Saturday, September 26, 2020

Notes on Matthew Yglesias' Call for a Billion Americans via Mass Immigration-Invasion

For Steve Sailer's criticism of Matthew Yglesias' book One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger, click the following link:

Billionaires for one billion Americans or a billion minions for billionaire oligarchs. It all depends on the perspective. To a cattle rancher, what matters is how many heads of cows, not how they fare in ever more crowded conditions. Does a pig farmer care about the well-being of his pigs? No, he doesn't care if they're crowded together and can hardly move as long as it means more profits for him. Same with chicken farmers. So, for billionaires, a 'billion Americans' just means more livestock. Matthew Yglesias is their scribe and spokesman, especially because many billionaires are Jewish and he is one too.
Yglesias’ main argument for adding 666,666,666 immigrants is that this would help us compete with populous China.
China's main advantage isn't population per se but relative homogeneity(as even non-Han Chinese are mostly East Asian). India has a population equal to China's but is deeply divided and ineffective. Why? Far greater diversity and caste mentality. US has increasing diversity and the rise of a caste-mentality due to both economic and ideological factors. Economics favor Jews, Asians, and elite whites, whereas ideology favors the consecration of blacks, many of whom are mired in socio-economic problems. Jews and homos enjoy both economic success and ideology-idolatry, whereas many whites do well economically but are vilified ideologically while many blacks, though placed on the pedestal, are stuck with the panhandle. China's capitalism encourages enterprise, and its communist legacy ensures some degree of 'national socialism' to sustain a sense of unity and equal justice. Still, this is easier to pull off in a nation that is more than 90% Han Chinese and nearly 97% Asian(of the yellow variety). If MORE PEOPLE is the formula for China's success, then India and Africa should be major players in the global power game. But India would probably do better with a population of around 500 million, and MORE PEOPLE in Africa have only led to desperate scramble for other parts of the world. For sure, the US has benefited from brain-drain immigration, taking in smart people from around the world; this is where China can't hope to compete with the US. It seems the best of the Greeks and Irish came to the US. Greece and Ireland now seem to be run and inhabited by second-raters. US has also taken in lots of smart Chinese and Hindus. Quality trumps quantity. No wonder Japan has a bigger economy than India or all of Africa. But the danger of new quality is it may take over as the new elites, and that is precisely what happened with Jews in America. If the US hadn't taken in Jews, most likely Christian Anglo/Germans would still be ruling the place. Now, why are Jews not threatened by New Quality? They correctly see Chinese and other East Asians as essentially weak in identity once separated from their homelands. They regard Hindus as more identity-oriented, but Asian-Indians are a divided lot. Also, Jewish Power relies on support of Whites and Christians who, for reasons of Holocaust Cult and Biblical Prophecy, feel okay with Jews. They don't feel the same for Chinese or Hindus. So-called White Guilt is almost entirely about Jews and blacks. Even American Indians don't much count(as their tragedy is a lesson in the dangers of mass-immigration-invasion, as with the case of the Palestinians). In a way, 'white guilt' is more a social and political construct than the product of white conscience or 'pathological altruism'. If indeed whites are more conscientious by nature, why aren't they ashamed of what they've done to the Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims by their support of Zionism and Wars for Israel? Why aren't whites as guilt-ridden over American Indians as over blacks? It's because white minds are molded by academia and media to weep and atone for certain groups but not for others. If indeed white conscience was genuine, it would follow its own moral logic than be led by the nose by the Power. Anyway, Jewish elites figure East Asians are too mellow to challenge Jews. Hindus are too divided and distrusting of one another. Unlike Judaism that binds Jews together, Hinduism has always divided Indians along caste/color lines. As for the teeming masses of immigrants without elite prospects, they are just more serfs, peons, consumers, foot-soldiers for empire, cattle.
In short, Yglesias seems to imply, America must invite the world in order to invade the world. Just think of the possibilities! If we had two-thirds of a billion more immigrants, we could conscript a humongous army and militarily conquer the world…which would finally give us some place to dump all the teeming masses of immigrants.
