Great Moments in Apathy
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Zach Goldberg, Wokeness Studies scholar, finds a wonderful Harris Poll from July 1965 when the epochal Immigration Act was being debated in Congress. (Harris was the liberally biased pollster back then, with Gallup leaning to the right.)
But unwoke as the public was, the law passed, which inevitably set in motion the sacralization of immigration. Would you dare say publicly that the 1965 act was not a good idea, knowing that you are implying that it was a poor decision to let in the ancestors of lots of currently aggrieved Americans?
So why did the law pass?
Who were the vocal minority?
Holocaust survivors arguing that more immigration would increase cultural diversity, keep veggies from rotting in the fields, mitigate inbreeding, keep wages for essential services down, assuage the thirst of slavering moneybags, assure pension payouts (US unfunded liabilities currently at 126 trillion, LOL), keep people from being gassed by their own Hitler, be a beginning of a reparation for slavery, we are all immigrations and anyway you had it coming so shut up bigot?
I like the results, but that one sure explains how polls can suck. “Strictness on immigration”? AS IF?!
To go along with this post on apathy, I appropriately present The Ben Folds Five (there’s only 3 of ’em though) from Chapel Hill, N. Carolina with Battle of who could care Less off of the album Whatever and Ever, Amen:
(I won’t paste in lyrics, because they are very easy to get. This guy was a great songwriter!)
Cars smashed & police pelted with stones as squatters riot in Berlin
Anti-eviction occupative protests are back, feels like the 90s. Listening to Ace of Base right now.
In principle, the protesters want to claim the right of squatting the building but it is also obligatory to have:
> A “Smash the Patriarchy” sign
> A Gay Rainbow flag
> Anti-Police signs
> Anti-Fa flags
> Posing as armed thugs
There is probably a Che portrait in there somewhere as well as Greta Thunberg devotionalia and anti-nuclear stickers.
Oddly enough, the wishes and opinions of the general public mattered not one whit to their elected representatives. Some things never change.
Those damn whites show such little enthusiasm for being replaced. You’d almost think they wanted to keep their countries for their own children.
I really don't care what color a person is. What I care about is taking a functional American melting-pot culture and importing the various disfunctions and conflicts from distant places. That assimilation is regarded as bad and cultural difference is celebrated is at the core of this problem.
Actually, I say this publicly all the time. Mass immigration was a dumb idea fifty years ago, and it’s an even dumber idea today.
[Caution: TLTR, verbose, self-parodying, self-indulgent and nothing really new argued below]
“Boerdom” Part I?
“Great Moments In Apathy”
LOL!
It seems at least plausible that, using reasonable metrics, parameters or whatever, (for better or worse) the greatest known human genocide has already occurred as a result of the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act. It should not be surprising that over time there has been an increase in the number of people celebrating said genocide as well as an increase in the number of people resigned to it. An outward appearance of such resignation or apathy or even a feigning of enthusiasm will likely not be sufficient for survival. It might be necessary to fully embrace/adopt that enthusiasm while not admitting to oneself that the adoption/inner capitulation stems from an instinct for self-preservation (and for one’s of one’s offspring, if any). In other words, it is becoming more and more necessary for whites to become *enthusiastic*, vicious Sonderkommandos.
Like many, if not most, iSteve readers, I have an especially white hot hatred for rich and/or famous auto-genocidal whites (and yes, envy is universal in humans). It is far easier to wallow in that hatred and to blame and loath “generations” other than one’s own, than to consider the possibility that those rich and famous folks, as well as rich and not so rich employers (and many employees) have long been under extraordinary pressures to “convert,” than to entertain nagging suspicions (countered by rationalizations which probably and conveniently rise with respect to complexity with one’s level of intelligence) that one is a cuck and a coward oneself.
I’m not particularly clever (and got plenty of things “wrong” over the decades), but recall thinking (probably due in part to reading my grandfather’s (a small business owner) copies of National Review) within not very many years after passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act that laws forbidding “discrimination” (“choice” is a better term) in hiring and promotion would have (in spite of some good as well as some bad intentions) some very, very, very bad effects – even though many people seemed to regard surrender of those rights of choice to be relatively unimportant at the time.) I should add that NR’s invocation of “states’ rights” struck me as nasty and racist back then.
For those who missed it, here’s something from VD*RE about the rich, famous and beautiful Charlize Theron; a chance to put oneself in her shoes or continent-hopping seven league boots or whatever (most or all of us stopping well short of what might be a Bruce Jenner-ish-transgender-ish-autogynephilia) :
https://vdare.com/posts/2019-charlize-theron-denounces-white-privilege-1996-charlize-theron-left-south-africa-because-there-was-no-future-for-a-white-south-african
And, as promised in the lame title above, something Boer-ing:
https://vdare.com/posts/charlize-theron-s-great-great-uncle-was-a-heroic-boer-war-commando
Argghh…way past time for noddy blinkers…post or delete this post? sleep onnit? will almost surely cringe when rereading it later, but who knows? maybe, I dunno, fifty years from now when the Round Eyes have been exterminated, some East Asian person, working in some bullshit scholar job, will get a few yuks out of a very, very tiny snapshot within a cautionary tale….
Jump to Toolbar
Sorry, but I lost interest at the graph … But I really care, so what was your question again?
Many whites in the UK don’t like the idea of being replaced if said in such terms, but at the same time are not prepared to do anything to stop the replacement, such as voting for an actual right wing party and not just the LibLabCon cartel every time.
Although it’s not unusual to come across more honest white leftists in the UK who will openly say that they think the native British deserve to be replaced because of the Empire and essentially “what goes around comes around”. I come across more and more people with their opinion these days.
I base my optimism on a promising documentary showing an effective form of activism, where the group "Patriotic Alternative" interviewed the English asking how they feel about becoming a minority.
They did not like it, and some were shocked that it was happening:
About 1/3rd were not even aware it was happening.
About 2/3 were opposed, with only 5% supporting.
You can see the survey results at the bottom of this page:
https://wewereneverasked.co.uk/survey
Here's the 37 minute documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOW2refPPU
What's interesting is that they're building real-life social networks around a political movement, where people go out to eat together, camping retreats, etc. I can see that working over time.
There you go again Mr Sailer: making the Statue of Liberty cry.
Think of all the huddled aggrieved masses, currently unaggrieved by life in America and Americans but aggrieved at America and Americans for so grievously not opening wide her borders so the pre-aggrieved pre-Americans can come to the land of grievances and join the currently Aggrieved Americans to live aggrievedly ever after in America: a nation so grievous, very wealthy aggrieved white people typically leave it protestingly to live in another country and act aggrieved at America from there.
The change in immigration policy in 1965 commenced the great deterioration of life-quality in the US: rents were low, now they are 10x or more expensive. And the country is almost twice as crowded now than it was then making us less free to move and try out a different part of the country to see if it is more suitable. And many of the newcomers do not want to and do not assimilate to our culture. It is not an exaggeration to characterize this change as a cultural suicide. Suicide is of course irreversible.
Mortality make us temporary residents in the world. I am too old to enjoy the freedom we Americans had in the past if we still had it which we don’t; I do feel sorry for young Americans, post 9/11 millenials who never knew the freedom and privacy that are no longer available and older cohorts who are still in their active years who have forgotten what life was like in their youth.
How *dare* you!
https://i.giphy.com/media/U1aN4HTfJ2SmgB2BBK/giphy.webp
I feel anything but apathy when I look at that graph and see what we’ve become, without our ever having been asked.
I think that what iSteve is getting at here is not the white-replacement or Anglo-replacement aspect. I think the concern is importing people from conflict zones and in the process, reconstructing such conflicts within our borders?
I really don’t care what color a person is. What I care about is taking a functional American melting-pot culture and importing the various disfunctions and conflicts from distant places. That assimilation is regarded as bad and cultural difference is celebrated is at the core of this problem.
You may not care, but POC might not share your perspective. And it only takes one side to start a conflict.
