Here's the third (or maybe the fourth) editorial in the last week from the NY Times about the horrifying Nativist Menace:
By The Editorial Board
The Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday released “The Nativist Lobby,” a report examining the connections among the three Washington-based organizations that have led the charge for restricting immigration to the United States.
They are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA — a lobbying group, think tank, and grassroots organizer, respectively.
All three groups are well known — you have probably come across their leaders denouncing immigration “amnesty” in news articles and on TV. The groups have the ear of conservative politicians all over the country, and their efforts have inspired many of the hard-line federal, state and local initiatives cracking down on immigrants and immigration. Numbers USA even took credit for a storm of blast faxes and phone calls to Congress that helped to kill a major immigration bill in 2007.
What is less well known, the report says, is what the groups have in common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor with a long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism.
The groups insist that they do not hold racist or extremist views. That’s good.
But the report argues that people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about. It calls them “fruit of the same poisonous tree.”
Many people who want stricter policies on immigration are not racist or extremist. Many care about seeing the law enforced, or are worried about overpopulation. But it’s also true that there are racist and extremist elements in the movement, and it is important to call them out.
Kudos to the S.P.L.C. for shining a light.
So, now we know what the NYT's Two Minutes Hate of three editorials screeching about "nativists" was all about: it has been a marketing campaign for this new proclamation by the money machine that is the Southern Poverty Law Center ("Dedicated to Wiping Out the Last Vestiges of Poverty, Southern or Otherwise, in the Lifestyle of Direct Marketing Association Hall of Famer Morris Dees").
When denouncing the "ties" of immigration realist groups, shouldn't the New York Times Editorial Board at least mention its own ties to the SPLC? For example, Editorial Board member Adam Cohen's "Professional Profile" on Spoke.com reads:
"Before joining the Times editorial board in 2002, he was [among other things] ... a lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala."Thanks to Nicholas Stix on VDARE.com for finding that. (Here are summaries of some of Cohen's essays. And here, Hans Bader says, "If Adam Cohen did not exist, the Onion would have to invent him...")
As the SPLC blog "Hatewatch" complacently commented when congratulating the NYT editorial board on its denunciation of Marcus Epstein (of all people) as a "white supremacist:"
We couldn’t have put it better ourselves.Indeed.
It's also easy to see why the Editorial Board had to keep banging the gong, rather than have the News department at the NYT write up this latest SPLC press release about that terrifying "retired Michigan eye doctor:" it's not news. The SPLC has been flogging the same story about Dr. John Tanton since at least 2002.
Here is part of Tanton's March 11, 2002 reply to 18 bullying questions from the SPLC:
Here are several questions of my own:
- I would like some assurances from an analysis of your staffing patterns that you do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin. Please supply a list of your staff and governing board complete with an analysis for these four pillars of non-discrimination, and correlated with salary level. In your opinion, to avoid the charge of discrimination, should the makeup of your staff mirror the city of Montgomery, the state of Alabama, the United States - or perhaps the world? What groups are over- or underrepresented?
- Please give me your reaction to the Harper's exposé (November 2000) on the SPLC, charging your colleagues with veniality and hypocrisy, among other items. What is the social justification for your absolutely enormous endowment? These monies were evidently obtained from donors under false pretenses of actually doing something about Southern Poverty. Granted, based on your IRS 990 report, the SPLC has rescued its governing board and top staff from poverty. What have you done for the average impoverished Southerner, whose plight you have appropriated into your organization's name?
- Finally: there is an old maxim that what we say about others tells more about ourselves that it does about others. In this connection, SPLC is given to accusing others of racism and hate crimes. Exactly how would you describe the emotion that motivates you? Is it Love for those who are different or who you perhaps perceive as "enemies?" Or is it more akin to Hate on your part? My analysis is that it comes much closer to the latter than the former. Certainly SPLC is chief among the hate-mongering groups in the United States, if not the world.
John H. Tanton
That's just a bit of it. It's a great read.
And here's a summary of a Pulitzer-finalist investigative report into the abyss of abuse that is the SPLC.
Finally, we can see once again how much good it's done FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA to try to be as respectable as all get out on immigration and never talk about race: you still get denounced as white supremacist hate groups by the New York Times!
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
64 comments:
The groups have the ear of conservative politicians all over the country
Bullshit. Don't we all wish?
What is less well known, the report says, is what the groups have in common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor with a long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism.
How about all the left wing groups with ties to communists or zionists? How about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and her desire to keep the miserable wretches from breeding? How about Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright? So now that Obama's been safely elected guilt by association finally matters?
