← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SARTRE
Thread ID: 15461 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2004-10-28
2004-10-28 11:57 | User Profile
[URL=http://vdare.com/misc/macdonald_041027_immigration.htm]Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests[/URL]
Arguments over immigration are usually limited to cultural or economic factors. Political scientists like Samuel Huntington point out that the culture of the country will change dramatically if there is a continued influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants. And economists like George Borjas have demonstrated that large masses of newcomers depress wages and create enormous demands on the environment and on public services, especially health care and education.
These lines of argument are, of course, legitimate. But there always seems to be an element of timidity present. No one wants to talk about the 800-lb. gorilla sitting over there in the cornerââ¬âthe issue of ethnic interests.
Any attempt to bring up the ethnic issue is usually strangled in the cradle. Indeed, other lines of argument are frequently met by assertions that they are masking ethnic concerns. Thus immigration enthusiasts are quick to smear arguments that immigration will harm the environment as "the greening of hate."
This strategy has been highly effectiveââ¬âbecause, if there is one area where the intellectual left has won a complete and decisive victory, it is in pathologizing any consideration by the European majority of the United States of its own ethnic interests. By "pathologizing" I mean not only that people have been indoctrinated that their commonsense perceptions of race and ethnicity are an "illusion," but, further, that the slightest assertion of ethnic self-interest or consciousness by the European majority of the United States is the sign of a grave moral defectââ¬âso grave that it is a matter of psychiatric concern.
Of course, this is hypocritical. While assertions of ethnic interest by Europeans are stigmatized, assertions of ethnic interest by other groups are utterly commonplace. Mexican activists loudly advertise their goal of reconquering the Southwestern United States via immigration from Mexicoââ¬âwhich would obviously be in the ethnic interests of Mexicans but would presumably harm the interests of European-Americans. Jewish organizations, in the forefront of the intellectual and political battle to pathologize the ethnic interests of European Americans, have simultaneously been deeply involved in organizing coalitions of minority ethnic groups to assert their political interests in Congress and in the workplace. Plus the Jewish effort on behalf of their ethnic brethren in Israel is legendaryââ¬âand can only be described as awesomely effective.
I believe we should get rid of the hypocrisy and discuss ethnic interests openly and honestly.
Until recently, ethnic interests were understood intuitively by everyone. People have an interest, or "stake" in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that parents have a genetic interest in raising their children. By bringing up my children, I ensure that my unique genes are passed on to the next generation. This is the fundamental principle of Darwinââ¬â¢s theory of evolution. But in defending my ethnic interests, I am doing the same thingââ¬âensuring that the genetic uniqueness of my ethnic group is passed into the next generation.
And this is the case even if I donââ¬â¢t have children myself: I succeed genetically when my ethnic group as a whole prospers.
A major step forward in the scientific analysis of ethnicity is Frank Salterââ¬â¢s book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Salterââ¬â¢s basic purpose is to quantify how much genetic overlap people in the same ethnic group or race share, as compared to people from different ethnic groups or races.
Different human ethnic groups and races have been separated for thousands of years. During this period, they have evolved some genetic distinctiveness.
But, Salter notes, measuring these differences is now a straightforward process, thanks to the work of researchers like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza whose book The History and Geography of Human Genes documents the genetic distances between human groups.
It turns out that the distances between human populations correspond approximately to what a reasonably well-informed historian or demographer or tourist would expect. For instance, Scandinavians have greater overlap of genetic interests with other Scandinavians than other Europeans. Europeans have a greater genetic interest in other Europeans than in Africans.
In fact, on average, people are as closely related to other members of their ethnic group, versus the rest of the world, as they are closely related to their grandchildren, versus the rest of their ethnic group.
Salter suggests we think of it this way: citing authors like Garret Hardin and E. O. Wilson, he argues that we canââ¬â¢t just keep on expanding our numbers and usage of resources indefinitely. If immigrants contribute to the economy in ways that the native population cannot, the national carrying capacity is raised. But if they are a drain on resources or even of average productivity, they must take the place of potential native-born in the ultimate total population. Itââ¬â¢s a zero-sum game.
Letââ¬â¢s suppose that immigrants have equal capacities to the native born. Then if 10,000 Danes emigrate to England and ultimately substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 167 children (or siblings) in the ultimate total population, because of the close genetic relationship between Denmark and England This is not a great loss.
However, if 10,000 Bantu emigrate to England and substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).
And, of course, it works the opposite way as well: If 10,000 English emigrate to a Bantu territory and substitute for 10,000 Bantu natives, the average Bantu loses the equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).
This is a staggering loss. Small wonder that people tend to resist the immigration of others into their territory. At stake is an enormous family of close relatives. And history is replete with examples of displacement migrationââ¬âfor example, Europeans displacing Native Americans, Jews displacing Palestinians in Israel, Albanians displacing Serbs from Kosovo.
All of the losers in these struggles would have been better off genetically and every other way, if they had prevented the immigration of the group that eventually came to dominate the area.
Nevertheless, the big story of immigration since World War II is that wealthy Western societies, with economic opportunities and a high level of public goods such as medical care and education, have become magnets for immigration from around the world. Because of this immigration, and high fertility among many immigrant ethnic groups, the result is rapid displacement of the founding populations, not only in the United States, but also in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, and The Netherlands, Germany and Italy.
If present trends continue, the United Statesââ¬â¢ founding European-derived population is set to become a minority by the middle of this century. In the British Isles, the submergence date is just two generations later, around 2100.
European populations that are allowing themselves to be displaced are playing a very dangerous gameââ¬âdangerous because of the long history of ethnic strife furnishes them no guarantees about the future. Throughout history there has been a propensity for majority ethnic groups to oppress minorities. A glance at Jewish history is sufficient to make clear the dangers faced by an ethnic group that does not have a state and political apparatus to protect its interests.
It does not take an overactive imagination to see that how coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant European groups. We already see numerous examples where coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy against the interests of the European majorityââ¬âfor example, "affirmative action" hiring quotas and immigration policy.
Besides coalitions of ethnic minorities, the main danger facing Europeans is that wealthy, powerful European elites are often unaware of, or do not value, their own ethnic interests. Frequently, they in effect sell out their own ethnic groups for short-run personal gain. There are many contemporary examples, most notably the efforts by major corporations to import low wage workers and outsource jobs to foreign countries.
Of course, these elite Westerners are the last to suffer personally from ethnic replacement. They are able to live in gated communities and send their children to private schools. They are intensely interested in obtaining wealth and power in order to promote the interests of their immediate family, or, sometimes, their social class. But they completely ignore their enormous family of ethnic kin.
This extreme individualism of Western elites is a tragic mistake for all ethnic Europeansââ¬âincluding the elites themselves, who are losing untold millions of ethnic kin by promoting mass immigration of non-Europeans. It is a case of putting short-run class interest and self-interest before long-run ethnic interest.
In the long run, globalism and multiculturalism are a threat to almost everyoneââ¬â¢s ethnic interest because both ideologies actually legitimize and increase ethnic competition. Globalism results in increased competition because everyone has potential access to everyone elseââ¬â¢s territory, opening opportunities for plundering another's backyard. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become cauldrons of competing ethnic interests.
In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and ability to control economic resources. They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. They differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in time and in their political power.
Given these differences, it is difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource control is very arduous, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law. Accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers. It would also likely be unacceptable both to groups with relatively low numbers and control of resources and, conversely, to high-fertility groups.
Yet the alternativeââ¬âthat all humans renounce their ethnic group loyaltiesââ¬âseems unrealistic and utopian.
Indeed, given that some ethnic groups, especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization, will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by other groups means only their surrender and defeat and disappearanceââ¬âthe Darwinian dead end of extinction.
The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition. And ethnicity will play a crucial role.
Salterââ¬â¢s conclusion: the best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostateââ¬âa political unit that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens. Promoting ethnostates is not only fair, it also serves the interests of most peoples. All existing nations are vulnerable to displacement by highly mobilized ethnic minorities, especially if the minorities have high fertility.
As Frank Salter argues, a far better solution is to acknowledge everyoneââ¬â¢s right to live in a state dominated by their ethnic group.
This "universal nationalism" would allow people the right to live in an ethnostate that would protect their ethnic interestsââ¬âand therefore, by extension, the genetic interests of the vast majority of the human race.
2004-10-28 12:38 | User Profile
Sartre, You just barely beat me to posting this excellent article by Dr MacDonald. The entire piece is worthwhile, but I would like to point to a couple of paragraphs that I think are particularly important.
[QUOTE=SARTRE] This strategy has been highly effectiveââ¬âbecause, if there is one area where the intellectual left has won a complete and decisive victory, it is in pathologizing any consideration by the European majority of the United States of its own ethnic interests. By "pathologizing" I mean not only that people have been indoctrinated that their commonsense perceptions of race and ethnicity are an "illusion," but, further, that the slightest assertion of ethnic self-interest or consciousness by the European majority of the United States is the sign of a grave moral defectââ¬âso grave that it is a matter of psychiatric concern.
This diagnosis is spot-on.
[Quote=SARTRE]Until recently, ethnic interests were understood intuitively by everyone. People have an interest, or "stake" in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that parents have a genetic interest in raising their children. By bringing up my children, I ensure that my unique genes are passed on to the next generation. This is the fundamental principle of Darwinââ¬â¢s theory of evolution. But in defending my ethnic interests, I am doing the same thingââ¬âensuring that the genetic uniqueness of my ethnic group is passed into the next generation.
And this is the case even if I donââ¬â¢t have children myself: I succeed genetically when my ethnic group as a whole prospers.[/QUOTE] This is such a compelling way of explaining this concept that I think any halfway open-minded person would find it difficult to dismiss. Indeed, the tone of this article is so calm and reasoned, and the arguments so well-presented, that I am thinking of spreading this one around a bit.
2004-10-30 15:15 | User Profile
Guys,
Received confirmation that a 'View' essay on this topic which cites the MacDonald article will appear in The Washington Dispatch on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Will post to thread after it appears.
SARTRE
2004-11-06 17:13 | User Profile
[url=http://batr.org/view/103104.html]The Nasty Little Secret of Immigration[/url]
"It is maintained that a society is free only when dissenting minorities have room to throw their weight around. As a matter of fact, a dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority." - Eric Hoffer
The migration crisis is ground zero for the real war from foreigners. Successive administrations have surrendered the borders to the madness of internal toxic turmoil. The notion of congenial assimilation, denies the reality of incompatible fusion. The taboo culture abhors honesty. Polite political society won’t tolerate telling the truth. The only speech allowed must parrot the indivisibility of amalgamation. This flood of unwelcome immigrates is not fabricating tempered steel. What is being forged is pig iron. That smelting process produces a pool of brittle fractures. What remains is fast becoming a compost pile of rubbish.
Harsh words, but all so true . . . Any sensible and rational citizen, knows in their heart, that the practice of unrestricted open borders, destroys the essential quality of life. A viable national fabric is not woven from threads that can’t be sown together. Yet, that is exactly the garb that is being fashioned. America is rapidly becoming unrecognizable. A functional country must share basic values and mutual principles. The core reason for domestic decay comprises the ethnic issue.
Orthodox academics have long constructed the foundations for the superstructure doctrine of pluralism. Conformity to the multicultural dogma is a basic test for tenure. Deviation from this exercise risks both ridicule and disdain. The significance of the research and viewpoint of Professor Kevin MacDonald - CSULB, Department of Psychology - should not go unnoticed. Bold assessments with daring insights are rare. His work comprises genuine substance. Consider his recent essay in VDARE.com - Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests - Immigration enthusiasts are quick to smear arguments that immigration will harm the environment as “the greening of hate”.
