2006 February 19 Sunday
On The Liberal Desire For A Servant Society

Over at Gene Expression TangoMan has a post about press bias on immigration and this led to a great comment post about liberal hypocrisy on immigration by "Big Bill".

Look, white women don't want to cook. They don't want to take care of babies. They don't even want to HAVE babies. They don't want to wash clothes. They want servants -- dishwasher, Cook, Nanny, yard boy.

They all want to be Betty Friedan feminists: a wealthy husband Carl plenty of servants, nice home, nice vacation home, and all the time in the world to write political screeds about how evil men are.

And the best part about championing illegal aliens is that they can pat themselves on the back about being good liberals.

It's a win-win situation for a feminist: you get to live off the sweat of poor people, you get to put other evil demanding white people out of a job, and you get to pretend you're still a good leftist like you were in college.

I hung out in nanny bars in Manhattan and Yonkers for a few years. I know the shtick cold.

It is hard to pretend (which doesn't mean liberals do not try) that Mexicans are being let into America to be equals when they are let in to be trash collectors, nannies, gardeners, maids, bus boys, and other very low status occupations. It is hard to pretend they will rise up the level of equality when only 53% of Hispanics graduate from high school in the United States of America. It is hard to pretend that the huge Hispanic influx isn't further impoverishing our existing lower classes.

"Big Bill" also says:

College boys who have utterly no conception of what it's like growing up and living on the left side of the Bell curve like most black folks and poor white folks in America are oh so eager to import 6 billion ignorant peasants from all over the world. It assuages their guilty middle-class conscience.

Why make America more like the lousier places in the world? Where does this impulse come from? Do the supporters of America's terrible immigration policies somehow believe that the result won't be bad? Do they believe their own rhetoric?

One of my biggest worries about growing the lower class through immigration is that people at one rung on the ladder tend to look up at people on higher rungs and think they do not deserve to be higher up. A lot of people who lack the intellectual capacity to do work that earns an upper middle class or higher income also lack the intellectual capacity to understand just how complex that work is or how much wealth that work produces.

How can a person who, say, lays brick or hammers nails into roofs imagine how much more productive is the person who develops a new roofing material or a new way to make roofing material? Their tendency is going to be toward seeing their own work as the "real" work and the work of people sitting in offices as useless work that accomplishes little that is immediately obvious. Their desire for higher self esteem combines with their inability to comprehend work that is beyond their intellectual ability to cause them to discount the value of work that commands much higher incomes. Seems to me that a society with an increasing number of such people will have a politics increasingly driven by resentment toward the most productive. Upper class liberals ought ask themselves if it is in their best interest to support development of such a society.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 19 11:40 AM  Immigration Politics


Comments
Stephen said at February 19, 2006 6:37 PM:

Randall held up a strawman and it mouthed the words: "How can a person who, say, lays brick or hammers nails into roofs imagine how much more productive is the person who develops a new roofing material or a new way to make roofing material? Their tendency is going to be toward seeing their own work as the "real" work and the work of people sitting in offices as useless work that accomplishes little that is immediately obvious.

Where's the citation supporting this view Randall? Now if you'd have modified the 'person who develops a new roofing material' into a 'person who is a middle manager', then, yes, I might have been willing to believe you without a cite. But as it stands, I don't buy your proposition that any significant proportion of blue collar workers would think that a materials research scientist doesn't produce anything.

Randall Parker said at February 19, 2006 6:48 PM:

Stephen,

I've had managers who were also engineers and scientists and who worked on solving the same problems I worked on solving. The better of them foresaw resource needs, chose the right people to solve the right problem, understood the technical problems in some detail, and made both technical and personnel decisions. The managers in organizations who develop new roofing material do contribute to the advances. But how would the roofing worker understand that? Yes, he'll look at the managers and think they do nothing useful.

But are the roofers much better about the scientists and engineers and other producers of knowledge? I see this from the standpoint of intellectual property. The average person is hostile to intellectual property rights and thinks nothing of ripping off intellectual property. They bootleg movies, music, software, etc. They see they are stealing from leach corporations full of managers. Never mind they are stealing from engineers, computer programmers, and scientists as well.

Or look at the hostility toward drug companies. Granted, it doesn't just come from the lower class. But you can just forget about intellectual property rights protection in societies which have low average IQs. One has to have considerable abstract reasoning ability to understand that information can and should be property just like physical things.

