Ever since African-American voters in Washington D.C. kicked out school reformer Michelle Rhee, lowering property values in gentrifying sections of D.C., blogger and D.C. condo-owner Matthew Yglesias has been on the warpath to admit 165,000,000 immigrants to the U.S.. You might think that the subsequent increase in global carbon emissions alone would make that an expensive way to drive African Americans out of D.C. in order to improve the public schools and raise Yglesias's property value, but, you see, Yglesias has a triple bankshot plan to remake America into his beloved native Manhattan. He thinks 165 million immigrants couldn't help but come in handy in the Manhattanization of America so that everybody will take the subway to work.
But, has Yglesias ever asked immigrants where they want to live? Much of the evidence suggests: in the exurbs, in big houses, with big air conditioners, driving big SUVs. For example, here's a 2009 article by Alan Ehrenhalt in Governing entitled Immigrants and the Suburban Influx. It describes exurban Gwinnett County, about 30 miles outside of Atlanta. Famous as a white flight region just a couple of decades ago, Gwinnett is now majority minority, with lots of prosperous Indians and Koreans. Maybe in a generation or two, affluent Indians and Koreans will want to lead the downtown hipster life, but right now they want the traditional American Dream of a home with a yard and a big car (i.e., they want to emit a lot of carbon.)
Posts
46 comments:
Well, in this particular case I do think there might be some pretty strong circumstantial evidence for the "race replacement plot" that the WNs are always talking about...
some pretty strong circumstantial evidence
100 million here and 65 million there and pretty soon we're talking about real demographics.
Indians always live in the suburbs. Almost never the central city.
For example....
Few Indians in Seattle, but lots live in Bellevue/Redmond, which is slightly east of the city.
Few Indians live in San Francisco, but lots live in the close by Alameda County and the Silicon Valley region.
I'm less familiar with Vancover BC, but I don't think there are neccessarily a huge number there. Many more live in the south suburbs of Vancouver (Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Fraser Valley).
Few Indians in most of the NYC boroughs (except in Queens, which has a lot), but lots live in northern NJ and commute into the city.
Partly it's because they always have kids and sometimes invite over extended family to stay with them. Also, a big house and a nice yard is a status symbol. A cramped apartment or condo in Manhattan is not....
Most immigrants (Russians, Persians, Indians, Asians) are nouveau rich and, by elite American tastes, crude in their preferences. So they like big garish houses over something more small and stylish. It shows they made it....
In Vancouver, Chinese and Indian immigrants are known for their monster houses. In LA, Iranians have their Persian Palaces. In the northeast, you can find Bukharians and Syrians living large (in terms of house size).
Immigrants do not want to live in Manhattan, until maybe the 2nd generation when they get more assimilated. Of course, if we take 165000000 immigrants, that'll never happen....
Better yet.... How about we invite 165000000 immmigrants to Tel Aviv?
By the way....
Indians form 3 percent of the population of Gwinnet County. East & SE Asians form 7 percent of the population. Whites are under 50 percent of the population, down from ~90 percent about a couple decades ago.
Hipsters like Yglesias feel safer in cities with a large foreign population. Not knowing any better, the foreigners treat the hipsters like normal people.
Immigration tends to work well in promoting harmony. During the early 1990s, harmony was greatly promoted in south central Los Angeles. If you don't believe me, just ask Rodney King.
For some people, pro-immigrationism is to reduce white power. For others, it's to create a greater buffer between themselves and blacks.
You can rant and rave all you want about Jews and hipsters.
The demographic most responsible for ongoing, massive immigration is middle aged, Caucasian, Christian capitalists who can't get enough of the cheap, hard working labor.
Ask yourself why Republicans haven't done a thing, not one thing, to limit immigration in 30 years and counting.
Can't invade and subjugate the entire world?
Then just invite them over to do it at home.
At play in England, Canada, United States, Australia. Take your pick.
The first step to reduce immigration is for Anglo men to get over their inclination to rule over others.
But I hardly expect this type of analysis here at this blog. I do read and somehwat admire this blog for going against the mainstream.
But electing Republicans to stop immigration? Ha! Don't make me die of laughter.
Better yet.... How about we invite 165000000 immmigrants to Tel Aviv?
HA! I bet Tel Aviv would get a great light rail system out of that.
Koreans and Indians want the American dream. But their ancestors DIDN'T BUILD AMERICA.
