In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Raw Milk: Telltale Issue of Our Time? | Main | Art School Confidential »

December 20, 2007

For Whose Benefit?

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Why do our rulers and bureaucrats devote so much energy to benefitting foreigners? Steve Sailer cites the example of Southern California, a warm and beautiful region which immigrants keep piling into and natives keep fleeing. Whose good is being worked for here?

England seems to be a similar case. This is apparently the way it works in England these days: You elect a leader because he has promised to create jobs. He does indeed create jobs. Then he imports a lot of foreigners to fill them. (See also here.) Now, aren't you glad that matters have worked out so well? Protest your leader's schizo policies, and not only do you get labeled a racist, you get your entire political career destroyed.

Donate to Steve Sailer's fund-raising drive here. I've derived more knowledge, information, provocation, and entertainment from reading Steve in recent years than I have from looking at the NYTimes and The New Yorker combined. Let's keep Steve hard at work.

Hibernia Girl asks some substantial questions.



posted by Michael at December 20, 2007


From my (amateur) research, a majority of economists think that immigrants, legal or not, are a net plus for the economy. So far, no anti-immigrant person has shown me that this is not the case. Instead, they rant about Mexican gangs or this one van that crashed into native-born Americans and killed them.

So, somebody. Show me some data to the contrary. Or at least a consensus of experts. If you can't do that, quit ranting.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on December 20, 2007 3:11 PM

JA -- Well, the majority of economists in the 1960s thought that JFK-style Keynesianism was the way to go, and it resulted in the decade-long stagflation debacle of the 1970s. They ain't scientists delivering once-and-for-always truths, that's for sure.

That aside, I've run across economists saying there's some upside to current immigration and some saying there's some downside to it in strictly money terms. (George Borjas is a good one to consult with. Here's another example.) But neither figure is really huge.

So (it seems to me, anyway) we have to rely on something other than pure-economics arguments. Is it something we want? Are the social costs worth it? Etc, etc.

But, in my surfings anyway, I've found plenty of economists who think current immigration policies are a minor pure-money cost, not benefit.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 20, 2007 4:56 PM

So there's somewhere between a slight cost to a large benefit for native-born Americans to have large numbers of immigrants, legal or not. There are enormous costs to deporting millions of illegal immigrants (and breaking up families? or deporting their citizen children?) and building and policing thousands of miles of walls along our borders.

I can't see how it could possibly be cost effective to deport and keep out tens of millions of people when we could much more easily do everything we can to turn them into assets rather than liabilities. Oh, and by the way, we'd be immensely benefiting the tens of millions of illegal immigrants themselves.

I'm glad our leaders haven't given in to the mobs who think having to press 1 for English or having neighbors who speak Spanish is the worst thing that could ever happen to them.

You want to spend billions of dollars and ruin tens of millions of lives by deporting people and erecting the Great Wall of North America? You've got to come up with a better reason than "well, some economists think they slightly hurt the economy" or "I hate having to press 1 for English."

Posted by: JewishAtheist on December 20, 2007 5:53 PM

JA -- You're jumping ahead a bit, aren't you? From "is it an economic cost or benefit?" to "you're a monster intent on breaking up families." Varoom!

To slow down a bit ... No, speaking purely dollars, it's a wash between "small benefit" and "small cost." You can turn up economists on either side of that debate. I haven't run into many who make the case that the pure-money figure is huge. So, as I say, the issue has to be decided (if it's going to be decided at all) on some other basis.

Also, to my knowledge, no one has factored the "social costs" thing into their numbers. Many Americans are horrified to learn that their population is headed lickety split for 400 mill, for instance. A number of states (Texas, California) are clearly paying high prices for the federal government's inability to control the border. And many black people are less than thrilled, to put it mildly, that they've lost their position as the country's top minority, and are being pushed out of traditionally black neighborhoods by crowds of Hispanics. Hard to put a money figure to any of that.

And, needless to say, it's a highly divisive issue. That's one reason why it's getting so much play these days. Do we really need to put ourselves through more such? Depending on the poll, somewhere between 60 and 80% of Americans think immigration is out of control. You want to force unwanted policies on 60-80% of the American public? You're more confident of yourself than I am of myself. When there's a big majority against me, I shrug, tell 'em I disagree, submit, and soldier on.

Incidentally, what's really tearing famlies apart is letting things go on as they are. Many people illegally immigrating into this country are coming on their own, leaving behind entire towns without working husbands.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 20, 2007 6:09 PM

Our white rulers are against us white peasants. No other conclusion is possible.

Posted by: ricpic on December 20, 2007 7:09 PM


JA -- You're jumping ahead a bit, aren't you? From "is it an economic cost or benefit?" to "you're a monster intent on breaking up families." Varoom!

I'm sorry. That part wasn't directed at you, but at all the venomous people who seem to viscerally hate the illegals, some of whom comment on this blog. (Not that I'm criticizing you for that.)

A number of states (Texas, California) are clearly paying high prices for the federal government's inability to control the border.

Do you have a source for that claim? One that takes into account both sides of the ledger?

And many black people are less than thrilled, to put it mildly, that they've lost their position as the country's top minority, and are being pushed out of traditionally black neighborhoods by crowds of Hispanics. Hard to put a money figure to any of that.

Nobody's being pushed anywhere. Whites weren't thrilled when blacks were allowed to move into their neighborhoods, either.

And, needless to say, it's a highly divisive issue. That's one reason why it's getting so much play these days. Do we really need to put ourselves through more such? Depending on the poll, somewhere between 60 and 80% of Americans think immigration is out of control. You want to force unwanted policies on 60-80% of the American public? You're more confident of yourself than I am of myself. When there's a big majority against me, I shrug, tell 'em I disagree, submit, and soldier on.

I don't think there is a big majority against me. Sure, people bitch and moan about the immigrants, but there's no majority for doing what it would take to actually get rid of the illegals and prevent new ones from coming.

It's like desegregation -- a ton of people bitched and moaned, but there wasn't a majority who was going to do what it took to turn the clock back. People want to complain and tend to see only one side of the ledger, but they're not going to pay for the "solution."

I suspect that a lot of these things are pretty much inevitable. We can dig in our heels and waste our time and treasure fighting the tide or we can do our best to ride it to more prosperity.

Incidentally, what's really tearing families apart is letting things go on as they are. Many people illegally immigrating into this country are coming on their own, leaving behind entire towns without working husbands.

There's a big difference between men voluntarily leaving their families to earn money and being forcibly deported by the U.S. government. But I'd be in favor of policies that made it possible for working men to visit their families more often without being afraid they couldn't get back into the country.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on December 20, 2007 8:22 PM

JA -- It's a mess, isn't it? Anyway ... Check out this Robert Samuelson column for a quick intro to the basics. The immigration arrangement that we have now depresses wages for our own low-skilled and working-class people, places high demands on social services, and won't be solving any of our economic crises. I'll dig up some citations for the way it's especially hard on some of the border states.

Posted by: MIchael Blowhard on December 20, 2007 9:31 PM

JA - Ireland went from being a nation of virtually no immigrants to having 15% of the population being migrants in ten years.

Now, just yesterday, our National Employment Authority (the FAS) suggested that our minimum wage of €8.65 might have to be "looked at" (read: reduced) if immigration continues at this pace:

FAS under fire on minimum wage

There are always going to be winners and losers when it comes to mass immigration. Somebody's gotta pay the price.

Posted by: HiberniaGirl on December 20, 2007 11:13 PM

In Canada we don't have much of a problem with illegal immigration because we don't share a border with Mexico. But legal immigration has changed lives here considerably.

One obvious effect it has had is to alter voting patterns. Immigrants have tended to move in large numbers to particular areas, largely through laws which permitted family reunification (these have been tightened in recent years), and because people from particular regions naturally tend to migrate to areas where they know others of their kind have settled. Once they have settled in a neighbourhood, they tend to vote in blocks, and in fact to vote for whatever party it was that enabled them to immigrate.

No doubt a similar dynamic is at work in the US. Although your illegal immigrants can't vote (at least in theory), it is likely that your legal immigrants will support further immigration, even illegal immigration, if said immigrants are from their own country of origin. A legal third-generation immigrant from Mexico may not take kindly to an illegal immigrant from Bengal, but have very different feelings about one from Mexico, feelings which may determine the way he votes. And of course most of your illegal immigrants are from the Americas, esp. Mexico.

Anyway, I suspect that's why your politicians are so unresponsive to criticism of immigration. They are aware that in some districts their party's standing may depend on not appearing to be hostile to immigrants, whether of the legal or illegal variety, and are especially anxious not to appear hostile to immigrants from any one particular region. But - unless I'm missing something - it seems to me that this aspect of the issue isn't discussed much by anti-illegal immigration zealots. I see only glancing references to it here.

Posted by: alias clio on December 20, 2007 11:33 PM

What is a Jewish Atheist it would seem the two words cancel each other out. Oh that is unless you believe in blood -- so perhaps on some level you believe in life as more than a graph of economic assets and liabilities. So if you believe in bonds of blood, you may understand why I am concerned with the bonds of my country.

First, I reject your attack on hate. It is just some magic wand that the left waves. Why don't you make a logical argument against hate. You don't even have "cite sources." I hate the vile pigs who killed Daniel Pearl. I hate Tookie Williams for taking a family of motel clerks and blowing holes in them with a shotgun. What do you have -- mild discuss? You attack hate by just stating the word.
And yes, I hate that the receptionist at my doctor's office wished someone would have told her she needed to know Spanish for the jobs she has tried to get now that her husband has been tranfered here. I hate that a friend's nephew in a midwest school that became mostly Mexican/anchor baby is being threatened every day with getting his butt kicked. Oh, but don't use anecdotes. Don't tell JA that I know three people who have had car wrecks and then had to stand there while some illegal pretends he can't communicate on any level but grunting. Dont use anecdotes --that would just be using real life experiences and those should not count. Give me a graph. Don't tell JA how once nice neighborhoods are now crap holes in my town thanks to the invasion. Find some economist to put that in a graph or opponents will just cover their ears and scream --graphs --graphs. Statistics. What are you a man or a calculaltor?

LA Unified School District is just one big anecdote. It sucks. Tell me otherwise? There are constant turf wars between blacks and mexicans at these schools. Do you pay attention at all? I am not going to go through all the arguments. Robert Rector has done great work on what it costs this country to have people without high school diplomas. He even factored in their purchases of lottery tickets. If they are such a great thing, why don't we kick kids out of school so they can be those big diplomaless assets that you believe in. And by the way, tell me are these huge numbers of Mexican kids growing up on consumer culture going to be happy to clean the toilets and make the beds and burgers? Gee, maybe they will be a problem?

It is laughable that you say we are not willing to do anything about the problem. First off: It is against the law. It is you and the rest of the calculators that need to do something - - change the law. See how far you get. But no, you can just cuddle up with the corporate interests and the polticians and screw the rest of us.
You would not live in these illegal neighborhoods; you would not walk through many of these neighborhoods; you would not send your kid to these schools; and you dont seem to care that others without the choice have to. You will strike a good liberal pose, though. There he is the Jewish Atheist cancelling out his religion and cancelling out his country. The Big Zero.

Posted by: sN on December 21, 2007 12:24 AM

Divide and conquer. Dissolve the people, and elect another. Thus why the State favours the replacement of it's people by another.

This is why the War on Christmas matters; it's about Western self-loathing, about dhimmitude, and about foaming-at-the-mouth secularists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Posted by: Will S. on December 21, 2007 2:17 AM

JA seems to think that if the US “benefits” even slightly from massive legal and illegal immigration– and it is far from clear that this is true - then it’s a good thing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What is missing from the equation here is that different groups are helped and hurt by massive immigration.

The massive immigration that we are currently seeing in the US facilitates a transfer of wealth from poor and average workers and families to the rich.

In his 2004 testimony before Congress (see above), Roy Beck outlines the fall of construction trades, meatpacking, and janitorial work in some areas from decent jobs paying a living wage to low wage jobs that will not support a family because of the massive influx of unskilled workers, often illegal. No doubt the owners of construction companies, meatpacking industries, and companies providing janitorial services profited mightily but at the expense of workers. Is this the kind of country you want to live in?

As hard as it is to believe, construction wages fell during the height of the recent, now defunct, building boom, during which housing prices soared. If construction workers cannot prosper during a building boom, when can they prosper? This is a good thing only if you think that the increasing income and wealth inequality in the US, further enriching the “elite”, is a good thing.

Moreover the "elite" are positioned by money and/or power to avoid most of the direct costs, especially social costs, inflicted upon the average person by the massive immigration that we have seen in recent years. The "elite" are less likely to see real competition from H-1b visa holders, are more likely to live in exclusive communities, are more likely to send their children to private schools, etc.

Can you imagine Donald Graham of the WaPo replacing David Broder with an H-1b who will work for a fraction of Broder's salary? Can you imagine a house in Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's neighborhoods housing 25 illegal alien construction workers? Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi's or John McCain's grandchildren attending schools where ESL takes up so much time and money that they get an inferior education? Of course not. Supporting massive immigration doesn’t adversely affect these folks a whit so naturally they support it.

The "elites" are more likely to benefit from "cheap", often illegal, labor because they dine out more, travel more, employ gardeners, maids, nannies, etc more, and are more likely to own businesses that profit from "cheap" labor. They then pass the costs of their "cheap" labor onto the average person, who isn't benefiting, who may even see his wages being depressed, and to whom this "cheap" labor becomes very expensive and not just in the money sense.