Randall Parker said at February 19, 2006 6:53 PM:

Stephen,

I get vitriolic Hispanics showing up in some old posts on immigration arguing that as construction workers and other manual workers they do all the real work in American society and how we all just live off of them. Some also argue that America is wealthy because it effectively enslaves and drains the wealth from Latin American countries. So you can argue I'm putting up a strawman. But I write this stuff because I run into people who think just as I fear they think.

Stephen said at February 19, 2006 7:21 PM:

Would you criticise the production line worker at Delphi for thinking that Delphi's executives are worthless (ie those same executives who gave themselves enhanced severance packages just before Delphi went bankrupt)? Does anyone believe that those same executives will repudiate their new severance contracts at the same time as they're repudiating the company's worker contracts?

I don't think its got much to do with IQ, I think its a class warfare thing.

Randall Parker said at February 19, 2006 9:56 PM:

Stephen,

If our lower IQ population grows then we'll have a lot more class warfare.

The Delphi production line workers drove Delphi into bankruptcy by taking a lot more than they were worth. What the executives took was small in comparison.

John S Bolton said at February 19, 2006 10:22 PM:

Look at how casually as above, one can say it's a class warfare thing, as if it were so thoroughly unobjectionable, to say that. Then compare that to how differently it would appear if, in response to the items presented in the whole posting, one were to say: its a race war thing. Maybe the reason for the difference in reaction to the two characterizations, would be that class war sounds like something comfortably retired in the past, while racial warfare sounds like a frightening future, which can be avoided by not mentioning the push for it from the left and the moderate left.
Do the immigrationists believe their own propaganda? Some no doubt do believe that immigrants do us nothing but good.
They've even defined immigrants as those who can do no wrong, as witness the outraged response when it is pointed out that 9-11 was the doing of immigrants.
Behind these are those who know that we can efficiently do damage to civilization, and bring successful humanity
in the better countries closer to civil war and dictatorship, by saying that only racism, xenophobia and miserliness towards the downtrodden, would oppose mass imigration of undesirables.

Jorge D.C. said at February 20, 2006 12:11 AM:

I get vitriolic Hispanics showing up in some old posts on immigration arguing that as construction workers and other manual workers they do all the real work in American society and how we all just live off of them.

Hispanic whites and mestizos especially Mexicans demonstrate classic paradoxical pyschology: Their nations are pathetic weaklings yet they are the most fervent nationalists; Their culture is utterly undistinguished in civics, arts & sciences yet they are supremacists.

There is no more supremely confident man on this planet than the young Mexican male. The fact that he is a laggard in all areas of achievement simply does not matter. He is Mexican after all.

Remember that the latin mindset is the result of the Islamic conquest of southern europe. The unthinking Hispanic arrogant machismo personality is rooted in Islam and Arabia. It is the mark of a born loser. The radical aztlan.net website champions the Palestinians for race and culture reasons.

Jorge D.C. said at February 20, 2006 12:26 AM:

But you can just forget about intellectual property rights protection in societies which have low average IQs.

Maybe this statement should be amended to read "...low average verbal IQs...".

The East Asians have a high IQ but have a low verbal component. They are also contemptuous of the concept of intellectual property. Look not only at China but Japan's abuse of patent law. They simply do not have the same respect for the creative process as the West. Is it because the creative process is still taking place predominantly in the West? Meaning is it just chauvinism? And will intellectual property rights awareness grow in East Asia along with their gradually joining in on the creative process?

I doubt it. The religious and cultural values of East Asia are fundamentally different. In the same way Jeffersonian political model doesn't translate as expected to the East the Western economic model doesn't translate exactly either.

Kenelm Digby said at February 20, 2006 4:42 AM:

Randall,
As Nietzsche one said "Insanity is very rare in the individual, but very commom in the collective".
I believe this simple little maxim fully explains the current western immigratiion "policy".

Rick Darby said at February 20, 2006 8:04 AM:

Regardless of their professed ideology, privileged members of a society, whether they're aristocrats in 18th century England or wives of CEOs and professional women today, feel entitled to have servants to take care of the drudgery. Your academic might never admit it, but he certainly expects someone else to clean the office when he's not parked at his computer setting down his Great Thoughts. The lawyer whose time is of the highest value, spent figuring out ways to squeeze more money from corporations, is hardly going to waste a precious minute of it dialing a phone herself.

Of course, in a modern liberal society, you won't find anyone in the indigenous population who identifies with being a servant. Besides, in a democratic country, the servant class can't be identified as such. Having a never-ending, copious flow of immigrants (many of them illegal, but that's a mere detail, and the government doesn't care about such technicalities anyway) is a deft solution. Even if most of the immigrants must be subsidized by taxpayers to one degree or another, there will be enough to vacuum the corridors of power starting at 7 p.m. The beauty of it is, they're not "servants": they're just poor people trying to make a better life for their families!

The great immigration/servant machine is one more way that our Mandarins have gamed the system so that their needs are taken care of at minimal cost to themelves, while the rest of us eat the bill.

Rick Darby said at February 20, 2006 8:27 AM:

Perhaps the above comment needs a clarification. My point was not that everyone, no matter who they are, should have to do their own laundry and scrub their own floors (although it might do their souls good if they got some exercise outside of Gold's Gym, doing useful work). I'm not that kind of Utopian. If the privileged want servants, the supply should be limited enough that employers are forced to offer decent wages and working conditions. The set-up now is precisely opposite: our irresponsible open borders policy ensures that there will always be an oversupply of workers who can be drafted as servants, and their employers get the benefit while externalizing the cost to the rest of society.

Guessedworker said at February 20, 2006 10:29 AM:

Why make America more like the lousier places in the world? Where does this impulse come from? Do the supporters of America's terrible immigration policies somehow believe that the result won't be bad? Do they believe their own rhetoric?

That's one of the great mysteries of our time, and its answer ain't in simple observations about the advantages to the wealthy of importing humanity at large. Third World/First World immigration is a product of liberalism in the broadest sense. Everywhere liberalism is triumphant the ethnic interests of the white native population has been delegitimised. I'm English living in England, but I can't freely propose the survival of my own kind any more than a Southerner can, or a Dane, a Frenchman, a Dutchman, a German ... Randall's question, really, is: why has post-war liberalism developed everywhere in the West in this extraordinarily destructive way?

There's no shortage of possible answers. Hell, we're all trying to find answers so we can reverse the tide. The question is, what's the right one.

W said at February 20, 2006 5:28 PM:

Guessedworker,

We can reverse this tide quite simply. Most of the activists trying to turn around immigration, affirmative action, and feminist anti-family pro-gay liberalism petition the government and politicians. Big mistake. The politicians are employees of the corporations and well funded special interest groups that fund their campaigns (in addition to providing cushy private sector jobs and speaking fees once the politicos retire). This is the hard, hard road. You have to go after the corporations. You do this in two ways: 1) consumer boycotts, and 2) shareholder/bondholder boycotts and activism. We must form nationwide groups to start these boycotts, through conservative organizations that already exist. You attack the politicians' paymasters. Once you change this, the rest falls into place. How do you think affirmative action became so pervasive? Just the THREAT of boycotts and lawsuits sent the cowards scurrying. Jesse Jackson built his empire this way, with just a few thousand diligent followers. Just think what can be accomplished if we have many millions. The whole thing will unravel. Fire the quota hires. Mandate that all companies that do business with the corporation have to get rid of their quota hires as well, and use only merit-based hiring and promotion. Pull the advertising from advertising and media companies (newspapers, radio, TV) unless they do the same. You start with one company in a certain industry and then go after the rest until you change the entire industry, so there are no opportunities for the liberals to support one company over the rest.

If you want the boycotts to be successful, you start with pricey, big-ticket producing corporations first. Like automobiles. This is because, if you target a company that makes, say, soda pop, someone who opposes your boycott could easily just pick up a case of the targeted soda and you would get nowhere. But people are not going to go out and buy an extra car or two. Start with the domestic car companies, like Ford and GM. Liberals hate american cars, and they would be stuck with one for years if they tried to oppose your boycott. After you get the domestics, you go after the foreign. Once you get them all, you yank the advertising money from the big media companies. Do you know how dependent newspapers are on automobile advertising?

You go after the producers of small items by boycotting chains of stores that carry their products, in other words, their distributors. If you want to boycott Sara Lee, for example, you don't boycott Sara Lee first. You boycott Cub Foods, Jewel, Dominicks, Winn Dixie, or any other supermarket chain and get them under you thumb. Then you cut off Sara Lee by making the supermarkets refuse to carry their products unless they revoke their policies.

This approach will also work wonders for those companies hiring illegal aliens, or who want to import or export jobs to H1-B visa holders or foreign lands.

The beauty of this approach is that it can also be spread around the world to other primarily white countries beset by immigration problems. Once you get the corporations, you pay off the politicians, republican, democrat, labor, whatever party to keep this system in place, and to start exporting third world idiot cheap labor. You also get rid of the welfare state, easy in the US, tough in Europe, as the main beneficiaries in Euroland are the whites, not the browns. This is the only way.

You also stick it to the communist idiots in academia by making these corporations hire as intern/trainees the brightest 18-20 year olds out of high school, no college. The company trains them, gets very cheap labor, and you bypass the need for a college credential/degree in order to get a good job. Or you can have the companies give standardized exit-exam type tests and hire the cream of the young crop, who will be primarily white and asian, and almost no brown. All the extorted tuition money leaves the islands of socialist propoganda. Watch them wake up then! Just think, all that money could be saved by the parents and kids for retirement, buying a house, etc. Intelligent people could also marry younger and have more kids, not having to waste numerous years in the silly grind of the credential mill.

And of course, once you get business, you get the politicians, and you then get AA out of the government. Then government services will IMPROVE substantially since the unaccountable brown quota hires will no longer collect a check to screw up or do nothing.

This is how you do it, and it won't take 20-30 years (if ever) if you take the politician/petition/ballot/election/blah,blah,blah route. I'm going to start contacting conservative organizations/forming groups where I live this spring. Let's all get on it and hook up together down the road, eh?

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 5:37 PM:

W,

Mandated merit-based hiring violates the right of free association. If a business wants to hire dullards on the basis of race, let it. Just don't force it to.

W said at February 20, 2006 8:17 PM:

Bob,

I'm not gonna let these corporate crooks violate my rights. If you let them do it once, they'll keep at it until you have no rights left. The Civil Rights Act also violates the First Amendment Right of free association. You ought to be able to hire anyone you want to. But if the blacks and browns want it that way, we'll give it to them in spades. With the avenue I outlined above, we will even be able to bust up black and hispanic owned businesses who violate the CRA in their own hiring. Just imagine BET having its advertising pulled and being forced to hire 90% non-blacks in order to comply with the law! That'll teach them to open their yaps and spit crap at whitey! Actually, the CRA is a godsend, If you think about it. Before CRA, blacks could form their own exclusive businesses, colleges and universities, banks, etc. Now with CRA, it really is illegal for them to do that. WHEN CRA is enforced, not only will they lose their quota jobs, they'll also lose the ability to hire by race in their own businesses, universities, etc. With the influx of illegals, who may be no brighter, but who do work harder than them, they wouldn't have anything! If the CRA were truly enforced, blacks would CURSE the name of MLK! If blacks think discrimination is bad now, wait until employers can't be forced to hire them anymore!

By the way, AA denies me other rights under the law, namely that I should not be punished for a crime without a fair trial. Why should innocent white males be punished AS A GROUP without them having committed any crime? Sorry, but here in America, I'm not responsible for someone else's crimes. You want to punish me, you better have evidence, and I get my day in court. Otherwise, I walk. If that doesn't work out too well for you, because you're a dopey, lazy minority, well, too bad. Life's tough.

I figure you're a libertarian Bob, though I may be wrong. We are not islands. Your enemies are grouping up against you. If you are smart, you will do the same. The pendulum never swings back to the middle. I think a system where we take care of our own group first and are FAIR in meting out what remains is the best that can be hoped for. It sure beats being last on the list where the browns and socialists want to put us. Soon you'll have to make a choice. Good jobs are fleeing this country in droves. It will either be to protect yourself, family, friends, and others like you, or you will take it in the shorts. I hope you make the right decision.

Big Bill said at February 22, 2006 7:40 PM:

Something happened, I don't know exactly how, or when, but something happened. 50 years ago to be a liberal meant being in favor of labor, the working people in America. There was nothing incompatible with supporting laboring folks and supporting the Good. Now, however, I think most liberals are afraid of people who work with their hands, afraid of the vast majority of white folks (and black folks) who live in America. Something happened in the 60s. Somehow the Democrats went from supporting labor to Penis Politics. And now, although they give lip service to caring for poor folks, they limit their concern to brown and black poor people.

Illegal Mexicans are nothing more or less than scab labor. Like most scabs, they are poverty stricken poor folks who are hired to take jobs away from those who are just starting to get some power in the marketplace. Scabs aren't evil, they are pathetic. In their desperation they will do anything, including undercutting those who are just starting to develop a sense of their own power. Yet liberals, in their support of Mexican illegals, are like rich society women who gush out all of their feelings for the scab strike breakers and consider the working man who is striking to be somehow evil, a betrayer of humanity, a reactionary force. Liberals, and Democrats in particular, now think like Bosses. Their sympathies are not with the workers anymore, not with common everyday Americans, but with scabs -- with Mexican, Egyptian, El Salvadoran, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Turkish
illegals flooding this country.

