VDARE.com: 12/14/04 – Blog Articles



National Review

Swings Both Ways On Immigration [James
Fulford
]

12/14/04

The latest issue of National
Review,


December 27, 2004
, [subscriber
link
] has a somewhat schizophrenic approach
to the

immigration issue.

On the one hand it has an excellent
article by former editor

John O`Sullivan
on the

deadly dangers of immigration,
and the need to do
something about before there`s

another terrorist attack.

But it also contains a cartoon by
libertarian cartoonist

Rex May,
known as "Baloo." [Update:
See Today`s Letter:
We Misjudged Rex May-but Not NR
]

The cartoon shows a man sitting at
his desk, looking worried, as his secretary says
"Sir, there`s a

Mr. Van Damme,
a

Mr. Chan,
and a Mr.

Schwarzenegger
here to see you."

The sign above his head reads
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO STOP IMMIGRATION NOW.

And the point is? That if you`re an

immigration reformer,
you`ll get beaten up by
imported thugs?

Come to think of it, that`s

more or less
the plot of
Gangs of New York,
isn`t it?


Why The Sailer Stomping Now? [Steve
Sailer
]

12/14/04

A reader writes:


I`ve been watching the

kerfuffle
over David Brooks`

quoting of you
with increasing astonishment. You`ve
said all I would say and more regarding the obtuseness
of the criticisms. But one thing that does perplex me is
why it hasn`t come up earlier.


In recent weeks, you`ve been
in national news three times by my counting. First, you
exposed

Kerry`s (lower-than-Bush`s) IQ
. Second, you debunked
the

44% Hispanic share
of the Republican vote. Third,
you identified the amazingly high correlation of

GOP votes with white birthrates
.

[I`d add a fourth recent
controversy, the

State IQ Hoax
which generated an enormous number of
hits after the election, but only surfaced in the
commercial media in The Guardian in the U.K.
Perhaps it would have made the Establishment media here
if I hadn`t debunked it so thoroughly back in May that
all professional journalists were scared off from it.]


What I don`t understand is
why your findings were dealt with and soon accepted on
their merits the first couple of times but not in this
last case. Why do you think ignorant hacks weren`t all
denouncing your IQ and Hispanic vote share claims on
these `Eugenicist`/`Hate Group` grounds, too?

Oh, David Brock`s Media
Matters site denounced John Tierney for quoting me on
Kerry`s IQ in the NYT back in October. (Being
denounced as immoral by David Brock is an
experience I`ll always treasure.) But, as you say, you
would think that would have brought out the sharp knives
even more since it was 10 days before the election with
a lot hanging in the balance.

Anyway, Brooks` op-ed
struck a raw nerve with a lot of women by claiming that
having babies was the Hot New Fashion Trend (By the way,
although I often give Brooks a hard time, his new op-ed
on "The
Wonks` Loya Jirga
" is a delight, a tiny masterpiece
of Tom Wolfe-Lite satire).

If you want to elicit
screaming irrational outrage, just publish something
that suggests that a large group of women have chosen
the wrong way to live their lives. By endorsing "natalism,"
Brooks outraged the usual coven, the Maureen Dowd-types
who secretly despair over whether they`ve wasted their
lives by not having children. They hate anybody who
reminds them of the sick feeling they get in the pit of
their stomachs when they worry about the choices they`ve
made.

So, there was a lot of
Brooks-hatred flowing around (as you could see on dozens
of online forums), and going after me was an easy way to
get at him even if it made absolutely no sense
objectively: all he did was cite some numbers I had
counted.

I guess I must have
counted them in an eeeeevil way.