Cultural immuno-deficiencies
Posted by aogFriday, 31 March 2006 at 17:24 TrackBack Ping URL

I wasted my time getting in to another fruitless exchange about illegal immigration. Luckily, I have my own weblog on which to vent at length.

What we see today is what I consider significant problems with illegal immigration. When we have polticial marches in which the marchers proclaim allegiance to a foreign government and declare that government the true owner of part (or all) of our country, we are far out of the acceptable behavior of ethnic pride parades.

Yet ultimately, OJ is correct to the extent that the root of the problem is not that the immigrants of today are much different from those of previous eras. The immigrants of today bring along social pathologies, coming as they do from less functional or outright broken societies. Yet the immigrants of yesteryear were hardly better in that regard.

What has changed is our own nation. During previous immigration waves, we had a strong, self confident culture that brooked no question of whether immigrants should assimilate. In such an environment, adaptation was rewarded and dysfunction punished. In effect, our society had a healthy immune system, capable of rejecting the pathologies carried by the immigrants while refreshing itself with the adoption of useful cultural imports.

Today, however, our society rewards deviance, defiance and disloyalty. Play by the rules, try to assimilate and you’re on your own. Rage defiantly at the dominant culture and you will be provided with special programs, help and affirmation. Instead of rejection, such pathologies are magnified and, in a variant of the “broken windows” effect, the inchoate middle is dragged in the wrong direction.

This is fine if your goal, as it seems to be for much of the MAL, is the destruction of American culture. If, however, one thinks that we have achieved in this country the basis for a great nation, it’s not so good. When one has a weak immune system, the choices are to either strengthen the immune system or reduce exposure to infections. While the former is clearly preferable, it is not always achievable. While I am sure there are racists who don’t like immigrants per se, most of the peope I read object to massive levels of illegal immigration in to a society that (in their view) is no longer capable of proper assimilation. If one truly believes that our society cannot assimilate as it has before, due to the rise of multiculturalism and the welfare state, what alternative is there but to restrict the flow of immigration, at least temporarily? And if one is going to engage in such restrictions, it seems that illegal immigration is the best place to start.

If President Bush really wants to get his guest workers / amnest program through, then a real committment to the kind of assimiliation this nation has done in the past would likely go a long way towards placating the American Street.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Friday, 31 March 2006 at 19:33

i have stopped reading bros judd over oj’s asinine position on the subject. i will probably breakdown and start reading again, but a lot of the fun has gone out of that site for me.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 31 March 2006 at 21:01

OJ seems to get frequently stuck in a mode where because something is good, all aspects of it are good. In this case, since immigrants are good, everything they do is good, even anti-American protest marches. One can make too much of nuance, but complete lack of it isn’t much better.

And, of course, OJ never admits error so he can get himself in to some rather tight little spots.

I just try to not take it too seriously. I don’t think OJ does and I suspect he’s frequently laughing at his keyboard as he deploys yet another blatant misinterpretation of someone’s comment.

Jeff Guinn Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 06:59

cjm:

I stopped reading Brothers Judd because OJ is a filthy liar. He started radically altering my posts, then deleting any subsequent references to his behavior.

Regarding the immigration issue, I think it is ironic that OJ issues ex cathedra pronouncements from New Hampshire, singularly unaffected by illegal immigration.

He should spend some time in, say, LA. But then he might suffer the handicap of having to base his reasoning on first hand knowledge.

cjm Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 13:17

jeff:

i would bet my house against his basement, that he would not let his kids attend public school in los angeles, for one full school year.

he is supremely dishonest intellectually, and i no longer bother trying to engage him in any discussions.

cjm Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 13:22

back on topic :)

i was suddenly struck (after reading aog’s post) that it is possible to determine the point in time when the u.s. began to lose its cultural confidence. it was during the clinton years. he emboldened the left and showed them that outrageous mendacity would be supported by the press and the “elites”. think about it, during the 80’s we were not shy about making movies that showed arab/muslim terrorism (True Lies, etc). i am not a clinton hater (he disgusts me, and i rate him lowly as a president, but he is just a pathetic has been now). just a theory as to the cause, but the timeline is easily established by movies and other cultural artifacts.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 15:06

I would be the real genecis back in the 1960s, from which so much of our cultural malaise stems. That lead in to the 1970s, which was also a low point of cultural confidence (e.g., Jimmy Carter). Clinton was more of the culmination of such trends, rather than their impetus.

I am a bit more hopeful these days, as the USA seems to be (unlike the Boomers) waking up to the ill effects of the 1960s / multi-cultural zeitgeist.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 15:09

Jeff;

Back off topic for a moment, I think that a big part of what you’re talking about is that OJ is a polemicist, not a debater. The point of his weblog is not to be a place to discuss, but a propaganda mill. He’s good at it, or we wouldn’t all be so obsessed with him.

pj Saturday, 01 April 2006 at 21:37

I think it’s a bit unfair to say that brosjudd is only a propaganda mill. Of course he wants to proselytize, but he also wants to provoke and amuse.

And if he took the time to argue more carefully and responsively, he’d never have time to put up so many thought-provoking posts. If I had a blog it would read like AOG’s — fewer objectionable thoughts, but also fewer provocative ones. I have to respect someone with different, and probably more popular, talents.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 02 April 2006 at 08:21

pj;

I wouldn’t call Brothers Juddonly a propaganda mill”, if for no other reason that it would be personally embarrassing to spend so much time at such a thing.

I don’t see how provoking and amusing are contrary to prosletyzing.

It’s not about arguing carefully and responsively so much, although it would seem more effort to engage in some of the deliberate misinterprations I’ve seen. I can let that slide, because perhaps I am not really as clear as I think I am, or because, as you note, OJ’s efforts already consume a lot of time.

Where I think it’s over the line is to edit unattributedly someone else’s words. If a comment is really inappropriate or repetitive, then replacing it with an “editor’s note” to that effect is tolerable. Which of those two do you think take more time and effort?

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 02 April 2006 at 08:27

Sorry, but back on topic :-)

I think the thing is that in previous immigration, the USA, because of its confidence and demand for assimilation, mated it own strengths with those of the immigrants, yielding something better than either. Today, however, we tend much more to match our weakness with the dysfunction of the immigrants, yielding a far worse result.

One can compare it to education, where if you expect much of the students, you get much. On the other hand, if you pander to the students you get Lord of the Flies. And just like my point here, those different results are not dependent on the students, but on how the environment encourages and discourages the mix of good and bad tendencies in all students.

pj Sunday, 02 April 2006 at 08:58

I think your point on immigration is excellent.

I would also agree with your comment on unattributed editing of comments. I just haven’t seen oj do that, and hesitate to condemn him without knowing exactly what happened.

Post a comment