June 30, 2011

Not The Onion

The Great and the Good are getting together in Aspen right now at the Aspen Ideas Festival to tell each other how good and great they are. Financial blogger Felix Salmon asks:
Will the world ever have open borders? 
My favorite bit in this video comes towards the end, when I ask Charles [Kenny] about the wonderful tweet he sent out last Friday, after the gay marriage bill passed the New York senate.
"One day we’ll see legal discrimination by *place* of birth as evil as discrim. by other features of birth –gender, orientation, color."

Ah, Twitter ... Helping elite opinion on immigration become ever more bumperstickerish.

Remember when conspiracy theorists used to get all worked up about the secret meetings of the Bilderbergers? Personally, I found the idea of senior bigshots like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Helmut Schmidt getting together in private to pull strings was reasonably reassuring. Thank God somebody knows what they are doing!

How naive I was ...

Now in the Davos Era, when much of this elite conspiring is done in public for self-promotion purposes, the terrifying truth becomes obvious: there is no Inner Party who actually knows how things work. There's no O'Brien or Mustapha Mond who can come on at the end of the dystopian novel to explain the sinister but logical and carefully thought through reasons for why things are the way they are.

Is there a single better question for determining whether someone has thought long and hard about how the world (and not just their own bailiwick where they made their bundle) really works (and exposes whose side they are on emotionally) than "Open Borders: Good Idea or Bad Idea for America?"

58 comments:

Commissar Svigor said...

"One day we’ll see legal discrimination by *place* of birth as evil as discrim. by other features of birth –gender, orientation, color."

No, Comrades, do not trust this capitalist running dog. We will achieve the common man's paradise by erasing the artificial borders between rich and poor. We must start at the top and work our way down. When we are living in the oligarchs' and SWPLs' homes, when we have erased the false-money-boundaries between the privileged and the poor, THEN we will erase the borders.

Anonymous said...

The inner party wants more immigration because it's in their economic interest. They know exactly what they're doing. Flooding wealthy nations with poor labor produces more wealth for Western elites. Yes, the common man is worse off, but they don't care about the common man. Most Western (East Asians are different) elites are unpatriotic and all about cashing in. If they can indulge themselves in feel-good multiculturalism, even better.

Personally, I like the idea of not discriminating on the basis of birth. If the entire displaced Arab-Palestinian population wants to relocate to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, why not let them? Problem solved!

Jane said...

No one wants to trade places with the six billion who live in third world shitholes. The third worlders all want to come here. Are we supposed to cram all seven billion earthlings into North America, Europe, and Australia?

Of course the Chinese would like to come here. They've turned their country into a toilet in less than 30 years. Why not fling the doors open and invite them to do it here too?

What are these people smoking?

Anonymous said...

Steve, your epiphany is similar to the feeling I had around the 2007 global financial crisis. Up until then, I thought there was some substance to the neo-con world view. Unfortunately, the loss of neo-con legitimacy bodes a grim short term outlook for paleos and commies alike.
Gilbert P

Nim M said...

Half Sigma has been doing profiles of New York Times reporters recently. What he's learned is that almost all of them come from privileged backgrounds and IVY league education.


So, having grown up in protective bubbles, the news sources that the elite use to shape their opinion is guided by individuals from the very same bubble.

tanabear said...

Are you sure it isn't from the Onion, Steve? What about this gem from the same article,

"Greater levels of immigration aren’t just a fantastic idea from a national-security standpoint and a fiscal standpoint, they’re also demographically necessary for an aging America which has a lot of labor-intensive needs in a service sector which can’t be outsourced."

Whom the gods wish do destroy they first make mad.

The following statement expresses common sense,

"Another cause of revolution is difference of races that do not at once acquire a common spirit, for a state is not the growth of a day, anymore than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution."
Aristotle, Politics

RS said...

What a wonderful tweet! Wonderful, wonderful tweet, hooray, tweet tweedidy tweet -- yay!

Anonymous said...

What kind of moron thinks recognizing differences between GENDERS is bad?!

How are you supposed to decline nouns? Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

svig- LOL, i know you're joking but that IS the argument i always present to open borders nuts and the best response they can come up with is 'that's different".