Perhaps the real reason the Slimes is publishing all these editorials just now is that they wrote them at various times before the election but realized the guilt by association thing wouldn't help Obama.
Here's the thing about Tanton: for all I know he could be the world's biggest jackass. But on this subset of issues we agree. No large group of people on any side of any issue is ever 100% morally pure. Oh well.
The NYT campaign this week makes sense only if you understand what constitutes a racist in the eyes of their staff.
Essentially a racist is a white gentile who does not regularly decry and disown the values of white gentiles.
These may be the values that built America and Europe, ie civilization, but what have they done for us lately?
They mention Tanton's "interest in racial quotas". As stalwart defenders of race-quotas throughout society, it seems irony, too, is now lost on the Times. I assume they're suggesting racial quotas in immigration (that is, racial quotas that don't square with the racial quotas of the '65 act they approve of). Or could it be that they simply disapprove of an interest in affirmative action, as if opposition here is de facto proof of bigotry? I almost hope this to be true, perversely amusing as it would be.
When I see the names in the SPLC/NYT overlap, all I can think is, "Please recognize, isteve readers, that not all Jews are like that".
Okay, I take back the "no ROI" thing, LOL. Criminey.
Considering that everybody in public life has been called a racist or sexist or homophobe at one point or another (including Steven Spielberg, for his association with the controversial Boy Scouts), I think the "nativists" should simply say, We are nativists! If that means we like our own country and fellow citizens more than Burundians or Mexicans, then we are all nativists, even the NYTimes editorial board.
By the way, let's not forget the travesty that occurs every time the media quotes the SPLC with a straight face. This organization was outed as corrupt years ago.
Just thought the obvious might need pointing out.
But the report argues that people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about. It calls them “fruit of the same poisonous tree.”
I should've read the article before composing my last post; the SPLC, a corrupt organization that is neither southern, nor concerned with poverty or law, denounces these groups for their guilt by association - an organization that could not survive without the media chronically covering up it's own malfeasance. Never mind the guilt by association vis-a-vis the SPLC's argument. Priceless!
If the Times insists on this standard of guilt by association, what about Obama's association with Bill Ayers?
There aren't even good reasons to "disavow" the agreement (and especially the numerical augmentation) that one may find with those in disagreement on other grounds. It's the ineradicable shortcoming of democracy, where what counts is the number one can muster. The left practices the same sort of coalition-building to swell voter ranks , albeit with less honesty or honor in presentation.
I'm against every manifestation of collectivism. I'm against every facet of the welfare state, not only because it infringes and diminishes my freedom but because I am persuaded it's just as injurious to those claimed as beneficiaries. Racial minorities or those on the left of "the bell curve" of IQ should be (but are not) aware that collectivism and socialism are even more injurious to their long-run interests than to those of the more able.
The guy who is against racial set-asides or affirmative action (or any of a long laundry-list of policies) because he doesn't like blacks may have different reasons than I for voting against such policies or for the party supporting them but, insofar as voting against such policies, he is my ally. Further, experience convinces me that a significant number of the presumably "racist" are more motivated by the observable effects of forced equality of outcome, "political correctness," and pandering to the presumed interests of minority groups than overriding hostility to the minority groups themselves. Even purely racial sentiments cannot but be intensified by the recurring spectacle of despised groups uniting politically to achieve legally superior positions in a system of politically-distributed "benefits."
True friends may be hard to come by but allies are where you find 'em.
It's long gone past the point of parody to witness jews married to jews, or blacks in all-black organizations, or what have you, call moderately, even slightly, ethnocentric folk descended from Europeans "racist". The crawling, pleading replies of "We're not," show that the decades-long social/media/cultural barrage has been utterly effective. It will not end until the term is embraced, then heads down the road of parity, becoming the equivalent of "omnivore" or "biped".
The opposite of "racist", when it comes to our species, is "extinct".
Still waiting for that NYT editorial denouncing people who support a certain ethno religious state that identifies itself by ethnicity and has successfully lobbied congress to support that state maintaining its ethnic identity. It also has immigration policies designed to make sure that ethnicity stays the majority. Why hasn't editor ROSENTHAL done this yet? Shouldn't it be a priority after all we can force them to embrace diversity since we fund them. WE're calling the shots you know
What is less well known, the report says, is what the groups have in common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor with a long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism.
I thought it was the NY Slimes that was interested in racial quotas. Oh, I get it, "who whom". But I've never heard a right-winger agitate for racial quotas for whites. Frankly, I'm still confused by what the Slimes meant there.
Shouting Thomas:
You're young and don't know much.
