ed west’s new website

ed west, former telegraph blogger and author of The Diversity Illusion, has got himself a new website! yay!

it’s right here: Ed West.

so, update your bookmarks and your rss feeds and what not. (^_^)

also, if you’ve never read The Diversity Illusion, i highly recommend it!:

the diversity illusion 02

here’s the amazon.co.uk link: The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set It Right.

and, while i’m at it, here’s west from yesterday on the british website conservative home (THEY spell it with small letters! (^_^) )…

“And yet hostility to immigration does not mean hostility to immigrants – the PEW Research Centre’s findings showed that in most European and North American countries opposition to mass immigration was overwhelmingly strong, and yet most people had favourable opinions of people from the developing world. They don’t want their countries to be radically changed so that they no longer feel their neighbourhood is theirs – no one does – but, incredibly enough, they’re not just itching for their chance to get on the jackboots and start murdering their neighbours.”

and…

“The strangest thing about the universalist take on immigration is that it’s built on a series of conflicting theories. Among these are the twin beliefs that (a) multi-ethnic societies are wonderful, harmonious places and (b) in multi-ethnic societies we can’t go near the subject of race or immigration because it will lead to pogroms by whites against non-whites. Either (a) is true or (b) is, but they can’t both be.”

good stuff!

btw, ed west has recently gone forth and multiplied, so do buy his book. presumably he could use the £££!

(^_^)

16 Comments

  1. Looking at Ed West’s latest retweet, I noticed that Richard Dawkins tweeted to his 780,000+ followers a link to Stephen Pinker’s Jews, Genes, and Intelligence speech at the YIVO Institute.

    Reply

  2. Looking at polls, I find myself in agreement with most Americans (and probably most people in the world).

    I have nothing against borders as a general rule or the guarding of them. I’m all about laws for creating an orderly society and I want them applied equally to all. I don’t want to stop immigration. What I do want is a some kind of immigrant worker program that serves the needs of all involved and an uncomplicated pathway to citizenship that will get people into the system.

    The solutions seem simple and most people agree about what to do. But politicians and activists make everything into a polarized debate.

    Reply

  3. “…hostility to immigration does not mean hostility to immigrants…”

    “…They don’t want their countries to be radically changed so that they no longer feel their neighbourhood is theirs…”

    This brings to mind an insightful quote from the late Ernest van den Haag,writing in the September 21,1965 issue of National Review magazine:

    “…one need not believe that one’s own ethnic group,or any ethnic group,is superior to others (or more likely to make good citizens) in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before.

    And,conversely,the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’.

    Patriotism Is Not Racism.

    The wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification-and no belief in superiority-any more than the wish to have one’s own children,and to continue one’s family through them need not be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others,or more fit,or better in business.One identifies with one’s family,because it is one’s family-not because they are better people than others.For no other reason one identifies with one’s national group more than with others.Else there would be no nations”…

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/in-memoriam-ernest-van-den-haag

    Reply

  4. Meaningful hostility to immigration is virtually nonexistent outside the working class. Now do the working class go in for conscious deliberation, and have they found the theoretical rationale for immigration contradictory and rejected titafter careful thought?

    The politically active middle and upper sectors of the population truly believe that their views derive from universal principles whereby they have arrived at a post instictive morality divorced from self-interest. So how are you going to convince them to do things differently?

    Reply

  5. @benjamin – “Looking at polls, I find myself in agreement with most Americans (and probably most people in the world).”

    the latter half of your statement there — “probably most people in the world” — is certainly not correct. not if you think that “most people in the world” “don’t want to stop immigration.” many peoples in the world do NOT want immigration to their countries:

    Immigration and inbreeding (<< not by me! (~_^) )
    – and there are the results from a global pew survey from a few years ago (5? 7?), too.

    and “most” americans don’t want a “pathway to citizenship” for all of the illegal immigrants out there, either — only ca. 55% do. while that is a majority, it’s not a very large majority.

    Reply

  6. @benjamin – I don’t want to stop immigration. What I do want is a some kind of immigrant worker program that serves the needs of all involved and an uncomplicated pathway to citizenship that will get people into the system.”

    i want to stop mass immigration. (to be honest, i’d be happy to stop ALL immigration for a while until we sort out the country, but my primary concern is mass immigration — the immigration of tens of millions of people from certain areas of the world.)

    you and i disagree about what causes the variations in different societies around the world (and that’s ok! (^_^) ) — you lean more towards culture while i obviously lean towards biology — but i think we’re in agreement that folkways can and do last a long time — over hundreds of years (at least?).

    given that, i can’t see how or why anyone would be happy with the idea of tens of millions of people from a quite different folkway migrating to america (or to any given nation). i mean, look at mexico — or any central american nation. look at (southern) spain for that matter! what do you think is going to happen to the u.s. if tens of millions of central americans — on TOP of the tens of millions we already have — move to this country? aren’t they going to bring their folkways with them? and isn’t it likely that those folkways will last a long time?

    Reply

  7. @socal patriot – “This brings to mind an insightful quote from the late Ernest van den Haag, writing in the September 21,1965 issue of National Review magazine.”

    thanks! (^_^)

    Reply

  8. @sean – “So how are you going to convince them to do things differently?”

    well, yes, that is the crux of the problem.

    the only — only — thing that i can think of — and i admit that i’m horrible at figuring out how to work people (too much asperger’s) — is that you’d somehow have to appeal to their universalism when trying to promote immigration restriction to them: e.g. impress on them how, in allowing all this immigration from, say, africa, they’re really causing a brain drain which deprives africans of good health care, good engineering, etc., etc.?

    dunno.

    (previously: crafting the message)

    Reply

  9. @hbd chick – The Pew poll was asking about restricting and controlling immigration, not stopping it.

    I’m in favor of restricting in being more selective and I’m in favor of controlling the entire process of immigration. Part of the advantage of having a pathway to citizenship is that it gets people into the system where they can be monitored and so that decreases the problem of undocumented immigrants. Document them and give them an incentive to remain in the systemso that it is easier to deport them if necessary.

    Immigrants have been crossing the Southern border for as long as it has exised and they were migrating across the region even before it was a border. The only thing that has sloed this down was the recent economic crash in the US, but an economic crash isn’t an optimal way of restricting and controlling immigration. The Chinese learned the problem of borders with the Chinese Wall. It was expensive and formidable. Despite this, all that took to cross it was brbing a border guard. It turned out to be a massive waste of tax money.

    That said, I’ve read that most undocumented immigrants aren’t Hispanics. Many legally come to the US for school or work but then overstay their visa. That is a different kind of problem. Most people ouldn’t want to entirely stop people from coming to the US, even for work and education. The problem, though, is that the US is such a large country that it is easy to disapear in.

    As for granting permanent residency, most Americans just want a well regulated system that is flexible to changing conditions. The ideal of being an immigrant nation is woven into the fabric of America. To entirely stop iigration would be a shock to the national identity. Controlling and restricting is one thing, but stopping it is truly radical.

    You ask important questions.

    How do we remain the Ameria we know? Well, the America we know isn’t the America past generations knew. Every wave of immigration has transformed this country. If not for all the immigrants in the mid 1800s, the Union might not have won the war. The South had more limited immigration and so they didn’t have an equivalent population. Another wave of immigrants came during the to world wars and helwped make the country we grew up in.

    Every generation has wondered about being an immigrant nation. Sometimes policies slow immigration down for a while and sometimes increase it, but either way it never stops.

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    If we as a country stopped living upt to our own collective ideals, then where would that leave us? We lack a singular national culture. What we do have is a set of shared values and aspirations, shared by most anyway. Without this, America is just a random collection of people.

    Still, the problem of immigration remains Maybe the best place to look is to the example of our colonial founders.

