War In Defense of the National Union

Posted by Furius on February 05, 2007, 04:00 PM | #

Jay Gould once said, “I can pay half the working class to kill the other half”.

There is nothing new in what you describe.

Posted by James Bowery on February 05, 2007, 04:13 PM | #

That was, of course, my point.

However, there some things here that are different at least in their relative impact:

The union forces have not been fighting back the way they have previously.  This is most likely the result of the exploitation of anti-racist indoctrination by the union busters.  Some questions are how long does this go on, how does it break down and how does the Holocaustian theocracy change due to the corrupt exploitation-for-profit of anti-racist doctrine?

Posted by Furius on February 05, 2007, 04:27 PM | #

When the unions engaged in violence (and Businessmen reponded with violence of their own), workers were fighting for their very survival - bread on the table. It is impossible for us to imagine today what this may have been like, to face economic conditions bordering on starvation. It was this desperation which made whites extremely intolerant of not just non-white workers brought in to break the unions (such as the Chinese in the post-Civil War period) but also of immigrants - all the unions opposed immigration because it undermined their power.

Today, no one objects in this way because people have plenty of food and all the comforts of home.

Posted by James Bowery on February 05, 2007, 04:43 PM | #

“all the comforts of home” hardly exist when women are turned into monstrous parodies of wives and lovers.

Your point is, however, well taken.  It is far more insidiously powerful to destroy a population through demographic collapse founded on corrupting its women than it is to try to destroy a population through outright caloric deprivation.  I think, however, that this fits with my position on the exploitation of Holocaustianity’s anti-racist indoctrination—of which pimping out white women under the cover of “careers” as well as welfare assistance and “intervention of social workers”, are all an integral part.  This is essentially an Africanization of society.

However, I think you are underestimating the degree to which working class white men are already in danger of suffering serious immediate-need deprivation.  The low-end jobs are being taken out by Mexicans and the welfare bureaucracy is under the control of minorities, Jews and pimped-out white women.  Agreed, a man without a family is more likely to simply go away and die of a drug overdose or be otherwise incarcerated, but when the economy starts to go south this phenomenon will expand dramatically and that’s where the answers to my questions wait.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 05, 2007, 05:13 PM | #

It’s only one aspect of Labo(u)r’s position on immigration. The internationalists, in the US Labour movement held very different ideas to restrictionists.

Solidarity or Survival?American Labor and European Immigrants, 1830-1924

Book by A. T. Lane;

When working-class opponents of restriction thought about immigration in the context of natural rights and human brotherhood, they revealed an intense idealism and a strong conviction that their arguments would have a powerful appeal. They firmly believed that the rights of emigration and immigration were natural rights, and a succession of labor spokesmen reiterated their commitment to this idea. “It was,” wrote O’Neill McDarragh, “an infringement of the natural rights of man ‘to proscribe his liberty to move to any part of the world which seems to him best’.” It appeared to the president of the Colorado Federation of Labor that “every human being [had] a right to wander where he pleased upon the face of the earth.” Nature meant the earth for all mankind, thought Thomas Kidd, and every rightthinking man believed in the words of Tom Paine, “The world is my country and to do good is my religion.” George Clark, an immigrant coalminer from England and a member of the Western Federation of Miners, testified before the Industrial Commission that according to the “God-given right of humanity” no men had the power to prescribe where others should live. Even some restrictionists acknowledged the force of this idea. The editor of the United Mineworkers’ Journal, for example, conceded that “to shut the gates of any land in the face of any man [was] essentially unnatural and wrong,” though he declared, in reference to the tariffs, that if it was right to shut the gates against one commodity, it was equally right to shut them against another. These sentiments were summed up in a passage in the Detroit Sentinel in 1898: “There is a higher law than that of majorities: the external moral law of the universe . . . If all men have an innate right to life, then it follows that all may live in whatever part of the earth’s surface they desire.” What, the author asked, was the legitimacy of political boundaries? Were they not merely “the arbitrary markings made by the bloody swords of historic bandits?”

Posted by James Bowery on February 05, 2007, 05:37 PM | #

Yes, but the communists (international socialists) did not get their way in FDR’s “New Deal”.  The New Deal was essentially a way to keep centralization of wealth in private hands during a demand-side collapse of the economy without violent revolution killing the wealthy.  They had to compromise and keep immigration restricted as part of that Deal—or the wealthy of the US would likely have been killed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2007, 12:49 AM | #

Dennis Mangan has an entry up which is somewhat à propos:

What is a nation, anyway?

Those in favor of the open borders regime often argue in terms of freedom, freedom for immigrants to come here and freedom for employers who want to hire them. For these open borders advocates and immigration enthusiasts (like the bloggers at EconLog, Marginal Revolution, or Cafe Hayek), borders are merely an impediment to freedom, standing in the way of people who want to do business. As somewhat of a laissez faire type myself, these arguments got me to thinking about exactly what a nation is and what its borders signify.

Start with the idea of a corporation, which is a legal entity recognized in law. A corporation is real, not reducible to the people who own it or manage it. Limited liability is the hallmark of a corporation, meaning that those who run or own it aren’t on the hook for corporate liabilities or damages. What this shows is the reality of the corporation.

Now, a nation is also something apart from the people who compose it. (One wouldn’t think that this needs pointing out, but with the absurd and dangerous arguments for mass immigration going around, it needs saying.) One difference between a nation and a corporation is its legal status. A corporation is recognized under a specific legal system; a nation, on the other hand, lives among other nations,and the only law that rules there is the law of the jungle. For a corporation to be established, it files for organization; for a nation to establish itself, its people first declare themselves to be a nation, and then, in the normal course of events, must fight tooth and nail for its recognition and its survival. If victorious, it can usually count on other nations to recognize it, which shows that nothing succeeds like success. This recognition means next to nothing, however, for that doesn’t stop any nation with the will and the might from attacking it and destroying it.

I see that I digress. The Constitution of the United States begins:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

”... to ourselves and our Posterity…”  Not “to anyone that crosses the Rio Grande, or who happens to feel like coming here.”  No, just as a corporation is established for a purpose, said purpose to conduct legal activity for the benefit of its owners, our nation was established for ourselves and our posterity.  And just as no one is entitled to a piece of corporation just because it’s successful and because others are greedy (which is, admittedly, a principal that’s gotten a bit threadbare in recent years), so others aren’t entitled to a piece of a nation. Our ancestors conceived this nation and shed much blood for it, and they did it for themselves and their posterity.  Not for themselves and Tom, Dick, and Harry.

A nation exists amidst a sea teeming with sharks, the latter being other nations. No law governs sharks and no law exists above nations that prevents them doing what is best for themselves. So if a foreigner incurs a putative loss of freedom because he cannot immigrate here, too bad. Nothing gives him the right to do so, unless the nation itself decides to give him that right. Ditto for the employer who wants to hire him.