Reactions to Douthat’s “Ten” Theses on Immigration

Last winter Ross Douthat staked out his only-mostly-cucked stance on immigration. I thought it would be a useful intellectual exercise to go through them and clarify points of agreement and points of dissent.

1. The nation-state is real and irreplaceable

Agree.

2. Immigration is perilous.

Obviously I think immigration is perilous; but I want to call attention to Douthat’s specific claim that immigration is particularly perilous in periods of demographic decline, which are precisely the periods when globalists claim it is most necessary (to replace missing babies), because there are fewer young people for the immigrants to assimilate with.  As a logical shiv, you can see why Douthat likes it: globalists can have their pretend labor shortage or their pretend assimilation, but not both.  As rhetoric, however, assimilation needs to be ridiculed.  No ethnic group ever assimilates; they can be bred out, or they can be forced to ignore their instincts and conform to the expectations of a large and vigorous majority, but they will pass their unique psycho-behavioral quirks onto their children and their children’s children down to the end of recorded time.

3. Culture is real and cultural inheritance is enduring.

This thesis is where Douthat’s Roman Cucktholicism shines through. I agree with him that the final traits of an ethnically mixed group will be a linear recombination of the traits of the original groups that were thrown into the melting pot, but of course the real reason is that parents pass on their genes to their children. Nonsense about “enduring cultural inheritance” just makes Bolsheviks’ beady little eyes glimmer as they try to figure out how to redistribute culture away from white people.

4. Cultural commonalities lead to assimilation, while cultural differences lead to balkanization.

What he should have said was that when group means are close to one another, the groups live together, intermarry, and do not notice any sharp discontinuity between the pre-immigration population and the post-immigration population; whereas when the group means are far enough, co-existence is minimal and limited numbers of intermarriage only serve as a “boiling off” allowing both groups to get rid of genetic outliers.

5. Punctuated immigration leads to assimilation, while constant immigration leads to balkanization.

Again: there is conformism and there is mongrelization but there is no such thing as “assimilation”.  Now, I think I agree with Douthat that punctuated immigration leads to conformism, because smaller ethnic enclaves are less able to be entirely self-sustaining, and the more the immigrants must interact with the majority, the more they must conform to the majority’s expectation, even if it runs against every fiber of their being.  Strong conformity promotes mongrelization as well, because the immigrants crave a “normal” family and the gullible natives imagine that, because a pretty immigrant seems normal in public, her family life will be perfectly normal as well.  Punctuated immigration further intensifies mongrelization directly by allowing the level of intermarriage to rise with each generation, as expectations about the availability of an in-group spouse collapse.

6. Cosmopolitanism is unusual, tribalism is natural.

Yes, and as rare as cosmopolitanism is in general, specific species of cosmopolitanism are even rarer. Nordic universalism is one thing, while Talmudic rootlessness is another.  To refuse to fight for your own tribe means that whatever cosmopolitan values you cherish will vanish from the earth along with your tribe.

7. Nefas

8. There will be a native backlash.

Yes.

9. Liberal societies are mortal.

Yes. And they are endemic to the soil in which they have grown: Europeans, and preferably Northern Europeans.  Take away the soil and the tree will die.

10. Americans are already mongrels, are insulated by geography from Africa and Asia, and have a much better pool of potential immigrants in Latin America, so they are less hurt by immigration.

Douthat’s thoughts on the relative problems with Latin American immigration versus Afro-Asian immigration were new to me.  That a difference exists is valuable, even if Douthat is almost entirely wrong (or pretends to be wrong!) about what the difference is and its relative import.

Americans are a low-trust society already and so have already developed defenses that will protect them, to a limited degree, from the coming descent of the U.S.A. into third-world anarchy.  However Douthat doesn’t note that America is much closer to the final tipping points which will trigger that descent.  While whites are still the majority, there will still be some degree of conformism in civil society, no matter how limited. While whites are still the majority, there will still be some degree of attachment to white people’s political principles, since the Left does fear the emergence of a tribal white political identity while that tribe still has the numbers to win elections.  While whites are still the majority, there will still be some degree of conformism to “Judeo”-Christian values in the media, in public culture, and in the schools, since no one wants to admit he is a thief and a murderer until he is ready to be a regicide and an usurper.  But this will all start to fall apart once whites are no longer the majority.

Advertisements

One thought on “Reactions to Douthat’s “Ten” Theses on Immigration

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s