Dark arguments on immigration

The interwebz is full of people who will tell you why you should welcome immigrants.

For example, the girl that was the editor of my high newspaper (and who apparently hasn’t aged) apparently hacked David Brooks column this week, to explain how awesome immigrants are. She’s apparently writing from before the last election, since she believes Latinos are naturally Republican.

(Now, at least, we know that when given the choice between ethnic preferences, racial benefits, and lukewarm opposition to gay marriage and abortion on one hand and no preferences, no benefits, and lukewarm support for gay marriage and abortion on the other hand, Latinos are at least not dumb enough to prefer the former. More on this topic later.)

Although her column is outdated, it raises the question of what opponents of immigration believe. Well, I’m your huckleberry. Let’s go through some arguments against immigration.

The real USG

“Comprehensive immigration reform” could theoretically take many forms. In the reality of modern USG (or here, if you prefer something not from me), it can mean only one thing.

Such “reform” will allow the policy “homeland security” agencies to select who becomes a citizen and who does not. In other words, the low-level bureaucrats at these organizations will elect the people.

What could go wrong? Might such bureaucrats abuse their power to target their political opponents?

One could strongly favor immigration and still acknowledge that this (our only way to go about it) is a terrible way to increase immigration.

Ethnic conflict and good government

To quote myself:

There may a couple examples of successful multicultural societies, but for every one or two such examples, there are hundreds of examples of multicultural chaos. There are Wikipedia pages for Ethnic Conflict and Ethnic Hatred, but there aren’t ones for ethnic harmony or wishful-thinking-douchebaggery.

Oddly, these parts of the internet are generally fans of the rulers that have made multicultural societies work.

Oddly, proponents of vibrant societies have nothing but disdain for these few leaders that have actually made diverse societies work. Perhaps, it’s largely because those leaders counseled against increasing diversity and had to significantly curtail “freedoms” to minimize ethnic strife.

Crimethink

When proponents of a particular position seek to silence, censure and punish people that hold the opposing position, one should be suspect of the proponents. When the proponents’ logic is founded on lies, one should be scared. Or, as Frost says:

But we do not live in an age of honest argument. We live in the age of post-modern discourse. Civil debate is a thing of the past, rhetoric is about victory more than honest inquiry, and you are advised to arm yourself accordingly. . . .

The Argumentum Ad AMOG is characterized by its ability to elevate the perceived status of the man making the argument, while diminishing the status of any man who dares object to it. The logical connection of the argumentum ad amog to the subject at hand is irrelevant. The argument is effective because it is only true if one or more status-elevating premises is correct. The man who argues ad amog sneakily makes an implicit statement about himself, in the guise of speaking about the ideas at hand.

Crimethink and success

Crimethink itself is repellent, but in this particular case, it’s also incompatible with success at increasing immigration.

One sure way to prevent a diverse society from functioning is to prevent people from talking about cultural differences. Opponents of immigration subscribe to some very extreme religious beliefs (most notably, absolute human neurological uniformity) and they shut down all opposition to such beliefs.

You’ll lose your job if you contradict it, even if you’re right. As has been said elsewhere:

In this case, the lie is the proposition of human neurological uniformity (HNU). It’s not just that HNU is rebutted by a considerable weight of evidence – that’s relatively unimportant. It’s that it is supported by no evidence at all. Yet your government requires you to believe it. Quite effectively, as we see. . . .

But as an act of mandatory faith, HNU is no less subject to Chesterton’s observation: when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything. The task of understanding the world we live in, without the assumption of HNU, is gargantuan. It is not just a matter of putting a Confederate flag on your pickup truck. It requires both tremendous mental energy, and tremendous analytic judgment. It is too vast for any individual; too dangerous for any organization.

Here’s a nice round-up of reaction to the latest witch hunt. Here’s one from the other side.

Dysgenics

Given the history of eugenics, it’s quite reasonable to be suspicious of people who are willing to aggressively work to “improve the genetic stock” or whatever of the population. However, it does not follow that dysgenics is morally good. Yeah, the immigration we’re talking about is dysgenic.

You may be able to get him fired from his job, but do we really want a population with a lower average IQ? If so, why (please use examples)?

It wasn’t that long ago, that the best progressives knew this.

(As an aside, it’s always interesting to see mainstream conservative organizations sodomize themselves in hopes of currying favor with progressives. It’s now racist to eat tacos. It’s time to revel in the accusation, not cower.)

The Dire problem

There’s growing consensus that long-term unemployment, zero-marginal product workers or the dire problem (and here) is one of our biggest problems. In sum, we have a lot citizens that don’t seem to be able to produce more than they consume.

It’s not exactly crazy to suggest that we figure this one out before we make it worse.

Advertisements

15 Responses to Dark arguments on immigration

  1. Scharlach says:

    In this case, the lie is the proposition of human neurological uniformity (HNU). It’s not just that HNU is rebutted by a considerable weight of evidence – that’s relatively unimportant. It’s that it is supported by no evidence at all.

    You know, that point really needs to be circulated more. I haven’t seen anyone make it in the last few days except you (via Moldbug).

    A good tactic would be to throw up our hands and say, fine, you don’t buy our evidence. Show us what you’ve got to prove that all human populations do have equal IQs and cognitive abilities.

    • Foseti says:

      I agree that the point needs to be made more explicit. I’m not sure the answer is to ask for their evidence though.

      The point is that they don’t need evidence. The facts are “racist,” they’re the arbiters or racism, and their opponents are racist. End of argument. They win. It’s power all the way down. Might makes right.

      • Scharlach says:

        Yes, the ad hominem appeal is always at the ready. But I have confidence that they have practically no evidence, so . . . I’m okay asking.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      When I have the energy to engage in these arguments in comment sections I always go straight to the differences in average brain volume by race. Physical traits differ by race, the brain is a physical organ, etc.

      At that point they have to argue race doesn’t exist (patently silly, but someone will always do it) or for Cartesian dualism – more likely they just stop arguing rationally at all and start with the racism accusations.

      That’s when you can tell you’ve won one of these arguments. If it goes back and forth for 20 posts with no one screaming racism they’ve won because they’ve obscured the issue enough to allow doubt.

  2. Steve Johnson says:

    “There’s growing consensus that long-term unemployment, zero-marginal product workers or the dire problem (and here) is one of our biggest problems. In sum, we have a lot citizens that don’t seem to be able to produce more than they consume.

    It’s not exactly crazy to suggest that we figure this one out before we make it worse.”

    Disagree.

    The Cathedral works very hard to ensure that a large portion of the population has no alternative but to be a Cathedral client. Employable people have the potential to be clients of their employer.

    Rhodesia worked. A United States with a half mestizo population would work – if it was ruled by a functioning government.

  3. Handle says:

    And here’s Bryan Caplan, right on cue:

    In a just world, no researcher would be fired for truthfully stating that some kinds of immigrants have low IQs.

    In a just world, however, researchers would be fired for arguing that people with below-average IQs should be denied their basic human right to accept a job offer from any willing employer.

    Sigh. It speaks volumes, does it not? Enthusiastically-bubbled and tenured (fire-proof) researcher of a selective institution cool with firing researchers for making arguments he doesn’t like regarding the position that society might benefit from being mildly bubbled and selective.

    Here’s T.S. Eliot, from “Murder in the Cathedral

    The last temptation is the greatest treason:
    To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

    And he’s not just cool with the firing, but adamant that such termination would be mandatory and immediate under a “just” regime. (I’m positive the progressives completely agree) Not much allowance for good-faith disagreements on what might constitute “just” and “human right”.

    And this from a “Libertarian”. And the firing from “Conservatives” (Heritage) and hailed on the “Right” (Rubin).

    What is a “neoreactionary”? I’m trying to get some time to write an essay on the topic. But “All you’ve got left after all the above go off the same cliff” ain’t half-bad.

    Still, it’s hard to beat the one someone left over at Mangan’s

    A reactionary is someone who vomits when something unpalatable is shoved down his throat; which happens now about once every half-hour.
    • Foseti says:

      Yes. The key is that he believes his ideological opponents should be fired.

      All, of course, without referencing any functional multicultural societies. They exist apparently only in his mind, but he’s very sure they exist.

      • asdf says:

        His logic doesn’t even apply to low IQ. His logic is that anyone that doesn’t support open borders should be fired (they are against human rights!). IQ has nothing to do with it. He is upset about IQ because it might mean he’s wrong.

    • survivingbabel says:

      In sum, we have a lot citizens that don’t seem to be able to produce more than they consume.

      If that statement sends a shiver down your spine and a chill to your heart, you are on the path to neoreaction.

  4. VXXC says:

    Immigration: in practice Customs and now ICE policy is to admit the underclass if they’re from the Southern Hemisphere. It’s not East/West it’s North/South. For Years.

    USG – you do realize that once you leave the magic bubble*, the more statist the region the more dystopian nightmare it is outside the Bubble? DC is a Metropole of extreme contrasts, but certainly the Rust Belt is an economic desert, as California is becoming.

    * or the Bubble leaves…*

    I think some people don’t get out of the office/bubble much.

    I think pure democracy is coming to the Bubble and it’s offices.

    I think I’ve seen pure democracy and my demon demos side can get down with it…if however you are thinking….

    1) Singularity/USG Collapse
    2) ?????
    3) Functioning reactionary govt, led by the proper and natural aristocracy, namely yourselves…

    I think step 2) ?????? not only needs some work, it’s gonna get it.
    And the demos will indeed have their hour. Like I said, I’m down.

    Have fun with step 1a – no bubble.

  5. VXXC says:

    USG INC- – I know some people don’t get out of the office much.

    What happens when you leave the office? You might see or find bad things, it might sour the cocktails at the parties.

    You are a criminal enterprise from top to bottom, crime and corruption is horizontally and vertically integrated. By crime and corruption I mean narrowly – that these are illegal activities. Yet they are pervasive and unchallenged. About the only honest Departments you have are Law Enforcement and the Uniformed Military**.

    Now this is seen by every soldier for instance and certainly most policemen. Who do not by the way share in the spoils.** It’s also known by nearly everyone who engages in commerce with you, and given often as a reason to avoid you, if that’s possible. As you have many constituents with hungry beaks – that’s yourselves of course – and you are always hiring it becomes harder to impossible to avoid you.

    And the much maligned demos know as well.

    The majority demos also knows they are not just disliked but actively hated by the elites, and has no representation.

    They’ve stopped voting. They are however engaged in an arms race.

    I don’t think the Singularity will bring many flowers and smiles, but as God is Just ..we’ll see.

    **cutting out cops and soldiers from the spoils, letting them fill up with a code of honor, preached to them but not practiced…this would not be seen as wise by the Ancients. By Ancients I mean every leader from cave dwellings to the 20th century.**

  6. PA says:

    It wasn’t that long ago, that the best progressives knew this [eugenics]”

    The progs are schizophrenic. At the least, they are not the perfectly unified FFFOL that Firepower wires about.

    Abortion has been their one non-negotiable over the past four decades. And no, it ain’t got nothing to do with “woman’s right to choose.”

  7. […] wishful thinking’ and ‘Dark arguments on immigration’ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: