Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Tucker Carlson versus Cultural Leftist Professor

Here:



This is a textbook case of how deranged and insane the modern cultural left is, and how these people simply cannot and will not understand modern Neoliberal capitalism. These people are basically just bigots and regressive left charlatans who only wish to blame European “racists” for everything that they don’t like.

Look at the nonsense:
(1) at 3.31–3.47, he says *explicitly* that modern legal and illegal immigration into America is “the same as the forced immigration from slavery” in the 19th century and earlier. According to this bizarre lie, when millions of non-white people flood into America as illegal immigrants freely and voluntarily to get a better life, or when non-white people freely and legally immigrate into America, this is “the same” as the brutal kidnapping of Africans, their forced transport to America, and their suffering as slave plantation workers. What kind of disgusting lie is this?

(2) this professor says at 4.35 people “aren’t clamouring” to come to America. Make of that what you will.

(3) at 5.10 we get the line that massive legal immigration is because “white supremacists need the help now ... they need people to do the work that they don’t want to do themselves.” This is bullsh*t. The people who implement and control America’s immigration policy are its political and corporate elite. This elite – to a great extent – is made up of Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and people who either went through, or are steeped in, the cultural revolution of 1960s and subsequent decades: they are an elite absolutely committed in their legal and institutional policies to multiculturalism and diversity as fundamental principles. And even as individuals, it is very likely most of these people *love* multiculturalism, and to the extent that some of them – as capitalists – do want cheap labour to drive down wages and smash unions they do not support this because of any “white supremacist” ideology. Quite the contrary: most of them are probably cosmopolitan Neoliberals who think “diversity” is the best thing ever.

(4) the claim that every nation has a racial underclass to do the work the majority will not do is an utter lie. Oh, really? What about very ethnically homogenous nations in Eastern Europe? Or Japan? Or South Korea? Until recently, most Western European nations did not have ethnic underclasses either: this came after the 1960s with mass Third World immigration.

(5) if American immigration policy is driven by “white supremacists” who just want a racial underclass to do the jobs they do not wish to do, then why does America allow things like affirmative action, minority hiring practices, and preferences for minorities in its elite institutions, such as hiring of corporate managers, government officials and admissions into universities, when this is clearly at the expense of white people?
All in all, this cultural leftist narrative does not even rise to the level of idiocy.

In truth, this is the reality of the type of people who increasingly run the US Democratic party that has ruled America since 2009:



30 comments:

  1. Clear, concise take-down. White supremacists in so far as they exist or White nationalists are the last people who want an alien underclass within our nations. We'd be much happier if we mowed our own laws, washed our own dishes and picked our own fruit, even if employers had to pay decent wages to get it done. It is as you say, corporate cosmopolitans in government who support mass non-White immigration and anti-White racial quotas for many reasons, some economic, some political, some cultural.

    I do take issue with one thing though. Blacks were mainly sold to Whites by other Blacks, not "kidnapped" per se. They also had a far better life in America than they would have had in Africa at the time. The African life expectancy in the early 19th century was about half of the life expectancy under slavery, according to Ryan Faulk. A life expectancy of 38 isn't good but it wasn't much lower than the White life expectancy at the time and your quality of life as a slave in America would probably be a lot better than being a slave or even a free man in the jungles of early 19th century Africa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol African life expectancy was half of an American slaves?

      And an American slave could expect to live 38 years?

      So, the Africans were dying at around age 14?

      And you can credibly make a case that they sustained their population given these numbers?

      Don't think so bud. Model it. Even with extreme assumptions, the population would be falling by more than half per generation if your numbers are true.

      Delete
    2. and your quality of life as a slave in America would probably be a lot better than being a slave or even a free man in the jungles of early 19th century Africa

      Doubt it, seriously. That sounds a lot like Dinesh D'souza colonialist apologist nonsense. If your life expectancy increases but is more likely to get you a bullsnake whip across your back and/or ended hanging from a roadside tree, how is that an improvement?

      OTOH, Native Americans had a lifespan of about 70 years. There goes your wonderful argument for technology:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus

      Ryan Faulk is Anti-Deficits. When did he become something to be cited around here?

      Delete
    3. Illusionist
      Do you understand how life expectancy is calculated? (Aside from your 14 is half of 38 thing I mean?) High child mortality. If half of children die before age 1, what's the life expectancy if everyone else dies at 60? So this claim is not prima-facie implausible, and does NOT imply what you conclude.