Would you dare say publicly that the 1965 act was not a good idea, knowing that you are implying that it was a poor decision to let in the ancestors of lots of currently aggrieved Americans?
Currently aggrieved U.S. citizens, you mean. Most of them are not Americans. “Paper Americans,” perhaps, but not Americans.
Three events in an eleven year period-1965 to 1976 precipitated the down fall of the United States.
1. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act
2. The end of the gold standard in America August 15, 1971
3. The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power almost total influence in elections.
These three idiotic events have caused the demographic ruination of our country, the destruction of a meaningful monetary system which now uses fiat money with no intrinsic value (when a country needs more money it just prints more), as well as elimination of any semblance of equal ability to influence elections (democracy).
The survey question is phrased weirdly. I oppose immigration, but I’m not sure if I’d describe myself as “often feeling bad” about it. It pisses me off, it worries me, and its effects on culture and society concern me. But feeling bad?
It’s almost as if it’s a two-part question: (1) Do you oppose immigration, and (2) do you rank high on the neuroticism scale?
The thing is, pre 1965 , crops did not rot in the field. Meat was available in our grocery stores, hotels were cleaned , restaurant dishes washed and lawns mowed. When you called a company someone who spoke American English answered.
Jeffrey Gundlach made an interesting comment about pre 1970 America. There were no credit cards or auto loans. I think there were but very few people had a credit card save for a gasoline credit card the oil companies issued to ensure you bought gas at their stations and auto loans were no more than 3 years. His point was people saved to buy what they wanted and didn’t use credit.
Representative government is amazing, isn’t it?
Which Americans was the American government representing in 1965?
OT
I missed this from two weeks ago. First generation immigrant and Gambian-American Samba Baldeh is an alderman for the City of Madison. He authored and got passed a resolution declaring racism to be a public health crisis in the city.
https://madison.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7761100&GUID=61188AA2-1BD1-4BE7-B897-AE127E4DE634
The resolution goes on to recommend a lot more studies and equity training and diversity initiatives and in general lots of money for blacks and SJW whites to consult and activistify.
https://www.nbc15.com/content/news/City-of-Madison-signs-onto-resolution-stating-racism-is-a-public-health-crisis-563209711.html
This from a black nonprofit operative, Dr. Alex Gee, Jr.:
I think the “doctor” may have some sort of mail-order divinity degree, since he is pastor of a Madison church.
I wonder how much of this “racism causes health problems for blacks” research will end up doing any good for blacks, in 30 years, or ever? It seems like a lot of it is being funded.
The stress angle comes up from time to time, and it seems to be the only concrete explanation given for blacks’ poorer health outcomes. It seems to be a hypothesis, and you wonder why none of that research money is going to measuring and quantifying the precise stress hormones being released into the blood of black folks, in what quantity, under what circumstances, and whether, quantitatively, this can account for the degree of bad outcomes in the black community. Maybe a white control group subject to similar blood levels could be used. But that would be real research.
Another theory is the “general fitness” hypothesis that g, “general intelligence,” is simply one of the outcomes of low mutation in the genome and during fetal development; other outcomes include a lack of mutations of the sort that render a person susceptible to various diseases. In other words, it’s not that high IQ people causitively do things that keep them healthy, like go to the doctor, so much as they are naturally less susceptible to illness because of lower mutation rates in their bodies overall. JayMan has a post to this effect.
When was the last time an “act” was passed and signed into law that US citizens actually wanted?
I wish I could remember the study, please forgive any errors in this post.
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4
Once we got to college, it seemed natural to apply this to the national government when we voted at 18.
It seems that the ChiComs continue this tradition:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5IcZer5ukek
I’m less cheerfully amused now.
• for individuals, the probability-weighted costs of informing themselves about most individual policies exceed the benefits of doing so after 5 minutes[1]. There is never a cost-benefit case for advocating for or against a policy, given plausible ranges of the probability of successful individual advocacy. The individual wants to maximise E(R) - C where R is the NPV of net flows received by the individual as a result of the policy, and C is all costs associated with evaluating and advocating for (or against) the policy today. R accounts for the tax liability associated with funding the policy (and because of discounting, mismatches in the timing of the costs [upfront, high] and benefits [deferred, small] can flip the sign of the NPV for long-tailed policies).• for lobbyists, the prospect of sharing in the spoils (and the large and certain profit margins involved), makes them willing to spend π×ρ×V where V is the contract value; ρ is the guess at the profit margin; and π is their guess at their probability of successful lobbying. They don't give a fuck whether or not the project furnishes net benefits to individuals: that's not a part of their objective function. In fact, inevitable cost overruns are desirable to the lobbyist.• for government, policy is implemented by bureaucrats who face almost non-existent 'discipline' (the mythical "If .gov fucks up, we can 'throw the bums out' at the next election" - as if that will change the actual decision-makers). Bureaucrats' interests should not be expected to align with voter interests; the best guess is that they serve their own private interests (i.e., that "public service " is a shibboleth)..So that really is all there is to it: it's a few short paragraphs, it has overwhelming explanatory power, and it's been a "known known" in economic theory for at least 50 years.The anti-sociologist in me (i.e., 99% 0f me) says that they took the route they did because Gilens' training is in sociology, not economics (and particularly not quantitative economics). Page did some postgrad training in Economics in 1972-3, but his primary background is History and Poli'Sci'[sic] - which screams "No Quant; No Mathematics"... in other words, someone who is not equipped to properly evaluate the technical stuff in Arrow, Buchanan, Tulloch, or Varian.
Notes.
[1] It often seems possible that really big policy proposals can clear that first hurdle. Consider the F35 fighter program - originally budgeted at ~$300 billion over ~15 years. (Leave aside that it wasn't a 'policy' in the sense of being a separable part of the Death Machine budget, which is the overarching 'policy' and for which there's no gap between political parties). Assume some cynical bastard thinks that the F35 programme will make him worse off, and decides that he'll figure out if this is so, and advocate against it if he's right. That way, he can avoid being on the hook for his 'share' of the $300bil (roughly $3k per voter in the US). So he thinks that the whole $3k is his budget to research the issue and come up with successful arguments against it. He could take a couple of weeks off and spend that time doing so - in which case he's a chump because there are three key probabilities that stymie his efforts...
① Pr(I know how to do cost-benefit analysis properly) - zero for 99% of the population;
② Pr(I can get good forecasts of the likely path of costs and benefits) - close to zero ditto;
③ Pr(successful advocacy|outcome of analysis is bad) - basically zero.Once everything is weighted by Pr(I can do this and get it stopped), the amount of time he should waste comes down to roughly zero.It's all entirely rational, and anyone who expects things to proceed in some different direction has an unrealistic view of how humans behave. For the way things actually are to be unexpected, Gilens and Page's conceptual framework requires angels to happen somewhere - that's a stupid requirement for a conceptual framework for policy analysis.
Reference
Gilens, and Page (2014) "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", Perspectives on Politics Vol12 Issue 3 , pp. 564-581 (HTML fulltext)
OT – another “hate crime” in Milwaukee.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2019/11/02/milwaukee-battery-acid-attack-man-burned-police-looking-suspect/4140669002/
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
“If voting made any difference…” https://tinyurl.com/y3fxj3fu
I have always enjoyed your writing.
> Across the pond, Brexit has just been postponed for the umpety-umpth time, to January 31st next year.
> ...
> One more time, quote: "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."
> Print it on a T-shirt, embroider it on a throw cushion.
> It perfectly encapsulates the state of our democracies.
Surely Brexit is an example of voting possibly making a big difference?
It's one thing to say that it's not guaranteed to make a difference.
But unless you say Brexit is guaranteed not to pass, or that whatever version of Brexit passes will be a complete sham, then voting certainly _can_ make a difference.
Isn’t BoJo’s failed attempt at a hard Brexit Oct 31, and expelling the 21 anti-Brexit Conservative MPs from the party at the cost of losing his coalition’s majority, a large sign of good faith?
Without the Brexit Party splitting the right, Johnson would be headed for a historic 100+ (even 150) vote majority, and 5 years to so what he wants with it.
A split right won’t destroy the Conservative Party, it will just lead to more of the status quo: a thin majority or mere plurality from the Conservatives.
And the prior time the Conservatives had a plurality, they made a deal with the LibDems.
Is that what you and Nigel want?
Finally, do you think the majority of the public prefers a hard Brexit to another attempt to negotiate an exit?
As The Who sang "Won't Get Fooled Again."
I will say that all immigration has been bad for Americans, starting with the Irish and Germans in the 1840’s and every wave of immigrants since. We should have slammed the borders shut in 1790.
Almost certainly would still have been able to seize western europe before the russians and defeat Japan.
Previous to that US not a factor in world affairs.
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
It was a Princeton study, of all places.
https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4
Thanks.
I have always enjoyed your writing.
I have always enjoyed your writing.
I as well! I remember buying We Are Doomed basically to support Derb…
You guys are so namerican
This country was built by immigrants grants especially immigrants of color
If you don’t like it LEAVE
It’s a pity we still don’t know the real author of the quote. Mark Twain isn’t.
Nice remarks, but
> Across the pond, Brexit has just been postponed for the umpety-umpth time, to January 31st next year.
> …
> One more time, quote: “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
> Print it on a T-shirt, embroider it on a throw cushion.
> It perfectly encapsulates the state of our democracies.
Surely Brexit is an example of voting possibly making a big difference?
It’s one thing to say that it’s not guaranteed to make a difference.
But unless you say Brexit is guaranteed not to pass, or that whatever version of Brexit passes will be a complete sham, then voting certainly _can_ make a difference.
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
I used to be cheerfully amused that high school student government in the 1960’s consisted of the people who are actually in power giving us a toy steering wheel to use – it seems like we have control!
Once we got to college, it seemed natural to apply this to the national government when we voted at 18.
It seems that the ChiComs continue this tradition:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5IcZer5ukek
I’m less cheerfully amused now.
Currently aggrieved U.S. citizens, you mean. Most of them are not Americans. "Paper Americans," perhaps, but not Americans.
Yes. When I see “an American did so and so in Swahilistan” I know it was not an AMERICAN but some unassimilated third generation from the third world immigrant.
Well, the act was supported by a lot of currently aggrieved Americans whose ancestors arrived before the 1924 Act.
We need mass immigration to close the wealth gap. You silly voters think I’m talking about the gap between first-world rich and first-world poor, but I really care about the other gap, between first-world poor and third-world poor. It’s totally not fair that I have to pay my servants $200 a day while my colleagues in Guatemala pay theirs $200 a month.
Has any liberal besides Bernie Sanders called out this clever bait-and-switch for what it is?
The immigration bill wasn’t seen as that big a deal in the momentous year of 1965. And it probably wasn’t. The bill was seen as getting rid of a racist relic, the 1924 act, but no one, supporters or opponents, foresaw what would happen with immigration in the succeeding decades. Conspiracy theories about the 1965 act are fundamentally absurd, because the political consequences of third-world immigration took over a generation to manifest themselves. No one sees that far ahead.
https://vdare.com/posts/mugging-americans-obamacare-s-jonathan-gruber-and-norbert-schlei-of-the-1965-immigration-act
https://vdare.com/articles/norbert-schlei-guilty-of-malice-aforethought-in-america-s-immigration-disaster
Oh, please. In 1965 racism wasn't seen as the ultimate crime. You just revealed that you're flying by the seat of your pants here.
Which politicians and oranizations were behind the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act?
Who were these traitors?
https://ballotpedia.org/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Act_of_1965#Legislative_history
Also, whoever thinks that was there was some kind of straight line from the 1965 act to subsequent immigration — that’s not how things work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Senator Philip Hart was the grandson of Irish immigrants.
Senator Emanuel Celler was the grandson of Jewish, German immigrants (on both paternal and maternal sides), though his maternal grandfather was Catholic.
It was signed into law by President Johnson, who was extremely pro-Israel and pro-Jewish in policy and outlook, with pro-Jewish family members. Some people say that he had Jewish ancestry, but I don't know.
This poll won’t cause any progressive to think twice about their opinion. In fact it will just reinforce their view that they are correct, and they need to drag the rest of us into the future.
They will note that large majorities were not in favor of integrating blacks into our schools and neighborhoods when the government stepped in to effect this change. And see how that worked out.
They will note that large majorities were not in favor of gay marriage before the courts stepped in to effect this change. And see how that worked out.
When it comes down to it, this [certain unnamed ethnic-religious group] really does not like democracy.
Currently aggrieved U.S. citizens, you mean. Most of them are not Americans. "Paper Americans," perhaps, but not Americans.
The DC-Brooklyn-Silicon Valley apparatchiks have decided that America is an “idea” rather than a land or people. The masochistic goodwhites anxiously agree.
Following up re contemporary polls…
Did Ted Kennedy really believe what he said about this (assuming he had an obvious bias towards future Irish immigration)? Was he just naive about what would happen, or was he as evil as the left today that looks as immigration as punishment?
Ted was drunk every day for about 40 years there, so evil is kind of a default position.
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
It got the full book treatment. Look up “Affluence and Influence”.
O/T
More flat earthers in the Wall Street Journal
Indeed. It’s funny to read the current debates about Brexit in the context of past debates over immigration.
Remainers: “The Leave campaign lied!”
Tell that to the 60 million Britains who were promised by Tony Blair in 2004 that only ~15,000 Eastern Europeans would move to Britain each year. It turned out to be almost 100,000. Are they allowed to send the extra 85,000/year back? Nope.
Tell that to the Britons who have been promised again and again that borders would be enforced and legal immigration would be reduced.
Tell that to the 200 million Americans who were promised by Ted Kennedy in 1965 that the immigration law then being debated ‘wouldn’t upset the country’s ethnic balance.’
Tell that to the 240 million American promised in 1986 (by Ted Kennedy, again) that only a million or so illegals would be amnestied, the borders would be enforced, and we would never have another amnesty again.
Tell that to the 250 million Americans who were promised in 1990 that Temporary Protected Status would be, well, temporary.
Their side lies all the time. It’s how they do business. There’s a reason the Left doesn’t want Truth in Advertising laws to apply to politicians. If they did every single Democrat (and quite a few RINOs) would be bankrupt or in jail.
“ In my sweetest dreams the leavers vote strategically en masse for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, killing off the Tory Party for good. ”
Isn’t BoJo’s failed attempt at a hard Brexit Oct 31, and expelling the 21 anti-Brexit Conservative MPs from the party at the cost of losing his coalition’s majority, a large sign of good faith?
Without the Brexit Party splitting the right, Johnson would be headed for a historic 100+ (even 150) vote majority, and 5 years to so what he wants with it.
A split right won’t destroy the Conservative Party, it will just lead to more of the status quo: a thin majority or mere plurality from the Conservatives.
And the prior time the Conservatives had a plurality, they made a deal with the LibDems.
Is that what you and Nigel want?
Finally, do you think the majority of the public prefers a hard Brexit to another attempt to negotiate an exit?
This seems to me like the last good chance real conservatives have at a sure political victory. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by splitting the vote now.
a similar poll in china today would be even lower. maybe 5% of the population would be wondering why they keep china for the chinese. 95% of people wouldn’t even understand the question, as china’s existence as a place for the chinese is self evident.
self confidence in your own interests is key. most people have it naturally and always have, always will. today the west does not. uncertain, unsure, having second thoughts, questioning whether they should even exist. the west will fall.
outlasted by third world dirt farmers in afghanistan who will still be there 1000 years from now.
To add to this point: if you’ve watched the incredibly biased HBO movie “Brexit,” starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Dominic Cummings, one of the big points the filmmakers made was how Leave used racism to drive the vote by claiming that Turkish accession would lead to a million Turks moving to Britain in ten years.
The movie doesn’t mention that Turkish accession to the EU was then on the table, thanks to the Turks exploiting the refugee crisis (which the movie also doesn’t mention). A million Turks in ten years time would be the exact same rate at which Eastern Europeans came after the borders opened. Turkey has twice as many people as Poland, and a per capita income only 60% that of Poland. A million Turks in ten years is hardly an unrealistic estimate, and probably even on the low side.
Isn’t BoJo’s failed attempt at a hard Brexit Oct 31, and expelling the 21 anti-Brexit Conservative MPs from the party at the cost of losing his coalition’s majority, a large sign of good faith?
Without the Brexit Party splitting the right, Johnson would be headed for a historic 100+ (even 150) vote majority, and 5 years to so what he wants with it.
A split right won’t destroy the Conservative Party, it will just lead to more of the status quo: a thin majority or mere plurality from the Conservatives.
And the prior time the Conservatives had a plurality, they made a deal with the LibDems.
Is that what you and Nigel want?
Finally, do you think the majority of the public prefers a hard Brexit to another attempt to negotiate an exit?
Yes. Expelling the anti-Brexit Tories from the party seems pretty huge. It would be like Republicans kicking out Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio and not letting them run as Republicans again.
This seems to me like the last good chance real conservatives have at a sure political victory. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by splitting the vote now.
Which raises the question alluded to in my own comment above: Who are “they”?
Which Americans was the American government representing in 1965?
Bankster-Americans. Senator Judas, meet Federal Reserve Chairman Moloch.
More flat earthers in the Wall Street Journal
Thanks.
The only question you ever need to ask is:
“If 90% of immigrants left tomorrow, how much would you care?”
My fantasy is that shortly before November of 2020 just about everybody finally wakes up and realizes that the fix is in no matter who occupies the WH, that it’s all business as usual down at the office so a collective decision is made by the public that they will no longer participate in the clown show. How fun would that be! Voting by not voting. How fun would that be!! In 2016 I almost voted but, stupidly, was talked into doing so by a friend who is a Trumpista. Sooo, I did my “duty” as a subject of the Ruling Class and cast my pro forma vote–in this case a reluctant one for Trump even though I had no illusions. No more.
As The Who sang “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
Best estimate is US population would be 130-150 million if there was no further immigration subsequent to independence in late 18th century.
Almost certainly would still have been able to seize western europe before the russians and defeat Japan.
Previous to that US not a factor in world affairs.
OFF TOPIC
I am an ordained (ultra) Orthodox Rabbi and a long time appreciator of Steve. More biographical details aren’t secretive but aren’t relevant to my query at the moment which is that I am out of the US at the moment and therefore lacking in any easily obtainable audience of people who would enjoy being invited to a Q and A where you can ask an ordained ultra orthodox (appreciator of Steve) Rabbi anything you like. If I were in New York I would just invite anyone on this site (and a few other sites) to come and bring your friends to whatever site (synagogue or central park or whatever) but, being abroad, can you set up a tele-conference where the individual questioners can pop up in a window as I talk to them individually and answer their questions? Basically a bunch of mini-conversations or Q and A, all happening live, rather than pre-recorded so that I’m not answering the same question over and over, which could happen with pre-recorded videos incorporated into a Q and A.
Yeah, a live event would be best.
If you know how to set it up easily please let me know.
Trust me, by the way, you’ll enjoy it. I’m a free speech enthusiast, a rather knowledgeable guy and a pretty experienced one.
But technical stuff bore the shit out of me! Hence the need for somebody else to set this up technically.
Who were these traitors?
Everyone was for it.
https://ballotpedia.org/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Act_of_1965#Legislative_history
Also, whoever thinks that was there was some kind of straight line from the 1965 act to subsequent immigration — that’s not how things work.
*Ron Unz has pointed out that America didn't really have any particular policy against Latin Americans coming here in the 1930's-early 1960's; it was more the case that we permitted a fair number of them (but not that many) to come here in the mid-20th century, mostly to Florida and the Southwest. And Eisenhower kind of stabbed Hispanics in the back with Operation Wetback, which deterred some Hispanics from coming here in the 50's and 60's. Some higher profile Leftists actually detested America's use of Hispanic cheap labor in the 1950's-early 70's, since it undermined organized labor. But by the late 70's, few American elites were openly against cheap immigrant labor anymore. And the Carter era saw a massive influx of Mexican illegals and so forth, which was a prelude to the even more excessive Reagan and Bush I era. And I believe the government established it's first "refugee" office beginning in 1980. From the late 70's-late 80's, more and more jobs (esp. in California) seemed to be ear-marked for cheap immigrant labor. And nobody in leadership seemed to care anymore.
Has anyone ever double-dog-dared little Greta on anything? I’m guessing she didn’t have a normal childhood, unlike her predecessor, Pippi Longstocking.
What was wrong with the 1924 act?
“Everywhere else in our national life, we have eliminated discrimination based on one’s place of birth. Yet this system is still the foundation of our immigration law.”
I have no problem with that form of discrimination myself, and I'm sure you don't either, but most people then did -- and do, I would guess.
Yes, but the effects were fully known by 1995, the year the Jordan Commission issued its report recommending tough measures to cut off illegal immigration and a 50% cut to legal immigration. That well known white supremacist Bill Clinton endorsed the commission’s findings. Unfortunately, Jordan died the following year before her recommendations could be implemented.
THANK YOU!
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the 1965 Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#1930_to_2000
I don’t think the problem was the 1965 Act, in and of itself. It’s that beginning there and ever since, immigration numbers started going up and have continued to go up and we haven’t done anything to stop that. A second major problem is that through the years a lot of incorrect assumptions were made about what the results of changes to immigration policy would be and that when we were surprised by results we didn’t like, we never back to change the law.
The people who don’t like our immigration policies were ignored by our elites and politicians until Trump came along. Then those people were targeted for their votes but actual immigration numbers have not been reduced and actual immigration policies — that is, those that have withstood Supreme Court challenges — have been almost unchanged. The smugglers are already succeeding at cutting up the wall. Good ideas such as the public charge proposal are tied up in the courts.
I am not without hope but the current major change in attitudes about immigration that I see has taken place in the Democratic Party — and it’s change for the worse. Progressive and more leftist Democrats now want a lot more immigration and want to base US policy on what will benefit immigrants, not the US. They will not ask any of the critical questions needed to establish how many newcomers we should be taking in from our point of view. They want us to take in as many as we can and I am sure immigration numbers under the next Democratic president will skyrocket.
It’s a real mess. Most of the Republican elites are still cheap foreign labor lovers and the Democrats are going crazy over their desire to do as much as they can here in the US for the world’s poor.
If you subsidize something you get more of it.
I can't imagine a quicker road to national suicide.
In addition it is totally absurd to have a national defense policy of any sort when the borders are porous.
Of course, at this point the military industrial complex is just hogs feeding at the public trough, so policy has nothing to do with it.
We are becoming Jonestown nation--the Democrats just placed the Kool-aid order.
Do I look like I give a fuck?
I really don't care what color a person is. What I care about is taking a functional American melting-pot culture and importing the various disfunctions and conflicts from distant places. That assimilation is regarded as bad and cultural difference is celebrated is at the core of this problem.
I appreciate the sentiment. It is my preferred perspective, but how much time have you spend where you were a minority? Did the majority where you were a minority reciprocate your sentiment? Or did they prefer their own?
You may not care, but POC might not share your perspective. And it only takes one side to start a conflict.
I don't think the problem was the 1965 Act, in and of itself. It's that beginning there and ever since, immigration numbers started going up and have continued to go up and we haven't done anything to stop that. A second major problem is that through the years a lot of incorrect assumptions were made about what the results of changes to immigration policy would be and that when we were surprised by results we didn't like, we never back to change the law. The people who don't like our immigration policies were ignored by our elites and politicians until Trump came along. Then those people were targeted for their votes but actual immigration numbers have not been reduced and actual immigration policies -- that is, those that have withstood Supreme Court challenges -- have been almost unchanged. The smugglers are already succeeding at cutting up the wall. Good ideas such as the public charge proposal are tied up in the courts.I am not without hope but the current major change in attitudes about immigration that I see has taken place in the Democratic Party -- and it's change for the worse. Progressive and more leftist Democrats now want a lot more immigration and want to base US policy on what will benefit immigrants, not the US. They will not ask any of the critical questions needed to establish how many newcomers we should be taking in from our point of view. They want us to take in as many as we can and I am sure immigration numbers under the next Democratic president will skyrocket.It's a real mess. Most of the Republican elites are still cheap foreign labor lovers and the Democrats are going crazy over their desire to do as much as they can here in the US for the world's poor.
It is not just that Democrats want to take in lots of immigrants, it is that they want to subsidize and lure immigrants (legal and illegal) with free housing, healthcare, food, education, etc etc etc.
If you subsidize something you get more of it.
I can’t imagine a quicker road to national suicide.
In addition it is totally absurd to have a national defense policy of any sort when the borders are porous.
Of course, at this point the military industrial complex is just hogs feeding at the public trough, so policy has nothing to do with it.
We are becoming Jonestown nation–the Democrats just placed the Kool-aid order.
If you subsidize something you get more of it.
I can't imagine a quicker road to national suicide.
In addition it is totally absurd to have a national defense policy of any sort when the borders are porous.
Of course, at this point the military industrial complex is just hogs feeding at the public trough, so policy has nothing to do with it.
We are becoming Jonestown nation--the Democrats just placed the Kool-aid order.
I cannot disagree with you on anything that you’ve said.
It’s becoming more apparent that our housing crisis will only get worse as the population continues to go up. As housing becomes more and more expensive and out of reach, there will be more complaints about it; this will become a problem as catastrophic proportions soon as lower income people literally cannot afford anywhere to live. The Democrats won’t be able to ignore the connection between expensive housing and more people for much longer, in my opinion. The cost to build enough housing for all the lower income Americans who will need it will be astronomical so that might start bringing them to their senses.
The various environmental issues we have might also make them open up their eyes. The connection between immigration-population-environment has been ignored for a long time but as we get more people and things become worse, I think the progressive and leftist Democrats will have to start acknowledging it.
I'm not black-pilled, but the ship isn't going to right itself. It will require hard/smart work by the citizenry working together over many years.
"Individual commitment to a group effort is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work." - Vince Lombardi
I remember reading a recent study by some political scientists as to which groups were able to influence policy. One of their conclusions was that the desires of common people has almost zero effect on what laws get passed and what policies are implemented.
You’re probably thinking of Gilens and Page (2014); it’s been unnecessarily expanded to book length recently. (I say ‘unnecessarily’ because the argument itself is pretty flimsily presented, and someone incapable of making the less-flimsy argument is not going to improve things by writing more of the flimsier stuff).
It’s not clear to me why they felt obliged to attempt hinky tests of badly-framed hypotheses using dodgy data, when there are clearly-superior, long-standing, a priori reasons why political systems favour organised lobbying – based entirely around rational cost-benefit-optimising behaviour by all participants.
Long story short:
• for individuals, the probability-weighted costs of informing themselves about most individual policies exceed the benefits of doing so after 5 minutes[1]. There is never a cost-benefit case for advocating for or against a policy, given plausible ranges of the probability of successful individual advocacy.
The individual wants to maximise E(R) – C where R is the NPV of net flows received by the individual as a result of the policy, and C is all costs associated with evaluating and advocating for (or against) the policy today. R accounts for the tax liability associated with funding the policy (and because of discounting, mismatches in the timing of the costs [upfront, high] and benefits [deferred, small] can flip the sign of the NPV for long-tailed policies).
• for lobbyists, the prospect of sharing in the spoils (and the large and certain profit margins involved), makes them willing to spend π×ρ×V where V is the contract value; ρ is the guess at the profit margin; and π is their guess at their probability of successful lobbying.
They don’t give a fuck whether or not the project furnishes net benefits to individuals: that’s not a part of their objective function. In fact, inevitable cost overruns are desirable to the lobbyist.
• for government, policy is implemented by bureaucrats who face almost non-existent ‘discipline’ (the mythical “If .gov fucks up, we can ‘throw the bums out’ at the next election” – as if that will change the actual decision-makers). Bureaucrats’ interests should not be expected to align with voter interests; the best guess is that they serve their own private interests (i.e., that “public service ” is a shibboleth).
.
So that really is all there is to it: it’s a few short paragraphs, it has overwhelming explanatory power, and it’s been a “known known” in economic theory for at least 50 years.
The anti-sociologist in me (i.e., 99% 0f me) says that they took the route they did because Gilens’ training is in sociology, not economics (and particularly not quantitative economics).
Page did some postgrad training in Economics in 1972-3, but his primary background is History and Poli’Sci'[sic] – which screams “No Quant; No Mathematics“… in other words, someone who is not equipped to properly evaluate the technical stuff in Arrow, Buchanan, Tulloch, or Varian.
Notes.
[1] It often seems possible that really big policy proposals can clear that first hurdle.
Consider the F35 fighter program – originally budgeted at ~$300 billion over ~15 years. (Leave aside that it wasn’t a ‘policy’ in the sense of being a separable part of the Death Machine budget, which is the overarching ‘policy’ and for which there’s no gap between political parties).
Assume some cynical bastard thinks that the F35 programme will make him worse off, and decides that he’ll figure out if this is so, and advocate against it if he’s right.
That way, he can avoid being on the hook for his ‘share’ of the $300bil (roughly $3k per voter in the US).
So he thinks that the whole $3k is his budget to research the issue and come up with successful arguments against it.
He could take a couple of weeks off and spend that time doing so – in which case he’s a chump because there are three key probabilities that stymie his efforts…
① Pr(I know how to do cost-benefit analysis properly) – zero for 99% of the population;
② Pr(I can get good forecasts of the likely path of costs and benefits) – close to zero ditto;
③ Pr(successful advocacy|outcome of analysis is bad) – basically zero.
Once everything is weighted by Pr(I can do this and get it stopped), the amount of time he should waste comes down to roughly zero.
It’s all entirely rational, and anyone who expects things to proceed in some different direction has an unrealistic view of how humans behave.
For the way things actually are to be unexpected, Gilens and Page’s conceptual framework requires angels to happen somewhere – that’s a stupid requirement for a conceptual framework for policy analysis.
Reference
Gilens, and Page (2014) “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“, Perspectives on Politics Vol12 Issue 3 , pp. 564-581 (HTML fulltext)
A Kennedy was for it, and lied to get it passed. That’s all you need to know about it.
Hmmmm…lemmesee here…Have I , as a Merkin, ever felt bad because immigration laws are too strict? Let me say that I have consistently failed to give a fuck about immigration laws that may seem strict to the pollsters. At the same time I have felt pretty pissed off about the way the immigration laws have been flouted.
How’s that, pollsters? How does that make you feel?
Who were the vocal minority?
Holocaust survivors arguing that more immigration would increase cultural diversity, keep veggies from rotting in the fields, mitigate inbreeding, keep wages for essential services down, assuage the thirst of slavering moneybags, assure pension payouts (US unfunded liabilities currently at 126 trillion, LOL), keep people from being gassed by their own Hitler, be a beginning of a reparation for slavery, we are all immigrations and anyway you had it coming so shut up bigot?
Nice little tune there, El D. You didn’t miss a note.
Can someone with good research skills please post the exact grave locations of LBJ, Ted Kennedy and everyone else featured in that terrible New York Skyline signing of the 1965 immigration destruction act?
Let’s all before we die, go pee on the graves of these terrible enemies, traitors.
I kind of doubt that Teddy even remembered what he said for more than a few minutes, so the idea that he might have believed what he said when he said it kinds of goes by the boards, don’t you think?
Ted was drunk every day for about 40 years there, so evil is kind of a default position.
It is certainly not America’s fault that hundreds of countries worldwide choose to remain backward.
Mexico for instance….been a pesthole for centuries, while their neighbor to the north excelled.
Monumental stupidity on the part of those living there.
But hey, the Troll of Chapaquidic knew he could get millions of needy voters pouring into America…..a nation he must’ve hated deeply.
All the trillions since LBJ’s “Great Society” have done nothing but tell generations of people, that they can come here and live on the dole.
Or maybe things for the whole country will go as they have for California, wherein the Democrats become more powerful politically but paradoxically more impotent in their governance, as everyone watches in horror the seemingly inexorable, slow-motion decline into a 3rd world abyss.
I’m not black-pilled, but the ship isn’t going to right itself. It will require hard/smart work by the citizenry working together over many years.
“Individual commitment to a group effort is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” – Vince Lombardi
Well, sorry, but that’s just nonsense. If the report was issued, Barbara Jordan was no longer needed. Congress just had to pass legislation embodying the report’s recommendations, and the president had to sign it. But that didn’t happen.
It was in the 1990s that it became generally known that the US was heading towards a minority-minority future, and Clinton was publicly and volubly enthusiastic about that. I don’t remember anyone of any consequence disagreeing with him.
I’ll repost the 1964 Bobby Kennedy quote.
“Everywhere else in our national life, we have eliminated discrimination based on one’s place of birth. Yet this system is still the foundation of our immigration law.”
I have no problem with that form of discrimination myself, and I’m sure you don’t either, but most people then did — and do, I would guess.
Who were these traitors?
Patriot says:
“The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Senator Philip Hart was the grandson of Irish immigrants.
Senator Emanuel Celler was the grandson of Jewish, German immigrants (on both paternal and maternal sides), though his maternal grandfather was Catholic.
It was signed into law by President Johnson, who was extremely pro-Israel and pro-Jewish in policy and outlook, with pro-Jewish family members. Some people say that he had Jewish ancestry, but I don’t know.
The bill passed 318-95 in the House and a slightly different version passed the senate by a 76-18 vote. The House then passed the Senate bill by a 320-70 vote.
This has very little to do with the JOOOS, and thinking that inquiring into the ethnic background of the two sponsors and the president who signed this popular piece of legislation tells you anything is pants-on-head stupid.
Thinking that this piece of legislation is to blame for everything you don't like about America's current racial balance and racial future is just as dumb.
Here's a chart of legal permanent residents admitted by year, 1820-present. 1965 is barely a blip. But you might want to take a look at the late 80s-early 90s.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents
I really don't care what color a person is. What I care about is taking a functional American melting-pot culture and importing the various disfunctions and conflicts from distant places. That assimilation is regarded as bad and cultural difference is celebrated is at the core of this problem.
The demographics of your zip code and kids’ schools are supermajority White, aren’t they?
Although it's not unusual to come across more honest white leftists in the UK who will openly say that they think the native British deserve to be replaced because of the Empire and essentially "what goes around comes around". I come across more and more people with their opinion these days.
I think the English may stop the mass immigration before they become a minority in their own countries. They’re still over 80% white, and I think they’re slowing waking up.
I base my optimism on a promising documentary showing an effective form of activism, where the group “Patriotic Alternative” interviewed the English asking how they feel about becoming a minority.
They did not like it, and some were shocked that it was happening:
About 1/3rd were not even aware it was happening.
About 2/3 were opposed, with only 5% supporting.
You can see the survey results at the bottom of this page:
https://wewereneverasked.co.uk/survey
Here’s the 37 minute documentary:
What’s interesting is that they’re building real-life social networks around a political movement, where people go out to eat together, camping retreats, etc. I can see that working over time.
We were never asked. I don't think any of the First World countries were.
What is amazing is how much change we have accepted that we didn't ask for and didn't want.
I wonder: What it will take for real and general protest about the situation to finally develop, here or in other rich countries around the world? After all, the only thing that stops us from saying anything about this situation is our own feeling that we shouldn't. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads if we start saying loud and clear and in public that we want less immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Senator Philip Hart was the grandson of Irish immigrants.
Senator Emanuel Celler was the grandson of Jewish, German immigrants (on both paternal and maternal sides), though his maternal grandfather was Catholic.
It was signed into law by President Johnson, who was extremely pro-Israel and pro-Jewish in policy and outlook, with pro-Jewish family members. Some people say that he had Jewish ancestry, but I don't know.
Cellar wasn’t a senator, champ. He was a Republican who served in the House from 1923 to 1973.
The bill passed 318-95 in the House and a slightly different version passed the senate by a 76-18 vote. The House then passed the Senate bill by a 320-70 vote.
This has very little to do with the JOOOS, and thinking that inquiring into the ethnic background of the two sponsors and the president who signed this popular piece of legislation tells you anything is pants-on-head stupid.
Thinking that this piece of legislation is to blame for everything you don’t like about America’s current racial balance and racial future is just as dumb.
Here’s a chart of legal permanent residents admitted by year, 1820-present. 1965 is barely a blip. But you might want to take a look at the late 80s-early 90s.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents
You just don't get it. Everything has just simply everything to do with the eevull joos. Everything. They are probably plotting to cornhole you right now.
Blaming 1965 and Ted Kennedy serves obvious partisan interests ("see, it was the Dummocrats who sabotaged everything"). The truth is that Reaganite Republicans (and New Democrats anxious to shed the New Deal in the 1990's) blew the borders wide open in order to undermine organized labor, please the farmer and construction lobby, and further America's imperial ambitions.
The Justice Department operative key to drafting the legislation, a Mr. Norbert Schlei, apparently knew the consequences.
https://vdare.com/posts/mugging-americans-obamacare-s-jonathan-gruber-and-norbert-schlei-of-the-1965-immigration-act
https://vdare.com/articles/norbert-schlei-guilty-of-malice-aforethought-in-america-s-immigration-disaster
Go look at the immigration-by-year link I posted (No. 80 in this thread) and stop wasting time with "smirks."
Yes, he meant it. And I doubt anyone at the time thought he was wrong. If you (or any other poster) know of anyone in 1965 saying “this bill will fundamentally change the ethnic balance of the country” please share.
I doubt that I was alone.
https://vdare.com/posts/mugging-americans-obamacare-s-jonathan-gruber-and-norbert-schlei-of-the-1965-immigration-act
https://vdare.com/articles/norbert-schlei-guilty-of-malice-aforethought-in-america-s-immigration-disaster
Whoa, somebody SMIRKED? That changes everything! Just ask that Covington kid.
Go look at the immigration-by-year link I posted (No. 80 in this thread) and stop wasting time with “smirks.”
Ted was drunk every day for about 40 years there, so evil is kind of a default position.
When Ted died I figure a special detail of demons had to oil the hinges on the gates of hell to open up wide enough to let his fat ass in.
Or, if they disagreed, their views were not permitted much publicity — or, if publicized, were immediately demonized because that’s not “who we are.”
On the earthly plane, I doubt it cost much to embalm him. Good thing his family is Catholic, because if he had been cremated, there mighta been a helluva explosion.
The bill passed 318-95 in the House and a slightly different version passed the senate by a 76-18 vote. The House then passed the Senate bill by a 320-70 vote.
This has very little to do with the JOOOS, and thinking that inquiring into the ethnic background of the two sponsors and the president who signed this popular piece of legislation tells you anything is pants-on-head stupid.
Thinking that this piece of legislation is to blame for everything you don't like about America's current racial balance and racial future is just as dumb.
Here's a chart of legal permanent residents admitted by year, 1820-present. 1965 is barely a blip. But you might want to take a look at the late 80s-early 90s.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents
“This has very little to do with the JOOOS”
You just don’t get it. Everything has just simply everything to do with the eevull joos. Everything. They are probably plotting to cornhole you right now.
This country was built by immigrants grants especially immigrants of color
If you don't like it LEAVE
Yeah, and you can’t write for shit. If somebody was paying you shit for your writing, you would owe them two turds.
It's almost as if it's a two-part question: (1) Do you oppose immigration, and (2) do you rank high on the neuroticism scale?
“Feeling bad about” in the survey would have been more honestly expressed as “feeling guilty about”.
“The bill was seen as getting rid of a racist relic, the 1924 act”
Oh, please. In 1965 racism wasn’t seen as the ultimate crime. You just revealed that you’re flying by the seat of your pants here.
I base my optimism on a promising documentary showing an effective form of activism, where the group "Patriotic Alternative" interviewed the English asking how they feel about becoming a minority.
They did not like it, and some were shocked that it was happening:
About 1/3rd were not even aware it was happening.
About 2/3 were opposed, with only 5% supporting.
You can see the survey results at the bottom of this page:
https://wewereneverasked.co.uk/survey
Here's the 37 minute documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOW2refPPU
What's interesting is that they're building real-life social networks around a political movement, where people go out to eat together, camping retreats, etc. I can see that working over time.
Thanks for the information.
We were never asked. I don’t think any of the First World countries were.
What is amazing is how much change we have accepted that we didn’t ask for and didn’t want.
I wonder: What it will take for real and general protest about the situation to finally develop, here or in other rich countries around the world? After all, the only thing that stops us from saying anything about this situation is our own feeling that we shouldn’t. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads if we start saying loud and clear and in public that we want less immigration.
I love this clip from the 2001 BBC show "NCS: Manhunt":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgq81fz7VMw
The topmost comment for the YouTube video is this:But as much as I love that defiant, aggressive spirit, I think I prefer Mark & Laura's much more peaceful approach while still being just as defiant.
In this video, Mark Collett and Laura Towler explain the genesis of the documentary and survey "we were never asked". They make so many good points, but it is a long video (1:27:58). For your convenience, I'll summarize some of the big points below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpo0dntTY2k
Main points:
-- We wanted to show you can be an influential activist without violence, illegality, or spending lots of time/money. (There was almost no cost, except paper and travel.)
-- In the past, activism was done with big rallies with provocative imagery and language, with violent counter-protestors like Antifa. These rallies often end with the bloody face of a man screaming into a camera, which of course the media highlights, with the effect that the public is frightened and repulsed.
-- Instead, when you have small groups, Antifa and the media don't even know where you are.
-- To go up to complete strangers, it is scary at first, for both you and the one being interviewed. But after awhile, people relax, especially when they know you're on their side. People were generally very nice and there were lot of conversations after the survey was done.
-- This activism draws people together, leading to friendships, and outings to wine bars and camping trips. So, it helps to build a real community.
-- Laura made the video with a 30 pound monthly subscription to Adobe Premiere Pro, which she taught herself how to use. She said it was really easy, even though she's not a tech expert. A couple of guys (one Canadian, one Danish) built the website for her.
-- About 25% of her videos are watched by Americans, 50% by British, 10% by Australians, and the remaining are scattered around Europe.
-- Their political party is called "Patriotic Alternative" and Mark thinks it would be great to see sister organizations in America, Australia, and Canada.
-- #WeWereNeverAsked https://twitter.com/thisislaurat
-- We have 40 years in the UK to stop this, but even if we fail, we will have built a robust community, so that we will not fall prey to those who despise us.
-- Quitting is not an option. We're not fleeing to Eastern Europe. We're going to keep going until there's none of us left, if such is to be.
-- Off Topic: Mark implores people to go to the channel "secret sources" on BitChute and subscribe. She's being deplatformed on YouTube and Mark says like-minded people need to support each other.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/dionnesecretsourcesillustrations/
-- Every movement will have infiltrators, but you cannot worry about that. Just always behave in a legal and respectable fashion. If someone secretly videos you saying how much you love your country, then that's not going to hurt anything. On the other hand, if you're drunk, aggressive, or act criminally, then that reflects poorly.
I assume someone must have, or else he wouldn’t have provided the rebuttal. I’d love to know who, since they either saw right through it or were correctly cynical.
The results were almost immediately obvious (like, by the early to mid 70’s) in California and NYC. It was in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that the effects became more apparent in large metro areas outside of CA and NYC. It was in the Obama era that the effects of open borders became visible in many outer suburbs of most of America’s metro areas, and even many small towns now had lots of “refugees” and Central American laborers. Plus, by Obama’s 2nd term many of the American born children of post-1965 immigrants were now well into adulthood and quickly changing the adult/property owning demographics of many neighborhoods once inhabited almost exclusively by pre-1965 Americans and their own children. It’s astonishing that even Minnesota (!) now has quite a few American accented Asians (East and South), Somalis, and Central Americans. Whereas pre-2000, 95% of American born people residing in Minnesota were white, legacy black, or feather Indian.
https://ballotpedia.org/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Act_of_1965#Legislative_history
Also, whoever thinks that was there was some kind of straight line from the 1965 act to subsequent immigration — that’s not how things work.
As a matter of fact, since Reagan, immigration always goes up in a US president’s 2nd term. Without fail. Immigration is kept lower at first by the powers that be, then once the president hits his 2nd term, immigration magically and mysteriously increases. Back in the 80’s and early 90’s, we got more overt legislation dealing with immigration…To no good effect, of course, regardless of what we were told about the supposed benefits of these policies. Since the late 90’s there hasn’t really been much overt immigration legislation on a federal level, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter since no matter what the law says, the powers that be are going to enforce whatever laws we have in whatever manner they see fit*. Think of it like this: Elitism=high immigration levels (they’ve been rising, decade over decade, since the 1950’s). Populism=reduced immigration levels (immigration levels plummeted in the 1930’s and 40’s, rose moderately in the 50’s and 60’s, and have been soaring since the late 70’s).
*Ron Unz has pointed out that America didn’t really have any particular policy against Latin Americans coming here in the 1930’s-early 1960’s; it was more the case that we permitted a fair number of them (but not that many) to come here in the mid-20th century, mostly to Florida and the Southwest. And Eisenhower kind of stabbed Hispanics in the back with Operation Wetback, which deterred some Hispanics from coming here in the 50’s and 60’s. Some higher profile Leftists actually detested America’s use of Hispanic cheap labor in the 1950’s-early 70’s, since it undermined organized labor. But by the late 70’s, few American elites were openly against cheap immigrant labor anymore. And the Carter era saw a massive influx of Mexican illegals and so forth, which was a prelude to the even more excessive Reagan and Bush I era. And I believe the government established it’s first “refugee” office beginning in 1980. From the late 70’s-late 80’s, more and more jobs (esp. in California) seemed to be ear-marked for cheap immigrant labor. And nobody in leadership seemed to care anymore.
The bill passed 318-95 in the House and a slightly different version passed the senate by a 76-18 vote. The House then passed the Senate bill by a 320-70 vote.
This has very little to do with the JOOOS, and thinking that inquiring into the ethnic background of the two sponsors and the president who signed this popular piece of legislation tells you anything is pants-on-head stupid.
Thinking that this piece of legislation is to blame for everything you don't like about America's current racial balance and racial future is just as dumb.
Here's a chart of legal permanent residents admitted by year, 1820-present. 1965 is barely a blip. But you might want to take a look at the late 80s-early 90s.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents
US immigration policy jumped the shark with the GHW Bush heralded 1990 immigration act, well into the Republican approved neo-liberal era of loose borders, tax cuts for the rich, and Pentagon pork. Hell, they really didn’t even wait until after 1990, seeing as how immigration actually went up dramatically in 1989, the first year of Bush’s presidency. Bush was Reagan on steroids (except for the tax raise); Bush was once a moderate Republican but by 1989 he figured out that Rockefeller was out and Reagan was in.
Blaming 1965 and Ted Kennedy serves obvious partisan interests (“see, it was the Dummocrats who sabotaged everything”). The truth is that Reaganite Republicans (and New Democrats anxious to shed the New Deal in the 1990’s) blew the borders wide open in order to undermine organized labor, please the farmer and construction lobby, and further America’s imperial ambitions.
We were never asked. I don't think any of the First World countries were.
What is amazing is how much change we have accepted that we didn't ask for and didn't want.
I wonder: What it will take for real and general protest about the situation to finally develop, here or in other rich countries around the world? After all, the only thing that stops us from saying anything about this situation is our own feeling that we shouldn't. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads if we start saying loud and clear and in public that we want less immigration.