I doubt he has such in mind. After all, most immigrants are coming for jobs and stuff, not to join the US military. As the military relies mostly on high-tech, manpower is far less important. Unless the US is planning to invade Russia or fight a long bloody war with China, manpower in the military isn't an issue. Besides, Americans have no stomach for wars with high casualties. Iraq War killed only a fraction of lives lost in the Vietnam War but upset a lot of people. As many Americans have few or just one child, they don't want them dead in combat. The only effective way to increase military personnel would be with the draft but no one wants it, especially the elites. Many elites, especially Jews, protested against the Vietnam War because they might be drafted and sent into steaming jungles infested with Viet Cong guerrillas. But once Richard Nixon ended the draft, the protests faded fast. The elites don't much care as long as they aren't the ones to end up in body bags. Americans are now are lured into the military with money and benefits, which has made the military far more expensive, but that also means the military cannot have too many people. As for INVADE THE WORLD, the plan is not for the US to invade the world but to steer the Third World to invade the First World with the exception of Israel. Jews have the mindset of 'nationalism for me, not for thee'. Jewish Power sees national unity of any gentile nation as an obstacle to Jewish penetration and influence. So, it seeks to increase Diversity in both Poland and Japan. Any kind of Diversity is okay as long as it allows Jewish Globalists and their minions to play divide-and-rule, especially by guilt-baiting the native majority with charges of 'racism' against the immigrant/migrant communities. And as the elites of Japan, Poland, and other nations are influenced by US media and academia, they go along with the suicidal nonsense. US leads, others follow. Look how Canada, UK, and Sweden all accepted their own form of 'Americanization' by reformulating their nations as those of 'immigrants'. So, Yglesias' plan isn't to make the US literally invade the world. Rather, it is for the US to serve as the role model for all other First World gentile nations to open up and invite diversity. That means, while Israel gets ever more Jewish, other First World Nations get more Diverse. So, the greater unity of Jews shall exploit the greater divisions among the goyim. Yglesias mentions China, but he thinks more like the British Imperialists in India. As a small minority-elite, the Brits often found Indian diversity useful in playing region against region, Islam against Hindus, caste against caste, that is until Gandhi and Jinnah, at least for awhile, banded together to oust the British.
Seriously, Yglesias argues, we couldn’t have won WWII or the Cold War without a big population.
If US already had a big enough population during WWII, why did it need more? Why does the US need a billion? Of course, 'big' is relative. China now has 1.3 billion, but its population was considered super-big when it was half that 50 yrs ago. Also, modern technology in agriculture has made it possible to feed many more people. Who would have thought India could sustain a population of 1.3 billion that is poised to take over China's(if it hasn't already). And some say African population will be in the billions in coming decades. Still, one crucial difference between US and China/India is the former developed as a Big Land for a growing population. There was bigness as empty space to be filled. Also, US population grew along with technological development that made life easier despite bigger numbers. In contrast, Chinese and Indian populations expanded in a Malthusian trap that wasn't solved or half-solved before the coming of modern technology to those parts. Mechanization of agriculture means that a nation doesn't need tons of laborers to produce food. Only 2% of US population works in agriculture. The value of More People to the modern world is as producers and consumers. But unless Yglesias and his ilk are willing to promote economic nationalism and bring back factory jobs(and slow down advancement in mechanization), more people will not mean more production. A lot of people who come to Europe just end up living on the dole. Still, don't More People have value as More Consumers? But More Consumers without More Production sounds like an economy based on More Debt. (If consumption is key, why not create robots that consume? Have robots to go some fast food joint and order burger and fries.)
Of course, mid-20th-century USA was far more unified, due to the immigration shutdown in the 1920s that wisely ruled that no interest groups would be allowed to use immigration to change the country’s ethnic balance. Hence, the political system was more cooperative and functional than today...
But in retrospect, maybe immigration-restriction wasn't such a good idea in the 1920s. As race was a factor in immigration, more immigration would have meant more White Immigrants. It would have made the US whiter. And as the immigrants came from different parts of Europe, their only hope of unity and assimilation was by learning English and adopting the Anglo-American model. Also, European emigration to the US might have alleviated economic conditions in Europe, thereby lessening the threats of both communism and fascism. In a way, a billion Americans isn't a totally terrible idea. Ideally, the US should have stopped at 250 million, if only for nature's sake. But US can easily accommodate a billion people as it has the best land in the world. If India, a nation 1/3 the size of the US, can hold 1.3 billion that is still growing, the US can hold a billion. The habitable space in Japan is only that of Indiana, but it has over 100 million people. There are still lots of empty spaces in the US. If US could have a billion people who are mostly white, it might be doable, even a worthy goal. But of course, a Billion Americans means 250 million whites being outnumbered by 750 million non-whites. It'd be like Afro-Latin-America on a super-scale. Now, Jews don't mind because they'd be rulers at the top. Also, as Jews were a tiny majority throughout US history, they have no majority-status to lose. Besides, Jewish Power has relied on money and pulling-the-strings, not electoral numbers. They buy off and control the politicians who are voted by the dummy masses. Now, if Jews were to identify strongly as whites, they might fret about losing their white majority to non-whites. But Jews primarily identify as Jews and regard whites as the Other, even the Enemy. Therefore, More Diversity among Goyim is regarded as Jews as good for their power.
Now Democrats envision using immigration to alter the racial balance to achieve perpetual one-party rule.
The problem isn't one-party rule per se. Japan pretty much had one-party rule since end of WWII. China has one-party rule, and it's nationalist. Putin's Russia is a semi-autocracy with one dominant party, but it looks out for Russian interests. The problem with one-party Democratic Rule in the US is it is essentially Judeo-centric than concerned with majority interests. But then, given the slavishness of the GOP to Jews and Israel, the US is already a two-party-as-one-party-state, at least when it comes to total obeisance to Jewish Power. Consider the spectacle of Jews calling Trump a Nazi but Trump going to hell and back for Jews. In a way, democracy is bad because it divides a populace and pits one group against another. White 'liberals' vs white 'conservatives'. Indeed, one-party groups have gained so much against two-party groups. Jews are a one-party group as most are Democrats. In contrast, whites are a two-party group as roughly one half votes GOP and the other half votes Democrat. In the past, the Irish in big cities gained big against Anglos because, unlike the divided Anglos, the Irish were mostly a one-party group whose power was centered around Democratic Machines. Blacks fail in so many areas, but their one-party mentality has led to great gains against the divided two-party whites. One-party groups are united, two-party groups are divided. The tragedy for whites in the US is they are the ONLY two-party group in America... and even the whiter party, the GOP, is usually making more noises about being good to Jews, blacks, browns, etc.
One obvious problem with this plan, however, is that all the immigrant ethnicities would then turn on each other in a struggle to control the capital of the world.
Not true. Most immigrant groups come with weak identities and just become globo-Americans. They hardly care about their nations of origin, cultural heritage, or ethnic loyalty. Black African immigrants soon become like rapping black Americans. Asians turn into globo-homo advocates and, if anything, berate their nations of origin for 'racism' and relative lack of diversity. They all support Zionism and give speeches at AIPAC. Also, non-white groups gain currency only with the support/sympathy of the white community. As Jewish Power has steered whites to care mainly about Jews, blacks, and homos, most other groups receive no special sympathy. Therefore, they realize they must join with the idolized-identities that matter. So, they become shills of AIPAC, wave the homo banner, or chant BLM slogans. Take Muslims. As most whites don't care for Islam or Arabs, many Arab-Americans feel their only chance of gaining favor is by displaying their globo-homo bona-fides. But as globo-homo is really a tool of Jewish Power, they unwittingly become dupes of Zion. Palestinian-Americans who wave both the Palestinian and Homo flags put themselves at a moral disadvantage because Israel is more pro-'gay' than Palestinians and Arabs are.
Why compete with the United State militarily if you can use your co-ethnic immigrants to simply subvert the USA from within (such as this week’s example of an immigrant NYPD officer arrested for spying for China on Tibetan exiles), especially if Washington were so foolish as to invite in two-thirds of a billion immigrants?
Except he didn't subvert US interests. Tibet has nothing to do with the US, that is UNLESS the US intends to interfere in Tibetan affairs. It is precisely because US interferes in Tibet(and other problem spots in China) that some Chinese in the US spy for China on the matter of Tibetans-in-American working with the US. There are Chinese spies who carry out corporate espionage or funnel secrets from the US government, but Chinese keeping an eye on Tibetans in US seems more like Chinese Politics by other means precisely because US interferes with Chinese affairs. Also, it is nothing compared to American Jews doing all they can to suppress BDS, Palestinian-American voices, and critics of Zion. Some Chinese NYPD spying on some Tibetans is kid-stuff compared to Jewish campaigns on college campuses, industries, and government to shut down any effective criticism of Zionism and Wars for Israel. So, if the big fear is about China or some foreign nation taking over and subverting American Interests, it has already happened under Jewish Rule. Perhaps, whites are still under the delusion that Jews are white and working for 'white interests'. Or maybe some whites regard Jews as Prodigal Whites who will finally return home and side with whites. This is like battered wife syndrome with no basis in fact.