      Delete
    4. Kevin Wayne@January 25, 2017 at 9:43 AM
      "OTOH, Native Americans had a lifespan of about 70 years. There goes your wonderful argument for technology"

      (1) Your link says nothing about life expectancy or life span.

      (2) you don't even seem to understand the difference between "life span" and "average life expectancy at birth" (or at a given age). The life span of human beings is about 120, not 70, though very few people live this long.

      (3) perhaps you read somewhere that the average life expectancy of native Americans in their 20s (pre-conquest) was about 70. If true, this wouldn't be surprising, since in most pre-industrial societies average life expectancy of people who attain the ages 20-25 is about 50-70. Hell, the ancient Greeks average life expectancy at 25 was probably about 60.

      (4) however, the statistic that matters is average life expectancy *at birth*. Since in all pre-modern societies infant mortality was very high, average life expectancy *at birth* was usually very low, usually 25-35.

      (5) finally, none of this is even remotely a case against modern Western technology and medical science, which in all known societies where it is applied increases average life expectancy *at birth* massively.

      Delete
    5. LK
      Right you are. I have lost track of the times I have heard innumerates conclude that if life expectancy is 25 then 60 year-olds must be rare. Two more today. (Perhaps I need to explain the them why 2?)

      Delete
    6. Your link says nothing about life expectancy or life span

      So do some Googling, Homie. Do I have to find everything for you? j/k ;-)

      you don't even seem to understand the difference between "life span" and "average life expectancy at birth" (or at a given age). The life span of human beings is about 120, not 70, though very few people live this long

      Thanks for that, but I don't see how it's relevant.

      however, the statistic that matters is average life expectancy *at birth*. Since in all pre-modern societies infant mortality was very high, average life expectancy *at birth* was usually very low, usually 25-35

      I'd be real surprised if you could prove such a thing to be true of the Natives of the North and South American continents. Real surprised. Look at the Mayans, the Incas, the Aztecs and the societies they built!

      finally, none of this is even remotely a case against modern Western technology and medical science, which in all known societies where it is applied increases average life expectancy *at birth* massively

      Who cares about it being a case "against" it? My case is that cultures shouldn't be Techno-Shamed by modern Western finger pointers. And the Dinesh D'Souza Colonialist Apologist nonsense needs to go, as far as I'm concerned. If you truly support the right of cultures to self-determination, then you HAVE to agree!

      Delete
    7. "Thanks for that, but I don't see how it's relevant."

      Jesus, you said "Native Americans had a [pre-conquest?] lifespan of about 70 years." This is an ignorant and false statement, Kevin, because we know that human *life span* is about 120 years.

      Presumably you meant, as I said, "average life expectancy at birth" was 70 years. Except anybody who isn't ignorant knows such a statement is almost certainly false, given the horrendously high infant mortality in all pre-modern societies.

      Here is some data on average life expectancy at birth:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time

      So time to put up or shut up, dude.

      Delete
    8. I do take issue with one thing though. Blacks were mainly sold to Whites by other Blacks, not "kidnapped" per se

      I take issue with your issues. Check the work of Professor Gerald Horne on that one. He's done extensive research on the Transcontinental Slave trade, and his conclusions might well surprise you:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Snzl41lX54&feature=youtu.be&t=2m46s

      Delete
    9. I would call your attention to the following paper, page 334 fig 4:

      http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

      Looks to me like the % of those who reached 70 was about 25-30%?

      Delete
    10. Ken B, yes, I've built demographic models. You're wrong. And the fascist guy is too. You're basically saying that 2+2=5.

      Delete
    11. Ken B,

      Yes, I've built demographic models. Have you? Nothing either of you are saying makes any sense. Equivalent to 2+2=5.

      Delete
    12. Ken B,

      Life expectancy in Africa in the 18th and 19th century was around 28 years. Not terribly far behind the world average of 30 years.

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-since-1770.png

      I've noticed that these White Nationalists tend to be highly uneducated and tend to source dubious statistics and historical sources. They're sort of cranks, to be honest. Which is why, I suppose, many libertarians have gravitated in the direction of the movement. Sad.

      Delete
    13. Illusionist, You are being dishonest. Here, in full, is your comment:
      "Lol African life expectancy was half of an American slaves?

      And an American slave could expect to live 38 years?

      So, the Africans were dying at around age 14?

      And you can credibly make a case that they sustained their population given these numbers?

      Don't think so bud. Model it. Even with extreme assumptions, the population would be falling by more than half per generation if your numbers are true."

      So the misunderstanding here is ferocious. What is the
      r life expectancy of a frog? Most tadpoles die fast. So your notion that Africa would impode if they had a lower life expectancy than American slaves is a crock for precisely the reason I gave: infant mortality has a huge effect on life expectancy. And a life expectancy of 36 does not imply a mean lifetime of 14!

      Note that I am not defending that guy's numbers. I am only attacking your reasoning.

      Delete
    14. If Africans had a life expectancy of 14 they would not be able to sustain their populations. I am well-aware that this is dragged down by infant mortality. That is part of the point!

      Your tadpole example is deranged and absurd because a frog can produce hundreds of tadpoles. They lay lots of eggs that hatch within 9-21 days.

      Humans cannot reproduce until around age 13, at least. And they take 9 months to carry to term.

      Look, I've modelled this stuff.You have no idea what you're talking about. Either build a model, upload it online proving your point or just stop. You sound silly.

      Delete
    15. "And an American slave could expect to live 38 years? So, the Africans were dying at around age 14?"

      What does 14 have to do with anything? If the life expectancy is half of 38 it's 19. In many ways, I think colonialism helped the third world but I don't care for it personally. I think slavery and colonialism were disastrous for Western civilisation.

      "Ryan Faulk is Anti-Deficits. When did he become something to be cited around here?"

      Illogical. I don't know why someone should have to be a Keynesian to be cited on this blog. In any case, Ryan Faulk is not an ancap or an austrian anymore and now advocates protectionism and other statist policies.

      Delete
    16. Illogical. I don't know why someone should have to be a Keynesian to be cited on this blog. In any case, Ryan Faulk is not an ancap or an austrian anymore and now advocates protectionism and other statist policies

      *snicker* And he's also some random Youtubber and not necessarily a "source" to be cited about anything. I'm looking at his current blog now, though. He appears to be a so-called "Race Realist." Tells me all I need to know about the dude. I love this blog title" "White Republicans overwhelmingly feel like strangers in their own country." Boo-hoo-hoo. As if the country was founded by and for Republicans. ;-)

      I'd double-urge you to look into Gerald Horne's work. If he's correct then you're dead wrong about how slaves were appropriated:

      https://youtu.be/2Snzl41lX54?t=5m35s

      "The merchants descend[ed] on the African continent with the demented energy of crazed bees manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, dragging them across the Atlantic."

      Also, take a look at these:

      http://www.uhurusolidarity.org/2014/09/08/next-time-someone-says-but-africans-sold-themselves-into-slavery-send-them-this-article

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/09/slavery_myths_seven_lies_half_truths_and_irrelevancies_people_trot_out_about.html

      https://www.amazon.com/dp/046500296X/?tag=slatmaga-20

      http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/07/the-myth-of-black-confederate-soldiers/21370

      https://www.amazon.com/Slaverys-Capitalism-American-Economic-Development-ebook/dp/B01JO927QW/ref=la_B001HMN96W_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485805598&sr=1-2

      Delete
  2. This idiot obviously has zero experience with actual White Supremacists. Almost all of them want to get rid of non-Whites. They're all about having a White Ethnostate. That is their EXPLICIT goal.

    This guy just makes up his definition of 'White Supremacist' and thereby muddies the definition of White Supremacy.

    It's a bit like me saying "2+2=5 given that I have redefined 2 as actually equalling 2.5 in standard decimal notation". He's just engaged in a classic private language game. Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mitt Romney is famous for his "47% remark." That might not be "Racially Inflammatory," but it is indeed bashing the poor.

    The professor was right on the following counts:

    *Initially the only people who could vote where those who owned property, which as it turns out, was largely White Males.

    *They're not "clamoring" to come here. I've posted the proof from Pew Research several times to show that there has been more movement of Illegal Immigrants SOUTH of the border. You've never acknowledged that AFAICS.

    *Whiteness has changed in perception over the centuries. Why do you think so many Irish fled their homeland? To get away from the Brits and their racism!

    Doesn't seem to me that Tucker Carlson does much to his arguments. Here's Prof Hughey's Amazon page, looks better than FOX would give him credit for:

    https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=matthew+hughey&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=81009897319&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11359333872828871958&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9032952&hvtargid=kwd-18462887684&ref=pd_sl_19zipknryj_b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue here is lunatic cultural leftist nonsense that Trump's victory is all the fault of "white supremacists", when such people these days mostly exist only in the heads of crazed leftists and liberals.

      Delete
    2. Amusing. 47% was the per cent not paying income taxes. How quaint to assume that's "the poor". Perhaps his returns will show Trump was part of "the poor" for a while, after that big write-off.

      Delete
    3. To say White Supremacists weren't the reason for Trump's victory is one thing, but are you sure you want to go there in insisting they don't actually exist?

      Delete
    4. Christ, Kevin. I did not say they do not exist. I said they *mostly* exist only in the heads of crazed leftists and liberals. That is, they are a small fringe of people.

      However, for the insane cultural left, basically everybody is a "white supremacist" these days, even Bernie Sanders:

      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-may-be-white-supremacist.html

      Clear?

      Delete
    5. Amusing. 47% was the per cent not paying income taxes. How quaint to assume that's "the poor"

      Sure thing Ken. Romney was upset about the lazy rich not paying taxes:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#47.25_comment

      "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"

      Any more of your silly, misinformed remarks today?

      Delete
  4. All this hand-wringing over Whites becoming a minority in the US is definitely of concern, but I have a better word for it than Racism:

    http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/how-tribalism-overrules-reason-and-makes-risky-times-more-dangerous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/robert_reich_tribalism_is_tearing_america_apart_partner

    Perhaps this is an avenue that should be explored?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tribalism is the default setting of virtually all human beings.

      People want ethnic, cultural and national identities, to some degree.

      FFS, Liberals of the early 20th century used to be vehement supporters of national and ethno-nationalist self determination and separatism.

      Delete
    2. Tribalism is the default setting of virtually all human beings

      You'll have to show me proof of that one. Right now we live in a dangerous time wherein the various "Tribes" have gained the ability to destroy all life as we know it through Nuclear Armaments.

      FFF, you're a critic of Feminism and you don't see the inherent Tribalism in their Circle-The-Wagons mentality?

      I'm not meaning to imply I have all the answers here, but I am interested in the topic of Tribalism and exploring just how healthy it is or... isn't?

      Delete
    3. Robert Putnam's study of social capital declining as ethnic diversity increases is good empirical evidence for tribalism. The fact that it is observable in every human society and even among other animals is another. Evolutionary theory suggests that tribalism is a highly adaptive trait, one that has evolved with us to increase our genetic survivability. On the other hand, most of the left is at war with human nature and genetics, so lysenkoism and Lockean blank slatism are not dead yet.

      A quote from Carl Scmitt; “If a people no longer possesses the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not thereby vanish from the world. Only a weak people will disappear.”

      The (spiritually) weak people in this age are Europeans, who have lost the will to perpetuate themselves and fight off threats to their continued national existence. Tribalism preserves identity, increases social capital within the group and prevents subversion by out-groups with antagonistic interests. Attempting to eliminate tribalism is a Sisyphean task that will probably lead to civil war in nations like France, Germany and Sweden.

      Delete
    4. most of the left is at war with human nature and genetics, so lysenkoism and Lockean blank slatism are not dead yet

      You shoot yourself in the foot with a statement like that as far as I'm concerned. The individual who pointed out to me that Tribalism has brought us to the brink of Nuclear destruction [which it has] is decidedly Conservative with a strong Libertarian streak. And I might add, highly opposed to Collectivism.

      Tribalism preserves identity, increases social capital within the group and prevents subversion by out-groups with antagonistic interests

      I don't think so. Whatever Racist policies about limiting immigration you may be able to point to in US history, we've developed into just such a country that is able to grow and change and forge new identities based on new senses of shared meaning.

      OTOH, you may be quite right about Europe. Their cultures appear to me to be too weak to adopt to such changes and may be on the way out. I won't be shedding a tear, really. It was the Albatross of their old world prejudices this country spent decades trying to fight off in order to enjoy basic equality not based on the color of one's skin.

      Overall you do provide interesting food for thought though, so thanks for the input and discussion. I'm not fully sold one way or the other.

      Delete
    5. Looks like Putnam ain't the ally you want to make him out to be:

      http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/3035

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

      "I do need to step back a minuet and say I think that the - it's not merely a fact that America's becoming more diverse. It's a benefit. America will - all of us will, over the long run, benefit from being a more diverse, more heterogeneous place. Places that are more diverse have higher rates of growth on average and they have better cuisine. And it's just a more interesting place to live. So in the long run, waves of immigration like we're going through now and that we've gone through in the past and increasing diversity is good for a society"

      http://infed.org/mobi/robert-putnam-social-capital-and-civic-community

      Delete