Some of the quickest converts to cracking down on illegal entry to the US have, in my experience, been college-educated multi-culti professionals who got mugged by reality in their neighborhoods, their childrens' schools, their local hospitals, etc. when the influx hit a critcal mass and started causing THEM problems. As long as they don't affect you personally, the problems are easy to ignore.

If you want to live in a third world county with a thin scrim of the filthy rich at the top, a slightly thicker layer of decently paid middle class professionals just below, and a huge mass of people living in or at the edge of poverty, by all means move to such a country, providing they’ll let you in. But don’t try to create such a country here in the US by importing massive unskilled third world workers and their families.

Posted by: D Flinchum on December 21, 2007 8:36 AM

Those of you focusing on the downsides: do you think deporting and keeping them out is plausible? If so, what are the costs, fiscal, social, and moral?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on December 21, 2007 9:13 AM

JA -- The current arrangement is all downside for me: more crowding, more ethnic tensions, more demands on social services, more divvying-things-up-by-racial-groups. Given that we're basically allowing Mexico to go on exporting its problems, I can't even see where we're doing Mexico any favors. (And I don't pay my government to look out for Mexico's downtrodden, especially at the expense of our own less-well-off, anyway.) I'd be happy with *any* improvements. You don't have to send troops and trucks around rounding up innocent children, which seems to be the only action you can envision. I don't demand perfection, but improvements would certainly be appreciated. You can end the loony "anchor baby" thing, you can firmly prosecute employers, you can police the actual border. None of that is inhumane. None of it should even be hard or expensive to do, in terms of physical logistics, anyway. Even politically: most Americans would be in favor of all those moves. Our politicians, though ...

Anyway, since my own real point in these postings is to play a small role in making the issue recognized as a legitimate and important one, I'm just happy the conversation is actually happening!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 21, 2007 12:09 PM

The question about the benefits of immigration needs to be refined: what are the benefits of immigration from certain places in the world? From immigrants with certain IQ levels? Levels of skills? Education? Which groups are most likely to go on and (worse yet) stay on welfare? How do certain groups do in school? Which groups begin to agitate for access to the racial spoils system? Which for bilingual services? The ultimate cost of large-scale immigration--legal or illegal--is going to be determined by the numbers and proportions of in-migrants from certain places of origin, and with certain characteristics, not by the effects of some lumped-together category like "immigrants".

As for deporting current illegals, get secure borders, concentrate on getting rid of the worst of the current crop (MS-13 members, long-term welfare recipients, etc), rationalize the current pipeline of LEGAL immigrants, then bring the remaining illegals out of the shadows...and put them at the end of the queue, where they belong. How many millions of them would there be? My guess is about 10-15 million or so. Could the US absorb them? Sure.

Just make sure that no more come in. And that means ESPECIALLY Hispanics. Does that make me a purveyor of hate? Oh well. Drat. Gosh. How will I carry on? Meanwhile, the fact of global migration remains, and won't go away, even I somehow learn to stop HATINGHATINGHATING.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 21, 2007 12:25 PM

Hey, JA, how 'bout the race war going on in SoCal RIGHT NOW, with Hispanic gangs targeting blacks for assasination in the prisons and in the streets?

Hey, JA, how 'bout those desegregated neighborhoods and schools? Oh, wait, all the white folk left because the neighborhoods and the schools went to crap, torn apart by violence and the subsequent neglect?

Hey, JA, how 'bout the law-abiding independent contractors and restaurants going out of business because they can't compete with the law-breaking competitors' hiring practices?

I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth up here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts when the Feds busted the factory almost entirely staffed with illegals (making bags for the US military and COACH!!!), which was basically the same tired arguement you make-it's all about the poor chillrun. It seems that to your average liberal, the children of illegals have some sort of sainted status that society HAS to recognize and protect. Of course, my lib friends got all tongue-tied and silent when this situation was compared to the subsequent case of a native-born welfare mother busted for crack who had 3 kids back at the Section 8 apartment unattended. THESE kids were duly made wards of the state and fobbed off to foster care.

So my question now goes to you, JA. What on earth makes the children of illegal aliens a special class that has to be treated differently from the kids of other criminals?

Posted by: Brutus on December 21, 2007 3:00 PM

Points about the economy or gangs are a distraction to the immigration debate. At the heart of the problem is the fact that immigration is making our society alien. In appearance, in custom, in play, in work, in speech, in worship.

The real problem is that non-white immigration is making our habitat unhospitable to us and our children.

Everyone know it, everyone feels it. Which is what makes Jewish Atheist's promotion of immigration seem so bizarre, and why Alias Clio's gems such as "anti-illegal immigration zealots" are so sad.

Posted by: PA on December 21, 2007 3:05 PM

PA, I understand very well why some people are against illegal immigration. I'm not especially pro-immigration myself, illegal or otherwise. North America can't continue to take in more people indefinitely, however tragic their stories or deserving their cases.

When people point to native North Americans and say "how can you oppose immigration? Those are the only real native Americans!", my response is, "hmmm, and a lot of good it did them"

I used the term "zealots" in this context because I wanted to make a distinction between the people who are obsessed with the issue to the point of rage and those who are merely worried by it. I belong to the latter group.

Posted by: alias clio on December 21, 2007 6:45 PM

JA wrote: "I'm glad our leaders haven't given in to the mobs who think having to press 1 for English or having neighbors who speak Spanish is the worst thing that could ever happen to them."

Classic strawman argument. You take the most innocuous aspects of the whole debate and use them to represent the sum and substance of your opponents' argument.

Posted by: grandcosmo on December 21, 2007 6:54 PM

Seems like I just can't stay away from this topic, so I'll just offer not a rebuttal but a rather ironic commentary.

As a brownie with a family history in the USA longer than most whites, I can't help but give a risible snort when people go on about the destruction caused by non-white immigrants. White immigrants certainly didn't have a completely positive effect on the native Hawaiian share of my ancestry, that's for damn sure.

Given a choice between a boatload of Chinese engineering Ph.D students and a boatload of Albanian peasants, I can pretty much figure out which is going to be more damaging to the state of the nation in the long run, and it don't have much to do with race.

In any case, I would like to also register a plea. All you beleagured Caucasians of California, I implore you not to emigrate to Hawaii, with it's docile law-abiding Asians and Polynesians and agreeable climate. You simply do too much damage to our rich traditional local culture. Is it no surprise that anti-firearms legislation, tort suits and a statewide smoking ban have been concurrent with a rise in the Caucasian share of the population, most of whom come from out of state? Your inability to live and let live, your persistant attempts to enforce your minority views against community consensus and constant cries of racial discrimination by authorities are socially disruptive. Not only that, but you have driven the price of housing up in a place where land and resources such as water are scarce to levels where people such as myself, who are born and raised here cannot afford to rent so much as a studio apartment.

