Scathing, incisive, very important, resonant point, full of implications.

Off-topic, and if I may be so bold, I would just like to take this opportunity to wish all the readers of VFR a very happy Martin Luther King’s Birthday. I know I will be celebrating by plagiarizing anything anybody posts to this site, as well as engaging, rather obsessively, in other activities of a less intellectual nature. I hope I speak for everyone when I say it’s a very special time of the year for me.

In one of Brooks’ articles I noticed several pronouncements about the much needed youth and vigor that immigrants bring to America. It always strikes me that such ideas are not particularly flattering for Americans, who must be supposed to lack these essential characteristics.

I do think, however, that this is more than just some sort of point to bring up in arguments. Brooks and others really do believe this about America. The creed of diversity leads directly to the conclusion that there really is a great deal that America lacks and that there is no way to fill that lack without bringing something in from the outside.

See the section of Huddled Clichés where I talk about the fallacy that immigrants bring “energy” to America.

Also, the idea of the immigrants’ superior “energy” which we are so much in need of fits with Matt’s idea of the “oppressed übermenschen” (the immigrants) and the “oppressive üntermenschen” (us).

Here’s another dimension of the pro-immigrant double standard: the treatment of sexuality. The sexuality of (white) Americans can only be thought of in terms of a purely personal right, personal preference and personal fulfulment, having no larger social meaning or consequences. Thus we end up with homosexual rights and the demand for homosexual “marriage.” But the sexuality of immigrants is spoken of, and implicitly lauded, in terms of their marvelous high fertility which shows their “vitality” and “energy” in relation to ourselves and establishes their right to become more and more dominant in America as the whites recede to the margins. The reproductivity of Americans or whites as a people, the possible desirability of increasing it, is something that can’t even be considered. The reproductivity of nonwhite immigrants is celebrated and portrayed as the very proof of their ethnic superiority and their superior rights in this country.

The constant reiteration of the fantastic notion that American prosperity rests on cheap, preferably immigrant, labor never ceases to amaze me. Just where did I get the notion that our country was wonderfully prosperous, and in many ways more egalitarian than today, in the two decades after World War II, when immigration was only a trickle? Once upon a time, both businessmen and liberals agreed in taking pride in the fact that ours was a high-wage country; in fact Americans had the highest wages in the world from the eighteenth century onward. The liberals used to blubber that the problems of blacks were due to the latter’s arriving in the job market without the skills that a modern economy needed; evidently it turned out that the answer to the problem was to bring in more unskilled workers. The idea that you can have a more prosperous, much less the more egalitarian society liberals claim to want, by bringing in poor foreigners should alone tell us that the liberals are quite mad even in terms of reaching their own objectives.

I think many of them live in such splendid isolation that they don’t have a clue what either white working people or third-world immigrants are really like. E.g., Dick Morris’s piece at Front Page was simply an immigration fantasy, a cartoon.

Also, we shouldn’t think for a moment that they really want an egalitarian society. Let’s watch what they do, not what they say. Every single policy they’ve advocated for the past generation has tended to keep the white working and middle-classes down: busing, feminism, affirmative action, mass immigration, etc. They’ve simply co-opted the sexy label “progressive” and attached it to their objectively elitist, anti-white policies. From their actual behavior we can only conclude that what they most want is to be an unassailable and very wealthy elite ruling over a vast horde of untermenschen - one reason perhaps why they find loathsome Mexico so strangely alluring.

(Mr. Levine gets the recent history of New York City, exactly right, by the way.)

Thanks to Mr. Shrewsbury for the very funny observations about Martin Luther King Day.

Your observation about the policies and orders of the regime, if I may call it that, is excellent, Mr. Shrewsbury. They are always directed at the white, historical population.

As you observe, it’s a one way street. The role of the historical population is always to retreat and to fall back in the face of the new culture, its value pronouncments and the repopulation program. The role of the invaders on the other hand, is an altogether more agreeable one: To displace the existing culture, to take the land as if it were a frontier, rather than an already existing nation, and transform it into their own image, much as Americans did a hundred and fifty years ago.

The hubris of the regime is something to wonder at:To the regime, it’s not enough that the native population meekly accepts the re-population. We are expected to like it!

Mr. Auster brings up an issue I’ve noticed before as well. Namely, the constant praise of immigrants with their large families for all the “energy” and “vitality” this brings to our nation. Just as an aside, it is very curious that the number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, is about 45 million since 1965. This figure just happens to match the approximately 45 million abortions that have taken place in the US since approximately the same time.

Why don’t we hear the feminists whining about all of those immigrant patriarchs who have their women barefoot and pregnant all the time? There certainly seems to be a subtext in all this: If you are white - especially a white female, you should live a completely libertine sexual life with unlimited partners and even some experimentation with lesbianism. Children are a big burden to your career advancement - a career you owe to the brave and fearless feminist leaders who made it all possible. If you should decide at some point to bear children, there is absolutely no need to be married, and a vast divorce and child-support system (complete with secret courts) to rid yourself of any husband should you tire of him (which you surely will in time). Homosexual white males are likewise encouraged to engage in all the promiscuity they can. Heterosexual white males are permitted a promiscuous lifestyle only if they are sensible and provide abortions for their partners. (Our former president is an example of a white male who is behaving properly according to feminist dogma.) The average white male father and husband type is a dinosaur who is on his way out. (Part of the evil patriarchy - the oppressor-untermensch incarnate.)

In contrast, non-whites should can have all the children they wish, since it adds “energy” and “vitality” to the nation. It is even better if the new arrivals adopt the sexual mores of inner-city blacks (70% illegitimacy). After all, there are all of these feminist-indoctrinated social workers who need a steady stream of clients for government services. Quite a system. It’s suicidal, of course. The oligarchs must think they’ll be able to stay on top of things regardless of what happens.

“To the regime, it’s not enough that the native population meekly accepts the re-population. We are expected to like it!”

That reminds me of Bob Dylan, paraphrasing the Lamentations of Jeremiah:

They say, ‘Sing while you slave,’
but I just get bored.
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more.

Speaking of Anti-American pessimism of open borders conservatives, here is the latest article by Steve Sailer on Tamar Jacoby’s recent book. Here is the thread:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/jacoby.htm

I also very much appreciated Shrewsbury’s litle toast to this most holy of days for leftists everywhere. I have a family member who was wondering if she would be seeing the ads for MLK Day White Sales at the local department store sometime soon. (Gotta have some sheets to wear next time we visit the relations in West Virginia and find that Grand Dragon Kleagle Byrd’s home from DC.) :)

Jeane Kirkpatrick refered to Democrats as ‘Blame America First’. I call ‘Blame Americans First’ those advocates of open-borders who think that Americans cannot cut it.

It is my experience that a majority of new and more or less educated immigrants hold Americans in contempt.

Could mik expand on this?

I’ll second Mr. Shrewsbury’s 3:08 compliment of Mr. Auster.

Mr. Auster,

You want me to expand on what?

Sorry. I meant your experience that “a majority of new and more or less educated immigrants hold Americans in contempt.”