How do I know that? Because Ayers and his side have been winning since at least the late '50s and early '60s, with only minor setbacks (Reagan and then the short-lived "contract" Republicans of the '90s). They've got a stranglehold on academia and the media and are largely in control of the perpetually bureaucratic (especially civil-service sector) executive function at both federal and state levels.
What you (and, I will grant, most) do not understand is that there's no way to fix things piecemeal. Did you ever see the Britcom "Yes, Minister?" It's got a lesson: the party in power may change but the
(civil-service) administration never does.
It's not a conspiracy; rather, it's an outgrowth of personality types. I am not trying to engage in personality-bashing but there are types who, in choosing occupation, seek safety above other considerations: they are seek places in the "ivory tower" of academia and in the protection of civil service. There's nothing wrong with those people, their preference, or even proclivity to organize to feather their nests. It takes all kinds, etc. What's wrong is that the rest of us do not understand that such people will come to dominate the rest to the extent that their functions are synonymous with government--the coercive authority. The control of education (and the media through the education of journalists) will NEVER end until there's an end--totally-- to gov't-funded compulsory ed. There's no cure for an expanding bureaucracy except removal of as much of life as possible from the regulatory function of government. There's almost no function except that of defense (and possibly some health and consumer protection involving interstate exposure) which cannot be performed more reliably and much less expensively by the competitive private sector. But, until majorities become wiser than in the past,--not a chance!
I tend to agree that the resemblance between "SPLC" and "SCLC" may be deliberate. I was surprised to read in Wikipedia that the SPLC was only founded in 1971, after the civil-rights movement had begun its transformation (in part) into a shakedown outfit. I'd assumed it dated from the heroic age of the movement, and if someone had told me it had been led by MLK, I'd probably have said, "Oh, I knew that!"
"The Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday..."
That's about all you need to know. SPLC calls ST (changed from NYT) and ST editors jump to action. Then they bitch about a little networking on the right. Nice.
There'd be no problem if the activists were actually native enough to be nativists because that would mean people from the founding stock still existed in sufficient numbers to maintain power. The truth is the immigration restrictionists are a racially and ethnically heterogeneous group who just want to preserve the demographics of the US as they are right now. I don't see how such a coalition, in existence merely to prevent/delay the next stage of development, can endure very long. But you guys keep doing what you're doing, not like anyone can stop you. I for one am tired of having to be nice to the strange bedfellows. Guess it's time to start practicing my Spanish.
The first poster shouldn't be too upset.
I saw a copy of the NY Slimes last night at my local coffee shop. It was as thin as one of the free advertising tabloids. You know, the ones selling used cars and appliances.
I think the Slimes is monetizing its assets such as its new headquarters in order to keep publishing. I believe this process is the harbinger of the end.
It reminds me of the Washington Post of my youth. I used to deliver the Post every day. It was almost always at least an inch thick, even on Mondays and holidays. Now it's all but gone.
So, take heart.
The end of the dinosaurs is upon us.
Cheer up. Perhaps this fuss will pout an end to the absurd misuse of "Native American".
Why do you still call them the NY Times. Ain't it the Slim Times now?
The questions sent to Tanton look like an interrogatory.
Where do these attorneys at the SPLC get off thinking that they can conduct these sorts of inquiries in the same manner as one would in a real civil case?
Almost looks like grounds for an ethics complaint if Beirich is indeed a practicing attorney in Alabama.
One of these days the SPLC is going to get sued and lose.
What really takes the cake, of course, is when these exact same people turn around and complain about "McCarthyism."
Indeed the McCarthy movement (which was much bigger than the symbolic, temporary figure of Tailgunner Joe) was just trying to use the tools that the Left has always used to purge the Right. Specifically, the tactics of "McCarthyism" are an excellent description of the fate meted out to the enemies of FDR.
These tactics are indeed effective, which is why progressives scream so loudly at the slightest hint that what's sauce for the goose might also be sauce for the gander.
Of course, if McCarthy had wanted McCarthyism to actually work, he'd have needed to turn the power up by three or four orders of magnitude - a real purge, not a pretend purge.
For example, in a real purge, you don't worry about who in the State Department might or might not be a Communist. Clearly, the place is infected. Close the office, fire the employees, burn the building.
Excise the melanoma - don't just scratch at it every once in a while. Loyalty oaths? Is this a joke? You're going to just ask people to say that they're loyal? What kind of a purge is that? Beria would be rolling on the floor laughing.
Alas, by the time Americans actually figured out what the New Deal was about, the immune response was far to little and far too late. Lord Wharton's puppies, once again - ah, conservatism.
I think the black / white issues that originally inspired the splc are pretty much fished out now. This is why they are going after Latinos and immigration. The problem is that immigration is not an issue that is black and white (forgive the pun). Identity theft is not a civil right. Neither is working here illegally, collecting government benefits or the ritht to stay. The splc's new roll is to be a white / civil rights front group advocating for people of color. When LaRaza and the National Chamber does it it does not quite pass the smell test.
"True friends may be hard to come by but allies are where you find 'em."
People have trouble with this idea, actually. All of my movement-lefty friends seem to think that progressive/liberal/left-wing politics are part of one organic whole, and that national health insurance doesn't make sense without gay rights.
Is it the same on the right?
It's 3:06 EST and I'm watching Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. He's talking about ACORN shaking down Bank of America!!! This is directly lifted from the stuff you've been talking about this week, using the same causal chain of play ball or don't engage in mergers and acquisitions.
I believe tax-payer dollars are used to support the leftist agenda of the SPLC. Legal Services Corporation -- which isn't a corporation but a federal government agency that subsidizes the left fringe of lawyers -- uses our tax dollar to harass farmers, small business owners, landlords and other tax-paying Americans. It funds SPLC
SFG:
"Is it the same on the right?"
Don't belong to anything and have hardly talked to anyone on any such subject for years, so couldn't really tell you. Probably, thoough.
SFG, I may be mistaken, but I believe Marcus Epstein is different from those others because he isn't white. Someone on this site said that he was half Korean and he looks like it to me.
All of my movement-lefty friends seem to think that progressive/liberal/left-wing politics are part of one organic whole, and that national health insurance doesn't make sense without gay rights.
Is it the same on the right?
Good question. Basically the economic conservatives don't care about the same stuff that the cultural/social conservatives do, but I'm not convinced that social conservatives and cultural conservatives are really the same thing any more. The cultural conservatives are like me and Epstein - worried that foreign cultures are going to overwhelm what's left of ours with welfare dependency, lack of interest in education, crime, etc. The social conservatives are worried about things like gays leading Boy Scout troops and all that.
Nothing wrong with differences of opinion, but let's face it, the immigrant groups the cultural conservatives worry about are often quite socially conservative. That doesn't mean there has to be some big struggle or anything.
It's just that, I'm a cultural conservative partly because I'm socially liberal (at least compared to some around here). When I read certain commenters on iSteve and other righty blogs saying it was a mistake to enfranchise women (not to mention some of the broader criticisms of Jews), I wonder why exactly those rightists oppose Islamic fundamentalism. I'm sure they have reasons but they are obviously profoundly different from my own.
"The crawling, pleading replies of "We're not," show that the decades-long social/media/cultural barrage has been utterly effective."
You are so right. The groveling by whites feeds the contempt. And every time a white whines, "But, I'm not a racist!," he simply demonstrates further his fear and weakness.
-- Victoria
"All of my movement-lefty friends seem to think that progressive/liberal/left-wing politics are part of one organic whole, and that national health insurance doesn't make sense without gay rights. Is it the same on the right?"
Yes, the purists are insufferable. Good way to put it -- one organic whole. In the rightwing version, there can be no cooperation or alliances with the "infidels," if the pro-life agenda is not included.
-- Victoria
You are so right. The groveling by whites feeds the contempt. And every time a white whines, "But, I'm not a racist!," he simply demonstrates further his fear and weakness.
-- Victoria
Yes, exactly.
In many respects, modern ideological combat has features similar to Hoplite warfare of the Classical Greek period.
Basically, during a battle two opposing lines of heavily armored Hoplites would push and hack at each other, with relatively even casualties.
But then at some point, one of the lines would break, and portions of the breaking army would begin to flee. It was during this flight stage of the battle that the defeated army would suffer massive and hugely disproportionate losses.
Similarly, in ideological combat, forcing one's opponents to retreat, break, and ultimately flee is the crucial factor in achieving their destruction.
Thus, the stubborn "never-retreat" fanaticism of the neocons renders them extremely formidable opponents, and during most of the 2000s allowed them ram through most of their policy objectives against the opposition of the vastly superior "Establishmentarian" forces.
On the other people, people who are very strong and "stubborn" along one axis of attack, may often be extremely weak and vulnerable along a different one. And I strongly suspect that the neocons have enormous weaknesses---low immunity levels---which could be effectively exploited to achieve their destruction.
People have trouble with this idea, actually. All of my movement-lefty friends seem to think that progressive/liberal/left-wing politics are part of one organic whole, and that national health insurance doesn't make sense without gay rights.
Liberal whites believe this. Non-whites, who form a majority of the left in this country, demonstrably don't. If you believed in the idea of an "organic left" before November, I certainly hope Proposition 8 disabused you of that notion.
Blacks and mestizos don't care for homosexuals. Environmental activism tends to be a lily-white pursuit as well. Blacks and mestizos don't love diversity the way that Jews do and liberal whites pretend to, either. The former group supports diversity insofar as it benefits them, but you won't ever hear a black saying that we need more non-blacks here, the way Betsy Hammond has called for more non-whites in Portland. (Except perhaps to call for more big booty white chicks.)
"Finally: there is an old maxim that what we say about others tells more about ourselves that it does about others."
Steve-O;
I think that you should keep this in mind the next time you decide to post about Gladwell, or M.O.
"but you won't ever hear a black saying that we need more non-blacks here,"
No, actually, I've heard that personally many, many times.
"...not to mention some of the broader criticisms of Jews [in the comments here]"
I bet a lot of that's done just to bait T99. It's too funny getting that silly guy riled up and watching him spew bullshit stories about sinister WASPs and their decadent tea parties.
By the way, a commenter recently offered an intriguing explanation for the otherwise baffling presence of the word "Poverty" in the name of the Southern Poverty Law Center: it's there to make the acronym "SPLC" almost indistinguishable from "SCLC"...
I'm not sure what "poverty law" is, or what the SPLC has to do with it, but there are several other "poverty law centers" in the land, any of which seem to come closer to the subject of poverty than the Montgomery gang: the Gillis Long PLC at Loyola U in New Orleans; the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (which snagged the generic "povertylaw.org"); the Virginia PLC, with a little blond girl's photo on its homepage; the PLC of Wyoming.
Truth, I'm interested: How does "stupid television, materialism and lots and lots of feminism" consititute a eugenics program? A dystopian program, perhaps, but what does it have to do with breeding?
SFG is clearly wrong in labeling Larry Auster a “white supremacist” as Auster has himself, in a rare moment of self-insight, asserted that he isn’t.
Auster has rpeatedly attacked those to his right as “anti-Semites” a term known to mean that the accused is a “racist.” White supremacists don’t routinely call people on the right anti-Semites or racists.
Auster it would seem places the interests of Israel ahead of those of any other concern. He attempts to justify this by claiming that Israel, an Asian country with a majority of its population of Asian origin, a and I quote “western country.”
Among those on the Right attacked by Auster include: Steve Sailer; Pat Buchanan; Paul Roberts; Thomas Fleming; Jared Taylor; Sam Francis; Joe Sobran; Taki; The American Conservative; Chronicles and more.
Even in the case of these New York Times editorials, Auster stated that it would have been more than fair if the Times had smeared those it was attacking as “haters of Israel”, i.e., anti-semites. This is not the action of a white supremacist but of someone obsessed with Israel and of one habituated in making demands on behalf of Israel.
Tanton sure does know how to make a rhetorical point - calmly, forcefully, without excessive vitriol or undue malice. SPLCers probably picture him with horns and a tail anyway when they read his stuff, but most intelligent people wouldn't.
"The """Truth""" sed:
Steve-O;
I think that you should keep this in mind the next time you decide to post about Gladwell, or M.O."
Now there Steve, better not say nasty things about """Truth's""" little ethnic heroes.
Truth sed:
" Steve-O;
I think that you should keep this in mind the next time you decide to post about Gladwell, or M.O."
Steve mostly bases his assertions on FACTS. unlike the MSM. and unlike yourself.
No, actually, I've heard that personally many, many times.
Next I bet you'll claim that all of your black buddies are aching to give up their special privileges to make this happen, right?
"Now there Steve, better not say nasty things about """Truth's""" little ethnic heroes."
Well, I've ready maybe 2 1/2 pages of Gladwell in my life, and I don't know why a housewife would be a "hero" of mine, especially when I didn't vote for her husband, but, Steve did seem to post a quote that runs directly contrary to a lot of what he spends time posting about. As a fan, I felt that it was my duty to point this out.
Do I contradict myself;
very well, I contradict myself
I am large and contain multitudes.
-Walt Whitman
Are these Slim Times articles evidence that the elite is floating "trial balloons" for a widespread "hate speech" bill (Senate 1959)?
They may be trotting out these 2-minute hates against "hate" in order to whip up (or fake) popular support for shutting the mouths of "racists" and "nativists" by law, a la Canada and its "Human Rights Commission"
If such a law is passed in the USA, that would be the time for people concerned with free speech and free thought to revolt. I don't mean writing letters-to-the-editor.
weston said...
Liberal whites believe this. Non-whites, who form a majority of the left in this country, demonstrably don't.
In Latin America the large tribal populations always seem to vote for the Left as a form of racial solidarity. Soon we can have a Catholic majority just like they do. Uggh.
Truth said...
...and I don't know why a housewife would be a "hero" of mine, especially when I didn't vote for her husband...
I hate to pry, but who did you vote for? I was going to assume Obama, but now I would guess libertarian or constitution party.
So who did you vote for?
I voted for Nader. I felt he was the best candidate for US president.
but I'm not convinced that social conservatives and cultural conservatives are really the same thing any more.
I would divide them into "cultural conservatives" and "religious conservatives." Cultural being worried about ethnic politics, affirmative action, etc. I think they might overlap on the issue of gay marriage, depending on what bothers you about it. The fact that it's being imposed by our robed masters is what mostly bothers me.
let's face it, the immigrant groups the cultural conservatives worry about are often quite socially conservative.
Except for Asians not really. Hispanics might be church-going, but they have crime rates and teen pregnancy rates closer to blacks than to whites. In Utah the Hispanic teen pregnancy rate is 4-5 times that of whites.
Truth said...
I voted for Nader. I felt he was the best candidate for US president.
Thank you.
I submitted three comments to this NYT blog post last Saturday, three days before the comments were closed. At the time, Jeanne's silly post was the last showing. I'm resubmitting them here as three separate posts so iSteve readers can see what does and does not pass muster as Politically Correct at the NYT blog
Brendan writes, "I have yet to read any current data that suggests immigration over the past 10 years, even illegal immigration, has had a negative impact on America."
How about common sense? Wages have stagnated for Americans, and we're importing millions of low-wage immigrants. What do you need, a slide rule?
The SPLC is worried about racists in eastern Europe, but not in the Levant. Russian Jews are on their radar, but West Bank Palestinians aren't. I call hypocrisy.
Don't take my word for anything. Check up on the SPLC on your own dime. Read the criticism of the SPLC (regardless of its source; guilt by association and ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies), and see its hypocrisy for yourself. Maybe then you'll be persuaded to check up on the SPLC's claims as well.
Garak writes, "[i]f the nativists were truly opposed to undocumented workers, they’d push severe employer sanctions. Undocumented workers come here for one reason and one reason only, to get a job. No jobs, no undocumented workers."
I've been saying this for years, and I have no doubt I'm a nativist and "worse" in your eyes, and those of the NYT. You're tying your own petard here if you think this is any kind of "gotcha" point.
As for taking what the ACLU and SPLC says with a grain of salt, why should any real American believe anything coming out of the same far-right noise machine that swore that Saddam Hussien had WMD, was in bed with Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11?
You're conflating two different machines, unfairly I think. The "nativist" right (myself included) was HOWLING that the justifications for Iraq Attaq II were a flim-flam job. I was screaming this on the 'net from the moment the rumours that GW was looking at Iraq started. It was an obvious non-sequitur from the word go.
You're confusing us with the Neocons, who are social liberals and pro-open-borders. The AEI? Are they even for closing the borders, in any way, serious or otherwise?
Sierra points out that "fruit of the poisoned tree" is a double-edged sword, so I'll just add that this argument strikes me as a somewhat cynical attempt to conflate a valid legal concept with a logical fallacy (guilt by association AKA argumentum ad hominem).
Hira Biswas asserts that "[i]f we send back the Mexican and South American migrant workers, we will have truck-in apples, tomatoes, avacados and other fruits and vegetables from Mexico while our own agricultural products will rot in the field." I suggest he run a few Web searches for terms like "innovation" and "cheap labor" and "immigration." Innovation in agricultural technology is strangled by cheap labor. We would probably have fruit- and vegetable-picking robots by now, if not for cheap mass immigration. That aside, I don't believe in wage slavery. I read a study some time back about how paying a fair wage to agricultural laborers would have only a small impact on prices. Why not show us the evidence that a sane immigration policy would kill our agricultural industry? Isn't it obvious that all these people who are currently unemployed might be better off if there was less competition for jobs, and thus higher wages? It's funny how liberals are ostensibly so anti-big-business, but then turn around and become Republicans for the duration of the argument about mass immigration.
Howard writes that we need mass immigration from Mexico. If Mexicans are so vital to wealth, then why is Mexico such an economic basketcase? Why aren't we discussing our prospects for moving to the economic marvel that is Mexico, instead of our prospects for closing our own border? Obviously, the American public disagrees with you (to the tune of a 75% majority); they want immigration stopped.
Jeanne composes a post that is peppered with appeals to emotion, and in doing so smears Americans. There are no "jobs Americans won't do." Pay a fair wage, and Americans can be found to do any job. Import cheap labor en masse, driving down wages, and Americans will find something better to do. I'll add that it's not our duty to give our country away to the less fortunate, any more than it's my duty to give my home away to the homeless. In fact, both false imperatives seem like recipes for disaster. I'll end by pointing out the irony of Jeanne's argument that we can't refuse entry to Mexicans, because we've exploited them in the past. If that math works for anyone, I have nothing to say to persuade him of anything.
Here's the second post:
I’d like to make an argument for a reciprocal immigration policy; that our policy vis-a-vis immigration from any given country be no more liberal than its policy toward us. This wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be far better than what we have now. Doesn’t Mexico, like many South American states, require would-be foreign investors to have a domestic partner? Don’t they restrict foreigners who want to buy homes in Mexico? Don’t they come down hard on foreigners who agitate against Mexican immigration policy? Don’t they pursue a relatively draconian immigration policy on their southern border? Don’t they generally want Mexico for Mexicans? I urge readers to do their own research here - no need to take my word for it.
I may be off on one or two particulars here, but I’m probably light years ahead of the open borders crowd, who I doubt ever consider such matters whilst reading from their cue cards (”nation of immigrants!” “know-nothings!” “nation of immigrants!” “Statue of Liberty!” “nation of immigrants!” “the Amerinds!”).
P.S., It was Jeanne, I think, who proffered the idea that we should open our borders because of slavery. Never mind that Brazil, a country with a far more egregious history of slavery, has no such delusions (or national guilt-mongering and self-flagellation, I’d add). Blacks are, as a group, at the bottom of the American socioeconomic ladder. Does that sound like a group that would benefit from mass immigration of cheap labor? I’ve seen more than one Republican express delight at the idea that Hispanics are displacing blacks.
P.P.S., I am descended from colonists, who were not “immigrants.” One cannot immigrate to a state one has yet to create. The idea that the “nation of immigrants” meme is universally applicable ignores the fact that America’s founders were not immigrants. Not that this is either here or there; you don’t see Israelis giving back their territory because they’re a “nation of immigrants.”
Here's the the third and final comment:
It’s inconsistent for Americans to cheer for both the ongoing mass immigration, and democracy, as the demos has made its opposition to the former very clear. The two are at odds. Note that I am not saying that it’s anti-democratic to cheerlead for open borders; I’m saying it’s anti-democratic to cheerlead for the status quo, in which the democratic process has failed and the coalition of pro-open-borders special interests, a tiny (but powerful) minority of the populace, gets its way over the clearly expressed interest of the people (see the polling data, which actually underreports anti-open-borders sentiment (due to malfeasance on the part of pollsters - “clever” wording and the like) and still shows an overwhelming majority against open borders).
Truth, I'm interested: How does "stupid television, materialism and lots and lots of feminism" consititute a eugenics program? A dystopian program, perhaps, but what does it have to do with breeding?
Hey Tuth, you answered several other contemporaneous questions but missed this one. I know you'd never intentionally avoid answering a difficult question (e.g., "do you know the meaning of the word 'eugenics'?") so I figured I'd remind you.
Heh, my favorite comment at the NYT blog:
Thank God someone is exposing these people. The SPLC and NYT are doing great work - at least these racist organizations will never get the chance to use their great power in Congress to change the demographic outcome of immigration.
As a printed letter to your paper notes, it is already a done deal. Finally, the white culture that has been destroying human values and holding down people of color, jews and other groups will begin to change and ultimately disappear.
Methinks someone has successfully flown under the NYT radar. :)
Truth said...
I voted for Nader. I felt he was the best candidate for US president.
Thank you.
Yes Svigor, I am well aware of the definition of Eugenics. Once again, this is a million dollar question for which, due to time and my own interest level, a 50 cent answer will have to suffice at this time.
First, I would like you to think back of going to the circus. I remember watching the elephants do tricks, and each and every one of these 3 ton beasts was restrained only by a flimsy rope. "How is this possible?" I always wondered.
Well, I discovered later, it is possible because when the elephants were infants, and too weak to break the rope, they tried mightily but struggled in futility, and gave up...and that failure and hopelessness remains fresh enough in their minds that they never try again to break the ropes even as adults when it would be easy.
Eugenics, as I understand it is a policy of social engineering of reproduction which eliminates 'undesirables' from the gene pool.
What you, and many other 'race realists' fail to understand is that it is you, and not I that the 'powers that be' consider undesirable. Why? Because they see you, not me, as competing with their centuries-long domination of the world.
So, in turn the population is dumbed down and controlled by television programming designed to make one passive, stupid and dependent. Feminism is promoted in order to blur the traditional lines between men and women (who wants to raise children when driving a Mercedes to one's store is so much fun?) And materialism makes having children a zero-sum game: The more children you have, the less rounds of golf, summer lake homes, and the smaller the BBQ grill one can afford.
This goes back to the story of the elephant. It is not necessary to restrain an elephant who will not try with a heavy-gauge expensive and impractical chain that it will take three workers to lift when it is much easier to restrain his mind. Conversely it is not necessary to force the population you would like to neuter onto an operating table when you can simply convince them to do it by themselves.
Do you think it is a coincidence that there is not a white nation in the world with a positive birth rate?
Wow, Truth, I agree.
That's dysgenics, not eugenics. And no, you don't really know what eugenics means; you've defined only negative eugenics.
I said: let's face it, the immigrant groups the cultural conservatives worry about are often quite socially conservative.
"Except for Asians not really. Hispanics might be church-going, but they have crime rates and teen pregnancy rates closer to blacks than to whites. In Utah the Hispanic teen pregnancy rate is 4-5 times that of whites."
Well, it's true that high crime rates (and the mentality that justifies it all as being caused by inequality or racism or whatever) aren't really compatible with social conservatism, but I was only talking about voting. Gay rights and abortion and the like. If Proposition 8 had been attempted in the mid 1990s, stands to reason it may have passed. But the left decided to let in tons of social conservatives as a way of showing how socially liberal they are.
That is a whole lot more actual thought than we have generally gotten in Truth's writing.
Truth, if your opinions are really that nuanced, I think it would behoove you to write like that more often and pare down the usual sort of posts. With the latter, what comes across is anti-white ... and little else. You let us dangle for a while wondering what you meant by television-and-feminism-as-eugenics, and then had to be goaded into answering. The whole process could be streamlined.
First, Truth's thoughtful post should remind us all that left and right should not always be at each other's throats. Some of our goals, if they stop to think for a moment, are pretty similar. They despise certain types of commercialism, as do I (especially as it relate sto TV and the media). They desire to raise up the poor, and so do I. I merely propose using market forces (less immigration) to do so. They propose a mostly unsustainable welfare state.
Etc. It is in the establishment's interests that we continue to fight each other rather than to understand our sometimes similar goals.
[i]f the nativists were truly opposed to undocumented workers, they’d push severe employer sanctions. Undocumented workers come here for one reason and one reason only, to get a job. No jobs, no undocumented workers.
I call your bluff: let's start fining businesses who hire illegals.
I'm involved in a fairly large group that opposes illegal immigration in my state, and I can say with near certainty that every member would be in favor of heavier fines on these businesses, and probably most of us feel that such fines would be the single most effective policy we could have - fence be damned.
Your argument is just an open borders canard.
I’d like to make an argument for a reciprocal immigration policy; that our policy vis-a-vis immigration from any given country be no more liberal than its policy toward us.
I believe strongly in that, especially as relates to importing spouses. For every arranged bride or groom brought here from India, for example, one has to go to India (and leave their citizenship behind).
Because strangely enough it seems to me that the parties to arranged marriages, especially from third world countries, all seem to flow in one direction.
One problem: you'd have to control for age, too, or else you'd get lots of retirees leaving and lots of young, fecund people arriving, and you'd still be getting mass migration.
I am descended from colonists, who were not “immigrants.” One cannot immigrate to a state one has yet to create.
I had this conversation recently with one of my elected officials, who voted for an amnesty proposal. He said that he felt obligated to, as his great-grandparents were immigrants. I answered that on behalf of my great-great-grandparents, who were kind enough to let his ancestors in, that I release him from any such sense of "obligation." The dipshit was not pleased with that response.
If Proposition 8 had been attempted in the mid 1990s, stands to reason it may have passed. But the left decided to let in tons of social conservatives as a way of showing how socially liberal they are.
Wrong sir. Of course you meant that Prop 8 would've failed (and gay marriage would've been allowed), but in fact Californians voted 62-38 against gay marriage back in the 90s.
There isn't exactly a direct relationship, but in general the whiter the state the more socially conservative it is, usually de jure and almost always de facto.
Gentlemen;
I appreciate the kind words and the constructive criticism. Finding one's voice is the most difficult aspect of writing. I tend to walk a constant tightrope between offending and informing; and I will certainly continue to.
I have not often admitted it, but the reason I come to this site everyday, is because there is a high level of intellect amongst the various posters here; and the host as well. I learn things, and although I generally disagree, I have respect for you all.
Anonymous; one thing that I think you should consider in reading my posts is that just because you read anti-white in many of my posts, that does not mean that I wrote it. Sometimes we project our own feelings onto the artwork of others, and that is OK, the problem is in not realizing it.
Well, let's continue to rebuild a world.
OK people, group hug!
Post a Comment