    From the start, they found themselves as a minority, albeit a ruling minority. That is a tough position to be in and yet they dealt with it, even without much in the way of immigration control for ships simply showed up at docks and once in the colonies immigrants moved freely and mostly undocumented. Some of my ancestors were illegal immigrats and anchor babies that were breaking British treaties.

    Challenging as it was, the colonial governments had some ability to influence who settled where. William Penn was discerning in who he chose to allow to form a settlement. So, despite the Quaker minority status, they were able to attract enough immigrants of likemind to be their allies and to spread their culture into the Midwest. They were successful to a degree that is qite impressive and they did it while allowing great freedom. Other colonial governments had similar strategies. The Puritans attracted many other religious dissenters with similar enough values. The Southern aristocrats attracted many Scots-Irish to help with their expansionist aspirations.

    The trick of successful immigration seems to be a combination of being selective when possible and generally attract those who are similar or who otherwise make good allies. It is imperfect, but it works fairly well. Of course, all the colonial elites eventually lost power, but by that time they had established cultural patterns, shared traditions, social institutions and legal/political systems. These survived in the face of centuries o several waves of mass migration.

    You could also look to Canada. It is more ethnically diverse than the US. It is the first country in the world to have an official policy of multiculturalism. This multiculturalism has steadily remained popular. The Canadian government did something simi0lar to our founding colonial governments. They have been selective about who immigrates, specifically looking for those with skills to contribute. They did this with mss migration.

    BTW I’m not saying I’m in favor of mass migration. I just don’t see that as necessarily the main issue. It is sort of like the argument about big vs small government. I tend toward pointing out that both big and small governments can be corrupt or not. Likewise, both big and small migration can be done well or not so well. It is abou the quality of immigration, not the quantity.

    I’d like to add a thought about communication.

    If you want to shift public opinion, you don’t need to worry so much about those polarized at the opposite end. Instead, think about that middle 10% or so, the centrists and moderates. To visualize this, pretend you are talking to Midwesterners who are a middling people. Midwesterners are semi-clannish with some of the strongest community-mindedness in the country. And Midwesterners are semi-universalist in being among the strongest defenders of egalitarianism in the country. The Midwest is the region of swing states for a reason.

    Reply

  10. @hbd chick – My mind has been dwelling on this topic. I feel mixed.

    You can appeal to me by way of extreme fondness of regional cultures. But to do so, you’d have to convince me that the recent wave of mass migration is different and more threatening than the many mass migrations that came before over the centuries. I’m as attached to this immigrant nation as much as I’m attached to my regional culture for, in the case of the Midlands and the Mid-Atlantic States, the two are inseparable and always have ben inseparable.

    This is a challenge for your making a case, but it doesn’t make it impossible. There are other ways you can appeal to me and people like me.

    I’ve always had great concern of overpopulation. I don’t think it is environmentally sustainable. Ultimately, I think it would be best for countries to deal with their own overpopulation problems instead of shifting them onto other countries through emigration. I told you that your idea of stopping immigration was radical (by which I meant a neutral observation of how it compares to mass public opinion). There are some radical notions that appeal to me, but I must admit tha one doesn’t. A more moderate and convincing appeal would be to find the optimal level of population size and seek to maintain it. Unfortunately, the reality of global overpopulation hasn’t fully impacted the average American and so they just don’t understand it on a visceral level.

    One sticking point for me in this disussion is the strain of universalism that asserts itself on occasion. Part of me is strongly drawn to Thomas Paine’s declaration of being a citizen of the world. It is hard for me to square justice for some while injustice for others.

    Like it or not, the US is an empire and all empires are multicultural societies. I personally would rather ths country not be an empire, but as long as we are an empire our only moral justification for existence is to be an immigrant nation offering not just force bt freedom to the world. Without that moral justification, our empire will falter until it finally completely fails. When an empire falls, it doesn’t always land lightly.

    It is impossible to morally justify stopping immigration without also ending our military empire. This would mean closing down our invasive and oppressive military bases, pulling out our military forces from other countries, ending all wars of aggression, stop invading countries just because we want to, and no more attempts at nation-building. If we aren’t going to be an immigrant nation, the only other moral option is to be a principled libertarian nation. But I don’t see that happening. We are most likely to follow the path of empire until some other aspiring empire or alliance of countries stops us.

    My thoughts are similar about the El Norte Southwest. The Texas Revolution and the Mexican War was the first clear proof that the US wanted to be an empire. There are parts of the Southwest that are majority Hispanic and majority spanish-speaking, and they’ve been that way for centuries, long before Americans invaded and stole their homeland. If we want to stop Hispanic immigration, our only moral choice is to return their homeland back to them. But everyone know that isn’t going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

    If you like radical notions, I’ve got plenty of them. LOL

    Reply

  11. hbd chick, what people claim are their grounds for decision-making might not correspond to the reality of why they act. Universalist motivation is in effect a cognitive illusion–post hoc rationalisation. The politically active classes say their view of immigration comes from abstract intellectual activity. But it is unlikely they individually reasoned their way into universalism, and so they probably can’t be reasoned out of it. The purported moral motivation, of a universalist rationale, that is given for synchronised pro immigration sentiment throughout educated sectors is a story; higher iq people tend to be very good at giving logical explanations for their behaviour

    The class of society that opposes immigration is the one that is suffering from policies that are in the interests of those who support immigration. Don’t think for one minute that the beneficiaries will act on universalism to restrict immigration. Universalistic ethics are an argot used in subliminal confabulation to give themselves and others nice reasons for what they are doing, and are not the real motivation. People are genetically primed to take sides in conflicts of interest between rival alliances within societies. And they’ll find noble sounding reasons to fall in with the winning side.

    GAZZANIGA;
    “…so you have a baby sitting there and you then have two little puppets and one takes a cookie from the other, right? Just A takes a cookie from B. And then a few seconds later, B takes the cookie back, right? Now, there’s — now, does the baby notice this? The baby is totally bored by that because it’s just natural that if A steals from B, B’s gonna steal back. So reciprocity, retribution, it’s all right there at the beginning.
    GAZZANIGA:
    And if you then do another little trick, my favorite is — and these are the studies of Renee Baillargeon at the University of Illinois and David Premack. If you do another where A goes over and helps B — or hinders B, let me — it’s easier to describe it. A goes over and gets in B’s way, and B actually was sitting here with C. B had a buddy, C. Now, so A goes and hinders B and then goes back home. The next act is C comes over and actually helps A, right?
    REHM:
    Huh. Huh.
    GAZZANIGA:
    Well, the baby is shocked at this, because the groups have already formed and A is, you know, has got nothing — should have nothing to do with B or C because they’re in this out group here. So anyway, this is all going on at 13 months. The babies have this all sorted out. So, you realize that with these primitives — and these are social decisions making, and with these primitives and with all the mental primitives that have been shown using these very simple tricks, we come with a lot of stuff, complex — complexities built in.”

    West had a recent post about the perception of working class Brits by the affluent articlulate sectors:- “WE had a Bulgarian chap do up our house. Lovely guy, worked all day and never wanted a break, and I didn’t have to drop my aitches or pretend to like football around him. Actually he turned out to be Polish but after weeks of me asking questions about Bulgaria he presumably felt too embarrassed and just played along with it.” (I wouldn’t be surprised if he was actually Ukranian, there are more than a few of them in Britain where they can blend in; The population is quite possibly several million greater that official statistics would have you believe )

    Reply

  12. @sean – “Universalist motivation is in effect a cognitive illusion–post hoc rationalisation. The politically active classes say their view of immigration comes from abstract intellectual activity. But it is unlikely they individually reasoned their way into universalism, and so they probably can’t be reasoned out of it.”

    no, i don’t think there’s any true reasoning involved, either.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s