Wes said...

Anonymous says:

Most Western (East Asians are different) elites are unpatriotic and all about cashing in.


I wish this wasn't true, but increasingly I think it is.

Anonymous said...

I've said it before. The reason why liberal Jews and neocons Jews--95% of Jews--are behind the gay agenda is it erases the concept of distinctions. Jews are masters of psychology, and they feel 'purism', 'boundarism', and 'distinctionism' in one area affect areas. So, Christian purism can morph into racial purism. It's like the term 'Islamo-fascism'. Spiritual radicalism leads to political radicalism.
Distinction between normal straights and perverted gays can lead to distinction between normal majority goyim and alien minority Jews. So, Jews are trying to loosen ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL habits of the mind(especially among white goyim)that think or feel in terms of purism/boundarism/distinctionism.

Thus, anal sex between two men is now the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between man and woman that produces life. The notion that 'two mothers' or 'two fathers' can have a family is of equal value as that of man and woman producing life together and morally committing to a bond to raise the very life they've created. People say it's hysterical to think 'gay marriage' will lead to decline of civilization, but they don't understand what Jews understand: psychology.

If you change one habit of mind, it affects other habits of mind. From 'gay marriage', we go to 'undocumented immigrant'.
Civilization is about justice but also about hierarcies, values, and distictions. When anything is anything, everything is nothing. There is a connection between gay agenda pushing Barney Frank and his support of Fannie Mae. Gay agenda and ownership society both owe to loss of distinctions. If gay is as good as straight, a black guy with horrible credit record is just as worthy to get home loans. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' is a similar kind of mushy mindedness.

It's like if you're lazy at one thing, you tend to be lazy at other things as well. This is why someone who studies hard tends to work hard. A person who doesn't lie and cheat in one area is also likely to be conscientious about other things.

Jews fear the notion of a rightful normal majority and an alien minority that needs to conform to majority power/values. If Jews were of average IQ, they might respect the white majority and just assimilate. But they are of higher IQ, long aimed for dominant elite status, and they are now addicted to their elite status and wanna keep it forever.

So, they fear any future development where the goy majority may wake up and think, 'hey, we are ruled by a hostile elite'. Jews still think in terms of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Germany used to be nice to Jews but turned to hell. At one time, Jews ran Russia under communism but lost it all. But why? Because the purist mentality at the core of communism eventually morphed into purist nationalism. The purism of NOBLE WORKERS vs STINKING BOURGEOISIE turned into NOBLE RUSSIANS vs STINKING ALIEN ZIONISTS. So, Jews are no longer for radical leftism either.

Jews are for some mumbo-jumbo globalism where anything and everything goes. No more ideological purity, no more sexual distinctions, no more national boundaries. Jews still fear the Christian Right even though it's pro-Jewish because Christian spiritual purist psychological outlook may morph into racial/national purist psychological outlook, as in Soviet Russia.

Anonymous said...

So, Jews are behind the gay agenda and immigration/migration. Open doors through the back door, psychologically. And when the nations are all mixed up--with the exception of Israel--, there won't be any place on Earth where a majority wil be able to rise up to challenge Jewish power. Also, though Jews are mighty proud of having taken over US, the richest and mightiest nation on Earth, it isn't enough for their ego and ambition. Jews want the entire world. Under nationalism, Jews have to be mindful of the racial/ethnic majority of each nation. French Jews have to be mindful of French majority, British Jews have to be mindful of British majority, Russian Jews have to be mindful of Russian majority, American Jews have to be mindful of American majority, etc. But without nationalism, world Jewry can work together to increase their power even more. The whole world will be their oyster. (This is why Jews hate China, the mono-racial nation that will likley do most to resist the power of Jewish multi-culti globalism).
The fact is American Jews feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than to rest of Americans. An American Jew feels closer to an Israeli Jew, a French Jew, an Hungarian Jew, a Russian Jew, etc. American Jews tried to save Soviet Jews from Russian antisemites, not white goyim from black crime. American jews don't care about Arizonan ranchers killed by illegal aliens, but they care about how Jews are faring in modern day Poland or Israel.
George Soros is a superduper Jew. A Hungarian Jew who lives in America but globetrots around the world, raking in billions from all five continents. He has no home cuz the whole world is his home.

Also, Jews being smarter, they have more to gain from a 'free form' style of politics, business, culture, etc. whereas the less intelligent goyim feel more secure and safe with 'boot camp drilling on the fundamentals' when it comes to national borders, morality, and culture. Jews, with higher IQ, tradition of social networking, and rootless habits, are better positioned to play the global game--like the conman hustulers of David Mamet movies.

And of course, people from other parts of the world study in American universities dominated by Jews and absord 'liberal' ideas back to their own homelands. Students from France, China, Germany, Turkey,Latin America, etc who study in US colleges and become the political and economic elites back home and will likely push the same values in the future.

Some will say Soros is an anti-Zionist secular Jew, but he bought up the Left not because he really loves leftism but because he wants to own and use the moral hammer of 'progressivism' to further the globalist agenda which is best for people like himself.

Wes said...

By the way, watching Al Sharpton host a political show reminds me that Republicans should demand Democrats have more Blacks in prominent positions inside their party (I mean they get over 90% of the Black vote).

I can't think of anything that would bolster Republican chances more than a 100 Al Sharptons on the airwaves.

Anonymous said...

Now in the Davos Era, when much of this elite conspiring is done in public for self-promotion purposes, the terrifying truth becomes obvious: there is no Inner Party who actually knows how things work.

Steve,

Of course there's an "Inner Party."

You not infrequently mention or cover them yourself - your great coverage of the JPPPI a couple years ago comes to mind.

I think since you're not afraid to mention or cover it, you just think about it as part of the general elite.

But you have to remember that there are taboos and restrictions against thinking about it, and that many average people are completely unaware of it. They're either prevented from hearing about it, or they police and prevent themselves from thinking about it.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the liberal dream of open-borders a worthy one? I mean, it's not feasible at the moment but can you at least acknowledge the tragedy of human condition such that accidents of birth keep you from a better life? What about the issue of who is deserving? Are you really more deserving than anyone else?

SFG said...

Speaking of elites, looks like DSK may be innocent...le Duke stripper?

Anonymous said...

Limited Government
Open Borders
Democracy

pick 1.5

Anonymous said...

well steve there was an inner party in russia, and things went well for themselves, for others, not so much... what's different here??

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I really wonder if you might be a sociopath. You have no empathy for people who are not your "kind." You understand them but you do not sympathize with them one bit. You seem to see them as ants.

Garland said...

"Is there a single better question for determining whether someone has thought long and hard about how the world (and not just their own bailiwick where they made their bundle) really works (and exposes whose side they are on emotionally) than "Open Borders: Good Idea or Bad Idea for America?""

I tend to think No, there is no better question. Which is why I really still cling to the hope that a big chunk of the elites really think OBs are a bad idea and only say otherwise for fashion and professional reasons.
But even if that desperate wish is right, there is clearly a large chunk who think the OBs are good, which means a large chunk of elites have not thought much about reality and the world beyond their own bailiwick.

Jane said...

Excellent point, Commissar Svigor.

I look forward to sampling the fine wines, great coffee and superior sushi from Tim Wise's kitchen very soon.

Something tells me this Charles Kenny guy has a good wine cellar too. Can't wait.

Chief Seattle said...

affordable housing
open spaces
unlimited immigration

Pick 2.

Steve Sailer said...

The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI, an Israeli government-affiliated demographic planning thinktank) stuff is funny because they pretty much try to follow the Davos model of having a website and boasting about all the big names who come to their powwows, and they give their book "2030" away for free online. It's all perfectly sensible stuff.

But, the impression I get vaguely is that their staff is disgruntled that they get zero, zip, nada coverage in the American MSM.

sabril said...

I agree that the liberal fantasy is to have world government and 100% open borders. As Halfsigma pointed out, John Lennon's "Imagine" is pretty much a road map for the Liberal Dream.

And I suppose that if you really believe that talent, especially intelligence, is distributed equally among all peoples, it makes sense to aspire to this.

Anonymous said...

There was a substitute-Auletta profile of Gawker's Nick Denton last year. He defensively made a nearly iStevey comment (also very bitter-gay-Brit comment--not that there's anything wrong with that) that the financial beat he'd quit was corrupt anyway, accusing them of "foreign-correspondent envy" and of course, a more furtive, kvetchy envy of the people they're supposed to be covering.

It seemed like simply flipping the stereotype of tabloid-gossip guttersnipes back onto the tonier London/New York/DC crew. However Salmon's been a reliable embodiment of the newer stereotype.

Anonymous said...

"What kind of moron thinks recognizing differences between GENDERS is bad?!

How are you supposed to decline nouns? Sheesh."

Very, very funny. Thanks, I needed that.

ben tillman said...

Isn't the liberal dream of open-borders a worthy one? I mean, it's not feasible at the moment....

It's feasible on a small scale, at least. You can implement an open-borders policy with respect to your house or apartment. Have you done so?

Would you care to share your address with us so that we may avail ourselves of the amenities of your personal home? Or will we find out that EVEN YOU don't believe the "liberal dream of open-borders [is] a worthy one"?

ben tillman said...

Isn't the liberal dream of open-borders a worthy one? I mean, it's not feasible at the moment....

Do you understand that one way we kill unwanted bacteria is by inflicting open borders on them? (That's how penicillin works, by destroying the structural integrity of the cell walls of gram-positive bacteria.)

Is there any reason, in principle, to expect the outcome to be any different for a nation?

If that's too oblique for you, no, the liberal dream of open-borders is not a worthy one. It's a death wish.

Anonymous said...

What If Illegal Immigrants Are Better At Their Jobs?

Adam Ozimek adds nuance to the debate over whether Americans would do the jobs illegal immigrants do:

Wages may only need to go up by 10% in order to find workers willing to replace illegal immigrants, but if the quality of work goes down -if the workers are slower, sloppier, etc.- then unit labor costs may double or more.

Whiskey said...

JPPI can't even get George Soros, Bill Gates, Bono, the guys on first name basis with most of the world leaders, to come. So they're not very influential. If they were, Israel would have more security -- rockets would not routinely rain down on them and Gilad Shalit would have been released.

There is nothing more than the abject stupidity of a class that truly believes it is "above borders and citizenship." This is stuff pushed by NPR, or the NYT, the outlets of the post-Calvinist, post-Christian religion of the new Priesthood. These people all move around a lot globally. Anything foreign they love because it is more "authentic" and "real."

And it is part and parcel of the Average White women's disgust that most White guys are her utter equal. Nothing disgusts a woman more than to find most men are her equal, instead of superior.

Anonymous said...

The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI, an Israeli government-affiliated demographic planning thinktank) stuff is funny because they pretty much try to follow the Davos model of having a website and boasting about all the big names who come to their powwows, and they give their book "2030" away for free online. It's all perfectly sensible stuff.

But, the impression I get vaguely is that their staff is disgruntled that they get zero, zip, nada coverage in the American MSM.


I have a hard time believing that they really want heavy MSM coverage of that.

Anonymous said...

"Greater levels of immigration aren’t just a fantastic idea from a national-security standpoint and a fiscal standpoint, they’re also demographically necessary for an aging America which has a lot of labor-intensive needs in a service sector which can’t be outsourced."



More immigration keeps down wages, which is good for corporate managers and wealthy investors. Labor shortages will increase wages and lower profits, so the elite wants to avoid shortages. More immigration also increases the size, scope, and funding of government - good for political elites. Politicians and businessmen tend to rotate in and out of the private sector (ie Dick Cheney, Bush, Gore, Powell, Goldman alums), and therefore have common cause in promoting more immigration.

Immigration is good for overall economic growth and making government stronger. The benefits accrue almost entirely to those on the top, while everyone else's living standards drop, but the elites don't care about the common man. Most elites are globalists with no attachment or affinity to their countrymen, and they see clannish patriotism as retarded redneck stuff. Not worth taking an economic hit for. For them, a drop in the common man's living standard is nothing to lose sleep over because they don't give a dam about Joe the Plumber. The Atlantic carried a good article where both a Hedge Fund Manager and corporate manager said they don't care if Americans see lower incomes, as long as the economy continues to grow.

Many elites also feel guilty about their wealth. Being politically correct towards minorities and immigrants makes them feel good about things. Bush openly supported illegal immigration by saying "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." McCain reminded Arizoans that they should be nicer to illegals, since the land "used to be theirs" before the Mexican-American War. McCain also used his convention speech to talk about the "American Dream of the Latina daughter of migrant workers."

To the extent that our elites have any nationalistic fervor, it's mainly directed toward Israel. Our media and political elite spend vast amounts of time worrying about Israeli borders and territorial sovreignty, but have hardly anything to say about our borders!

There are some exceptions, many of whom are conservatives from the South or Midwest/Mountain Zone, but mainstream elites don't view Americans positively. Americans, especially white Southern men, are spoiled, ignorant, unworthy, and bigoted. Blacks are long suffering people that maintain nobility in the face of vicious oppression. Mexicans are hardworking, admirably humble, patriotic, family-oriented people of immense virtue. Jews are altruistic and the real intellectual backbone of the country. Muslims often are no good, because they hate Israel and are overtly anti-semitic, but they can be cowed with force. With the exception of Muslims, all minorities>>> straight white men.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the logical corollary of 'seeing legal discrimination by place of birth as evil' is that there will be absolutely no point in voting in any general election whatsoever as purely and simply the idea of representative democracy - which is dependent on the idea of citizenship - will be rendered worthless.
Apparently all these 'wonderfully clever' people cannot see that democracy is, and has been, always and everywhere the expression of the desire of the citizens of a particular civitas to rule themselves.If a civitas cannot apply boundaries to itself it is meaningless and useless.

Anonymous said...

Another point.
If these idiots have their way and citizenship is abolished, and so, for example no distinction can be made between a natural born American and a Pakistani, for instance, and therefore some bastardized form of 'world government' is forced through, then as sure as night follws day, there is absolutely nothing whatsover to prevent the teeming billions of subcons to expropriate the private wealth of Americans to themselves by voting in 'redistributive' policies.
This is not even including the mass immigration.

Silver said...

Discrimination can lead to evil, but isn't evil in itself. Ultimately, it's pretty obvious that people who do discriminate live a lot better than people who don't. Felix Salmon's mush is just his own personal paranoia playing out before the world; to call him a wanker is pretty much redundant.

Sometimes I really wonder if you might be a sociopath. You have no empathy for people who are not your "kind." You understand them but you do not sympathize with them one bit. You seem to see them as ants.

Kinda like the way a lot of people feel about whites, you could say.

IHTG said...

"But, the impression I get vaguely is that their staff is disgruntled that they get zero, zip, nada coverage in the American MSM."

Trying to talk to American liberals about demographics is like trying to talk to a hot chick at the bar about Star Trek.
Even if they don't throw you out the window immediately for being an untouchable racist/nerd, they simply do not get it.

Anonymous said...

The inner party are masterful geniuses at getting what they want. The rest of us are rubes for thinking that our elites give a dam about us. The last time elites actually liked the American people was probably sometime in the late 1980s. Since then, it's been one giant middle finger to the American population.

Anonymous said...

Jane - No one wants to trade places with the six billion who live in third world shitholes. The third worlders all want to come here. Are we supposed to cram all seven billion earthlings into North America, Europe, and Australia?

Quite so.

What really depresses me is that they willfully deride or ignore the reasons why the world is divided as it is. As if western societies were just another dumb fact like good weather or nice beaches. ie unrelated to the people who live there.

Anonymous said...

Think about the fall of Rome or Southern Confederacy:

Slaves.

In both cases, the elite decided they could do without the labor of the yeoman class and imported slaves to reduce labor costs. In the case of the South, a great many of the Yeomen could and did migrate west where there was uncultivated land while others of an independent bent had to find land by fleeing to the hills—quite literally—to become despised by the elites as “white trash” or “hillbillies”.

The driver of this is “economic rent”.

Think about it like this: If you own land, the larger the economy becomes the more demand there is for your land. So you have an incentive to import more and more people—that is unless you are in the labor market! If you are in the labor market, as are most yeomen, you must balance the increase in value of your land (whose value is dominated by its provision of life to your family anyway—so you can’t really think of selling it) against the prices you can get for your labor.

If the value that falls on assets from increasing economic activity is not taxed away and redistributed to the posterity of the founders, a welfare queen elite will arise that thinks it is entitled to the benefits of civilization, and the rest of the population, who were intended as the beneficiaries of the nation by its founders, are increasingly forced to compete with imported slave labor until they are forced to sell their subsistence properties and then go into debt slavery.

The invading peoples will, of course, complain loudly about being enslaved—but the punishment will be handed out to the populous for the crime of being of the same ethnicity as the elite—while the elite will absolve themselves of guilt by surrounding themselves by foreign sycophants.

Anonymous said...

Of course, if the open-borders advocates are so damn guilty about their unearned priveleged lives, (they're all on big incomes, none of them has ever gone hungry or suffered real hardship of course, as a litmus test open borders advocates are to a man and woman doyennes of prviliege), then perhaps instead of moaning about it they could actually make a good and useful contribution to end 'American privelege' and actually amke a change for the good and atone themselves.
Let them pledge to live on the 'average global salary' (PPP adjusted for the USA), and donate the remainder of their big incomes to a worthy charity pledged to allieviate third world poverty (there are hundreds of them).

Don't hold your breath.

Of course, the one certain effect of a real open borders regime is just that - reduce American incomes to the global average.

Svigor said...

Kinda like the way a lot of people feel about whites, you could say.

That's what I was going to say. Monkey see, monkey do. Leftists want to act sociopathically towards us then cry out in pain when we return the favor.

Discrimination can lead to evil, but isn't evil in itself.

I know you'd agree, but I should point out that this applies to almost everything.

McCain reminded Arizoans that they should be nicer to illegals, since the land "used to be theirs" before the Mexican-American War. McCain also used his convention speech to talk about the "American Dream of the Latina daughter of migrant workers."

Racist hypcrites. We all know what McCain would say if I told him I held a grudge against Mexicans for the Mexican-American War. That's categorically racist and collectivist. But it's perfectly okay for him to say we owe the Mexicans for the Mexican-American War. And the kicker is McCain thinks his white skin makes him the spokesman for white people.

White people really need to start telling these racist leftist-collectivist pricks that no, having white skin does not make them the spokespeople for whites.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"they’re also demographically necessary for an aging America which has a lot of labor-intensive needs in a service sector which can’t be outsourced."

Because as we all know:

1) immigrants never get old and sick
2) immigrants are coming here to pay taxes for stupid old white people

It's win-win folks. Stop your bitching.

Silver said...

IHTG,

Trying to talk to American liberals about demographics is like trying to talk to a hot chick at the bar about Star Trek.

I get what you're saying, but the logical extension is that it's impossible to have an intellectually satisfying conversation with a hot chick, and that is far from true. A huge amount depends on how you lead into it. You certainly can't just wade in with facts -- "approach with a Star Trek opener" -- and demand instant assent to proposed solutions -- "so wanna fkk?"

Even if they don't throw you out the window immediately for being an untouchable racist/nerd, they simply do not get it.

I've never had an "extreme" reaction like that. I figure most people just gasp behind my back at what an incredible "racist" I am.

Of course, you're right that they "don't get it." But think about it, what are you/we typically asking them to get? It's too overwhelming. Sometimes the best you can do is simply "alert them" that "change is coming" -- ie, it's not necessarily something you think is happening or going to happen or that you want to happen; it's just what "people are saying." Yes, the infamous "They" can be your friend. "They" say this. "They" want to do this; what do you think about it?

All very laborious but someone's gotta do it.

Svigor,

I know you'd agree, but I should point out that this applies to almost everything.

Hmmm.

"Microwave ovens can lead to evil but are not themselves evil."

Nah.

Kylie said...

"Isn't the liberal dream of open-borders a worthy one?"

Sure it is. I have an idea--why don't you lead the way? You could start by removing your front door and publishing your address.

"I mean, it's not feasible at the moment..."

Oops, ignore the preceding suggestions.

"...but can you at least acknowledge the tragedy of human condition such that accidents of birth keep you from a better life?"

That's not a tragedy, that's a fact of life and like most facts of life, is rife with what some are pleased to call "unfairness". The fact that we perceive something as unfair, though, does not mean that we are bound to rectify it.

In most cases, what keeps people from a better life is that they are born in a country and of an ethnicity that fails to provide for its own. For example, Zimbabwe was known as one of the "breadbaskets of the world" when it was also known as white-ruled Rhodesia. Now that its population is under black rule, it is a place of famine, whose citizens has poured into South Africa, looking for relief and instead, finding mainly ethnic cleansing. Surely you don't call the move from colonialism to autonomous rule a "tragedy". While I truly believe the plight of present-day Zimbabweans is rife with unfairness, I also believe it's not the place of Americans to do anything about it. The problem of Zimbabwe is an African problem requiring African solutions.

"What about the issue of who is deserving? Are you really more deserving than anyone else?"

"Deserving" is a value judgment we are not called on to make, outside of civil or criminal court. Off-hand, though, I'd say those who try hardest to work with what they've been given (in a lawful manner, I do not suggest reinstituting colonialism or slavery, both of which were abominations) are "most deserving".

Reply if you wish, I have nothing further to say on this particular topic, except that I think you are woefully and willfully naive.

Hacienda said...

"Of course the Chinese would like to come here. They've turned their country into a toilet in less than 30 years. Why not fling the doors open and invite them to do it here too?"

Easy Breezy,
Asians come here because the academic competition is breezy.

JSM said...

Lefty says:

"You have no empathy for people who are not your "kind.""

Perfect example of Steve's observation that P.C. makes you stupid.

Why, Mr. Lefty, do you suppose the word "kind" means both "people like oneself," and "empathy and care," i.e., "kindness"?

Because kindness is SUPPOSED to be directed to your own kind.

JSM said...

"Jane - No one wants to trade places with the six billion who live in third world shitholes. The third worlders all want to come here. Are we supposed to cram all seven billion earthlings into North America, Europe, and Australia?

Quite so."

And if we DID let all the 6 billion shithole-dwellers into North America, Europe and Australia, some of us native-born White North Americans, Europeans and Australians would, to get the hell away from the billions, move into the now-emptied-out shitholes.

Then when, in due course, we've remade the shitholes into uncrowded, clean, functioning paradises, the 6 billion, having shitted up Europe, NA and OZ, will clamor to be let back into their former shitholes, insisting we "stole it from them."

...an infinite loop until the Universe ends in heat death...

Anonymous said...

Unless YOU are the O'Brien figure, or maybe Mencius Moldbug. That would kind of figure, actually.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Here's an example of the Inner Party at work:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

"MK Danny Danon (Likud) asked Australian MP Michael Danby on Wednesday to propose, in parliament in Canberra, sending African migrants from Israel to Australia.

Danon and Danby discussed the issue during the Australian politician’s visit to Israel for the World Jewish Congress’s International Conference of Jewish Parliamentarians.

“The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.

“On the one hand, it treats the refugees and migrants in a humane way. On the other hand, it does not threaten Israel’s future and our goal to maintain a clear and solid Jewish majority,” he explained.

Danon said Danby enthusiastically agreed to present the idea to the Australian Parliament."

SouthernAnonyia said...

"Jane - No one wants to trade places with the six billion who live in third world shitholes. The third worlders all want to come here. Are we supposed to cram all seven billion earthlings into North America, Europe, and Australia?"

I've argued the same thing on liberal sites such as reddit, and the idealistically moronic response is typically that "there is no such thing as overpopulation" or alternatively something along the lines of "everyone in America can fit into New Hampshire comfortably"....
They see no holes in their plan either. They are truly deluded.

SouthernAnonyia said...

"Sometimes I really wonder if you might be a sociopath. You have no empathy for people who are not your "kind." You understand them but you do not sympathize with them one bit. You seem to see them as ants."

Better to be a "sociopath" than one whose delusions run so deep that they are totally ignorant of reality and cause and effect. Or that they believe their delusions are worthy of the sacrifice of others.

Anonymous said...

And if we DID let all the 6 billion shithole-dwellers into North America, Europe and Australia, some of us native-born White North Americans, Europeans and Australians would, to get the hell away from the billions, move into the now-emptied-out shitholes.

Then when, in due course, we've remade the shitholes into uncrowded, clean, functioning paradises, the 6 billion, having shitted up Europe, NA and OZ, will clamor to be let back into their former shitholes, insisting we "stole it from them."


From the perspective of Amerind hunter-gatherers, various mammals, and other flora and fauna, New World settlement did turn North America into a "shithole."

Svigor said...

"Microwave ovens can lead to evil but are not themselves evil."

Nah.


Yep. I smash you in the face with a microwave, you think, "evil!"

See?

Silver said...

Yep. I smash you in the face with a microwave, you think, "evil!"

Yeah, you're right, it happens every day.

See, this is why people (meaning I, Silver) think you're a deranged extremist.

You can't even accept that people (meaning actual other people) tend to feel there's something just a tad foreboding about discrimination, which distinguishes discrimination from other things that "can" lead to evil. Kinda makes the job of desensitizing people to discrimination just that little bit harder, wouldn't you say?

Anonymous said...

To the idiot who jabbers about 'accident of birth' and 'deserving and 'underserving':

As the old saying goes 'choose your parents wisely'. The fact is that everything in this life is governed by pure random chance, always has been and always will, since the first serendipitious miracle caused an organic soup of molecules to spontaneously form a replicator, till the day the sun turns into a red giant and vaporises the earth.
As a Buddhist might put it, count yourself lucky you weren't born a laboratory rat rather than a priveleged over-fed American idiot.And yet, as an evolutionist might put it, it was a myriad of random chances, selfishlly seized advantages and pure self interest that split you off from the putative rat line and into the primate line.
You see the only other force apart from randomess that has shaped this world you, me , cockroaces, lice, lions, tigers, whales, mighty oaks etc is pure selfish self interest.Like it or loath it, that's the way it is.

David said...

>"Microwave ovens can lead to evil but are not themselves evil."

Nah.<

I can't believe you lack the imagination of a typical 10-year-old boy.

David said...

>You can't even accept that people (meaning actual other people) tend to feel there's something just a tad foreboding about discrimination,<

That people feel something doesn't mean it's true. They used to feel that questioning the existence of God was sinful and horrifying.

Svig likely acknowledges the obvious fact that "people feel" discrimination is evil. Who isn't aware of this? But the million-dollar question is this: do their feelings define what we should feel? Answer: no.

Silver said...

I can't believe you lack the imagination of a typical 10-year-old boy.

Talking about ten-year-olds, would you believe I came up with my own version of Zeno's Paradox at that age (maybe younger) sitting on the toilet seat wondering how, if before touching another object one object had to pass the smallest possible distance between two objects, two objects could ever touch, since the putative smallest possible distance could be halved interminably? Make of that what you will, but have fun imagining it's not indicative of a hyperactive imagination.

Wanna know something else? I wanted to tell that tale ever since Steve first brought up Zeno a few days back but I couldn't think of a way to sneak it in modestly. But since (a) you provided me with half a chance, and (b)
I'm all for modesty and humility and all that -- indeed, the Kyokushin dojo kun I was weaned on virtually mandated it -- but I had the two hottest chicks in the club come onto me last night (well, okay, one, but her friend was the other and she tagged along and warmed up quick smart) so I'm feeling pretty damn cocky right about now, and for once in my life I think I'll just roll with it rather than apologize for it and justy tell the fkking story and see how it plays out. (You can be my guinea pig.)

Svig likely acknowledges the obvious fact that "people feel" discrimination is evil.

If you know svigger like I know svigger -- and I've known svigger going on four years -- you have to assume he believes it's all the result of a gigantic, diabolical plot.

But the million-dollar question is this: do their feelings define what we should feel? Answer: no.

No, their feelings shouldn't "define" what the rest of us feel. But if you want them to redefine their attitude towards discrimination you've got to begin by accepting that they view the link between "discrimination" and "leading to evil" as belonging to a distinctly different class than the link between "microwave ovens," "dental hygiene" or "Hungarian goulash" and "leading to evil." (Svigger, please reread the second sentence a few times. Not only will it help the message sink in but you'll kill two birds by sparing yourself the embarrassment of recanting your allegation of grammatical error or unintelligibility on my part.)