We often hear from ‘progressives’ that new immigrants are better than existing Americans — especially the working class whites, ‘white trash’, children born to immigrants, and of course implicitly blacks — because immigrants are hungrier, willing to work harder, more stoic, and more self-sacrificing for the sake of the family. Supposedly, these immigrants have more character. And by immigrants, we mean those fresh-off-the-boat. After all, the children of immigrants become Americanized all too fast, lose the fire in the belly that their parents had, and become as useless as other ‘loser’ Americans. According to this view, the winner-Americans(elites and upper-middle class) still have value because they are ‘creative’ and make lots of money and add to the economy.
But the lower 60% of Americans born here are pretty useless. They grew up with too much welfare, safety nets, free stuff(education, benefits, and government aid); they have no appreciation for America because they take everything for granted. They are spoiled. Even the poor are spoiled, sloppy, lazy, and rotten in America. Even if they don’t have much, they know they can rely on the system to provide them with stuff to live as couch potatoes. They are like animal that got used to being fed. To them, America is just one big dump that provides them with leftovers to get fat on.
And if it’s not government and welfare, it’s American culture that fills them with vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. They are no good. They don’t have what the Joads had in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. They just want to do the least amount of work for the most gibs they can squeeze out of the system. And they are prone to hire lawyers to sue anything and anyone to get more gibs. And this goes for a lot of whites as well as for blacks and established immigrants whose kids have already started to go bad. It's also true of US soldiers who will squeeze the system for all it's worth to get free stuff and more benefits.
In contrast, the freshly arrived immigrants, legal or illegal, have a real appreciation for America. They come from poorer nations with much less wealth. Some of these nations have no social safety-nets to speak of. So, people learned to be self-reliant. They are hungry and willing to do any kind of work to get make a living. And being more family-oriented, father and mother are likely to stick together and do more for their children than just living for individual aggrandizement.
Unlike fat Americans who take things for granted and know how to game the system to get free stuff, these immigrants roll up their sleeves and do jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Indeed, comparing illegal Mexicans in the US with Puerto Ricans partly confirms the validity of such view. Puerto Ricans have automatic American citizenship, and that means they can feed off the system in PR or the US. In contrast, illegal Mexicans have fewer protections, and therefore, they must work to make ends meet.
But here’s a contradiction in the Leftist Worldview. Leftism seems to suggest that the very agendas and policies that they pursue have a corrosive, corrupting, and degrading influence on the people. Leftism calls for more welfare, more free stuff, more handouts, more give-aways, and more everything for not just the underclass but even for the middle class. They say the US must become more social-democratic and be generous with welfare like Scandinavian nations. Leftism says this is necessary and good for the people.
BUT, if that’s true, how come Americans who have access to welfare and other benefits are unwilling to work at many jobs? How come the US has to import hungrier immigrants, legal or illegal, who are more motivated precisely because they come from nations without generous benefits and safety-nets? Leftism idealizes and even idolizes such people as salt of the earth, hard workers, honest toilers, and so on. And yet, if such people are so noble & admirable in their work ethic and if their virtues are the product of hardship & struggle due to lack of welfare and social safety-nets, then the only logical conclusion is that welfare and social-safety-nets(agendas pushed by the Left) have an erosive effect on virtues such as sobriety, thrift, determination, commitment, humility, and diligence.
Indeed, compare blacks when there was little or no welfare to blacks since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs and Nixon’s expansions of them that made it possible for entire generations of blacks to grow up on welfare and handouts. Blacks got slack, and companies preferred to hire immigrants, often from poor nations without social safety nets and generous welfare.
So, how does one resolve this contradiction within Leftism? Take someone like big fat gross Michael Moore. He even attacked Billy Boy Clinton’s welfare reform policies in the 1990s that tried to return blacks, white underclass, and legal Hispanics to the work-force. It placed incentives on welfare so that people would have to do some kind of work. Fat Moore and so many ‘progressives’ denounced it as inhuman, tyrannical, heartless, cold-blooded, neo-conservative & neo-liberal, quasi-Republican, exploitative, and etc. In other words, trying to make the welfare class get back into the workforce was sooooooooo very terrible! In other words, this kind of leftism says that welfare dependency is a human right and, if anything, the lower 50% of the US public should be showered with more free stuff and more benefits. They should not be expected to return to the work force or try to cultivate certain virtues like sobriety, diligence, and thrift to get back on their feet.
And yet, does it make sense to believe that the underclass will be better off morally or economically if they become so dependent on welfare and handouts? Indeed, even the Left seems, at least on some level, unsure and confused of their own claims. And this is most evident in their defense of immigration. The Left praises immigrants(legal and illegal) from Third World nations as having more work ethic, more energy, more zeal, and more willingness to give it their all... as opposed to the American underclass that seems hopeless on every level: In their attitude to education, work, family, culture, and etc.
And of course, we hear pro-immigration rhetoric from Conservatism Inc. as well. It tells us that immigrants are more ‘culturally conservative’ and more appreciative of what America has to offer. But this would indicate that America is a very corrupting place. If new immigrants are better than established Americans and already-settled-immigrants, it means that the process of Americanization turns people into atomized, materialistic, lazy, narcissistic, decadent, crass, and trashy individuals. If America can only carry on with New Blood because old blood is weak and diseased, then it means Americanism will eventually rot the bodies and souls of all those who come here. If Conservatives really believe this, shouldn’t they diagnose why Americanism is so diseased that those already here are no-good or worthless and must rely on transfusions of New Blood of immigrants to keep the economy alive?
The worldview of people like David Brooks and William Kristol suggests that the US is essentially vampiric. Brooks and Kristol despise white working class and white underclass as worthless. Though they don’t call out on blacks, they don’t have much love for them either. They seem to believe that, since many Americans are worthless as human material, they should just be allowed to decay and die on welfare & opioids and be replaced with the New Blood of immigrants. The elites, the only people who are still vibrantly in the globalist game of innovation and enterprise, must suck on the blood of New People since Old People’s blood is poisoned or diseased.
But if this is so, shouldn’t we ask, WHY DID AMERICAN BLOOD BECOME SO DISEASED? Doesn’t it have something to do with degenerate pop culture(pushed by Jews, homos, and Negroes), infantile PC babytalk, and too much welfare? Now, the American Right used to warn against the dangers of excessive welfare. Indeed, even the New Dealers worried about what safety-nets might do to the character of Americans. FDR was no welfare-handout looney. He strove to provide relief to suffering Americans but wanted to keep intact the noble work ethic of most Americans, white but even among blacks. This was why the New Deal didn’t offer free stuff for teenage girls who got pregnant with some trashy dude. And Neocons in the 60s and 70s in both the Democratic and Republican parties voiced concerns about what kind of effect the Great Society might have on the American underclass, especially among blacks. But the American elites soon gave up on blacks as anything except as government workers. Most of the New Workers were to come from docile and diligent immigrants, especially from Mexico and Asia. And in time, the elites even gave up on the white working class. And when Billy Boy Clinton revamped the Democratic Party as a globalist ‘free trade’ party than the party of Big Labor, American politics was about GOP and Democrats doing little else but jockeying for more donations from Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, and etc. And as GOP’s conservatism went from social/cultural to purely economic, the almighty dollar was all that mattered. There was a time when the GOP would have been a bit ashamed to rely on someone like the utterly sleazy Sheldon Adelson who made his fortune in gambling. But no more. With libertarianism as the new ideology of the GOP, all that mattered was profits. Even Christianity turned into, "Jesus will make you rich."
Anyway, if people like David Brooks really feel that many Americans are so worthless that the US needs more New People, why are they so reluctant to spell out clearly and honestly why the US went from a nation of sobriety, responsibility, and work ethic to a nation of excess, indulgence, and piggery? Granted, Brooks, more than others, have hinted at the social and cultural decay of the US. So have chunkhead Ross Douthat and that guy at the American Conservative, Rod Dreher. But Brooks being Jewish and Douthat & Dreher being semi-cuck dweebs, they dare not NAME THE JEW as the main corrupting force of the True American Way.
As for the Left, it’s just pathologically mendacious or downright delusional. At least the Classic Left had a certain consistency. It valued work ethic and virtues such as diligence, thrift, sobriety, and morality. Back then, the Left called for more state intervention to improve working conditions and to make life more tolerable for the toiling masses. Folk songs were about people sweating in coal mines, on farms, on train tracks, in factories, and etc. They were not about some welfare queen who be ‘twerking’ her ass for youtube audience. Left called for more social benefits for workers who were contributing so much to society.
But since the 1960s and Great Society, especially with the boomer elites having been raised in a world of excess, indulgence, and vanity, the New Leftism came to be all about self-actualization, self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement. People deserved all sorts of benefits and welfare as a ‘right’ just for the hell of it. No reason was necessary. In communist nations, the idea was workers deserve benefits and safety-nets because they worked so hard to produce stuff. In the post-60s America and Europe, the idea was people deserve free stuff because they just do... even if they are unwilling to study or work or take any responsibility for their own lives. Partly, such attitude was just the sign of the times of post-WWII economy that never seemed to stop growing. Middle class affluence projected its attitudes onto all of America. Since middle class kids grew up taking things for granted in a world of plenty, why shouldn’t the same ‘right’ apply to everyone in America? Taking-things-for-granted became a new kind of ‘positive right’. So, never mind such outdated notions as moral hazard.
Such mentality took hold from Wall Street billionaires to Mean Street thugs and whores. Wall Street could use finance like a casino, and if thing blew up, no need to worry. They could just take it for granted that the system would bail them out. And if the masses acted excessive and messed up their lives, just look to the state to take care of them. From top to bottom and from right to left, the notion of moral responsibility became dirty words.
The elites are into total decadence and degeneracy. Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are filled with sociopaths and sickos. Ivy League colleges promote LGBTQ nonsense as the highest value. The underclass have Rap, trashy TV, and violent video-games as their culture. It’s all so soul-murdering and soul-dead.
The Left believes morality is so old-fashioned, and all problems can only be solved with ideology, such as anti-white-male-bashing, and more soulless statist programs. The Right believes the Marketplace will fix all problems if we just let it do its magic. Libertarians believe morality isn’t necessary. Just let the markets do its thing, and the ‘rational’ agency of individuals will kick into gear and fix all problems. Save-Indians-with-Casinos is the libertarian template for All Americans.
Anyway, how do we resolve this Leftist Contradiction of Welfare and Virtue? The Left loves to virtue-signal about how it cares so very much about the bottom 50% of Americans. Indeed, virtue-signaling among themselves than virtue-instilling or virtue-cultivating among the populace is what the current so-called Left is all about. For there to be true virtue, the people must be criticized and admonished as well as defended and helped. It’s like you cannot instill virtue in kids just by spoiling them, indulging them, and calling for more toys and games for them. You have to balance the fun/free stuff with a sense that they must also make an effort and grow more responsible. But the rotten Left just indulge blacks and certain favored ‘victim groups’(some of whom are rich and privileged) instead of being critical in a constructive way. What good did white Liberals do by indulging the "hands up, don’t shoot" fantasies of blacks in Ferguson, MO that led to BLM, more lies, and more violence? It’s one thing to denounce real acts of police brutality but quite another to indulge Black America, mired in crime and degeneracy, with the fantasy that is always blameless and automatically noble because of their skin color and loud hollers.
But on some level, the Left must know that its way has been corrupting because it is totally supportive of immigrants on the basis that the latter are more virtuous, more hard-working, more self-sacrificing(for their family members), more adult, and more stoic. And less self-indulgent, less spoiled, less pampered, less infantile, less whiny, and less entitled. Indeed, so many on the Left outsource virtue to the immigrants and would-be-immigrants.
