Borjas on Immigration in the NYT

This is an remarkable editorial by economist George Borjas, given its appearance in the New York Times. He asks the right questions; most fundamentally, the question about the impact of immigration on actual Americans. That is a departure from the ruling class’s long-established habit of ignoring that side of the equation. As reflected in their rhetoric and actions, our policy-makers regard the host population as a nullity, and a nullity does not figure into consideration beyond the most perfunctory nod to “impact on the low skilled.” And none at all in matters of compassion. The host society has no identity, much less destiny or aspiration of its own, so its place in any discussion of demographic engineering is an afterthought.

Borjas’ responses to his own questions are framed in the language of immigration-reduction rather than moratorium and reversal, so on face-value it’s business as usual. But he is speaking from a platform that calls for his audience to read between the lines. And given the forum, he delivers the payload. When the right questions are asked, the right answers are only a matter of time.

On compassion:

But what about the 11-million-plus undocumented immigrants already here? A vast majority have led peaceful lives and established deep roots in our communities. Their sudden deportation would not represent the compassionate America that many of us envision.

And he offers an answer to that question in President Trump’s own words:

“We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone … But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens.”

The editorial builds up to a more direct form of address:

Many of my colleagues in the academic community — and many of the elite opinion-makers in the news media — recoil when they hear that immigration should serve the interests of Americans. Their reaction is to label such thinking as racist and xenophobic, and to marginalize anyone who agrees.

And then the check-mate question:

But those accusations of racism reflect their effort to avoid a serious discussion of the trade-offs. The coming debate would be far more honest and politically transparent if we demanded a simple answer from those who disagree with “America First” proposals: Who are you rooting for?

***

I raised some of the same points last year in my farewell to jeb bush (sic).

Rest in Peace, Alan Colmes

Slate publishes a no-class obituary for their fellow liberal Alan Colmes, a Fox News presenter and Sean Hannity’s long-time debate partner who died on February 23rd. The writer criticizes Colmes for having made a career of playing patsy to conservatives’ attacks on the Democratic Party. I guess you can see the writer resenting Colmes for being their side’s equivalent of a political cuck.

Where is the line between a just vs. a crass eulogy to someone you have strong differences with? I celebrated Ted Kennedy’s croaking with a raised glass, and I will do the same with everyone in my Death Pool when they die. Are professional writers held to a different standards than bloggers, or is it a matter of distinguishing between enemies and merely men with whom we disagree? Or is it something else?

I’ve watched Alan Colmes on Fox every evening from 1999 to 2001 and never saw him arrogant, dishonest, or hateful. He was simply a liberal who treated those he differs with like fellow-citizens. For example, he once interviewed a White Nationalist on his radio show. Even as he pressed her on their philosophical differences, he treated her kindly — maybe because he knew that his professional on-air skills outmatch hers.

We all could live well in a country in which liberals had taken a few lessons from someone who consistently rose above the media’s program of dehumanizing anyone who dissents from their latest ideological memorandum. Imagine a liberal wing of American politics that seeks to persuade in good faith, rather than make war on core Americans. Such an approach would look like that of Alan Colmes.

Rest in peace.

ac1

Image source: FoxNews.com

Kieslowski’s Women

Documentary filmmaker by training, Krzysztof Kieslowski had expressed an array of moral themes through female beauty at least since his Decalogue television series (1988). International audiences first saw his eye for detail and its power to render inscrutable concepts in 1991’s The Double Life of Veronique. The film follows the lives of two women at their crossroads, each played by Irene Jacob: Veronique, who makes the necessary compromises and lives, and Weronika, who flies too close to the sun and falls:

In Blue, the fist installment of the three-color trilogy (1993-1994), Kieslowski works with the earthy Juliette Binoche. The hardness of her character lets her survive a horror that would have destroyed a weaker woman, but the story is about her letting go of her pride to find grace in humility:

In White, Julie Delpy’s angelic radiance belies her cruelty. An even more cruel comeuppance makes her a woman again. In this flashback scene, she’s downright beatific:

Red once again features Irene Jacob personifying feminine selflessness. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a scene in which Jacob’s character tells her confidante, a cynical retired judge, that her younger brother is a heroin addict and she wants to help. His advice to her: Être. Just be. She’s confused by his answer, so he repeats: être. As I also noted then, this is not over.

Each of the installments of the trilogy focuses on its respective theme liberté, égalité, and fraternité. That said, I see another dimension to Kieslowski’s nominally Revolutionary themes: a vision that a reunified Europe had an opportunity to become whole by reconciling its humane but frivolous half with its spiritually raw, debased other half.

Short-term, things have worked out a bit differently, but the trilogy ends on a prophecy. Foreshadowing the present cataclysm, the events in Red culminate with a tempest and a new day for its survivors.

rd1

Cutting to the Chase with Cucks

There is a proper time to deliver a perspective-changing truth by way of a simple statement. By cucks, what I mean right here is ordinary people who aren’t bad, they just oppose President Trump because our political revolution is so outside of their experience. They are sometimes older people with a narrow comfort zone, sometimes too golly-gee in their conservative temperament to process the idea of The God Emperor getting things done. Many have internalized the decades of liberal messaging to the point of fearing any overt political advocacy on their behalf. Unlike with SJWs, who are best cut from your life, reaching these people is worth a shot.

Objections to Trump we’ve all heard from such individuals:

  • “He’s a clown.”
  • “Melania’s past photos.”
  • “He’s racist.”
  • “He hates women.”
  • “I’m worried about his rhetoric.”

Complex arguments won’t reach them, because you’re up against an immovable wall of mental habit. Even if you make a persuasive case, one minute later they’ll forget everything you said. Batting down their individual objections is a waste of time.

Instead, have a dead-serious expression, look him or her in the eye, and say:

“Listen to me. The world is on fire. It’s going to destroy all of us. Here and now, Donald Trump is the one chance we’ve got.”

The Battle Flag

cgb1I don’t know anything about the folks who run that place, except this: we’re on the same side.

This is a great time to walk up to people and shake their hands, tell them “love the flag, sir.” Give them your business, recommend them to others. Flags and colors signal allegiance. We talk about networking in real life, and it begins with a friendly approach.

“Any time I see an American flag or a Trump sign, I know I have a friend in that house.” — Lara

Trump Voters as Seen by the Other Side

As quoted by a commenter at Lion of the Blogosphere, this is what one career anti-White wrote before the election:

Here’s a Facebook post from Mr. [Tim] Wise from October 2nd:

Trump supporters are easily break-down-able into the following categories:

1. Blatant racists and white nationalists who have overwhelmingly pledged their fealty to him;

2. Conspiracy minded lunatics who have overdosed on Alex Jones videos and think Infowars is a legit news site rather than a place for mentally imbalanced people to meet;

3. People who are legitimately hurting and legitimately detest neoliberalism but somehow believe a rich guy is the one who will deliver them from that…mostly because they’re racists and thus never supported Bernie Sanders, who said all the same things about neoliberalism but wasn’t a bigot;

4. Pathetic Republicans who support the brand more than human decency and will vote for and flak for any Republican, no matter how objectionable, just because of the R next to their name…

And no matter which of these one falls into…they all deserve to be politically destroyed…immediately and forever….

There is more in Wise’s comment under that link. Blogger LOTB notes:

Minus the sarcasm and the hatred for the people in the categories, he correctly identified some categories of Trump supporter.

Let’s go with that. Here are Wise’s four points, minus the lurid prose. Do they in fact describe one of Donald Trump’s supporters — me?

1. Racists and White Nationalists

Yes. From the moment a newborn learns the difference between “me” and “others,” the boundaries of his self become fundamental to his existence as sentient being with a personal as well as a social identity. Racism is a human right. People who are insulated from ways in which diversity bring its joys are afforded serenity about the sordid business of race. Others have their faces rubbed in it daily. And yes, I am a White Nationalist because I believe that we must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. After all, Tim Wise has been reminding us, over and over, that their future is in jeopardy.

2. Conspiracy Theorists

Yes. Vigilance is a civic duty. You have to be five years old to deny that very powerful people conspire to do bad things and that national institutions cover for them with false narratives that are accepted by the public.

3a. Detesting Neoliberalism

Yes. Neoliberalism is a satanic project. If religious language doesn’t move you, then you can also call it a project whose principals are stripping mankind of things that elevate us above animals — identity, aspiration, transcendence — to reduce us to bestial consumers.

As to suffering under Neoliberalism: if you aren’t, you’re blind. It’s not just their animus for the White working class; that’s just them going for the gut rather than the head to kill the body. So no matter how well-off you are… think about that man in upstate New York who gave up on looking for a job five years ago and whose daughter is a meth addict — and don’t be smug. He’s our brother and you are next.

