ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

2 down, 48 to go

Hispanics recognize their mass migration is an invasion and conquest, so how is it possible that the natives still deny it?
 “I was a freshman in college, and suddenly there was a blatant attack on people like my parents,” said Mr. Lara, who grew up in East Los Angeles with other Mexican immigrants. “The so-called sleeping giant has always been awake, but they’ve been in our schools and colleges, and now we are really starting to run things.”

Perhaps nobody has seen this more clearly than María Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, where Latino service workers are the primary source of growth for unions. Proposition 187 was “the perfect storm to anger and motivate a big number of Latinos, and once we had them coming out, we made sure they kept voting,” she said.

“Nobody had ever gone out to new citizens in the immigrant community, to poor working-class immigrants, but they turned out to be very reliable voters for us,” Ms. Durazo said. “People were always talking about low enthusiasm, but that is not what we were ever seeing. Now the rest of the country is starting to catch up.”

Ms. Durazo recalled the huge May Day protests in 2006, when thousands of immigrants lined the streets of Los Angeles. At the time, she said, organizers made a strategic decision to discourage the waving of Mexican flags and instead handed out American flags on street corners.

“We wanted to project what we feel — we’re working people who love this country and are staying here,” she said. “For a long time, we were living in no more than four or five states, but now, we are in the smallest towns of Georgia and Alabama. And once we’re there, it gets harder to ignore or hope that immigrants will just go away.” 
Of course California is "easing its tone".  It's been occupied and those who do not show the proper respect to their new padrones will be punished.  And very clear signals have been sent that nowhere is safe; every non-Latino enclave will eventually be invaded and Latinized, be it black or white.  It should be fascinating to see what happens when the Latino elite decides to make a play for dominance in Washington DC, which I expect will begin to take place once the Latino population hits around 100 million.  The increased visibility of politiicians such as Rubio and Cruz only marks the beginning of this process.

I have no sympathy for the coming American white minority.  This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children and embraced cheap imported labor because they believed they were a nation of immigrants rather than settlers.  The rules of The Game of History are perfectly clear, and a nation that permits itself to be invaded by 50 million foreigners without so much as a protest, let alone a massive military response, has clearly demonstrated that it is not fit to survive.

And it could certainly be worse.  Better Cancun, after all, than Johannesburg or Beijing on the Potomac.

Labels: ,

225 Comments:

1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 17, 2013 4:14 AM  

I didn't choose this path nor was I born with a genius intellect, a silver spoon in my mouth nor the ability to move where ever I wanted internationally. From whom much is given much is expected. You don't need to be such an asshole to those less fortunate than yourself.

Blogger Res Ipsa February 17, 2013 4:21 AM  

Mr. Nightstick,

Neither was I. There is no need to shoot the messenger. Most likely we are past the point of no return. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize what is happening around us and plan according. Me I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish. I’m also making it a point to make more Mexican friends and live in the last white state that still remembers what the constitution is/was.

Anonymous ivvenalis February 17, 2013 4:23 AM  

The lawyers and merchants in DC are cowards as has always been generally expected of their class; they won't do anything. Really, handover of DC would probably be good for the country and better it happen sooner than later, since a visibly alien federal government in an increasingly dire fiscal situation will if anything encourage local autonomy.

Anonymous kh123 February 17, 2013 4:25 AM  

I think it comes down to most folks - and by this I mean middle class Caucasian Americans who aren't Etatists or hipsters - not wanting to resort to ancient methods of settling tribal boundaries. This doesn't excuse their not protesting back when they were the majority in both population and politics; but not all that work and have families can be geopolitical lion tamers, the nation's history notwithstanding.

Anonymous Crude February 17, 2013 4:47 AM  

Neither was I. There is no need to shoot the messenger.

Sure there is, if the messenger's asking for it.

As for me, I opposed all these changes when I was younger. Fat lot of good that did. At this point I'm trying to get together a living and hoping I can forge my way to Alaska, or who knows where else. Funny thing is, when I was younger, a family member used to be furious at me for caring about illegal immigration. We're far closer to the Atlantic than the Pacific, and he'd go off about how illegal immigration was a stupid thing for someone out here to get worried about. That was a Texas or California or border state problem.

This town went from 2-5% to around 40% hispanic in the space of a decade. He was mortified.

Anyway, blaming 'white america' would have to be heavily qualified. A substantial portion of 'white america' wanted the borders controlled. Hell, a substantial portion want it now.

It doesn't matter: it will not happen. It's not for lack of desire, but lack of understanding how to turn it back. What would have solved it? Revolution?

Anonymous kh123 February 17, 2013 5:03 AM  

...And it goes without saying, the "military response" to domestic affairs, that isn't exactly something that Americans have had as an option for quite some time now - it's not as if Federal Authorities would heed a vote to enforce repatriation of illegals (not ever since the Civil Rights and integration push); and castigating Americans in general for not taking military action to secure their own demographic is like saying the current generation should have executed the law themselves - punishing illegals as they see fit - without any legal or physical repercussions from that same Leviathan gate-keeper.

Unless one is advocating for some version of the Black-and-Tans on American soil. At least in that instance, they had much more than just a nod/wink from the Orange State and their own communities to man milk lorries with long coats and shotguns. Their Leviathan tacitly supported them.

Now, sectarianism - whether it's an unexercised right that can cure political ails, or a complete f*ck-all bloodbath which aforementioned American WASPs have avoided up til now (whether out of decency or a realization that the political and legal system is decidedly stacked against them) - is another rabbit hole altogether.

Anonymous Idle Spectator, Vibrant with Traditional Diversity February 17, 2013 5:10 AM  

“The so-called sleeping giant has always been awake, but they’ve been in our schools and colleges, and now we are really starting to run things.”

Oh good, I can't wait for it start being run like Mexico. Can we just start taking all our posessions now, and make them smell like gasoline?


Me I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish. I’m also making it a point to make more Mexican friends and live in the last white state that still remembers what the constitution is/was.

Ritualistic hara-kiri with a taco shell would be less painful and more dignified. Keep all the tax money of the more productive Caucasians from being used as a moist, fertile, growth medium for the Aztec fungi, then swivel back and start shooting on the way out to the vibrant white enclaves. You know, the ones that still actually work.


“We wanted to project what we feel — we’re working people who love this country and are staying here,” she said. “For a long time, we were living in no more than four or five states, but now, we are in the smallest towns of Georgia and Alabama. And once we’re there, it gets harder to ignore or hope that immigrants will just go away.”

Georgia? Alabama? I think Mzzzzzz. Durazzzzzzo is confusing San Franciscans and Californians with them. I have a very bad feeling she is not going to like it when the push back begins. Or even see it coming.

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 17, 2013 5:29 AM  

Did you see the fatal flaw in the story Vox?

This year, for the first time, Latinos were the largest ethnic group applying to the University of California system.

That's right, a university system founded and built up by Caucasians. How the fuck do they think that is going to continue as the taxpayer revenue in California dries up like the Rio Grande on a bender?

The K-12 school system has shown you the way. You don't need to fight it, just withdraw, let it implode, and let the remaining retards splash around in the ball pit.

Anonymous The Great Martini February 17, 2013 5:36 AM  


Me I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish. I’m also making it a point to make more Mexican friends and live in the last white state that still remembers what the constitution is/was.


We're talking about a country that has an economy slightly more than one tenth the size of ours. I think you're overreacting.

Anonymous kh123 February 17, 2013 5:44 AM  

"We're talking about a country that has an economy slightly more than one tenth the size of ours."

It's not a matter of the size of the immigrant's former domestic economy; it's a matter of how many of them are currently here, transforming it into the culture (and by extension economy) from whence they came.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 17, 2013 5:54 AM  

Is it likely that white people will start acting differently once we are the minority?

Having more kids, for example?

Maybe hanging out in large groups in Home Depot parking lots, looking for work?

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 6:54 AM  

I remember the "Day Without a Mexican" protest in LA when all the Mexicans stayed home to show us how much we'd miss them if we ever deported them.

My 1.25 hour commute went down to 35 minutes. Best day ever.

Anonymous Brendan February 17, 2013 6:58 AM  

The United States, such as it was, has long been finished. It's been gone for some time, actually, and by design from our political and economic elites. Yes, the sheeple didn't raise a protest, but sheeple don't generally protest if they are happy with enough bread (quite literally in this case) and circuses (of which American culture is overflowing) provided by the elits class. That kind of country frankly has no business existing for any extended period of time other than on literal life support, which is what our debt-laden system is, in effect.

So shed no tears over the passing of what was once known as the United States -- the time of transition is almost complete, and we can welcome Los Estados Unidos (the "LEU") to take its place at the table of nations as one of the larger and richer of the huge number of Latino nations in the Western Hemisphere. It's a done deal -- mourning it is stupid, accepting it is smart, and adapting to it is, of course, the best of all options.

Adios, amigos!

Anonymous Jesus H. Christ, aka your Savior. February 17, 2013 7:02 AM  

And then Jesus said, "Berthren, I fear that I must tell you that I have sinned. I have imagined myself fucking the asshole of Rihanna. And it was good. Damn good. And my Son of God cock was hard as a rock as I masterbated to this sweet dream and shot a wad the size of Jerusalem. Brethren, please forgive my weak, sinfull cock. When you pray for your salvation from my fathers terrible wrath, please keep my sinfull cock in your thoughts. Amen"--Jesus H. Chirst, your horny Savior

Anonymous The Great Martini February 17, 2013 7:08 AM  


My 1.25 hour commute went down to 35 minutes. Best day ever.


You can live a day without Mexican labor just like you can live a day without going to the grocery store or without cleaning your bathroom. A real test would be a month or two without Mexican labor, when food prep labor has been reduced, calling in overscheduled white labor that doesn't want to be there, field workers who aren't there, janitor who don't clean the shit out of toilets, etc. You get the idea. Immigrant labor does occupy a substantial portion of low pay and unskilled jobs that are difficult to fill without it. While I don't consider this a terribly great argument for immigrant labor (in fact it's a pretty racist and otherwise bad argument), it does highlight the situation at hand.

Anonymous George of the Hole February 17, 2013 7:14 AM  

I have no sympathy for the coming American white minority.

Of course not. You embraced corruption years ago. We're still here fighting it.

Anonymous zen0 February 17, 2013 7:15 AM  

Fear not, Whitey:

After almost twenty generations of intermarriage between whites and Indians, Mexico has ended up with an almost wholly white elite, a vast mixed race (mestizo) working class, and at least 10 million extremely impoverished pure Indians who have never assimilated into Hispanic culture. And the ruling class is becoming ever whiter.

When you put stuff in a melting pot, the lighter stuff tends to gather at the top.

Anonymous Heh February 17, 2013 7:16 AM  

Better Cancun, after all, than Johannesburg or Beijing on the Potomac.

Or Tripoli on the Tiber.

Anonymous Mr Green Man February 17, 2013 7:19 AM  

I learned most of what I needed to know about immigrant assimilation for the love of "Motherland India" from many an Indian, many first generation immigrants but especially the second generation ones who were rediscovering who they thought they were and wanting to get relatives in the old country to arrange a marriage for them.

However, I think the disdain for America was best expressed when I had a discussion of politics with a Chinese immigrant. This guy had lived through the cultural revolution, had worked on a farm by order of Mao, had gotten a degree under Deng, had seen how his degree was considered useless in the rest of the world and started over at some backwater university in America, and, at 55, finally had a wife, kids, and a house in the US. His view of things? Until it got as bad as the depth of China during Mao's Cultural Revolution, he was ok with any loss of freedom or increase in taxation around the edges. Why, since it wasn't as bad, who cares if if gets a little worse?

Notably, his plan to make it better once it hit bottom hasn't really worked for the average Chinese still in China.

Anonymous TheExpat February 17, 2013 7:20 AM  

A real test would be a month or two without Mexican labor, when food prep labor has been reduced, calling in overscheduled white labor that doesn't want to be there, field workers who aren't there, janitor who don't clean the shit out of toilets, etc. You get the idea. Immigrant labor does occupy a substantial portion of low pay and unskilled jobs that are difficult to fill without it.

Indeed, it boggles the mind to imagine who did those jobs, and how Americans ever got by, before the illegal influx.

Anonymous zen0 February 17, 2013 7:21 AM  

TGM says:
in fact it's a pretty racist and otherwise bad argument),

Are you one of The Left's reluctant racists ?

(Feb 15th post)

Don't worry. Entry Level Job Holder is not a race.

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 7:45 AM  

"Better Cancun, after all, than Johannesburg or Beijing on the Potomac."

Oh, don't you worry. With the mestizos in charge, and without whitey to protect them, it'll be Beijing on the Potomac in short order. I give the grease-blobs twenty years at best before they become somebody else's bitch.


Blogger Bogey February 17, 2013 7:48 AM  

I remember Conan O'Brien's audience cheering the set-up of a joke that began with white people "will become a minority" in a certain year. An audience of white people mind you. That level of brainwashing is sickening. I can think of no other group of people who would cheer the demise of their dominance. Maybe it's penance for the Eugenics thing.

Until we trash the constitution though, we're still the United States. And if atheists think they have it rough now, just wait until a predominate Catholic people are in charge.

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 7:51 AM  

"Me I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish."

What are you going to say in Spanish? Ya gonna talk about futbol and taco seasonings and las chicas calientes on Sabado Gigante? You plan to get a job at a check-cashing place? You realize that with the exception of J.L. Borges, Cesar Vallejo, and Ortega y Gasset, pretty much nothing interesting or original has been said in Spanish for centuries. It may be spoken by zillions of illiterate grease-blobs, but intellectually speaking it's virtually a dead language.

I mean, I guess if you want to understand whether they're making fun of you, be my guest, but I can save you some time and trouble... they're ALL making fun of you.

And since you surrendered your country without a fight, why shouldn't they?

Blogger Rantor February 17, 2013 7:57 AM  

@Bogey, I don't think the Atheists have anything to worry about. The syncretistic Hispanic population may identify as Catholic but they want Obamacare, free birth control and abortion, welfare, and all the rest. They don't care about the athists and I doubt they care much about the homosexual movement. In the end they just want to get more than their share of the spoils.

In the end most of those spoils are going to be safely tucked away in guarded compounds overseas. Apple keeps most of their hoard overseas, Ford is headquartered in Luxembourg, etc. The elite will spend their time elsewhwere while their dreams of a multicultural society leads to the destruction of what made America's wealth possible.



