Saturday, November 2, 2013

The Melticultural Multing Pot

There are two schools of thought on immigration:  1. It's the coolest thing ever!  People willing to work for next to nothing are good for the economy. A surplus of cheap labor causes everybody's wages to rise. It's great for the economy. We have no right to tell people they can't come here. Immigrants are all great hard-working, enterprising people who don't commit crimes. All of these points are agreed upon by the vast majority of liberals, neocons, and libertarians.  And 2. Basically, the opposite of all that nonsense in #1.

Fact is, when you have a surplus of something, be it strawberries, cell phones, potrzebies, or human labor, the price of it goes down.  We have too many people unemployed as it is, and too many people who are employed aren't getting paid enough. The way to solve that is not to bring in yet more surplus labor. All economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx understand that.

Having a small cabal of rich entrepreneurs get richer is not necessarily good for the economy, especially when one way they get rich is by using cheap labor from immigrants, whose paltry wages are supplemented by the taxpayer in the form of food stamps and many, many other social giveaways. That's called privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.

All nations, yes, even the nation of American Exceptionalism, have the right to determine who crosses into their borders, and under what conditions.

Some immigrants are hard-working and enterprising.  Some aren't. Some are criminals and con men.

And on and on.  But here's the fun part.  I was having the usual discussion about this with a typical White liberal hipster on the net. I pointed out that if he thought all liberals agreed with him, he should read Dick Lamm on the subject of immigration.  He checked him out, and his reply was basically that Lamm was against multiculturalism, and was therefore a racist. That's the first point — he didn't understand that race and culture are contrasts in this context. The second point is that, in typical liberal fashion, he didn't refute Lamm's argument, but just called him names. The discussion continued, with me stating that Lamm is right, and that multiculturalism is corrosive, and I got the exquisite reaction that I've immortalized in the above quibcag. Let's deconstruct:

In the first place, like so many people, especially liberals, Typical doesn't actually think, he just strings nice-sounding buzz words together. When he wants to dispute what you say, he says "bigot," or "racist," or "Nazi," or something like that.  When he wants to make something sound attractive and benign, he uses "good" words and phrases, like "progressive," or "caring," or "multicultural," or "melting pot."  But, ah, there's the rub. Instead of actually thinking here, he just used two nice terms, "multicultural" and "melting pot," without realizing that they're bloody opposites of each other.  Now, with his fellow groovy hipsters, that doesn't matter, because they don't think either, but are content just to listen to his soothing terminology and, well, groove on it.  But of course, to a thinking person, it's a ridiculous statement.

You see, America and immigration were for decades a matter of assimilation, which is what "melting pot" refers to.  The idea was that Irishmen and Germans and Poles and Syrians, etc. etc. came here and did their damnedest to become Americans. They feverishly adopted American language, folkways, religion, morality, patriotism, and political theory. They were proud to do that, and typically despised any of their fellow immigrants who resisted assimilation. Assimilation is about becoming a part of a new culture, because it includes all those other features.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is the doctrine preaching non-assimilation. It advocates foreign cultures living side-by-side in grand cooperation and mutual love and respect, in theory, but in practice, it means the decline of American culture in favor of any and all other cultures, from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe. It means special privileges and exemptions for foreign cultures, and severe limitations and sanctions against our native culture.  It means a lot of self-destructive behavior, in short.

But the point here is that multiculturalism and melting pots are night and day, total opposite and contradictory concepts, and our Typical American Liberal doesn't know the difference. Anybody out there have any such nonthinking liberal stories?

4 comments:

  1. Recently had reason to think of following. My respect for other religions as predicated by the First Amendment requires that I respect and if necessary use deadly force to protect other people's right to practice Islam. However, I am cognizant that Islam in fact requires its followers to force me to join their faith if they have the muscle to do so. Bottom line, many people who claim protection from multiculturalism refuse to practice it themselves. Thinking about this too much usually causes me to buy an extra box or two of hollowpoints
    I have also noticed that while Latinos can assimilate quite quickly and thoroughly, it suits the convenience of liberals, who thus gain clients, and racist faux conservatives, who thus have an excuse to deny rights to Latinos, to discourage this assimilation. Sadly too many Latinos listen to their enemies and false friends.
    I refrain from commenting on other groups experiences in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nowadays, it's preferred for liberals to say America is a "Salad bowl" because now even assimilation is bad. But yes, many still mistakenly use the "Melting pot" metaphor, which used to be the radical liberal idea. Foot in door technique.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Two other things are often used by immigration advocates which don't match reality

    One is their use of the Statue of Liberty as a symbol for open borders. The Statue of Liberty was in fact built to celebrate US independence which would include the right for the US to set immigration policy. That stupid poem about “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses” was not even put on the base of the statue until 19 years later

    Second is Elis Island which is also used as a symbol for immigration but in fact was built to keep out “your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses” It was suppose to weed out anyone who would be a burden on the US or cause trouble in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our immigration policies, or lack thereof, will be the death of our civilization. Mark my words.

    Amerika will not survive intact they way we know her now. The liberal elite are going to force integration (think Section 8, tax payer redistribution, etc.) with their laws and with their police state. The only hope that we have is that the whole damned economy falls apart and we're able to do a HARD-RESET. This means segregation of the leftists from the rest of society, with what ever means are needed.

    Leftists are the bane of any civilization and they must be treated as such.

    ReplyDelete