Germany would have liked to do that using German immigrants in 1917, but the self-righteous WASP ruling class proactively crushed any German-American resistance with heavy-handed assimilation methods, such as banning Beethoven concerts.
It's too bad Germany failed to. US had no business interfering in WWI. It only ensured Germany's defeat and all the hell that followed. US intervention in WWI had nothing to do with American Interests but with Banker Interests and Jewish interests. Indeed, even UK had no business entering the war. Without Brits in the fight, Germany would have won within a year or two. But UK got involved and ultimately dragged the US into the war, turning a continental war into a World War that led to many more millions of white deaths. A strong anti-war movement by German-Americans might have kept the US out of the war. It would have been better for US and Europe, but US got dragged in. It's a shame that German-America caved under pressure to Anglo-America. US would have been better as an equal partnership of Anglos and Germans. Such a nation might have been a fairer broker between UK and Germany. But as German-Americans assimilated fully into Anglo-America, they became foot-soldiers of the Anglo/American Empire. Though the Anglo/American Narrative depicts Germans as militarist aggressors, the fact is World Conquest was spearheaded and dominated by Anglos, British and American. Germans fought WWI to secure its place in continental Europe, not to take over the world. In retrospect, Anglo paranoia about Germany proved disastrous. If Germany had been given a place in the sun alongside UK and France, so many disasters could have been avoided. An Anglo-German alliance would have been better for the West than the eventual Anglo-Zionist one. Of course, Anglo-German amity was impossible by Adolf Hitler came along, but there would have been no Hitler if UK and US hadn't intervened in WWI. Indeed, without UK and especially US intervention, it wouldn't have been a world war but just a continental one in Europe.
But these days the Chinese are slowly learning how to play the White Guilt card against America.
But when Asians play the 'white guilt' card, it's usually not about Asian victim-hood but Jewish, black, or some other victim-hood. Chinese know they are 'uncool' and disliked by whites(and other peoples), and so, they seek to gain 'woke' points with BLM slogans or 'taking the knee'. The history of Southeast Asia suggests that, even as Chinese know how to get rich, they aren't really into ideological or political domination. And despite so many Chinese having settled in Canada, they are mostly spineless imitators of white 'wokeness'. If anything, they adopt 'white guilt' as their own and imitate white 'virtue-signaling'. Perhaps, some immigrant Chinese feel loyalty to the motherland, but this isn't the case at all with most born outside China, especially with all the race-mixing. All this China-bashing seems so much like Russia-bashing, the product of an unwillingness to face the fact that Jewish Power has done most to subvert and destroy traditional Americanism and sensible patriotism. The 1619 Project and TV shows calling for Mitzvah murders of 'white supremacists' are the products of the Jewish Media and Imagination(that stokes of flames of black rage, not least to use the black-Jewish alliance card to cover up Jewish Segregation and 'Jim Crow' antics in the West Bank). Also, I don't see much in the way of the 'circular firing squad'. It's more like The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly style, with Blondie and Tuco understanding, wink wink, 'get Angel Eyes'. Now, there are problems between blacks and non-black POC, but blacks cause problems for everyone. There is some disagreement between browns and yellows on Affirmative Action, but as yellows tend to be rather sheepish and servile to prevailing ideology, their elites seem to be pro-diversity and pro-affirmative action. Asians are not supportive of Trump's noises about anti-Asian discrimination. Muslims and 'Latinos' don't seem hostile to one another. As for Jewish-Muslim tensions, it's hardly a thing because Muslims have little chance of making it to elite ranks. Also, the kind of Muslims who do gain prominence tend not to care about the Palestinian issue. Fareed Zakaria is only to happy to work with Zionists and cheer on the bombing of Syria. More immigration is the main issue for Muslim groups, and they will work with any group, even Jews, to secure more immigration. If all those Muslims in North Africa and Middle East have been so ineffective in working together on behalf of Palestinians, what hope is there for Muslim-Americans who come from all over the world?
Indeed, one reason for this summer’s mania over whites supposedly oppressing blacks is because blacks vaguely realize that the white man’s days are numbered due to immigration. Once the immigrants take over, nobody will take seriously anymore African-Americans’ sad stories about George Floyd, redlining, and Emmett Till.
Perhaps. I think black rage politics is more in competition with globo-homo, the designated celebratory item in June. True, not all blacks are enthused about immigration. Still, blacks, especially elite ones, care less about immigration because their power is invested in the Democratic Party and more immigrants mean more power to Democrats, and that means more power to blacks-who-matter. On some level, blacks know that they've become the sacred cows of the US due to Slavery Narrative, Jim Crow Narrative, Lynching Narrative, Civil Rights Narrative, MLK cult, and black prominence in sports and pop music. It's like blacks are lionized and celebrated all over Europe, even in Poland with few blacks. Anatoly Karlin says even Russian TV is filled with blacks. So, while most immigrants remain faceless masses and minions, blacks will dominate the celebrity of Americanism. That means an endless tug-of-war between whites and non-whites in laying claim to fealty to Noble Negro-hood. Why wouldn't that be possible? After all, just about all groups in the US are now into Globo-Homo as the new spiritual theme. So, when push comes to shove, blacks feel more empowered than emasculated by mass immigration. It will mean whites and other groups bidding for black blessing. If people used to bid for black slaves long ago, the new auctioneering is about bidding for blessings by black godhood.
The better part of One Billion Americans is about how to reverse the declining fertility of American citizens... The total fertility rate for American women was dropping even during the Trump Boom before the pandemic, down to a below replacement rate of 1.72 children per woman in 2018. And yet when asked how many children they’d like to have, women and men both average about 2.6.
Too many women in the workforce, and too many women with elite aspirations. After all, even nations with traditionally low or no immigration are cratering in child birth. Japan didn't have much immigration for decades but is so sterile that it has no choice but to take in immigrants. There is immigration to a nation with healthy fertility to bring down wages. That is bad stuff. But in the case of Japan, immigration is becoming necessary because birthrate is around 1 child per woman. And Russian birthrates are still far below what it should be. American women may want 2.6 kids, but of course, their expectations run pretty high, especially among the college graduates. This means MOST MEN are not good enough for them. And many men may have higher expectations for the women as well. If most women want successful men, most men want supportive women. But if more women take jobs from men, there are fewer successful men. Also, if women have been instilled with bitchy feminism and trashy slut mentality, they are far less likely to 'stand by your man'; even Tammy Wynette didn't stand by hers and went through D.I.V.O.R.C.E. Even without overt feminism, education and work for women are going to lower birthrates. While most women may want man and family, they would prefer to be single than be stuck with an inferior man and/or low-IQ children. Their attitude is the Moon or Bust. They want the Best or Nothing at all. Such attitudes are as common in Iran and Japan as in Germany and UK. Educated Iranian women are less likely to get married and have children. Many choose to be single and self-supporting. Many Japanese men are ashamed to work at 'dirty jobs', and Japanese women only want to find 'winners'. Unless society turns away from individualism and adopts a more organic function of life, nothing can be done about the problem of birth dearth in the developed world... that is unless future of mankind is Brave-New-World-like. Lab-created people.
Why does Yglesias want to make the U.S. three times as crowded, especially at a time of infectious pandemic, riots, urban looting, and wildfires? The most likely reason is that he doesn’t, really, but taking an extremist stance on immigration, calling for an order of magnitude more than the 52 million immigrants expected under Joe Biden’s plan, inoculates him from getting canceled...
No, he probably does really want it. He likes crowded America. He knows Covid is utter BS and just part of the coup to wreck Trump's economy. He figures more immigrants in cities will mean less rioting by blacks and Antifa ne'er-do-wells. Most immigrants groups don't indulge in rioting and looting, the expertise of blacks and Antifa thugs, the Janissary of Jewish Supremacists. And maybe more immigrants will lead to less forest fires as more forests will be cut down for building communities or for fuel.
As he admits on page 256, “I am not personally a nature lover or an outdoorsy person…”
He should know nature exists for its own good, not to serve us. I don't much care about the bottom of the ocean, but that doesn't mean it should be destroyed. I don't much care to visit the jungles, but rain-forests should be preserved. He's sounding like Woody Allen.

No comments:

Post a Comment