Please, please, please, consider moving to someplace where people your ethnicity have long held majority sway, such as North Dakota, Montana and such-like. I promise not to move where you are. In fact I will vouchsafe all the Polynesians and Asians there for Californians and North Easterners currently in Hawaii. Is it a deal? I don't want my children to be forced to speak English with a Californian accent rather than a Pidgen one.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 21, 2007 7:23 PM

Look at all the multi-cultural love here! My, it does a heart good to see the dreams of the socialists so fully realized!

I'd just like to know of any real benefit to the average citizen and the United States in general from the huge influx of Mexicans, which is about 85% of the illegal immigration problem. I would also like to know what the benefit is of having lots of Indians, Chinese, and other asians come here under H1-b and take white collar jobs. Anybody? To me it just seems like a negative. Or is that forbidden, and labelled as racist ranting?

Posted by: BIOH on December 21, 2007 9:02 PM

Jonas Salk once said, "The most important question we can ask ourselves is: Are we being good ancestors?" When it comes to in-migration, that's the question: are we being good ancestors? What kind of America are we leaving to our children and grandchildren? What astonishes me about pro-in-migrationists like JA is that, should their predictions of rosy outcomes turn out to be false, then our grandchildren will grow up in a country less safe, less prosperous, less livable, and yes, less civilized than our own.

Given the irrevocable consequences of demographic transformation, an airtight case has to be made that America would be MUCH better off with large-scale immigration. As in way, way better off. No pro-migration type has ever made that case, in my opinion.

Is it so obvious that the US is in need of drastic transformation, anyway? Is your country really that bad?

Oh, and Spike. Be careful in your "demands". One day, you'll realize they're actually quite reasonable. Even when they're made by white people on behalf of their own culture and their own land. After all, wasn't Hawaii irrevocably changed by demographic transformation? Was it for the better? Do Polynesian Hawaiians think so?

So keep "registering your plea". Maybe everyone will catch on, start "registering pleas" all over the place, and we can all end up living in a truly diverse world...a world so diverse it even has societies made up of white people!

Posted by: PatrickH on December 21, 2007 10:44 PM

It's funny, Spike. Is that the worst we whites could do in Hawaii? I take your insult as a compliment. And as for holding "majority sway" we did that in Calif. for a long long time. You remember -- back when it was a nice place? By the way, I don't hate brown people -- just for the record.

On a new note: When I was younger, I had some Hawaiian friends. Good guys, but they had a hair trigger when it came to fighting. I remember one fighting a guy because he lost a country in the game Risk. They used to tell me that If I grew up in Hawaii, I'd have a full fight card as a young white guy. I heard the same thing from some other surfers who recently spent some time out there. Is that true? How deep - and violent -- is their racial solidarity?

Posted by: sN on December 22, 2007 12:02 AM

Everybody's acting like the default choice is no (illegal) immigration. But the truth is, while we do nothing, they are pouring in. If we want to stop them, we have to take massive action. So I think the burden of proof is on those who are calling for massive action, not on those who are trying to make the best of what's happening on the ground.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on December 22, 2007 11:00 AM

Jewish Atheist: there are those who are trying to make the best of what's happening on the ground, and there are those who positively encourage what's happening.

Maybe you can shed some light on this psychological phenomenon: what exactly goes through the mind of men like Ted Kennedy or left wing activists, who proactively encourage more such immigration and discourage with full gusto even small and reasonable steps toward curtailing its ill effects on the public? It's not a taunt; it's a serious question.

Posted by: PA on December 22, 2007 1:00 PM


Why do you think it takes "massive action". Imposing fines on a few employers could make this problem a lot better very quickly. Any sort of decent job requires people to pay taxes and provide a unique Tax Payer ID. Just because we don't enforce the law doesn't that it would be hard to do so.

That which cannot go on forever, ends.

Posted by: bp on December 22, 2007 1:51 PM


The burden of proof has been abundantly provided. You either can't read or choose not to accept it.

Hey, I can see your point about how stupid and reactionary a country can get when its seemingly overrun by peoples of a different race from the regular inhabitants. This is a country of immigrants after all, and they are immigrants too. It probably would be best to just accpet them in and make the best of it. So I just have one question for you:

What does Israel have to do with this discussion?

Posted by: BIOH on December 22, 2007 1:51 PM


I'd like to ask whether you'd think a boatload of chavs, yobs and soccer hooligans from Great Britain would be a better fit in America and less socially disruptive and fit in better than a boatload of Chinese engineering students. After all, they're white, Christian and share many of your attitudes towards non-white minorities.


In some ways it's better and in some ways a lot worse. In the end run, I'd say the Asian migration here was less harmful than Caucasian. Asian social and cultural values were more like Polynesian ones with its focus on communal consensus and social order between groups. That being said, the American political system hasn't been too bad. In fact I'd say we used to do it a lot better than we do now, ever since we caught your mainland bad habits with its grandstanding and minority faction obstructionism. Really, I think a huge part of the problem about current times for you mainlanders is that you don't have any steam valves developed for dealing with having large minorities around (or maybe you used to... Polish jokes anyone?), and group politics is dysfunctional as all hell. I blame political correctness for a lot of it. It's wrecking the social order here to shit as well. Whereas ethnic humor and stereotypes used to be steam valves and light hearted badges of honor, nowadays everyone takes race so goddamn seriously it hurts. It's expected that you wear the damn thing on your sleeve 24/7. Whodathunk that multiculturalism would erode away the right to be individual so quickly?
For all that I say, I'm not so much against the right for white people to stand up for themselves. I think it's just silly to frame the question that way (in as so much as Cubans and Mexicans are supposedly supposed to share a single ethnicity by media standards, somehow). A rural white Southerner doesn't have much in common with a Boston Brahmin, or a midwestern farmer or a first generation Serbian immigrant in Ohio other than the color of their skin. It's playing into it the way that the shitstirrers want you to. To make it all about race when its actually about tradition and keeping around a social order that isn't so bad. I don't know about you, but to let insane multiculters and fringe WNs push the center towards their desired RaHoWa isn't what I'd like. Particularly since then I'd have to decide what parts of my mixed-race body get sent where. Nah to me this about a fight between those who want to overthrow an established social order and those that want to keep it. Race is the issue that they're using to keep everyone from realizing it, and I refuse to dance to their tune.

Hey, you don't have to rent an apartment here or buy a home, do you? Land values may be crashing where you are, but them going sky high ain't too nice either. Plus white people constantly blasting their opinions is more annoying than ranchero music by far. You can't dance to talk radio. I don't doubt you'd have a full fight card here in Hawaii, however it has little to do with the color of your skin and a lot to do with your personality, which by sheer coincidence most mainlander Caucasians seem to have. After all, Europeans aren't attacked here much. You folks are mouthy, with poor senses of humor, and can't help but shake up the traditional order around here by insisting that you have the right to an equal share of the pie as folks who have poured their sweat into this land for generations. Put that way, doesn't it make the surfing beefs seem justified?

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 22, 2007 2:45 PM

I'd like to ask whether you'd think a boatload of chavs, yobs and soccer hooligans from Great Britain would be a better fit in America and less socially disruptive and fit in better than a boatload of Chinese engineering students.

This is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

A rural white Southerner doesn't have much in common with a Boston Brahmin, or a midwestern farmer or a first generation Serbian immigrant in Ohio other than the color of their skin.

There are intra-white cultural differences, but there is also something that all those white people have in common: a child of a Boston Brahmin's daughter and a first generation Serbian immigrant will not look alien to either of his grandparents.

On a related note, I think that if Arabs and Turks were Christian, they would be considered no less white than Italians or Greeks.

Posted by: PA on December 22, 2007 3:53 PM

boatload of chavs, yobs and soccer hooligans from Great Britain would be a better fit in America and less socially disruptive and fit in better than a boatload of Chinese engineering students.

Lower class white immigrants will eventually assimilate. Chinese engineering students will work in high levels of U.S. government and pass classified secrets to the Chinese government.

Posted by: PA on December 22, 2007 4:01 PM

Spike, I was told that a good deal of Hawaiians (the young ones) like to fight with white people??? I guess they feel tread upon or maybe it is normal for most groups? Now, you seem to be saying that is true, but it is American whites -- not European. Which makes me just think, you're trying to spin the answer to the question. Since Hawaii is in the United States, I'd imagine American whites would be the huge part of the non-native population. My experience with those of the brawler persuasion makes me suspicious of a claim that if the American whites were replaced with British whites the fights would not occur. I also think that if there were a comparable Mexican invasion of Hawaii as in Calif., the Hawiians would be swinging at Mexicans with equal vigor. In other words, you seem to be saying Hawaiians have a racial solidarity, and that an influx of newcomers has screwed up their islands. So, I don't get it. It seems you are making arguments that support an active resistance to an invasion -- a resistance based on blood (in this case Hawaiian).

Posted by: sN on December 22, 2007 4:28 PM


Yes I do. Such a population is what built Austrailia.

Since I am an engineer, I'll say that all the chinese engineers I've worked with were pretty much unimaginative study drones, placid and docile. Nice enough people like that make good cubicle dwellers, but not good citizens. We need people who are dynamic, creative, intelligent, and rebellious enough to stay free. White, full-blooded soccer lads are just the kind we need here.

Besides, China is now modernizing, so why do any chinese come here anyway?

Oh, that's right--we white guys have to teach them how to make a modern society! I keep forgetting that.

Posted by: BIOH on December 22, 2007 6:06 PM


Of course it's not an apples to apples comparison. That's the point. Not all immigration is the same, and you'd have to have something wrong with your head to want belligerant white welfare proles over high IQ workers from a traditional socially conservative yet readily assimilable "model" minority. It's not the color of the skin, it's what's in the cranium that matters. The chavs will assimilate to become American urban whiggers, sucking up our welfare and terrorizing suburbanites, nothing more, nothing less. My point is to prove that a racial based position on the matter is absurd and it how they *want* you to frame it.

That's why you dig up the one example of a Chinese guy selling secrets to the Chinese, when of course ethnicity has nothing much to do there. After all, Robert Hansen sold a hell of a lot more sensitive secrets and he was white as driven snow and a devoted Catholic.

Also 70% of Arabs in America *are* Christian.

Wrong. We have *community* solidarity. The Hawaiians ain't beating on Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos or even Portugese or Kama'aina Whites. We're all "locals", something that if you moved here, you could never be. Hell, if anything, we all intermarry more than fight each other (note my last name), though we do recognize certain ethnic spheres. We're bound by the common bond of being around long enough to share the plantation experience. It's about respecting local mores and traditions. Europeans, feeling that they're foreigners are less likely to assert an equal share of voice within the wider community. Mainlanders come here for the weather and beaches and feel like they have the right to change the way we do things around here. That they're Caucasians is coincidental. Y'all just don't *get* how we do things here, what with the subtlties with regards to race and intercommunal relations being one of them. It's like you simply can't even concieve how a person could manage thinking about it without turning it into some sort of black and white "rainbow of peoples singing Kumbaya" or "Seething masses of races in a war of survival."

That's part of the plea. Don't bring your messed up mainland conceptions of race here. We're not a multicultural harmony, nor are we groups of various hostile camps set against each other. It's way more damn complex and your brains can't wrap your mind around why we're all different here, but just xenophobic towards pushy presumptive outsiders of any stripe. You're poisoning the well here with both ideas.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 22, 2007 6:19 PM


Which is why soccer hooligans and chavs are doing so well in Britain. In any case, if you actually read a history of Australia you'd know most of the folks sent there weren't thugs. They were debtors and other people convicted of the crimes of being poor.

Of course the Chinese are incapable of being good citizens or creating culture. Ya know, since they were living in cities and creating great works of literature when your ancestors were still painting their faces blue. Could be that the dynamism you so admire ain't what it takes to make the long haul, only for short glorious bursts that push the world forward quickly then die out. Maybe the world from the Industrial revolution to the fall of Communism was just a burp, much like the brief flowering of ideas and invention that characterized the early Islamic culture before it fell back into barbarism. In that case, I insert my tongue deeply in cheek and welcome our new Chinese masters. They're much more polite than you lot.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 22, 2007 6:33 PM

The stories from Britain are mixed. I'm not surprised to see a lot of new jobs in Britain going to "immigrants". It may not be that alarming. Britain has become an immigration destination for east Europeans and French, due to its relatively dynamic economy. These migrants out-compete underclass Britons, i.e. chavs.

I'm also not surprised to learn that merely alluding favorably to Enoch Powell, even in the mildest and most accurate way, is enough to get a British politician lynched. I was just looking through some old comments here: in 2005 either M or F vB predicted that the Left's hair-trigger accusation of "racism" might be about to implode from overuse. Obviously that hasn't happened.

There's an ugly turf fight in the anti-jihad blogosphere: Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has found evidence that Vlaams Belang and some similar groups have White Power elements, and called on anti-jihadi Euro-bloggers to stay clear of them. He in turn has been denounced as a purist or traitor: VB is the only party in Belgium to speak out on immigration at all, so why shun them?

Unfortunately, both sides seem to be right. It appears that the grip of racial correctness on the Euro political class is so strong that outright racists are the only significant dissenters from it.

Someone contrasted Ralph Peters and Mark Steyn on Europe: both believe that Europe faces a huge demographic threat from Moslem immigration. One thinks there will be a violent neo-fascist reaction: he's the optimist.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on December 22, 2007 7:32 PM

Spike, I was asking you based on what I heard. And I am trying to see if what I have been told matches your experience. You seem to saying: Yes, you would have to face hostility and/or fights, but it is because you would have it coming.

As for wars: I have no need to construct race wars, they are constructed on their own all over the place. The L.A. conflicts point in that direction, and do you think the black vs. Mexican conflicts there would be different if whites were out the picture? I bet it would be a bit more brutal. I was told by a parent how here in my calfornia town the first week at the shool the kids are having lots of fights as they settle which race gets what area of turf for the year. Yeah, so I think pouring Mexican gas on that fire is not just a bad idea, but possibly a fatal one.

But again you make my point -- If I moved to Hawaii, I would be immediately identified as white trouble/annoyance. Not part of the community. I don't think they'd give me a test and conduct 21 interviews to see if I met island standards. Nor consider that I got along fine with several Hawiians for several years in California. Believe it or not, I get along with people. So you seem to like the Hawiian (nonwhite) community and take some delight in excluding others from it and maybe letting a few cool whites in - very big of you.

And that is why I would not move to Hawaii. And please tell me what the Plantation Experience is and how you all share it? I am very interested to hear what that is?

And Im not trying to bring any ideas to Hawaii. I just see that millions of Mexicans are coming into my state, and the changes they make are a disaster. And how they are doing it amounts to war, so my response is actually quite moderate. I understand you dont want the issue to be racial. That has to be the biggest joke ever in the climate of the multicultural/PC/racial spoils system that we are living under.

Posted by: sN on December 22, 2007 8:14 PM

Spike: take away the welfare, and there is no more white welfare proles.

The 70% of Christian Arabs in America aren't exactly a problem, are they?

You earlier made a favorable reference to the Polish joke, as some safety valve. I wonder though, what was the dynamic in America that heaped such vicious abuse on one of the least troublesome U.S. ethnic groups, the Polish-Americans. Yes, they're real fucking stupid, with their 70% illigitemacy rates and their 85 IQs.

Posted by: PA on December 22, 2007 8:28 PM

It's not the color of the skin, it's what's in the cranium that matters.

Not true. As humans, we aren't disembodied spirits living in some Platonic reality. Our identities are multilayered and the physicality of our race is part of who we are.

The chavs will assimilate to become American urban whiggers, sucking up our welfare and terrorizing suburbanites, nothing more, nothing less.

You know, you must be describing a phenomenon that's possibly unique to UK, with its toxic brew of socialism, PC, and black ghetto culture. The whiggers I see in the US are vaguely pathetic, and completely harmless. I've never heard of them terrorizing suburbanites.

Posted by: PA on December 22, 2007 8:47 PM

Hey Spike,

Its clear that you are just trying to insult people now and that you have no argument.

Again, if China is so great, then why are they moving here? Why do we have to teach them everything? Why do they need to use government subsidies and slave labor to modernize? Why do they need to steal our technology? If Mexico is so great, then why are mestizos moving here?

I asked how non-white immigration makes the Unted States a better place, and you illegal immigration enthusiasts and white-haters can't give one reason. Not one. You lose the argument.

There is not one single bit of technology or set of ideas that exist in white countries that can't be exported to non-white countries to make them the same. Except white people. If your non-white country can't get it together, there's simply no excuse for failure. None. Except the quality of the people, of course. We know that now.

Besides, the internet debate on immigration was over last spring when the amnesty bill got shot down. You can see that nobody here agrees with you. You can emigrate to just about any non-white country you want. If its such a burden to live with whites, you are a one-way plane ticket away from paradise.

You know, airplanes--those big flying tubes with wings that white men invented!

Posted by: BIOH on December 22, 2007 8:55 PM


Yes, what with those troublesome Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans with their high crime rates and low intermarraige rates.

I love how when the equation is turned, the fault of the chavs do something more than be pathetic proles is anything but their own damn fault, while the problem with Mexican proles is that they're Mexican.


Why get so snippy when I turn it around on you? I've made it clear, your ilk wouldn't fit in, never will, and you wreck our social structure and values. Why the vague tone of sour grapes? Isn't this the world you want? After all, you're pissed that the immigrants are ruining what you love. Your kind ruin what I love here, plain and simple and there's no way you could say otherwise. It has nothing to do with race though. Hawaiians don't have much ethnically in common with Japanese or Filipinos, frex, but all us raised here don't like you outsiders, even the white folk raised here for generations. That's your hang up, keep it on your side of the ocean, thank you very much.

You can have California back, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there now, or in your heaven of California circa 1964. Don't come to Hawaii, you guys and your hippie converse personalities mess it up more than anyone else. Don't act like you're a victim. This is a world you want, where we're set against each other due to no other reason than the color of our skin and our race. It's the natural outcome, if what I'm hearing you say is correct.


You can't even get a joke when I explicitly say in advance it's a joke. Your lack of a sense of humor both staggers and amuses me in inequal amounts.

Hey Michael Blowhard, still think this about guys letting off steam about immigration or something else? Starting to seem to me like it's about something else entirely. Just an observation. Nothing more.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 22, 2007 11:51 PM

Spike, you misread me. I don't care that Hawaiians don't want me there. I don't think poorly of them for it. Hey, it is their loss.I would just think you would be lecturing Hawiians on how not to judge outsiders; welcome the white people. Right? After all the whites in Hawaii are just pale Mexicans at heart, right?

Racial conciousness is really being pumped these days, and everyone is suppose to have it, except the White man. I am suppose to think that changing the language of my country, killing off my historical figures, and loading up my home with people, Mexicans, who have a strong national identity is OK.

And I also think that as the white population loses its numbers; I have absolutely NO faith, belief or hope that these people will look out for my rights or the ways and customs of my country. Further, I am asked to ignore all the destruction this invasion has brought with it from the used diapers that in the last few years have suddenly become a problem at a Lake nearby (even my Hispanic co-worker says its the Mexicans) to the closing emergency rooms and atrocious academic records of the immigrants. What kind of man is just suppose to accept this?

So run to Michael Blowhard and say "hey buddy your free speech zone is getting too hot." What could be the purpose of that except as some sort of threat. Of course, it is hot because many of us feel we are losing our country and they are not even doing it legally. So get it, look real close GET it. IT IS ILLEGAL. But the politicians, race hustlers, corporations and maybe you dont care. So how does my side win ...pass a law ..the democratic process. Are you f(ing) kidding, mate? This crap is being imposed on us. Imposed.

We got the message the democratic process is closed for repair by those who know better than us how it should be. Will they contact us if and when it is reopened?

And you complain about harsh words? This is the stuff of revolution.

Posted by: sN on December 23, 2007 2:49 AM

Spike: I was simply puzzled as to why you brought up two things: 1) the Polish Joke as a supposedly good thing; 2) the Brit Yobs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, as we're discussing the US.

I said nothing about the Japanese or Mexicans.

Posted by: PA on December 23, 2007 8:47 AM

sN, PA and BIOH:

Well, I've had my fun enough with you for this time around. Time to say TTFN. I realized long ago that it isn't really about immigration with you folks, so I just decided to see what sort of logical contortions I could put you all through. You should have figured that, after all, I've said I was done seriously debating you folks in threads past, but you guys ain't too big on reading what others say, just what you think they're saying.

Don't think I've been trolling you, I believe what I'm arguing in principle, if not the form of how I'm saying it. I just decided to use your own rhetorical framework of arguing to show what a bunch of hypocrites and dolts you are when it comes to race and immigration, that it isn't about mass prole immigration from south of the border (or anywhere else for that matter) driving down wages and ruining living situations, nope it's about making America white, bright and pure. You all can't even see why I brought up the whole canard about chavs, yobs and soccer hooligans towards that, and why bother explaining the obvious, eh?

Like I said, I wasn't trying to silence you at all, did I even recommend that in what I said? As I've stated in past debates before, I'm against mass immigration myself, though for reasons completely different than your own. I just made an observation. If you want me to extrapolate on that (since you're not very adept at doing things like reading in between the lines), here it is:

Your largest sin in my eyes isn't what you believe, whether explicitly or implicitly, no, it's that on a culture blog you lot are dull and witless, devoid of the humor, nuance and taste that characterizes other threads, which is why I suppose it's rare to see posts by you all in other threads. Every time the topic of immigration comes up, you enact the same lurid display of mouth-frothing and breast-beating, driving out anyone else who'd like to have a serious debate or make a measured and rational contribution or observation with strawman arguments that has been doused with kerosene and sewage waste, set alight and tossed in their general direction. If MB wants that here, this is his castle, and we are all his guests, so we are obliged to share each other's company to a certain extent. However, if he's okay with you all venting off steam (or riding your hobbyhorses, which is my subtext in what I said), I want to see if he's okay with me having some fun playing with it. If he wants me to not have fun with your arguments, since it's rather disrespectful (not that you've been a paragon of respect to those who've disagreed with you all, BIOH I'm looking at you in particular here), I will stop immediately.

In other words, Gentlemen, you are ultimately tiresome, and good only for sport. Ignore what I say if you don't want me to have it, but methinks you all need someone to bounce something off of in your echo chamber and if I'm the only person there... well, you wouldn't be able to help it.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 23, 2007 2:44 PM

You're a gutless punk, Gomes. You don't respond to arguments made, because you can't. If you want to attack me---give and example of something I have said and respond to it. That is what I have done with you. Funny, how you manage to avoid doing that. You retreat to the general I am above you all. And as for your great wisdom -- I have not seen you say anything on this blog that is memorable except for its cowardice. I've seen no wit in your arguments.

In fact, it is you who are completely disposable without a few of us who mistakenly took you serious, took you to understand that this is a place of true argument. Not some bullshit PC sanctuary where dolts as yourself are under the protection of the game wardens from all us dangerous animals known as free men.

As for me, I did see where you mentioned you were done arguing the subject. But I let it go when you came back. My mistake for treating you like a man, you're just a little boy playing. And now you make your exit in perfect little boy fashion.

Posted by: sN on December 23, 2007 5:32 PM


Thank you, I do enjoy being called a gutless coward by someone under the name of "sN". Fifteen minutes with google and some easy generalizations will find you my picture and a good estimation of where in Hawaii you could find me on any workday, after all, this name and face is the one I go by, with all my opinions popular and unpopular attached to it publically.

I don't hide my face and name and save my words for anonymous handles. Can you say the same? I'm sure you have some pathetic justification as to why you can't do so... Coward.

If you can't see almost pants-pissingly funny irony in calling me a coward "sN", I pity you. With every post you all continue to provide me amusement. By all means, sputter on some more. With every word I am *free* to laugh, and I bet you all can't even help but take the bait and get further into the hole.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 23, 2007 7:37 PM

Spike, I'm really at a loss to figure you out. Sometimes you sound almost...conservative.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 23, 2007 8:45 PM

I thought you were done, Spike? You made a big deal of telling us you were done, and we were not smart enough to pick it up. How are we to get it when you don't? The reason I called you a gutless punk is because of the entire tone and way of what was suppose to be your concluding argument. Look at it -- it is not worthy of the dialogue I have given you.

As for me hiding behind sN. I don't care what you call yourself; the point is the argument not my identity. Quite a beautiful thing about the Net. I am not threatening anybody with harm or saying let's meet in the parking lot, so what exactly is the value of my name?

Oh yes, then the coporate entities that I have to work with on ocassions could throw me out and take away my family's medical coverage. So your taunt is a bit laughable. It's is like you are standing behind your Big Brothers telling me how brave you are and how cowardly I am. (Pay attention to the Big Brother part.) If I were spitting out the party line as you do, I'd be free to give my name. But again, I say the beauty of this forum is you are getting the real arguments. You have all the presidential candidates names and what do you get in their debates and discussions ---almost nothing. But of course, it is clear you would be more into labels than into the truth. You're asking for a label, my name, so you can hang one more label on it "racist." Then, I could be destroyed economically, and no one could throw mud at you when you ride by on your white horse. Sir, your game is conveniently and completely rigged, so the challenge to play it rings hollow.

Then you conclude your argument with a childish taunt on how I will have to take the bait and respond. Well, of course, I will. I am here for the talk, the give and take. And that is exactly what your previous conluding statement was a complete affront to: the give and take. And again you exit like a little boy. Bet sN takes the bait and responds "nah nah nah." Well done, kido.

Posted by: sN on December 23, 2007 8:58 PM

Hey, nobody ever denied it was about race. I never did. I've said so in many my posts unapologetically. White people should stand up and unapologetically say that we want a land all our own and fight to keep it that way. I've said it about Europe and to the extent practical, the United States. I think that the Civil Rights Movement was the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. You're trying to act like you've teased something out of people with your mediocre intellect and argumentative evasion, just like every other non-white poster who has been for open borders. Not with me. I was honest from the beginning.

Maybe you should swing your coward label on the owners of the blog, since they post under aliases too. Or does the threat of censorship make you too much of a coward to do that? Yeah, I thought so. Truth is, whites can get into trouble with other whites for telling their true opinions in a supposedly free country. Our great pity for your kind lets us give you a pass on accountablility for thought crimes. We knew if you were powerful enough, and a real threat, that we might need to censor or punish those thoughts. Well, I guess you get the picture.

Oh yes, the Japanese are famous for their non-racism! The same is true of the Chinese! And Mexicans too! Hahahahahaha! That's really funny! Gomes, you make me laugh, laugh, laugh at your ridiculous claims to moral superiority. We all group up.

It just shows how mediocre your intellect is and how ignorant your arguments are, that you can't see that the entire base of the claims of non-whites against whites is that we invaded them and ruined them. Now when whites claim the very same thing, and can prove it with real statistics, suddenly the claim is bogus and "racist"? Sorry buddy, the days of the double standard on that score are at an end.

You minorities should have lobbied to keep your numbers low here and the white majority firmly in place. The smart ones still are. But them was the golden days. Back then, non-whites were still a curiosity--a little spice in the meal. Knowing a few of you made us feel grander, more educated, morally superior to the guy next door. But now, its all spice and no meal, and people are gagging in disgust, starving for the familiar.

You can have all the Chinese engineers you want. They seem like great people. But next you'll get the amoral-sharpie Chinese businessman and the then the Chinese government agents. If you like China, boy, will you get your fill! Melamine in the pet food and meat, slave labor, and an involuntary organ donation program if you don't like the way things work. Yeah, they're a REALLY nice bunch!

But what will it matter to you? A weak and conquered people, diliuted by "fluidity", are no match for any organized invader. You'll learn to love the new Chin-awaii. Yet strangely, your status as victim will have no truck with your new masters.

It truly is funny how much things change, and how much they stay the same. Learn to wear your collar well. Its about to get a whole lot tighter.

Posted by: BIOH on December 24, 2007 12:50 AM


I see myself as beyond easy political labels. To most conservatives I'm horrifically permissive, to most liberals, insanely intolerant. In all, I get the most pleasure out of being a fly in people's ointment, particularly loud self-righteous ones of any political stripe.

If were to boil it down, and be completely serious, I take a strong citizenist approach to society in general, which is not popular among the multiculters nor, their odious converse as seen around us in this particular circumstance. Why? Because I find both approaches radically corrosive what I value most, namely individualism and the right to not be forced under any label or any group not of my own choosing. Race means nothing to me on an individual level. I feel more kinship towards Jewish, Asian, Caucasian or [fill in the blank group here] individuals that value intelligence, creativity and wit than any of my co-ethnics who do not value such things.

I am of the opinion that ugly loud populism cannot be combatted with uglier louder populism, which naturally sets me against the the folks muttering the Horst Wessel song under their breaths here.

In some ways I am against the current political and cultural elite, but I also think that swinging the other way entirely is as destructive. I suppose one can see the political continuity as a circle, by which the extreme nutter ends merge together in one seemless whole against those in the happy middle.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 24, 2007 2:07 AM

Race may not mean anything to you on an individual level, but it does to the vast majority of people, and if you mean to impose that idea on the vast majority of people, you are by definition an elitist and nowhere near the happy middle. Nice try.

However, feel free to continue deluding yourself to the contrary about that while passing yourself off as morally superior and more caring of people than the louder amongst us.

As I've also before on this issue, people like you will not set the tone of the debate by excluding emotional arguments, for two reasons: one is that emotional arguments are just as valid as rational ones, and that 99% of folks are going to go with their emotions rather than the supposedly "rational" calculus. Rationality will simply be used to maks the emotions, as you noted above.

Either way, you are in the minority.

Posted by: BIOH on December 24, 2007 2:39 AM

Race means nothing to Spike on an individual level. (Which I wonder if it is true. Drop him off in East St. Louis and suddenly it would mean something. Was it Jesse Jackson who once said he gets more nervous when he sees a group of black young men approaching him than a group of whites?) It is kind of a nice statue spike builds of himself, but the pigeons can't crap on it soon enough to give it its real flavor.

I, too, value individualism which is my point. I see the threat to my individualism will be greatly enhanced by a Mexican invasion. I sit there with my individualism at work while college educated people demand that their race gets hired and promoted. And It is implied here that I am a Nazi for opposing that. Sorry, spike. A good speech on individualism is not going to protect my rights. And if today they are demanding preferential treatment and promotions, am I to think tomorrow the demands will be more reasonable or individualistic? Can you answer any argument?

Posted by: sN on December 24, 2007 1:18 PM

Why bother answering your arguments seriously?

When confronted with a monkey hurling its feces at you at the zoo, the correct action isn't to drop your pants, shit in your hands and hurl some back. No, you just step out of range and let it hoot away merrily whilst you enjoy the show.

Of course, one could extend that metaphore to the immigration debate as well, with the multiculters being the monkeys in the zoo, just to keep it germaine to topic. Though in that case, I would inform the zookeeper that they need to be hosed off before they smear fecal matter all over the area.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Spike, I think you just proved that if you give a boy enough Silly String, he'll hang himself with it. I don't mind insults, just give me some substance with them. Of course, you won't answer my argument, because you can't. It was a simple question. Look at it again; because your lack of an answer is much louder than the cage rattling and keyboard grunts of your last post.

And by the way, try to work on your wit. The monkeys throwing shit is as tired and sluggish as your moral preening and evasions. And it really does not belong on a site such as this. I enjoy a bit of savage eloquence, but pull it out of your brain, not your butt, and we will all enjoy a more stimulating dialogue.

Posted by: sN on December 24, 2007 7:02 PM

I've never had a monkey hurl feces at me at the zoo. Does this go on a lot in Hawaii? I guess when the monkey sees you, they think you're one of their own. Probably an honest mistake. Learn how to duck next time.

Any time you craft a social policy based not on how people really act, but on some sort of idealism, or your own personal preferences, you not only show how arrogant and ignorant you are, but that you know absolutely nothing of the past. You would think the historical record of interracial and group conflict, the totaltarianism, and the killing of many millions by the state and rival groups, would convince the idealists that their Utopia is really a Hell, but their grand view of themselves and their second-rate intellects won't allow it.

You should bother to answer the points seriously because they are serious points. You won't because you can't. I guess that's what you get with psuedo-intellectual liberal arts majors, who ignore reality and choose to throw shit instead.

Posted by: BIOH on December 24, 2007 7:22 PM


Uh, muddled metaphores anyone? I'd feel so burned if hanging myself with silly string made any sort of sense at all, whether ironic or otherwise. I guess my ethnically inferior mind can't wrap itself around your superior White Man's Wit anymore than it could handle the strain of being an American citizen by your accord.


You could have saved yourself some time and space by simply quoting the words of a much greater, wiser and mature man than yourself who put it so succinctly:
"I know what you are, but what am I?"
I speak, of course, of Pee Wee Herman.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 24, 2007 7:57 PM

Guys, guys - aren't you all supposed to be around Xmas table, singing Peace on Earth carols and wiping lone tear of joy and goodwill?

Hey, I'm the [Jewish] supposedly [eye for an eye] vindictive one, and I'm calmly baking cookies for tomorrow.

What kind of Superior White Man example you are to barbaric brown people, BIOH? 10 Bloody Maries - ya hear me?

Posted by: Tatyana on December 24, 2007 8:11 PM


Oh, I have time to kill. Christmas means I can't go to work, unfortunately. Here, Christmas is a bit lacking the seasonal relevance, but I'm sure my dancing partners are dreaming of a White Christmas of their own, in more ways than one.

While I don't drink bloody Marys, I raise my glass of Madeira and wish you a belated Chanukah. Seasons Tidings, all.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on December 25, 2007 12:32 AM

JA: yup. send them home. short term pain for long term benefit.

Posted by: me on December 26, 2007 10:59 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?