W said at February 22, 2006 9:42 PM:

Big Bill,

Liberals always side with the bottom of the heap. This used to be white blue-collar workers (especially union), blacks, and women. Rich, protestant, white republicans were the enemy and cause of all the world's problems. Now libs side with blacks, women, gays, mexicans, poultry, fish, etc. They hate conservative, white, christian, heterosexual, meat-eating males, be they rich, middle class, or poor, and think they cause all the world's problems. As our society fills up further with third-world dregs and the deviants come out of their closets, this trend will continue.

Liberals always side with the losers because they have a false view of human nature and can't admit to the inherent superiority of some people and cultures over others. Liberals look around at the world, and like anybody, are appalled by the suffering. They are full of sympathy for the sufferers, but make no distinction between the suffering of the deserving (self destructive) and undeserving poor. Their sypathy will not allow this. So to them, the losers lose, not because they have limited abilities, or make bad and evil choices, but because they are victims. They must be victims because all people, sexes, and races are equivalent tabla rasas from birth, and the differences in outcome therefore must be due to some external cause, or the theory falls apart. Religious ideas of good and evil must be banished, because no God who violates the The Theory of Equality and thus allows and creates human inequality and suffering can be rationalized or imagined. Besides, they now have large, telescopic eyeglasses to look through, and since they see no large, bearded, old white man anywhere (like the paintings show), the idea of a trancedental God MUST be false. Therefore, THEY will become the sympathetic, just God they always imagined, and create the fair and just society God has failed to create. And they will do this by taking from those that they deem to have more than enough (with the usual exception of themselves) and give to those who are poor and/or suffer. Since they can only take material things away, this is what they do. If they could take positive emotions, love, intellect, humor, self-esteem, and self-discipline away from those who have it and give it to the poor, they would do that too. This explains the "self-help/self-esteem/therapy" phenomena so pervasive in their intellectual sphere. But since they are rebelling against nature, they are doomed to failure. And like all of those who deem themselves gods and are filled with such good intentions and self-pride, they will destroy all rather than countenance the image of their failure.

Big Bill, you fall into the category of Those Who Have More Than Enough. If you are materially doing well or getting along, you are a target. Rather than give you the free will (as God has) to try to help the poor as you may, they will take EVERYTHING you have (money, rights, happiness, etc.), as need be, to accomplish their Sisyphean labor. Time to realize the danger of their false religion, and fight like hell.

Guessedworker said at February 25, 2006 3:14 AM:

W is speaking of the development of left politics in America as, basically, a continuum. The targets of political compassion shift and change. But the MO remains the same. But all modern politics in the Western World is on the same trajectory and it is suicidal. So Bill is right: something quite vast has happened.

For me, it is that our political zeitgeist, which is liberalism, has become Marxised - first economically (somewhat feebly reflected in post-McCarthyite America by the Great Society but present in Europe in much more virulent forms) and latterly culturally, which we all understand well enough and I won't bore you with further. When Bill says something has happened, he is really referring to the adacemically-led shift to Marxian culture politics.

Actually, in the historical sense America has never had any non-liberal politic. A one-man-one-vote democracy cannot generate the alternative, which is that Conservatism practised in England up to the Ministry of Lord Liverpool (which ended in 1827). Today, both countries are liberal in the broadest philosophical sense, with the pursuit of the unfettered human will at the heart of it all. It should be obvious to those with a general philosophical grounding that absolute freedom is not attainable because it flows not from inner or outer constraints on the human will but through the exigency of "presence" in consciousness. But liberal politics has nothing interesting to say about consciousness. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's barking up the wrong phenomenological tree.

As a result, the liberal zeitgeist is migratory thing. It needs must seek freedom but each freedom it focuses upon turns out not to be it! With such a default setting for failure it isn't hard to see how philosopher-activists - mostly Jewish, it needs to be said - have been able to drive Marxist politics, economic and cultural, to the fore.

I mentioned in my earlier comment on this thread that we are all looking for the solution to the crisis of Western Man. The slightly horrifying thing about it for me is that it is liberalism itself we must somehow destroy. Fighting the Marxian left from the standpoint of the economic libertarian right will NOT do the job. Liberalism - the pursuit of the unfettered human will - encompasses the economic libertarian right.

I wish you well, anyhow.

Bob Badour said at February 25, 2006 5:24 PM:

W,

As a programmer, I already took it in the shorts.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright