The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Poem Power
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A recent Harvard-Harris survey shows bleeding hearts pushing RAISE face-first into the dirt. Queried respondents were more likely to say “facing a physical threat in their home country” (49%) and “facing persecution on the basis of ethnicity or religion in their home country” (47%) should be factors in determining whether or not an aspiring immigrant receives legal status than the “ability to speak English” (40%) should be, let alone their “education level” (29%), “their health” (27%), or their “income level” (15%). Respondents could choose multiple factors or none at all.

That a majority does not think English language fluency should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant a prospective immigrant legal residency reveals that the American idea of assimilation is dead. The ability to communicate is a necessity for the most basic level of assimilation to occur. We’re living in an empire, not a republic–an empire we’re welcoming as we destroy its republican remnants.

Our collective willingness to magnanimously transfer our neighbor’s income to a refugee resettlement racket tasked with settling Somalis three states over has its limits, though. The most encouraging result is in how few people–just 7%–say no evaluating factors should be applied at all. Even among Democrats the figure is only 11%. Open borders are unpopular.

To dispel the misogynistic notion that women are driving Western countries away from formulating immigration policy based on sober cost-benefit calculations and towards schmaltzy sentimentality, the following graph shows whether, and by how much, men (blue) or women (pink) put greater emphasis on each of the factors under consideration:

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Polling 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
49 Comments to "Poem Power"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. iffen says:

    You’re up against pictures of toddlers face and toe down in the sand and surf. You are going to lose.

    • Agree: SafeNow
  2. On the English-speaking ability alone, it’s getting ridiculous. There’s no point in asking a question to anybody in the service industry (at least what I deal with) anymore. It’s “Hey, do you know whether …”, get that glazed look and some kind of thick accent, and “oh, never mind ….” I guess we’re supposed to get all our questions answered by our phones.

    Either that, or it’s outsourced. I went on-line to buy an almost $1,000 product yesterday, and they did have a contact number. (Yes, I had to look it up elsewhere, as their website didn’t want to give it up.) The guy, Ian, I believe, was in the Philippines, which I knew after about 30 seconds of trying to ask a guy with good-sounding English a couple of simple questions. “Never mind, this ain’t working,” I said, and hung up. They lost that sale – I may get it used on ebay.

  3. @iffen

    I agree. Those poll numbers are one thing, said when people are sitting down on their computers or calmly answering the phone. Then, the Lyin Press sets up that killer photo or video, and women’s emotions take over – “if it saves just one of these poor dears!” Never mind the millions of poor dears that will have a more miserable life growing up in America under diversity due in part to that Refugee Resettlement Racket.

    Compassion + Stupidity = Evil.

    Thanks for using that term, A.E. It is a scam, but much worse than an ordinary scam for the population who doesn’t have to stupidly fall for anything, just spent not enough time with an eye on the US Feral Gov’t.

  4. To give a woman equal time here, VDare notes that Ann Corcoran’s great Refugee Resettlement Watch site is back on-line, after WordPress canceled her two months back.

    Lesson to learn: Get your own URL!

    (No, I don’t put Ron Unz with the people to worry about in this regard … far, far from it!)

  5. notanon says:
    @iffen

    off-topic but from a previous (comments closed) thread where i said

    if the primary goal (at least of a zealot minority) is to prevent assimilation…

    you chimed in with someone disputing this by saying something about facts and logic so some evidence for my claim just for you.

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/dershowitz-jew.html

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-american-jews-described-their-own-intermarriage-as-a-second-holocaust/

    activist minorities can have an out-sized impact.

  6. notanon says:

    thing here is the men are wrong too – they’re just being manipulated in a different way e.g.

    – skilled immigration to replace existing workers is just as bad as unskilled immigration

    – highly educated immigration from more nepotistic populations is very bad

    women are being manipulated emotionally
    men are being manipulated with false facts and logic

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  7. @iffen

    exactly. Open borders are unpopular in the abstract. When it comes to the unpleasant reality of enforcing border control on hordes of migrant civilians, first world sheeple have no stomach for such “inhumane” measures.