Anonymous The Great Martini February 17, 2013 8:00 AM  


Indeed, it boggles the mind to imagine who did those jobs, and how Americans ever got by, before the illegal influx.


Between 1860 and 1920 there was actually a larger immigrant population as a percentage of total US population. It's true that there has never been as large a single percentage as the modern Mexican influx, including illegal immigration, but even the illegal influx doesn't close the gap. DHS figures show illegal Mexican immigration at seven million, which is 2.3 percent of the population. Late 19th century immigrant population was as high as 15%, while today it's around 12.5% including unauthorized immigrants. That is, there used to be plenty of eager immigrants to take low pay jobs. EXCEPT, during the period 1930 though 1970, which had the unusually low immigrant residence of 4 to 5 percent. I think the modern panic is in reaction to a return to normal levels from that. So how did we survive during the low immigration years? This was the heyday of labor unions and strong economy. In 1960, you could survive on a janitor's wages. Today, you can't.

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 8:04 AM  

"The rules of The Game of History are perfectly clear"

Well as a very wise man once said...

History shows again and again
How Nature points out the folly of Man:
GODZILLA!

Blogger James Jones February 17, 2013 8:16 AM  

Will Scatsey be donating anything for this:

' 1. Fail Burton

Hahaha. It’s not only women. Read what one of my favorite American morons, John Scalzi, President of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America has to say about feminism and beta-males. Turn his “arguments” on their head and he’s the butt of his own jokes.

Typical liberal doofus, typical Orwellian genius, typical apologist for why water is wet when sand wants to be too. Sand cries, Scalzi brings a tissue.

Multiply Scalzi by about a million and there’s plenty of male help changing America’s smelly 1950s diapers. Yes there really are lots of the ideal Oprah-man about – who is essentially a woman with male genitals.'




Check out the comments.

Blogger Nate February 17, 2013 8:25 AM  

As always... Demographics are never a straight line. 10 years ago Russia was dying off... and alabama was covered up in mexicans.

Now Russia is doing just fine... and I saw a mexican family in the grocery for the first time in almost a year.

They may be in small towns in Georgia... but they fled Alabama.

If they fled Alabama... they will flee any state so much as hints at having a backbone.

Blogger Nate February 17, 2013 8:27 AM  

Also... As the charade of recovery continues to fall apart... people will have less and less patience for immigrants. In fact... if someone where to start blaming all the mexicans for the unemployment... well it would work right now... but four years from now?

Blogger Nate February 17, 2013 8:46 AM  

"I didn't choose this path nor was I born with a genius intellect, a silver spoon in my mouth nor the ability to move where ever I wanted internationally"

Horse. Shit.

If you want to leave... you can leave. Aquire a skill that is needed anywhere and everywhere.. electrician or plumber... something like that. Save as much money as possible while doing this. Within 5 years you will have enough money to buy a sail boat and go where ever the F you want to go.

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 8:48 AM  

"This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children..."


I don't recall it being "elected". I recall it being forced on us from the top down. It was part of the agenda, of the power elite, to reduce population levels. The whole process compares rather well to the contemporary top down promotion of homosexuality. It is all outlined in the Jaffe memorandum.

As for the Latinos? Well now that the power elites are done screwing the blacks and almost done screwing the whites, the Latinos are next. Just watch the power elite f&^% their families up too. The power elite will buy-off their “leadership” and just like the blacks and whites, their “leadership” will sell them out.

Anonymous paradox February 17, 2013 8:55 AM  

Res Ipsa February 17, 2013 4:21 AM

Me I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish.



I'm thinking about the same, but adding Irish Gaelic to retain some type of separate white culture. A language to converse with my children with in public... that makes the immigrants less comfortable.

Anonymous Ashes and Dust February 17, 2013 8:58 AM  

So, when all the whining is done:

What can be done about this? What should Whites be doing leading up to, and immediately after, c. 2033?

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni February 17, 2013 9:00 AM  

I plan to leave to Chile, one of the places the untermenschen won't go to. Prosperous, peaceful, almost entirely white (Hispanic, German, Irish) Heck, I've been moving around all my life, anyway. They know I have lots to contribute to their future, especially if I can convince my kids to go there and have children. Anchor babies! And in a little while, I'll be down there getting US Social Security and a state employee pension, for which the liberals will be paying. Revenge is sweet!

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 9:01 AM  

The Great Martini February 17, 2013 8:00 AM

"Between 1860 and 1920 there was actually a larger immigrant population as a percentage of total US population."


Yes, and during that time there was a massive cultural shift in the states. The states went from decentralized republic to young centralizing empire.

Anonymous Susan February 17, 2013 9:01 AM  

That would be mostly liberal white Americans choosing to abort Mr. Day. Please don't blame all of us for that horror. I will agree to a point about the cheap labor argument though.

Anonymous paradox February 17, 2013 9:04 AM  

Ashes and Dust February 17, 2013 8:58 AM

So, when all the whining is done:

What can be done about this? What should Whites be doing leading up to, and immediately after, c. 2033?



I would say this but predominantly in demographically White states.

Anonymous JohnR February 17, 2013 9:14 AM  

Maximo: How will you survive when the US defaults on pension obligations?

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 9:15 AM  

paradox February 17, 2013 9:04 AM Ashes and Dust February 17, 2013 8:58 AM

"I would say this but predominantly in demographically White states."

There is probably a better than 50% probability they'll be classified as "terrorists" and their citadel bombed and burned.


Anyone else remember what happened to the MOVE Organization in Philadelphia? The power structure doesn’t tolerate independence.

Blogger Bob Wallace February 17, 2013 9:23 AM  

Let's just the U.S. splits up and the Pacific Northwest becomes all white. All the Latinos and blacks will be trying to get into it to live decent lives and to get away from the Third World hellholes they created.

BTW, some blacks in Africa are begging the white man to come back and give them jobs. They've realized without the white man, there is nothing. We created 98 percent of everything there is.

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 9:35 AM  

If you want to know the fate of your community? Look to the black community. That is what the power structure has in store for your community.

72% illigetimacy rate
High abortion rate (30% of all abortions)
High poverty rate
High incarceration rate
High illiteracy rate
High rate of single-mother homes


The power elites want you poor, dumb and dependent. So they can control you. The slave master didn't teach his slave to read for a reason.



Anonymous The other skeptic February 17, 2013 9:38 AM  

Within 5 years you will have enough money to buy a sail boat and go where ever the F you want to go.

Well, Nate, that is not true, at least the part about going where ever you want. People who own boats have an enormous anchor around their necks and the authorities everywhere can control them.

It's almost in the same league as those who think that floating city states out on the high seas are secure and a great idea. The reality is that they are enormously vulnerable.

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 9:40 AM  

...and that's why the power elites are "importing" poor, dumb and dependent peasants from south of the border. They are dumbing down voting pool and the culture so the masses can be more easily controlled and exploited.

Anonymous JACIII February 17, 2013 9:42 AM  

The cheap Mexican labor prerogative may be waning. The huge multinational I am employed by just announced the closing of two of its relatively new Mexican manufacturing facilities. It seems eastern Europe is the new Mexico.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 17, 2013 9:44 AM  

2 down, 48 to go

I think that here, Vox has succumbed to the same style of thinking that most have. That is, things will keep on going the way they have.

I think that there is a very good chance that the unintended consequences of Obamacare will happen this year, as described on Instapundit:


Meanwhile, my former colleague Colleen Medill, an ERISA expert, writes:

I don’t know if you will see this in your volume of email, but you might.

I am deeply into studying the impact of Obamacare on employers, and I have been communicating with highly sophisticated ERISA lawyers who are advising employers, from Fortune 50 companies to small firms under 50 employees, on whether to keep or drop or modify their employer group health plans.

It has become very clear to everyone involved who is analytical and not ideological that the rational strategy, for both large and small firms, is to cease providing health care insurance to employees.

No company wants to admit that they are considering eliminating health insurance as an option, or be the first one to drop their health insurance plan, but once a competitor does so, the preference cascade will begin. The clear sentiment is “We will not be the first one to drop our health insurance plan, but we would be a close second.”

The coming preference cascade for employer group health plans is what the Democrats fear the most, because Obamacare was sold to the masses as “if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.”

The people who really know the law, and who have been following the avalanche of regulations, have already figured this out. It will take a while for this specialized knowledge to seep downward, because right now only $800+ an hour ERISA attorneys and the most sophisticated HR people understand how Obamacare really works.


We have already seen lots of restaurant chains reducing employee hours to below thirty a week. The first company that drops health cover will start an avalanche.

It will be a shock to a great many people when they suddenly have to pay for health insurance out of their own pocket (which they do already but since they never see the money at the moment, they don't realize it.)

It will also be a shock to the economy and may well tip it over the edge. Certainly, a lot of people will elect to go uninsured.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 17, 2013 9:47 AM  

...and that's why the power elites are "importing" poor, dumb and dependent peasants from south of the border. They are dumbing down voting pool and the culture so the masses can be more easily controlled and exploited.

Consider the following game plan:

The political elites know that the US is bankrupt, and so they plan to sell out for elite positions in the combined entity created after the merger.

However, there are too many guns in private hands in the US for such a thing to be managed successfully, so ...

Anonymous Godfrey February 17, 2013 9:58 AM  

... so there is "suddenly" a massive push for gun control.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 10:05 AM  

You can live a day without Mexican labor just like you can live a day without going to the grocery store or without cleaning your bathroom. A real test would be a month or two without Mexican labor, when food prep labor has been reduced,

And people cook healthy food for themselves...

calling in overscheduled white labor that doesn't want to be there,

NEWS FLASH! Payment discovered necessary to encourage employees to report for work! Details at 11!

field workers who aren't there,

You mean they'd be in the Third-World countries whence we already import most of our produce?

janitor who don't clean the shit out of toilets, etc.

That's called a "former janitor", last I heard. Unless he's union.

You get the idea.

Yes. You're convinced you're too stupid and lazy to do a good job.

Immigrant labor does occupy a substantial portion of low pay and unskilled jobs that are difficult to fill without it.

You mean to say that there are too many skilled non-immigrants? Or that Senor Gringo ees too estupido, man?

They're even more difficult for high-school and college kids to get, but hey, who cares about the lower-class whites who're trying to make good?

Anonymous TGR White February 17, 2013 10:05 AM  

@ The Great Martini:

Do you believe in the free market? If all the latinos fucked off and no one wanted their jobs then employers would have to up their wage to get workers, which is how the free market works (if you don't introduce externalities such as illegal workers).

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 10:09 AM  

Do you believe in the free market? If all the latinos fucked off and no one wanted their jobs then employers would have to up their wage to get workers, which is how the free market works (if you don't introduce externalities such as illegal workers).

That's the point. He'd like slave labor without all that nasty antebellum whiteness.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 17, 2013 10:12 AM  

You can live a day without Mexican labor just like you can live a day without going to the grocery store or without cleaning your bathroom. A real test would be a month or two without Mexican labor, when food prep labor has been reduced

In the grand scheme of things, a week without electricity is going to cause many more problems that a month without Mexicans.

Anonymous Mr. Pea February 17, 2013 10:18 AM  

So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies… – 2 Kings 21:14

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 10:19 AM  

In the grand scheme of things, a week without electricity is going to cause many more problems that a month without Mexicans.

That's because you're a lazy white boy. Most Mexicans live without electricity all their lives! That only proves they're more industrious.

Anonymous Van February 17, 2013 10:28 AM  

"A Month Without Mexicans" is just "A Month Where 10% of the Workforce Didn't Show Up." Obviously, this creates problems, but it's not because Mexicans have some value peculiar to Mexicans. Ultimately, they are a net negative. Get rid of the Mexicans, allow a short time for the economy to adapt, and the US would be better off.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 17, 2013 10:33 AM  

"Horse. Shit.

If you want to leave... you can leave. Aquire a skill that is needed anywhere and everywhere.. electrician or plumber... something like that. Save as much money as possible while doing this. Within 5 years you will have enough money to buy a sail boat and go where ever the F you want to go."

This plan looks like its been crafted by someone who does not have that much experience dealing with bureaucracy. Good on paper but not in practice. How many first world countries are importing electricians and plumbers? How many first world countries let you sail boats where ever you want?

Anonymous damaged justice February 17, 2013 10:34 AM  

"If you want to leave... you can leave."

Sure, if I want to get shot at by the armed thugs who claim the moral and legal authority to shoot me.

Any other bright ideas?

Anonymous Mr. Pea February 17, 2013 10:41 AM  

That only proves they're more industrious.

No. It only proves that they live in a 3rd world shot-hole.

"We can't take it anymore! Lets migrate to America so we can have electricity and get the gringo to pay for it!"

Anonymous The other skeptic February 17, 2013 10:51 AM  

That's because you're a lazy white boy. Most Mexicans live without electricity all their lives! That only proves they're more industrious.

Actually, no. It just proves that they are too dumb to improve their lives and come up with anything better.

Anonymous Mr. Pea February 17, 2013 11:03 AM  

Remember, O Lord, what has come upon us; Look, and behold our reproach! Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens, And our houses to foreigners. We have become orphans and waifs, Our mothers are like widows. – Lamentations 5:1-3

Consequences.

Anonymous E. PERLINE February 17, 2013 11:17 AM  

I was brought up in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn N.Y. This was at a time when the white people were leaving because a lot of black people were moving in. We didn't move because my father depended on renting some flats in his small tenement building.

My father found himself with unusual status. He was the white landlord and he had someone to wash his car, etc. The point of this observation is that whatever your race, you can secure a place - due to advantages in education that you have been able to acquire.

Anonymous John February 17, 2013 11:20 AM  

Vox, I'm curious. Is Italy embracing suicidal multiculturalism too? I used to live in a suburb of Napoli in the early 90s, and it was wonderfully non-diverse (I love Italian culture). To me, it was like going back in time to the early 60s, right before America committed cultural suicide. Really hoping Italia is not going down the path of America and England.

Anonymous Daniel February 17, 2013 11:24 AM  

What? So industrious that they can't build and monetize a power plant? That's the opposite of industrious.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 17, 2013 11:35 AM  

Re: Learning Spanish...


After a stint working with Mexicans and blue collar whites some years ago, I discovered that if you went to the trouble to learn Spanish, you could...

1) become aware that 99% of the coversation is slang, nonsense, and silly jibberish.

2) waste a lot of your time

3) gain nothing

All of the intelligent men who were bilingual hispanics would talk to you in plain English.

Learning Spanish was fine if you wanted to ...

a) burn up a lot of time with no gain
b) understand the ramblings of the lower class imbeceles
c) hear a lot of childlike jokes about whores and anal sex
d) try to answer ignorant questions from ignorant people in a language that is unsuitable for the task



Blogger Res Ipsa February 17, 2013 11:41 AM  

"I think you're overreacting."

How? Being able to deal with what is, isn't doing something drastic. Bosses that can speak Mexican get paid more. Mid-level employees tha speak Mexican get paid more. Customer service people that speak Mexican get paid more. Sales people that speak Mexican get paid more. Get the picture? I don't have a pool boy that I need to give instructions too. I do have a need to deal with people.

If the Mexicans ever decide to turn into violent mobs that wander around looking for whites to assult and kill, like the blacks, wouldn't it be better to be known as a friend than a foe?

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 11:42 AM  

I believe the line "that only proves they're more industrious" was spoken in jest. In Italian: "ironico".

What's the old joke about Mexico? The US stole half their territory, and mysteriously, it stole the half that had all the roads, bridges, railways, schools, hospitals, plumbing, factories, power plants.......

Next time some grease-blob or SWPL tries to tell you that the US SW "really" belongs to Mexico, ask them ingenuously: "Where can I see the monuments that the Mexicans raised to commemorate great men and events in Colorado and Arizona? What are the stories and songs about the legendary deeds of the Mexicans in Nevada?"

Zorro and the Mission system on the California coast. Oh, and some ranches. A scattering of little settlements that passed for "cities." Such is the mighty legacy of the Mexicans in Mexico. Actually, what really happened was, a bunch of white Spaniards stole all that land from the Hopi, Navajo, Comanche, Paiute, etc etc. And now, because of this, some short fat grease blob down in the Yucatan peninsula thinks it's "really" "his"? This would be like saying that because the English conquered Ireland, Ireland "really" belongs to the Estonians.

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 11:45 AM  

"Such is the mighty legacy of the Mexicans in Mexico"

I meant of course the Mexicans in the SW. >gak<

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! February 17, 2013 11:50 AM  

"Customer service people that speak Mexican get paid more."

Well see, that's exactly the problem, innit. If we hadn't been so fucking accomodating to them, then there wouldn't be so goddamn many of them now.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni February 17, 2013 12:07 PM  

to John R at 9:14 AM: how will I survive when the US and the states default on SS and pension obligations?

Legit question, but I figure SS and pensions will be paying out for the next few years, long enough for me to get established in prosperous Chile. I should be able to work for years, too, and set up a business with minimal govt interference to employ any of my kids who want to come down. The payment systems in the US will die a slow, painful death. And if they collapse suddenly, I won't be there to suffer. Anything that I get back of what I paid in will be a bonus.

Anonymous E. PERLINE February 17, 2013 12:09 PM  

I wouldn't worry that the world is coming to an end just because populations move around. Jet travel is sixty years old. It's a wonder it didn't happen sooner.

We shouldn't get so emotional about it. We should be, as my grandchildren say, cool. These publisized peregrinations are only temporary. Christains know it is cool love that counts.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 12:16 PM  

@ VD

This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children

This very much looks like you're assigning a causal relationship between abortion and the collapse of the US - correct me if I'm wrong. The thing is that abortion is simply another symptom of a much deeper and far more endemic cultural rot, and assigning blame to the specific issue of abortion is like worrying about cleaning the blood on the ground from a massive wound.

IIRC, thirty-eight percent of abortions are performed on black women. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if several percentage points of abortions are by non-black women who abortion unborn children of black sperm donors, although I doubt anyone tracks that statistic. This means that around firty-five percent of abortions in the US are of black unborn children.

Are you really saying that the Latino invasion is the product of there not being an additional thirty million more blacks living in the US?

The US has a natural agricultural, janitorial, menial labor, etc. workforce: eighty percent of the blacks who live here. The rot lies in not requiring blacks to pull their own weight by integrating into occupations that suit their very limited talents and abilities. The black populations of cities like Detroit and Birmingham produce almost nothing of real economic value and their natural talents lie in picking fruit and mopping floors for much more productive white people.

This is why the so-called pro-life movement is such a failure: it rails against a particular symptom of cultural rot, rather than the cultural rot, itself.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 17, 2013 12:17 PM  

I can understand the guy who seeks to learn Spanish.

I, too, opposed this shit years ago. I and a lot of others complained heavily to our bishop that we didn't support illegal immigration, and we all said it was wrong. Suffice to say, the bishop didn't seem to hear us, and to this day he caters to the mexicans of our "sanctuary city." What can you expect from a baby boomer bishop?

The hispanics are nicer than the blacks but they aren't me. My neighborhood is consequently a mix of blacks, hispanics, and poor or elderly whites. If I go shopping, our family leaves town to where all the indebted whites live. When I go to work at the clinic, I don't speak english until I leave.

I actually hate whites, now. My race is the stupidest most self-destructive people in the world.

By the way, just throwing this out there, but jewish subverters did this. Thoughts?

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 12:21 PM  

What happens when the tit runs dry? Why is it so difficult for people to see this in the framework of Mexican expansionism. The immigrants are not going to take the U.S. and make it into something better. They are going to drag it down to the level of their intrinsic nature. It will become Northern Mexico complete with all the infrastructural problems they say they are trying to escape.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 12:33 PM  

This is why the so-called pro-life movement is such a failure: it rails against a particular symptom of cultural rot, rather than the cultural rot, itself.

Asher, this is something we can agree on, but nobody seems to agree on the fundamental cause of the cultural rot.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 12:36 PM  

@ IM2L844

The immigrants are not going to take the U.S. and make it into something better. They are going to drag it down to the level of their intrinsic nature. It will become Northern Mexico complete with all the infrastructural problems they say they are trying to escape.

What I don't understand about comments like this is that I don't see mestizo hispanics making any claims to the effect that they are going to make the US better or, even, that they are trying to escape anything. Sure, white leftists seem to think that the mestizos will make things even better and white conservatives say that the mestizos are trying to escape the dysfunction of Mexico. But, frankly, I'm not at all sure that the mestizos, themselves, are even cognizant of some sort of abstract idea like "escape".

Mestizos are simply following incentives, and it is not motivated by abstract ideas like "hope" or, even, "escape".

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 12:53 PM  

@ IM2L844

I think the rot is due to atomistic individualism and the privileging of individual human reason as some autonomous thing possessing intrinsic worth. Hate to break it to you but most of the ilk seem in thrall to such notions - theirs is just a different flavor than the leftists.

Vox, for example, calls himself a libertarian. I used to be a libertarian and inundated myself in libertarian writing and thought for many years. Almost every variant of libertarianism I've seen privileges human reason as being an autonomous, independent, sovereign thing. In other words, libertarianism is a totalistic normative framework that starts from propositions that "the world ought to be such and such" - just another ideal system.

Libertarianism, therefore, is just another manifestation of the rotten notion of a total ideal system that flows from the position of autonomous, sovereign human reason.

Don't get me wrong, libertarians have many great insights into the way the world works, but, at the end of the day, it is most just people pontificating about how the world ought to be.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 12:56 PM  

Yes, Asher, it is the leftists who are claiming immigrants are going to make the U.S. a better place, but you are splitting hairs if you don't think the claims I've heard over and over from both legal and illegal immigrants that they are immigrating in order to make a better life for themselves is not tantamount to trying to escape a worse life.

For cryin' out loud. Don't start arguing just for the sake of arguing again.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 1:02 PM  

@ IM2L844

Another, and related, serious problem is the waywardness of Christian dogma. I don't think moral relativism is, at all, incompatible with the Bible. Why? Because the Bible doesn't command us to be moral, it commands us to be holy, to be set apart. Morality is man-made rules of behavior, necessary for all human beings functioning as social creatures.

Immorality is a violation of man's rules, but sin is a violation of God's Law. When people conflate immorality and sin they are conflating man's rules for behavior and God's Law; the two are definitely not the same thing, ever.

This is why calls for an objective (sic) morality are such a category mistake. Morality is made by man and, thus, necessarily changes by time and place. God's Law is universal and absolute and, thus, never changes. The problem with calling for an objective (sic) morality is that man, as a limited and conflicted creature lacks the capacity to implement God's Law; a perfect law can only be implemented by a perfect creature.

The relatively recent trend in Christian circles, even supposedly orthodox ones, has been toward heresy on this crucial point.

Anonymous fnn February 17, 2013 1:04 PM  

Libertarianism vs. Omniseparatism:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=869Be7Oqa2o&feature=em-subs_digest&list=TLIBenrwSgJOA

Anonymous Geoff February 17, 2013 1:11 PM  

@Maximo Macaroni and Vox Day

Chile, Italy, which is the best bolt-hole? Gun rights in both places are negligible compared to the U.S. I imagine Nate would say the thing to do is fight in place (although he did say something about a boat...) here in the U.S. after stocking up on water, food and ammo.

What can a person of upper middle class means do? And please, if one more person recommends Alaska I'm going to gag--everyone there will likely die without energy. And energy is about to become pretty scarce during the break in int'l trade.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 1:12 PM  

@ IM2L844

the claims I've heard over and over from both legal and illegal immigrants that they are immigrating in order to make a better life for themselves is not tantamount to trying to escape a worse life.

For cryin' out loud. Don't start arguing just for the sake of arguing again.


I'm not. I would invite you to closely read the comment I just posted. There is a strong and pervasive trend in the west during the past few centuries to assign absolute sovereignty to human reason over all human functioning.

A couple of weeks ago I had an exchange with Vox where I claimed to consider myself on "Team Vox". He responded by telling me there was no team vox, only "Team Truth". That would indicate, to me, that Vox considers human reason as having sovereignty over all human functioning.

The assertion that immigrants claim they are coming to the US for a better life echoes that imputation of absolute sovereignty to human reason.

Consider the two following phrases:

A) "a better life"
B) "following incentives"

Which of these is more simply a description of function and which is loaded down with metaphysical baggage? The one that is bare description is one that uses human reason as nothing more than an analytic tool and the one loaded down with metaphysical baggage insidiously references the concept of the sovereignty of human reason.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 1:16 PM  

God's Law is universal and absolute

Does that mean it is incapable of being nuanced?

Blogger vandelay February 17, 2013 1:19 PM  

“To constantly refer to undocumented immigrants as illegals is very hostile and self-righteous,” Mr. Baugh said. “Let’s point out that while crossing the border without documents is illegal, a federal misdemeanor, being in this country as an immigrant isn’t a criminal act.”

There is no hope.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 1:27 PM  

The assertion that immigrants claim they are coming to the US for a better life echoes that imputation of absolute sovereignty to human reason.

This isn't comlpex. The percieved properties of the assertion are orthogonal to the topic. That's actually what they claim or are you simply unaware of that.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 1:32 PM  

I believe the line "that only proves they're more industrious" was spoken in jest. In Italian: "ironico".

No. I was 100% serious. I am firmly convinced that people who can't be bothered to improve the space around them are infinitely more industrious than the people who actually do something once in a while. If only we were more like them, then we too could live in a third-world hellhole full of death cultists.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 1:35 PM  

“To constantly refer to undocumented immigrants as illegals is very hostile and self-righteous,” Mr. Baugh said. “Let’s point out that while crossing the border without documents is illegal, a federal misdemeanor, being in this country as an immigrant isn’t a criminal act.”

Right. We've never seen it happen that you first are required to stop condemning the person FOR the act, and then later the rule was changed to tell you to stop condemning the act because it's hate against the person.

Because that would be gay.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 1:40 PM  

The one that is bare description is one that uses human reason as nothing more than an analytic tool and the one loaded down with metaphysical baggage insidiously references the concept of the sovereignty of human reason.

This looks a bit like mindless babble to me.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 1:45 PM  

Let’s point out that while crossing the border without documents is illegal, a federal misdemeanor, being in this country as an immigrant isn’t a criminal act.

Although committing a crime makes one a criminal, being a criminal isn't a crime. A prime example of leftist logic in a nutshell.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 1:57 PM  

Let’s point out that while crossing the border without documents is illegal, a federal misdemeanor, being in this country as an immigrant isn’t a criminal act.

That really was a gem. And of course it completely glosses over all the other crimes routinely committed by illegal aliens, like driving without insurance, tax fraud, identity theft, etc. Quislings like Baugh are the main reason the US is in its current predicament.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 1:59 PM  

@ IM2L844

Does that mean it is incapable of being nuanced?

Why the passive voice? Nuanced by whom? Man? God?

That's actually what they claim or are you simply unaware of that.

That's actually an after-the-fact, ex post rationalization when they're asked. That's the entire problem with metaphysics: it is all ex post rationalization for human functions that are not governed by reason. It's a reversal of cause and effect: the "reasons" are the actual effect and the function is the cause.

When do immigrants say this? When they are asked. Outside of being asked why they come here they do not make any such claim and even the very notion is absent from their consciousness.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 2:07 PM  

Does that mean it is incapable of being nuanced?

Why the passive voice? Nuanced by whom? Man? God?


Does this mean the word "nuanced" is incapable of being an adjective?

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 2:08 PM  

Asher, where's your blog? I'll stop by. We can discuss the things you want to discuss and you can practice your sophist pedantry on me til you're blue in the face.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 17, 2013 2:10 PM  

Re: Comparing these two concepts...

a) a better life
b) following incentives

................

Women are easily moved with emotional language. Women, minorites, and man-boobed white beta males vote for the leftists consistently. (this leaves you and a few guys you work with to try to vote non-leftist)

Any questions?

There is no method of steering women voters to the right using logic or facts.

If the GOP were seriously to attempt to "game" women, we would merely have a very dishonest pissing match, loaded with emotional verbage, without a care for honesty or reality.

It matters not whether working white men vote or don't vote. The result is the same.

Just try the following...

a) think
b) make a plan
c) put the plan into motion
d) don't worry about what your daughters, wife, and female friends think. They will vote against your interests (and their own) every time. No matter what.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 February 17, 2013 2:13 PM  

It's funny, when you cross the US border into Mexico at San Ysidro, directly on the Mexico side the hills are littered with shanty houses strapped together with zip ties and corrugated steel sheets. The farther south you go, many of the shanties only have two walls and a roof, but every damn one of them has a satellite dish connected directly into a big screen TV.
I don't know what made me think of that right now, but there you go.

