Why Does Mentioning Latino Littering Trigger Liberals Into Rage?
Print Friendly and PDF

From Buzzfeed:

There’s A New Movement Trying To Create An Intellectual Strain Of Trumpism. It Just Doesn’t Know What Exactly That Means.
The National Conservatism Conference sought to define a nationalism apart from President Trump, but it didn’t lay out a specific agenda.

Rosie Gray
BuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on July 19, 2019, at 2:05 p.m. ET

The article begins with the single most shocking, SHOCKING thing anybody said at the conference:

WASHINGTON — Amy Wax, a law professor whose hard-right pronouncements have made her an object of outrage among students and led to censure at the University of Pennsylvania, came to the National Conservatism Conference and implied that immigration makes American communities dirtier.

“I think we are going to sink back significantly into third-worldism,” Wax said during a panel discussion. “We are going to go Venezuela. You can just see it happening. One of my pet peeves, one of my obsessions, is litter. If you go up to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, or Yankee territory, versus other places that are quote-unquote more diverse, you are going to see an enormous difference, I’m sorry to report. Generalizations are not very pleasant. But little things like that aren’t little. They really affect our environment.”

I’m fascinated by how Tucker Carlson and Amy Wax pointing out the obvious reality of Latino Littering tends to drive liberals insane with rage. Why?

Of all the problems facing America, littering might be most amenable to social engineering. The American Establishment put together a big anti-littering campaign in the 1950s and 1960s, hitting paydirt with the famous “Crying Indian” TV commercial in 1971 that racially shamed whites into not littering.

Now, though, there are a whole bunch of new people here from more littering-prone cultures like Mexico that haven’t been adequately shamed into not littering. But to even mention that fact is deemed unspeakable evil.

I don’t get it. Do people like Rosie Gray just not notice the pattern?

Or is it some kind of hate hallucination where Amy Wax is supposed to be a Nazi dogwhistling about “racial hygiene?”

Or is it some kind of Brahmin thing that I haven’t figured out yet?

… In her opening remarks at the panel, Wax said race was the “bête noire” of the immigration debate and that conservatives were too afraid of being called racist to embrace what would be in effect policies keeping out non-white people.

As a law professor, Wax is familiar with the logic of disparate impact law, where colorblind policies that have an adverse impact on protected groups can be banned as discriminatory.

“Europe and the first world to which the United States belongs remain mostly white for now, and the third world, although mixed, contains a lot of nonwhite people,” Wax said. “Embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Well, that is the result, anyway.

For example, it’s considered shocking to say that we should try to get more immigrants from Norway and fewer immigrants from Haiti because Norway is a well-educated welfare state, so immigrants from Norway are likely to pay more taxes and take less in welfare than immigrants from Haiti. Trump’s logic is colorblind, but the result would be more white immigrants and fewer black immigrants, so everybody who is anybody screams that that kind of sensible immigration policy would be racist.

So even if our immigration philosophy is grounded firmly in cultural concerns doesn’t rely on race at all, and no matter how many times we repeat the mantra that correlation is not causation, these racial dimensions are enough to spook conservatives. As a result today we have an immigration policy driven by fear.”

And so once again everybody is mad at Amy Wax.

[Comment at Unz.com]

Print Friendly and PDF