    With a friendly mass media, maybe things would be different. Then they could portray the reality of what turd world migration is doing to us while covering up the reality of what must be done to stop it. But this is just a fantasy.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Feryl
  8. TheJester says:

    “To dispel the misogynistic notion that women are driving Western countries away from formulating immigration policy based on sober sober cost-benefit calculations and towards schmaltzy sentimentality, the following graph shows whether, and by how much, men (blue) or women (pink) put greater emphasis on each of the factors put under consideration …”

    Audacious,

    It seems that the metrics you reference prove exactly that … that men favor sober cost-benefit calculations when addressing immigration while women favor a schmaltzy sentimentality that ignores the consequences of their choices on their own and other’s lives.

    Takeaways:

    (1) You DO have a pleasing, sarcastic sense of humor!

    (2) There are observable differences in the way that males and females perceive issues and manage their lives.

    (3) There are practical consequences related to the ongoing feminization of society; that is, women having the franchise.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  9. notanon says:
    @Herbert West

    With a friendly mass media, maybe things would be different.

    very much so imo – they’d focus on the people being forced to train their replacements or the crying children of people killed by illegals.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  10. SFG says:

    A 7-15 percent difference? That’s not *huge*. It confirms gender stereotypes, but everyone on the right knows those are true anyway. 😉

    You could always do the Sailer thing and see if there’s a marriage gap that’s bigger than the gender gap on this. (Clever fellow, Sailer; I once flustered a lefty going on about patriarchy by pointing out single men were less likely than married women to believe Kavanaugh!)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  11. @Achmed E. Newman

    Yep, I guess I’m an old-school WEM. I see those pictures, and I think “Well, there still several hundred million willing to take their chances despite seeing this.”

  12. @notanon

    – skilled immigration to replace existing workers is just as bad as unskilled immigration

    As a highly skilled migrant who has taken the jobs of a couple well-paid Europeans and gone on to sack several superfluous others in subsidiaries by flattening the organisation and getting more locally hands-on than my predecessors, I would say you under-state on this point in any social or societal analysis of the issue, and suggest in fact that importing a highly skilled foreigner might be worse for the locals. From a greedy-capitalist perspective, not so much.

    – highly educated immigration from more nepotistic populations is very bad

    You are totally correct on this one. The US IT industry is being taken over by South Asians who import more who look and act like them. But aside from that obvious example, look at the growing numbers of persons from highly nepotistic cultures populating the top of Fortune 500 or large multi-national companies and ask yourself how long it might be until they reach critical mass.

  13. Gordo says:
    @iffen

    You’re up against pictures of toddlers face and toe down in the sand and surf. You are going to lose.

    As long as the enemy control the megaphone…

  14. Feryl says:
    @Herbert West

    The economy being FUBAR’d will change this in a hurry. After the Great Depression hit, elites stopped building giant mansions (lest it arouse the ire of the populace who did not want precious resources wasted) and stopped importing immigrants (immigration into America was virtually halted between 1930 and 1945) so as to give ordinary people the impression that they no longer were competing with endless waves of foreigners during an economic rough patch.

    I’ve often said that basing immigration rhetoric on public safety is a dead-end, given that American blacks are more dangerous. Plus, the New Deal era at heart was about wise use of resources, not about terrifying people that blood was flowing through the streets. In point of fact, grim warnings about immigrant gangs were actually common from about 1890-1920, which is precisely when immigration was not being stopped. Once we entered the New Deal era in the 1930’s, immigration was halted on the grounds of economic fairness, not on the grounds of public safety or even basic ethnic bigotry. In the late 60’s and 70’s, Boomers started committing lots of street crime, and that had nothing to do with immigration. These days, most mass murderers are Americans.

    Also, most people are most concerned, on a day to day basis, with how to pay their bills. Most people manage to avoid spending lots of time in the most dangerous areas. But middle to lower class people, after 40 years of high immigration levels, can’t dodge the greater competition that has been created, for jobs and housing. Reaganite public safety rhetoric has nothing at all to do with the economic concerns felt by most people.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  15. Many Germans and Scandinavians are complete and total dunderheads when it comes to questions of demography and population and mass immigration.

    Many Americans of German and Scandinavian ancestry are complete and total boneheads when it comes to questions of demography and population and mass immigration.

    Trump might be part Scandinavian through his mother’s side and Trump is German on his father’s side.

    Trump is now screaming like a bastard for more and more mass legal immigration.

