Monday, June 12, 2017

Looking at illegal immigration from the elite perspective

The business community needs slaves. An illegal immigrant cannot sue his employer easily, fears being deported, etc. He therefore has less rights and is more effectively exploited.

They also need lower cost workers. In a state like California the cost of workers compensation can equal the cost of the wage for some workers. This is because about one in three workers compensation cases results in a lawsuit. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, and workers compensation attorneys have purchased sufficiently confusing law to afford themselves a profitable living. Thus, a non citizen can be vastly cheaper than a citizen to hire, even if you pay him a greater wage. If workers comp on a construction worker who makes 15 per hour is also 15 per hour, then it pays to pay the illegal 18 per hour since he will save you a net 12 per hour. Because of numerous other built-in costs for legal compliance it pays to hire illegal workers.

They also need votes for the Democratic party, and the displacement of White Americans in key swing districts. Whatever the swing districts are, you guarantee that those will be the ones that federal programs target for fastest diversification.

They also need to suppress the wages of native workers by increasing worker competition. Or as Alan Greenspan would say, "increasing worker insecurity."

These are the needs of the elites. They need the problem of illegal immigration to continue. Since illegal immigrants can obtain citizenship the pool of slaves is constantly evaporating. New slaves must be brought in to replace them. Since the swing districts change every election cycle as Whites flee move around, all swing districts and potential swing districts must be covered. Thus, all places must be invaded.

Amnesty would destroy the pool of slaves. Building the wall would diminish it. Neither can be allowed to happen. The Republicans are set to the task of preventing amnesty. The Democrats are set to the task of preventing the wall. The global elites need the problem to continue since it is not a problem from their perspective, but a solution. The logic of "anti-racism" is then imported to serve this need. Foundations that fund universities are then set to action promoting anti-racism. Universities become the marketing arms of corporations. Illegal immigrants are semi-slaves. Ironic how anti-racism is used to support a form of slavery, isn't it? Ideology is just marketing for power, and democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. Those ideologies that become popular are those that serve power at the time they are created. The rest rot on the shelf. Philosophies are basically marketing briefs. The Democrats and Republicans are a corporate duopoly, (like Coke vs Pepsi, or Microsoft vs Apple), that measures its profits in votes rather than dollars. They seek vote-profit maximization, nothing more.

Every dumb ass and his mother thinks the ideology is what matters. This is a "bottom up" view of things. Sovereignty is conserved. Everything is really top down. It is not the ideology that is producing power, but power that is producing ideology. The elites need slaves. What they really need is a way to legitimize morally the enslavement of the stupid in such a manner that does not require mass migration. Figure that out and you have 1/2 of a solution to immigration. Then figure out how to let Democrats always win without appealing to minorities and you have another 1/2. It's really only two problems: votes and money. Elites don't like immigrants. They like power and profit. Figure out how to give them more of that by turning against immigration and you have the solution.

And ideology?

They will manufacture it for you. Though it helps sell things if you have a convincing one already prepared. Perhaps "ending slavery?" Mmm? And maybe "ending wage suppression because muh economic/social justice?"


  1. From the premises, I must apply a few critiques. The notion that Democracy is a marketplace for law is erroneous. The marketplace for law exists in any state. Lobbies can be applied to the courts of Kings or the board-rooms of Plutocrats just as easily as the halls of congress. Moreover, Lawyers are not the lobbyists of the working stiff. They are representatives of the lawyers, who profit at the extension of legal hurdles into every industry. It is only incidental that lawyers profit their working clients in the short run. OSHA lawyers exist primarily to provide employee and contract law attorneys with more power.

    This, I think, is the fundamental issue with "reactionary," thinking as it's constituted in these circles. Democracy is simultaneously lampooned and imbued with far more plebeian influence than truly exists. In reality, the war of the high and low against the middle operates through a formal framework of permanent government, full of resource and power endowed interests. In so far as a mass morality is used to justify this situation, it is used for just that purpose and little else. Vote maximization is little more than theatrics. If either major party wanted to truly optimize their vote count, they could easily do so by stepping just one inch outside the acceptable window of political speech. Trump tentatively did so to great effect, but has now demonstrated just how unimportant the action was. No major change in trajectory has occurred as a result of his election, nor could it. As everyone keenly observing knows, he is not (assuming, for the sake of argument, he is interested in the working class or middle class) battling counter-operative political forces alone, but the permanent government itself.

    With respect to immigration and amnesty in particular, I think it stands to reason that "globalism," is simply the obviation of the problem you're describing. The reason that the GOP pre-Trump, tried to push through amnesty, was that much of the permanent government agreed that there was no longer any point in attempting to manage the dualistic economy you've described. What gummed up the works was that a non-trivial minority in power disagreed and thought it was too soon to re-align things to the point where "nobody is illegal," essentially up-ending a great deal of political and legal cottage industries.

    Ultimately, I don't believe there is an argument that can dissuade the process from continuing, though I do think they've accepted the pace must be slowed due to the immense native friction that is erupting out of a population that has seen a two-generation demographic shift that is unprecedented in history. The penultimate (ultimate being the conservation of sovereignty you mentioned) issue is that the vast sums of capital in the west need to strip-mine the world for labor. This serves the dual purpose of bleeding the third world of higher IQ individuals who can resist western proxy rule and building a local Janissary force that prevents nativism from up-ending elite designs that are completely at odds with local interests.

    Power and profit going forward require the continued machination of the status quo. The only effective resistance is going to come from the subordinated mid-level permanent government functionaries who realize their status is under threat and begin to side with nativists to preserve their own power. This is where the endless bureaucracies come into play. So long as the permanent government can provide these would-be defectors with comfortable positions, they won't be out there plotting against their superiors.

    1. Good analysis. Regarding your objection to my characterization of democracy as a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. I am just applying a kind of standard economic logic to government where the state is viewed as a coercion market. "Marketplace" is just one of several classifications. Monarchies can be called "monopolies", oligarchies can be called "oligopolies" etc. The fact that the market for law exists in every type of government does not invalidate the characterization. It is simply a type of classification for coercion market. A "free market for coercion" rather than a closed one, monopolistic one, etc. This is just econ 101 terminology applied to the state, and not an omission of fact.

      As for maximizing their vote count: they do maximize it, but they use redistricting to do so. Actual vote maximization is not requires because the lines on the map are drawn to produce reliable winners. Thus, "maximization" has occurred even if it didn't require popular appeals.

      I believe you have overstated the power of the civil service. A successful popular candidate could repeal immigration if, and only if, the program he proposed was sufficiently ingenious enough to satisfy global elite financial needs while pairing this with a great mendacity that could be effectively sold.

      Lastly, this isn't a reactionary critique. It's much more of an ancap critique. I think yours is the proper Moldbugian NRx view.

    2. I'm actually operating on more of a critique of Moldbugian reaction. Moldbug seems to believe the Cathedral organically moves left to satisfy the evolving zeitgeist of millions of priests and would-be priests while elites just try their best to take advantage of their ability to roughly coax it orthogonal to that trend. I would suggest that the market on coercion is much more concentrated than that view would illustrate.

      As you said, the key to getting reforms, even ones that are popular, lies with a transaction which benefits the elite. Ergo the elite, from explicitly elite families to well-placed civil servants, has the veto over populism in any case of politics that fall outside of Machiavelli's "by other means." Hence my suggestion that all pitches in that market would have to go to disenfranchised or diminished would-be elites. Their buy-in is the best approximation of a competitor entering an otherwise heavily cartelized market because they alone have the political capital to begin producing legitimate political alternatives.

    3. I wonder what I list of diminished elites would look like.