A Disappointment

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 03, 2005, 09:12 AM | #

Sailer also likes to write about pop music, sports, and etc… If he were to define himself unambiguously, via his writing, as a WN’ist, or Race Realist his work at UPI and AmConMag would be finished - look what happened to Francis and Sobran.

So, he puts the sugar frosting on his most controversial themes. Still he gets into trouble, for example the New Orleans thing when he said Blacks need control and guidance.

Well, for me, I don’t mind it all that much.

Posted by JW Holliday on October 03, 2005, 10:06 AM | #

Precisely because the poison of aracial constitutional patriotism is so seductive to white individualism, it is profoundly destructive to our racial interests, and must be considered a primary enemy of our EGI.  After all, why does GNXP promote CP, if not for its corrosive effects on our interests?  Non-whites of course, genetically ethnocentric as they are, are significantly immune to the effects of CP that they promote for us.

Having said this, anyone who promotes CP is deserving of sharp criticism, even Sailer, who seems to have quite a fan club here.

I can point out that Sailer could have just mumbled something about a “colorblind society”, perhaps quoting Mike King, for his “frosting”; there is no need to promote CP - unless Sailer actually believes in it, which I think is the case.

Sailer has been hanging out at GNXP too long.  It seems he has a memetic mind infection ...

Posted by Svigor on October 03, 2005, 10:40 AM | #

JW: Steve Sailer’s “softness” and “muddy-headedness” are just that, but they’re useful to his utility.  I don’t know how else to put it.

It’s analogous to my position on Amren.  Is Amren hypocritical and wrong on the JQ?  Yes.  Is their position a useful one?  Yes.  Of course, I do criticize Amren on occasion, far more frequently than I criticize Sailer, because the former falls within my definition of “us” and the latter does not.

Sailer is easily the most useful (for the uninitiated) race-realist writer in the blogosphere as far as I know.  Does his utility immunize him against criticism?  Of course not.  The man draws some downright silly conclusions now and then.  I just ignore his reverse squid ink and move on:

That’s my whole point about how his soft conclusions being essential to his utility, as Phil pointed out above; notice how his muddy-headed conclusions are never developed beyond a few sentences or a paragraph here and there?  They’re inverse squid-ink.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1521/

Funny that Sailer begins his column with pretty much exactly what I said in the previous MR column about him (sans the squid ink bit):

When Peter Brimelow asked for my opinion of Jared Taylor’s white nationalist critique of me, I was reminded that out of the hundreds of thousands of words I write each year, I devote relatively few to ideologizing and exhorting—the main stock in trade of so many writers more popular than me.

I’ve always been more interested in reality than morality.

I think I have a certain knack for coming up with new insights into how the world works. Yet, at least by the self-confident standards of opinion journalists, I’m not all that strongly motivated to proclaim how it should work.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051002_bennett.htm

Posted by Svigor on October 03, 2005, 11:07 AM | #

Why the fear?  Is it that with all the “logic” of the “alternatives” presented, including being honest enough to delve into EGI, the superiority of the ethnostate concept is self-evident?

Yep.

Posted by James Bowery on October 03, 2005, 04:00 PM | #

Whoa!  Aracial Constitutional Patriotism is a subset of Constitutional Patriotism.  Let’s be clear about the nature of our folk and why Constitutional Patriotism is so seductive:  It is precisely because we are less naturally adapted to ethnocentrism and more naturally adapted to honoring our word.

Now, the question is:  What is our word?

Salter has made a convincing case that our word should be “Ethnic genetic interests are a proper foundational value for our society”.  NOTE:  This quote is a PROPOSITION and a PROPOSITION NATION bases upon it with our folk as citizens is a flourishing nation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 03, 2005, 05:13 PM | #

The problem facing the current brand of WN is that CP or civic nationalism has worked, some argue, profoundly well in both Canada and the US. The Anglo/German nativists in the 1840s/50s, the Know Nothings, the American Party mounted a strident political movement aimed primarily at limiting the mass of unfettered Irish immigration. The French-Canadians, in Montreal so despised the Irish and the sickness that accompanied them, that they believed their immigration was a conspiracy by the English to destroy them. By the 1920s, F. Scott Fitzgerald, in the Great Gatsby, was mocking the profound musings of his Irish-American blue-blood, football hero, and graduate of Yale: “The Rise of the Coloured Empires’ by this man Goddard,” “It’s a fine book and everybody ought to read it,” he says. “The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be - will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff,” he says “it’s been proved”. The irony is that Madison Grant’s map of the Races of Europe largely excluded the Irish, the Welsh and the Highland Scots, rendering them a Mediterranean Race. However, Fitzgerald’s character, Tom Buchanan, was a product of civic nationalism.

Moreover, according to A. T. Lane in his Solidarity or Survival? American Labor and European Immigrants, 1830-1924 Samuel Gompers considered European immigrants of Southern and Eastern European origin almost as inassimilable as the Chinese. He hesitated in putting forth a complete ban on European immigration because it would exclude the Nords.

Interestingly, IMO, if Grant’s map is overlaid on Murray’s map of European accomplishment, it is stunningly similar. 90% of the great accomplishments of the last 500 years fall geographically in northern Italy, northern France, Germany, and the east and south of England and the remaining Nordic countries. Grant argued, “The immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe represented an “inferior” type of European and should hence be restricted.” Murray’s worked certainly shows they are less accomplished. Yet Nordic EGI has suffered greatly in North America through European intermarriage.

Now, after a century of miscegenation, foregoing the genetic interests of the people who founded Canada and the US, WNs ask us to embrace white/European civic nationalism, because now, that’s in our genetic interests. It is a bitter pill to swallow considering the Iraq fatality list is not just predominantly white but primarily of Anglo-Celtic origin. Thus to those like Madison Grant the 1924 immigration quota or the 1931 Canadian Imperial Preference were failures.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 03, 2005, 05:26 PM | #

Desmond,

Yes, in the 19th Century there was tremendous chauvanism between European tribes. This chauvanism was of course, in some cases, misplaced. In other cases, like WWI, chauvanism had terrible consequences.

But turning a German or Irish Catholic into a cutural Anglo-Saxon is a much easier task then taking a Mestizo or African and turning them into an Anglo-Saxon.

Desmond,

1) I was listening to an interview of Steven Camaratta at CIS. He explained that it took 75 years for Sicilian immigrant’s children to match the academic and social accomplishments of earlier generations of Americans, and he hinted that many still have NEVER reached that level. He went on to explain that Mestizos, when compared to current Euro-Americans are so far behind in terms in all categories it is likely they will never meet Euro-Americans. It must be noted Camarrata did not bring up a “racial” angle to his report.

2) My family stock - and am I sure I share this with millions of others - has not mixed with Non-Euros or Southern Euros (even though I consider Southern Euros my brothers). In fact my entire family tree is all North Western European. I expect - throughout the Midwest and South- there are millions of others just like. Perhaps that is why the gov’t is feverishly sending in the Mexicans to destory what is left of Euro America?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 03, 2005, 11:04 PM | #

You can’t get much more frank than this

valuable Ed Rubenstein piece, up tonight at Vdare.com:

“Race is not the only factor predisposing a community to violent crime. Poverty, educational levels, the distribution of income, even population density, are all relevant variables.  But even after adjusting for these other factors, the data undeniably shows that Blacks are more violence-prone than other groups.  FEMA should not have been surprised [at what happened in New Orleans].”

(The entire brief piece is worth a read, its simple, clear points made one by one in incontrovertible, unanswerable fashion.)

Posted by JW Holliday on October 04, 2005, 02:26 AM | #

Desmond,

If I remember correctly, Murray’s map extended into Naples, but that is a minor point.

A more important point is how the various European-derived ethnies in America will deal with each other.  Talking about the “inferiority” of various European ethnies is not relevant to EGI, which is in any case independent of the opinions of Madison Grant or Samuel Gompers.

From the perspective of EGI, the influx of European immigrants did in fact negatively influence the EGI of the Old American British and Dutch stocks.  This damage would be related to the relative genetic distances and the numbers involved.  But despite Desmond’s animus to WNs, it was not white nationalists who allowed this immigration to take place.  What WNs look at is the situation in America today.  Contrary to Gompers, the Eastern and Southern European immigrants have indeed assimilated.  Fellows like Tom Tancredo and Lou Calabro are doing fine work in defense of Euro-American EGI.  Indeed, an Anglo-American can balance the slightly greater genetic distance between himself to Tancredo as opposed to Bush against the effects each man’s stance on immigration has on Anglo-American EGI.

White nationalists did not cause the ethnic changes in America.  To somehow attack the views of WNs with respect to this is uncalled for. 

I agree with Kevin MacDonald who has written that we’ll need to put together a Euro-American group strategy that will include the so-called white ethnics.  We need to realize that the year is 2005, not 1924.

Posted by JW Holliday on October 04, 2005, 02:29 AM | #

Also ... WNs are NOT, of course, advocating a civic nationalism of any kind.  It is a nationalism based upon race and culture, or, in my case, I emphasize EGI.  Relative to non-European peoples, the genetic distances within Europe are small. As are the cultural differences.  Of course, the genetic question can be looked at empirically via genetic testing.

I for one am not asking anyone to swallow a “bitter pill.”  If European man is to survive we had better deal with the problems we face today.  However, if Anglo-Celts, or any other group, want to create a more homogenous ethnostate ‘experiment’ than a more general “white state”, that’s all fine and OK. 

I think though the bigger problem is the Mexicans crossing the border than the Polish or Greek guy that lives next door.

Or, perhaps, it are not the white nationalists who are the problem, but the globalist elites.  And it certainly are not adherents of Salter who are the problem.  Any Salterian “worth his salt” would support rational discussions on how all groups can optimize their EGI and would support self-determination for any group that is so interested.

A Salterian also knows that to waste energies in un-necessary conflict with closely related ethnies, but such ethnies share the same basic problems, is injurious to EGI.

There is no biiter pill forced on anyone.  The problem is, ultimately, that the founding ethnies of America and Canada lost control of their ethnic fate, and they have no one to blame but their own elites for that.  Back in the days of 1924 and 1931, these founding ethnies could have, if they had wished, imposed their will to whatever extent they wished.  They could have untangled the ethnic mess, but chose not to.  They opted for the mild reform of immigration restriction.  That could gave secured their future to a reasonable extent, but they allowed their elites to defect to globalism and kosher politics, with the 1965 disaster being the result.

Again, that is not the fault of either WNs, nor the ethnies deemed inferior by Grant. 

I support white nationalism, based upon a rational Salterism, as the solution.  No bitter piils.  Freedom and self-determination - but no group will have such freedom as long as multiculturalism chains European man.  Once European man is unchained, we can make reasonable accomodations amongst ourselves.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 04, 2005, 03:36 PM | #

WNs are not NOW advocating civic nationalism, but, in 2005, are defending it. The EGI that WNs defend today, is an artificial construct. It is civic nationalism tarted-up as ethnic nationalism. The inassimilables were assimilated. The damage is done and now WNs want us to embrace the mongrelized American/Canadian, because it is in defence of our ethnic interest. Thus we are asked to defend the cur against further bastardization. The illegimate becomes the legitimate.

In addition, how is it a viable argument against further civic nationalism. If Grant was wrong, what makes WNs right today? Does a modest additional genetic distance portend the failure of assimilation?

Tancredo will not answer Buchanan’s challenge to impeach Bush. His, H.R. 3333, according to Juan Mann, “does absolutely nothing to break the immigration litigation log-jam and deport aliens through summary removal.” Nor does it punish corporations for the use of illegal workers.

Italian-Canadians are few and far between in commemoration of the fallen on Remembrance Day. As Canadian historian Jack Granatstein relates WWII, for Canada, was an overwhelmingly Anglo effort,

“The Second World War representation of other ethnicities in the CF was better than in the Great War, but still below standard. Every ethnic group has carefully massaged data to show that it sent the highest percentage etc, etc; this is all nonsense, in my view, because it includes conscripts and fails to differentiate between combat arms and services: Jews, who might have been expected to be especially concerned with the Second World War, e.g., had a lower percentage than their population share in volunteer enlistments and a higher percentage among conscripts; they also had a lower casualty rate than the norm which suggests a low combat arms representation.”

This is the construct WNs ask us to embrace. A hollow half-assed assimilation, a civic nationalism masquerading as our ethnic interests. It still is a bitter pill to swallow.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 04, 2005, 05:10 PM | #

Desmond,

You’ve just supplied the 1,000,001’nth reason for doing nothing while Canada, America, Europe, Australia, S. Africa, and NZ are turned into 3rd World sewers.

For me, doing nothing, is s a bitter pill to swallow.

Posted by Svigor on October 04, 2005, 07:10 PM | #

The EGI that WNs defend today, is an artificial construct.

Mathematics, science, literature, language, history, species, organisms…all are artificial constructs.

Everything that can be expressed in language is a construct.

That said, in a pragmatic context EGI is the least artificial construct I’m aware of.  It’s a direct outgrowth of evolution.

I’m curious.  What construct is more natural than EGI?

Posted by Guessedworker on October 05, 2005, 07:30 AM | #

Desmond,

You are in the wrong country if you wish to defend “Nordic” EGI.  That can only be done in Northern European Man’s various national homelands.

Even then, you are not disbenefitted of any EGI-enhancing behaviours instituted by, say, the Italians or Spanish.  The plain fact is that if Italians or Spanish lose their homelands, the EGI of the invader is enhanced beyond just Italy and Spain.  It is enhanced everywhere that the invasion is in train.

EGI is always a zero sum game.  OK, Europeans do not stand or fall together in absolute.  But they do in part - and that’s good enough for me to support Italian and Spanish EGI-enhancing efforts - or to criticise the absence of effort.

I am a European man.  I believe all the lands where my fellows live, including in the Americas and the Antipodes, are critical to my own welfare and continuity.  But we can really only act for ourselves in our own lands. Mine is England - not Scotland or Wales, not Northern Europe, not Europe as a whole.  That is the order of things.

A Nordicist interpretation cuts across that and creates an unnecessary tension between north and south.  We don’t have the luxury to to indulge in that and, accordingly, MR refutes the Nordicist analysis.

Posted by JW Holliday on October 05, 2005, 07:51 AM | #

Desmond,

What’s your constructive advice?  Like one of these old farts living in the past, you bring up “Yankee Puritan conspiracies” against Anglo-Celtic Southerners, or the opinions of folks from the 1920s, or whatever other bitching and moaning you regularly post here to tell us why WN is wrong. 

Too damn bad for that those of us here who use that label are WNs.  It was the guys from your generation, and before, who f****d things up for us but good.  But now you have the nerve to preach to us that we are making you swallow a bitter pill?  The mess that the moral cowards of past generations have left for us is our problem now. 

Remembrance Day, indeed!  Remembering what?  A fratricidal conflict that left Britain sans empire and a colony for all the former colonials?  How has Canada benefited from the sacrifices in WWII?  You certainly don’t appear to be happy there.

How have Americans benefitted?  “Italian-Canadians” don’t attend “Remebrance Day?  “Good for them!  I don’t suck up to the “greatest generation” here in the USA ... all those who went to kill Germans and bomb Dresden to ashes and then let Earl Warren force integration onto them without a fraction of the action they manifested to kill their blood-kin in Europe.

EGI is not a “construct”, nor is it dressed up civic nationalism.  Read Salter.  Europe is the most genetically homogenous continent.  There are differences, but we, as men of the West, need to stand together, and make accomodations for our particular interests in a reasonable manner.

If you want to be an Anglo-Celtic activist in Canada, go ahead.  No one is forcing you to swallow any bitter pills.  Be a better man than Calabro and Tancredo.  Give Quebec its independence.  Encourage all those non Anglo-Celtic white ethnics - the ones who won’t celebrate fratricide - to move there.  At least you’ll be free to celebrate Remebrance Days with no discordant white voices.

Desmond, this is no place to wallow in your defeatism, negativism, and divisiveness.  The problems we face are common to European man in totality.  We will solve them together.  We will learn the lessons that the worst generation couldn’t learn: that white men should no longer fight amongst ourselves, but instead stand shoulder to shoulder to defend western civilization.  Oh, wait, the West is a “construct” as well ... a “plot” by the elites to fool guys like you perhaps.

Posted by JW Holliday on October 05, 2005, 07:57 AM | #

Desmond, thinking about this some more:-

1) Will you go on record stating that, eg, Anglo-Italian or Anglo-Savic Canadians are mongrels and Greek-Canadians are curs?  Who exactly are the mongrels and curs of which you speak?

2) Is it appropriate to speak of multi-ethnic persons of European ancestry as mongrels?  Or curs?

3) Why or why not are you a cur?  I assume you are not a mongrel, of course?

4) Is Tancredo to be attacked for not impeaching Bush more than Bush is to be attacked himself?  Is anyone else stepping up to the plate to impeach Bush?

5) Given that Canada was majority Anglo, by a large margin, during WWII, is it unexpected that most of the soldiers would be Anglos?

6) It is not a case that Grant was right or wrong and that makes WNs today right or wrong.  Every generation of every people have their own set of EGI.  Grant’s opinion was favorable to immigration restriction to enhance the EGI of the Old American stock and related ethnies.  Both he and Stoddard were well pleased by the 1924 legislation.  That this legislation was overturned in 1965 one can put at the doorstep of the Kennedys, Jewish interests, and Anglo-American elites who betrayed the EGI of their co-ethnics.  That, as stated, was not the responsibility of WNs, nor of the mongrels and curs.  What, pray tell, did the “greatest generation” do when the 1965 legislation was passed?  Worry whether the Dodgers would win the pennant?
 
Our aim as WNs in America today is to further the interests of Euro-Americans.  As we do not consider these people to be mongrels and curs, we believe this is the right thing to do.  We are defending the EGI of our generation.  If past generations failed to do their job, blame them, not us.

7) Desmond: “This is the construct WNs ask us to embrace.  A hollow, half-assed assimilation, a civic nationalism masquerading as our ethnic interests.  It still is “a bitter pill to swallow.”

That characterization of WN is despicable and wrong.  It is not and can never be civic nationalism because it is based on EGI.  In point of fact, within the broader WN, people can promote narrower EGI if they wish - if you understood the concept, rather than expel verbal flatulence, you’d understand that EGI is a continuum.  But I agree with Kevin MacDonald that at the broadest level, we need to make this a white racial endeavor.

If that is a bitter pill for you, then don’t swallow it.  Who the hell is making you do or believe anything you don’t want?

Posted by JW Holliday on October 05, 2005, 08:02 AM | #

Dr. Kevin MacDonald, who has written in support of the 1924 immigration restriction, understands the situation we are in today.  He understands relative genetic distances, and the need to balance sets of interests.  Several years ago, he presented a paper at a conference in which he stated:

“Given our current knowledge of human genetic distances and human behavior, as well the need to cement powerful alliances able to act effectively on the world stage, some choices are obviously better than others. I suppose that it would be foolish for a Scandinavian-American, e.g., to promote Scandinavian-American interests to the exclusion of larger groupings, because larger groupings would have more political clout, especially in a multi-ethnic context as in the U.S. I suppose the best strategy would be on analogy with the model of inclusive fitness in which people participate in ethnic groups as a function of genetic distance’ at the extreme teaming up with all of humanity against an alien invader ...  Notice that there is no one natural place on this genetic landscape where it is rational to direct one’s energy. Different contexts demand different responses and even one’s best choices are made under uncertainty. An effective response for a Serbian living in Kosovo might be quite different than for a German-American living in the United States. The former threatened by a cohesive, non-assimilating European ethnic/religious group (the Albanians), while the latter is confronted with a polyglot of many different ethnic and racial groups in which cooperation with larger divisions of European-derived peoples in the United States would seem an obvious choice. But whatever choices are made, domain general problem solving is critical to the choices that are made.”

In TOQ, Vol 4, no 1, he wrote:-

“As noted above, ethnic groups are breeding populations, and individuals have genetic interests in ethnic groups by virtue of having a greater concentration of inclusive fitness in their own ethnic group than other ethnic groups.32 The problem, then, is how to best create strategies, including control of land areas, that promote ethnic genetic interests in the current environment. There is no precise or entirely natural way to establish the best boundaries for such an endeavor, but it certainly does not follow that such boundaries are arbitrary. It is the sort of problem that is solvable with rational choice mechanisms. For example, in the United States I propose that a grouping of people deriving from Europe, including Eastern and Southern Europe, would be far preferable to a strategy in which there were a large number of separate European groups (e.g., Danish, Scottish, English, Italian, etc.) each acting independently of the others.”

Indeed, it makes little sense for white ethnies to attack each other – as much “sense” as having Prussian Germans and Bavarian Germans attack each other during the battle of Stalingrad.

Furthermore, the Yang paper I have reviewed shows that a “white nationalism” has an empirical basis and is not “civic nationalism”, nor a “slippery slope” along a chain of ever-increasing clinal genetic distances.  Racial clustering is real, and, particularly, as we learn more about genetic structure this clustering will be more salient.  As well, there is a common western inheritance, which Dr. MacDonald has also written about at TOQ.  But some of us “know better”, and insist that the West is a “construct”, eh?

Some people with a bent on deconstructing WN and the West perhaps need to be studied for a bit of deconstructing themselves.  What is their agenda?  Why defend ethnocentric Chinaman Lahn, yet term whites as “curs” and “mongrels.”  This all fails the “smell test”  of consistency and sincerity.

But, hey, take my advice.  Give Quebec their independence, thrust the white ethnics there with those “no good French frogs” and build a glorious Anglo-Celtic-Chinese Canada.  Maybe Bruce Lahn would like to be an immigrant there.  Certainly, a better choice than the immigration restrictionist Tancredo, who committed the nasty crime of not trying to impeach a president of his own party, when no one else in Congress is doing so.  Obviously, a mongrel and a cur!

Posted by JW Holliday on October 05, 2005, 10:22 AM | #

Now ... was Canadians fighting in WWII, and honoring this on “Remembrance Day”, and indication of….civic nationalism?

That is no idle question.  Why did Canada fight in WWII?  For “democracy” and the “civil society?”  A war of civic nationalism?  Or was it an ethnic war, of Anglo-Celtic Canadians defending their kin in the UK?

If the former, then we who oppose civic nationalism should also look negatively upon Canadian participation in such a war.  Not something those concerned with EGI would want to honor.  On the other hand, if it were an ethnic war, that would be understandable from a narrow EGI (although, in retrospect maladaptive from a worldwide perspective) standpoint - but then why should Canadians of Italian or German descent fight their own co-ethnics?  You can’t have it both ways.  If WWII were a civic war, then it should be denounced, and not honored.  If it were an ethnic war, then Anglo-Celts can honor their “victory”, but should not expect individuals from other ethnies to participate or be enthusiastic.  Or, was the price of admission into Canada for Italians
and Germans a form of civic nationalism in which they would have to forego their own narrow EGI?  Which is it?  Or - were people just drafted, and whomsoever was drafted fought?  Much simpler, that.

One can also look at ethnic over/under representation in other ways.  On 9/11/01, large numbers of firemen (and policemen) of Irish Catholic and Italian
ancestry, men often with families, rushed into the WTC to save lives, knowing full well that doing so could result in their death.  And it did result in their deaths - entire firehouses in NYC lost their men, large numbers of families left fatherless.  It would be quite interesting to compare the ethnic make-up of those dead firemen with those of the highly-paid WTC employees they went in to save.  I would expect a difference, just as one can see a difference there compared to the under-representation of white ethnics at top universities, crowded out by Jews and Asians at one end, affirmative action minorities at the other,
and alumini fratboys like Bush in the middle.

NYC has a large Jewish population, and many Asians.  How many self-sacrificing firemen of those ethnies are there?  How many Jewish and Chinese firemen died on 9/11?  Who caused 9/11?  One bunch of NECs angry at another bunch of NECs. 

Interesting.

Posted by JW Holliday on October 05, 2005, 02:06 PM | #

Samuel Gompers was “was born into a Jewish family”.  So then …  a Jew defaming white ethnics and attempting to divide European ethnies against each other.

Who would of thought it?  Surprising, that!

To be fair to Gompers, he did support Asian exclusion.  However - assuming Jones’ comment to be accurate – it is the definition of chutzpah for a Jewish immigrant to denounce European immigrants in such harsh terms.

Or was Gompers a early-day Steinlight, who saw the handwriting on the wall, and decided that further mass immigration, including of Eastern “European” Jews, would cause a backlash and this be injurious to the interests of his co-ethnics?

A subsequent results indicate, sufficient numbers of his co-ethnics had already arrived in America to commence their march through the institutions.

I wouldn’t exactly consider Gompers to be a “morally clean” exemplar of immigration reform.  Dennis Kearny can be faulted for being an immigrant himself (as is Brimelow for that matter), but at least he was ethnically European and, as far as I know, concentrated his efforts toward Chinese exclusion.

But then, Kearny did not have any ulterior motives with respect to Irish American influence, did he?