    Trump wants to flood more mass legal immigration into the USA “in the largest numbers ever.”

    Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Trump hasn’t abolished the nation-wrecking REFUGEE OVERLOAD scheme as yet. We’ll see what Trump does with that next week.

    Trump hasn’t closed the floodgate that is pouring ASYLUM SEEKER INUNDATION into the USA.

    Tweets from 2015:

  16. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a predatory scam that preys on the compassion and generosity of people inside the Hajnal Line.

    1 Timothy 5:8:

    “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

    Are we content with the conditions of our own native poor? No, of course not? Then we are worse than infidels.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  17. @SFG

    The poll doesn’t report marital status. Surprisingly few do, which is irritating since it’s virtually always the case that the marriage gap is larger than the gender gap. And it’s not merely a proxy for age–young married people have more in common in their views with older married people (of either sex) than they do with younger (or older) single people.

    • Replies: @SFG
  18. @Feryl

    After the Great Depression hit, elites stopped building giant mansions (lest it arouse the ire of the populace who did not want precious resources wasted) and stopped importing immigrants (immigration into America was virtually halted between 1930 and 1945) so as to give ordinary people the impression that they no longer were competing with endless waves of foreigners during an economic rough patch.

    There are 3 mistakes there in one paragraph. People did not get ired because “precious resources were being wasted”. They got ired because they were in bad shape, near starving sometimes, and you don’t live ostentatiously in front of that in less you want trouble.

    Then, the bill that halted the near-as-massive-as-today immigration from the 1880’s on was signed by “Silent” Cal Coolidge in 1924. Immigration had already been greatly slowed a few years earlier though. This was implemented during the beginning of the “roaring ’20’s”, not a rough patch at all.

    Lastly, many, such as writers on VDare (wish I could find the specific article, but this should be your go-to source for anything on immigration, Feryl), think that it was the fact that Presidents and Wall Street were getting attacked by immigrants via bombs and guns, and that the elite had had just about enough. Would that the same would happen today, but our elites don’t care – they are highly mobile.

  19. Feryl says:

    Lastly, many, such as writers on VDare (wish I could find the specific article, but this should be your go-to source for anything on immigration, Feryl), think that it was the fact that Presidents and Wall Street were getting attacked by immigrants via bombs and guns, and that the elite had had just about enough.

    I am well aware that the putative reason for halting immigration was public safety. However, cultural chaos was something that got progressively worse from the 1860’s-1920’s* (this was the darkest period in US history, let’s not forget). In other words, leadership tolerated high levels of violence, disorder, and bickering for a long, long time, even though leadership was theoretically being harmed by this state of affairs. The real catalyst for the essentially total stoppage of immigration that happened in the early 1930’s was the Great Depression, which was the thing that re-bound the elites together in an effort to do a better job and regain the trust of the masses (in stark contrast to the mainstream popularity of Social Darwinist thought around circa 1900). Immigration levels in the 1920’s were lower than what they were in the beginning of the 20th century, but that being said, 1920’s levels were still much higher than 1930’s levels…..Because elites still hadn’t fully shaped up yet, and wouldn’t fully conform to wholesome values until the 1930’s.

    *Murder of police officers escalated to extremely high levels in the 1920’s, diminished in the 1930’s, and then was very unusual from the 1940’s-1966 (the heart of the wholesome and populist New Deal era). Boomers then murdered lots of cops in the late 60’s and 1970’s. Since about 1983 the rate of cops being killed has gradually declined; even the Obama years were much safer for the police than the 1970’s or 1920’s were.

    Would that the same would happen today, but our elites don’t care – they are highly mobile.

    The Lost Generation (b. from circa 1885-1900) and Boomer Generation (circa 1945-1960) caused far more civil unrest and discord than other generations did. Like I said above, murders of police officers coincide neatly with the young adulthood of Losts (circa 1905-1930) and young adulthood of Boomers (circa 1965-1990). There seems to be a cyclical thing going on here, where several”boring” generations give birth to a bunch of hellions, and then another generation is born which is horrified by the excesses of the generation just above them. For example, many X-ers were horrified by the violent and drug-fueled excesses of the 70’s, and tried not to repeat them in the 80’s and 90’s. Millennials, in turn, were even more frightened by the reckless culture of Boomers and some X-ers, and have vowed to not make the same mistakes. Interestingly, though, if the pattern continues, then we are due for Generation Z to start raising hell around 2020 (given that hell-raising peaks every 50 or so years; 1920, 1970, and so on), because Gen Z almost never had Boomer parents to warn them away from this culture (similarly, the Boomers themselves almost never had Lost parents who could’ve warned them about the dangers of excessively reckless behavior).

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @216
  20. Feryl says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    It’s a predatory scam that preys on the compassion and generosity of people inside the Hajnal Line.

    But these are qualities that used to be expressed towards one’s own ethnic group alone; everybody else could go take a hike. Look, as recently as the 1980’s the British Isles were a hot-bed of animosity between the Irish, the English, the Protestants, the Catholics, etc. The more Slavic East Germans were literally walled off from the West Germans as recently as 1988.

    America, the victor of WW2 no doubt, had much more domestic stability from the 1940’s-1980’s than many other Western countries did (aside from young American Boomers causing unrest and crime after circa 1967). But the full on pozzing/multi-cultural push is something that was only made possible by the decline and collapse of European communism that began in the late 80’s.

    It looks like years of “prosperity” and “peace” is the main factor in decadence, not genetically inherited personality traits. For example, Eastern Europe and Asia toiled, for many decades, under the rigors of dopey commie ideology which meant these ethnic groups were being toughened. After communism started to die off in the 80’s and 90’s, these Eastern cultures seem to be gaining their footing and are becoming realistic competitors to the US again. On the other hand, the Western countries prospered (to at least some degree) with mixed model capitalism from the 1940’s-1990’s, which has made these countries increasingly cavalier and soft-minded about the sort of values that are necessary to sustain civilization. The 1990’s was the key decade in terms of ideological and ethnic battles within the West being considered essentially “over”, and causing Western elites to become totally delusional fools about human nature (note that high levels of immigration to England did not begin until the late 1990’s, because white sectarian violence within the UK was awful in the 80’s and early 90’s*). We went from understanding the nature of ethnic violence within the “white world”, to figuring that any ethnic group could be housed productively within the borders of a multi-cultural utopia.

    Speaking of sectarian violence, it seems that Red America and Blue America (both movements led by large numbers of whites) are heading towards another Civil War, which would wake people up from their utopian slumber, at the very least; and who is going to come to America during a time of great unrest and conflict? You’d have to go back to the late 19th century to find so much animosity between competing groups of whites in America

    *Brits generally remember the 1980’s as being a pretty dark decade, unlike Americans who often consider the 80’s to be an improvement over the 70’s; note also that Brits did not see declining violent crime until about 1998, whereas America was becoming safer as early as the mid-80’s. Also, Brit property crime has been pretty persistently bad since the 80’s, whereas American property crime since the late 90’s hasn’t been that bad.

  21. @Feryl

    However, cultural chaos was something that got progressively worse from the 1860’s-1920’s* (this was the darkest period in US history, let’s not forget).

    No, I won’t forget, because I never knew that in the first place. WTF?. The late 19th century and early 20th were a time of great innovation, growth, and economic stability*. I don’t put that on the immigration by any means, BTW.

    Besides during the horrors of wartime, most especially 1861-1865, the darkest years were 1929 through our entry into WWII. America would have gotten out of the Depression earlier had it not been for the Socialism of FDR – he put everything back in a dark hole in 1937.

    Where do you come up with some of this stuff?

    .

    * There were some busts and booms, but the CPI still remained where’d it’d been, excepting just during the wars, 100 years earlier. That means one could save the fruits of one’s labor without it being stolen year by year. How the heck did that happen? Was there no FED back then? I don’t feel like checking – you check.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Feryl
    , @Twodees Partain
  22. 216 says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Interestingly, though, if the pattern continues, then we are due for Generation Z to start raising hell around 2020

    Crisis of the 2020s

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-crisis-of-2020s.html

  23. 216 says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, to end the period of recurring “panics” in the financial system.

    Full transfer to fiat money was started in 1933, and then finished in 1971.

    America would have gotten out of the Depression earlier had it not been for the Socialism of FDR – he put everything back in a dark hole in 1937.

    Contemporary audiences did not agree. In 1937 FDR cut spending, which threw the economy back into recession. In 1939, military spending started rising with the start of the war, which put the economy back into a growth pattern. Disagree if you want, but those at the time saw this as a massive vindication of Keynes.

    For a contemporary look, compare US vs EU fiscal policies since 2008. Conserative belt-tightening was imposed by Germany in the EU, but rejected by US voters in 2012. The US has subsequently outperformed the EU economically. The one EU state (UK) that was not controlled by the ECB, went on a spending binge and its economy has done much better than France’s.

    What is almost never done by the left is to do the other half of Keynes’ policy: raising taxes during good economic times. Germany has come the closest, but no German politician other than perhaps in Linke would ever agree that Germany should federalize the debt of Southern Europe.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  24. Mark G. says:
    @216

    FDR actually only cut spending by about four percent in the 1937-1938 period. Government spending in 1939 was still almost double that of 1932 with unemployment at higher levels in 1939. The recession of 1937 was largely caused by FDR’s increasingly anti-capitalist rhetoric in the 1936 election. This caused businessmen to be reluctant to invest money in businesses. Private business investment dropped thirty percent during this period. FDR also announced more antitrust actions and appointed Thurman Arnold along with 300 lawyers to carry these out. In addition, the Wagner act went into effect after being held up in the courts a couple of years and this led to a wave of strikes that further damaged the economy. The Great Depression didn’t really end until spending and tax cuts after World War II. The standard of living of the average person remained quite low through the war, just as low as it had been all through the thirties. The tax cuts and spending cuts after World War II led to an explosion of consumer spending and private business expansion which resulted in the prosperity of the fifties. As for the Federal Reserve being created in 1913 to prevent financial panics, it obviously didn’t work since there was a panic in 1929. The panic of 1907 was quickly resolved without the Federal Reserve and that panic didn’t lead to a multiyear depression.

  25. Rosie says:

    sober cost-benefit calculations and towards schmaltzy sentimentality,

    ROFLOL.

    The women are exactly correct. A “sober cost-benefit calculation” can never, ever lead to the conclusion that we ought to let skilled and/or wealthy immigrants come in and take good job and housing opportunities away from our children. Only a man could ever, under any circumstances, think that was a good idea.

    We shouldn’t be considering letting anyone in unless there is some morally compelling reason, and they should be sent home just as soon as that morally compelling reason ceases to exist, with all the help and support we can reasonably provide to reintegrate them back into their native societies.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Brett
  26. 216 says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Only a man could ever, under any circumstances, think that was a good idea.

    It’s not my usual forte here; but isn’t there some benefit to having the tech industry concentrated in the United States? This concentration has certainly masked some of the imperial decline that would otherwise be apparent.

    People who pay a large amount of taxes are at least superficially beneficial, versus those admitted to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @notanon
    , @Brett
  27. Rosie says:
    @216

    It’s not my usual forte here; but isn’t there some benefit to having the tech industry concentrated in the United States?

    No. These Asian males come here and take over entire companies and hire their cousins, driving out the White men.

    I do not welcome our new Asian overlords.

    People who pay a large amount of taxes are at least superficially beneficial,

    No! These Asian immigrants are a disaster. First of all, the women usually work outside the home no matter how much money their husbands make. You get these White male/Asian female power couples taking jobs and driving up the cost of housing.

    With only one child, they have plenty of time to angle for every advantage. They squeak and they get the grease.

    • Replies: @SFG
  28. Feryl says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Police officers shot to death:
    https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=1885
    1885: 63
    1895: 65
    1905: 70

    Lost Generation “gangster” culture:
    1915: 132
    1925: 184
    1935: 129

    New Deal success:
    1945: 56
    1955: 43

    Boomer “Awakening”:
    1965: 62
    1975: 145

    “Militarization” of police:
    1985: 73
    1995: 70
    2005: 55
    2015: 41

    Civil Unrest incidents
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States:
    Civil War and Reconstruction:
    1860’s: 11
    1870’s: 21
    1880’s: 7

    Social Darwinist Age:
    1890’s: 12
    1900’s: 15
    1910’s: 23 (+numerous race riots during the summer of ’19)
    1920’s: 13

    New Deal era:
    1930’s: 18
    1940’s: 13
    1950’s: 5

    New Left era:
    1960’s: 69 (massive share of population is teenagers and young adults, drug use and drinking rates rise throughout the decade, many people don’t want to be drafted)
    1970’s: 32 (Re: population still very young, drinking age is lowered, car crash fatality rates soar)

    Neo-liberal era:
    1980’s: 7 (Gen X is much smaller, and much less entitled, than the Boomer generation who at this point were selling America out instead of raging against the authorities)
    1990’s: 10
    2000’s: 14

    New Gilded Age:
    2010’s: 30 (inequality at highest level since the 1920’s)

    Peter Turchin says that the bloodshed of 1910-1930 unrest was greater than what we had from 1960-1980. That presumably is due to variance in elite corruption; elites were arrogant and corrupt in the early 20th century, to the point that they themselves were more willing to use violence to send a message while their attitude also provoked much hostility from the masses. On the other hand, elites in the 60’s and 70’s were still relatively modest and ethically upright (it was the Boomer youth who were boldy destructive). The fact that more police were murdered in the 1920’s than the 1970’s also suggests that the authorities of the late 20th century did not provoke as much hatred as the authorities of the early 20th century did. I have to side with Peter Turchin, in his analysis that circa 1865 and circa 1920 were probably the worst time to be in America, in terms of widespread disorder and political unrest. That is why I said 1860-1920 was a “dark time”. The “Era of Good Feelings” preceded 1860, while the “Can-Do” spirit of the 1940’s and 1950’s is a sharp contrast from the culture of nihilistic 1920 era Losts and arrogant and spoiled 1970 era Boomers, which neighboring generations (the GIs who came after Losts, and the Gen X who came after Boomers) have rejected.

    Going by police deaths and civil unrest stats, one could say with some accuracy that the 1880’s, 1950’s and the 1980’s were the most peaceful decades(the 90’s and 2000’s weren’t that bad, either; like I’ve said, the 80’s-2000’s were good times to have tried to reform the system). Not coincidentally, the 1950’s and 1980’s were also decades of lower income inequality. The Boomers singlehandedly took a massive crap on society in the 60’s and 70’s, decades that otherwise would’ve been more pleasant.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  29. @Achmed E. Newman

    You might want to consider that alcohol prohibition had started a wave of criminal violence that was at its peak in the 1920s. The “Roaring ’20s” was a time of speculative wealth production that didn’t help everyone.

    True, prices were stable while the money was stable, but the Fed was manipulating markets from the time of its inception. There were indeed booms and busts, including the depression beginning with the “panic of 1893”, that led to a serious depression that lasted through 1897. It isn’t accurate to consider the late 19th and early 20th centuries as times of particular economic stability. The Federal Reserve was supposedly a solution to that instability, but it never has been.

    Economic conditions were always regional, and the former Confederate states remained in an economic depression from the end of the “civil war” onward through the1930s. You’re right that people could save and hold on to their property at a level that has been eroded since the end of WWII. Still, only those who lived above subsistence level could manage to save.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Feryl
  30. notanon says:
    @216

    if they’re replacing an existing worker you need to factor the displaced worker into the equation.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  31. @Feryl

    aside from young American Boomers causing unrest and crime after circa 1967

    That must be among the worst euphemisms for “blacks” I’ve seen anywhere.

  32. Rosie says:
    @notanon

    High-skilled immigration has destroyed young White Australians’ chances of ever owning anything. They will be “doomed to pay off someone else’s mortgage forever.” I wouldn’t be surprised if many of those “someone elses” are Chinese.

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/locked-out-its-all-gone-horribly-wrong-for-generation-rent/news-story/5f8f620daa541c1d424b34018941bbcf

  33. SafeNow says:

    “The ability to communicate is a necessity…”

    Here in California, a medical-front-office employee will extremely often need to be bilingual to be hired. This job requirement does not help me. On the contrary, it harms me, because a smarter, more experienced applicant did not get the job. It is as if golfing skill were made a job requirement, narrowing the hiring pool by requiring a skillset that is of no use to me.

  34. @Achmed E. Newman

    “You’re up against pictures of toddlers face and toe down in the sand and surf.”

    Because of who holds the megaphone.

    But people aren’t always so daft, if it is brought home to them. 40,000 Icelanders signed a Facebook pledge to take a Syrian refugee into their homes, a move which would (given their 300,000 population) have meant that there would have been near a 50/50 split between Icelanders and Syrians in the male 15-25 age range, and a 2-1 male-female ratio.

    The actual number taken in was about 300, and they’ve been dispersed throughout the sparsely populated country.

    Trump should send all refugees to wealthy blue zones.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Audacious Epigone
  35. iffen says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Economic conditions were always regional, and the former Confederate states remained in an economic depression from the end of the “civil war” onward through the1930s.

    It is inaccurate to say that the South remained in an economic depression, as there was economic growth that in some years and areas was quite strong. But your first sentence here captures the essence. The starting economic base was much less, but because of regional differences they were never fully integrated into the national economy and the gap remained even if it did close somewhat.

  36. @Feryl

    I stopped reading at “New Deal success.”

    Browse some of the many riots in 1968 listed here

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

    … my cop father was shot in one …

    If you go through many of the US riots from 1800 to present day, one can discern a common social thread that runs through many of them; yet you fail in your many distinctions above to identify the most common characteristic in many US riots and civil unrest.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  37. Feryl says:
    @The Alarmist

    I said that the 1940’s and 50’s were a success, and labeled the 1960’s and 70’s “the New Left era” which is when young Americans began to reject the New Deal; first they attacked the traditional social structure of America in the 60’s and 70’s, and then they attacked the economic structure after Reagan was elected.

    If you go through many of the US riots from 1800 to present day, one can discern a common social thread that runs through many of them; yet you fail in your many distinctions above to identify the most common characteristic in many US riots and civil unrest.

    Uh, the level of racial unrest closely tracks the other kinds of unrest in society. And I use unrest as a whole to judge the nature of an era. 1920 had both racial unrest and labor dispute unrest. 1970 had racial unrest and campus unrest. Also, back in the early 20th century most murders of police were committed by whites. The gangsters of the early 20th century included lots of whites; was Al Capone black? That would be news to me and I’d imagine most other people. The depravity of the young Lost Generation knew no racial boundaries.

    Look, Boomers can insistently stammer all they want that blacks single-handedly are the only source of trouble in our country. The reality is that white Losts and white Boomers cut a massive swath through the over-all integrity of our social structures. Before 1970, America was 85% white anyway. No social trend would’ve been possible without the participation of whites. E.g., many of the people now drinking themselves to death in older age were the same (often white) degenerates who went to 30 keg parties a year in the 1970’s.

    America’s extreme individualism means that we go through greater cultural shifts, and have more distinctive generations, than other places. This has benefits and costs; Americans are the most free people to ever exist, and we have a lot of outlets for creativity and innovation. At the same time, this sort of culture also is very hard on people who have trouble with self-discipline. And certain American generations came of age being extremely reckless and destructive. Using the GSS and excluding all but white guys, I’ve found some definite distinctions between generations. X-ers and Millennials drink less and are more supportive of inequality reduction relative to Boomers. I’m sure it has to pain some people, but at the end of the day certain generations need to take responsibility for succumbing to nihilism and/or hedonism. The Lost Generation gave us the nasty tone of circa 1915-1935, and the Boomers gave us the nasty tone of circa 1967-1982.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  38. Feryl says:
    @Twodees Partain

    You might want to consider that alcohol prohibition had started a wave of criminal violence that was at its peak in the 1920s.

    High crime and civil unrest pre-date the beginning of prohibition in 1920 (prohibition was really a desperate attempt to reduce the degeneracy of the Lost Generation, similar to how the 1980’s “war on drugs” was launched in response to Boomer chaos).

    The “Roaring ’20s” was a time of speculative wealth production that didn’t help everyone.

    Yup.

    True, prices were stable while the money was stable, but the Fed was manipulating markets from the time of its inception. There were indeed booms and busts, including the depression beginning with the “panic of 1893”, that led to a serious depression that lasted through 1897. It isn’t accurate to consider the late 19th and early 20th centuries as times of particular economic stability. The Federal Reserve was supposedly a solution to that instability, but it never has been.

    There’s a certain sort of “libertarian” type (or Reaganite type) that likes to romanticize the 19th century as being an era of peak “freedom” and individual initiative in America. In reality, the average person’s well-being in the 1890’s and very early 20th century wasn’t so hot (it was, after all, the Gilded Age of Social Darwinism which by definition was cruel to many middle-lower class people, the sort of thing we have been seeing again recently as inequality by 2010 was back to it’s highest level since the 1920’s). What these people tend to be in denial of is that the growth of pro-social statism and regulation, and the reduction in inequality, in the mid-20th century was actually a good thing for many people. Besides, the trend towards”privatization” and wealth concentration in both the Social Darwinist era (circa 1870-1930) and the Neo-liberal era (circa 1980-2020) has essentially gone hand in hand with cronyism and monopolies, anyway.

  39. SFG says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Too bad. Could have sworn I clicked through and looked at the later stuff and there were crosstabs by marital status, but maybe they don’t have the answers to the questions with those.

    Anyway, thanks!

  40. SFG says:
    @Rosie

    Plus their sons become bitter with white guys stealing their women. Asians are a few inches shorter than Europeans, which is really rough on the guys.

    Isn’t Twinkie, who was successful enough to reverse the pattern, over 6 feet?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  41. 216 says: • Website
    @YetAnotherAnon

    40,000 Icelanders signed a Facebook pledge to take a Syrian refugee into their homes,

    A big reason behind this is the desire to morally shame the US Right, which gets a cartoonish portrayal in the international media, dating back to at least the Reagan era.

    Trump should send all refugees to wealthy blue zones.

    Bluestani NIMBYism is something to behold, but this would not have the effects we’d think it would.

    The only way to turn the corner on mass immigration is to disengage the US from military adventurism. Leftists have the benefit of the Megaphone conferring cultural authority on them, so any solution will have to pass left-wing smell tests.

  42. Rosie says:
    @SFG

    Plus their sons become bitter with white guys stealing their women. Asians are a few inches shorter than Europeans, which is really rough on the guys.

    Their stature isn’t the main problem, but the fact remains: we’re generally not interested.

  43. @Feryl

    The gangsters of the early 20th century included lots of whites; was Al Capone black?

    Al Ca-pOn-E was Italian.  Bugsy Siegel was Jewish.  The entire Purple Gang in Detoilet was Jewish.

    All examples of people who should NEVER have been allowed to come to the USA.  Africans aren’t the only ones, just the stupidest and most violent of the worst.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  44. Brett says:
    @216

    Actually, what tends to happen is that white conservatives get driven out of tech for not conforming to the left wing ethos. So they have to turn to contracting and self-employment. There’s a lot of white males capable of the tech work that aren’t doing it as a corporate employee just because of their lack of conformity.

    On the broader scale, the people who have the money tend to have more political power. Every country is part plutocracy. So when you give the high-paying jobs to immigrants, their political policies will also tend to dominate. And I’m sure you’ve seen on this site that their priorities involve radically increasing the amount of Indians and Chinese in this country. This becomes a snowballing effect. Compound this with the fact that both universities and corporations deliberately discriminate against whites and males in hiring practices, and over time the elites will be entirely composed of a non-American class.

  45. Brett says:
    @Rosie

    unless there is some morally compelling reason

    As long as society believes that equality is the highest moral virtue, the morally compelling reason will always favor more immigration. And equality is a virtue baked into democracies because it’s the justification for that form of government. It’s not clear how to address this problem without a radical revision of society.

    Btw, you seem to have good instincts on the whole. I’m enjoying reading your comments here.

  46. @TheJester

    1) I’m just Steve Sailer’s epigone.

    2) and 3) are true, of course!

  47. @Feryl

    Those inside the Hajnal line are not necessarily ‘pathologically altruistic’–just more prone to becoming so.

  48. @YetAnotherAnon

    They’re aware of their mendacious hypocrisy, too. Recall the freakout over Trump’s alleged plan to do just that to sanctuary cities.

  49. Feryl says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational

    Historically, domineering ethnic groups tend to hone in on those perceived to be weak and defenseless. Nature at it’s finest. Only when the “weak” start to fight back consistently will the predators start to back off. Americans growing progressively more disgusted by Ellis Island mobsters eventually drove us toward closing the borders, shaming Jews and Italians about tolerating nasty behavior within their ranks, and creating RICO laws so that these criminals could no longer make a mockery of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS