Suicidal Humanism and the White Enemy Within

Poor Bernie Sanders. After provoking the ire of black activists, the beleaguered socialist from Vermont has incurred the wrath of the neoliberal site Vox. So what was Sanders’ latest “ugly” transgression? He entertains the radical notion that open borders is a bad deal for American workers, and that the US should look after its own people:

So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”

Dylan Matthews, the gadfly who penned the article, seems intent on validating the argument that leftists serve as useful idiots for the 1% that they supposedly oppose. This article is so ridiculously quixotic and replete with bizarre leftist internationalism that a part of me thinks Keith Preston wrote it as a way to parody “totalitarian humanism.” Just check out this passage (emphasis mine):

There are two problems with Sanders’s view on this, one empirical and one moral. He’s wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he’s wrong in treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.

Yes, you read that right; apparently, caring more about your fellow countrymen than every person on the planet is anathema to leftists like Matthews. I know that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again I challenge you to find sizable numbers of pundits in non-white countries who espouse such nonsense. But anyway, the reason why nations and societies exist is to look after their own, and even the leftist economist Dean Baker rightly chides Matthews for his absurd logic. As the tweeter at the bottom named Aaron put it, Sanders isn’t “running for president of the world.”

Matthews only further compounds his fatuousness by citing this ridiculous thought experiment:

The philosopher Michael Huemer has a great thought experiment making this point. Imagine a man, Marvin, is starving to death, and goes to a marketplace to buy bread. Another man, Sam, forcibly stops him and prevents him from buying bread. Marvin starves to death.

That’s wrong, right? And it’s still wrong if the harm caused is less severe. Say Marvin isn’t going to the marketplace to buy bread, but instead to sell it. If he sells it at that particular marketplace, he will make 15 times more money than if he sold it at the other marketplace in town. But Sam stops him, by force, from selling at the lucrative marketplace, forcing him to settle for the other market, where he makes 15 times less.

The analogy is not exactly subtle: Marvin is a potential immigrant (in this case from Nigeria; recall that moving from Nigeria to the US raises an average migrant’s earnings 15-fold), and Sam is a US border patrol agent. If you think Sam is hurting Marvin by barring him from selling bread from the good market, you’ve got to think that border agents are hurting immigrants by keeping them from coming to work in the US.

For starters, there’s an obvious difference between citizens living within a nation and outsiders who intend to move in. To curtail the rights of your own citizens is certainly wrong; nations, on the other hand, have no obligation to tend to any and all needs of myriad outsiders. Otherwise, they cease being nations.

There’s a far better and more apt analogy, which Dota gave me during one of our more recent conversations. Let’s imagine that there’s an altruistic, civic-minded young liberal woman living in San Francisco. Understandably, she wants to address the plight of the city’s burgeoning homeless population. What are her options? On the one hand, she could donate money to support food drives for the homeless, lobby the city to construct more shelters, and advocate for laws that protect the homeless from abuse. Or, she could invite as many homeless people as possible to live with her, while encouraging her friends to do the same.

Essentially, Dylan Matthews would have the US exercise the latter option, with little regard for living space or boundaries. Unsurprisingly, the results would be just as disastrous. If one actually gives a crap about remedying the penury of the 3rd world, then there are better ways to do so than opening the floodgates. Just as supporting homeless causes is a more sensible course of action than allowing them to move in, tackling international poverty and violence is a better option than allowing the masses of the (non-white) world to inundate the country. Instead of pressuring our elites to alter their destructive foreign policy and harmful international trade agreements, leftist shills for open borders want to pass the costs of 3rd world destitution onto regular white Americans.

Obviously, open borders is sheer lunacy and highly detrimental to the lives of white Americans. That’s why its proponents can only invoke “humanitarian” arguments or tout its supposed economic benefits by citing libertarians such as Bryan Caplan. If mass immigration were really so wonderful, it wouldn’t require constant cheerleading.

At the same time, I have nothing against immigrants themselves, and I don’t condemn Latinos and Asians for wanting to improve their lives. Instead, I denounce white elites and their lackeys such as Dylan Matthews. They are the reason why whites are poised to become a minority by 2042; they are the ones responsible for the flourishing of cultural leftism. Suicidal white humanism – along with its many adherents – are the true enemies within.