Anonymous A Visitor February 17, 2013 2:22 PM  

I have no sympathy for the coming American white minority. This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children and embraced cheap imported labor because they believed they were a nation of immigrants rather than settlers.

Vox, most of us didn't choose this. It was thrust upon us by our elites. In my short 26 years of life and living in our republic, it seems everyone we throw up there to Capitol Hill or the office of POTUS does not care. We are your people, Vox, whether you like it or not. Some solidarity would be appreciated.

As Europe slowly collapses and the U.S. does too, there will be fragments of Western Civilization around. Canada is starting to get inundated with 3rd world immigrants, like we are.

A real test would be a month or two without Mexican labor, when food prep labor has been reduced, calling in overscheduled white labor that doesn't want to be there, field workers who aren't there, janitor who don't clean the shit out of toilets, etc. You get the idea. Immigrant labor does occupy a substantial portion of low pay and unskilled jobs that are difficult to fill without it.

@TheGreatMartini

We used to just fine without illegal aliens. Corporations desperation for large profits and people's desire for cheap goods coupled with corporations unwillingness to pay Americans a decent wage along with free trade agreements destroyed our middle and lower classes.

I'd recommend The Immorality of Illegal Immigration by Fr. John Bascio for anyone interested on what it does to the U.S. and their home countries. I just finished Suicide of a Superpower by Pat Buchanan, depressing read but he gives some good ideas on how to limit the damage.

That level of brainwashing is sickening.

@Bogey

Look at what it's done to whites on a large scale level. Look at how we are portrayed in the media, how dating somewhat outside of the white race is portrayed as the noble thing to do in the media, etc.

I guess if you want to understand whether they're making fun of you

@The Master Cylinder!

It's great to shock them into submission when you demolish them in their own language. I speak Spanish and two other foreign languages, though Spanish is my strong suit.

In high school, my parents had a second garage constructed to accommodate all of our rarely used but important belongings (seasonal decorations, extra furniture, etc.) Our contractor brought some Mexicans into do it (our contractor was white). I was moving some of the heavier load between the two garages (which are a fair distance apart) and heard the Mexicans snickering and commenting on how bad it sucked to be me. I turned around and told them they shouldn't speak about someone behind their back (in a Mexican accent, too, at that). They were horrified, "You speak Spanish?!?" "Yep!"

I doubt they care much about the homosexual movement.

@Rantor

There is much ire in Mexico and other parts of Latin America towards homosexuals. They don't like them.

I should be able to work for years, too, and set up a business with minimal govt interference to employ any of my kids who want to come down.

@ Macaroni

Just hope Chile doesn't elect another socialist like Allende and he nationalizes everything.

I was talking to my grandfather last week. He said he lived in the best era of American history: grew up during the Depression, the Second World War, Korea, 'Nam, etc. He regaled me with stories about how America used to be: being able to buy firearms in cash without a Form 4473 at a gun store, being able to leave your doors unlocked, your fishing gear in the boat all night, better societal decorum, more of a genuine fear of God, etc. I tend to agree with him.

Anonymous A Visitor February 17, 2013 2:22 PM  

The way I see it, the only thing to do is stay in the U.S. and prepare. No other country guarantees the right to bear arms like we do. That and our European history for the first two centuries is enough for me. I've been around the world enough to know there is no other place I would rather live, no matter how bad it is going to get here.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 2:28 PM  

@ IM2L844

I'm merely exposing the non-reason based roots of all metaphysics and describing why metaphysical notions like "a better life" cannot be rationally argued.

That is not sophist pedantry.

I don't have a blog as my life configuration would not allow me to attract a sustained readership over time.

Anonymous VD February 17, 2013 2:35 PM  

A couple of weeks ago I had an exchange with Vox where I claimed to consider myself on "Team Vox". He responded by telling me there was no team vox, only "Team Truth". That would indicate, to me, that Vox considers human reason as having sovereignty over all human functioning.

You're incorrect. The sovereignty of human reason does not follow from a dedication to Truth. This should be obvious, since human reason can be incorrect.

Vox, most of us didn't choose this. It was thrust upon us by our elites. In my short 26 years of life and living in our republic, it seems everyone we throw up there to Capitol Hill or the office of POTUS does not care. We are your people, Vox, whether you like it or not. Some solidarity would be appreciated.

Elites for whom nearly everyone voted. I didn't. I was told I was crazy and wrong for not supporting them. I don't enjoy being right in this case, but asking me to have sympathy for people who bought the "nation of immigrants" and "here for a better life" nonsense for decades is a bit much.

“Let’s point out that while crossing the border without documents is illegal, a federal misdemeanor, being in this country as an immigrant isn’t a criminal act.”

Let's point out that while murder is illegal, simply standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in your hand is not.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 2:36 PM  

I don't have a blog as my life configuration would not allow me to attract a sustained readership over time.

That's not what would prevent it.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 2:45 PM  

Asher, it should be clear that "a better life" is an entirely subjective term. Whatever "a better life" may mean, it is certainly what the vast majority of immigrants are seeking. I can't imagine what you're hoping to accomplish, but yes, arguing over phrases like "a better life" to the exclusion of the larger discussion concerning immigration is about as pedantic as it gets.

Anonymous Deer Antler Spray February 17, 2013 2:45 PM  

[smiley]

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 2:56 PM  

I'm merely exposing the non-reason based roots of all metaphysics...That's not sophist pedantry.

Yet, if I point out that the "non-reason based roots of metaphysics" is not the topic of discussion, I expect you will counter with how it is somehow integral to understanding the fundamental nature of the topic. That's what sophist pedants do.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 2:56 PM  

@ VD

The sovereignty of human reason does not follow from a dedication to Truth

With a capital "T"? Yes, it most certainly does. "truths", with a small "t", relative "truths"? No.

When the Jesus said that "then you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" what preceded that? The Truth is God's Word per the preceding statement that "if you hold to my teachings". There is only one Truth: that God is perfect, that man is inherently wicked and fallen and that the only thing that can save him is the blood of Jesus. That is the only Truth - all other things are human truths, relative and incomplete.

For example, I would say that it is true, small "t", that blacks and whites, as evolutionarally divergent population culsters, have different average traits and abilities. That, however is not The Truth but "a truth".

Jesus' Truth in John 8:32 is Truth, not about this world but about the next. What freedom was he talking about in that verse? Freedom from sorrow, grief and pain in this world? No, he was talking about freedom from the bondage of sin through the blood of Christ and the grace of God. That Truth is not about the things of this world but of the next.

It is blatantly unscriptural to refer to truths about this world as The Truth, as evidenced by John 8:32.

This should be obvious, since human reason can be incorrect.

Even where human reason is correct it is "truths" not The Truth.

Anonymous 11B February 17, 2013 2:57 PM  

I have posted this before so I am sorry if it is old to you. But one thing I find fascinating about this day and age is that militarily weak nations are the ones that seem to be taking over territory which is contrary to logic.

Shitty Albania has around 3 million Albanians in that country. There are another 2.5 million or so Albanians living in Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece. Yet little, weak Albania basically used mass immigration to take away Kosovo from Serbia, albeit they did it with the USAF's support, even though Serbia is a stronger nation with around 10 million people. And its economy is stronger too. Albanians are threatening to take parts of Macedonia, and 10 million Greeks, who have a fine military, are jittery over the Albanians there.

Similarly Mexico is smaller in population, GDP and its military is a joke (their fighter fleet consists of 10 F-5s). Yet 120 million Mexicans are able to send 20 million of their brethren to the USA and effectively become a permanent pain in the ass that is only going to get worse. They are on the verge of becoming the majority population in our most important state and in the near future will become the dominant group along our entire Southwest. Their presence, both legal and illegal, has already affected the census which helps explain why my state, MO, has lost another congressional seat after the 2010 census. In effect I am getting less representation.

Meanwhile, no one appears to immigrating to Albania or Mexico which means while those two backwaters are colonizing their neighbors by exporting their people, they face no threat whatsoever of losing demographic hegemony in their own lands. Mathematically you would think that 10 million Serbs could send 3 million of themselves into Albania and automatically become the majority. Or that 30 million Americans could bum rush into Mexico and become almost a quarter of their population causing them the problem of dealing with a alien group with a different language and customs.

But that ain't happening because Mexico and Albania haven't created anything worthwhile to lure others. So now they will just export themselves onto their neighbors. Their militarily and economically stronger neighbors who apparently cannot protect themselves from unarmed invasion armies.

Anonymous Crude February 17, 2013 2:57 PM  

Elites for whom nearly everyone voted. I didn't. I was told I was crazy and wrong for not supporting them. I don't enjoy being right in this case, but asking me to have sympathy for people who bought the "nation of immigrants" and "here for a better life" nonsense for decades is a bit much.

Where's your evidence that substantial amounts of white people bought the "nation of immigrants" and "here for a better life" nonsense? I think that's incorrect.

I submit this poll again. This time with a quote.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2013 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new national poll of 1,000 likely voters finds widespread public opposition to legalizing millions of illegal aliens. The poll also finds overwhelming skepticism that promises of future immigration enforcement would be kept, or that the government could effectively carry out the legalization process without significant fraud. Voters also do not believe President Obama's claims that our borders are secure or that his administration is effectively enforcing immigration laws.

The poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that only 36 percent of likely voters support "allowing illegal immigrants to legalize their status and remain here." By contrast, 52 percent support immigration enforcement as the best approach to dealing with illegal immigration, with 37 percent in favor of "encouraging illegal immigrants to return home by removing jobs and benefits," and an additional 15 percent who want current illegal immigrants deported.

I'd bet you if that poll limited itself to white respondents, the margins would be higher.

Americans made a lot of mistakes. White Americans made and make a lot of mistakes. But the sympathy for the fictional illegal immigrant wasn't obviously one of those. Americans are against it.

Now, maybe you can turn around and lay the blame on them for failing to turn that view into action, for allowing themselves to be stuck with certain candidates, etc. But that's another issue.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 3:05 PM  

@ IM2L844

Yet, if I point out that the "non-reason based roots of metaphysics" is not the topic of discussion, I expect you will counter with how it is somehow integral to understanding the fundamental nature of the topic.

There is no such thing as a purely autonomous topic. If there is some critical flaw in the discussion of some topic I am going to object to it - that is not unreasonable or pedantic behavior. To claim that immigrants are voicing a cohesive, aspirational narrative of coming to America for a better life fundamentally misunderstands how those populations actually function.

Additionally, it is using the very language that the left uses and gives the left further power. Why would you, through your word choice, lend further power to the left?

Anonymous realmatt February 17, 2013 3:08 PM  

It doesn't matter if they're really here for a better life or not. or if they intend to do us harm or not, as a reason for coming here. It's pointless to argue over. The fact of the matter is, when the minority becomes the majority, they send the former majority packing.

This is true in large populations as well as a few people sitting in a room together.

Prepare to destroy them all or count your losses.

This is the world.

If you see no more potential in this great continent then by all means, leave, or stay, with your head up your ass, waiting for the worst.

I don't know that I want to see this country and all it's advancements die as it's left in the hands of Blacks and Amerindian mongrels too stupid to understand how Social Security is not going to help you.

Realmatt
2nd Gen. Mutt

Anonymous VD February 17, 2013 3:14 PM  

With a capital "T"? Yes, it most certainly does. "truths", with a small "t", relative "truths"? No.

Shut up, Asher.

Either learn stick to the topic at hand or go away. You're almost as bad as Tad. My beliefs about human reason are not the topic. Do you seriously not understand that?

And spare us the self-justifications. Nobody gives a damn, least of all me. If you have an opinion on US demographics and the consequences thereof, fine. Anything else, not so much.

Anonymous nick digger February 17, 2013 3:16 PM  

I’m buying Spanish language lessons and planning on teaching my kids Spanish.

Any Spanish word you will ever need to know is posted on the menu at Taco Bell. Unless you and your children plan to be useless Wall-E types who need a mexican to mow your lawn and wipe your ass for you, then by all means, add "por favor" to your vocabulary.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 3:30 PM  

"Additionally, it is using the very language that the left uses and gives the left further power."

Denying an obvious truth gives power to one's opponent and only serves to diminish one's credibility. If immigrants are not seeking a better life, what do you believe they're seeking? I really don't see any plausible alternative.

Part of the left's typical "better life" narrative, though, is the idea that illegal immigrants are law abiding, hard working people who make an overall positive contribution to society. Some of them are, but such people are a small minority of illegal aliens. Overall, they are a parasitic class who are seeking "a better life" at the direct expense of US citizens. They want someone else to pay for their health care, children's education, food, housing, cell phones, and utilities. When they cause a car accident, they just walk away. They claim nine dependents so that they don't pay any federal taxes, or they just work for cash. There are some taxes they can't escape, but overall, they pay much less than citizens do.

So yes, they absolutely want a better life, and they want to force you to pay for it. Now explain to me revealing this truth helps the left.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 3:41 PM  

Another aspect to the immigration issue that's seldom mentioned is that illegals don't want to be citizens. They don't want the responsibility of paying their own bills. Let Uncle Sugar do it!

When Reagan's amnesty took effect, there were huge numbers of them that took the amnesty and then just assumed new identities to avoid paying federal taxes. There's no reason to think the same thing wouldn't happen all over again.

Blogger Nate February 17, 2013 3:49 PM  

"This plan looks like its been crafted by someone who does not have that much experience dealing with bureaucracy. Good on paper but not in practice. How many first world countries are importing electricians and plumbers? How many first world countries let you sail boats where ever you want?"

You ask several questions here but the answer to all over them is pretty much the same. Virtually all of them.

there is another answer that is also important... but its in the form of a question.

Why do you think 1st world countries are more free?

here's a clue.

they aren't.

Blogger Nate February 17, 2013 3:50 PM  

People with skills... like electricians... can find work anywhere in the world. That is a fact.

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 3:53 PM  

@Crude

The poll you refer to simply underlines how stupid Americans are.

Do they overwhelmingly say "NO" when asked if illegals should be legalized. Yep.

Do they overwhelmingly say "NO" when asked if illegals should be offered a "path to citizenship"? Nope.


Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 3:55 PM  

@ Noah B

If immigrants are not seeking a better life, what do you believe they're seeking? I really don't see any plausible alternative.

"Seeking" implies some body of cohesive, rational body of thought. The vast majority of immigrants are simply following incentives, driven by instinct. It almost no different from a hoard of rabbits stripping a particular field of every scrap of food and then moving onto the next one.

Rabbits aren't "seeking a better life" when they leave a barren field for a fruitful one, they are just following their brute instincts. Immigrants are largely the same way and there's simply no thought there, at all.

Part of the left's typical "better life" narrative, though, is the idea that illegal immigrants are law abiding, hard working people who make an overall positive contribution to society.

What percentage of immigrants commit serious crimes? I'm sure it's not even close to a majority. The majority of "law breaking" done by immigrants has one simple solution: legalization of status. That's certainly not my solution but it's the inevitable consequence of thinking of immigrants in leftists terms.

Immigrants don't come here because they're seeking a better life, they come here because they are rabbits, acting on brute instinct. Populations consisting of rabbits simply cannot contribute positively to a modern society.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 3:56 PM  

People with skills... like electricians... can find work anywhere in the world. That is a fact.

And getting "anywhere in the world" is half the fun.

Anonymous Rex Little February 17, 2013 3:58 PM  

This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children

I question how much of an impact abortion has had on the white-Latino mix. First, as Asher pointed out, a large minority of the aborted babies were black. Second, I believe a lot of women who had abortions later had kids which they wouldn't have had if they'd kept the ones they aborted. I have no idea how many, but I know one personally, and I doubt she's unique.

Anonymous realmatt February 17, 2013 3:58 PM  

It doesn't matter if they're seeking a better life or not or if they're committing crimes or not. They change the country. If you don't want the country changed, don't let them in.

Why is this such a horrible concept?

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:00 PM  

Asher, does having food to eat make a person's life better? Yes or no question here.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:02 PM  

@ Noah B

Consider the types of leftists who comment over at various rabbit warrens, like McRapey's. Do you really think they're just trying to make the world a better place, as they claim? I certainly don't. Now, they certainly claim that when prompted but that is a ex post justification for their instinctual, herd behavior.

Same for immigrants.

Anonymous Crude February 17, 2013 4:02 PM  

The poll you refer to simply underlines how stupid Americans are.

Great - they're stupid. I wasn't arguing they were smart. I was arguing that the idea that Americans - particularly white Americans - are overwhelmingly in favor of illegal immigration is false based on what data we have.

Do they overwhelmingly say "NO" when asked if illegals should be offered a "path to citizenship"? Nope.

You're apparently referring to this Gallup poll where 72% responded yes to whether they would vote for a plan to "Allow undocumented immigrants living in the United States the chance to become legal residents or citizens if they meet certain requirements."

Frankly, that is a weak question, and does not cash out to "let's make the illegals legal!" Accent on the 'chance', accent on the 'legal residents', accent on the 'certain requirements'.

Meanwhile, the poll I cited shows overwhelming opposition to amnesty, and support for enforcing immigration laws as a means of dealing with the illegal immigration problem. By the way, remember that's a poll of Americans generally - so that's including the latino and black figures. Do you honestly think we'd see an equal or less proportion if it were limited to white voters?

Americans are stupid. Americans have made mistakes. But Vox is wrong on this one, and anyone who thinks that most Americans - much less most white Americans - are just delighted about the prospect of amnesty are either sitting on some valuable data I'd like to see, or are just plain wrong.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:02 PM  

It almost no different from a hoard of rabbits stripping a particular field of every scrap of food and then moving onto the next one.

So remember, folks: Don't hoard your rabbits. Stuffing them in a drawer or a trunk only leaves them hungry when they break out.

Immigrants don't come here because they're seeking a better life, they come here because they are rabbits, acting on brute instinct.

Considering that you come here not seeking information, but to monopolize the conversation and draw attention to yourself, can we assume that you're also acting on brute instinct?

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:02 PM  

@ Noah B

Asher, does having food to eat make a person's life better? Yes or no question here.

No. No. No.

The very question is a category mistake.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:04 PM  

@ Mystery Man

can we assume that you're also acting on brute instinct?

Given that I directly answer to every question and challenged direct to me the definitive answer is No.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:06 PM  

"Consider the types of leftists who comment over at various rabbit warrens, like McRapey's. Do you really think they're just trying to make the world a better place, as they claim? I certainly don't. Now, they certainly claim that when prompted but that is a ex post justification for their instinctual, herd behavior."

Yes, I believe they are trying to make the world a better place. I just think they're idiots and don't know what they're doing.

What do you believe they're trying to do?

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:06 PM  

Given that I directly answer to every question and challenged direct to me the definitive answer is No.

I'll be more clear, because your little rabbit brain is having a hard time processing this:

Attention whoring is brute instinct in humans.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:07 PM  

Also, Asher, anything "definitive" is metaphysical. Why are you resorting to metaphysical arguments to justify your attention whoring ex post facto?

Anonymous redundancyguy February 17, 2013 4:07 PM  

Agent Tadsher is in true form today.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:08 PM  

No, as in, if you answer the question, you will see your argument totally shredded?

Let's assume everything you say is true and that the behavior of immigrants is identical to that of rabbits, and that all they're seeking is more food. If it's a category error, it was made by you in presenting your analogy.

Now answer the question: does having food to eat make a person's life better? Yes or no.

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 4:19 PM  

You're apparently referring to this Gallup poll...

No. It was a Fox News poll

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/28/fox-news-poll-66-percent-favor-path-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants-with/

Meanwhile, the poll I cited shows overwhelming opposition to amnesty, and support for enforcing immigration laws as a means of dealing with the illegal immigration problem.

You've got to realize that in an idiocracy people have no problem saying "I hate amnesty" in one breath, and in the next breath saying "I support a path to citizenship if they learn English and pay a penalty and get a background check".

But Vox is wrong on this one, and anyone who thinks that most Americans - much less most white Americans - are just delighted about the prospect of amnesty are either sitting on some valuable data I'd like to see, or are just plain wrong.

Did Vox say most Americans want amnesty?

I think he's simply recognizing the fact that most Americans have supported the continual chipping away at the stone. Even today 66% in a Fox News poll express their support for chipping away.

That's what stupid people do. They say "Hey, don't pee in my pool!" one day, and the next day they will outline for you in great detail the exact conditions under which they will allow urine to be systematically dumped into their swimming pool.

And the progressives will be more than happy to set up a "Department of Pool Urinification" to accommodate you.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:23 PM  

I guess you're going to have to give some sort of criteria by which you identify attention whoring. My guess is that pretty much anyone but the ilk would consider my objections entirely reasonable, especially since, as I already pointed out, I answer every challenged directed my way.

I assure you that to outsiders this place looks like a rabbit warren. Yes, certainly not as rabbity as McRapey's, or even most places, but a warrren, nonetheless.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:27 PM  

"I answer every challenged directed my way."

And you say this while refusing to answer a question that should be readily understood and easily answered by the average kindergartener.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:29 PM  

Food good, or food bad?

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:29 PM  

@ Mystery Man

Also, Asher, anything "definitive" is metaphysical. Why are you resorting to metaphysical arguments

I don't deny that humans engage in metaphysics, just that it is not government by human reason and is, thus, beyond rational argument. I gave you a direct answer to you challenge, not sure where you get your claim that simply using the term definitive is metaphysical. Dialetical? Sure.

Off the top of my head I think a synonyms of "brute instinct" as "reflexive", "unthinking", etc. How does it make any sense to say that someone who consistently gives direct answers to questions in a conversation to be "unthinking"?

Maybe, the term definitional might have been a better word choice than definitive.

What's your understanding of "brute instinct"? I gave mine.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:31 PM  

I guess you're going to have to give some sort of criteria by which you identify attention whoring.

Which you'd immediately object to as "metaphysical" or "subjective". Is there a reason I should agree to dance to your music there, Velveteen?

My guess is that pretty much anyone but the ilk would consider my objections entirely reasonable,

Yet here you are, when your "intellect" tells you it's pointless. Brute instinct, or...?

especially since, as I already pointed out, I answer every challenged directed my way.

See Noah B.'s posts.

I assure you that to outsiders this place looks like a rabbit warren. Yes, certainly not as rabbity as McRapey's, or even most places, but a warrren, nonetheless.

Well, you know, we're talking about brute instinct here. When all you have is a rabbit brain, everything looks like a warren.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 4:31 PM  

C'mon, Asher, I would be surprised if my two year old cousin couldn't nail this one.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:34 PM  

@ Noah B

Now answer the question: does having food to eat make a person's life better? Yes or no.

Asked and answered.

No. No. No. It does not. The very question is a category mistake.

If food makes your life better then more food always makes it more better, and that would mean that the person with the best life in the world would be the one who ate the most food, ceteris paribus. I don't think there's one person who would claim that more food always means more better.

Food makes life possible, it does not make it better. Again, the very question is a category mistake.

Also, no food doesn't make your life worse, it makes you dead, i.e. no life, at all. If you starve to death it doesn't even make any sense to claim that your life is worse, since you have no life, at all.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:36 PM  

@ Noah B

I already answered that question and you missed it. You asked the question at 4:00 and I answered it at 4:02.

Go back and check.

Anonymous dh February 17, 2013 4:37 PM  

This article is a great example of why the GOP are full of idiots.

The best plan they have for immigration is this crazy idea of "Self-deportation" they've been trying to sell.

For one, it doesn't work. And secondly, it doesn't appeal to people who want to stop illegal immigration. And finally, it penalizes the legal and relatively few legal immigrants who are doing what they should (legally immigration) by putting them through the wringer of proving continually they are legal.

And secondly, the article is great because it basically shows how the GOP takes 20-30 years to respond to reality.

It's over for the last sliver of the conservative ideology. The demographics don't lie.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 4:38 PM  

94% of Mexican immigrants, when asked why they came to the United States claim that it was because of the "opportunities to get ahead".

Now, Asher, to claim that immigrants are NOT voicing a cohesive, aspirational narrative of coming to America for a better life is fundamentally blatant sophistic pedantry. You simply want to argue about everything.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:38 PM  

What's your understanding of "brute instinct"? I gave mine.

What difference does it make how I define it? You've already coined your own definition there, Webster, and you've repeatedly demonstrated that no matter what alternatives you're offered, you find them wanting compared to Asherish.

As the person "communicating", it's YOUR job to make sure you use the same terms your intended audience does. Otherwise, you're pretty much babbling in a desperate bid for attention.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:41 PM  

94% of Mexican immigrants, when asked why they came to the United States claim that it was because of the "opportunities to get ahead".

Oh, no no no! You don't understand! They come preprogrammed with those responses. It's, like, inborn. For them to say such a thing is just parroting a phrase that's engraved on their DNA. The sounds coming out of their mouths aren't actually words, because words mean thoughts.

Anonymous Crude February 17, 2013 4:44 PM  

No. It was a Fox News poll

Same exact issue as with the Gallup poll: The latest Fox News poll shows a majority of American voters believes illegal immigrants should be given a chance to apply for citizenship, as long as they meet certain requirements.

'A chance.' 'Certain requirements.'

What you may well be seeing is spinning the results, not stupidity of the people being asked. Meanwhile the poll I related that asks the questions more clearly puts all this in far starker relief.

You've got to realize that in an idiocracy people have no problem saying "I hate amnesty" in one breath, and in the next breath saying "I support a path to citizenship if they learn English and pay a penalty and get a background check".

Again - sometimes, the problem isn't the person being polled. It's the person interpreting the results.

'A chance to apply for citizenship.' is not 'A guarantee of citizenship if X standards are met.'

Did Vox say most Americans want amnesty?

Vox: "I have no sympathy for the coming American white minority. This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children and embraced cheap imported labor because they believed they were a nation of immigrants rather than settlers."

+

"Elites for whom nearly everyone voted. I didn't. I was told I was crazy and wrong for not supporting them. I don't enjoy being right in this case, but asking me to have sympathy for people who bought the "nation of immigrants" and "here for a better life" nonsense for decades is a bit much."

I was responding to Vox's claim that Americans, particularly white Americans, have embraced illegal immigration, the 'nation of immigrants' schtick, and the like. They have not. Most would like to see illegal immigrants removed. That they think there should exist some in principle pathway for illegal immigrants to become citizens does not mean they've accepted the 'they're just here for a better life, we should help them become citizens' schtick, anymore than the fact that Vox says he would vote for an atheist representative under certain conditions doesn't mean that Vox is all gung-ho about atheist representatives.

That's what stupid people do.

Stupid people never shut up about stupid people. Smart people always find ways to get stupid people to listen to them and do as they say.

White people largely agree with Vox. Blame them for inaction. Blame them for mistakes. But don't suggest that they're actually embracing illegal immigration. They want illegal immigrants gone. They've wanted them gone for decades. They do not get what they want.

That makes them ineffective, and quite possibly stupid. It does not make them in agreement with the idiots who want to swarm this country with illegal immigrants in the hopes of making the country a libertopia.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 4:46 PM  

No. No. No. It does not. The very question is a category mistake.

If food makes your life better then more food always makes it more better, and that would mean that the person with the best life in the world would be the one who ate the most food, ceteris paribus. I don't think there's one person who would claim that more food always means more better.

Food makes life possible, it does not make it better. Again, the very question is a category mistake.

Also, no food doesn't make your life worse, it makes you dead, i.e. no life, at all. If you starve to death it doesn't even make any sense to claim that your life is worse, since you have no life, at all.


This is what's known as a defensive reflex. The rabbit in question realizes that he is in danger of being trapped and preyed upon by a larger animal. He does not fully comprehend the danger, but knows somehow that it is there.

You can see his ears quivering in alarm as he freezes, and then engages in a scrambling dash for safety.

Crikey, innee a beaut?

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 4:55 PM  

@ IM2L844

94% of Mexican immigrants, when asked why they came to the United States claim that it was because of the "opportunities to get ahead".

Um, what is it about the words "when asked" that you do not comprehend. What, do expect them to offer "because I'm a rabbit"? My guess is that they are given options from which to choose or that their answers are massaged into categories. The types of people of which immigrant communities are comprised only use the faculty of reason in the most immediate of circumstances, and being presented with a pollster makes the question immediate to them.

However, absent being actually asked the question the entire notion has absolutely nothing to do with their behavior and is completely absent from their thought life.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:02 PM  

@ Mystery Man

As the person "communicating", it's YOUR job to make sure you use the same terms your intended audience does

No, it's not, my job is to make my position clear and to answer objections to it. The topic isn't the definition of "brute instinct" but the mechanism causing the inflow of migrants. IM2L844 claimed that it was that they were "seeking a better life" and I argued it was due to brute instinct. These are equal and competing claims, and I have no greater or lesser obligation to justify my claims than does IM2L844.

What difference does it make how I define it?

If you don't then mine wins. I gave a functional definition and then I also provided a practical application in response to your question of whether or not I was acting on brute instinct. One thing about attention whores, such as Tad, is that they refuse to answer questions and challenges.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 5:04 PM  

You claim to know what "is completely absent from their thought life" (whatever that is supposed to be)? You are just getting sillier and sillier.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein February 17, 2013 5:08 PM  

makes it more better, 

Good
Gooder
Better
Mo better (more better)
Goodest
Best
Mos Bestiss

Vandy will be gooder than last year. LSU is always good but they need to get mo better to challenge 'Bama cuz dey the most bestiss in the country.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:09 PM  

@ Mystery Man

Which you'd immediately object to as "metaphysical"

If you go back and look at the relatively few terms over which I've quibbled all the definitions I've given are context-dependent and descriptions of real-world function. Lots of definitions of lots of terms carry a great deal of metaphysical baggage.

Leftist discourse, for example, is positively loaded with metaphysical baggage, and the right often seems quite sanguine with helping shoulder that burden.

See Noah B.'s posts.

I answered his question exactly two minutes after he asked it. He just missed it. The question was posed at 4:00 and answered at 4:02.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 5:10 PM  

No, it's not, my job is to make my position clear and to answer objections to it.

And part of making your position clear is using the definitions of terms that other people use. I could answer everything you say with "purple muffin cobra basket" and then insist I'm using a different meaning of the words, but everyone would know I was babbling.

Kind of like you.

The topic isn't the definition of "brute instinct" but the mechanism causing the inflow of migrants.

So why are you changing the subject?

If you don't then mine wins.

If I reject yours, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to substitute my own personal definition. There's something called a "dictionary", Harvey, and you'll find it's a lot easier than crafting your own personal self-serving super-secret code and then having to convince other people to adopt it.

One thing about attention whores, such as Tad, is that they refuse to answer questions and challenges.

So you mean to say you're NOT here wanting people to pay attention to you and carrying on idiotic, pointless arguments about the definitions of words to prolong it?

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:15 PM  

@ Mystery Man

This is what's known as a defensive reflex.

I see. What you're saying is that directly responding to a direct question is a "defensive reflex". What's pathetic is that the more threads I see at VP the more the commenters end up sounding like the crap I'd read at Pharyngula or Jezebel.

The rabbit in question realizes that he is in danger

I'm on the internet commenting. What even conceivable danger could I be in. If my position were so obviously objectionable then it should be easy to state that objection. You sound like a bitchy, snarky feminist of the sort one would encounter at Jezebel.

You do realize that pretty much the entire body of your commenting has descended into snark, right?

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 5:16 PM  

@Crude

"Hey can I pee in your pool?"

"Absolutely not! I'm against that."

"Well, how much urine would you allow us to dump in your pool if we assured you that the urine was tested and screened, that it was clean, that you'd be saving the environment by allowing it in your pool instead of some landfill, and that you'd actually save money on hydrochloric acid pool treatments by using urine instead?"

"Hmmm. That sounds reasonable. Go right ahead. But remember... NO PEEING IN THE POOL!

"Whatever you say sir! Thank you for your vote!"


Crude, what people emphatically say, and what they do, are often entirely different. Personally, I don't care what people say - I judge by their actions. And the actions of Americans for the past couple of generations showed that they were perfectly willing to let this happen whether it was for cheap labor, or guilt, or because their church told them it was ok, or whatever.

It is the judging of people (politicians) by what they say rather than what they do that got us where we are today. Americans have consistently voted for for candidates who look them in the eye and tell them that while they are against indiscriminate peeing in pools, they are very much for responsible and comprehensive pool/urine reform.

Yet you would prefer to judge the American people by what they say rather than by what they have actually done to this country. How very trusting of you. How very....stupid.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 5:19 PM  

If you go back and look at the relatively few terms

In context of the sheer volumes of chatter you've lifted your tail and "contributed" here, I'm sure you could legitimately say the contested terms are relatively few.

over which I've quibbled

Quibbled? Nice word. You do realize it has a negative connotation, right? But at least you're willing to concede that you're pedantic.

all the definitions I've given are context-dependent

And you concede that you keep trying to impose your own personal code on conversations. Next time, how about you bring some Asher Club Super-Duper Decoder Rings for those of us who don't speak it fluently?

and descriptions of real-world function.

Yes. A lot of what you provide is the product of a real-world function.

Lots of definitions of lots of terms carry a great deal of metaphysical baggage.

So you're saying it's a bad thing that there are words for things that require more than brute instinct to process? Well-a-day, who would have thought it.

And you know another hallmark of the classic attention whore? The frequent appearance of the pronoun "I" and the tendency to divert conversations into situations where the speaker/writer can use it.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 5:19 PM  

"I already answered that question and you missed it. You asked the question at 4:00 and I answered it at 4:02."

Asher, that was a refusal to answer, not an answer.

"If food makes your life better then more food always makes it more better..."

A fallacy of extrapolation. There are many nonlinear phenomena in the universe. This is but one example.

"If you starve to death it doesn't even make any sense to claim that your life is worse, since you have no life, at all."

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. (Although I am relieved that my cousin understood and gave the correct answer.) According to a recent survey conducted by the Christian Science Monitor, 98% of people experiencing starvation believed that more food would improve their quality of life. The other 2% were non-responsive.

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 5:19 PM  

Most would like to see illegal immigrants removed.

Not according to that Fox poll. Only about 17%.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:25 PM  

@ IM2L844

You claim to know what "is completely absent from their thought life" (whatever that is supposed to be)? You are just getting sillier and sillier.

It's not silly, at all. If I took a representative sample of the Mexican immigrant population and I asked them to provide a working understanding of the criteria, rules and conditions under which life is "bettered" they couldn't even begin the project.

The only reason they give that answer is that this is what they've heard from others. There's no real analysis behind it, just mere reflex.

The claim that I can't know what groups of people are not thinking is just silly. Right now I'm at Starbucks sitting out some rain. There are lots of people in the room, and I am quite certain that at least 98 percent of them are not thinking about Immanual Kant. Further, I am reasonably certain that at least 95 percent have never even thought about Kant even once in their life.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 5:26 PM  

I see. What you're saying is that directly responding to a direct question is a "defensive reflex".

If you don't get it, you won't. Sorry.

What's pathetic is that the more threads I see at VP the more the commenters end up sounding like the crap I'd read at Pharyngula or Jezebel.

Oh noes. I am, of course, terrified that one guy might think bad things about me and not agree with me. I may have to write a new dictionary in self-defense.

The rabbit in question realizes that he is in danger

I'm on the internet commenting. What even conceivable danger could I be in.


Yo dawg, I heard you liked metaphors.

If my position were so obviously objectionable then it should be easy to state that objection.

This is a method that is demonstrated to work with you. It has been done many times, to great effect.

You sound like a bitchy, snarky feminist of the sort one would encounter at Jezebel.

Oh, please. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to hurt me. Try calling me an anarchist, or maybe a chicken.

You do realize that pretty much the entire body of your commenting has descended into snark, right?

Descended? I started here with pure, unadulterated snark. I don't expect you to notice because attention whores are usually too busy admiring themselves to notice the things people do that don't involve them directly.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 5:30 PM  

Agent Asher: Meta-aspie. Immigrant Whisperer. King of the Metaphor.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:38 PM  

@ Mystery Man

So why are you changing the subject?

I'm not. I'm giving an alternative explanation for the subject. Offering an alternative explanation for a subject is not changing the subject.

If I reject yours, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to substitute my own personal definition.

Oh, yes, it does. I didn't quibble with the definition of "seeking a better life" but gave the alternative explanation of "brute instinct". What you're saying is that I have to define my argument concisely but IM2L844 does not. What you are trying to say is that IM2L844's explanation has some prior privilege and that it is the default unless I can exhaustively prove otherwise.

There's something called a "dictionary"

Dictionaries are to language what training wheels are to bicycles. If you consistently need to refer to dictionaries to use words then you are not tall enough for this ride. Dictionaries are put together by people by attempting to give a description of general usage. Usage is meaning and dictionaries are often outdated, simplistic or, even, flat out mistaken.

you'll find it's a lot easier than crafting your own personal self-serving super-secret code

If my definition of a term is more consistent or descriptive than the dictionary's (which one?) then the dictionary's (which one?) should be discarded. I would offer the same to anyone else. Vox, for example, has a definition of "science" that is superior to any dictionary's and I would use his before I'd use the OED's.

So you mean to say you're NOT here wanting people to pay attention to you and carrying on idiotic, pointless arguments about the definitions of words to prolong it?

Almost all my comments at VP relate to things that conservatives/libertarians say that are self-destructive to their own positions. For a non-leftist to even attribute "seeking a better life" to immigrants is self-destructive to a restrictionist position.

Just above, one of the ilk said that the rabbits over at McRapey's really want to make the world a better place. Even admitting that undermines the position that McRapey's is a rabbit warren. Rabbits may say they want to make the world a better place but that is nothing more than an ex post justification for the manifestations of their herd instinct.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 5:41 PM  

If I took a representative sample of the Mexican immigrant population and I asked them to provide a working understanding of the criteria, rules and conditions under which life is "bettered" they couldn't even begin the project.

Viewers at home, please observe the two wholly unnecessary uses of the pronoun "I" in the construction of this hypothetical. While it makes a pretense at directing your attention toward the objects, the subconscious purpose of this sentence is to remind you that the writer is still the acting agent--the focus, if you will.

Is Asher still attention whoring? What do you, the viewers, think?

Anonymous Crude February 17, 2013 5:42 PM  

Crude, what people emphatically say, and what they do, are often entirely different.

Great. What I'm talking about is what they say and what they report they believe. That also happens to be the one thing we can actually measure beyond personal experience.

And the actions of Americans for the past couple of generations showed that they were perfectly willing to let this happen whether it was for cheap labor, or guilt, or because their church told them it was ok, or whatever.

Sure. Also, rape victims had to be asking for it. Because otherwise they would have fought off their rapist. Just like the people in concentration camps. C'mon, are you going to tell me that literally millions of people can be eradicated by the government if they don't, on some level, actually want to die? That they can be manipulated, overpowered or otherwise? Such nonsense!

Really, if the preceding at all seems ridiculous, you'll start to see why I'm skeptical of your response here. I'll also note that you're changing the subject from what Americans, particularly white Americans, believe to whether their actions were effective, and whether they're stupid. But I haven't been defending the intelligence or effectiveness of their actions. I think they made a lot of dumb mistakes.

Americans have consistently voted for for candidates who look them in the eye and tell them that while they are against indiscriminate peeing in pools, they are very much for responsible and comprehensive pool/urine reform.

On some level, yes. Again, I haven't been defending the intelligent of Americans, much less white Americans, here. I've been questioning the claim that Americans, particularly white Americans, happen to like and approve of illegal immigration, or buy into the whole 'diversity is our strength' line. That's a question of belief apart from action, and the polls indicate that this simply isn't the case.

Yet you would prefer to judge the American people by what they say rather than by what they have actually done to this country.

If you tell me that the majority of Americans believe something and I show data indicating that they don't, 'but they're stupid!!!' doesn't make you right. Not even if you keep repeating it.

I haven't 'judged the American people' here, other than to say that white Americans have been quite stupid and ineffective with regards to getting what they want. I've pointed out they do not believe what people are suggesting they believe, if the data is anything to go by.

As I said - stupid people never tire of complaining about all the stupid people out there. In fact they absolutely delight in bitching about all the morons, when they themselves are usually incapable of even following a train of thought or figuring out the claim in a pretty simple conversation. So when you say things like...

How very trusting of you. How very....stupid.

...You're actually just proving my point.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 5:42 PM  

"Usage is meaning and dictionaries are often outdated, simplistic or, even, flat out mistaken."

Please provide one example of a dictionary definition of a word that is flat out mistaken. Since this happens "often" it should be easy for you to demonstrate.

Anonymous VD February 17, 2013 5:46 PM  

I see. What you're saying is that directly responding to a direct question is a "defensive reflex". What's pathetic is that the more threads I see at VP the more the commenters end up sounding like the crap I'd read at Pharyngula or Jezebel.

That's totally ridiculous, Asher. No one is attacking you because you hold unorthodox views that might pollute untainted minds, they are simply sick of your repetitive nonsense.

You do the same thing every time. It's tedious. And if you can't get yourself under control soon, you'll be on the same five-comments per post limit that Tad is. Pedantry is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of being pedantic.

I wasn't arguing they were smart. I was arguing that the idea that Americans - particularly white Americans - are overwhelmingly in favor of illegal immigration is false based on what data we have.

Illegal immigration is the smalller part of the problem. Legal immigration is the larger one. You can always tell a conservative idiot from a liberal idiot because the conservative idiot sees there is an immigration problem and tries to blame it on the illegals. The liberal idiot doesn't see any problem.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 5:58 PM  

@ Mystery Man

quibble(n): A slight objection or criticism

The thing is that I, generally, agree with the conservatives/libertarians when it comes to policy. My main objection is that they don't produce arguments that are effective in garnering support, and that's the context in which I used the term quibble.

You're simply incorrect that the term always has a negative connotation.

And you concede that you keep trying to impose your own personal code on conversations.

When I offer a definition of a term or phrase that I think is better than the dictionary or another person's I argue for it. I do so either using evidence of common usage or internal consistency and that is the basic standard of rational debate going back to ancient Athens.

It's pretty absurd to say that I am trying to impose some personal code when I am using something that's been around for two and a half millenia.

Yes. A lot of what you provide is the product of a real-world function.

Yep, it is. That, and examination for internal consistency. For example, I deny that the rabbits at McRapey's do not really have any real conceptualization of making the world a better place and that any claims they make to that are simply ex post justifications of behavior. That claim relates to real-world function.

So you're saying it's a bad thing that there are words for things that require more than brute instinct to process?

No. What I'm saying is that a functional, non-dogmatic description of those things is not metaphysical. When I claim that immigrant populations, as a whole, are acting on brute instinct that is not a metaphysical claim but a functional one. However, it is also a claim that is not, itself, comprehensible to brute instinct and requires a high level of intellectual talent.

And you know another hallmark of the classic attention whore? The frequent appearance of the pronoun "I"

Sometimes. Not always. I use the term to avoid the pretense that I have some access to absolute truth. Have you noticed that lots of commenters, here, use passive voice? This is because they are trying to avoid using the term "I" in the conversation and since they are stating a position, which is theirs, the subject is implied by dropping the "I".

Often, when someone uses "I" what they are doing is deliberately denying that they have some access to undeniable truths and absolute standards.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 5:58 PM  

So why are you changing the subject?

I'm not. I'm giving an alternative explanation for the subject. Offering an alternative explanation for a subject is not changing the subject.


And quibbling over whether your personal definition of "brute instinct" is better than anyone else's or even accurate isn't changing the subject. My land, what was I thinking?

I didn't quibble with the definition of "seeking a better life" but gave the alternative explanation of "brute instinct". What you're saying is that I have to define my argument concisely but IM2L844 does not. What you are trying to say is that IM2L844's explanation has some prior privilege and that it is the default unless I can exhaustively prove otherwise.

No, what I'm trying to say is that you are trying to run me down a rabbit trail by arguing with me about whether I should argue with YOU about the definition of "brute instinct".

Now, see, I don't mind fencing with you all day--you're really fun to toy with--but let's not make up stories.

Dictionaries are to language what training wheels are to bicycles. If you consistently need to refer to dictionaries to use words then you are not tall enough for this ride. Dictionaries are put together by people by attempting to give a description of general usage. Usage is meaning and dictionaries are often outdated, simplistic or, even, flat out mistaken.

So what you're trying to say is basically this.

If my definition of a term is more consistent or descriptive than the dictionary's (which one?) then the dictionary's (which one?) should be discarded. I would offer the same to anyone else. Vox, for example, has a definition of "science" that is superior to any dictionary's and I would use his before I'd use the OED's.

Um, look. I know your mom says you're awesome and all that, but...just because you'd happily jettison plain English in favor of someone else's notions of the meanings of words doesn't mean your definitions are good.

Almost all my comments at VP relate to things that conservatives/libertarians say that are self-destructive to their own positions.

In your personal, subjective, metaphysical opinion.

For a non-leftist to even attribute "seeking a better life" to immigrants is self-destructive to a restrictionist position.

Ah yeah, I remember now. You think that because someone has empathy, they MUST act on it--because brute instinct, that's why.

Just above, one of the ilk said that the rabbits over at McRapey's really want to make the world a better place. Even admitting that undermines the position that McRapey's is a rabbit warren. Rabbits may say they want to make the world a better place but that is nothing more than an ex post justification for the manifestations of their herd instinct.

Well, maybe they don't like the dictionary definition of "better" and prefer to substitute their own.

Oh wait.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 5:59 PM  

"Illegal immigration is the smalller part of the problem. Legal immigration is the larger one."

Well... that's if you believe the official numbers. I have zero proof of this, but although I keep hearing that there are 11 million illegals, just based on what I see, I would guess there are more like 20-25 million. Maybe I just need to stop going to Wal Mart.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:06 PM  

@ Noah B

Asher, that was a refusal to answer, not an answer.

You're kidding, right? You asked a yes/no question, and I answered no. How is that not a direct answer?

A fallacy of extrapolation.

No, it's not. I'm not the one who offered the term "better" unbounded, you were. Until some acting subject places limits on a term the term remains unbounded.

There are many nonlinear phenomena in the universe.

"Better" is not some external phenomena, unlike food. This is why the very question you posed is a category mistake. The concept of better is a normative one, while food is a description of a requirement of life. Off the top of my head, combining normatives and description like this is probably almost always likely to produce a category mistake.

This looks like a version of the naturalistic fallacy on your part.

Blogger Good Will February 17, 2013 6:07 PM  

Jesus H. Christ, aka your Savior.

Blasphemy.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:11 PM  

The thing is that I, generally, agree with the conservatives/libertarians when it comes to policy. My main objection is that they don't produce arguments that are effective in garnering support, and that's the context in which I used the term quibble.

You're simply incorrect that the term always has a negative connotation.


Right. In Asherese, it means something very good. Never mind that to every speaker of actual English...

And you concede that you keep trying to impose your own personal code on conversations.

When I offer a definition of a term or phrase that I think is better than the dictionary or another person's I argue for it.


Ad infinitum, yes.

I do so either using evidence of common usage

Because nobody would use a dictionary for that. That's just silly.

or internal consistency and that is the basic standard of rational debate going back to ancient Athens.

It's pretty absurd to say that I am trying to impose some personal code when I am using something that's been around for two and a half millenia.


Well, what if I don't like that standard and would like to substitute my own, which I think is better? Your method is frequently outdated and also doesn't do what I want.

Yes. A lot of what you provide is the product of a real-world function.

Yep, it is. That, and examination for internal consistency. For example, I deny that the rabbits at McRapey's do not really have any real conceptualization of making the world a better place and that any claims they make to that are simply ex post justifications of behavior. That claim relates to real-world function.


Your ability to miss the point with such perfect aim is astonishing. I was thinking something more biological, specifically digestive. But as long as you'll sleep tonight...

No. What I'm saying is that a functional, non-dogmatic description of those things is not metaphysical. When I claim that immigrant populations, as a whole, are acting on brute instinct that is not a metaphysical claim but a functional one. However, it is also a claim that is not, itself, comprehensible to brute instinct and requires a high level of intellectual talent.

I got the claim, Peter. I just think you're really, really confused now.

Sometimes. Not always. I use the term to avoid the pretense that I have some access to absolute truth.

And yet you'd like to have us discard the dictionary in favor of your personal definitions. Okay. No problems here.

Have you noticed that lots of commenters, here, use passive voice?

And sometimes they even use adjectives. Shock.

This is because they are trying to avoid using the term "I" in the conversation and since they are stating a position, which is theirs, the subject is implied by dropping the "I".

Actually, that would tend to indicate that they're referring to facts external to themselves. Of course, this sort of sentence construction is not comprehensible to brute instinct, and would require a high level of intellectual talent...

Often, when someone uses "I" what they are doing is deliberately denying that they have some access to undeniable truths and absolute standards.

And sometimes they just say "I" a lot because they're pompous and want attention.

Anonymous Porky February 17, 2013 6:12 PM  

Crude: "Great. What I'm talking about is what they say and what they report they believe."

Wonderful. Barack Obama says he is against amnesty too. Be sure to vote for him since his beliefs so closely mirror your own.

I've pointed out they do not believe what people are suggesting they believe, if the data is anything to go by.

I suggest that people believe that amnesty is bad and a path to citizenship is good. The data tends to agree. For it seems inconsequential to you that both beliefs entail the same result for America.

If you tell me that the majority of Americans believe something and I show data indicating that they don't, 'but they're stupid!!!' doesn't make you right. Not even if you keep repeating it.

You keep saying that people say they don't believe in amnesty. I haven't disagreed. Even Obama does not want amnesty.

I merely said that the same people who don't want amnesty keep voting for...amnesty lite. Like saying you are against forests but you support the frequent planting of saplings. Stupidity is just an explanation that I offered so you can take that or leave it. But you can't change the facts.

And since Vox never said most people believed in amnesty I am left to wonder who you think you are arguing with...



Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:13 PM  

You're kidding, right? You asked a yes/no question, and I answered no. How is that not a direct answer?

Your answer was four paragraphs of "yes, but not yes, sometimes no but not always, and yes but no. Kinda."

You did it because you were afraid Noah was going to trap you into something.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 17, 2013 6:15 PM  

"Why do you think 1st world countries are more free?"

It's not a question of freedom. It's a question of life enjoyment. The average (take your pick of many countries) is more free than the average American in terms of government interference in their lives but also in a far worse situation because, though the government does not interfere, criminals do(in the sense that they aren't part of the government).

Look at Belize and what happened to McAffey, I'm sure that something similar to happen to anyone anywhere.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:16 PM  

Blasphemy.

Trollery. Do not feed.

Blogger James Dixon February 17, 2013 6:20 PM  

> The best plan they have for immigration is this crazy idea of "Self-deportation" they've been trying to sell.

Best. Maybe. But not the only one. I know an even simpler one. But for the time being, it's even less popular. That will change.

> It's over for the last sliver of the conservative ideology.

No. If you're correct, it's over for the party which claims to represent it, but hasn't for over 50 years. Ideologies don't die, as much as some of them deserve to.

> You simply want to argue about everything.

By George, I believe he's got it. Though I believe Asher would claim he's "debating". Whether anyone else is or not.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 6:23 PM  

Asher, you assumed that in order for food to make life better under any circumstances, it must be true that more food makes life better under all circumstances. That's a fallacy of extrapolation.

The question of immigrants seeking "a better life" was simplified to the level that even a small child understands, yet it still remains beyond your reach.

"This looks like a version of the naturalistic fallacy on your part."

Bullshit. Not even close.

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:24 PM  

By George, I believe he's got it. Though I believe Asher would claim he's "debating". Whether anyone else is or not.

Well, that's how he'd define it.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:25 PM  

@ Mystery Man

If you don't get it, you won't.

I have received this exact response dozens of times at places like Pharyngula, Jezebel and Crooked Timber. This comment makes you sound very, very, very gay.

Oh noes.

I believe this particular affect first appeared at feministing, or some feminist source. When you use that particular wording you sound like a woman. Or gay. The only time I have ever received "oh noes" as a response was from feminists at feminist sites. Congratulations for being the first non-feminist to give me that response.

It has been done many times, to great effect.

The thing is that I respond to pretty much one hundred percent of challenges directed my way. In return I probably get fewer than twenty percent of my challenges answered. In other words, it has not been done more than a couple of times, and that is being charitable.

You seem to not have even understood one simple, little sentence. Most of my positions receive no objections, at all. Most of what I say isn't even disputed, it's just ignored.

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to hurt me.

What an absolutely bizarre comment. I have no interest in hurting you, hell, I don't even have any interesting hurting a Marxist feminist, which you happen to sound like in this thread. My point is that your positions are ineffective and that they make you end up sounding like a shrill leftist, a screeching harpy.

The only difference between leftists and you is that they have power you lack. Meeting leftists on their home turf is going to result in your losing every time. For someone on the right to outargue someone on the left they have to argue ten times better just to stay even. That is the reality of power.

I started here with pure, unadulterated snark.

This makes you no different from the shrillest feminist at Jezzie. The first step to addressing a problem is admitting you have one. I say this not to hurt you personally but to let you know that yer doin' it wrong.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:26 PM  

@ Noah B

Agent Asher: Meta-aspie. Immigrant Whisperer. King of the Metaphor.

Scratch an ilk and a feminist bleeds.

Anonymous Outlaw X February 17, 2013 6:26 PM  

Good Will
Jesus H. Christ, aka your Savior.

Blasphemy.


Good will, it was off topic and shows an insecurity that persons like that can't help, they answer for it not you. Mexicans may be overrunning us but the atheist's are already dead along with the gun control idiots. Vox nailed the most prevalent problem. Don't let the "don't matters" piss you off (Jesus can take care of himself), don't give them the satisfaction. Laugh at them because they are impotent.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:33 PM  

@ Mystery Man

the subconscious purpose of this sentence is to remind you that the writer is still the acting agent

No, it's quite conscious. When anyone takes up a position the acting agent is themselves.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 6:34 PM  

"Mexicans may be overrunning us but the atheist's are already dead along with the gun control idiots."

Reminds me of the story about the Nazis telling the Swiss they had no choice but to surrender to the Reich because their soldiers were outnumbered two to one. Supposedly the Swiss responded, "Then we will shoot twice."

Turns out it was all horseshit since the Germans needed the Swiss to help move their stolen war loot, but it's still a good story.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:35 PM  

@ Noah B

Please provide one example of a dictionary definition of a word that is flat out mistaken.

First, I said that definitions are often outdated, inconsistent OR mistaken, the third category clearly being the least common.

From the New Scientist:

The dictionary definition of the word "siphon" has been wrong for nearly a century - even in the ever-authoritative Oxford English Dictionary.

Physicist Stephen Hughes of the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, spotted the mistake while writing an article on the physics of siphoning, reports the Science Blog of British newspaper The Guardian.

Australian website news.com.au quotes Hughes:

"My initial reaction was shock. I just stood there like a stunned mullet thinking how can this be?"
Concussed fish notwithstanding, it's certainly a little embarrassing - although having said that, any piece of work that contains over 290,000 entries is inevitably going to have the odd snafu.

An OED spokesman said the offending entry was written in 1911, by "editors who were not scientists".

Blogger James Dixon February 17, 2013 6:36 PM  

> I have received this exact response dozens of times at places like Pharyngula, Jezebel and Crooked Timber.

Despair.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 17, 2013 6:36 PM  

Asher, if you really have this much free time on your hands, I've got some light filing and yard-work that needs to get done, and I pay a fair wage, and I don't hire Mexicans.

A little busy-work would do you a world of good, it'll cool your reactor core. I used to get most of my best thinking done back when I worked as a dishwasher.

Anonymous Mr. Pea February 17, 2013 6:40 PM  

Meanwhile... they are building gulags in case of a mess influx of migrants.

Bwahahahahahaaa...

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:42 PM  

If you don't get it, you won't.

I have received this exact response dozens of times


And it's never once fazed you. Brute instinct is in effect.

at places like Pharyngula, Jezebel and Crooked Timber. This comment makes you sound very, very, very gay.

Why yes, I am extraordinarily happy right now. Thank you for noticing.

Oh noes.

I believe this particular affect first appeared at feministing, or some feminist source.


This is the part where you find out your beliefs are wrong.

When you use that particular wording you sound like a woman. Or gay.

Oh noes, Asher has me confused with Tad.

The only time I have ever received "oh noes" as a response was from feminists at feminist sites.

One occurrence is ample proof of a trend.

Congratulations for being the first non-feminist to give me that response.

And here I thought I was a shrill Jezebel Pharyngulan feminist gay. Make up your mind! I need to know whether to order a man-purse!

It has been done many times, to great effect.

The thing is that I respond to pretty much one hundred percent of challenges directed my way. In return I probably get fewer than twenty percent of my challenges answered. In other words, it has not been done more than a couple of times, and that is being charitable.


I was referring to people objecting straightforwardly to your assertions and arguments--but unexpectedly, you turned this around to being about you alone. I am not disappoint.

You seem to not have even understood one simple, little sentence.

Well, if you keep writing everything in Asherese without providing a translation model, what do you expect?

Most of my positions receive no objections, at all. Most of what I say isn't even disputed, it's just ignored.

So you feel slighted that people don't pay attention to you. Attention whore much?

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to hurt me.

What an absolutely bizarre comment. I have no interest in hurting you,


That's why you insult me. Because you DON'T want to hurt me. Riiiiight.

hell, I don't even have any interesting hurting a Marxist feminist, which you happen to sound like in this thread.

So, disagreeing with you and refusing to let you redefine the language to suit you makes me a "Marxist feminist"? Maybe you need to provide me with the meanings of those words in Asherese so I can grok why this should hurt.

My point is that your positions are ineffective and that they make you end up sounding like a shrill leftist, a screeching harpy.

Do I sound like one, am I one, or what? Make up your mind.

The only difference between leftists and you is that they have power you lack. Meeting leftists on their home turf is going to result in your losing every time. For someone on the right to outargue someone on the left they have to argue ten times better just to stay even. That is the reality of power.

Yes, yes, we all know that your idea of a solution is to shoot everyone who disagrees with you and then butcher their kids. So, when will you be showing up to my house to demonstrate your famous "debate" tactics?

This makes you no different from the shrillest feminist at Jezzie. The first step to addressing a problem is admitting you have one. I say this not to hurt you personally but to let you know that yer doin' it wrong.

Passive-aggressive insult. Attention-whoring rabbit alert!

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 6:44 PM  

@ VD

Pedantry is not a sign of intelligence

My initial objection was to the notion that the ultimate cause of immigration was "seeking a better life". This objection has both tactical and substantive objections: tactical, because that is the language of the left, giving them credence; substantive, because it fundamentally misunderstands how the vast majority of people actually function.

So, I have a direct yes/no question for you:

Do you think the ultimate cause of immigration from Mexico is "seeking a better life"?

No one is attacking you because you hold unorthodox views that might pollute untainted minds, they are simply sick of your repetitive nonsense.

A great deal of what is uttered by the ilk is already tainted by liberalism - liberalism is the cultural baseline in the west, today, and it has significant leakage into much of what the ilk say. The vast majority of my comments on VP is to leftist discourse that has leaked into what the ilk say, and that is probably why I sound repetitive.

Why would you agree to do battle with the left on their home turf where defeating them is structurally impossible?

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 6:48 PM  

No, it's quite conscious.

So you admit that the whole purpose of your proposed hypothetical was to draw attention to yourself. Bravo. The first step to addressing a problem is admitting you have one.

Anonymous Noah B. February 17, 2013 6:50 PM  

"First, I said that definitions are often outdated, inconsistent OR mistaken, the third category clearly being the least common."

Which is why I asked for an example of a mistaken definition.

But you provided a very interesting example. The old definition was correct, but incomplete. The new definition of a siphon, which requires two legs to be of unequal length, is actually wrong. I can most certainly construct a siphon using legs of equal lengths. The liquid can even travel into the longer leg and exit the shorter leg. What is critical is that the potential energy of the source be higher than the potential energy of the sink.

In any case, thanks for the example.

Anonymous Asher needs help February 17, 2013 6:52 PM  

Asher: "This objection has both tactical and substantive objections: tactical, because that is the language of the left, giving them credence; substantive, because it fundamentally....blah..blah..blah..."

Everyone: "Asher, shut up!"

Asher: "Asking someone to shut up is a tactical rhetorical device employed by the left to fundamentally.."

Everyone: "No really. Shut the hell up."

Asher: "And now you bring the metaphysical construct of "hell" into the argument, a common tactic meant to fundamentally obscure the clear meaning of the original....."

Everyone: "For the love of God will someone please put him out of his misery?"

Anonymous Fail Burton February 17, 2013 6:59 PM  

Thurston Howell III once said Latin America would be a great place if there were no Latin Americans actually in it.

Anonymous Asher February 17, 2013 7:33 PM  

@ Mystery Man

Right. In Asherese, it means something very good.

Often the term "quibble" denotes a general agreement on a position while disagreeing on specific tactics over how to implement or argue for that position. That is a pretty common usage of the term and I have encountered many other instances of like usage.

Because nobody would use a dictionary for that. That's just silly.

That's correct, it is silly. I was taking a philosophy course, don't remember the specific one, and we were discussing some category of ethical thought. One student piped up with "why don't we just look at the dictionary?". The professor gave a pregnant pause and responded with "if you need a dictionary then you have no business being in a philosophy class".

Think of how many words you know, and then think about the proportion of them for which you have consulted a dictionary. My guess is that the average person has had to do that for fewer than one in a hundred words they've successfully used.

Anyways, your understanding of language is about eighty years out-of-date and resembles that of the logical positivists.

Well, what if I don't like that standard and would like to substitute my own, which I think is better?

Now, we're getting to the root of the problem, which is that intellectual absolutism inevitably leads to intellectual nihilism. What is that better standard? Since you blatantly reject the standard of providing rational argument the only other alternative is that someone already agrees with you or they don't. I would ask you for your reasoning but since you already reject reasoning, itself, what is the point?

And yet you'd like to have us discard the dictionary in favor of your personal definitions

The thing about the faculty of reason is that it is interpersonal and social. When you argue for a position, definition, etc. you are moving beyond mere personal assertion and exposing yourself to the interpersonal process of critical examination.

Actually, that would tend to indicate that they're referring to facts external to themselves.

If they are taking a position then they are not just referring to external facts. Additionally, most facts involve a fair bit of synthesis and interpretation.

And sometimes they just say "I" a lot because they're pompous and want attention.

Sometimes, yes, sometimes, not at all. The best way of determining which is by looking at the overall body of what the person says and their tone. Have you noticed that I don't *ever* talk about my feelings, here? Just above you talked about getting "hurt" and that would indicate that you have already made this conversation about your personal feelings. Yes, I do use "I" but it is solely in relation to taking responsibility for positions I take; my personal feelings are absolutely irrelevant.

Your answer was four paragraphs of "yes, but not yes, sometimes no but not always, and yes but no. Kinda."

No it wasn't - my answer was no. Food does not make life better, it makes life possible.

You did it because you were afraid Noah was going to trap you into something.

Heh @ more *feelings* words from you. What in the bloody hell indicates that I am "afraid" of anything??? I am sitting in Starbucks typing on a freaking laptop while sipping coffee. My detailed response was a justification for my answer. I directly answered "no" and then explained the reason for my answer.

Anonymous James May February 17, 2013 7:47 PM  

If PC Scalzi was at the Alamo he would have:

A. Run away
B. Evacuated his bowels involuntarily
C. Asked his fellow militia why there was so little diversity at the Alamo
D. Surrendered
E. Turned traitor in about 3 seconds
F. Shouted "Vive Aztlan"
G. All of the above

Anonymous Anonymous February 17, 2013 8:10 PM  

Food good, or food bad?--Noah B

All food is good if received with thanks but no food is good if eaten with an evil conscience. Haven't you understood the teaching of the Apostle Paul?

Asher may seem to be petty and pedantic at times but he should not be dismissed as being obtuse.

MALTHUS

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 17, 2013 8:11 PM  

Believe it or not (I can scarcely believe it), I actually understand what Asher is on about; it's just that it's completely irrelevant, except in a way that is so recondite and so recursive that it is of no practical importance.

Back to the matter at hand.

I've noticed that many people here have sniffed with contempt at the idea of America being a "proposition nation". I, too, find it both ridiculous and wrong. So I'll ask you... what is the opposite of a proposition nation?

Why, a nation, of course. One based on ethne: on common ties of blood, culture, language, religion.

America is a white, Christian nation. Not a nation of immigrants, except insofar as the immigrants were white and Christian. This is not opinion nor conjecture, it is simple historical fact. (Greencardman just blew a gasket.) And mestizo immigration is wrong not mainly because it's illegal, but because mestizos aren't white. The historical presence in America of irritating, destructive minorities of blacks and Jews does not change the fact that America is a white, Christian nation, just as the presence of a few Moslem Turkic peoples out in the desert does not change the fact that China is a Chinese nation.

Confess, you gasped just a little bit, to hear somebody say that aloud in a calm, rational tone of voice, didn't you.

It's because your whole life you've been conditioned, both subtly and not-so-subtly, to believe that white Christian people don't exist AS white, Christian people, and they don't have interests proper to themselves and to nobody else. And for heaven's sake, they certainly don't OWN what they've built. Martin Luther King does. After all, he had a dream, and everything!

Martin Luther King, and the Jewish puppetmasters behind the NAACP, are actually the villains of the piece w/r/t illegal (and legal) non-white immigration, because they are the people who succeeded in morally de-legitimizing white people AS white people, and AS the rightful proprietors of America. Notice that Hispanics --La Raza-- are entirely comfortable with who they are and what their interests are, and they don't mind saying it aloud, and they don't erupt with paroxysms of guilt when they say it.

In the 1950s, Eisenhower had no problem whatsoever executing Operation Wetback, in which a large number of illegal Mexican infiltrators (I like that word -- thanks, Israel! for the first time, ever) were forcibly expelled back to Mexico, and it was done in a manner sufficiently uncomfortable to remind them never to come back. There was no problem doing this because it was understood by virtually all Americans (which is to say, white people) that America was a white country, and that it was the property of Americans, and not of the entire world -- and that there was nothing morally wrong with this.

They are no longer able to say that -- at least, not out loud. At least, not politicians. At least, not if they want to have careers. It has become impossible to address the issue properly because it has become impossible to state the question properly: Newspeak at its finest. The cultural conditioning, the newspeak, and the jackboot of the party line all work to make this impossible. Gee whiz, party line, haven't I heard that some place before? Oh, right, the COMINTERN and the Bolsheviks. And who were they, again?

Talk about letting the wrong people into your country.

Anonymous scoobius doobious February 17, 2013 8:12 PM  

Somewhere in a deep pit in Hell, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Emmanuel Celler, Jacob Javitz, Abbie Hoffman and a few other of the usual suspects are giggling at us a little, in between jabs of the red-hot pitchforks.

BETTY: I can't believe they actually fell for it. Abort your children, teach your women to hate your men, stop having children, teach your remaining children that they and their people are evil, worship people who hate you, interbreed with them, give them your careers, import any bunch of foreigners in the world, so long as they hate YOU...
EMMANUEL: Yeah, it seemed like a crazy plan, but it worked. We snookered them into destroying their own country. Well, we wound up in hell, but it was worth it, because it was good for the---

DEMON: All right, you two, break time's over. Back in the cauldron, with Adorno and Marcuse.
BETTY: Can I get the cauldron with Marcuse? That Adorno is SUCH a bore.
DEMON: Yes, well, that's why it's called Hell, isn't it. Into the pot you go.
BETTY: [sigh]

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 8:12 PM  

The professor gave a pregnant pause and responded with "if you need a dictionary then you have no business being in a philosophy class".

Well, if a college professor says it, IT MUST BE TRUE. Especially the professors of fluffy metaphysics subjects! It's not like leftists congregate in such classes or anything.

Think of how many words you know, and then think about the proportion of them for which you have consulted a dictionary. My guess is that the average person has had to do that for fewer than one in a hundred words they've successfully used.

Two problems: 1. You assume I'm "average". That's not a good assumption to make of ANYONE at this blog. 2. Some people actually care about communicating with others more than about remaking the English language in their own image.

Anyways, your understanding of language is about eighty years out-of-date and resembles that of the logical positivists.

That sounds like a leftist argument to me.

Now, we're getting to the root of the problem, which is that intellectual absolutism inevitably leads to intellectual nihilism. What is that better standard? Since you blatantly reject the standard of providing rational argument the only other alternative is that someone already agrees with you or they don't. I would ask you for your reasoning but since you already reject reasoning, itself, what is the point?

The point is that if you get to reassign all the meanings of words, I get to reassign the rules of discourse. Fair's fair; you wreck the building blocks of communicating thought, and I'll do the rest.

Oh wait, I forgot. You're not good with metaphors. I'll make it blunt: You can't break one important set of rules and then bitch because another set of rules gets broken--especially if that second set of rules is fundamentally less important.

And yet you'd like to have us discard the dictionary in favor of your personal definitions

The thing about the faculty of reason is that it is interpersonal and social. When you argue for a position, definition, etc. you are moving beyond mere personal assertion and exposing yourself to the interpersonal process of critical examination.


Got it. So you don't actually want anyone to think critically about anything you say, just swallow it whole.

You're looking farther and farther left with each comment you leave.

Sometimes, yes, sometimes, not at all. The best way of determining which is by looking at the overall body of what the person says and their tone. Have you noticed that I don't *ever* talk about my feelings, here?

You don't have to talk about feelings to be making everything about you. Stop trying to redefine the term so as to avoid acknowledging that you're a pompous attention whore.

Just above you talked about getting "hurt" and that would indicate that you have already made this conversation about your personal feelings.

The only thing I'm feeling right now is amusement at you. You keep slinging insults at me that have nothing to do with what's being discussed, e.g. "feminist" or "gay". Please.

Yes, I do use "I" but it is solely in relation to taking responsibility for positions I take; my personal feelings are absolutely irrelevant.

See above.

Anonymous 11B February 17, 2013 8:13 PM  

To paraphrase the stupid retort from the GOP about George W. Bush, "Miss me Yet", I'd like to ask white Americans this about Patrick Buchanan, "Regret not voting for him now?"

I sure do. Pat was telling it like it was back in 1992 and we were too dumb to listen

Anonymous Mystery Man February 17, 2013 8:13 PM  

And furthermore:

No it wasn't - my answer was no. Food does not make life better, it makes life possible.

Not satisfied to redefine words, you try to convince us you didn't do what we can all scroll up and see you did. Damn, you're really hard left.

You did it because you were afraid Noah was going to trap you into something.

Heh @ more *feelings* words from you. What in the bloody hell indicates that I am "afraid" of anything??? I am sitting in Starbucks typing on a freaking laptop while sipping coffee. My detailed response was a justification for my answer. I directly answered "no" and then explained the reason for my answer.


Fear isn't always of physical harm. Don't try to redefine it; you're not doing yourself any favors.

And swearing tends to make people think you're feeling something. Just FYI.

Blogger IM2L844 February 17, 2013 8:21 PM  

The thing about the faculty of reason is that it is interpersonal and social. When you argue for a position, definition, etc. you are moving beyond mere personal assertion and exposing yourself to the interpersonal process of critical examination.

This is invariably what every single discussion with Asher degenerates into - a completely off topic argument about arguing. I think he fancies himself as a master debater. Let this be a lesson to you, kids. It's what can happen when one becomes educated beyond their intelligence.

1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts