Avoiding the Manifest

First off, I want to make it clear that the particular point in the post I’m linking to – genetics is not identical with culture, nor is race – is perfectly true. Anyone arguing otherwise is quite as wrong as Mr. Wright and Mr. Simon. Genetics are one aspect among many affecting how cultures and subcultures form in communities.

That said, Mr. Simon said this:

Why do you think that people should be entitled to be able to associate with other people, if those other people want to exclude them for any reason is beyond me!

Having people in a country of 300 million people spread over 3 million square miles does not equate to forcing you to associate with them. If you want to exclude people from your social circle, fine. If you want to exclude them from your country, that is another matter entirely. To put it bluntly, you are asking the law to forbid brown people from settling a thousand miles away from you, and that is a ridiculous demand.

This comment actually astonishes with me. There is one very obvious reason you might not want immigrants coming into the country, a reason that is unavoidable and has a profound effect on the country: Naturalized immigrants can vote.

For that matter, Mr. Simon has just about made a sterling argument in favor of illegal immigration as well: What, you have a problem with brown people settling thousands of miles away from you? What are you, a racist or something?

That he denies that there might be a noticeable effect from thousands or even millions of people coming into the country, that there is no way that such a situation could effect you personally, strikes me as unbelievably oblivious. It seems like such a crazy comment I wonder if I’m misunderstanding what he means.

The quick thing to point out is that he is responding specifically to the point that we will need to “associate” with these people, which is indeed technically not true. This doesn’t pass the smell test to me; it is obvious that the entire conversation was about whether or not we should be allowing certain groups of immigrants, from certain areas, with certain philosophical and cultural baggage, into the country en masse. Mr. Huntsman, the original commenter, may have worded it poorly but I don’t believe for a hot second Mr. Simon is stupid enough to think that’s what the point of contention really was.

For the record, I don’t oppose all immigration, though I think we should probably close it off now. Immigration ideally is safe, legal, and rare, with applicants for immigration carefully picked based on need and willingness to assimilate with the greater society. Perhaps that is one good reason for those forms G.K. Chesterton laughed at. In any case, mass immigration of any kind should probably be avoided.

The great irony here is that the concept of the proposition nation can actually be defended more successfully in a society that doesn’t allow voting!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Avoiding the Manifest

  1. Zippy says:

    “How does gay marriage affect your marriage?”

    With liberals political authority is ultimately atomistic centrally enforced self contradictory freedom and equal rights all the way down.

    The bizarre thing is that right liberals really believe that they are opposed to left liberalism, as opposed to its obstinate enablers.

  2. Crude says:

    To put it bluntly, you are asking the law to forbid brown people from settling a thousand miles away from you, and that is a ridiculous demand.

    Seriously, and I know you say you respect him, but this is the whole reason why ‘cuck’ gained traction as a term. It’s this limp-wristed pussed-out way of trying to capture the moral high ground with SJW style shaming – all for the glorious cause of fighting for Team Victim.

    For one thing, if John C. Wright is defending this loon’s ranting, then shame on him. He’s saying, in essence, ‘Trust the federal government. They only want to let a few po widdle immigwants in, you big meanie.’ Yeah, and years ago, they swore up and down that immigration wouldn’t change the ethnic makeup of the country. And then there was a mass amnesty, which was to be the last of the issue once and for all. And now, cheering on the elimination of whites as a majority in the country they founded – while people talk about how whites will REALLY get what’s coming to them THEN – we have Team Cuck still trying to chide people for daring to suspect that we’re being had again.

    Or that maybe, just maybe, we should nip this problem in the bud before it grows into a brand new problem. Once upon a time France was only letting in a mere few poor refugees from a war torn region (they’re all war-torn, because they’re typically at war in one way or another.) Now they’ve got around a tenth of their country, and a whole lot of extremists, doing interesting things with their culture.

    The next time France has some other act of terrorism – give it a month – Simon should be made to go over and personally pick up, clean, and bury the bodies of the natives. Let him sing the praises of the brown to the victim’s faces. Let him sing the praises of mosques in Paris while he’s at it.

    We’ll make that a pay per view event, and donate the money to the survivors.

    • His views just confuse me. I know that he and John are both against the mass influx of refugees. I’m pretty sure both are also in favor of slowing down immigration significantly, though not 100% sure.

      But that comment makes absolutely no sense. Voting is the obvious one, but I can rattle off other reasons we might not want thousands or millions of people from a foreign culture settling in our country pretty easily if I wanted to as well.

      If you want to know why I like him, read this: https://bondwine.com/2008/04/29/the-taste-for-magic/

      Or this: https://bondwine.com/2014/07/05/death-by-bebop/

      Better yet, purchase “Writing Down the Dragon”. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Tom Simon is no loon.

      From “The taste for magic”:

      [George R. R.] Martin confines the magic of Westeros to a few mysterious artifacts like his gigantic wall of ice, plus a couple of religions whose most mysterious quality is their nearly total failure to have the slightest influence on anybody’s conduct. Even Monty Python’s King Arthur knelt to praise God after vanquishing the Black Knight; but Martin’s protagonists never kneel for anything, and one has to wonder how the ‘septons’ make their living. Here we see a sort of inverted fantasy, in which the author is too afraid of his own hard-boiled rationalism to allow even the amount of supernatural influence that most people still take for granted in this world. Westeros is not more magical than its nearest historical model, England during the Wars of the Roses, but less; it is even less magical than England today, which takes some doing.

      When he’s good, he’s great. Even his fiction is excellent.

      • Crude says:

        I’m sure you have your reasons, and I’m sure those reasons are good. I’m not the sort of the guy who goes ‘That guy has repugnant views, therefore all he ever does is bad and all his art is bad.’ Never was my thing.

        It’s one thing to disagree. But that ‘brown people’ shit, that’s straight out of the SJW playbook of ‘you’re a horrible person because those are BROWN PEOPLE, my God did you hear me BROWN, don’t you know you have to bow down and crawl whenever they are invoked’.

        As for their being against the influx of refugees – all I’ll say is, so’s Paul Ryan.

      • Tom recently admitted to me as well that part of it was merely that he lost his temper too. I imagine he’d take some of the comments back if he could.

      • Tom Simon says:

        But that ‘brown people’ shit, that’s straight out of the SJW playbook of ‘you’re a horrible person because those are BROWN PEOPLE, my God did you hear me BROWN, don’t you know you have to bow down and crawl whenever they are invoked’.

        The same person who was most forcefully expressing the Alt-Right view also held that Irish, Germans, Slavs, Spaniards and Italians were unfit for American citizenship, per se and en masse, and should never have been admitted into the country.

        I suggest you read the argument before opening your yap about it.

  3. Tom Simon says:

    This doesn’t pass the smell test to me; it is obvious that the entire conversation was about whether or not we should be allowing certain groups of immigrants, from certain areas, with certain philosophical and cultural baggage, into the country en masse.

    The entire conversation was about whether immigrants from certain areas were NECESSARILY afflicted with philosophical and cultural baggage which meant that NONE of them were fit to be admitted into the country UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Some of the commenters went so far as to recommend deportation of those already here, and the division of the U.S.A. into racially segregated countries.

    I kept careful track: The only immigrant groups that nobody advocated banning from the country were English, Scottish, Dutch, and (possibly) French. (I imagine the failure to exclude the French was an oversight.)

    Next time you choose to attack my views, you might bother asking me what those views are. They are as follows: Legal immigration should be greatly curtailed; the laws against illegal immigration should be strictly enforced; but when immigrants are admitted, there should be no racial test for admission, and in the ordinary course of events, no ideological test.

    During a protracted war with the ideology of radical politicized Islam, the exclusion of Muslim immigrants may be a necessary expedient. But how are you going to keep your own people from converting? You can’t deport Cat Stevens.

    Which brings up the other problem: Nobody is proposing to do anything meaningful about the largest and most dangerous source of radical subversives who wish to abolish your constitutional form of government and replace it with a kind of bureaucratic totalitarianism in which all forms of success are punished and all forms of failure are subsidized. That source is your own education system, abetted by your own media. As I said in one of my comments on the matter, you are trying to mend a leak in the roof while the house is being flooded by a broken water main.

    If the defects of American education were remedied – if American children were not routinely taught to hate their own country and swallow (unsourced and unadmitted) Marxist-Leninist ideas – there would be a strong American identity to which all immigrants would readily understand the need to assimilate. Moreover, your country would then be attractive chiefly to those immigrants who already agreed with your principles, and repellent to those who rejected them.

    If you now wish to continue abusing me, I cannot well prevent you. But I would ask that you abuse me for the positions I actually hold, and not for those that you father onto me for the purpose of making me a scapegoat.

    • The entire conversation was about whether immigrants from certain areas were NECESSARILY afflicted with philosophical and cultural baggage which meant that NONE of them were fit to be admitted into the country UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

      That is not what John Huntsman said in the comment you were responding to, at least. I did not say it. Scholar-At-Arms did not.

      Now, what people DID say was that there might be certain groups we do not want to let enter the country – everybody from that group – because it is impossible for us to judge every single person on an individual basis flawlessly, and what John Huntsman DID say, that you were responding to, is that each country should have the right to decide who they do or do not want to admit to the country. My criticism of you stands.

      Which brings up the other problem: Nobody is proposing to do anything meaningful about the largest and most dangerous source of radical subversives …

      The thread was not about that. If you want to write an article about it, by all means. I promise to share it far and wide. I certainly agree.

      But I would ask that you abuse me for the positions I actually hold, and not for those that you father onto me for the purpose of making me a scapegoat.

      To the contrary, there are very few people I in the world I would want to make into a scapegoat less.

      • Tom Simon says:

        Now, what people DID say was that there might be certain groups we do not want to let enter the country – everybody from that group – because it is impossible for us to judge every single person on an individual basis flawlessly,

        No, they said that there are certain groups we do not want to let enter the country because mere membership in those groups makes one unfit to participate in the society of the American Republic.

        If your standard for anything is that you must possess the capacity to judge every single person flawlessly, you can forbid anything, because no human being has such a capacity. It is pointless to argue anything on such a basis, and I do not suppose that you really believe for a moment that that is a viable standard for right conduct.

    • I also note that you’re back to the assumption that “Shouldn’t be allowed to be an American = subhuman”. You apparently consider it the obvious thing that if you don’t want somebody in your country, you think they’re inferior to you. I don’t consider this obvious at all – and for all your talk about assuming things about opponents, the possibility of asking whether or not they thought whites were superior to other races never occurred to you.

      You’re like John in a lot of ways. You’re smarter than everyone else and you know it. But this is also your biggest flaw.

      • Tom Simon says:

        The thing is, people are arguing that blacks, Irishmen, Chinese, or what have you, are unfit to participate in American society: that they have some flaw which makes them (but not Englishmen or Scotsmen) unable to abide by the founding principles of the American republic. They are also arguing that such people can never be assimilated to the culture appropriate to that republic. If they lack that capacity and the lack cannot be remedied, then they are inferior. This is the simple logical consequence of your position, and there is no way around it. If you were in the habit of reasoning logically instead of calling names, this might be apparent to you.

      • The thing is, people are arguing that blacks, Irishmen, Chinese, or what have you, are unfit to participate in American society: that they have some flaw which makes them (but not Englishmen or Scotsmen) unable to abide by the founding principles of the American republic.

        And if that IS true in the aggregate? Is it racist?

        I think that’s a gross oversimplification, mind, and think the truth is a whole lot more complex. But why are you equating fitness to take part in the American Republic as synonymous with human dignity? Or even intelligence?

        If you were in the habit of reasoning logically instead of calling names, this might be apparent to you.

        I did not and will not call you a single name. You, however, have seen fit to insult several people.

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