The party of closed borders will win the election

First there’s what Glenn Reynolds wrote and he would know:

The GOP establishment has an almost-religious attachment to open immigration. It appears to be their only firm principle. It’s what led to Trump’s rise.

And then there are the three top rated comments. First:

“It appears to be their only firm principle.”
GOP principles:
1. Have contempt for conservative voters.
2. Go after conservative members of Congress ruthlessly, but treat Democrats with respect.
3. Do whatever it takes to win the love of the main stream media.
4. Always believe in more government.
5. Immigration, immigration, immigration.


Get replaced by a foreigner brought in to do your job and see how you feel. You expect people to vote to give their jobs to cheaper immigrants?

And third:

I dislike Trump, and I distrust whatever his politics are. That said, I believe him on the immigration issue, which as we are seeing in Europe, is existential.

That’s it. Says it all. The party of closed borders will win the election but if it weren’t for Trump, no such party would exist.

They’re beginning to get the point

There is now talk of Newt Gingrich as Trump’s Chief of Staff. And Chris Christie has endorsed Trump for President. So slowly – very, very slowly – there is a drift towards seeing the point. How abysmal every alternative is.

This is from Peggy Noonan via Instapundit. The last time she wrote something I truly agreed with may have been when Ronald Reagan was still president. But here I think she gets it. I am part of that buffered few but I also have a sense of how things change rapidly and I worry endlessly, and probably fruitlessly, about how things may end up. It may be too late, but then again maybe not.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that. . . . You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

These are the progressive internationalists who are ruining the world on behalf of their one-world open borders ideology. Europe is now the most advanced experiment with Southern California a close runner up. But unlike some experiments, this only goes in one direction. If it turns out not to work, there is nothing you can do to fix it.

A film you must not miss

I have just seen one of the most complete and satisfying movies on a conservative theme of my entire life. I will have to dwell on it over the next few days, but in the meantime, I just wish to make sure you do not miss this film. It is the Coen Brothers’ Hail, Caesar!. There is no doubt an IMDb rating, and the critics and audiences at Rotten Tomatoes have no doubt made their appraisals known. And it may turn out that everyone else finds it dull and stupid. That is how these things go. But for myself, I haven’t seen a film in a long long time that has left me as satisfied, not just with its construction, but with its message.

“The most Australian-like presidential candidate in modern US history”

This is from the Steve Sailer open thread on the Republican debate from someone commenting under the name “unpc downunder”.

Steve, you’ll love the irony/national self-loathing in this one – Australian progressives are starting a petition to ban Trump from visiting Australia.

Why is this ironic ? because Trump is the the most Australian-like presidential candidate in modern US history.

Brash, blond, economic moderate and nationalist, tough on illegal immigration, concerned with pensions for veterans and little time for PC. He would probably be more at home in Queensland than Queens.

There was also this one which I found quite to the point, from “boomer expat”.

I live in Asia and when an Asian asks me about why Trump is popular, this is a way I use to explain it.

If you really want to understand Trump’s appeal, just look at the fact that 45% of US citizens don’t pay taxes because they don’t make enough due to jobs increasingly being low-level service work with many of the higher level jobs being taken by H1B.

Then combine it with this scenario – imagine the head of Japan announces:

1. Japan is opening its borders and plans to make the majority of the country Chinese and Muslims
2. Japanese privilege classes will begin in all schools to combat Japanese racism and the country will begin eliminating Japanese cultural events as non-inclusive
3. Japanese will pay more taxes to subsidize these workers who for the most part won’t be pay taxes
4. Crime and terrorism will go up but that is unavoidable and Xenophobic to mention
5. When any business employs a majority of Japanese ethnics, there will be a discussion of the “Japanese problem”
6. Preferences will be given in hiring to the newcomers
7. Any negative comments about what is going on will be clamped down on because if you don’t like this cultural cleansing you are Hitler.

Now, honestly ask yourself how the Japanese would react to this plan? Add those two together and it gives you an idea of why people are backing Trump.

After that, they all say they understand his appeal and would never let that type of scenario develop in their own country.

I’m sure there is something wrong with the analogy but will have to dwell on it for a while to see if I can work it out.

Tony’s economic narrative

This is what Tony Abbott thinks: Malcolm Turnbull lost without an economic agenda. This is what John Howard thinks: Tony Abbott would have won coming election. And this is what Tony Abbott now writes: In defence of my economic narrative and tough decisions. He begins:

The first law of governing is that you can’t spend what you can’t raise through taxes and borrowings; and the second law is that today’s borrowings have to be paid for — with interest — by tomorrow’s taxes. Governments, like households and businesses, have to live within their means.

You know, the Micawber Principle of public finance. Which really comes down to this: the reason it is still only just barely worth voting for any of those 54 unworthy bunch of nonentities in the Liberal Party is because Tony and others like him on his side of the speaker remain in the Parliament. The PM is exactly the kind of narcissistic buffoon most of us here took him to be.

Chronicling the fall of civilisation

This is an article by Roger Scruton: Academic Freedom in Conformist Times which is a review of a book by Joanna Williams with the title, Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting the Fear of Knowledge.

She shows how important historically academic freedom has been to the pursuit of knowledge, and examines the baleful consequences of the contemporary assault on truth and objectivity. I sympathise with her, too. Much as I had to do for my book Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left, Williams has had to sit down for hours, poring over poisonous stuff written by destructive narcissists and digesting it into something with which issue can be taken. She has done a great service to civilisation – as we wave goodbye to it.

I have just written a review of his Fool, Frauds and Firebrands for Quadrant and there was nothing more evident than the pain that had to be gone through to read through such vast oceans of insanity. I will now order Williams’ book to go along with his. And while I cannot comment on her book, I certainly can on his. You should read it. If you have any interest in understanding the shipwreck of our culture, you should read it. So let me just leave you with this from the end of the review:

Roger Scruton is a philosopher and a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the British Academy. He is the author, most recently, of Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left, published by Bloomsbury Continuum.

Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting the Fear of Knowledge, by Joanna Williams, is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

You can buy it on Amazon or at your local bookshop which I always recommend since we would like to keep as many of these around as we possibly can.