It never had to be that way.

3b. Trump As Savior

Donald Trump is someone we trust to deliver a mortal blow to Neoliberalism. So far … expectations spectacularly exceeded.

4. Support for the Republican Brand

No. We have long made it clear that we are at odds with the Republican Party and its invite-the-world, invade-the-world neocon obscenity. Some of us broke with the GOP in 1996 over Bob Dole’s “the exists are clearly marked” speech. I left the Republican Party when John McCain was nominated in 2008 and I came back when The God Emperor stepped up to smite the cucks.

***

I recently pointed out that you can look at any news aggregator page and see an inflammatory headline about European nations that assert their right to exist. Near the top of Yahoo’s main page yesterday morning:

A Hungarian village declared ‘war’ on Muslim immigration. Few Objected. The Hungarian village of Asotthalom has only two Muslim residents, but that hasn’t stopped its mayor from declaring war on… [Washington Post]

They’re not saying that Hungarians are bayonetting Belgian babies… yet. That list of headlines was topped with:

Pennsylvania college group wants pins to start conversation on ‘white privilege’ A political group at a Pennsylvania liberal arts college launched a project to raise awareness about what it means to live with… [Fox News]

Here you’ll find Tim Wise’s infamous “Tick-Tock” post from 2010, in which he wrote the following before deleting it:

We just have to be patient.

And wait for your hearts to stop beating.

And stop they will.

And for some of you, real damned soon truth be told.

Do you hear it?

Their hate for us is orgasmic because we’re smarter than they are. That’s why they cannot be allowed to return to power. If that means doing away with the pretense of constitutional republic, then so be it. Otherwise they will make damned sure they finish the job they began in earnest under George H.W. Bush.

They danced on our graves too soon.

The Tragedy of Compromise

A nation can be snuffed out though violence or miscegenation, but only if the genocide is complete or they might come back stronger. But can a nation survive a utopia? Huxley pondered the end of history and to my recollection, he did not account for a fissile ruling class or the material goods losing their flavor.

But in the real world, the hard edge of globalism is bruising us hard. Unless you consider the mud invasion utopian. Below is my translation of a poem about the folly of a nobleman who tired to work with the system. That’s a difficult thing to do when the system is implacable and the grievances of your constituents are absolute.

If the war gets hot, what do we fight for? For nothing less than total victory. What is total victory? Securing what’s ours. Reach for more and you are courting downfall. The meek shall…

Aleksander Wielopolski (1803 – 1877) ran Poland’s civil administration within the Russian Empire and to forestall the bloodshed that would result from the growing independence movement, he ordered a conscription of Polish nationalists into twenty-year enlistments in the Tsar’s army. That decision sparked the January 1863 Uprising, the very outcome Wielopolski wanted to avoid.

The original poem is in the YouTube video below under “Show More.” It is written in trochaic meter with an ABAB rhyme scheme.

Margrave Wielopolski

Through Saxon Square, Circassian hundreds gallop
And by the palace, a hundred campfires burn
How do you do it, Your Excellency
That you’re despised on every side?

Lord Margrave, you do not think on command
So with the Tsar you’re already suspect —
Neither Petersburg nor Moscow will trust
A Pole who has his own plans

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
It’s dangerous to walk so high
After all, disaster won’t spare him
Because bad luck has he, who is born here
Your contempt, no one will forgive
We’re superstitious, fervent and teary
And you’re proud, you won’t deign wallow
In the national borscht with us
Why bother splashing logic in our faces?
We did not read Hegel, sire
For us it’s Chopin, peas and cabbage
And from time to time an uprising

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
Abyss on the left and abyss on the right
If he avoids death by a countryman’s hand
Then he’ll leave office in disgrace
All that work, Lord Margrave, and for nothing
In vain, the forced conscription
Things will be as they must — business as usual
To battle unarmed, backbreak and welts
Lord Margrave, you won’t change a nation
Here, good sense is rarely used
And the one thing we can do truly well
Is to lose most beautifully in the world

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
Though awkwardly and with a wild boar’s posture
And when he falls, he’ll gain only
A traitor’s shame instead of a monument
That you fell, that’s normal Polish fate
In the end, everyone falls off that rope
Only why did you forget, Wielopolski,
That the fall must look good?

– Jerzy Czech (c. 1981)