"Immigration tends to work well in promoting harmony. During the early 1990s, harmony was greatly promoted in south central Los Angeles. If you don't believe me, just ask Rodney King."
Or better yet, just ask Reginald Denny. Or the thousands of Koreans who had their stores looted and burned to the ground.
Well, in this particular case I do think there might be some pretty strong circumstantial evidence for the "race replacement plot" that the WNs are always talking about...
I'm pretty sure you added the "plot" part, which seems necessary to your straw man.
Because "race replacement" is doused-in-gasoline-and-set-on-fire obvious. WGAS if there's a "plot" or not? It's happening, and we aren't allowed to oppose it, complain about it, or even point it out. Plot, schmot.
Indians always live in the suburbs. Almost never the central city.
For example....
Sit down T, have another ripple. I got this.
Dude, stop moving around so much! That's your problem! You move every 6 months!
One thing I don't get about Yglesias arguments in this sphere is that he argues for the (somewhat shoddy) economic consensus that helping people move to his country allows natives to move up the income scale into higher paid work (as opposed to just sitting in the welfare pool forever), but at the same time argues that it is structurally racist for different ethnic minorities to be poorer and for redistributional economic policies to correct this. Taking these assumption and policies together, how would natives be better off? Even purely economically and discounting the fact that the natives would be labelled as racists and made to feel guilty simply for being relatively more prosperous (and the destructiveness to any attempt to make an effective politics when any ability to form a national policy consensus is subverted constantly to the question of the poor minorities).
What's the point of importing an underclass who are only good for unskilled labour to do the jobs you won't have to and are only capable of such if your wealth differential is simply going to be redistributed to them?
The first step to reduce immigration is for Anglo men to get over their inclination to rule over others.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. How can you argue that White people should import people to work in low skilled labour whilst moving into managerial positions while also accepting, as this person does (on whatever loonie leftist basis), that for Whites to manage while other races work under them is structurally racist and driven by White supremacist desires for domination?
(Not to mention that this is false: Immigration of cheap labour doesn't get spun as immigrants who move in being employed by other immigrants, largely, for cheap labour, which is what happens at least on average, although this varies with places where the immigrants aren't very able to establish competitive business. It gets spun as being driven by White people's desire to make a cheap buck and manage rather than work, as if these were different between human groups, and when it's really at least as much about competitive pressures and anti-discriminatory legislation forcing this course of action).
Who am I to argue with someone whose URL is 'thinkprogress'.
Well, in this particular case I do think there might be some pretty strong circumstantial evidence for the "race replacement plot" that the WNs are always talking about...
This isn't interesting. Sailer never, ever talks about race-replacement per se. You can talk about IQ, immigration, Israel, pretty much anything you want. But mentioning race-replacement is too "creepy," I guess.
And yet it's happening, and it's not just immigration that causes it; it's also miscegenation.
Why is it so hard to talk about that?
One possible reason is the assurance one might have that anybody who brings it up must simply be filled to overflowing with racial hatred, so it's essential to sweep it under the rug lest anyone be offended.
Obviously hardcore WNs are routinely filled to overflowing with racial hatred. But just because WNs don't like something doesn't automatically mean it's a good thing.
RKU, can people at least question whether the process of racial extinction via intermixture and genetic submergence is a good thing? Because if it's decided that the benefits from the process which leads to racial extinction aren't all that great (or even existent, as some wags might put it) then it might make sense to change course and consider alternative social arrangements.
Just putting that out there.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. How can you argue that White people should import people to work in low skilled labour whilst moving into managerial positions while also accepting, as this person does (on whatever loonie leftist basis), that for Whites to manage while other races work under them is structurally racist and driven by White supremacist desires for domination?
It's actually really easy. You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right. You can justify pretty much anything with a running start like that. And why not? It's not as if the bulk of whites can even bring themselves to realize it, let alone complain. Win-win!
"The demographic most responsible for ongoing, massive immigration is middle aged, Caucasian, Christian capitalists who can't get enough of the cheap, hard working labor."
In Utah, Mormon politicians and businessmen are notorious for pushing for open borders. The Mormon Church does so, as well, if surreptitiously.
"You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right."
Well said.
Yesterday I saw a black lady crossing the street with two very black children. A white lady was helping her. A friend? A "life partner"? A volunteer? Whatever she was, when's the last time you saw a minority caring for white children who wasn't getting paid to do so?
I saw one, once - a black man with a white boy. Then I realized the boy was an albino.
For some people, pro-immigrationism is to reduce white power. For others, it's to create a greater buffer between themselves and blacks.
Ha, ha! Well, here's an interesting thought-experiment to consider. My guess is that Yglesias and all his DC friends would be perfectly happy to open the floodgates to a vast horde of white European immigrants---Swedes, Sicilians, Germans, Greeks, Irish, Serbs, whichever selection the various WN factions can agree upon. Or if the Islamicists are willing to put their political muscle behind the project, they can have their pick of Albanians, Pathans, Kurds, Algerians---whomever can be obtained in bulk-lot quantities.
The only real requirement is that all these immigrants have to reasonably poor and slightly desperate. People should consider how the country of "Dane-Mark" got its name...
"What's the point of importing an underclass who are only good for unskilled labour to do the jobs you won't have to and are only capable of such if your wealth differential is simply going to be redistributed to them?"
No point, of course. It's a point liberals hope other people won't catch on to.
For businessmen the point is that the redistribution to minorities will occur via the tax code while the benefits of cheaper labor will flow only to them.
This is why any person sincerely opposed to mass immigration and illegal immigration will oppose the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The highest cap gains rate is currently 15%. For people filing single, the 15% income tax bracket is for people earning up to $34,000. Above $34,000 and you pay 25%. Yes, a guy making %$60,000 a year has a higher tax rate than a billionaire.
These are the same people who have been vehemently opposed to enforcing our immigration laws, and conservatives want to give them a tax cut.
30 years into the Reagan Revolution we have dramatically larger government, a trillion dollar deficit, 12 million illegal immigrants, 40 million immigrants total, no school choice, abortion is completely legal at any time during a pregnancy, affirmative action is more widespread than ever, and more people than ever are receiving government handouts like TANF, food stamps, etc.
But the rich have taxes that are lower than ever.
The business wing of the GOP wants only for the enrichment of itself, and it never, ever supports us on any of those other issues - and frequently opposes us. It is time that we hold off on cutting their taxes until we get something in return. I'll start with lower immigration and the elimination of affirmative action.
Give them their tax cuts first and you lose any bargaining power you have.
"Koreans and Indians want the American dream. But their ancestors DIDN'T BUILD AMERICA."
The "American Dream" = get rich. That's totally unique, because no one anywhere else in the world has ever wanted to do that.
I'm all for getting rich; am working for that myself. But the guy who came up with the idea that wanting to get rich is the essence of America, or Americanism, of being an American was a schmuck.
Every f'ing person on the planet wants to get rich. That doesn't make them an American.
"You just start with the assumption that no policy need do anything good for whites and that whites are just there to serve the needs of others, rather than being people in their own right. You can justify pretty much anything with a running start like that. "
This, I believe, is a sterling candidate for all time iSteve commenters' best quote.
Having read all the comments over on Ygelsias's "165 million more immigrants" post, I can say that it's stunning and refreshing to see a left-wing liberal on a left-wing blog getting his ass handed to him on immigration.
Perhaps the left is starting to catch on to the immigration scam.
I always assumed the reason Steve doesn't talk about race replacement is that he's sitting in California where it's a fait accompli. There's no point in talking about it, it's over there, we lost.
I always assumed the reason Steve doesn't talk about race replacement is that he's sitting in California where it's a fait accompli. There's no point in talking about it, it's over there, we lost.
Easiest way to defeat someone is to convince him it's a "fait accompli." He defeats himself.
Funny, nobody looked at California when it was mostly white and said, "nope, no way we can shake those honkeys loose...the whiteness of California is a fait accompli."
Whatever, Svigor, do you have children? Can you even get a date? You fap all over the internet about race replacement but I don't think you have any boots on the ground, so shut up.
Texas is majority-minority, but whites continue to migrate there and maintain strongly conservative government. Atlanta's metro is majority-minority, but whites are flocking there too and keep the politics to the right.
Sometimes I'm surprised by how many white conservative don't mind living alongside lots of NAMs in the south or southeast. I'm also surprised by how white southerners can support very conservative policies, without incurring much racial tension or violence among the NAMs. Why so docile down in the ATL?
In Texas, conservative white anglos completely changed up the school textbooks to reflect a more conservative/anglo bent. I don't understand how they can do that in a state where half the population and 2/3 of students are minorities, but NAMs don't seem particularly angry and aren't rebelling. If such a thing had happened in predominately white Seattle (it couldn't because whites are more cowed/liberal), NAMs wouldn't have taken it.
So I'm not convinced that having a large percentage of whites is neccessarily going to help the conservative cause.
I'm all for getting rich; am working for that myself. But the guy who came up with the idea that wanting to get rich is the essence of America, or Americanism, of being an American was a schmuck.
Every f'ing person on the planet wants to get rich. That doesn't make them an American.
I dunno, the idea that the highest good in life is nothing more than to get stinkin' rich seems pretty uniquely American to me, as far as national creeds go...
Whatever, Svigor, do you have children? Can you even get a date? You fap all over the internet about race replacement but I don't think you have any boots on the ground, so shut up.
Look here, anonymous, I see your posts all over the 'net wherever I go (how many billion posts you up to now?), and you're always a giant asshole. Give it a rest already.
You can rant and rave all you want about Jews and hipsters.
The demographic most responsible for ongoing, massive immigration is middle aged, Caucasian, Christian capitalists who can't get enough of the cheap, hard working labor.
Just so.
The decades of Jewish agitation for non-White immigration (doumented by Kevin MacDonald) are dismissed with a wave of the hand. Likewise the fact that White businessmen played no role whatsoever in opening the floodgates.
White businessmen use immigrant labor because it has become a race to the bottom. Once the flow of immigrants starts, businesses have to do what their competitors are doing.
Moreover, where do you get the idea that the greed that you posit among White businessmen is not the result of influence from another ethnic group? As MacDonald in The Culture of Critique and other analysts point out, the central thrust of Jewish intellectual activity going back to the Enlightenment has been to break down the ties among Whites -- to atomize them, to separate them from another in the present and to separate them from their ancestors and descendants. The hyperindividualism fostered by these movements is a synonym the for amorality evident among those (like immigrant-importing White businessmen) who would benefit personally at the expense of the group.
Immigration policy isn't driven by economics or business, and no country in the West that I know of really ties its immigration policy to it economy. Ireland is in an economic meltdown which logically calls for a moratorium on immigration. Don't hold your breath. Despite what the FUD merchants are pushing, Republicans don't support immigration because of cheap labor, they support it for the same reason they slobber over Martin Luther King or apologies for slavery - Political Correctness and just plain fear. Immigration policy is a policy of the Left, it's a racial policy driven by a desire to end "racism" which in practice means a desire to end the existence of white people. That's the official definition of "ending racism."
Silver:
It seems to me that you're raising two really different concerns.
a. We're importing a replacement people for the middle class, and in particular for middle-class whites.
b. As people intermarry and interbreed and self-identify based on fractional "exotic" ancestry (aka, the 7/8 European girl who proudly declares herself Native American for that other 1/8, undetectable to anyone without a DNA sample), the set of clear, self-identified whites gets smaller.
In a first-world country, you can only import a replacement people because the original people aren't reproducing. That's not clearly anyone's fault but the people who wait till age 40 to start wondering if they want kids. It's happening everywhere that people are rich and educated, probably because kids are an expensive pain in the ass a lot of the time. (And I speak with some experience, much though I love my kids.) If that weren't happening, we might be getting immigration-driven population growth, but we wouldn't be importing a replacement people.
As an HBD-realist who's not remotely interested in ethnic nationalism (I don't really have the "team spirit" file on my hard drive, to be honest), I don't really find it all that different whether we're importing Albanians to replace middle-class Americans who won't reproduce, or importing (say) Chinese. In either case, the original people mostly just goes away, and their genetic and cultural uniqueness mostly goes with them.
By contrast, the process of racial mixing is very different, and doesn't seem particularly uncomfortable to me. The genes and culture remain, more-or-less in the mix. Indeed, what we call white now is the result of a hell of a lot of mixing. (See the "Native American" girl above, or what's been happening with Jews in America for the last century, or Italians, or Mexicans, or whatever.)
Captain Jack:
I think historically, the American dream was to move here and live the way you always wished you could back in the old country. And the positive outcome was that your grandkids faded into the population, uninterested in being Polish or Irish or Dutch or Armenians or whatever, because they were too busy being Americans, chasing girls and trying to find jobs and make good lives for themselves.
My apartment in Chicago is full of Indians, but they're students.
"Look here, anonymous, I see your posts all over the 'net wherever I go (how many billion posts you up to now?), and you're always a giant asshole. Give it a rest already."
That sounds paranoid.
"Whatever, Svigor, do you have children?..."
Svigor, from one homie to another...I mean, for some reason I really cannot identify, I truly like you, but you have to admit; the man has a point.
I mean, you call yourself a "racist" and hate blacks, yet you choose to live in South Carolina...
You rail about "falling birthrates" but you haven't made any little white yardbirds...
You are on the "jews push black supremacy in the media" thing, yet you watch enough TV to know every character on every show....
You talk of "white solidarity" yet you seem to have and inspire more contempt with people here than I do...
To say that you are a man of contradictions would be an understatement.
Svigor, you just got served by Truth.
In my experience, as a foreigner, Americans are not hedonistic egoists and they aren't utilitarians (no matter how much the hedonistic egoists and utilitarians of the Liberal tradition want them to be [and by which I mean the bad tradition of Mill's nonsense that people who identify themselves as Liberal follow, not the good tradition that lead to the American Revolution]).
Other things matter to them, not just prosperity and happiness or even autonomy. This is a good thing.
In the UK, the educational system relentlessly pushes 'diversity', with results like these :
You’re bored with it, you’re just British.
White female, Year 10 (i.e. age 15)
I’m not from a Caribbean country or an exotic country or even France or Spain. I’m from nowhere like that, I’m just plain British.
White female Year 10
It’s boring, I just want to be like from a different ‘race’, or a quarter something.
White female KS2 (i.e. age 8-11)
The white men don't know, but the little girls understand.
"Easiest way to defeat someone is to convince him it's a 'fait accompli.' He defeats himself."
Which is exactly what leftists do every time they mention that whites will be a minority of the US population by 2050.
They always treat that as a fait accompli yet have spent decades of their time and billions of our money trying to close the racial gap between blacks and whites in academic achievement. The former, which could easily be changed were the political will there to do so, is treated as written in stone. The latter, which even the left characterizes as "persistent" and "stubborn", is treated as a fixable problem that lacks only the appropriate remedy.
And by refusing to acknowledge the facts when framing the debate, the left is defeating us on both fronts.
There is a lot of truth to the idea that white capitalists types are largley to blame for race replacement. I've long thought WN don't pay enough attention to this.
That's pathetic. You can continue to blame the Jews for third world immigration all you want and you can continue to give white Gentiles a pass for their perfidy but you won't accomplish anything.
Perfidy = deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery.
There is no perfidy.
You think I'll accomplish more by concealing the truth?
By building up Jews to be some sort of all-powerful ethnic bloc
Strawman.
...that can easily influence elite whites who are often times richer and smarter than them, you are degrading yourself and your people. Are elite white Gentiles really that powerless?
Not powerless. Susceptible.
And "degrading"? It's "degrading" to acknowledge that's one'e own people is not omnipotent? You ridicule the strawman of omnipotent Jewry, and then you ridicule me for *not* asserting White omnipotence?
You can't make this stuff up.
"You think I'll accomplish more by concealing the truth?"
I didn't say you needed to conceal anything. But your approach does seem one dimensional.
"Strawman."
Fine. I overstated my case, then again so did you when you dismissed that elite white Gentiles had any personal responsibility in this clusterf-ck of an immigration policy. They didn't start it? Ok. Why didn't they oppose it in the first place? Why aren't they doing anything to stop it right now? Do you give the same pass to Gentile whites who promote race-mixing or are they "adapting" like the rich white businessmen?
"Not powerless. Susceptible."
They may as well be powerless if they can easily fall for propaganda that supposedly doesn't benefit them. Jewish influence can only go so far.
"And "degrading"? It's "degrading" to acknowledge that's one'e own people is not omnipotent? You ridicule the strawman of omnipotent Jewry, and then you ridicule me for *not* asserting White omnipotence?"
I overstated my case, but that does seem to be the flavor I get from Majority Rights. For once I'd like to see WNs admit that whites like the Boston Brahmins are pretty f-cking guilty in all of this considering they were running the show long before the new money Jews started whispering race replacement in their ears. But that will never happen obviously, because much like the Jews you despise, your knee-jerk tribalism clouds your thinking.
Post a Comment