“Noman doesn’t disagree with the overall concern expressed in the assessment, though he’s more hopeful than the author about America’s righting its course, sooner rather than later.”
Is California righting its course? What about Massachusetts? What about Vermont? Congress has an 8 percent approval rating and less than 30 percent of Americans believe the federal government has the “consent of the governed.”
“But, he doesn’t blame the problem on invading hordes from the south, frijole wolfing Telmarines.”
Buchanan’s thesis is actually that mass immigration is only a symptom of cultural collapse - this is a straw man.
“He highlights the lethal role of dechristianization in the process of decay. It’s hard to look at TV or movies and argue with him. This is not the fault of immigrants, however.”
This is false.
Everyone knows who created Hollywood and who rules Hollywood to this day.
“Even the collusion of atheistic communism, Russian Orthodoxy, anti-Polish bigotry and historical antipathy could not extirpate Roman Catholicism from the Soviet Union.”
The “soft tyranny” of America’s decadent pop culture is much worse and more enervating than the “hard tyranny” of communist authoritarianism - just look at Western Europe, which is dying a happy death in the embrace of multiculturalism and socialism.
“But, he is not so concerned about the Hispanization of American culture.”
Have you been to California or South Texas? Nothing to be concerned about? What happens when Texas, Georgia, and Florida become Democratic states?
“As Rick Santorum rightly pointed out in last night’s Republican Presidential debate, Hispanics are largely faith-filled, pious, family-loving people. He did not mention that they are also mother/woman-venerating, but could have.”
They also vote 6 to 4 for the Democrats ... which means that mass immigration pushes America to the Left, which empowers Democrats. Just look at California which was destroyed by the IRCA amnesty and the Immigration Act of 1965.
“They are also largely Catholic, even when in opposition to the Church.”
Guess what? Catholics are a majority in Massachusetts and California. Solid Red States, right?
“America could stand to learn some things from our neighbors to the South, and doesn’t need to lament their cultural influence.”
Yes, we need to become more like Brazil, and less like the America of the 1950s!
“Naturally, Hispanics like all immigrants need to be assimilated to America’s ways, ideals and beliefs. “
Is that really happening? Go ask Luis Gutierrez and the National Council of La Raza and MALDEF.
“One need not assail immigration in order to fix a government-caused problem.”
Is California better than it was fifty years ago?
“Does Buchanan not know that Spanish is a European culture, language and heritage? Or, did he just slip up?
Mexico is not a Western country. Spain and Portugal are Western countries, but Guatemala and Brazil are most certainly not Western countries.
“Frankly, it has always troubled Noman, who is generally a fellow traveler, that Buchanan means something racial—white, Anglo-Irish, Germanic—when he references things American. It does not help to identify it as European, or western, and to speak of the “non-Europeanization of America.”
That never troubled the Founders - America has racialized immigration laws from the 1790s until the 1960s. That’s why America was almost 90 percent White in the 1960s. That happened by design.
“He is, however, Catholic, American, and Hispanic. There’s room for all of us in this country, and Church.”
If that were the case, then there wouldn’t be a problem. No one would have any complaints about Hispanics. Unfortunately, only a liar would sit here and say that Hispanics haven’t transformed South Florida, South Texas, Southern Arizona, and Mexifornia.
“He’s mixing two things here.”
Militant egalitarians have been trying to overthrow liberty in the name of equality for generations. The Soviets? Mao? North Korea? Castro?
“And social equality is a condition of the free society.”
No, it is not.
Thomas Jefferson explicitly condemned the whole concept of “social equality” which was always contrasted with civic equality and political equality until the 20C.
Feminism is not a condition of a free society. Neither is radical multiculturalism or other such nonsense.
“Noman thinks he’s wrong on this count. Rather, future generations, historians included, will look back and bless the nation’s adherence to first principles in troubled times.”
LMAO ... these so-called “first principles” didn’t exist until the JFK-LBJ era.
“The magnificent republic we inherited—and should defend tooth-and-nail in all its magnificence, regardless of its blemishes—was bequeathed to us, inter alia, by the scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.”
No, it wasn’t.
America was created by British Protestants and a smaller number of Northern European groups.
“As Emma Lazarus wrote, and Liberty proclaims: “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips.”
That plaque was privately installed on the Statue of Liberty. For decades, the Statue of Liberty faced Europe ... and was regarded as a symbol of American purity and republicanism, not as a beacon for immigrants.
Liberals historians in the 1940s and 1950s invented the myth that the Statute of Liberty was associated with immigration.
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
In the Immigration Act of 1924, Congress excluded the refuse by law. In several reforms prior to the Immigration Act of 1924, Congress has banned anarchists and retards and had went to great lengths to exclude the “wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
“George Washington wasn’t descended from Third-World roots. But, Steve Jobs was. Leonard Lauder, Estee’s son, writes in today’s WSJ that immigrants and their children founded half of Fortune 500 firms like Google and Intel.”
So what? Our ancestors built this country. A bunch of foreigners created an algorithm. It was also the nativist William Shockley who created the semiconductor.
“The broad brush with which Buchanan tars immigration simply doesn’t do justice to the phenomenon.”
The facts are that Third World immigration is enormous drain on American taxpayers - there are few exceptions (i.e., the Cubans, East Asian brainiacs, etc), but it is a lie to say that illegal aliens are becoming rocket scientists and splitting the atom and doing stuff of that nature.
“OK. But, America is not one of those countries naturally vexed with ethnonationalism.”
Except for the War Between the States, right?
“Quite the contrary. We are not bound by ties of ethnicity, blood, land, history or culture—which in America is decidedly a small-”c” affair.”
That wasn’t the case prior to the 1950s and 1960s. Before the 1960s, the conventional wisdom was that America was Western Christian nation, as Buchanan explains.
“In the countries he is referring to, Culture is King, and Capitalized. Here, we are bound by ideas and fidelity to ideals.”
Well, if that is true, what passes for American culture is shit these days, and no one who is sane would want to identify with that culture.
“One need not be Hispanic or Mediterranean to feel these sentiments.”
If Mexicans love America so much, why do they cheer for Mexico against America during the World Cup? Does Luis Gutierrez love America? What about the National Council of La Raza?
“Mass immigration is separate and distinct from illegal immigration.”
Mass immigration is driven through chain migration and bullshit “family reunification laws” that allows Mexico and other foreign countries to export their poorest citizens here to become Democratic voters.
“Noman wonders if illegal immigration would be such a problem if legal immigration were sufficiently “mass.”
We don’t need “legal immigration” either when the economy has collapsed to near depression conditions.
“But, again, it is his equation of the Republican Party with the “White Party” that gives Noman the heebe-jebees and strikes him as being singularly unsavory, not to mention unhelpful. Where doe’s Herman Cain fit in Buchanan’s constellation? Marco Rubio? Bobby Jindal?”
White people are responsible for 90 percent of votes for the Republican Party. If White people become a minority, the Republican Party goes extinct.
This is not to say that non-Whites do not support the Republican Party. But let’s be honest. The vast majority of blacks are going to vote for Obama against Herman Cain. Just as the vast majority of Hispanics would vote against Marco Rubio.
That is reality. Mathematics.
If the Democratic Party explicitly caters to homosexuals, to feminists, to Hispanics, to African-Americans, to Asians, and to Jews, and to every other demographic group, then the Republican Party should at least acknowledge that White people and especially White Christian Southerners are the base of the GOP, and that without White Christian Southerners people, there isn’t going to be a GOP in the future, which can already be seen in California.
“But, outlandish talk about losing Arizona doesn’t help the discussion progress. It retards it because it disgusts even people concerned for border integrity.”
Did you know that the radical Mecha activist and the leader of the House Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva represents Southwestern Arizona?
Why is the idea outlandish? Have you been watching Luis Gutierrez?
“He subscribes to American exceptionalism.”
American exceptionalism is a retarded idea - that’s exactly likely thinking you bulletproof when you are drink. In our cause, America is drunk on utopian ideology, and we think that we are bulletproof.
Future generations will live with the curse of this insanity. Actually, we are already feeling the earliest waves of the inevitable economic collapse right now.
“Noman is willing to assume that the excerpts selected in Drudge’s synopsis so shear the flagrant money quotes from reasoned argument as to make them only seem the rantings of a disgruntled, xenophobic nativist.”
The “disgruntled, xenophobic nativists” ... oh yeah, you mean the people who were right about California? The people who warned that immigration would destroy California and make it impossible for conservatives to live there.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly, and for reading.
If I can respond in toto and only partially piecemeal, I’d say that we see lots of the same problems, e.g., Hispanics vote Democrat, Socialism kills, ethnic Balkanization ill serves America, misplaced loyalties among citizens, the economic and cultural collapse of various states, communities, etc..
I think the proper response is to change the reality rather than decry it. E.g., Hispanics don’t have to vote Democrat. We don’t have to follow Socialist policies. Ethnic enclaves can serve to contextualize the person, and not just alienate him against the nation. We don’t have to put up with Anti-American ranting from various corners of the social universe. We don’t have to save California’s bacon, or Massachusetts’.
What is our plan? I have my candidates. You have yours. Noman is trying to write what he thinks. So is Sick of Lefties. Rightly or wrongly, I didn’t think Pat’s ideas are particularly helpful to the causes of liberty, morality, Christianity or conservatism.
Re, mass immigration:
I don’t agree that mass immigration is necessarily a symptom of cultural collapse. I see that it can be, as it is in France and Western Europe generally. But, America has had many mass migrations in the 19th and 20th centuries, including during WWII, that have helped make America stronger, not weaker.
Re, aversion to Hispanics and non-whites:
“Buchanans thesis is actually that mass immigration is only a symptom of cultural collapse - this is a straw man.”
Buchanan is explicit about his distaste for immigrants from the south. He/you can defend his predilection, but you cannot fairly deny it.
Re, Hollywood and the Jews:
“Everyone knows who created Hollywood and who rules Hollywood to this day.”
As for Hollywood and the Jews, which is who I assume you’re referring too, I hadn’t thought to lump Jews in with our modern immigration disputes. They’ve been here for centuries, and I would think have earned authentic American status by now.
I don’t generally like media, and acknowledge that the people running it misuse their power to the country’s detriment. I don’t see the benefit, however, of laying the guilt on an ethnic group rather than on wrong-headed people.
Jews have their reasons for being liberal, many of which are rightly intentioned (e.g., desire for justice and to alleviate suffering) even if wrong-headed in execution and design. The challenge is to show wrong-headed people how off-base and wasteful their policies are, how disastrous the consequences of their political commitments are. That’s where my energies will go.
Re, my posture towards other cultures, especially Hispanics:
America can and should learn from others because, as good as we are, we don’t know everything. And, as Pat and you point out, we seem to have forgotten much of what we knew.
That’s not to say that others are pure and that we are not. Quite the contrary, which I imagine that most immigrants would tell you. Their presence here indicates their preference.
Hispanics, specifically, are not to be feared by conservatives. There is more in their culture amenable to conservatives than to liberals. They are to be won over.
That doesn’t mean capitulation to amnesty, open borders, anchor babies, etc. Those are leftist issues, and conservatives who champion them have bought into a Leftis narrative on Leftist terms. It means dispassionate reasoning about why it’s important to follow legal means, careful inculcation into the American way, instruction as to the importance of character to liberty, firmness about where the lines are and what is expected of people coming into the country, etc. We used to do that. We can again.
I make no brief for La Raza, Mecha, or MALDEF. This is the wing of Hispanics that will always be sin verguenza (shameless). Neither do I make a brief for ACORN, feminists, multi-culturalists, SEIU, or any group on the left for the same reasons. That a group is Hispanic as well as Leftist adds nothing to the analysis. They are wrong and must be fought, at the level of ideas and policies, not at the level of personal attributes.
Re, which countries are Western:
Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil, along with every other nation of Latin America is Western, Christian and rooted in European civilization. You’re giving up too easily on territory that shares a broad cultural heritage with the US because Marxist westerners have too deeply penetrated the soil. Those Western Leftists have also penetrated our Universities, government and professions, which doesn’t make them non-Western institutions.
Re, who belongs:
My belief is that there is room for everyone in this country. Moreover, the American heart is one that must make room for everyone including the weak, impoverished and seemingly valueless: in a word, the losers. It’s good for the American heart, which is good for America.
That is not to say that we must resign ourselves to people being a drag on everybody, or that we’re obligated to give them all sorts of stuff. Quite the contrary, the right to be here must be predicated on a person’s willingness to give, contribute, try, produce, learn, hustle.
I think that the passion this issue generates is rooted in the fact that we’ve perverted the American compact, and people resent immigrants gaming the corrupt system that’s been put in place. My opinion is that we should dump the corrupt system, and keep the immigrants coming in.
In my opinion, focusing on their color or language adds nothing, and detracts much.
People produce wealth, not poverty. Only Nancy Pelosi and her ilk believe that people are necessarily a drag on society and its resources. That’s because her political economy is collectivist, Statist, dependency-focused. That’s the problem, not the people.
Social equality—everyone must be free to succeed, or fail—is a condition of the free society. We know that now, whether we did in the 18th century or not. We did then too, but the strata of people who belonged was more circumscribed.
The question of who must be included in the social compact antedates the founders by a couple of millennia, at least. My contention: there is nobody in a politically liberal, economically free and culturally-morally diverse society such as America that should be excluded in principle.
Nobody should be fated to dependence by the political economy. Happily, democratic capitalism doesn’t do that to people. Statism does.
Some will fail. That’s life. They must be picked up by intermediate associations—family, church, friends, communities, the ethnic group, etc.—not the State.
Re, American exceptionalism:
American exceptionalism is a belief that in this country, we got things basically right. We’ll self-adjust as needed as long as we are moral. We are a can-do people. And, we are blessed by God.
I wouldn’t give up faith in this idea so easily. It’s not healthy for America.
Collapse is not inevitable. As Arthur Laffer wrote in 2008, it is a choice. I choose not to be defeatist.
I also choose not to scapegoat immigrants, or lump people into deterministic categories. That’s what the Left does. But, they’re blind. Conservatives are not.
Look to the good. Set out into the deep. Be not afraid.
Re, racialized immigration policy:
Finally, is there anything you’d recommend that touches on this being necessarily a White nation, or one set against allowing inferiors to come into it; one of Pat’s books for instance?
I’m very uncomfortable with these ideas, as well as think that they’re impediments to peace along conservative lines. If you think my beliefs are the result of indoctrination contrary to the authentic American spirit, I’d like to read the most reasonable exposition of that argument.
FYI, I’m not willing to give up on the Judeo-Christian roots of the American experiment in ordered liberty along the lines of a modern political economy, and think that if that’s what you mean by white, then everyone in the country and everyone coming into it should be trained to think white.
But, you don’t have to be white-skinned to be so trained, or to embrace those beliefs. Neither does one need to point at ethnicity as the cause of our not doing so. Again, that’s what white Liberal do. To my mind, conservatives should know better.
Re: Noman is willing to assume that the excerpts selected in Drudges synopsis so shear the flagrant money quotes from reasoned argument as to make them only seem the rantings of a disgruntled, xenophobic nativist.
I apologize for the tone, and edited it slightly so as to soften it on the blog. I didn’t want to mask my disagreement though.
“The disgruntled, xenophobic nativists ... oh yeah, you mean the people who were right about California? The people who warned that immigration would destroy California and make it impossible for conservatives to live there.”
Arthur Laffer has a lot to say about California’s demise in “The End of Prosperity” (2008), Ch. 8, Bankruptcy 90210: As Goes California, So Goes the Nation, pp. 152-179. He knows a lot about California being one of the architects of Prop 13 (Jarvis-Gann) and a long time Reagan advisor. He locates the blame for its plight in soak-the-rich policies that have driven business away, not with immigration.
I addressed it briefly in a review last year:
In a stinging critique of high-tax states, especially California, the authors note that current problems, which grow more acute by the day, stem from policy choices that have driven away the rich who are mostly the business owners that provide jobs and tax revenues.
The book is rich with statistics on in-migration and out-migration, which demonstrate once again, that people shape their behavior to incentives and disincentives. California, with the 7th largest economy in the world and all of the benefits that beautiful weather, topography and people can provide, has suffered from outmigration in recent years and teeters on the brink of collapse.
At the time of the books writing, the state was borrowing $30 billion per day to meet its obligations. The crisis began with the rise of a tax and regulatory culture in Sacramento that evinced hostility to high earners and businesses.
In 2007, California adopted carbon emission restrictions, pushed for a higher minimum wage, and was on the brink of installing a universal health care program with a pay or play provision. Businesses have chosen a third option in droves: leave and set up shop in another state. (Arthur Laffer was among them, choosing to relocate his business and employees to Tennessee.)
Yet, the state pushed ahead with lifetime welfare benefits (it does not comply with the federal welfare reform law requiring a five-year time limit on benefits), a steeply progressive income tax (10.3% on the states highest earners), and faces unfunded pension liabilities for public employees (CALPERS) of $26 billion, for teachers of $20 billion along with $48 billion in health benefits.
High wealth individuals have been leaving the state en masse.
President Obama has announced his intention to bail out the states, and in doing so will impose the cost of liberal utopian ideas onto citizens that reject them, including the very taxpayers that left states like California, New York, Illinois (in brief, the blue states) for in migration, red state havens.
Shame on him, his policies, and the economic insanity that has brought ruin to every people that has embraced it.
Laffer has something to say about immigration as well on pp. 286-288 (Return of the Nativists). In sum, he thinks we should find ways to allow immigrants who want to work in the US get green cards legally.
He’s worth reading even if one disagrees with him.
BTW, I was born and raised in San Francisco, and didn’t leave the state until 1988. I’ve been back annually to see family since then, but haven’t lived there. I wouldn’t move back without an extremely generous compensation package, and maybe not even then. The place is filled with, and run by, insane, suicidal, Statist Liberals.