From the New York Times:
The Anti-Immigration CrusaderBy JASON DePARLE
WASHINGTON — Three decades ago, a middle-aged doctor sat outside his northern Michigan home and saw a patch of endangered paradise.
A beekeeper and amateur naturalist of prodigious energy, John Tanton had spent two decades planting trees, cleaning creeks and suing developers, but population growth put ever more pressure on the land. Though fertility rates had fallen, he saw a new threat emerging: soaring rates of immigration.
Time and again, Dr. Tanton urged liberal colleagues in groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club to seek immigration restraints, only to meet blank looks and awkward silences.
“I finally concluded that if anything was going to happen, I would have to do it myself,” he said.
Improbably, he did. From the resort town of Petoskey, Mich., Dr. Tanton helped start all three major national groups fighting to reduce immigration, legal and illegal, and molded one of the most powerful grass-roots forces in politics. The immigration-control movement surged to new influence in last fall’s elections and now holds near veto power over efforts to legalize any of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
One group that Dr. Tanton nurtured, Numbers USA, doomed President George W. Bush’s legalization plan four years ago by overwhelming Congress with protest calls. Another, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, helped draft the Arizona law last year to give the police new power to identify and detain illegal immigrants.
A third organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, joined the others in December in defeating the Dream Act, which sought to legalize some people brought to the United States illegally as children.
Rarely has one person done so much to structure a major cause, or done it so far from the public eye. Dr. Tanton has raised millions of dollars, groomed protégés and bequeathed institutions, all while running an ophthalmology practice nearly 800 miles from Capitol Hill.
“He is the most influential unknown man in America,” said Linda Chavez, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan who once led a Tanton group that promoted English-only laws.
After this promising opening, you might expect the article to move on to using Tanton's fascinating experience as a modern day Jefferson Smith as the lens through which to examine one of the bizarre developments of the last quarter century: the emasculation of the environmental movement by pro-immigrationist interests. For example, you might expect the NYT to cite the brand new Census data to show that Tanton's fears are coming true and then ask: Why have groups like the Sierra Club dropped their traditional insistence on immigration restriction, despite the huge impact immigration-driven population growth has had on, say, America's (and thus the world's) carbon emissions? [Answer here at VDARE, not in NYT for some reason.]
Well, you might expect that if you'd been living on Mars for the last few decades. Instead, the article immediately turns into the usual exercise in point-and-sputter guilt by association:
While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens.
Etcetera, etcetera ...
Really, doesn't the childishness of contemporary thinking just wear you down? Junior high school girls engage in more principled thinking than the Who? Whom? that is the standard assumption of the conventional wisdom on immigration.
Posts
39 comments:
"While Dr. Tanton’s influence has been extraordinary, so has his evolution — from apostle of centrist restraint to ally of angry populists and a man who increasingly saw immigration through a racial lens."
Isn't 'diversity is our strength' a way of seeing immigration through a racial lens? If race doesn't matter, how does this country need a DIVERSITY of races to thrive and do better?
Poly-racism or mono-racism, both are seeing things through the lens of race. A monoracist will say a nation will do better with a homogeneous people. A poly-racist will say a nation will suffer and stagnate UNLESS it has a greater diversity of races.
And there's the factor of Jews wanting more diversity to play divide-and-rule. It's all about race.
"one of the most powerful grass-roots forces in politics"
What planet is this guy living on? Immigration restriction has no political traction whatsoever - despite polls that show its popularity. Instead, over a million strangers pour in every year, and because the vast majority of them are not white, they get special privileges and gerrymandered electoral districts.
The ADL and other big-money Jewish pressure groups have far more influence on immigration than the marginalized "hate groups" that Tanton founded.
Jews want mass immigration of non-whites, and how dare uppity American whites try to influence public policy in their former country? They need to sit down and shut up!
The environmentalists sold out on immigration so they could continue to get Jewish money.
Really, doesn't the childishness of contemporary thinking just wear you down?
Wearing you down is the point.
I used to belong to the Sierra Club, ZPG, and planned parent hood. I too like Dr. Tanton advocated immigration restriction. After all, how can immigration help ANY of this causes.
Imagine my surprise when all the liberals I talked to either shrugged their shoulders or gave lame explanations as to why having 500 million people in the USA was good the environment. One member of ZPG growth actually told me that rather than restricting immigration we needed to decrease the native-born birth rate EVEN more!
So eventually the light bulb went on. I realized none of these organizations really care about the environment -or people - its all about changing America and pushing the left-wing agenda.
It also made me realize you can never trust a liberal. They may seem "reasonable" but they'll do nothing to stop the slide toward socialism and disaster - unless the New York Times gives them permission. Except for a few smart ones, who'll break the party line when the slide to disaster effects THEM.
I don't think the average American understands the extent to which Jewish money and cultural influence drive things in today's America.
A better question is why we don't have more John Tantons. Why are so many conservatives, even in places like Atlanta or Dallas, unwilling to step up to the plate? There was massive organized resistance to busing throughout the country just a few decades ago. Now, nothing.... What's happened?
Not even southerners are doing anything. Heck, most of the prominent southern politicians I can think of are carpetbaggers (the Bushes) or scalawags (Huckabee, Deal, Lott, Lindsey Graham). You'd think at least we'd see some sanity from down there.
In contrast to John Tanton, who wields immense and magical powers from behind the scenes, New York Times owner Carlos Slim and the AIPAC boosters have a paltry influence in today's American society. I'm glad the New York Times let us know about this disturbing new figure who has hijacked the American discourse.
Once again, I have to point out how brilliant, not to mention prescient, the Rockford Files is: they have a great episode describing a guy who sounds just like an everyman Dr Tanton.
"The Trees, the Bees and T.T. Flowers"
By all means watch it.
Maybe Steve or some other VDare writer should write a wonderful biography of this guy. More people should know about him.
"Not even southerners are doing anything. Heck, most of the prominent southern politicians I can think of are carpetbaggers (the Bushes) or scalawags (Huckabee, Deal, Lott, Lindsey Graham). You'd think at least we'd see some sanity from down there."
Hey, I've been working on it for over a decade now. Maybe I should try to get my name on a ballot somewhere in the south since I've nothing to lose.
God bless. Sanity doesn't seem to be a component of our cultural or genetic make up anymore.
"And there's the factor of Jews wanting more diversity to play divide-and-rule."
Or protective coloring.
The best argument against immigration is that harms the sending countries.
The Sierra Club is IMO, presently very vulnerable to a hostile takeover via entryism. It'd be well worth the money for anti-immigration types to take it over. Anyone up to the task of cobbling together something like Groupon for entryism?
On the plus side, DePARLE puts all the good stuff up front. Only die hard bigot-bigots will read to the end.
as i have continued to research arizona SB 1070, i find that the primary author is this kris kobach guy. i guess he is also the guy who tried to help that town in pennsylvania prevent landlords from renting to border jumpers. he has degrees from harvard, oxford, and yale, and was also an editor of yale law journal. as euro-american and an anglican one at that, there's zero chance affirmative action was involved. i'm certain an army of lawyers are not employed to hide all of his college transcripts, and that he probably wrote some law articles which people could actually check out and read. he's also written a few books about law and politics, which i'm confident he actually wrote, as opposed to a certain someone else.
his credentials appear to be bulletproof if his wikipedia page is to be trusted. it says he served missions in uganda and south africa. south africa was the subject of one of his law books. another thing i found is that he wanted to be a soldier, but was disqualified from attending west point because he has diabetes, so he went to harvard instead. i'm not too sure about this last part. the summer before my senior year of high school, i went to west point for 1 week with about 500 other recruits for an orientation, to see if we actually wanted to spend the next 10 years in the army. and i don't remember them asking me if i had diabetes or any other medical conditions that would be easily screened for. maybe medical treatment was good enough by my time that diabetes did not disqualify you anymore.
liberals would certainly want to bash this kobach guy as a drooling, mouth breathing, backwards, backwoods white trash moron, and a racist at that. but they can't. however they can still do what they have positioned themselves to do, and that is to strike down any excellently constructed, tough but fair law he's written, on simple ideological grounds. they struck him down in pennsylvania and they've been striking him down so far in arizona. i don't know anything about his public speaking abilities, but it certainly looks like in a scholarly debate, he woud clobber barack obama. and this is just some random nobody, hardly a national star that any politician, liberal or republican, would go on raves about. there's dozens of guys like this and they all blow away barack obama. dozens of obscure nobodies who are easily much smarter and more accomplished in the law field. the quality of our contemporary thinking is following the quality of our leaders.
The combination of Kris Kobach's high legal intellect and Russell Pearce's folksy political skills make a formidable combination. That's what much of the frenzy in the media over Arizona has been about: trying to neutralize the Kobach-Pearce combination before they can go national.
"I don't think the average American understands the extent to which Jewish money and cultural influence drive things in today's America."
Of course they don't understand. Almost everything they "know", "think", and feel comes to them by way, directly or indirectly, of Jewish controlled media, academia, or other institutions. They're in the Matrix, and it takes a lot of effort and counter-intuitive thinking to break yourself free from this Matrix.
By now the average American has gone through so much mental conditioning that his internal mental filters screen out most of the "hate facts" which would otherwise warn him that his beliefs do not jibe with reality. And the imposition of social and emotional taboos prevent the average American from thinking rationally about the subject when these inconvenient "hate facts" are actually noticed.
The childishness and the dishonesty and the cowardice.
The genuine opponents of this man can probably be counted on one hand. The reporter is among them. He won't admit it - but what has he done? Ginned up a story about how "others say" Tanton is a warlock.
It's not the reporter saying it. "Others" say it. So he's objective.
(These others he necessarily scoured for, prodded, quoted in a calculated fashion. He wrote an outline based on his ideas - and produced it like Cecil B. DeMille, finding the cast for it and editing it. All with help from whatever tin-god revolutionaries were around his desk at the time.)
"A better question is why we don't have more John Tantons. Why are so many conservatives, even in places like Atlanta or Dallas, unwilling to step up to the plate? There was massive organized resistance to busing throughout the country just a few decades ago. Now, nothing.... What's happened?"
If you read the article, Tanton didn't start out as a conservative; arguably he still isn't a conservative. He supported a bunch of liberal organizations, including planned parenthood.
The problem with conservatives is that few really understand what should be conserved, and why. Most conservatives simply end up trying to "conserve" yesterday's liberalism: today's conservatives would have been radical leftists 100 years ago; they wouldn't even qualify as conservative 50 years ago. Conservatives already champion multi-racialism as normal and healthy; imagine what tomorrow's conservatives will think is normal? It is a crucial mistake in white nationalist (or call it what you will) thinking to assume that conservatives, as such, are our natural allies and/or are our natural constituency. If they are, we're screwed, because there aren't enough of them who are sufficiently capable of breaking out of their conservatism to do anything useful. Liberals are useless too, but there are plenty of them still capable of breaking out of their liberalism to be worth talking to. We need mavericks and critical thinkers regardless of where they come from ideologically.
If you go back 100 years when this country was much more racially conscious and was pro-white and frankly white supremacist, it wasn't just the conservatives who were racialist. It was the progressives and "liberals" too. Racial science in anthropology was the norm, eugenics was a progressive cause and was frankly and openly racialist and pro-white. Someone like Tanton, who starts out as a progressive interested in liberal causes and environmental protection and ends up logically deducing the need for immigration restriction on racial grounds, was the norm amongst progressives in the early 20th century. There's nothing odd or unusual about this; what has changed is that now Jews have taken over all of our cultural institutions, and they have "changed the narrative" to one of their own liking. Thus, the normal avenues of white consciousness are blocked.
"...saw immigration through a racial lens.."
That is the ONLY way to see it. Immigration is colonization. It can reinforce an existing group and culture or displace it. Nothing else.
"The problem with conservatives is that few really understand what should be conserved, and why. Most conservatives simply end up trying to 'conserve' yesterday's liberalism: today's conservatives would have been radical leftists 100 years ago; they wouldn't even qualify as conservative 50 years ago."
Well, things DO change. At one point, any proposal for representative government would have been on the far left. So, is every conservative who believes in elections merely trying to conserve 'yesterday's leftism'?
"The best argument against immigration is that harms the sending countries."
But the sending countries say NO PROBLEMO.
"If you go back 100 years when this country was much more racially conscious and was pro-white and frankly white supremacist, it wasn't just the conservatives who were racialist. It was the progressives and "liberals" too."
Interesting comment, Anon. You are leaving a big matzoh ball floating out there though: it wasn't Jews who discredited racialism and eugenics, it was a certain group of white nationalists (national socialists, to be precise). By the same token, it wasn't Jews who made antisemitism verboten among polite society, it was that same group of white nationalists.
For an idea of how this process worked, consider this thought experiment. You and some friends are riffing about HBD and blacks, and maybe using a derogatory term or two to describe them. Nothing about that bothers your conscience. Then you come across a black guy in the process of being lynched (which, remember, wasn't simply a hanging: it was a hanging often preceded by torture and humiliation -- cutting the man's fingers, toes, penis...). If you saw that, you might feel mildly nauseous making negative comments about blacks again.
That, on a grand scale, is basically the process by which eugenics and racial science became verboten.
Now, consider our current situation. Jason DeParle should be exactly the sort of thinking liberal you described in your comment. He has reported on urban black dysfunction at length (look up his bio). Yet he "points and sputters" when it comes to immigration and race. Why? Because the taboo remains so strong today, thanks to that group of white national socialists from last century. So what is the solution? Leave race out of it. Take Steve's citizenist approach. Tanton's public embrace of racialism was a mistake.
Someone like Tanton, who starts out as a progressive interested in liberal causes and environmental protection and ends up logically deducing the need for immigration restriction on racial grounds, was the norm amongst progressives in the early 20th century.
Sounds a lot like Garrett Hardin.
For an idea of how this process worked, consider this thought experiment. You and some friends are riffing about HBD and blacks, and maybe using a derogatory term or two to describe them. Nothing about that bothers your conscience. Then you come across a black guy in the process of being lynched (which, remember, wasn't simply a hanging: it was a hanging often preceded by torture and humiliation....
You mean the torture and humiliation of the lynched man's victim?
Keep this in perspective: being forced to focus your attention on a 77 year-old one-time activist and having $PLC blathering weasel-words about "hate groups" is not a sign of a movement that's seeing a lot of traction.
Ah yes it's always the Jews. So mind-control ray powerful that ... they ended up in crematoriums, mostly, in WWII.
Jews are not even "Jews" anymore, they've so intermarried and lost any identity (including attendance at Temple) that they're functionally indistinguishable from Presbyterians or other mainline Protestants. In another two generations they won't even self-identify as Jews. They'll just be the great functionally agnostic Gaian-worshipping mass of the middle class.
Lets put it this way -- If you were a Jew, who attended Temple regularly, and found you were the Chosen People, in a living Covenant from God, which would prefer?
Living in Louis B. Mayer's America? Or Carlos Slim's?
As stupid as the NYT and media can be, so too are the people at iSteve looking for scapegoats instead of the reality.
Tanton never got much of anywhere, despite the popularity of restricting immigration, legal and illegal, because powerful interests and sufficient popular opposition can kill that.
The iron hold of elites, cemented by College educated White women support, and White women in general, has led to unsurprisingly continued mass immigration. White women generally benefit by it, are most inclined to liberalism and social climbing, and take their cue from status-mongering elites.
Mass immigration took place in Germany (not many Jews there and even less "influence" post WWII), Sweden (ditto), the UK, Spain (see: Germany), France (see Spain), Italy, and even (famously Jew absent) Switzerland.
Now, either Jews mysteriously got their mind-control rays working after failing in WWII, and did so to import millions of people who HATE THEM (Muslims) to "finish them off" in the worst case of mass suicide ever, ... or other factors completely were involved.
For the US it has been Mexicans. For Western Europe, Muslims. In both cases, cheap labor plus "liberalism" of a certain kind kept it up and is keeping it up. Only JAPAN has been immune which ought to tell you something.
Rather than "the Jews" it was the mass movement of women into the workplace, their own money, independence, and thus emphasis on women's feelings and issues that led to keeping mass immigration up.
Not the least of which is the "magical non-White" who appears regularly in all sorts of movies, Hollywood or otherwise ... EXCEPT JAPAN. Which co-incidentally has kept women socially suppressed despite financial independence since the War. This "magical wise non-White" presses all the "Sheik of Araby" Rudolph Valentino plus Theosophy idiocies that women are prey to: palm reading, fortune telling, astrology, etc. Even very intelligent women fall for it. The way guys fall for big explosions on screen and shoot-outs, etc. in movies.
That, on a grand scale, is basically the process by which eugenics and racial science became verboten.
How come that same process didn't work on big, central government? I don't see anyone making the case that since a group of leftwing Jews and Gentiles perpetrated the Holodomor, it's now verboten to support big government.
Well at least the word 'snarling' wasn't dropped in - that particular word seems to head the Steve lexicon of NYT immigration writing bolierplate.
Immigration restrictionists always 'snarl'.
However 'populist' was used.Any democratic, poltical appeal to restrict immigration is 'populist'.
.....and to be fair to John Stewart, he has been much more honest about jewish influence in the media than are many jewish entertainers.
"How come that same process didn't work on big, central government? I don't see anyone making the case that since a group of leftwing Jews and Gentiles perpetrated the Holodomor, it's now verboten to support big government."
The Swedes have big government, and we don't see any crematoria or gulags full of Norwegians.
For an idea of how this process worked, consider this thought experiment. You and some friends are riffing about HBD and blacks, and maybe using a derogatory term or two to describe them. Nothing about that bothers your conscience. Then you come across a black guy in the process of being lynched (which, remember, wasn't simply a hanging: it was a hanging often preceded by torture and humiliation -- cutting the man's fingers, toes, penis...). If you saw that, you might feel mildly nauseous making negative comments about blacks again.
That, on a grand scale, is basically the process by which eugenics and racial science became verboten.
Right. Jewish domination of the mass media constantly reminding us of and often exaggerating these crimes and concealing similar crimes done by their co-ethnics or in the name of causes they support has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
It's just a big coincidence that nobody associates Jewish power with mass starvations, "diversity" with brutal ethnic conflict, "civil rights" with 40,000 Black-on-White rapes per year, etc., right?
"The Swedes have big government, and we don't see any crematoria or gulags full of Norwegians."
Likewise, the USA and Great Britain had anti-Semites, and we didn't see any crematoria or gulags here.
The reaction of whites post-WWII has been that of unilateral disarmament in the matter of racial and ethnic chauvinism. We've put down the sword of ethnic chauvinism, while so many others have retained a firm grip on their own.
Female labor force participation by country. Japan is up there with the OECD average. Correlating it overall with immigration would require some more work.
I agree that we can't blame immigration (or post-war liberalism worldwide) on jews. But I don't see good evidence that working women are the cause either. The best explanation I've heard is Robin Hanson's theory that rising wealth/comfort leads to expression of traits evolved as foragers, which had been displaced by farmer culture.
>You'd think at least we'd see some sanity from down there.<
Down here in the South is the last place to look for such sanity. The usual suspects have everything securely in hand here, and have had for about a century. And the remnants of degernate sheeple scarcely give a damn.
If anyone tries to be politically incorrect in a genuine way, out come the Christers. "But this is against Jesus." So everyone backs up and returns to sleep.
>If you saw that, you might feel mildly nauseous making negative comments about blacks again.<
You're begging the question. I don't grant it.
Explain the reason WHY one might feel this way. As stated, it makes no sense.
Post a Comment