“This strategy has been highly effective - because, if there is one area where the intellectual left has won a complete and decisive victory, it is in pathologizing any consideration by the European majority of the United States of its own ethnic interests. By "pathologizing" I mean not only that people have been indoctrinated that their commonsense perceptions of race and ethnicity are an "illusion," but, further, that the slightest assertion of ethnic self-interest or consciousness by the European majority of the United States is the sign of a grave moral defect - so grave that it is a matter of psychiatric concern”.
Only the mentally challenged will dispute that the substructure bedrock of the American experience was the creation from a transplanted Western Civilization. That part of our history that stands out as a beacon to the rest of the world, is rooted in our European heritage. Pride in our ancestry is no sin. There is no guilt in remembering who we are, and what embodies our heritage. And certainly there is no shame in following our own self-interest. So why should whites be embarrassed or reluctant to defend our own interests?
Professor MacDonald continues:
“Until recently, ethnic interests were understood intuitively by everyone. People have an interest, or "stake" in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that parents have a genetic interest in raising their children. By bringing up my children, I ensure that my unique genes are passed on to the next generation. This is the fundamental principle of Darwin’s theory of evolution. But in defending my ethnic interests, I am doing the same thing - ensuring that the genetic uniqueness of my ethnic group is passed into the next generation.”
As the traditional culture is systematically disassembled, the material villain rests within ourselves. By denial, the disease of the infiltrating invaders shatters the formula for national survival. With repudiation of our own common sense, we demean ourselves. Altruism is no excuse or justification for violating nature. Allowing our ethnic fraternity to bend into an inevitable absorption with alien cultures is sheer madness. The indisputable trends of demographics doom our progeny to the fate of an oppressed minority, within our own land.
Regarding Frank Salter’s book - On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration - Kevin MacDonald makes the following point: “Salter’s basic purpose is to quantify how much genetic overlap people in the same or race share, as compared to people from different ethnic groups or races.” The determining factor revolves around the compatibility of similar cultures. For any seasoned traveler, the lessons of indigenous cultures is well understood. Uniqueness and diversity in a native locality is often quaint. Importing that spice might seems attractive, but when you lose control over the magnitude of that foreign export, the quality of the public organism declines, and often perishes. The risks of a fatal contamination, becomes very real.
When MacDonald asserts: “It does not take an overactive imagination to see that how coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant European groups. We already see numerous examples where coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy against the interests of the European majority - for example, "affirmative action" hiring quotas and immigration policy”, you get the crucial peril from our own communal congenital denial. No wonder why anyone with the courage to state the obvious is banished to the back of the bus.
Is it unconscionable to protect your own family, community or nation? Who deems it necessary to forfeit our own right for self-determination? If you accept that there is an implicit duty to embrace outlandish cultural perversions into your society, who will be left to preserve the fundamental integrity of the civic order?
Read carefully Salter’s conclusion: “the best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostate - a political unit that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens. Promoting ethnostates is not only fair, it also serves the interests of most peoples. All existing nations are vulnerable to displacement by highly mobilized ethnic minorities, especially if the minorities have high fertility.”
Kevin MacDonald agrees. “A far better solution is to acknowledge everyone’s right to live in a state dominated by their ethnic group.”
How can observant folks refuse to face reality? The validity within the MacDonald and Salter position is rudimentary self-evident. The hidden source of discontent is inescapable certainty - different tribes seek varied objectives. What is the point of a forced melting into a inharmonious mold. The model for a free and open society has been established centuries ago. The tyranny of the mob is the predestined result from unrestricted and unsuited immigration.
The secret is now out, exposed for all to confront. The course is set for a sweeping disintegration of the multicultural matrix. Dissolution is the necessary solution. The ultimate well-being is determined by the Inherent Autonomy of the species. Fools hide behind their own stupidity. Wise men deal with their own warts, while accepting the natural order. Which are you? Your answer may well determine if you are willing to fight for a life within your own land. Or are you simply resigned to a fate not worth living?
SARTRE - October 31, 2004
2004-11-06 17:32 | User Profile
Well amigos, we all come from somewhere or your parents or your grandparents,,,,,,,so, we are all wetbacks and the only thing that you have to figure out is "how wet is your back"
We all made this land what it is, from the Chinese building the railroad to the Irish building buildings with Americans Indians being the best "sky walkers".
I don't pay too much attention to all this I am you are for we are what we are and that's it.
If you want to maintain yourself nice and clean and free from those from the outside world then lock yourself in a room be sure to lock the door and happy you will be.
2004-11-06 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Well amigos, we all come from somewhere or your parents or your grandparents,,,,,,,so, we are all wetbacks and the only thing that you have to figure out is "how wet is your back"
We all made this land what it is, from the Chinese building the railroad to the Irish building buildings with Americans Indians being the best "sky walkers". How about the chosenites? Where would be get all our bagels or TV sitcoms, or wars on Iraq?
I don't pay too much attention to all this I am you are for we are what we are and that's it.
If you want to maintain yourself nice and clean and free from those from the outside world then lock yourself in a room be sure to lock the door and happy you will be.[/QUOTE] Nope we sure didn't do that. We mixed all sorts of things in our kettle and shook it up.
Only problems is, as the old Russian saying goes, is
When you shake the kettle, the scum rises to the top .
Not to say we still can't learn from our new immigrants Ponce. Like maybe we could learn from [URL=http://www.vdare.com/awall/cops.htm]Mexico's Immigration Policies[/URL]
2004-11-07 02:08 | User Profile
I would not count the Mexicans as our average import, I just got back from playing hold them poker at the Seven Feathers Casino,,,,,,being going there now for the past 4 years. In the begenning there was only one Mexican guy, very well spoken and very clean person plus his English is above average, but now days I see more and more of them attending the casino and I am very dissapointed in what I see, they are dirty, need a shave, and I don't like the way that they behave.
I think that I'll buy a cap that says "Emigration" and ask the doorman to wear it, nawwwwwwwww wont work.
2004-11-07 02:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I would not count the Mexicans as our average import, I just got back from playing hold them poker at the Seven Feathers Casino,,,,,,being going there now for the past 4 years.[/QUOTE]I'm not going to ask - did you win or lose? :lol:
2004-11-07 04:28 | User Profile
Yesterday I won $142.00 and today $82.00 is not much but I know when to get the heck out.
"He who wins and runs away lives to play another day",,,,,,Mao Ponce
"He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day",,,,Chairman Mao. on Guerrilla Warfare.
2004-11-08 15:08 | User Profile
Friends,
Pleased to report the - The Washington Dispatched - published the essay.
[url]http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10497.shtml[/url] [URL=http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10497.shtml]The Nasty Little Secret of Immigration [/URL] by James Hall (Sartre) November 5, 2004
Thanks for all the help. Encouraging, will check stats on hits from TWD.
SARTRE
2004-11-09 03:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Yesterday I won $142.00 and today $82.00 is not much but I know when to get the heck out.
"He who wins and runs away lives to play another day",,,,,,Mao Ponce
"He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day",,,,Chairman Mao. on Guerrilla Warfare.[/QUOTE] Ponce, I'm convinced you are Castro's smarter brother...I hope you remember us when Fidel makes you governor general of that Cuban colony formerly known as the state of Florida.
Castro conquered Florida for Cuba without firing a shot!
2004-11-09 04:38 | User Profile
Ducth? why do you think I didn't go back to Miami when I left the US Army back in 1966?,,,,,,,,,to many Cubans, they drive me nuts.