I’m fed up with liberals believing that anti-immigration sentiment is driven by racism. Trump and Brexit were driven by the same forces, but how exactly can White people be racist against other White people, especially when Brits relations with Eastern Europeans have always been warm? Although there may be racism at the extreme, what liberals cannot forgive is homophily- the comfort and preference the less fortunate derive from their own culture.
This thread was inspired by an excellent article in Quillette on the subject of the politicisation of science. It’s titled The State of Nature.
The real problem is that those in scientific community skew heavily cosmopolitan liberal and cannot see that Donald Trump was and is a symptom, not the disease itself (if that's your political point of view). In a ground-breaking talk at Google Zeitgeist, historian Niall Ferguson tracked the history of populism in America, and it's a pattern which has largely been repeated across Europe, even going so far as turning into election gains in the somewhat misleadingly named Sweden Democrats. I would heartily recommend that anyone who wants to understand exactly what the fuck has been happening over the last six or seven years watch the YouTube talk, as well as read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.
First and foremost, anti-immigration sentiment is not caused by racism, although it can be at the extremes. Instead, the culprit is homophily, the preference for being surrounded by one's own culture, rather than the culture of others. The mistake that liberals make is that imagining that it's all a matter of experience- that people will grow to like people from other cultures, if they only give them a chance. It's not a matter of like- on an individual basis, conservatives and populists can be incredibly gracious, kind and friendly to migrants- what they object to is their own culture being washed away, derided and belittled as though it were worthless, when to them it amounts to the deliberate burning down of a cherished childhood home, complete with irreplaceable family photos and keepsakes from over the years.
Liberals believe that the Right is heartless in this respect, that they should have more compassion to those less fortunate than themselves, but what about the countless blue collar American Whites, Latinos and Blacks who have seen secure lifetime jobs disappear and their labour value and living standards fundamentally damaged by inward mass migration, destroying the power of labour unions and profiting the corporations with labour that amounts to the serfdom of neoliberalism?
Yes, there were other factors- offshoring and automation, but it's a compound problem not a cascade one. Foreign workers may only account for 12% of America's construction workface, but considering that the oil industry systemically tried to lobby and block Elon Musk from manufacturing EVs because they knew that only a 2% displacement of fuel-driven cars would collapse global oil prices, it's not hard to see how a far more substantial influx of a commodity like labour can devastate workers living standards and their contractual protections.
Because that's the other thing which Niall Ferguson found. Populism only activated when the blue collar class felt economically insecure, during each of the four times it's happened in American history the populism only triggered when the economy was experiencing a severe downturn- somewhat like the systemic erosion of blue collar labour over the past 40 years, in the cause of neoliberalism. mainstream media (other than Fox) may do everything in its power to block the economic insecurity argument from ever surfacing, instead preferring unjust narratives of racism, but the evidence is as written into history as clearly as it is demonstrated by opposition to White mass migration in the UK.
This doesn't mean that immigration should be stopped completely or even substantially reduced- Australia points the way to a far more sane and humane system- one which has seen the percentage of foreign-born citizens rise to 30%- nearly twice as high as in the other Western countries experiencing such division and political turmoil. There are many jobs for which no Western country has ever produced sufficient labour from within its own population- partly because they are highly cognitive, but also because they young native-born don't want them.
The service sector is a prime example of an industry in which blue collar males don't want to work, because most of the jobs tend to be low status, especially when compared to the trades, construction or manufacturing. The UK is currently experiencing a scarcity of seasonal agricultural labour to the extent that farmers have grown 16% less fruit, leading to rationing in many supermarkets. And, although the care industry is guaranteed to boom in the near future, and may seem a feasible source of future employment to the likes of Bill Gates, it's worth noting that it has one of the worst records for repetitive strain injury and other long-term workplace injuries going, so we might want to question the wisdom of planning the future of our own less fortunate native-born along these lines...
Unfortunately, like the recent cultural revolt amongst the Swedes, some aspects of the Australian might not sit well with the cosmopolitans. With her a White Brit, the Left may be comfortable with Miriam Margoyles being told in no uncertain terms that she has to change to fit Australian culture and consider herself an Aussie first and whatever else second, but they are less likely to be happy about people from Black and Brown cultures being told the same.
But what they fail to consider is that the psychology which favours homophily, ingroup, is largely a function of socio-economics and especially parental education. Ingroup is also strongest amongst African Americans and Latinos, which is probably why we have been generally seeing a drift to the Left amongst Whites since Trump, and a shift to the Right amongst Latinos, Black men and even Muslims. This is one thing that the proponents of Great Replacement Theory seem to miss- as the Left drifts ever Leftward, and living standards only get worse for blue collar America- Black men and Latinos will increasingly become the Right's natural allies. It's their kids and grandkids they really need to worry about.
Plus, it's at least structurally racist to argue for high immigration. For all the Right's focus on Values, the Black Family really collapsed during the deindustrialisation brought about by neoliberalism. High rates of male unemployment in Black communities destroyed the foundation of stable family formation- hypergamy. Women may fall for an attractive and charming rogue, popular amongst his peers- even have his kid- but they won't settle down with him unless he can financially contribute and has stable employment.
In the past, populism has only ever been solved by more conventional politicians effectively shutting down immigration for at least a generation. At least until now there simply hasn't been another solution. Australia points the way- their system has worked humanely and well for decades- although its worth noting that since they began to erode their blue collar protections, from the noughties onwards, they've begun to experience the growth of what can only be described as baby populism...
Western countries are going to need to make some very difficult decisions if they are to have any hope of stabilising back into the era of calm politics for which the centre yearns. The problem with meritocracy is that is has become univariate, mainly driven by educational success. Yes, you can be successful if you are extraordinary gifted as an athlete, have the voice of an angel or the camera loves you- but this is little more than a birth lottery. If you are connected, then perhaps you might be fortunate enough to apprentice as a plumber or an electrician- but some blue collar jobs have to pay at least two or three times as much as they do know, if we are to provide any hope for the roughly 50% of kids in almost all groups in the West who will never do well at school, and the only realistic way to do that is to limit labour supply in key areas, paired with technical training. Anything else, leaves the West a fundamentally unstable dystopia, with two warring factions divided over a chasm of honest misunderstanding, slander and deliberate mischaracterisation.
The tragedy of America is that Blue Collar Whites, Blacks and Latinos have common cause against the warring elites, on both sides, who directly benefit from their serfdom and continued disenfranchisement. That's the other aspect on which the economic analysis on the effects of migration on the socio-economic spectrum is clear on- it may be bad for bottom, but it's great for the top 10%!
Here is the Niall Ferguson talk at Google Zeitgeist:
Here is a link to a British pro-immigration site affiliated with Oxford University, which is at least honest enough to acknowledge that there are negative effects on the socio-economic spectrum through mass migration. What the economic analyses miss is that, whilst some in the bottom 50% might have marginally benefitted, it’s been an absolute disaster for blue collar males, for the simple reason that at least 85% of illegal immigrants, in particular, are working age males seeking blue collar work…
The studies are also clear on another thing- those most harmed by further migration are those who have most recently migrated, which may explain why many Latinos don’t hold the views on illegal immigration most liberals expect…
> Although there may be racism at the extreme, what liberals cannot forgive is homophily- the comfort and preference the less fortunate derive from their own culture.
That's the thing. Immigrants have always tended to move to wherever the center of gravity of their ethnic group happens to be and that's because people have a natural tendency to prefer the company of their own kind. Only whitey -- particularly Anglo whitey -- is told that this is a sin. We are told that we must welcome the end of our culture and way of life. Too much of this for too long slowly pushes people in the 'populist' direction and evil thoughts start bubbling up from the limbic brain -- which may be suppressed but which are there just the same.
Interesting Ray yes it is just the Anglos esp. who seem to be calked the oppressors. I know we came from Irish stock and while I have no relatives who can tell me about the potato famine I’ve heard some ugly stories. We certainly weren’t the establishment born with silver spoons in our mouths and the only privilege my family enjoyed was the one to work hard. Did we forfeit our victim status by abandoning our heritage? If I had any talent, I would take up clog dancing and fiddling, learn Gaelic and make space for and defend my heritage.
Yep, the Irish simply do not qualify for Victimhood over here, tho they wallow in it over there. The thing is that the hard facts of their victimization are very real, but Victimhood is more a state of mind -- a state of eternal self-pity that you and I are not entitled to and would probably not want even if we were.
Ironically, Irish Americans were comparable in socio-economic conditions to the African American community today. They managed to achieve quite powerful political power at a local level in the mistaken belief that political power could do anything to substantially help them. The violence rates were comparably high per 100,000 when one takes into account the fact that the numbers back then were woefully underreported- and it all boiled down to one simple reason.
There hasn't been a single successful society in the history of the world where fathers didn't raise boys collectively when they hit puberty. Men are good at teaching teenage boys how to channel their aggression into productive activities, and are more willing to make the distinction that whilst most parents love is unconditional. respect is conditional.
Of course, there have been matriarchal societies, but without exception boys are turned over to the supervision of men as soon as they hit the age where male puberty and the aggression it brings becomes a problem. And it's not just violence and aggression, Dr Raj Chetty's landmark research on the subject of social mobility proves that the percentage of fathers in a community is more important than the quality of the education- one presumes because plumbers and electricians are just as important to the running of a functional society as college professors and doctors, with their market value largely reflecting as much, once one accounts for nearly a decade spent in education and training.
Remember that riot in NYC in, IIRC, the 1860s when the Irish attacked the Blacks for being *above* them in the social hierarchy? Slaves were worth something, Irish were valueless.
> There hasn't been a single successful society in the history of the world where fathers didn't raise boys collectively when they hit puberty.
True, but the dysfunction of the Irish immigrants didn't hang on that, did it? The Irish had a tendency to violence and there was the problem with drink, but I don't recall reading anything about absent fathers. I myself put it mostly on historical oppression and on Market Forces -- there were simply more Irish immigrants than could be absorbed so the 'price' of their labor tanked. Andras would have loved it.
Yeah, they did grab political power, didn't they? Like Blacks today they formed a semi-permanent subclass of captured voters farmed by their supposed liberators.
True, but the dysfunction of the Irish immigrants didn't hang on that, did it?
It's a bit difficult to unearth salient figures from that era- but, for example, children given to orphanages by unwed Irish American mothers, were shocking compared to other groups. Prostitution was also a significant factor for Irish American immigrants- one of the few ways in which an unwed mother could make a living back in those days, unless it was a matter of secret shame...
Excellent points. One must categorize an orphan as 'absent father' too. I wonder if there's any hope of statistics on that -- the criminality or general failure of the kids who survived those orphanages. One can't help but think of Oliver Twist.
Good to have you back Geary.
> Although there may be racism at the extreme, what liberals cannot forgive is homophily- the comfort and preference the less fortunate derive from their own culture.
That's the thing. Immigrants have always tended to move to wherever the center of gravity of their ethnic group happens to be and that's because people have a natural tendency to prefer the company of their own kind. Only whitey -- particularly Anglo whitey -- is told that this is a sin. We are told that we must welcome the end of our culture and way of life. Too much of this for too long slowly pushes people in the 'populist' direction and evil thoughts start bubbling up from the limbic brain -- which may be suppressed but which are there just the same.
Interesting Ray yes it is just the Anglos esp. who seem to be calked the oppressors. I know we came from Irish stock and while I have no relatives who can tell me about the potato famine I’ve heard some ugly stories. We certainly weren’t the establishment born with silver spoons in our mouths and the only privilege my family enjoyed was the one to work hard. Did we forfeit our victim status by abandoning our heritage? If I had any talent, I would take up clog dancing and fiddling, learn Gaelic and make space for and defend my heritage.
Yep, the Irish simply do not qualify for Victimhood over here, tho they wallow in it over there. The thing is that the hard facts of their victimization are very real, but Victimhood is more a state of mind -- a state of eternal self-pity that you and I are not entitled to and would probably not want even if we were.
Ironically, Irish Americans were comparable in socio-economic conditions to the African American community today. They managed to achieve quite powerful political power at a local level in the mistaken belief that political power could do anything to substantially help them. The violence rates were comparably high per 100,000 when one takes into account the fact that the numbers back then were woefully underreported- and it all boiled down to one simple reason.
There hasn't been a single successful society in the history of the world where fathers didn't raise boys collectively when they hit puberty. Men are good at teaching teenage boys how to channel their aggression into productive activities, and are more willing to make the distinction that whilst most parents love is unconditional. respect is conditional.
Of course, there have been matriarchal societies, but without exception boys are turned over to the supervision of men as soon as they hit the age where male puberty and the aggression it brings becomes a problem. And it's not just violence and aggression, Dr Raj Chetty's landmark research on the subject of social mobility proves that the percentage of fathers in a community is more important than the quality of the education- one presumes because plumbers and electricians are just as important to the running of a functional society as college professors and doctors, with their market value largely reflecting as much, once one accounts for nearly a decade spent in education and training.
Remember that riot in NYC in, IIRC, the 1860s when the Irish attacked the Blacks for being *above* them in the social hierarchy? Slaves were worth something, Irish were valueless.
> There hasn't been a single successful society in the history of the world where fathers didn't raise boys collectively when they hit puberty.
True, but the dysfunction of the Irish immigrants didn't hang on that, did it? The Irish had a tendency to violence and there was the problem with drink, but I don't recall reading anything about absent fathers. I myself put it mostly on historical oppression and on Market Forces -- there were simply more Irish immigrants than could be absorbed so the 'price' of their labor tanked. Andras would have loved it.
Yeah, they did grab political power, didn't they? Like Blacks today they formed a semi-permanent subclass of captured voters farmed by their supposed liberators.
True, but the dysfunction of the Irish immigrants didn't hang on that, did it?
It's a bit difficult to unearth salient figures from that era- but, for example, children given to orphanages by unwed Irish American mothers, were shocking compared to other groups. Prostitution was also a significant factor for Irish American immigrants- one of the few ways in which an unwed mother could make a living back in those days, unless it was a matter of secret shame...
Excellent points. One must categorize an orphan as 'absent father' too. I wonder if there's any hope of statistics on that -- the criminality or general failure of the kids who survived those orphanages. One can't help but think of Oliver Twist.