We must continue to thoroughly discredit their ideas, and at the bare minimum ensure that they do not infect other white people with their loony logic.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Hispanics, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Suicidal Humanism and the White Enemy Within

  1. Bad Wolf says:

    They are the reason why whites are poised to become a minority by 2042… I thought it was about sex.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Well, if by “sex” you mean birthrates, that is certainly part of the equation. At the same time, without the accompanying mass immigration, whites would still be a solid majority.

      Or maybe my sarcasm detector is defective right now.

  2. Ezra Pound's Ghost says:

    Excellent. I had a kind of a lightbulb come on while reading this: when we’re debating the ideas defended by the likes of Vox, we’re not really debating ‘immigration’ at all but rather the legitimacy of the nation-state as such. The ‘immigration’ debate is just an index of the deeper movement, which is the dissolution of unique nationalities, at least for the ‘West’. What the cynical true believers in the immigration altruist lie don’t understand is that the nation-state is, or should be, the means whereby private interests (accretions of wealth and power) are regulated for the benefit of the group and when the nation-state is dissolved, it paves the way for total elite/foreign domination and dissolution of nationality and group identity. The true believers might not care about national dissolution, but they should care about the economic consequences of unaccountable billionaires creating social policy. If you explain it to them that way, and they balk because they just have a mystical faith in the inherent goodness of Bill Gates or the UN or the financial gurus at Harvard, then you’re really dealing with a lost cause.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      when we’re debating the ideas defended by the likes of Vox, we’re not really debating ‘immigration’ at all but rather the legitimacy of the nation-state as such. The ‘immigration’ debate is just an index of the deeper movement, which is the dissolution of unique nationalities, at least for the ‘West’.

      Precisely! Those who endorse open borders are essentially saying that white people have no legitimate claims to any nations of their own. They have no true identity, culture, or anything that renders them a unique group. Since we’re all just people, there’s no need for any kind of national of cultural boundaries.

      The true believers might not care about national dissolution, but they should care about the economic consequences of unaccountable billionaires creating social policy. If you explain it to them that way, and they balk because they just have a mystical faith in the inherent goodness of Bill Gates or the UN or the financial gurus at Harvard, then you’re really dealing with a lost cause.

      No kidding. On Dylan Matthews’ twitter feed, one person pointed out that when the billionaire class wants one thing, and the working class another, usually the filthy rich aren’t the progressive ones. Matthews even acknowledged that the rich elites were promoting open borders, but argued that “in this case, they’re right.”

      Just goes to show you that the left’s whole idea about “speaking truth to power” is bullshit. They either are the power or they’re so venal that they end up supporting the power.

  3. Richard says:

    Its possible we have missed the motives of the left, somehow. It isn’t that they are humane by any wild stretch of the imagination nor do they care to address power. Underlying their primary thoughts is the complete destruction of Western values and culture. Moreover, they believe that the end goal in this case justifies the means and anything that can be said or done to further that goal is of utmost importance, even above their own well being. In short, they are stuck in a self-destructive ideology. Those media sources which guide them promote self hatred so the leftist are more apt to be careless of themselves while carrying out the duties of destruction. With that carelessness and self hate must come contempt for others, eventually even one another within their own sect.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      I think that guilt and self-loathing are factors, but we also shouldn’t dismiss grandstanding. Since “anti-racism” is endorsed by the elites, I suspect that many whites who espouse leftist views on race and immigration are attempting to demonstrate their moral and intellectual superiority over less “enlightened” and educated whites.

      For them, being PC on race is the equivalent of having good table manners. Just as affluent, upper class people don’t use profanity or eat with their hands at a fancy dinner, a good PC liberal doesn’t say racist things in polite company.

      They’re basically showing off their status, and if the Bay Area – where there are many rich liberals – is any indication, then many left-wing types are indeed much more privileged (forgive the word) than most other people.

  4. BEAST GANON says:

    There are some good black men left (WHAT!? IMPOSSIBLE). You guys should watch the video below.

  5. BEAST GANON says:

    It’s already too late for the West now. Feminism has fucked up the social structure and females are taking over industries they shouldn’t even be working in. White America will be on par with black America in just a decades time.

  6. Quartermain says:

    I would love more than anything to watch the “Black Lives Matter” people try their stuff at a La Raza or La Mecha gathering.

  7. Quartermain says:

    Here is how the Seattle audience reacted to the disruption:

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