Black Caucus. Black politicians go on the public record all the time arguing that they should be allowed their bad behavior(see the defense of William Jefferson)."

On an earlier thread, I advised one moron to reassemble the Jenna 6 to beat him mercilessly in hopes that the blood would start flowing to his head again; might be more efficient if you two split costs.

TGGP said...

This post from the Monkey Cage had some interesting data on hispanic immigration and the GOP. It's from the ANES, which means anybody can go online and play around with it, just like the General Social Survey.

Anonymous said...

If Jews feel so sentimental about immigration, why not open up Israel to Arab immigration?

Arabs have strong family values. Did I mention that family values don't stop at the Golan heights?

Think about it, willing Arab workers and Israeli employers hungry for labor. What could possibly go wrong?

Go ahead Netanyahu. Open the border already and experience the vibrant diversity that we Americans constantly enjoy.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"If the state stayed out of it, there would be more immigration, not less.:

If the state stayed *totally* out of it, there'd be a lot more illegals crossing the southern border ON THE DOWNHILL RUN with a ticked-off, be-pitchforked American in hot pursuit.

Jack Aubrey said...

By not enforcing the immigration laws the government is not protecting anybody.

You're right - it's not protecting anybody. It's not protecting the people the Constitution obligates it to protect, and it's not protecting the states the Constitution obligates it to 'protect from invasion.'

If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group?

You're assuming that businessmen don't know how to offer a quid pro quo without being subtle about it. Step 1) Businessman donates raises major money for a congressman. Step 2) Businessman has a meeting with congressman, and complains about the lack of labor. Step 3) Congressman votes for lax immigration enforcement and/or more legal immigration.

Lather rinse and repeat hundreds if not thousands of times. No explicit bribe ever has to be made. Congressman knows that if he wants a contribution next time around he better do the bidding of the 10 or 100 or 1000 businessmen/contributors who have met with him or called him regarding the subject.

Congressman knows that if he ever wants a well-paying job in the private sector after retiring or getting defeated that he'd better do their bidding, too.

There are hundreds of groups lobbying on immigration in DC, and the vast majority of them are lobbying for more.

Anonymous said...

If the state stayed *totally* out of it, there'd be a lot more illegals crossing the southern border ON THE DOWNHILL RUN with a ticked-off, be-pitchforked American in hot pursuit.

Lol, just like how white America stood up to the blacks who took over the inner cities or the Jews who took over the media and drove them out? Oh, wait...

Immigration is the only thing keeping this country afloat. This country has no greater ideals than teaching blacks and worshiping Israel. The production of immigrants is the only thing that finances this insanity.

kopseer said...

Jews must have been selected for the opposite -- to knock open the gates -- since that's what would have boosted their fitness.
Except when it comes to Israel of course.

Wandrin said...

"If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group?..."

Couple more...

Bill Gates

http://news.cnet.com/Gates-wants-to-scrap-H-1B-visa-restrictions/2100-1022_3-5687039.html

Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/immigration

Money for them, massive problems for everyone else which is just another variant on the standard pattern of the modern corporate state, privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

David said...

>If the state stayed out of it, there would be more immigration, not less.<

If the state stayed totally out of it, there would be no welfare, no free hospitals, no public schooling, no school lunches, no Section 8 housing, no black market in IDs, no black market in drugs, no black market in labor (no paying cash under the table while legal citizen employees have the disadvantage of being taxed and their employers tasked with withholding), etc.

How many of you illegal buzzards would remain here then, eh?

But of course, if there was NO government at all, there would be NO property, and anyone could do anything to anyone - until the gang warfare began and carved out territory and protected property.

You don't know a lot about human nature, do you? Don't worry. Most libertarians don't.

Although here is one who has something of a clue. Excerpt: "[T]here exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles." Read it all.

David said...

Knew a town once that placarded itself as "The Friendly City" (implication: other towns are unfriendly). This town actually had of some of the meanest, most small-minded, most hostile citizens in the region.

According to legend, Greenland and Iceland were so named despite the fact that Iceland is mostly green and Greenland is mostly ice.

In the South, it's well-known that anyone who puts a "Jesus fish" on his business card is crooked.

A certain ethnic group likes to portray itself as composed of helpless humanitarians when in reality...

In all cases, the right policy is always to assume that whatever is said by a stranger is the exact opposite of the truth. If that proves false, one may begin to trust the person.

Paul Mendez said...

Albertosaurus - There is no United Manufacturers for Cheap Labor (UMCL)as far as I know.

Sure there are!

Essential Worker Coalition:
http://www.ewic.org/

Immigration Works:
http://www.immigrationworksusa.org/

Default User said...

@Anonymous
If the state stayed out of it, there would be more immigration, not less.

That comment seems to imply that a nation cannot decide who may be a member. What is a nation if it cannot decide who is and is not a member? Open borders would change the US from a nation to a large plot of land. If the government cannot or will not defend its own borders than what good is it?

It is certainly true that many people would like to live in the USA. Perhaps a billion or more. Do you really want every person who can make it here to be allowed live here? Do you really want a population several times as large as it already is? Most of Mexico would probably like to move to the US. Of course, by the time they did the US would more closely resemble the Mexico they tried to leave behind.

Every country restricts immigration. Most are for more restrictive than the USA. Every country restricts citizenship. Most are far more restrictive than the USA.

It is interesting that the so-called "Great Leveling" occurred during a period of relatively low (and mostly white) immigration. It was a whitebread, low immigration country that: created a broad and stable middle class, put a man on the moon, created the interstate highway system, and comfortable took over the role of world power.

And of course, Ph.Ds were once able to find jobs.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"Lol, just like how white America stood up to the blacks who took over the inner cities or the Jews who took over the media and drove them out? Oh, wait..."

You made my point, Slick. White Americans did indeed try to stand up against integration. Take school integration, for example. Whites failed to keep Blacks out only because the Supreme Court sent in The Enforcers (military).

Congress passed the civil rights act and the equal opportunity in housing act and used the threat of prosecution to prevent uppity Whites from getting silly notions like the "right of association" meant they could decide who their neighbors should be.

Had the gov't stayed OUT of it, there would have been no desegregation of schools. There would be working class all-White neighborhoods all over the place.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

Immigration is the only thing keeping this country afloat."


"Captain!! We've been hit! Hole in the starboard hull! We're taking on water! The ship is sinking! She's listing badly! We need to reduce ballast!"

"Whaddya, crazy, Number One? Everybody knows the way to keep a sinking boat afloat is to INCREASE the load. Quick! See those people swimming? They're immigrants. Their weight is just what we need. They'll save us! Bring 'em on board!!"

This country has no greater ideals than teaching blacks and worshiping Israel. The production of immigrants is the only thing that finances this insanity

"Production" of immigrants? By definition, immigrants are an import, not something produced in this country. LOL.

Svigor said...

To Mr. Jack Aubrey:

What is wrong with competition from illegal immigrants?

Why do you feel that some people are ENTITLED to be shielded from competition?

Are these "other" types of people such lesser beings?

Why are you entitled but they, not?


I can't really make out this faux-English all the way but I do want to address the silly, dime-store psychology of "you's 'fraid of competition."

The concept of property rights come to mind. We know these people don't let strangers in to "compete" for their beds at night; they lock their doors like everyone else.

But more to the point, for some interloper to demand fair competition, he has to offer it in return. People from Asia do not offer this (no open borders, no mass immigration), so they're out. People from South America do not offer this, so they're out. People from Central America do not offer this, so they're out. People from Africa do not offer this, so they're out.

If there are any countries with borders as open as America's, we know they're all first world. So only first worlders get to make this argument about "competition." So if Anon was arguing for first world immigration, he has a point. Otherwise, he's got bumpkiss.

Svigor said...

One major difference between Italian Americans and Jewish Americans you neglected to mention - some Jewish American immigrants or their ancestors were fleeing Nazi Germany or had family members who perished in the Holocaust. U.S immigration restrictions put in place in the 1920s almost certainly made it harder for many Jews(especially poorer Jews) to seek refuge in the U.S from the murderous Third Reich.

Many pro-immigration Jews are quick to remind people of this when anyone talks of immigration restrictions; they see it as a kind of death sentence and something that very well made it difficult for a grandmother, or aunt or uncle to escape the Holocaust.

Even before the rise of Nazi Germany, many Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century sought refuge in the U.S because of persecution in eastern Europe. The poor Italian ancestors of today's Italian Americans may have been very poor and oppressed, but they were not routinely persecuted nor were they fleeing a genocide.

I think this explains why Jewish Americans tend to favor more legal and illegal immigration than Italian Americans.


For fifty years now Israel has been draining the legitimacy from this argument. American Jewry has had no problem pumping billions into Israel, carrying water for Israel, etc. If they had qualms about immigration restriction, how could they have supported Israel all this time? Sure, they tell themselves pretty lies, but why should we be sanguine about this? Why should we consider this acceptable or moral? Jews are way too smart to get away with this excuse, as only a dullard could convincingly pull it off. How stupid would Jews have to be to convince anyone this utterly contradictory position is held in good faith?

Svigor said...

Many pro-immigration Jews are quick to remind people of this when anyone talks of immigration restrictions; they see it as a kind of death sentence and something that very well made it difficult for a grandmother, or aunt or uncle to escape the Holocaust.

As someone who has done a lot of grass-roots work against illegal immigration in a heavily Jewish community, I will second this observation.


And Israel would stand around watching if any non-Jewish population was facing genocide and looking for a safe haven. And American Jewry might kvetch about it for five seconds before moving on with their lives (more likely, they'd lambaste us for not taking them in).

Kylie said...

Jack Aubrey said..."I loathe reducing all the social and emotional bonds of nationhood to raw economics, but that seems to be the only language you understand."

So do I. It's why I used the example of the marital bond rather than that of property rights in my earlier comment because to me, the social and emotional bonds of nationhood are of paramount importance. "My" or "mine" in reference to spouse or country indicates so much more than mere possessiveness. It's also a kind of implicit pledge of caretaking--what is mine to claim is also mine to defend and protect. It's spiritual and visceral, uplifting and humbling.

Not something I expect anyone on the left to acknowledge, much less understand.

Svigor said...

If Jews feel so sentimental about immigration, why not open up Israel to Arab immigration?

I see someone beat me to the punch.

No, too easy. "Security," "Terror," "anti-Semites," etc.

They should open up to everyone but the Arabs. Let's hear Jews explain why Israelis shouldn't allow immigration from Mexico and South Africa and India and China.

Svigor said...

By not enforcing the immigration laws the government is not protecting anybody.

Sure they are. They're protecting the "anarcho" half of their anarcho-tyranny.

Lol, just like how white America stood up to the blacks who took over the inner cities or the Jews who took over the media and drove them out? Oh, wait...

Uhm, the government was totally hands-off in these situations?

Anonymous said...

"But when you come to the trope of greedy businessmen perverting the nation's immigration policy, where are the scandals?"

Agriprocessors.  Postville, IA.  Schlomo Rubashkin.

It's all the issues wrapped up in one package, isn't it?

Immigrants are cool said...

It's true that immigrants are the only things that keep this country going.

Isn't the number one college major psychology? What do you think the numbers would break down like if you compared the most common majors of white Americans to foreign and native born Hindus, Asians, etc.? Every convenience store or gas station is run by immigrants. Yes, yes, minority business loans and all that, but it doesn't seem to be helping blacks/Hispanics much.

Sorry, whites, but you've gotten decadent. You look down on the laziness and sexual looseness of blacks but compared to Hindu, Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants you're the blacks. Focus on the you know whos who created this culture, not hard working, honest people trying to better themselves and who are carrying this country.

David said...

>Every convenience store or gas station is run by immigrants.<

And so is every shoe-shine stand!

We're doomed!

If you want to see real "decadence," look at the second- and third-generation Pakis, Hindis, etc. The kid blasting hip-hop from the sports car Daddy bought him doesn't pay much attention to running the convenience store, does he? Or anything else either (of a legal nature). From turban to doo-rag in two generations: my congratulations.

Now, fill 'er up!

Mr. Anon said...

"If there is really a group of capitalists willing to subvert the nation's interests for their own profit - what is the name of their group? But these hypothesized businessmen don't ever seem to hold press conferences or band together into groups. There is no United Manufacturers for Cheap Labor (UMCL) as far as I know.

Albertosaurus"

Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Mort Zuckerman, and many other wealthy men have publicly stated their support of more immigration. They don't need to hold formal meetings. They talk at Aspen, Davos, Hiltonhead, whereever the rich go to be amongst their own kind. They can talk to any politician any time they want (Would Barack Obama refuse a phone call from George Soros, or Bill Gates?), and often meet with them in person.

Also, many companies have actively promoted illegal immigration. Tyson Chicken, for example - they want cheap mexican laborers in their chicken houses.

Jack Aubrey said...

But more to the point, for some interloper to demand fair competition, he has to offer it in return. People from Asia do not offer this (no open borders, no mass immigration), so they're out.

More importantly, even if they did why would anyone bother? So every country throws open its doors to unrestricted immigration. How many people will be moving to Somalia anytime soon?

Throwing open our borders without reciprocity is an invitation to conquest. Throwing open our borders with reciprocity is...still an invitation to conquest - the equivalent of me letting you stay in my mansion in Malibu if you'll allow me to stay in your rat-infested shack on the Superfund site.

Sorry, but no thanks.

So do I. It's why I used the example of the marital bond rather than that of property rights in my earlier comment...

Useful and appropriate, for those people who get it. A waste of time for the libertarian-types who don't; who see the world entirely through the lens of the "free market" and economics.

In an economic sense, libertarians all too often fail to understand that the United States is property every bit as much as someone's home or car.

Free market? No government protection? Fine, let the owners of ten million dollar homes and million acre ranches hire their own private armies to defend them.

Svigor said...

Sorry, but no thanks.

Yes, but that's because you're rational. The argument is aimed at the moral universalist. No offense meant, it doesn't work on me, either.

Pink Panther said...

"The 'Jews like immigration cause of the Holocaust' conveniently forgets that Jews have always been against ANY kind of immigration restriction. They fought the 1924 act tooth and nail and every restriction attempt before and after that."

This may be true, but prior to the Holocaust, Jews had less of an effective moral argument for unlimited immigration. Since immigration was a life/death issue for many European Jews during WWII, and since US refused to take in all those Jews who faced almost certain death, Jews spun a narrative where US was, in some ways, complicit in the Holocaust. Americans didn't kill Jews but did nothing to prevent it. It's like people standing by watching someone getting murdered but doing little or nothing to stop it.
OTOH, we have put things into context. Prior to the Holocaust, Jews were not particularly seen as a great victim group, many gentiles had no problem seeing Jews as a 'problem minority' or a 'hostile minority', and until WWII really heated up, the Holocaust hadn't begun in earnest(and most of it was carried out under a veil of secrecy). And if the Holocaust really went into full gear in 1942, we must remember US was at war with Nazi Germany by end of 1941(and even in 1939, had been aiding UK in the war effort). So, it's not like US did nothing.

Besides, who says US is responsible for taking in everyone around the world whose life is endangered. That means US should have taken in millions of Ukrainians during Stalin's forced famine, 30-40 million Chinese during the Great Leap Forward, 3 to 5 million Congolese in the past several yrs, 800,000 Tutsis, over 100,000 Kurds gassed or killed by Hussein, millions of Hindus and Muslims caught in war between India and Pakistan.

And when Vietnam War was raging and many predicted a communist holocaust in Vietnam and Cambodia upon US withdrawal, most American Jews said "it won't happen because communists are the good guys" and/or "why is it our business if a while bunch of Southeast Asians get killed?" Khmer Rouge rule led to the deaths of 2 out of 7 million Cambodians, and the Jewish American media community was happy to shuts its eyes until the news finally burst out with the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

And when Jewish communists were helping Stalin kill millions of people in the USSR, I don't recall much outrage in the Jewish-American community. And if the Ukrainian-American community had called for war with USSR to stop the slaughter, would American Jews have joined in the chorus? I highly doubt it.

I don't think the pro-immigration stance of most Jews is really idealistic but a matter of 'what is good for the Jew'. Jews want more non-whites to reduce whites into a less-threatening non-majority. Jews want more browns to use against blacks and vice versa, thereby taming both communities with sticks and carrots(notice how blacks are more eager to 'play ball' since they have to compete with Hispanics), but whited had wanted this too. When the Hispanic community grew larger than the black community, many whites were happy since they regarded Hispanics as less threatening. And, if the inflow of Hispanics had ended there, all would have been well... except that Hispanics--especially the poor non-white ones from Mexico--kept coming and coming and coming, eclipsing not only the black community but possibly even the white community in the future.

Toby Dammit said...

I wonder how things would have played out if it hadn't been for the Holocaust. Though Jews generally have been more pro-immigration than other groups, I don't think it turned into a born-again religion until after the Holocaust. What had been a pragmatic and sentimental issue became a spiritual and moral one.

Also, regardless of what the Jews may have wanted, they couldn't have gotten it without the support, approval, or lack of objection from the much larger non-Jewish majority. Why did non-Jewish whites support the pro-immigration policy of Jews? Perhaps, a more crucial question is why didn't whites opposed to the Jewish immigration policy fight back? Why did they remain a SILENT majority grumbling behind closed doors? This is where the Holocaust and the related issue of 'racism' come into play. Many Americans may be anti-immigration but they don't have the guts to come out and say so, mobilize, and do something about it. They are afraid of being called a 'racist' or 'xenophobe' by what is essentially a Jewish-dominated media. And young ones had been taught be textbooks and ideas largely cooked up by Jews, liberals, etc. Your average college student, especially in elite schools, are more likely to be into reggae and sushi than into country music and steak n potatoes.

It's possible that prior to the Holocaust, the two main Jewish communities didn't necessarily see things eye to eye. The more settled German-American Jewish community may have been more accommodationist and assimiliationist. And they might have regarded the more recently arrived radical and pushy East-European Jewish community as uncouth, trouble-making, paranoid, radical, and even hysterical. Even in Nazi Germany, many proud German Jews had opted to stay in the belief that the crazy wind would blow over and their rights would be restored one day. And some of them had even shared the German disdain for Eastern Europeans in general, including Ost-Jews.
But then the Holocaust happened, and the German-American Jewish mindset, which had been milder, cooler-headed, and civil, sunk like the Bismarck. The worst fears of the most hysterical and aggressive Eastern-European Jewish community all came true. Nazis did target all Jews, and it didn't matter how patriotic or decent a Jew was; he or she was killed just the same. So, it's possible that the more compromising and reasonable German-Jewish-American community morally and politically lost out to(or joined) the more radical, alarmist, aggressive, and uncouth Eastern European Jews.

Toby Dammit said...

Prior to WWII, there was a sense among many Jews that Eastern Europe was a backward and barbaric place for Jews--though many Jews had favorable views of the heavily Jewish-represented USSR--whereas Western Europe was a pretty tolerant, enlightened, and okay place for Jews. Despite existence of anti-Jewish attitudes in Austria and France, many Jews had succeeded in the West and found privileged and powerful positions in society. And among the major European nations, Germany had been relatively less anti-Jewish. To most Jews, it was Russia and Poland(and elements in France if not all of France)that had earned their ire. But, Germany came to commit the greatest crime against the Jews; it also invaded much of Western Europe and rounded up Jews to kill everywhere.
So, prior to the Holocaust, many moderate Jews might have thought Western Europe was more or less safe for most Jews. Eastern Europe, not Western Europe, was the main problem for them. And though Jews gained great power in earlier yrs of the USSR, most freedom-loving Jews didn't want to live under totalitarianism. And even if Jews were not specially targeted by communists until later, the idea of a state taking away one's property and censoring everyone couldn't have appealed to most Jews who, though leftist, were not communist.

But WWII and the Holocaust convinced nearly all Jews that NO PLACE in Europe could really be safe for Jews. There was the nation of Israel founded in 1948 but it was small, surrounded by hostile nations, and dependent on a superpower like the US. So, US was the only truly safe place for Jews, and the continued well-being of Jews and Israel dependeded on the good-will of American policy; so, it became important for Jews to control America, thus its policies regarding Jews.

Since Jews, only 2%of the population, cannot say they wanna steer US policy to serve Jewish interests, they've been seeking clever ways to universalize Jewish needs, i.e. convince us that what is good for the Jews is really good for all of us--and that Jews are really working for the good of humanity as a whole than for themselves.
Corporations do this too. Coca Cola's objective is to rake in billions, but it also has ad campaigns where it is doing much good work around the world. In other words, we should drink Coke because it's good for humanity(which will hopefully sing in perfect harmony).

Fighting Elegy said...

There are mainly two main narratives of American history: a nation created by conqueror-settlers or a nation formed by immigrants. (And there are two varying immigrant narratives: opportunity immigrants and refugee immigrants. Opportunity immigrants came to make their fortune and find happiness in the New World. Refugee immigrants were persecuted in the Old World and sought sanctuary in the New One. Of course, the two narratives often get confused. The refugee narrative is appealing for its sentimentality, idealism, victimhood, and morality. Even though pilgrim role in the development of America was far less significant than one played by entrepreneurs, plantation owners, and industrialists, we have a national holiday commenorating their sacrifice, nobility, and turkey recipe while no day honoring businessmen and industrialists who really built this country. Though most colonialists came to America for opportunities, they wanted to mythologize themselves as a spiritualist-and-moralist than merely as a materialist people. This was especially true after the War of Independence, as Americans sought to define themselves as a uniquely moral people who'd not only been rejected by the intolerant Old World but had fought and rejected the Old World's oppressive ways. More recently, though most illegal aliens come to the US for jobs and opportunity, we have this thing called a 'sanctuary city'; you'd think all those Mexicans are fleeing from a holocaustez than looking for jobs. To be sure, there are leftists who argue that non-whites around the world are desperately poor and oppressed by Western neo-imperialism, and thus, their fleeing from their native nations--ravaged by Western capitalism--is akin to seeking sanctuary. And since US is the primary force of 'globalism' destroys local or regional economies around the world, US is morally responsible for poor non-whites looking for a better life. Pure rubbish, but that's how the left thinks.)

From the beginning, Wasps opted for both narratives. The pilgrims, puritans, and quakers who fled to the New World to escape religious persecution were refugees. The business-minded Wasps came for the opportunity. And the Westward expansion was a great 'opportunity' narrative, with cowboys and farmers taming the wilderness to make way for cattle ranches and farmland, and with businessmen and industrialists linking East Coast and the West Coast with the iron horse. But then, even this great narrative of opportunity was called Manifest Destiny, as if it had a spiritual element. It was as if what was good for the Wasp or the white man was also good for God.

Fighting Elegy said...

Even so, there's a crucial difference between the Wasp narrative vs other narratives. Even the refugee narrative involving wasps is less about immigrants than about conquerors or settlers. An immigrant, by definition, is someone who moves to another place that is already settled and defined. If one moves to France, that is immigration. And immigrants generally assimilate into the host culture. But, if we were to move to Mars, we would not be immigrants but explorer-settlers. And if there were Martians, we could even be conquerors if, instead of accepting their authority and assimilating into their culture, we insisted on creating a new world of our own vision, power, and making. Pilgrims were not immigrants though they did come in contact with Indians because they rejected, for the most part, the language, culture, and values of the Indians. They just took the turkey and corn. So, even the early Anglo refugee arrivals in North America were not immigrants. They didn't settle into what already existed but created something new out of what they considered a wilderness overrun by animals and heathen savages. And other wasps were even more brazen in their conquest and development of the New World. When they arrived, there was no 'America' but mostly wilderness. So, they were not immigrants but the builders and creators of America. And once this process was underfoot, the newer arrivals became more and more like immigrants though, throughout the 19th century, many also came to build, develop, and settle a largely untamed country than merely to settle into a fully created or formed one.

But by the time the huge waves of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe began in the late 19th century and continued into the early 20th century, America had been, more or less, established and built into a great modern nation, an industrial giant, and a political power around the world. Though there was still a lot of work to be done, the new arrivals such as Jews, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Hungarians, Serbs, Greeks, etc were indeed immigrants in the classic sense of the word.

It was in the interest of the Wasp majority and elite to make these people assimiate and become Americans. Therefore, even though they were bona fide immigrants, many of them came to swallow and digest the wasp-centric view of America as a nation of conquerors and settlers. Though their ancestors had nothing or little to do with the 13 colonies, the War of Independence, the Westward expansion, cowboy legends and myths, the children of all these immigrants grew up and came to feel closer to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and Davy Crockett than with their national heroes of the Old World. An assimilated Italian-American in the 1940s probably knew and cared more about Washington and Jefferson than about the Medicis or Garibaldi. And though most Poles were late arrivals, they were especially proud of Casimir Pulaski who happened not only to be at the founding of the Republic but had played a not insignificant role.
Whatever bad feelings may have existed between wasps and the later white arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe, the fact remained that most of the latter held Wasps in awe. Wasps seemed better at just about everything: business, power, progress, development, reform, moral argument, etc. So, most of these immigrants dared not challenge the main narrative of America created by conqueror-settlers(of both refugees and opportunity seekers)but have some of that myth and magic rub off on them.

Fighting Elegy said...

And things might have remained that way but for the fact that one of those immigrant groups, the Jews, were even more intelligent, enterprising, savvy, aggressive, energetic, and creative than the Wasps. If most new arrivals were content to respect and conform to the Wasp narrative, the Jews were the one people with enough daring, chutzpah, intelligence, and rising power--in all fields--to challenge the Wasp-American paradigm. If Jews had been the original arrivals and builders of America, they might have embraced and upheld the conquer-settler narrative, as they've done so in Israel. But in the US, Jews were relative late-comers. Though there had been Jews in the Republic from the beginning, the Jewish community became a decisive force only with massive immigration in the late
19th and early 20th century. Since Jews came as immigrants and since they sought to topple the native elite and become the new elite, they needed to justify and ennoble their experience above that of the traditional elite group. Thus, Jews projected their sense of "immigration is the essence of America" on all other groups, just as Wasps had earlier projected their sense of "America had been conquered and settled by a great noble people" on all other groups.
When the Wasp narrative prevailed, most Westerns were about great cowboys, and even American Indians cheered for the cowboys and US cavalry when they appeared to flush out the red savages. Even blacks, who'd been brought over as slaves, were proud to be Americans and regarded Africa as the land of Tarzan and Cheetah. At one time, Booker T. Washington was the premier black thinker and leader in America.

Fighting Elegy said...

Through an ideology such as proto-multiculturalism, Jews challenged the concept of the melting pot. Rather then melding into the original stew cooked by Wasps, each group was to emphasize and accentuate its immigrant experience, minority status, and uniqueness. Of course, some groups mattered more than others. After all, the media never tire of the subject of the Holocaust but barely discuss the Great Famine or the communist horrors in Russia or China. Though multicultuarlism is supposed to empower each group, its effect is actually very uneven. Though it's certainly not good for the traditional elite--wasps--, it's not good for most minority groups either. If a minority has little wealth, power, and influence, what can they possibly gain by emphasizing its uniqueness than modeling its behavior on the more successful majority group? Multi-culturalism is only a great advantage to powerful minorities because, under the cover of 'diversity' and 'tolerance', it can be tirelessly used to further tribal interests. Blacks have much to gain thanks to their huge numbers and the fear/respect they produce in the white community. Hispanics have much to gain simply because their numbers are rising rapidly. Though Mexicans in America are working purely for their narrow tribal interests, as long as they operate under the umbrella of multiculturalism, they can justify their La Raza-style politics as as struggling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity'.

Fighting Elegy said...

And of course, the most powerful group to benefit from multiculturalism is Jewish. The worth of multicultuarlism for each community depends on its potential or power--whether it be demographic, cultural, political, intellectual, economic, etc. Jews are not strong in numbers, but they are powerful in just about all other areas. So, Jews can work purely for Jewish interests while pretending to be for 'diverity' and 'tolerance'. In other words, multiculturalism for a Laotian-American or Kurdish-American isn't what is it for a Mexican-American, a black-American, or a Jewish-American. Similarly, the rise of nationalism in the Austro-Hungarian empire was not good for every minority group. If the group was big enough, it could demand its own nation and separation from the empire. But, if the group was small or dispersed throughout the empire, rise of nationalism could mean it would have to live under the yoke of an especially fierce and angry nationalism.

Fighting Elegy said...

Anyway, if most late arrivals, who were in awe of Wasp power, could only hope to gain just enough power, wealth, and influence to be accepted into a great nation conquered, created, settled, and forged by Wasp thinkers, businessmen, military men, cowboys, industrialists, etc, Jews came to regard the Wasps with a certain disdain. Wasps may be smarter and more talented than most people but were no match for the Jews.

If non-Jewish immigrants, deeply impressed by wasp-American myth and achievements, wanted to identify with or be associated with America from its very founding, Jewish Americans wanted to put forth an alternative view of American history where America truly became America when 'immigrants'(especially the Jews) usurped power from the 'conqueror-settlers'(namely the wasps).
Though Jews credited the Wasps with having conquered and settled the vast land and laying down the political institutions and principles, Jews argue that America-as-conquered-and-settled had only been a crude blue print of its promises and possibilities.
So, the REAL America was not that was created by Wasps in the past but one that is in the process of being made, a process that truly began with the rise of Jewish power.

Fighting Elegy said...

Also, the very process of conquering and settling was made into something shameful than a matter of pride. The emphasis was on the 'genocide' of Indians, slavery of blacks, no voting rights for women, wasp privilege-prejudice-hypocrisy, oppression of Chinese-Americans, taking land from Mexico, etc. So, America as conquered and settled by wasps had only been a land of betrayed promises thanks to 'racism', 'imperialism',
'male chauvinism', 'Christian supremacism', and a whole bunch of other isms.

It was only with the coming of non-wasps in huge numbers and especially with the rise of Jewish power that the evils of Wasp-made America and etc finally faded one by one--segregation and 'racism'(thanks to Jewish run NAACP), 'sexism' and patriarchy(thanks to Betty Friedan), Christian supremacism and censorious paranoia(thanks to ACLU), American imperialism such as in Cuba and Vietnam(thanks to NY Times).

Not only did Jews sideline the conquest/settlement narrative but shamed it as evil and hypocritical.
Though Jews never put forth IMMIGRATIONISM strictly as a pro-Jewish interest or ideology, it's pretty obvious that's it's been potent as a Jewish moral argument and alternative version of events against the Wasp elite.

There may actually be another narrative, though a hidden one; it might be called the 'second conquest' narrative.

Wasps were the first conquerer-settlers. The late 19th and early 20th century saw the arrival of masses of immigrants. Jews were of this wave, but they also came to conquer the wasp elite whose ancestors had originally conquered and settled this country. This was the second conquest. So...

Wasps: Conqueror-settlers or first conquerors.

Poles, Italians, Greeks, etc: Immigrants.

Jews: Immigrant-conquerors or
second conquerors.

Today, Jews are to the US what Manchus had once been to the Chinese.

Steve Sailer said...

Thanks.

Svigor said...

Fighting Elegy, the one thing that sticks out in your narrative is the emphasis on Jewish ability. I don't doubt that Jews have an edge on WASPs in terms of IQ, energy, etc., but it isn't all or even mostly about ability. Jews' ethnocentrism is their big advantage over WASPs. If you want to chalk Jewish advantage up entirely to ability, then you should start listing ethnocentrism along with IQ and energy.

Basically WASPs' problem is not IQ, energy, etc., it's their ethnocentrism deficit.

Svigor said...

Just imagine how much would change if WASPs became as ethnocentric as Jews. Would the Jews really come out on top of the inevitable confrontation?

Tokyo Drifter said...

"I don't doubt that Jews have an edge on WASPs in terms of IQ, energy, etc., but it isn't all or even mostly about ability. Jews' ethnocentrism is their big advantage over WASPs.
Just imagine how much would change if WASPs became as ethnocentric as Jews. Would the Jews really come out on top of the inevitable confrontation?"

I've spent lots of time with both, and there's no competition. Many wasps are very bright but many Jews are supersmart. Of course, your average Jew may only be somewhat smarter than your average wasps, but the BIG THINGS in life are achieved by individuals at the tail ends of the spectrum, and the higher we climb up the IQ ladder, Jews outshine Wasps in ever greater numbers.

I've noticed that Greek-Americans and Italian-Americans tend to be very ethnocentric, but they've climbed no higher than Wasps.

The idea of wasps going ethnocentric in this day and age is unrealistic. I do agree, however, about ethnocentrism of Jews, and we should try to break it apart, like the government trying to break apart monopolies. We should start with Jews being counted as a separate group, like Hispanics or blacks. If whites lose out to Hispanics and blacks, Jews, who are 'unfairly overrepresented' in many privileged and powerful positions, should be shamed and forced to make way for whites--especially of working class backgrounds.

Though ethnocentrism is not insignificant, its role isn't very clear. Suppose Italian-Americans or Swedish-Americans were to take hold of Hollywood and run it themselves. Would it be just as successful as a Hollywood run by Jewish-Americans? Or, Jews more creative in business and the arts?

And, I'm not sure Jews necessarily moved up the social ladder by 'sticking together'. For every socialist-minded Jew, many more were into business, and Jewish businessmen were ruthless not only against gentiles but with one another. The major Jewish retail outlets drove many small Jewish retail stores out of business. The major Hollywood studios competed to outdo, destroy, and swallow one another up. Maybe, Jews tended to close ranks when faced with non-Jewish competition, but among Jews themselves there was lots of cutthroat competition to outmanuever one another. They oftentimes acted like enemy mafia clans. So, maybe it's misleading to say "Jews are powerful because they are more ethnocentric." Maybe they grew stronger because they are fiercer competitors willing to 'betray' their own kinds to reach the top, i.e. less ethnocentric in some regards.
Max in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA is very 'Jewish' in this regard, as is Debra. In Old Europe, the non-Jewish gentiles, whether aristocratic or peasant, tended to be more tribal or "Apollonian"--according to Yuri Slezkine--in their thoughts and behavior than the more "Mercurian" and rootless Jews. Jews no doubt developed family networks and aided one another in that manner, but a Jewish businessman was far more likely to outcompete and destroy another Jewish businessmen than a gentile aristocrat was willing to slay another gentile aristocrat(even with all that culture of dueling). There was at least a romantic sense of being 'member of a club' among gentile aristocrats that maintained a degree of good will and common cause, but I don't think most Jewish businessmen gave a crap about being a member of some Jewish club and its codes of honor. The only thing that mattered was to win and win big.

Indeed, one of the reasons for the decline of wasps could be that they were more ethnocentric than the Jews. Once wasps became established, the wasp elites got used to inheriting power despite their individual talents and merits. They may have grown complacent since they didn't feel the need to struggle tooth and nail for wealth and power like the Jews were doing. And they had these blue blood society balls and all that stuff: a cloisterd and ethnocentric and neo-aristocratic world of their own.

Tokyo Drifter said...

Jewish rise was more recent, and it owed as much to Jewish competition among themselves--often ruthless and bloody--as well as Jewish cooperation.
It may well be that Jews understand that being TOP DOG in society leads to complacency, decadence, confusion, moral doubt, and etc. This may be why Jews reject the notion of Jewish power or Jewish elite even if such has become a reality. Partly, this rejection or denial is to shield Jews from scrutiny, criticism, and resentment of gentiles. But, the other reason may be to keep lit the fire in the Jewish belly. When one climbs to the top of the mountain, the scenery is great but soon grows stale, and there is no way but down. It is the act of climbing that fires up a person's will to climb higher. So, even though Jews have reached the mountain top, they want their kids to go on believing that there is much more to climb, which explains the myth perpetrated by MSM that 'priviled blue blood wasps' still hold the 'real power'.

And by associating themselves with poor minorities and immigrants, Jews can continue to dramatize their energy, resilience, and fervor as a noble life-saving mission toward helping the downtrodden and fallen. (Jews not only climb up the mountain but pull others up who'd been kept on the bottom by evil Wasps.) This moral fervor will always make the Jew feel as an outsider with something to prove and something to fix, thus energizing his spirit.
To be sure, Wasps also had a long history of social reform and moral crusade--one that energized wasps compared to the more decadent and lethargic Latin elites of South Americas and Mexico who were only content to be king of the hill in their own countries--, but since white or wasp privilege and power are today associated with most of the past evils of America, wasps can only further social progress in confessional or apologetic mode whereas Jews can do it in an aggressive and accusatory mode. When it comes to social morality, Jews now have the advantage. Jews point the finger at wasps, and wasps can only slap themselves.

Tokyo Drifter said...

We see a similar dynamic between China and Japan today. Japan, long established as an economic giant, has lost its fire and competitive spirit. They are kinda like wasps on their way out. Because Japan, for so long, created and practiced an ethnocentric system where Japanese salarymen were taken care of, many Japanese came to take things for granted: go to good school and get lifetime job and employment, and Japan Inc will take care of you.
This system has now broken down, but Japanese still want the 'good life'; since they can't find steady jobs and get married, they stay home with their parents, find odd jobs, and spend most of their income on videogames and silly stuff. And Japanese today are too spoiled to swallow their pride, roll up their sleeves, and work like their grandparents right after wreckage of WWII.

The Chinese today are more like the Jews in the 20th century. They are on the rise, filled with energy, and determined to make it. Though not without ethnocentrism or nationalism, the Chinese tend to be far more cutthroat, individualistic, and competitive(even or especially)with one another as Jews had been in Europe and US.

If one reads novels about Jewish experience in America, one discovers Jews didn't mind crowding in on other businesses and driving out the competition, Jewish or not.
And even though Jews became highly successful, many of them never seemed to have lost this spirit of boundless and even fanatical competition. Perhaps, the IMMIGRATION MYTHOS keep alive a sense of constant renewal. Though most American Jews today have ancestry going back several generations, each generation feels like it just got off the boat and is discovering America. That is far more energizing than the Wasp blueblood mentality that looks back to a time, over 2 centuries ago, when this country was founded. Jews are looking forward, Wasps are looking backward. Though Buckley was Catholic, he was as Waspy as they came. In a debate with Alan Dershowitz on Firing Line, he sentimentally harked back to the
19th century and seemed like a man outside his own time whereas Dershowitz the firebrand debator acted and came across very much like a man of 'history being made'.

Of course, this Jewish personality could owe something to genetics and not just culture. There seems to be something naturally wily, creative, argumentative, restless, and even a bit hyper about Woody Allen, Dershowitz, Marx Brothers,
and many others. Wasps are like retrievers, Jews are like collies.

Tokyo Drifter said...

Though ethnocentrism can be of great economic advantage, it's also true that every good thing can be a bad thing.

A people become stronger, better, and sharper not only through extra-competition--competition with those outside the group--but through intra-competition--competition within the group. Wolves must fight fellow wolves to develop the skills to fight other wolf packs and animals.
American teams must play against American teams before the best are chosen to play in the Olympics. If all American sports teams go easy on one another, they won't have had the proper practice and honed their skills to take on the best from other countries. So, there is a time to compete within the group and a time to close ranks and fight as a group. Greek city-states were fiercely independent and competitive but they closed ranks when attacked by Persia.

It seems the decline of Japan should warn us of the dangers of too much economic ethnocentrism. Though Japanese economy rose rapidly thanks to national cooperation guided by MITI, this advantage turned into a liability after the great crash in the early 90s. This was when Japan should have let failing banks and businesses go under and clear the way for new economic development. If you can't stop a forest fire, let it burn through and let the stronger and more resilient sprouts grow into a new forest. Instead, the strong sense of ethnocentrism made the Japanese waste most of their wealth on saving the entire forest. They kept pouring and wasting good water on the fire of recession which still burns to this day.
Trying to save every tree, no matter how dry and dying, from the flames, Japan has only produced more drywood for bigger fire in the future.

It seems Jews know the value of both exra- and intra-competition. From a young age, Jews are told to be highly competitive and trained to compete hardest against fellow Jews. But once they succeed and gain great power, they are urged to contribute something to the Jewish community. So, it's an ethnocentric formula of WIN-AND-GIVE, not PROP-UP-THE-LOSERS...
though I must say, the Jewish financial community pulled off the heist of the century if not the millennia with the recent bailouts.

Branded to Kill said...

As long as the conqueror-settler narrative prevails--one favored by Samuel Huntington--, Wasps will continue to possess a special, sacred, and mythic place in America, above and beyond that of all other groups. Every other group will feel it owes something to the achievements of the wasps and that the wasp way is THE WAY of becoming a true American.

For Jews to gain the mythic aura as the quintessential American elite or group, it's not enough to make the tree of Jewish power grow taller than the wasp tree or even to chop down the wasp tree. As long as the stump remains, we are reminded of the roots of the original America. So, the stump and the roots themselvs have to be dug out and exposed as a kind of rot. Just as the Palestinian historical narrative had to be erased, mocked, belittled, or deconstructed to make way for the Israeli myth of founding, same is gradually happening to America. So, America is becoming more and more de-Christianized, de-white-ized, multiculturalized, anti-Eurocentric, etc.

And who cares about The Constitution written by 'dead white males'? There is the 'living constitution' essentially being rewritten and toyed with by Jewish legal scholars, judges, and lawyers. Ironically, Jews gained power and protection by invoking the original letter of the Constitution: freedom of speech, no racial discrimination, etc. But once they've gained power, they are into the 'living constitution' whereby gays can get married, illegals are legal, whites and Asians can be discriminated against, etc.

I wonder if we can spin a fable from all this...

A wasp comes and plants a tree on virgin soil. It grows and grows and bears lots of fruits. There's lots of work to be done, so he invites a lot of different people who are also taught the secret of tree and its fruit-bearing powers. So, others also learn to plant the seeds within the fruits. But one guy, a Jew, takes the seed and turns int into a hybrid with his own, and his tree eventually grows taller than the wasp tree. But the Jew still remembers how his tree had to struggle to grow under the shadow of the wasp tree. Now, that he has the biggest tree bearing the most fruits, he has earned the power to chop down the wasp tree. But then the stump remains, and people still look at it and remark how all their successes owe something to the wasp who'd planted the first tree. The Jew, being a Jealous Guy, decides to uproot the stump and roots as well, thus removing the false Wasp Idol.

Or maybe Wasps should have been more forward thinking in the 1950s and admitted more Jews into their golf clubs and let more of their socialite daughters marry Jewish guys.

Svigor said...

I've spent lots of time with both, and there's no competition. Many wasps are very bright but many Jews are supersmart.

Well, far be it from me to do anything but take your experiences as gospel. Back in hard data world, we're talking a 5-10 point IQ gap. And WASPs outnumber Jews by a long shot.

If Israel stopped being ethnocentric, and opened their home base up to competition, they'd be Chinese in a couple generations.

Of course, your average Jew may only be somewhat smarter than your average wasps, but the BIG THINGS in life are achieved by individuals at the tail ends of the spectrum, and the higher we climb up the IQ ladder, Jews outshine Wasps in ever greater numbers.

Source? The BIG THINGS in life go to the ethnocentrists. Which is why Israel, where Jews are able to run the whole show, owes its continued Jewishness to ethnocentrism, not IQ. There are more geniuses in China than there are people in Israel.

Svigor said...

The idea of wasps going ethnocentric in this day and age is unrealistic.

WASP is an acronym. It's capitalized. If we're going to identify a group with an insect's name, let's at least do so grammatically, yes?

This WASP went ethnocentric. It's one thing to maintain that WASPs going ethnocentric is "unrealistic," it's quite another to do so while we all live under PC domination where we aren't even allowed to point out the very things that turn WASPs ethnocentric. I call bullshit. If it's "unrealistic," Jews wouldn't go apeshit over efforts in that direction. But they certainly do. And they spend a lot of money and effort shaming WASPs, which indicates that the very people that you consider the Master Race disagree very strongly with your assessment.

I do agree, however, about ethnocentrism of Jews, and we should try to break it apart, like the government trying to break apart monopolies. We should start with Jews being counted as a separate group, like Hispanics or blacks. If whites lose out to Hispanics and blacks, Jews, who are 'unfairly overrepresented' in many privileged and powerful positions, should be shamed and forced to make way for whites--especially of working class backgrounds.

Sounds like a lot of sitting around and waiting for Jews to "do the right thing" to me. I doubt WASPs, or anyone else, could even bring themselves to countenance inducing this change without a Renaissance of ethnocentrism.

Though ethnocentrism is not insignificant, its role isn't very clear. Suppose Italian-Americans or Swedish-Americans were to take hold of Hollywood and run it themselves. Would it be just as successful as a Hollywood run by Jewish-Americans?

Successful in what sense? Heroin dealers can be successful if all you're doing is counting dollars.

Christians would certainly be better served by a non-Jewish Hollywood.

And Hollywood would certainly be more successful without all that Jewish nepotism. But apparently, some things are more important than a quick buck.

And, I'm not sure Jews necessarily moved up the social ladder by 'sticking together'. For every socialist-minded Jew, many more were into business, and Jewish businessmen were ruthless not only against gentiles but with one another.

From what I gather, it's not uncommon for Jews who hit it big to have had fat, interest-free loans from other Jews. In fact, isn't interest on Jew to Jew loans verboten in traditional Judaism? As you say, wolves fight amongst themselves. But they'll instantly stop fighting to fall upon a deer unlucky enough to walk in on their squabble. Your assertion that Jews don't cooperate against non-Jews just doesn't jibe with my observations of the world. Stating that they're ruthless with one another and outsiders sorta glosses over the hierarchy of interests loosely stated as "me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against the world."

Svigor said...

And your separation of "will to power" and ethnocentrism isn't at all something I take for granted. I think it's more likely they're roughly the same thing.

Svigor said...

Why don't whites dominate any black African populations any more? Ethnocentrism. There's no contest in terms of IQ, industriousness, etc. Whites just don't want to do it any more. Will to power and ethnocentrism went kaput.

Svigor said...

Why don't Jews go through the cycle of decline observed in other groups? I.e., why aren't they satisfied with success? Don't bother giving cultural reasons, as you have above. It's ethnocentrism; Jews find ways to rewrite the narrative to keep themselves pissed off, because they're so bloody ethnocentric.

Svigor said...

And why don't we see Jews taking over populations that look nothing like themselves? Jewish advantages over WASPs are dwarfed by Jewish advantages over most of the rest of the world. What explains this contradiction? If it were just about IQ, industriousness, etc., shouldn't we see Jews taking over non-Caucasoid populations?

Answer: they're cut off at the knees by ethnocentrism.

Svigor said...

Madoff made his fortune by taking advantage of Jewish ethnocentrism.

Jewish guilt=exogamy, the opposite of white guilt.

Big wig Jews show their bona fides by giving big donations to Jewish charities; WASPs think there's something wrong with the idea of having WASP charities.

How much of Mel Gibson's money did Hollywood forgo due to Jewish ethnocentrism? What, it took a slide rule to figure out a high profile, honestly Christian movie (so rare it's almost a contradiction in terms) would make money? Even back in Rotgut's "golden age" of Hollywood, Jews never made Christian movies, only Old Testament movies.