Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[Kulindahr]

No doubt there are racists on both sides of the aisle. But, you missed my point. By falsely labeling most ideas with which they disagree as racist, liberals pressure other liberals to conform. Any time someone attempts to discuss the effect of immigration upon our existing millions of poor and unemployed, including the racial minorities, the liberals start calling it racism. The result is that liberals are reluctant to think negatively about immigration for fear of being, or being thought racist.

Parroting ideological points again, I see. That's the only way you could advance this claim that liberals "falsely [label] most ideas with which they disagree as racist". From discussions on this board, I can see venturing a claim that liberals label some such ideas racist, but claiming "most" is ludicrous.

 

[opinterph]

Echoes of Separation (source links and explanation to follow)

Citizen Nationalist

1. In the absence of the Police Power, the modern black underclass tends toward violent criminality and feckless dependency.
3. What are the actual problems of poor African Americans?
5. “Segregation,” “discrimination,” and “inequality” are social engineering programs.
7. Enforcing the laws against the illegal immigration that drives down the wages African-Americans could earn by honest labor would help poor blacks.
9. Blacks have the highest incarceration rate, followed by Hispanics.
11. [American] Indians and Pacific Islanders are imprisoned at about twice the white rate.
13. Asians are imprisoned at only 22 percent of the white rate.
15. The black imprisonment rate is 33 times higher than the Asian imprisonment rate.
17. Unfairness in the justice system plays little or no role in the disparities seen in the incarceration rates between Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.
19. High crime rates in black neighborhoods burden local entrepreneurs and hold back the economic advancement of the [Black] race.
21. Blacks are 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide.
23. Non-whites think in terms of: 'What is in the best interest of my: identity group, race, ethnicity, religion, bank account, class, ideology, clique, gender, sexual orientation, party, and/or personal feelings of moral superiority'
25. It is unnatural to base loyalties upon a legal category defined by our elected representatives.
27. Basing loyalties upon a legal category defined by our elected representatives is the least destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance humanly possible on an effective scale.
29. There is a racial IQ gap.
31. Many members of the press simply aren't smart enough and intellectually curious enough to master the racial IQ gap.
33. Censoring the news about crime rates demonstrates an appalling degree of moral corruption in our media.
35. The racial makeup of neighborhood is the largest single factor driving crime rates and thus differences in house prices and apartment rents.
37. The American elite refuses to try to understand race honestly.
39. Understanding race honestly would enable us to craft policies more likely to achieve the goals of the American people.
41. Liberal whites run the media. They blame other white people they already despise and claim social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their racial sensitivity.
43. The white nationalist wants whites to imitate the ethnocentrism of minorities, as the white majority is reduced to a white minority by immigration. The rivalry among whites makes that highly unlikely to succeed.
45. Many elite whites regard minorities as just useful pawns in the game of clawing their way to the top of the white status heap.
47. The white nationalist’s dream of white solidarity has no appeal to white intellectuals and writers because they don't face significant nonwhite competition. The vast majority of their rivals are other whites.
49. America's verbal elite favors illegal immigration, because the immigrants do not threaten their jobs.
51. Illegal immigration harms poor African-Americans who desperately need the dignity and the discipline provided by having a decent-paying job.
53. Whites would have been described as “Americans” before the federal government began electing a new people with the 1965 Immigration Act.
55. Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.
57. Our leaders have a duty to the current citizens and their descendants.
59. The central issue for the future of our country is limiting immigration.
61. Citizen Nationalist opposes wasting political capital and energy on expressions of hostility toward our fellow citizens who are African-Americans.
63. Blacks should be ashamed of the level of crime found in their community, but anti-black sentiment is self-defeating.
65. Much of current white conservative support for illegal immigration is a covert way of sticking it to African-Americans and their liberal supporters by importing harder-working Hispanics to drive blacks out of the workforce.
67. Depriving African-Americans of the discipline of work is self-defeating and just worsens their behavior.
69. Admitting vast numbers of Latinos exacerbates America's social problems.
71. We are lucky to be American citizens and want to pass on own good fortune to our posterity undiluted.
73. Immigration will work to make white nationalism more popular in decades to come.
75. The only scenario likely to make white nationalism effective as an electoral force would be the utter failure of our current attempts to limit immigration.
77. Making immigration restriction into a white nationalist crusade would wreck the chances of immigration reform passing.
79. Interracial marriages will lead to an increasing number of whites with a nephew or sister-in-law who is part or all nonwhite.
81. American whites are too idealistic and too self-sacrificing for explicit white ethnocentrism to appeal to them broadly enough to succeed. This white tendency toward idealism stems from the individualism and nuclear family-orientation that replaced clannishness in northwestern Europe.
83. American whites tend to see tribalism as beneath them.
85. The GOP is successful in the South, due in part to a successful political strategy that promotes colorblind policies that whites approve of, such as law and order, private enterprise, low taxes, and the like. This strategy has been good for blacks, too.
87. Republicans attract such a high fraction of the white vote, that in the South, a white nationalist appeal would be an election loser.
89. Any political philosophy aimed at whites today has to be phrased in high-minded terms.
91. White moralism over race merely consists of white Americans jockeying to claim status as morally superior to their rivals—who are, overwhelmingly, other white Americans.
93. White Americans would rather strive against each other for prestige than against nonwhites because (although they will denounce anyone who suggests this), they generally don't see many nonwhites as credible rivals.
95. Americans like to hate worthy rivals.
97. Most "minority spokesmen are tedious and/or tawdry, but their deleterious impact is felt mostly by the working class, not the chattering class.
99. As white America has gotten more meritocratic, the working class has been stripped of its articulate voices by upward mobility.
101. One journalistic cliché that keeps down working class wages through illegal immigration is that it’s “good for the economy”—as if the American economy exists for its own sake as opposed to existing for the good of American citizens.
103. Working class men and women remain our fellow American citizens and deserve our support.
105. “White nationalism” does not mean white supremacism, but simply that American whites should feel free to follow their own interests.
107. African Americans, Hispanics, Zionists, etc. already feel free to follow their own interests.
109. Citizen Nationalists believe Americans and their government should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.
111. You can be racially respectable by demonstrating enthusiasm to avoid integration, multi-culturalism, and diversity.
113. Racial rectitude is the most cheaply bought virtue in American history— and also the most easily forfeited. Because only words matter, not deeds. A single sentence can wreck a career.
115. Practicality and effectiveness matter, but that's a moral question you can work out for yourself.
117. The conundrum at the heart of white nationalism is that it encourages white Americans to act less like white Americans and more like nonwhites.
119. Western history has been distorted by the politically correct to emphasize its episodes of ethnocentrism and inequality, which are universals.
121. Over the last millennium, something perhaps unique in world history occurred – a movement away from the fractiousness of clan and tribe, but without the usual congealment into despotism.
123. The results of nationalism included enormous military power, domestic (but not always international) peace, wealth, cultural glories, and at least the possibility of self-rule and personal liberty.
125. Much had to be sacrificed or subordinated in the process of building nation-states, such as many old tribal identities. Individuals lost their clan status and became subjects, and later citizens, under the nation law. In contrast, the Middle East is full of ancient ethnic groups.
127. White Americans don't want to act like the rest of the world, as the white nationalists advise them to, they want to act like white Americans.
129. White Americans don't want to submit their individual freedom to their extended families, they want to marry whom they want to marry and then focus on their nuclear families.
131. White Americans want the law to treat them not as members of a clan but as individual and equal citizens under the law.
133. The strength of the family is not only the bulwark against disorder, but, at the same time, one of its principal causes.
135. The family has rendered useless the development of strong political institutions. This, of course, brings up a complex problem: do political institutions flourish only where the family is weak, or is it the other way around?
137. The 'modern' family is rooted in small parent-child families, weakened family ties, independent teenagers and marriages between men and women who had chosen each other.
139. English common law, through its monopoly on violence, enforced private contracts, and enforced them fairly. This made mutually profitable business dealings between unrelated individuals feasible without the threat of violence to insure the execution of contracts. Over time, vast corporations of cooperative strangers emerged. And governments taxed the wealth they generated to buy weaponry.
141. Individuals began to get more freedom to marry their true loves. Emphasizing virtues made the trust necessary for voluntary cooperation easier to achieve.
143. It was this traditional momentum toward expansion of the community, openness, and inclusion that had made America the strongest and richest country in the world.
145. Constructive tendencies toward equal treatment and broadening of the definition of “us” become self-destructive, even suicidal, if there are no limits.
147. Underpopulation leads to high wages and low land prices.
149. The middle class America we love and admire can't survive without limits on who can enjoy the benefits of being an American.
151. Our freedoms and our equality of laws and manners cannot survive if we take in too many people of significantly higher or lower earning potential than our current average.
153. The elites want to keep the line over who gets to be an American as hazy as possible, in order to import massive amounts of cheap labor and manage the resulting diversity.
155. White nationalists want to draw the line around whites only.
157. Citizen Nationalists want to draw the line at the border.

 

[bankside]

Americans First​

Really, this Sailer person fails in his second paragraph.

I call it “citizenism” because it affirms that true patriots and idealists are willing to make sacrifices for the overall good of their fellow American citizens rather than for the advantage of either six billion foreigners or of the special interests within our own country.

There is no advantage any nation can pursue for itself without ensuring that same advantage is mutual and contributes to the well-being of other nations. To do otherwise is to hold an illusory advantage that will just crumble. Or be made to crumble.

 

[Benvolio]

Very curious opinterph. What is it? I agree with part of it but there is much with which I would not agree. Many paragraphs are inconsistent with others. I could agree with nationalism in that, clearly, the obligation of governments is to protect and promote the interests of their own citizens. That does not mean that they hold hurt other countries or peoples, but governments should not sacrifice the interests of heir own people to benefit foreigners. I certainly am not a white nationalist, and almost alone have spoken here for the benefit of minorities. (Liberal proposals to hurt the rich and whites do not qualify as speaking for minorities. Calling other people racist does not constitute speaking for minorities. See#21)

 

[bankside]

Perhaps I can put it in another way: The first obligation of a government interested in the prosperity and wellbeing of its citizens is to cooperate with other governments in other countries who are also so obliged.

 

[opinterph]

I agree with part of it but there is much with which I would not agree.

I reckon there's no need to be all-of-a-sudden “comprehensive,” but maybe gimme several numbers from the list in the referenced post of what you’d consider “yea” [agree] and maybe one or several you’d consider “nay” [disagree].

We can take it from there.

(Liberal proposals to hurt the rich and whites do not qualify as speaking for minorities. Calling other people racist does not constitute speaking for minorities. See#21)

#21 ?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Perhaps I can put it in another way: The first obligation of a government interested in the prosperity and wellbeing of its citizens is to cooperate with other governments in other countries who are also so obliged.

I could be misunderstanding this statement, Bankside, but it seems like this would be an inherently new concept. Have not most nations for most of human history acted either in ignorance, or at least unilaterally even when not in ignorance, of how anything might affect neighbors? Are we speaking only of the "postmodern" era?

 

[opinterph]

Very curious opinterph. What is it?

Anybody who knows how to “Google” has done figured it out.

 

[bankside]

I could be misunderstanding this statement, Bankside, but it seems like this would be an inherently new concept. Have not most nations for most of human history acted either in ignorance, or at least unilaterally even when not in ignorance, of how anything might affect neighbors? Are we speaking only of the "postmodern" era?

No; I think it is the concept behind things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations, and the Security Council, and the League of Nations before that, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the Antarctic Treaty System, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and NATO, and...

 

[xbuzzerx]

No; I think it is the concept behind things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations, and the Security Council, and the League of Nations before that, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the Antarctic Treaty System, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and NATO, and...

But surely nations throughout human history have accrued prosperity and wealth without necessarily "doing right by all of their neighbors."

 

[bankside]

But surely nations throughout human history have accrued prosperity and wealth without necessarily "doing right by all of their neighbors."

Yes, they have. They have typically paid more for it than they receive. We've only gotten really prosperous as a species when we've put an end to the "beggar thy neighbour" policies of the kings of old. Rule of law; Human rights; Rules-based trade. They are the foundation of prosperity, and there is no reason for countries to differ in their policies.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yes, they have. They have typically paid more for it than they receive. We've only gotten really prosperous as a species when we've put an end to the "beggar thy neighbour" policies of the kings of old. Rule of law; Human rights; Rules-based trade. They are the foundation of prosperity, and there is no reason for countries to differ in their policies.

I agree, though I do think this is largely a postmodern school of thought that would largely not have occurred to someone two or three hundred years ago. Partially because the concept of human equality was far from universal for most of history. You do not "ask" for something from an animal, after all. And even less so if you feel you are stronger and have a better weapon.

The first obligation of a government interested in the prosperity and wellbeing of its citizens is to cooperate with other governments in other countries who are also so obliged.

I think what's often happened in history is when it's less convenient to do this, or less expedient, it has been very easy for peoples and nations to rationalize that their neighbors were not so obliged, and to write that into: "they're actually working against our attempts to peacefully prosper." I don't even know that I could fairly exclude the postmodern era from this. Look how easily Americans were led into this bumper sticker notion that "Iraq was threatening our freedoms." They were doing no such thing, but it was expedient to say so, and very little critical response reacted to it.

 

[Benvolio]

Perhaps I can put it in another way: The first obligation of a government interested in the prosperity and wellbeing of its citizens is to cooperate with other governments in other countries who are also so obliged.

That absolutely is not the FIRST obligation. The founding father said it better:"... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty for OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.".....

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION.....".

 

[Benvolio]

Knowing the penchant of our liberals for misunderstanding and distorting , it is with trepidation that I say I think I agree with numbers 4, 10,21,26,28,29,30,34,35,36,43,46,51,52,55,60,73,77, and 79. Others I either reject or would require elaboration and qualification and my computer is too cranky to allow either.

 

[opinterph]

Echoes of Separation (source links and explanation to follow)

Citizen Nationalist

Fair Warning

Southern Poverty Law Center: VDARE

Originally established in 1999 by the Center for American Unity, a Virginia-based nonprofit foundation started by English immigrant Peter Brimelow, VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website "dedicated to preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century." Now run by the VDARE Foundation, the site is a place where relatively intellectually inclined leaders of the anti-immigrant movement share their opinions. VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites.

The Color Of Crime And The New Orleans Nightmare: George W. Bush vs. Jared Taylor

Taylor vs. Sailer—Survival v. "Citizenism"

Sailer vs. Taylor, Round II —"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism

"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism (II): Sailer Sums Up

"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism: A Second Reply to Steve Sailer​

 

[Benvolio]

Once you have been taught and convinced yourself that opposition to immigration is always "an extension of white nationalism" how can you possibly think objectively about the economic and social effects of immigration? Any consideration of the economics would merely, by your definition be merely a "ploy". Clearly, you cannot and have not thought objectively about the effect of immigration."

 

[bankside]

Opposition to immigration isn't always an extension of white nationalism. For example the Japanese are well known for being highly skeptical of immigration and it is one of the hardest countries for foreigners to be accepted into as a citizen.

Of course when Japanese economists think objectively about the effects of a restrictive immigration policy, they complain about the lost economic growth, the ageing and unbalanced population reducing Japan's productive economic capacity and prosperity, and the racism endemic in Japan people that prevents immigration being used as a tool to help fix those problems, and to stabilise the economy at a higher level of output.

So yes, when you think objectively about it, racist bad economics is not always "an extension of white nationalism," it can be an extension of Japanese racist ideology or any other kind as well.

Labour mobility is one of the obvious indicators of a free market without government interference. Let the economy do its job, and let businesses hire people where the business decision dictates, rather than where insular controlling government policy dictates.

 

[Benvolio]

Free markets in labor are not likely to exist again. They result in masses of poverty, inspiring draconian market limitations. They worked in the19th century when people took massive poverty for granted, but no one, I think, wants that.
If you care for the environment at all, then you must recognize that we cannot have infinite immigration forever. At some point we have to recognize that population impacts the environment and degrades our quality of life. Worse, it empower politicians to limit our freedom in the name of the environment.
We have a huge potential for economic growth by moving our existing masses of poor and unemployed from welfare and crime into employment. At a minimum, we should declare a moratorium to allow poor a chance to catch up without having to compete with the most desperate of the world.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Once you have been taught and convinced yourself that opposition to immigration is always "an extension of white nationalism" how can you possibly think objectively about the economic and social effects of immigration? Any consideration of the economics would merely, by your definition be merely a "ploy". Clearly, you cannot and have not thought objectively about the effect of immigration."

I like how the idea didn't even occur to you that perhaps what we've been pointing out all along about what seems to be most strongly motivating your economic solutions could possibly be the case. We haven't said these things because of some kneejerk response programming from the ACLU, but rather because your solutions always realign with the same goal in mind of getting hispanics out, regardless of the facts or evidence and regardless of the historical record conflicting with what you say.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Opposition to immigration isn't always an extension of white nationalism. For example the Japanese are well known for being highly skeptical of immigration and it is one of the hardest countries for foreigners to be accepted into as a citizen.

You're right. That's yellow nationalism I suppose. Or actually more specifically it's Japanese nationalism, because it's applied arguably even more starkly against certain other Asian groups like Koreans and Filipinos residing in Japan than it is against western visitors or residents. Though within the context of a discussion about U.S. policy we would be invariably talking about white nationalism or white nativism. Benvolio is merely the 21st century version of the Irish who spearheaded the Chinese Exclusion Act, which somehow never reduced the need for government regulation, union action to demand safer and better workplace environments and employee compensation, aggressive anti-trust policy from the U.S. government, etc.