You’re welcome. I’m glad someone saw it.
I love this clip from the 2001 BBC show “NCS: Manhunt”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgq81fz7VMw
The topmost comment for the YouTube video is this:
But as much as I love that defiant, aggressive spirit, I think I prefer Mark & Laura’s much more peaceful approach while still being just as defiant.
In this video, Mark Collett and Laura Towler explain the genesis of the documentary and survey “we were never asked”. They make so many good points, but it is a long video (1:27:58). For your convenience, I’ll summarize some of the big points below.
Main points:
— We wanted to show you can be an influential activist without violence, illegality, or spending lots of time/money. (There was almost no cost, except paper and travel.)
— In the past, activism was done with big rallies with provocative imagery and language, with violent counter-protestors like Antifa. These rallies often end with the bloody face of a man screaming into a camera, which of course the media highlights, with the effect that the public is frightened and repulsed.
— Instead, when you have small groups, Antifa and the media don’t even know where you are.
— To go up to complete strangers, it is scary at first, for both you and the one being interviewed. But after awhile, people relax, especially when they know you’re on their side. People were generally very nice and there were lot of conversations after the survey was done.
— This activism draws people together, leading to friendships, and outings to wine bars and camping trips. So, it helps to build a real community.
— Laura made the video with a 30 pound monthly subscription to Adobe Premiere Pro, which she taught herself how to use. She said it was really easy, even though she’s not a tech expert. A couple of guys (one Canadian, one Danish) built the website for her.
— About 25% of her videos are watched by Americans, 50% by British, 10% by Australians, and the remaining are scattered around Europe.
— Their political party is called “Patriotic Alternative” and Mark thinks it would be great to see sister organizations in America, Australia, and Canada.
— #WeWereNeverAsked https://twitter.com/thisislaurat
— We have 40 years in the UK to stop this, but even if we fail, we will have built a robust community, so that we will not fall prey to those who despise us.
— Quitting is not an option. We’re not fleeing to Eastern Europe. We’re going to keep going until there’s none of us left, if such is to be.
— Off Topic: Mark implores people to go to the channel “secret sources” on BitChute and subscribe. She’s being deplatformed on YouTube and Mark says like-minded people need to support each other.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/dionnesecretsourcesillustrations/
— Every movement will have infiltrators, but you cannot worry about that. Just always behave in a legal and respectable fashion. If someone secretly videos you saying how much you love your country, then that’s not going to hurt anything. On the other hand, if you’re drunk, aggressive, or act criminally, then that reflects poorly.
Oh, please. In 1965 racism wasn't seen as the ultimate crime. You just revealed that you're flying by the seat of your pants here.
That’s a brain-dead non sequitur, since obviously something doesn’t have to be seen as the ultimate crime to be seen as bad.
But you’re wrong about how people felt about racism at the time, given that three revolutionary laws were all enacted at that time to fight against it: the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
To go along with this post on apathy, I appropriately present The Ben Folds Five (there's only 3 of 'em though) from Chapel Hill, N. Carolina with Battle of who could care Less off of the album Whatever and Ever, Amen:
(I won't paste in lyrics, because they are very easy to get. This guy was a great songwriter!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y1wm7CFRCQ
He was the straight Elton John of the 90’s. I’m guessing he’s somewhere to the left of Sanders politically but you are right he was a great songwriter.
This country was built by immigrants grants especially immigrants of color
If you don't like it LEAVE
The Thirteen Colonies were not built by immigrants, they were built by Colonist. The Colonial Militia was not built by immigrants, but was built by WASP colonials. The Colonial State assemblies were of course staffed by Colonist. The Thirteen Colonies turned into the USofA, a country by, far, and of WASP. The WASP leadership of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk conquered the Continent by 1848. And then we let the Irish in….Hey, I confess, I am part Irish, we know how to give and take a joke.
Orthodox Jew here. I also appreciate Mr. Sailer– his wit, many of his observations, insights and ideas (including, I find it germane to mention here, many of his critical observations and comments concerning Jews), as well as the remarkable indulgence I have seen him demonstrate in the area of his moderation of comments. (Having personally been treated quite favorably in that last regard, I must be admit to being partial.)
In response to your post, “Rabbi so and so”, I note, first of all, that while you may have received smikha [rabbinic ordination] at some point in your life, the odds that you, at present, believe and practice within the authentic Judaic religious tradition (even as a mere layman, much less as a rabbi), appear rather slim to me. (That you may have intended to imply a distinction/discrepancy between your training/background and your present practice/lifestyle is possibly suggested to me by your repeated use of the qualifier ordained when identifying yourself as a rabbi.)
For one thing, your comment reads remarkably similar to any number of comments
For another thing, I note that a serious, committed, mentally healthy, normal Orthodox rabbi would not use the foul language you did at the conclusion of this comment of yours– your inaugural one under the handle “Rabbi so and so”. (At least not so casually and gratuitously as you did here.)
(*Let me note, incidentally, that I vehemently reject the term “Ultra-Orthodox” as it is commonly used.)
Inviting an unknown number of complete strangers from a site known to host, attract, regularly indulge and retain more than a few individuals with decidedly hostile feelings toward Jews to meet you IRL (in real-life; in the flesh)? Have you considered that might be less-than-prudent (if for no other concern than that of your personal safety)?
Like myself and nearly all of us who comment here, you are an anonymous, unvetted, random individual posting behind a handle. The only way for any of us to establish any credibility here is to demonstrate and earn it through our comments and behavior.
I will conclude by encouraging you, as one Jew to another, to at least seriously consider beginning to move in the direction of a return to your apparent roots in authentic Judaic belief and observance. Such a journey cannot be expected to be easy, at least not in the beginning, and it will not happen overnight. It also is not a zero-sum, all-or-nothing affair; whatever observance you can manage to achieve, no matter how trivial or insignificant it may appear, is immensely precious to G-d. Even starting with just one of any of the following limited observances, even just once would be highly worthwhile– bazeh u’vabah: refraining from just one melacha even for just part of any given Shabbos; eating only kosher for just one meal; davening just one tefilah, or even just calling-out to G-d in your own words; learning as little as one mishna, one passuk or one seif in Shulkhan Arukh. You get the idea. For any of these, start with just once, then try to gradually increase, perhaps starting with as little as once-a-week or even once-a-month at first.
CHAZAK V’YA’AMETZ!
chazak chazak v'nischazeikEDIT: I see now that you have a regular handle here but I won't consider that new information in any way because of the reason I mentioned above.
I was saying it, loudly, and I was all of 17 years old.
I doubt that I was alone.
Reb Yid,
I don’t remember what log in I used above and Google’s Antisemitic algorithm placed your comment in my spam folder! Hence the late response and all. I hope Steve will let it through because you seem like a good guy and I don’t want you to think that you are being ignored.
I did use a different handle however because what I scribble under “moshe” or any other handle isn’t necessarily representative to the sort of person I would be in a Q&A with Judeophobes of the gentilic variety. I don’t believe in having a static or rigid identity and therefore don’t necessarily put too much care into what I write with an eye toward any need to defend it in the future and instead speak to the moment at hand.
Beyind that I’ll just note that obviously religious practice had nothing to do with the bonafides that I presented but to the genuineness of my inherent Judeo’ness.
This (whether Jews or Judaism is the ikker) is tough to talk about with a baal teshuva because it is wary of people who assume the latter and baalei teshuva (to say nothing of geirim) too often credit the latter, with the inevitable result that some of the most physically dangerous antisems of the next generation are either they themselves or their children.
The first halacha of Issurei Biah 14 explains well the last halacha of Issurei Biah 13.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m dan l’kaf zchus your (quite hilarious) patronizing hisoirerus at the end of your comment. You don’t seem like a prosecuting angel but as an oiheiv yisroel. Also your legalistic kup-klenching opening talmudisms are sufficiently annoying for me to accept your semitic status in good standing. (LOL)
chazak chazak v’nischazeik
EDIT: I see now that you have a regular handle here but I won’t consider that new information in any way because of the reason I mentioned above.