Posted On: Tuesday - March 20th 2018 9:25PM MST
In Topics:   Immigration Stupidity  Pundits  Globalists  Media Stupidity
(file photo for illustration purposes only - this one looks like a grow house experiment - not particularly the point herein.)
There was THE American Experiment, as written about by some of our Founding Fathers and observers of our nation from way back like the Frenchman Alex De Tocqueville and the like. That was about Federalism, meaning "States rights" with the formation of a limited federal government (nothing like the Feral Beast we toil under now). That will be the subject of a post in the morning.
This short post tonight, however, is to point out the stupidity of a man named David Brooks, who apparently writes for the NY Times. He writes many lame-ass articles, as much as we read this name, not in a good light, from Mr. Steve Sailer. Mr. Sailer kindly reads this NY Times so we at Peak Stupidity don't have to. Sailer reports here on unz.com, that Mr. Brooks wrote:
Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment to draw people from around the world …No, don't read the whole thing. That's just about enough, as Mr. Sailer replies:
Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble, or Washington’s Farewell Address to support his assumption that “the American experiment” was about immigration rather than self-government?It's good to see a traditional conservative/alt-right pundit give a "shout-out", as it were, to the founders of this country once in a blue moon, for one thing. He is right too; nobody until fairly recently has spouted the idea that the American experiment was to "draw people from around the world". Being an example to the rest of the world is another thing. Letting in a small number of true refugees and other newcomers to assimilate can be a good thing, but nobody signed up for an invasion.
The comments under the article linked-to above are the usual good quality arguments that appear under iSteve articles. In reply to a comment that Americans have never given their consent to some sort of experiment to change the whole population, a guy by the handle iSteveFan wrote this great comment:
Consent was never sought nor given. If anything it appears WE must receive consent from them in order to curtail immigration, enforce immigration laws or even build a sufficient barrier along our border.Peak Stupidity could not have put that better, had we tried. Wait now, "Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill was legally passed by the duly elected bodies of Congress, so ...." may be a reply. Nah, Kennedy himself stated that the bill would not change the composition of the country - he lied through his teeth, I guess.
As far as experimenting who would experiment with arguably the greatest nation in history? I often engage with climate alarmists who are surprised that I don’t believe in man-made climate change. They often leave me with this:
“OK, so we might be wrong, but what if we are correct? Are you willing to take the chance on destroying the planet?”[PS note below*]
We should be able to make a similar argument with the nation experimenters. “What if you are wrong? Why are you risking one of the greatest nations in history on an unproven experiment that cannot possibly make the the nation any better, only worse?”
After all, we did put men on the moon pre-diversity. Even if a diversified USA is not a total disaster, the bar has been set so high there is no where to go but down.
Of all the things you risk, you would think the last would be a functioning nation. People throughout history have continually fought and died to have countries that are favorable to them. So it makes absolutely no sense to start a crazy experiment once you have actually achieved that goal of a functioning, high-trust nation.
Anyway, the Peak Stupidity blog would like to add to this talk about experimentation on the country with another point: When one performs experiments, part of the process is to have "control groups". If you want to know the effects of your changes to the system being studied, you must have another set of "subjects" or another example of the system in which your variables of interest are not changed. That way, you can weed out results that have nothing to do with your variables in question.
What would be the control group in a study of The introduction of mass multi-culturalism and dieversity into a formerly unified country? (Hey, that's just the working title for the paper.) How about a few states of the union be left alone, say a Utah, Maine, or Montana? Just let them be American, so after a few decades of this "experiment" we can see which locales are in better shape? We don't have to take surveys even. We can just see in which areas the U-Hauls are accumulating - that'll tell us how well people appreciate the increase in the amounts dieversity and multi-culturalism. Couldn’t they leave a control group untouched, so even if we can’t back out of the experiment, we can high-tail it to the control-zone? Have they neglected that? It sure seems like they are leaving no area untouched.
Why don't the elites pushing all this crap, or should I say, conducting this big experiment, think of things like consent of the people and proper control groups? That's rhetorical. They don't care, as this isn't about YOU. It's about THEM and what they think is good from THEM. You are just a piece of data. Unfortunately for the Globalist elites, they really haven't thought hard enough, as it's not gonna work out well for anybody.
* Surprisingly, I was not able to find one post with the Global Climate Stupidity topic key that had the refutation of this particular idiocy. That's another post coming, as we haven't written on that topic in a while. The commenter here was using that to illustrate his point on this experimenting business, but hopefully doesn't believe that argument with regard to Global Climate Disruption(TM).