- Outsourcing: increasing competition in the American job market by expanding potential employee base to foreigners = bad
- Immigration: increasing competition in the American job market by expanding potential employee base to foreigners = good
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the above speaks for itself, but I'll be pedantic here. If one views liberalism as merely a means of structuring society, then opposing outsourcing while supporting immigration makes no sense. But if one views liberalism for what it is, a religion based on resentment towards white American traditionalism, then it makes perfect sense. Outsourcing helps evil corporations headed by evil white men. Immigration hurts traditional American culture, undermines nationalist sentiment, supports race replacement and "diversity!!", and is a metaphorical thumb to the nose of conservatives. No matter that the two initiatives, outsourcing and immigration, have the same exact practical effect on American workers; it's always "who? whom?" with liberals.
34 comments:
It's all about the vibrancy.
In the face of serious, persistent, high-stakes "who? whom?" you have to play "who? whom?" yourself, or you lose, big time.
We Whites have been losing since the great conflagration of 1914-1945 let all the devils loose.
The chances for our having a flourishing future grow dim.
If we keep being negligent in playing "who? whom?" while it's being played against us for the highest stakes, we'll be gone.
Liberal Logic is an oxymoron.
Liberals are so irrational in their ability to see the obvious, that it's painstakingly absurd to even comment on it at this point.
Liberals have a view of themselves as a kind of master race, and so they need to find a solution for the ersatz Scots-Irish who they perceive as dragging them down.
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/
slavery is NOT a distant memory
read this book and watch this program NOW
You are confusing cultural with economic analysis.
These economic policies are driven by wealthy elites, the capital owners, who stand to gain riches from both outsourcing and immigration.
You lumping them in with Liberals is actually pretty dumb. Did you not pay any attention to the Occupy movement? The Leftist commoner is hardcore against globalism.
read this book and watch this program NOW
-----
on some random persons on line say so? Not very damn likely
you need to read this book NOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Chivalry
see how silly that is?
or something like
you folks should read this book. It's the second most important, impact-full book in my life, and IMO helps define a mans life
Which it is true, but I doubt anyone else gives a shit. just like I don't give a rat's ass about slavery by another name
"Liberal Logic is an oxymoron.
Liberals are so irrational in their ability to see the obvious, that it's painstakingly absurd to even comment on it at this point."
Yep. I have completely ceased to take liberalism seriously, the same way I've ceased to take creationist or religious arguments seriously.
At one point, you have to question the intelligence or rational sense of someone who never noticed or never had an interest in understanding the blatant intelligence and physical appearance inequalities between humans.
Very few liberals have asked themselves the "genetic/environmental" question, and came to the conclusion that it was environmental. 98% of them NEVER had any interest whatsoever in what is, tragically, the most important question on Earth, and are happy with following the current Zeitgeist pumped to them by the mass medias.
What Justin said. Also, note that many academic liberals also support free trade (which necessarily includes outsourcing).
Leftists are against globalism, but usually for reasons of social justice--they think corporations exploit workers in other countries to keep them peons. However, being against globalization doesn't imply being against immigration...is there any serious faction on the left that opposes immigration? While leftists often believe that foreigners should be able to keep predatory Americans at bay, they do not believe the reverse. I interpret it as just another form of white supremacism...they literally can't conceive of white people ever losing.
It is fair to say that there are many mainstream liberals that are consistent on this though.
Did you not pay any attention to the Occupy movement? The Leftist commoner is hardcore against globalism.
This is because they are knee-jerk anti-capitalism, and they are too stupid to recognize the unholy union of government and mega-business that isn't capitalism as all.
The Leftist commoner is also fully behind mass immigration with no checks of any kind. As STDV notes, this directly contradicts any supposed anti-globalism.
And on that front as well, the Left will talk the talk about bringing jobs back to America, but try actually doing the things needed to make that happen -- lowering corporate taxes, massive cutting of government HR-based overhead, capping torts, relaxed environmental regulations, etc. -- and they go ballistic.
Funny how when it comes to letting in the unwashed hordes, the Left is hugely successful. When it comes to "battling globalism" they've never achieved anything beyond protest marches and press releases.
the end of white primacy and privielege is ending
whites will have to compete on the merits and with no unfair advantages
that scares us white men becuase we know we cannot compete
"the end of white primacy and privielege is ending
whites will have to compete on the merits and with no unfair advantages
that scares us white men becuase we know we cannot compete"
WOW! Rarely have I encountered such eloquent and brave candor! This 'white man' is so insightful in his brutal honesty.... (One: Why don't you block this troll and put him out of his misery? Why don't you? Does he use multimple email addresses or soemthing else that allows him to avoid detection?)
"the end of white primacy and privielege is ending"
all right! back in business!
"whites will have to compete on the merits and with no unfair advantages"
i'm not privileged. i'm just born that way.
"that scares us white men"
us?
"becuase we know we cannot compete"
in the overinflated self-esteem sweepstakes, true.
"the end of white primacy and privielege is ending"
And replaced with what? Chinese privilege? Black privilege? Brown privilege? This will be better...how? Fill us in.
One: Why don't you block this troll and put him out of his misery? Why don't you? Does he use multimple email addresses or soemthing else that allows him to avoid detection?
People keep asking me this - Blogger does not allow blocking commenters. It only allows moderation and restrctive commenting, i.e. need a Blogger/GMail username. I am definitely not going with either of those options, so...
outsourcing hurts white men a lot too. From my experiences liberals love globalization and outsourcing. Thomas Friedman is a liberal god; all he ever does is rave about how great globalization is.
In response to the comments about the troll, are our IP addresses logged when we make comments or is there no way for you to tell who makes comments posted under anonymous ?
are our IP addresses logged when we make comments or is there no way for you to tell who makes comments posted under anonymous ?
No IP addresses logged in Blogger. Wordpress (and most other comment sections) do log your IP address.
I'm against both. While I'm against making outsourcing illegal and want stricter immigration policies (in addition to reducing incentives to emigrate by helping the governments of their home country make their country a better place to live and work), I still nevertheless believe that they should give incentives to corporations to create jobs here.
"Leftists are against globalism, but usually for reasons of social justice--they think corporations exploit workers in other countries to keep them peons."
While this is true to an extent these corporations still helped former peasant farmers have a higher standard of living. Because capital found itself in the hands of a new emerging class of people Chinese businesses suddenly had a new consumer base. These grew and became major Chinese corporations that are now currently outsourcing to places such as Vietnam.
"This is because they are knee-jerk anti-capitalism, and they are too stupid to recognize the unholy union of government and mega-business that isn't capitalism as all."
Even when this corporatist merger is a major raison d'etre for the Occupy Movement?
When was the last time a Liberal seriously complained or did anything about outsourcing?
Plus, it doesn't matter if it's contradictory; Doublethink takes care of that.
Young race realists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAR2h5aSQO4&feature=g-all-lik&context=G2f90ba9FAAAAAAAAAAA
Liberals are not about Logic they are about feelings. They would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.
I wish I could just snear at Liberal stupidity but I can't I know they are out for blood.
Well, we play the "good" and "evil" game and with the rise of secular culture (at the expense of religion to contextualize "good" and "evil") and increasing egalitarianism across racial and gender lines, it became a foregone conclusion that the new "evil" would be these shadowy white men. After all, if we're all "equal", who kept us from being "the same"? Well, white men, largely! That is actually true though I don't view that as a bad thing.
As long as our moral system is structured in this fashion, the liberals will win out. Who's going to replace "white devils"? Even when the white race is gone (which will be soon on present trends), the "the legacy of the 'white devils'" will be the scapegoat. The religion of cultural Marxism has a strong chance of outliving its creators, the white race itself.
"Immigration: increasing competition in the American job market by expanding potential employee base to foreigners = good"
Unfortunately the liberal argument against this isn't really all that convoluted. The difference is that as soon as a foreigner sets foot on American soil, he becomes an American in the liberal mind. An immigrant who takes a job on American soil is not a foreigner, he's an American.
Obviously I don't think it's right, but that's the explanation, and it makes sense if you don't think too hard about it.
Immigration means that you can capture consumption and other taxes from them, and use them as a consumer base, and you're not building infrastructure in another country, but you have to offer the immies full citizen benefits, are stuck with them if they don't feel like working, are stuck with whatever ethnic tensions and cultural baggage they bring and their damage to the nation's sense of itself as a nation.
Outsourcing means that you can only capture import export taxes from tariffs on the goods being brought into the country, rather than taxing the workers directly, and you're building infrastructure in another country, but you avoid all the other baggage of immigration.
Also, with immigration, you're giving the foreign workers legal entitlements such as minimum wages and environmental regulations, which probably seems good to liberals.
"No matter that the two initiatives, outsourcing and immigration, have the same exact practical effect on American workers"
To Liberal people, the immigrants are to be considered "American workers" as soon as they've immigrated (regardless of whether they properly are more similar to the general set of American workers on the things we care about, or whether they really form a clade with foreigners on these things), while workers in foreign factories aren't, so to them they don't seem the same.
Well, while the liberals talk about how much they hate outsourcing, in practice they don't do anything about it. The populist stance on the issue is just a way for them to get the votes of the few white working-class people who still think the Democrats are on their side.
As an example, I'll posit Barack Obama's bashing NAFTA when talking to unemployed steelworkers, while later reassuring the Canadians (and others) that NAFTA would be in no danger from his administration, and then later telling an SWPL audience how ignorant and stupid "anti-trade" people were.
Outsourcing helps people in the Third World. Immigration help evil rich white men who get cheap labor.
If immigrants weren't disproportionally violent and parasitic, we wouldn't be looking to restrict them. Asians aren't despised because they are less violent, less parasitic and have fertility rates further below replacement level than whites. So, even if you let Asians in, they don't overrun you, bleed your, kill you or rape your daughters.
It's true that white men probably benefit from living in countries with relatively strong systems of property rights and honest government (in the case of western and northern Europeans), arguably an advantage that equally or even more intelligent people such as the Chinese lacked. Of course, these advantages are themselves the product of societies built by white men, so complaining that white men are "privileged" by such institutions is bullcrap.
Partially agree as to SOME liberals. Yes outsourcing and immigration has hurt American workers, but four things must be kept in mind using the liberals are all to blame model.
(1) Immigration and outsourcing is driven by much more than mere liberal resentment on traditional values. One key driver is basic economics - comparative advantage - another is costs. It makes little sense for advanced industrial countries to invest in lower value goods production when a much heftier profit can be made producing advanced machinery or processed material to manufacturers or resellers elsewhere. Britain for example did not continually tie up massive amounts of land in sheep farming, but outsourced such elsewhere to places like Australia, and reaped much more profit in importing wool to be processed. This had a negative impact on British sheep farmers and their labor force, but it was a more profitable tradeoff for the society as a whole. Likewise growing industrial output in England required immigration of labor- primarily the Irish and the Scots. All these are generic economic processes that have little to do with liberalism.
(2) Both outsourcing and immigration have at times been strongly supported by traditionally conservative constituencies. Business interests for example at various times have strongly supported immigration of both cheap unskilled, or more expensive skilled labor - a pattern going back to the 19th century.
3) Some of the most ANTI-liberal constitutiencies have been prominent in creating the conditions that promote both immigration and outsourcing- namely union-supporting white ethnics. Time and time again white union demands for even higher wages, and even more perks and restrictive work practices have provided clear incentives for employers to look elsewhere. And unions themselves make it harder for other workers to get jobs through restrictive "union hall" practices and locked in contract provisions. At various times n US history said white ethnics have been among the fiercest opponents of liberalism- battling on school desegregation, taxation etc etc.
Yet some of these same white ethnics traditionally, heavily support unions the have been in part responsible for hindering America's productivity and competitiveness. There is a reason private sector union membership is at such low levels. One key reason is that both employers and other workers have experienced some of their negative effects. These white ethnics are not flaming liberals but to the contrary often embrace middle class values, and have fought liberals tooth and nail on several issues. It is ironic that they are among the drivers that have stoked outsourcing and immigration.
4) And white liberals are not necessarily pro-immigration. One poster has already pointed out the left's opposition to globalism. But many liberals also OPPOSE immigration. What they will do though is DISGUISE their opposition. They will "talk liberal" while "acting conservative." As Thomas Sowell points out, well-heeled white liberals on the LEft Coast have "ethnically cleansed" their hoods of Mexican immigrants by enacting a veiled web of property controls and zoning restrictions that dampens housing construction and/or occupancy turnover. The result- less Mexicans. In the meantime though, they show up at the usual trendy venues, nobly talkin bout "diversity."
Blogger Justin said...
You are confusing cultural with economic analysis.
These economic policies are driven by wealthy elites, the capital owners, who stand to gain riches from both outsourcing and immigration.
You lumping them in with Liberals is actually pretty dumb. Did you not pay any attention to the Occupy movement? The Leftist commoner is hardcore against globalism.
The economic dimension is the key one. But more ironic, the blame must also include conservative union-supporting whites, unions that have played a key role in dampening US productivity and causing both outsourcing and attendant immigration pressures to lower labor costs.
Nice to see people start to understand the economic reasons behind outsourcing and immigration instead of ranting about Jews. White Nationalists will need to take sides in the Class War. Stalin had it right.
How will this alignment shape up though? Not all liberals can be said to be pro-immigration and outsourcing. Some environmental types actually oppose more immigration because of the pressures it brings for more congestion, more housing developments that cut into green open space and so on. They donlt have the muscle though of the business and big farmer lobby. Take a company like Miller and Long. It is the largest concrete contractor in the US. If there is a big building complex going up, they are likely to be there. They poured concrete for the new Carolina Panthers stadium as one instance. Yet most of their workforce is from El Salvador. B money people like these want more immigrants, as do big stores that sell to them. Simply blaming liberals and Jews for the complex issue of outsourcing and immigration is really childish. If the economy is being split into a higher class knowledge elite as Charles Murray says, versus the laggard mass, what side should we take?
Liberal logic is quite simple. It runs like this:
IF IT'S BAD FOR WHITE PEOPLE, IT'S GOOD.
Post a Comment