 |
| Part of Stanford University's 12 square mile campus in the heart of Silicon Valley |
With immigration policy back in the news, I’m reminded that when I was a lad 40 years ago, the cutting-edge wisdom was that rapid population growth was a major problem. ...
Sure, the doomsayers’ prophecies were overblown, but the notion that moderation in the size of the population has its advantages has hardly been debunked. Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom has simply flipped 180 degrees. That an increase in the quantity of residents isn’t an unalloyed good for Americans is now widely sneered at as some crackpot theory that only hippies on acid would countenance. Everybody knows that a bigger population is Good for the Economy. ...
And yet the experts enlightening us about the wonders of a bigger populace don’t seem to be in any hurry for their own communities and colleges to grow. From checking the statistics of elite institutions, you might almost get the impression that the “revealed preference” of people who are good at getting what they want is for very slow population growth.
Read the whole thing there.
My article surveys the rates of growth in the undergraduate student bodies of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford (with its 8,180 acre campus in the heart of Silicon Valley), as well as the population growth rates in Beverly Hills, Greenwich, Cambridge, Manhattan, Palm Beach, Evanston, Hyde Park, Portland, Buckhead, University Park, Scottsdale, and Provo.
This is another illustration of my long-running theme that the rich and powerful aren't just hypocritical, they're also pretty smart about their own self-interest, and the rest of us can learn larger lessons from how they treat themselves.
This is another illustration of my long-running theme that the rich and powerful aren't just hypocritical, they're also pretty smart about their own self-interest, and the rest of us can learn larger lessons from how they treat themselves.
Posts
71 comments:
With immigration policy back in the news, I’m reminded that when I was a lad 40 years ago, the cutting-edge wisdom was that rapid population growth was a major problem. ...
Sure, the doomsayers’ prophecies were overblown.
We'll see, Steve, we'll see. It's early yet.
"Perhaps the defining activity of American life since the 1960s has been elites conspiring to become more elite."
Hence the elevation to cause du jour the elimination of the "death tax." Besides rich people, who in America gives a shit about the estate tax? Absolutely no one, but it's supposedly unfair (what isn't?) so it must take precedence over policies that are unfair to the middle class or the poor.
Why has eliminating the estate tax had lots of traction the last decade or so? Because Democrats have come to realize that lots of people subjected to it are actually lefties. Republican politicians demand cutting the estate tax, and Democratic politicians extract "deals" in which they're very happy with both sides of the bargain.
"Less ostentatious Provo, Utah, the site of BYU and sometimes said to be the most Republican city in America, grew 7.0 percent, also trailing the country as a whole."
Utah County is one of the more fecund counties in the country, but Provo and Orem, its sister city, are built out. The county as a whole, which is roughly the Provo metro area, grew by 40% from 2000 to 2010.
Get this piece in the WSJ by neocon Joel Kotkin: "Since 2000, the Intermountain West's population has grown by 20%, the Third Coast's by 14%, the long-depopulating Great Plains by over 14%, and the Southeast by 13%. Population in the rest of the U.S. has grown barely 7%."
Got that? The population of the USA's most arid region, almost entirely dependent on snowfall in the Colorado River watershed, grew by 20% in 13 years. For how long is that sustainable? And in what rational world is population growth of 7% in 13 years not good enough?
They consider white population growth bad and non-white population good. It's no more complicated than that.
Not surprising. Population growth means more poor people being competitive. We will soon reach East Asianesque hyper-competitiveness.
A hypothetical.
Suppose 90% of immigrants, legal and illegal, to the US white and conservative-oriented. Suppose in the past 30 yrs, such immigrants have flipped California permanently to the GOP. Suppose they are very white and staunchly Christian.
Do you think the Jews who control the media and government would be calling for more immigration?
Or, would they come up with some excuse to call for end immigration?
And how would most American conservatives feel? If most immigrants were white and solidly conservatively--and likely to vote for the GOP in the future--,would most cons be for immigration or against it?
Elite white and Jewish areas have been losing people but then, so has black Detroit.
I think the "revealed preference" of elites is for growth rates from about 0.0% to 0.5% per annum.
A hypothetical.
A hypothetical, if to be discussed properly, should still be within a paradigm.
Where would these White Christian immigrants come from? Do you mean refugees from an accelerating Eurabia? Or extra White people by magic? Every detail is relevant.
Did anybody in America make any attempts to get Boer refugees to move here? For example, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Literature, J.M. Coetzee, author of "Disgrace," fled to Adelaide in 2002. Did it strike anybody in America that maybe we ought to have the welcome mat out for a Nobel Laureate?
"And how would most American conservatives feel? If most immigrants were white and solidly conservatively--and likely to vote for the GOP in the future--,would most cons be for immigration or against it?"
Many of the problems caused by our current types of immigrants would disappear, but not all of them.
[QUOTE] Everybody knows that a bigger population is Good for the Economy. ...[/QUOTE]
But is it good for the country's standard of living ? Both mainland China and India have a 3rd world standard of living with their population of over 1 billion people.
The majority of countries with a 1st world standard of living have a small population like Singapore, Sweden, Israel, and Switzerland for example.
The United States is the exception to the rule, but for how much longer ?
Will The United States still have a 1st world standard of living when the population of this country eventually reaches 1 billion ? I doubt it very much. Especially since the majority of the population growth in this country is being fueled by poor lower class Mestizos and Blacks who not pay taxes.
Bravo, Mr. Sailer. Splendid essay on the rank hypocrisy of the U.S. elite.
[QUOTE]A hypothetical.
A hypothetical, if to be discussed properly, should still be within a paradigm.
Where would these White Christian immigrants come from? Do you mean refugees from an accelerating Eurabia? Or extra White people by magic? Every detail is relevant.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are any White Christians left in Europe. It seems like every White person in Europe is now an Atheist.
Obama and Michelle. They are like black kids at a mostly white and Jewish high school in an affluent neighborhood who were voted as prom king and queen--as well as 'most likely to succeed'--just so the white kids can feel good about themselves. I mean their mostly white school must not be exclusionary or 'racist' since they voted black guy and girl as prom king and queen.
Michelle... prom queen role at oscars in an institution run by billionaire Jews.
"Where would these White Christian immigrants come from?"
Let's suppose Mexico is Mormonia where most people are like the Romneys.
Did anybody in America make any attempts to get Boer refugees to move here? For example, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Literature, J.M. Coetzee, author of "Disgrace," fled to Adelaide in 2002. Did it strike anybody in America that maybe we ought to have the welcome mat out for a Nobel Laureate?
According to Wikipedia, the US took in the most(78) prominent SA emigres followed by the UK, Australia, and Canada.
I remember meeting several South African immigrants in the late 80's. They were mostly very well-to-do.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/02/26/will-hispanics-ultimately-lean-gop/
Mead is a funny guy.
A new hope! Maybe Mexers will go GOP as they turn protestant. Rotfl.
Yeah, that must be why blacks are Democratic. Too many of them are Catholic.
According to Wikipedia, the US took in the most(78) prominent SA emigres followed by the UK, Australia, and Canada.
The irony is that Jews are overrepresented among the prominent emigres.
I get the feeling that Australia is the favorite destination of the white South African diaspora and only a few high flyers who are ...what's the term ? ...cosmopolitan achievement focused internationalists....favor the US
Maybe it has to do with historically similar lifestyles ie ...a similar lifestyle that was incidentally also once the norm in particularly the South Western US
I remember that bucolic area of Stanford, Cow Hill, well in the seventies. It was a great place to get away from everything and hang out. It was usually completely empty.
Except for the cows.
If you wanted, you could probably climb around on the big radio telescope witout fear of anyone noticing, for instance.
Now it has metmorphosed into "The Dish," and is overrun with a bazillion power joggers from around the bay area multitasking their way up and down the now paved, gated, guarded, extremely crowded paths. And they all bitch about the parking.
I see now that the area even has 240 reviews on yelp, all giving advice on when, where and how to park.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/civil_rights_and_the_collapse_of_birmingham_ala.html
Lots of black corruption scandals all over the country.
Obama presidency serving as useful cover for white/Jewish liberals in media and courts to finally sound the alarm on black abuse?
Great piece, Steve.
It's really only in the past three decades or so that a lot of lousy economists (who, apparently,don't know the ABC of their own subject), have managed to convince a lot of lousier politicians that somehow immigration is always 'good' and 'desirable' in itself, no matter what.
previous generations weren't so dumb and were more savvy in formulating public policy, they would have laughed off with deserved contempt that the imposition of a floor-cleaner on he USA can, in any way possible, 'benefit' the USA. The difference we have today is a lot of duplicitous - and often down right stupid economists have managed to convince themselves,and politicians, through a welter of pseudo intellectual garbage that floorwipers = wealth. You know it's shit, I know it's shit, but believe it or not it is THE current political bi-partisan orthodoxy.
The turning point was the election of the right-wing Reagan administartion in 1980, when shitty Friedmanite ideas became respectable, not that the left are any better though.
Seattle and Portland are crawling with South Africans. I think Sailer readers can derive why.
I meet a lot of white South Africans here in the UK. Of course there have always been lots of white South Africans here.
It's really only in the past three decades or so that a lot of lousy economists (who, apparently,don't know the ABC of their own subject), have managed to convince a lot of lousier politicians that somehow immigration is always 'good' and 'desirable' in itself, no matter what.
The powers that be want mass immigration for various reasons that have discussed here many times. This creates a demand for court jester style economists to expound supposed economic reasons for said immigration.
These justifications are in no way the cause of the immigration, they are just noise ultimately.
Sure, garden variety liberals will try and use them to defend their beliefs but they are merely the useful idiots, the Outer Party and I note in online debates the spurious economic arguments are rarely deployed and when they are used - utterly destroyed by the righteous.
What's the lesson Steve?
Be filthy rich?
Hello? We can't -afford- to do what they do.
It seems pretty clear that the US is becoming another Latin American country. We will have a rich elite (mostly white and Asian) with more poor people (many of which are black and mestizo). The currency will be weaker due to weaker governmental finances. The rule of law is replaced by the whims of the elite. There will be affluent enclaves as referenced in the article along with more poor areas. There are nice areas of South America where the rich live but most areas are not nice.
Steve Sailer Said >Did anybody in America make any attempts to get Boer refugees to move here? For example, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Literature, J.M. Coetzee, author of "Disgrace," fled to Adelaide in 2002. Did it strike anybody in America that maybe we ought to have the welcome mat out for a Nobel Laureate? <
Not just the Boer, the 'Sith Effrican' English speakers too, there are two white tribes here.
Lots of SA whites have spread all over the Anglosphere, including to the US. Between 1 and 1.5 million whites have left since 1994 from the white population then of 5 million.
Australia is the major benefactor of white flight from SA. There you get points on their point based system for speaking Afrikaans, it's a major minority language there! Perth is often jokingly referred to as 'Perthfontein'; many a true word is said in jest!
I might well come to the US and I’m a Brit not a Boer. One that's been in THE Regime for 20 yrs. My son is 16 and his Mum is a Boer. He knows he has no future here; but he will finish his education in SA, including likely university in Stellenbosch. You can still get a great education here...for now.
Nick - Sith Effrica
According to Wikipedia, the US took in the most(78) prominent SA emigres followed by the UK, Australia, and Canada.
The irony is that Jews are overrepresented among the prominent emigres.
Is there any evidence that expatriate South Africans are conservative or race-realist in their outlook? I suspect most have a grasp on the zeitgeist and overcompensate. Charlize Theron may be sincere, but as an SA-native did she really have any choice but to LOVE LOVE LOVE Nelson Mandela?
"Did anybody in America make any attempts to get Boer refugees to move here? For example, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Literature, J.M. Coetzee, author of "Disgrace," fled to Adelaide in 2002. Did it strike anybody in America that maybe we ought to have the welcome mat out for a Nobel Laureate?"
Coetzee was a guest prof. at the U of Chicago for a number of years. Hyde Park would have reminded him of S.A., and not in a good way. Also, he was in the Committee on Social Thought, which these days is mostly about political theory, and he didn't get a lot of good students. (I know this because I took a class with him.)
This did not necessarily have to do with Coetzee being a lousy, terrible teacher, a hostile teacher... The great Marc Fumaroli, who also visited and lectured, could only rustle up half a dozen souls for his seminar. A. B. Yehoshua gave a smashing seminar on modern fiction (the best I ever took), gathering fifteen, as I recall. He later stopped visiting Chicago. These observations are tending toward a digression on inane departmental barriers and restrictions in the humanities at the universities, so I will stop here.
The powers that be - i.e., big business, Wall Street and their Washington handmaidens - promote overpopulation because it increases the labor supply and the demand on goods simultaneously. In other words, prices rise while wages fall - the best case scenario for that freaking 1 percent that is raking in the dough.
What a shock - liberal hypocrisy.
"Immigration reform" is basically a kabuki being played out before our eyes by several groups whose interests dovetail here - business who want to have steady supply of pliant, cheap workers (benefits to be accrued to them, costs to be socialised) and politicians who see a steady supply both of clients (i.e., dependents of the welfare state) and constituents.
Steve, your use of the revealed preference (an economic term) argument is spot-on.
One anecdote that sticks in my mind from a while back - when I was a student at Stanford, there was a park (still is, I believe) in the foothills west of campus owned by the city of Palo Alto.
I went to the park once to try out its hiking trails - lo and behold, you had to provide ID (driver's licence, utility bill, something) to prove you were a legal resident of Palo Alto to use their park.
This, in a city famous for Volvos/Subarus/Saabs with "No one is illegal" bumper stickers on them.
You're welcomed to come to the US, so long as you get out of our town by nightfall and scuttle back to San Jose or Redwood City. But just don't try to use 'our' park.
The idiotic Walter Russell Meade has a piece up (linked by Insty) purporting to show that Hispanics really are potential Republicans! Because they're going to convert to evangelical Protestantism and then automatically turn into stanch Republicans - the sort of staunch Republicans Meade hopes will be devoted to the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state. To call this train of thought fanciful gives it too much credit.
Jewish group behavior at least makes some sense as at attempt at enhancing the well-being of Jews in general. But what explains the motivation of "gentile Zionists" such as Meade and Reynolds?
"Hence the elevation to cause du jour the elimination of the "death tax." Besides rich people, who in America gives a shit about the estate tax? Absolutely no one, but it's supposedly unfair (what isn't?) so it must take precedence over policies that are unfair to the middle class or the poor."
COMMIE! How long have you hated freedom, and America???
Just kiddin' buddy, that's Rush, and your Republican people talking
Freddy said...
They consider white population growth bad and non-white population good. It's no more complicated than that.
2/26/13, 9:16 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
They consider white population growth bad and non-white population good. It's no more complicated than that.
Ain't that the truth.
2/26/13, 9:23 PM
And how many kids do you old-school, prairie homesteaders have?
Oh, alright.
"Michelle... prom queen role at oscars in an institution run by billionaire Jews."
Somebody's had his underwear yanked up into his butt-crack, and been muscled into the boys bathroom and had his head dunked into the toilet for a few swirlees, Me thinks.
FWIW, my comment:
"Isn't it time to acknowledge that a certain uber-talented minority (you know who you is) sees its position in society as more secure in a multi-racial, multi-cultural mileau? It is the one most instrumental in setting and pushing current immigration policy. Whether this is a foolish, short-sighted, even naive policy remains to be seen, especially when it comes to maintaining popular support for a certain foreign policy equally dear to its heart. Meanwhile it has in effect turned its collective back on the welfare of the majority of voters by (among other things) pushing free trade with China. How dumb is that? Maybe its most influential members should privately begin to discuss among themselves whether it is time to re-access."
Why has eliminating the estate tax had lots of traction the last decade or so? Because Democrats have come to realize that lots of people subjected to it are actually lefties. --Matthew
They never paid estate taxes anyway. It all went into "foundations" which can push their leftie views forever. With the added benefit that foundations founded by righties would turn left in time. That's why the wiser rightist benefactors have been putting sunset clauses on their gifts of late.
It's hard to see how ending the estate tax makes anything worse. Better let the money corrupt their own kids than the eleemosynary and public sectors.
"
And how would most American conservatives feel? If most immigrants were white and solidly conservatively--and likely to vote for the GOP in the future--,would most cons be for immigration or against it?"
Most conservatives would be for it because those kinds of folks aren't on welfare and don't cause trillions of dollars of debt. In other words they would help conserve a culture of prosperity. You can actually teach those people to have 1.6 kids and care for the environment. You can't teach third worlders that. To get third worlders down to even replacement rate fertility, you have to give them free abortions to kill off roughly half of their kids. If you teach them to marry and take care of their families they average 3.0 kids. So, you can't conserve your culture of intelligent progress, prosperity and self control.
With regard to the land around Stanford (not the lands established by the founding grant), here's the best part:
POST
POST actively works to take land off the market, which has the benefit of boosting (or at least providing a floor for) real estate prices. Note the BOD, which is effectively the 1% of the 1% in Silicon Valley....
This is a close cousin of gerrymandering. The gerrymanderer gives his party districts with a 60% majority, and his opponents districts with 90%, so the other guy's votes are wasted.
Portlanders, Cantabridgians, Ann Arborists and the like want the "new Americans" to settle in their opponents' territory, to cement their own power.
A good rule to remember is that everyone in the Democratic Party is as cynical as James Carville. And none more so than that sweet old lady volunteering nights at the library.
Their concern for the environment is as bogus as that for working people or minorities. The ideal population is the one that solidifies their power for all time. As Orwell said, a boot stomping on a face forever.
I well remember those Sci-Fi stories and scholarly articles about over population. Paul Erlich and Georg Borgstrom come to mind. But then came the Green Revolution. Overnight the whole attitude of the intelligentsia flipped. Everyone made fun of Erlich's wild prophecies and we all assumed that we could always grow crops faster than people.
Maybe. Maybe not.
The other thing that changed was the realization that for Europe and Japan the problem wasn't over population but under population.
I learned in school that the US has 120 million people. The whole earth had two and a half billion souls then. We seem to be doing fine with more than double that number now. Why not just double the population again?
Something will change. And it will change in a way that we won't anticipate. Let me suggest a new direction that society may take.
I'm reading Jared Diamond's new antropology book "The World Until Yesterday". As he recounts the odd practices of all these primitive people I'm struck with the thought - should we let them live?
Currently it would not be politically popular to simply wipe out the Yamomano. But will that always be so? After they have been studied enough we might choose to eliminate them and build some mini-malls on what was once their land. Why not? They are not nice people. We have plenty of other savages.
A natural consequence of our power over nature is that we gain power over ourselves. Wouldn't one power of a true World Government be the power to set the size of the population?
Darwin and Galton thought that in the future the advanced races - which they saw as the Europeans and the Chinese - would eliminate the less evolved races. That could still happen.
If it was determined that the earth had a billion too many people how should we trim? Our congress can't agree on a simple budget trim. How will our leaders fare with a population trim? Some will argue for proportional cuts. But why not have a formula that includes IQ? We could have just as many Koreans but no Australian aborigines or Trobriand Islanders. That should help with our Global Domestic Product.
Albertosaurus
1/ @Steve
'Didn't it strike anybody in America that we ought to have a welcome mat out for Nobel Laureates?'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa
(e.g Einstein, Albert or Lennon, John)
2/ Er, something can be good on a small scale, but bad on a large scale. No hypocrisy.
Obama releases illegals, cites sequester...even though we'd save more money via deportation: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-detained-immigrants-sequester-20130226,0,7739089.story
It's like aristocrats wanting more serfs to work on their fields but away from their fancy estate.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2013/01/24/mort-zuckerman-americas-problems-are-about-will-and-character
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/naacp_tries_to_kill_the_golden_goose.html
http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Harvard-Nanny-State-Sunstein/2013/02/27/id/492241
From about 6 years ago: Ehrlich has 4 biological children according to the Stanford student newspaper. Yeah, his disciples were occupying the pulpits of midwestern liberal protestant churches during the late 60s and early 70s telling the children of “The Greatest Generation” it was their duty to stop having children. I suspect only the top .1 percentile of IQ and intellectual integrity was unable to suppress their intellect with the desire to avoid being called “hicks”, so a huge swath of the “regression to the mean” population was exterminated by Ehrlich’s ZPG—now renamed PC (Population Connection). What a piece of work is Ehrlich.
However, getting back to the point: I am an escapee from California. I did work with the Sierra Club there and lived right on the border with Mexico for 5 years of the 18 years I lived in California and watched it go to hell. There are other escapees. The problem is that one of the primary demographic groups escaping California for the hinterlands are Jews and fellow travellers who have a good con going: Go some place where there are a lot of whites who are afraid of being called hicks and then domineer them into destroying their environment while feeling so good about your affiliation with guys like George Soros, Moveon.org and Open Society Institute. These guys have money and motivation galore—as well as control of the local press. They are highly active in local politics and dominate the agenda of the schools and even “conservative” churches to the point that both go out of their way to import people from third world countries and parade the fact they are doing so around the area. The prime perps in this are usually elderly ladies who are shielded from reality by their real estate equity and who want the social accolades that go with sacrificing your grandchildren on the altar of Political Correctness (or the Population Connection if you’re an adherent of Ehrlich’s).
What are people going to do? Go around shooting little old ladies? I don’t think so.
Environmentalism offers the only politically viable rationale for immigration reduction. The ecological footprint of illegal aliens residing in the US is far greater than in their native countries. And, as far as causes of human population growth go, migration ranks up there with agriculture and medicine. The environmentalists' well-documented backtrack on overpopulation in the last 30 years has reduced the anti-immigration camp to white conservatives who, in swoppely eyes, exude racism. Bill McKibben and Pat Buchanan may initially seem like strange bedfellows, but if you read McKibben's books (for example, *Eaarth**), the similarity of their talking points will astonish you. A Concord native, Mckibben spent his teens giving tours of American Revolutionary War sites, and he makes both a civilizational and ecological case for small government, small economy, and small population. It's true that he has abandoned overpopulation in his current 350 campaign, but he's defended population reduction in the past. I bet that, if the conservative party started making ecological noises, environmentalists like McKibben would enthusiastically welcome them and their anti-immigration position.
If you don't believe me, check out an excellent recent collection of essays in "Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation" (Univ. Ga Press, December 2012). Cafaro and Crist put together an extraordinarily readable and well-referenced review of the math of overpopulation, its impacts, and "necessary conversation" we need to have about US immigration, for example. Two essays specifically lay out the environmental case for reducing US immigration. I'm a PhD student at one of the elite universities Sailer mentions in this Taki piece, and I've included some of these essays in a composition class I'm currently teaching to freshmen. They are on fire: outraged at their hometown school boards for not including demographics in high school curricula. Socially liberal per force, they nonetheless have completely changed their minds about immigration.
If conservatives moved toward conservationism instead of liberalism, they could easily attract young, educated whites.
The Bay Area is actually one of the areas that has been promoting Agenda 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21) guidelines most aggressively:
http://ppjg.me/2012/02/06/agenda-21-attack-on-property-rights-california-one-bay-area/
The basic idea is to gradually herd people into high density areas and discourage travel and living outside of them.
ot - from the onion:
Report: Chinese Third-Graders Falling Behind U.S. High School Students in Math, Science
heh. (^_^)
But what explains the motivation of "gentile Zionists" such as Meade and Reynolds?
Follow the money. Mead is a beneficiary of Soros's largesse.
"The Mormon genocide is what caused them to start practicing polygamy."
No, their hormones are what made them start practicing polygamy. There was never the gender gap among Mormon membership to justify polygamy, especially in the 19th century when so many women died while in childbirth. Joseph Smith was a practicing polygamist long before the so-called "Mormon genocide."
Steve, I assume you know perfectly well what the reason is and avoid spelling it out either for rhetorical purposes or to avoid being labeled an anti-Semite.
About 25% of your posts could be replaced with just a recommendation to read The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald.
Attention iSteve readers. If you are going to put a link in your comment, please hyperlink it.
Here is an easy tutorial to show you.
"Environmentalism offers the only politically viable rationale for immigration reduction"
It certainly is one of the easiest rationales for the left to stomach.
I used to debate immigration on another webforum. I would quote the difference in fertility rates between the women of Mexico and Mexican women in America and cite other data. After awhile one forum poster (a Canadian though, not American voter) who was an ardent environmentalist said she had come around to an anti-immigration perspective, mainly because of concerns over population growth.
The next time some Democrat or Republican quisling is going on and on about the glories of immigration on TV someone on the right side of the National Question should fire back, "This country is on track to have a half-billion people by 2050, almost a billion people by the end of the century. Anyone listening really want that?"
Steve sez:
Did anybody in America make any attempts to get Boer refugees to move here?
Good idea, except that some US politicians already stated that Boers from SOuth Africa are not welcome, since they are genetically racist, or something like that.
But honestly, why move to the US when South Africa is a decade or two ahead of the demographic curve? If Boers manage to survive the ANC-train wreck they will be more resilient than US whites who are headed to the black/white demographic of 1900 (50:50). And of course Europeans who still seem to think that being overcrowded by foreigners is a cool idea.
"Report: Chinese Third-Graders Falling Behind U.S. High School Students in Math, Science"
You know the Chinese are gonna take this article seriously.
They seem to have a HQ--humor quotient--of 70.
But then, what can you expect of a people who took Maoism seriously?
"I learned in school that the US has 120 million people. The whole earth had two and a half billion souls then. We seem to be doing fine with more than double that number now. Why not just double the population again?"
Doing fine? Not unless you like traffic, trash, parking lots, concrete, crime and hyper-competition.
The column contains a profound insight about Our Rulers. I wish you had let it steep a while before writing another post.
Without immigration America's population would have stabilized at about 220 million. California would have a population of between 20-25 million. I believe the overall quality of life would be much higher. Black Americans would be better off as they wouldn't have been displaced by cheap labor. Or pushed out of the liquor stores in Los Angeles by harder working Koreans for example. I believe America would have far fewer of the social ills it now has with a population only about 70% as large. Why countries like England or the Netherlands, small and very densely populated, need immigration, particularly from such totally alien cultures and peoples, I will never understand.
"For example, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Literature, J.M. Coetzee, author of "Disgrace," fled to Adelaide in 2002. Did it strike anybody in America that maybe we ought to have the welcome mat out for a Nobel Laureate?"
Coetzee has always hated America, even before he was kicked out in the 70s for protesting the vietnam war.
Actually there are some upper middle class cities that grew like gangbusters Irvine grew 44 percent between 2000 to 2010 while Orange County grew only 6 percent both low income Mexican towns didn't grow much since old Mexican residents left when new ones came in and whites left particulary the North part of OC for cheaper places.
I disagree with you that the California schools were good in the 1970's. I graduated with several white and hispanic kids at Los Amigos High and many read 8th grade. The schools got worst but there were a lot of average schools or mediocre ones before the Hispanic invasion. Housing wasn't that expensive and wages in the OC were a little above average low poverty since there much minorities.
It´s not hypocrisy , because elites aren´t even pretending any longer that the same standards apply to them and us mere mortals. There are openly two standards, or no standard at all as far as the elites are concerned. It´s shamelessness coupled with indifference and callousness.
Joel Kotkin is a neo-con? I don't think so.
I've tested bumperstickers saying Immigration Moratorium and Immigration Time Out but got little response. Maybe Immigration Freeze?
Forget trying to import the best and the brightest. There is no non-discriminative way to stem the flow of low-skilled immigrants. An across-the-board freeze is the only PC palatable way to go. Stop stripping poor countries of their talented few. They need them more than we do. They should refocus their ambitions on developing the countries into which they were born. Meanwhile we have our work cut out for us here at home: assimilating and integrating the thirty-to-forty million immigrants we already have, almost all of whom grew up in societies with no democratic traditions. How long will that acculturation process take? I'd guess a couple of generations at least, at which point we can revisit the issue.
Concentrating on illegal or low-skilled immigration alone is a political non-starter. Time to refocus.
Steve
Wasn't this Charles Murray's principle point in Coming Apart? That rich liberals actually take care of themselves pretty well, while encouraging the rest of society to screw themselves?
It's funny; the older I get, in spite of being a card carrying Conservative, I understand what the Bolsheviks were going on about.
Post a Comment