If it’s true that Leftist Way makes for greater virtue, then nations that were most transformed by post-WWII welfare state — EU and the US — should have the people with the best virtues. But we are constantly told by the Left that the spoiled, bratty, whiny, and entitled peoples of the US and EU must be replaced with people from poorer nations because these immigrants, having grown up without so many goodies and freebies, are hungrier and harder; they are made of tougher stuff of character, work ethic, and responsibility. And the Left point to illegals in the US who do the kind of work that so many blacks, whites, and settled browns(already spoiled) aren’t willing to do. Using this logic, virtue is the product of hardship, and therefore, the Leftist fulfillment of the Welfare State led to the erosion of virtue among so many Americans who grew lax and lazy in taking too much for granted... like the grasshopper(versus the ant) or the hare(versus the diligent tortoise).
Does this mean that there are only two options? Poverty and virtue OR Affluence and vice? Or, is there another way? There is in the neo-fascist socialism that is more like the New Deal, National Socialism, and the Singapore Model. New Deal wasn’t about free handouts. It was aid to people willing to work hard. And while Nazism did end up committing great crimes and thus discredited itself, its core economic ideology had much of value. Its welfare policies were both conditional and thematic. It was conditional in the sense that people were expected to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, its socialism was founded on noble themes of serving and strengthening German-hood. So, national healthcare carried the theme of Germans caring for all fellow Germans as part of the national family. And aid to women as mothers was about collective national support for more healthy German babies.
In contrast, social democracy in an individualistic society is purely materialistic and fosters the mindset of "What’s in it for me?" Or, it can go PC & pro-diversity and deviate into "Social-Democracy for Sweden must be for the whole world", a notion as destructive as Nazi plan to conquer all of Russia. Whether an order tries to conquer others with hate or conquer others with love, it will fall in the end due to lack of understanding of limits. Nazis got swallowed up by Russian terrain, Russian climate, and Russian soldiers. And Sweden, by playing Jesus healing the sick, will get swallowed(and raped) by the African and Muslim masses.
Sadly, we don’t have Neo-Fascist socialism today. Instead, what passes for ‘socialism’ is some fat white bitch with green hair and tattoos on her ass at some PC college pontificating about what a noble soul she is because she calls for more freebies for everyone and for more immigration because... immigrants are the salt of the earth who will do jobs that Americans won’t do. But don’t expect idiots like that to notice any contradiction in their logic.
Btw, while it was true that immigrants in the past were often more hard-working out of desperation and respect for the host nation, that isn’t really the case anymore around the world. Immigrants, migrants, refugees, and invaders in the EU know how soft and weak the Europeans have become. They know there are plenty of globo-proggy lawyers, activists, and politicians in all those nations that will side with New People over Native People. So, they have no respect for the host population where men are all cucked and the women are whores with jungle fever. Indeed, BBC is now casting even white historical heroes with black actors. So, if immigrants in the past came with awe and respect for the White World, they now come with contempt for free stuff and to demand, "Where the white women at?" They notice that white politicians are all whores for Zion and that white folks worship blacks as the superior demi-god-race that dominate sports, pop music, and sex. And PC instantly teaches non-white kids to see white males as worthless 'racists' and wussy cucks.
Also, the West is far more willing to provide all sorts of benefits and even ‘rights’ to the invaders. Indeed, even Africans who willfully strand themselves off the coast of Libya are picked up by European boats and set free to roam all around Europe like pack animals.
While people might respect magnanimity backed with pride and strength, they feel utter contempt for good will supported by nothing but sappy & naive good will. This is especially true for people from cutthroat Muslim nations and savage African nations. No ‘refugee’ respects a cucky Germany that holds up ‘Welcome’ signs for invaders, most of whom weren’t even from Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment