From my new VDARE.com column:
Bush Tries To Redefine Amnesty One Last Time
By Steve Sailer
Was this the straw that finally broke the camel's back?
On Tuesday, May 29, President George W. Bush declared that opponents of the Kennedy-Bush "comprehensive immigration reform" plan in the Senate "don't want to do what’s right for America," you unpatriotic curs…
The response has been overwhelming, but not in the direction that the President had hoped.
White House staffers then threw fuel on the fire, telling the New York Times, that Bush "had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear." [President’s Push on Immigration Tests G.O.P. Base, By Jim Rutenberg And Carl Hulse, June 3, 2007]
In other words: Don't blame us flacks, we didn't come up with that line. Blame our boss—he really means it. Bush is so nuts for illegal immigrants that he's out of our control.
On Friday, Bush waded back in, delivering a semi-literate defense of the Senate amnesty bill:
"I say the system isn't working because there's a lot of Americans who say that the government is not enforcing our border."
In other words: How dare those disrespectful Americans say that the government is not enforcing our border! Don't they know the government is me?
"I say the system is broken because there are people coming into America to do work that Americans are not doing."
In other words: Uh … hmmhmm … Well, I don't quite know what this means. My best guess is that the President left out a part of the sentence necessary for it to make sense.
"There are so-called innkeepers, providing substandard hovels for people who are smuggled into our country. In other words, we have got a system that is causing people—good, decent people—to be exploited."
In other words: People aren't being nice to those swell illegal immigrants and that makes me mad!
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
19 comments:
Ted Kennedy has said that as soon as this bill is signed into law, he'll introduce another bill to "correct the errors" (i.e., remove all the compromises made to conservatives.)
Lindsey Graham went before La Raza and said that he was going to "tell the bigots [enforcement supporters] to shut up." (Watch it if you haven't already. The last 30 seconds are the worst.
John McCain tells Senator John Cornyn, and us indirectly, "F*&% You."
Barney Frank openly admits that immigration hurts American workers, but that it'll help leftists win more elections - which is why he supports it.
Bush's Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, says that enforcers will settle for nothing less than execution.
Linda Chavez says that opponents of this amnnesty oppose it simply because they hate Mexicans.
The conservative opinion leaders, sans Bill O'Reilly, are all in open revolt against Bush. Laura Ingraham, Heather Mac Donald, Kathryn Lopez, Charles Krauthammer, Ramesh Ponnuru, Thomas Sowell, George Will, and, at the pinncale of the group, Peggy Noonan have all, more or less, said "adios" to Bush. (Quite a diverse group, that.)
Even John Podidiotz, usually a shrill open borders voice at NRO, is quiet these days. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial board (all white men, except for Jason Riley, who didn't even have a seat at the table) referred to the NRO folks as "foaming at the mouth." NRO publicly challenged them to a three hour debate, to which they've yet to acdept.
And now Bush says that we don't want what's right for America.
Meanwhile, not one but two planned terrorist attacks are broken up by the FBI.
If you prayed for a breakdown on their side you wouldn't an answer this great from G-d.
The multiculti establishment is in full breakdown mode. They're getting frustrated. They know that one way or another, they're going to lose, either on the bill, or in the next election.
At the local level, the enforcement train is rolling at full speed. Judges, like the ones in Colorado, are doing what they can to stop democracy in its tracks, but eventually they know the people will catch on. If they don't get an amnesty now, they know opinion will turn.
Would make a good Onion article.
"I say the system is broken because there are people coming into America to do work that Americans are not doing."
In other words: Uh … hmmhmm … Well, I don't quite know what this means. My best guess is that the President left out a part of the sentence necessary for it to make sense.
Or perhaps it was a Fraudian slip. Whoops. Freudian.
I wonder if, come a year from now, political analysts will point to the immigration bill as the key turning point that broke Bush's Iraq policy. The conservative base may feel so burned by Bush's "invite the world" sentiments that they finally waver on the "invade the world" plank of his program. For months now, Democrats have been saying that they plan to hammer Republican congressmen with repeated votes on Iraq until they break. (It's also hard not to notice that some of the President's biggest supporters on Iraq, like Lindsey Graham, or also proponents of this turd).
Perhaps Harry Reid is the new Karl Rove, the Mormon Machiavelli who orchestrated this whole thing--with the brilliant topper of making ol' Teddy his public face--just to crack the GOP and bring the whole house of cards down.
It took me a long time to see the light about Bush and immigration. For a long time after I started following politics (9/11), I was just sure Bush was a calculating blue-blood political animal, and that his critics were way off about his emotional attachments (surpassing Daddy, doing Iraq right where he'd done it wrong, opening the borders because he's got brown leaves on the family tree, etc.).
A few years ago it finally hit me, that Bush is essentially irrational on immigration (and probably the war); he really is emotionally invested in turning America into Mexico. The blue-blood part comes (inter alia) when constructing his environment; he probably hears honest, even dissenting opinions very seldom. And since most coherent anti-immigration opinion is Ray Cissum, it's probably expressed less often in his circles than other opposition.
It was an "OMFG" moment when I realized that Bush almost certainly really has no "good," (Machiavellian) reason for wanting to make America into Mexico.
I think something similar has happened with the hereditary elite running Hollywood. In WN circles, jews are famous for their juxtaposition of "nerdy" genius, and real-world ignorance (e.g., they can theorize how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but have to call a goy to change a light bulb). There's hyperbole, but also a heavy dose of truth in that. I stopped watching television a few years ago, but I rent series on DVD. It's an interesting way to get a better understanding of specific groups of writers, because if you enjoy a series you can watch every episode, in order. One thing that's really been driven home is how little writers know about the real world. This can be hard to disentangle from their collective contempt for their audience's cognitive abilities, but sometimes there's no mistaking it*.
*E.g., just last night saw an episode of Babylon 5. (It's set in the future in a remote space station, days or a couple weeks travel from Earth) A character gets a treat of bacon and scrambled eggs and everyone is jealous and going on about how it's impossible to get eggs, they haven't seen eggs in years, never mind bacon, etc. (they're all eating blue goop).
Trouble is, eggs keep for a long time. They're one of nature's most perfectly-packaged foods. Even if that weren't the case, freeze-dried eggs keep indefinitely, and they're a VERY close second to fresh scrambled eggs.
Bacon, well, it's salted pork - not exactly a shrinking violet. It keeps for months in a freezer.
Just a quibble, but similar examples abound (in most series). They tell me, even taking into account laziness or outright contempt for the audience's intelligence, these guys just don't know any better. They live in their little world, they don't look out the windows, and they don't want to. Daddy got them the job and the world should be grateful to have them as the rightful elite.
Whether this sense of entitlement - Sailer's "oblige sans noblesse" - is a necessary or sufficient factor is anyone's guess.
The establishment is in full breakdown mode? Then how is it that the best the common folk can hope for is that the bill will fail? We can't hope for a wall. Correction -- we can hope for a wall but we know it won't get built. We can't hope for a crackdown on businesses that hire illegals. Ditto: we can hope but...We can't hope for vigorous enforcement of any of the immigration laws that are on the books now. We can't hope for the reversal of the establishment's all court press for multiculturalism and against assimilation to American culture. So who's winning?
I have a new theory involving the joke about the "Mexichurian" candidate.
These two statements are obviously the product of a diseased or drugged mind:
"I say the system isn't working because there's a lot of Americans who say that the government is not enforcing our border."
"I say the system is broken because there are people coming into America to do work that Americans are not doing."
Bush might really be some crafty evil genius manipulating us with the most inane double speak but I doubt it. I think he's really that confused after being brainwashed and/drugged.
Bush has been conditioned to live with the most painful yet unresolved dissonance as evident in his comments on illegal immigration. He almost admits the Amnesty bill is a disaster but can't quite muster the strength to speak his own mind. The only relief he gets is when he does his masters' bidding.
Maybe we should stop judging him and send in a rescue squad.
Svigor said...
It took me a long time to see the light about Bush and immigration.
Actually, you still haven't seen the light, as demonstrated below:
it finally hit me, that Bush is essentially irrational on immigration
Now that he's being attacked by the right-wing base, he's reacting as he always does when faced with disagreement: he's acting like an irrational jerk. But before that, he was rationally carrying out the policy of the Republican Party: to lower wages and destroy labor rights.
All of you social conservatives are so emotionally wrapped up in your antipathy for multiculturalism that you are missing the simplest things.
"Daddy got them the job and the world should be grateful to have them as the rightful elite."
I doubt many TV writers got their jobs because of "Daddy". Some guys got their first temp gig through college connections (e.g. someone they worked with on the Harvard Lampoon), and other guys sent in spec scripts. That's how the producer of Battlestar Galactica got his first writing job at Star Trek. He was a Cornell dropout though, so not exactly a stupid guy. The truth is that most people who are more successful than you are smarter, more talented, or simply work harder than you. While you were reading Kevin MacDonald they were writing spec scripts; studying for their GMAT, LSAT, MSAT, PMAT, Real Estate Broker's License, or General Contractor's license; cold-calling potential clients, etc.
But before that, he was rationally carrying out the policy of the Republican Party: to lower wages and destroy labor rights.
This gets to the heart of the matter. The Republican Party is not the natural home of nationalist or populist politics. The middle class flag waving types came over from the Democratic Party. Essentially they were chased out by the Jewish liberal agenda during the Reagan years etc. That agenda is considerably more radical and anti-nationalist than the old time liberal agenda.
So, there is no home in the two party system for border enforcement. The big money donors, corporate WASP Rep and Hollywood/NYC Jewish Dem, that fund the parties are both totally against border enforcement on principle. And that is why we are in this predicament.
Isn't that bit about caning beneath you?
So his brilliant maneuver is to destroy the party? Drive white males away?
Ah, thanks, the scales have now fallen from my eyes.
I doubt many TV writers got their jobs because of "Daddy".
No, 60% are jews because their daddies were goys.
That's why the entertainment industry makes such a high quality product - because it's run by nothing but megatalents.
We can't hope for vigorous enforcement of any of the immigration laws that are on the books now. We can't hope for the reversal of the establishment's all court press for multiculturalism and against assimilation to American culture. So who's winning? - ricpic
The point is that they're learning how hugely unpopular this is, while at the same time seeing numerous local efforts to crack down on immigration. Judges have overturned or stopped many of them cold, but the establishment knows that, eventually, the people will get fed up with dictatorial judges.
In that sense, they're boxed into a corner. If they do nothing, they start seeing more and more states (and lawyers in courts) doing the job for them. Passing an amnesty will stop that, but is extremely unpopular with the people.
So how do they pass an amnesty? Well, arguing facts would be useful - except that none of the facts are on their side. The best fact they have is that illegals are responsible for a grand whopping 0.08% of GNP, which ain't too impressive for a group of 15 million people (plus anchor babies) who have turned whole regions of America upside down.
So what do they do? They call their opponents a bunch of racist pigs. Doing so used to work. Most people, including myself, used to always throw copious amounts of "I'm not a racist" phrases into our arguments against illegal immigration. Now we don't bother, and we don't even care.
Americans have finally caught on that accusations of racism are just ways of shutting down debate. The death of multiculturalism and political correctness can't be too far behind.
Writing -- even writing what you think to be crap -- is a high-IQ field. As with most high-IQ fields, you'll find a lot of Jews there. The same is true in medicine, finance, physics, etc., as you know.
That isn't really an answer, is it? No, it's a version of the old "there's good and bad in all people" cop-out.
Jewish overrepresentation is heavily overrepresented in areas related to mass communication.
Why are Hollywood writers, directors, and producers 60% jewish, but not computer programmers, or geneticists, or other high-IQ fields?
An adolescent has the faculties to look at the media numbers and laugh at the high-IQ argument.
Considering that you are just now getting around to watching Babylon 5
No Sherlock, this is actually my third viewing. I watched it sporadically back when it was broadcast, then saw it on DVD, and now again recently (though this is the first time I've watched almost every episode)
I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't seen some of the entertainment industry's high-quality products, such as the TV shows Battlestar Galactica
Seen it. It's a good, and exceptional, series. It's played itself out, methinks. Latest season sucks.
24
Seen it, except for the new season. The writing is laughable; not that I blame the writers, the series axiomatically jumped the shark after season 1 - the only way to avoid this would've been to take the concept and plug in an entirely new cast and plotline. That would've been too big a risk, so they went for the money (understandably).
the Sopranos, etc.
Only seen an episode or two.
Citing the best television won't change the fact that too much of Hollywood product is crap (shiny crap, but crap nonetheless), and that it's likely nepotism contributes significantly.
Jews want diversity so much, how about some diversity in the ranks of Hollywood decision-makers.
Is everything produced by the entertainment industry great? Of course not. That's why there's always a market for new writers and new ideas.
You're implying that Hollywood is entirely money-driven, which is absurd on its face. Can you say Mel Gibson? Not everyone wants to see liberal preaching all day, every day, from their television. Hollywood is perfectly aware of this, but there's some money they don't want. Holocaust films (Who knows? Three hundred? More?); Holodomor films (0); Gulag films (0).
You have a better idea? You think you are more talented than most TV writers?
What this has to do with the discussion, I don't know.
"That isn't really an answer, is it? No, it's a version of the old "there's good and bad in all people" cop-out."
That wasn't really a question, was it? What does the tendency of high-IQ groups to work in high-IQ industries have to do with the statement, "there's good and bad in all people?"
"Why are Hollywood writers, directors, and producers 60% jewish, but not computer programmers, or geneticists, or other high-IQ fields?"
Speaking of genetics, the WSJ happened to publish an interview today with the CEO of Genentech, Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D. I have no idea what the percentage of Jews is in genetics, computer science or other high-tech fields, but considering that America's leading biotech company is headed by a Jew, and America's leading internet company (Google) was co-founded by a Jew, Jews seem to have achieved a level of prominence in these respective hi-IQ fields disproportionate with their numbers in the U.S. population.
If the percentage of Hollywood writers who are Jews is higher than the percentage of other high-IQ professionals who are Jews, it may be because Jews are more fluent in American culture than members of other high-IQ groups such as Indian-Americans, and Korean-Americans -- partly because Jews have been here longer, and partly because significant parts of American culture are Jewish-American inventions, e.g., blue jeans, "White Christmas", department stores, Hollywood, etc.
In any case, many of the most prominent and successful TV writers and producers today are non-Jews like Ronald D. Moore of Battlestar Galactica, David Chase of the Sopranos, Manny Coto of 24, Stephen Bochco of NYPD Blue and other shows, etc. As with the Jewish writer-producers, their daddies didn't get them their jobs. Their talent and hard work did.
"[re: BSG] It's played itself out, methinks. Latest season sucks."
Perhaps the first time I have agreed with something you've written here. They have announced that next season will be the last.
"Citing the best television won't change the fact that too much of Hollywood product is crap (shiny crap, but crap nonetheless), and that it's likely nepotism contributes significantly."
Do you have any evidence of this nepotism? As in other forms of popular culture, there is more mediocrity than greatness, but there are arguably more quality TV shows today than in the past.
"Jews want diversity so much, how about some diversity in the ranks of Hollywood decision-makers."
Speaking as a Jew, I am less interested in diversity than quality of output. I'd rather David Chase make good episodes of The Sopranos than fill a quota of Jewish or other writers. Fortunately, he doesn't have to. Similarly, I am less interested in how many Jews work at Genentech than in how many drugs the company can produce to effectively treat cancer.
"Can you say Mel Gibson?"
Can I say it? I brought him up in my last comment, when I recommended you send him a spec script. If your implication is that Hollywood studios turned down his Passion of The Christ because of it put ancient Jews in a bad light (except for Jesus and his apostles, I guess), I think a more likely reason is that most Hollywood execs doubted that a movie in Aramaic and Latin about a story filmed a few times before would make a lot of money. Those execs were obviously wrong about the market for Jesus-themed movies, but they learned their lesson. Hence, recently we've had Hollywood movies about the birth of Jesus, a C.S. Lewis Jesus allegory movie, etc.
"Holodomor films (0); Gulag films (0)."
I don't know what you are referring to with the "Holodomor" is, but Atom Egoyan made a movie about the Armenian genocide. The book "The Industry of Souls" would likely make a good Gulag movie (because it has a Western protagonist); if I were a screenwriter, I would try to adapt it.
"What this [submitting a spec script if you think you are more talented/have a better idea than current Hollywood writers] has to do with the discussion, I don't know."
Let's see: our discussion included you implying that to be a successful writer in Hollywood you needed a Jewish father to get you the job; you writing that most Hollywood stuff was crap; and you writing that you have more useful real world knowledge (about, for example, how long eggs and bacon can stay fresh) than nerdy Jewish writers. I pointed out that smart writers have broken into TV writing with spec scripts, no Jewish daddies required. Suggesting that you submit a spec script emphasizes this point, that no Jewish daddies are required, and it also makes the point that there are more constructive things you can be doing with your time than arguing with guys like me (it's true I could be doing more constructive things than arguing with you as well). If your concern is that your desired subject matter (genocidal Jewish commies?) won't find a market, don't be so sure. Plenty of folks around the world share your feelings for Jews: For example, Egypt's state TV company recently produced a miniseries based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was a hit all over the Arab world.
Actually, I'd put my own analysis of Jewish over-representation part-way between Svigor and Fred (how's that for really splitting a difference!).
First, much, probably most, of the Jewish over-representation in high-ability fields probably derives from the high average ability of individual Jews.
As a partial counter-example to Svigor's analysis, I would note that the field of theoretical physics (my own background) is intellectually prestigious and exceptionally challenging, but provides zero political or social power/influence, nor provides any large financial rewards. Yet Jews easily comprise 60% or more of the top ranks of theoretical physicists, possibly being even more over-represented than among Hollywood scriptwriters. To a lesser extent, the same over-representation is also true of other rigorously demanding but poorly paid academic disciplines.
Also, Jewish---unlike e.g. Asian---ability tends to peak in the verbal skills subcategory, again partially explaining the tendency of high-ability Jews to go into fields like the media or lawyering rather than spatially-oriented fields such as traditional engineering. Similarly, Jews have traditionally been vastly more over-represented as classical musicians rather than as artists, because of the general profile of Jewish ability. I really can't see any other plausible explanation for this sharp music vs. art dicotomy.
On the other hard, Hollywood is certainly a notoriously nepotistic industry, and I'd be astonished if there weren't a huge amount of ethnic nepotism involved as well as the more mundane kind. And the movie/media imbalance on the wickedness of Hitler/Holocaust vs. Stalin/gulag is so laughably absurd---especially given the vastly greater body-count of the latter---that I'm sure it's due either to Jewish ethnocentrism or the Martians playing a joke on us, I can't decide which.
"And the movie/media imbalance on the wickedness of Hitler/Holocaust vs. Stalin/gulag is so laughably absurd---especially given the vastly greater body-count of the latter---that I'm sure it's due either to Jewish ethnocentrism or the Martians playing a joke on us, I can't decide which."
There's also the little fact that Hitler was our enemy in World War II and Stalin was our ally, and that Americans like to think of World War II as a uniquely "good" war fought by our Greatest Generation. Emphasizing the evil of Stalin threatens the "good" status of the U.S. in WWII and the "Greatest" status of the generation that fought it.
"On the other hard, Hollywood is certainly a notoriously nepotistic industry"
This seems to be more the case with actors (e.g., Gary Busey and Jake Busey, Goldie Hawn and Kate Hudson, etc.) then with writers. In the case of one famous writer/director, Quentin Tarantino, it was a Jewish actor (Harvey Keitel) who hooked him up with the resources to make his first movie (Reservoir Dogs).
Post a Comment