Jared Taylor on the history of U.S. immigration policy:
Jared Taylor on the history of U.S. immigration policy:
Good news from SCOTUS today:
The Supreme Court delivered another setback to affirmative action Tuesday, easing the way for states to bar public colleges from considering race in admissions and to prohibit officials from taking race into account in hiring and contracting.
The decision upheld a constitutional amendment in Michigan voters approved in 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.
The outcome of the case was not a shock, but the lopsided, 6-2 vote signaled the court’s continuing rightward shift on issues of race.
Eight states now have bans on affirmative action. California lawmakers briefly considered a measure that would have turned back its ban on using affirmative action in public university admissions, but the proposal was dropped.
The court’s ruling is likely to embolden opponents of racial preferences, who have already outlined plans to put Michigan-style constitutional amendments on the ballot in states including Ohio, Missouri and Utah.
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that there’s no constitutional problem with banning preferential treatment… and that federal, state and local governments who want to do that can do so — and I hope that they will,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
“My fiancée is Jewish. How can I be anti-Semitic? Is he out of his mind? Forty years in the music business — I’ve worked alongside Jewish people my whole life. And I’m anti-Semitic? It’s ridiculous. I think he’s trying to sell his book and it’s a pretty sad commentary if he has to resort to verbal slurs and innuendo.”
“Kafka, however unmistakable the ethnic source of his ‘liveliness’ and alienation, avoided Jewish parochialism, and his allegories of pained awareness take upon themselves the entire European—that is to say, predominantly Christian—malaise.”
– John Updike, from his Introduction to Kafka’s Collected Stories.
“When Kafka declared the impossibility of writing German, it was plainly not the overriding mastery of his language that was in doubt, but its ownership—not that German did not belong to him, but that he did not belong to it. German was unassailably at the root of his tongue: might he claim it societally, nationally, as a natural inheritance, as an innate entitlement? The culture that touched him at all points had a prevailing Jewish coloration.”
– Cynthia Ozick, “How Kafka Actually Lived“
Billy Bob Thornton on Hollywood’s depictions of the South:
Interviewer: You’re from Arkansas. Does it bother you the way the South is portrayed on film and TV?
Thornton: For the most part, it’s a shame. There’s always been a slight prejudice against the South, actually not slight. I was trying to be kind. There’s always been a prejudice about the South and Southerners in movies because they are portrayed as bigots. Generally they’re cartoon characters and when they do romantic comedies about the South, they use that broad accent and all the women are these catty, Southern belles. It’s just kind of silly.
In “Welcome to Militant England“, Rafael Behr provides some nuance and political context to the UKIP’s rise in England:
A few years ago Ukip was seen as the by-product of a Tory split. But now it appeals to disillusioned voters across the political spectrum and of all classes…
The rise of Ukip has been the most dynamic political element in the current parliament. Opinion polls show little exchange of voters between Labour and Conservative. Ed Miliband’s support was bolstered by left-leaning Liberal Democrats, but that defection happened almost immediately on Clegg’s decision to form a coalition with the Tories. Thanks to the perversities baked into our electoral system, Ukip’s surge could easily put Miliband in Downing Street, by taking votes from David Cameron in key marginal seats. For that reason, Labour is largely silent about the party that threatens to win the European parliamentary elections in May. “I’m not that interested in Nigel Farage,” Miliband said recently when asked about the Ukip leader. He should be.
Only a few years ago, Ukip was widely seen as a Tory schism – a secessionist republic of Little Englander reaction against Cameron’s efforts to modernise his party. That view no longer holds. While Ukip still takes more votes from the Tories than from anyone else, it plainly appeals to disillusionment from across the political spectrum, irrespective of class and region. Farage’s popularity is a symptom of something more potent. Little England is the retreat of the besieged; Ukip is animating a spirit of resistance.
In a lesson for some imagined third party here in the States, Behr notes the UKIP’s success in nicking off votes from Labour:
I met people who would reel off a list of complaints that tally exactly with the issues on which Labour campaigns – job insecurity, zero-hours contracts, soaring energy bills, the “bedroom tax”, cuts to public services. They would then declare an intention not to vote at all, or to support Ukip. When people did say they planned to back Labour, the reason was most often ancestral loyalty. (“We’re all Labour round here.” “Always Labour.”)
Ed Miliband held the seat thanks to a strong local candidate with a ground operation that knew where Labour supporters lived and made sure they voted. The potential for a better-organised Ukip machine to win over areas that were once dominated by the traditional left is beyond doubt.
“If you look at the Labour Ukippers, some of them are the kind of people who might once have been shop stewards,” says John Denham MP, the former Labour cabinet minister who served as an adviser to Ed Miliband. “For them, trade unionism was a defensive thing economically, and a defensive thing in terms of ‘our people against the bosses’. Those people feel they’ve lost that power to fight against unwelcome change and defend their interests.”
This view is supported by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, of the Universities of Nottingham and Manchester, respectively, whose study of Ukip’s rise, Revolt on the Right, was published in March. The book identifies the potency of the new anti-politics radicalism in social and demographic forces that have been building for generations. The authors chart the creeping monopolisation of centre-left politics by a middle-class, white-collar, university-educated elite whose lives are remote from the concerns of the old industrial working class. Civil liberties, environmentalism, feminism, racial equality and European integration became the emblems of moderate left opinion, when the most pressing matters for historically left-wing voters were low wages, a lack of social housing and job insecurity – all of which could be filtered through suspicion of immigrants.
During the boom years, the benefits of open borders and market liberalisation were obvious to a skilled, affluent and mobile elite. They were less clear to those at the sharp end of competition for work and housing (although everyone enjoyed budget holidays and cheap manufactured imports). In reality, there was less divergence of economic interest than there was cultural polarisation. The liberal determination to expunge prejudice from public discourse was interpreted as denial of permission to be cross about immigration. That feeling seems especially strong among older, low-skilled, white men, whom Goodwin and Ford characterise as feeling “left behind”: “Already disillusioned by the economic shifts that left them lagging behind other groups in society, these voters now feel their concerns about immigration and threats to national identity have been ignored or stigmatised as expressions of prejudice by an established political class that appears more sensitive to protecting migrant newcomers and ethnic minorities than listening to the concerns of economically struggling, white Britons.”
Within the United Kingdom, these crises of demographics and political correctness have caused a resurgence in the sentiment of ‘Englishness’ (e.g. national identity based on, I would argue, race) over ‘Britishness’ (e.g., the more secular, non-racial notion of implicit in the term “U.K.”):
The years of New Labour’s decline and fall coincided with a rise in English self-awareness. In a 2013 survey by the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, 60 per cent of respondents felt their Englishness to be more important than their Britishness, with only 16 per cent feeling the opposite. Some 60 per cent also said they had come to feel this way more strongly in recent years. This was true across social and geographical groups with the notable exception of black and ethnic-minority communities in England, which still prefer Britishness.
There is a number of explanations. Scottish and Welsh devolution and the rise of nationalism in both countries raised the salience of Englishness as the least politically assertive identity in the UK. Meanwhile, the Tories had been expelled from Scotland and most of Wales and proceeded to define themselves by hostility to the EU. So the main political opposition at Westminster was simultaneously nationalistic in tone and English in composition.
It also seems plausible that Englishness came to be a haven of self-identification for people who felt excluded from the New Labour carnival of modish urbanity precisely because Britishness had been appropriated to that cause. “That Nineties thing was such a small group of people, nearly all of whom lived in London,” notes John Denham. “Most of the country was left outside that dialogue.”
The Brits have a tradition of politicians, usually conservative, also being intellectuals. In The New Statesman, Jesse Norman, “the MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire”, has written an excellent piece on conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott:
… Oakeshott suggests: “In political activity . . . men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel.” A modest and fastidious aspiration it is, and quite out of keeping with the postwar drive for jobs, homes and prosperity. And yet that modesty and fastidiousness feel strangely liberating today, now that we have seen the rationalistic excesses of totalitarian societies; as politicians are forced to acknowledge both their own limitations in power and those of the state; and while western societies wrestle with the social effects of our highly materialistic and narrowly economic cultures.
As political reflection, this vision owes more to Edmund Burke than Oakeshott was perhaps prepared to acknowledge. But Oakeshott was undoubtedly a more purely philosophical thinker, who joined a Humean scepticism with a desire to interrogate the deepest aspects of human activity and experience in the tradition of Spinoza and Hegel. His eye is always a conditionalising one: for him philosophy has no absolutes, except that all human experience is corban to its presuppositions. Only through an awareness of this can philosophy “stand on its own feet”. It follows that the modern yearning for objectivity, for a suppositionless authority underwriting human action through claims of science or religion or national identity, is as intellectually spurious as it is disastrous in practice.
The very idea of rationalism is thus one expression of a much deeper analysis by Oakeshott of human experience as divided into different “modes”, or organising conceptual frameworks, through which we encounter the world; it is what occurs when the quantitative categories of science are confused with the very different categories to be found within history and practice…
In my mind, within the craft of songwriting, “Easter Theatre” is as close to perfection as is humanly possible.
Odin mounts the tree
Bleeds for you and me
Splashing on the lamb
Gamboling with spring’s step
Buds will laugh and burst
Racing to be first
Turning all the soil
As the promptress’ fingers through her spinning script…
He manages to present the most powerful and systematic perspective on the fundamental issues.
This is one of the best columns he’s written, a must-read.
The latest from Kevin MacDonald.
In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her](an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.
The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definitionof “precipice” is “the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation”—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the “de facto state of Israel,” a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.
In (of all places) Forbes magazine, research neuroscientist Marc Ettlinger has a primer on the way in which materialist explanations of consciousness fail at the most basic philosophic levels (“What Are Some Concise Ways To Convince People That Consciousness Is Not An Emergent Property?”)
[E]mergentism, in this context, is simply camouflaging the supernatural wolf in the sheep’s clothing of pretend science and pretend explanation. It is merely renaming the philosophical imperative (and perhaps belief) of monism and materialism as something that sounds explanatory.